Garden administration in the Girsu province during the Neo-Sumerian period [1 ed.] 8400099419, 9788400099411

Citation preview

ANGELA GRECO

GARDEN ADMINISTRATION IN THE ĜIRSU PROVINCE DURING THE NEO -SUMERIAN PERIOD

BIBLIOTECA DEL PRÓXIMO ORIENTE ANTIGUO 12 Director Manuel Molina Secretario José Manuel Galán Allué Comité Editorial Guillemette Andreu (Musée du Louvre) John Baines (University of Oxford) Miguel Civil (University of Chicago) Ignacio Márquez Rowe (CSIC) Miquel Molist Montañà (UAB) Walther Sallaberger (Universität München) José Miguel Serrano Delgado (Universidad de Sevilla) Consejo Asesor Marilina Betrò (Università di Pisa) Barbara Böck (CSIC) Andrés Diego Espinel (CSIC) Raymond Johnson (University of Chicago) Bertrand Lafont (CNRS - IFPO) David I. Owen (Cornell University) Richard Parkinson (British Museum) Wilfred van Soldt (Rijksuniversiteit Leiden)

ANGELA GRECO

GARDEN ADMINISTRATION IN THE ĜIRSU PROVINCE DURING THE NEO -SUMERIAN PERIOD

CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS MADRID 2015

Reservados todos los derechos por la legislación en materia de Propiedad Intelectual. Ni la totalidad ni parte de este libro, incluido el diseño de la cubierta, puede reproducirse, almacenarse o transmitirse en manera alguna por medio ya sea electrónico, químico, óptico, informático, de grabación o de fotocopia, sin permiso previo por escrito de la editorial. Las noticias, los asertos y las opiniones contenidos en esta obra son de la exclusiva responsabilidad del autor o autores. La editorial, por su parte, solo se hace responsable del interés científico de sus publicaciones.

Catálogo general de publicaciones oficiales: http://publicacionesoficiales.boe.es Editorial CSIC: http://editorial.csic.es (correo: [email protected])

© CSIC © Angela Greco ISBN: 978-84-00-09941-1 e-ISBN: 978-84-00-09942-8 NIPO: 723-15-087-6 e-NIPO: 723-15-088-1 Depósito Legal: M-18297-2015 Impresión y encuadernación: Discript, S. L. Impreso en España. Printed in Spain En esta edición se ha utilizado papel ecológico sometido a un proceso de blanqueado FSC, cuya fibra procede de bosques gestionados de forma sostenible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... 15 Abbreviations and conventions ................................................................................................... 17 List of figures .............................................................................................................................. 19 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 21 Chapter One: The working and managerial organization of gardens ......................................... 43 Chapter Two: The gardens of Ĝirsu .......................................................................................... 125 Chapter Three: Extended economic complexes ........................................................................ 179 Chapter Four: The gardens of Gu-Iniĝinšedu ............................................................................ 193 Chapter Five: Timber and gardens ............................................................................................ 211 Chapter Six: The reed-bed ......................................................................................................... 227 Chapter Seven: The gardens of Ĝirsu in the documentation of other provinces ....................... 229 Chapter Eight: Gardens isolated in the documentation ............................................................. 233 Chapter Nine: The garden administrators of the province ........................................................ 237 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 299 Systematic glossary ................................................................................................................... 303 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 315 Sitography ................................................................................................................................. 330 Appendix: Exemplifying texts ................................................................................................... 331 Indices ....................................................................................................................................... 343

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... Abbreviations and conventions ................................................................................................... List of figures .............................................................................................................................. Introduction .................................................................................................................................

15 17 19 21

1. The gardens ....................................................................................................................................... 1.1. Garden composition ................................................................................................................. 2. The Third Dynasty of Ur: center and periphery ................................................................................ 3. Land management ............................................................................................................................. 3.1. Presence of gardens in the Ĝirsu Province ............................................................................... 4. The Ĝirsu province ............................................................................................................................ 5. The gardens and their crops. Status quaestionis ............................................................................... 6. Documentation .................................................................................................................................. 7. Structure of the present work ............................................................................................................

21 23 29 30 32 33 36 38 41

Chapter One: The working and managerial organization of gardens ......................................... 43 1.1. Generic designation of labor pertaining to gardens ...................................................................... 44 1.1.1. Garden personnel/gardeners .................................................................................................... 44 7

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD 1.1.2. Gardeners of the large trees and gardeners of the vineyards ................................................... 44 1.2. Workers regularly employed in gardens ........................................................................................ 44 1.2.1. The skilled workers ............................................................................................................... 45 1.2.2. Payments for the skilled workers .......................................................................................... 46 1.2.3. SIG7-a ...................................................................................................................................... 47 1.3. Workers or work categories occasionally attested in gardens ........................................................ 50 1.3.1. Hired labor ( a 2 h u ĝ - ĝ a 2 ) ...................................................................................................... 50 1.3.2. Unskilled workers ( g a n - d a b 5 ) ............................................................................................. 50 1.3.3. Workers devoted to the gazi- plant ( l u 2 - g a z i ) ...................................................................... 51 1.3.4. Workers devoted to the processing of palm fibers ( l u 2 KA.GAZ/KA×SA.GAZ) ....................... 51 1.3.5. Invalids ( l u 2 h u - b u 7 b u ) ......................................................................................................... 52 1.3.6. Prisoners ( l u 2 ĝ e š t u k u l - e d a b 5 - b a ) ................................................................................. 52 1.3.7. Menials (UN- g a 6 ) .................................................................................................................... 54 1.4. Additional considerations ............................................................................................................... 54 1.4.1. ‘Out of garden’: the men of the storehouse and the l u 2 - LAM ............................................. 54 1.4.2. Workers released from the duty cycle (BUR2) .......................................................................... 56 1.4.3. Skilled garden workers in the fields ...................................................................................... 58 1.5. Planning of works ........................................................................................................................... 62 1.6. The middle-level managers: gardeners or garden experts ................................................................ 64 1.6.1. Recruitment of garden experts ................................................................................................ 66 1.6.2. Territoriality and family groups ............................................................................................. 67 1.6.3. Territorial responsibility of the garden experts ....................................................................... 69 1.6.3.1. The function of territorial responsibility of the garden experts ...................................... 76 1.6.4. The garden experts in function of responsible for the production ........................................ 78 1.6.5. The garden experts and the fruit circulation ......................................................................... 79 1.6.6. Role of the garden experts in the expenditures ..................................................................... 81 1.6.7. Traces of internal hierarchy ................................................................................................... 82 1.6.8. Payments and functions of the garden experts within the work groups ................................ 83 1.7. Additional considerations. The gardeners of Ninegal ..................................................................... 87 1.8. The garden administrators ............................................................................................................... 88 1.8.1. Territoriality ........................................................................................................................... 90 1.8.2. Activities of the garden administrators ................................................................................. 95 1.8.3. Role of the garden administrators in garden measurement texts .......................................... 96 1.8.4. Responsibility for the garden production .............................................................................. 96 1.8.4.1. Role of the garden administrators in reports of production ......................................... 97 1.8.4.2. Management of production shortfalls ............................................................................ 98 1.8.4.3. Role of the garden administrators in the expenditures ................................................. 99 1.8.5. Management of fee payments ........................................................................................ 101 1.8.6. Accounts drafted in the name of garden administrators ...................................................... 102 1.8.7. The garden administrators and the circulation of barley, wool and garments .................... 107 1.8.7.1. Barley payments .......................................................................................................... 107 1.8.7.2. Entries of balanced accounts ....................................................................................... 108 1.8.7.3. Readdressing of barley amounts ................................................................................. 109 1.8.7.4. Payments left in the granary ........................................................................................ 109 1.8.7.5. Barley loans ................................................................................................................. 109 1.8.7.6. Barley, wool, and garment payments and worker inspections .................................... 110 1.8.8. Transfer of gardeners ........................................................................................................... 114 1.8.9. Payments for the garden administrators ................................................................................ 114 1.9. The captains (NU- b a n d a 3 ) and the gardens ................................................................................ 115 8

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS 1.10. Additional considerations. The vineyard administrators and the men of the vineyards .............. 1.11. The exceptions ........................................................................................................................... 1.11.1. Niĝir-išibmah .................................................................................................................... 1.11.2. Lu-ušgina .......................................................................................................................... 1.11.3. The gardeners of the high priestess of BaU ....................................................................... 1.11.4. Ur-BaU son of Lugal-imrua .............................................................................................. 1.11.5. Kinship relations with garden administrators ................................................................... 1.11.6. Varia ..................................................................................................................................

118 119 120 120 121 123 123 124

Chapter Two: The gardens of Ĝirsu .......................................................................................... 125 2.1. The gardens of MVN 12, 182 ...................................................................................................... 2.1.1. The garden on the banks of the Ur-Utu canal ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 g u 2 i 7 U r - d U t u ) ...................... 2.1.2. The garden on the banks of the irrigation ditch Musilim ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 g u 2 i 7 p a 4 m u - s i l i m ) ............................................................................................ 2.1.3. The large garden ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 g u - l a ) ...................................................................................... 2.1.4. The small garden next to it ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 t u r u s 2 - s a - b i ) ........................................................ 2.2. Group of texts dated to the 48th year of Šulgi concerning the payments for water drawers and arborists ................................................................................................. 2.2.1. The garden of Allaĝu ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 A l - l a - ĝ u 1 0 ) ................................................................... 2.2.2. The garden of Amanu ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 A - m a - n u ) ...................................................................... 2.2.3. The garden o f enNE ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 e n -NE) ................................................................................ 2.2.4. The garden of ErimzezeGIna ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 E r i m 2 - z e 2 - z e 2 - GI-n a ) ........................................ 2.2.5. The garden of Gaeš ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 G a - e š 8 ) .............................................................................. 2.2.6. The garden of Geme-Ištaran ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 G e m e 2 - d I š t a r a n ) ................................................ 2.2.7. The garden of Geme-Šulpa’e ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 G e m e 2 - d Š u l - p a - e 3 ) ......................................... 2.2.8. The garden of ĝeškiĝ-trees ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š - k i ĝ 2 ) ................................................................. 2.2.9. The vineyard on the banks of the BaU-heĝal canal ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š t i n g u 2 i 7 d B a - U 2 - h e 2 - ĝ a l ) ........................................................................ 2.2.10. The ĝi’eden garden of BaU ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ i 6 - e d e n d B a - U2) ................................................ 2.2.11. The ĝi’eden garden of Ninĝirsu ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ i 6 - e d e n - d N i n - ĝ i r 2 - s u ) .......................... 2.2.12. The large garden in the city ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 g u - l a š a 3 i r i ) ................................................... 2.2.13. The garden of HIgal ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 HI- g a l ) ............................................................................. 2.2.14. The garden of Igalim ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d I g - a l i m ) ....................................................................... 2.1.15. The garden of Irisaĝ ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 I r i - s a ĝ < k i > ) ..................................................................... 2.2.16. The garden of Lu-duga ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 L u 2 - d u 1 0 - g a ) ............................................................ 2.2.17. The garden of Lugal-igi ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 L u g a l - i g i ) ............................................................... 2.2.18. The garden of Lu-Ninĝirsu the archivist ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 L u 2 - d N i n - ĝ i r 2 - s u š a 1 3 - d u b - b a ) . 2.2.19. The garden of Mani ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 M a - n i ) ............................................................................. 2.2.20. The garden of Meluhha of NinMAR.KI ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 M e l - l u h - h a d N i n -MAR.KI) ............... 2.2.21. The garden of Nanše of Simurrum ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d N a n š e S i - m u - u r 4 - u m k i ) .................... 2.2.22. The garden of Ninĝirsu-adah-Šulgira ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d N i n - ĝ i r 2 - s u - a 2 - d a h - d Š u l - g i - r a ) . 2.2.23. The garden of Ninĝirsu-namerim ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d N i n - ĝ i r 2 - s u - n a m - e r i m 2 ) ..................... 2.2.24. The garden of NinMAR.KI ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d N i n -MAR.KI) .......................................................... 2.2.25. The garden of Ninšubur ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d N i n - š u b u r ) ............................................................ 2.2.26. The garden of Šulgi-a-kalama ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d Š u l - g i - a 2 - k a l a m - m a ) ................................. 2.2.27. The garden of Šulpa’e ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d Š u l - p a - e 3 ) ................................................................. 2.2.28. The garden of Tira’aš ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 T i - r a - a š 2 ) ..................................................................... 2.2.29. The garden of U’udua ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 U 8 - u d u - a k i ) ................................................................. 2.2.30. The garden of Ur-dam ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 U r - d a m ) ....................................................................... 2.2.31. The garden of Ur-mama ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 U r - m a - m a ) .............................................................. 9

126 127 127 127 127 127 135 136 137 139 139 140 140 141 142 142 143 144 145 145 146 146 147 147 148 150 150 150 151 152 155 155 157 158 160 160 161

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD 2.2.32. The garden of Ur-Ninĝirsu I ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 U r - d N i n - ĝ i r 2 - s u g u - l a ) .................................. 2.2.33. The garden of Urub ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 U r u b x k i , URU×KAR2) ......................................................... 2.2.34. The pine garden before Enki ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š u 3 - s u h 5 g a b a - r i d E n - k i - k a ) ..................... 2.3. Co-attested gardens ...................................................................................................................... 2.3.1. The garden of Asuhur ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 A - s u h u r < k i > ) ................................................................. 2.3.2. The garden of BaU of Bad ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d B a - U2 B a d 3 k i ) ........................................................ 2.3.3. The garden of BaU-igasu ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d B a - U 2 - i g - g a - s u 3 ) ................................................... 2.3.4. The garden of BaU-namerimku ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d B a - U 2 - n a m - e r i m 2 - k u 5 ) .............................. 2.3.5. The garden of BaU next to Ninĝešzida ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d B a - U 2 u s 2 - s a d N i n - ĝ e š - z i - d a ) ........................................................................ 2.3.6. The ĝi’eden garden of Nanše ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ i 6 - e d e n < d > N a n š e ) ........................................ 2.4. Gardens attested from the 1st year of Amar-Suena ....................................................................... 2.4.1. The garden ex-voto of Lu-Nanše ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 a - r u - a L u 2 - d N a n š e ) ..................................... 2.4.2. The garden of Ištaran ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d I š t a r a n ) .......................................................................... 2.4.3. The garden of Nanše ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d N a n š e ) ............................................................................ 2.5. Gardens attested from the 4th year of Amar-Suena ...................................................................... 2.5.1. The garden of the Inanna village ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 e 2 - d u r u 5 d I n a n n a ) ........................................ 2.5.2. The garden of Lu-Igimaše ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 L u 2 - d I g i - m a - š e 3 ) ................................................... 2.5.3. The garden of Lu-Utu ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 L u 2 - d U t u ) ........................................................................ 2.5.4. The garden of the palace administrator ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 š a b r a e 2 ) ............................................... 2.5.5. The garden of Uz of E-igi-il ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 U z E 2 - i g i - i l 2 < k i > - l a ) ......................................... 2.6. Gardens attested from the 7th year of Amar-Suena ...................................................................... 2.6.1. The garden of E-huš ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 e 2 - h u š ) .............................................................................. 2.6.2. The garden of Lugal-ušumgal ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 L u g a l - u š u m g a l ) ............................................... 2.7. The gardens of TÉL 80 ................................................................................................................. 2.7.1. The garden of BaU-ninam ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d B a - U 2 - n i n - a m 3 ) ..................................................... 2.7.2. The pine garden ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š u 3 - s u h 5 ) ............................................................................... 2.8. The garden of BaU-ninsisa ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d B a - U 2 - n i n - s i - s a 2 ) ....................................................... 2.9. The gardens of Nisaba 18, 142 ..................................................................................................... 2.9.1. The garden of Ambar (ĝ e š k i r i 6 A m b a r k i ) .......................................................................... 2.9.2. The garden of the Ĝiri village (ĝ e š k i r i 6 e 2 - < d u r u 5 > Ĝi r i 3 < k i > ) ...................................... 2.9.3. The garden of Kimadasala (ĝ e š k i r i 6 K i - m a - d a - s a l 4 - l a k i ) .............................................. 2.10. Particularities. The gardens of the governor’s family ................................................................

162 163 163 164 165 165 166 166 166 167 167 167 168 168 169 169 170 170 171 171 171 172 172 172 172 173 173 174 174 174 174 174

Chapter Three: Extended economic complexes ........................................................................ 179 3.1. Šulpa’e and the rest station ........................................................................................................... 3.1.1. The garden of BaUna ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d B a - U 2 - n a ) ....................................................................... 3.1.2. The garden of the bathhouse ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 e 2 d u 1 0 - u s 2 ) ........................................................ 3.1.3. The garden of Ĝatumdu ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d Ĝ a 2 - t u m 3 - d u 1 0 ) ....................................................... 3.1.4. The vineyard ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š t i n ) ........................................................................................ 3.1.5. The ĝi’eden garden of Inanna ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ i 6 - e d e n d I n a n n a ) .......................................... 3.1.6. The new garden of ĜIR3.SIG.LA ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 g i b i l 4 Ĝ IR3.SIG.LA) ............................................ 3.1.7. The second garden of Inanna ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d I n a n n a - m i n 3 ) .................................................... 3.1.8. The garden of Kaš ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 K a š 4 ) ..................................................................................... 3.1.9. The garden of Ninĝešzida ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d N i n - ĝ e š - z i - d a ) ..................................................... 3.2. The garden/vineyard of Garšum ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ( ĝ e š t i n ) G a r 3 - š u m k i ) ........................................... 3.3. The garden of Kisura ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 K i - s u r - r a k i ) ............................................................................ 3.4. The garden of the mill ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 e 2 - k i k k e n 2 ) ............................................................................. 3.4.1. The garden workers of the mill of Saĝdana .........................................................................

10

179 181 181 181 181 182 182 182 182 183 183 186 189 191

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

Chapter Four: The gardens of Gu-Iniĝinšedu ............................................................................ 193 4.1. Presence of gardens in the area of the north-western border ....................................................... 4.2. Presence of gardens along the course of the Niĝinšedu canal ...................................................... 4.3. The gardens managed by Anana .................................................................................................. 4.3.1. The garden of Alšana ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 A - a l - š a - n a k i ) ................................................................ 4.3.2. The garden of Ĝatumdu-nin-Gudea ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d Ĝ a 2 - t u m 3 - d u 1 0 - n i n - d G u 3 - d e 2 - a ) ..... 4.3.3. The vineyard within the walls of Bagara ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š t i n š a 3 b a d 3 B a - g a r a 2 ) .......... 4.3.4. The ĝi’eden garden of Bagara ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ i 6 - e d e n B a - g a r a 2 ) ....................................... 4.3.5. The garden before the Bagara temple ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 i g i e 2 B a - g a r a 2 ) .................................. 4.3.6. The garden of Lagaš ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 L a g a š k i ) ............................................................................. 4.4. The gardens managed by Ga’a ..................................................................................................... 4.4.1. The garden of Azam ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 A z - a m 3 ) ............................................................................ 4.4.2. The garden of apple trees ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š h a š h u r ) ................................................................ 4.4.3. The garden of the pasture ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 n a - KAB- t u m ) ............................................................. 4.5. Niĝin ............................................................................................................................................. 4.5.1. The garden managed by Abba ............................................................................................. 4.5.2. The vineyard in the marsh of Niĝin ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š t i n a m b a r N i ĝ i n 6 k i ).......................... 4.5.3. The vineyard opposite the field of Enlil ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 < ĝ e š t i n > g a b a a - š a 3 d E n - l i l 2 - l a 2 ) 4.5.4. The vineyard on the banks of the Kun canal ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š t i n g u 2 i 7 k u n ) ..................... 4.5.5. The vineyard on the banks of the Turtur canal ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š t i n g u 2 i 7 t u r - t u r ) ............ 4.6. Presence of gardens attributable to the district in scattered references ........................................

193 195 199 199 199 200 201 202 202 202 203 203 204 204 205 206 207 208 208 210

Chapter Five: Timber and gardens ............................................................................................ 211 5.1. Contacts with the shipyard ........................................................................................................... 5.2. The gardens of the high priestess of BaU ..................................................................................... 5.2.1. The garden of Iškur of the high priestess ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d I š k u r e r e š - d i ĝ i r - r a ) .................... 5.2.2. The new garden of the high priestess ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 g i b i l e r e š - d i ĝ i r - r a ) ............................. 5.2.3. The garden of Ĝeštu of the high priestess ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š Ĝe š t u e r e š - d i ĝ i r - r a ) ................ 5.2.4. The garden of Ur-eninnu the gardener ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 U r - e 2 - n i n n u n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 ) .................. 5.2.5. The garden of Lugal-irida the captain of the weavers ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 L u g a l - i r i - d a NU-b a n d a 3 u š - b a r ) ..................................................................... 5.3. The garden of the grand vizier ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 s u k k a l - m a h ) ............................................................. 5.4. The garden of Ninĝirsu ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d N i n - ĝ i r 2 - s u ) ....................................................................... 5.5. The garden of Gudea ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 G u 3 - d e 2 - a ) ............................................................................... 5.6. The garden of Hurim ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 H u - r i m 3 k i ) ................................................................................ 5.7. The garden of TLB 3, 144 ............................................................................................................ 5.8. Presence of timber tree gardens in the province in scattered references ..................................... 5.9. Some considerations on the officials involved in the circulation of timber ................................. 5.10. Some considerations on the gardeners involved in the circulation of timber ............................

211 213 214 214 214 214 214 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 222

Chapter Six: The reed-bed ......................................................................................................... 227 6.1. The garden of Engaldudu ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 E n - g a l - d u - d u ) .................................................................. 227

Chapter Seven: The gardens of Ĝirsu in the documentation of other provinces ....................... 229 7.1. Umma ........................................................................................................................................... 7.1.1. The garden of Lala in the field of E-igi-il ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 L a - l a a - š a 3 E 2 - i g i - i l 2 < k i > ) ........ 7.1.2. The garden of Lala in the city ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 L a - l a š a 3 i r i ) .................................................... 7.1.3. The garden of Lu-saga in the field ĝir ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 L u 2 - s a 6 - g a a - š a 3 ĝ i r 2 ) ........................ 7.1.4. The garden of Lu-saga in the city ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 L u 2 - s a 6 - g a š a 3 i r i ) .................................... 7.1.5. The garden of Šakuge in the field of Lagaš ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 Š a 3 - k u 3 - g e a - š a 3 L a g a š k i ) .......

11

229 230 230 231 231 231

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD 7.1.6. The garden of Šudua in the field of the Ĝešbar’e village ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 Š u - d u 7 - a a - š a 3 e 2 - < d u r u 5 > < d > Ĝe š - b a r - r e ) .................................................. 7.2. Nippur ........................................................................................................................................... 7.3. Drēhem ......................................................................................................................................... 7.4. The gardens of Umma in the documentation of Ĝirsu ................................................................. 7.4.1. The garden of Kuli ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 K u - l i ) ................................................................................... 7.4.2. The garden of Mušbiana ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 M u š - b i - a n - n a ) ...........................................................

231 231 232 232 232 232

Chapter Eight: Gardens isolated in the documentation ............................................................. 233 8.1. The garden of Amar-Suena in the BaU(-namerim ?) ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d A m a r - d S u e n š a 3 d B a - U 2 - ⌈ n a m - e r i m 2 ⌉ ) ....................................................... 8.2. The garden of E-gibile ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 E 2 - g i b i l 4 - < l e k i > ) .................................................................. 8.3. The garden of the temple of NinMAR.KI ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 e 2 d N i n - MAR.KI) .......................................... 8.4. The vineyard of HU.ĜEŠ ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š t i n HU.⌈Ĝ E Š ⌉ ) .................................................................. 8.5. The garden of the ‘sonship’ ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 n a m - d u m u - k a ) .............................................................. 8.6. The garden of the archivist ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 š a 1 3 - d u b - b a - k a ) ........................................................... 8.7. The garden of Šu-Suen ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d Š u - d S u e n ) ............................................................................

233 233 234 234 234 234 235

Chapter Nine: The garden administrators of the province ........................................................ 237 9.1. The garden administrators of Ĝirsu .............................................................................................. 9.1.1. Abbaĝu ................................................................................................................................. 9.1.2. Gu’umu ................................................................................................................................ 9.1.3. NIMmu ................................................................................................................................. 9.1.4. Nabi son of Lugal-saga ........................................................................................................ 9.1.5. Gamu .................................................................................................................................... 9.1.6. Ka ......................................................................................................................................... 9.1.7. Ur-BaU ................................................................................................................................. 9.1.8. Agu ...................................................................................................................................... 9.1.9. Ur-Lisi .................................................................................................................................. 9.2. The alleged garden administrators of Ĝirsu ................................................................................. 9.2.1. Ĝirini .................................................................................................................................... 9.2.2. Lu-diĝira .............................................................................................................................. 9.2.3. Išibmah ................................................................................................................................ 9.2.4. Inana .................................................................................................................................... 9.2.5. Ur-Inanna ............................................................................................................................. 9.3. The garden administrators of Gu’aba ........................................................................................... 9.3.1. Lugal-imrua ......................................................................................................................... 9.3.2. Aga son of Lugal-imrua ....................................................................................................... 9.3.3. Udani .................................................................................................................................... 9.3.4. UNga .................................................................................................................................... 9.4. The garden administrators of Gu-Iniĝinšedu ................................................................................ 9.4.1. Ga’a ...................................................................................................................................... 9.4.2. Urani ...................................................................................................................................... 9.4.3. Ur-Bagara ............................................................................................................................. 9.4.4. Ur-BaU ................................................................................................................................. 9.4.5. Kitušlu, the alleged garden administrator of Gu-Iniĝinšedu ............................................... 9.5. The garden administrators of Niĝin and Lagaš ............................................................................ 9.5.1. Abba ..................................................................................................................................... 9.5.2. Abbaĝu10 .............................................................................................................................. 9.5.3. Anana ................................................................................................................................... 9.5.4. Enlila .................................................................................................................................... 12

238 240 243 248 250 252 253 255 257 259 261 262 262 262 263 264 264 265 265 267 269 271 272 276 276 277 277 278 279 279 279 280

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS 9.5.5. Lugal-amarku ...................................................................................................................... 9.5.6. Lugal-irida ........................................................................................................................... 9.5.7. Manšum ............................................................................................................................... 9.5.8. Ur-Igalim son of Šadanudu ................................................................................................. 9.6. The garden administrators of indeterminable districts ................................................................. 9.6.1. Ubimu .................................................................................................................................. 9.6.2. Ur-kigula ............................................................................................................................. 9.6.3. Ur-KISAL .............................................................................................................................. 9.6.4. Ur-Luma .............................................................................................................................. 9.6.5. Ur-Ninĝirsu ......................................................................................................................... 9.6.6. Ur-Siana ............................................................................................................................... 9.6.7. Ur-Šul(pa’e) son of Lugal-gigir .......................................................................................... 9.6.8. Ur-dŠulpa’e .......................................................................................................................... 9.7. Counterparts. The external officials ............................................................................................. 9.7.1. Officials gravitating around the mill ................................................................................... 9.7.1.1. Lugal-igihuš son of Lala ................................................................................................... 9.7.1.2. Katar-BaU ......................................................................................................................... 9.7.2. The warehouse (e 2 - k i š i b - b a ) ........................................................................................... 9.7.2.1. The archive of Ur-abba son of Bazi ............................................................................ 9.7.2.2. The officials involved in the circulation of garden produce ....................................... 9.7.2.2.1. Ur-egal son of Bazi .................................................................................................. 9.7.2.2.2. Šeškala son of Ur-aba .............................................................................................. 9.7.2.2.3. Ur-NIĜ son of Lu-kala .............................................................................................. 9.7.2.2.4. Nammah-BaU son of Abba’a ................................................................................... 9.7.2.2.5. Ur-eškuga son of Abba-gina .................................................................................... 9.7.2.2.6. Lu-Ninĝirsu son of Ikala .......................................................................................... 9.7.2.2.7. Ur-Igalim the messenger............................................................................................ 9.7.3. Ur-abba and the garden produce ......................................................................................... 9.7.3.1. The deliveries .............................................................................................................. 9.7.3.2. The expenditures .........................................................................................................

281 281 282 282 282 283 283 283 283 283 284 284 285 285 285 286 286 287 287 289 289 289 289 290 290 291 291 292 292 294

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 299 Systematic glossary ................................................................................................................... 303 1. Labor definitions and categories of workers ................................................................................... 2. Garden professionals ....................................................................................................................... 3. Administrative terminology recurring in the garden management ................................................. 4. Fruit and fruit trees attested in the gardens of the province ............................................................ 5. Palm by-products ............................................................................................................................ 6. Timber trees attested in the gardens of the province ......................................................................

303 304 306 310 312 312

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. Sitography ................................................................................................................................. Appendix: Exemplifying texts ................................................................................................... Indices .......................................................................................................................................

315 330 331 343

Personal names .................................................................................................................................... Rulers .................................................................................................................................................. God and temple names ........................................................................................................................ Toponyms ............................................................................................................................................ Watercourses ....................................................................................................................................... Sumerian words and expressions ......................................................................................................... Texts .....................................................................................................................................................

343 352 353 354 356 357 363

13

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The present work substantially represents a revised, updated and translated version of the research work pertaining to the PhD course in Studi filologici e letterari sul Vicino Oriente Antico e l’Iran pre-islamico of the Sapienza University of Rome, and carried out in co-tutorship with the Freie Universität of Berlin, Altorientalistische Philologie und Geschichte. It represents, indeed, the result of a study realized between Rome and Berlin, therefore benefitting from the support and competence of two tutors, Prof. F. D’Agostino of the Sapienza and Prof. E. Cancik-Kirschbaum of the Freie Universität. I am very grateful to them for all their help, their advice and their suggestions. In addition, I am particularly grateful to Prof. M. Molina, who made the suggestion to me to undertake a study on the economic and administrative reality of gardens in the NeoSumerian period. I am grateful for his guidance and support during the sixth months spent at the Instituto de Lenguas y Culturas del Mediterráneo y Oriente Próximo of the CSIC of Madrid, and for all his help in the preparation of this book. I am indebted also to Prof. J. Marzahn, who made it possible for me to examine the texts relevant to this study housed in the Vorderasiatisches Museum of Berlin. Furthermore, I am thankful for the help from, and the interest shown to my work still in fieri by, the following scholars: Prof. L. Verderame, Dr. I. Schrakamp, Dr. C. Johnson, Dr. P. Paoletti, Dr. V. Tumolo, Dr. C. Reali and Dr. S. Alivernini. Thanks are also due to Dr. K. Focke, who kindly provided me with the transliterations which she had prepared from two unpublished texts of interest for this work. I also wish to express my graditude to William McGrath for having reviewed the English text. Finally, I am particularly grateful to Prof. W. Sallaberger for having enriched this work with his valuable comments and suggestions. Needless to say, I am the only one responsible for any mistakes and inaccuracies. Outside the academic domain, I am sincerely grateful to many people, my family, my friends, Vincenzo. Note: this study was based on the documentation known to me as of February 2013. Angela Greco Berlin, September 2014

15

ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS

The issues tied to the reading of the signs concern a constantly evolving field of research, for which a definite agreement among scholars has not yet been achieved.1 The readings used in this study tend to follow what are deemed the usual readings,2 mostly to be found in the ePSD: http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/index.htlm. Sumerian terms and loanwords in Sumerian are presented with extended spacing in the main body of the text; normalized proper names and transliterations occurring outside the main body appear in standard script. The very few Akkadian personal names, which are not normalized in the main body of the text are given in italic, as well as, when necessary, the Akkadian equivalent of a Sumerian term. All the administrative texts cited in the present work can be consulted in transliteration and, whenever available, in copy or in photograph, in the database of Neo-Sumerian texts, BDTNS: http://bdts.filol.csic.es/, with the exception of CBT 3, BM 25293 (n.d.), CBT 3, BM 28832 (n.d.), the transliterations of which were kindly made available to the writer by Dr. K. Focke. The bibliographic abbreviations utilized in this study can be found on the website Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative: http://cdli.ucla.edu/wiki/doku.php/abbreviations_for_assyriology. Further abbreviations used in this study are the following: AS c DN e e. GN IS L. l.d. l.e. n n.d. n.p. o. PN q r r. Š ŠS t. TN / / --- /

Amar-Suena Capacity Divine name Extent/dimensions of the plots Envelope Geographical name Ibbi-Suen Lemma Lost date Left edge Number of workers listed or number of goods counted by units Not dated Not published Obverse Personal name Quantity, amount of goods Remuneration, amount of the payment assigned to individual workers Reverse Šulgi Šu-Suen Tablet Temple name End of line Unwritten line

––––––––––––––––– 1 Verderame, L. 2010, 110-111. 2 See “Liste des correspondances entre les lectures (le plus souvent) usuelles et les lectures adoptées dans aBZL (usuelles ou non)” in http://www.arch/content/ueber_uns/pascal_attinger/index_ger.html (URL consulted February 2012).

17

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD // [ ] [ ] < > >

Alternative reading or interruption of line Text entirely or partially lost Omission of the scribe Erroneous addition of the scribe

The dates given reflect the year of a particular ruler’s reign, expressed in Arabic numerals, and the month, expressed in Roman numerals. Where one of the two is not given in the text, the missing part is indicated by a hyphen (-) in the corresponding position of the date formula. In the few texts recording the day as well, this additional information follows the indication of the month in Arabic numerals. The designation d iri with respect to the months is marked through the abbreviation (d) in superscript after the month: e.g. AAICAB 1/1, Ashm. 1924-693 (Š 46/xid). This work has followed the correspondences between units of measure as indicated in the texts and the respective values in modern units given e.g. by Civil in Farmer’s Instructions, with exception of the rendering in km2 instead of that in ha. As emphasized by Civil, the modern equivalents are no more than approximations.3 Capacity sila3 (1/300 gur) ban2 (10 sila3) ba-ri2-ga (60 sila3) gur (300 sila3)

Length 1l 10 l 60 l 300 l

Weight še (1/180 giĝ4 ) giĝ4 (1/60 ma-na) ma-na (60 giĝ4 ) gu2 (60 ma-na)

0.046 g 8.3 g 500 g 30 kg

kuš3 (1/12 nindan) nindan

50 cm 6m

Area giĝ4 (1/60 nindan2) sar (1 nindan2) iku (100 sar) eše3 (6 iku) bur3 (18 iku)

0.6 m2 36 m2 3,600 m2 21,600 m2 0.648 km2

The capacity and area measures observe the following system, based on the position of the different units considered, reflecting the system which is given in the texts: capacity: (g u r).(b a -ri 2 -g a ).(b a n 2 ) + (sila 3 ) area: (b u r 3 ).(e še 2 ).(ik u ) + (sa r) Measures calculated by the scribes in s a r or in s ila 3 are not squared according to this system, and thus, when areas measured in s a r or commodities measured in s ila 3 are not present in the text, the sequence of positions does not consider the s a r or the s ila 3 and vice versa.

––––––––––––––––– Civil 1994, XIII. According to the author, s i l a 3 may represent the most fitting correspondence.

3

18

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Composition of garden areas ....................................................................................... 26 Figure 2. ‘Typical’ garden composition ...................................................................................... 26 Figure 3. Detail of cultivated areas in the ‘typical’ garden composition .................................... 27 Figure 4. Presence of intercrops in palm groves and orchards .................................................... 27 Figure 5. ‘Typical’ vineyard composition ................................................................................... 28 Figure 6. The Ĝirsu province in the Neo-Sumerian Period, from R. de Maaijer, 1998, 64 ........ 34 Figure 7. Working and managerial structure of gardens ............................................................. 43 Figure 8. Levels of interaction .................................................................................................... 95 Figure 9. Presence of gardens on the banks of the Niĝinšedu canal, from F. Carroué, 1986, 30 ............................................................................................................. 198 Figure 10. Circulation of the main garden produce inherent to the garden management of the Ĝirsu province .......................................................................... 297

19

INTRODUCTION

1. The gardens The present work aims at examining the management of gardens, in particular palm groves (Sumerian ĝ e š k iri 6 ), in the Ĝirsu province during the third dynasty of Ur, also known as the NeoSumerian period, a period spanning the last century of the third millennium BC. As is well known, agriculture was the economic fulcrum of Lower Mesopotamia in third millennium BC, assuming various forms according to the different landscapes of the alluvium, and garden culture was just a part of this broader framework. Arable lands, principally consisting of fields dedicated to the cultivation of cereals, extended along the complex canal system created from antiquity in order to optimize agricultural production in the alluvium. Indeed, already in ancient times, the climatic and geographic conditions of Mesopotamia offered a particularly harsh and hostile environment hardly suitable for the prosperity of crops; high temperatures and insufficient rainfall meant that cultivation depended exclusively on irrigation. Another important factor deeply shaping the Mesopotamian landscape and the agricultural sphere was the period of the yearly floods of the main rivers of the plain; in fact, the Tigris and Euphrates flooded in the early spring, shortly before the harvest time. Therefore, Mesopotamian agriculture strictly depended on human intervention as far as the flood control, on the one hand, and the procurement of sufficient water, on the other, were concerned. As a consequence of the floods, the accumulation of sediments forming levees also played a significant role. During the process of the formation of the levees, indeed, the river bed gradually raised until it flowed above the surrounding land. This feature allowed for the cutting of irrigation channels through the levees, allowing the water to flow down towards cultivated fields and gardens. Due to the peculiarities of the levees’ soil, in particular their drainage capacity, these plots proved to be optimal for the cultivation of fruit trees, date palms, and other types of vegetables. These portions of land were adjacent to watercourses, and thus benefitted from a copious and direct supply of water; they also presented a natural flora comprising a dense growth of various species of tree, such as willows, poplars, and tamarisks. Marsh areas, either permanent or seasonal, were interspersed among the cultivated lands and were dominated by reed-beds, grasses and various shrubs. In contrast, far from the watercourses, the vegetation could be described as semi-arid.4 Then, alongside the massive crops represented by fields (Sumerian a ša 3 ), particular crops belonging to different kinds of plots were present in Mesopotamia. They can be interpreted as gardens or orchards, whereas Sumerian terminology employed different labels according to the different types of cultivations. These include: - k i-n isig x (SAR), plots devoted to the cultivation of various types of vegetables and spices; - k i-š u m 2 , plots dedicated to the cultivation of different species of alliaceous plants; - ĝ e š k iri 6 , to be interpreted as palm groves unless another type of cultivation is specified, especially grapevines, ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin ,5 or timber and fruit trees, as for example ĝeš k iri 6 ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 , probably a kind of pine,6 ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š h a šh u r, probably apple tree,7 as ––––––––––––––––– 4 Wright 1988, 12-14; Pollock 1999, 28-33. 5 Postgate 1987, 117; Brunke 2011, 222-223; Heimpel 2011b, 112-115. 6 Type of pine. For a detailed discussion on the exact identification of this kind of tree, see Heimpel 2011b, 103-105 and Stol 2013, 730. 7 Type of tree not yet identified, but commonly interpreted as apple tree. With regard to the interpretation of ĝeš h a š h u r , see Postgate 1987, 117-119; Powell 1987a, 153-156; Brunke 2011, 209; Heimpel 2011b, 116-118.

21

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

well as other types of tree, e.g. ĝ e š n u -u r 2 -m a , pomegranate tree,8 ĝ e š p e š 3 , fig tree,9 and others, which however are not associated with the garden name;10 - ĝ e š tir, ‘forests’, plots devoted to cultivation of timber trees; The first two types of garden-orchards, in particular the k i-š u m 2 -plots, represented types of cultivation subsidiary to the principal ones. The subsidiary types shared the ground,11 or more precisely, occupied areas left uncultivated by principal types. Moreover, the documentation attests to the presence of the same tree types in different environments as is the case of the kind of poplar known as ĝ e š a sa l 2 ,12 which is attested both in forests and in gardens,13 or the tamarisk ( ĝ e š šin ig ),14 cultivated both in fields and gardens.15 Each of these particular crops were associated with different skilled professional figures (lu 2 -n isig x (SAR), lu 2 -š u m 2 , n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 , 16 lu 2 - ĝ e š tir), as can be seen in the following table: ĝeš

kiri6

nu-ĝeškiri6

ki-nisigx (SAR)

lu2-nisigx (SAR)

ki-šum2

lu2-šum2

ĝeš

lu2-ĝeštir

tir

Looking at the working structure of gardens in more detail, a more complex situation consisting of different categories of skilled workers and sector managers (a -b a la , d u 3 -a -k u 5 , u m -m ia /n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 and s a n ta n a ) is revealed and will be analyzed in the first chapter. The importance of gardens as economic units within the rural landscape was tied, as already noted, to the their main crop, the date palm, Phoenix Dactylifera (Sumerian ĝ e š ĝ e šn im b a r). Due to the particular conditions of the Mesopotamian soil, it seems plausible that already in ancient times only a certain selection of crops were suited to prosper. Particular features of date palms, such as tolerance of high levels of soil salinity and acidity or to high temperatures, assured ––––––––––––––––– Postgate 1987, 121; Heimpel 2011b, 120-121. 9 Postgate 1987, 117; Heimpel 2011b, 115-116. 10 It should be noted, that the documentation provides several examples of interplanting within the gardens ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ) , between different types of palm trees, or between palms and trees of smaller size, especially pomegranates, for which see further section 1.1. 11 Stol 1987, 57-80 and previous literature. The author quoted the work of Dowson (1921), who noted that this practice is still current in modern Iraq. Both authors referred specifically to the practice of growing alliaceous plants in palm groves, a kind of intercropping actually poorly attested in the administrative documentation of the Neo-Sumerian Ĝirsu province, but well documented for other centers of the kingdom. 12 The Euphrates Poplar could be meant here. See Powell 1992, 102; Heimpel 2011b, 124. 13 In the administrative documentation of the Ĝirsu province this type of tree occurs solely in connection to a vineyard (ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š t i n ) . See § 4.5.2. 14 With regard to this type of tree, widespread throughout the alluvium, see Streck 2004, 251-254; Heimpel 2011b, 127. 15 For this classification, see Powell 1992, 104. According to the author, both fruit and timber trees were cultivated in large gardens, whereas trees growing in forests were probably part of the spontaneous flora, which was in any case under state control. With regard to the timber trees exclusively attested in gardens, see now Heimpel 2011b, 132-136. 16 As is well known, the construction n u + noun forms a conspicuous number of names of professions in the Sumerian lexicon. However, it is unclear which character the element /nu/ had, if it should be meant as a sort of nominal prefix, as already Edzard proposed, or if it should be meant as phonetic variant of l u 2 , as the sporadic attested form l u 2 - ĝ e š k i r i 6 instead of n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 would suggest (see Edzard 1962, 91-112). In contrast with other n u + noun constructions, generally considered as asyntactic, n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 seems to be a genitive construction, as testified by the ergative form n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 - k e 4 . According to Attinger, n u - could be understood originally as a sort of “préfix possessif (le concernant/touchant)”, to be meant in a broader sense as “celui qui” or, as is the case of n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 , “celui de” + substantive in the genitive (see Attinger 1993, 156-157). The etymology of the Akkadian word nukaribbu, gardener, remains unclear. However, the interpretation of the term as a loanword from Sumerian does not clarify the phonetic aspects related to the word n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 : as a genitive construction, indeed, we would expect an ending -akku rather than -abbu (as is the case of the Sumerian loanword n u -e š 3 [ - a k ] , which in Akkadian appears as nešakku; see Edzard 1962, 92-95). 8

22

I NTRODUCTION

success to that species and its consequent continuity and permanence in the same territory. Even today, it represents the most important crop in Iraq, reaching 70% of the entire agricultural output.17 As the main product of date palms we can surely understand its fruits, dates (Sumerian z u 2 -lu m ), to be high in nutritious content, to be easily stored and transported, and they are also attested in the context of pharmacopeia. In addition, a certain number of other products were obtained from date palms, as is attested both through modern parallels and the textual sources themselves: wood for construction or for the creation of various types of tools and furniture, fibers for ropes, leaves for ropes, baskets, and their lower parts as floats for fishing nets.18 A further resource of palm groves was undoubtedly the shadow of the palm fronds, which allowed the growing of more delicate crops. Aside from the optimization of the cultivated areas, indeed, the practice of intercropping in palm groves allowed the other crops, among them fruit trees, to benefit from the shadow and protection provided by the date palms.19 The importance of gardens in the Mesopotamian imagination went beyond their economic significance; their shadow, their scent, their richness had indeed an ideological strength. They occur in the royal ideology as a symbol of wealth and prosperity of a kingdom. The NeoSumerian rulers claim to have planted gardens alongside the canals or surrounding the palaces,20 the same topos which can be found in the words of the Assyrian rulers several centuries later, when the rulers claim to have enriched their kingdoms with gardens and to have bestowed gardens to their people.21 1.1. Garden composition In the category of plots interpreted as gardens (ĝ e š k iri 6 ), besides the areas in which date palms, fruit and timber trees were cultivated, kinds of plots classified as k a -a - DU were also included. In The Farmer’s Instructions Civil22 noted that the expression k a -a - DU (KA.A.DU) occurs in two kinds of contexts: a) works on levees; b) description of palm groves and gardens. Further, he noted that areas labeled as k a -a - DU occur in texts in contrast to uncultivated areas (k i-ĝ a l 2 )23 and to palm groves. Based on these considerations, Civil concluded that the lands referred to as k a -a - DU designated areas close to watercourses and suited to the cultivation of fruit trees and vineyards. Heimpel24 interpreted the term as irrigation inlet (plot), on the basis of the literal meaning: water-bringing mouth. The author understood, indeed, the three elements forming the ––––––––––––––––– 17 For the current situation of this crop, see www.osservatorioiraq.it, based on: al Sharq al Awsat; the article of 4/11/2009, Iraq: in declino la coltivazione di palme da dattero, highlights the difficulties that Iraq faced during the last decades in detaining its position as one of the principle exporters of dates. Despite the much older roots of cultivation itself, the commercialization of its produce has relatively recent origins, 1888, as work of an English company based in Basra. According to the statistics quoted by the article, of some 32 million trees present in the country between 1960 and 2000, there currently remain only 16 million. This agricultural sector represented one of the main resources of the Iraqi economy until the 1970s. Its decline, according to Farun Ahmad Hussein, president of the Association for Dates, can be attributed to various factors, first of all the war, which caused the destruction or occupation of the relevant infrastructures, the closing of many agencies dedicated to their production, and brought about deeply rooted damages to cultivation; secondary, the responsibility of the past governments, which failed to provide incentives or advantageous conditions. The agronomist Ali Jasim has suggested that of the 230 varieties of date palms present in Iraq, the majority currently risk extinction. 18 For a more detailed discussion on the use of palm by-products, see Landsberger 1967, 18-30; Volk 2003/05, 290-293; Streck 2004, 267-270. For its usage as building material or as material for the creation of tools in the modern era, see also Barreveld 2003. 19 Streck 2004, 263. This scholar analyzed the characteristics of date palm and tamarisk, among them the shadow offered by their fronds, on the basis of the Akkadian version of “The Dispute between Date Palm and Tamarisk”. 20 See Frayne 1997, 15 and below in this work § 1.6 and § 1.8. 21 See Galter 1989, 238-242. 22 Civil 1994, 131-132. 23 The expression k i - ĝ a l 2 in the third millennium designated the uncultivated areas of gardens (Steinkeller 1989, 125). The practice of leaving portions of plots uncultivated responded to the need of the soil to reduce the salt concentration derived from the intensive agricultural use (Pollock 1999, 32-33). 24 Heimpel 2011b, 88-89.

23

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

expression as: 1) inlet/mouth (k a .g ), which allowed the buckets of the devices known as shaduf,25 placed on the top of the embankments, to reach the water courses; 2) water (a ); 3) the action of ‘bringing’ (tu m 2 or d e 6 ),26 in the sense of providing water wherever required. One must not exclude that the last element (DU) entails the action of ‘going’, hence ‘the mouth, where the water is going’, as the comparison with some river names27 would suggest. In any case, it should be recognized that this designation denoted a type of plot, rather than a type of inlet. The term is attested in at least fifteen texts28 from Ĝirsu, in two texts from Umma, SAT 2, 950 (Š 42/x) and SACT 2, 140 (n.d.), and in PDT 2, 1301 (AS 8/vi), a fragmentary text from Drēhem, which, however, refers to an area of Ĝirsu (see § 7.3). The administrative documentation of the Ĝirsu province mentions irrigation inlet-plots cultivated with palms hosting pomegranates at their roots29 or also irrigation inlet-plots cultivated exclusively with fruit trees, such as apple trees,30 or irrigation inlet-plots designated as vineyards and hosting a rich variety of fruit and timber trees.31 These examples suggest that irrigation inlet-plots represented a type of land suited to the cultivation of fruit and timber trees, but adapted in any case to the cultivation of date palms. Thus, this type of plots hosted kinds of crops, which can be considered typical of the gardens, and in fact the personnel employed in them is the same as that employed in the gardens. Furthermore, a single garden could be composed of both areas designated as irrigation inlet-plots and areas designated as palm groves.32 In general, even though the texts seldom explicitly indicate the proximity of gardens to watercourses, this can be inferred properly on the basis of the particular requirements of the garden crops. Cocquerillat33 emphasized the need for cultivating date palms along watercourses and cited the Arabic saying: “La tête dans le feu, les pieds dans l’eau”. The presence of gardens along watercourses is further highlighted in the prologue of the code of Ur-Namma (see § 1.8), in which the king claims to have planted gardens along the banks of the Tigris, the Euphrates, and all the canals. In those cases in which gardens are explicitly indicated as located within the cities, it may be imagined that they were probably planted alongside canals crossing through the urban centers. Therefore, it can be inferred that gardens extended close to the watercourses of the province, the main canals, as well as the secondary canals or irrigation ditches, with particular attention given to the most delicate crops, especially fruit trees. In his analysis of the social context and of the diachronic changes in the production of fruit in Mesopotamia, particularly on the lack of texts mentioning the topic after the end of the NeoSumerian period, Postgate stated: In the climate of southern Iraq fruit trees, like all agriculture, can only be sustained by careful husbandry and in particular dependable irrigation. While date palms may survive in tidal conditions in the far south, other fruit trees will not tolerate so much salt, and therefore any ––––––––––––––––– The shaduf is a simple device consisting of two upright posts converging at the top, which hold up a third post, at the ends of which are placed a weight and a bucket. For attestations of this device in the Neo-Sumerian texts, see Maekawa 1986, 119-121. The author identified the expression a z i - r i ( 2 ) - g u m 2 as “a simple device to lift water by means of buckets out of a canal or well”. As stressed by Civil, however, references to these devices in the texts are rare (Civil 1994, 69). In any case, with regard to the gardens of the province, a z i - r i - g u m 2 is quoted in connection with only two plots, one recorded in the name of the gardener Alla (see § 1.11.6) and the other in the name of the garden administrator Ga’a (see § 9.4.1). 26 With regard to the Sumerian differentiations of the verb ‘to bring’, see Sallaberger 2005a. 27 See e.g. the Niĝinšedu canal, ‘the canal going to Niĝin’ ( i 7 N i ĝ i n k i - š e 3 - d u ) . 28 ASJ 19, 142 127 (Š 36/-); MVN 6, 290 (AS 2/-); AS 18, 156 1 (AS 2/vii); ASJ 19, 287 11 (AS 2/vii); HLC 3, 391 (l.d.); MVN 15, 178 (l.d.); CUSAS 6, 85-87 (n.d.); ASJ 13, 214 (n.d.); Studi Saporetti 241 (n.d.); CT 10, 49 BM 14334 (n.d.); TÉL 233 (n.d.); PPAC 5, 288 (n.d.); CBT 3, BM 28832 (n.d.); CBT 3, BM 25293 (n.d.); WMAH 279 (l.d.). 29 See e.g. HLC 3, 391 (l.d.). 30 See e.g. ASJ 18, 156 1 (AS 2/vii). 31 See e.g. MVN 15, 178 (l.d.); CUSAS 6, 85-87 (l.d.); PPAC 5, 288 (n.d.); CBT 3, BM 28832 (n.d.); CBT 3, BM 25293 (n.d.). 32 See e.g. CUSAS 6, 85-87 (l.d.); HLC 3, 391 (l.d.). 33 See Cocquerillat 1968, 30. 25

24

I NTRODUCTION deterioration in the administration of irrigation will have its effects on the quality and quantity of fruit produced. That the break down of centralized bureaucracy which accompanied the fall of the Ur III kingdom would have had an immediate impact on the irrigation system does not need to be justified at length: even if the administrative traditions of the dynasty were retained locally by the individual city states, they lacked political control of the whole system of watercourses. There is therefore a likelihood that fruit-growing in general suffered a recession after the Ur III period.34

With respect to the difficulties encountered in the cultivation of other types of trees, such as, for example, the type of pine known as ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 , and as far as the relevant climatic conditions, Stol already noted the lack of references after the Old-Babylonian Period. As stated by Heimpel, the cause of this disappearance is still unclear, although it can be supposed that, due to the torrid climate of southern Iraq, the cultivation of such trees was not an easy task and thus it was not always successful.35 Nevertheless, we so far lack any clear indications suggesting that the cultivation of pines was preferred in irrigation inlet-areas. The types of timber trees attested in this kind of land, particularly in vineyards (for which see below), generally seem to coincide with the natural flora which grew along the watercourses, although this does not exclude the possibility that some were also intentionally planted in garden contexts. An example of the composition of lands managed and worked by garden personnel, which can thus be defined as ĝ e š k iri 6 , is provided by the text WMAH 279 (l.d.). The information offered by the text seems to concern a wide area of the province, considering that it is based on an area of 153 ik u (550,800 m2 / 0.55 km2),36 and can be summarized as follows:37 Palm groves 69 ¾ iku Total ĝešĝešnimbar (251,100 m2)

Intercrops 13 iku ĝešĝešnimbar/ nu-ur2-ma (46,800 m2)

Uncultivated areas

Other crops

Irrigation inlet-areas

ĝeš

16 iku ki-ĝal2 (57,600 m2)

1 ½ iku ĝeštin 51 ¾ iku babbar38 (5,400 m2) ka-a-DU 1 iku nu-ur2-ma (186,300 m2) 2 (3,600 m )

Based on the information derived from this summary, it can be deduced that the lands cultivated as gardens consisted of approximately 46% palm groves, 8% of intercropping between palms and fruit trees, 2% of fruit trees, 34% of irrigation inlet-areas39 and 10% uncultivated areas.

––––––––––––––––– 34 Postgate 1987, 126. 35 See Heimpel 2011b, 103, with previous literature. 36 Compare the surface area of the cultivated gardens in this text and those given in the texts treated below in the 3.1, recording the presence of cultivated garden surfaces within an area corresponding to 1/6 of the whole province. The information of WMAH 279, given the fragmentary state of the tablet, is insufficient to determine which area of the province is treated; see the considerations in § 9.5.1. 37 This text seems to be the record of a distribution of barley, wool and garments to gardeners (see 1.8.7.6), showing at least two sub-sections. The information given here is based on the data recorded in the total of the second section, as this is better preserved. 38 Although the sign UD, when referring to ĝ e š t i n , usually entails dried grapes, raisins (ĝ e š t i n h a d 2 ), this interpretation can hardly fit with the context. It seems more plausible, in this specific case, that the sign refers to an attribute of the plant or its fruits, not yet intended as specific product. 39 The text does not specify the presence of trees in the area defined as k a - a - DU, probably because it refers to information derived from the total. In other texts, as for example ASJ 18, 156 1 (AS 2/vii), summarized in § 2.10, information on the cultivation of the irrigation inlet- area is given in the ‘detail’ section, whereas in the ‘total’ section is solely given the total extent of the described areas. Based on the comparison with other texts, it can be suggested that the irrigation inlet- area of WMAH 279 had hosted the types of cultivation common on this type of ground, that is, fruit and timber trees occasionally interspersed with palms (see § 1.6.3). In addition, as shown by the text, fruit trees outside irrigation inlet- areas were essentially located within palm groves, and thus protected by the shade of the palms.

25

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Figure 1. Composition of garden areas.

An example for the composition of a single garden, which can be identified as a palm grove, is in turn offered by another text, MVN 22, 31 (n.d.).40 The total surface of the garden comprises about 2,078.5 s a r (74,826 m2), containing 345 palms, and can be subdivided as follows:

Total

Cultivated area

Irrigated area

Uncultivated area

1,615 s a r (58,140 m2)

293½ s a r (10,566 m2) 170 s a r (6,120 m2)

Then, as a percentage, it can be presumed that a garden was on average composed of 78% of cultivated area, 14% irrigated area,41 and 8% uncultivated area.42

Figure 2. ‘Typical’ garden composition. ––––––––––––––––– The information provided by the text concerns five gardens, sensibly different in size; the information here reported refers to a single wide garden, the ‘garden of Nanše’, for which more details are available. The gardens described by the text are: ‘the garden of NinMAR.KI’ (§ 2.2.24), ‘the garden of Ištaran’ (§ 2.4.2), ‘the garden of Nanše’ (§ 2.4.3), ‘the garden of Lu-Igimaše’ (§ 2.5.2) and a garden whose name is not preserved. Beyond this, the text seems to mention the presence of an irrigation ditch (p a 5 , marked as 36, probably s a r , thus measuring 1,296 m2) close to an uncultivated area, but its exact position with respect to the described plots remains unclear (see § 1.5). The mention of the irrigation ditch occurs within the sketch containing the planning of works to be done drawn by the scribe. As argued in Alivernini and Greco (2014), this text seems to have been a preliminary sketch preluding the drafting of an official text. 41 The composition of this palm grove could recall the method of flood irrigation, which represents one of the older and still more widespread methods of irrigation in palm groves, though it presents the disadvantage of being able to irrigate only the areas in which there are no palms (see Zaid 2002, VII.3. See also the considerations in § 1.5). For the practice of flood irrigation in fields during the Neo-Sumerian Period, see Maekawa 1990, 127–128; Waetzoldt 1990a, 9-11. 40

26

I NTRODUCTION

The cultivated area, namely 1,615 sa r (58,140 m2), corresponding to 78% of the total area of the garden, can be further subdivided into: 1,580 s a r (56,880 m2), corresponding to 97% ca. of the entire cultivated area and hosting 330 palms; and 35 sa r (1,260 m2), that is, the remaining 3% of the whole cultivated area, hosting an unspecified number of fruit trees, grapevines and fig trees (25 sa r, ĝ e š tin , 900 m2; 10 s a r ĝ e š p e š 3 , 360 m2), as well as 15 palms.

Figure 3. Detail of cultivated areas in the ‘typical’ garden composition.

However, the size and composition of gardens generally tend to vary considerably; in some gardens the presence of one palm ca. every 5½ sa r (198 m2) can be estimated, in others the presence of one palm ca. every 13½ s a r (486 m2).43 It should also be considered that the presence of fruit trees among the roots of palms seems to occur in only 16% of the areas cultivated as palm groves, but it seems to represent the most common mode of cultivation for fruit trees, specifically 84%.44

Figure 4. Presence of intercrops in palm groves and orchards.

––––––––––––––––– 43 Data based on information regarding two gardens attested in MVN 22, 31 (n.d.), the ‘garden of Ištaran’ and the ‘garden of Nanše’, which show exactly opposing situations: for the first garden is recorded the presence of 40 palms on a surface of 540 s a r (19,440 m2), of which 96% is cultivated area and 4% is irrigated area, thus the presence of one palm ca. every 13 ½ s a r (486 m2) can be estimated; to the second is attributed the presence of 345 palms on a surface of 1,908½ s a r (69,706 m2), of which 84% is cultivated area and 16% is irrigated area, thus the presence of one palm ca. every 5½ s a r (198 m2) can be estimated. As stated by Cocquerillat, in the Old-Babylonian period the cultivators still did not know that the density of plants in palm groves is one of the principal factors affecting the productivity of palms (Cocquerillat 1967, 164). 44 Data based on information derived from WMAH 279 (l.d.), which does not include irrigation inlet- areas. For a detailed discussion on the practice of interplanting based on texts from other provinces in the kingdom, see Heimpel 2011b, 138-147.

27

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Gardens classified as vineyards (ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š tin ) consisted on average of 56% irrigation inlet-areas (k a -a - DU) and 44% uncultivated areas.45

Figure 5. ‘Typical’ vineyard composition.

Wide areas devoted to the intercropping of a large variety of fruit trees are mostly designated under the label of vineyard, such as apple trees, fig trees, pomegranates, ĝipar-trees,46 and timber trees, such as tamarisks (ĝ e š š in ig ), different types of willows, especially that indicated as ĝeš k a b ,47 hackberries (ĝ e š m e s),48 and different types of poplar, Euphrates poplar (ĝ e š a sa l 2 ) and black poplar (ĝ e š ild a g 2 ).49 However, the exact distribution of the trees remains unclear since the available data are not explicit in this regard.50 Moreover, we possess little information from the texts of the province on the composition of areas which can be defined as gardens devoted to the cultivation of timber trees, sorts of tree farms, particularly those devoted to the cultivation of pines.51 In the following section, a picture of the historical context will be briefly traced, with particular attention to land management, in order to illustrate the context in which the management of gardens in the Neo-Sumerian Period should be situated.

––––––––––––––––– Data based on the information provided by CBT 3, BM 28832 (n.d.) and PPAC 5, 288 (n.d.), texts recording the measurement of two distinct areas defined as vineyards of respectively 3,200 s a r (115,200 m2 ) and 2,725 s a r (98,100 m2 ). Generally, in vineyards it seems that more space was left to uncultivated areas. This tendency might be explained by the presence of certain species of trees which do not present the same level of tolerance to soil salinization as the date palm does. 46 The exact type of tree has not yet been identified, usually designated as ‘mulberry’. See Powell 1987b, 148; Postgate, 1987, 119-120. 47 According to Heimpel, this is to be identified as a type of willow growing along the canal banks, but which was also intentionally cultivated (Heimpel 2011b, 125-126). 48 Type of tree identified as hackberry, cultivated in the south of Iraq particularly for its wood (Powell 2003, 17). As noted by Heimpel, this type of tree produces edible berries, which, however, are attested only in literary compositions. (Heimpel 2011b, 130-131). 49 Heimpel 2011b, 135; see also Stol 2013, 731. 50 As will be seen further below, texts from the province recording both the measurements of gardens (ĝ e š k i r i 6 g i d 2 d a ) and counting of trees (ĝ e š š i d - d a ) provide information on the types of plants present in a given garden, but not their distribution within the same. The subdivision of the described plots in parcels according to the responsible gardener, however, could represent a hint at the distribution of trees in a given plot. 51 See Englund 2010, 108-109. A text from Umma, Nisaba 11, 27 (n.d.), provides more details on the composition of an area within the responsibility of a garden administrator (s a n t a n a ) and thus, from an administrative point of view, definable as garden area. According to the text, pines recur either as a monoculture within a plot, among the roots of date palms (ĝ e š ĝ e š n i m b a r u r 2 - b a ĝ e š u 3 - s u h 5 ) , or together with fruit trees (ĝ e š u 3 - s u h 5 ĝ e š h a š h u r ) . Similar references can be found in a text from the same province, Princeton 2, 492 (ŠS 9/-), for which, see Heimpel 2011b, 136138. 45

28

I NTRODUCTION

2. The Third Dynasty of Ur: center and periphery The administration concerning the land management in southern Mesopotamia, in its differentiated forms, has produced a considerable quantity of documentation, especially during the last century of the third millennium BC at the time of the third dynasty of Ur, a period dated between ca. 2112-2004 BC. This century, indeed, represents the best-documented period in the history of Mesopotamia, offering a considerable abundance of evidence mostly pertaining to the economic and administrative sphere of the complex imperial structure directed by the capital Ur, a city in the south of the Mesopotamian alluvium.52 The core of the state consisted of the traditional regions of Akkad and Sumer, including the Diyāla Region, and was subdivided into ca. 20 provinces approximately corresponding to the territories of the Sumerian city-states of the Early Dynastic times. The provinces of the core were directed by ‘civil governors’ (e n si 2 ), appointed by the kings and had to respond in turn to the taxation system, known as b a la -system. Peripheral provinces were also committed to ‘military governors’ (ša g a n a ),53 and they were subject to another kind of taxation, known as g u 2 -u n m a -d a . Any sort of goods, from cereals to animals, reeds or wood, according to the potential of the economic production of the provinces, was channeled into particular structures controlled by the state.54 The bureaucratic-administrative development of this historical period may have already began with the founder of the dynasty, Ur-Namma,55 to flourish then with his son, Šulgi:56 this sovereign, during his 48 years reign, promulgated a long series of political, economical and social reforms.57 One of the essential aspects of the reorganization of the state enacted by Šulgi implied that temple households58 were effectively brought under state control, even if on a formal level they still belonged to local deities. Therefore, these estates remained administratively under the management of temples, which continued to play a key role as economic units. Cripps59, on the basis of a subdivision already drawn by Steinkeller,60 described the main characteristic of the Neo-Sumerian economy in three sectors; these were: 1) Temple domain: temples continued their economic activities as relative autonomous entities, even if the officials who managed them, the ša b ra and s a ĝ ĝ a, were state officials connected to the governors; 2) Royal domain: crown estates included both land tenures assigned in usufruct to royal personnel, especially to military ––––––––––––––––– 52 For an analysis of the rich Neo-Sumerian documentation, see Molina 2008, 19-53. 53 With regard to internal and external organization of the Ur III, see Steinkeller 1987a, 19-41. For minor and major settlements of the internal provinces, directly managed by the crown through exponents of the high military ranks, among them š a g a n a and NU-b a n d a 3, see Steinkeller 2011, 373-376. 54 For a detailed depiction of the taxation system connected to the internal provinces, see Sharlach 2004. 55 See Watzoldt 1991, 638. 56 With regard to the temporal distribution of the texts according to year names of the different rulers, see Molina 2008, 47-51, figures 2-6. 57 For this ruler and the policy of its long reign, see Sallaberger 2012. 58 An economy based on households (oikos), according to Pollock, became widespread during the Early Dynastic period at expenses of a tributary economy, as consequence of an increasing urbanization. Early in the third millennium, indeed, the concentration of population in villages and cities reached unprecedented proportions. Material production became more elaborated and several raw materials were imported from afar for the manufacturing of luxury goods or mundane artifacts (Pollock 1999, 117). According to the author, urbanization entailed a substantial reorganization of the economy. Firstly, the possibility to obtain produce in form of tributes from the surrounding rural areas declined, a phenomenon that consequentially caused crisis situations for that part of the urban population which based its wealth on the surplus of produce coming from the rural areas. In response, the wider and wealthier households tended to increase the employment of no-kinsmen as labor force, to produce much of what was consumed. Although kin-based households still existed, keeping also a certain economic relevance, a substantial portion of the political economy was apparently inserted in this scheme. According to Pollock, indeed, “what emerged was a complex web of economically interdependent units whose members frequently had connections and obligations with more than one household” (Pollock, ibid.). Garfinkle stressed that in the type of household economy (renamed by him as e2-conomy), this change, though radical, was neither uniform nor all-embracing, since not everybody worked or lived in an oikos (Garfinkle, 2008). 59 Cripps 2007, 16-19. 60 Steinkeller 1987a, 27; Steinkeller 2004, 92.

29

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

officers in return for service, and manufactory industries, herds, flocks, etc.; 3) Private sector:61 the existence of private activity was an extension of the other side of the state economy. Moreover, Šulgi, as his 39th year name attests, was responsible for the foundation of PuzrišDagān, an important center devoted to the management of herds and flocks and source of some ten thousands of documents. Allred,62 in his study on the production units represented by kitchens (e 2 -m u h a ld im ), noted that the complex administrative machinery may be seen as a direct and logical response to the geo-political situation, which was derived from the reforms of the second half of the reign of Šulgi. However, Garfinkle,63 in regards to the idea of a highly centralized state, emphasized that the term ‘bureaucratic’ referring to the Ur III State is not completely justified. The author affirmed that the centralization of the economic and social control clearly represented one of the main purposes of the Ur III dynasty,64 though this purpose was never actually accomplished, in spite of the imposition of rational bureaucratic state. Therefore, according to the author, the Neo-Sumerian state should be seen as an attempt to expand centralized control of the Mesopotamian society, and the centralization itself should be seen as the will of the crown to represent the gravitational center of the resources of the entire state. For this purpose, the Ur III kings entrusted the local power networks with the responsibility for controlling what lay beyond immediate royal control. However, the persistence of local élites at the top position of the governorship suggests forms of autonomies, hardly quantifiable on the political level as merely the choices of the crown. It should be noted, in any case, that the persistence of local calendars, despite the creation of a royal calendar, could also be seen as evidence of a certain autonomy of the provinces. 3. Land management Regardless of the aims pursued by the state administration, from the perspective of land management particular attention was paid by the kings to evermore sophisticated irrigation works, on the one hand, and on the other to the attempt at keeping the agricultural landscape under their control. It represented an understandable attitude for a region that owed its wealth and prosperity to the agricultural crops. According to Pettinato, 80% of arable lands were directly managed by the temple households (a ša 5 g u 4 ), while the remaining 20% was subdivided in unequal parts between prebend fields (šu k u ) and leased out fields (a p in -la 2 ).65 Mesopotamian documentation shows that already in the proto-historic period of Djemdet Nasr land was principally kept by temple and perhaps palace households, namely the central institutions of the later city-states. The apparent monopolization of the rural landscape operated by the central institutions was present in the whole Sumerian period until the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur.66 Arable lands kept by temple and palace were directly worked by the respective institutions through the permanent employment of working personnel receiving allotments and, additionally, personnel were occasionally employed under corvée. The conscripted workers received plots that would have supported their own households, besides the payments they received during their periods of employment.67 In Pre-Sargonic Lagaš the personnel of ––––––––––––––––– On the discussion about the existence of a private economy during the Neo-Sumerian period, see e.g. Steinkeller 2004, 91-135; van Driel 1998, 19-49; van Driel 2000, 5-23. 62 Allred 2006, 8. 63 Garfinkle 2008, 60-61. 64 Nevertheless, it was not a commonly shared opinion among the scholars; the author, who more than any other emphasized the centralizing nature of the Ur III state, is surely Diakonoff. Indeed, he described Ur III as a state completely subjugated to a despotic bureaucracy, under the supervision of which, the ĝ u r u š were constantly forced to work, and he defined it as one of the worst totalitarian systems known to history (see Diakonoff 1971, 20). 65 Pettinato 1999, 104-106. With regard to the subdivision of the arable lands, see also Maekawa 1999, 66-75. Maekawa compared the expression n i ĝ 2 - ĝ a l 2 - l a to a p i n - l a 2 , as far the leased plots it concerns. 66 Cripps 2007, 5. In his work, Cripps analyzed different forms of land tenure, as well as sale contracts regarding fields for the periods preceding Ur III. 67 Cripps 2007, 23-29. 61

30

I NTRODUCTION

institutional households was subdivided into two groups: ‘those who have received prebends’ (lu 2 šu k u d a b 5 -b a ), and ‘those who have received monthly (allotments)’ (lu 2 iti-d a ) or ‘those who did not have received prebends’ (lu 2 šu k u n u -d a b 5 -b a ).68 The first group, consisting solely of men, relied on plots as a form of subsistence beyond the allotments of barley, whilst the second group, to which belonged men, women and children, depended for its own subsistence exclusively from the monthly payments. As an example of this subdivision of the working personnel, Maekawa69 examined the issue of garden management during the Pre-Sargonic Period. Here, the garden workers (d u 3 -a -k u 5 and ig i-n u -d u 8 ), who received monthly allotments, acted under the control of a gardener (n u -k iri 6 ),70 who, in contrast, also received a prebend plot.71 Generally, it seems that cult officials and royal dependents72 would receive both payments and prebend fields, lands that most likely remained their property permanently. Indeed, at the beginning those who benefitted from prebend plots as compensation for the labor performed as corvée obligation, most likely had to give back the plot to the institution which had granted its usufruct at the moment in which they were no longer able to serve the corvée, a moment which probably coincided with their death. However, it is likely that these provisional properties became part of the private households and hence inheritable, even though the ‘formal owner’ likely continued to share in the possession of the property.73 It is also likely that those benefitting from subsistence fields also occupied a place at the head of their respective households, as it cannot be excluded that once the lands became inheritable, these prebenders could have gone from a situation of inconsistent employment and dependence on what subsistence they received, to that of privileged professionals figures at the top of society.74 Therefore, the reforms promulgated by Šulgi were probably intended to ensure that the management of pre-existing households would remain under royal control, first of all the temple households, but they had to face a situation where the local élite played a key role. As a response to this situation, the Ur III rulers maintained the power of the local élites at a local level or replaced the higher ranks through the appointing of officials by royal imposition. Nevertheless, the existence of cadastral texts during the all Neo-Sumerian period represents a clear evidence of the absorption of the rural landscape in an agricultural economy directed by the central bureaucracy.75 Further, the use itself of fixed parameters, bound to the calculation of arable surfaces and their management, also points in this direction. Indeed, the Neo-Sumerian administration availed itself of the use of a base agricultural unit, corresponding to approximately 1.30 km2, 20 b u r 3 (360 ik u ), each of which was divided into two halves, one left fallow for a given year, the other cultivated by a farmer together with three persons responsible for driving the oxen and one group of animals used for plowing, and hence ––––––––––––––––– 68 Maekawa 1987a, 49-71.On the same topic, see also Prentice 2010, 90-95. 69 Maekawa 1987a. With regard to the garden workers of the Pre-Sargonic Lagaš , see Prentice 2010, 22-26. 70 With the term n u - k i r i 6 the author intended n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 , since in the documentation he referred to, the semantic determinative ĝ e š does not occur. Actually, the omission of the semantic determinative before k i r i 6 ( SAR) can be observed in several documents of the Ur III period, suggesting that this old feature was partially kept. 71 Noteworthy is that for the Neo-Sumerian period there seems to be no textual evidence suggesting that the gardeners (n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 ) received prebend plots, in contrast to the garden administrators (s a n t a n a ) . The types of payment for the gardeners, as well as those for the garden administrators, will be further analyzed in § 1.6.8 and § 1.8.9. 72 For the professionals benefitting from those forms of distribution, see Waetzoldt 1987a, 117-141. 73 Cripps 2007, 24-25. 74 Cripps 2007, ibid. 75 The ‘Cadastre text’ composed by the first king of the dynasty, Ur-Namma, had political purposes and indeed it describes the boundaries of the new kingdom; see Frayne 1997, 50-60; Sallaberger 1999b, 190. As far as the agricultural sphere was concerned, there are, for example, the Runde Tafeln which consist of a corpus of 78 texts recording land surveys of the Ĝirsu province, dated between Š 42 and IS 2 (Pettinato 1969). According to Maekawa, this type of texts may correspond to a program established by Šulgi, according to which surveys of the public lands should be carried out at a regular interval of years, likely at the beginning of the agricultural season (Maekawa 1999, 66).

31

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

these groups are referred to as personnel of plow or bull76 (ĝ iri 3 -se 3 -g a a p in /g u 4 ). The territory of the Ĝirsu province was subdivided into 600 agricultural units77 and, in terms of agricultural units, the households78 appeared highly differentiated; furthermore, the number of units per household was susceptible to changes over time.79 3.1. Presence of gardens in the Ĝirsu province As was shown in 1.1 with regard to the composition of plots defined as garden land, in an area that can be nearly compared to a district, there were ca. 153 iku (0.55 km2) of surfaces cultivated as garden land. Information about the presence and the extent80 of garden areas within the rural landscape is then provided by texts pertaining to the description of the lands in terms of agricultural units. A comparison of two texts, ASJ 17, 229 118 (Š 31/-) and TUT 12 (l.d.), suggests that the distribution of garden areas within the rural landscape of the province was not homogenous and that, in fact, depending on the area considered, the dimensions of the surfaces dedicated to gardens could differ significantly. ASJ 17, 229 118 (Š 31/-) records the land survey81 of an area consisting of 100 base agricultural units (a š a 5 g id 2 -d a ĝ iri 3 -se 3 -g a g u 4 -a p in 1 0 0 -k a m ; 36,000 iku/130 km2), that is 1/6 of the estimated area which could be cultivated in the entire province of Ĝirsu.82 Within the described area, the garden surface covers 120 ½ iku (v. iii, 13: 6.2.0 ½ ik u ĝ e š k iri 6 ), that is, 1/300 of the whole area, whereby the urban surface occupies 278 ¾ ik u (v. iii, 12: 15.2.2 ½ ¼ ik u iri), that is, ca. 1/120 of the whole area and two times as large as that occupied by gardens. Other types of plots, which were neither fields nor gardens, are indicated with the term SAR.SAR,83 which seems to cover a surface of 25 ½ iku (v. iii, 14: 1.1.1 ½ SAR.SAR), that is less than ¼ as large as

––––––––––––––––– On this topic, see Maekawa 1987a, 97; Maekawa 1999, 65-67; Heimpel 1995, 74. 77 Maekawa supposed that 480 units pertained to the local public institutions, while the remaining 120 were reserved for the use of the royal crown of Ur. The tripartite management of lands observed by Pettinato is reflected then within the subdivision of the rural landscape in agricultural units, according to which, approximately six of every ten agricultural units were directly managed by the temple households ( a š a 5 g u 4 ) , while the remaining four were divided between prebend ( š u k u ) and leased out ( a p i n - l a 2 / n i ĝ 2 - ĝ a l 2 - l a ) fields. On this topic, see Maekawa 1987b, 96-99 and Maekawa 1999, 65-75. In the latter work, the author noted that, in fact, the situation changed over time and that only a small number of lands seems to have exhibited this kind of subdivision, noting that the fields including parcels of land to be rented out or given as prebends were usually situated near dwelling quarters (Maekawa ibid. 67). 78 For the subdivision of agricultural units per household, see Maekawa 1999, 67-75 with previous literature. On the basis of the information provided by TUT 5 (Š 47/-), this scholar analyzed the subdivision of 420 agricultural units by different households, the most important of which were under the control of members of the family of the local governor (Maekawa 1996b, 171-179). With regard to this text, see also Heimpel 1995, 74. 79 See Maekawa 1987b, 97 and Heimpel 1995, 77-78. 80 In contrast to fields, whose composition are described in detail, the areas concerning gardens are indicated in only one entry providing a summary of its extent, as is true for the urban surfaces, apparently because this was the only information of some interest for the administration which produced these documents. 81 Maekawa indicated several texts recording land surveys conducted by order of the ruler, and dating back to the years Š 28, Š 31 and Š 36. Inim-Šara, who is defined as ‘land surveyor of the king’ ( s a ĝ - d u 5 ) , occurs as the responsible official ( ĝ i r i 3 ) in these texts, whereas the administrator ( s a ĝ ĝ a ) of NinMAR.KI occurs as the supervisor in ASJ 17, 229 118 (Maekawa 1995, 196-197; 1997b, 114-116). For further texts mentioned in this study, which record land surveys ordered by the ruler, see § 4.1. 82 Heimpel 1995, 74. 83 For this designation of land, see Volk 1995, 173. This author interpreted the expression SAR.SAR as m u 2 - s a r (musarû), ‘Gartenbeet’, a kind of plot which was different from ‘greenery plots’, k i - n i s i g x ( SAR) , and ‘gardens’, ĝeš k i r i 6 . One must not exclude that the differentiation of this text aimed at distinguishing palm groves ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ) from orchards, or even from irrigation inlet-lands ( k a - a - DU) , by using in this case a different terminology; as seen above, k a - a - DU is a designation which occurs especially in texts from the Ĝirsu province and sporadically in texts from Umma. In any case, considering both areas in a same calculation, we would obtain 146 iku (525,600 m2), hence consistent with the data (550,800 m2) reported in WMAH 279; see above 1.1. 76

32

I NTRODUCTION

the surface dedicated to gardens and less than 1/10 as large as the urban surface. According to Vanderrost,84 the area described by the text can be identified with the district of Gu’aba. Garden areas ĝiri3-se3-ga gu4-apin 100-kam

SAR.SAR-areas 2

Urban areas 2

120 ½ iku (0.43 km ) 25 ½ iku (0.09 km )

278 ¾ iku (1 km2)

The colophon of TUT 12 is illegible, but the text amounts to a document recording land survey, largely similar to ASJ 17, 229 118, with the difference that it presumably describes a smaller area. To the center of Kimadasala, a settlement of the Ĝirsu district,85 are attributed 95 ik u of urban surface (o. i, 15: 5.0.5 ik u iri K i-m a -d a -sa l 4 -la k i ), to be compared with the sum indicated elsewhere in the text, presumably the total,86 which lists 188 ¼ iku of urban surface (r. ii', 6: 10.1.2 ¼ iku iri) and 9 ik u of surface cultivated as gardens (r. ii', 5: 0.1.3 ik u ĝ e š k iri 6 ), thus in this case 1/20 as large as the urban surface. However, the area considered in this text presumably includes at least two urban centers. Garden areas

95 iku (0.34 km2)

Kimadasala Unspecified

Urban areas

9 iku (0.03 km2)

188 ¼ iku (0.68 km2)

In the Neo-Sumerian period, the individual provinces maintained a strong identity bound to their own secular traditions as independent states, a tendency which emerges from the same administrative documentation, where texts from various provinces present differences not only in the ductus, in the choice of lexical and administrative terms, etc., but also in management procedures. Obviously, when the provincial administration was in contact with the capital Ur, the parameters imposed by the central bureaucracy were followed, as shown by the case above. The following section attempts to offer a brief overview of the Ĝirsu province, in order to illustrate the context that produced the sources used in this study. 4. The Ĝirsu province The Ĝirsu province was situated along the southeastern border of the Neo-Sumerian empire and was most likely the widest87 of the internal provinces, and, thanks to its strategic position, it was considered the gateway to the East. In the Neo-Sumerian period, the province was subdivided into three main districts: Ĝirsu, Gu-Iniĝinšedu, and Gu’aba.

––––––––––––––––– 84 Vanderroost 2008, 130. The same author stated that the surfaces of the province of Umma likely equaled about one fifth of that of Ĝirsu (Vanderroost, ibid. 132). 85 Kimadasala was a minor center of the Ĝirsu district (Notizia 2009, 15). For the toponyms of the provinces of Umma and Ĝirsu including the element - s a l 4 - l a , see Sauren 1966, 158. For the garden named after this center, see § 2.9.3. 86 Assumption based on the comparison with ASJ 17, 229 118; both ASJ 17, 229 118 and TUT 12 contain a section devoted to the lands given as prebends to several officials, in the case of TUT 12 also including the garden administrators; see § 1.8.9. 87 Sharlach 2004, 61-66. According to the author, the importance and geographical extent of this province is somehow reflected in the b a l a - system. Indeed, this province alone covered about the 25% of the whole system, likely on the basis of its size and prosperity, thus representing one of the richest provinces of the state. Steinkeller, discussing the possibility of reconstructing the countryside of the province of Umma, noted the difficulties that instead can be found in reconstructing the countryside of the neighboring province of Ĝirsu, and stated: “[...] However, a reconstruction of the border and total land area of Ĝirsu/Lagash is impossible, primarily because of the fact that there is no way of determining how far is extended to North and East - not to mention that its written sources do not contain even remotely comparable information on the countryside” (see Steinkeller 2007, 186).

33

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Figure 6. The Ĝirsu province in the Neo-Sumerian Period, from R. de Maaijer 1998, 64.88

Ĝirsu was the name of the district hosting the homonymous urban center, the largest and also best-documented of the province, around which smaller centers gravitated, such as Kisura and Kimadasala; Gu-Iniĝinšedu, also referred to in the texts as Kinunir-Niĝin,89 designated the territory which extended along the banks of the ‘canal flowing toward Niĝin’, comprising a series of minor and major centers, among them Lagaš, Niĝin, Alšana, Kinunir, Ki’esa; and finally Gu’aba, the district close to the sea, composed of the two main centers of Gu’aba and the old (g u -la ) Gu’aba.90 In the territory of the province there were two palaces, one at Ĝirsu and the other at Gu’aba, designated as the ‘new palace’ (e 2 -g a l g ib il).91 In this period, Ĝirsu became the more common designation at the expense of Lagaš, and identified the city as well as the district and the province for administration above the regional level, while Lagaš remained the traditional and local designation for the city as well as the province.92 As stated by Bauer,93 already in the Pre-Sargonic Period the state of Lagaš comprised three main urban centers, among them Ĝirsu, which at this time was already the seat of the central government. For this period, a series of activities have been attributed to Ur-Nanše, commonly considered to be the founder of the First Dynasty of Lagaš: the installation of a system of canals, as well as the respective economic units associated with it; new constructions for cultic purposes, for which the district of Ĝirsu was adorned with monumental works and became the base for ––––––––––––––––– This map clearly highlights the district subdivision of the province and the succession of the most important centers alongside the course of the main canal known as Ĝirsu/Niĝinšedu canal. With regard to the issues inherent the course of the Tigris and the extension of the gulf, see now Steinkeller 2001. 89 See Waetzoldt 1997. The different denominations are due, according to the author, to a chronological factor: KinunirNiĝin between Š 43 and AS 9, Gu-Iniĝinšedu between Š 40 and IS 3. This implies that for 14 years both the denominations coexisted, while starting from the Šu-Suen’s reign only the second one was still in use. 90 See de Maaijer 1998, 61. 91 See de Maaijer ibid. 53. 92 See de Maaijer ibid. 93 Bauer 1998, 438. The author emphasized the difficulties in establishing exactly when Ĝirsu became the governor’s residence. The composite nature of Lagaš in the Early Dynastic period is however attested in a lexical text from Ebla, MEE 3, 44, which lists a series of Mesopotamian cities, ending with Elam, Dilmun and Susa. In this list, the entry referring to Lagaš specifies - k u l - , probably intended as a Semitic term alluding to a totality, thus betraying the polycentric nature of Lagaš, which at the same time was felt to be a single unit (Pettinato 2003, 43). 88

34

I NTRODUCTION

subsequent extensive building activities essentially attributable to the Second Dynasty of Lagaš. According to Maekawa,94 the rulers of the First Dynasty are likely to have developed a particular theocratic concept, according to which the ruler and his family were in charge on behalf of the city god and guardians of his properties, as evidenced by the spirit pervading the reforms enacted during the reign of URUKAgina, last ruler of this dynasty.95 In his reforms indeed he claims to have made Ninĝirsu master of the house and of the fields of the governor, BaU, consort of the city god Ninĝirsu, mistress of the house and of the fields of the governor’s wife, and Šulsaga, son of the divine couple, master of the house and of the fields of the governor’ sons.96 Further, Gregoire97 suggested that the assets of Šulsaga (and of URUKAgina’s sons) may have pertained to the temple of NinMAR.KI in the Gu'aba district. This situation seems to have persisted in the NeoSumerian Ĝirsu, where, during the governorship of Ur-Lamma, one of the governor’s sons, UrBaU, was the administrator (sa ĝ ĝ a ) of NinMAR.KI’s temple, while Geme-Lamma, perhaps the governor’s wife, was the high priestess (e re š-d iĝ ir) of the goddess BaU.98 It thus seems possible that in the same province at the end of third millennium the distribution of offices of power was based on an ancient tradition, dating back to URUKAgina. During the end of URUKAgina’s reign, Lagaš lost its independence after being conquered by Lugal-zagesi of Umma, who took possession of the sea routes of the Persian Gulf and established his capital in Uruk. During the subsequent Sargonic period, the Lagaš province became part of the empire and, according to Foster,99 it was in this period that Ĝirsu developed as the most important administrative center of the region. From the victory stele of one of the kings of Akkad100 we know that in this period the province reached 1,600 km2 (444,505 ¼ iku) and embraced at least 17 urban centers (iri sa ĝ ), of which the most relevant and best documented were Ĝirsu and Niĝin, and eight minor centers (m a š-g a -n a sa ĝ ).101 After the fall of Akkad, as well as during the Gutean interregnum, the names of some kings are attested for the Lagašite territory, although the sources start again to be descriptive with Ur-BaU, founder of the Second Dynasty of Lagaš. This ruler devoted a part of his reign to the reconstruction of the shrines of the different centers.102 However, under this dynasty,103 especially during the reign of one of its rulers, Gudea, the state of Lagaš reached a high level of wealth and prosperity.104

––––––––––––––––– 94 Maekawa 1973/74, 130-131 and 136-139. 95 For the economic consolidation by the reforms of URUKAgina, see e.g. Hruška 1973, 4-13 and 104-132. 96 See Maekawa 1973/74. 97 Gregoire 1962, 24. 98 In this regard, see Maekawa 1996b, 171-179; Steinkeller 1999b, 120-124. In particular Maekawa noted that in the Mesopotamian world the wives of the governors lacked any particular relevance, except in Lagaš, where seals of high officials bearing her name are attested, a kind of privilege normally limited to the governors. This scholar also emphasized the secular character of the high priestess and affirmed that, in the Neo-Sumerian period, the household of this priestess could be identified as the temple of BaU. 99 Foster 1993, 25-39. 100 Grégoire 1962, 29, with previous literature. 101 According to Steinkeller for the third millennium it is possible to draft a list of about 160 hamlets for the Ĝirsu province, solely on the basis of the principal editions of texts, while the actual number can be higher (Steinkeller 2007, 195). As stressed by van Driel, the majority of the small settlements, also those occupied for short periods, have hardly left evident traces that can be detected by archaeological surveys (see van Driel 2001, 111-112). 102 Grégoire 1962, 31-32. 103 The internal chronology of this dynasty is still uncertain, as well as the succession lines. The most accredited proposal is that advanced by Sallaberger (Sallaberger 2005b, 15-43). On this topic, see also Michalowski 2013, 177181. 104 Grégoire 1962, 44. According to the author, it can be inferred, the state of Lagaš can be understood as having maintained a monopoly over the Persian Gulf, a privilege that continued even during the reign of Utu-heĝal of Uruk, thanks to the alliance between Lagaš and Uruk against Ur. This situation came to an end with the rise of Ur-Namma, founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur, who diverted traffic to his capital.

35

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

At the end of the third millennium, in a relatively brief lapse of time, there was a notable demographic increase and, as noted by Steinkeller,105 if URUKAgina claimed to have been chosen among a population of 36,000 inhabitants, 150 years later Gudea affirmed to have been chosen among a population of 216,000. According to the same author, the demographic peak was then reached in Neo-Sumerian times.106 The annexation of the state of Lagaš as a province of the Neo-Sumerian empire occurred during the governorship of Namhani who was contemporary of Ur-Namma107 and indeed the name of Namhani, governor of Lagaš, features in the prologue of the law code of Ur-Namma. The oldest administrative texts of Neo-Sumerian Ĝirsu date back to the reign of Ur-Namma,108 while the last attestation seems to date to the years 5 or 7-8 of the reign of Ibbi-Suen.109 The first governor of the province to be attested is Lu-girizal who was in charge from the 28th to the 32nd year of reign of Šulgi. From the 33rd year of reign of the same ruler, the governorship of the province was in the hands of Ur-Lamma until the third year of Amar-Suena, except for a period between the years 38 and 41 of Šulgi’s reign, when Alla was the governor.110 Officially during the third year of the reign of Amar-Suena, Ur-Lamma lost his office and was replaced by Nannazišagal, a high official of the king (z a b a r-d a b 5 ), subsequently by Šarakam, both directly appointed by the ruler.111 The sons of Ur-Lamma, who at the time of their father’s governorship controlled the management of the four major temples of the province, disappear from the documentation.112 Five years after the dismissal of Ur-Lamma, the governor’s office was entrusted to Urdu-Nanna, ‘grand vizier’ (su k k a l-m a h ), who remained in charge during the reigns of the last three rulers, to whom he was probably related.113 The territory of Ĝirsu fell under his control, as well as a series of northern and eastern peripheral territories.114 Shortly before the end of the dynasty the documentation ceases,115 only to reappear when Lagaš was under the control of Old-Babylonian Larsa. 5. The gardens and their crops. Status quaestionis The rural landscape of southern Mesopotamia was amply treated by Pettinato in the two volumes Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Landwirtschaft of 1967, where this scholar meticulously provides a list of fields present in the territory during the Third Dynasty of Ur and by collecting for each the relevant information: size, presence of watercourses or storehouses, and types of cultivation. Two years later, the same author published, in Texte zur Verwaltung der Landwirtschaft in der Ur III-Zeit, a collection of cadastral texts from Ĝirsu, called after their ––––––––––––––––– See Steinkeller 2007, 195. This scholar followed Edzard (1997, 32) and Adams (1981, 143), who also argued that the demographic increase is reflected as well in the size of settlement. 106 Steinkeller, 2007, 195. 107 There is little information on the rise to power of Ur-Namma. According to Wilcke, Ur-Namma, son or brother of Utu-hegal, started as general at Ur and, at the Utu-hegal’s death, took control, by either succession or conquest, of the southern alluvium (Wilcke 1972). With regard to the overlapping of the end of the Second Dynasty of Lagaš and the beginning of the Third Dynasty of Ur, see Michalowski 2013, 177-185, with preavious bibliography. 108 The succession of the year names of Ur-Namma is not yet established (Waetzoldt 1990b). 109 Sallaberger 1999b, 174-178. This scholar noted the lack of texts from Ĝirsu dated after the 5th year of reign of Ibbi-Suen and put foreward some suppositions about the fate of this province and its inhabitants. As stressed by de Maaijer, Ur still received barley for troops from that province during the years IS 7 and 8. This implies that the region was briefly still in contact with the capital during that period, characterized by a serious political situation (de Maaijer 1998). 110 Maekawa 1996b. 111 See de Maaijer, ibid. 53. 112 In this regard, see Meakawa 1996b, 175-179. The gardens pertaining to the family of the governor Ur-Lamma will be treated in § 2.10. 113 For a more detailed discussion on this official and his presumed connection with the royal family, see Dahl 2007, 2224. The gardens of the ‘grand vizier’ are analyzed further below, § 5.3. 114 See Steinkeller 1987a, 26; Steible 1991, 265-268; Adams and Nissen 1972, 48. 115 On the alleged existence of further independent rulers of Ĝirsu, see Heimpel 1981, 103, Frayne 1997, 428-432. For Ĝirsu in the immediate post-Ur III and Old-Babylonian times, see Richardson 2008, 153-157. 105

36

I NTRODUCTION

format Runde Tafeln, in which the agricultural land of the province was described in detail. In these texts, however, there is no mention of gardens.116 From 1981 to 1993 Maekawa devoted nine contributions to the Neo-Sumerian texts from Lagaš related to the sphere of agriculture, “The Agricultural Texts of Ur III Lagaš of the British Museum”, with a specific focus on the cultivation of the fields. Civil in 1994 offered the definitive edition of a fundamental text for the Sumerian agriculture, named by him The Farmer’s Instructions. A Sumerian Agricultural Manual: aside from the philological and textual commentary, the author provided a wide and detailed analysis of themes concerning the territory and its crops, to which he added a section devoted to the Neo-Sumerian survey texts based on the documentation housed in the Oriental Institute. The role of the date palm within the Babylonian economy has been the subject of study since the early years of Assyriology,117 but it was only in 1967 that the first general study on this species based on the Mesopotamian sources appeared with Landsberger’s The Date Palm and its By-products according to the Cuneiform Sources (AfO Beih. 17). In this study the author provided a detailed survey of the documentation concerning this plant, both on the level of the lexical tradition, by analyzing the terminology related to the palm and its by-products in each phase of their growing, and to a minor extent, on the economic level, providing a general picture for a span of time occurring between the Akkadian and the Old-Babylonian periods. The investigation of the agricultural sphere of the ancient Near East became, in the course of time, a main topic of the historical and economical studies (rural landscape, crop types, technical competences), as the constitution at Cambridge of the Sumerian Agriculture Group proves. The results of this group, created by Postgate and Powell, were published in the Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture (BSA), whose last number dates to 1995. The third volume of BSA, 1987, concerns the study of crops mostly tied to gardens, a volume where Postgate devoted the first section of his contribution, “Notes on Fruits in the Cuneiform Sources”, to the evidence of the third millennium, with particular attention to the issues tied to the identification of the vegetable types. The sixth volume published in 1992 was focused on the tree types present in Mesopotamia. In this volume Powell, in “Timber Production in Presargonic Lagaš”, underlined how most of the tree names had already been clarified by Deimel in 1925 and noted how the textual evidence suggests the existence of a systematic arboriculture of both fruit trees and timber trees in large gardens (ĝ e š k iri 6 ). Subsequently, in 2011 Selz analyzed the timber production of the Pre-Sargonic Lagaš in his contribution “Zur Holzwirtschaft im altsumerischen Lagaš”. Also penned by Powell is the contribution “Obst und Gemüse” in RlA 10 (2003/05). In the same volume the contribution of Volk, “Palme”, offered a comprehensive overview on the date palm and its by-products and their importance in the Mesopotamian life and cultural imagery; this he accomplished by following several perspectives, lexicographic, literary, economic, etc. Already in 1995, Volk treated several aspects of this kind of crop in Inanna und Šukaletuda. Zur historisch-politischen Deutung eines sumerischen Literaturwerkes (Santag 3). In 2004, Streck, in “Dattelpalme und Tamariske in Mesopotamien nach dem akkadischen Streitgespräch” analyzed several features of these plants, following the work of Landsberger 1967 as far as it concerns the palm by-products. In 2011 Brunke, in Essen in Sumer, analyzed several types of fruits in connection with the preparation of cakes for various offerings. With regard to the Neo-Babylonian period, studies focused on the production and management of gardens were ––––––––––––––––– 116 Actually, an exception can be provided by HLC 3, 365 (AnOr 45, 238 34), where in the first line of the second column of the reverse the author proposed the integration: [ĝ e š ] k i r i 6 k a b 2 d u 1 1 - g a - n a m . Indeed, Pettinato suggested an identification between k i - n i s i g x (SAR) and ĝ e š k i r i 6 , considering that in these texts the term k i - n i s i g x (SAR) occurs 13 times. However, since they are two distinct kinds of plot, an integration as [k i ] - n i s i g x (SAR) in HLC 3, 365 cannot be disregarded. 117 Worth mentioning are the works of F. Delitzsch and B. Meissner “Supplement zu den assyrischen Wörterbüchern” (ZA 12), 1897; V. Scheil “De l’exploitation des dattiers dans l’ancienne Babylonie” (RA 10), 1913; A. Deimel “Baumwirtschaft in Altsumer” and “Die Gärten und Wälder des e2-dBau” (OrSP 16), 1925.

37

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

made by Cocquerillat, Palmeraies et cultures de l’Eanna d’Uruk (559-520) in 1968, who had already published in 1967 “Aperçus sur la Phéniculture en Babylonie à l’Epoque de la I Dynastie de Babylonie”, and by Jursa, Die Landwirtschaft in Sippar in neubabylonischer Zeit, from 1995. In 2010 Jursa treated the garden production in regards of both private and institutional contexts, in a volume edited by him Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the First Millennium BC. Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth (AOAT 377). For the third millennium, particularly for the Neo-Sumerian period, Focke will soon publish a study concerning the gardens of the alluvium. In CUSAS 6, from 2011, Heimpel published a study on species of trees cultivated in South Mesopotamia, “Twenty-Eight Trees Growing in Sumer”, in which he resumed, expanded, and updated several issues related to the agricultural landscape and to the identification of species of trees and their uses, particularly in light of the documentation from GARšana. In 2009 the same author also published a study on water drawers employed in gardens, “Blind workers in Ur III Texts”, in Kaskal 6. 6. Documentation The documentation on which the following study is based comprises texts of an administrative nature. They come mostly from Telloh, the modern name of the ancient city of Ĝirsu, since the other two sites of the province which have been excavated, al-Hiba and Surghul, the ancient Lagaš and Niĝin respectively, yielded a minimal quantity of texts, Neo-Sumerian or otherwise. The first excavations of the area of Telloh date back to the end of the 19th century (1877–1900) and were led by the vice-consul of Basra at that time, E. De Sarzec. The excavations continued between 1903 and 1909 under the French official G. Cros and, finally, in 1929-1931, under the philologist H. de Genouillac and A. Parrot, who was, at that time, the excavation assistant of de Genouillac.118 The tablets were found at Tell V, piled on benches extending from the wall, in rows and scattered on the surrounding pavement, in two series of rooms. These rooms were understood to be connected to those excavated by Cros in 1903, where two door inscriptions of Urdu-Nanna were found. These inscriptions ascribed to Urdu-Nanna the titles of grand vizier and governor of Lagaš and commemorated the construction of the house of the king Šu-Suen. This understanding of the textual evidence was based on the assumption that the texts were part of a state archive, in particular the archive of the governor of the province.119 To the official excavations numerous illegal excavations were added, which thus deprived us from knowing the original context of a large part of the texts and distributed them into several collections and museums throughout the western world, acquired from dealers in Baghdad and sold to the British Museum, the State Museums of Berlin and the Louvre, and other major and minor institutions. The discovered texts span a period of time ranging from the Pre-Sargonic to the NeoSumerian period, although the larger part of these can be attributed to the Neo-Sumerian period,120 in particular to the period between Š 44 and AS 5. Only a few of these texts were found by De Sarzec and his successors, since they mostly come from clandestine excavations.121 The estimated number of tablets found by De Sarzec in Tell V, renamed by him as Tell des tablettes, was indicated by De Sarzec himself as 30,000, of which 5,000 were in perfect condition, about the same number lightly damaged, while the rest consisted of fragments. Molina estimated 24,332 texts coming from Ĝirsu, to which another 126 can probably be attributed, constituting ––––––––––––––––– For a detailed picture of the results of the excavations at the sites of Telloh (Ĝirsu), al-Hiba (Lagaš) and Surghul (Niĝin) from an archaeological point of view, see Huh 2008. 119 In this regard, see Sallaberger 1999b, 286; de Maaijer 1998, 51; Zettler 1996, 84. This implies that this archive (as well as that of Umma) does not contain much on land and other assets directly managed by the central government of the state; on this topic see e.g. van Driel 1999/2000, 80; Steinkeller 2003, 41-42. For a recent discussion, see Steinkeller 2013. 120 See Sallaberger 1999b, 201 and 286. 121 See Jones 1975, 41-45. 118

38

I NTRODUCTION

thus about 32% of the entire Neo-Sumerian corpus so far known.122 The Neo-Sumerian documentation coming from Ĝirsu provides a wide, although not always clear, overview of the management of gardens, referring to ca. 90 different names, most of which occur rarely, or in same cases, a single time. The actual number of gardens present in the territory of the province seems, however, impossible to determine; the documentation refers to them in different ways, depending on the drafting purpose or context. Some texts, in mentioning gardens, adopt generic descriptions, such as the large or the small garden, or topographical references, such as ‘the garden opposite …’ or ‘by ...’, or even references to the main crop of the considered garden, in the cases where it is not date palm, which seems to be implied in the concept of ĝ e š k iri 6 itself. Typically more precise names, that is, those allowing the identification of the same garden over a period of time, can be found in texts concerning the yield inspections of the single gardens or in texts recording amounts of barley addressed to the gardens as payment for the workers who were employed in it. Among these fixed names are those referring to divinities, either pan-Sumerian or strictly local, or to names of shrines, settlements, and watercourses. Finally, there are also documents which associate a garden with a personal name. Already Pettinato123 highlighted the issues of fields and villages (e 2 -d u ru 5 ) bearing personal names, affirming that they were likely names of administrators and indeed testified for short periods. About the theme of the name of plots, especially gardens, during the Pre-Sargonic period, Selz124 argued that expressions such as k iri 6 d B a - U2 , ‘garden of the goddess BaU’, were equatable to expressions such as k iri 6 u 2 -ru m d B a U2, ‘garden property of the goddess BaU’, a meaning that in a wide sense could be extended to the workers, n u -k iri 6 d B a - U2 -k e 4 -n e . Conversely, in the expression k iri 6 PN the personal name does not refer to the owner, but to the name of the official or worker active in that particular garden. In contrast, Renger125 argued that personal names in relation to plots should be understood as referring to the beneficiaries of prebends, eminent persons related to the clan of the governor or king, cult or state officials at the head of ‘private’ households (Eigenhaushalte), which, however, were tied to the exercise of an office and not inheritable.126 According to the author, in fact, mentions of the names of the persons responsible for the relevant plots were not among the intentions of the scribes. However, the possible ownership of gardens, according to Steinkeller,127 was facilitated by the peculiarities of this type of cultivation, which, unlike that of the fields, could be managed on a reduced scale and pursued by individual families. In this regard, Sauren128 also affirmed that gardens belonged mostly to private individuals, though it cannot be established whether it was a form of possession or rent. However, it seems plausible that, depending on individual cases, the personal names connected with the gardens could refer either to the responsible officials or workers (regardless of their connection to the plots) as well as to the officials after whose names was indicated the household where the garden in question was situated. The mention of the responsible worker in connection with a garden plot is a tendency noticed more often in delimited redactional contexts, as is the case of documents written within a given household and concerning the plots of the household itself.129 In contrast, garden plots connected with personal names, after which fields and villages can also be named, occur in several kinds of documents. Typically, personal names associated with gardens, for which however neither homonymous fields nor villages are attested, ––––––––––––––––– 122 Molina 2008. After the update to BDTNS in October of 2013, the number of documents that can be attributed to the province amounts to about 26,683 texts. 123 Pettinato 1967, 20. 124 Selz 1995, 45-46. 125 Renger 2005, 144. On the existence of rural estates created to benefit the royal family and high state officials, see Steinkeller 2013, 357-358. However, not necessarily these estates bore the name of the relevant official. 126 On this topic, see the discussion above in 3. Land management. 127 Steinkeller 1999a, 303-304. 128 Sauren 1966, 88. 129 See e.g. the ‘garden of Azam’ (§ 4.4.1), ‘the garden of Ur-eninnu the gardener’ (§ 5.2.4).

39

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

do not correspond to the names of the gardeners in charge of them.130 Further, the same garden may refer to a personal name in a given period and to another years later,131 or still some gardens may bear names of officials who were already inactive at the time of the draft.132 The administrative documentation provides a large amount of information pertaining to this agricultural reality and concerning particularly the activities of garden workers, from the actual managers, the s a n ta n a, to the specialists, generically referred to as n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 , to the hiring of unspecialized labor, also found in texts regarding other economic sectors. This study, which tried to outline the management framework of the gardens, has often had to cope with a documentation less than explicit; the information offered by the texts is that considered necessary by the scribes and it made sense within the redactional and archivial context.133 This is the reason why many documents do not mention the profession of the officials they quoted, as they refer to a reality that would have been clear to the scribes or to the institution which committed the operations, but which is incomprehensible to us. Consequently, of course, we can get more information when that information was necessary to the administration itself. For example, there are texts which at first glance do not provide useful information to understand the system, since they merely outline lists of names and do not specify the professions and titles of the involved personnel, a kind of information which was likely considered to be known or superfluous to the redactional context; hence the names listed in these texts appear differentiated solely by function or by short administrative designations.134 Therefore, this study tried to isolate the administrative functions inherent to the competences of the different categories of workers or officials within the garden management, through a prosopographic investigation which has attempted to trace the managerial dynamics of gardens in relation to production and labor. Thus, it seemed possible to outline the managerial landscape of gardens, highlighting the points of interaction of the officials at the top of the different economic sectors of the province, the mediatory role of the middle-level officials within the garden sector, and, finally, the role of the actual workers, among whom specialized personnel and occasionally hired workers can be distinguished. As further obstacle to the understanding of the dynamics and the actual situation illustrated by the texts, there is, obviously, the condition of the tablets and the randomness of the findings, which provide a partial and incomplete view of a reality that, despite this, must have been meticulously monitored by the central administration. It should also be recognized that, based on the specificity of the recorded procedures, single documents, deprived of their context, can only offer a partial view of the actual situation. Thus, from a complex reality, only what was deemed of interest to the recorded procedures was reported. Typologically, the documents used in this study can be subdivided into various categories: - Texts concerning land surveys, the purpose of which was to measure out and to examine the territory for the state cadaster (but also in order to plan the works on them) and which report the presence of gardens; these texts quote gardens according to their location, providing additional indications on the context in which they were located. To this category can be added that of texts recording surveys of the gardens themselves, which provide details on the surfaces, the types of cultivation involved, and which list the responsible ––––––––––––––––– See e.g. the ‘garden of Lu-duga’, which was maintained by the gardener E-hili (§ 2.2.16). 131 See the case of the ‘garden of Lala in the field of E-igi-il’ in Š 28 (§ 7.1.1) and the ‘garden of Uz of E-igi-il’ attested in AS 4 (§ 2.5.5). 132 See e.g. the ‘garden of Lu-Ninĝirsu the archivist’ (§ 2.2.18). 133 Information necessary to complete the comprehension of the single documents was reported on the labels of the boxes where the tablets were kept ( p i s a ĝ d u b - b a ) . Typically, indeed, the titles of the professional figures of the gardens are explicitly reported when the recorded procedures are framed in broader contexts. 134 As will be seen in § 1.2.3, the use of the expression SIG7- a preceding the workers’ names allows for distinguishing the workers pertaining to the category of water drawers ( a - b a l a ) from those pertaining the category of arborists ( d u 3 a - k u 5 ) within a list of gardeners. 130

40

I NTRODUCTION

-

-

-

-

personnel. These texts refer to the gardens either through contextual descriptions of their location or through fixed names. Texts concerning the assignment of payments, monthly or multimonthly, of the skilled and unskilled personnel, employed in gardens; this type of text tends to present lists of names and respective payments, differentiating categories of workers by function and not by title or by the garden of employment. These texts should be distinguished from those also recording assignments of payments, which however focus on the transaction of the goods involved as means of payment, and thus provide more details on the responsible officials and in some cases to the gardens to which such goods are directed. Texts recording the employment of both skilled and unskilled workers in gardens; these texts more rarely provide lists of names, but distinguish the workers by category or use general terms such as ĝ u ru š (male adult worker), and rarely refer explicitly to the garden in which they were engaged. Texts recording the inspection of garden personnel, which frequently also record the assignment of payments and share certain characteristics with the second type, mentioned above. Texts concerning the inspections of the yield productivity of the gardens and texts recording the production of the gardens; these texts offer the most information on garden names, the types of involved cultivation and the names of the responsible workers and officials, differentiated, however, by function and not by title. Texts recording deliveries of goods to the central administration, mostly provincial, either through the palace or through the centers of redistribution; or texts recording the deliveries of garden products by the gardens’ administrators. These are both the best attested and most varied sources, ranging from transactions of fruits addressed to the cult or to the taxation system, to transactions of silver and barley as payment of the rental fees. However, in these texts there is hardly any mention of gardens.

The Ĝirsu documentation provides further information on the reality of gardens, both from a commercial and legal point of view. Several texts, such as sale documents135 or legal records,136 have not been analyzed in the present study, which has been essentially based on the administrative documentation and focused on the managerial dynamics of the gardens in relation to the central administration. Texts recording transactions of fruits without an evident connection with the gardens or their personnel were also excluded from this study. Conversely, the ensuing prosopographical analysis has brought together those texts, which, even without mention of the key expressions connected to the garden administration, involve the garden personnel and were deemed to have plausible relevance. 7. Structure of the present work The present work is essentially divided into three main parts: the first part is focused on the administrative roles of the relevant professionals (chapter 1); the second part is devoted to the gardens (chapters 2-8), according to a district or typological subdivision whenever possible;137 finally, the third part is reserved for the activities of the officials involved in the garden management (chapter 9). ––––––––––––––––– 135 With regard to the sales documents concerning garden plots in the Neo-Sumerian Mesopotamia, see Wilcke 1976/80, 502; Steinkeller 1989, 124-127. 136 See Falkenstein 1956/57; Molina 2000; Lafont and Westbrook 2003, 183-226; Neumann 2004, 1-24. 137 The subdivision of the gardens of the province according to districts (with the exception of those few cases in which this is explicitly indicated) follows what can be considered an administrative geography; this administrative geography is indeed reflected in what was reconstructed during this study on the basis of the areas of authority of the officials in charge. These officials indeed managed the gardens (as it will be seen) according to a parcellation of the areas within the provincial districts.

41

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

The first chapter is then dedicated to the professional figures connected to the gardens, from the unskilled workers employed therein to the specialists for cultivation, to those who held administrative responsibility in the local administration. As already noted, the sources do not always specify the professional titles of the workers and officials mentioned. Therefore, here the redactional formulas of the texts were isolated and analyzed in order to determine the relationship between performed functions and professional categories in the various types of texts of the province. The hierarchical structure of the garden management will then be presented, the most attested categories of workers and the cases representing ‘the exception to the rule’.138 The second chapter aims at circumscribing the gardens situated in the district of the provincial capital, Ĝirsu,139 by subdividing them into groups tending to mirror, whenever possible, an administrative coherence and a diachronic sequence. Additionally, at the end of the chapter, the gardens pertaining to the family of the governor Ur-Lamma are presented. Subsequently, in the third chapter the gardens related to productive or administrative complexes are considered, such as the mills or the rest stations, probably also in this case, to be attributed to the Ĝirsu district. The fourth chapter tries to collect the gardens pertaining to the Gu-Iniĝinšedu district, mainly by means of the information provided by texts recording land surveys or specifically describing gardens and vineyards, or even by texts recording the planning of works on the main watercourse of the district, the Niĝinšedu canal. In the fifth chapter the timber tree gardens are considered and the administrative dynamics concerning the contacts with the structures for processing products, mostly shipyards, are analyzed, for which the gardens represented the main supplier of raw materials. In the sixth chapter the evidence regarding a reed-bed of the province, considered at least nominally as a garden, is collected. Continuing, the seventh chapter gathers the information about the gardens of the Ĝirsu province provided by texts coming from other provinces, and vice versa. In the eighth chapter, then, the gardens which are isolated in the documentation, for which no other information can be obtained, are presented. Finally, the last chapter, the ninth, is dedicated to the activities of the individual garden administrators of the province, followed by a short overview of the activities of their principal interlocutors, namely the scribes belonging to the various economic and administrative sectors, for which the points of contact between their activities and the garden management are highlighted. At the end, the conclusions are presented, followed by a brief glossary (not meant to be exhaustive) which is comprised of the most frequent administrative terminology occurring in the context of the garden management, the garden professionals, and the principal types of garden produce and crops attested in the treated documentation. Further, a brief appendix includes a selection of texts in transliteration which aim at exemplifying dynamics described in this work. The present study has not aimed at analyzing the several issues inherent to the lexicography or the identification of the types of realia, since it intended, as already stated, to provide a reconstruction and comprehension of the administrative realities related to the gardens in NeoSumerian Ĝirsu. Hence, in the present work the investigation of vegetable species, representing the essence itself of the gardens, was ‘sacrificed’ and relegated to a secondary level. Indeed, this study has attempted to examine the hierarchy of the labor structure of the garden and the different aspects of the managerial sphere, in which this structure was included: the internal management turned to this economical cell and the external management turned to the other branches of the complex economical system of the Neo-Sumerian state. ––––––––––––––––– Some of the issues concerning the professionals involved in the garden management and their administrative roles, in particular the garden experts ( u m - m i - a ) , have already been treated in Greco 2015, 171-174. 139 A disadvantage in reconstructing the situation of the province is the fact that the sources come almost entirely from Ĝirsu, a factor that actually precludes an appreciation of the articulation of the province, which consisted, as already seen, of three main districts. An advantage, however, is provided by the fact that the three districts of the province were considered by the central administration of the state as a single unit, thus a certain amount of information regarding the other districts could be recovered. The exact location of several centers of the ancient province is still debated, see in this regard e.g. Carroué 1983, 97-112; Carroué 1986, 13-57; Heimpel 1994, 5-31; de Maaijer 1998, 50-73. 138

42

CHAPTER ONE

THE WORKING AND MANAGERIAL ORGANIZATION OF GARDENS

The working structure of gardens appears rather well articulated in the Ĝirsu documentation, including unskilled personnel occasionally employed within the agricultural year alongside skilled personnel tied to the territory. It fundamentally results in a bipartite system operating in two domains: first, one of merely bureaucratic and managerial nature and directed to the external entities, namely the other administrative-economic sectors and especially the central administration; second, one represented by the effective workers devoted to the technical aspects of the garden crops, whose specializations followed an internal hierarchy based on professional and bureaucratic features, which differentiated the simple workers and supervisors. The supervisors, in turn, were also responsible to the managers of the sector for the yield of gardens under their direction. In summary, the working and managerial structure of gardens can be described as having been composed of workers, responsible workers (or middle-level managers) and managers.

Figure 7. Working and managerial structure of gardens.

The following sections provide an attempt at analyzing the professional figures, both skilled and unskilled ones, which occur in the documentation concerning the garden management. As already mentioned, this study tried to single out the activities of specific categories through the isolation of redactional formulas, which attest to the roles performed by the members of such categories. Reliance solely on extant texts would leave us with only the lists of names, which alone would have been insufficient to explain the managerial dynamics. Texts quoted in formula140 in this chapter will therefore be discussed in the course of this work, thus, the connection between performed function and professional figure will be given greater clarity. ––––––––––––––––– 140 The symbols used in the formulas should be interpreted according to the abbreviations mentioned in the section Abbreviations and conventions. In the formulas containing the same symbol more times, thus indicating different persons or quantities recorded in the text, such a plurality is expressed through numbers in subscript following an increasing order.

43

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

1.1. Generic designation of labor pertaining to gardens 1.1.1. Garden personnel/gardeners In the documentation different terms occur, generic or specific ones, under which the workers employed in gardens are labeled. The less specific expression is undoubtedly ĝ iri 3 -se 3 -g a ĝeš k iri 6 , ‘garden personnel’, which can also designate unskilled personnel.141 This designation especially occurs in connection with the personnel of gardens included in extended economic complexes,142 altough not exclusively.143 Another term commonly used to indicate the garden workers is n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 , ‘gardeners’. This designation seems to concern more specifically the skilled workers employed in gardens: water drawers (a -b a la / SIG7-a), a rborists (d u 3 -a -k u 5 ) and garden experts (u m -m i-a ), although it can also refer to workers occasionally employed in gardens rather than professional gardeners.144 Nevertheless, it is interesting to note already here that garden administrators (s a n ta n a ) are usually not designated in the same way as the working personnel, since their activity pertained to the management sphere of the gardens. 1.1.2. Gardeners of the large trees and gardeners of the vineyards The distinction among n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 , n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š g a l-g a l and n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin reflects the principal types of garden crops and concerns all the three professional figures tied to the gardens, i.e. water drawers, arborists and garden experts. The term n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 , apart from its broadest meaning of gardeners, can more specifically indicate the personnel of palm groves and orchards.145 In this regard, it should be observed that the productivity of date palms does not depend exclusively on natural factors, but it also requires human intervention in order to ensure a continuous harvest. Indeed, particular procedures, such as the interaction of male and female elements, the pollination and ovule fecundation, the cutting of offshoots developed from the mother plant and their planting, represent a process that requires specific technical competences in order to be carried out. n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š g a l-g a l, ‘gardeners of the large trees’, refers to the personnel of timber tree gardens, suppliers of raw materials especially for the shipyards (mar-sa). The management of the payments for the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ is often tied to that for the gardeners of the vineyards. n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin , ‘gardeners of the vineyards’, refers to the personnel devoted to the maintenance of the vineyards. This kind of cultivation seems to have involved in particular the areas labeled as irrigation inlet-plots (k a -a - DU). As already seen, this term would designate areas next to the watercourses and suitable for the thriving and prospering of fruit trees, which are significantly more delicate than the date palm and require a more consistent and constant water supply. In fact, vineyards supported a great variety of fruit trees, alongside willows, poplars and other kinds of timber trees. 1.2. Workers regularly employed in gardens As already mentioned, the garden personnel was subdivided into occasionally employed unskilled workers and permanent skilled workers. In the following sections are presented the working categories that the documentation of the province provides in connection with gardens. ––––––––––––––––– See e.g. CT 3, 9 BM 18344 (Š 48/xii) in § 1.3.2. 142 See e.g. CT 3, 9 BM 18344 (Š 48/xii) in § 3.4 and MVN 6, 269 (ŠS 6/iii/25) in § 3.2. 143 See e.g. ASJ 18, 149 73 (l.d.) in § 5.2.5 and NATN 382 (Š 28/viii) in § 7.1.1. 144 See e.g. HLC 2, 25 (l.d.) and MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-) in § 1.4.2. 145 In only one text, SAT 1, 63 (-/vi/15), the expression n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š ĝ e š n i m b a r , ‘gardener(s) of date palms’, occurs, a kind of specification that in most cases could be implicit or superfluous. However, the presence of fruit and timber trees within palm groves should be recognized, according to the practice of interplanting. 141

44

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

1.2.1. The skilled workers The terms a -b a la and d u 3 -a -k u 5 designate skilled workers regularly employed in the maintenance of gardens. The documentation provides examples of the employment, or rather of the payment, of these workers for every month of the year. It remains quite unclear which kind of works they performed exactly; there is little evidence on this matter. However, it seems plausible that the a -b a la , ‘water drawers’, were devoted to the water supply of the garden plots146 and the d u 3 -a -k u 5 , ‘arborists’, to the trimming, grafting, and general maintenance of the trees.147 In any case, it seems evident that both water drawers and arborists were exclusively employed in gardens, except, obviously, for the occasions requiring the transfer of workforce among the different economic sectors of the province. From the internal perspective of the garden management, water drawers and arborists mostly occur as recipients in texts recording the distribution of payments, as ‘inspected’ in texts recording the inspections of workers, while they are absent in texts concerning the circulation or inspection of garden products. They can, indeed, be considered as simple workers, at the base of the pyramidal hierarchy of the garden management, hence exempt from duties of administrative relevance and of responsibilities for the production. By way of exceptions, water drawers and arborists, or generically gardeners (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ), can occur as those who ‘take’ (š u ti) their own payments, without mention of the intermediation of supervisors or sector bureaucrats. It seems that this type of formula occurs particularly in texts concerning the personnel of extended complexes,148 sort of industrial parks, or personnel of particular households in which gardens were present. See for instance: BBVO 10, 87 282 (IS 2/xii) o. ii, 18-19: q u m - m i - a d u 3 - a - k u 5 a - b a l a / SIG7-a ĝ e š k i r i 6 G a r 3 - š u m k i - k e 4 š u b a - a b - t i o. ii, 18-19: the garden experts, the arborists, the water drawers SIG7-a of the garden of Garšum149 took q. ––––––––––––––––– 146 See Heimpel 2009a, 44. This scholar recalled the lexical tradition that compares l u 2 a - b a l a to dâlu, ‘water drawer’. 147 As suggested by Sallaberger after a discussion with the writer on the role played by the different categories of garden workers, the expression could mean ‘those who cut ( k u 5 ) what is planted (d u 3 - a ) ’. It should be considered that, unlike the water drawers (a - b a l a ) , after the Neo-Sumerian period this profession occurs exclusively in lexical lists. Selz interpreted this profession as assigned to particular operations concerning the irrigation system (Selz 1989, 72), a plausible interpretation reported also in CAD, referring to the adjective mupettû, attested in lexical lists and onomastica. See, for instance, CAD M/2, s.v. mupettû: ‘regulating irrigation (lit. opener)’. The lexical attestations are: Hh VI 131f; Hg. A I 62f: g i š . k a k . d u 8 , g i š . k a k . k u 5 = (sikkatum) mu-pat-ti-tum, and OB Lu A (238): l u 2 k a k . a . k u 5 = mu-pee-tu-u2 (following the entry (237) a - b a l a = da-lu-u2). In the Old-Babylonian period, at least two meanings of the verb petû (logographic writing BAD) are attested in connection with agricultural works; see CAD P, s.v. petû, 1.e. = ‘to open up, dig a water source’, or ‘well, spring’; 2.d. = ‘to break ground for cultivation’. As an adjective, see further CAD P, s.v. petû, 1.f = kirâm pe-te-e-am; eq-lam pa-ti-am = ‘garden ready to be planted; field broken for cultivation’. In this regard, Cocquerillat affirmed that in order to prepare the soil to be planted as palm grove, due to the particular nature of the Mesopotamian soil which was made of compact clay, the first operation to be performed was that of digging to aerate the ground; such an operation is indicated in the texts by teptētum/teptītum (see Cocquerillat 1967, 170). Conjecturally, it may be inferred that in the Old-Babylonian period the difference between d u 3 - a - k u 5 , workers devoted to the care of the plants, and u m - m i - a ĝ e š k i r i 6 / n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 , ‘garden experts/gardeners’, was no longer understood, since only a differentiation between n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 (nukaribbu), as personnel devoted to the care of the plants, and a - b a l a (dalû), as personnel devoted to the water supply, was observed. As it will be seen in detail below, the difference between water drawers and arborists, on the one hand, and garden experts, on the other, was fundamentally administrative in nature and inherent to the management of the resources. Consequently, in a different historic context (as it was the Old-Babylonian period) the performing of works required in a palm grove, such as the preparing of the soil or the opening of a irrigation source could have been attributed to this category of workers. However these kinds of operations probably required the hiring of generic workforce in Neo-Sumerian times (see § 1.5). In any case, since the actual activity of these workers within the gardens is not evident from the texts, it cannot be excluded that, in Neo-Sumerian times, at least the preparing of the soil before planting was included among the duties of the arborists ( d u 3 - a - k u 5 ) , regardless of the meaning of the name of the profession. 148 For gardens included in extended complexes, see chapter 3. 149 For the ‘garden of Garšum’ as part of a complex, see § 3.2.

45

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Next to the entry concerning the payments addressed to the gardeners there are those concerning the payments for other workers employed in the complex: g e m e 2 k ik k e n 2 , ‘milling femaleworkers’, and a m a r-k u 5 , ‘eunuchs’,150 which are then considered in the total as a single expenditure entry: r. ii, 1'-2': [...] g e m e 2 k i k k e n 2 / a m a r - k u 5 u m - m i - a d u 3 - a - k u 5 a - b a l a SIG7-a r. ii, 1'-2': [q for] the milling female-workers, the eunuchs, the garden experts, the arborists, the water drawers SIG7-a.

Further, with the generic designation ‘gardeners’ (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) there is an example concerning the gardeners of the governor:151 HLC 3, 385 (n.d.): o. 1-3: q n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 e n s i 2 - k e 4 š u b a - a b - t i * ĝ i r i 3 PN o. 1-3: the gardeners of the governor took q, the conveyor (was) PN.

Similarly, but with the additional presence of external or unskilled personnel: MVN 9, 76 (Š 42//AS 6/-) r. 4-6: q g e m e 2 k i k k e n 2 g a n - d a b 5 a m a r - k u 5 n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 / u 3 l u 2 h u - b u 7 b u / d i b - b a - a š u b a - a b t i * ĝ i r i 3 PN d u b - s a r r. 4-6: the engaged female workers of the mill, the unskilled workers, the eunuchs, the gardeners and the invalids took q, the conveyor (was) PN the scribe.

1.2.2. Payments for the skilled workers The barley amount due as payment to skilled garden workers ranged from 60 to 10 liters. MVN 13, 325 (Š 43/viii) provides an example of the relation between payment and labor service concerning the water drawers and arborists (r. 3: š e -b a a-b a la d u 3 -a -k u 5 ); the workers (ĝ u ru š) are indeed differentiated according to labor service capacity (a 2 ) and respective payment: - n ĝuruš […] 0.0.5-ta (50 liters) - n ĝuruš a2 ½ 0.0.4-ta (40 liters) - n ĝuruš a2 ⅓ 0.0.3-ta (30 liters) Normally, the documented payments for gardeners range from 60 to 30 liters in connection with adult workers fully or partially employed, without mention of the value of the labor service (a 2 ).152 Another text, Princeton 2, 322 (Š 43/v),153 also provides information about the payments for female workers (g e m e 2 ) and children (d u m u ) and confirms the same relation between payment and labor service of the adult male workers:

––––––––––––––––– See Maekawa and Yildiz 1982. Against this interpretation, see Bauer 1989/90, 88. 151 That in this case is intended the generic designation of gardeners, rather than garden experts (u m - m i - a ) , of which the term (as it will be seen) can represent a synonym, is suggested by the fact that the amount of barley allotted as payment for the gardeners consists of 37,935 liters (126.2.1 5 s i l a 3 š e g u r ); this would correspond to the payment of 60 liters (the highest capacity of the monthly payments for adult male workers) for about 65 workers for 12 months. Therefore, the total number of workers cannot be referring to garden experts, who were fewer than water drawers and arborists in gardens. In addition, it is interesting to note that the same text records (o. 8) a barley amount (43.0.0 gur; 12,900 liters) allocated as payment for garden (workers) and as barley for calves (š e - b a ĝ e š k i r i 6 u3 š e a m a r ) . 152 According to Waetzoldt, the workers to which a reduced labor service was attributed are to be understood as insolvent debtors, or servants of such debtors, and consequentially, the labor scale (a2 ½, a2 ⅓ etc.) is to be understood as proportional to the amount of the debt, while the workers received the minimum wage (Waetzoldt 1987a). Monaco, in contrast, saw the labor scale as proportional to the service performed by the workers on a monthly basis, hence the scale would reflect a temporal aspect of the service, defining the amount of labor performed by a worker in that given time (Monaco 1985, 37). 150

46

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

-

n ĝuruš […] 50 sila3-ta (50 liters) n ĝuruš a2 ⅔ 40 sila3-ta (40 liters) n ĝuruš a2 ⅓ 30 sila3-ta (30 liters) n geme2 30 sila3-ta (30 liters) n dumu 10 sila3- (10 liters)

As it also happens for other types of workers, these workers often occur in family groups,154 in which women are sporadically attested. Within the same family group members belonging to both the categories of skilled garden workers can be found.155 TCTI 1, 790 (l.d.) provides information about the payments of ‘gardeners of the large trees’ (o. ii, 7': n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š g a l-g a l-m e ) and ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ (o. ii, 13': n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin -m e ), highlighting (also in this case) the factor of the age of the worker in connection with the quantity of the payment; the workers, indeed, variantly consisted of adult male workers (ĝ u ru š) and children (d u m u ), and they were paid respectively: Gardeners of the large trees: -

[n ĝuruš …-ta] n ĝuruš […] 0.0.5-ta (50 liters) [n ĝuruš 0.0.4]-ta (40 liters) [n ĝuruš] 0.0.3-ta (30 liters) n dumu 0.0.1.5 -ta (15 liters) n dumu 0.0.1-ta (10 liters)

Gardeners of the vineyards: -

n ĝuruš 0.1.0-ta (60 liters) n ĝuruš SIG7-a 0.1.0- (60 liters) n ĝuruš 0.0.3- (30 liters) n dumu 0.0.1- (10 liters)

1.2.3. SIG7-a Already Heimpel156 noted that the expression SIG7-a seems to refer exclusively to the water drawers (a -b a la ), acting as a synonym of such profession in texts pertaining to the garden management. MVN 12, 297157 seems to illustrate such identification: MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) o. i, 11-20: 0.0.3 SIG7-a Il-ib-ri / SIG7-a Lu2-niĝir / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Lu2-ur2-zu / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ur-dŠa-u18-ša / 0.2.3 / ĝeškiri6 dNin-ĝir2-su-nam-erim2 / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ur-dBil3-ga-mes / 0.0.3 ĝeš kiri6 Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su ša13-dub-ba o. ii, 1-26: 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ur-še-il2-la / 0.0.3 / ĝeškiri6 dŠul-pa-e3 / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ur-dSi4-an-na / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Urd Lugal-eden / 0.1.0 / ĝeškiri6 Ga-eš8 / 0.4.3 / ugula Gu2-u3-mu santana / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Lugal-sa6-ga / 0.0.3 d ĝeš SIG7-a AN-a2-dah / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ku3- Nanše / 0.1.3 / kiri6 Ma-ni / 0.1.0 SIG7-a An-ta-lu2 / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ur––––––––––––––––– 153 In the text there is no explicit mention of the profession of the listed workers, but, since they appear under the responsibility of a gardener ( n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 ) , it was considered plausible that they were gardeners. However, it should be noted that the mention of female workers and children follows the name of the gardener. 154 In this regard, see § 1.6.2. 155 Attestations of women explicitly active as water drawers (SIG7- a / a - b a l a ) are not known to me. 156 Heimpel 2009a, 43-44. 157 The three texts here presented will be analyzed in § 2.2. Of MVN 12, 297 and HSS 4, 10 only the sections listing the names of workers are reported, in order to obtain a clear visual distinction of the two categories of workers.

47

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD d

Lamma / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Kisal-e-si / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Lu2-bala-sa6-ga/ 0.0.3 SIG7-a Urdu2 / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Lu2-ti-šarum / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ur-dBa-U2 / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Da-da / [0.0.3] SIG7-a dBa-U2-da / 0.0.3 Niĝir-išib-mah / 1.0.0 / ĝeškiri6 en-NE r. i, 1-26: 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ur-ĝeš / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ur-im-nun / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ur-sa6-ga / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ur-mes / 0.0.3 d SIG7-a Ĝiri3-ni / 0.0.3 SIG7-a A-zi-ĝu10 / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ku3- Nanše / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Niĝir-išib-mah / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Pad3-da / 0.0.3.0 SIG7-a An-dul3 / 0.0.3 SIG7-a AN-sa6-ga / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Da-ga / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ba-zi / 1.2.0 / ĝeškiri6 Ur-ma-ma / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ku5-da / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Ur-dIg-alim / 0.1.0 / ĝeškiri6 dNin-MAR.KI / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Lugal-ki-aĝ2 / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Diĝir-ra / 0.1.0 / ĝeškiri6 Ur-dam / 0.0.3.0 SIG7-a E2-hi-li / 0.0.3 / ĝeš kiri6 dNin-šubur r. ii, 1-20: 0.0.3.0 SIG7-a Lu2-dBa-U2 / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Niĝ2-šu-na-du10 / 0.1.0 / ĝeškiri6 ĝi6-eden dBa-U2 / 0.0.3 ĝeš d SIG7-a A2-dingir-ziz2-da / 0.0.3 / kiri6 ĝi6-eden Nin-ĝir2-su / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Lugal-si-ĝar / SIG7-a Šu-im-a / ĝeš 0.0.3 / kiri6 gu-la ša3 iri / 3.3.0 ugula Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Lu2-bi-mu / 0.0.3 SIG7-a Lugal-za3-mi2 / 0.1.0 / ĝeškiri6 Ki-sur-raki / ugula Ur-dAl-la dumu Šu-mu2-a / šu-niĝin2 4.3.0 še gur lugal / šeba a-bala-e-ne

In the text, which records the payments of the sole water drawers employed in 14 gardens, all the workers are marked as SIG7-a, with the exception of Niĝir-išibmah of the ‘garden of enNE’ (o. ii, 24-26). This person is indeed indicated as the arborist (d u 3 -a -k u 5 ) of the same garden by contemporary texts, see e.g.: HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii) r. i, 8: Niĝir-išib-mah du3-a-ku5 ĝeškiri6 en-NE

On the other hand, in texts recording the barley payments of the sole arborists (d u 3 -a -k u 5 ), none of the workers are labeled as SIG7-a, as is shown by HSS 4, 10: HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i) o. i, 1-27: 0.0.5 še lugal / dUtu-kalam-e / 0.1.0 Du-du / 0.0.5 Lu2-ga / Lu2-Urubxki (URU×KAR2) dumu Ur-mes / 0.1.0 Nam-iri-na / Lugal-dur2-du10 / Lugal-he2-ĝal2 / 0.0.5 Lu2-dNa-ru2-a / Lu2-dBa-U2 / Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su/ Ur-dIg-alim / Ur-dInanna-ka / 0.0.4 A-tu/ 0.0.3 Ur-ab-ba / 0.0.3 Ur-dBa-U2 / 0.0.2 Lugal-he2-ĝal2 / dumu A-tu-me / Lugal-ušur4 / Nam-ha-ni / 0.0.5 Lu2-dNin-šubur / 0.0.4 Ur-dLamma / 0.0.3 Lu2-dBa-U2 / dumu Lugal-iri-da-me / zi Ur-dŠul-pa-e3 / 0.0.3 Ur-eš3-ku3-ga / [...] o. ii, 1'-26': [...] / dumu Lugal-[...] / 0.0.2 Ki-lul-la dumu Lu2-giri17-zal SIG7-a / 0.1.0 Ur-dŠul-pa-e3 dumu Lu2-dUtu / 0.1.0 Ur-dBa-U2 dumu Lu2-giri17-zal / Ur-eš3-ku3-ga / Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su / Lu2-Gu3de2-a / dumu Ur-eš3-ku3-ga-me / 2.1.4 / ĝeškiri6 dŠul-gi-a2-kalam-e / 0.0.3 Ur-dBa-U2 dumu Lu2-niĝir / 0.0.4 Lugal-u2-šim-e / zi Urdu2-TUR.DUB / 0.1.0 Ur-dBa-U2 dumu Gu-za-na / 0.1.0 Ur3-re-ba-du7 / 0.2.0 Urd Nisaba dumu-ni / 0.1.0 En-u2 / Niĝ2-dBa-U2 / 0.0.4 Ur-sukkal / 0.0.2 Igi-an-na-ke4-zu šeš-a-ni / 0.1.0 Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su dumu Ku3-d[...] / 0.1.0 Ur-dBa-U2 dumu [...] / 0.1.0 Ur-dBa-U2 [...] / 0.1.0 Lugal-ur-[...] r. i, 1'-23': [...] dNin-MAR.KI-ka / 0.0.4 Lu2-bala-sa6-ga / 0.0.3 Lu2-dBa-U2 / 0.0.3 Sukkal-di-de3 / dumu dNinĝeš MAR.KI-ka / 0.1.0 Bi2-du11-i3-sa6 / 0.3.4 / kiri6 ĝeštin Gar3-šumki / 0.1.0 Šeš-kal-la / 0.0.1 Lu2-dIg-alim ĝeš d dumu-ni / 0.1.1 / kiri6 Nin-ĝir2-su-a2-dah-dŠul-gi / 0.0.4 Lu2-dNin-šubur dumu Urdu2-da-ni / 0.1.0 Lu2d Utu / 0.1.0 Niĝir-ab-ba-na / 0.2.4 / ĝeškiri6 Ur-dNin-ĝir2-su-gu-la / 0.1.0 Ur-dBa-U2 / 0.1.0 / ĝeškiri6 Ga-eš8 / Lugal-he2-ĝal2 / Lu2-Urubxki (URU×KAR2ki) / Ur-dBa-U2 / / ĝeškiri6 dŠul-pa-e3 / 0.0.3 E2lu2-ti / 0.0.3 / ĝeškiri6 Ti-ra-aš2 r. ii, 1'-9': [...] Ur-dIg-alim / dumu-ni-me / ĝeškiri6 Iri-saĝ / --- / ĝeškiri6 Geme2-dŠul-pa-e3 / 0.0.4 Lu2-uš-gina / lu2-LAM / 0.1.0 Ur-dBa-u2 ku5-a dab5-ba / lu2 HUL2 na-kab-tum / --- / šu-niĝin2 7.1.2 še gur lugal / še-ba du3-a-ku5-e-ne

In this text SIG7-a occurs only once and in connection with the father of an arborist, providing instead information on the different working categories which the members of a single family might belong to. What emerges, especially from texts recording the allotment of payments for the water drawers and arborists, is that the internal distinction between the two categories of workers was marked through the specification SIG7-a for the water drawers, while no specific mark

48

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

distinguished the names of the arborists, as is clear for the case of Niĝir-išibmah in MVN 12, 297, and as is also evident from other documents.158 In support of the value of SIG7-a as synonym of a -b a la in contexts pertaining to the garden management,159 there are some texts reflecting the dichotomy played by d u 3 -a -k u 5 and a -b a la in d u 3 -a -k u 5 and SIG7-a : MVN 18, 360 (n.d.) from Umma r. 2': [nu]-ĝeškiri6 SIG7-a u3 / du3-a-ku5-me r. 2': (the workers) are gardeners SIG7-a and arborists. MVN 6, 499 (n.d.) r. 1-5: 20 la2 1 ĝuruš160 / 12 ĝuruš SIG7-a / 7 du3-a-ku5 / Ur-dNin-ĝir2-su santana r. 1-5: 19 workers, 12 workers SIG7-a, 7 arborists, Ur-Ninĝirsu the garden administrator .

Heimpel suggested the meaning ‘blind person’ for SIG7-a, by comparing this category of workers with that of the ig i-n u -d u 8 , literally ‘blind’, a type of worker employed, alongside the arborists (d u 3 -a -k u 5 ), in the gardens of the Pre-Sargonic Lagaš.161 However, when referring to the category of water drawers, a metaphorical interpretation162 of the meaning blind for the expression SIG7-a seems preferable. ––––––––––––––––– 158 The specification of Niĝir-išibmah’s profession in HSS 4, 7 is due to the role played by that arborist in exceptional circumstances. See § 1.11.1. 159 Outside the garden context, SIG7-a is not necessarily to be taken as a synonym of water drawer ( a - b a l a ) , as it can also refer to different professions, such as fullers or mill workers (in this regard, see Heimpel 2009a, 45-46). Texts mentioning SIG7-a without any trace of connection with the garden management were not considered in the present study, since they did not necessarily refer to water drawers. 160 In the text the indication ĝ u r u š seems to refer to the generic workers occasionally employed in gardens (see below § 1.9). The total section distinguishes adult male workers ( ĝ u r u š ) , arborists and water drawers, although in the text the profession of some workers (indicated as ĝ u r u š in the total) is specified. 161 Heimpel 2009a. In support of this interpretation there is the comparison provided by the lexical lists; see CAD Š/II, s.v. šišû: ‘person with an eye defect’; l u 2 i g i . SIG7.a. b a l , l u 2 i g i . š i . š i = ši-šu-u2 OB Lu B iv 43f. Heimpel supposed that they were actual blind workers, in particular slaves or prisoners of war, who were intentionally blinded in order to prevent possible escapes and, thus, employed in activities that could be performed by blind persons, among them also those of the water drawers. In support of this hypothesis, he also cited as an example the case of blind (SIG7-a) Amorite ( m a r - t u ) workers employed in gardens in some Neo-Sumerian texts from Ĝirsu (MVN 17, 55, Iraq 62, 41 21, WMAH 285 and MVN, 6 317, which will be analyzed further below. Additionally, for the issue regarding the ethnicadministrative designation m a r - t u , see Verderame 2009, 234). Conversely, Prentice argued that such a designation indicated a specific profession, rather than offering a description of the workers. She noted that both categories of workers, which normally worked under the supervision of gardeners, occasionally were employed under the supervision of fullers ( l u 2 - a z l a g 2 ) . She also noted, however, that the i g i - n u - d u 8 in particular were employed as laborers under the fullers, and that in those occasions they were designated as i g i - n u - d u 8 ĝ e š - k i ĝ 2 - t i , ‘blind craftsmen’. Furthermore, she stressed that the connection between the two kinds of work was water. However, Prentice observed that only the d u 3 - a - k u 5 occur by name within the documentation treated by her and, thus, it was not possible to carry out a prosopographical analysis of the i g i - n u - d u 8 (Prentice 2010, 23-26). 162 On this topic, see Garelli, Charpin, and Durand 1982, 69-72 and previous literature. These scholars emphasized the improbability of the employment of blind personnel, also in regard to the i g i - n u - d u 8 employed in gardens during the Pre-Sargonic times. They rather interpreted this category of workers as unskilled workforce, which, however, had received a certain formation. Following the metaphorical interpretation of the designation ‘blind’ within the context of gardens, it may be imagined that the ‘unskilled condition’ of the water drawers should be meant as referring to the working context of gardens. In this context, indeed, the category of arborists ( d u 3 - a - k u 5 ) , specifically devoted to the care of the plants, may have been interpreted as the category of skilled garden workers par excellence, in comparison to which the category of water drawers ( a - b a l a ) , devoted to the water supply of the plots, though indispensable and exclusively employed in gardens, may have been considered as a category of unskilled workers. It seems indeed plausible that, alongside the permanent groups of workers tied to the territories, external workers were occasionally employed in kinds of work that did not require a specific competence, such as that of the water drawers. Texts attesting to a high number of Amorites employed as water drawers in gardens (MVN 17, 55, Iraq 62, 41 21) also attest to the employment of external workers (see § 1.6.8; § 1.8.7.6; § 1.9). Another plausible interpretation of such expression could be suggested by the practice of blinding war prisoners and then to employ them as unskilled workforce in gardens; in this regard, see the interpretation of the Šu-Suen inscription (RIME 3/2.1.4.3) in Cooper 2010, with previous

49

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

1.3. Workers or work categories occasionally attested in gardens The documentation provides examples of generic workers or workers belonging to specific categories, who were occasionally employed in works to be performed in gardens. As noticed by de Maaijer,163 it should be borne in mind that many categories of workers or social groups are still unclear and probably little correspondence can be found by comparing them with modern categories. 1.3.1. Hired labor (a 2 h u ĝ -ĝ a 2 ) The expression a 2 h u ĝ -ĝ a 2 entails ‘hired labor’. As referring to gardens, it is attested twice, in ITT 2, 811 (ŠS 5/-), a text recording the delivery of 5,200 liters of barley for the hired labor in the ‘garden of Šu-Suen’ (§ 8.7), and in ITT 3, 5367 (ŠS 9/viii), a text recording the delivery of 900 liters of barley for the hired labor concerning a garden, the name of which cannot be easily interpreted.164 According to Steinkeller,165 the hired labor (a 2 h u ĝ -ĝ a 2 ) might also concern workers belonging to the category of state dependent workers (e rin 2 ), who would have hired themselves out for wages during the periods of inactivity within the working cycle (see § 1.4.2). 1.3.2. Unskilled workers (g a n -d a b5)166 This designation g a n -d a b 5 refers to unskilled workers employed in several economic sectors.167 In SAT 1, 434 (AS 2/x) some workers are defined g a n -d a b 5 ĝ e š k iri 6 -m e , ‘(they) are unskilled workers (of the) gardens’. The g a n -d a b 5 are the generic workers that are more often attested in the documentation as employed in gardens, alongside the skilled workers. TÉL 233 (n.d.) shows that in a given plot, in specific situations, the number of gardeners was not so different from that of the unskilled workers. Indeed, the text reports that, in order to perform a certain work (whose indication is lost) in an irrigation inlet-area (k a -a -DU), every ik u (3,600 m2) of surface required the employment of two workers (r. 2: 0.0.1 ik u ĝ u ru š-b i 2 -ta ). The resulting total number of workers is recorded in a single calculation and only in the subsequent section it is explained how many unskilled workers (g a n -d a b 5 ) and how many gardeners (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) were necessary.168 CT 3, 9 BM 18344 (Š 48/xii) records the payments of the whole personnel of a mill, specifically indicated as consisting of unskilled workers (r. v, 1: g a n -d a b 5 -m e ), and attests to the presence of a group of workers indicated as garden personnel (o. iv, 13: ĝ iri 3 -s e 3 -g a ĝ e š k iri 6 -m e ). The range of payments addressed to these workers is similar to that attested for the skilled garden workers, that is, between 60 and 15 liters (see § 3.4). Unlike the gardeners (especially, the arborists), these generic workers were probably employed in works that did not require a professional training or any experience, as their service appears versatile and extendible to ––––––––––––––––– literature. In this case, the expression could have been extended indiscriminately to all the water drawers, regardless to their condition of (actually blinded) prisoners or lower rank workers. 163 See de Maaijer 1998, 60. 164 Perhaps, it might be read ĝ e š k i r i 6 G a r 3 - š u m k i , ‘garden of Garšum’. In this case, the hired labor was not necessarily assigned to the garden, since the ‘garden of Garšum’ was included in an extended complex which carried the same name as the garden itself (see § 3.2). 165 However, as emphasized by the author, this concerned the lower stratum of the class of state dependent individuals; more privileged groups of the same class, after fulfilling their obligations towards the state, might take care of their prebend plots or engage in independent economic activities; see Steinkeller 2003, 45; Steinkeller 2004, 94. 166 For the reading g a n - d a b 5 , see Heimpel 1998, 398; Molina 2001, 143. 167 With regard to these workers, see Heimpel 1998, 398. 168 The number of gardeners is clear, namely 49 individuals, consequentially we would expect the presence of 61 unskilled workers in order to reach the total number of workers required by the operations to be performed. However, the total number of unskilled workers recorded in the text amounts to 86, of which 30 are labeled as l i b i r , ‘of old/of the previous (workforce)’ (for the interpretation of l i b i r as unrelated to the physical age, see de Maaijer and Jagersma 1997/98, 287), 29 as d a h - h u , ‘(in) addition/additional’, and another 27, for which unfortunately the relative characterization is not preserved.

50

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

different sectors. MVN 20, 139 (ŠS 2/i)169 records expenditures for this type of workers, and indicates that their employment in gardens was calculated per working days: o. 3: g a n -d a b 5 u 4 tu š -a ĝ e š k iri 6 K i-s u r-ra k i g u b -b a , ‘unskilled workers daily employed and stationed in the garden of Kisura’.170 This would suggest a difference between gardeners, who were regularly employed in gardens and recipients of monthly payments, and unskilled workers, who were instead paid according to the labor service counted in work-days, hence occasional.171 The following table is based on the information provided by TÉL 233. The recorded area pertains to the territory of Kisura.172 Text and note

Considered area

Required workers

Detail of workers 49 nu-ĝeškiri6

TÉL 233 (n.d.) 55 iku ka-a-DU [...] AK / Ki-sur-raki (198,000 m2)

1 iku ĝuruš-bi 2-ta: 30 gan-dab5 libir 110 ĝuruš 29 gan-dab5 dah-⌈hu⌉ 27 gan-dab5 [...]

1.3.3. Workers devoted to the gazi-plant (lu 2 -g a zi) The designation lu 2 -g a z i refers to workers devoted to the cultivation of the gazi-plant (kasû), a kind of plant , probably to be interpreted as cuscuta.173 In MVN 6, 499 (n.d.) two workers devoted to this plant,174 alongside arborists, doorkeepers (i 3 -d u 8 ), and workers simply indicated as adult male workers (ĝ u ru š), are taken charge of by a garden administrator, under the responsibility of a captain (NU-b a n d a 3).175 Further, specialists of the gazi-plant are also attested in MVN 15, 178 (l.d.), but unfortunately, due to the fragmentary condition of the text, it is not possible to determine whether they were engaged in irrigation inlet-plots (k a -a - DU) as were the gardeners mentioned in the text (see § 1.8.7.6). 1.3.4. Workers devoted to the processing of palm fibers (lu 2 KA.GAZ/ KA×SA.GAZ) The designation (lu2) KA.GAZ or KA×SA.GAZ probably alludes to workers devoted to the processing of date palm fibers.176 In MVN 6, 499 (n.d.), five workers (ĝ u ru š) KA.GAZ are listed after the personnel taken charge of by garden administrators (sa n ta n a ), but, in any case, they occur under the general responsibility of a captain (NU-b a n d a 3).177 In MVN 15, 178 (l.d.) some workers are designated as KA×SA.GAZ, however, due to the condition of the text, it doesn’t seem possible to determine the exact sector of their employment (see above). Workers KA.GAZ are then attested only in another text, CT 3, 9 BM 18344 (Š 48/xii), which lists the whole personnel of a ––––––––––––––––– 169 There is also MVN 20, 143 (ŠS 2/i), which seems to have been a copy. 170 Even in this case, however, the garden name refers to an extended complex, thus the workers not necessarily were assigned to work in gardens (see § 3.3). 171 However, the daily employment of water drawers is also attested; see Princeton 2, 292 (-/i) in § 2.2.34, which attests to the daily employment of water drawers (alongside unskilled workers) in the ‘pine garden before Enki’. 172 See § 2.2 and § 3.3. 173 Stol 1994a, 175-179. See also Powell 2003/05, 20. According to the author, the term may refer to different types of plants. With regard to the cultivation of spices and other kinds of vegetables, among them alliaceae, within gardens, there is no proper and direct evidence in the administrative documentation of Ĝirsu, although some sporadic hints emerge in some expenditures of garden administrators (see § 9.3.2). These kinds of crops within gardens are however better attested in texts from other provinces; see e.g. SAT 3, 1839 (ŠS 7/-) from Umma, a balanced account concerning spices, which exclusively involves working personnel of the gardens. 174 As already noted in § 1.2.3, the total section distinguishes adult male workers ( ĝ u r u š ) , arborists and water drawers, hence they were probably considered among the generic adult workers. 175 This text will be further analyzed in § 1.9. 176 See Greco 2013, n. 24. 177 See above.

51

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

mill and quotes this professional among the personnel of the shipyard, immediately after the garden personnel (see 1.3.2). KA×SA indicates m a n g a g a, ‘palm fibers’,178 while GAZ, Akkadian equivalent našālum, indicates a sort of processing;179 since the shipyard was the place where the raw materials coming from the gardens were treated, it seems plausible to suppose that these workers were assigned to the processing of palm fibers in order to obtain tools, such as ropes, for example.180 It also seems possible that KA.GAZ is to be intended as an abbreviation for 181 KA×SA.GAZ, as sometimes KA can be meant as abbreviation for KA×SA. The activity of these workers can be thus considered external to gardens, being tied instead to the sphere of the processing of materials. 1.3.5. Invalids (lu 2 h u -b u 7 b u ) According to Heimpel,182 the designation lu 2 h u -b u 7 b u specifies invalid workers. In TÉL 82 (l.d.), a text recording the allotment of payments, about 30 names183 are defined as ‘invalids of the gardens’ (l.e.: lu 2 [h u ]-b u 7 b u ĝ e š k iri 6 -m e ). The employment of these workers, as shown by the text, seems to follow the same dynamics regarding the employment of skilled garden workers. Invalids, subdivided in small groups headed by garden experts (§ 1.6.8), are then further divided into larger groups under the charge of at least two garden administrators (see § 1.8.7.1). Attestation of this type of workers is also provided by ITT 3, 5154 (AS 8/-), a text recording the expenditure of bread for an invalid worker, Atu, who was settled for three months and ten days by the ĝanun -depot184 of the ‘garden of Engaldudu’, a reed-bed of the province (see § 6.1). 1.3.6. Prisoners (lu 2

ĝeš

tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a )

ĝeš

The designation lu 2 tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a refers to prisoners, arrested persons (lit. ‘those seized by the weapon’). Heimpel185 supposed that they were natives who were arrested for minor crimes, such as non-compliance with work obligations. In some cases, their employment in gardens seems to have required the attendance of captains (NU-b a n d a 3),186 alongside the ordinary presence of garden administrators (s a n ta n a ). MVN 6, 307 (Š 38/iv) records the allotment of payments of barley, wool and garments to workers designed as BUR2 shepherds, cowherds and prisoners (BUR2 sip a u n u 3 -m e u 3 lu 2 ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a ), under the responsibility of an official (whose title is not specified) and of a captain. All the prisoners occurring in the text (except one) are designated as fugitives (zah3) escaped from two gardens.187 One of them is indicated as being the son of a gardener, though such a specification seems to have been tied to the identification of the person,188 without connection to the place of employment of the worker. ––––––––––––––––– See Landsberger 1967, 22-30; Streck 2004, 267-270. 179 See Postgate 1984, 107-108. Among the meanings of this term, the author counts ‘to crush (by pounding)’. 180 For a more detailed discussion on this palm by-product, see Landsberger 1967, 22-30; Streck 2004, 267-270. For its usage as building material or as material for the creation of tools in the modern era, see also Barreveld 2003. 181 In TÉL 310 (n.d.) palm by-products are delivered by some garden administrators of Ĝirsu (Ur-Lisi and Ĝirini, for which, see below, § 9.1.9 and § 9.2.1, and another one whose name is lost), among them also 15 kg (30 ma-na) of KA, a possible abbreviation, indeed, for m a n g a g a (KA×SA). 182 Heimpel 1998, 396-397. For the reading l u 2 h u - b u 7 b u of l u 2 HU.KU.BU, see Civil 1989, 147; Molina 2001, 144. 183 For at least three workers, additional information alongside the personal name is provided: one is defined ‘silver weigher’ (o. 14: k u 3 - l a 2 ), one probably ‘bird-catcher’ (r. 1: m u š e n : d a l < d u 3 > ? ) , and one ‘man of the herder’ (r. 9: l u 2 u 2 - d u [ u d u ]). 184 See Heimpel 1998, 394. According to the author, the stationing of invalid workers at ĝanun-depots was a common practice. 185 Heimpel 1998, 395. 186 Some of the texts mentioned in this paragraph will be then analyzed in § 1.9, where an attempt was made to illustrate the function of the captains (NU-b a n d a 3) within the garden management. 187 See § 2.2.2 and § 2.2.12. 188 In the text, indeed, it seems that the specification was used to differentiate the prisoner son of ‘Atu of the mill’ from the prisoner son of ‘Atu the gardener’. 178

52

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

MVN 6, 344 (Š 42/vi/5) records eight workers, each of them to be rewarded with 60 liters of barley, under the supervision of different officials, among them also the administrator (s a ĝ ĝ a ) of NinMAR.KI and that of Urub. At the end, the text indicates: ‘they are prisoners, the conveyor (was) Šekala, (to be employed) as generic unskilled workers, Ur-BaU the garden administrator took charge of them’ (r. 6-9: lu 2 ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a -m e / ĝ iri 3 Š e š-k a l-la / g a n -d a b 5 -še 3 / U rd B a - U2 sa n ta n a i 3 -d a b 5 ). Therefore, the text seems to attest to the employment of prisoners as unskilled workforce in the sector managed by the garden administrator. HLC 1, 30 (Š 48/v/15) records the transfer, under the responsibility of a captain, of prisoners to be assigned to various economic structures or entities, among them a worker assigned to a garden.189 HLC 1, 74 (Š 48/vi/23) records the transfer of male and female prisoners (g e m e 2 ĝ u ru š ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a ) to different destinations. Among the workers a ‘waif’190 (n i 2 -e ta k a 4 ) also appears, coming from Lagaš and designated as SIG7-a, hence probably to be employed as water drawer, and assigned to a garden, with no further specifications.191 CT 10, 24 BM 14313 (Š 48/x) records the transfer of male and female prisoners to the mill (g e m e 2 ĝ u ru š ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a -m e / m u -k u x ( DU) ša 3 e 2 -k ik k e n 2 -š e 3 ) under the responsibility (ĝ iri 3 ) of two untitled officials. Among the transferred personnel eight gardeners are recorded, subdivided into four adult male workers (ĝ u ru š), two women (m u n u s ) and two female workers (g e m e 2 ),192 arrested for a date shortfall: n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 m u z u 2 -lu m la 2 - NI193 -še 3 . The gardeners are assigned to the large mill (e 2 k ik k e n 2 g u -la ) and taken charge of by an archivist (ša 1 3 -d u b -b a ), while two officials of the mill act as conveyors.194 HLC 3, 366 (AS 6/iv/3) records the presence of 18 prisoners ( ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a ), overseen by captains (or in one case by an archivist) and taken charge of by a garden administrator; the mention of the garden is unfortunately unclear, hence it is not clear whether the assigned garden or the type of works to be performed by the prisoners was specified (see § 1.9). Finally, CUSAS 16, 8 (IS 1/vi/12) records the transfer of prisoners, among them one marked as 195 SIG7-a and addressed to the ‘garden of Garšum’. In the text there is no mention of the professions of the involved officials. Therefore, the documentation attests to both the employment of prisoners as generic laborers in gardens and the employment of gardeners, who have been arrested, as laborers in other economic sectors.

––––––––––––––––– 189 Among the prisoners, it seems possible to read the name of a gardener, U r - t u r - [ ...] n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 , though it remains unclear if he was also assigned to the garden. Moreover, the indication ĝ e š ĝ e š n i m b a r - t a which occurs in the text seems to refer to a specific area, as is true for the other places of provenience of the prisoners, rather than to a palm grove. In the province, in fact, an area named ĝ e š ĝ e š n i m b a r d u 3 - a , ‘(area) cultivated with palms’, is known in the territory of the Gu’edena (see AfO 24, 17), which, however, is never involved in texts concerning the garden management of the province. 190 Lit. ‘Left to self’, see Heimpel 2010, 159-163. 191 The occurrence of the garden (r. ii, 12) is followed by a small squared break, which could hide the terminative case marker (š e 3 ) , as is true for the other places to which the prisoners are assigned. The name following this break, ŠuEnlila, does not concern the garden, but rather the official who takes charge ( i 3 - d a b 5 ) of the prisoner. Šu-Enlila can be identified with the homonym gendarme (l u 2 ĝ e š t u k u l ) attested in CT 7, 16 BM 17765 (AS 1/viii), and ITT 3, 5133 (ŠS 1/i). 192 The differentiation employed by the scribe in distinguishing female workers (g e m e 2 ) and women (m u n u s ) could have reflected the employment conditions; indeed the female workers are specified as not transferred (g e m e 2 n u - d i b b a ), hence, referring to a specific administrative expression, while the others are generically designated as women (see § 2.2.24; 2.3.2). 193 This term entails a difference (D’Agostino 2006 and, with regard to its reading, Sallaberger 1995, 445). According to the single cases and especially to the context in which this term occurs, it can be interpreted as shortage, arrear or remainder, surplus. In the case of this text, it seems that the term is unequivocally to be interpreted as shortfall or arrear, probably referring to the parameters established by the central administration. 194 See §§ 9.7.1.1-2. 195 As already mentioned, the ‘garden of Garšum’ was also the name of an extended complex; hence the worker was not necessarily assigned to work as water drawer in the garden (see § 3.2).

53

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

1.3.7. Menials (UN-g a 6) The interpretation of this category of workers is quite complex. It has been interpreted by scholars as a social class,196 menials, in dichotomy with the category of ‘state dependent workers’ (e rin 2 ),197 or as a category of workers devoted to transport.198 However, it still remains an unclear category. MVN 17, 3 (Š 37/-) records an account of the workforce engaged in agricultural labor under the supervision of the administrator (sa ĝ ĝ a ) of Nindara; among them, 13 state dependent workers and two menials (UN-g a 6) are assigned to gardens, without further specification.199 There are few examples of menials employed in gardens in the documentation of the province. More details can be found in a text from Umma, Nisaba 11, 27 (n.d.), where the presence of 102 gardeners defined as dependent workers and 12 gardeners defined as menials is recorded. As shown by the text, garden experts (u m -m i-a ), arborists ( ), and water drawers (SIG7-a) converged indiscriminately in both categories. 1.4. Additional considerations 1.4.1. ‘Out of garden’: the men of the storehouse and the lu 2 - LAM The profession names lu 2 n a -k a b -tu m , ‘men of the storhouse’ and lu 2 - LAM, of unclear meaning, designate some workers who occasionally occur in texts recording the allotment of payments for the water drawers and arborists employed in several gardens of the province. If the men of the storehouse (lu 2 n a -k a b -tu m ) 200 can be considered as those workers who were assigned to the transport and storage of garden produce into the nakabtum-structures, less clear is the designation lu 2 - LAM, a category that somehow is associated with that of the men of the storehouse in the drafting of the texts (and the allotment of the payments). The payments of such workers were managed by garden administrators, as were those allotted to the skilled workers, although they do not occur in the amounts addressed to the single gardens.201 ––––––––––––––––– Sigrist 1979, 101-120; Steinkeller 2003, 43-44; Koslova 2008, 151-152. 197 For a detailed discussion on the topic, see Steinkeller 2004; Koslova 2008; Steinkeller 2013. 198 Englund 1990, 29; Steinkeller 2013, 365. 199 With regard to this text, see Maekawa 1999, 86-87. 200 Brunke defined the nakabtum as something more than a simple storehouse, rather representing a specific NeoSumerian administrative (super)structure, a central institution, for the intermediary storage and redistribution of goods, among them also garden produce (Brunke 2008, 116-119). The difference with the (super)structure known as e-kišiba, also devoted to the intermediary storage and redistribution of goods (as it will be see below), may be due to the fact that they reflect two different phases concerning the circulation of goods. The phase involving the nakabtum-storehouses entails stock at hand, available stock. Therefore, the men of the nakabtum-storehouses, considered on the same level of the garden workers, may have been devoted to the transfer and storage of fruit and seeds directly coming from the gardens. In contrast, fruit directed to the e-kišiba did not arrived directly from the gardens, but through the mediation of the garden officials ( s a n t a n a ) , who delivered both fresh ( d u r u 5 ) and dried ( h a d 2) fruit to the scribes of the e-kišiba, who subsequently would have distributed it to the different pre-established destinations. The place where the fruit could ripen and be dried before being redistributed or reserved for different porpouses may have been the nakabtum (see Brunke’s considerations regarding the nakabtum, ibid.), conveyed by the ‘out of garden’ workers under the responsibility of the garden administrators, in whose name it would reach the e-kišiba. Therefore, even if the ‘storehouse’ represented just a part of this storage system (part of its ‘physical realization’ in Brunke’s words), for the sake of convenience the translation ‘storehouse’ or ‘men of the storehouse’ was maintained in this work. The same consideration applies to the e-kišiba, translated as ‘warehouse’ in this work, although the term implied an administrative entity which relied on different physical locations (see § 9.7.2.1). It seems that the ĝanun-depots, even though attested in gardens, never occur in connection with fruit in the documentation, and thus it can be argued that they were not suited for the storage of easily perishable goods as fruit. In the texts of the Ĝirsu province, the only garden products attested in connection with the ĝanun-depots are bundles of tree branches (see § 2.2.24) and reeds (see § 6.1; in this case, products of a reed-bed). Some texts from Ur attest a certain Baga’a, defined as scribe of the ĝanun-depot (UET 3, 1397, Š 42/-), as active in transactions regarding timber, palm by-products (UET 3, 782, Š 42/-; UET 3, 777, Š 42/-) and reeds (UET 3 851, Š 42/vi). 201 Texts quoted in this paragraph concerning the areas managed by the garden administrators Gu’umu and Abbaĝu will be further analyzed in § 2.2, § 9.1.1 and § 9.1.2. 196

54

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi) records the amounts of barley allotted to 11 gardens managed by the garden administrator Gu’umu, and at least to five gardens managed by the garden administrator Abbaĝu; before the partial totals concerning the barley amounts under the supervision of each administrator, the amount allotted to the men of the storehouse is recorded. Analogously, in Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix), a text recording bimonthly payments for the workers of the same gardens under the supervision of Gu’umu and Abbaĝu, the amounts of barley addressed to the men of the storehouse and to other workers designated as lu 2 - LAM are recorded. The barley amounts for such workers were calculated separately from those allotted to the gardens, but were included in the total amounts supervised by the garden administrators. HLC 3, 267 (l.d.), a text belonging to the same group as the previously mentioned texts, provides the detail of the payments for four men of the storehouse, the first of them defined as la m x (LUM). This small section occurs immediately after the amounts addressed to each recorded garden, for which is given a partial total under the supervision of a garden administrator and defined as: š e -b a ša 3 ĝ e š k iri 6 , ‘barley payments (for the workers) in the gardens’. In a further text of the same group, HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii), the payments of two workers designated as lu 2 HUL2 n a -k a b -tu m , an unclear variant of this working category,202 are recorded before the partial total pertaining to the amount under the supervision of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. In STA 19 (Š 48/i), also recording the payments for gardeners under the supervision of Abbaĝu, one last worker, indicated as lu 2-LAM,203 occurs before the total section. In HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i), from the same group of texts as well, the payments of one lu 2 - LAM and one lu 2 HUL2 n a -k a b -tu m 204 are recorded, both before the total and after the listed gardens and gardeners. In WMAH 285 (l.d.), a text recording a worker inspection and the allotment of wool and garments to gardeners (§ 1.8.7.6), nine names are specified as being recruited among the men of the storehouse (lu 2 n a -k a b -tu m -ta ); despite several breaks in the text, it seems that here they were also considered ‘out of garden’ and, thus, external to the supervision of the foremen of the work teams. Similar is the situation illustrated by MVN 20, 120 (l.d.), a fragmentary text recording the allotment of garments to workers marked as SIG7-a or not marked at all, hence likely gardeners, in which an undeterminable number of men of the storehouse is listed. One of the men of the storehouse of HSS 4, 7, Ĝiri-Nanše-idab, is also attested in two other texts: MVN 6, 298 and RA 54, 130 44. In MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-), a text recording an inspection of garden workers (see below § 1.4.2), the name of Ĝiri-Nanše-idab occurs after the total of garden workers who were stationed (g u b -b a -a m 3 ) and immediately before the colophon, in the notation: DIŠ Ĝ iri 3 d N a n š e-i 3 -d a b 5 L u 2 - d U tu b a -k u 4 k i A b -b a -ĝ u 1 0 -ta g u ru m 2 a ša 5 L u g a l-ig i m u -ĝ a l 2 : ‘Ĝiri-Nanše-idab (in place of) Lu-Utu was brought from Abbaĝu, he was present at the worker inspection in the field of Lugal-igi’. From this it can be interpreted that, in contrast with the expression g u b -b a -a m 3 , stationed (personnel), referring to the garden workers, the presence of the man of the storehouse was considered ‘out of garden’. In RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/iv), a record of the barley payments left in the granary (§ 1.8.7.4), the name of Ĝiri-Nanše-idab is recorded ‘out of garden’, however under the responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. In this text, unlike the other workers to which a payment is attributed, no amount is attributed to Ĝiri-Nanše-idab, even if his payment of 60 liters (equal to those of the gardeners) can be deduced by the recorded total amount. The presence of a man of the ––––––––––––––––– 202 A possible interpretation of the sign HUL2 is u k u š 2, a term denoting various types of cucurbitaceae (see Powell 2003/05, 20). According to the agricultural calendar (see below Table 3 in Work Tables), the harvest of this produce falls in May, thus between the i and ii month, which are the months in which l u 2 HUL2 n a - k a b - t u m are mentioned. As it will be seen in § 1.8.4.3, among the transactions recorded in the name of garden administrators, there is also this kind of product in the expenditures of the iii month. 203 The text reports (r. ii, 5) l u 2 - LAM-me, ‘(they) are l u 2 - LAM’, although the presence of only one worker followed by an unwritten line is recorded. 204 The notation k u 5 - a d a b 5 - b a follows the name of the worker designed as l u 2 HUL2 n a - k a b - t u m ; it can tentatively be suggested that the worker was also engaged ( d a b 5 - b a ) for cutting ( k u 5 - a ) the produce he had to deliver to the storehouse.

55

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

storehouse can probably also be traced in STA 20 (Š 47/-), a text recording the barley payments for water drawers and arborists of different gardens left in the granary (§ 3.1); after the occurrence of the last garden there is a further payment, thus ‘out of garden’, associated with another worker, Niĝ-BaU. The payments received by these workers do not seem to differ from those of the gardeners, as is shown by TCTI 1, 790 (l.d.), where the same range of payments according to the age of the workers refers both to gardeners and men of the storehouse (r. v, 12': lu 2 n a -k a b -tu m -m e ): -

n ĝuruš [0.1.0-ta] (60 liters) n ĝuruš 0.0.5-ta (50 liters) n ĝuruš [0.0.3-ta] (30 liters) n dumu [0.0.2]-ta (20 liters) n dumu 0.0.1-ta (10 liters) n ĝuruš šu-gi4205 [0.1.0] (60 liters)

Less information can be detected about the lu 2 - LAM workers, whose activity seems, however, bound to the garden sphere. There is at least one case in which a lu 2 - LAM worker occurs in place of a garden expert (see § 1.11.2); in CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4), a text recording date amounts differentiated by garden of provenience and responsible gardener (see § 1.6.4), the date quantity concerning one of the mentioned gardens is associated with the name of a lu 2 - LAM, Lu-ušgina, already known from HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i) and HLC 3, 267 (l.d.). However, neither the proper activity nor the exact sphere of competence of this professional are illustrated by the administrative documentation.206 1.4.2. Workers released from the duty cycle (BUR2)207 Some texts coming from the Ĝirsu province contain the expression BUR2 as a characterization of workers or labor,208 rather than as a characterization of goods, such as garments (tu g 2 b u r 2 ), or as the name of a product (BUR2). This term, indeed, occurs as a specification of work categories: e rin 2 (state dependent workers) BUR2, but also professionals: e n g a r (farmers) BUR2 etc. With regard to the garden administration, it occurs at least in two texts recording worker inspections: MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-) and HLC 2, 25 (l.d.), in one text recording a worker inspection and the allotment of wool and garments, MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), and, finally, in one text recording solely the allotment of wool and garments, Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.). ––––––––––––––––– The term š u - g i 4 , ‘old’, refers to the physical age of the workers, thus the payment for an ‘old worker’ is to be understood here. 206 A possible interpretation may be that of workers devoted to the cultivation of ĝ e š l a m , ĝ e š e š 2 2 (LAM×KUR), types of almonds (Steinkeller and Postgate 1992, 58-60), though their occurring ‘out of the garden’, together with the men of the storehouse, could imply an administrative differentiation rather than a category of skilled workers specialized in a given crop. Among the meanings of the sign there is sapling, young tree (l a m , lammu) to be planted, referring to several types of trees (Heimpel 2011b, 139), thus it can be understood that the activity of the l u 2 - LAM would have been somehow connected with saplings, although the planting of the trees may have been a specific task of the skilled personnel of the gardens. In addition, although intriguing, there is no evidence so far suggesting a connection between these workers and the market, Sumerian g a n b a (KI.LAM). Finally, according to the later tradition, the verb l a m / l u m (Marchesi 2006, 5 and 86487) signifies the action of making grow luxuriously (see CAD U, s.v. unnubu, uššubu; CAD E, s.v. ešēbu), hence this professional can be interpreted as having been devoted to specific operations concerning the enrichment of the soil or the care of the plants of gardens. However, this interpretation also remains conjectural. 207 Three texts discussed in this section, MVN 6, 298, MVN 17, 55 and Iraq 62, 41 21 are given in transliteration in the appendix (text 15, text 16, and text 17 respectively). 208 The texts are 19: MVN 6, 307 (Š 38/iv); UDT 57 (Š 43/-); TUT 159 (AS 1/v); MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-); SAT 1, 417 (AS 2/-); MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-); ASJ 8, 105 25 (AS 4/-); ASJ 19, 144 128 (AS 7/-); MVN 22, 30 (ŠS 7/ii/3); MVN 22, 33 (ŠS 7/-); SAT 1, 452 (IS 2/-); CUSAS 16, 14 (-/x); ASJ 10, 38 (XX/x); MVN 22, 29 (n.d.); BPOA 1, 279 (n.d.); HLC 2, 25 (n.d.); HLC 2, 273 (n.d.); Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.); In three texts BUR2 refers to the labor (a2), rather than to the workers: TUT 17 (AS 2/ix/15); LB 544, CDLI P210003 n.p. (n.d.); MVN 1, 208 (n.d.). 205

56

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

In MVN 6, 298 the colophon reports: g u ru m 2 a k a e rin 2 BUR2 n u - < ĝ e š > k iri 6 -k e 4 -n e , ‘inspection of the BUR2 state dependent gardeners’. In this text, each garden administrator acts as supervisor (u g u la ) of a group of workers, each of them differentiated by parameters qualifying the labor service209 and payment in accordance with the age (full labor service (DIŠ ), mainly 60 liters of barley and 2 kg of wool for each adult worker and reduced labor service (AŠ ), 10 liters of barley and one garment for each young worker). The listed workers are probably arborists210 and appear as ‘provided/recruited’ (k i ~ -ta) by garden experts. As seen above in § 1.4.1, the listed personnel are defined as stationed (g u b -b a -a m 3 ), while a further notation concerns the presence of a man of the storehouse provided by a garden administrator. The text seems to deal with the inspection of gardeners stationed by garden administrators, who in turn recruited them among the workers provided by the garden experts for occasional employment in the field of Lugal-igi, where the inspection took place. Although the payments of the workers are specified, there is no mention in the text of the transaction of goods, but only of personnel. MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-) seems to show a different aspect of a gardener inspection (g u ru m 2 a k a n u - < ĝ e š > k iri 6 -k e 4 -n e ) which took place under the supervision of a garden expert, acting as a garden administrator, and a captain: in this case, indeed, both the total number of workers and the total amount of their payments are recorded. In the section dealing with the worker’s total, they are divided according to the amount of the payment and subdivided into those provided by the palace (e 2 -g a l-ta ) and those provided by the captain (ki NU-b a n d a 3-ta ), while the total amount of wool and garments is given as a single entry. The text appears to be a list of water drawers and arborists subdivided in groups supervised (u g u la ) by garden experts, while other garden experts act as providers/recruiters (k i ~ -ta) of the workers. Some of the workers of such groups are marked as having been recruited among the waifs (n i 2 -e ta k a 4 -ta ), or from specific economic units (e 2 š a b ra-ta ), while others are characterized as BUR2-ta and, at least in two cases, even the foreman (u g u la ) is characterized as BUR2-ta . However, these differentiations are not reflected in the total section or in the colophon. A connection between the workers provided by the captain in the total section and those labeled as BUR2 in the detail section can be assumed, in contrast to the regularly employed workers provided by the palace, bearing in mind, however, that at the end the payments are not differentiated (see § 1.9). Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.) records the allotment of garments and wool (tu g 2 -b a sik i-b a ) to workers, SIG7-a and unmarked ones, some of them explicitly pertaining to categories of workers external to the gardens, under the supervision of two garden administrators, Gamu and Ka. In this text, some workers are indicated as BUR2-ta, without further specification in the total section or in the colophon, where the payments converge in a single calculation under the supervision of the garden administrators. HLC 2, 25 (n.d.) records additional information concerning an inspection of gardeners which has already occurred and (the relative document) transferred (g u ru m 2 a k a d ib -b a n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 -k e 4 -n e ) and does not make mention of the transaction of goods, only of personnel. The first workers in the list are indicated as BUR2-ta , while the others, among them unskilled workers (g a n -d a b 5 ), are differentiated by garden. The inspection reports how many workers were no longer in service (u š 2 ) according to the garden of employment under the supervision of the responsible garden administrator, in one case under that of a captain, and what was the labor capacity (a 2) of the recruited workers. In two texts, MVN 22, 33 (ŠS 7/-), recording the employment and the payments for workers engaged in various households, and in MVN 22, 30 (ŠS 7/ii/3), recording the inspection of workers employed for the threshing (ĝ e š-ra ) of a field, a group of workers (ĝ u ru š ) is indicated as being ‘BUR2 of the garden’ (BUR2 ĝ e š k iri 6 -m e ), probably contrasting with other listed workers indicated as being unskilled workers (g a n -d a b 5 m e ). ––––––––––––––––– 209 For a more detailed discussion about the parameters qualifying the workers in texts recording the worker inspections, see Monaco 1985, Monaco 1986 and Sallaberger 1999b, 282. 210 Despite the mere specification of male worker ( ĝ u r u š ) or children ( d u m u - n i t a 2 ), the names of some arborists ( d u 3 - a - k u 5 ) active in the province are recognizable.

57

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

In MVN 6, 307 (Š 38/iv) the payments for the workers defined as BUR2 sip a u n u 3 , ‘BUR2 shepherds, cowherds’, are counted together with those of the prisoners (lu 2 ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 b a ), some of them having escaped from two gardens (see § 1.3.6). In CUSAS 16, 14 (n.d.), a balanced account concerning workforce, the entry regarding the farmers defined as e n g a r BUR2 seems to occur in contrast with those regarding the workers defined as menials (UN-g a 6), state dependent workers performing the duty (e rin 2 b a la g u b -b a ), and state dependent workers sitting out the duty (e rin 2 b a la tu š-a ). Further, MVN 22, 29 (n.d.) records a list of workers for whom it is specified BUR2-ta e rin 2 -š e 3 , ‘from the BUR2 (status) to the state dependent worker (status)’. Therefore, this term seems to have been used by the Ĝirsu administration to indicate a sort of temporary status of the workers (MVN 22, 29) and indeed is often characterized by a temporal connotation (TUT 159,211 CUSAS 16, 14). In an endnote212 of his work “New Texts on the Collective Labor Service”, Maekawa suggested an interpretation of the designation e rin 2 BUR2 as dependent workers who have been released from their regular service, on the basis of the meaning of BUR2, pašāru, ‘to release (auflösen)’.213 Since the dependent workers were involved in a service cycle (b a la ), in which they were considered as ‘performing the duty’ (b a la g u b -b a ) or ‘sitting out the duty’ (b a la tu š-a ),214 the term BUR2 could have meant a temporary ‘release’ of the workers from the ordinary cycle, probably in extraordinary situations, in which extra workforce was required. See ASJ 8, 105 25 (AS 4/-), a balanced account of barley and seeds, where workers designated as ĝ u ru š n u -d a b 5 BUR2, ‘workers BUR2 not taken in charge’, contrast with those marked as lu 2 (e rin 2 in the detail and total section) a -ša 3 u 4 -d e 3 d e 6 -a -m e , ‘they are men (for) the field ruined by the storm’.215 In the case of this text, BUR2 seems to refer, as a kind of abbreviation, to those workers who, although released, have not been employed in that extraordinary situation. Therefore, BUR2 may have conjecturally indicated the availability of workforce recruited among the dependent workers, to be employed in different economic sectors, regardless of their competences. Their recruitment occurred under the responsibility of the managers of the sector of provenience, in the case of gardeners under that of the garden administrators (MVN 6, 298), while their payments fell under the responsibility of the managers of the sector of employment (Iraq 62, 41 21). In this regard, the documentation provides examples both of workers ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ and employed in gardens alongside the regular personnel (MVN 17, 55), and examples of gardeners ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ and employed in other economic sectors, such as fields (MVN 6, 298; MVN 22, 33). 1.4.3. Skilled garden workers in the fields The occasional employment of gardeners in other types of plots is highlighted by three texts from Nippur in connection with inspections of workers employed in specific works in the fields: TMH NF 1-2, 298 (ŠS 6/viii/4) records the ‘worker inspection of the first day in the large field barim’ (g u ru m 2 a k a u 4 1 -k a m a -š a 3 b a r-rim 4 g u -la ). The text calculates the employment of arborists (d u 3 -a -k u 5 ) for 55 work-days in order to hoe an area of 660 s a r (23,760 m2) subdivided into parcels of 12 sar (432 m2) for each work-day. TMH NF 1-2, 299 (ŠS 6/viii/7) records the inspection of the third day at the same field (g u ru m 2 a k a u 4 3 -k a m a -ša 3 b a rrim 4 g u -la ); here, an area of 1,250 sar (12 ½ ik u ; 45,000 m2) is subdivided into parcels of 10 ––––––––––––––––– The text records an inspection of weaving women (g u r u m 2 a k a g e m e 2 u š - b a r ) and in the total section shows the distinction between workers not transferred (n u - d i b - b a ) and those ‘expended’ (z i - g a ). In the latter category fall six menials and six (dependent workers) BUR2 for one day: r. ii, 13-14: š u - n i ĝ i n 2 6 ĝ u r u š UN-g a 6 / š u - n i ĝ i n 2 6 ĝ u r u š < e r i n 2 > BUR2 u 4 1 - š e 3 . 212 See Maekawa 1988, 733. 213 Ahw 842; CAD P, s.v. pašāru. 214 With regard to the service cycle of the erin 2 , see Maekawa 1988, 37-94; Steinkeller 2003, 44-46; Sharlach 2004, 90-94. 215 See Wilcke 1999, 321. 211

58

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

sa r (360 m2), for a total of 125 work-days of arborists. A further text from Nippur, NATN 130 (ŠS 2/iv/22), records a worker inspection at a field and specifies the hoeing of the fields as the purpose of employment, r. 11-12: g u ru m 2 a k a a -ša 3 d E n -lil 2 -e -p a d 3 -d a / a l ib 2 -b a -a , ‘worker inspection at the field of Enlile-pada (of the personnel which) hoed there’. In the text, the arborists occur under the direct supervision of a garden administrator (s a n ta n a ), while the general supervision is entrusted to a captain (NU-b a n d a 3) and an administrator (š a b ra ). Work Tables M i: April-May; M ii: May-June; M iii: June-July; M iv: July-August; M v: August-September; M vi: September-October; M vii: October-November; M viii: November-December; M ix: December-January; M x: January-February; M xi: February-March; M xii: March-April Table 1. Employment of skilled and unskilled workers The following table shows the months of employment and payment for the type of workers so far presented. The workers ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ (BUR2) and those employed in the processing of palm fibers (lu 2 KA×SA.GAZ) were not included, since their employment does not reflect the agricultural cycle of the gardens. Obviously it should be recognized that the table reflects only what is documented, and consequentially, the data is tied to some incidental factors. Indeed, the constant employment of water drawers and arborists is confirmed by those texts which record the employment and the payment for the different types of gardeners, designations that, as was already seen, embrace all the categories of gardener (for which see Table 2). Furthermore, the date formulas of texts mentioning the employment of specialists of the gazi-plant (lu 2 -g a z i), invalids (lu 2 h u -b u 7 b u ) and menials (UN-g a 6) in gardens are, unfortunately, no longer preserved.

arborists

216

Mi

M ii

M iii

M iv

Mv

M vi

x

x

x

x

x

x

M vii M viii x

x

M ix

Mx

M xi

M xii

M-

x

x

x

x

x

water x x x x x x x x x x x x drawers217 ––––––––––––––––– 216 Data regarding the employment of arborists (d u 3 - a - k u 5 ) within one year are principally provided by the group of texts of payments dating to Š 48 (see § 2.2), where the payments of the first month (STA 19 and HSS 4, 10), those of the second (HSS 4, 7, but also BPOA 1, 58 [Š 33/ii], STA 20 [Š 47/ii], HLC 1, 66 [Š 48/ii] and MVN 6, 105 [-/ii]), those of the third (HLC 1, 100), of the sixth (HLC 1, 102, but also by Amherst 24 [Š 34/vi] and Nisaba 18, 38 [Š 33/vi]), of the eighth and ninth months (Amherst 54, but for the eighth month also ASJ 2, 21 59 [Š 33/viii], BPOA 1, 226 [Š 35/viii] and MVN 13, 325 [Š 43/viii]) occur. Regardless of this group of texts, STA 8 (AS 5/x) records the payments for arborists in the third and fourth month, while MVN 6, 492 (-/v) and Nisaba 18, 39 (Š 35/v) records those of the fifth month. DAS 213 (XX/vii) and Nisaba 18, 103 (Š 46/vii) record the payments of the seventh month and HLC 2, 46 (Š 46/vii/11) records their employment for the same month. For the ninth month, there is the information of ZA 93, 54 3 (Š 34/ix). For the tenth month, there is the information provided by BPOA 1, 153 (Š 38/x) and CST 28 (Š 47/x) and, finally, for the eleventh month, there are attestations in MVN 6, 335 (-/xi) and TCTI 2, 4120 (ŠS 4/xi). The payments concerning the entire year could be traced back in BBVO 10, 87 282 (IS 2/xii), though the condition of the text does not allow an effective reconstruction. The texts without indication about the month are: HLC 2, 31 (Š 31/-), BPOA 1, 260 (Š 33/-), ASJ 14, 238 87 (Š 35/-), BPOA 1, 381 (AS 7/-), TCTI 2, 3324 (ŠS 2/-), HLC 3, 267 (l.d.), Atiqot 4, 33 70 (l.d.), Orient 16, 77 112 (l.d.), MVN 6, 499 (n.d.). Texts concerning the garden management, which, however, do not explicitly refer to d u 3 - a - k u 5 , were not considered (with the exception of HLC 3, 267, which belongs to a specific group of texts recording the payments for this category of workers). 217 As for the arborists, most of the indications about the months of employment of this category of workers is provided by the group of texts of payments dating to Š 48 (see § 2.2). The employment of water drawers (a - b a l a ) for the first two months is attested in HSS 4, 7 and, only for the second, also in BPOA 1, 58 (Š 33/ii), STA 20 (Š 47/ii), HLC 1, 66 (Š 48/ii), MVN 6, 105 (-/ii). There are then the payments for the third month (HLC 1, 100) and for the sixth (HLC 1, 102, but also by Amherst 24 [Š 34/vi] and Nisaba 18, 38 [Š 33/vi]) and for the tenth (MVN 12, 297, but also BPOA 1, 153 [Š 38/x] and CST 28 [Š 47/x]). Through pure chance, we do not possess any records for the fourth month; this can be, however, reconstructed by the characterization as SIG7-a of some gardeners in RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/iv), while MVN 6, 492 (-/v) and Nisaba 18, 39 (Š 35/v) records the payments for the fifth month. DAS 213 (-/vii) and Nisaba 18, 103 (Š 46/vii) records the payments of the seventh month and HLC 2, 46 (Š 46/vii/11) records their employment for the same month. Attestations for the eighth month are then provided by ASJ 2, 21 59 (Š 33/viii), BPOA 1, 226 (Š 35/viii) and MVN 13, 325 (Š 43/viii), for the ninth month by ZA 93, 54 3 (Š 34/ix), while MVN 6, 335 (-/xi), and TCTI 2, 4120 (ŠS 4/xi) provide those for the

59

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD Mi unskilled workers218

x

men of the storehouse219

x

lu2-LAM

220

M ii

M iii

M iv

Mv

M vi

x

M vii M viii

x

x

x

x

prisoners

x

x

x

Mx

M xi

x

x

221

M ix

M xii

M-

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

hired workers222

x

x

gazispecialists223

x

invalids 224

x

menials225 Total

5

3

4

2

3

5

3

5

4

2

2

3

x 9

Table 2. Employment of gardeners, ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ With regard to the gardeners (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ), ‘gardeners of the large trees’ (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š g a lg a l) and ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin ), namely to the most generic designations of gardeners, the documentation provides traces of the allotment of payments for every month, alluding to a constant employment during the year. This is particularly clear for the gardeners of the large trees and those of the vineyards, as stressed by the following table: M i M ii gardeners

226

gardeners of the large trees gardeners of the vineyards

M iii

x 227

M iv

Mv

x

x

M vi M vii M viii

M ix

Mx

M xi M xii

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

––––––––––––––––– eleventh month. The payments for the entire year could be traced back in BBVO 10, 87 282 (IS 2/xii), despite the condition of the text. The texts which do not provide indication about the months are: HLC 2, 31 (Š 31/-), BPOA 1, 260 (Š 33/-), ASJ 14, 238 87 (Š 35/-), TCTI 2, 3324 (ŠS 2/-), HLC 3, 267 (l.d.), Atiqot 4, 33 70 (l.d.), Orient 16, 77 112 (l.d.), MVN 6, 499 (n.d.), MVN 7, 121 (n.d.) and CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.). Texts concerning the garden management which, however, do not explicitly refer to a - b a l a , but rather only to SIG7-a, were not considered, with the exception of HLC 3, 267 and CT 10, 46 BM 21381 which belong to a specific group of texts recording the payments for water drawers. 218 Data taken from MVN 20, 139 (ŠS 2/i), MVN 12, 401 (AS 4/iii), MVN 6, 344 (Š 42/vi/5), HLC 2, 46 (Š 46/vii/9), SAT 1, 434 (AS 2/x), CT 3, 9 BM 18344 (Š 48/xii), TÉL 233 (n.d.). 219 Data taken from HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i), STA 20 (Š 47/ii), HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii), RA 4, 130 44 (AS 4/iv), HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi), Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix), HLC 3, 267 (l.d.), WMAH 285 (l.d.), MVN 20, 120 (l.d.). 220 Data taken from HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i), STA 19 (Š 48/i), Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix), HLC 3, 267 (l.d.). 221 Data taken from MVN 12, 401 (AS 4/iii), MVN 6, 307 (Š 38/iv), HLC 3, 366 (AS 6/iv/3), HLC 1, 30 (Š 48/v/15), MVN 6, 344 (Š 42/vi/5). 222 Data taken on information derived from ITT 2, 811 (ŠS 5/-) and ITT 3, 5367 (ŠS 9/viii); see however § 1.3.1. 223 MVN 6, 499 (n.d.) and MVN 15, 178 (n.d.). 224 Data resulted from ITT 3, 5154 (AS 8/-) and TÉL 82 (l.d.). 225 Data resulted from MVN 17, 3 (Š 37/-), HLC 1, 253 (AS 2/-). 226 The employment of gardeners in the first month is recorded in JSS 1, 207 (IS 1/i/4), in the fourth month in MVN 12, 24 (Š 46/iv) and in RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/iv), which records payments left in the granary (g u r u 7 - a t a k a 4 ). The payments for some gardeners for the fifth month are attested in HLC 1, 26 (Š 47/v), while for the sixth month they can be found in HLC 3, 394 (AS 5/vi). For the ninth month there are the attestations in ITT 4, 7745 and those of STA 18 for the months nine, ten and eleven. The texts that do not provide any indication about the months are: MVN 6, 290 (AS 2/-), MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), MVN 7, 121 (n.d.), Nisaba 7, 12 (n.d). 227 The employment of gardeners of the large trees and gardeners of the vineyards for every month of the year is traceable in a single text, CT 3, 5 BM 18343 (Š 44/xii). With regard to both categories of gardeners, there is also HSS 4, 2 (Š 42//AS 6/i), which records the payments from the first month, CT 10, 38 BM 15296 (AS 1/xi) recording the payments for the ninth, tenth and eleven months, while TCTI 1, 790 (l.d.) those from the seventh to the tenth month. Further, CT 10, 28 BM 14316 (AS 2/xii) records the payments for ten months for the ‘gardeners of the large trees’, from the third to the twelfth month, left in the granary (g u r u 7 - a t a k a 4 ).

60

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

Table 3. Agricultural calendar of garden crops228 Month

Hoeing

Manure

April (M ~ i)

fig trees, apple trees, other fruit trees, preparing land for vegetables

fig trees, apple trees

May (M ~ ii)

around trees

fruit trees

June (M ~ iii)

around grapevines

Weeding

x

Planting/ transplanting/ sowing

Pruning/ molding/ grafting

propping heavely fruited branches sowing vegetables with wooden supports transplanting offshoots229 (bedding nursery plants)

grafting grapevines

around grapevines

various kinds of cucurbitaceae figs garlic, first grapes, apples and first palm byproducts

July (M ~ iv) cultivating vegetables (spinach, lettuces)

August (M ~ v)

pomegranates, ripe grapes

September (M ~ vi)

final gathering of grapes

October (M ~ vii)

preparing land for winter vegetables

transplanting offshoots

various kins of trees

November (M ~ viii)

general

planting grapevines

various kins of trees

December (M ~ ix)

Harvest

harvest dates

burning old roots for compost, produce of some fruit trees (olive, quince trees)

grapevines and various kins of trees

––––––––––––––––– 228 The information collected in this table was based on El-Sāmārraie 1972, 65-71. Hruška also quotes the work of this scholar with regard to the agricultural calendar of the field crops (Hruška 1990); however, the period of about 4000 years separating this calendar and the documentation treated here should be taken in account. 229 With regard to offshoots, namely the palm offshoots cut from the mother plant (Old-Babylonian ĝ e š p e š - t u r - z i (liblibbu): ‘(verpflanzter) Palmschößling’; see Landsberger 1967, 27; Volk 2003/05, 286), there is no evidence in the Neo-Sumerian administrative documentation of the province. Offshoots still attached to the mother plant are, according to Volk, to be identified with ĝ e š ĝ e š n i m b a r - s u h u š x (TUR) (suhuššu). To the best of my knowledge, these types of offshoots are also not documented in Neo-Sumerian Ĝirsu. Once planted, the branchings are able to fructify within three or four years, an indication, according to Prüssner, that recalls § 60 of the Code of Hammurabi, confirming the practice of this kind of propagation in Old-Babylonian Mesopotamia which, however, may have been known already in erlier periods (Prüssner 1919/1920, 224).

61

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Month

Hoeing

Manure

Weeding

January (M ~ x)

general

February (M ~ xi)

general around trees, prepairing budded and land for grafted trees summe vegetables

x

March (M ~ xii)

general

x

general

general

Planting/ transplanting/ sowing

Pruning/ molding/ grafting

Harvest

budding fruit trees; planting figtrees, pomagranates, apple-trees, sowing vegetables

pruning apple trees and other fruit trees, grafting pruned shoots, grafting apple trees and other fruit trees, trimming trees and palm trees

cropping of winter vegetables

cropping of winter winter vegetables

cucurbitaceae, sowing summer vegetables

1.5. Planning of works With the exception of TÉL 233 (n.d.) which plans the employment of generic unskilled workers (g a n -d a b 5 ) and gardeners (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ), 230 most of the texts which record the employment of workers in order to perform specific operations in gardens do not mention the profession of the involved workers, but rather use generic expressions, such as adult worker (ĝ u ru š). The labor of these workers was calculated on the basis of work-days, hence, it seems plausible that they were workers employed only occasionally.231 ASJ 14, 242 91 (Š 36/xii)232 records an accounting of plowing teams over a 13 months period.233 A section of the text indicates the number of workers (ĝ u ru š ) and work-days (u 4 n še 3 ) necessary to perform works on canals (r. 6-7: 26 < ĝ u ru š > u 4 1 5 -š e 3 i 7 [...] / 2 6 < ĝ u ru š> u 4 1 0 -š e 3 u 3 234 i 7 d Š u l-g i-h e 2 -ĝ a l 2 ) and follows with the planning of mud walls (im -d u 8 -a ) in connection with a plot of 540 m2 (15 sar). The employment of one worker (per work-day) every 2.4 m2 (4 g iĝ 4 ) is then calculated, resulting in 225 ĝ u ru š for one work-day. Subsequently, the planning of the hoeing (a l ĝ e š k iri 6 ) of a garden plot ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d L u g a l-u 4 d a )235 measuring 5,400 m2 (150 s a r), for which the requirement of one worker (per work-day) every 18 m2 (½ s a r), therefore 300 workers for one work-day, is calculated. RTC 402 (Š 33/xi) records the employment of personnel for an entire agricultural cycle, from ––––––––––––––––– See § 1.3.2. 231 Heimpel noted that types of labor, such as the hoeing of garden plots, were assigned to occasionally hired personnel (Heimpel 2009b, 327). See also the considerations reported in § 1.2.1. 232 See Maekawa 1992, 211-212. According to this scholar, the text has been written by an inexperienced scribe, as suggested by the errors in calculations, as well as the visible erasures of signs, subsequently corrected. 233 The text does not differentiate the employment of work-teams per month, but rather indicates that it is the personnel employed in that given period of time. 234 Civil interprets u3/5 as a portion of high ground, probably old levees or islands near the river or canal banks. As noted by the author, indeed, unlike the irrigation inlet-areas (k a - a - DU) , this kind of ground seems not to have been suitable for planting (Civil 1994, 131-132). Studevent-Hickman had recently proposed an interpretation of the term as spoil bank or causeway (Studevent-Hickman 2011, 46-48). 235 In this text, there is no mention of responsible officials, just a personal name occurs juxtaposed to the garden. As already seen in the introduction, the name can refer to the responsible gardener, the official responsible for the area, or the person to whom somehow the plot pertained. Also the garden names quoted in connection with the planning of works to be performed on the banks of the Niĝinšedu canal (see § 4.2) show the same problem. 230

62

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

the eleventh month of a year to the eleventh month of the next, in some plots, among them a garden. The section devoted to the works in gardens indicates the making of mud walls for restoration (im -d u 8 -a ĝ e š k iri 6 n a m -z i) for the eleventh month (February-March).236 For this work, 10 workers (ĝ u ru š), differentiated according to their labor service capacity (a 2), were stationed. The term im -d u 8 -a occurs several times in connection with gardens and fields (especially in texts from Umma), and refers to the creation of levees or mud walls, a kind of operation that, according to Cocquerillat,237 was often employed in the restoration of a garden. Considering that the bad condition of a palm grove can be due to inefficient irrigation,238 in support of these operations, according to the author, hydraulic interventions were undertaken in order to increase the flow rate of the canals surrounding the plots, allowing for a better stockage of water.239 In a text from Nippur, NATN 61 (n.d.), the works to be performed in some gardens are specified as: im -d u 8 -a a k a u 3 p a 5 b a -a l-la , namely the creation of mud walls (im -d u 8 -a a k a ) and the digging (b a -a l-la ) of an irrigation ditch (p a 5). By assuming that these operations aimed at improving the water supply of the plots, it can be inferred that the creation of mud walls, and coincidingly, the digging of an irrigation ditch served to intercept and convey the water from the main canal, in order to control the water distribution and outflow. The expression ĝ e š k iri 6 n a m -z i would seem, therefore, to concern the restoration of a garden through the creation of mud walls and the digging of minor canals, in order to ensure a proper water supply. As shown by the texts, this was enabled by the intervention of generic (or seemingly generic) workforce. The text from Nippur, NATN 61 (n.d.), provides additional information: for every garden the number of required workers (ĝ u ru š) is in fact specified, in addition to the amount of the respective payments and the name of the responsible gardener (specified here as u m -m i-a , garden expert). An official (whose title is not mentioned) occurs as conveyor, while an administator (š a b ra ) occurs as the general responsible for the recorded operation. One particular text, MVN 22, 31 (n.d.), a preliminary unofficial document,240 seems to record the preceding step, namely, the measurement and the description of some palm groves which were subdivided into parcels designated with the name of the responsible gardener. To this information, ––––––––––––––––– 236 The planning of the works to be executed in the garden seems to concern, in this case, a period close to the yearly spring floods and thus, it could have been meant as preventive measure against damages to the crops, on the one hand, and as optimization of the excess of water brought by the floods, on the other. Indeed, as argued by Civil, works done to contain the floods and to lead the water into the proper places and in the proper amount, as well as to dispose of the excess water, were substantial activities in Mesopotamian life. However such activities could, at times, have different goals, since sometimes the flooding of the plots was to favor, sometimes instead to avoid (Civil 1994, 68-69). Nevertheless, it should be recognized, that the technique of flood irrigation ( a d e 2 ) implies that the plots were intentionally flooded (Maekawa 1990, 127-128; Waetzoldt 1990a, 9-11), not necessarily in connection with the yearly spring floods (Waetzoldt, ibid. 14-15 and 21). The restoration works, wherever required, might therefore have been carried out on the occasion of the intentional floodings of the plots. 237 Cocquerillat 1967, 180. In this regard, indeed, Cocquerillat affirmed that, during the Old-Babylonian period, the term IM.DU3.A referred to the clay superstructure obtained through levees (pitiqtum), a kind of work that could have been required in wasted palm groves, also serving as protection for the trees. 238 A text from Umma, MVN 20, 92 (ŠS 6/-), records the payments addressed to water drawers (SIG7- a ) employed for a wasted garden (see § 1.8.5). 239 Cocquerillat 1967. This scholar also argued that, during the Neo-Babylonian period, the plots were irrigated both by workers devoted to the water transport (lu2dālû) and by the opening of irrigation compartments (see Cocquerillat 1968, 28). Therefore, it can be inferred that the transport of water was included among the tasks of the water drawers (a b a l a ) , both in ordinary situations and in situations concerning the rehabilitation of the plots, while interventions on the irrigation system, ordinary or required by a restoration, were done through the employment of generic workforce, on the basis of labor planning external to the garden management. For a detailed analysis of the operations concerning the hydric system, see Watzoldt 1990a, 1-21; Civil 1994, 109-112. 240 This text has been mentioned in 1.1 already. The lack of date, the consistent use of abbreviations, and the sketches on the reverse, confusingly mixed with calculations, all suggest an interpretation of the text as preliminary document, not directly addressed to the central administration or other institutions. An interpretation of the sketches is provided by Alivernini and Greco 2014, 5-8.

63

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

the scribe then added a sketch with some calculations, probably concerning the works to be done. In the last line, which partially merges with the sketch, it seems possible to recognize the sequence n a m -z i, therefore, probably alluding to the rehabilitation of the mentioned gardens; concerning other sections of the sketch, it seems possible to recognize the measurement (or the planning for the subsequent digging) of an irrigation ditch (p a 5 ). However, it is difficult to determine its location with respect to the gardens described by the text.241 In the text, every plot described is subdivided into cultivated (242 ), irrigated (d e 2243) and uncultivated (k i-ĝ a l 2 ) areas, then followed by the name of the responsible gardener (< u m -m ia > ) and by the number of palms present. With the exception of the ‘garden of Nanše’ and the garden whose name is lost, every plot corresponds to a garden.244 A further characterization of the considered areas is given by the term ŠU, for which an abbreviation of unclear meaning can be supposed.245 Finally, although not at the end of the written section, there is mention of the garden administrator active in the area where the gardens were situated.246 These texts seem to pertain only partially to the garden management and, in fact, the planning of works concerning the canal banks in connection with the plots, even for the garden plots, fell within the responsibility of the administrators (ša b ra or sa ĝ ĝ a ) of the relevant households (see § 4.2) and required the employment of generic workforce. The ordinary maintenance costs of the canal banks and irrigation system were probably only paid to the provincial central administration or to the relevant household by the garden administrators, by means of the irrigation fees, collected from the plots managed by them (see § 1.8.5). Conversely, interventions relating to the restoration works, planned by the administrators (ša b ra or sa ĝ ĝ a ) and carried out by generic (or seemingly generic) workforce, were undertaken by the gardeners (u m -m i-a ) who were responsible for the plots to be restored, an operation likely to have been managed by the garden administrators (see § 1.8.6). 1.6. The middle-level managers: gardeners or garden experts As already seen, n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 , ‘gardeners’, is a generic designation meaning the skilled personnel employed in the gardens, but it can also refer specifically to the workers elsewhere designated as u m -m i-a ĝ e š k iri 6 , ‘garden experts’. Indeed, the presence of some gardeners can be noted who, in comparison with their colleagues, take on a certain administrative relevance as they appear burdened with specific duties and responsibilities for the personnel as well as for the production. The identification between u m -m i-a and n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 is provided by the comparison of two texts SNAT 216 (n.d.) and HLC 3, 391 (l.d.).247 Both texts deal with the gardens pertaining to the family of the governor Ur-Lamma, showing that some gardeners defined as ‘(garden) experts of ––––––––––––––––– The only clear hint provided by the sketch is the contiguity of the irrigation ditch with an uncultivated area. 242 In the text only the irrigated and uncultivated areas are specified, and those hosting fruit trees rather than palms. What is implied is that the area was instead planted with palm trees, as is evident from the count of palm trees covering every measured plot. 243 It would be an abbreviation for a d e 2 - a , ‘irrigated by flooding (area)’. In this regard, see the considerations in 1.1. 244 A calculation of the average areas concerning the garden experts ( u m - m i - a ) within a palm grove on the basis of the information provided by MVN 22, 31 is present in Greco 2015, 172, and in § 1.6.3, where the information of other texts is also considered. The average area of responsibility of the garden experts in palm groves and in irrigation inletareas are also analyzed in § 1.6.3. 245 As supposed in Alivernini and Greco (2014, 3), the most plausible hypothesis is that the abbreviation means š u d u 1 1 - d u 1 1 . Such a verb, indeed, means a specific operation occurring, for instance, in a text from Ĝirsu, AfO 40-41, 58 5 (n.d.), in connection with the creation of mud walls ( i m - d u 8 - a ) in the ‘field Nanše-ĝara’, planned by the adminstrator (s a ĝ ĝ a ) of Ninĝešzida. According to Sallaberger, it may have been a kind of operation aiming at the improvement of the pre-existing mud structures, which implied the covering of the mud walls with new mud layers. In this regard, the author proposed an interpretation of the expression as: überziehen, verkleiden, or in a broader sense austatten, behandeln (see Sallaberger 1993/94, 58-60). 246 For the mentioned garden administrator, Agu, see the § 9.1.8. 247 For these texts, see § 2.10. 241

64

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

the governor’ (u m -m i-a e n si 2 ) in the first text correspond to some gardeners defined as ‘gardener’ (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) in the second one: SNAT 216 (n.d.) o. 1-10: DIŠ Ur-dNanše / DIŠ Lu2-giri17-zal / ĝeškiri6 Ur-dBa-U2 saĝĝa / DIŠ Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su / ĝeškiri6 Du-du / d ĝeš d d ĝeš d DIŠ Ur- Lamma / kiri6 dam Ur- Ba-U2 / DIŠ Ur- Ša-u18-ša / kiri6 Ur- Lamma ensi2 r. 1-2: um-mi-a ensi2 [...] / ĝeškiri6 BI [....] mah [...] HLC 3, 391 (l.d.) o. 1'-14': [...] iku ki-[...] / Ur-dNanše nu-ĝeškiri6 / ĝeškiri6 Erim2-ze2-ze2-na / ½ ¼ iku 5 sar ĝešnimbar ur2-ba nu-ur2-ma // ka-a-DU / Lu2-giri17-zal nu-ĝeškiri6 / 0.0.1 ½ ¼ iku ĝešnimbar ur2-ba nu-ur2-ma // ka-a-DU / ¼ iku ki-ĝal2 / Ur-eš3-ku3-ga nu-ĝeškiri6 / 0.0.1 ½ ¼ iku ĝešnimbar ur2-ba nu-ur2-ma // ka-a-DU / ¼ iku ĝešnimbar / Ur-Šul nu-ĝeškiri6 / ĝeškiri6 e-bu-gu / ĝeškiri6 Ur-dBa-U2 saĝĝa dNin-MAR.KI

The term u m -m i-a literally means ‘expert, master’ and will be borrowed in the subsequent period by the scribal world to designate scribes of particular experience.248 Less commonly such a designation refers to the experts of other professional sectors, such as lu 2 -b a p p ir 2 ,249 ‘brewers’, or šid im ,250 ‘builders’, and, already in this period, d u b -s a r, ‘scribes’.251 That such a designation did not exclusively refer to garden workers is suggested by the fact that, when not already clear by the context, scribes needed to specify u m -m i-a ĝ e š k iri 6 .252 It seems that this characterization of the profession had an echo in the words of the propaganda, where the king claims to have stationed men of knowledge (lu 2 z u -a ) in gardens: Hymn A of Šulgi253 ll. 28-33: ĝiri3 hu-mu-gur kaskal kalam-ke4 si he2-em-sa2-sa2 / danna hu-mu-gi e2-gal-la he2-bi2-du3 / za3-ba kiri6(SAR) he2-bi2-gub ki-ni2-dub2-bu he2-bi2-ĝar / ki-be2 lu2-zu-a he2-em-mi-tuš / sig-ta du igi-nim-ta du-e / a2-šedx (MUŠ 3.DI)-bi-še3 ni2 he2-eb-ši-te-en-te-en I organized the ways and put in order the highways; I established mile(-markers) and set them in palaces, at which side I planted gardens and resting-places; I settled experts there, so that who comes from South or from North can come near to its fresh shade (and refresh).

The term u m -m i-a implies a cognitive competence reflected, indeed, in the expression lu 2 z u a . Conversely, the term g a š a m means the experts in the handicraft sectors, implying a technical expertise. Among the farmers (e n g a r), those who reached the level of expert were called g a š a m , and here it is interesting to note that among the gardeners, also tied to the agricultural sphere, the experts were called u m -m i-a as was the case for the scribes.254 ––––––––––––––––– 248 Volk 2000, 9-10. According to this scholar, during the Neo-Sumerian period the u m - m i - a employed in gardens and fields achieved such title on the basis of the experience obtained in their professional domain. 249 See e.g. WMAH 175 (Š 46/vi). 250 Particularly in texts from GARšana. 251 See e.g. UET 3, 1381 (AS 3/-). 252 See e.g. Priests and Officials 101 App. 4a-b (n.d.) and UTI 6, 3511 (n.d.) from Umma. 253 See Frayne 1997, 15. This passage is also treated in Greco 2015, 167. For the reconstruction of this hymn, see also Klein 1981, 167-217; for the passage here considered, 190-191. The composition was reconstructed on the basis of about 40 copies coming from different cities of the alluvium and from Susa, thus implying it had been quite a well known work in antiquity. One of the sources can be dated to the Ur III period rather than to the Old-Babylonian period; see Rubio 2005, 216 with previous literature. 254 The concept of ‘cognitive expertise’ compared to ‘technical expertise’ referring to gardens can derive from the complexities tied to the care of date palms mentioned above. It may be suggested, however, that such a notion was tied (on an abstract level) to a concept of garden which was quite independent from the agricultural reality. Evidence in support of this concept can be found in the relevance of the date palm and gardens in the royal ideology (see above the introduction; 1. The gardens), literature (see in particular Volk 1995), iconography, onomastic, in the consideration of fruit as luxury goods, as well as in the presence of gardens within the cities, all elements that set the gardens and fields on a different level in the collective imagination. However, it remains unclear what reasons they had to attribute to an essentially agricultural profession a name containing in itself a connotation of cognitive knowledge rather than technical skill.

65

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

If n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 can signify the personnel laboring in the gardens as a whole, when it occurs in texts drafted by institutions external to the garden management or referring to single individuals, it is to be interpreted as a gardener of the expert level, by virtue of the administrative significance of this position. In the present study ‘garden expert’ will be used to indicate gardeners with tasks of administrative relevance, even when the profession is not specified in the texts. 1.6.1. Recruitment of garden experts The supervisors of teams of workers employed in the different institutional economic sectors were recruited from among the workers themselves.255 These supervisors would have then been responsible to the administration for the work teams. It seems plausible that such selection was based on the experience gained by the workers within their sector, though the difference between the garden experts and the other gardeners is only on the level of administrative relevance. Workers holding administrative duties tend to maintain this function over time, abandoning the function of simple workers. In some cases, indeed, it seems possible to trace the career paths of workers employed as water drawers (a -b a la ) or arborists (d u 3 -a -k u 5 ) and, subsequently, as supervisors of the personnel or responsible for production, thus garden experts (u m -m i-a ).256 Therefore, the achievement of the title ‘expert of the sector’ represented the peak of the career of a gardener. In the following tables some examples are collected,257 based on names rarely recurring in the province, hence likely less exposed to cases of homonymy.258 Lu-niĝir Text

Role

Garden

Function

water drawer (SIG7-a)

garden of Ninĝirsu-namerim

recipient

MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-)

garden expert

/

provider/recruiter (ki ~ -ta)

MVN 6, 317 (end AS)

garden expert

/

supervisor (ugula)

MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x)

259

––––––––––––––––– On this topic, see Steinkeller 1987b; Renger 1996, 227. 256 A text from Umma, SAT 3, 1839 (ŠS 7/-), a balanced account of various spices, lists separately the garden experts (u m - m i - a ) and arborists (d u 3 - a - k u 5 ) from the water drawers (SIG7-a), however all of them under the supervision of a garden administrator (Šara-aĝu, whose title is known from other texts) and the total amount of spices is reported as a single calculation. The subdivision offered by this text would suggest an affinity between arborists and garden experts, an affinity that would lead us to suppose that only the arborists could then become ‘experts’. Another text from Umma, Nisaba 11, 27 (n.d.), records the presence of 40 (garden) expert workers (ĝ u r u š u m - m i - a ) and only one (garden) expert specified as water drawer (SIG7-a ĝ u r u š u m - m i - a ) . Therefore, it seems plausible that there were more garden experts recruited among the arborists than among the water drawers (the metaphorical interpretation of blind as not specialized seems to hint in such direction as well), but also that the workers belonging to both categories could become ‘experts’, since it was fundamentally a career enhancement, rather than an actual maturation within the professional domain. 257 The dates of some texts are indicative and deduced from the period of activities of the involved garden administrators. The activities of these officials, indeed, can be ascribed to specific periods of time, as is evident in chapter 9, where the attestations pertaining to the individual garden administrators of the province are collected. 258 The number of water drawers and arborists acting in the province may have been quite high, hence, cases of homonymy are frequent. In cases of homonyms belonging to the same category it was preferable to report the attestation of the worker occurring in the area of a certain garden administrator, thus, even if the worker was not necessarily employed in the same garden, he would at least be in the same area. 259 The texts belonging to the group of payments of Š 48, among them HSS 4, 7 and MVN 12, 297 (see § 2.2), do not mention experts, but solely the water drawers and arborists present in the gardens. This is clarified by the indication in the colophon, but also by the absence of garden experts known from the contemporary documentation and by the presence, instead, of the their sons in the gardens under their responsibility: Eluti, arborist of the ‘garden of Tira’aš ’, a garden where his father Diĝira served as expert (see § 2.2.28), or Lu-Ninšubur arborist of the ‘garden of Ur-Ninĝirsu I’, a garden where his father Urdudani served as expert (see § 2.2.32). 255

66

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

Luga Text

Role

Garden

Function

HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i)

arborist

garden of Šulgi-a-kalama

recipient

MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-)

arborist

garden of Šulgi-a-kalama

recipient

MVN 6, 317 (end AS)

garden expert

/

supervisor (ugula)

Text

Role

Garden

Function

MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-)

arborist

garden of Šulgi-a-kalama

recipient

TUT 143 (end AS)

garden expert

/

supervisor (ugula)

MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-)

garden expert

/

conveyor (ĝiri3)

Ur-Saĝub260

1.6.2. Territoriality and family groups The documentation provides examples of family groups composed of water drawers and arborists employed in the same garden.261 STA 20 (Š 47/-), for instance, attests to the employment of Atu’s family in the ‘garden of the bathhouse’ (§ 3.2). In this text Atu is not present, probably because he was no longer in service at the time of the draft or his payment was recorded in a different document, although his name was used by the scribe to identify the workers belonging to his family; there is, indeed, the record of the payments for the Atu’s wife, whose name is not specified, and for three of his sons, one water drawer and two arborists. There are different examples of family groups occurring within the same period in the same garden; for example, the water drawer Kuda of the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ (§ 2.2.24), who occurs in HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii) and MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x), is the father of the arborist NinMAR.KIka, who is attested in the same garden in HLC 1, 100 (Š 48/iii). From MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), a text recording an inspection of gardeners and the allotment of wool and garments, it can be noted that the garden experts at the head of the work teams are often indicated as the fathers of some of the workers listed in the groups under their own supervision. In the text, the name of each foreman is followed by the names of his son or sons and, subsequently, by the names of the other workers.262 ––––––––––––––––– 260 This name is slightly more widespread in the province, although it occurs a very few times in texts concerning the garden management. In MVN 17, 55 there are two arborists with this name employed in the same garden, so that it can be imagined that only one became ‘expert’, tentatively the one who is indicated as the son of a garden expert and listed among the workers of the group headed by his father (o. iii, 27-28: AŠ U r - d a - g i d 2 - d a u g u l a / < ...> U r - S a ĝ - u b 3 k i d u m u - n i ). 261 The employment of family groups is a predictable practice within the agricultural sphere; see, in this regard, the considerations put forward by Steinkeller about the foresters; According to the author, the men employed in the forests appear to have been recruited from the rural population permanently residing near the respective forests (Steinkeller, 1987b). For the gardeners of the Neo-Babylonian period as well, Jursa assumed that the profession was inheritable and that the sons were active in the same gardens as their fathers. The author argued, furthermore, that gardeners were responsible on a territorial level (Jursa, 1995). As highlighted by Steinkeller, the management of the single gardens, from the water supply to the effective care of the plots, could have been carried out on a family level, unlike the fields, the maintenance of which required a management on a larger scale (Steinkeller 1999a, 303-304). As seen in the introduction (6. Documentation), the author emphasized this managerial difference in support of the hypothesis which stated that during the third millennium gardens, unlike fields, could be owned. However, the relative autonomy of the garden management should be framed in the context of the Neo-Sumerian society and of the relation between state and production units present in the territory, thus, with regard to the territories managed by the state, single family units represented the base of the pyramidal structure of the management of resources on a larger scale. 262 The number of skilled workers within the group headed by garden experts is highly variable in the documentation of the province, from a dozen to two or three workers. Such variability may be due to the peculiar conditions of the areas where the teams operated, on the basis of the density of the trees, and, probably, the features of the water supply.

67

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

For some workers more information can be noted: the arborist E-luti, son of the garden expert Diĝira, is the only worker recorded in HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i) in the garden in which his father was in charge, the ‘garden of Tira’aš’, in the area of the garden administrator Gu’umu (see § 2.2.28). In MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-), a text recording a gardener inspection, E-luti (here specified as son of Diĝira) occurs among the workers recruited by the garden expert Bagara-ziĝu263 and whom Gu’umu takes charge of. In a text recording the employment and payments for some gardeners, TUT 143 (ca. end AS), which also represents the last attestation of this worker, E-luti occurs under the supervision of E-heĝal, the garden expert and son of the garden administrator Gu’umu, among the workers taken charge of by Gu’umu. The activity of the garden expert Diĝira seems to be exclusively tied to the ‘garden of Tira’aš’; absent in the texts detailing the allotment of payments for the water drawers and arborists of Š 48, which do not mention experts and in which his son E-luti occurs, Diĝira is attested as responsible for this garden until IS 2 (MVN 7, 299), still under the supervision of Gu’umu. Tira’aš can refer both to a sanctuary dedicated to Ninĝirsu in the northern area of the province, and to the adjacent settlement,264 which occurs, furthermore, among the addressees of the fruit offerings recorded in MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-).265 The regular offerings addressed to this sanctuary, although not exclusively, were composed of quantities of fruit provided by Diĝira under the supervision of the garden administrator Gu’umu. It seems plausible that the ‘garden of Tira’aš’ was close to the homonymous settlement and that the activity of Diĝira was characterized by a strong territorial connotation, not attested, although presumable, for other garden experts of the province. Many texts concerning the garden workers, above all those recording the payments, reflect in particular the hierarchic relationship among the gardeners, without mention of the garden of employment; these texts, indeed, pertain to the circulation of the goods managed by the garden administrators and then distributed by the garden experts, so in essence, these texts are mere lists of names, differentiated by functions. As a consequence there is more information about the occurrence of the relevant garden experts in the areas managed by the relevant garden administrators in the texts which don’t mention the gardens. See the following tables266 which illustrate the occurrence of some garden experts in the areas under the authority of two garden administrators of the Ĝirsu district, Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2) and Ka (§ 9.1.6): Table 4. Occurrence of garden experts in the area of the garden administrator Gu’umu Garden CUSAS 16 administrator 74 (AS 1/-)

Gu’umu

Urdudani, Bagara-ziĝu

MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-)

MVN 17, 18 (early AS)

TUT 143 (end AS)

Urdu, Ur-BaU Lu-niĝir,UrNinMAR.KI, Bagara2-ziĝu

Urdudani, Ba-gara-ziĝu, Diĝira, Ur-Saĝub, Ur-BaU brother E-heĝal, of Gamu, Urebadu, Šeškala, Ur-Alla, LuDaga mother Ninhursaĝ, of E-hili Ur-Inanna, Lu-balasaga

MVN 6, 317 (end AS-ŠS)

MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-)

MVN 7, 299 (IS 2/-)

E-hili, Luga, Ur-kuni, Ur-Enki, LuNinšubur, UrNinMAR.KI, Lu-niĝir

Ur-Ninĝešzida, Lu-Gudea, Lu-Ninĝirsu, Eninakal, Lu- Diĝira, Ninhursaĝ, Lugal-gugal, Lu-diĝira, Ur-Igalim Diĝira, Ur-Igalim, Ur-Saĝub

––––––––––––––––– Nevertheless, it should be taken into account that sometimes the number of workers pertaining to a garden or a foreman is related to the specific operation recorded in the document, rather than to the actual number of employed workers. 263 One wonders if it is possible to infer that, as was the case for the gardeners of the Neo-Babylonian period (see Jursa 1995, 51), some functions of administrative responsibility inherent to a given garden were performed by the experts of other gardens, likely within an area managed by a same garden administrator; Bagara-ziĝu was, indeed, the expert of the ‘garden of Lu-Ninĝirsu the archivist’ in the area of Gu’umu (§ 2.2.18). However, this sort of mobility may have exclusively concerned the transfer of personnel and probably the function of conveyor of some fruit quantities (see § 1.6.5); the administrative function of foreman and that of responsible for the production were, indeed, clearly tied to the expert in charge of a given garden. 264 See § 2.2.28. 265 For this text, see § 1.6.5. 266 Also in this case, the approximate dates reported in tables are based on the prosopographic analysis of the garden administrators co-occurring in each text; see chapter 9.

68

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

Table 5. Occurrence of garden experts in the area of the garden administrator Ka Garden MVN 6, 298 administrator (AS 2/-)

Ka

Lu-balasaga, Ur-Ninĝešzida, Ur-Enki, Ur-Bagara

Iraq 62 41 21 (early AS)

Ur-Nanše, Ur-Ninĝešzida, Ur-Lisi, Ur-Enki Lu-balasaga

RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/-)

TUT 143 (end AS)

MVN 6, 317 (end AS-ŠS)

MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-)

Lu-balasaga, Niĝ-BaU

Urebadu (2×), Ur-BaU (2×), Ur-abbasaga, A-saga, NinMAR.KIka (2×), Lu-urigia, Ur-Šulpa’e, Ur-Lisi

Lu-balasaga, Ur-BaU, Urebadu, Ur-NinMAR.KIka, Gagamu

Šeškala, Urebadu, Urgigir, Ur-Igalim, Ur-dNinĝešzida, ERENda, Lugal-uri, Ur-šugalama

1.6.3. Territorial responsibility of the garden experts The territorial responsibility of the garden experts is primarily illustrated by texts concerning the measurement of gardens ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g id 2 -d a ), which describe the composition of the surfaces of the single gardens and, additionally, record the counting of trees (ĝ e š šid -d a ) present in the measured plots, though in the colophons there is not always explicit mention of the latter operation. In the cases of gardens that can be identified as palm groves, the relevant texts (ASJ 18, 108 9, AS 2/vii; CUSAS 6, 85-87, n.d.) subdivide the garden surfaces into cultivated area (e ĝeš ĝ e šn im b a r) and uncultivated area (e k i-ĝ a l 2 ), adding the number of palms and sometimes of other trees.267 MVN 22, 31 (n.d.), as seen in § 1.5, does not record the official measurement of gardens, but rather the measurement inherent in the planning of works, and provides additional information about the irrigated surfaces. The information concerning the areas of responsibility of the garden experts within palm groves is summarized in the following table.268 Gardener (Text)

Garden

Bagara-ziĝu (ASJ 18, 108 9)

Cultivated area

Uncultivated area

Total area

Palms

Other crops

garden on the banks of the irrigation 150 sar, 5,400 m2 ditch Musar (ĝešĝešnimbar) (§ 2.10)

100 sar, 3,600 m2

250 sar, 9,000 m2

indefinite

/

Ur-Damu (CUSAS 6 85-87)

garden before the Bagara temple (§ 4.3.5)

150 sar, 5,400 m2 (ĝešĝešnimbar)

425 sar, 15,300 m2

575 sar, 20,700 m2

85

/

E-hili (MVN 22, 31)

garden of Nanše (§ 2.4.3)

220 sar (+ 30 sar irrigated), 9,000 m2

20 sar, 720 m2

270 sar, 9,720 m2

80

/

Uš (MVN 22, 31)

garden of Nanše

270 sar (+ 63 ½ sar irrigated), 12,006 m2

/

333 ½, 12,006 m2

90

/

Dimmi (MVN 22, 31)

garden of Nanše

410 sar (+70 sar irrigated), 17,280 m2

90 sar, 3,240 m2

570 sar, 20,520 m2

80

/

Ur-mes (MVN 22, 31)

garden of Nanše

190 sar (+ 80 sar irrigated) 9,720 m2

60 sar, 2,160 m2

330 sar, 11,880 m2

30

/

Ur-Hendur-saĝ (MVN 22, 31)

garden of Nanše

35 sar, 1,260 m2

/

35 sar, 1,260 m2

15

fig trees, grapevines

Šeškala (MVN 22, 31)

garden of Nanše

490 sar (+ 50 irrigated), 19,440 m2

/

540 sar, 19,440 m2

50

/

––––––––––––––––– 267 As seen in (1.1), on the basis of the information provided by WMAH 279 (l.d.), the interplanting among palms and other types of trees outside the irrigation inlet-areas involved merely 8% of the garden areas. 268 In this table, as in the following ones, data on the area given in i k u (3,600 m2) in the texts is expressed here in s a r (36 m2).

69

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Gardener (Text)

Garden

Cultivated area

Ur-Ninĝešzida (MVN 22, 31)

garden of NinMAR.KI (§ 2.2.24)

220 sar (+20 sar irrigated), 8,640 m2

Utu-kalame (MVN 22, 31)

garden [...]

Šeškala (MVN 22, 31)

Total area

Palms

/

240 sar, 8,640 m2

indefinite269

/

350 sar (+ 50 sar ŠU 2 […]270 + 10 sar irrigated), 14,760 m2

/

410 sar, 14,760 m2

indefinite

/

garden [...]

330 sar (+ 120 sar ŠU 2 […] + 10 sar irrigated), +12,240 m2

/

460 sar, +12,240 m2

indefinite

/

Akala (MVN 22, 31)

garden of Ištaran (§ 2.4.2)

520 sar (+20 sar irrigated), 19,440 m2

/

540 sar, 19,440 m2

40

/

(MVN 22, 31)

garden of LuIgimaše (§ 2.5.2)

220 sar (+ 60 sar irrigated), 10,080 m2

/

280 sar, 10,080 m2

indefinite

/

ca. 320 ½ sar, 11,538 m2

5 gardeners of 13, (139 sar, 5,004 m2) ca. 53 ½ sar, 1,926 m2

ca. 374 sar, 13,464 m2

59271

Total average

Uncultivated area

Other crops

As can be noted in the table above, the gardener E-hili was in charge of an area within the ‘garden of Nanše’ of 9,720 m2, of which 7,920 m2 supported 80 palms, showing a ratio of one palm for every 99 m2. This situation can be grosso modo compared with that of the area maintained by the gardener Ur-Damu and corresponding to a single garden (the ‘garden before the Bagara temple’), consisting of 5,400 m2 and supporting 85 palms, with a ratio of about one palm every 63 m2, to which should be added an area of 15,300 m2 of uncultivated land.272 In contrast, in the ‘garden of Nanše’, the gardener Šeškala was in charge of an area of 19,440 m2 supporting only 50 palms, hence showing a ratio of one palm every 388 m2 ca. This can be compared to the area within the ‘garden of Ištaran’, for which the gardener Akala was responsible and which consisted of 19,440 m2 supporting 40 palms, according to a ratio of one palm every 486 m2. Furthermore, it can be noted that the area under the responsibility of Ur-Hendursaĝ was extremely small, corresponding to about 1/10 of the areas maintained by the other gardeners, consisting of 1,260 m2 cultivated with grapevine and fig trees and supporting 15 palms, hence, it is possible to deduce the presence of one palm every 83 m2 ca.273 In principle, beyond the fluctuations of individual cases, it can be recognized that the average dimensions of the area of responsibility of a garden expert within a palm grove amounted to 13,464 m2, of which 11,538 m2 supporting in average 59 palms, i.e. one palm every 195 m2 ca. The territorial responsibility of a gardener within a vineyard is similarly illustrated by texts recording the measurement of gardens or, more specifically, of vineyards. Of the four texts ––––––––––––––––– It is unclear whether the presence of 20 date palms may be attributed to this plot; indeed, the garden names is followed by a notation which can be interpreted as 20. In any case, this data has not been included in the calculation of the average. 270 For this notation see § 1.5. 271 In the calculation of the averages concerning the number of palms the entries ‘indefinite’ were not considered; hence, the average obtained was based on the information concerning the areas of eight gardeners. 272 The uncultivated areas represent a temporary state of the plots, and this is the reason why the proportion in the composition of a garden may have been subject to variation over the time. Therefore, the comparison among the cultivated areas under the responsibility of the different gardeners is to be understood as effective at the time of the drafting of the text. 273 It is unclear whether the particularly small size of the area maintained by Ur-Hendursaĝ is to be ascribed to the type of the specific crops present, namely fruit trees within palm groves, or to reasons which remain unexplained. As is evident from the comparison with the subsequent tables, this area appears noticeably small even if compared to the areas maintained by gardeners in irrigation inlet-plots which, probably for technical reasons, result in a more limited average. 269

70

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

examined, only CBT 3, BM 28832 (n.d.) and CT 10, 49 BM 14334 (n.d.) contain the key expression ‘measured vineyard(s)’ ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin g id 2 -d a ) in their colophon, whereas the colophon in PPAC 5, 288 (n.d.) specifies solely which vineyard is intended. The vineyard in CUSAS 6, 85-87 (n.d.) is the only garden of this type mentioned in the text, and the colophon, in fact, simply reports ‘measured gardens’ ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g id 2 -d a ). In CBT 3, BM 28832, CT 10, 49 BM 14334 and PPAC 5, 288, the surfaces are subdivided into irrigation inlet-areas (e k a -a - DU), only some of which are specified as ‘vineyard’ (ĝ e štin ),274 hosting however various crops, and in most cases uncultivated areas (e k i-ĝ a l 2 ). CUSAS, 6 85-87, with regard to the mentioned vineyard, reports only the dimensions of the area defined as ĝ e štin k a -a - DU, ‘irrigation inletplot (cultivated as) vineyard’. Although an accounting of trees is present in each of these texts, the expression ‘trees counted’ (ĝ e š šid -d a ) occurs only in CT 10, 49 BM 14334 (n.d.). Gardener (Text)

Garden

Irrigation inlet-area Uncultivated area

Total area

Attested crops

Ur-Dumuzi (BM 28832)

vineyard on the bank of the Turtur canal (§ 4.5.5)

150 sar, 5,400 m2 (ĝeštin)

275 sar, 9,900 m2

date palms, grapevines (ĝeštin)

Agasaĝkeš2 (BM 28832)

vineyard on the bank of the Turtur canal

125 sar, 4,500 m2

125 sar, 4,500 m2

fig trees, kab-willows, tamarisks

Lu-girizal (BM 28832)

vineyard on the bank of the Turtur canal

100 sar, 3,600 m2

100 sar, 3,600 m2

200 sar, 7,200 m2

fig trees, hackberries, tamarisks

Ur-BaU (BM 28832)

vineyard on the bank of the Turtur canal

225 sar, 8,100 m2

100 sar, 3,600 m2

325 sar, 11,700 m2

grapevines, apple trees

Bazige (BM 28832)

vineyard on the bank of the Turtur canal

100 sar, 3,600 m2

100 sar, 3,600 m2

200 sar, 7,200 m2

date palms, grapevines, apple trees, hackberries

Dati (BM 28832)

vineyard on the bank of the Turtur canal

125 sar, 4,500 m

Nanše-manšum (BM 28832)

vineyard on the bank of the Turtur canal

100 sar, 3,600 m2

125 sar, 4,500 m2

Ur-mes (BM 28832)

vineyard on the bank of the Turtur canal

225 sar, 8,100 m

2

2

Lu-Nanše (BM 28832)

vineyard on the bank of the Turtur canal

100 sar, 3,600 m2

75 sar, 2,700 m2

175 sar, 6,300 m2

grapevines, apple trees, hackberries, tamarisks

Bami (BM 28832)

vineyard on the bank of the Turtur canal

75 sar, 2,700 m2

100 sar, 3,600 m2

175 sar, 6,300 m2

grapevines, apple trees, pomegranates, hackberries, tamarisks

Ur-Suen (BM 28832)

vineyard on the bank of the Turtur canal

175 sar, 6,300 m2

425 sar, 15,300 m2

600 sar, 21,600 m2

date palms, apple trees, pomegranates, hackberries, tamarisks

2

125 sar, 4,500 m2

/

50 sar, 1,800 m

2

225 sar, 8,100 m

175 sar, 6,300 m

grapevines, apple trees, hackberries, kab-willows, tamarisks

2

date palms, apple trees, pomegranates, tamarisks

225 sar, 8,100 m2

450 sar, 16,200 m

2

date palms, grapevines, fig trees apple trees, kabwillow, tamarisks

––––––––––––––––– 274 In PPAC 5, 288 and CBT 3, BM 28832 such specifications occur for the first described plot and can be inferred in the following descriptions. In contrast, in CT 10, 49 BM 14334 this information is provided for all the described plots, including the uncultivated area. Furthermore, in CBT 3, BM 28832 the indication of the profession (n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 ) is specified only for the first gardener quoted and can be inferred for the following ones, whereas in CT 10, 49 it is explicit for all the quoted gardeners.

71

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Gardener (Text)

Garden

Ipada (BM 28832)

vineyard on the bank of the Turtur canal

200 sar, 7,200 m

Kitušlu (CUSAS 6, 85-87)

vineyard within the walls of Bagara (§ 4.3.3)

75 sar, 2,700 m2 (ĝeštin)

Lugal-abbairi (PPAC 5, 288)

vineyard in the marsh of Niĝin (§ 4.5.2)

175 sar, 6,300 m2 (ĝeštin)

150 sar, 5,400 m

vineyard in the marsh of Niĝin

175 sar, 6,300 m2

50 sar, 1,800 m2

225 sar, 8,100 m2

black poplars, pomegranates, hackberries

vineyard in the marsh of Niĝin

175 sar, 6,300 m2

50 sar, 1,800 m2

225 sar, 8,100 m2

hackberries

Ur-Nanše (PPAC 5, 288) Lu-Ninšubur (PPAC 5, 288)

Ur-Siana (PPAC 5, 288)

Ĝeš-sasa (PPAC 5, 288) Niĝir-anezu (PPAC 5, 288)

Niĝin-kidu (PPAC 5, 288)

Lugal-KAgina (PPAC 5, 288)

Atu (PPAC 5, 288)

Šabanasig (PPAC 5, 288)

Ur-Siana (PPAC 5, 288)

Ur-abzu (CT 10 49 BM 14334) Ur-Lamma (CT 10 49 BM 14334) Ur-Siana (CT 10 49 BM 14334)

Irrigation inlet-area Uncultivated area

2

75 sar, 2,700 m

2

275 sar, 9,900 m

175 sar, 6,300 m

vineyard in the marsh of Niĝin

175 sar, 6,300 m2

vineyard in the marsh of Niĝin

150 sar, 5,400 m2

2

100 sar, 3,600 m

Attested crops date palms, hackberries, apple trees, fig trees, kabwillows,

2

75 sar, 2,700 m2

/

vineyard in the marsh of Niĝin

Total area

2

2

100 sar, 3,600 m2

/

grapevines (ĝeštin)

325 sar, 11,700 m

275 sar, 9,900 m

2

2

grapevines (ĝeštin), pomegranates, hackberries, black poplars, tamarisks

pomegranates, apple trees, hackberries, kab-willows, tamarisks, Euph. poplars

275 sar, 9,900 m2

apple trees, kabwillows, tamarisks

150 sar, 5,400 m2

apple trees, fig trees, kab-willows, tamarisks,

vineyard in the marsh of Niĝin

175 sar, 6,300 m2

125 sar, 4,500 m2

300 sar, 10,800 m2

date palms, pomegranates, apple trees, kab-willows, tamarisks, Euph. poplars

vineyard in the marsh of Niĝin

150 sar, 5,400 m2

125 sar, 4,500 m2

275 sar, 9,900 m2

hackberries, black poplars, fig trees, kabwillows

vineyard in the marsh of Niĝin

100 sar, 3,600 m2

100 sar, 3,600 m2

200 sar, 7,200 m2

hackberries, black poplars, kab-willows, tamarisks, Euph. poplars

vineyard in the marsh of Niĝin

100 sar, 3,600 m2

100 sar, 3,600 m2

200 sar, 7,200 m2

pomegranates, apple trees, kab-willows, black poplars, tamarisks

275 sar, 9,900 m2

apple trees, hackberries, black poplars, kab-willows, tamarisks, Euph. poplars

150 sar, 5,400 m2 (ĝeštin)

kab-willows, ĝipartrees

175 sar, 6,300 m2

275 sar, 9,900 m2

grapevines (ĝeštin), tamarisks

375 sar, 13,500 m2 (ĝeštin)

375 sar, 13,500 m2

vineyard in the marsh of Niĝin

vineyard on the banks of the Kun canal (§ 4.5.4) vineyard on the banks of the Kun canal vineyard opposite the field of Enlil (§ 4.5.3)

100 sar, 3,600 m2

175 sar, 6,300 m2

150 sar, 5,400 m2 (ĝeštin) 100 sar, 3,600 m2 (ĝeštin)

/

/

72

grapevines (ĝeštin)

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

Gardener (Text)

Total average

Garden

Irrigation inlet-area Uncultivated area

Total area

Attested crops

26 gardeners of 27, (ca. 141 sar, 5,076 m2) 136 sar, 4,896 m2

256 sar, 9,216 m2

33 or 463275

22 gardeners of 26 (about 5/6; ca. 141 ½ ¼ sar, 5,103 m2) 120 sar, 4,320 m2

Therefore, within the vineyards, the areas maintained by the garden experts appear in principle more limited than those of the garden experts employed in palm groves, that is 9,216 m2, compared to 13,464 m2 (3.74 ik u , 374 s a r). Additionally, uncultivated areas within vineyards constituted about half of the parcels of land under the responsibility of each garden expert and about 5/6 of them presided over an area which was partly uncultivated. In the case of Ur-Siana of the ‘garden opposite the field of Enlil’, the gardener is responsible for only an uncultivated area of 13,500 m2, defined as vineyard (ĝ e štin ). In general, no significant differences emerge between the dimensions of the plots maintained by individual garden experts. However, as can be seen from the table, a particular case is represented by the area presided over by Kitušlu of the ‘vineyard within the walls of Bagara’, consisting of only 2,700 m2 and labeled as ĝ e štin k a -a - DU, ‘irrigation inlet-plot (cultivated as) vineyard’; this area is comparable to that presided over by the gardener Bami in the ‘vineyard on the banks of the Turtur canal’, also consisting of 2,700 m2 and labeled and as ‘irrigation inletplot’, to which, however, 3,600 m2 of uncultivated land are added. Further, there are the areas headed by Ur-mes and Ur-Suen of the ‘vineyard on the banks of the Turtur canal’ of 16,200 m2 and 21,600 m2 respectively, which on the whole differ from the average. In the first case, the parcel is equally subdivided into irrigation inlet-land and uncultivated land, in the second case, instead, the irrigation inlet-plot covers only 6,300 m2, the remaining 15,300 m2 being uncultivated land. With regard to the trees present in the areas maintained by the gardeners in vineyards, we can note an average of 33 or over 400276 units for each plot, but also the presence of a great variety of tree types (date palms, fruit and timber trees), whereas the presence of intercropping areas within palm groves is of little relevance. It remains unclear whether the presence of grapevines is implied, even when it is not mentioned, as suggested by the specification ĝ e štin in connection with the irrigation inlet-plots, and in that case, which criteria were used in the process of recording the counting of trees.277 The documentation presents, then, the instances of mixed gardens, namely those consisting both of areas cultivated as palm groves and irrigation inlet-areas. In these cases the garden surfaces appear subdivided into areas cultivated as palm groves (e ĝ e š ĝ e šn im b a r), irrigation inlet-areas (e k a -a - DU), and occasionally, uncultivated areas (e k i-ĝ a l 2 ), which are followed by the notation of the number of date palms and other trees. Texts of the province attesting to this kind of gardens are essentially four: CBT 3, BM 25293 (n.d.), CUSAS 6, 85-87 (n.d.), ASJ 18, 156 1 (AS 2/-), HLC 3, 391 (l.d.).

––––––––––––––––– 275 The average of trees is based on the calculation including trees with any characterization and the HAR-elements, for which see the next paragraph, but excludes date palms. The detail of trees for each gardener is reported in the relevant paragraphs pertaining to the gardens. 276 The variation is due to the ambiguity between the notation for 1 and that of 60 in some texts. 277 As noted by Heimpel (also in regard to the ambiguity between 1 and 60), the number of grapevines within vineyards seems notably meager in the texts measuring garden plots (Heimpel 2011b, 115). Further, the counting of PPAC 5, 288 apparently does not include grapevines. However, there is no clear evidence suggesting that such texts record only part of what was actually present, even though it is difficult to understand the reason for designating as vineyards areas which did not support or supported just a few exemplars of grapevines. In this regard, see the discussion in § 5.9.

73

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Gardener (Text)

Garden

Palm grove area

Irrigation inlet- area

Nanše-izu (BM 25293)

garden at Niĝin (§ 4.5.1)

225 sar, 8,100 m2 (ĝešnimbar)

250 sar, 9,000 m2

Lu-Ĝatumdu (CUSAS 6, 85-87)

garden of Alšana (§ 4.3.1)

Ur-NIĜ (CUSAS 6, 85-87)

garden of Ĝatumdunin-Gudea (§ 4.3.2)

Lu-Ĝatumdu son of Urlugal (CUSAS 6, 85-87)

ĝi’eden garden of Bagara (§ 4.3.4)

350 sar, 12,600 m2 125 sar, (ĝešĝešnimbar) 4,500 m2

525 sar, 18,900 m (ĝešĝešnimbar)

2

100 sar, 3,600 m2

275 sar, 9,900 m2 (ĝešĝešnimbar)

100 sar, 3,600 m2

garden of Abī-ilum Dudu of (ASJ 18, 156 Erimzezena 1) (§ 2.10)

175 sar, 6,300 m2 (ĝešĝešnimbar)

125 sar, 4,500 m2

garden of Ur-Šul(pa’e) Ebugu (HLC 3, 391) (§ 2.10)

25 sar, 900 m2

175 sar, 6,300 m2

Total average

310 sar, 11,160 m

2

141 ½ sar, 5,100 m2

Uncultivated area

Total area

Palms

/

475 sar, 17,100 m2

apple trees, 270 + hackberries, 2(×60?) u2 pomegranates, du11-ga grapevines

550 sar, 19,800 m2

500 sar, 18,000 m2

/

25 sar, 900 m2

/ 3 gardeners of 6 (the half; 358 ¼ sar, 12,897 m2) 179 sar 6,450 m2

Other crops

172

pines, apple trees, pomegranates, ĝipar-trees, fig trees, junipers, hackberries, tamarisks

182

pines, apple trees, pomegranates, ĝipar-trees, fig trees, junipers, kabwillows, tamarisks

375 sar, 12,500 m2

128

grapevines, pomegranates, ĝipar-trees, fig trees, junipers, kaband manu-willows, tamarisks, abbatrees, Russian olives, hackberries

325 sar, 11,700 m2

indefinite

apple trees

200 sar, 7,200 m2

indefinite

pomegranates

630 ½ sar, 22,698 m2

188278

842279

1,025 sar, 36,900 m2

1,125 sar, 40,500 m2

In the case of these gardens, if the presence of fruit and timber trees can be traced essentially to the irrigation inlet-areas (k a -a - DU), the presence of date palms, here attested in large number, can be considered obvious in palm groves and possible in irrigation inlet-areas. The texts CUSAS 6, 85-87 and CBT 3, BM 25293 do not specify, in fact, the distribution of trees according to the type of land and, conversely, ASJ 18, 156 1 and HLC 1, 391, though not specifying the number of trees, ascribe to the irrigation inlet-plot within the garden maintained by Abī-ilum a monoculture of apple trees, and an intercrop between palms and pomegranates to the irrigation inlet-plot which Ur-Šul was responsible for. As far as the number of date palms is concerned, there is an average of 188 units, to be compared to that of 59 of palm groves. However, the average area of the garden experts in charge of these gardens appears in line with previously reported cases, except for the cases of the gardeners Lu-Ĝatumdu of the ‘garden of Alšana’ and Ur-NIĜ of the ‘garden of Ĝatumdu-nin-Gudea’, whose areas amounted to 36,900 m2 and 40,500 m2 respectively, although these were composed of about half uncultivated land. In ––––––––––––––––– Also in this case, the notations reading ‘indefinite’ in the calculation of the averages concerning the number of date palms were not considered; hence, the average obtained was based on the information pertaining to the areas of four gardeners and on the consideration of the presence of two palms, rather than 120, defined u 2 d u 1 1 - g a , in the garden maintained by Nanše-izu. 279 Also in this case, the calculation of the averages was based on the number of trees of various classification, including the HAR-elements. Further, since in the case of the gardens of the governor’s family only the type and not the number of trees is recorded, the calculation was based on the number of trees attributed to four gardeners and in consideration of the presence of 1,000, rather than 1,413, units attributed to Nanše-izu. 278

74

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

particular the cultivated area maintained by Ur-NIĜ appears significantly vast, as it covered a surface of 18,900 m2 cultivated solely with palms, to which 3,600 m2 of irrigation inlet-surface was also added. Hence, the palm grove area maintained by him is comparable to those maintained by Šeškala of the ‘garden of Nanše’ and by Akala of the ‘garden of Ištaran’ (19,440 m2),280 whereas the irrigation inlet-surface is comparable to the dimensions of the cultivated surfaces of the areas of responsibility of several gardeners within vineyards. A particularly significant case is represented by some gardeners of the gardens of the governor’s family;281 for three of them, Bagara-ziĝu, Abī-ilum, and Ur-Šul, their areas of responsibility were reported in the previous tables, since they concern a palm grove and two mixed gardens respectively. All these plots appear relatively small in size: the palm grove maintained by Bagara-ziĝu amounted to 9,000 m2 and the mixed gardens maintained by Abī-ilum and Ur-Šul amounted to 11,700 m2 and 7,200 m2 respectively. For the other garden experts282 Lugirizal, Ur-eškuga and Ur-Saĝub, their area of responsibility consisted of gardens composed of solely irrigation inlet-areas (not labeled as vineyards) which supported date palms and pomegranates. Gardener (Text)

Garden

Irrigation inletarea

Uncultivated area

Total area

Number of date palms

Other attested crops

Lu-girizal (HLC 391)

garden of Ebugu (§ 2.10)

80 sar, 2,280 m2

/

80 sar, 2,280 m2

indefinite

pomegranates

Ur-eškuga (HLC 391)

garden of Ebugu

175 sar, 6,300 m2 25 sar, 900 m2

200 sar, 7,200 m2

indefinite

pomegranates

Ur-Saĝub garden of (ASJ 19, 287 11) Saĝrig (§ 2.10)

110 sar, 3,960 m2

110 sar, 3,960 m2

indefinite

pomegranates

Total average

ca. 121 ½ sar, 4,374 m2

/ ⅓ of the gardeners, 25 sar, 900 m2 (ca. 8 ½ sar, 306 m2)

ca. 130 sar, 4,680 m2

/

/

Therefore, it may be recognized that each garden expert present in these gardens was in charge, on average, of a plot of 4,680 m2, an average which is lower than that of palm groves, that is, about 13,464 m2. This was probably due to the greater presence of fruit trees, a kind of composition requiring a higher parcellation in connection with the higher number of trees involved and the greater care needed. The data thus obtained is, indeed, comparable to that relating to vineyards, where each garden expert presided, on average, over an area of 9,216 m2, of which only 4,896 m2 involved irrigation inlet-surfaces, thus consistent with the average of 4,374 m2 of the inlet-surfaces cultivated in these gardens. In principle, apart from specific cases,283 it can be assumed that according to the dimensions of the gardens, to the composition of their surfaces, and to the number and type of trees involved there were one or more gardeners acting as guarantor of the production and of the works to be carried out in their areas of responsibility.

––––––––––––––––– 280 It should be recognized, however, that the cultivated surfaces which the garden experts maintained within palm groves rarely exceed 400 sar (14,400 m2). 281 For a comprehensive discussion on the gardens of the governor’s family, see § 2.10. 282 In this calculation the ‘garden of Erimzezena’ of Ur-BaU, the administrator (s a ĝ ĝ a ) of NinMAR.KI (§ 2.10), was not considered, since the total area of 350 sar (12,600 m2) refers to the information reported in the total section of the text, which does not mention the gardeners in charge. As it is the first garden recorded by the text, the break on the upper part of the tablet could have included the presence of more than one gardener. 283 See the considerations inherent to the individual cases reported in § 1.6.7.

75

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

A similar situation might have affected the garden experts of the timber tree gardens, however, we do not have explicit attestations of this.284 The information relating to the experts of such gardens concerns rather the amount of timber produced in the areas where the gardeners were in charge, without any indications about the dimensions of the areas or description of the involved crops, hence falling within the criteria of responsibility for the production, as illustrated in § 1.6.4. 1.6.3.1. The function of territorial responsibility of the garden experts Texts recording garden measurements (g i š k iri 6 g id 2 -d a ) illustrate therefore the territorial responsibility of the garden experts. In this type of texts, the function of these gardeners is expressed by the juxtaposition of their names with the measured plots. This function of middlelevel responsibility occurs unvaryingly in each text belonging to this category, unlike that of the official who was ultimately responsible, as will be seen below. In general these texts are not dated,285 probably because they were meant to be kept in boxes with explanatory and summary labels, and they specify the title of gardener (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ), although not in every case and not for all the attested garden experts.286 According to a general schematization of the texts CBT 3, BM 28832 (n.d.), CBT 3, BM 25293 (n.d.), CUSAS 6, 85-87 (n.d.), CT 10, 49 BM 14334 (n.d.), the function performed by the garden experts in the texts recording garden measurements can be formulated as follows: e k a - a - DU/ ĝ e š n i m b a r / k i - ĝ a l 2 * n trees/timbers * PN u m - m i - a * center* u g u l a PN s a n t a n a /PN (PN N U -b a n d a 3)

ĝeš

kiri6*

ĝeš

kiri6 gid2-da*

irrigation inlet-/palm grove/uncultivated area (the dimensions of which are) e, trees/timbers (present there are) n, (the responsible is) PN the garden expert, (in the) garden, gardens measured in (the area of the) center, the supervisor (was) PN the garden administrator/PN the official (captain/overseer was PN).

Besides the role performed by the garden experts, a constant feature in garden measurement texts is certainly the mention of the place where the recorded operation took place; specifically, in the case of the available texts, the areas of the main urban centers Lagaš or Niĝin. PPAC 5, 288 (n.d.) represents a particular case; although it shows the same structure as the measurement texts, there is no trace in its colophon of the key expression (g i š k iri 6 g id 2 -d a ), and thus it could have been a report drafted in the name of one of the listed gardeners.287 Furthermore, indication of the place where the measurement was enacted is included in the designation of the garden itself. The schema provided by this text is therefore as follows: PPAC 5, 288 (n.d.) e k a - a - DU/ k i - ĝ a l 2 * n trees/timbers* PN u m - m i - a *

ĝeš

k i r i 6 ĝ e š t i n +center* u g u l a PN u m - m i - a (?)

irrigation inlet-/uncultivated area (the dimensions of which are) e, trees/timbers (present there are) n, (the responsible is) PN the garden expert, (in the) vineyard in (the area of the) center, the supervisor (was) PN the garden expert(?).

––––––––––––––––– In the introduction, the lack of evidence within the documentation of the Ĝirsu province regarding the composition of such gardens was already noted. With regard to the connection between the cultivation of timber trees and the ‘gardeners of the large trees’, see § 5.10. 285 For the texts ASJ 18, 108 9, ASJ 19, 287 11, ASJ 18, 156 1 and HLC 3, 391, see § 2.10; they are the only dated texts of this type and, indeed, they refer to a specific situation. In any case, also in these texts the function of the garden experts invariably occurs. 286 In this type of texts, it seems that the indication of the title involves in particular the garden experts of vineyards; although it occurs in the simple form of n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 , the characterization ĝ e š t i n in these cases is already in the name of the garden. 287 See § 4.5.2 and § 1.6.7. 284

76

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

Although the number of trees or timbers is recorded for almost every garden, the indication ĝ e š šid -d a (trees and timbers counted)288 occurs explicitly only in two texts recording garden measurements ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g id 2 -d a ) in the area of Niĝin. In the case of CBT 3, BM 25293 (n.d.), the measured area consist of an almost equal proportion (see § 1.6.3 and § 4.5.1) of irrigation inlet-land and palm grove, unlike the the gardens described in CT 10, 49 BM 14334 (n.d.), which are designated as vineyards (see §§ 4.5.3-4) and the operation as ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin g id 2 -d a , ‘vineyard measurement’ (lit. measured vineyards). In the latter text, and probably also for the former one,289 the profession (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) of the responsible gardeners is specified. As far as the ultimate responsibility is concerned, in CBT 3, BM 25293 a garden administrator occurs as supervisor after the description of the gardens, while a captain/overseer occurs after the notation of the operation, while in CT 10, 49 BM 14334 the titles of the supervisors are not specified (and they may not necessarily belong to the garden managerial sphere; see § 4.5). In any case, in both texts the function of the garden experts is unchanged, following the scheme of the juxtaposition of the name of the responsible gardener with the measured plots and counted timber: CBT 3, BM 25293 (n.d.) and CT 10, 49 BM 14334 (n.d.) e k a - a - DU/ ĝ e š n i m b a r / k i - ĝ a l 2 * n trees/timbers * PN u m - m i - a * ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ) u g u l a PN s a n t a n a /PN ĝ e š k i r i 6 ( ĝ e š t i n ) g i d 2 - d a ĝ e š š i d - d a * center*, PN N U -b a n d a 3/u g u l a PN irrigation inlet-/palm grove/uncultivated area (the dimensions of which are) e, trees/timbers (present there are) n, (the responsible is) PN the garden expert, (in the garden), the supervisor (was) PN the garden administrator/PN the official, gardens (vineyards) measured and timbers and trees counted in (the area of the) center, captain/overseer (was) PN/the (ultimately) supervisor (was) PN the official.

The characterizations of the counted trees and timbers, probably reflecting the stage of growth of the trees, vary from generic attributes referring to the trees, such as large (g a l), long (g id 2 ),290 to more specific indications which refer to the products obtainable from some trees, such as posts (d im ),291 axes (e 2 -d a ),292 and boards for the construction of boats (m i-ri 2 -z a ),293 or they relate to elements somehow connected to the trees, such as HAR, the meaning of which remains unclear.294 Even if combined with the garden measurements, the counting of timbers and trees within gardens illustrates rather the duty of the garden experts in regards to production within the areas maintained by them.

––––––––––––––––– 288 The term ĝ e š seems to embrace generically in itself both single trees and elements that are obtainable from them or connected to them (HAR; see below). As stated by Heimpel, indeed, those who counted the trees, still planted but already designated as specialized timbers, determined that a given tree was suitable to become a specific product if it was felled at the moment of the counting (Heimpel 2011b, 82). Furthermore, the author noted that the indication of the characterizations followed a fixed decreasing order (Heimpel, ibid. 91). 289 In CBT 3, BM 25293 the title of the attested gardener can likely be restored, see § 4.5.1. 290 According to Heimpel, this term may have denoted young trees, neither so young as to be differentiated by age nor ready to be used as specialized timber (Heimpel 2011b, 91). 291 Heimpel, 2011b, 91 and 114. According to the author, such designation concerns the stage of growth of the trees, referring to the supports to which the young trees were tied, rather than to the intended use. 292 Alivernini 2013, 127, with previous literature. Heimpel interprets the indication e 2 - d a as ‘side-house’ (Heimpel 2011b, 91), though in the Ĝirsu documentation it can also mean a kind of container for fruit (see Postgate 1987, 123). 293 Alivernini 2013, 134. 294 It is not clear which element is meant; in the documentation it occurs in connection with different types of trees, except for date palms. In the texts, HAR-elements are characterized by a given type of tree, which, in turn, is characterized by a given descriptive parameter, large or long. Heimpel asserted that they were clearly manufactured items and followed the interpretation considered by Focke, which implies that HAR was likely a designation of some type of root ball container used for the transplanting of trees. However this interpretation presents some problematic aspects; for a more detailed discussion of the topic, see Heimpel 2011b, 139-141. A synthetic overview on the trees associated with HAR-elements is present in Heimpel, ibid. 148-149.

77

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

1.6.4. The garden experts in function of responsible for the production295 Therefore, the garden experts were also responsible for the yield of the garden or portion of the garden under their control. This function, equally expressed through the juxtaposition of the gardener’s name with the listed products, is evident in texts recording the yield inspections of gardens, ĝ e š k iri 6 k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a .296 The scheme suggested by TUT 268 (AS 4/-) is as follows: q dates* PN u m - m i - a * ĝ e š k i r i 6 * ĝ e š k i r i 6 k a b 2 d u 1 1 - g a q of dates, (of which is responsible) PN the garden expert, (in the) garden, garden (yield) inspected.

The same structure is offered by MVN 17, 18 (n.d.), undated and without the expression k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a . Therefore, this text may be related to a provisional record of the actual yield, to be compared with the estimated amounts recorded in the corresponding yield inspection text, or the record of that part of the yield which occurs in the section concerning the available capitals under the entry k i n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 -k e 4 -n e -ta , ‘from the gardeners’ in the balanced accounts of the garden administrators:297 q dates* PN u m - m i - a * ĝ e š k i r i 6 * u g u l a P N s a n t a n a q of dates, (for which is responsible) PN the garden expert, (in the) garden, the supervisor (was) PN the garden administrator.

A similar redactional formula is provided by CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4), in which the year and the day are reported, but not the month. Unlike MVN 17, 18, in this text the dates are differentiated by quality, which is either good or (implicitly) ordinary, and in one case the dates are designated as being ‘of the mill’.298 Also here the expression k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a is lacking, but the date formula, though incomplete, would hardly suggest that it was a provisional record;299 at the same time, the fact that the reported quantity of dates is exactly the same for two gardens would hardly suggest that it records the actual production, but rather the quantity due300 to the institution which commissioned the operation. Therefore, the names of the garden experts appear simply juxtaposed to the fruit amounts for which they were responsible, while the garden administrators, as will be seen below, act as supervisors or conveyors. ––––––––––––––––– Three texts treated in this section, TUT 268, CUSAS 16, 74, and MVN 22, 290 are given in transliteration in the appendix (text 1, text 2, and text 3, respectively). 296 Attinger stated that the primary meaning of k a b 2 d u 1 1 / e / d i seems to have been ‘to measure out (by means of a container)’, subsequently ‘to verify, control, testify’. By extension, it could then entail ‘to estimate’ or ‘to attribute/assign’. In this regard, see Attinger 1993, 572-575; Civil 1994, 153-163. As noted by Zettler, all k a b 2 d u 1 1 g a documents recording the month indicate that such documents were drafted before the harvest, which in palm groves took place between September and October. Furthermore, the author noticed that the estimated amounts of produce were too low in comparison with the productive potential of plantations (Zettler 1992, 136). With regard to the estimates of the garden produce and the agreements between gardeners and garden owners in later periods, see for the Old-Babylonia period Cocquerillat 1967, 187-204, and for the Neo-Babylonian period Jursa 1995, 147. 297 See § 1.8.6 for possible entries providing the capital of produce, from which the expenditures within the balanced accounts of garden administrators derive. 298 Compare the types of dates attested by MVN 15, 181 (see § 1.8.6), z u 2 - l u m s a g a 1 0 / - / k i k k e n 2 (dates of good/ordinary/mill(?) quality) contrasting with the z u 2 - l u m s a g a 1 0 / - / HAR attested by CUSAS 16, 74, probably in connection with the same garden, for which, see § 2.2.32. When unmarked it is intended as the ordinary quality of dates (z u 2 - l u m ĝ e n ) , a specification occurring, to the best of my knowledge, only in MTBM 267 (AS 9/ix). 299 The same considerations can be applied to HLC 3, 214 (AS 7/vii), in which date quantities differentiated by garden and name of the relevant expert are recorded without any key expression, followed by the date formula where the month notation (corresponding to the harvest period) was partially erased (see § 2.6). 300 For two of the gardens, the ‘garden of Ištaran’ and the ‘garden of Nanše’ mentioned in this text, we also know the number of palms present there; it is interesting to note that in the case of the ‘garden of Ištaran’ the recorded quantity of ordinary dates (2,820 liters) correspond to the avarage production of 40 adult date palms, which is the number of date palms attributed to this garden in another text, MVN 22, 31 (see, § 2.4.2); in contrast, in the case of the ‘garden of Nanše’ what attributed to the garden (over 36,000 liters) exceed the average of production which can be calculated for the 345 palms attributed to the garden in MVN 22, 31 (see § 2.4.3). Indeed, according to Zettler, the avarage per palm amounts to 50 kg (equal to about 70 liters) of dates, while the highest quantity attested for a date palm amount to 225 kg (equal to 300 liters); see Zettler 1992, 136 and previous literature. 295

78

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

With regard to the yield of the gardens of timber trees, the same structure is featured in the texts recording the counting of timbers in the name of the responsible garden expert/gardener of the large trees, 301 without the involvement of garden administrators:302 TLB 3, 144 (Š 46/-) n1 timbers boat c-ta/n1 timbers* n2 PN u m - m i - a* n3 ĝ e š u 3 - s u h 5 š i d - d a ĝ e š k i r i 6 * district n1 timbers (for the construction of) boats (the capacity of which is) c/n1 timbers, n2 (are the timbers for which is responsible) PN the garden expert, n3 (is the total amount of) pine trees counted (in the) garden.

Compare with: Amherst 66 (Š 46/-) n1 timbers boat c-ta/n1 timbers* n2 PN u m - m i - a * n3 ĝ e š u 3 - s u h 5 š i d - d a ĝ e š k i r i 6 * ĝ i r i 3 PN n1 timbers (for the construction of) boats (the capacity of which is) c/n1 timbers, n2 (are the timbers for which is responsible) PN the garden expert, n3 (is the total amount of) pine trees counted (in the) garden, the conveyor (was) PN the official. SAT 1, 173 (Š 41/-) q fruit* PN u m - m i - a * ĝ e š k i r i 6 k a b 2 d u 1 1 - g a e r e š - d i ĝ i r * ĝ i r i 3 P N s a n t a n a q of fruit (for which is responsible) PN the garden expert, garden (yield) inspected (of the) high priestess, the conveyor (was) PN the garden administrator.

The role of the garden experts in these transactions is consistent, while the function of conveyor is performed by different professional figures: in the case of SAT 1, 173 by a garden administrator, in the case of Amherst 66, probably by an official of the mill.303 Furthermore, texts recording the administrative handing over of the yielded products from the responsibility of the garden experts to that of the garden administrators show a similar formula, according to which the name of the garden expert is juxtaposed with the product quantities, which are subsequently taken over by the garden administrator. See, for example, MVN 22, 290:304 q fruit* PN u m - m i - a * P N s a n t a n a i 3 - d a b 5 q of fruit (from) PN the garden expert, PN the garden administrator took it over.

1.6.5. The garden experts and the fruit circulation305 The role of the garden experts in regard to the fruit circulation is illustrated by a text, MVN 9, 87, (ŠS 7/-), which records regular offerings for the gods (s a 2 -d u 1 1 d iĝ ir-re -n e ) gathered from the account of the gardeners (n iĝ 2 -k a 9 n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 -k e 4 -n e -ta š u su -b a ). From the text, insofar as possible given the breaks in the tablet, the following range of entries can be deduced: ––––––––––––––––– 301 As § 5.7 shows, some gardeners of TLB 3, 144, Barta’e, Ur-gula and Dada, also occur acting as experts in HSS 4, 2 (Š 42//AS 6/i) among the gardeners designated as ‘gardeners of the large trees’ ( n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š g a l - g a l ) of Gu’aba (§ 1.6.8 and § 5.7), while others, NinMAR.KI-isa, Abbaĝu and Lu-kala, are designated as ‘gardeners of the large trees’ in TUT 100a (see §§ 5.6-7). 302 It should be noted that the counting of timbers for the construction of boats of a given capacity already follows the parameters of the receiving institution, which were more specific than those occurring in the generic counting of timbers and trees ( ĝ e š š i d - d a ). 303 The mentioned official, Ur-ebabbar, occurs also in AAICAB 1/1, Ashm. 1924-693 (Š 46/xid) as conveyor of timber delivered to the mill (see § 5.5). In general, it seems that the officials related to the institution where the timber was delivered interacted, from an administrative point of view, directly with the garden experts responsible for the portion of garden where the timber has been produced (see § 5.9). 304 The reverse of the text is not fully preserved, however, it cannot be excluded that there was an indication of the garden from which the produce derived or an indication of the structure where the transaction took place, as in the case recorded by MVN 22, 237 (IS 3/viii) the warehouse, see § 9.1.9. 305 The text discussed in this section, MVN 9, 87, is given in transliteration in the appendix (text 12).

79

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD - q1 fruit* k i P N u m - m i - a - t a * u g u l a P N s a n t a n a * q1 fruit* DN/TN q1 of fruit provided by PN the garden expert, the supervisor (was) PN the garden administrator, (the total amount of fruit) q1 (was allocated to) DN/TN. - q1 fruit* k i P N 1 u m - m i - a - t a * ĝ i r i 3 P N 1 / 2 u m - m i - a * u g u l a P N s a n t a n a * q1 fruit* DN/TN q1 of fruit provided by PN1 the garden expert, the conveyor (was) PN1/2 the garden expert, the supervisor (was) PN the garden administrator, (the total amount of fruit) q1 (was allocated to) DN/TN. - q1 fruit* k i P N 1 u m - m i - a - t a * ĝ i r i 3 P N 2 u m - m i - a * q2 fruit* k i PN2 u m - m i - a - t a * u g u l a P N s a n t a n a * q3 fruit* DN/TN. q1 of fruit provided by PN1 the garden expert, the conveyor (was) PN2 the garden expert, q2 fruit provided by PN2 the garden expert, the supervisor (was) PN the garden administrator, (the total amount of fruit) q3 (was allocated to) DN/TN. - q1 fruit* ĝ i r i 3 P N 1 - 2 u m - m i - a * k i P N s a n t a n a * u g u l a P N s a n t a n a * q2 fruit* DN/TN q1 of fruit the conveyor(s) (was/were) PN1-2 the garden expert, provided by PN the garden administrator, the supervisor (was) PN the garden administrator, (the total amount of fruit) q3 (was allocated to) DN/TN. - q1 fruit* k i P N s a n t a n a * u g u l a P N s a n t a n a * q1 fruit* DN/TN q1 of fruit provided by PN the garden administrator, the supervisor (was) PN the garden administrator, (the total amount of fruit) q1 (was allocated to) DN/TN.

Unfortunately the tablet presents different breaks and almost the entire obverse is illegible, hence additional information on the described transactions could not be obtained. However, it is evident that the garden experts act as the providers (ki ~ -ta) of quantities of fruit allocated to the cult and consisting of a few dozen liters differentiated by the type of fruit present (dates, apples, figs, and grapes),306 under the supervision of the relevant garden administrators.307 In addition, they can act as conveyors (ĝ iri 3 ) of quantities of fruit provided by themselves or more often by other garden experts308 or by garden administrators under their own supervision.309 Further, a same garden expert could occur as provider or conveyor of quantities of fruit addressed to different

––––––––––––––––– In some cases, the quantities of figs and grapes converge in a single calculation. 307 In the text there is no mention of the gardens from which the fruit derived, however in some cases the occurrence of the same garden experts in the areas of the same garden administrators can be noted (see Table 6 in § 1.8.1). 308 As is the case in the texts recording inspections of workers, in which the function of the provider (ki ~ -ta) of the workers seems to have been performed by garden experts external to the garden of provenience of the workers (typically within the area managed by the same garden administrator; see § 1.6.2), it can be inferred that the function of conveyor in some cases was not performed by the expert of the same garden from which the fruit derived. For example, in r. i, 27-29, a fruit quantity provided by the garden expert Dimmi is recorded, who, according to the information of MVN 22, 31 (n.d.), was active in the ‘garden of Nanše’ (see § 2.4.3); this is followed by the notation of a fruit quantity conveyed by Dimmi but provided by the garden expert Utu-kalame, who, according to the information of MVN 22, 31 (n.d.), was active in a garden whose name is not preserved (see § 1.6.3); in both texts the involved garden administrator is Agu (§ 9.1.8). Additionally, there is the record (r. iv, 16-26) of the transactions of fruit quantities under the supervision of Agu involving as providers or conveyors other garden experts also attested in MVN 22, 31 (n.d.) in his area of authority: Ur-Ninĝešzida of the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ (see § 2.2.24), Ur-mes of the ‘garden of Nanše’ and Šeškala of the ‘garden of Nanše’ or the homonymous gardener active in the same garden where Utu-kalame was active (see § 1.6.3). It should be noted that the gardeners who occur in MVN 22, 31 in charge of plots which solely supported date palms, in this text occur as providers or conveyors of dates, figs, grapes and apples according to dynamics which remain unclear. 309 Cases in which a garden expert occurs as conveyor of small quantities of fruit provided by garden administrators are also attested in single documents; see § 1.6.6. There is also the case in which the garden administrator Ka acts as conveyor of a fruit amount provided by the alleged garden administrator Ur-Inanna under the supervision of Ur-Inanna himself (see § 9.1.6) and the case in which the alleged garden administrator Inana acts as conveyor of a fruit quantity provided by the garden expert Šeškala under the supervision of the garden administrator Agu (see § 9.2.4). In the latter case it is not clear whether an operation carried out in extraordinary circumstances was implied; conversely, cases in which a garden administrator acts as conveyor of garden produce provided by another garden administrator are also attested in single documents; see § 1.8.4.3. 306

80

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

destinations under the supervision of the relevant garden administrator.310 Furthermore, in some cases, the garden administrators also occur as providers of fruit under their own supervision without, however, mention of garden experts as conveyors.311 In any case, each transaction of fruit provided or conveyed by one or more garden experts ends with the supervision of one garden administrator,312 while each total quantity marked for a given destination derives from one or more transactions supervised (u g u la ) by one or more garden administrators; hence, the single transfers stylized in the formulas occur in the text individually or together in connection with a single destination.313 Although this text focuses on the fruit quantities allocated to each god or cultic place, it partly reflects a perspective internal to the garden management, which highlights the function performed by the garden experts as providers and conveyors of garden produce under the supervision of garden administrators; who in turn, in texts drafted according to a perspective external to the garden management, are the providers of the garden produce, and in some cases they were accompanied by garden experts in the function of conveyors. Due to its nature as a summary document, the text ascribes to the garden experts the managing of different types of fruit, whereas the single documents consider, in reference to this category of workers, only one type of fruit at a time. However, it seems plausible that the notation in the colophon may refer to the accounts of the garden administrators, which implied the next step, namely, the interaction with the external institutions. 1.6.6. Role of the garden experts in the expenditures314 The administrative responsibility of the single garden experts for the production ceased at the moment in which the produce, fulfilling the required yield, was handed over to the garden administrators. Apart from the summarizing accounts as seen above, there is sometimes evidence of garden experts acting as conveyors315 in single documents which record deliveries of meager

––––––––––––––––– 310 Nevertheless, in a few cases the garden experts who occur as providers of fruit under the supervision of the relevant garden administrator, can occur as conveyors of quantities of fruit provided by another garden expert under the supervision of the garden administrator who was responsible for the area of the provider; for example, the garden expert Ur-kigula, who supplies a quantity of dates (r. i, 39) as part of the offering to Namerešanidu under the supervision of the alleged garden administrator Inana, also occurs as conveyor (r. i, 42) of the quantity of fresh apples provided by Utukalame as part of the offering to Namerešanidu under the supervision of the garden administrator Agu. Similarly, the garden expert Lu-Ninhursaĝ, who supplies a quantity of fresh figs and grapes (r. v, 12) as part of the offering allocated to Gudea under the supervision of the garden administrator Gu’umu, also occurs as conveyor of the quantity of fresh apples (r. v, 9) supplied by Šeškala allocated to Gudea under the supervision of the garden administrator Agu. We know that both Ur-kigula and Lu-Ninhursaĝ were active in the area managed by the garden administrators under whose supervision they provide fruit (see Table 6), it thus can been suggested that the function of conveyor performed by these garden experts was tied in these cases to the place of destination. 311 Quantities of fruit directly provided by the garden administrators without mentions of gardens or gardeners can refer to the remnants of garden produce managed by the garden administrators (see § 1.8.6) or to transactions involving two garden administrators. See e.g. the case in which NIMmu recieves from Nabi 2,010 liters of dates ‘as the price for apples’ (§ 9.1.3 and § 9.1.4). 312 The garden administrators mentioned by the text are: Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2), Ka (§ 9.1.6), Agu (§ 9.1.8), Ur-Lisi (§ 9.1.9) and the alleged garden administrators Inana (§ 9.2.4) and Ur-Inanna (§ 9.2.5). 313 This implies that some cult places conveyed, through the garden administrators, the produce of the gardens of the whole district and that the quantities of fruit varied according to the destination. 314 Expenditures according to the perspective of the garden management; see § 1.8.4.3 and § 1.8.6. 315 As noted by Sallaberger, the officials acting as conveyors could be tied to the receiving institution (Sallaberger 1999b, 249-250), as indeed is evident in the accounts concerning the counting of timbers and trees provided by garden experts, in which the function of conveyor is performed by officials of the receiving institution (see Amherst 66 in § 1.6.4) or also in the many transactions of fruit delivered to the palace, in which Ur-Igalim the messenger is the conveyor (see § 9.7.2.2.7). Conversely, in the cases in which the transactions of garden produce provided by garden administrators had a garden expert as their conveyor, it can be inferred that somehow the conveyor represented the economic unit from which the involved produce came. It cannot be excluded that the same dynamics may also have been involved in similar cases seen in § 1.6.5.

81

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

amounts of only one type of fruit provided by garden administrators316 to the central administration: MVN 9, 17 (Š 47/vi) t: q dates* k i PN s a n t a n a - t a * PN d u b - s a r š u b a - t i * ĝ i r i 3 PN u m - m i - a e: […]* k i š i b PN d u b - s a r * ĝ i r i 3 PN u m - m i - a t: q of dates provided by PN the garden administrator, PN the scribe317 took q, the conveyor (was) PN the garden expert. e: PN scribe sealed/acquired [q], the conveyor (was) PN the garden expert. TCTI 2, 3838 (ŠS 2/-) q fruit* k i PN s a n t a n a - t a * cult* k i š i b PN d u b - s a r * ĝ i r i 3 PN u m - m i - a q of fruit provided by PN the garden administrator, for the cult, PN the scribe sealed/acquired q, the conveyor (was) PN the garden expert.

1.6.7. Traces of internal hierarchy Within the same category seems to emerge a sort of internal hierarchy, probably according to criteria ranging from the experience gained in the field by the individual workers to the particular productivity of the plots for which they were responsible, factors not necessarily unrelated. As is seen in § 1.6.3, it would seem that the areas maintained by the garden experts in most of the cases followed criteria based on the dimensions of the plots, their composition, the number of date palms and the presence of other crops, and, most likely on the basis of the type of area, the number and the type of trees present in their area of responsibility, significant differences can be observed among the fruit quantities recorded in the name of different garden experts within the same garden. Such differences can sometimes be explained as a reflection of the specific perspective of the documents; texts recording the yield or the yield inspections of gardens, indeed, list only one type of fruit at a time. As a consequence, on the basis of the type of product the document focuses on, differences in the quantities recorded in the name of a garden expert can depend on the composition of his area of responsibility, rather than on the size of the plot maintained by him. For example, in BPOA 2, 1843 (Š 42/-), the record of the apple inspection of the gardens of the high priestess of BaU (e re š-d iĝ ir d B a - U2), 1,440 liters of apples are recorded in the name of UrŠulpa’e, a gardener of the priestess, while in SAT 1, 173 (Š 41/-), the record of the fig inspection of the gardens of the priestess, 561 liters are recorded in the name of the same gardener. In the same texts, 3,000 liters of apples are attributed to Utu-melam in the first one, but only 50 liters of figs in the second one (see § 1.11.3). However in other cases, the differences cannot be explained by the composition of the areas which the single garden experts were responsible for. In particular, the case of Diĝira is significant here; he was the expert of the ‘garden of Tira’aš’, the only expert attested for this garden, in whose name date quantities were recorded until the middle of the reign of Amar-Suena; subsequently, during the first years of Ibbi-Suen (or even earlier), he was joined by two other gardeners, whose names were associated with lower quantities of dates (see § 2.2.28). ––––––––––––––––– The cases reported in this section concern fruit provided by the garden administrator Ga’a (§ 9.4.1). In the first case the delivery amounts to 300 liters of dates, in the second one to 300 liters of fresh figs, to be compared with the other transactions of fruit provided by garden administrators that comprised several hundred liters of different types of produce. In the first example the conveyor is Nanše-manšum, not to be excluded a ‘gardener of the vineyards’ of Niĝin (see § 4.5.5); in the second one the conveyor is Azam, for which there is no information on the types of crops present in the garden headed by him (see § 4.4.1) and, consequentially, to which category of gardeners he belonged. 317 The profession of the recipient, Ur-BaU son of Lugal-imrua, is not specified in the text and the seal on the envelope is illegible, but is known from other texts; see § 1.11.4. 316

82

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

From the point of view of the dimensions of the areas of responsibility, although a large number of areas can be considered homogeneous in size (with minor or justifiable variations depending on the type of garden examined), there are cases in which the area of a gardener distinguishes itself greatly by being significantly larger or smaller, without any apparent practical reasons (see § 1.6.3). As far as significantly circumscribed areas of responsibility are concerned, there is the case of Ur-Hendursaĝ, garden expert of the ‘garden of Nanše’, responsible for a surface of only 1,260 m2 against the average of 13,464 m2, which can only be partially justified by technical criteria, and the case of Kitušlu, who was responsible for a vineyard of only 2,700 m2 against the average of 9,216 m2 for garden experts within vineyards. Conversely there is, for example, the case of Ur-NIĜ of the ‘garden Ĝatumdu-nin-Gudea’, responsible for an area of 40,500 m2, of which 22,500 m2 cultivated, whereas the cultivated surfaces within the areas maintained by the garden experts rarely exceeded 15,000 m2. The same considerations also apply to the number of trees, quite evident for the date palms, or to the size of the work teams.318 As seen in § 1.6.5, the function of provider (k i ~ -ta ) and that of conveyor (ĝ iri 3 ) of a given quantity could be carried out by the same or different garden experts. Although the function of conveyor performed by the garden experts can somehow be regarded as subordinate when the provider is a garden administrator,319 there is no evidence of hierachization between the two functions when these are both performed by garden experts. The same consideration pertains to the texts showing a garden expert at the head (u g u la ) of a group of workers, while different garden experts occur within the group as recruiters (ki ~ -ta) of the workers. That this function also refers to garden experts is suggested by the fact that their payments do not occur among the entries of the text, just as is the case for the foremen, who are unequivocally u m -m i-a ; this is also bourne out by the fact that some foremen recur as guarantors of their own recruitment.320 Another case of internal hierarchy could be suggested by the case of Lugal-abbairi of the vineyard lying in the marsh area of Niĝin (§ 4.5.2). Even supposing that the text (PPAC 5, 288) represented a draft not directly addressed to the central administration, the subsequent supervision of the garden expert Lugal-abbairi, who also occurs as responsible for the first parcel recorded (see § 1.6.3.1), could betray a sort of internal hierarchy within that specific vineyard. In this case, however, the allegedly higher position of the gardener is not reflected in the size of the plot he headed.321 However, these possible hierarchical differences do not seem to be reflected in the remuneration of the garden experts who apparently were entitled to the same amounts. In any case, it is plausible that there were undocumented privileges, of which we have no trace. 1.6.8. Payments and functions of the garden experts within the work groups322 In some texts recording the allotment of payments for gardeners, the role played by the garden experts in the internal distribution of incoming goods can be observed; the quantities supplied by the garden administrators were redistributed to the workers through the mediation of the foremen, ––––––––––––––––– 318 As already noted, the fluctuations in the number of workers could depend on the partiality of the documents, in particular for the texts recording the payments addressed to them. However, it can be inferred that garden experts responsible for more extended plots were at the head of larger worker groups. 319 The subordination would not concern the transaction, since in every case what was delivered was produced by the gardeners, but rather this subordination would pertain to the relationship between the garden experts and administrators in regard to the interaction with external institutions. 320 As already mentioned, it can be inferred that some administrative duties could be performed by gardeners external to the garden in question, as a further means of control on the circulation of the resources. On the other hand, other duties, among them that of foreman or responsible for the production, seem not to have been affected by the mobility of the garden experts. It remains unclear, however, what the criteria were according to which only some foremen were responsible for their own recruitment, while for others this function was entrusted to external garden experts. 321 Cases of homonymy, not clarified by further indication of the scribe, should in any case be taken into account. 322 Three texts treated in this section, MVN 6, 298, MVN 17, 55, and HSS 4, 2 are given in transliteration in the appendix (text 15, text 16, and text 18 respectively).

83

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

who can be considered garden experts. Among these texts two types can be distinguished, the texts recording the payments addressed to the garden experts together with the payments addressed to the work groups they headed, and secondly, the texts considering only the functions of administrative relevance performed by these gardeners, but not their remuneration. Therefore, some texts show a structure which reveals the garden experts as simple water drawers or arborists endowed with administrative duties. In such texts, indeed, the garden experts, but not all of them, occur as recipients of payments as well as supervisors of a certain number of gardeners, and in some cases, also of the barley amounts addressed to them. It is unclear which criteria were followed in the differentiation of garden experts with payment and those without, whether the missing payments were recorded elsewhere or concerned the duties actually performed. An example is provided by HLC 1, 66 (Š 48/ii), a text recording the payments for the water drawers and arborists of the ‘garden of Kisura’.323 The total amount of barley is divided between two officials, the garden administrator Nabi and another person whose name is only partially preserved [...]-g u . Within these two groups, each concerning an official, both barley amounts and workers are further subdivided into subgroups under the supervision (u g u la ) of a garden expert. These latter are indeed, in some cases, indicated as supervisors at the beginning of the list of workers of each subgroup and as supervisors of the quantity of barley allotted to the subgroup in question. Regardless of the role played, the payments allotted to them do not differ from those allotted to most of the other workers, namely 60 liters. This implies that the garden experts were responsible for their own payments, as was the case for the garden administrators on a higher level (see § 1.8.9). The officials occurring in the text take over (i 3 -d a b 5 ) the barley amounts (about 7 gur, ca. 2,100 liters each) allotted as payments for the workers, whereas their redistribution within the subgroups is entrusted to the garden experts, according to a pyramid-type scheme. HLC 1, 66 (Š 48/ii) (r PN1 u g u l a u m - m i - a ) * r PN2-3-etc a- b a l a / d u 3 - a - k u 5 * q1 u g u l a PN1 um-mi-a* q2 PN s a n t a n a i 3 dab5* ĝeškiri6 (the supervisor (‘foreman’ is) PN1 the garden expert whose payment is r), (the workers are) PN2-3-etc water drawers/arborists, (whose) payments (are) r, (total amount of their payments is) q1, the supervisor (was) PN1 the garden expert (‘foreman’), (total amount of the payments for the listed work groups is) q2, PN the garden administrator took q2 over, (payments for the gardeners of the) garden.

Only three workers, one water drawer and two arborists, did not fall under the supervision of garden experts, their payments, indeed, were directly supplied by the garden administrator: o. ii, 25-29: 0.1.0 Ur-e2-gal / 0.1.0 SIG7-a Lu2-dNin-šubur / 0.0.2 Sal-le / 0.2.2 ki Na-bi o. ii, 25-29: 60 liters (for the arborist) Ur-egal, 60 liters (for the) water drawer Lu-Ninšubur, 20 liters (for the arborist) Sale, (the total) 140 liters provided by Nabi (the garden administrator).

A further example is provided by HSS 4, 2 (Š 42//AS 6/i),324 a text recording the distribution of barley, wool and garments to the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’325 of the Gu’aba district. The workers, water drawers (SIG7-a ) and arborists,326 are ––––––––––––––––– As already mentioned, the name of this garden entails an extended economic complex, for which, see § 3.3. It should be noted that, in this case, though it is specified that the payments are for the water drawers ( a - b a l a ) and the arborists ( d u 3 - a - k u 5 ) , the payments for some garden experts are included. For a complete description of the text, see § 3.3. 324 The colophon specifies ‘from the month i’ ( i t i GANA2-m a š - t a ) , but not the time span which the payments refer to. 325 It seems that the information pertaining to these types of gardeners is subdivided into two main sections. Indeed, this text provides a first partial total in the middle of the text (r. i, 19-33), while a second partial total might have been recorded at the beginning of the third column of the reverse, an unpreserved part of the tablet. It is suggestible that the first total concerned the ‘gardeners of the large trees’, while the second the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’. 326 It is interesting to note that the number of water drawers recorded among the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ is significantly lower than that of the arborists; the presence of at least 11 water drawers and 75 arborist can be recognized. Unfortunately, the information concerning the ‘garden of vineyards’ is partially lost in a missing section of the tablet (see above). 323

84

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

subdivided into groups taken charge of (i 3 -d a b 5 ) by other workers, who can be considered as garden experts.327 Even in this case, the payment and the name of only some of the experts is recorded at the top of the list of each group, and the term u g u la , ‘supervisor’ is lacking. Their function of administrative relevance is expressed by i 3 -d a b 5 , ‘(PN u m -m i-a ) took over/charge of’. The text does not mention garden administrators or any official responsible for the distribution of goods, but specifies the relevant district: HSS 4, 2 (Š 42//AS 6/i) (r PN1 u m - m i - a ) * r PN2-3-etc a - b a l a / d u 3 - a - k u 5 * PN1 u m - m i - a i 3 - d a b 5 * district (the ‘foreman’ is PN1 the garden expert (whose) payment (is) r), (the workers are) PN2-3-etc water drawers/arborists (whose) payments (are) r, PN1 the garden expert took charge of them/their payments, (payments for gardeners of the) district.

CT 5, 42 BM 17758 (n.d.) shows a similar structure, without any mention of the payments for the garden experts. In the text, SIG7-a and unmarked workers, hence likely water drawers and arborists, are taken charge of (i 3 -d a b 5 ) by garden experts:328 r PN a - b a l a / d u 3 - a - k u 5 * PN u m - m i - a i 3 - d a b 5 (the workers are) PN water drawers/arborists (whose) payments (are) r, PN the garden expert took charge of them/their payments.

Further, there is the example of MVN 6, 317 (n.d.), which lists water drawers (SIG7-a ) and arborists and relative payments, presumably of barley (there is no colophon). The workers are subdivided into groups supervised by garden experts (u g u la ) and taken charge of by the relevant garden administrators (i 3 -d a b 5 ).329 In the text the garden experts occur as supervisors after the list of names pertaining to the work groups and there is no mention of their payment: r (nu) PN a - b a l a / d u 3 - a - k u 5 * u g u l a PN u m - m i - a * PN s a n t a n a i 3 - d a b 5 (the workers are) PN water drawers/arborists (whose) payments (are) r, the supervisor (was) PN the garden expert, PN the garden administrator took charge of them/their payments.

See also TUT 143 (l.d.), for which the colophon is lacking, but which probably records the employment of gardeners and the allotment of the relative payments, where the function of taking charge of (i 3 -d a b 5 ) performed by the garden administrators concerns both the workers and the respective payments, but not the garden experts who instead act as supervisors: r PN a - b a l a / d u 3 - a - k u 5 * u g u l a PN u m - m i - a * q n ĝ u r u š PN s a n t a n a i 3 - d a b 5 (the workers are) PN water drawers/arborists (whose) payments (are) r, the supervisor (was) PN the garden expert, PN the garden administrator took charge of n workers and the amount of their payments q.

As can be deduced from TÉL 82 (l.d.), the garden experts acted in the function of supervisors (u g u la ) of personnel taken charge of (i 3 -d a b 5) by the garden administrators, also in the case of ‘invalid’ workers (lu 2 h u -b u 7 b u ). Further, as shown by MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-) and Iraq 62, 41 21, ––––––––––––––––– 327 There is a further text, AR RIM 7, 18 (l.d.), unfortunately fragmentary and without colophon, which shows the same structure and the same expressions in reference to the garden experts. With regard to AR RIM 7, 18, despite several breaks, a more complex structure can be observed, concerning workers pertaining to the previous workforce ( l i b i r a m 3 ), the payment for workers from the storehouse (o. iii, 33: n a - < k a > - a b - t u m - t a ), the occurrence of a worker pertaining to a different economic sphere (r. i, 37: k u r u š d a - t a ) employed as water drawer (SIG7-a), and the payment for a ‘widow’, n u - m a -SU (r. ii, 22). Also here the total recorded in middle of the text may have differentiated the payments for the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ from those for the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’. 328 Some of the names of those who took charge of the workers coincide with the names of some of the garden experts mentioned in STA 20 (see § 3.1.6); conversely, the presence of a certain Nabi and that of an A 2 - [...]- g u would recall the names of those who took charge of the workers in HLC 1, 66. Both the workers listed in STA 20 and those in HLC 1, 66 were employed in gardens pertaining to extended complexes, for which, see chapter 3. 329 Most of the names of the workers are preceded by the characterization n u , which according to Monaco, is an abbreviation of the expression n u - d i b - b a , indicating the workers who were not transferred or engaged. According to this author, their presence in the list of workers was linked to the management of the payments (see Monaco 1986, 3).

85

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

it seems they would have performed the same function as supervisors and recruiters in the cases of employment in gardens of external workers, among them workers ‘released (from the duty cycle)’, with the exception of two cases, both in MVN 17, 55, where the supervisor is also indicated as ‘released (from the duty cycle)’.330 The function of recruiter/provider of the garden experts is featured in the text MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-),331 which records a worker inspection and the allotment of wool and garment payments. Within the work groups headed (u g u la ) by garden experts, other experts occur as recruiters/providers (k i ~ -ta ) of one or more workers. For the garden experts acting as supervisor/foremen (u g u la ) the labor capacity is indicated, or in a few cases a payment,332 while no indication characterizes the garden experts acting as recruiters,333 and in some cases the foreman acts as the recruiter of himself: MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-) DIŠ /AŠ ( r) PN1 u m - m i - a u g u l a * ( k i PN(1) u m - m i - a - t a )* r PN3-4-5etc. a - b a l a / d u 3 - a - k u 5 /external workers (BUR2) * k i PN2 u m - m i - a - t a * PN1 u m - m i - a u g u l a * ĝ e š k i r i 6 the supervisor (‘foreman’ is) PN1 the garden expert, (whose payment (is) r) (recruited by PN(1) the garden expert), (the workers are) PN3-4-5.etc water drawers/arborists/external workers (‘released from the duty cycle’), (whose) payments (are) r, (workers) recruited by PN2 the garden expert, the supervisor (was) PN1 the garden expert, (in the) garden.

As seen in § 1.4.2, in MVN 6, 298, the inspection of gardeners, probably arborists, ‘released (from the duty cycle)’, the garden experts are those who provide the garden administrators with the personnel and there is no mention of foremen. In the text there is also no mention of transactions of goods, but only of workers. However the indication of the payment is given for each worker, in addition to the notation of his labor service capacity (DIŠ /AŠ ), and the total section distinguishes the workers as adults (62 ĝ u ru š) and children (1 d u m u -n ita 2 ). The function of the garden experts is expressed also in this case by ki ~ -ta, while the supervision (u g u la ) is entrusted to the garden administrators: MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-) DIŠ /AŠ PN d u 3 - a - k u 5 r-t a * k i PN u m - m i - a - t a * n ĝ u r u š / d u m u - n i t a 2 PN s a n t a n a u g u l a PN arborists (whose) payments (are) r, (workers) recruited by PN the garden expert, PN the garden administrator (was) supervisor (of the transfer) of n adults/children workers.

Therefore, it seems that some texts recording the distribution of payments for gardeners do not include the payment for the garden experts, but only for the water drawers and arborists (and in some cases external workers). In general, it seems that garden experts, water drawers and arborists could receive the same monthly payments (BBVO 10, 87 282,334 HLC 1, 66 and HSS 4, 2), though the payments were not always recorded in the same document.

––––––––––––––––– See § 2.2.2 and § 2.5.4. 331 A similar structure is shown by WMAH 285 (l.d.), which, however, is more fragmentary, and by Iraq 62, 41 21; see § 1.8.7.6. 332 The indication qualifying the labor capacity does not necessarily have a counterpart in the total section recording the assigned payments. With regard to the relationship between payment and labor service capacity, see Monaco 1985 and Monaco 1986. 333 It seems possible that some garden experts occurring as recruiters within a group of workers can occur elsewhere in the same text as foremen of their own group of workers. However, the names of the garden experts (Urdu, Ur-Bagara, Ur-BaU, Lugal-ezem) occurring in both functions are too widespread to allow univocal interpretations. 334 As seen in § 1.2.1, in this text the payments for the garden experts are recorded in a single entry which also includes the payments for the water drawers and arborists. 330

86

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

For their responsibility over the workers and the production the garden experts were rewarded with additional payments;335 rewards which were allocated to some professionals and officials, as Priests and Officials 101 App. 4a-b (n.d.) illustrates: r. ii, 25-28: 21 um-mi-a ĝeškiri6 0.1.0-ta / 2 santana 0.2.0-ta / 5.0.0 gur / ugula UN-ga6 u3 U2-da-ni

r. ii, 25-28: 21 garden experts (whose payments are) of 60 liters each, 2 garden administrators (whose payments are) of 120 liters each, (the total amount is) 1,500 liters, the supervisors (were) UNga and Udani (the garden administrators). r. v, 1'-3': zi3-KA iri-a ĝar-ra / ša3 Gu2-ab-baki / u3 e2 dInanna r. v, 1'-3': flour-KA allocated in the city, at Gu’aba and in the Inanna temple.

Therefore, the text indicates that the garden experts received 60 liters of ‘flour of KA-type’ (z i3KA), a transaction that occurred under the responsibility of the garden administrators, who in turn, received double the amount.336 1.7. Additional considerations. The gardeners of Ninegal This designation of gardeners occurs especially in connection with the designations of gardeners which allude to the type of involved crop, namely the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’. Nevertheless, in this case the designation refer to the name of a deity ( d N in -e 2 -g a l). 337 A temple dedicated to Ninegal in the province is attested in MVN 6, 301 (n.d.), while further information is derived from Letters 87 (n.d.), from which it can be deduced that the temple of Ninegal (e 2 d N in -e 2 -g a l) was related to one of the shipyards (m a r-sa ) of the province.338 However, the documentation attests to the presence of gardeners of this goddess in different districts and centers of the province. HLC 3, 394 (AS 5/vi) records the allotment of barley payments (še -b a ) for the ‘gardeners of Ninegal’ (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 d N in -e 2 -g a l), listing 66 workers among the ‘gardeners of Ninegal’ of Ĝirsu, of which 22 are water drawers (SIG7-a ) and 13 are garden experts. Further, it lists two workers, one water drawer (SIG7-a ) and one garden expert, among those of UNsaga,339 as well as four workers, of which two are water drawers (SIG7-a ) and one garden expert, among those of Niĝin. With the exception of two workers at end of the list, whose payments refer to the sixth month, all the workers are defined as being ‘of old’ (lib ir), hence belonging to the previous workforce, probably in connection with the notation in the colophon, which specifies that the payments are from the first month. The scheme offered by the text followed that illustrated in § 1.6.8, according to which the work groups are supervised by garden experts and for some of them the relative payment is also recorded. The total amount is then recorded in a single entry and amounts to 3,520 liters (11.3.4.0 g u r). The text makes no mention of garden administrators, but distinguishes the gardeners according to their respective districts or centers, as HSS 4, 2 does for the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ of Gu’aba. CT 10, 38 BM 15296 (AS 1/xi) records some barley accounts corresponding to a period of three months (viii-x) in the Ĝirsu district. One of the accounts reports an initial barley amount of 86,580 liters subdivided then for three months among the ‘gardeners of the large trees’, the ––––––––––––––––– 335 As already mentioned in the introduction, indeed, there is no evidence of plots given as prebends to the gardeners of the province during the Neo-Sumerian period. 336 Typically, as shown by the text, payments of 60 liters pertain to most of the professional craftmen ( a d - k u b 4 , n a g a r , a š g a b , etc..), while 120 liters pertained to professions of the scribal sphere ( d u b - s a r g u 4 , u g u l a e 2 k i k k e n 2 ); see also § 1.8.9. However, variations within a same category can be detected. 337 See Selz 1995, 218. This author specifies: “Allerding dürfte es sich ursprünglich um einem ‘Funktionnamen’ gehandelt haben, der als Epitheton mehreren Gottheiten zugeordnet werden konnte.” 338 The letter specifies that two people were part of the personnel of the temple of Ninegal in the shipyard (r. 1-2: ĝ i r i 3 s e 3 - g a e 2 // d N i n - e 2 - g a l - k a / š a 3 m a r - s a - m e - e š 2 ) . 339 Center in the Lagašite area. See Falkenstein 1966, 37; Edzard and Farber 1974, 212.

87

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

‘gardeners of the vineyards’, and the ‘gardeners of Ninegal’ of the Ĝirsu district. The payments for the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ are counted separately from those for the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ and the ‘gardeners of Ninegal’, which are recorded in a single entry and which, however, amount to barely ¼ of the payments for the ‘gardeners of the large trees’. Subsequently, NIMmu, probably the garden administrator (§ 9.1.3), takes over the total amounts of their payments, which is however specified as pertaining to the ‘gardeners of the large trees’(see § 5.8). A further text attests to this subdivision of gardeners, JEOL 33, 127 13 (l.d.), a fragmentary text listing groups of workers distinguished by profession in some centers of the Gu-Iniĝinšedu district and Gu’aba. The text seems to have remained uncompleted at the time of the draft, and, indeed, each listed group is followed by the notation u g u la -b i (‘the pertaining supervisor is’), without mentioning any names. However, the presence of 150 ‘gardeners of the large trees’ can be deduced from this text, for which the oversight of one supervisor is calculated, 23 ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ and 37 ‘gardeners of Ninegal’, to be supervised together, and additionally 62 ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and 42 ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ at Niĝin; due to a break in the text, only 14 ‘gardeners of the large trees’ are ascribed to Kinunir; finally, 36 ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and 12 ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ at Gu’aba. DAS 213 (XX/vii) records an expenditure of bread (n in d a ) addressed to various workers340 defined lu 2 s ik i-b a -m e , ‘(they) are men of the wool distribution’, among them the water drawers and arborists of Ĝirsu (to which 300 liters are allotted) and Kisura (70 liters) and the ‘gardeners of Ninegal’ (25 liters). None of the texts quoting such gardeners seem to provide evidence concerning their activity or specific domain. 1.8. The garden administrators As already noted, the activities of the garden experts occupied an intermediate level between the workers and the managers of the sector, namely the s a n ta n a (GAL.NI). The garden administrators can in fact be considered the ultimate intermediaries of this economic sector, playing a key role between the administrative reality of the gardens and the central administration of the province. In the prologue of his law code, Ur-Namma claims to have planted gardens along the Tigris, Euphrates, and of other canals banks, and then to have entrusted them to royal s a n ta n a.341 Codex of Ur-Namma:342 Si. 277, 22-29: u4-ba gu2 i7 Idigna / gu2 i7 Buranun / gu2-i7 du3-a-bi / ni[dba] nisaĝ / ša3-[g]e-g[uru7] / ĝeš he2-em-mi-in-[tag] / ĝeškiri6 h[e2-e]b-ĝ[a2?-ĝa2]343 / santana lugal ⌈he2⌉-e[b-tuku] At that time (to) the banks of the river Tigris, (to) the banks of the river Euphrates, (to) the banks of all rivers together offerings.., firstlings, (heart’s) desire offerings I offered there. [...] Gardens I planted there. They ‘acquired’ a royal s a n t a n a .

These propagandistic words, therefore, emphasize this professional figure as a means of interlocution between a productive sector of the state economy and the central government. It seems, indeed, that one of the means by which the rulers of the dynasty tried to put the resources of the provinces of the kingdom under royal control was the strengthening344 of a class of ––––––––––––––––– For this text, see also § 3.3. 341 See Wilcke 2002, 309-310. 342 See also Yildiz 1981, 87. This text from Sippar, housed at the Archeological Museum of Istanbul, was identified as part of the prologue of the Ur-Namma’s law code by van Dijk. It comprises the ll. 125-246 (here of interest 150-161) of such a code. A new critical edition of the law code is provided by Civil 2011, 221-286, where however the prologue is not treated. 343 See the considerations of Wilcke regarding the restoration of this line (Wilcke 2002, 310), in particular, the issue inherent to the reconstruction of the verbal form. 344 The strengthening of a class rather than its creation, since it concerns a profession already attested in the previous periods and, thus, the king intended to emphasize the royal dependence of the garden administrators in the state administrated by him. The first mentions of s a n t a n a (GAL.NI) occur already in the Early Dynastic period in the lists of 340

88

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

bureaucrats, who operated outside the authority of the households, answering rather to the state. The activity of these officials was specifically tied to the garden management, and included the oversight of all the transactions relating to the garden management and the provincial adminstration, both for expenditures, fruit and other garden products, and for deliveries, namely barley, wool and other products. With regard to the workers, as was seen in previous sections, the garden administrators were responsible for the gardeners even when the latter were occasionally employed in other types of plots. Additionally, they were involved in the employment of unskilled workers assigned for occasional employment in gardens. The profession of garden administrator appears essentially bureaucratic in nature, so their professional education should not substantially differ from that of the scribes. Already Waetzoldt345 noted the paucity of Neo-Sumerian sources concerning the education of scribes and postulated, on the basis of later sources, that scribes might have passed through different phases of the educational process, which in the end resulted in a sort of specialization in a given sector.346 The possible scribal status of the garden administrators is suggested by PDT 1, 392 (AS 6/vi) from Drēhem, where an official indicated as garden administrator (sa n ta n a ) in the text is designated scribe (d u b -s a r) in the seal. Further, in some cases a sort of connection between the figure of the captain (NU-b a n d a 3 ) and that of the garden administrator (sa n ta n a ) seems to emerge.347 In the case of the garden administrators of the Ĝirsu province, the seals of only three of them are attested: that of Ur-Šul(pa’e) (HLC 2, 31, Š 31/-; Nisaba 18, 38, Š 33/vi; Amherst 24, Š 34/vi; ZA 93, 54 3, Š 34/ix), that of Nabi (MVN 3, 215, Š 48/ix) and that of UNga (MVN 11, 47, AS 1/x). The seal of Ur-Šul(pa’e) bears the abbreviated form of his name348 and the patronymic, without mentioning the title of either (see § 9.6.7). In contrast, the seals of Nabi (§ 9.1.6) and UNga (§ 9.3.4) attest to the title of the garden administrators, but not that of their father.349 In addition, a text, TCTI 2, 2788 (n.d.), indicates the garden administrator Ur-Igalim as the son of the scribe Šadanudu (see below).

––––––––––––––––– professions (see Lu A, 22, MSL XII, 10, but also the list of names and professions, e.g. MEE 3, 43, o. iv, 4), corresponding to the entry GAL.NIM in the archaic list of professions (Lu A, 23, ATU 3, 306). A discussion on the evolution of this entry is given in Greco (forthcoming). The etymology of the term s a n t a n a is unclear and only rarely is there evidence of an ending /k/, borrowed in the Akkadian šandanakku, which can allude to an internal genitive construction (Edzard 1968, 116). With regard to the role of the šandanakku in the early Old-Babylonian period, see Stol 1982 and previous literature. In texts dating to the late Neo-Babylonian period, thus concerning a significantly different historical and economic context, the administrative duties pertaining to palm groves are performed by rab-banê (LU2.GAL.DU3); in this regard, see Cocquerillat 1973/74, and Jursa 1995, 57-74. 345 Waetzoldt 1973. Further, according to this author, each official (including the governors) required a scribal education in the Ur III period, although this is only ascertainable in documents dating from approximately Š 40 to IS 3; see Waetzoldt 1991, 640. 346 There is so far no evidence regarding the education of the garden administrators, except for the information provided by a text from Umma, Nisaba 11, 27 (n.d.), which attests to a garden administrator taking charge of an apprentice ( š e š t a b - b a ) and some boys ( d u m u - n i t a 2 ), probably alluding in the latter case to workers. On this topic, see also Steinkeller 1987b, 100-101. This author reported the case of the son of a manager of the forests who was designated as a scribe, although he was previously engaged as a worker and subsequently assumed managerial functions in the forest sector. As far as the garden management of the Ĝirsu province is concerned, there is attestation of the son of a garden administrator acting as garden expert, but no clear evidence suggesting that he eventually became garden administrator (see § 1.11.5). In addition, there is evidence of a garden administrator taking charge of his sons in the area managed by him, but it is not clear in which role: apprentices, experts, simple workers (see § 9.5.6). If it can be inferred that there were differences of status among the workers, at least among the middle-level managers (see Greco 2015), unfortunately there is no clear evidence suggesting that their engagement in the sector managed by their fathers was part of their educational path. 347 See NIMmu (§ 9.1.3), Ga’a (§ 9.4.1), and probably Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2) Abbaĝu (§ 9.1.1). 348 Ur-Šul is to be intended as an abbreviation of Ur-Šulpa’e (Selz 1989, 106). 349 According to Waetzoldt (1973), the explicit mention of the father’s profession was obligatory only for the seals that would have circulated at court, since for other places and functions the seals served solely to identify the person.

89

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

1.8.1. Territoriality Just as for the garden experts, the role of the garden administrators was framed in a territorial subdivision, though on a larger scale. Indeed, if each garden expert was at the head of a garden plot or a part of it, each garden administrator headed an area of a district embracing several gardens. It thus seems plausible that the management of gardens in the territory also followed a district subdivision which answered to the central administration of the province. The territorial distribution of the garden administrators is highlighted by a text, TCTI 2, 2788 (n.d.), which also suggests the total number of garden administrators active at the same time in the province: o. 1-12: 3 NI[M-m]u / 1 Ur-dBa-U2 / 1 Ab-ba-ĝu10 / 1 Gu2-u3-mu / 1 Ga-a-mu / 1 Ka5a (2 erased lines) / 8 santana-me / ša3 Ĝir2-suki (erased line) / 1 Ur-dIg-alim d[um]u / Ša3-da-nu-du10 dub-s[ar] / 1 Ab-ba-ĝ [u10] / 2 Ma!-an![-šum2]350 r. 1-10: 1 dEn-lil2-[la2] / 1 Ab-ba-g[u-la] / ĜEŠ.GAL.[...] / Ur-dBa-U2 ĜEŠ.[…] / 5 ša3 Niĝin6ki / 1 Ur2-ra-ni Kies3-sa2//ki / 1 Ur-Ba-gara2 Ki-nu-nirki / 2 A-ga Gu2-ab-ba//ki-ka / 4 santana-me / 17 < santana> o.1-12: 3 NIMmu, 1 Ur-BaU, 1 Abbaĝu, 1 Gu’umu, 1 Gamu, 1 Ka, 8 are the garden administrators in Ĝirsu; 1 Ur-Igalim son of Šadanudu the scribe, 1 Abbaĝu, 2 Manšum. r. 1-10: 1 Enlila, 1 Abba-gula ( n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 ? ) ĝ e š g a l - ( g a l ? ) , Ur-BaU ( n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 ?) ĝ e š ( ĝ e š t i n ?), 5 are in Niĝin, 1 Urani (in) Ki’esa, 1 Ur-Bagara (in) Kinunir, 2 Aga in Gu’aba, 4 are the garden administrators, (total) 17 (garden administrators).

The total number recorded in the list amounts to 17, according to the following subdivision: eight in Ĝirsu, five in Niĝin, one in Ki’esa, one in Kinunir351 and two in Gu’aba. Further, the text allows us to consider other aspects. The first concerns the distribution of garden administrators according to a rather unusual subdivision of the districts, Ĝirsu (8)/Niĝin (5)/Ki’esa, Kinunir, Gu’aba (4),352 instead of the usual one Ĝirsu/Gu-Iniĝinšedu (Niĝin, Ki’esa, Kinunir)/Gu’aba. The garden administrators of the centers of Ki’esa and Kinunir are, indeed, counted together with those of the Gu’aba district, rather than with Niĝin, as would have been expected on the basis of the usual subdivision of the districts according to which these centers fell in the Gu-Iniĝinšedu district.353 A second consideration concerns the number of personal markers which precede some names, that is, two additional markers before NIMmu (Ĝirsu), one before Manšum (Niĝin) and one before Aga (Gu’aba). It can be inferred that each personal marker implies the presence of one garden administrator, a hypothesis which is suggested by the total number of garden administrators reported for every district: six names at Ĝirsu but eight garden administrators in total, three names at Ki’esa, Kinunir and Gu’aba but four garden administrators in total. So far as the garden administrators ascribed to Niĝin are concerned, the listed names are 6, while the total indicates five units and does not specify sa n ta n a-m e , ‘(they) are garden administrators’. Two names, Abba-gula and Ur-BaU, are followed by the specification ĜEŠ.GAL.[…] and ĜEŠ.[…] respectively. The two expressions could hypothetically refer to ‘(gardener) of the large trees’ and gardener or ‘gardener of the vineyards’,354 hence not included in the total as garden ––––––––––––––––– The name of Manšum was tentatively restored on the basis of the occurrence of a garden administrator with this name in another document; see § 9.5.7. 351 Ki’esa is understood as having been situated to the south of Niĝin (see § 4.2), while Kinunir is to be localized in an area to the west of Niĝin and Ki’esa (see Carrouè 1986, 44). 352 The absence of Lagaš in the list among the centers of the Gu-Iniĝinšedu is notable. It is not unlikely that the garden administrators of Lagaš were included in the section concerning Niĝin; see below. 353 This subdivision is actually evident in a further text, WMAH 20 (Š 48/-), which could reflect this same administrative territorial subdivision. In this regard, see the activities of the garden administrator Ga’a (§ 9.4.1), who is attested mainly in connection with the areas of Ki’esa and Kinunir, Udani (§ 9.3.3) and UNga (§ 9.3.4) of the Gu’aba district. In contrast, the text ASJ 20, 104 5 (n.d.) reflects the ordinary subdivision, since it records the allotment of good quality flour addressed to an unspecified number of garden administrators for the centers of Niĝin, Kinunir and Ki’esa (see § 1.8.9). 354 The possible presence of these two gardeners in the list of garden administrators is not clear; it can be inferred that they would have carried out garden administrators’ tasks in that area for a given period of time or as a rule. 350

90

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

administrators. At this point, four names for Niĝin and five administrators in total are notable, a difference that, indeed, can be explained by the addition of a personal marker to the name of Manšum. The addition of personal markers can be connected to some visible erasures in the text, thus written later, after the first draft of the text. Indeed, it is notable in this regard that two lines, presumably two names after Ka (the last administrator listed for his district), have been erased, as well as a line after the notation s a n ta n a-m e ša 3 Ĝ ir 2 -su k i , ‘(they) are the garden administrators at Ĝirsu’. At this point two interpretations can be outlined: the first implies that one should consider the garden administrators of the minor and peripheral centers of the district as hidden and incorporated in a single name, who would be somehow subordinate to those of the major centers; in the contemporary documentation there is mention, indeed, of the presence of the garden administrator Nabi for the center of Kisura in the Ĝirsu district (§ 9.1.4). For the center of Ki’esa, here related to Gu’aba, the absence of Ga’a, a garden administrator operating in the areas of Ki’esa and Kinunir, who is attested from Š 44 to ŠS 8 (see § 9.4.1) can instead be noted, whereas the text mentions in his place the barely attested Urani (§ 9.4.2) and Ur-Bagara (§ 9.4.3). One may wonder here, whether it is possible to infer that the name of Ga’a has been subordinated to that of Aga. Further, for the Niĝin area, the presence of the garden administrator of Alšana,355 Lugal-irida (§ 9.5.6) is suggestible, who is attested together with Enlila, or the presence of a garden administrator pertaining to Lagaš, as for example Anana (§ 9.5.3), who is attested together with Ur-Igalim son of Šadanudu. A second interpretation could imply that the reason for the two erased names relates to a temporary inability to work, a factor that can be understood as being connected to a incomplete stage of apprenticeship. In this case, there would be mention of garden administrators still involved in their education phase and, therefore, under the aegis of their master, the only one recorded in the document. However, to the best of my knowledge both possibilities remain only conjectural. It is unclear if the sequence of names in the list reflects an effective hierarchy within the profession or a sort of seniority tied to the length of service. This can be inferred from the period to which the first attestations of each official date. In the case of Ĝirsu, the former four garden administrators are attested from the years 45-46 of Šulgi’s reign and the last two not before the beginning of Amar-Suena’s reign (see chapter 9). In the case of Gu’aba, we know that two other garden administrators were active: Udani and UNga, the former one attested from Š 46 to AS 6 and the latter from Š 46 to AS 8. Aga, whose first attestation dates to Š 40, is accompanied by UNga in his last attestation (AS 8/-). Thus, it can be inferred that in the Gu’aba district there were three garden administrators in charge at the same time. The total of four garden administrators for the area of Gu’aba-Ki’esa-Kinunir is reflected then in the rest of the currently available administrative documentation, though here the subdivision implies three garden administrators for Gu’aba (Aga, Udani and UNga) and one for Ki’esa and Kinunir (Ga’a). With regard to the garden administrators of Niĝin and Lagaš, we possess only a few attestations, mostly undated. The redaction of TCTI 2, 2788, whose purpose remains unclear, could date back to the end of Šulgi’s reign or the first years of Amar-Suena’s reign, considering the attestations of the quoted officials, in particular those of Ĝirsu, whose succession is better attested. The reason for the lack of references to Ga’a, Udani ad UNga, whose activities were contemporary to those of the quoted garden administrators, is however unclear. Therefore, the total number of garden administrators reported by TCTI 2, 2788 is to be considered indicative rather than exhaustive. It seems therefore that the garden management followed a territorial subdivision which grosso modo respected the subdivision of the three main districts. Inside them, the number of garden administrators in charge probably varied according to the dimensions of the present garden ––––––––––––––––– Unfortunately the documentation does not provide much information on the activities inherent to the gardeners of Niĝin. 355 Alšana was a settlement lying on the banks of Niĝinšedu canal in front of Niĝin (see § 4.2). According to Carroué, the area of Alšana could have represented the eastern border of the province (Carroué 1986).

91

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

areas, although there is no evidence suggesting any kind of equity in the subdivision of the different areas managed by each of them. As shown in § 9.4.1, garden administrators could acquire new garden plots during their period of activity in order to manage them on behalf of the central administration, hence increasing their areas of responsibility. Generally, it can be understood that the actual dimensions of their areas of responsibility varied on the basis of the number and size of the gardens located in them and probably also on the level of productivity of the gardens themselves.356 It should be recognized, however, that unlike the garden experts (or at least most of them), the areas of responsibility of the garden administrators did not observe strictly technical criteria, but only administrative ones. As already seen for the garden experts, the criterion of territoriality is suggested357 by the occurrence of the same gardeners in the areas of the same garden administrators, and hence it seems possible to reconstruct the presence of some garden administrators in the breaks in the texts or the succession of garden administrators within the same territory. Compare the data collected in the following tables concerning the occurrence of the same garden experts in the areas managed by the best attested garden administrators of the Ĝirsu province: Table 6. Occurrence of garden experts in the areas of the garden administrators of Ĝirsu Garden administrator

Gu’umu (Š 46-IS 2)

Ka (AS 2-ŠS 7)

CUSAS 16 74 (AS 1/-)

Urdudani, Bagara-ziĝu

MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-)

Urdu, Ur-BaU, Lu-niĝir, UrNinMAR.KI, Bagara-ziĝu

Lu-balasaga, UrNinĝešzida, Ur-Enki, Ur-Bagara

RA 54, 130 44 TUT 143 (AS 4/-) (end AS)

Ĝešani

Urdudani, Bagara-ziĝu, Ur-Saĝub, E-heĝal, Urebadu, Ur-Alla, LuNinhursaĝ, Ur-Inanna, Lu-balasaga

Lu-balasaga, Niĝ-BaU

Urebadu (2×), Ur-BaU (2×), Ur-abbasaga, A-saga, NinMAR.KIka (2×), Lu-igiura, Ur-Šulpa’e, Ur-Lisi

MVN 6, 317 (end AS-ŠS)

E-hili, Ur-kuni, Ur-Enki, Lu-Ninšubur, Ur-Nin MAR.KI, Luga, Lu-niĝir

Lu-balasaga, Ur-BaU, Urebadu, Ur-Nin MAR.KI, Gagamu

TÉL 82 (ŠS)

MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7)

[...] Urebadu

UrNinĝešzida, Eninakal, Lu-Ninĝirsu, LuNinhursaĝ, Lu-diĝira, Lu-Gudea, Diĝira, Ur-Igalim, Ur-Saĝub Šeškala, Urebadu, Ur-gigir, Ur-Igalim, UrNinĝešzida, ERENda, Lugal-uri, Ur-šugalama

––––––––––––––––– Hypothetically, considering the area described in ASJ 17, 229 18 (see 3.1), which was composed of 100 agricultural units, corresponding to 1/6 of the whole cultivated area of the province and probably to be traced in the Gu’aba territory, in which 433,800 m2 (120 ½ i k u ) of garden area were included, and considering the presence of three garden administrators for this district, an average of 144,600 m2 (about 40 i k u ) of garden area under the control of each garden administrator can be assumed. Considering, then, the relation of ca. 1:10 between garden administrators and experts for the same district, as is evident from Priests and Officials 101 4a-b (see § 1.6.8), this proportion seems to be reflected in the average dimensions of the areas of responsibility ascribed to both professions, of 40 i k u and of about 4 i k u (for garden experts in palm groves) respectively (see § 1.6.3). As already noted, however, there is no evidence suggesting an equal subdivision of the areas managed by the garden administators. 357 The number of garden experts present in the province is vast, hence cases of homonymy cannot be excluded. In the absence of more concrete information about the territoriality of the garden administrators, it was thought prudent nonetheless to provide an overview of the garden experts occurring in the areas managed by the same garden administrators. 356

92

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

Garden administrator

CUSAS 16 74 (AS 1/-)

MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-)

RA 54, 130 44 TUT 143 (AS 4/-) (end AS)

MVN 6, 317 (end AS-ŠS)

TÉL 82 (ŠS)

Išibmah, Ur-BaU, Ur-Ninmug, Niĝgurani, Ur-mes, Eninakal, Ur-Alla

Gamu (AS 2-4)

Dimmi, Ur-Hendursaĝ, Utu-kalame, Šeškala, Lu-saga, Ur-Iškur, Ur-mes, UrNinĝešzida, Kaš, Ur-Nanše

UrNinĝešzida, Ur-Bagara, Ur-saga

Agu (AS 3-IS1)

IG.KU-duga, Ur-Igalim, Lu-Urub, Urdudani, Ur-eninnu

Ur-Lisi (?) UrDamgalnun, Ĝirini-isa [...]-Ninĝirsu

Ur-Lisi (AS 7-IS 3)

Ĝirini (AS 7)

Ur-Ninmug, Ur-mes, [...]kala, Ur-BaU, [...]-Nanše

Išibmah (AS 7)

Išibmah (?), Udaura, Ur-NinMAR.KI Ur-Igalim Ur-Nanše, Ur-Ĝa[tumdu] Ur-Lamma son of Lugula, Ur-gigir

Inana (ŠS 7-IS 1)

Ur-kigula, Udaura

Udaura, Ur-Bagara, Lu-diĝira, Ur-kigula, Ur-Ninmug, Lu-niĝir, Ur-Nanše, Urdu, Nabasa Ur-Igalim, Enu, Ur-Nanše, Dudu, LugalNUbanda, UrNinMAR.KI, Uranidu, Lugal-amarku, Urduĝu

Ur-Inanna (ŠS 7)

Ur-BaU son of Lugal-imrua, scribe358

MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7)

Akala

Atu, Ur-Hendursaĝ, Dimmi, Ur-gigir, Ur-Dumuzi

––––––––––––––––– 358 A scribe who apparently performed tasks of a garden administrator for a period of time; see § 1.11.4.

93

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Garden administrator

CUSAS 16 74 (AS 1/-)

MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-)

RA 54, 130 44 TUT 143 (AS 4/-) (end AS)

Dimmi, Šeškala (2×), Ur-Hendursaĝ, Kaš, Basaga son of Ur-Lamma, Ur-BaU, Ur-Ninmug, Niĝgurani, Ur-mes, Eninakal

?

Urdudani, Ur-mes

MVN 6, 317 (end AS-ŠS)

TÉL 82 (ŠS)

Šeškala, Dudu, Lu-niĝir; Lugal-ibgul

Dimmi, Utu-kalame, Lugal-ušime

MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7)

Table 7. Comparison 1 Garden administrator

MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-)

RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/-)

TUT 143 (end AS)

Dimmi, Šeškala, Ur-Hendursaĝ, Ur-mes, E-hili, Uš, Ur-Ninĝešzida, Akala, Šeškala, Utu-kalame

Agu (AS 3-IS1)

Dimmi, Šeškala, Ur-Hendursaĝ, Kaš, Basaga

MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-)

Gamu (AS 2-4)

Dim-mi, Utu-kalame, Lugal-ušime

RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/-)

Iraq 62, 41 21 (early AS)

Išibmah, Ur-BaU, Ur-Ninmug, Niĝgurani, Ur-mes, Eninakal, Ur-Alla

Niĝir-išibmah, Ur-BaU, Kaš, Ur-Ninmug, Ur-Alla, Ur-mes, Niĝgurani, Urdam, Eninakal, Aganesige

TUT 143 (end AS)

Ur-Ninmug, Ur-mes, [...]-kala, Ur-BaU, [...]-Nanše

Ĝirini (AS 7)

?

MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-)

Dimmi, Šeškala, Ur-Hendursaĝ, Utu-kalame, Lu-saga, UrIškur, Ur-mes, Ur-Ninĝešzida, Kaš, Ur-Nanše

Ur-Ninĝešzida, Ur-Bagara, Ur-saga

Table 8. Comparison 2 Garden administrator

TÉL 82 (ŠS)

Atu, Ur-Hendursaĝ, Dimmi, Ur-gigir, Ur-Dumuzi

Ur-BaU son of Lugal-imrua, scribe

?

MVN 22, 31 (AS)

Ur-BaU, Ur-Ninmug, Niĝgurani, Ur-mes, Eninakal

94

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

Table 9. Comparison 3 Garden administrator

TUT 143 (end AS)

Išibmah (AS 7)

Išibmah, Ur-Nanše, Udaura, NinMAR.KIka, Ur-gigir, Ur-Lamma son of Lu-gula

Inana (ŠS 7-IS 1)

TÉL 82 (ŠS)

MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-)

Ur-kigula, Udaura

Udaura, Ur-Bagara, Lu-diĝira, Ur-kigula, Lu-niĝir, Ur-Nanše, Urdu, Ur-Ninmug

1.8.2. Activities of the garden administrators We will try now to explain the functions carried out by the garden administrators in the various kinds of documents, in order to delineate the role of these professionals within garden management. According to a general schematization, the garden administrators were, on the one hand, responsible for the expenditures of goods produced in the gardens lying in their areas of responsibility, which were provided by garden experts through the work group they headed, towards the purposes laid out by the central administration; on the other hand, they were responsible for the quantities of goods allotted to the gardeners employed in the gardens lying in their areas of responsibility, as well as for the goods reserved for the expenses relevant to the managing of the plots. Indeed, the garden management was based on a strong fragmentation of the production units (single gardens or part of them, that is the areas of responsibility of the garden experts, u m -m i-a ) and the channeling of the production according to an areal division (the areas of responsibility of the garden administrators, s a n ta n a) on behalf of the central administration in its local manifestations within the province. Therefore, the different levels of interaction among the professional garden figures can be highlighted according to the relevant sphere of competence.

Figure 8. Levels of interaction.

95

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

1.8.3. Role of the garden administrators in garden measurement texts As for the garden experts, the territorial responsibility of the garden administrators is highlighted in texts recording garden measurements,359 where it is apparent that they were responsible for an area in which several gardens were located.360 In two texts, CUSAS 6, 85-87 (n.d.) and CBT 3, BM 25293 (n.d.), the records of garden measurements carried out in Lagaš and Niĝin respectively, a garden administrator acts as supervisor (u g u la ) next to a captain. The first case deals with the measurement of a palm grove, a vineyard and three mixed gardens. The text also reports the counting of timbers and trees (a procedure not noted in the colophon where the notation ĝ e š k iri 6 g id 2 -d a simply occurs), the center and the involved officials: CUSAS 6, 85-87 (n.d.) e k a - a - DU/ ĝ e š n i m b a r / k i - ĝ a l 2 * n trees/timbers* PN u m - m i - a * ĝ e š k i r i 6 * ĝ e š k i r i 6 g i d 2 - d a * center* u g u l a PN s a n t a n a * PN NU-b a n d a 3 irrigation inlet-/palm grove/uncultivated area (the dimensions of which are) e, trees/timbers (present there are) n, (the responsible is) PN the garden expert, (in the) garden, gardens measured in (the area of the) center, the supervisor (was) PN the garden administrator, captain/overseer (was) PN.

In the second case, where a single garden is described as being composed partly of palm grove, partly of orchard, the supervision (u g u la ) of the garden administrator precedes the notation of the recorded operation ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g id 2 -d a ĝ e š šid -d a ), which is followed by that of the captain: CBT 3, BM 25293 (n.d.) e k a - a - DU/ ĝ e š n i m b a r / k i - ĝ a l 2 * n trees/timbers * PN u m - m i - a * u g u l a PN s a n t a n a * ĝ e š k i r i 6 g i d 2 - d a ĝ e š š i d - d a * center* PN NU-b a n d a 3 irrigation inlet-/palm grove/uncultivated area (the extent of which is) e, trees/timbers (present there are) n, (the responsible is) PN the garden expert, (in the garden), the supervisor (was) PN the garden administrator, garden measured (and) timber and trees counted in (the area of the) center, captain/overseer (was) PN.

1.8.4. Responsibility for the garden production It seems that the responsibility of the garden administrators for the production pertained in particular to the circulation of goods on the administrative level. Indeed, unlike the garden experts, who were effectively responsible for fulfilling the estimated yield of the plot under their control,361 the responsibility of the garden administrators seems to have concerned the circulation of garden products within various economic-administrative sectors of the province.362 In this section, therefore, those texts which record expenditures of dates, fruit, and palm by-products towards other sectors are considered, and thus, those texts involving the garden administrators and other officials. In addition, those documents that record the garden yield inspections or the ––––––––––––––––– In some texts recording the measurement of vineyards and the counting of the trees, it does not seem possible to determine the profession of the supervisors, who do not seem to have been involved in garden management (see § 1.6.3.1 and § 4.5). Further, in the case of texts recording the measurement of the gardens pertaining to the governor’s family, a high royal official ( s u k k a l ) occurs as the functionary responsible ( ĝ i r i 3 ) for the recorded operations; see § 2.10. 360 In any case, the territorial function of the garden administrators also emerge from texts recording the distribution of payments and worker inspections; see § 1.8.7.6. 361 The responsibility for the shortfall in production with respect to the estimated crop yields seems to have concerned the gardeners rather than the administrators, who were concerned instead with the circulation of goods and thus also for the transactions of barley or other products to repay the production shortfalls. As seen in § 1.3.6, some gardeners had to serve as prisoners at the mill due to a date shortfall. The responsibility for shortfalls in the estimated production could have been based, indeed, on factors tied to the negligence of the gardeners, an echo of which (obviously in a different historic context) can be found in § 65 of the Hammurabi’s law code. 362 However, cases in which garden produce provided by the garden administrators was directed to Ur, or other destinations outside the province, are attested; see e.g. § 1.8.4.3, § 1.8.6, § 9.7.2.2.5. 359

96

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

administrative handing over of the production from the workers to the managers, and thus involving the garden administrators and the garden experts were also considered. 1.8.4.1. Role of the garden administrators in reports of production363 How much of the production was due to the central administration was probably calculated on the basis of the productive potential of the single gardens. As seen in the previous paragraphs, some documents record the yield inspection of gardens ( ĝ e š k iri 6 k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a ), and others probably only a provisional record or that part of production which in the balanced accounts of garden administrators is summarized in the entry q k i n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 -k e 4 -n e -ta , ‘q from the gardeners (see § 1.8.6)’. As the role played by the garden experts in these kinds of records was already illustrated, the following section will try to outline the role played by the garden administrators through some examples.364 Two texts, MVN 17, 18 and CUSAS 16, 74, follow the same redactional formula of the garden yield inspection ( ĝ e š k iri 6 k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a ) without mentioning the key expression (see § 1.6.4). Consequentially, the fruit quantities recorded along with the name of garden experts could be intended as a provisional plan, the effective production or that due. In these cases the function performed by the garden administrator 365 is expressed by u g u la : MVN 17, 18 (n.d.), CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4) q dates* PN u m - m i - a * ĝ e š k i r i 6 * u g u l a PN s a n t a n a q of dates, (for which is responsible) PN the garden expert, (in the) garden, the supervisor (was) PN the garden administrator.

In another text, the function of the garden administrator is that of conveyor (ĝ iri 3 ). It is the case of a yield inspection of the gardens of the high priestess (e re š-d iĝ ir) of BaU: SAT 1, 173 (Š 41/-) q fruit* PN u m - m i - a * ĝ e š k i r i 6 k a b 2 d u 1 1 - g a e r e š - d i ĝ i r * ĝ i r i 3 PN s a n t a n a q of fruit (for which is responsible) PN the garden expert, garden (yield) inspected (of the) high priestess, the conveyor (was) PN the garden administrator.

The administrative handing over of the yielded products from the responsibility of the garden experts to that of the garden administrator is expressed (as already seen) in a similar way, although in this case the function of the official is expressed by i 3 -d a b 5 :366

––––––––––––––––– 363 Three texts treated in this section, TUT 268, CUSAS 16, 74, and MVN 22, 290 are given in transliteration in the appendix (text 1, text 2, and text 3, respectively). 364 The presence of garden administrators in these types of texts is not always recorded. There are, e.g. HLC 3, 214 (AS 7/vii) or Nisaba 18, 142 (n.d.), which record the production of some gardens, without mention of garden administrators; BPOA 2, 1843 (Š 42/-), a record of the yield inspection of the gardens of the high priestess of BaU, and MTBM 265 (Š 41/-), a yield inspection of the gardens of the high priestess of Hendursaĝ, do not mention garden administrators, similar to the garden yield inspection recorded in MVN 12, 182 (Š 47/-). 365 In MVN 17, 18 (n.d.) the indication of the profession occurs in connection to the kinship relation of one of the garden expert with a garden administrator; it is indeed specified that the mentioned gardener was the brother of the garden administrator Gamu. The garden administrators acting in the text, Gu’umu and Abbaĝu, are differentiated by function, without mention of their title. Similarly, in MVN 7, 299 (IS 2/-), a text recording the yield inspection of a single garden (see § 2.2.28), Gu’umu is not indicated by his title, but differentiated by function, whereas the names of the garden experts are simply juxtaposed with the recorded date amounts. 366 The expression i 3 - d a b 5 entails an administrative responsibility, somehow different from the other expressions that equally express a kind of acquisition. See, in this regard, Sallaberger 1995, 444. Furthermore, the author considered i 3 d a b and m u - k u x (DU) as quasi-nouns, as the formulary structure of the information follows mostly unsyntactic sequences (Sallaberger 2005c, 262). Further, as noted by Wilcke with regard to the unsyntactic use of some verbs, normal ergative preterits exist for all verbs involved and for some of them even in identical contexts (Wilcke 2010, 40-43).

97

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD MVN 22, 290 (l.d.) q fruit* PN u m - m i - a * PN s a n t a n a i 3 - d a b 5 q of fruit (from) PN the garden expert, PN the garden administrator took q over.

As far as the garden yield inspections or production records are concerned, it seems therefore that the garden administrators acted as supervisors or conveyors on behalf of the central administration. However, they assumed responsibility for production from the moment in which what was produced in accordance with the requirements of the central administration was consigned to them by the gardeners. 1.8.4.2. Management of production shortfalls Probably on the basis of the gap between the expected yield and how much was actually delivered to the central administration, arrears in the production could result which would have caused shortfalls to be repaid through the mediation of garden administrators. Below, some examples are provided. MVN 17, 43a-b (Š 44/iv), consisting of tablet and envelope, records a barley amount to be allotted as payments for workers (not further specified) in the centers of Kinunir and Ki’esa; the barley delivered to the responsible scribe derived from a barley amount supplied by a garden administrator as compensation for a date shortfall: MVN 17, 43a-b (Š 44/iv) t: q š e - b a * š a 3 center* l a 2 - NI s u - g a * k i PN s a n t a n a - t a * PN d u b - s a r š u b a - t i e: q š e - b a * š a 3 center* l a 2 - NI s u - g a z u 2 - l u m * k i PN-t a * k i š i b PN d u b - s a r t: barley amount q (allotted as) payments (for workers employed) in the centers, (derived from) the shortfall repaid by PN the garden administrator, PN scribe took q. e: barley amount q (allotted as) payments (for workers employed) in the centers, (derived from) the shortfall of dates repaid by PN,367 PN scribe sealed/acquired q.

In MTBM 261 (ŠS 7/xii) the shortfall is instead repaid through a quantity of dates delivered by a garden administrator: q dates* k i PN s a n t a n a - t a * l a 2 - NI s u - g a * PN š u b a - t i q of dates provided by PN the garden administrator (as) shortfall repaid, PN took q.

In MVN 3, 215 (Š 48/x), consisting of tablet and envelope, the shortfall ascribed to the gardeners is calculated in silver to be repaid in the year, a transaction sealed by a garden administrator: q silver* l a 2 - NI n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 - k e 4 - n e * m u - u 3 - a s u - s u * k i š i b PN s a n t a n a + seal q of silver (for) the shortfall (of) the gardeners, to be repaid within the year, PN the garden administrator sealed/acquired q.

When given in a summary form,368 the repaid shortfall of the gardeners is not connected with garden administrators, rather it was delivered to the receiving institution as ‘shortfall of the gardeners (which was) repaid’ (la 2 - NI su -g a n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 -k e 4 -n e ). It is therefore feasible that the summarizing formulas were drafted on the basis of the single documents attesting the mediation of the garden administrators (see § 9.7.2.1). ––––––––––––––––– On the envelope, Lugal-me (whose title is not specified) occurs in place of the garden administrator as provider (see § 9.4.1). 368 For example, in HSS 4, 1 (Š 45/-), an account concerning silver transactions pertaining to the household of the high priestess ( e r e š - d i ĝ i r ) of BaU and recorded in the name of the administrator ( š a b r a ) Inim-BaU -idab, the shortfall repaid, expressed in summary form in the name of the gardeners ( l a 2 - NI s u - g a n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 - k e 4 - n e ) , amounts to ca. 795.80 g (1 ⅔ m a - n a 9 g i ĝ 4 i g i 6 - ĝ a l 2 1 0 ½ š e k u 3 - b a b b a r ), to be compared to the ca. 18 g (2 g i ĝ 4 i g i - 4 ĝ a l 2 8 ½ š e k u 3 - b a b b a r ) managed by the garden administrator to repay the shortfall in MVN, 3 215 (see § 9.1.4). 367

98

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

1.8.4.3. Role of the garden administrators in the expenditures369 Among the tasks of the garden administrators there was the management of the expenditures of garden produce which was reserved for the cult,370 directed to the capital Ur, owed to the taxation system to which all the provinces were subjected,371 or to the warehouse (e 2 -k išib -b a , for which see § 9.7.2). Below, will follow a series of examples that will attempt to illustrate the function of garden administrators in these types of transactions. Some texts simply mention the garden administrators who supplied the produce, as for example SAT 1, 408 (AS 3/iii), which first records an amount of u k u š 2 , a term used to indicate various types of cucurbitaceae,372 which are generically indicated as being provided by the garden administrators, and continues with the description of the fruit quantities (in terms of baskets) provided by each of the three officials quoted by the text: q u k u š 2 * k i s a n t a n a - n e * n IL2 fruit c-t a * k i PN s a n t a n a q cucurbitaceae provided by the garden administrators, n baskets of fruit (the capacity of which is) c, provided by PN the garden administrator.

TCTI 1, 935 (AS 7/xii) records quantities of palm fibers (m a n g a g a ) provided by garden administrators in a period of eight months and subdivided according to the district, Ĝirsu and GuIniĝinšedu: q1 palm fibers* k i PN s a n t a n a - t a * q2 š a 3 district* š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q3* i t i n - t a i t i n - š e 3 q1 of palm fibers provided by PN the garden administrator, (the total amount is) q2 in the district, the total amount of fibers is q3, from the month n to the month n.

A text, MVN 17, 104 (AS 3/vi), records a quantity of dates and other fruit delivered to the palace by a garden administrator. The amount is counted by the number of baskets differentiated according to capacity, or simply by capacity, and it is allocated in part to the mašdaria-tax for the king (lu g a l) and in part to the mašdaria-tax for the akiti-festival:373 n KIŠ- l a m / m a - s a 2 - a b dates q-t a * q fruit* tax* k i PN s a n t a n a - t a * e 2 - g a l - l a b a - a n - k u 4 n baskets of dates (the capacity of which is) c, q of fruit, (as) tax, provided by PN the garden administrator, brought into the palace.

There is further the particular case of the uninspected fruit,374 recorded in MVN 9, 60 (AS 3/iv).375 The text reports the delivery of baskets of dates and other fruits provided by a garden administrator and brought into the palace for the ma-uzala (m a 2 -u 4 -z a l-la ),376 by a messenger (ra 2 -g a b a ) acting as conveyor. Part of the baskets of dates are indicated for the first time (a -ra 2 1 -k a m ) and part are labeled as k a b 2 n u -d u 1 1 -g a , ‘not inspected (dates)’. However, on the envelope sealed by the governor, the quantities of dates appear undifferentiated: t: n1 IL2 dates q-t a a-ra2 1-kam* n 2 IL2 dates q - t a k a b 2 n u - d u 1 1 - g a * n3 IL2/ q fruit* k i PN s a n t a n a t a * cult* e 2 - g a l - l a b a - a n - k u 4 ––––––––––––––––– 369 As already noted, it should be taken into account that what can be considered as an expenditure according to the persepective of the garden management is considered as a delivery according to the perspective of most of the texts. 370 Cultic occasions requiring fruit offerings are abundant, for a comprehensive discussion see the works of Sallaberger (1993) and Brunke (2011). 371 In this regard, see Sharlach 2004. 372 Powell 2003/05, 20. See also the considerations in § 1.4.1. 373 For this type of tribute, see Sallaberger 1993, 160-169. In the province, quantities of fruit reserved for these taxes and provided by garden administrators were counted both by capacity and by number of baskets of different capacities, KIŠ- l a m , IL2, and, only in MVN 17, 104 (AS 3/vi), also m a - s a 2 - a b . See chapter 9. 374 For the variants and meanings of k a b 2 d u 1 1 - g a , see Attinger 1993, 572-576. 375 This text is given in transliteration in the appendix (text 6). 376 It should be an unclear rite connected to the palace. In this regard, see Sallaberger 1993, 132 and 169. In the documentation of the province baskets (IL2) of dates or fruit and fruit amounts provided by the garden administrators and delivered to the palace for this rite are attested. See chapter 9.

99

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD e: n4 IL2 dates q-t a * n3 IL2/ q fruit* k i PN s a n t a n a - t a * cult* e 2 - g a l - l a b a - a n - k u 4 * ĝ i r i 3 PN r a 2 g a b a + seal e n s i 2 t: n1 baskets of dates (the capacity of which is) c the first time, n2 baskets of dates (the capacity of which is) c not inspected, n3 baskets/ q o f fruit* provided by PN the garden administrator, (for the) cult, brought into the palace. e: n4 baskets of dates (the capacity of which is) c, n3 baskets/ q o f fruit, provided by PN the garden administrator, (for the) cult, brought into the palace, the conveyor (was) PN the messenger, the governor sealed/acquired them.

As shown in chapter 9, there are various attestations of garden administrators acting as providers of quantities of fruit directed to the warehouse (e-kišiba). See, for example: RA 54, 124 3 (Š 40/-) q fruit* e 2 - k i š i b - b a - k a k u 4 - r a * k i PN s a n t a n a - t a * PN d u b - s a r š u b a - t i q of fruit brought into the warehouse, provided by PN the garden administrator, PN the scribe took q.

Among the tasks of garden administrators, there was also the deliverance of garden produce to the provincial taxation system (b a la ). The documentation provides examples of single transactions of garden products delivered by the garden administrators to the scribes responsible for the taxation system.377 See, for example: HLC 1, 128 (ŠS 7/ix) q palm by-products* b a l a - š e 3 * k i PN s a n t a n a - t a * PN d u b - s a r š u b a - t i q palm by-products allocated to taxation system, provided by PN the garden administrator, PN the scribe took q.

Furthermore, inherent to the provincial taxation system, there is a group of texts378 which record transactions of products consisting of boats (m a 2 b a la -a )379 of different capacities, among them some are specified as being (from the) garden administrators. Most likely, such a specification would entail what was due to the taxation system of the production of gardens through the mention of their managers: boats c-ta* s a n t a n a b a l a - a n boats (the capacity of which is) c, (from the) garden administrators within the (period of obligation to the) taxation system.

As far as irregular expenditures (š a 3 -g e g u ru 7 -a lu g a l) 380 are concerned, there are the following examples: BPOA 2, 1917 (ŠS 7/-) and ITT 3, 6216 (ŠS 8/-) n KIŠ- l a m fruit q-t a * š a 3 - g e g u r u 7 - a l u g a l * k i PN s a n t a n a * ĝ i r i 3 PN n baskets of fruit (the capacity of which is) c, (for) the šagegura lugal, provided by PN the garden administrator, the conveyor (was) PN.

In some cases, the role played by the garden administrators is that of conveyor of quantities of fruit or palm by-products supplied by the scribes of the warehouse and directed to the provincial taxation system. In this case, the function of conveyor performed by the garden administrators ––––––––––––––––– See §§ 9.7.2.2.4-5. 378 MVN 11, 97 (AS 7/xii/5); TCTI 1, 1007 (AS 8/-); CM 26, 95 (AS 8/v/ 21); TCTI 2, 2797 (AS 8/v/22); TCTI 1, 916 (AS 8/v/28); CM 26, 99 (AS 8/x/7); Fs. Owen 170 L 6434 (AS 8/xii/29); SNAT 122 (AS 9/xi); TÉL 18 (l.d.); TCTI 2, 2785 (-/xi/12); TCTI 2, 2772 (-/xii/17). 379 Sharlach 2004, 82-85. According to this scholar, texts listing ships for the provincial taxation system (b a l a ) shed light on how the goods reached Nippur and the other established destinations. 380 They were secular offerings unrelated to festival cycles. See Sallaberger 1993, 74. In the documentation of the province are attested baskets (KIŠ- l a m ) of different capacities provided by garden administrators for this purpose. See § 9.4.1. 377

100

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

seems to recall that performed by the garden experts in some expenditures of fruit (see § 1.6.6), a function which was probably subordinated to that of provider performed by the scribe: MTBM 262 (AS 3/iii) q dates* k i PN d u b - s a r e 2 - k i š i b - b a - t a * PN d u b - s a r š u b a - t i * ĝ i r i 3 PN s a n t a n a q of dates provided by PN the scribe of the warehouse,381 PN the scribe took q, the conveyor (was) PN the garden administrator.

There is also the case in which a quantity of produce delivered by a garden administrator to an official was conveyed by another garden administrator; in this case, a sort of subordination is not necessarily implied, but rather two distinct functions performed by the two officials in regards to the central administration:382 RA 54, 126 22 (AS 8/iv) q spices* k i PN s a n t a n a - t a * PN š u b a - t i * ĝ i r i 3 PN s a n t a n a q of spices provided by PN the garden administrator, PN took q, the conveyor (was) PN the garden administrator.

1.8.5. Management of fee payments Among the duties of the garden administrators was also making payments of silver to the central administration for the fees relating to the plots they managed. With regard to what is intended with fee, Maekawa383 and Steinkeller384 explained how the expression m a š ( 2 ) q g iĝ 4 -ta , attested in texts of the Ĝirsu province and pertaining to the leasing out of arable lands (n iĝ 2 -ĝ a l 2 -la / a p in -la 2 ), is likely to have indicated the rate of silver that the renter had to pay for every b u r 3 (64,800 m2) of land at the time of the rental agreement. Furthermore, the amount indicated in the same texts as še -b i does not concern the total yield, but rather the fee charged to the renter. According to Maekawa, the amount of the fees for a given plot was directly proportional to the yield estimated for it. As noted by Steinkeller, in some texts from Umma, there is evidence that the silver fee (m a š ( 2 ) ) was specifically paid for the irrigation (a de2-a).385 The documentation of the province of Ĝirsu provides examples of the deliveries of silver, barley and garden produce issued by the managers as payment of the rental fees of the plots managed by them on behalf of the central administration itself386 (WMAH 20, Š 48/-) or of the involved temple household

––––––––––––––––– 381 In this case the warehouse is not explicitly mentioned in the text; however the provider is Ur-abba, the scribe of the warehouse (see § 9.7.2.1). 382 In the text the title of the garden administrator acting as conveyor is specified, but not that of the garden administrator acting as provider; it seems unclear in this case whether the official whose title was specified was external to the area from which the produce came, as a further form of state control on what was produced in the area of the providing administrator or, conversely, whether the recorded amount came from the area of the garden administrator who conveyed and it was then administratively consigned by the other one. 383 Maekawa, 1977. 384 Steinkeller, 1981. 385 See Steinkeller 1981, 119; D’Agostino and Pomponio 2005a, 199. In § 1.5 it was seen that the planning of works pertaining to the irrigation system did not directly involve the garden administrators, among whose duties fell rather the management of the relevant payment. The irrigation fees probably comprised the water supply and the maintenance works, while extraordinary interventions inherent to the restoration of gardens would have created a shortage (or better, an additional purpose of expenditure) accredited to the name of the gardener in charge of the involved plot (see § 1.8.6). From § 4.2 it will be clear, then, that works inherent to canal banks implied the interventions of officials such as s a ĝ ĝ a and š a b r a , namely the administrators of the temple households, even in the case of irrigation inlet-plots ( k a - a - DU) or gardens ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ) . For a different interpretation of the expression a d e 2 - a in this context, see Civil 1994, 68-69. 386 That this document concerns the central administration of the province is suggested by the names of those who occur as receivers in the expenditure section, among whom are listed the governor, Ur-abba son of Bazi (§ 9.7.2.1) and LuNinĝirsu son of Ikala (§ 9.7.2.2.6). It is interesting to note that in both cases the involved garden administrator is Ga’a (see § 9.4.1), in WMAH 20, together with two garden administrators of Gu’aba (see §§ 9.3.3-4).

101

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

(Zinbun 21, 11 44, AS 1/-). WMAH 20 records an account concerning the rental surplus,387 where, in the section of the deliveries that constitute the capital, there are quantities of fruit, barley and silver provided by garden administrators and recorded as remnants (si-i 3 -tu m ) of the current and previous year. Zinbun 21, 11 44 instead records the plots pertaining to the temple of Nindara ([n iĝ 2 ]-ĝ a l 2 -la [e 2 ] d N in -d a ra 6 a ), and indicates the dimensions and the respective silver and barley fees for every parcel; among the parcels listed in this text are some managed by a garden administrator: WMAH 20 (Š 48/-): q fruit/silver/barley* k i PN s a n t a n a - t a * n i ĝ 2 - k a 9 s i - i 3 - t u m - t a q of fruit/silver/barley provided by PN the garden administrator, from the account of the remnants (of the year). Zinbun 21, 11 44 (AS 1/-): e* m a š q g i ĝ 4 - t a * š e - b i q* PN s a n t a n a (the extent of the plot is) e, (the relative) fee is q shekels of silver, the relative barley is q, (charged to) PN the garden administrator.

How these officials could acquire silver and other goods external to gardens can be seen in the balanced accounts drafted in their name, as will be illustrated in the following section. 1.8.6. Accounts drafted in the name of garden administrators388 The accounts (n iĝ 2 -k a 9 a k a )389 drafted in the name of garden administrators reflect the role of mediator played by this professional figure between the garden sphere and the other economic or administrative sectors. Fruit and palm by-products collected by means of the gardeners in charge in their areas, were then redirected by the garden administrators as expenditures for the cult, the conversion in silver, the merchants, and the warehouse. The example from Gu’aba (LB 538 CDLI P21002, AS 6/-, n.p.), preserved in good condition, shed light on the delivery and expenditure procedures managed by these officials and allowed similar procedures to be noted in two more fragmentary and more complex texts: TUT 115 (l.d.) and TUT 114 (l.d.). In addition, the example offered by MVN 22, 180 shows similar procedures in connection with a single type of fruit and a single gardener (thus, a single garden or a part of it). Finally, the example provided by RA 44, 89 concerns a simple account, which record a capital, its derivation, and its redistribution. Therefore, a first example, although crude, is provided by RA 44, 89, an account associated with the name of a garden administrator, which records a ‘difference’ of barley (la 2-NI; a remainder, surplus in this case) in the name of another garden administrator and addressed to an official (whose title is not specified). The official to whom the barley amount is attributed is defined ‘vineyard administrator’ (sa n ta n a ĝ e štin , see § 1.10), while the involved conveyor is a city elder (a b -b a iri):390 ––––––––––––––––– In the text n i ĝ 2 - k a 9 a k a l a 2 -NI e 3 - a . In this case the difference ( l a 2 -NI) refers to a remainder, thus it can be understood as an account of the surplus of the rental fees. For the meaning of the Sumerian - e 3 - (waşûm Š) in OldBabylonian times and in connection with the rent of houses or fields, see Stol 1994b, 162. 388 Four texts discussed in this section, LB 538 CDLI P210002, TUT 115, TUT 114, MVN 15, 181, are given in transliteration in the appendix (text 8, text 9, text 10, text 11, respectively). 389 The expression n i ĝ 2 - k a 9 a k a , ‘accomplished account’, occurs as finale clause of the records of the transacted goods according to the formula of balanced accounts; their complexity may vary from simple balances (a given capital and its consequent expenditures, in some case also the respective delivery) to more complex balances (accountings based on the relation between deliveries and expenditures and consequent differences, surplus and shortages). In this regard, see D’Agostino, 2006; Sallaberger 1999b, 316-323. However, these scholars examined accounts relating to silver transactions of merchants and so their analysis was based on a different relation between the drafter of the account and the central administration. Indeed, balanced accounts concerning garden produce were rather based on the relation between providers of raw materials ( s a n t a n a ) and central administration. 390 For this office, see de Maaijer and Jagersma 1997/1998, 287. 387

102

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS RA 44, 89 (Š 42/-) q1 l a 2 -NI PN1 s a n t a n a * š a 3 - b i - t a * 391 q1 PN š u b a - t i * m u - k u x (DU)* ĝ i r i 3 PN a b - b a i r i * n i ĝ 2 k a 9 a k a PN2 s a n t a n a q of barley, difference (in the name of) PN1 the garden administrator, from which: PN took q, (it is a) delivery, the conveyor (was) PN the city elder, account (drafted in the name of) PN2 the garden administrator.

The example provided by MVN 22, 180 is one of the most descriptive, although it does not mention garden administrators. It starts with a given capital (sa ĝ -n iĝ 2 -g u r 1 1 -ra -k a m ) of apples and follows with the detail of the expenditures (š a 3 -b i-ta ) and relevant destinations which include the cult, the governor, the king and the high priestess (e re š-d iĝ ir) of BaU; the expenditure section is followed by a section concerning the delivery of silver, the amount of which is calculated on the basis of the preceding section.392 It interesting to note that the initial capital is higher (4,125 liters) than the total quantity of fruit expended (1,149.5 liters); nevertheless, the text does not mention a ‘difference’, a surplus (la 2-NI), but rather focuses on the correspondence between expenditure and delivery sections. It may be inferred that this document focuses on the expenditures of the apple quantity provided by the garden expert in whose name the account is recorded and which was only a part of the starting capital. Therefore, this text would substantially concern the apple production of a single garden (or a part of it), starting nonetheless from a capital which may have concerned more gardens and garden experts, thus the text was likely based on the account of a garden administrator (see below and § 1.11.3). In any case, this account is drafted in the name of a gardener (in the text n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) of the high priestess, while the function of conveyor is entrusted to different persons, among them also a gardener: MVN 22, 180 (Š 43/-) q1 fruit s a ĝ - n i ĝ 2 - g u r 1 1 - r a - k a m * š a 3 - b i - t a * q2 fruit cult/e n s i 2 / l u g a l / e r e š - d i ĝ i r * ĝ i r i 3 PN /u m - m i - a / d u b - s a r / š a b r a / r a 2 - g a b a * zi-ga* q silver [m u - k u x (DU)]* š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q3 z i - g a * š u n i ĝ i n 2 q silver m u - k u x (DU)* n i ĝ 2 - k a 9 a k a fruit PN u m - m i - a the amount of fruit q1 is the capital, from which: q2 of fruit (allocated to the) cult/ governor/king/high priestess, the conveyors (were) PN untitled official/garden expert/scribe/administrator/messenger, (amounts) expended, (the relative delivery is) q of silver, q3 (is) the total amount of fruit expended, q is (the) total amount of silver delivered, account of fruit (drafted in the name of) PN the garden expert.

A further illustrative example is provided, as already mentioned, by LB 538, CDLI P210002 (AS 6/- n.p.), the record of a balanced account pertaining to two garden administrators of Gu’aba, Udani and UNga. The text is subdivided into two main sections, each in the name of one administrator.393 The entries concerning the capital, from which then develop the expenditures (ša 3 -b i-ta ), consist of fruit and palm by-products provided by the gardeners (k i n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 k e 4 -n e -ta ) or as the produce remnants (si-i 3 -tu m ) of the gardeners or fruit labeled as ‘inspected’ (k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a ). The expenditure sections are followed by the record of a quantity of silver calculated on the basis of the date quantities which were placed on the account of an official (whose title is not specified). In this case the silver is not recorded as a delivery, rather it is valued on the basis of the expended dates according to an equivalence between the two goods,394 and ––––––––––––––––– 391 The expression literally means ‘from its inside’, and was defined by D’Agostino as “espressione che rappresenta uno iato logico tra la prima parte delle entrate e la seconda delle uscite dei beni in oggetto” (see D’Agostino 2006, 210). For a discussion on texts where š a 3 - b i - t a is the key expression, see D’Agostino and Pomponio, 2005b. 392 According to the correspondence reported by the text, (r. 9-12) ca. 75 g. (9 g i ĝ 4 5 š e ) of silver equal to 1,149.5 liters (3.4.0 9 ½ s i l a 3 ) of fresh apples, according to a ratio grosso modo 3 g i ĝ 4 :1 g u r . For the fruit value during the Neo-Sumerian period, see Snell 1982, 134-136. 393 The following formula simplifies the entries of the text; for the detail of each section, see § 9.3.3 and § 9.3.4. 394 The recorded correspondences are not fully legible; however, it can be deduced that in the section concerning the garden administrator UNga (see § 9.3.4) ca. 42½ g (5 g i ĝ 4 21+ š e ) of silver correspond to an expenditure of 1,533 liters (5.0.3 3 sila3 gur) of dates, while the section concerning the garden administrator Udani (see § 9.3.3) shows that

103

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

therefore it occurs among the expenditure entries. Lastly, the entries concerning the resulting ‘difference’ (la 2 -NI) in the name of each garden administrator: LB 538, CDLI P210002 (AS 6/-): q1 fruit/palm by-products* ki n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 - k e 4 - n e - t a * q2 fruit/palm by-products* s i - i 3 - t u m n u ĝeš k i r i 6 - k e 4 - n e * (q3 fruit* k a b 2 d u 1 1 - g a ) * q4 š u - n i ĝ i n 2 * š a 3 - b i - t a * q5 fruit/palm by-products * cult* q silver* z u 2 - l u m - b i q* kišib PN a- g u 3 - a b a - a - ĝ a r * q 6 š u - n i ĝ i n 2 z i - g a * q7 fruit/palm byproducts l a 2 -NI-a m 3* PN s a n t a n a * n i ĝ 2 - k a 9 a k a P N s a n t a n a * district q1 of fruit and palm by-products provided by the gardeners, q2 of fruit and palm by-products (from the produce) remnants of the gardeners, (q3 of inspected fruit), the total (is) q4, from which: q5 of fruit and palm by-products (addressed to the) cult, (delivery of) q of silver, its (value in) dates (is) q; sealed/acquired by PN, (amount) was placed on (his) account, q6 (is) the total (amount) expended; q7 of fruit and palm byproducts (is) the difference/surplus in the name of PN the garden administrator, account (drafted in the name of) PN the garden administrators, (in the) district.

More complex examples could then be provided by TUT 115 (l.d.) and TUT 114 (l.d.), the colophons of which are not preserved, but which seem to present the accounts of similar procedures in a more articulated way. Indeed, in both texts there are quantities of fruit and palm by-products, from which the expenditure entries derive. Given the nature of the transactions it is not to be excluded that the texts represent accounts of garden administrators, whose names are lost in the colophons. TUT 115 is a little more fragmentary and records at least three sections in which the quantity of products is then followed (ša 3 -b i-ta ) by the detail of the expenditures. The initial capitals consist of fruit and date quantities labeled as ‘inspected’ (k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a ) and fruit quantities indicated as ‘impost’ (n iĝ 2 -ĝ a r),395 to which a quantity of palm by-products follows before the expenditure section. The products are reserved for the cult,396 merchants, warehouse (e-kišiba), Ur or are recorded as deliveries (m u -k u x ) on behalf of officials (Ur-BaU , Ur-Ištaran), whose titles are not specified, on whose account the quantities should be placed (a -g u 3 -a ĝ a 2 -ĝ a 2 ). Each section seems to end with a calculation of the ‘difference’ (la 2 -NI) associated with the name of ––––––––––––––––– 151.475 g (18 g i ĝ 4 i g i 4 - ĝ a l 2 ) of silver correspond to an expenditure of ca. 5,400 liters (18 g u r ) of dates, according to a ratio grosso modo 1 g i ĝ 4 :1 g u r . This same ratio seems to be confirmed by Snell 1982, 136-137. 395 The term n i ĝ 2 - ĝ a r seems to entail a part of the production distinct from that estimated by means of the inspections, to which, however, it was opposed. Both in TUT 114 and in TUT 115 ‘inspected’ ( k a b 2 d u g 1 1 - g a ) goods and ‘impost’ ( n i ĝ 2 - ĝ a r ) goods concern different produce, dates and palm by-products in one category and fruits in the other one, or dates and a type of fruit in a category and another type of fruit in the other. As for the quantity it concerns, in both texts the quantities of goods labeled as ‘inspected’ concern hundreds of liters, in accordance with the quantities recorded in the single documents recording garden yield inspections. On the contrary, amounts of products recorded as n i ĝ 2 - ĝ a r concern one or two liters of fruits and apparently have no counterpart in the single documents. It is unclear, whether this expression can be compared to the Old-Babylonian šukunnûm (NIĜ2-ĜAR), that is, that part of production which the gardener had to pay to the owner at the harvest time, previously established on the basis of provisional estimation, according to which it would be consigned (depending on each case) to half or two thirds of the production (see Cocquerillat 1967, 212-223; Renger 1982, 290-292.). It can tentatively suggested, that in Neo-Sumerian times the capitals of garden produce available to the central administration were based, on the one hand, on the amounts estimated by the yield inspections in accordance with the productivity of gardens (hundreds liters, representing however, only part of the actual production, see Zettler, 136) and on the other hand, on established amounts, a sort of impost not proportional to the actual production (few liters). However, it would seem that the Old-Babylonian term had entailed a sort of proportional impost, summarizing in itself the praxis of the yield estimations that in Neo-Sumerian times were marked as ‘inspected’, at the same time, it entailed the concept of impost that in Neo-Sumerian times was apparently unrelated and opposed to what had been estimated. In any case, it should be recognized that such a term occurs in connection with the garden administration just in these two texts and probably in MVN 15, 181 (see below), unlike the yield inspections. In LB 538, CDLI P210002, quantities of fruit inspected contrast with quantities provided by gardeners and quantities considered as (produce) remnants of gardeners. Although it is evident that all the deliveries of produce by gardeners responded to a demand of the state, there is no evidence suggesting any connection between the simple deliveries and the produce designated as ‘imposed/impost’ ( n i ĝ 2 - ĝ a r ) . 396 Some of the recorded cultic destinations seem to concern in particular the area of Lagaš, that is, the same area where the mentioned garden was situated; the document lists regular offerings for the Bagara temple, for the goddess Ĝatumdu, to whom the name of the garden (still legible in the text) also refers (see. § 4.3.2).

104

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

persons whose titles are not mentioned (Ur-NIĜ, Lunimuzu), but who were likely garden experts whose names were followed by the indication of the relevant garden (see § 4.3.2). If, in LB 538, CDLI P210002, the sections (the entries of which are summarizing: provided by the gardeners, produce remnants of the gardeners) end with the garden administrator’s name, in this case, it seems that the account focuses on the detail of the transactions of products pertaining to single gardens and garden experts.397 Conversely, it is unclear whether the conveyors (ĝ iri 3 ) involved in some of the listed transactions (Šeškala son of Anana, Manšum, UNga, Urani) could have been garden experts;398 however, in at least one case, the conveyor was the messenger Ur-Igalim (see § 9.7.2.2.7). TUT 114 records at least eight sections and preserves part of the total section. Also in this text, the capitals consist of quantities of fruit labeled as ‘inspected’ (k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a ), as opposed to quantities of fruit labeled as ‘impost’ (n iĝ 2 -ĝ a r),399 here directly followed by the expenditure sections (ša 3 -b i-ta ). The produce are allocated to the cult, the warehouse (e-kišiba), Ur or to untitled officials who should acquire (k išib ) the intended produce.400 As in LB 538, quantities of external products, in this case sesame (ĝ e š-i 3 ), occur in the same section as the expenditures (ša 3 -b i-ta ), since the information is considered on the basis of the corresponding value in dates401 on behalf of an official (Ur-BaU), to whom the quantity of dates should be delivered. However, the specification ‘delivery’ (m u -k u x ), preceded by an unwritten line, seems to concern all the entries derived from a given capital in this text and may thus reflect the point of view of a garden administrator. Each section ends with the list of produce given as ‘difference’ (la 2 -NI) and associated with the name of persons (Urduĝu, Ur-Damgalnun, Ur-mes, Ur-Šul), probably garden experts, without however mention of the relevant garden.402 The preserved total section shows a similar structure: a total capital subdivided in ‘inspected’ and ‘impost’ produce, followed (ša 3 b i-ta ) by the destinations tied to the cult. Unfortunately, the information recorded in the last column of the text is almost entirely lost. The destinations of the expenditures recorded both in TUT 114 and in TUT 115, such as the warehouse (in particular that intended with the name of the scribe Ur-abba),403 the cult, the capital Ur, and in the case of TUT 115, also merchants, all of them recall the destinations of the single transactions of fruit and palm by-products managed by garden administrators.404 Thus, it cannot be excluded that both these texts may represent the detailed accounts of some of these officials, ––––––––––––––––– 397 See also MVN 22, 180 above and in § 1.11.3; however, the account recorded in that text was drafted according to a different perspective. 398 See the role played by the garden experts in the expenditures of garden produce in § 1.6.5 and § 1.6.6; the single entries of the expenditure section, indeed, record low amounts of a single type of fruit at time. Furthermore, Šeškala was the son of the garden administrator Anana of the Lagaš area (§ 9.5.3); although garden experts are known to have been the relatives of garden administrators (E-heĝal son of Gu’umu and Ur-BaU brother of Gamu), the activity of Šeškala is not attested elsewhere. The names of the other conveyors, Manšum, UNga and Urani, are too common to allow for any connection, although they recall the names of garden administrators and attestations of garden administrators acting as conveyors of amounts provided by other garden administrators are known (see § 1.8.4). 399 Although the entries of the first section are mostly lost in the breaks of the tablet, it seems that here the capital of fruit is not subdivided into ‘inspected’ and ‘impost’, but simply composed of fruit and palm by products. 400 In one case, it is specified that the transaction has no ‘sealed document’ (r. ii, 10' : k i š i b n u - t u k u ). 401 The attested correspondences indicate that 13 liters of sesame correspond to ca. 69.3 liters of dates (o. ii', 10-11: 0.0.1 3 s i l a 3 ĝ e š - i 3 / z u 2 - l u m - b i 0.1.0 9 ⅓ s i l a 3) and seven liters of sesame correspond to ca. 37.3 liters of dates (r. i, 25'-26': 7 s i l a 3 ĝ e š - i 3 / z u 2 - l u m - b i 0.0.3 7 ⅓ s i l a 3 ). 402 Also in this case the quoted names are widespread, although the function of responsibility for the produce suggests they were garden experts. Further, at least for Ur-Damgalnun, it can be recognized he was a garden expert active in the area of the garden administrator Ur-Lisi (see § 9.1.9); in TUT 143 (l.d.) he occurs as supervisor of one worker (o. iii, 18') whom Ur-Lisi takes charge of, and in MVN 22, 237 (IS 3/viii) Ur-Lisi takes over some palm by-products supplied by him (o. 5). 403 See e.g. TUT 114, o. iv', 21: e 2 - k i š i b - b a U r - a b - b a and TUT 115, r. i, 2': š a 3 < e 2 > - k i š i b - < b a - k a > U r - a b b a . For this scribe, see § 9.7.2.1. 404 In the case of TUT 114, two purposes of date expenditures may not necessarily concern the cult and have so far no counterpart in the single transactions managed by the garden administrators of the province: (r. i, 21') dates ‘(in) addition’ ( d a h - h u ), and (r. i, 20') dates for ‘(the ones) following the bulls’ ( g u 4 - e u s 2 - s a ).

105

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

which would then constitute the basis of more resumptive accounts as LB 538, where each section ends with the name of a garden administrator. A further account of garden administrators is likely represented by MVN 15, 181 (l.d.), a very fragmentary text, which however shows a similar structure. The capital quantities consist of fruit and palm by-products ‘inspected’ (o. i, 5': [k a b 2 ] d u 1 1 -g a ) and ‘impost’ (o. i, 10': [n iĝ 2 ]ĝ a r), the names of two garden experts of Ĝirsu, Bagara-ziĝu and Urdudani, can likely be recognized, and among the destinations listed is the warehouse of Ur-abba. The text, however, presents some peculiarities: the first one concerns the value correspondences of produce, which are based on the different values that a single type of fruit assumes if fresh (d u ru 5 ) or dried (h a d 2 ).405 A second peculiarity concerns the purpose of some expenditures and an indication concerning some gardens. Despite the condition of the text, it can be recognized that in the section concerning Bagara-ziĝu, part of the expenditures (z i-g a ) of fruit and palm by-products is attributed to the payment ‘for the wasted garden’406 (m u ĝ e š k iri 6 -b i b a -h u l-a -š e 3 ), followed by the ‘difference’ (la 2 -NI) in his name. Conversely, the name of the garden expert Urdudani is followed by the indication ĝ e š k iri 6 n a m -z i, which as already seen, refers to the restoration activities of neglected palm groves;407 this indication could however also regard the preceding sections ( ĝ e š k iri 6 n a m -z i-< m e -e š2>, ‘(these) are the restored gardens’), among them that in the name of Bagara-ziĝu. Therefore, it seems that part of the recorded transactions in this account focus on the payment in terms of garden produce408 to the central administration as penalty for unproductive gardens and related to restoration activities. So, even in this case, it cannot be excluded that the text represents an account drafted in the name of a garden administrator, since among their duties may have fallen both the management of the payments inherent to restoration works recorded in the name of the responsible gardener,409 as well as the interaction with the warehouse (e-kišiba). This text presents a further peculiarity concerning the characterizations of the recorded dates: aside from ordinary dates and dates of good quality (s a g a 1 0 ), in one case there is mention of z u 2 -lu m k ik k e n 2 (HAR.HAR), ‘dates (of the) mill’. In this text, this type of dates is probably related to the capital section recorded in the name of the garden expert Urdudani and recalls the date type ‘z u 2 -lu m HAR’ attributed to Urdudani himself in the ‘garden of Ur-Ninĝirsu I’ in ––––––––––––––––– The preserved correspondences are the following: o. iv, 4'-7': 0.2.3 6 s i l a 3 ĝ e š ĝ i p a r x (KISAL) h a d 2 / ĝeš ĝ i p a r x (KISAL) d u r u 5 - b i / 1.2.4 8 s i l a 3 g u r / e 2 - k i š i b - b a / U r - a b - b a , from which it can be deduced that 156 liters of dried ĝipar-fruit correspond to 468 liters of the same fruit, still fresh; but also the correspondences between fresh and dried figs: r. iii', 8-9: š u - n i ĝ i n 2 6 0 ½ ĝ e š p e š 3 6 k u š 3 / ĝ e š p e š 3 d u r u 5 - b i 4.0.1+ [g u r ], from which it can be deduced that dried figs, calculated by length (k u š 3 ) of the string to which they were tied, correspond to a certain capacity of fresh figs, in the text 60½ strings with figs of three meters correspond to ca. 1,200 liters of fresh figs. The value correspondences could have been connected to the warehouse (e-kišiba; see § 9.7.2), but the conditions of the text do not provide clear evidence (with the exceptions of the lines 6' and 7' of the fourth column of the obverse, following the correspondences concerning the ĝipar-fruit). For the interpretation ‘strings with fruits’, see Brunke, H. 2011, 221222. 406 See Ouyang 2013, 79. The author reported the case recorded in a text from Umma (SA 55, ŠS 2/iv), where a silver amount was paid by a gardener ( n u-ĝ e š k i r i 6 ) for the dues imposed for his wasted garden, o. 2: k u 3 ⌈ n a m ⌉ - DU m u ĝeš kiri6 hul-a-še3. 407 It can thus be inferred that the creation of ‘mud walls’ (i m - d u 8 - a ) and the ‘digging of irrigation ditches’ (p a 5 b a a l - l a ) is here implied; these were required operations for the restoration of neglected palm groves; see § 1.5. 408 It seems plausible that the original payment required for the restoration of gardens entailed expenditures of garden produce, as in MVN 15, 181, and that the payment in silver, as for example in the text from Umma (SA 55, ŠS 2/iv), was served as replacement. As evident from MVN 20, 92 (ŠS 6/-) from Umma, such expenditures served to cover the payments for the workers, in this text in particular water drawers (š e - b a SIG7-a), initially provided by the governor (see § 1.5). 409 As seen in § 1.5, NATN 61, from Nippur, clearly juxtaposes the name of the garden experts (explicitly PN u m - m i a ) with the total amounts of the payments ( š e - b i ) for the workers employed in the creation of mud walls and digging of ditches. Additionally, as already seen, MVN 22, 31 (n.d.), which could represent a passage which precedes the planning of restoration works of some gardens, does not mention the number of workers required nor the relevant allotments, but quotes the relevant garden administrator (in this case Agu; see § 9.1.8), who likely would have managed the engament of the workers and their payments. 405

106

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4). Which type of dates is intended remains however unclear. Further, CUSAS 16, 74 indicates the presence of Bagara-ziĝu acting as garden expert of the ‘garden of LuNinĝirsu the archivist’, hence it seems plausible that the gardens intended in MVN 15, 181 are to be identified with the ‘garden of Ur-Ninĝirsu I’ (§ 2.2.32) and the ‘garden of Lu-Ninĝirsu the archivist’ (§ 2.2.18), both lying in the area of the garden administrator Gu’umu (§ 9.2.2). 1.8.7. The garden administrators and the circulation of barley, wool and garments The garden administrators were also responsible for the deliveries of goods that, in the case of gardens, consisted mostly of goods employed as means of payments for the garden workers. In this case, the quantity of the deliveries was not proportional to the expended products, rather it was related to the number of employed workers and their respective labor service. 1.8.7.1. Barley payments In texts recording the barley allotments to the water drawers and the arborists, the responsibility of the garden administrators followed the territorial subdivision of their areas of authority within the district. Not all the texts describe the internal distribution of the goods and thus they do not mention the presence of garden experts. What they highlight, indeed, is the function performed by the garden administrators, on the one hand, and by the officials responsible for the circulation of barley and other goods used as means of payment, on the other. With regard to the circulation of barley, indeed, the garden administrators could act as recipients of the amounts supplied for the payments owed to the gardeners. Examples of redactional formulas regarding to this kind of transaction will be given below.410 As seen in § 1.2.2, some texts recording barley payments for the water drawers and arborists distinguish the number of workers according to the ratio between payment/labor service capacity (a 2). MVN 13, 325 (Š 43/vii-viii) shows that the total barley amount of their payments was managed by the garden administrators. This text also provides information about the number of months, to which the payments refers, and about the official who provides the amount. The function of the garden administrator is expressed by u g u la : n ĝ u r u š a 2 r - t a * n i t i * š e - b i q * š e - b a a - b a l a d u 3 - a - k u 5 * k i PN- t a * u g u l a PN s a n t a n a the workers (whose) labor service (is) a 2 (and relative) payment (is) r (are) n, (for the) months n, the barley of their payments (is) q, barley payments for water drawers and arborists, supplied by PN, the supervisor (was) PN the garden administrator.

Similar, but referring just to the monthly payment and not to the labor service, is Amherst 24 (Š 34/vi), consisting of envelope and tablet.411 The function of the garden administrator is expressed by k išib on the envelope, where the seal was rolled over, and by u g u la on the tablet: t: n ĝ u r u š r - t a * š e - b i q * a - b a l a d u 3 - a - k u 5 - m e * k i PN- t a * u g u l a PN s a n t a n a e: n ĝ u r u š r - t a * š e - b i q * š e - b a a - b a l a d u 3 - a - k u 5 * k i PN- t a * k i š i b PN s a n t a n a + seal t: the workers (whose) payment (is) r (are) n, the barley of their payments (is) q, (they) are water drawers and arborists, supplied by PN,412 the supervisor (was) PN the garden administrator. e: the workers (whose) payment (is) r (are) n, the barley of their payments (is) q, barley payments for water drawers and arborists, supplied by PN, PN the garden administrator sealed/acquired q.

––––––––––––––––– 410 A group of texts dating to Š 48 and recording the payments for gardeners is separately treated in § 2.2, where the preceding phase is also illustrated. 411 This text is given in transliteration in the appendix (text 13). 412 The supplier is probably to be identified with an administrator (š a b r a ) ; see § 9.6.7.

107

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

BPOA 1, 58 (Š 33/ii) only records the total barley amount allotted as payment to the water drawers and arborists, but provides information about the supplier and the field from which it derives. In this text, the function of the garden administrators is expressed by š u ti:413 q * š e - b a a - b a l a d u 3 - a - k u 5 * a - š a 3 - t a * k i PN- t a * PN s a n t a n a š u b a - t i q ( is for) the barley payments for water drawers and arborists, from the field, supplied by PN, PN the garden administrator took q .

In texts recording the detail of the garden workers and their payments, the function of the garden administrators is expressed by i 3 -d a b 5 , (the sa n ta n a) took over/charge of, whilst the function of supervision (u g u la ) is attributed to the garden experts. In MVN 6, 317 (n.d.) the listed workers are water drawers and arborists (SIG7-a and unmarked),414 while in TÉL 82 (l.d.) they are ‘invalid’ workers of the garden (lu 2 h u -b u 7 b u ĝ e š k iri 6 ; see § 1.3.5); in both cases the workers are subdivided into groups supervised by garden experts: MVN 6, 317 (n.d.) and TÉL 82 (l.d.) r PN a - b a l a / d u 3 - a - k u 5 / l u 2 h u - b u 7 b u ĝ e š k i r i 6 * u g u l a PN u m - m i - a * PN s a n t a n a i 3 - d a b 5 (the workers) PN water drawers and arborists/‘invalids’ (whose) payments (are) r, the supervisor (was) PN the garden experts, PN the garden administrator took charge of them/their payments.

In TUT 143 (l.d.), as seen in § 1.6.8, the function of taking over performed by the garden administrators is expressed by i 3 -d a b 5 and clearly concerns both the number of workers and the relative payments:415 r PN a - b a l a d u 3 - a - k u 5 * u g u l a PN u m - m i - a * q n ĝ u r u š PN s a n t a n a i 3 - d a b 5 (the workers) PN water drawers and arborists (whose) payments (are) r, the supervisor (was) PN the garden expert, PN the garden administrator took charge of n workers and the amounts of their payments q.

A further text, ITT 3, 5535 (IS 1/-), shows the same kind of transaction referring, however, to only one worker to be employed in a garden (see § 2.8): r PN* ĝ e š k i r i 6 - š e 3 * PN s a n t a n a i 3 - d a b 5 PN, (whose) payment (is) r, (was) assigned to the garden, PN the garden administrator took charge of him/his payment.

1.8.7.2. Entries of balanced accounts The interaction between the garden administrators and other officials acting on the same level is highlighted by the texts recording the balanced accounts concerning goods of different nature and recorded in the names of officials responsible for the circulation of the goods pertaining to their own sector. In these texts, the expenditures addressed to the garden workers are acquired by garden administrators, as shown in the following example: ––––––––––––––––– According to Sallaberger, the compound verb š u t i , to take/to receive (lit. let it approach the hand) should denote the conclusive passage of a transaction (Sallaberger 1995, 444). As far as the garden management is concerned, it can occur in texts recording transactions of barley involving garden administrators in place of other verbs also denoting a kind of acquisition (on this topic, see Steinkeller 2003, 46). In contrast, with regard to the garden produce, it occurs especially in connection with the function performed by the scribes of the institutions receiving garden produce; see, for example § 9.7.2.1, where it is evident that the function performed by Ur-abba, the scribe of the warehouse, is expressed by š u b a - t i . In any case, the transactions of barley or garden produce between garden experts and administrators (thus, internal to the garden sector) involve other expressions, see § 1.8.4 and below. 414 As already noted in § 1.6.8, most of the listed workers is indicated as ‘not transferred’ ( n u - < d i b - b a > ) ; in this case, it is clear that the function performed by the garden administrators of taking charge of them is specifically linked to the management of their payments. 415 This information is not given in a proper total section, but it is drawn up in the blank spaces which separate the list of workers and the indication of the relevant garden administrator. 413

108

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS Atiqot 4, 33 78 (l.d.) q š e - b a a - b a l a d u 3 - a - k u 5 * k i š i b PN s a n t a n a the barley amount q (which is for) the payments of the water drawers and arborists, PN the garden administrator sealed/acquired q.

CT 10, 38 BM 15296 (AS 1/xi) provides, starting from a given barley capital, the monthly detail of the quantities addressed to the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and those addressed to the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ and the ‘gardeners of Ninegal’ (see § 1.7; § 5.10). The total quantity is taken over by a garden administrator:416 q 1* š a 3 - b i - t a * q 2 n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š - g a l - g a l * q 3 n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š t i n / n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 d N i n - e 2 - g a l * n i t i * q1 PN s a n t a n a i 3 - d a b 5 the barley amount q1 from which: the amount q2 (for the payment of) the ‘gardeners of the large trees’, the amount q3 (for the payment of) the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ and ‘gardeners of Ninegal’, (for the) months n, PN the garden administrator took q1 over.

1.8.7.3. Readdressing of barley amounts In the cases in which the quantity of barley derived from other kinds of transactions (such as the repayments of arrears or loans pertaining to other sectors) is allotted to the garden workers as payment, this is placed under the responsibility of a garden administrator: Nisaba 10, 84 (Š 47/ii) q š e u r 5 - r a e r i n 2 - n e 2 s u - g a * š e - b a a - b a l a d u 3 - a - k u 5 - š e 3 * k i PN-t a * u g u l a PN s a n t a n a the barley amount q (derived from the) loan repaid by the state dependent workers, allocated as payment for the water drawers and arborists, supplied by PN, PN the garden administrator (was) the supervisor.

1.8.7.4. Payments left in the granary In a text, RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/iv), a record of the barley payments left in the granary (g u ru 7 -a ta k a 4 -a ), it is evident that the garden experts were responsible for the water drawers and arborists,417 while the garden administrators were responsible for the quantities of barley allotted to the workers. In both cases the performed function is expressed by u g u la : r (u š 2 ) PN a - b a l a / d u 3 - a - k u 5 * u g u la PN u m - m i - a / ĝ e š k i r i 6 * q u g u l a PN s a n t a n a PN water drawers and arborists (no longer in activity), (whose) payments (are) r, PN the garden expert (was) the supervisor/(they are workers of the) garden, the amount of their payments is q, PN the garden administrator (was) the supervisor.

1.8.7.5. Barley loans As bureaucrats of their sector, the garden administrators were responsible for the barley loans granted to the gardeners; the following two examples concern the same officials and the same date. The first one, CT 3, 19 BM 14604 (AS 1/x), records a quantity of barley defined as š e u r 5 ra n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 , ‘barley loan (for) the gardeners’. With regard to the barley, there is also the specification of the grain store of provenience and the responsible official, the administrator ––––––––––––––––– 416 Nevertheless, the garden administrator quoted by the text is NIMmu, whose activity was notable; see § 9.1.3. 417 It is interesting to note that in two cases the mention of the relevant garden occurs in place of the mention of the responsible garden expert. The first case concerns the ‘garden of e n NE’ (§ 2.2.3), which is however followed by the indication of the payments of two further workers (§ 1.4.1) under the supervision of the garden administrator Abbaĝu (§ 9.1.1). The second case concerns the ‘garden of the mill’, for which neither garden experts nor administrators are quoted as supervisors (see § 3.4).

109

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

(sa ĝ ĝ a ) of NinMAR.KI, at the time of the draft, Ur-BaU, son of the governor Ur-Lamma. The quantity of barley is taken (š u b a -ti) by UNga, a garden administrator of Gu’aba (§ 9.3.4): q š e * š e u r 5 - r a n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 * i 3 - d u b - t a * k i s a ĝ ĝ a NinMAR.KI-ta* PN s a n t a n a š u b a - t i the barley amount q, barley loan (for) the gardeners, from the grain store, supplied by the administrator of NinMAR.KI, PN the garden administrator took q.

The second example is provided by SAT 1, 333+334 (AS 1/x), consisting of envelope and tablet, a document that could instead represent a case of occasional administrative substitution418 and, thus, probably an episode tied to the garden administrator as official, rather than specifically to his professional figure. Here, indeed, the garden administrator UNga seals on behalf of the ‘donkey herder’ (sip a a n še) of the administrator, without necessarily implying specific interconnections between the spheres of responsibility and the respective economic sectors of the two professional figures. The same text is reported in both tablet and envelope, except for the specification k išib PN(-a k ) ib 2 -ra (lit. ‘the seal of PN is rolled over this’) in the tablet, whereas on the envelope k išib PN(-a k ), ‘seal, sealed document of PN’, and the actual sealing is reported. t/e: q š e š e u r 5 - r a PN s i p a a n š e s a ĝ ĝ a * i 3 - d u b * k i s a ĝ ĝ a NinMAR.KI-ta* m u PN s i p a a n š e s a ĝ ĝ a - š e 3 * k i š i b PN s a n t a n a ( i b 2 - r a ) the barley amount q, barley loan (for) PN ‘donkey herder’ (of the) s a ĝ ĝ a - administrator, (from) the grain store, provided by the administrator of NinMAR.KI, on behalf of PN ‘herder of the donkies’ (of the) administrator, PN the garden administrator sealed/acquired q.

1.8.7.6. Barley, wool, and garment payments and worker inspections419 In texts recording allotments of barley, wool, and garments in connection with inspections of garden workers, two types of redactional formula can mainly be found. The main differences between these two types concern the absence, in the first case, and the presence, in the second case, of the description of the areas of employment; further the subdivision of the listed personnel is differentiated by garden in the first type (MVN 17, 55, WMAH 285) and by the area of responsibility of garden administrators in the second (MVN 6, 290, WMAH 279, MVN 15, 178).420 In addition, the second type concern the allottment of barley, alongside wool and garments, while the first type only wool and garments. In MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), already mentioned in § 1.4.2 and § 1.6.8, the transaction of garments and wool is reported in the total section, but not in the colophon, where the inspection of gardeners under the supervision of a garden expert (see § 1.11.5) and of a captain is mentioned.421 In the text, as already seen, the total amount of the payments is recorded as a single account, which would probably have fallen under the responsibility of the garden administrator (see Iraq 62, 41 21 in § 1.4.2 and § 1.8.7.6), whereas the workers consist variously of ordinary gardeners provided by the palace and workers provided by the captain. Both in MVN 17, 55 and in WMAH 285 the workers, who are differentiated by labor service capacity, are further subdivided into ––––––––––––––––– A further text, MVN 11, 47 (AS 1/x), dating to the same month and year and that involves both the administrator of NinMAR.KI and the garden administrator UNga, could also concern a case of substitution. In this case, however, the recorded barley is not specified as being a loan; see § 9.3.4. 419 Three texts treated in this section, MVN 6, 298, MVN 17, 55, and Iraq 62, 41 21 are given in transliteration in the appendix (text 15, text 16, and text 17 respectively). 420 Actually the first type is too poorly attested, while the second is also attested in Umma (e.g. Princeton 2, 492, ŠS 9/-) and Drēhem, referring, however, to an operation that took place at Ĝirsu (see § 7.3). A similar structure could be also found in Nisaba 11, 27 (n.d.) from Umma which, even lacking the key expression in the colophon, is framed as a text of the inspection of gardeners and the allotment of barley, wool and garments of the second type. 421 The presence of a captain (NU-b a n d a 3) in the text might have been due to the presence of external workers, among them ‘workers released (from the duty cycle)’, hence not necessarily related to the garden sphere (§ 1.4.2). The colophon of WMAH 285 is not preserved and the condition of the text does not allow to obtain more information. Nevertheless, the presence of men of the storehouse ( l u 2 n a - k a b - t u m ; see § 1.4.1) and Amorites employed as water drawers (see § 1.2.3) can be recognized. 418

110

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

work groups headed (u g u la ) by garden experts, while other garden experts act as providers/recruiters of the workers. MVN 6, 290 is the only text of the second type preserving a complete colophon, in which both the allotment of the payments and the inspection of the gardeners are explicit (although the indication of the total amount is probably lost in the first column of the reverse). The second text type highlights more specifically the role played by the garden administrators and also provides information about the dimensions of the territories under their responsibility, where the inspection of the employed gardeners took place. Depending on the text, the inspected gardeners are simply taken charge of by the garden administrators, or are subdivided into work groups headed by garden experts, in their turn under the responsibility of garden administrators according to an areal subdivision and there is no presence of garden experts acting as providers/recruiters within the work groups. First type: MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), and probably WMAH 285 (l.d.) 422 DIŠ /AŠ ( r) PN1 u m - m i - a u g u l a * ( k i PN(1) u m - m i - a - t a )* r PN3-4-5.etc a - b a l a / d u 3 - a - k u 5 /external workers (BUR2)* k i PN2 u m - m i - a - t a * PN1 u m - m i - a u g u l a * ĝ e š k i r i 6 * š u - n i ĝ i n 2 n ĝ u r u š / d u m u n i t a 2 r - t a * t u g 2 - b i / s i k i - b i q * g u r u m 2 a k a n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 - k e 4 - n e * u g u l a PN ‘s a n t a n a ’/PN NU-b a n d a 3 the supervisor (‘foreman’ is) PN1 the garden expert, (whose payment is r, recruited by PN(1) garden expert), (the workers are) PN3-4-5.etc water drawers/arborists/external workers (‘released from the duty cycle’), (whose) payments (are) r, (workers) recruited by PN2 the garden expert, the supervisor (‘foreman’ is) PN1 the garden expert, the total is n adult/children workers, the relative wool and garments payments (are) q, inspection of gardeners, the supervisor (was) PN the ‘garden administrator’ (captain/overseer was PN).

Second type: MVN 6, 290 (AS 2/-), and approximately WMAH 279 (l.d.) and MVN 15, 178 (l.d.) (DIL) PN s a n t a n a * PN (DIL/DIŠ /AŠ ) workers* PN s a n t a n a i 3 - d a b 5 * e k a - a - DU* (DIŠ PN u m - m i a ) * r (DIL/DIŠ /AŠ ) P N a - b a l a / d u 3 - a - k u 5 * [ š u - n i ĝ i n 2 ] * g u r u m 2 a k a š e - b a s i k i - b a n u ĝeš k i r i 6 - k e 4 - n e * u g u l a PN s a n t a n a PN the garden administrator took charge of PN workers; the extent of the garden area (is) e, (PN the garden expert), water drawers, arborists (are) PN, (whose) payments (are) r, (total), inspection and distribution of barley, wool and garments to gardeners, the supervisor (was) PN the garden administrator.

MVN 6, 290 (AS 2/-) presents a simple structure. The text begins by mentioning the name of a garden administrator, followed by the names of the workers whom he takes charge of, all of them differentiated according to the notation of the labor service capacity. It continues with the description of the area which the recorded operation refers to: 25,200 m2 (7 ik u ) defined as SAR k a -a - DU, ‘SAR irrigation inlet-land’,423 and subdivided into 3,600 m2 (1 ik u ) with no further indication and 21,600 m2 (6 ik u ) taken charge of by someone (whose profession is not ––––––––––––––––– 422 In WMAH 285 the state of the full activity of the garden experts is expressed by DIL. Monaco noted that the qualifier DIL was no longer used during about the middle of the Ur-III period, when the contraposition DIL/DIŠ /AŠ (full/medium/reduced labor service) was simply substituted by the contraposition DIŠ /AŠ , by assuming DIŠ the value of DIL (Monaco 1985). In addition, both in MVN 17, 55 and WMAH 285, there is no trace of qualifying parameters for the inspected workers; apart from the relevant payment, information on them concerns the indication of inactivity (u š 2 ) or their relation to the account ( l i b i r , ‘of old’). In the case of MVN 17, 55 fugitives ( z a h 3 ) and workers recruited from the added workforce ( d a h - h u - t a ) are also mentioned. 423 The characterization SAR referring to the irrigation inlet-plot is apparently not attested elsewhere; it may intend a plot cultivated as garden or orchard, although such a meaning can be considered implied in the term k a - a - DU. However, such a specification could intend orchards as specifically opposed to palm groves or vineyards; in this regard, see the distinction occurring in ASJ 17, 229 118 (Š 31), where areas labeled as SAR.SAR might refer to orchards or irrigation inlet-areas in opposition to palm groves (see 3.1. Presence of gardens in the Ĝirsu province), and the specification ĝ e š t i n k a - a - DU occurring in MVN 15, 178 (l.d) in regard to some irrigation inlet-plots (see below).

111

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

indicated).424 The texts continues by listing the workers, most of them water drawers (SIG7-a ), who are differentiated by indication of their labor service capacity and their respective payment, but who apparently are not subdivided into work groups.425 As already mentioned, the total amount of the payments, as well as the total number of workers, could be lost in the break affecting the first column and the upper part of the second column of the reverse. At the end of the text, the same garden administrator quoted at the top of the document, occurs as supervisor of the whole operation. WMAH 279 (n.d.) presents a similar, although more complex, structure, as it provides details concerning the payments, a part (barley) of which are to be redistributed monthly (iti-d a b e 6 d a m ), while the other part (wool and garments) yearly (m u -a b e 6 -d a m ), and there is probably mention of a garden name after a section which is substantially missing. Indeed, despite the fragmentary condition of the text, it seems that in this case the areas of responsibility of the garden administrators are presented by describing the single areas of responsibility of the gardeners lying therein. In fact, in one case a plot of 13,500 m2 (3¾ ik u , 375 sa r) and another of 20,700 m2 (5¾ ik u , 575 s a r) are specified, hence comparable to the dimensions of single gardens (see § 1.6.3). Both the plots are composed of palm groves which supported the interplanting of palms and pomegranate trees. The second plot appears quite isolated, while, with regard to the first plot, a group of workers headed by a garden expert can be identified. The garden expert occurs at the top of the listed group, after the mention of a deceased worker (u š 2 ), and again as supervisor (u g u la ) at the end of the list after the total of involved workers (who are listed along with their labor capacity). It thus seems possible that the garden plots and the work groups were supervised by garden experts, while the garden administrators supervised the total amounts (summarized in total sections) concerning the transactions of goods pertaining to their area of responsibility (see § 1.6.8). Finally, a last total section seems to summarize the entire information recorded in the text. Both the function performed by the garden administrators and that performed by the garden experts are expressed by u g u la (supervisor), thus the distinction between these two professions is made clear mainly by the quantity of workers and the dimensions of the areas supervised. As already mentioned in the introduction (see 1.1), the area considered in this text amounts to 550,080 m2 (153 ik u ); this is to be subdivided by at least 24 garden experts and two garden administrators, Abba (§ 9.5.1) and Lugal-amarku (§ 9.5.5), although, given the condition of the tablet and the particularly wide dimensions of the involved area, it cannot be excluded that originally the text could have recorded the presence of further gardeners and garden administrators. MVN 15, 178 (n.d.) presents a more complex structure and it is more fragmentary, since only part of the reverse is preserved. It lists at least three irrigation inlet-plots, the dimensions of which are not specified, but at least in two cases they are labeled as vineyards, ĝ e štin k a -a - DU.426 The first irrigation inlet-plot is probably taken over by the garden expert Ur-mes, while the garden expert Manšum takes charge of the second plot, and the garden expert Lala’a takes charge of the third plot. In another column of the text the garden administrator Lugal-irida is mentioned, probably to be identified with the homonym that ASJ 13, 214 ascribed to the Alšana area along the banks of the Niĝinšedu canal (see § 9.5.6).427 The mention of the garden administrator is ––––––––––––––––– One wonder whether this individual was an official or a garden expert who took charge of the inspection carried out in that plot. 425 The first mentioned workers were probably a garden expert and his son (see § 9.1.1), for whom only the labor service capacity is indicated, but not the payment; the several breaks in the text, however, could hide the possible presence of other garden experts. 426 Despite the condition of the text, it seems plausible that the dimensions of the plot not label as vineyard were originally recorded; indeed the sign GANA2 ( i k u ) precedes the indication k a - a - DU (o. i', 8'). 427 Although the text seems to involve garden administrators of Gu-Iniĝinšedu, a first section of the text could refer to Kimadasala (o. i', 7': [...] K i - m a - d a - s a l 4 - l a ) . Kimadasala was situated in the Ĝirsu district (see 3.1. The presence of gardens in the Ĝirsu province), and this indication would imply that the text concerns an area involving more districts. However, the condition of the text does not allow for an understanding of the extent of the described area. 424

112

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

followed, as in MVN 6, 290, by the names of the workers428 whom he takes charge of and who are differentiated by labor service capacity. A further area, barely legible, could relate to another garden administrator of Niĝin, Enlila (§ 9.5.4). In this text, the garden experts are specifically indicated as u m -m i-a , and at least for one of them the payment is also specified (see § 1.6.8). The functions performed by the garden administrators and by the garden experts are both expressed by i 3 -d a b 5 , however it can be inferred that, despite the condition of the text, also in this case the distinction between the functions performed by the two professionals concerned the number of workers and the dimensions of the areas. As seen in § 1.3.3 and § 1.3.4, the text mentions the presence of workers devoted to the gazi-plants (lu 2 -g a z i) and those devoted to processing of palm fibers (KA×SA.GAZ), but, given its fragmentary condition, it is not possible to determine whether they are to be connected to irrigation inlet-plots, as are the other workers under the charge of the garden experts. The inspection recorded in MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-) is significant as it does not concern the transaction of goods as means of payment, but only the workers. The payments, indeed, only characterize the listed workers, as does the notation of their labor service capacity. According to the text, the workers, provided/recruited by garden experts, are supervised by garden administrators: DIŠ /AŠ PN d u 3 - a - k u 5 r - t a * ĝeš BUR2 n u kiri6-ke4-ne

k i PN u m - m i - a - t a * n ĝ u r u š u g u l a PN s a n t a n a * g u r u m 2 a k a e r i n 2

PN arborists, (whose) payments (are) r, recruited by PN the garden exepert, PN the garden administrator (was) the supervisor (of) n adult/children workers, inspection of ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ state dependent gardeners.

Also significant is the case of Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.), which seems to have been drafted as record of the payments allotted to regularly employed workers and external workers, some of them ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ (BUR2, see § 1.4.2). Since some texts recording worker inspections, as seen, mention the payments as characterization of the workers, this document may represent the subsequent phase, that is, the actual transaction of the goods as means of payments, drafted on the basis of the recorded information concerning the inspected workers. Despite the condition of the text, it seems that the structure of the text is similar to that of MVN 17, 55 (see above and § 1.6.8). The workers are grouped by garden, though only two names can be recognized. In addition, it seems possible to recognize the presence of garden experts acting as foremen and supervisors of groups of workers, while other garden experts act as providers/recruiters of the regular and occasional personnel. Finally, the function of the garden administrators pertains to the transacted goods as payments for both the regular and occasional personnel employed within their area,429 as well as supervisors of the entire recorded operation: Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.): 430 DIŠ /AŠ PN1 u m - m i - a * r PN a - b a l a / d u 3 - a - k u 5 /external workers (BUR2-t a ) * k i PN2 u m - m i - a - t a * ĝeš u g u l a PN1 u m - m i - a * k i r i 6 * š u - n i ĝ i n 2 n ĝ u r u š r - t a * t u g 2 - b i /s i k i - b i q PN s a n t a n a * t u g 2 b a s i k i - b a u g u l a PN s a n t a n a ––––––––––––––––– 428 In this case they are the sons of the garden administrators; see § 1.8. 429 Despite the several breaks, it seems that the text is subdivided into two main sections, each of them pertaining to a garden administrator, as the occurrence of only one of them before the preserved total would suggest (§ 9.1.6). A similar bipartite structure can also be found in WMAH 279 (although more sections may have been included; see above), in HSS 4, 2 (Š 42//AS 6/i), a text recording the distribution of wool and garments to ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and ‘gardeners of the vineyards’, where the bipartition corresponds to the type of gardeners (see § 1.6.8); there is also LB 538, CDLI P210002 (AS 6/-; n.p.), a balanced account of garden administrators (see § 1.8.6), where the bipartition concerns the account sections of the two involved garden officials. 430 At least one worker indicated as pertaining to the previous workforce (l i b i r ) was recruited among the singers (o. ii, 28: g a l a - t a ) , another one was recruited from the unskilled workers (o. iii, 9: U r - d N i n - ĝ e š - z i / / - d a g a n d a b 5 - [ t a ]), and a last one is recruited ‘from the village of Ĝešbar’e G U 2 ? the vineyard of Kaš?’, e 2 - < d u r u 5 > d Ĝ e š b a r - e 3 G U 2 / ĝ e š k i r i 6 ⌈ ĝ e š t i n ? K a š 4 ? ⌉ [...]- t a ( o. i, 23-24; see § 7.1.6 and § 9.1.5). This garden occurs as

113

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD (the foreman is) PN1 the garden expert, PN3-4-5etc. (are) water drawers, arborists, external workers (released from the duty cycle), (whose) payments (are) r, (workers) provided/recruited by PN2 the garden expert, the supervisor (was) PN1 the garden expert, (in the) garden, the total (is) n workers, the relative garments and wool (are) q, (the supervisor was) PN the garden administrator, distribution of wool and garments, the supervisors (were) PN the garden administrators.

1.8.8. Transfer of gardeners Therefore, another activity that involved the intervention of garden administrators concerns the transfer of gardeners. As seen in the previous paragraph and in § 1.4.2, these officials were involved as supervisors of gardeners ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ and listed in the inspections concerning other economic realities. A text, MVN 6, 289 (Š 41/-), records an ‘expenditure of gardeners’ provided by the garden administrator Aga at Gu’aba (§ 9.3.2): r. ii, 20-22: z i-g a n u k iri 6 / k i A -g a sa n ta n a-ta / ša 3 G u 2 -a b -b a k i . The expended workers, in total 31 individuals431 with different labor service capacities (DIL/AŠ ), are subdivided in those (27) put at disposal of the governor (r. ii, 13: k i e n si 2 -še 3 ) and those (2) assigned to (the works concerning) the inspection recorded in the name of an official (g u ru m 2 PN-še 3 ). The first group comprises workers who are indicated as provided or supervised by persons whose title is not specified or as not pertaining to the garden sphere and coming from different households (e 2 N a m -h a -n i-ta , e 2 d N in - MAR.KI-ta ); or from professional groups, which the expended workers probably supported (s ip a -ta , a m a r-k u 5 -ta ); or in some cases, they are indicated as coming from inspections referring to untitled officials (g u ru m 2 PN-ta ). The second group concerns two workers, of which one deceased (u š 2 ), who have been put at disposal of Dugazida, whose title is not specified, and provided by Kuda, the son of Dugazida himself.432 However, in this text there is no mention of workers ‘released (from the duty cycle)’, neither is there evidence suggesting that the recorded transfers were occasional or external to the cycle to which the workers were subjected. This text may have recorded a different aspect of the same type of transfer, namely the record of the personnel expended by only one garden administrator on behalf of different work groups, economic entities, or present to the inspections of the officials at the head of the economic entities of the province, which benefitted from the workers. In this case, the document could reflect, indeed, the point of view of the garden administrator, who was responsible for the transfer of gardeners from his area of authority, but not for their payment. 1.8.9. Payments for the garden administrators The garden administrators belong to the category of those who received prebends, plots of lands and payments of additional goods. In TUT 12 (l.d.), seen in the introduction (3.1), 129,600 m2 of land are ascribed to an indefinite number of garden administrators (r. i, 5: 2.0.0 sa n ta n a); in ASJ 13, 234 76 (n.d.) a plot of 64,800 m2 is recorded in the name of the garden administrator Manšum (§ 9.5.7). In this text, the garden administrator is listed among the officials433 indicated as being part of the ‘city personnel’, ĝ iri 3 -še 3 -g a ša 3 iri. In ASJ 19, 138 122 (n.d.), the garden administrator Lugal-imrua (§ 9.3.1) occurs in the list of the ‘state dependent workers’ who held prebends (šu k u d u 3 -d u 3 -a e rin 2 -n a ), although the text does not mention any quantity. ––––––––––––––––– reference to the place from which the worker was recruited, rather than as the place of employment; indeed, its occurrence is not preceded by the name of the garden expert acting as supervisor, as for the other two mentioned gardens: the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ (r. iv', 19'; see § 2.2.24) and the ‘garden of BaU of Bad’ (r. iii', 9; § 2.3.2). 431 The information concerning two workers is recorded on the left edge before the date formula, hence out of context. 432 For a discussion on the ‘private’ households, see the introduction (6. Documentation). 433 The other mentioned officials are a ‘throne bearer ‘in the city’ ( g u - z a - l a 2 š a 3 i r i ) , a ‘doorkeeper of the granary’, ( i 3 - d u 8 g u r u 7 ) , and probably a ‘city elder,’ ( a b - b a - [ i r i ]). The plots assigned to these officials are smaller than that assigned to the garden administrator.

114

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

Besides plots given as prebend, as already seen, in Priests and Officials, 101 App. 4a-b, the garden administrators received additional allocations of ‘flour of the type KA’ (z i 3-KA); as shown by the text, they managed both the payments allotted to themselves, which amounted to 120 liter for each administrator, and those allotted to the garden experts active in their areas, which amounted to 60 liters for each expert. A further example of additional allocation is provided by ASJ 20, 104 5 (n.d.), where quantities of flour of good quality (z i 3 s a g a 1 0 ) are allotted to professionals of different centers of the province. In the text, there is no mention of expenditures addressed to garden experts, but only to garden administrators whose names are not specified; there is, indeed, mention of 60 liters allotted to one garden administrator of Niĝin (o. iii, 17), 60 liters to one of Ki’esa (r. i, 22) and 120 liters to likely two garden administrator of Kinunir (r. ii, 6). However, there is no evidence suggesting that the garden administrators received payments of the same amounts or prebend plots of the same size; as already noted for Priests and Officials 101 App. 4a-b, within the same categories it is possible to observe differences among the amounts. Furthermore, on the basis of the analysis of this text, Maekawa434 noted that some professions, among them the gardeners (u m -m i-a and s a n ta n a), did not fall within the subdivision of the personnel of the households listed in the text, but rather they were independent from both the “staff of plow oxen” and the “houses of gods”. Within the documentation, however, the presence of a label of tablet boxes (p isa ĝ d u b -b a ) should be noted, MVN 11, E (n.d.), which attests to the presence of garden administrators among those who held (prebend) fields (a ša 3 d u 3 -d u 3 -a ) among the ‘personnel of the temple of Ninĝirsu and of the temple of BaU’ (ĝ iri 3 -se 3 -g a e 2 d N in -ĝ ir 2 -s u u 3 e 2 d B a -U2). Since this information comes from a label, there is no indication about the number of involved officials nor their names, nor evidence suggesting the presence of garden administrators in both the households. 1.9. The captains (NU-b a n d a 3) and the gardens Some texts show the presence of NU-b a n d a 3, ‘captains’,435 acting as overseers, on a higher or equivalent level with respect to that of the garden administrators.436 In CST 538 (IS 2/-) from Umma, there is the seal of a certain Lugal-KAgina, designated as scribe (of) the NU-b a n d a 3 ĝeš k iri 6 ( KI.ĜEŠ.SAR), 437 ‘captain/overseer (of the) gardens’.438 In TCTI 2, 4228 (ŠS 2/iv) an official designated as NU-b a n d a 3 ĝ e š ĝ e štin , ‘captain/overseer (of the) vine(yards)’, acts as conveyor of 30 liters of refined bitumen (e sir 2 e 2 -a ) addressed to someone (whose title is unknown) and allocated to a structure (the name of which is not fully legible) in a marsh area of Niĝin, characterized as vineyard (r. 2-3: [...]-m a a m b a r-ĝ e štin / N iĝ in 6 k i -k a -š e 3 ).439 In connection with the gardens of the province, the activity of captains is attested in three texts recording the measurement of gardens and the counting of timber and trees, as seen in § 1.6.3.1 and § 1.8.3.440 CBT 3, BM 28832 (n.d.; n.p.) records the measurement of a vineyard area on the banks of the Turtur canal in the Niĝin area and the counting of a variety of trees, although this last operation is not expressed in the colophon. Two functionaries were responsible for the recorded operations there: a supervisor (u g u la ), whose title is not specified, and a captain.441 ––––––––––––––––– 434 Maekawa 1999, 91. 435 For the role of NU-b a n d a 3 (laputtû), ‘captain, overseer’, see e.g. Steinkeller 1987a. For a discussion of the reading of the term, see Attinger 1993, 157. 436 As argued by Allred, in many cases in the Neo-Sumerian corpus, NU-b a n d a 3 refers to an official with a high position of authority in production units or other institutional settings; see Allred 2006, 59. As already noted, connections between the figure of the NU-b a n d a 3 and that of the s a n t a n a can be detected for two garden administrators of the province, NIMmu (§ 9.1.3) and Ga’a (§ 9.4.1), and probably for Abbaĝu (§ 9.1.1) and Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2). 437 This particular form for garden occurs especially in texts from Nippur. 438 In this text Lugal-KAgina is responsible for the three year lease of a plot; see Steinkeller 2002, 134. 439 For a vineyard lying in the marsh area of Niĝin, see § 4.5.2. 440 With regard to the management of timber, see also § 5.9. 441 For the persons involved in the operation recorded by this text, see § 4.5.3-5.

115

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

CBT 3, BM 25293 (n.d.; n.p.) records the measurement of a garden and the counting of the trees in the Niĝin area under the supervision (u g u la ) of a garden administrator and a captain. As already noted, the mention of the garden administrator precedes the indication of the operation, while that of the captain follows it. The same captain442 occurs, then, in another text recording the measurements of gardens in the Lagaš area, CUSAS 6, 85-87 (n.d.), where the description of five gardens and the counting of a great variety of trees is recorded. In this text, a garden administrator (u g u la ) and a captain occur as responsible for the recorded operation. However, the presence of captains within the management of the gardens of the province seems mostly tied to the types of workers employed there. See, for example, MVN 11, 87 (AS 1/v), a text recording the counting of reeds (g i šid -d a ) of the ‘garden of Engaldudu’, a reed-bed of the province (§ 6.1). In the text the counting is subdivided according to the quantities of reeds pertaining to groups of workers which are differentiated by category: g a n -d a b 5 , UN-g a 6 , lu 2 še -b a ;443 to which an amount in the name of an untitle person, an amount in the name of garden administrators, and one in the name of a captain should be added. The quantity recorded in the names of the unskilled workers (g a n -d a b 5 ) falls under the supervision of a captain, while that concerning the menials (UN-g a 6 ) falls under the supervision of someone (whose title is not indicated). Conversely, the quantities attributed to the untitled individual, to the garden administrators, to ‘the men of the barley distribution’ (lu 2 še -b a ), and to the captain are exempt from further supervisions. As seen in § 1.3.6, HLC 1, 30 (Š 48/v/15) records a transfer of prisoners (lu 2 ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a ), specifically indicated as a delivery in the name of a captain, PN NU-b a n d a 3 m u k u x (DU), while the title of the conveyor is unknown. The listed workers are assigned to different work activities or economic units, among them a worker assigned to a garden (r. iii, 15: 1 ĝ u ru š ĝeš k iri 6 -< š e 3 > ). A similar transfer of prisoners to be employed as generic unskilled workers (g a n -d a b 5 ) is recorded in MVN 6, 344 (Š 42/vi/5), in which, however, there is no mention of captains (see § 1.3.6). The prisoners, supervised by untitled officials or administrators (sa ĝ ĝ a ) and conveyed by an untitled official, are taken charge of by a garden administrator: r PN* u g u l a PN / s a ĝ ĝ a * l u 2 ĝ e š t u k u l - e d a b 5 - b a - m e * ĝ i r i 3 PN* g a n - d a b 5 - š e 3 * PN santana i3-dab5 the workers PN, (whose) payments (are) r, the supervisors (were) PN /administrators, (the workers) are prisoners, the conveyor (was) PN, (prisoners) assigned (to work) as unskilled workers, PN the garden administrator took charge of them.

Further, HLC 3, 366 (AS 6/iv/3) records the transfer of prisoners ( ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a ) assigned to a garden or to an unclear work in a garden (r. 14': ĝ e š k iri 6 [… ] KIĜ2). The prisoners and the amount of their payment are provided by an untitled official, while a garden administrator takes charge of them and their payments. In this text, the prisoners are overseen by captains, with the exception of one who is supervised by an archivist (š a 1 3 -d u b -b a ): r PN* PN NU-b a n d a 3/u g u l a š a 1 3 - d u b - b a * š e - b i q * l u 2 ĝ e š t u k u l - e d a b 5 - b a - m e * k i PN-t a * ĝeš kiri6 […] kig2* PN santana i3-dab5 the workers PN, (whose) payments (are) r, captain/overseer (were) PN/the supervisor (was) PN the archivist, the relative barley (is) q, (they) are prisoners, provided by PN, (prisoners assigned to) a work pertaining to the garden, PN the garden administrator took charge of them and their payments.

MVN 12, 117 (Š 46/xi) records the transfer of workers, skilled and unskilled ones, assigned to a garden. The workers are differentiated according to their labor service capacity (DIL /AŠ ) and, occasionally by their status either as fugitive or deceased (z a h 3 /u š 2 ). Moreover, some of them are designated as SIG7-a and one as gardener (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ). The title of the officials who take ––––––––––––––––– The name of the involved captain is Ga’a, for which, see § 9.4.1. 443 Lit. those who receive the (monthly) barley payments, that is the working personnel regularly employed. See Maekawa 1987a, 49-71. 442

116

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

charge of the workers (in one case ‘acquires’) is unknown, while the function of conveyor of such workers is probably performed by captains:444 ( DIL /AŠ / z a h 3 / u š 2 ) PN* GN/TN-ta* ĝ i r i 3 PN (NU-b a n d a 3)* PN i 3 - d a b 5 / k i š i b PN* ĝ e š k i r i 6 - š e 3 * PN i 3 - d a b 5 the workers PN fugitive/deceased, from GN/TN, the conveyor (was) PN (captain), PN acquired/took charge of them, (they are workers) assigned to the garden, PN took charge of them.

In a text, MVN 5, 270 (n.d.), the workers assigned to an unspecified garden are subdivided into groups, each of them associated with the name of a captain: PN* NU-b a n d a 3 PN* ĝ e š k i r i 6 - š e 3 the workers PN, the captain/overseer (was) PN, (they are workers) assigned to the garden.

In MVN 6, 499 (n.d.) the listed workers are subdivided into groups which garden administrators take charge of,445 while the total number of workers, also including those outside the responsibility of the garden administrators, is under the responsibility of a captain: n1 ĝ u r u š (SIG7-a, d u 3 - a - k u 5 and others)* PN s a n t a n a i 3 - d a b 5 * n 2 ĝ u r u š PN NU-b a n d a 3 n1 workers (water drawers, arborists and others), PN the garden administrator took charge of them, n2 workers (were under the responsibility of) PN the captain/overseer.

A further text (closed envelope), HLC 2, 46 (Š 46/vii/9), seems to stress the role played by the captains as recruiters of workers, skilled and unskilled ones, in gardens: n ĝ u r u š (SIG7-a, d u 3 - a - k u 5 , g a n - d a b 5 ) * ĝ e š k i r i 6 * k i š i b PN (NU-b a n d a 3)+seal446 n workers (water drawers, arborists, unskilled workers), (for) the garden, PN the captain/overseer sealed/acquired.

In MVN 6, 342 (Š 33/vii), a text recording an inspection of workers still to be confirmed (g u ru m 2 < ĝ e š > k iri 6 -k a g i-n e 2 -d a m ), three different captains occur, each of them performing a different function. The first one is among those who provide the workers, while the second one is designated as ‘inspector’ (m a šk im ) of the first group of workers, which include the worker provided by the first captain. Finally, the complete operation is recorded in the name of the third captain, while the title of the official acting as conveyor is unknown. Along with the worker provided by the first captain a group of seven workers is listed, who are provided by untitled officials and defined as being young or old (d u m u /šu -g i 4 ).447 There follows a group of three workers, which includes a ‘waif’ and a worker marked as SIG7-a recruited among the unskilled workers (g a n -d a b 5 -ta ); two SIG7-a workers are provided by the administrator (s a ĝ ĝ a ) of the Ebabbar and a SIG7-a worker is provided by an administrator (ša b ra ). It is unclear whether the following indication, ‘new SIG7-a workers from Nippur’ (SIG7-a g ib il-m e / N ib ru k i -ta ) refers to all the workers or just to a part of them. The payments recorded for the listed workers have no counterpart in the total section; thus, they are intended as characterization of the workers, in addition to their labor service capacity (DIŠ /AŠ ). None of the workers are specifically defined as gardener, and, indeed, it can be inferred that they were external workers occasionally employed in

––––––––––––––––– 444 In this text there is no explicit mention of the title of the involved officials, but their names, and in one case also the patronymic, correspond to those of the captains occurring in MVN 5, 270 (illustrated below), Lugal-lusasa (MVN 5, 270, r. 2; MVN 12, 117, o. i. 12); and Ur-Nanše son of Nammah (MVN 5, 270, o. 5; MVN 12, 117, r. i. 13); the other attested officials are NIMmu (see § 9.1.3) and a certain Ur-Bagara (see § 9.4.3). For the garden of destination, see § 3.3. 445 The function of taking charge of the groups of workers is expressed only for an official, whose title is unknown. However, it seems plausible that the function performed by the officials designated as garden administrators ( s a n t a n a ) was also that of taking charge of the groups of workers preceding their names. 446 The title of the official is specified in his seal. The text simply reports the personal name. 447 A further characterizion is no longer legible.

117

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

a garden and present at the inspection. Further, the workers labeled as SIG7-a (or all of them) had probably been employed as water drawers.448 HLC 2, 25 (l.d.) is a text supplying additional information to a previously completed inspection of gardeners (g u ru m 2 a k a d ib -b a n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 -k e 4 -n e ), 449 already seen in § 1.4.2. In this text, the captain Lu-BaU occurs as responsible for one worker assigned to the ‘garden of Šulgi-a-kalama’, for which the garden administrator Gu’umu is designated as the supervisor. The inspected workers, whose labor service capacity (a 2 ) is specified (but not their relative payment), seem not to have been proper gardeners, but rather external workers who had been employed in gardens (see § 2.2). In MVN 11, 69 (ŠS 1/vi), the ceased activity of four gardeners is recorded in the name of a captain. The text subdivides the workers (for whom the payments and the months of inactivity are recorded) into those of Niĝin and those of Kinunir (see § 4.6). There is no evidence of transacted goods and the function of the captain in the text could be compared to that performed in the worker inspections. Therefore, it seems evident that the captains were responsible for the transfer of workers, but not for the amount of their payments. As seen in § 1.4.2 and § 1.8.7.6, in MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), the record of the inspection and the allotment of wool and garments to gardeners, the colophon mentions a garden expert (u m -m i-a ) as supervisor of the inspection (hence acting as garden administrator)450 and a captain, Urduĝu. In the total section, 93 gardeners are indicated as being provided by the palace, while 24 by the captain, and their payments (recorded in a single account) amount to almost 60 kg (ca. 2 g u 2 ) of wool and 76 garments. The workers are water drawers and arborists, while other workers come from specific economic entities (e 2 š a b ra-ta ) or particular social categories (n i 2 -e ta k a 4 -ta ) or, still, they are indicated as being recruited among the state dependent workers ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ (BUR2-ta). However, all the workers are grouped per garden and supervised by garden experts. The several breaks of the text do not allow us to reconstruct the exact number of workers ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ and those coming from external economic units, however the approximate number may be around 20. Therefore, a connection can be inferred between the external workers and the captain in opposition to those provided by the palace, hence according to the ordinary employment. The tasks of the captains within gardens seem, therefore, to have concerned in particular the employment and the transfer of workforce, mostly recruited outside the sector of employment. A last example can be provided by DAS 55 (-/iv/18), which records the expenditure of 120 workers pertaining to the small shrines of the province (ĝ u ru š e š 3 d id li-m e ) by two captains for different destinations and purposes; here, two workers are assigned to garden administrators (r. 8: 2 < ĝ u ru š> s a n ta n a-< š e 3 > ). 1.10. Additional considerations. The vineyard administrators and the men of the vineyards In two cases in the documentation there is mention of s a n ta n a ĝ e š tin , ‘vine(yard) administrators’. In the first case, MVN 7, 105 (Š 34/x), 1,800 liters of barley allocated as payments are recorded in the name of Ahūni the ‘vineyard administrator’ (o. 1-2: 6.0.0 g u r lu g a l / še -b a A -h u -u -n i s a n ta n a ĝ e štin ). The depot of provenience (ĝ a 2 -n u n ) and the name of the supplier are also specified. The amount is taken by Ahūni himself, who is here simply indicated as garden administrator (r. 1-2: A -h u -u -n i sa n ta n a šu b a -ti). Additionally, in the ––––––––––––––––– In § 1.2.1 it was stressed that outside the garden context, SIG7- a is not necessarily to be intended as a synonym of a b a l a. The text, however, relates to a worker inspection concerning a garden, and it cannot be excluded that the listed personnel were a generic workforce engaged by the captains to work as water drawers. 449 It is plausible that such expression resulted from the redaction of another text, according to which the inspection was still to be confirmed (see above MVN 6, 342). With the exception of MVN 13, 346 (Š 42/-), the expression ‘inspection made (and relative document) transferred’ ( g u r u m 2 a k a d i b - b a ) seems to occur exclusively in the labels of tablet boxes ( p i s a ĝ d u b - b a ) . 450 The involved gardener is E-heĝal son of the garden administrator Gu’umu (see § 1.11.5). 448

118

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

expenditure section of CT 3, 5 BM 18343 (Š 44/xii), a text recording a yearly account of the barley transactions concerning the centers of Lagaš and Niĝin, there is the entry recording 1,800 liters (6.0.0 g u r) of barley in the name of Ahūšuni ‘man of the vine(yards)’ (lu 2 ĝ e štin ). Since the function performed by the ‘man of the vineyard’ in this text is comparable to that of a garden administrator, it would seem that ‘vineyard administrator’ and ‘man of the vineyards’ would have entailed the same office.451 The expression ‘man of the vineyards’ occurs in five other texts of the province, although none of them provides evidence suggesting that the two professions can be equated. In TUT 154 (AS 2/iii), amongst the payments allotted to the personnel of the large mill (e 2 -k ik k e n 2 g u -la ), there is the payment of 40 liters addressed to a ‘man of the vineyards’, who is specified as old (o. iv, 19: š u -< g i 4 > 0.0.4 d In a n n a -k a lu 2 ĝ e štin ). In CT 10, 28 BM 14316 (AS 2/xii), a text recording barley payments left in the granary (še -b a g u ru 7 a ta k a 4 ), there is mention of 60 liters (0.1.0) pertaining to a deceased (u š 2 ) ‘man of the vineyards’ (Ahu). In MVN 12, 504 (IS 1/-) a certain Alla ‘man of the vineyards’ acquires (k išib ) 360 liters of barley (1.1.0 g u r), without further indication about the purpose of the amount. In HSS 4, 153 (-/xi) a certain NinMAR.KIka ‘man of the vineyards’ takes the barley amount allotted to a family group of gardeners (the father was a water drawer and the two sons arborists), amounting to 320 liters (1.0.2 gur) of barley for two months. Finally, MVN 6, 293 (n.d.) attests to two workers (ĝ u ru š) earning 60 liters (0.1.0), defined as ex voto (a -ru -a ) of Bazi the ‘man of the vineyards’, hence not providing information on this professional figure. In these latter examples, the functions performed by the individuals designated as ‘man of the vineyards’ would seem rather comparable to those performed by garden experts, as in the case of HSS 4, 153 in particular, where the acquisition of a low quantity of barley recalls the duties of the foremen (see HLC 1, 66 in § 1.6.8), or even simple workers exempt from duties of administrative relevance, as in the cases of the texts CT 10, 28 BM 14316 and TUT 154. Therefore, ‘man of the vineyard’ (lu 2 ĝ e štin ) was likely used as an alternative designation for ‘gardener of the vineyards’ (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin ), or even ‘vineyard administrator’ (sa n ta n a ĝ e štin ), hence it can be understood as a generic indication of the professional domain of the person in question. The second attestation of the designation ‘vineyard administrator’ is represented by RA 44, 89 (Š 42/-), the account drafted in the name of the garden administrator Ubimu (§ 9.6.1), where the initial amount of barley is recorded as a ‘surplus’ (la 2 -NI) in the name of Ur-BaU, the ‘vineyard administrator’ (see § 1.8.6). However the information about these garden administrators is insufficient and does not provide a substantial connection (beyond the nominal level) between these officials and the management of the vineyards and their gardeners. 1.11. The exceptions The documentation provides many examples of what can be considered ‘exceptions to the rule’, accordingly, some garden experts (u m -m i-a ) or scribes acting as garden administrators can be observed, or in one case, a lu 2 -LAM acting as a garden expert. If it can be inferred that the scribes benefitted from the same formative background as the garden administrators, the issue of garden experts, whose formative experience should have been tied to the actual agricultural sphere, is more problematic. Therefore, it raises a question about the status of some garden experts who performed duties beyond the middle-level functions normally performed by the gardeners, or about their pertinence to specific administrative entities. With regard to other cases, such as that of Niĝir-išibmah (§ 1.11.1) or of Lu-ušgina (§ 1.11.2), they can be understood as representing isolated episodes and situations which remain fairly obscure, but which may have led to temporary substitutions on the level of administrative responsibility. ––––––––––––––––– 451 Actually, it cannot be excluded that both texts refer to the same person, whereby in the first text the name A-hu-u-ni can be interpreted as A-hu-šu4-ni.

119

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

1.11.1. Niĝir-išibmah Exception: The text HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii) records the bimonthly barley payments for the water drawers and arborists of some gardens in the area of the garden administrators Abbaĝu and Gu’umu (see § 2.2). Here, Niĝir-išibmah, an arborist of the ‘garden of enNE’, is mentioned in both the section concerning the initial barley amount supplied for the payments, and then in the section concerning the detail of the distribution among the workers to whom the payments are allotted. Niĝirišibmah, for whom the professional title and the relevant garden are specified, occurs indeed together with the scribe Katar-BaU as responsible for part of the barley amount (ca. 300 liters) to be redistributed. This barley came from the granary of the b u r-s a ĝ .452 In the rule: He is always present in ‘the garden of enNE’ (§ 2.2.3) in the text STA 19 (Š 48/i), which records the barley payments for the previous month in some gardens under the supervision of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. Here, however, his name occurs without mention of the relative payment. In MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x), he is present in the same garden earning the same barley amount allotted to the other workers; the text exclusively records the payments for water drawers with exception of Niĝir-išibmah of the ‘garden of enNE’, who, indeed, is the only one who is not labeled as SIG7-a (see § 1.2.3). In this case, an exception could concern the record of his payment, rather than implying an extraordinary service as water drawer performed by that arborist. In MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-), he occurs among the gardeners ‘released (from the duty cycle)’, and inspected under the supervision of Abbaĝu the garden administrator. Therefore, with exception of the unusual role played in Š 48 in connection with a barley amount coming from the granary of the bur-saĝ, there is no other attestation of the duties of administrative relevance performed by Niĝir-išibmah in the subsequent years. 1.11.2. Lu-ušgina Exception: In CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4), a text recording the production of some gardens (see § 1.6.4), the date amount ascribed to the ‘garden ex-voto of Lu-Nanše’ (§ 2.4.1) in the area of the garden administrator Gu’umu, is recorded in the name of a lu2-LAM worker, Lu-ušgina. However, concerning other gardens, the amount of dates is usually recorded in the name of the relevant garden expert. In the rule: In HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i) and HLC 3, 267 (l.d.) the payments ‘out of the garden’ (§ 1.4.1) of 40 liters for Lu-ušgina fall within the supervision of the garden administrator Gu’umu (see § 2.2). In the first text, he is designated as lu 2 -LAM, while in the second text, his payment is recorded among those of the men of the storehouse and his name is followed by the specification lamx( LUM).

––––––––––––––––– The bur-saĝ was a building used as store for offerings (Heimpel 1981, 106). This text indicates as sources of the barley amounts both this granary and another one on the banks of the Tigris.

452

120

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

1.11.3. The gardeners of the high priestess of BaU453 Ur-Šulpa’e Exceptions: ASJ 14, 238 87 (Š 35/-) is an account drafted in the name of Ur-Nanše, whose title is unknown. In the section recording the expenditures, there is mention of 1,500 liters (5.0.0 gur) of barley for the payments of the water drawers and arborists sealed/acquired (k išib ) by Ur-Šulpa’e the gardener (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ). SAT 1, 300 (Š 35/iii) records the delivery of 1,800 liters (3.2.0 gur) of barley conveyed by a farmer from the ‘field esa’ (a -š a 3 es3-sa2), which is taken (šu b a -ti) by Ur-Šulpa’e on behalf of the water drawers and arborists (m u a -b a la u 3 d u 3 -e 2 -k u 5 -še 3 ).454 A similar transaction (BPOA 1, 226) involves another gardener of the priestess, Anebabdu, in the same role (see on him below). In the rule: SAT 1, 173 (Š 41/-) records a garden yield inspection ( ĝ e š k iri 6 k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a ) concerning the fig production of the high priestess of BaU. Here, the garden administrator Ur-BaU acts as conveyor and the fruit quantities are associated with the name of the garden experts: Ur-Šulpa’e (561 liters, 1.4.2 1 s ila 3 g u r), Utu-melam (50 liters, 0.0.5) and Ur-BaU (240 liters, 0.4.0). BPOA 2, 1843 (Š 42/-) records a garden yield inspection concerning the apple production of the high priestess of BaU (k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a ĝ e š k iri 6 e re š-d iĝ ir d B a - U ). Here, there is no mention of garden administrators and the fruit quantities are associated with the name of garden experts: Ur-Šulpa’e (1,440 liters, 4.4.0 g u r), Utu-melam (3,000 liters, 10.0.0 gur) and Ur-BaU (300 liters, 1.0.0 gur), already recorded as gardeners of the priestess in the inspection of the fig production, aside Ur-eanna (25 liters, 0.0.2 5 sila3) and Ur-eninnu (25 liters, 0.0.2 5 sila3). MVN 22, 180 (Š 43/-), an account concerning apples (n iĝ 2 -k a 9 a k a ĝ e š h a šh u r), appears to be a simple account based on expenditures of apples and delivery of silver drafted in the name of Ur-Šulpa’e, the gardener (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ). The text starts with an initial capital (s a ĝ -n iĝ 2 -g u r 1 1 ra -k a m ) of 4,125 liters (13.3.4 5 s ila 3 g u r) of apples and follows with the detail of the expenditures (ša 3 -b i-ta ), and, subsequently, the delivery of ca. 75 grams of silver (9 g iĝ 4 5 še ). As already noted in § 1.8.6, the delivery of silver appears connected with the total amount of fruit expended (1,149.5 liters; 3.4.0.9 ½ g u r), and there is no mention of differences, remainders (la 2NI) of fruit as we would expect. Indeed, this text may be understood as being an account of the transactions concerning the apples provided by the only Ur-Šulpa’e, starting from an available capital comprising the production of more gardens or garden experts.455 Expenditure purposes ––––––––––––––––– 453 It is an issue whether the exceptions concerning the priestess’s gardeners related to the management of an important household, which was probably connected with the governor’s wife. With regard to households of this kind, the garden administrators (who were an expression of the state control on the production of gardens scattered throughout the provincial territory) may have played a secondary or, in any case, a particular role. See also BPOA 1, 153 (Š 38/x), in which the barley amount allotted to the water drawers and arborists and supplied by Inim-BaU-idab (the administrator (š a b r a ) managing the priestess’s household) is then taken over by Geme-BaU, a name that could refer to the same priestess (usually attested as Geme-Lamma; Geme-BaU was the name of the mother and predecessor of Geme-Lamma, who however was already dead at the time of the draft of BPOA 1, 153; see Yuhong 2011), rather than by a garden administrator. However, it should be recognized that the activity of a garden administrator, Ur-BaU, seems to have been tied to the gardens of the priestess (see § 9.1.7). As already seen in § 1.8.9, there is mention of garden administrators of the temples of Ninĝirsu and BaU and, therefore, it can be inferred that the control on the garden production pertaining to these temple households was enacted by internal persons, rather than external ones, as it usually was for other gardens (see also § 2.10). 454 For the interpretation of this variant, see Bauer 2009, 256. 455 Compare the quantity of apples expended in this text and the quantity of apples estimated in the text referring to the previous year (BPOA 2, 1843, see above). As seen in § 1.8.6, the examples of TUT 114 and TUT 115 show that, in each section concerning a garden or a garden expert, the capital amounts are composed of inspected produce and ‘impost’ produce (few liters), followed by the expenditure section, which however end in the calculation of the difference in the name of the relevant garden expert. Here the balance is disregarded, but a value of the expenditures is given on the basis of the correspondence of value between a specific kind of fruit and silver. Therefore, it may represent

121

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

vary from agriculture rituals to different offerings for the high priestess, but also for the governor and for the king. Different persons act as conveyors (ĝ iri 3 ), among them: an untitled person, conveyor of 190 liters (0.3.1) as ‘goods for baskets’ (n iĝ 2 KIŠ-la m -[m a ])456 and 120 liters (0.2.0) for the ritual of a field (s iz k u r 2 a -š a 3 [...]); a gardener (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ), Lu-saga, conveyor of 30 liters (0.0.3) for the ritual of the granary (siz k u r 2 g u ru 7 ); an administrator (ša b ra ), probably the administrator of priestess’s household, conveyor of 37.5 liters (0.0.3 7 ½ s ila 3 ) for the regular offering of the priestess of the 25th day (sa 2 -d u 1 1 e re š-d iĝ ir u 4 -2 5 -k a m ) and also conveyor of 20 liters (0.0.2) for the priestess (k i e re š-d iĝ ir-ra -še 3 ); Lu-esa, indicated as brother of the priestess, conveyor of 20 liters (0.0.2) for the priestess’s daily requirement (n iĝ 2 u 4 -d a b 5 -b a 457 e re š-d [iĝ ir]) and of 90 liters (0.1.3) for the governor (k i e n si 2 -š[e 3 ]); a messenger (ra 2 -g a b a ), who occurs as conveyor of 585 liters (1.4.4 5 sila 3 g u r) for the king (k i lu g a l-še 3 ). This attestation does not represent an exception to the rule, but rather provides a unique insight into the management of the fruit production, in particular to that of the gardens of the high priestess of BaU. Ur-eninnu Exception: CT 10, 20 BM 14308 (Š 48/xii) records an ‘account of ‘exceeding’458 flour and beer’ (n iĝ 2 -k a 9 a k a z i 3 u 3 k a š d iri) concerning the governor Ur-Lamma and the household of the high priestess of BaU under the supervision of the administrator (š a b ra ) Inim-BaU-idab. In the section describing the capital, the delivery of 300 liters (1.0.0 g u r) of ‘mountain(?) barley’ (še k u r) is recorded,459 and defined as ‘date shortfall repaid’ (la 2 - NI s u -g a z u 2 -lu m -m a ) by Ur-eninnu, the gardener (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ). In the rule: On BPOA 2, 1843 (Š 42/-), see above, s.v. Ur-Šulpa’e. WMAH 3 (AS 1/-) records a balanced account concerning the shipyard and related workers of the household of the high priestess under the supervision of the administrator (ša b ra ) InimBaU-idab. The account reports the delivery of timber from the garden of the gardener Ur-eninnu. Unfortunately, after the notation n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 there is a sequence of signs which is not fully legible,460 but it seems clear that among the priestess’s gardens one was named after one of her gardeners (see § 5.2.4). This attestation does not seem to represent an exception, but rather is indicative of the use of references known in the redactional context, primarily, the name of the responsible garden expert, to indicate gardens pertaining to households in the documents which were drafted within the households themselves. Anebabdu The presence of Anebabdu in this section is due to the identification of the person mentioned in BPOA 1, 226 (Š 35/viii) and the homonymous gardener of the high priestess of BaU attested in ––––––––––––––––– an account, drafted on the basis of a previous balanced account, which however focuses on the sole expenditures of one type of fruit giving a concrete value to them. It seems thus plausible that the starting capital recorded in MVN 22, 180 may have referred to the available capital ratified in a previous account and likely concerning the production of more gardens and garden experts, not to be excluded, in the name of a garden administrator. 456 The purpose of fruit quantities labeled as ‘goods for baskets’ ( n i ĝ 2 KIŠ- l a m - m a ) is not always expressed. In fruit transactions involving garden administrators there is mention of a date amount labeled as ‘goods for baskets’ ( n i ĝ 2 KIŠ- l a m - m a ) and addressed to the provincial taxation system (see CM 26, 122 (l.d.) in § 9.3.3), or a date amount labeled as ‘goods for baskets’ and addressed to the šuagina-offerings (see LB 538, CDLI P210002 (AS 6/-, n.p.) in §§ 9.3.3-4), namely the deliveries reserved for the cult of the deceased rulers (see Sallaberger, W. 1993, 83). 457 For the purpose of this expenditure, see Sallaberger 1993, 25. 458 For the interpretation of d i r i in the balanced accounts, see D’Agostino and Pomponio 2005a. 459 See Powell 1984, 60: “The translation is based on the most frequent meanings of še and kur and therefore very tentative”. 460 See § 5.2.4.

122

T HE W ORKING AND M ANAGERIAL O RGANIZATION OF G ARDENS

TUT 164-12 (l.d.). In BPOA 1, 226, Anebabdu takes (šu b a -ti) 7,200 liters (24.0.0 gur) of barley allotted to the arborists from the ‘field esa’ (a -ša 3 e s 3 -sa 2 ). A similar transaction (SAT 1, 300) involves a gardener of the priestess, Ur-Šulpa’e, in the same role (see above for this gardener). A certain Anebabdu gardener of the high priestess of BaU is, indeed, known from TUT 164-12 (l.d.), which however records transactions that do not concern gardens. Further, in Amherst 45 (Š 46/-), which records barley amounts without destination, Anebabdu provides 240 liters (0.4.0) of barley, while 300 liters (1.0.0 g u r) are provided by the garden administrator Ur-BaU (§ 9.1.7), who also occurs as conveyor in the yield inspection of the gardens of the priestess recorded by SAT 1, 173 (Š 41/-). Attestations of this gardener in ordinary duties as garden expert are unknown to me. 1.11.4. Ur-BaU son of Lugal-imrua Ur-BaU son of Lugal-imrua was a scribe, who was involved in the garden management on several occasions. It seems from certain texts that he replaced a garden administrator for a given span of time, to then return to his usual activity as a scribe. In this role as well, he had contacts with the garden management. Exceptions: In RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/iv), acting as the mentioned garden administrators of Ĝirsu, Ur-BaU son of Lugal-imrua is responsible for 240 liters (0.4.0) of barley pertaining to the payments left in the granary of two water drawers and two arborists supervised by garden experts (see § 1.8.7.4). The names of the gardeners correspond to those of some gardeners subsequently attested in the area of the garden administrator Agu;461 already in CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4) a certain Ur-BaU is attested as supervisor of the date quantities recorded in the names of garden experts in some gardens, the ‘garden of Nanše’ (§ 2.4.3), the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ (§ 2.2.24) and the ‘garden of Ištaran (2.4.2), which subsequently would fall within the area of the garden administrator Agu (see § 9.1.8). However, since in this last attestation the patronymic is lacking, it seems plausible that the mentioned Ur-BaU could also refer to a homonymous garden administrator (see § 9.1.7). In the rule: In MVN 9, 17 (Š 47/vi), Ur-BaU son of Lugal-imrua receives fruit from the garden administrator Ga’a (see § 9.4.1). In MVN 12, 414 (AS 5/-), he acts as conveyor of a quantity of fruit reserved for the cult and taken by Ur-abba, the scribe of the warehouse (see § 9.7.3.1). In the text, also the garden administrator NIMmu (see § 9.1.3) is attested as conveyor, as well as other officials. In HSS 4, 8 (AS 7/x), he occurs as conveyor of SIG7-a workers (not necessarily water drawers) from Ur and to be employed at the mill (see § 3.4). The seal of Ur-BaU is known from Nisaba 10, 83 (Š 32/-), in which the father is designated as captain (NU-b a n d a 3), thus apparently unrelated to the homonymous garden administrator, father of the garden administrator Aga (see §§ 9.3.1-2). 1.11.5. Kinship relations with garden administrators E-heĝal Exceptions: In HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii), E-heĝal, son of the garden administrator Gu’umu, is responsible for part of the barley amount (1,260 liters) to be redistributed as payments for water drawers and arborists, together with the garden administrator Abbaĝu and a scribe, Katar-BaU (see § 2.2). This barley came from a granary on the banks of the Tigris. In the text also the arborist Niĝir-išibmah is attested in the same role, as seen in § 1.11.1. In MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-) E-heĝal occurs, together with the captain Urduĝu, as general supervisor of the inspection of gardeners. As seen in § 1.4.2, part of the workers were provided by ––––––––––––––––– 461 See Table 7 in § 1.8.1.

123

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

the palace (e 2 -g a l-ta ), the rest by the captain (NU-b a n d a 3-ta). Most of the gardens mentioned are ascribable to the area managed by the father Gu’umu, while other gardens, the ‘garden of Mani’ (§ 2.2.19), the ‘garden of Lu-igimaše’ (§ 2.5.2) and presumably others (whose names are lost in the missing parts of the tablet,) refer to the area of other garden administrators in the district. This would imply that E-heĝal did not simply replace the father, but had to fulfill an administrative duty on larger scale. In the rule: E-heĝal, son of the garden administrator Gu’umu, occurs in MVN 17, 18 (before AS 4)462 as guarantor of a quantity of dates from the ‘garden of Lu-Utu’ (§ 2.5.3) and, hence, regularly attested in the role of garden expert. In the same text, Ur-BaU, the brother of the garden administrator Gamu, is mentioned acting as guarantor of a quantity from the ‘garden of the Inanna village’ (§ 2.5.1). In this case, both the gardeners seem to have fallen under the supervision of garden administrators who were unrelated to them, Abbaĝu for E-heĝal and Gu’umu for Ur-BaU; in constrast, in TUT 143 (ca. end AS), a text recording the payment allotment and the employment of gardeners (§ 1.6.8), E-heĝal acts as supervisor of one of the workers under the charge of his father. The case of E-heĝal does not seem to have involved a career development, so much as sporadic episodes in which he had to perform specific administrative tasks. It is unclear if such specific episodes were somehow connected with the kinship relation between this gardener and a garden administrator, as the explicit mention on these occasions of the patronymic could suggest.463 1.11.6. Varia This section collects the cases concerning garden experts acting as garden administrators, for which, however, there is no information about their ordinary activity. MVN 13, 235 (Š 47/ix), consisting of envelope and tablet, records an amount of 3,600 liters (12.0.0 gur) of barley supplied by the gardener (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) Ur-Iškur and acquired (k išib ) by Lu-Utu son of Ur-Iškur, whose title is not specified. The profession of Ur-Iškur is known from the envelope, while on Lu-Utu’s seal the father’s occupation is not mentioned. Therefore, it is not clear whether Ur-Iškur the gardener, or a homonym, was the father. Zinbun 21, 11 44 (AS 1/-) records a list of fields and relative rental fees pertaining to the temple of Nindara (see § 1.8.5 and § 9.4.1). Among the ones listed as responsible for fee payments are both the garden administrator Ga’a and the garden expert (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) Alla. This gardener is associated with a plot measuring 1,800 m2 (½ ik u ) and supporting the irrigation device known as a z i-ri-g u m 2 .464 For this plot 150 liters (0.2.3) of barley are calculated as the fee. Probably the same Alla is also attested in RA 66, 21 (Š 45/ix), an account of ex-voto for the gods, in which he deliveries a (now illegible) product or person to the temple of Nanše. In this text, in which the garden administrator Ga’a also occurs, Alla is designated as n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 e n n a ,465 ‘gardener of the en-priest’, a title that does not occur elsewhere in the documentation. MVN 12, 417 (AS 5/-) records an amount of 600 liters (2.0.0 g u r) of barley to be repaid (su -su -d a m ), supplied by a certain Ur-badKUra and taken (šu b a -ti) by the gardener (n u ĝeš k iri 6 ) Hesa, who also seals the document. The seal of the gardener reports: H e 2 -sa 6 / n u ĝeš k iri 6 / d u m u L u g a l-[...], Hesa, gardener, son of Lugal-[...]. MVN 7, 153 (IS 1/-) records the purchase of some elements (LAM-[...]) tied to the ‘garden of BaU-ninsisa’ (§ 2.7). According to the text, Agu (the garden administrator, § 9.1.8) is the one who seals the document, although the impressed seal belongs to the gardener Ur-ki. The seal of the gardener reports: U r-k i / d u m u NI.HI / n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 , U r-k i, son of NI.HI, gardener. ––––––––––––––––– The approximate date is inferred on the basis of the last attestation of Abbaĝu, see § 9.1.1. 463 See Greco 2015. 464 See Maekawa 1986, 119-121. For this type of structure, see references in footnote 25 in 1.1. 465 As for the gardeners of the high priestess (ereš-diĝir) of BaU, he could have been a gardener tied to a particular household. 462

124

CHAPTER TWO

THE GARDENS OF ĜIRSU

A large number of gardens of the Ĝirsu province are known from texts recording administrative operations concerning the garden professionals, garden administrators (sa n ta n a ), garden experts (u m -m i-a ), water drawers (a -b a la ) and arborists (d u 3 -a -k u 5 ) of the homonymous district. Principally, these texts are: records of the distribution of barley payments (š e -b a ) to the water drawers and arborists employed in gardens, which also mention the provenience of the barley amounts for which the garden administrators are responsible according to territorial criteria; records of the distribution of wool and garment payments (sik i-b a tu g 2 -b a ) to the garden workers, subdivided by work groups in which the garden experts act as foremen and recruiters of the workers; records of the worker inspections (g u ru m 2 a k a ) in which the same hierarchies and dynamics are reflected, and records of the yield or yield inspection (k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a ), which report the quantities of produce that each garden expert obtained or would have to obtain on behalf of the central administration from the plots they headed. Most of the garden names in these texts are fixed, that is, they do not concern contextual description of the kind of cultivation, the location or the employed personnel. A large part of these names of gardens reflect personalities and places of the cult, many of which occur among the destinations of the fruit offerings that are listed in MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-), which records ‘regular offerings for the gods gathered from the accounts of the gardeners’ (sa 2 -d u 1 1 d iĝ ir-re -n e n iĝ 2 -k a 9 n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 -k e 4 -n e -ta š u s u -b a ).466 And yet, other names simply refer to the settlements of the district or to names of officials. In addition, a number of gardens occur in the documentation with names referring to their size or exact location, clear and significant references to the redactional context, as in the case of MVN 12, 182 (§ 2.1). Finally, some names of gardens refer to watercourses, on the banks of which they were probably situated, to include main watercourses or irrigation ditches. In the following paragraphs the gardens of the Ĝirsu district are examined and organized into different sections, which will attempt to reflect an administrative cohesion and, insofar as possible, in a temporal succession. The gardens of the district that were included in extended economic complexes are examined in chapter 3.

––––––––––––––––– 466 As seen in § 1.6.5, this text does not mention the gardens from which the fruit derived, but only garden experts and administrators. In addition, the fruit offerings marked for a given destination consist (in most of the cases) of fruit quantities supervised by different garden administrators, thus deriving from different gardens situated in different areas of the district, therefore there is not a proper correspondence between a given god or cult place and the homonymous garden. Further, as shown by the case of the ‘garden of Nanše’ (see § 2.4.3), the garden experts of the homonymous garden act, under the supervision of the same garden administrator, as providers and conveyors of fruit quantities addressed to several destinations, but not to Nanše, except maybe for one case. Indeed, apart from the case of Tira’aš, which shows that the offerings addressed to this shrine were provided by the garden experts of the homonymous garden under the supervision of the same garden administrator (see § 1.6.2 and § 2.2.28), and probably the case of the ‘garden of Gudea’ (see § 5.5), no further correspondences can be found between the garden experts and administrators involved in the transactions of fruit allocated to a given god (or cult place) and those attested elsewhere as the ones responsible for the homonymous garden.

125

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

2.1. The gardens of MVN 12, 182 MVN 12, 182, dated to the 47th year of the reign of Šulgi, records the yield inspection of four gardens at Ĝirsu: ĝ e š k iri 6 k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a š a 3 Ĝ ir 2 -su k i .467 For the redactional point of view, it seems that the use of basic description has sufficed for the identification of the gardens of which the yield was inspected. The first two gardens were identified with references to the watercourse that they faced, while more generic references have been used for the other two gardens, such as the large garden and the small garden next to it. The total amount recorded consists of 7,780 liters of ordinary dates and 180 liters of dates of good quality. The redactional formula is the usual one used for the garden yield inspections of the province, namely the record of fruit amounts in the name of the responsible garden expert in a given garden plot (see § 1.6.4), to which, however, a total section is added. In addition, in this text there is mention of the responsible garden experts, although not for all the counted fruit quantities and not for all the listed gardens. Indeed, the fruit quantities pertaining to two gardens are recorded in the name of only one gardener, Lugal-KISAL, while other amounts are attributed to three gardeners, except for one quantity in the large garden and one in the small one. It can be inferred that the territorial subdivision concerning the areas of responsibility of the garden experts (see § 1.6.3) did not exactly reflect the subdivision of the gardens and thus, that the production of the small garden would have fallen under the responsibility of one garden expert in charge of an area of the large garden (who received no mention however).468 There is no mention of responsible officials in this text and, as seen in § 1.8.4, the presence of garden administrators in this type of records is only sporadically attested, although inspected quantities of fruit fell then among the products managed by these officials (see § 1.8.6). The information in the following table was obtained from this text: Garden d

Responsible gardener

Products

Lugal-KISAL

4.0.0 zu2-lum gur

ĝeš

kiri6 gu2 i7 Ur- Utu

ĝeš

kiri6 gu2 i7pa4 mu-silim Lugal- KISAL

ĝeš

kiri6 gu-la

Ur-dEn-ki (0.1.0 saga10; 6.0.0 gur), Lu2-dNin-šubur (0.1.0 0.2.0 zu2-lum saga10 lugal; saga10; 5.1.1 gur), Lugal-a-ni-sa6 (3.3.4 gur), (1.3.5 gur) 16.4.4 zu2-lum gur

ĝeš

kiri6 tur us2-sa-bi

(0.1.4)

0.1.0 zu2-lum saga10 lugal; 5.0.0 zu2-lum gur

0.1.4 zu2-lum

––––––––––––––––– In this case, it seems plausible that the indication š a 3 Ĝ i r 2 - s u k i refers to the district rather than to the province; as a document addressed to the provincial administration, it likely specifies the district or the center pertaining to the recorded procedure (see MTBM 265 in § 4.6). 468 In TUT 100a (l.d.), a record of fruit quantities in the names of gardeners, a fruit quantity is indicated as pertaining to the garden without experts, opposite the large garden (see § 5.6). This notation could describe a temporary situation of a plot, in which no responsible gardeners were in charge at the time of the draft acting as administrative (middle-level) referent for the central administration of the province, nor were substitutes appointed for the occasion (see § 1.11.2). However, it cannot be excluded that the expression could have implied a particular administrative situation, the managerial dynamics of which are unclear. In any case, the coincidence of the garden names, the large garden quoted both by TUT 100a and MVN 12, 182, was not deemed as an evidence for the identification of a single garden since it can be a common and banal description and, furthermore, the two texts seems to have referred to different administrative and territorial contexts (see § 5.6). 467

126

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

2.1.1. The garden on the banks of the Ur-Utu canal ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g u 2 i 7 U r- d U tu ) 469 This garden is mentioned only by MVN 12, 182, which ascribes to it 1,200 liters of dates in the name of Lugal-KISAL. 2.1.2. The garden on the banks of the irrigation ditch Musilim ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g u 2

i7

p a 4 m u -silim )

This garden is mentioned only by MVN 12, 182, which ascribes to it 60 liters of dates of good quality (z u 2 -lu m sa g a 1 0 ), and 1,500 liters of ordinary dates, in the name of Lugal-KISAL. According to its name, the garden may have been planted along the banks of an irrigation ditch ( i7p a 4 ).470 2.1.3. The large garden ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g u -la ) The generic name of this garden reflects, as already said, a contextual appellation relating to the garden that follows it in the record, which is indicated as the ‘small garden next to it’ (§ 2.1.4). The text attributes to this garden 120 liters of dates of good quality and 4,550 liters of ordinary dates in the names of three garden experts, Ur-Enki, Lu-Ninšubur, Lugalani-isa, while a further amount of 530 liters is reported without indication of the gardener responsible for it. 2.1.4. The small garden next to it ( ĝ e š k iri 6 tu r u s 2 -sa -b i) For this garden, described as small in reference to the large one next to it (§ 2.1.3), 100 liters of ordinary dates are recorded. As already noted, there is no mention of the responsible gardener, as in the case of one of the quantities recorded for the large garden. 2.2. Group of texts dated to the 48th year of Šulgi concerning the payments for water drawers and arborists A group of texts drafted within the 48th year of reign of Šulgi records the payments for the water drawers and arborists employed in some gardens of the Ĝirsu district. Over thirty gardens are quoted, mostly situated in the northern area of the province, some of them pertaining to a specific area in the territory of Kisura,471 where it is known that 198,000 m2 (55 ik u )472 of irrigation inlet––––––––––––––––– 469 A text, TCTI 1, 766 (ŠS 2/-), seems to suggest a contiguity between the course of this canal and the area of Tira’aš, a settlement situated in the Ĝirsu district (see § 2.2.28). It records the ‘expenditure’ (z i - g a ) of female workers (g e m e 2 ), who have been employed at this canal and the basin (k u n - z i - d a ) of Tira’aš. It seems plausible that the engagement of the workers was planned in relatively contiguous zones. It should be recognized, however, that there is no evidence on the exact location of the garden with respect to the course of the canal, which may have concerned different administrative areas. 470 See Civil, M. 1994, 109. The banks of this irrigation ditch are mentioned in Nisaba 18, 58 (n.d.) together with the mouth (k a ) of the Eden canal. 471 Lit. ‘Border area’, Kisura ( K i - s u r - r a k i ) was a settlement near Ĝirsu, probably close to the Umma border, different from the homonymous settlement near Fara in the Middle-Babylonian period (Falkenstein 1966, 33). As can be seen below, some gardens were situated in the area of Kisura ( K i - s u r - r a k i ), to be distinguished from the gardens of Kisura included in an economic complex named ‘garden of Kisura’ (ĝ e š k i r i 6 K i - s u r - r a k i ). In the group of texts here considered both occur, probably due to the proximity of the areas and were likely close to the homonymous settlement. With regard to the gardens of the Ĝirsu province, the indication Kisura is always accompanied by the semantic determinative (ki). In contrast, in the Umma documents, where such determinative is lacking, the expression in connection with gardens could generically refer to a border area. In some cases, indeed, the indication Kisura can generically mean border area, as for example, in some inscriptions of Utu-heĝal (YOS 9, 18; YOS 9, 19; YOS 9, 20) in which the ruler claims to have returned the Kisura Lagaš to Ninĝirsu (18), the Kisura to Ninĝirsu (19), and again the Kisura Lagaš to Nanše (20). The absence of the determinative, in fact, led Falkestein to suggest that a state territory (Staatsgebiet) rather than a specific toponym was intended (see Falkenstein, ibid. 96). The presence of gardens lying on the western border of the province is reported in § 4.1.

127

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

plots were situated. The mentioned gardens fell within the areas of responsibility of two garden administrators of Ĝirsu, Abbaĝu (§ 9.1.1) and Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2), and in some cases that of the garden administrator Nabi (§ 9.1.4). As far as the location of this territory it concerned, Heimpel proposed that it was situated on the border with the Umma province, specifically, close to the banks of the Ĝirsu canal, a canal situated to the north of the city, as YOS 4, 224 (Š 47/v) from Umma would suggest: o. 8: K i-s u rra g u 2 i 7 Ĝ ir 2 -s u k i .473 It can be conjecturally suggested that the location of these gardens is to be traced, in some cases, along the course of the Ĝirsu canal474 (which however is never mentioned in connection with such gardens), or its minor branches, or in other cases, in contiguous zones of the district. In this group of texts, the subdivision of gardens into the spheres of responsibility of the attested garden administrators follows a fixed bipartition. It thus seems possible to restore their presence even when breaks occur in the text. In these texts, the listed workers are not hierarchically differentiated and there is no presence of garden experts. What these texts actually offer is just a partial perspective of the workers employed in gardens; the redactional perspective focuses on specific barley transactions for the payment of water drawers and arborists, for which these texts provide the expenditure detail by garden, and specify which officials were involved in the barley circulation, on the one hand, and the relevant garden administrators, on the other hand. Here, the garden administrators do not explicitly acquire475 (with one exception) the quantities of barley allotted to the gardens under their responsibility, rather they supervise the barley transactions concerning the gardens they managed, hence they represent the effective interlocutors of the scribes in these transactions. For some texts of this group, the quantities of barley involved can be recovered from HLC 3, 368 (l.d.), which records, in fact, quantities of barley of different provenience allocated for the payments of water drawers and arborists, of which our texts represent the following step. Some texts of the group, indeed, mention the official responsible for the whole supplied amount or its provenience or even report simple accounts (ša 3 -b i-ta ), where a first section refers to the provenience of the supplied barley and relevant responsible scribe, while a second one refers to the subdivision of the barley quantities by gardens, or by workers employed in them, under the supervision of the relevant garden administrator. Therefore, some quantities of barley listed in

–––––––––––––––––

472

See TÉL 233 (l.d.) in § 1.3.2. Further, as seen in the introduction (1.1. Garden composition), an area measuring 186,300 m2 of irrigation inlet-land (k a - a - DU) corresponds to about ⅓ of the garden areas present in a given territory and which in turn can be compared with the garden areas comprised in 100 agricultural units (however, with a different composition), to be intended as 1/6 of the arable lands of the province. The available information concerning the garden lying in this area does not provide evidence, however, on their internal composition and just sporadically on their location with respect to the watercourses. 473 See Heimpel 1994, 18 and 27. It should be recognized, however, that the absence of the determinative in this case could also imply a generic expression referring to the territory situated on the border between the two provinces. See also Steinkeller 2013, 411. This author interprets the indication as referring to a threshing floor situated on the banks of the Ĝirsu canal. In any case, that the name of the settlement of the Ĝirsu province would allude to the northern border with the Umma province is suggested by the territorial contiguity of the gardens in the areas managed by the garden administrators Abbaĝu and Gu’umu, among which gardens of the Kisura area and gardens located in the north of the district, close to the provincial border, were included. Among the latter, the following gardens can be counted: the ‘garden of Irisaĝ’ (§ 2.2.15); the ‘garden of Tira’aš’ (§ 2.2.28). 474 The Ĝirsu canal could have been a branch of the Tigris, which flowed southward through the Umma province, eventually reaching Ĝirsu, where its name would have changed to Niĝinšedu. In this regard, see the proposals in de Maaijer, R. 1998, Steinkeller 2011. However, the hydrography of the region, in particular that of the area of Umma (for which more evidence is available) is still a matter of discussion; see Steinkeller 2001 and Steinkeller 2011. In addition, Steinkeller proposed an identification between the Ĝirsu canal and the Namhani canal, a scarcely attested watercourse which was dedicated to the last of the independent rulers of the province (Steinkeller 2011, 382). 475 In any case, a sort of acquisition is implied; see the example shown in § 1.8.7.1 provided by Amherst 24, where the function of the garden administrator is expressed by k i š i b (sealed document of) on the sealed envelope and by u g u l a (supervision of) on the tablet. Indeed, the acquisition of the amount by the scribes and that by the garden administrators reflect two different phases of the circulation of barley.

128

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

HLC 3, 368 (l.d.) can be found in the section regarding the ‘starting capital’ of some texts of the group: o. i, 1'-12': [...]-ĝeš / 12.0.3 gur / še-ba a-bala / ĝiri3 Lugal-igi-huš / 22.4.0 gur / Me-luh-ha-ta / 34.2.0 gur / i3-dub HI-gal-ta / 9.1.0 gur / e2-duru5 Lugal-ti-ta / 5.0.0 e2 Da-da munu4-mu2-ta / 1.2.1 e2 Šu-na munu4-mu2-ta o. ii, 1'-10': 6? [...] / 27.0.5 2 sila3 gur / 3.0.0 e2-duru5 DIĜIR-ma dam-gar3-ta / 312.5.4 5 sila3 / ki Urd Ba-U2 dumu Ba-zi-ta / 5.0.0 a-ra2 1-kam / 2.0.0 a-ra2 2-kam / ki Niĝ2-u2-rum ra2-gaba-ta / 9.2.0 i3dub nu-du8-ta / 9.2.0 i3-dub Inim-dInanna-ta / ki Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su dumu I3-kal-la-ta r. i, 1-13: 3.3.0 ki Ur-dNanše / šeš Igi-zu-bar-ra-ta / 1.0.0 ki Ku-li dumu Ki-aĝ2-ĝu10-ta / 4.3.4 -e2-si-ta / 3.0.0 e2 Ur-diĝir-ra-ta / 6.0.0 gur la2-NI su-ga Nin-a-na dumu Lu2-gu-la / 6.0.0 e2-duru5 lugal-ta / 4.1.3 UN-sa6-ga-ta / ĝiri3 Su6-du11-du11 / 2.3.5 5 sila3 a-ra2 1-kam / 6.0.0 sukkal i3-du8 u3 šu-i / ĝiri3 Ur-dNin-ĝeš-zi-da / [...] r. ii, 1-4: ---/ šu-niĝin2 384.2.5 1 sila3 še gur / še-ba a-bala du3-a--e-ne / [...] o. i, 1'-12': [...]-ĝeš, 3,630 liters (of barley), (for the) payments (of the) water drawers, the conveyor (was) Lugal-igihuš, 6,840 liters (of barley), from (the grain store) of Meluhha, 10,320 liters (of barley), from the grain store of HIgal, 2,760 liters (of barley) from the village (of) Lugal-ti, 1,500 liters (of barley) from the household of Dada the malster, 430 liters (of barley) from the household of Šuna the maltster. o. ii, 1'-10': 6? [...] 8,152 liters (of barley), 900 liters (of barley) from the village (of) Iluma, (detail of the) 93,945 liters (of barley), supplied by Ur-BaU son of Bazi, 1,500 liters (of barley) the first time, 600 liters (of barley) the second time, supplied by Niĝurum the messenger, 2,820 liters (of barley) from the ‘not opened’ grain store, 2,870 liters (of barley) from the grain store of Inim-Inanna, by Lu-Niĝirsu son of Ikala. r. i, 1-13: 1,080 liters (of barley) supplied by Ur-Nanše brother of Igizubara, 300 liters (of barley) supplied by Kuli son of Kiaĝĝu, 1,420 liters (of barley) by (Ur?-)esi, 900 liters (of barley) from the household of Urdiĝira, 1,800 liters (of barley from the) repaid arrears of Ninana son of Lu-gula, 1,800 from the royal village, 1,290 liters (of barley) by UNsaga, the conveyor (was) Sududu, 835 liters (of barley) (from) high royal officials, doorkeepers, and barbers, the conveyor (was) Ur-Ninĝešzida [...]. r. ii, 1-4: the total (is) 115,371 liters of barley, barley payments (for the) water drawers and arborists.

The following correspondences can be observed: Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix): r. 12-14: šu-niĝin2 22.4.0 še gur lugal / še-ba du3-a-ku5-e-ne / i3-dub Me-luh-ha-ta HLC 3, 368 : o. i, 5'-6': 22.4.0 < še gur lugal> Me-luh-ha-ta MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x): o. 1-4: 3.3.0 še gur lugal / ki Ur-dNanše šeš Igi-zu-bar-ra-ta / 1.0.0 gur / ki Ku-li dumu Ki-aĝ2-ĝu10-ta HLC 3, 368: r. i, 1-3: 3.3.0 še gur lugal / ki Ur-dNanše šeš Igi-zu-bar-ra-ta / 1.0.0 gur ki Ku-li dumu Kiaĝ2-ĝu10-ta

Returning to the texts of the group, according to a chronological sequence the first texts are STA 19 (Š 48/i)476 and HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i), which record the barley payments of the arborists for the first month (GANA2-m a š). The first text concerns the payments for the workers of the gardens managed by the garden administrator Abbaĝu, while the second one concerns the payments for the workers of the gardens managed by the garden administrator Gu’umu, according to a bipartition scheme, which, as already stated, remain unaltered within this group. In both cases, the quantities of barley are from the grain store of Du-manu477 ( D u 6 -m a -n u -ta ), a transaction that is not elsewhere attested among the extant texts.

––––––––––––––––– 476 This text is given in transliteration in the appendix (text 14). 477 Probably to be understood the grain store of the Du-manu village ( i 3 - d u b e 2 - d u r u 5 D u 6 - m a - n u ), which is attested in MVN 6, 539 (Š 40/-).

129

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD STA 19: q1 k i PN d u b - s a r - t a * ĝ i r i 3 PN* š a 3 - b i - t a * r PN (d u 3 - a - k u 5 )* q2 ĝ e š k i r i 6 * r l u 2 -LAM* š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q 1 u g u l a P N s a n t a n a * grain store-t a q1 supplied by PN the scribe, PN (was) the conveyor, from which the payments for PN arborists (are) r, (the amount of their payments) q2 (is addressed to the) garden, the payments for PN l u 2 -LAM (are) r, PN the garden administrator (was) the supervisor of the total amount q1, (amount) from the grain store. HSS 4, 10: r PN (d u 3 - a - k u 5 ) * q 1 ĝ e š k i r i 6 * r PN l u 2 n a - k a b - t u m / l u 2 -LAM* š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q 2 u g u l a PN s a n t a n a * grain store- t a the payments of PN arborists (are) r, (the amount of their payments) q1 (is addressed to the) garden, the payments for PN men of the storehouse/l u 2 -LAM (are) r, PN the garden administrator (was) the supervisor of the total amount q2, (amount) from the grain store.

STA 19 starts with a barley capital (q1) and the specification of the involved officials, the supplier Ur-BaU and the conveyor Ur-Šulpa’e; the details (ša 3 -b i-ta ) of the distribution of the payments (q2) listed by workers and garden of employment follows as a separate section. The starting capital amounts to 665 liters and effectively corresponds to the amount that was distributed to the workers of some gardens under the supervision of the garden administrator Abbaĝu (q1). Of the 23 gardens mentioned, the working personnel and corresponding barley allotments are specified only for 10 of them; for other gardens, as for example the ‘garden of Mani’, although the names of the workers are listed, the allotment of the first month is recorded in HSS 4, 7, a bimonthly record concerning the first and second month, which also concerns the payments of the water drawers. In STA 19, indeed, some listed gardens are preceded by a blank line, whereas other gardens are preceded by the assigned amount. Therefore, it seems that the barley amount, originally supplied by the scribe, did not suffice for the payments of the workers of all the listed gardens or, on the other hand, it is also possible that in some cases the garden administrator who supervised the transaction did not have responsibility for these gardens. The names of two gardens for which no quantity of barley is assigned are partially lost in the break of the right-lower part of the tablet: ‘garden of Ur-[...]’ ( ĝ e š k iri 6 U r-[...]) and the ‘garden KUR-[...]’ ( ĝ e š k iri 6 KUR-[...]). These gardens are not treated elsewhere within this work. Other gardens lying outside the distribution do not occur in other texts of the group and their relevance to the district appears unlikely (‘garden of Urub’, see § 2.2.33 and consequentially ‘garden of U’udua’, see § 2.2.29), indeterminable (‘garden of Lugal-igi’, see § 2.2.17, ‘garden of Meluhha of NinMAR.KI’, see § 2.2.20, ‘garden of Nanše of Simurrum’, see 2.2.21) or only speculative (‘garden of ErimzezeGIna’, see § 2.2.4, ‘garden of HIgal’, see § 2.2.13). Such gardens are, however, treated in this section, since they are formally included in a text in which Abbaĝu is responsible for the recorded barley amount.478 HSS 4, 10 records only the detail of the distribution of the payments for the arborists and gardens of employment under the supervision of the garden administrator Gu’umu. Workers designated as lu 2 -LAM occur in both texts (one without payment in STA 19 and one with 40 liters in HSS 4, 10), but only in HSS 4, 10 is a worker designated as lu 2 HUL2 n a -k a b -tu m (with a payment of 60 liters). The payments for these workers did not fall in the amounts reserved for the gardens, but they were nonetheless under the supervision of the garden administrators (see § 1.4.1). These first texts are followed by HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii), which records the payments for the water drawers and arborists for the first (GANA2-m a š) and second (g u 4 -ra 2 -iz i-m u 2 ) month in the gardens of responsibility of both the garden administrators, though the name of Gu’umu is lost in the break of the lower edge of the tablet. ––––––––––––––––– The occurrence of such gardens in the text may be due to their relevance to the area of authority of the scribe responsible for the expenditure, whose activity may have extended over the districts, rather than pertaining to that of the recipient garden administrator.

478

130

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU HSS 4, 7: q1 k i š i b PN d u b - s a r / s a n t a n a / u m - m i - a / d u 3 - a - k u 5 * g u r u 7 -t a * ĝ i r i 3 PN* š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q 2 * š a 3 - b i t a * r PN (a- b a l a / d u 3 - a - k u 5 ) * q 3 ĝ e š k i r i 6 * r PN l u 2 n a - k a b - t u m * š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q 4 u g u l a PN santana* šu-niĝin2 q5 zi-ga* q6 niĝ2-ĝal2-la q1 acquired by PN the scribe/garden administrator/garden expert/arborist, from the granary, the conveyor (was) PN, the total amount is q2, from which the payments for PN arborists and water drawers (are) r, (the amount of their payments) q3 (is addressed to the) garden, the payments for PN men of the storehouse (are) r, PN the garden administrator (was) the supervisor of the total amount q4, q5 (is) the total amount expended, q6 (the difference) (is) ‘possession’.

The text begins with a barley capital (q2) of 5,170 liters, of which (q1) over 2,100 were acquired (k išib ) by the garden administrator Abbaĝu, another 1,200 by E-heĝal son of Gu’umu and over 900 liters by the scribe Katar-BaU,479 a quantity indicated as coming from (the granary on) the banks of the Tigris (g u 2 i 7 Id ig n a -ta ). The remaining quantity (over 600 liters) is indicated as coming from the granary of the bur-saĝ (g u ru 7 b u r-s a ĝ -ta ) in the name of Katar-BaU and of Niĝir-išibmah, an arborist of the ‘garden of enNE’. The names of both the conveyors are not entirely legible. The text continues with the detail (ša 3 -b i-ta ) of the payments (q3) in the name of the gardener and garden of employment, starting from the gardens of Gu’umu (q4). Before the partial total supervised by Abbaĝu (q4), there are the payments (60 liters each) for two workers designated as lu 2 HUL2 n a -k a b -tu m . Finally, the total is subdivided into two entries: the first one (q5), expended (z i-g a ), concerns 4,860 liters, that is the quantity of barley supplied and distributed under the supervision of the garden administrators, while the remaining (q6) 310 liters, indicated as ‘possession’ (n iĝ 2 -ĝ a l 2 -la ), represent the effective difference between the starting capital and the expended quantity (difference q2-q5). The term ‘possession’,480 whereas la 2 -NI, ‘difference’, would be expected, probably alluds to the quantity that was not distributed, and thus, still available and administratively in the possession of the institution which had supplied it. HSS 4, 7 presents extraordinary situations, namely the presence of workers in roles of responsibility within the barley circulation: the arborist Niĝir-išibmah (§ 1.11.1) and the garden expert E-heĝal son of the garden administrator Gu’umu (§ 1.11.5). HLC 1, 100 (Š 48/iii) records the payments allotted to the water drawers and arborists of six gardens for the third month (e z e m d L i 9 -s i 4 ): q1 k i PN d u b - s a r - t a * ĝ i r i 3 PN* š a 3 - b i - t a * r PN (a- b a l a / d u 3 - a - k u 5 ) * q 2 ĝ e š k i r i 6 * š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q 3 u g u l a PN s a n t a n a q1 supplied by PN the scribe, the conveyor (was) PN, from which the payments for PN water drawers and arborists (are) r, (the amount of their payments) q2 (is addressed to the) garden, PN the garden administrator (was) the supervisor of the total amount q3.

In the obverse, 600 liters of barley are supplied by a certain Ur-BaU, probably to be identified with the homonymous scribe son of Bazi occurring in STA 19, Amherst 54 and HLC 3, 368, while the conveyor is Ur-Sahar-BaU, whose title is not specified. This first amount is followed by the detail (š a 3 -b i-ta ) of the payments for the workers of two gardens of responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu, while the presence of a third garden can be deduced by the missing 20 liters that separate the expended barley from the initial quantity. The detail for three gardens under the supervision of Abbaĝu is recorded on the reverse of the tablet. This text concerns few gardens compared to the other texts of the group. Moreover, even if it explicitly records the ––––––––––––––––– 479 See § 9.7.1.2. 480 The term n i ĝ 2 - ĝ a l 2 - l a entails an administrative possession, namely what is available to an institution and, indeed, it alternates with a p i n - l a 2 in the designation of leased out plots (see Maekawa 1987b, 97; de Maaijer 1998, 59). Such a term occurs both referring to the plots pertaining to the temple of Nindara and leased out, among them the plots managed by the garden administrator Ga’a (see § 1.8.5 and § 4.4.1), and the lands pertaining to the governor of the province in the subdivision of the agricultural territory within the borders of the province (see § 4.1).

131

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

payments for the water drawers and arborists, none of them is designated as SIG7-a, and thus, there is no differentiation between the two worker categories within the list. There are no texts recording the payments for these workers for the fourth and fifth month of the year (unless HLC 3, 267 is to be attributed to those months). The documentation resumes with HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi), the record of the barley payments for the month e z e m d D u m u -z i (vi) for the water drawers and arborists of at least 17 gardens managed by Abbaĝu and Gu’umu. HLC 1, 102: q1 ĝ e š k i r i 6 * q2 l u 2 n a - k a b - t u m * š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q3 u g u l a PN s a n t a n a * š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q 4 ĝ i r i 3 PN d u b sar q1 (is allotted to the workers of the) garden, q2 (is allotted to the) men of the storehouse, PN the garden administrator (was) the supervisor of the total amount q3, PN the scribe (was) the conveyor of the total amount q 4 .

The provenience of the quantity of barley is not indicated, the colophon only mentions Katar-BaU, the same scribe of HSS 4, 7, acting as conveyor. In the text, the quantities of barley reserved for the gardens are recorded without specification of the number of the employed workers. Eleven gardens are under the supervision of Gu’umu, while only four garden names and relative barley quantities can be found under the supervision of Abbaĝu, since other information is lost in a break in the tablet. In any case, given the difference of circa 2,635 liters between the total amount supervised by Abbaĝu (3,555 liters) and the sum preserved in the detail section (920 liters), the presence of many further gardens can be inferred. The quantities of barley supervised by the two garden administrators comprise also the payments for the men of the storehouse (lu 2 n a -k a b tu m ), 220 liters under the supervision of Gu’umu and 180 liters under that of Abbaĝu. The colophon reports the total of 9,165 liters and specifies that it is for the water drawers and the arborists of ‘the gardens of [...]’ ( ĝ e š k iri 6 [...]-k a ), while on the left edge there is the indication K i-su r-ra k i -a d u 3 -a , ‘(gardens) planted at Kisura’. The specification ĝ e š k iri 6 [...]-k a may have circumscribed the area in which the mentioned gardens were situated within the territory pertaining to such settlement, where there were other gardens connected to an economic complex. The gardens pertaining to the economic complex are not mentioned in this text, but they occur in other texts of the group (although without specification of their exact location). The gardens of responsibility of Gu’umu ascribable to the area of Kisura are: ‘garden of Amanu’, § 2.2.2; ‘garden of Gaeš’, § 2.2.5; ‘garden of Geme-Šulpa’e’, § 2.2.7; ‘garden of Garšum’, § 3.2, part of an economic complex; ‘garden of Lu-Ninĝirsu the archivist’, § 2.2.18; ‘garden of Lu-duga’, § 2.2.16; ‘garden of Ninĝirsu-adah-Šulgira’, § 2.2.22; ‘garden of Ninĝirsu-namerim’, § 2.2.23; ‘garden of Šulpa’e’, § 2.2.27; ‘garden of Šulgi-a-kalama’, § 2.2.26. The gardens of responsibility of Abbaĝu ascribable to such area are: ‘garden of Allaĝu’, § 2.2.1; ‘garden of ĝeškiĝ-trees’, § 2.2.8; ‘garden of Geme-Ištaran’, § 2.2.6; ‘pine garden before Enki’, § 2.2.34, although, as already seen, the effective number would be higher. Going back to the texts of this group, there is no information about the seventh month, while the payments for the eighth (e z e m d B a -U2) and ninth (m u -šu -d u 7 ) month, exclusively for the arborists, are present in Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix). Amherst 54: q1 ĝ e š k i r i 6 * q2 l u 2 n a - k a b - t u m / l u 2 -LAM* š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q3 u g u l a PN s a n t a n a * š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q 4 * i 3 d u b -t a * k i PN d u b - s a r - t a * k i š i b (2) PN d u b - s a r * k i š i b - b i 1 - a m 3 q1 (is allotted to the workers of the) garden, q2 (is allotted to) men of the storehouse/l u 2 -LAM, PN the garden administrator (was) the supervisor of the total amount q3, q4 (is) the total amount of barley, from the grain store, supplied (by) PN the scribe, PN scribes acquired (2), the sealed document/the acquisition is one.

This text concerns the payments for two months of the arborists of the gardens managed by Gu’umu and Abbaĝu. The redactional formula seems, indeed, similar to that of HLC 1, 102, with additional information on the provenience of the barley, both physical (grain store) and administrative (k išib ), rather than on the location of the gardens which the barley was reserved 132

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

for. Also here, indeed, the barley amounts are followed by the name of the relevant gardens without mention of workers, to which other payments are to be added: 80 liters of barley for the lu 2 -LAM workers and 120 liters for the men of the storehouse under the supervision of Gu’umu, while 360 liters for the men of the storehouse under the supervision of Abbaĝu. The total of 6,840 liters is indicated as coming from the grain store of Meluhha, supplied by Ur-BaU son of Bazi481 and acquired (k išib ) by Ur-gigir and Katar-BaU, although there is the indication of only one seal (k išib -b i 1 -a m 3 ), that is, of only one document attesting the acquisition of the transacted good. The payments for the tenth month (a m a r-a -a -s i), exclusively for the water drawers workers, are recorded in MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x), already seen in § 1.2.3: q1* k i (2) PN d u b - s a r - t a * š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q 2 : l a 2 -NI s u - g a k i š i b - b i 2 - a m 3 g u r š e - b a - t a * i 3 - d u b t a * ĝ i r i 3 PN š a 3 - b i - t a * r PN (a - b a l a ) * q 3 ĝ e š k i r i 6 * q 4 u g u l a PN s a n t a n a * š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q 2 k i š i b (1) PN d u b - s a r * k i š i b - b i 2 - a m 3 q1 supplied by (2) PN the scribes, the total amount (is) q2, (derived from the) repaid shortage, the sealed documents/the acquisitions are two, amount (reallocated) from the barley payments, from the grain store, PN (was) the conveyor, (amount) from which the payments for the water drawers (are) r, q3 (is the amount addressed to the) garden, PN the garden administrator (was) the supervisor of q4 (total amount concerning the gardens under his responsibility), PN the scribe sealed/acquired the total amount q2, the sealed documents/the acquisitions are two.

The text begins with the quantity of barley supplied by two scribes, for which it is specified that the amount derives from the repayment of a shortage involving two sealed documents (operations of acquisition) and it has been reallocated from the barley payments.482 The amounts, indeed, concern 1,080 liters from Ur-Nanše brother of Igizubara and 300 liters from Kuli son of Kiaĝĝu, coming from the grain store (i 3 -d u b ) of the ‘field Ul-ul’ (a -ša 3 u l 4 -u l 4 ). The text continues with the detail of the distribution of the barley amounts by workers, each of them indicated by name and relevant garden. The subdivision of the gardens follows the bipartition of the areas of responsibility of the garden administrators Gu’umu and Abbaĝu, to which, however, the ‘garden of Kisura’ is added, with only two workers for a total of 60 liters of barley under the supervision of Ur-Alla son of Šumua. The indication k išib (seal, sealed document) is followed by the name of the scribe Katar-BaU and still by the specification: k išib -b i 2 -a m 3 , ‘the pertinent sealed documents are two’, implying that the acquisition of the amount derives from two distinct operations, hence referring back to the initial amount which was specified as having been derived from a shortage repaid and supplied by two scribes. This text does not include the payment for the ‘out of garden’ workers, such as lu 2 -LAM or men of the storehouse (lu 2 n a -k a b -tu m ), and as already seen, it only records the payments of the water drawers. Also here, as in Amherst 54, the assigned barley amount can be traced in HLC 3, 368: 1,080 liters from Ur-Nanše brother of Igizubara (r. i, 1-2) and 300 liters from Kuli son of Kiaĝĝu (r. i, 3), although here references to the storehouse of provenience or to the repaid shortfall (la 2 -NI su -g a ) are lacking. Conversely, the indication g u r še -b a -ta , ‘amount from the barley payments’, could refer to the barley amounts allocated for the payments recorded in HLC 3, 368. HLC 3, 267 (l.d.) is clearly part of the group, although the date is lost in a break in the tablet. It records bimonthly (iti 2 -k a m ) barley payments for the water drawers and arborists of some gardens under the responsibility of Gu’umu and Abbaĝu and also those of the gardens under the responsibility of Nabi and Ur-Alla: q1 (š a 3 )

ĝeš

k i r i 6 * q2 l u 2 n a - k a b - t u m * š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q3 u g u l a PN s a n t a n a

––––––––––––––––– 481 In HLC 3, 368, the barley amount of 6,840 liters is indicated as coming from the grain store of (o. i, 5'-6'), while UrBaU son of Bazi is associated with 93,945 liters of barley (o. ii, 4'-5'), thus the amount here considered concerns only one of the several operations managed by this official, and indeed the barley amounts recorded in STA 19 and HLC 1, 100 are likely also provided by him. Ur-BaU son of Bazi might belong to the family of Bazi, whose members occupied key roles within the management of the resources of the province, see § 9.7.2.1. 482 See § 1.8.7.3.

133

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD q1 (is allotted to the workers in the) gardens, q2 (is allotted to the) men of the storehouse, PN the garden administrator (was) the supervisor of the total amount q3.

The redactional formula of this text reflects that of HLC 1, 102. Also here, indeed, there is no information about the provenience of the barley and the detail of the workers. The presence of further responsible officials may be instead lost in the broken parts of the tablet. Of the 5,700 liters supervised by Gu’umu, 160 liters are addressed to four men of the storehouse, the first of them characterized as la m x(LUM), while the remaining barley is specified as š e -b a ša 3 ĝ e š k iri 6 , ‘barley payments (for the workers) in the gardens’. The information pertaining to the gardens of Abbaĝu is mostly lost in a break in the tablet that also affects the colophon, though at least 2,360 liters of barley can be ascribed to the gardens under his responsibility. However, the left edge of the tablet provides further data, reporting over 7,800 liters indicated as bimonthly payments of the ‘garden of Kisura’. Of this amount 4,200 liters are recorded in the name of Ur-Alla, while the remaining barley (over 3,600 liters) can be connected to Nabi, likely the garden administrator tied to the ‘garden of Kisura’ (§ 3.3), whose name is barely legible in the first column of the edge. CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.) seems to record a plan of the barley required for the payments of the water drawers (SIG7-a) of some gardens of this group, rather than an effective distribution. The amounts are however under the supervision of Gu’umu and Abbaĝu and the redactional formula appears simple: n ĝ u r u š r - t a * š e - b i q 1 * ĝ e š k i r i 6 * š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q 2 u g u l a PN s a n t a n a * š u - n i ĝ i n 2 q 3 n workers (whose) payments (are) r, the relative amount of barley (is) q1 (addressed to the) garden, PN the garden administrator (was) the supervisor of the total amount q2, the total amount of barley is q 3 .

The total barley amount of 2,820 liters could recall the amount recorded in HLC 3, 368, o. ii, 9: 9.2.0 2,820 liters from the ‘not opened’ grain store (i 3 -d u b n u -d u 8 -ta ). 483 Therefore, these texts do not record the total number of workers who were employed within a year in the listed gardens, but only those whose payments derived from the barley transaction recorded in the text. Other texts mention the gardens considered by this group, among them a text recording a worker inspection, HLC 2, 25, the date of which is partially lost,484 already seen in § 1.4.2 and § 1.9. This text begins by listing three names of workers ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ (BUR2ta ) and continues with the list of workers inspected in three gardens. The first one is the ‘garden of Kisura’ (§ 3.3), to which three deceased workers (u š 2 ) are ascribed, among them a canalworker (a -ig i-d u 8 ),485 followed by the expression: z i-g a k i-n isig x (SAR) L u g a l-e 2 -g a l e g irra -n i, ‘(workers) expended (from the) greenery plot, (whose presence was recorded) after (the inspection/supervision? of) Lugal-egal’.486 The text continues listing the inspected personnel, including a worker under the supervision of Ur-BaU (whose title is not indicated). Another deceased worker (u š 2 ) is ascribed to the ‘garden of Šulgi-a-kalama’ (§ 2.2.27) under the supervision of Gu’umu, presumably the garden administrator, and a captain, Lu-BaU. Finally, the only workers indicated as active in the text pertain to the ‘pine garden before Enki’ (§ 2.2.34), ––––––––––––––––– The expression n u - d u 8 - < a > could intend ‘not opened’ and also occurs in HSS 4, 3 (AS 1/xii), an account in the name of Ur-abba son of Bazi, referring to a leather bag-label (r. vi, 12-13: k u š d u 1 0 - g a n n u - d u 8 / g a b a - r i U r - a b b a - t a ; ‘leather bag (of the tablets) not opened, copy from Ur-abba’). It can be a variant of the formula g u r u 7 - a t a k a 4 - a , ‘(barley) left in the granary’ (see § 1.8.7.4), or better, its counterpart, according to the point of view of the institution supplying the amount rather than that of the institution receiving it, an amount that in any case is still in the granary. 484 It seems possible to read part of the name Amar-Suena. Since the garden administrator Abbaĝu is mentioned, whose last attestation dates back to AS 4, it can be presumed that the draft of this text does not date beyond this period. 485 See de Maaijer and Jagersma 1997/98 281. As far as I know, it is the only attestation of this professional within the gardens of the province. The canal-workers, a - i g i - d u 8 , occurs often in texts with the ‘men of the greenery plots’, l u 2 n i s i g x (SAR), and, even in HLC 2, 25, they seem to be connected with the greenery plot of the garden of Kisura. 486 The expression seems to intend that the workers were recruited from the greenery plot of Kisura, whose presence at the inspection of gardeners was recorded after the supervision of Lugal-egal. The title of Lugal-egal is unknown. 483

134

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

where a ‘waif’, whose presence at the inspection was guarenteed (lit. from the word) by the garden administrator Abbaĝu (n i 2 -e ta k a 4 -a in im A b -b a -ĝ u 1 0 sa n ta n a-ta ), a deceased unskilled worker (g a n -d a b 5 ) under the supervision of Ur-Šul, and a last worker under the supervision of Ur-temena are listed. The professional title of both supervisors is not specified. Before the total, which reports only two workers (ĝu ru š) for a reduced (halved) labor service (a 2 ½), the name Lu-kala occurs in the middle of a blank space without any clear connection with the other recorded information. The colophon reports the expression g u ru m 2 a k a d ib -b a , ‘worker inspection made (and relative document) transferred’, and in fact, it seems to add information about the presence or absence of some workers at the inspection (see § 1.9), as the workers recorded after the supervision (?) and that on the guaranty of the supervisor would also suggest. Further, it should be noted that the text refers to an inspection of gardeners (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 -k e 4 n e ), although it is evident that the listed personnel relate to external workers occasionally employed in gardens. Moreover, the text specifies that the inspection took place at Ĝirsu (ša 3 Ĝ ir 2 -su k i ), probably referring generically to the district, since the involved gardens, as seen above, are ascribable to an area in the territory of Kisura. These texts represent the core of the group, to which other texts can be added, which involve both gardens mentioned in this group and gardens attested in the subsequent years. Many gardens, indeed, are mentioned only by this group of texts, while others are quoted by the contemporary or later documentation, among them CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4), MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), MVN 17, 18 (n.d.). In this work, texts attesting only one garden were treated just in the relevant section dealing with the garden in question. The following sections, indeed, collect the data concerning the gardens of this group, providing for each of them information on the type of text and, when possible, the employed workers, the responsible officials, and the assigned amount for the payments or the quantity of produced goods. 2.2.1. The garden of Allaĝu ( ĝ e š k iri 6 A l-la -ĝ u 1 0 ) This garden is attested by three texts dating to Š 48 and recording the payments for the water drawers and arborists. As shown by the texts, the garden fell in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. STA 19 (Š 48/i) ascribes to the garden four workers, but it reports the payments of only three of them, for a total of 65 liters. HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi) ascribes to the garden 120 liters of barley for one month, while Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) 230 liters of barley for two months. Since this garden occurs in HLC 1, 102, it can be localized in an area of the territory of Kisura. Other attestations are provided by MVN 7, 344 (n.d.), a text recording the allotment of garments to two gardeners, and MVN 18, 355 (l.d.), a text recording a quantity of dates concerning a yield inspection, and attributed to Umma, where, however, no gardens are attested with this name.487 MVN 7, 344 presents a short text: o. 1-3: 1 tug2 dNin-MAR.KI-ka / ugula ĝeškiri6 Al-la-ĝu10 / 1 tug2 Ur-dSahar-dBa-U2 r. 1-4: ugula Ur-dNin-mug / --- / nu-ĝeškiri6-me / ĝiri3 Ur-eš3-ku3-ga o. 1-3: 1 garment (for) NinMAR.KIka, the supervisor (was) ‘garden of Allaĝu’, 1 garment (for) Ur-Sahar-BaU. r. 1-4: the supervisor (was) Ur-Ninmug; they are gardeners, the conveyor (was) Ur-eškuga.

It can be inferred that the receivers were arborists, the supervisors garden experts, while the profession of the conveyor remains unknown. The indication ĝ e š k iri 6 A l-la -ĝ u 1 0 occurs where we would expect the name of the garden expert, as is evident from the second assignment recorded in the text; therefore, it remains unclear whether the text intended the garden expert in charge of the specified garden or an atypical personal name. MVN 18, 355 records 3,060 liters of ––––––––––––––––– 487 However, since it refers to a personal name, the presence of a garden with the same name in Umma cannot be excluded.

135

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

dates that are defined as d iri k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a , a notation which can be understood as ‘estimated in excess’, hence, the quantity of dates would represent a shortfall, or as ‘in excess of what was estimated’, hence it would represent a surplus. The quantity is recorded in the name of Utukalame, probably the garden expert in charge of the garden at the time of the draft. The name of this garden evidently refers to a personal name. ASJ 18, 167 9 (IS 2/-) lists the properties (n iĝ 2 -g u r 1 1 ) of a certain Allaĝu, in which two gardens are reported, each of them measuring 3,600 m2 and supporting different tree types (ĝ e š h i-a ). The list of goods is subdivided into four sections, each of them referring to a person.488 However, the gap of almost 20 years between the attestations of the ‘garden of Allaĝu’ in the group of texts of Š 48 and that in ASJ 18, 167 9 (IS 2) should be taken into account.489 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official Payments

Products

d

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Ur- Ig-[alim] (0.0.3), Ab-balum (0.0.2), A-kal-[la] dumu Ur-dŠul-gi (0.0.1 5 sila3), Ur-e2-ninnu

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.1.0 5 sila3 še

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5 )

n workers for 0.2.0 še

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.2.0 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (šeba) for arborists (du3-aku5)

n workers for 0.3.5 še

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.3.5 še

Attestations external to the group MVN 18, 355 (l.d.)

record of date production

um-mi-a: dUtu-kalam-e

MVN 7, 344 (n.d.)

allotment of garments to gardeners

d

Nin-MAR.KI-ka ugula ĝeškiri6 Al-la-ĝu10

10.1.0 zu2-lum gur (diri kab2 du11-ga) ĝiri3: Ur-eš3-ku3-ga 1 tug2

2.2.2. The garden of Amanu ( ĝ e š k iri 6 A -m a -n u ) The first attestation of this garden dates to MVN 6, 307 (Š 38/iv), which records the allotment of barley, wool, and garments to workers defined as BUR2 sip a u n u 3 -m e u 3 ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a , ‘shepherds, cowherds ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ and prisoners’. Two prisoners, whose name are lost, are indicated as escaped (z a h 3 ) from the garden in question. Another seven prisoners escaped from a garden generically designated as garden of Ĝirsu, for which it cannot be excluded that the ‘large garden in the city’ (§ 2.2.12) was intended. Indeed, a sort of connection between these two gardens is reflected in the designation ‘large garden of Amanu’ ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g u -la A m a -n u ) in the texts which also mention the ‘large garden in the city’ ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g u -la ša 3 iri), namely Amherst 54 and probably HLC 3, 267 (l.d.), where it seems possible that the name of the latter garden is lost in the break of the lower edge of the tablet. There is no evidence for the actual size of this garden, which was situated in an area of the territory of Kisura in the sphere of responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu. Both HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi) and HLC 3, 267 (l.d.) attribute to the ‘(large) garden of Amanu’ 60 liters of barley, while Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix), 120 liters of barley bimonthly. This garden is also present in MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), the text recording the inspection of gardeners and the allotment of wool and garments, where two workers are ascribed to this garden: a water drawer no longer active, for which no supervisor is indicated ( u g u la ), and another ––––––––––––––––– See Maekawa 1996a, 152. The author interpreted the text as a case of inheritance solved by the administration. 489 As for the ‘garden of Lu-Ninĝirsu the archivist’ (see § 2.2.18), one must not exclude the possibility that the garden name (as well as the list of the properties years later) referred to someone who was no longer active at the time of the draft of the texts, a sort of ancestor whom both the garden in Š 48 and the list of properties in IS 2 referred to. 488

136

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

worker defined as a supervisor recruited from the workers ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ (u g u la BUR2-ta ). WMAH 285 (l.d.), probably a record of an inspection of gardeners and the allotment of wool and garments as well, mentions this garden. Given the fragmentary condition of the text, the presence of at least one worker can be recognized on the basis of a patronymic (d u m u L u 2 - d B a -U2). The unnamed worker occurs under the supervision of a certain Lu-BaU, likely his own father. The name of the garden may refer to a personal name or to a place, after which also a field is named.490 Various kinds of goods are listed as offerings (n iĝ 2 siz k u r 2 )491 to the homonymous field, rather than to the garden, as is the case of the ‘garden of Garšum’ (§ 3.2) and the ‘garden of Kisura’ (§ 3.3). Text

Type

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3- n workers for 0.1.0 še a-ku5 )

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

0.1.0 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix) ĝeš kiri6 gu-la A-[ma-nu]

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.2.0 še

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.2.0 še

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.) ĝeš kiri6 gu-la A-ma-nu

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists [a-bala du3-a-ku5]

n workers for 0.1.0 še

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.1.0 še

[...]

Attestations external to the group MVN 6, 307 (Š 38/iv)

allotment of wool and garments to: ĝeš BUR2 sipa-unu3-me u3 tukul-e dab5-ba

[...] zah3 (ĝe štukul-e dab5ba)

ugula: Ba-sa6-ga NU-banda3: Ba-al-i3-li2

MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-)

gardener inspection (gurum2 aka nu-kiri6-ke4-ne)

ugula (uš2) I3-la-ti SIG7-a, (AŠ) Ira2-ra2 ugula BUR2-ta

ugula: E2-he2-ĝal2 dumu Gu2-u3-mu

NU-banda3: Urdu2-ĝu10

WMAH 285 (l.d.)

gardener inspection [gurum2 aka nu-ĝeškiri6-ke4-ne]492

[...] dumu Lu2-dBa-U2 um-mi-a: Lu2-dBa-U2

[...]

2.2.3. The garden of enNE ( ĝ e š k iri 6 e n - NE) This garden is quoted by almost all the texts of the group pertaining to the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48, where it occurs under the supervision of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. Furthermore, an arborist of this garden, Niĝir-išibmah, performs, by way of exception, a function of the garden administrator level (see § 1.11.1). In STA 19 (Š 48/i), 50 liters of barley are ascribed to the garden, corresponding to the payment of only one worker who is designated as z i,493 while for another two gardeners, among them Niĝir-išibmah, no payment is ––––––––––––––––– 490 See Pettinato 1967 (UNL/I), 79. This author interpreted the name as a - š a 3 a - ĝ e š m a - n u , “Feld (am) Wasser des Kornelkirschbaumes”. For an interpretation of ĝ e š m a - n u as a kind of willow (Weide), see Steinkeller 1987b, 91-92; Sallaberger 1993, 77; Heimpel 2011, 125-126. In contrast, Stol suggested an interpretation as cornel; see Stol 2013, 731. 491 See e.g. TCTI 2, 3299 (-/vii). 492 The integration was based on the structural analogies presented by both texts, hence it is suggestible that even WMAH 285 could present the same formula of MVN 17, 55 in the colophon. See § 1.8.7.6. 493 According to Monaco, the term is to be understood as an abbreviation of z i - g a , ‘expended (workers)’, qualifying transferred workers whose payments are not recorded (see Monaco 1986, 9). However, in STA 19 the worker labeled as ‘expended’, Ur-guena, is the only one for which a payment is recorded, whereas the payments for the other mentioned workers occur in the account drafted one month later in HSS 4, 7, where the payment of Ur-guena is not considered. Conversely, in HSS 4, 10 the payments for the workers labeled as ‘expended’ in the ‘garden of Ninĝirsu-namerim’ (§ 2.2.23) and in the ‘garden Šulgi-a-kalama’ (§ 2.2.26) are not recorded.

137

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

recorded. The payments of these two workers are then recorded in HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii), where the payments for the first and second month are detailed. Here, the payments for three water drawers are also recorded, in total 210 liters of barley. In HLC 1, 100 (Š 48/iii) 90 liters of barley are reserved for the garden, but the names of the workers are lost in a break in the tablet. Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) attributes to the garden 50 liters of barley as bimonthly payments for an unspecified number of arborists, likely only one, while HLC 3, 267 (l.d.), also bimonthly, attributes to the garden 620 liters of barley. MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) records for this garden the payments of nine water drawers and the arborist Niĝir-išibmah, the only one not characterized as SIG7-a (see § 1.2.3), for a total of 300 liters of barley. Finally, CT 10, 46 21381 (n.d.) attributes to the garden 420 liters of barley for the payments of seven water drawers. A further attestation of the garden is represented by RA 54, 130 44, dating to AS 4/iv (see § 1.8.7.4). With regard to this garden, the payments for two water drawers and two arborists are recorded, to which the payments of two workers follow, among them a man of the storehouse can be recognized (see § 1.4.1). In total, the payments amount to 330 liters and are under the supervision of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. As already noted, in contrast to the other workers occurring in the text, the gardeners of the ‘garden of enNE’ as well as those of the ‘garden of the mill’ (§ 3.4) are not supervised by garden experts, but they are the only workers for which the garden of employment is specified. In this garden the occurrence of the same water drawer, BaUda, is notable over a period of five years. It is unclear what the name of the garden may refer to. Neither villages nor fields seem to be attested with this name. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (šeba) for arborists (du3-aku5)

Niĝir-išib-mah, zi Ur-gu2-en-na (0.0.5), Ur-dBa-U2 šeš Ur-NIĜ2 SIG7-a

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.0.5 še

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

bimonthly payments (šed SIG7-a Ur- Lamma (0.1.0), SIG7-a A2-ra-an ba) for water drawers (a(0.1.0), SIG7-a dBa-U2-da (0.1.0), Niĝir-išibbala) and arborists (du3mah (0.1.0), Ur-dBa-U2 šeš Ur- NIĜ2 (0.0.3) a-ku5)

[..] Niĝir-išib-mah du30.3.3 še (detail a-ku5 ĝeškiri6 en-NE would indicate ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 0.4.3)

HLC 1, 100 (Š 48/iii)

monthly payments (šeba) for water drawers (a[...] bala) and arborists (du3a-ku5)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.1.3 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (šeba) for arborists (du3-a- n workers for 0.0.5 še ku5)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.0.5 še

MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x)

An-ta-ta (0.1.0), SIG7-a Ur-dLamma (0.0.3), SIG7-a Kisal-e-si (0.0.3), SIG7-a Lumonthly payments (šebala-sa6-ga (0.0.3), SIG7-a Lu2-ti-šar-um (0.0.3), ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 ba) for water drawers (ad SIG7-a Urdu2 (0.0.3), SIG7-a Ur- Ba-U2 (0.0.3), santana bala) d SIG7-a Da-da (0.0.3), SIG7-a Ba-U2-da (0.0.3), Niĝir-išib-mah (0.0.3)

1.0.0 gur še

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (šeba) for water drawers n workers for 2.0.2 še and arborists [a-bala du3a-ku5]

ugula: [Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana]

2.0.2 gur še

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10

1.2.0 gur še

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10

1.0.3 gur še

SIG7-a

CT 10, 46 BM plan of payments for 21381 (n.d.) water drawers

7 SIG7-a with 0.1.0 še each

Attestations external to the group payments for gardeners d d SIG7-a Ba-U2-da (0.1.0), SIG7-a Ur- Ašnan RA 54, 130 44 left in the granary (še-ba (0.1.0), Ur-ĝešgigir dumu Lu2-gu-la (0.1.0), Urĝeš (AS 4/iv) nu- kiri6-ke4-ne guru7-a Ba-gara2 dumu [...] (0.1.0) taka4-a)

138

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

2.2.4. The garden of ErimzezeGIna ( ĝ e š k iri 6 E rim 2 -ze 2 -ze 2 - GI-n a < k i > ) This garden is quoted in STA 19 (Š 48/i), for which neither workers nor barley amounts are recorded. The garden name refers to a settlement494 where two gardens ( ĝ e š k iri 6 E rim 2 -z e 2 z e 2 -n a < k i > ) pertaining to the governor’s family were also situated (see § 2.10). However, there is no evidence suggesting that the garden mentioned in STA 19 refers to one of these gardens. 2.2.5. The garden of Gaeš ( ĝ e š k iri 6 G a -e š 8 ) This garden occurs in almost all the texts of the group pertaining to the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48. HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i) attributes to the ‘garden of Gaeš’ only one arborist, Ur-BaU, for 60 liters of barley. Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix), recording the bimonthly payments for arborists, specifies 120 liters of barley for the garden, probably corresponding to the payments of only one worker, likely Ur-BaU himself. HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii) and MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) indicate the presence of two water drawers, Ur-Siana and Ur-Lugaledenka, each of them earning a bimonthly payment of 60 liters of barley in the second month and monthly payment of 30 liters in the tenth month. Then, CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.) records an amount of 120 liters of barley for two water drawers. The remaining texts, HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi) monthly, and HLC 3, 267 (l.d.) bimonthly, both recording the payments for both categories of gardens, report 180 liters of barley for an unspecified number of workers. The garden, lying in an area of the territory of Kisura, fell in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu. The term g a -e š 8 entails long-distance traders, though the garden name may specifically refer to the homonymous village (e 2 -duru5 G a -e š 8 ),495 as likely the name of the homonymous field does.496 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Ur-dBa-U2 (0.1.0)

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu

0.1.0 še

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

0.1.0 še (detail would indicate 0.2.0)

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.3.0 še

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

0.3.0 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.2.0 še

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.2.0 še

MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala)

Ur-dSi4-an-na (0.0.3), SIG7-a Ur-dLugaleden (0.0.3)

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.1.0 še

d

SIG7-a Ur- Si4-an-na (0.1.0), SIG7-a Ur-dLugal-

eden-ka (0.1.0)

SIG7-a

––––––––––––––––– 494 For this settlement, see Steinkeller 2013, 390. An homonymous canal is attested in DAS 20 (ŠS 2/ii), consisting of tablet and envelope, which records the employment of female workers (g e m e 2 ) at the mouths, or in one case the basin, of some canals; among them: the Usur-ErimzezeGIna (Usur-Erimzeze on the envelope), the HIgal canal (homonymous garden in STA 19, see § 2.2.13), Asuhur canal (homonymous garden in WMAH 285, see § 2.3.1), the Dudu canal (according to Sauren, located close to the border of Umma and Ĝirsu; Sauren 1966, 105 and 117-118), and the Ĝirsu canal. It seems thus possible that the gardens named after these canals (or the homonymous settlements) were situated in the north of the district, not far from the gardens included in this group of texts, which were mostly situated in the Kisura territory, probably close to the Ĝirsu canal. 495 S. Parpola, A. Parpola and Brunswig suggested that ethnic or professional names connected to structures or settlements might refer to colonies, which were previously founded in the territory of Sumer. These scholars considered in particular the case of Meluhha, a colony founded by merchants coming from such region and eventually integrated with the native population. However, they did not exclude that the same dynamic could have applied to the ‘garden of Gaeš’ and the homonymous village, namely a colony founded by long-distance traders in an undefined past (Parpola, Parpola and Brunswig 1977, 145-147). 496 With regard to this field, see Pettinato 1967 (UNL/I), 237.

139

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists [abala du3-a-ku5]

n workers for 0.3.0 še

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.3.0 še

CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.)

plan of payments for a-bala workers

2 SIG7-a with 0.1.0 še each

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.2.0 še

2.2.6. The garden of Geme-Ištaran ( ĝ e š k iri 6 G e m e 2 - d Išta ra n ) This garden is known by only three texts of the group concerning the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48, which ascribe it to the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. STA 19 attributes to this garden 80 liters of barley for two arborists, one of them classified as ‘dull’ (h u -ru ). For the sixth month, HLC 1, 102 attributes to the garden 110 liters of barley for an unspecified number of workers and, finally, Amherst 54 attributes to it 240 liters of barley as bimonthly payments for an unspecified number of arborists. Since STA 19 and Amherst 54 record only the payments for the arborists and HLC 1, 102 does not distinguish the categories in the total amounts, there is no direct mention of the employment of water drawers in this garden. As suggested by its presence in HLC 1, 102, this garden was situated in an area of the territory of Kisura. In MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), the record of an inspection of gardeners and allotment of wool and garments, it seems possible to reconstruct the occurrence of this garden in the partially legible mention of a ĝ e š k iri 6 G e m e 2 -[ d Išta ra n ], although the occurrence of the ĝ e š k iri 6 G e m e 2 [ d Š u l-p a -e 3 ] may also be interpretable.497 Given the condition of text, specifically at this point, it is possible to deduce the presence of two workers and their supervisor, but not their names, and three workers indicated as pertaining to the previous workforce (lib ir). It is unclear to whom the name of the garden may refer. Neither villages nor fields seem to be attested with this name. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5 )

AN-[..]-mu

(0.1.0), Urmes hu-ru (0.0.2)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.1.3 še (detail would indicate 0.1.2)

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5 )

n workers for 0.1.5 še

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.1.5 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5 )

n workers for 0.4.0 še

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.4.0 še

ugula: E2-he2-ĝal2 dumu Gu2-u3-mu NU-banda3: Urdu2-ĝu10

1+ tug2

Attestations external to the group MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-)

3 [PN] libir-am3, 1 [PN], gardener inspection (gurum2 aka bala/BUR2?498 [PN] nu-kiri6-ke4-ne) um-mi-a: Lu2-bala-[...]

2.2.7. The garden of Geme-Šulpa’e ( ĝ e š k iri 6 G e m e 2 - d Š u l-p a -e 3 ) This garden is attested in four texts of the group of payments of Š 48, which lead it to the area of the garden administrator Gu’umu. In HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i), there is neither indication of the number of employed workers nor of the relative quantity of barley, nor can this information be found in HSS 4, 7, as in the cases of the ‘garden of enNE’ and the ‘garden of Mani’. The other texts do not ––––––––––––––––– As noted in § 1.11.5, indeed, this text seems to consider gardens lying in the area of authority of different garden administrators. 498 To the best of my knowledge, the term b a l a is never attested as a characterization of a single worker in the documentation of the province. Since the occurrence of this term pertains to damaged parts of the tablet (four times in the first column of the reverse) and an erased line, one wonders if the term BUR2 may insted be restored. Such a designation also concerns the first worker listed for this garden and belonging to the previous workforce. 497

140

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

mention the detail of the employed workers, just the quantity of barley reserved for this garden. Indeed, 165 liters of barley in HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi) as monthly payments, 150 liters of barley in HLC 3, 267 (l.d.), and 180 liters of barley in Amherst 54 as bimonthly payments are addressed to it. As indicated by HLC 1, 102, this garden was also situated in an area of the Kisura territory. In MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), the presence of this garden is interpretable through the reconstruction ĝ e š k iri 6 G e m e 2 -[ d Š u l-p a -e 3 ], although it cannot be excluded that the ĝ e š k iri 6 G e m e 2 -[ d Išta ra n ] was intended (see above, § 2.2.6). Geme-Šulpa’e, consort of Gudea,499 to whom the garden is likely dedicated, occurs (r. vii, 38) among the receivers of the cult offerings of MVN 9, 87, in connection with the fruit transactions supervised by the alleged garden administrator Ur-Inanna.500 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: Gu2-u3--mu

še

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.2.4 5 sila3 še

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

0.2.4 5 sila3 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.3.0 še

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.3.0 še

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists [abala du3-a-ku5]

n workers for 0.2.3 še

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.2.3 še

3 [PN] libir-am3, 1 [PN], bala/BUR2? [PN] um-mi-a: Lu2-bala-[...]

ugula: E2-he2-ĝal2 dumu Gu2-u3mu NU-banda3: Urdu2-ĝu10

+1 tug2

Attestations external to the group MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-)

gardener inspection (gurum2 aka nu-kiri6-ke4-ne)

2.2.8. The garden of ĝeškiĝ-trees ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š-k iĝ2 ) This garden is attested only in four texts of the group pertaining to the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48, which place it in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. In STA 19, it is among the gardens for which no quantity of barley is recorded. Both HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi) and HLC 3, 267 (n.d.) attribute to it 60 liters of barley, as monthly and bimonthly payments, respectively, for an unspecified number of workers, but likely only one. CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.) assigns the same amount to one water drawer. HLC 1, 102 attributes this garden to an area of the territory of Kisura. The garden name refers to an unclear type of tree,501 though the documentation does not provide evidence on the type of crops yielded by such a garden. A field bearing the same name is attested only once by a contemporary text.502 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana;

še

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.1.0 še

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.1.0 še

––––––––––––––––– 499 See Sollberger 1971, 201. 500 See the discussion regarding the correspondences between cult destinations and homonymous gardens in note 466 in § 2.2. 501 See CAD K, s.v. kiškanû; Bauer 1980, n. 11; Heimpel 2011b, 135-136. As stressed by Heimpel, ĝ e š - k i ĝ2 is a conventional transliteration, whereas the Sumerian term must have ended in a vowel (kiškanû; Heimpel ibid. 135). 502 Sumer 23, 142 (Š 48/-).

141

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists [abala du3-a-ku5]

n workers for 0.1.0 še

ugula: [Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana]

0.1.0 še

CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.)

plan of payments for a-bala workers

1 SIG7-a with 0.1.0 še

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10

0.1.0 še

2.2.9. The vineyard on the banks of the BaU-heĝal canal ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin g u 2 i 7 d B a - U 2 -h e 2 ĝ a l 2 ) 503 This vineyard under the responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu is attested in two texts of the group of Š 48, which exclusively record the payments for the arborists. STA 19 (Š 48/i) attributes 30 liters of barley to a single worker, while Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) records 180 liters of barley for an unspecified number of workers for two months.504 Alhough it does not directly concern the garden, ITT 5, 6925 (-/x) records the offerings of ‘beer concentrate of good quality’ ( d u g d id a sa g a 1 0 ), to the mouth of the canal, after which the vineyard is named, k a i 7 d B a - U 2 -h e 2 -ĝ a l 2 . The text also concerns the offerings for the ‘garden of Garšum’ (§ 3.2) and the ‘garden of Kisura’ (§ 3.3). Text

Type

Workers

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for Nin-silim-ĝu10 arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana 0.0.3 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana 0.3.0 še

n workers for 0.3.0 še

Responsible official

Payments

2.2.10. The ĝi’eden garden of BaU ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ i 6 -e d e n d B a -U 2) In the Ĝirsu province, five different ĝi’eden gardens are attested, two of them pertaining to this group of texts (see CT 10, 46 BM 21381, r. 12: ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ i 6 -e d e n m in -a -b i, ‘both the ĝi’eden gardens’). Both gardens occur under the supervision of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. STA 19 (Š 48/i) attributes to the ‘ĝi’eden garden of BaU’ only one worker for 60 liters of barley; it is unclear if the name of the garden is preceded by the characterization SIG7-a, thus, if a water drawer is meant.505 In HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii), 120 liters of barley are reserved for this garden as bimonthly payments of two water drawers, Niĝ-šunadu and Lu-BaU , on behalf of which 60 liters of barley are recorded as monthly payment in MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x). In CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.), the barley amount of 180 liters for three water drawers is recorded in a single entry concerning both the ‘ĝi’eden garden of BaU’ and the ‘ĝi’eden garden of Ninĝirsu’, probably involving the same three water drawers of both gardens occurring in the preceding texts. Finally, HLC 3, 267 (l.d.) records 120 liters of barley for this garden as bimonthly payments of an unspecified number of workers.

––––––––––––––––– For this canal, see Falkenstein 1966, 7; Edzard and Farber 1974, 257. Considering that it fell under the responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu and that the name of different gardens pertaining to this official in HLC 1, 102 is lost in the breaks in the tablet, it is impossible to determine if this vineyard was situated in an area of the Kisura territory. 504 It is not clear in the case of this vineyard whether the small number of listed workers could be due to a possible absence in the text of the group of the payments specifically addressed to the gardeners of the vineyards, whose payments were recorded in separate documents and pertained to different barley transactions (see § 1.8.7.6). 505 Even if the text exclusively concerns the payments for the arborists, the occurrence of workers pertaining to the other category cannot be excluded a priori, as happens in MVN 12, 297 for Niĝir-išibmah (§ 2.2.3). 503

142

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

The expression ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ i 6 -e d e n , ‘dark garden of the steppe’, also occurs in Cylinder A of Gudea, in which it is compared to a mountain oozing wine.506 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

(SIG7-a?) Ur-e2-DUB (0.1.0)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.1.0 še

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Niĝ2-šu-na-du10 (0.1.0), SIG7- ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 a Lu2-dBa-U2 (0.1.0)

0.2.0 še

MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala)

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists [abala du3-a-ku5]

n workers for 0.2.0 še

ugula: [Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana]

0.2.0 še

CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.)

plan of payments for water drawers

3 SIG7-a with 0.3.0 še each for 2 gardens

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10

0.3.0 še for 2 gardens

SIG7-a

SIG7-a

Niĝ2-šu-na-du10 (0.0.3), SIG7- ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 a Lu2-dBa-U2 (0.0.3) santana

0.1.0 še

2.2.11. The ĝi’eden garden of Ninĝirsu ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ i 6 -e d e n d N in -ĝ ir 2 -s u ) This garden is only attested together with the‘garden ĝi’eden of BaU’. In STA 19, four names are recorded in connection with the ‘ĝi’eden garden of Ninĝirsu’, but the payment of 40 liters is reported for only one of them. The payments for three arborists, Lugal-melam and his sons Urmes and Lu-Ninĝirsu, are present neither in this text, nor in HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii), where the bimonthly payment for the water drawer Adiĝirzizda of 60 liters occurs instead. The same water drawer occurs in the same garden in MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x), in which 30 liters of barley are assigned to him. In CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.), a barley amount of 180 liters pertaining to three water drawers is recorded in a single entry concerning both ‘ĝi’eden garden of BaU’ and the ‘ĝi’eden garden of Ninĝirsu’, probably involving the same three water drawers of both gardens occurring in the preceding texts. Finally, HLC 3, 267 (l.d.) records 160 liters of barley for this garden as bimonthly payments for an unspecified number of workers. For the garden name, see § 2.2.10. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Lugal-me-lam2, Ur-mes, Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su dumu Lugalme-lam2-me, Ur-dIg-alim (0.0.4)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.0.4 še

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

SIG7-a

A2-diĝir-ziz2-da (0.1.0)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10

0.1.0 še

MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala)

SIG7-a

A2-diĝir-ziz2-da (0.0.3)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.0.3 še

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists [abala du3-a-ku5]

n workers for 0.2.4 še

ugula: [Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana]

0.2.4 še

CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.)

plan of payments for water drawers

3 SIG7-a with 0.1.0 še each for 2 gardens

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10

0.3.0 še for 2 gardens

––––––––––––––––– 506 See Römer 2010, 27 and 65 (Gudea, Cyl. A, XXVIII 23-24: ĝ e š k i r i 6 - ĝ i 6 - e d e n a e 2 - š e 3 s i - g a - b i / k u r ĝ e š t i n b i z - b i z - z e 2 ki-ni2--lem4- e m u 2 - a m 3 : “Sein ‘dunkler Garten der Steppe’, der in Richtung des Hauses gepflanzt(?) ist, ist ein Berg, der Wein träufeln lässt, der an(?) einem Ort Schreckensglanz(?) wächst(?)”). For this passage, see also Edzard 1997, 87; for other literary references regarding this kind of garden, see Heimpel 2011b, 87 and previous literature. As noted by the Heimpel, the grammatical structure and the meaning itself of the expression are not clearly understood. Civil had already noted that the expression, attested in literary texts of the Early Dynastic period, might have been strictly poetic (see Civil 1983, 4). Evidence in the administrative documentation on the types of trees planted in ĝi’eden gardens is available only for the ‘ĝi’eden garden of Bagara’, for which see § 4.3.4; for the types of trees related to these gardens in the literary texts, see Heimpel, 2011b, 87.

143

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

2.2.12. The large garden in the city ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g u -la ša 3 iri) Although different gardens characterized as ‘large’ (g u -la ) or ‘within the city’ (š a 3 iri) occur in the documentation of the province, the ‘large garden in the city’ in this group of texts refers to a specific garden of responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu in the Ĝirsu area. However, it is unclear which urban center is meant by the name, whether Ĝirsu itself or a minor settlement. In the group of texts of Š 48, it seems that the occurrence of the ‘large garden in the city’ tends to modify the mention of the ‘garden of Amanu’ to the ‘large garden of Amanu’. Thus, the presence of the ‘large garden in the city’ is likely lost in the break of the lower edge of HLC 3, 267 (l.d.), where the ‘garden of Amanu’ is specified as large ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g u -la A -m a -n u ). Indeed, it was already noted that when those gardens are mentioned together they are both characterized as large (see § 2.2.2). Regardless of the indication of their size, if a sort of connection between the two gardens is also valid for other texts, the occurrence of the ‘large garden in the city’ can be inferred in MVN 6, 307 (Š 38/iv). This text, indeed, records the allotment of payments to prisoners, nine of them indicated as ‘escaped’ (z a h 3 ) from two gardens, seven from the ‘garden of Ĝirsu’ ( ĝ e š k iri 6 Ĝ ir 2 -s u k i ) and two from the ‘garden of Amanu’, where conjecturally the garden of Ĝirsu could refer to the large garden in the city. The quantities of barley reserved for this garden during the year Š 48 are quite uneven. In STA 19, the ‘large garden in the city’ is among the gardens without mention of barley quantities. HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii) attributes to the garden three water drawers, whose bimonthly payments amount to 130 liters of barley. In Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) 230 liters are allotted for two months to an unspecified number of arborists, while in MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) two water drawers, one with a payment of 30 liters of barley, and the other one, Imza, who also occurred in HSS 4, 7, described as old (šu -< g i 4 > ) and without payment. Finally, CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.) records 60 liters of barley as the bimonthly payment of only one water drawer. CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4), drafted one year later, records the yield of some gardens (see § 1.6.4) and reports for this garden a considerable quantities of dates: 600 liters of dates of good quality and 36,360 liters of ordinary dates. The quantities of dates are associated with the name of two persons, Lu-diĝiraše son of Lu-duga and Ur-Lisi son of Abbaĝu, likely garden experts, under the supervision of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. It is unclear whether Ur-Lisi was the son of the garden administrator or even if he is to be identified with the homonymous garden administrator, whose activity is attested from AS 7 (see § 9.1.9). Except for this text, indeed, it seems that no further connection between the two can be found.507 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

še

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Lugal-ša3-la2 (0.1.0), Im-za (0.0.3), SIG7-a Ur- Ba-U2 (0.0.4)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10

0.2.1 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.3.5 še

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.3.5 še

MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala)

SIG7-a Lugal-si-ĝar (0.0.3), SIG7-a šu- Im-za

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.0.3 še

CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.)

plan of payments for water drawers

1 SIG7-a with 0.1.0 še (ĝeškiri6 ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 gu-la ša3 )

0.1.0 še

SIG7-a SIG7-a d

Products

––––––––––––––––– It is noteworthy, however, that MVN 22, 271 (IS 3/XX) specifies the ‘large garden’ ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 g u - l a ) as location where a transaction of palm by-products (supplied by the garden administrator Ur-Lisi and acquired by the scribe Šeškala son of Ur-abba) took place. It seems quite plausible that this garden, in the years following the disappearance of Abbaĝu, would have fallen into the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Ur-Lisi. In any case, it should be recognized that both Abbaĝu and Ur-Lisi were common names and that ‘large garden’ is quite a generic designation.

507

144

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

ugula: Ba-sa6-ga NU-banda3: Ba-al-i3-li2

0.3.4 še, 7 tug2, 4 mana siki

Products

Attestations external to the group MVN 6, 307 (Š 38/iv)

CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4)

allotment of wool and garments to: BUR2 sipa-unu3- 7 ĝeštukul-e dab5-ba me u3 ĝeštukul-e dab5-ba record of date production

um-mi-a: Lu2-diĝir-ra-še3 dumu Lu2-du10-ga, Ur-dLi9si4 dumu Ab-ba-ĝu10

ugula: Ab-ba-⌈ĝu10⌉508

2.0.0 gur zu2lum saga10; 121.1.0 gur zu2-lum

2.2.13. The garden of HIgal ( ĝ e š k iri 6 HI-g a l) This garden is mentioned only by STA 19, where neither workers nor barley amounts are recorded for it. The name of the garden recalls that of a canal,509 a village,510 but also the name of one of the grain stores of HLC 3, 368 (o. i, 8': i 3 -d u b HI-g a l), from which an amount of barley for the payments of the water drawers and arborists comes. 2.2.14. The garden of Igalim ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d Ig -a lim ) This garden is attested in three texts of the group pertaining to the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48, to which an indirect reference occurring in Iraq 62, 41 21, a record of wool and garment distribution (see § 1.8.7.6), can be added. The attestations of the group show a certain consistancy for the payments allotted to this garden: both STA 19 (Š 48/i) and HLC 1, 100 (Š 48/iii) indicate 100 liters of barley for two workers, Lu-Ninĝirsu and his son Lugal-ušime, although the first text records the payments for only the arborists and second one for both water drawers and arborists; Amherst 54, recording the payments for two months (viii-ix) of the arborists, indicates 200 liters of barley, that is exactly double the amount, thus, probably allotted to the same workers occurring in the other texts of the group. Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.) records the allotment of wool and garments for water drawers, arborists and external workers in the area of responsibility of the garden administrators Ka and Gamu. Among the garden experts providing the personnel, there is Lugal-ušime, here indicated as ‘gardener of Igalim’ (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 d Ig -a lim ). Lugal-ušime is the only gardener occurring with a professional title, probably since he was external to the area of responsibility of the two garden administrators present in the text.511 Since Ka and Gamu are not attested before AS 2, it is plausible that the Lugal-ušime, who was indicated as an arborist of the same garden in Š 48, became then garden expert in the same garden. In MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-) the offerings to this god (o. v', 21') are managed by the garden administrator Gu’umu and by a garden administrator whose name is lost in the breaks in the tablet. A field of the province was also named after this god.512

––––––––––––––––– 508 The last sign of the name is barely legible, but it is seems plausible that the name refers to the garden administrator Abbaĝu. 509 The mouth of the homonymous canal is quoted by DAS 20 (ŠS 2/-) together with that of the canal UsurErimzezeGIna and the basin (k u n - z i - d a ) of the Asuhur canal; both canals recall the names of gardens (see § 2.2.4 and § 2.3.1). As suggested in § 2.2.4, it seems possible that these gardens were situated in the north of the district towards the border with Umma. 510 See ASJ 18, 147 41 (n.d.). In this text the village of Mani (homonymous garden § 2.2.19) is also mentioned. 511 See the considerations reported in § 2.2.19 and § 2.2.24. Indeed, it cannot be excluded that the garden administrator Ka took over part of the gardens managed by Abbaĝu after his disappearance. In this case, the specification of the title for this gardener could be explained by the fact that the section where he occurs seems to pertain to Gamu. Despite several missing parts, indeed, the text seems to be subdivided in two main sections, each of them pertaining to a garden administrator, Gamu first, then Ka (see § 1.8.7.6). 512 See Pettinato 1967 (UNL/II), 3-6.

145

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

d

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Lu2- Nin-ĝir2-su (0.1.0), Lugal⌈u2-šim-e⌉ [dumu-ni?] (0.0.4)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana 0.1.4 še

HLC 1, 100 (Š 48/iii)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su (0.1.0), Lugalu2-šim-e dumu-[ni] (0.0.4)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana 0.1.4 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.3.2 še

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana 0.3.2 še

um-mi-a: Lugal-u2-šim-e nuĝeš kiri6 dIg-alim (ki ~ -ta)

ugula: Ga-mu, Ka5a

Attestations external to the group Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.)

wool and garment allotment (tug2-ba siki-ba) for workers employed in gardens

2.2.15. The garden of Irisaĝ ( ĝ e š k iri 6 Iri-s a ĝ < k i > ) This garden is attested only in three texts of the group pertaining to the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48, which place it in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu. In HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i), the payments addressed to the arborists of a family group, of which only one name is preserved, are not detailed. Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) attributes to this garden 190 liters of barley for an unspecified number of arborists for two months, while HLC 3, 267 (l.d.) attributes 95 liters to it. The garden name likely refers to its location; Irisaĝ (Iri-s a ĝ k i ) is present among the toponyms recorded by the Sargonic text AfO 28, 141 (r. 4'), which probably describes the borders of the province at the time of the draft.513 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

[...] Ur-dIg-alim dumu-ni-me

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu

še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.3.1 še

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.3.1 še

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists [a-bala du3-a-ku5]

n workers for 0.1.3 5 sila3

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.1.3 5 sila3 še

2.2.16. The garden of Lu-duga ( ĝ e š k iri 6 L u 2 -d u 1 0 -g a ) This garden is attested only in four texts of the group pertaining to the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48, which place it in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu, and in MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), the text recording an inspection of gardeners and the allotment of wool and garments. HSS 7, 4 (Š 48/ii) attributes to the garden only an arborist, Ur-gigir, with a bimonthly payment of 60 liters of barley. HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi) records for it 90 liters of barley allotted to an unspecified number of workers and HLC 3, 267 (l.d.) attributes to it the same amount as the bimonthly payments. Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix), bimonthly as well, assigns to the garden 180 liters of barley. As suggested by its occurrence in HLC 1, 102, this garden was situated in an area of the Kisura territory. ––––––––––––––––– See Foster 1991/92, 141. The text reports: r. 3'-4': A - p i 4 - s a l 4 k i / I r i - s a ĝ k i . According to the hypothesis advanced by the author, the description would start from south (Gu’aba), proceeding towards the eastern border and ending at the western one. According to this hypothesis, therefore, this center should be located along the northern border, west of Apisal, which in Neo-Sumerian times fell into the province of Umma. For the proposal of identification of Apisal with the site of Muhalliqiya, about 30 km northeast from Umma, toward the Ĝirsu border, see Steinkeller 2001, 54-55. Furthermore, it should be taken into account that the garden associated with this center is not included among the gardens pertaining to the area of the Kisura territory in HLC 1, 102.

513

146

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-) ascribes to the garden a group of seven workers under the supervision of the garden expert E-hili. The first two workers are indicated as being the sons of E-hili and the space for the record of their payment is left empty; the names of one water drawer and his son follow, then the names of unrelated workers, among them one Amorite (m a r-tu ) water drawer, and one arborist pertaining to the previous workforce (lib ir); finally a last worker recruited among the ‘waifs’ (n i 2 -e ta k a 4 -ta ). The name of the garden refers to a personal name (although it is unclear who was intended), after which neither villages, structures nor fields seem to be attested. Text

Type

Responsible official

Payments

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) Ur-ĝešgigir (0.1.0) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Workers

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

0.1.0 še

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

0.1.3 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) n workers for 0.3.0 še for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.3.0 še

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) n workers for 0.1.3 še for water drawers and arborists [a-bala du3-a-ku5]

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

n workers for 0.1.3 še

0.1.3 še

Attestations external to the group

MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-)

gardener inspection (gurum2 aka nu-kiri6-ke4-ne)

Aga3-an-ne2-zu, Da-da (dumu E2-hi-li), SIG7-a Lu2-dNinĝir2-su (1), Ur-dNun-gal dumu-ni ugula: E2-he2-ĝal2 dumu Gu2(1 ½), SIG7-a E-lu-gi-ru mar-tu 1 ½ ma-na siki u -mu (1), Lu2-du10-ga dumu Lugal-me- 3 4 tug2 NU-banda3: Urdu2-ĝu10 lam3 (1), libir-am3, Lu2-Hu-ruki ma ni2-e taka4-a-ta (1) um-mi-a: (AŠ) E2-hi-li (ugula)

2.2.17. The garden of Lugal-igi ( ĝ e š k iri 6 L u g a l-ig i) This garden is attested only in STA 19, which records the barley payments of the arborists for the first month of Š 48 under the supervision of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. Neither workers nor barley amounts are recorded for this garden. The name of the garden seems to recall a personal name, such as Lugal-igihuš or Lugal-igisa, in its abbreviated form. It is notable in this regard that the field mentioned in MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-), in which the inspection concerning the gardeners ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ is recorded (see § 1.4.2), is indicated as ‘field of Lugaligi’ (a ša 5 L u g a l-ig i).514 2.2.18. The garden of Lu-Ninĝirsu the archivist ( ĝ e š k iri 6 L u 2 - d N in -ĝ ir 2 -su ša 1 3 -d u b -b a ) This garden is mentioned by three texts of the group pertaining to the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48 and by CUSAS 16, 74, dating to the following year. Both texts locate the garden in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu. HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii) attributes to the garden 60 liters of barley as bimonthly payment for only one water drawer, Ur-Bilgames, while MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) 30 liters as monthly payment for the same worker. HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi) assigns 60 liters of barley as monthly payments for an unspecified number of workers and ascribes the garden to an area of the Kisura territory. ––––––––––––––––– 514 For this field, see Pettinato 1967 (UNL/I), 260. Nisaba 10, 32 (AS 1/x) attests to the household of Lugal-igi (r. 3: e 2 L u g a l - i g i ) . It is unclear which official bearing such name may be meant.

147

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

CUSAS 16, 74 records for this garden 60 liters of dates of good quality and 1,560 liters of ordinary dates in the name of the garden expert Bagara-ziĝu, whose activity in the area of the garden administrator Gu’umu is attested in other texts as well.515 As seen in § 1.8.6, it cannot be excluded that the wasted garden mentioned in MVN 15, 181 (l.d.), in connection with the garden expert Bagara-ziĝu,516 should be identified with this garden. The garden name, Lu-Ninĝirsu, could refer to an ‘archivist’ (ša 1 3 -d u b -b a ) who occurs in the documentation of the province from Š 34 to Š 46,517 thus no longer in service at the time of the draft of the documents which attest to the garden bearing his name.518 Text

Type

Responsible official

Payments

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) d SIG7-a Ur- Bil4-gafor water drawers (a-bala) mes (0.1.0) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Workers

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

0.1.0 še

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.1.0 še

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

0.1.0 še

MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala)

SIG7-a

Ur-dBil4-games (0.0.3)

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.0.3 še

um-mi-a: Ba-gara2zi-ĝu10

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu

Products

Attestations external to the group CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4)

record of date production

0.1.0 zu2-lum saga10; 5.1.0 zu2-lum gur

2.2.19. The garden of Mani ( ĝ e š k iri 6 M a -n i) This garden is attested in seven texts, six of them dating to Šulgi 48 and one, MVN 17, 55, dating to five years later. The garden fell within the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. STA 19 (Š 48/i) lists three workers without indication of the pertinent payments, information which, however, can be found in the bimonthly account detailed in HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii). This text assigns to the garden 430 liters of barley, subdivided for at least eight workers, among them the arborists quoted in STA 19 (Ur-Šulpa’e and Šabanasig, sons of the water drawer Lugalsaga, and Utu-bara), for which the detail of the payments of both months (i-ii) are given. Another three workers (among them also the water drawer Lugal-saga) are indicated as pertaining to the previous workforce (lib ir), and still one water drawer and one arborist are indicated as d a h lib ir, ‘(workers) in addition to the previous ones’. Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) attributes to the garden 260 liters of barley as bimonthly payments for an unspecified number of arborists. MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) records then the payments of 30 liters for the water drawer Lugal-saga and another two water drawers. Finally, CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.) ascribes to the garden two water drawers, for a total of 120 liters of barley. In MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), it seems impossible to ascertain how many names concerning this garden are lost in a break in the tablet. Nevertheless, a certain water drawer named Lugal-saga ––––––––––––––––– In MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-) Bagara-ziĝu occurs (o. ii, 5) as recruiter of one worker, Eluti son of Diĝira of the ‘garden of Tira’aš’ (see § 1.6.2). In TUT 143 (l.d.), he occurs (o, i, 16) as supervisor of a worker (see § 9.1.2). 516 Due to the condition of the text, only part of the products (90 kg of midribs) expended by Bagara-ziĝu as payment for the wasted garden can be read; however, the ‘difference’ recorded in the name of Bagara-ziĝu probably in connection with this garden is still legible and concerns: 10 liters of dates of good quality, 298 liters of ordinary dates and 12,060 kg of brooms (o. ii, 1'-9': 3 < g u 2 > z e 2 - n a / m u ĝ e š k i r i 6 - b i b a - h u l - a - š e 3 / z i - g a / l a 2 - N I 0.1.0 z u 2 - l u m s a g a 1 0 / 0.4.5 8 s i l a 3 z u 2 - l u m / 402 n i ĝ 2 - k i - l u h / l a 2 - N I - a m 3 / B a - g a r a 2 - z i - ĝ u 1 0 ). For the interpretation of z e 2 - n a as midribs (without leaves) of palm fronds, see Landsberger 1967, 22-30; Volk 2003/05, 286; Streck 2004, 266-267. 517 See e.g. SNAT 260 (Š 34/vi), STA 7 (Š 46/-). The mention of a Lu-Ninĝirsu archivist in ITT 2, 3538 (ŠS 6/-), after 17 years of absence from the sources, can suggest a homonymy case or a situation similar to that of Allaĝu (see § 2.2.1). For this text, see Neumann 2004, 15. 518 For a discussion concerning garden plots bearing personal names, see the introduction (6. Documentation). 515

148

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

occurs, likely the same worker attested in the same garden five years before, together with six workers under the supervision of Ga’agamu, while at least three other garden experts recruit/provide the workers (ki ~ -ta). Further, at least two workers are indicated as recruited among the workers ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ (BUR2-ta ). In this text the garden is specified as lying in Ĝirsu (r. iii, 16'-17': ĝ e š k iri 6 M a -n i ša 3 Ĝ ir 2 -s u k i ). A further attestation is represented by SNAT 57 (Š 48/iv/7), which records the delivery of 480 pines (for) boards ( ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 ĝ e š m i-ri 2 -z a ) for the construction of boats of different capacities. The timber, indeed, comes from this garden and is allocated to the shipyard pertaining to a mill. None of the officials mentioned belong to the administrative sphere of gardens, but likely to that of the recipient structures (see § 5.1). The garden refers to a personal name, after which a field (a -ša 3 ) and a village (e 2 -d u ru 5 ) were also named.519 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

Products

d

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Ur- Šul-[pa-e3], Ša3-ba-naugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 [sig] dumu Lugal-[sa6-ga-me], santana d Utu-bar-ra

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

[…] dUtu-bar-ra, (0.0.1 5 sila3 × 2) bimonthly payments Ur-dŠul-pa-e3, (0.0.1 × 2), Ša3-ba-na(še-ba) for water sig dumu Lugal-sa6-ga SIG7-a-me drawers (a-bala) and ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 (0.0.1 × 2), SIG7-a Lugal-sa6-ga arborists (du3-a-ku5)

(0.1.0) Lugal-ur2-ra-ni, (0.1.0) Urdu2dam, libir-am3, (0.1.0) SIG7-a Lugali3-sa6, (0.1.0) Ur2-niĝ2-du10 dah libir

1.2.1 gur še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists n workers for 0.4.2 še (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.4.2 še

MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.1.3 še

CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.)

plan of payments for 2 SIG7-a with 0.1.0 še each water drawers

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10

0.2.0 še

SIG7-a Lugal-sa6-ga (0.0.3), SIG7-a d AN-a2-dah (0.0.3), SIG7-a Ku3- Nanše

(0.0.3)

še

Attestations external to the group

SNAT 57 (Š 48/iv/7)

MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-) ĝeš kiri6 Ma-ni ša3 Ĝir2-suki

delivery of pine boards (ĝe šu3-suh5 ĝeš mi-ri2-za) to the shipyard of the mill (mar-sa e2-kikken2)

/

šu ba-ti: Ad-da-ĝu10 ĝiri3: Inim-dBa-U2

gardener inspection (gurum2 aka nu kiri6-ke4-ne)

[...], (4) Lugal-sa6-ga SIG7-a, [...], (4) E2-lu2-ti, (4) Lugal-u2-šim, [...] Ur-dBa-U2 dumu Ur-dUtu BUR2-ta, (4) Lu2-dBa-U2 (erasure: ⌈4⌉ [...] Utu?-ra bala/BUR2?-ta?)520 um-mi-a: Ur-dEn-ki, En-in-na-kal, [...] (ki ~ -ta); Ga-a-ga-mu (ugula)521

ugula: E2-he2-ĝal2, dumu Gu2-u3-mu NU-banda3: Urduĝu10

300 ĝešu3-suh5 ĝeš mi-ri2-za ma2 60 gur; 180 ĝeš u3-suh5 ĝešmiri2-za ma2 30 gur

16 ma-na siki, 1 tug2 +

––––––––––––––––– 519 Pettinato 1967 (UNL/II), 80-81. However, it is unclear whether the specification occurring in MVN 17, 55 (‘the garden of Mani at Ĝirsu’) could have aimed at the distinction of two homonymous gardens, one situated in Ĝirsu and the other one in proximity of the homonymous village. 520 See note 498 in § 2.2.6. 521 Ga’agamu recalls the name of one of the garden experts who in MVN 6, 317 (end AS-ŠS) supervise the workers (r. iii, 9') taken charge of by the garden administrator Ka. It cannot be excluded that after the disappearance of Abbaĝu the management of this garden went to Ka; see also the considerations concerning the ‘garden of Igalim’ in § 2.2.14 and the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ in § 2.2.24. However, Abbaĝu was still active at the time when MVN 17, 55 was drafted (AS 4). With regard to the other two garden experts mentioned, Ur-Enki and Eninakal, see Table 4 in § 1.6.2 and Table 6 in § 1.8.1; homonymous gardeners are attested in the areas of the garden administrators Ka (Ur-Enki), Gamu (Eninakal) and

149

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

2.2.20. The garden of Meluhha of NinMAR.KI ( ĝ e š k iri 6 M e l-lu h -h a d N in -MAR.KI) This garden occurs only in STA 19, where neither barley amounts nor workers pertaining to it are recorded. The specification Meluhha could refer to the provenience of the palms which were planted in the garden,522 by way of comparison with the pattern ĝe š k iri 6 -tree(type) shown, for example, by the ‘pine garden before Enki’ ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š u 3 -su h 5 g a b a -ri d E n -k i). It could also refer to the settlement e 2 -d u ru 5 M e -lu h -h a , a colony founded by merchants which eventually integrated with the native population;523 this is probably also the case with the ‘garden of Gaeš’ and the homonymous village (see § 2.2.5). The latter interpretation seems more plausible, considering that in HLC 3, 368 a homonymous grain store is quoted (r. i, 6') as the provenience of the barley amount allocated for the payments of the arborists, for which Amherst 54 provides the detail of the allotment (see § 2.2). 2.2.21. The garden of Nanše of Simurrum ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d N a n še S i-m u -u r 4 -u m k i ) This garden occurs only in STA 19, where neither barley amounts nor workers pertaining to it are recorded. The toponym, which this garden dedicated to the goddess Nanše refers to, likely indicates a rural settlement where prisoners of war have been settled.524 In any case, the exact location of the garden seems unclear; however, Carroué suggested it was situated in the Niĝin area.525 2.2.22. The garden of Ninĝirsu-adah-Šulgira ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d N in -ĝ ir 2 -su -a 2 -d a h - d Š u l-g i-ra ) This garden is quoted in five texts, three pertaining to the group of texts recording payments of Š 48, MVN 17, 55, the text recording a gardener inspection and MNV 17, 18, which records the yield of some gardens (see § 1.6.4). Chronologically, the first attestation is given by HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i), which records the payment for two arborists for a total of 70 liters of barley. HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi) assigns to this garden 70 liters of barley for an unspecified number of workers. Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) attributes to the garden 140 liters of barley as bimonthly payments for an unspecified number of arborists. Because there were two gardens named after Ninĝirsu in the area of the garden administrator Gu’umu, it remains unclear which the entry recording 240 liters of barley in CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.) refers to; in this text, indeed, this amount is allotted to four water drawers of the ‘garden of Ninĝirsu’.526 MVN 17, 55 indicates the presence of a family group composed of two workers, Urdu-BaU and Ur-BaU, for which no payments are recorded, and one garden expert, Ur-kigula, indicated as their father. The last attestation of this garden is provided by MVN 17, 18 (n.d.), which records 420 liters of ordinary dates and 940 liters of fresh dates (u 3 h u -in )527 in the name of Daga mother of E-hili, under the supervision of the garden administrator Gu’umu. It is not clear if E-hili was the garden expert of this garden at the time of the draft, the occurrence of a woman in this role is however peculiar.

––––––––––––––––– Gu’umu (Ur-Enki and Eninakal) in different periods. A garden expert named Ur-Enki is attested also in MVN 12, 182 (Š 47/-; see § 2.1), but it should be recognized that this name was quite widespread within the province. 522 Parpola, Parpola and Brunswig 1977, 147. 523 Parpola, Parpola and Brunswig, 1977, 145-147 and 150-152. 524 See Steinkeller 2013, 357. With regard to Šulgi’s military campaigns against Simurrum, in the north of the region, see Sallaberger, 2012, 273-274. 525 Carroué 1986, 40. 526 As seen in § 2.2.10, the text presents some contextual abbreviations in reference to some garden names. It seems thus possible that the abbreviation referred to one of the gardens that was named after the city god occurring in this group of texts. On the other hand, for the ‘garden of Ninĝirsu’ which provides timber for the shipyard (see § 5.3), there is no evidence suggesting a possible connection with the gardens of the group. 527 It would mean unripe, fresh dates (see Volk 2003/05, 286).

150

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

It seems that the garden name, ‘Ninĝirsu is the support of Šulgi’, was dedicated to the ruler and the city god without clear references to homonymous structures, canals or fields, about which there is no evidence.528 As suggested by its presence in HLC 1, 102, this garden was situated in an area of the territory of Kisura. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Šeš-kal-la (0.1.0), Lu2d Ig-alim dumu-ni (0.0.1)

ugula: Gu2-u3-0.1.1 še mu

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.1.1 še

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

0.1.1 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) n workers for 0.2.2 še for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.2.2 še

CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.)

plan of payments for water drawers (a-bala)

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.4.0 še

4 SIG7-a with 0.1.0 še each

Payments

Products

Attestations external to the group

MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-)

gardener inspection (gurum2 aka nu-kiri6ke4-ne)

Urdu2-dBa-U2, Urd Ba-U2 (dumu Ur-ki-guugula: E2-he2-ĝal2 dumu la) Gu2-u3-mu um-mi-a: (AŠ) Ur-ki-gu-la NU-banda3: Urdu2-ĝu10 (ugula)

MVN 17, 18 (n.d.)

record of date production

um-mi-a: Da-ga ama E2hi-li

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu

1.2.0 gur zu2-lum; 3.0.4 gur u3-hu-in

2.2.23. The garden of Ninĝirsu-namerim ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d N in -ĝ ir 2 -su -n a m -e rim 2 ) This garden is only mentioned by five texts pertaining to the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48, which place it in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu. Its presence in HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i) can be inferred from the list of at least 14 names for a total of 540 liters of barley that precedes the break in the lower edge of the tablet, whereas the following column begins with four names for a total of 220 liters of barley pertaining to the ‘garden (vineyard) of Garšum’ (§ 3.2). Many workers of the group are quoted with the patronymic, whereas the actual recorded family groups consist of a father and his son and a couple of brothers. HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii) records for the ‘garden Ninĝirsu-namerim’ five workers, three water drawers and two arborists, each of them earning 60 liters of barley as bimonthly payment. In HLC 1, 100 (Š 48/iii), the sign following the mention of the garden ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d N in ĝ ir 2 -su ) is not completely clear, however it is probably n a m , hence referencing the garden in question. In any case, the text attributes to this garden five arborists for a total of 200 liters of barley. HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi) records for this garden 1,345 liters of barley for an unspecified number of workers, while Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) only 270 liters as bimonthly payments of the arborists. Finally, MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) attributes to the garden in question five water drawers earning 30 liters, for a total of 150 liters of barley. As seen in the previous section, there are two gardens named after Ninĝirsu in the area of the garden administrator Gu’umu, and it is unclear which of these two is referred to in the entry recording 240 liters of barley in CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.). Further, it seems possible that the attestation of this garden in HLC 3, 267 is lost in the missing upper part of the tablet, since the barley amounts assigned to this garden are among the first ones to be recorded within this group ––––––––––––––––– 528 The apparent absence of homonymous fields or canals, as well as the garden name itself, makes one wonder whether this garden may have been a new plantation commissioned by Šulgi. This may also have been the case of the ‘garden of Šulgi-a-kalama’ (§ 2.2.26) in the same territory of Kisura. In addition, a similar case may be represented by the ‘garden Ĝatumdu-nin-Gudea’, a garden of the Lagaš area, which may have been a new plantation commemorating this ruler of the past (§ 4.3.2).

151

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

of text. The number of workers recorded for this garden ranges from four to fourteen individuals and the barley quantities allotted to it are among the most substantial ones. As its presence in HLC 1, 102 suggests, this garden was also situated in an area of the Kisura territory. The garden name, ‘Ninĝirsu (is the god of) the oath’, recalls the name of a garden dedicated to BaU, the divine consort of Ninĝirsu (see § 2.3.4). Neither structures, fields nor canals are however attested with this name.529 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

d

HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (šeba) arborists (du3-a-ku5)

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

HLC 1, 100 (Š 48/iii)

Ur- Ba-U2 dumu Lu2-niĝir (0.0.3), Lugal-u2šim-e (0.0.4), zi Urdu2-TUR.DUB, Ur-dBa-U2 dumu Gu-za-na (0.1.0), Ur3-re-ba-du7 (0.1.0), Ur-dNisaba dumu-ni (0.0.2), En-u2 ugula: Gu2-u3-(0.1.0), Niĝ2-dBa-U2 [...] , Ur-sukkal (0.0.2), mu santana d Igi-an-na-ke4-zu šeš-a-ni (0.1.0), Lu2- Nind ĝir2-su dumu Ku3-[...] (0.1.0), Ur- Ba-U2 dumu [...] (0.1.0), Ur-dBa-U2 [..] (0.1.0), Lugal-ur-[...] (0.1.0)

+1.4.0 še

Il-ib-ri (0.1.0), SIG7-a Diĝir-ra (0.1.0), SIG7-a Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su (0.1.0), Urd Utu dumu Nin-dar-gur8-re (0.1.0), Niĝ2d Ba-U2 (0.1.0)

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

1.0.0 gur še

monthly payments (šeba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Da-gu (0.1.0), Ur-dBa-U2 dumu-[..] (0.0.5), Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su (0.0.3), Lugal-LUH-bi (0.0.4), Ma-an-šum2 dumu-[..] (0.0.2)

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

0.3.2 še

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

monthly payments (šeba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 4.2.2 5 sila3 še

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

4.2.2 5 sila3 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.4.3 še

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.4.3 še

Il-ib-ri (0.0.3), SIG7-a Lu2-niĝir (0.0.3), SIG7-a Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su (0.0.3), d SIG7-a Lu2-ur2-zu (0.0.3), SIG7-a Ur- Ša-u18ša (0.0.3)

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.2.3 še

4 SIG7-a with 0.1.0 še each

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.4.0 še

monthly payments (šeMVN 12, 297 ba) for water drawers (Š 48/x) (a-bala) CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.)

plan of payments for water drawers

SIG7-a

SIG7-a

2.2.24. The garden of NinMAR.KI ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d N in -MAR.KI) A garden named after the goddess NinMAR.KI is mentioned in eleven texts, six pertaining to the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48 and five of various nature. It cannot be excluded that at least two different homonymous gardens dedicated to this local deity are attested for the Ĝirsu district. From the texts of the group of payments of Š 48, it can be deduced that the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ was in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. In STA 19, neither number of workers nor barley amounts are recorded for it, while HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii) reports two water drawers, Kuda and Lu-niĝir, for a total of 120 liters of barley as bimonthly payments. In HLC 1, 100 (Š 48/iii), only one arborist occurs, NinMAR.KIka son of Kuda, the water drawer attested in the same garden in the previous two months. MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) records two water drawers, Kuda and Ur-Igalim, for 60 liters of barley. CT 10, 46 BM 21381 attributes to the garden two water drawers for a total of 120 liters of barley, while HLC 3, 267 attributes to it 150 liters of ––––––––––––––––– One must not exclude that in this case as well the garden was a new plantation (see above § 2.2.22).

529

152

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

barley. In this text the garden name is followed by the expression ĜIR3.SIG.IL2(?).LA, whose meaning seems unclear, but which could recall the name of another garden of the province that is attested (together with the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’) in CT 10, 24 BM 14313 (Š 48/x). Outside the group of payments of Š 48, other texts mention a ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’, in different contexts and outside the responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. CT 10, 24 BM 14313 (Š 48/x), contemporary to MVN 12, 297, records the transfer of prisoners (g e m e 2 ĝ u ru š ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a ) to be employed as workers at the mill, among them, some gardeners assigned to the large mill due to a date shortfall. Two gardeners, UrNinĝešzida and his wife Ninkala,530 are indicated as ‘gardeners of NinMAR.KI’ (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 d N in -MAR.KI), while the other gardeners pertain to the ‘new garden of ĜIR3.SIG.LA’, a garden likely belonging to an extended complex (§ 3.1.6), and the ‘garden of BaU-igasu’, a garden not attested elsewhere (§ 2.3.2). Therefore, from two contemporary texts there is both evidence of a ‘garden of NinMAR.KI of ĜIR3.SIG.IL2(?).LA’ as a single garden and of a ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ and a ‘new garden of ĜIR3.SIG.LA’ as different gardens. In CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4), a text recording the produce of some gardens, the occurrence of the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ follows a break in the tablet, which however still attests the name of the ‘garden of Nanše’ (§ 2.4.3). No quantity of dates is recorded for the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’, although the indication following the garden name, g u 2 a d iri, 531 could have substituted this information. The operation is supervised by Ur-BaU, rather than by the garden administrator Abbaĝu, who instead occurs in the text as supervisor of the date quantities pertaining to the ‘large garden in the city’ (§ 2.2.11). Since it seems typical in the documentation that the gardens fell under the responsibility of only one garden administrator during their period of activity, the existence of a homonymous garden in the same district can be inferred. The official responsible for the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ in the text, Ur-BaU, could be identified either with the homonymous garden administrator (§ 9.1.7) or with the scribe son of Lugal-imrua, who is attested on different occasions in connection with the garden management (§ 1.11.4). It is not to be excluded that Ur-BaU son of Lugal-imrua may have substituted for some unknown reason for another garden administrator, Agu, under whose responsibility a ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ fell in MVN 22, 31 (n.d.), or it is possible that Agu simply succeeded him later. The undated text MVN 22, 31 describes, in connection with restoration works (see § 1.5), the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ as consisting of 7,920 m2 of cultivated land and 720 m2 of irrigated land, while the interpretation of 20 palms is uncertain. In this text, the garden plot is under the responsibility of the garden expert Ur-Ninĝešzida, but it remains unclear whether he could be identified with the gardener occurring in CT 10, 24 BM 14313. Ultimately, it seems plausible that the documentation refers to two different gardens, one attested in the group of texts of payments of Š 48 in the area of the garden administrator Abbaĝu, and the other attested in other texts in the area managed by the garden administrator Agu and, for a period of time, by the scribe Ur-BaU. The ambiguity may be indeed due to the fact that there was no need for the redactional context to specify which garden named after the goddess was intended. Conversely, the indication following the name of the garden in HLC 3, 267 may have aimed at the solving of such ambiguity, through the indication ĜIR3.SIG.IL2(?).LA. Summing up, the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI of ĜIR3.SIG.IL2(?).LA’, ‘the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’, and the ‘new garden of ĜIR3.SIG.LA’ were three different gardens attested in the same period in the district. A further mention of a garden named after this goddess could be found in Iraq 62, 41 21, the undated text recording the allotment of wool and garments to some gardeners of the area of the ––––––––––––––––– 530 The name of Ninkala is preceded by the sign n u ; thus, she is likely to be intended as one of the female workers who in the total section is indicated as ‘not transferred’ (g e m e 2 n u - d i b - b a ). 531 To the best of my knowledge, this expression is not attested elsewhere in the administrative documentation. It is not clear if it could somehow refer to a situation of overflooding or overflowed embankments, a sort of temporary environmental setback, which would suggestibly explain the absence of production in the text.

153

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

garden administrators Ka and Gamu (see § 1.8.7.6). In the section recording the workers pertaining to Ka, there is mention of a ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ (r. iv', 20), followed by an unclear sign. Ascribable to this garden are: at least one garden expert acting as foreman (u g u la ), UrNanše, at least six workers defined as pertaining to the previous workforce (lib ir), three of them labeled as deceased (u š 2 ), among them one Amorite, and further six workers, three of them consisting of a family group and two water drawers (SIG7-a ), provided by two different garden experts. Though it can be considered a garden of the same district, there is no clear evidence suggesting that this garden is to be identified with those under responsibility of Abbaĝu or Agu in a different period.532 ITT 5, 6911 (-/viii) mentions only indirectly a ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ and, indeed, it refers to the depot of the garden (ĝ a 2 -n u n ĝ e š k iri 6 d N in -MAR.KI) as provenience of 2,100 kg of bundles of tree branches (g u -k ilib p a-k u 5 ).533 The destination seems to have concerned boats for the transport of animals (m a 2 lu lim u d u -u 2 ŠE3.NE) and there is no apparent mention of workers or officials pertaining to the garden sphere. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official Payments

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (šeba) for arborists (du3-aku5)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

še

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10

0.2.0 še

HLC 1, 100 (Š 48/iii)

monthly payments (šeba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.0.3 še

MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x)

monthly payments (šeba) water drawers (abala)

Ku5-da ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 (0.0.3.0), SIG7-a Ursantana d Ig-alim (0.0.3)

0.1.0 še

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water n workers for 0.2.3 drawers and arborists [a- še bala du3-a-ku5]

ugula: [Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana]

0.2.3 še;

CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.)

plan of payments for water drawers

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10

0.2.0 še

SIG7-a

Ku5-da (0.1.0), SIG7-a Lu2niĝir (0.1.0)

Additional information

d

Nin-MAR.KI-ka dumu Ku5-da (0.0.3) SIG7-a

2 SIG7-a with 0.1.0 še each

ĜIR3.SIG.IL2(?).LA

Attestations external to the group

CT 10, 24 BM 14313 (Š 48/x)

transfer (mu-kux) of prisoners (geme2 ĝuruš ĝeš tukul-e dab5-ba) to the mill (e2-kikken2)

CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4)

record of date production

i3-dab5: ša13-dub-ba ĝiri3: Ka-tar-dBa-U2, Ur-dNin-ĝeš-zi-da, Lugal-igi-huš Nin9-kal-la (nu-dibresponsible for the ba): nu-ĝeškiri6 dNinwhole transfer: MAR.KI (ĝiri)3: Ur-dNun-gal, Lugal-lu2-sa6-sa6 ugula: Ur-dBa-U2 (dumu Lugal-im-rua?)

nu-ĝeškiri6-me mu zu2-lum la2NI-še3 ša3 e2-kikken2 gu-la-še3

gu2 a diri

––––––––––––––––– It should be recognized that, in large part, the activity of Abbaĝu preceded both that of Ka (§ 9.1.6), as well as that of Agu (§ 9.1.8), and thus it is quite feasible that the garden formerly managed by Abbaĝu was subsequently included in the area of another garden administrator. However, as already seen in § 2.2.14 and § 2.2.19, it seems plausible that Ka took over some of the gardens previously managed by Abbaĝu, so that it can be inferred that there were only two homonymous gardens in the district. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the fruit offerings allocated to this goddess (r. iii, 24) in MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-) are managed neither by Ka nor by Agu, rather by the garden administrator Gu’umu and by the alleged garden administrators Inana and Ur-Inanna (see § 2.2). 533 The term p a - k u 5 refers to the trimmed fronds or branches of different types of trees (see CAD P, s.v. pakuttu). 532

154

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

Text MVN 22, 31 (n.d.)

Type

Workers

Responsible official Payments

Additional information

A-gu santana

220 sar and 20 sar de2 20 date palms?

d

garden description for work plan

um-mi-a: Ur- Ninĝeš-zi-da

Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.)

wool and garment allotment (tug2-ba sikiba) for workers employed in gardens

[…]-na-ka-ni, [...] [dumu]-ni, dEn-[...] dumu-ni, SIG7-a uš2 Lu2-i3-de2, SIG7-a uš2 Lu2-[…]-ga, SIG7-a uš2 I3-bi2-lum mar-tu, libir am3, (4) Na-[…]-de2-ga, uš2 Ša3-[…]-ma, uš2 Ka5a santana Ur-dIg-alim dumuni-me, SIG7-a (1) [...], SIG7-a (1) [...]u2-la, SIG7-a (?) Lu2lagar-e um-mi-a: (ugula) Ur-dNanše, (ki ~ ta) Da-in?, Ur-e-[...]

ITT 5, 6911 (-/viii)

delivery of bundles of tree branches (gu-kilib pa-ku5)

2+ tug2 4 ma-na siki

šu ba-ti: dUtukalam-e ĝiri3: Al-la, [...]d Nin-ĝir-su

70 gu2 gu-kilib pa-ku5 ĝa2-nun ĝeškiri6 dNin- MAR.KI ma2 lulim udu-u2 ŠE3.NE

2.2.25. The garden of Ninšubur ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d N in -šu b u r ) This garden is mentioned only in five texts pertaining to the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48, which place it in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. In STA 19 (Š 48/i) there is no information about the quantity of barley or the number of workers pertaining to this garden, while HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii) records 60 liters of barley as bimonthly payment of a single water drawer. MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) attributes to the garden 30 liters of barley for another water drawer. HLC 3, 267 (l.d.) assigns 60 liters to this garden for an unspecified number of workers, but likely one, and CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.) 60 liters for one water drawer. A homonymous field is also attested in the province.534 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

še

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Ur-dIg-alim (0.1.0)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 0.1.0 še

MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala)

SIG7-a

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.0.3 še

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists [a-bala du3-a-ku5]

n workers for 0.1.0 še

ugula: [Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana]

0.1.0 še

CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.)

plan of payments for water drawers

1 SIG7-a for 0.1.0 še

ugula: A-ba-ĝu10

0.1.0 še

SIG7-a

E2-hi-li (0.0.3)

2.2.26. The garden of Šulgi-a-kalama ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d Š u l-g i-a 2 -k a la m -m a ) This garden of the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu is mentioned by five texts of the group of payments of Š 48 and by two texts dating to the Amar-Suena’s reign, HLC 2, 25 and MVN 17, 55. With regard to this garden, HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i) records the payments of 29 arborists for the first month, for a total of 700 liters of barley. Some of the workers belong to ––––––––––––––––– 534 See Pettinato 1967 (UNL/II), 135.

155

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

family groups, and one arborist, Kilula, is indicated as son of the water drawer Lu-girizal, whose payment is recorded in HSS 4, 7 (see § 1.2.3). Then, HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i) records the payments for the first and second months addressed to 24 workers, water drawers and arborists, for a total of 1,470 liters of barley. Part of the workers are indicated as being of the previous workforce (lib ir), while another part as ‘(workers) in addition to the previous ones’ (d a h lib ir). In HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi), 2,610 liters are allotted to this garden for an unspecified number of workers, while in Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix), 2,090 liters of barley are allotted to it for an unspecified number of arborists. CT 10, 46 BM 21381 ascribes to the garden 20 water drawers, each of them earning 30 liters, for a total of 600 liters of barley. As the quantities of barley allotted to this garden are among the first ones to be recorded within the texts of the group, it is possible that its mention in HLC 3, 267 is lost in the missing upper part of the tablet. Its occurrence in HLC 1, 102, then, suggests that the garden was situated in an area of the territory of Kisura. The list of inspected workers pertaining to the ‘garden of Šulgi-a-kalama’ in MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-) covers almost four columns of the obverse; here, some of the workers attested in the texts of Š 48 can be recognized, among them, the arborist Kilula and his father Lu-girizal the water drawer. The table below reports the names of the garden experts and the names of only some of the workers in their groups, in particular, of those pertaining to family groups. HLC 2, 25, which records additional information to a worker inspection (see § 2.2), attributes only one deceased worker for this garden, Ur-esaĝa, under the supervision of Gu’umu and of the captain Lu-BaU. The name of the garden, referring to the divinized king, ‘Šulgi is the strength of the land’, had no apparent counterparts in the field, canal or structure names of the province.535 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

d

HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Utu-kalam-e (0.0.5), Du-du (0.1.0), Lu2-ga (0.0.5), Lu2-Urubki dumu Ur-mes, Nam-iri-na (0.1.0), Lugal-dur2-du10, Lugal-he2-ĝal2, Lu2-dNa-ru2-a (0.0.5), Lu2-dBa-U2, Lu2d Nin-ĝir2-su, Ur-dIg-alim, Ur-dInanna-ka, A-tu (0.0.4), Ur-ab-ba (0.0.3.0), Ur -dBa-U2 (0.0.2), Lugal-he2-ĝal2 dumu A-tu-me (0.0.2), Lugalugula: Gu2-u3usur4, Nam-ha-ni, Lu2-dNin-šubur (0.0.5), Ur- -mu d Lamma (0.0.4), Lu2-dBa-U2 dumu Lugal-iri-da-me (0.0.3), zi Ur-dŠul-pa-e3, Ur-eš3-ku3-ga (0.0.3), [...], Ki-lul-la dumu Lu2-giri17-zal SIG7-a (0.0.2), Urd Šul-pa-e3 dumu Lu2-dUtu (0.1.0), Ur -dBa-U2 dumu Lu2-giri17-zal (0.1.0), Ur-eš3-ku3-ga, Lu2d Nin-ĝir2-su, Lu2-Gu3-de2-a dumu Ur-eš3-ku3ga-me

2.1.4 gur še

SIG7-a

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Da-da (0.1.0), SIG7-a Du11-ge (0.1.0), SIG7-a Ur-ki-gu-la (0.1.0), SIG7-a Bur-ma-am3 (0.1.0), d SIG7-a Lugal-u2-šim (0.1.0), SIG7-a Ur - Ba-U2 (0.1.0), SIG7-a Lu2-giri17-zal (0.1.0), SIG7-a Imma-ši-a (0.1.0), SIG7-a Lu2-giri17-zal min (0.1.0), d d SIG7-a Utu-ĝu10 (0.1.0), [...], SIG7-a Ur- Nanše (0.1.0), SIG7-a Lugal-IG.DUL3 (0.1.0), libir-am3, d SIG7-a Ur-sa6-ga (0.1.0), Ur- Lamma (0.1.0), SIG7-a Ur-dNin-sun2 (0.1.0), SIG7-a E2-saĝ-ĝa2-la (0.0.3) dah libir

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 8.3.3 še gur

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

8.3.3 gur še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 6.4.5 še gur

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

6.4.5 gur še

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

4.4.3 gur še

––––––––––––––––– As suggested in § 2.2.22, this garden may have been a new plantation commissioned by Šulgi.

535

156

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.)

plan of payments for water drawers

20 SIG7-a with 0.0.3 še each

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu

2.0.0 gur še

um-mi-a: (AŠ) Urdu2 for 7 PN libir-am3 (among them: [...]-sa6-ga dumu-ni, SIG7-a Du11-ge) um-mi-a: (DIŠ) Ur-Ba-gara2 (ugula, ki ~ ta) for 13 PN (of which 10 libir-am3, among them Ĝeš-a-ni, Nam-ib2-gul, Lugal-dur24-ur3-re dumu-ni-me, Lu2d Na-ru2-a, SIG7-a Bur-ma-am3, SIG7-a Im-ma-šia; Lu2-Urubki dumu Ur-mes, Lu2-ga; 3 dah-hu-ta) and Urdu2, Puzur4-dNin-ĝir2-su (ki ~ -ta); um-mi-a: (AŠ) Lugal-ezem for 6 PN (of which 5 libir-am3, among them dNin-MAR.KI-ka dumu-ni) um-mi-a: (AŠ) Ur-dNin-MAR.KI (ugula) for 15+ PN (of which 9 PN libir-am3, among them Inimd Inanna, A2-sa6-ga dumu-ni-me) um-mi-a: Ur-NIĜ2 dumu Da-ri-še3 (ugula) for 8 PN+ (among them SIG7-a Lu2-giri17-zal, Ki-lulla, SIG7-a Lu2-giri17-zal , Ur-dBa-U2) and Urd Ba-U2 (ki ~ -ta) um-mi-a: (AŠ) Ur-da-gid2-da (ugula) for 8+ PN (among them Ur-Saĝ-ub3ki dumu-ni, 2+ libir-am3, 1 PN BUR2-ta) um-mi-a: [...] Ur-dBa-U2 (ugula, ki ~ -ta) for 2 PN

ugula: E2-he2-gal2 dumu Gu2-u3-mu NU-banda3: Urdu2ĝu10

33+ tug2 29½ ma-na siki

Attestations external to the group

MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-)

gardener inspection (gurum2 aka nu kiri6-ke4-ne)

HLC 2, 25 (l.d.)

additional information to gardener inspection (gurum2 aka dib-ba nu-ĝeškiri6-ke4-ne)

1 uš2 Ur-e-saĝ-ĝa2 dumu Lu2-d[..],

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu

d NU-banda3: Lu2- Ba-

/

U2

2.2.27. The garden of Šulpa’e ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d Š u l-p a -e 3 ) This garden is mentioned only by five texts pertaining to the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48, in which it is attested in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu. HSS 4, 10 records for the first month the presence of at least536 three arborists without indication of the relevant payments. It is not to be excluded that the payments for these workers were recorded in HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii), as they are for the ‘garden of Mani’, but in a section corresponding to the missing part of the tablet. HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi) attributes to the garden 280 liters of barley for an unspecified number of workers, while Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) indicates 240 liters of barley as bimonthly payments for an unspecified number of arborists. MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) records 30 liters of barley for one water drawer, the same amount and number of workers attributed to it in CT 10, 24 BM 21381 (n.d.). As shown by HLC 1, 102, this garden is also indicated as lying in an area of the Kisura territory. In addition, a field537 and a canal538 of the province were also named after this god. The name of this garden recalls that of an area which, however, contained more gardens (see § 3.1). Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Lugal-he2-ĝal2, Lu2- ugula: Gu2-u3--mu Urubxki, Ur-dBa-U2, [...]

Payments še

––––––––––––––––– 536 The break occurring between the listed names and the garden may obscure the name of an additional worker. The occurrence of four gardeners could also be inferred for the amount assigned to the garden for the viii and ix months (Amherst 54), that is 240 liters, corresponding to payments of 30 liters for four workers in two months. 537 See Pettinato 1967 (UNL/II), 190. 538 See Edzard and Farber 1974, 291.

157

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.4.4 še

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

0.4.4 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.4.0 še

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.4.0 še

MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala)

1 SIG7-a Ur-še-il2-la (0.0.3)

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.0.3 še

CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.)

plan of payments for water drawers

1 SIG7-a for 0.0.3 še

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu

0.0.3 še

2.2.28. The garden of Tira’aš ( ĝ e š k iri 6 T i-r a -a š 2 ) This garden is attested eight times over a period of 19 years, from Š 48 to IS 2. It occurs in four texts of the group pertaining to the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48, where it fall under the responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu. HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i) records for the garden the presence of one arborist, E-luti son of the garden expert Diĝira,539 earning 30 liters of barley. In HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi), an empty space is left in correspondence to the mention of the garden.540 Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) assigns to the ‘garden of Tira’aš’ 80 liters of barley as bimonthly payments of an unspecified number of workers, which however, should not have exceeded two individuals. Finally, in HLC 3, 267 (l.d.), 40 liters of barley are recorded for the ‘garden of Tira’aš’. This garden also occurs in MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), the text recording the inspection of gardeners and the allotment of wool and barley, where only the presence of the garden expert Diĝira acting as supervisor (u g u la ) is recorded, without mention of the relevant payments or inspected personnel. The ‘garden of Tira’aš’ is attested, further, in texts concerning the yield: MVN 17, 18 (n.d.) attributes to the garden 1,440 liters of dates in the name of the garden expert Diĝira under the supervision of the garden administrator Gu’umu (see § 1.6.4). MVN 7, 299 (IS 2/-) records the yield inspection (k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a ) of the ‘garden of Tira’aš’ under the supervision of Gu’umu. In this text, the quantities of dates are recorded in the name of three garden experts, for a total of 1,380 liters.541 Indeed, 1,080 liters are recorded in the name of Diĝira, 180 liters in the name of Lu-gugal, and 120 liters in the name of Ur-Igalim. It can be tentatively suggested that Diĝira, expert of the garden for almost twenty years, had delegated (or had to delegate) at the end of his career portions of garden to the responsibility of other experts (see § 1.6.7). ITT 5, 6994 (ŠS 1/iv) records the delivery of 50 pines (for) boards ( ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 ĝ e š m i-ri 2 z a ) for the construction of boats of 18,000 liter capacity. The timber comes from the shipyard (m a r-sa ) and it is allocated to some unclear activity or structure of the ‘garden of Tira’aš’. The timber is consigned by Nammah, scribe of the shipyard, to Niĝ-BaU, scribe son of Bazi.542 The whole transaction appears to have been atypical; as shown in chapter 5, indeed, similar ––––––––––––––––– See § 1.6.2. 540 It is unclear if the absence of an amount for the garden in this context could suggest that such a garden, though lying in the northern area of the district towards the border with Umma, was situated outside the Kisura territory, according to the same dynamics involving some gardens outside the district in STA 19. 541 In the case of this garden there is little difference between the amount estimated in the yield inspection and that recorded in another type of document, although it should be taken into account the span of time of about 15 years which separate the draft of the two documents. With regard to the gardens of the province, another case in which this kind of comparison is possible is that of the ‘garden of the Inanna village’, where a difference of 1,760 liters can be noted between the amount recorded in the yield inspection (TUT 268; AS 4) and that recorded in MVN 17, 18, which could aproximately date to the same period (see § 2.5.1). 542 The seal indicates Niĝ-BaU as the son of Bazi, though other attestations qualify him as the son of Lu-Ninĝirsu (son of Bazi); see TCTI 2, 3900 (ŠS 1/xi). Unlike the scribe Ur-abba son of Bazi (§ 9.7.2.1), Niĝ-BaU was not particularly involved in the circulation of garden products. 539

158

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

transactions follow the opposite direction: the timber coming from the garden, where it was produced, was delivered into the shipyard in order to be processed. As already seen in § 1.6.2, Tira’aš refers to a shrine dedicated to Ninĝirsu and to the settlement close to it,543 in the area of which the garden was likely situated; in addition, as seen above, it is interesting to note that in MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-), the fruit offerings addressed to Tira’aš (r. vi, 29) consist of fruit quantities provided by the garden experts Diĝira and Ur-Igalim544 under the supervision of Gu’umu. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for E2-lu2-ti (0.0.3) arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu 0.0.3 še

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and

arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.1.2 še

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.1.2 še

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists [a-bala du3-a-ku5]

n workers for 0.0.4

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.0.4 še

Products

Attestations external to the group MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-)

gardener inspection (gurum2 aka nu-kiri6-ke4-ne)

ugula: E2-he2-ĝal2 dumu um-mi-a: DiĝirGu2-u3-mu ra (ugula) NU-banda3: Urdu2-ĝu10

ki ~ -ta: Nam-mah kišib: Niĝ2-dBa-U2 dumu Bazi

50 ĝešu3-suh5 ĝeš mi-ri2-za; [...] ĝeškiri6 Tira-aš2- še3

ITT 5, 6994 (ŠS 1/iv)

delivery of pines (for) boards (ĝe šu3-suh5 ĝešmi-ri2-za)

MVN 7, 299 (IS 2/-)

garden yield inspection (ĝe škiri6 kab2 du11-ga)

um-mi-a: Diĝir-ra, Ur-dIg-alim, Lugalgu2-gal

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu

4.3.0 zu2-lum

MVN 17, 18 (n.d.)

record of date production

um-mi-a: Diĝir-ra

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu

4.4.0 zu2-lum

A further text could refer to the garden in question, MVN 6, 139 (n.d.), which records the measurements of a garden along with a partially illegible name, ĝ e š k iri 6 T i-[ra -a š 2 ]. The plot was subdivided into seven parcels, likely in view of works to be done there. There is no mention of persons or trees, and the indication regarding the planned works is no longer legible. The text was studied by Civil,545 who analyzed the measurements according to the following indications: ‘length’ (g id 2 ), ‘width’ (d a ĝ a l), ‘height/depth’ (b u r 3 ) and ‘volume/work’ (a -ša 3 ). This scholar noted that in six out of seven entries the height exceed the width, with a ratio (w:h) ranging between 0.52:1 and 0.75:1, and the average cross section is 1.67 m2. A further eighth measurement provides just the indication of the volume, 1½ sar 6 [g iĝ 4 ]. As seen in § 1.5, the ––––––––––––––––– 543 See Falkenstein 1966, 37 and 169. According this author, Tira’aš was close to Antasura, which was a shrine of Ninĝirsu and a settlement as well. Both settlements were situated in the northern area of Ĝirsu, towards the border with Umma (Edzard and Farber 1974, 198; Selz 1995, 294). The presence of a basin (k u n - z i - d a ) in the area of Tira’aš is reported by ITT 2, 766 (ŠS 2/-) and ITT 2, 851 (-/i/15), but there is no evidence for the location of the garden. 544 Even considering that it is a very common name, it can be suggested that Ur-Igalim is to be identified with the garden expert attested in MVN 7, 299 (IS 2/-), thus four years later. 545 See Civil 1994, 116-121. The author analyzed texts recording measurements of plots in view of works on the construction and the maintenance of infrastructures pertaining to the canal system, although the exact kind of work to be performed is not always explicit in the texts. He deduced that the Neo-Sumerian administration used two basic formulations for the dimensions of the excavations and embankments: by giving the cross section specifying width and height, or by giving volume per unit of length.

159

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

planning of works inherent to the gardens was not the responsibility of the garden administrators, and this text does not even mention workers or responsible officials. Sections

Length

Height/Depth

Volume/work

1) o. 1-2

15 ½ nindan 2 kuš3 (94 m) 2 ½ kuš3 (1.5 m)

Width

3 ⅓ kuš3 (ca. 1.70 m)

10 5/6 sar (195 m3) 2 ⅔ giĝ4 (0. 8 m3) 20?

2) o. 3-4

5 nindan (30 m)

2 kuš3 (1 m)

3 5/6 kuš3 (ca. 1.90 m)

3 sar (54 m3) 3 ⅓ giĝ4 (1 m3)

3) o. 5-6

18 nindan (108 m)

2 kuš3 (1 m)

3 kuš3 (1.50 m)

10 la2 1 sar (162 m3)

4) o. 7-8

4 ½ nindan (27 m)

2 kuš3 (1 m)

3 kuš3 (1.50 m)

2 sar (36 m3) 15 giĝ4 (4.5 m3)

5) o. 9-10

4 nindan (24 m)

2 kuš3 (1 m)

3 ½ kuš3 (1.75 m)

2 ⅓ sar (84 m3)

6) o. 11-12

31 nindan (186 m)

1 ½ kuš3 (0.75 m)

2 ½ kuš3 (1.25 m)

5

7) r. 1-2

8 ½ nindan (51 m)

2 kuš3 (1 m)

1 ⅔ kuš3 (ca 1.80 m)

2 ⅓ sar (42 m3) [...]

/6 sar (15 m3) 6 giĝ4 (1.8 m3) igi-1-[ĝal2]

1 ½ sar (27 m3) 6 [giĝ4] (1.8 m3)

8) r. 3

2.2.29. The garden of U’udua ( ĝ e š k iri 6 U 8 -u d u -a k i ) This garden is documented in two texts: STA 19 (Š 48/i) belonging to the group of payments of Š 48, ascribes to it neither barley quantity nor number of workers; and MVN 7, 135 (Š 40/-), a text concerning the fruit production of two gardens. The fruit is labeled as ‘difference’ (la2-NI); it is unclear if it may refer to a calculation based on the projections of a yield inspection, and hence to be understood as a deficit or a surplus; or to an account concerning the allocation of the production of this garden in the name of the relevant garden expert, so likely to be intended as a remainder, a surplus (see § 1.8.6). In any case, with regard to this garden 36⅔ liters of dried ĝiparfruit are recorded in the name of the garden expert AllaDImu. As alredy noted (§ 2.2), there is no evidence suggesting that this garden was situated in the district, since its occurrence in STA 19 could be due to the fact that it fell in the area of the scribe supplying the barley amount, rather than that of the garden administrator Abbaĝu, who occurs as supervisor of the allotment of barley. The garden name refers to a center of the province,546 after which a canal547 and a field548 were also named. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments Products

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5 )

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

še

Attestations external to the group MVN 7, 135 (Š 40/-)

record of fruit production

um-mi-a: Al-la-DI-mu

0.0.3 6 ⅔ sila3 ĝeš ĝiparx had2 (KISAL) la2-NI-am3

2.2.30. The garden of Ur-dam ( ĝ e š k iri 6 U r-d a m ) This garden is mentioned only in four texts of the group pertaining to the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48, which locate it in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu. Although it is not present in STA 19 (Š 48/i), which concerns the payments for the arborists, the garden is mentioned in HSS 4, 7 in connection with the bimonthly payments of four water drawers, for a total of 240 liters of barley. MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) attributes 60 liters of barley to it for two water drawers, whose names do not correspond to those recorded in HSS 4, ––––––––––––––––– Falkenstein 1966, 39. The occurrence of this garden in MVN 7, 135 together with the ‘garden of Urub’ (§ 2.2.33) of the area of Lagaš would suggest that it was situated in the Gu-Iniĝinšedu district. 547 See Edzard and Farber 1974, 232. 548 See Pettinato 1967 (UNL/II), 237. 546

160

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

7 for the first months of the year. CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.) reports the presence of two water drawers (but not their payments), and finally HLC 3, 267 records 120 liters of barley, without indication of type or number of implied workers. The absence of arborists for this garden emphasizes the limited perspective of these texts which focus on specific barley transactions. The name of the garden refers to a quite common personal name, after which neither structures nor fields seem to be attested. Text

Type

Workers

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

SIG7-a

MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala)

SIG7-a

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists n workers for 0.2.0 še [a-bala du3-a-ku5]

CT 10, 46 BM plan of payments for water 21381 (n.d.) drawers

Responsible official

Payments

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10

0.4.0 še

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.1.0 še

ugula: [Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana]

0.2.0 še

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu

še

d

Ur- Utu (0.1.0), SIG7-a Maš-tur (0.1.0), SIG7-a E2-hi-li (0.1.0), SIG7-a Urd Ša-u18-ša (0.1.0) Lugal-ki-aĝ2 (0.0.3), SIG7-a Diĝir-ra (0.0.3)

2 SIG7-a

2.2.31. The garden of Ur-mama ( ĝ e š k iri 6 U r-m a -m a ) This garden occurs only in the group of texts pertaining to the barley payments for water drawers and arborists in Š 48. This is the garden under the responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu for which a higher number of workers is recorded. STA 19 (Š 48/i) records the presence of eight arborists, earning different amounts of barley, for a total of 290 liters. In HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii), then, 960 liters are recorded as bimonthly payments for at least eight water drawers and one arborist. On the basis of the total amount recorded for the garden, the number of names lost in the missing lower edge of the tablet could amount to nine. Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) assigns 600 liters of barley to the garden as bimonthly payments for an unspecified number of arborists. MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) attributes twelve water drawers to the garden each earning 30 liters, for a total of 420 liters of barley. Finally, CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.) attributes to the garden twelve water drawers earning (60 liters) of barley and two earning 30 liters, while HLC 3, 267 assigns 1,020 liters of barley for an unspecified number of workers. With regard to this garden, the employment of small family groups consisting of both water drawers and arborists can be noted. The garden name could refer to one governor of the Second Dynasty of Lagaš549 and contemporary of Ur-Namma, predecessor of Namhani,550 after whom a field was also named.551 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (šeba) for arborists (du3-aku5)

Lu2-dBa-U2 (0.1.0), Ku-u2-u2 (0.0.5), Ab-ba-kal-la dumu Ku3-dNanše [0.0.3], Ur-dNin-ĝir2-su (0.0.4), Lugal-amar-ku3 (0.0.3), Ur-dBa-U2 (0.0.4), Lu2-dNinšubur šeš Kal-la (0.0.2), Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su (0.0.4)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.4.5 še

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

SIG7-a SIG7-a

Ur-sa6-ga (0.1.0), Lu2-igi-ur-dim2-ma (0.1.0), A-zi-ĝu10 (0.1.0), SIG7-a Ur-mes (0.1.0.0), SIG7ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 a Pad3-da (0.1.0), SIG7-a Ku3-dNanše (0.1.0), SIG7-a

Kal-la (0.1.0), SIG7-a Ur-[...] (0.1.0), SIG7-a Ba-zi (0.1.0), [...]

3.1.0 še gur

––––––––––––––––– 549 This is also the case of the ‘garden of Ur-Ninĝirsu I’ (see § 2.2.32) and probably the ‘garden of Gudea’ (see § 5.5). 550 See Sallaberger 2005b, 33; Michalowski 2013, 178-180. Since the cult of this governor is attested in Ur III times (see Michalowski ibid. 189), it may be inferred that the lines recording the fruit offerings addressed to him in MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-) are lost in a break in the tablet. 551 See Pettinato 1967 (UNL/II), 220.

161

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 2.0.0 še gur

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

2.0.0 še gur

Ur-ĝeš (0.0.3), SIG7-a Ur-im-nun (0.0.3), SIG7-a Ur-sa6-ga (0.0.3), SIG7-a Ur-mes (0.0.3), SIG7-a Ĝiri3ni (0.0.3), SIG7-a A-zi-ĝu10 (0.0.3), SIG7-a Ku3-dNanše ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 (0.0.3), SIG7-a Niĝir-išib-mah (0.0.3), SIG7-a Pad3-da santana (0.0.3), SIG7-a An-dul3 (0.0.3), SIG7-a An-sa6-ga (0.0.3), SIG7-a Da-ga (0.0.3), SIG7-a Ba-zi (0.0.3)

1.2.0 še gur

SIG7-a

monthly payments (šeMVN 12, 297 ba) for water drawers (Š 48/x) (a-bala)

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists [a-bala du3-a-ku5]

n workers for 3.2.0 še gur

ugula: [Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana]

3.2.0 še gur

CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.)

plan of payments for water drawers

12 SIG7-a with 0.1.0 še, 2 SIG7-a with 0.0.3 še each

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10

2.3.0 še gur

2.2.32. The garden of Ur-Ninĝirsu I ( ĝ e š k iri 6 U r - d N in -ĝ ir 2 -s u g u -la ) This garden is only attested in three texts of the group of payments of Š 48 and in CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4), which place the garden in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu. HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i) records the payments of three arborists, one of them Lu-Ninšubur, indicated as the son of Urdudani, the garden expert who is attested instead in CUSAS 16, 74, drafted the following year. HLC 1, 100 (Š 48/iii) records the payments allotted to Niĝir-abbana, who also occurred among the arborists recorded in HSS 4, 10. Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) attributes to the garden 220 liters of barley as bimonthly payments of an unspecified number of arborists. The same amount is assigned by HLC 3, 267 to the garden ĝ e š k iri 6 U r-[...] in the section concerning the gardens of the area of the garden administrator Gu’umu, hence it cannot be excluded that the garden in question was implied. The absence of water drawers for this garden, as that of arborists in the ‘garden of Ur-dam’ (§ 2.2.30), betrays the limited perspective of these texts. Finally, CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4) attributes to this garden 30 liters of ‘dates of the mill’ (z u 2 -lu m HAR.), 180 liters of dates of good quality (s a g a 1 0 ) and 2,820 liters of ordinary dates in the name of the garden expert Urdudani, under the supervision of the garden administrator Gu’umu. As seen in § 1.8.6, it seems possible that this garden had required restoration works, for which the garden expert Urdudani was charged in MVN 15, 181 (l.d.).552 The garden name refers to one of the governors of the Second Dynasty of Lagaš.553 The fruit offerings allocated to the cult of this governor (r. viii, 27) recorded in MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-) are provided by the garden expert Urduĝu under the supervision of the alleged garden administrator Ur-Inanna.554 Text HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i)

Type monthly payments (šeba) for arborists (du3-aku5)

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

Products

d

Lu2- Nin-šubur dumu Urdu2ugula: Gu2-u3-mu da-ni (0.0.4), Niĝir-ab-ba-na

d (0.1.0), Lu2- Utu (0.1.0)

0.2.4 še

––––––––––––––––– This text could represent an account of garden administrators concerning the production of some gardens, among them restored gardens ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 n a m - z i - < m e - e š2 > ) . The section in the name of Urdudani is interrupted by a break in the tablet. What is still legible amounts to 10 liters of ‘dates of the mill’, 180 liters of dates of good quality, and 2,280 liters of ordinary dates o. ii, 10'-12'-o. iii, 1': 0.0.1 z u 2 - l u m k i k k e n 2 (HAR.HAR) / 0.3.0 z u 2 - l u m s a g a 1 0 / 7.3.0 z u 2 l u m g u r / [ ...] / U r d u 2 - d a - [ n i ] ). 553 See Sallaberger 2005b, 33; Michalowski 2013, 178-180. For the cult of this governor in Ur III times, see Michalowski ibid. 189. 554 See the discussion regarding the correspondences between cult destinations and homonymous gardens in § 2.2. 552

162

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

monthly payments (šeba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Niĝir-ab-ba-na (0.1.0)

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

0.1.0 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 0.3.2 še

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

0.3.2 še

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists [a-bala du3-a-ku5]

n workers for 0.2.4 še (ĝeškiri6 ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu Ur-[dNin-ĝir2-su gu-la]) santana]

HLC 1, 100 (Š 48/iii)

Products

0.2.4 še

Attestations external to the group CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4)

record of dates production

0.0.3 zu2-lum HAR; 0.3.0 zu2-lum saga10; 9.2.0 zu2-lum gur

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu

um-mi-a: Urdu2-da-ni

2.2.33. The garden of Urub ( ĝ e š k iri 6 U r u b x k i , URU×KAR2) This garden is documented by two texts: STA 19 (Š 48/i) of the group of payments of Š 48, which ascribes to it neither barley quantities nor number of workers, and MVN 7, 135 (Š 40/-), the text concerning the production of two gardens. As seen in § 2.2.29, the fruit is defined as ‘difference’ (la2-NI) and could refer both to a shortfall or to a surplus. With regard to this garden, 60 liters of dried ĝipar-fruit are recorded in the name of the garden expert Lugal-zagesi. As noted in § 2.2, it seems improbable that such garden, named for a toponym of the Lagaš area,555 was situated in the Ĝirsu district; its occurrence in STA 19 might be due to the fact that it fell in the area of authority of the scribe who supplied the barley amount. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana še

Products

Attestations external to the group MVN 7, 135 (Š 40/-)

record of fruit production

0.1.0 ĝešĝiparx had2 (KISAL) la2-NI-am3

um-mi-a: Lugalza3-ge-si

2.2.34. The pine garden before Enki ( ĝ e š k iri 6

ĝeš

u 3 -su h 5 g a b a -r i d E n -k i-k a )

This garden is attested in four texts of the group of payments of Š 48 in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu, in HLC 2, 25 (l.d.), and in a further text, Princeton 2, 292 (-/i).556 STA 19 (Š 48/i) records for the garden the payments for two arborists for a total of 120 liters, while a third name occurs without mention of payment. HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi) assigns to the garden 60 liters of barley for an unspecified number of workers. Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) records 100 liters of barley as bimonthly payments for an indefinite number of arborists. Finally, HLC 3, 267 (l.d.) attributes to the garden 50 liters of barley. As suggested by its occurrence in HLC 1, 102, this garden was located in an area of the Kisura territory. The absence of direct attestations of water drawers for the ‘pine garden before Enki’ in this group of texts is compensated by the information offered by Princeton 2, 292 (-/i). Indeed, this text records the expenditure (z i-g a ) of 1 liter of oil and 1 liter of ‘sesame and bran’ (d u h ĝ e š––––––––––––––––– 555 According to Sollberger, this toponym designated both a residential quarter and a cultic complex of Lagaš (Sollberger 1952, 18-19). 556 It cannot be excluded that this garden is quoted also in Princeton 2, 266 (Š 45/-) as place of provenience of a quantity of palm by-products provided by the garden administrator Abbaĝu (see § 9.1.1).

163

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

i 3 ), indicated as: (o. 3-r. 1) n iĝ 2 u 4 tu š -a g a n -d a b 5 / u 3 a -b a la / ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 [g a b a ]-ri- d E n -k i-k a / g u b -b a , ‘goods (for) the daily employed unskilled workers and the water drawers stationed in the pine garden before Enki’. It seems that in this case not only the employment of the unskilled workers, but also that of the water drawers was also calculated in work-days.557 The profession of the conveyor, Ur-Lamma son of Abbaĝu, is not known. A last attestation of the garden is given by HLC 2, 25 (l.d.), the text recording additional information to an already completed inspection of gardeners (see § 2.2). As already seen, the inspected workers pertaining to this garden are Lu-duga, a ‘waif’ whose presence at the inspection was guaranteed by the word of the garden administrator Abbaĝu, Ur-niĝar, a deceased unskilled worker, and Lu-Ninĝirsu, under the supervision of two different untitled individuals. A reduced labor service capacity of a 2 ½ is attributed to Lu-duga and Lu-Ninĝirsu. It seems plausible that the name of the garden was based on its main crop, ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 , a variety of pine (though the documentation does not provide evidence on the types of trees planted here), and on its location, namely before a shrine of the god Enki lying in the district.558 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

STA 19 (Š 48/i)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Ur-Ba-gara2, Lu2-Nanše (0.1.0), Lu2-ĝešgigir dumu Urd Lamma (0.1.0)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.2.0 še

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-aku5)

n workers for 0.1.0 še

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.1.0 še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists n workers for 0.1.4 še (du3-a-ku5)

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana

0.1.4 še

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists [a-bala du3-a-ku5]

ugula: [Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana]

0.0.5 še

n workers for 0.0.5 še

Attestations external to the group HLC 2, 25 (l.d.)

(½) Lu2-du10-ga dumu Nin-u3-ma additional information to geme2-kar-ke3ke4 ni2-e taka4, (uš2) gardener inspection (gurum2 aka Ur-ni9-ĝar gan-dab5-ta, (½) Lu2ĝeš dib-ba nu- kiri6-ke4-ne) d Nin-ĝir2-su dumu Ur-dBa-U2 šu-ku6

ugula: Ur-Šul(pa’e), Ur-temen-na; inim Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana-ta

Princeton 2, 292 (-/i)

expenditure (zi-ga) of goods for workers: unskilled workers, water drawers

ĝiri3: Ur-dLamma dumu Ab-ba-ĝu10

n gan-dab5, a-bala u4 tuš - a (š u ba-ab-ti)

niĝ2 u4 tuš-a gandab5 u3 a-bala: 1 sila3 i3-ĝeš, 1 sila3 duh ĝeš-i3

2.3. Co-attested gardens This section concerns those gardens which, although not considered in the texts of the group of payments of Š 48, are attested in undated or contemporary documents together with one of the gardens pertaining to the group. A first text, CT 10, 24 BM 14313, contemporary with the texts of the group, records the transfer of some gardeners (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) who had to work as prisoners at ––––––––––––––––– Considering that the group of texts of Š 48 records the barley payments for the arborists of this garden, but not for the water drawers, there is apparently no evidence for water drawers regularly employed in this garden. Nevertheless, it should be taken into account that, on the one hand, the information of the texts of the group is not exhaustive, and on the other hand, the allotment could refer to external workers occasionally employed in the garden. In addition, it is interesting to note that the workers directly ‘took’ their payment (š u b a - a b - t i ) , as is the case of the gardeners pertaining to extended economic complexes or particular households (see § 1.2.1). However in this case, this feature could relate to the condition of employment of the workers rather than to the administrative context of the garden in question. 558 In one inscription on a clay nail, Gudea claims to have built a temple for the god Enki on the banks of the Tigris (see Edzard 1997, 114, Gudea E3/1.1.7.9, IM 92969: d E n - k i / l u g a l a b [ z u ] / l u g a l d a - ⌈ r i 2 ⌉ g i 1 6 - [ s a ] / l u g a l - a [ n i ] / G u 3 - d e 2 - [ a ] / e n s [ i 2 ] / L a g a š k i - k e 4 / e 2 g u 2 i 7 I d i [ g n a ] - k a - n i / m u - n a - d u 3 : “For Enki, lord of the Abzu, the everlasting lord, Gudea, ensi Lagaš, built his house ‘Bank of the Tigris’”). However, there is no evidence suggesting that the garden referred to this temple. 557

164

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

the large mill because of a date shortfall, as seen in § 1.3.6. The listed gardeners pertain to three gardens: the ‘garden of BaU-igasu’, the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ (§ 2.2.24) and the ‘new garden of Ĝ IR3.SIG.LA’ (§ 3.1.6). A further text, WMAH 285 (l.d.), very fragmentary, records the allotment of wool and garments (see § 1.8.7.6) for workers employed in at least 10 gardens, the names of which are mostly lost, while others can be connected to the gardens of the group of payments. One of the gardens of WMAH 285, indeed, the ‘garden of Amanu’ (see § 2.2.2), is attested both in the group of payments of Š 48 (in the Kisura territory of responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu), and in MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-); hence, it can be assumed that WMAH 285 concerns gardens of the Ĝirsu district. Further information about the possible occurrence of garden administrators and other officials as being responsible for the wool and garment allotment is lost together with the colophon. Finally, there is the ‘garden of BaU of Bad’, quoted together with the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ (§ 2.2.24) in Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.), the text recording the allotment of wool and garments to workers (see § 1.8.7.6) under the supervision of the garden administrators Ka and Gamu. 2.3.1. The garden of Asuhur ( ĝ e š k iri 6 A -s u h u r < k i > ) This garden is attested only in WMAH 285 (l.d.). The names of the workers are lost in a break in the text, and only the name of one garden expert, Lugal-urani, can be recognized. The garden name may refer to the homonymous settlement,559 field560 or canal561 of the province. Text

Type

Workers

WMAH 285 (l.d.)

[...] gardener inspection [gurum2 aka nuum-mi-a: Lugal-ur2-ra-ni ĝeš kiri6-ke4-ne] (ugula)

Responsible official

Payments

[...]

[...]

2.3.2. The garden of BaU of Bad ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d B a - U2 B a d 3 ki) This garden is mentioned only by one text, Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.), which records the allotment of wool and garments to regular and occasional workers in the area of the garden administrator Gamu (§ 9.1.5) and Ka (§ 9.1.6). It seems plausible that the garden is to be ascribed to the responsibility of Ka, since the last section of the tablet (where the garden is mentioned) likely refers to the area of this garden administrator.562 To this garden the presence of one garden expert and six workers can be attributed, three of them water drawers (SIG7-a ), among them one Amorite, and two indicated as sons of another worker whose name is lost. The relevant payment amounts are indicated only for the water drawers. The name of the garden expert (Ur-Ninĝešzida) recalls that of a garden expert who was active in the area of the garden administrator Ka,563 although a case of homonymy cannot be excluded. The name of the garden refers to the goddess BaU paired with a toponym,564 as is the case of the ‘garden of Nanše of Simurrum’ (§ 2.2.21). ––––––––––––––––– 559 Falkenstein 1966, 23. 560 Edzard and Farber 1974, 256. The basin (k u n - z i - d a ) of the Asuhur canal is quoted in DAS 20 together with the canals Usur-ErimzezeGIna (homonymous garden in § 2.2.4) and HIgal (homonymous garden in § 2.2.13). As suggested in § 2.2.4, it seems possible that these gardens were situated in the north of the district towards the border with Umma. 561 See Pettinato 1967 (UNL/I), 111; Edzard and Farber 1974, 16. 562 See the considerations discussed in § 1.8.6 and § 2.2.14. 563 See Table 6 in § 1.8.1 and § 9.1.6. He occurs (r. ii, 6') indeed in MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-) as recruiter of one worker under the supervision of Ka. 564 Several place names are composed with the element b a d 3, ‘fortification, walls’, and the garden name may refer to some of them. For the toponyms constructed with b a d 3, fortification, see Edzard and Farber 1974, 20-30.

165

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.)

wool and garment allotment (tug2-ba siki-ba) for workers employed in gardens

[…] Lu2- dNin-ĝir2-su, Lu2Gu3-de2-a dumu-ni-me, (1) SIG7-a A-ri-ni, (1) SIG7-a Am3-[…]-mu mar-tu, (1) SIG7-a Ur-saĝ-[…] um-mi-a: Ur-dNin-ĝeš-zi-da (ugula)

Ka5a santana

+3 tug2

2.3.3. The garden of BaU-igasu ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d B a - U2 -ig -g a -su 3 ) This garden is attested only in CT 10, 24 BM 14313 (Š 48/x) as garden of provenience of four gardeners565 who were assigned to work as prisoners at the large mill. The name of one of the gardeners, Ur-Ninmug, recalls the name of a garden expert active in the area of the garden administrator of Ĝirsu, Gamu,566 although the connection can only be suggested tentatively. The garden name probably refers to a personal name, after which a field567 of the province is also named. Text

CT 10, 24 BM 14313 (Š 48/x)

Type

Gardeners

Responsible officials

transfer (mu-kux) of prisoners Ur-dNin-mug, A-gu-a dam-ni, (geme2 ĝuruš ĝeštukul-e dab5-ba) Ur-dBa-U2, Sa6-sa6-ga dam-ni: to the mill (e2-kikken2) nu-ĝeškiri6 dBa-U2-ig-ga-su3

i3-dab5: ša13-dub-ba ĝiri3: Ka-tar-dBa-U2, Lugal-igi-huš responsible for the whole transfer (ĝiri3): Ur-dNun-gal, Lugallu2-sa6-sa6

Indications nu-ĝeškiri6-me mu zu2lum la2-NI-še3 ša3 e2-kikken2 gu-la-še3

2.3.4. The garden of BaU-namerimku ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d B a - U2 -n a m -e rim 2 -k u 5 ) This garden is mentioned only by WMAH 285 (l.d.) which attributes to it only one worker, Ludiĝira, without indication of the payment and under the supervision of the garden expert UrLamma. The name of the garden, ‘BaU (is the goddess who) takes the oath’, recalls that of a garden dedicated to the god Ninĝirsu in the area of the garden administrator Gu’umu (see § 2.2.23), as well as that of a garden named after Amar-Suena (see § 8.1). Neither structures, fields nor canals are however attested with this name.568 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

WMAH 285 (l.d.)

gardener inspection [gurum2 aka nu-ĝeškiri6-ke4-ne]

Lu2-diĝir-ra um-mi-a: (DIL) Ur-dLamma (ugula)

[...]

2.3.5. The garden of BaU next to Ninĝešzida ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d B a -U2 u s 2 -s a d N in -ĝ e š-zi-d a) In WMAH 285 (l.d.), the mention of a ĝ e š k iri 6 d B a -U2569 is followed by the expression: u s 2 -sa d N in -ĝ e š-z i-d a, likely an indication which (in accordance with the redactional context) specifies that the garden dedicated to BaU lay next to some structure or place dedicated to the god Ninĝešzida. What kind of structure or place the indication implied is unclear; a ‘garden of ––––––––––––––––– Since the names of the wives of the gardeners of this garden are not preceded by the indication nu, they are likely to be identified as the women (m u n u s ), rather than the female workers indicated in the total section as ‘not transferred’ (g e m e 2 n u - d i b - b a ). 566 See Table 8 in § 1.8.1. 567 See, e.g. Zinbun 21, 1 37 (AS 3/-). 568 As already inferred for the garden of Ninĝirsu (§ 2.2.23), one must not exclude that the garden was a new plantation. 569 A ‘garden of BaU’ ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d B a -U2) occurs together with a ‘garden of Ninĝirsu’ ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 d N i n - ĝ i r 2 - s u ) in DAS 265 (n.d.), texts recording the presence of uncharacterized workers in both gardens. 565

166

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

Ninĝešzida’ is attested in STA 20, probably as part of an extended complex (see § 3.1.9). Given the fragmentary condition of WMAH 285, the information concerning the garden is limited to the presence of one garden expert, Basaga, and the amount of five garments allotted to the workers under his supervision. Text

Type

Workers

WMAH 285 (l.d.)

gardener inspection [gurum2 aka [...] nu-ĝeškiri6-ke4-ne] um-mi-a: Ba-sa6-ga (ugula)

2.3.6. The ĝi’eden garden of Nanše ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ i 6 -e d e n

Responsible official

Payments

[...]

5 tug2

N a n še )

The name of this garden, attested only in WMAH 285 (l.d.), recalls those of four other gardens of the province of Ĝirsu.570 The workers attributed to this garden are the garden expert Lu-pada and his son (the only one for whom a payment is indicated), and two other garden experts, Šeškala and Lu-Ninĝirsu, the first one indicated as recruiter of Lu-pada, the second one as recruiter of his son. Text WMAH 285 (l.d.)

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

gardener inspection [gurum2 aka nu-ĝeškiri6-ke4-ne]

Lugal-ku3-zu dumu Lu2-pad3-da um-mi-a: (DIL) Lu2-pad3-da (ugula), (3) Šeš-kal-la, Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su (ki ~ -ta)

[...]

3 ma-na siki

2.4. Gardens attested from the 1st year of Amar-Suena This section concerns those gardens which, though not considered in the texts of the group of payments of Š 48, are attested in documents dating to the first years of AS, together with at least one of the gardens pertaining to the group. The documents are essentially two: CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4) and MVN 22, 31 (n.d.). The first one records quantities of produce pertaining to some gardens under the supervision of the garden administrators Abbaĝu, Gu’umu and of Ur-BaU, probably the scribe (§ 1.11.4) or the garden administrator (see § 9.1.7). The text presents some peculiarities: the differentiation of the date types, the presence of an ‘out of garden’ worker instead of a garden expert, Lu-ušgina, a lu 2 - LAM also occurring in other texts of the group Š 48 (see § 1.11.2), and the notation of the year and the day, but not of the month (§ 1.6.4). The second text measures some gardens in connection with restoration works (see § 1.5). The plots are subdivided into parcels differentiated by garden experts in the area of the garden administrator Agu, whose first attestation dates back to AS 3 (§ 9.1.8). 2.4.1. The garden ex-voto of Lu-Nanše ( ĝ e š k iri 6 a -ru -a L u 2 - d N a n še ) This garden is mentioned only in a text, CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4), which records 480 liters of dates pertaining to the ‘garden ex-voto of Lu-Nanše’ in the name of Lu-ušgina and under the supervision of the garden administrator Gu’umu. As already seen, Lu-ušgina was a lu 2 - LAM worker571 (also attested in Š 48 in the area of Gu’umu) who apparentely acted, by way of exception, in place of a garden expert (see § 1.11.2) . The name of the garden characterizes it as ex-voto (a -ru -a ) of a certain Lu-Nanše,572 therefore, this may imply that before the text was drafted the intended plantation was identified by a different name. ––––––––––––––––– 570 § 2.2.10; § 2.2.11; § 3.1.5; § 4.3.4. 571 For this type of workers, see § 1.4.1. 572 An example of a garden offered as ex-voto to the temple of Nindara and taken over by a garden administrator can be found in RA 80, 26 (Š 48/iii), for which, see § 9.4.1. It is unclear what kind of connection tied Lu-Nanše to the plot: whether it was the donation of a private property or the return of a leased plot. For the issues inherent to the plots connected with personal names, see the introduction (6. Documentation).

167

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Products

CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4)

record of date production Lu2-uš-gi-na lu2-LAM ugula: Gu2-u3-mu

1.3.0 gur zu2-lum

2.4.2. The garden of Ištaran ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d Išta ra n ) This garden is known by two texts, CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4) and MVN 22, 31 (n.d.). The first text attributes to it 180 liters of dates of good quality and 2,820 liters of ordinary dates in the name of the garden expert Akala under the supervision of Ur-BaU (who was likely the scribe son of Lugal-imrua).573 In connection with restoration works, MVN 22, 31 describes the garden as an area composed of 18,720 m2 of cultivated land and 720 m2 of irrigated land hosting 40 palms574 under the responsibility of the garden expert Akala. In addition, it seems plausible that the relevant garden administrator was Agu, the only official mentioned in the text (see § 1.5 and § 9.1.8). Neither fields nor canals of the province are attested with the name of this god. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official d

Additional information

CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4)

record of date production um-mi-a: A-kal-la

ugula: Ur- Ba-U2 (dumu Lugal-im-ru-a?)

0.3.0 zu2-lum saga10 9.2.0 zu2-lum gur

MVN 22, 31 (n.d.)

garden description for work plan

A-gu?

540 sar 40 palms

um-mi-a: A-kal-la

2.4.3. The garden of Nanše ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d N a n še ) This garden is mentioned by only two texts, CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4) and MVN 22, 31 (n.d.). Its dimensions and composition were illustrated in the introduction (1.1). A break in the tablet only allows us to infer its occurrence in CUSAS 16, 74 (o. i, 4': [ĝ e š k iri 6 ] d N a n š e ), but given the significant dimensions and number of palms ascribed to the garden by MVN 22, 31 (74,826 m2 and 345 palms) it seems plausible that the amount listed (over 36,000 liters of dates) pertained to this garden.575 Furthermore, MVN 22, 31 provides evidence of the presence in the garden of a plot of 1,260 m2 supporting grapevines and fig trees, whereas the remaining plot comprised 56,880 m2 of land cultivated only with date palms, 10,566 m2 of irrigated land and 6,120 m2 of uncultivated land. From a strictly administrative point of view, the transactions concerning this garden in CUSAS 16, 74 would have been supervised by Ur-BaU, probably the scribe son of Lugal-imrua (§ 1.11.4); unfortunately the names of the garden experts are lost in the missing section of the tablet. In MVN 22, 31 the garden falls within the area of garden administrator Agu, while the garden experts in charge of it are E-hili, Uš, Ur-mes, Ur-Hendursaĝ, Dimmi and Šeškala, whose areas of responsibility can be seen in § 1.6.3. It seems that Ur-BaU son of Lugal-imrua had to substitute for Agu on other occasions; in RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/iv),576 Ur-BaU acts as the responsible official for the barley payments of the gardeners supervised by the garden experts UrHendursaĝ and Dimmi, who in MVN 22, 31 act in the area of Agu. In MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-) the offerings to this goddess (r. ii, 42) are managed by the garden administrator Agu and by the alleged garden administrators Inana and Ur-Inanna. However, as far ––––––––––––––––– See § 1.11.4, Table 7 in § 1.8.1 and below. 574 As seen in § 1.6.4, the amount of ordinary dates recorded in CUSAS 16, 74 would correspond to the average production of exactly 40 palms. 575 As seen in § 1.6.4, in the case of this garden the amount recorded in CUSAS 16, 74 exceeds the average production of 345 palms; indeed, considering that the quantity recorded is over 36,000 liters we would obtain ca. 105 liters per palm instead of ca. 70 liters. 576 See Table 8 in § 1.8.1. 573

168

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

as the transactions supervised by Agu are concerned, the fruit quantities reserved for this goddess are provided by the garden experts Šeškala and Lu-saga. Apart from Šeškala, who can be identified with the same garden expert occurring in MVN 22, 31 or the homonymous garden expert who MVN 22, 31 attribute to another garden (see § 1.6.3), other experts of the ‘garden of Nanše’, Ur-mes, Ur-Hendursaĝ, and Dimmi occur in this text as providers and conveyors of fruit quantities addressed to several other destinations under the supervision of Agu.577 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Additional information

d

CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4)

record of date production [...]

MVN 22, 31 (n.d.)

garden description for work plan

um-mi-a: E2-hi-li, Urmes, Uš, Ur-dHendursaĝ, Dim3-mi, Šeš-kal-la

ugula: Ur- Ba-U2 (dumu Lugal-im-ru-a?)

123+ zu2-lum gur

A-gu santana

2,078½ sar 345 palms

2.5. Gardens attested from the 4th year of Amar-Suena This section concerns those gardens which, although not considered in the texts of the group of payments of Š 48, are attested in documents dating to middle of the Amar-Suena’s reign, together with at least one of the gardens pertaining to the group. The documents mentioning these gardens are essentially two: MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-) and TUT 268 (AS 4/-). The first text attests several gardens that are mostly known from texts dating to Š 48. It records the inspection of gardeners (g u ru m 2 a k a n u - < ĝ e š > k iri 6 -k e 4 -n e ) and the relevant allotment of wool and garments (see § 1.8.7.6), under the supervision of E-heĝal, the son of the garden administrator Gu’umu, and the captain Urduĝu. As noted above, 93 workers are indicated as have been provided by the palace, while 24 by the captain, probably to be identified with the external workers occurring in the text. The workers are subdivided into at least 14 gardens and the total of their payments amounts to almost 60 kg of wool and 76 garments. The workers, some of them also attested in the texts recording the payments of Š 48, hence water drawers and arborists, are grouped by garden and by garden expert who supervised them, while other garden experts occur as recruiters/providers (ki ~ -ta) of the inspected workers. Not all the garden names are still legible and some of them are uniquely attested here. The second text, TUT 268, records the yield inspection ( ĝ e š k iri 6 k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a ) of some gardens.578 It presents the typical formula and the key expression in the colophon, however without mention of the responsible officials (see § 1.6.4). Some of the gardens mentioned by the two texts occur then in MVN 17, 18 (n.d.),579 which records the yield pertaining to gardens under the supervision of the garden administrators Abbaĝu and Gu’umu (see § 1.8.4.1). 2.5.1. The garden of the Inanna village ( ĝ e š k iri 6 e 2 -d u ru 5 d In a n n a ) This garden lying in the area of Ĝirsu is mentioned by three texts: MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), the gardener inspection, TUT 268 (AS 4/-) and MVN 17, 18 (n.d.), concerning the production. MVN 17, 55 reports the presence of only one arborist, Lugal-amarku, indicated as son of the only garden expert recorded for this garden, Ur-BaU. TUT 268 records for the garden in question 360 liters of dates in the name of the garden expert Ur-BaU. Finally, MVN 17, 18 records for the garden 2,120 liters of dates in the name of the garden expert Ur-BaU, here indicated as brother of the garden administrator Gamu, under the supervision, however, of the garden administrator Gu’umu. Although it represents a very common name in the province, it seems plausible that the ––––––––––––––––– 577 See the discussion in note 308 in § 1.6.5 and in note 466 in § 2.2. 578 This text records also the yield inspection of the ‘garden of the bathhouse’, for which, see § 3.1.2. 579 Although there is no indication of the date, it can be inferred that the text was drafted no later than the middle of Amar-Suena’s reign, as the occurrence of the garden administrator Abbaĝu would suggest. His activity, indeed, is attested until that period (see § 9.1.1).

169

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

contemporary texts mentioning this garden refer to the same garden expert. Furthermore, as can be easily noted, the quantity of dates recorded in the inspection is significantly lower than that recorded in MVN 17, 18.580 The name of the garden recalls a settlement of the district,581 after which a field was also named.582 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-)

gardener inspection (gurum2 aka nu-kiri6-ke4-ne)

Lugal-amar-ku3 ugula: E2-he2-ĝal2 dumu dumu-ni Gu2-u3-mu um-mi-a: (AŠ) Ur-dBa-U2 NU-banda3: Urdu2-ĝu10 (ugula)

TUT 268 (AS 4/-)

garden yield inspection (ĝe škiri6 kab2 du11-ga)

um-mi-a: Ur-dBa-U2

MVN 17, 18 (n.d.)

record of date production

um-mi-a: Ur-dBa-U2 šeš Ga-mu santana

Payments

Products

1.1.0 zu2-lum ugula: Gu2-u3-mu

7.0.2 zu2-lum

2.5.2. The garden of Lu-Igimaše ( ĝ e š k iri 6 L u 2 - d Ig i-m a -še 3 ) This garden is mentioned by two texts: MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-) and MVN 22, 31 (n.d.). In MVN 17, 55, the mention of the garden follows a missing section of the tablet, and thus, only the name of one garden expert can be read. MVN 22, 31 attributes to the garden 7,920 m2 of cultivated and 2,160 of irrigated land, without indication of trees or gardeners, and without indication of the garden administrator who, however, may have been Agu (see § 1.5 and § 9.1.8). The name of the garden refers to a quite common personal name, after which also a field was named.583 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Additional information

MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-)

gardener inspection (gurum2 aka nu-kiri6ke4-ne)

[...] um-mi-a: Ur2-niĝ2-du10 (ugula)

ugula: E2-he2-ĝal2 dumu Gu2-u3-mu NU-banda3: Urdu2-ĝu10

[...]

MVN 22, 31 (n.d.)

garden description for work

plan

220 sar and 60 sar de2

2.5.3. The garden of Lu-Utu ( ĝ e š k iri 6 L u 2 - d U tu ) This garden is mentioned by two texts MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), the gardener inspection, and MVN 17, 18 (n.d.), the record of the yield of some gardens. MVN 17, 55 attests to the presence of two arborists, father and son,584 without mention of garden experts. MVN 17, 18 attributes to this garden 210 liters of dates with the name of the garden expert E-heĝal, son of the garden administrator Gu’umu, the same garden expert who, in MVN 17, 55 (by way of exception) acts as supervisor of the whole operation. In MVN 17, 18, the quantity of fruit recorded in the name of Eheĝal is under the supervision of the garden administrator Abbaĝu, as opposed to the other texts, ––––––––––––––––– As seen in § 1.6.4, the estimated amounts of produce are low in comparison with the productive potential of the plantations (Zettler 1992, 136). However we don’t know whether MVN 17, 18 was a provisional plan or a record drafted after the harvest. In addition, see the discussion about the capitals of produce calculated on the basis of the single gardens in the balanced accounts in § 1.8.6. 581 See Falkenstein, 1966, 167. 582 See Pettinato 1967 (UNL/II), 246. 583 See ASJ 3, 60 8 (Š 41/-), a land survey carried out under the supervision of the administrator (s a ĝ ĝ a ) of Ninšubur. However, there is no evidence suggesting that the garden and the field referred to the same person. 584 The garden expert Urdu son of Umamu, can also be recognized (o. 9) among the arborists listed in MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-), for which, see § 1.4.2, under the supervision of the garden administrator Gu’umu. MVN 6, 298 does mention also his son, Ur-BaU, indicated as the only child (d u m u - n i t a 2 ) inspected together with 62 adult workers, while MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-) indicates Lugal-dure as son of Urdu son of Umamu. 580

170

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

which locate the activity of E-heĝal within the area managed by his father Gu’umu (see § 1.11.5). It is not to be excluded that the text reports an extraordinary intervention of the garden administrator Abbaĝu in the area of responsibility of Gu’umu. The garden name refers to a very common personal name, after which neither structures nor fields seem to be attested. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-)

gardener inspection (gurum2 aka nu-kiri6ke4-ne)

Urdu2 dumu U2-ma-mu (4), Lugal-dur24-ur3-re dumu-ni (1 ½ )

ugula: E2-he2-ĝal2 dumu Gu2-u3-mu NU-banda3: Urdu2-ĝu10

5 ½ ma-na siki

MVN 17, 18 (n.d.)

record of date production

um-mi-a: E2-he2-ĝal2 dumu Gu2-u3-mu

ugula: Ab-ba-ĝu10

Products

0.3.3 zu2-lum

2.5.4. The garden of the palace administrator ( ĝ e š k iri 6 š a b r a e 2 ) This garden is mentioned by two texts MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), the inspection of gardeners, and MVN 17, 18 (n.d.), the record of the yield. MVN 17, 55 only records for this garden the presence of a worker defined as supervisor recruited from the workers ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ (u g u la BUR2-ta ; see § 1.4.2.). MVN 17, 18 attributes to the garden 390 liters of dates in the name of the garden expert Šeškala under the supervision of the garden administrator Gu’umu. The name of the garden recalls an office which existed in Neo-Sumerian society, according to de Maaijer,585 tied to the provincial palace, and consequentially, the presence of two ‘palace administrators’ (š a b ra e 2 ), one at Ĝirsu and the other at Gu’aba, should be assumed. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official d

MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-)

gardener inspection (gurum2 aka nu-kiri6-ke4-ne)

(AŠ) Ur- Ig-alim ugula BUR2ta

ugula: E2-he2-ĝal2 dumu Gu2-u3-mu NU-banda3: Urdu2-ĝu10

MVN 17, 18 (n.d.)

record of date production

um-mi-a: Šeš-kal-la dumu Lugal-LAGAB

ugula Gu2-u3-mu

Products

1.1.3 zu2-lum

2.5.5. The garden of Uz of E-igi-il ( ĝ e š k iri 6 U z E 2 -ig i-il 2 < k i > -la ) 586 This garden is mentioned only in MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), which records the inspection of gardeners and the allotment of wool and garments, where however, neither workers nor amounts are attributed to this garden. The first element of the name could refer to a personal name, while the second one recalls the name of a field (a -š a 3 E 2 -ig i-il 2 ), occurring in NATN 382 (Š 28/viii). This text reports the presence of a garden in the field, ‘the garden of Lala in the field of E-igi-il’ (§ 7.1.1), where Lala refers to a personal name and the field likely recalls the name of a settlement (E 2 -ig i-il 2 k i ). 2.6. Gardens attested from the 7th year of Amar-Suena This section concerns only the two gardens attested in HLC 3, 214 (AS 7/vii),587 which records the date yield pertaining to them, without mention of supervisors (§ 1.6.4 and § 1.8.4.1). The ––––––––––––––––– 585 See de Maaijer 1998, 53. 586 In AfO 24, 17 (Š 36/-), the text recording a land survey (see § 4.1), E-igi-il is used as reference point, from which the description begins; the documentation also provides evidence of a village: e 2 - d u r u 5 E 2 - i g i - i l 2 k i . It most likely was a small settlement of the province (see Falkenstein 1966, 27; Edzard and Farber 1974, 44), lying in the Ĝirsu district (see Foxvog, D. 1986b, 28). This toponym also occurs in AfO 28, 141, a text of the Sargonic period, among the centers that probably represented the provincial border of the time (Foster 1981/82, 141). NATN 382, in which the field named after this center is attested, seems to attribute, after a redefinition of the border between Ĝirsu and Umma, some garden plots to the Ĝirsu province (see § 7.1).

171

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

name of one of the gardens, ‘garden of E-huš, recalls a shrine of the Ĝirsu area, e 2 -h u š.588 It occurs among the destinations of the fruit offerings recorded in MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-), like other cult places after which some gardens of the group of texts of Š 48 are named, as for example the ‘garden of Tira’aš’ (§ 2.2.28). It can therefore be inferred that the garden was situated in the northern area of the Ĝirsu district, close to the homonymous shrine, although it was not included among the gardens considered in the group of texts of Š 48. It may stand to reason that the second garden of HLC 3, 214, the ‘garden of Lugal-ušumgal’, was situated in close proximity. 2.6.1. The garden of E-huš ( ĝ e š k iri 6 e 2 -h u š) This garden is attested only in HLC 3, 214 (AS 7/vii), where 660 liters (2.1.0 gur) of dates are recorded in the name of Urdu for this garden. The text does not provide indication on the pertinent garden administrator589 and the name of the garden expert, Urdu, is too common even to tentatively suggest a connection with other texts concerning the garden management. 2.6.2. The garden of Lugal-ušumgal ( ĝ e š k iri 6 L u g a l-u šu m g a l) This garden is attested only in HLC 3, 214 (AS 7/vii), which ascribes to it 1,260 liters (4.1.0 gur) of dates in the name of the garden expert Urani. Also in this case, the name of the responsible gardener is too common to suggest a connection with other texts concerning the garden management. The garden name refers to a personal name, after which a field590 and a canal591 were also named. 2.7. The gardens of TÉL 80 Another text, TÉL 80, reports the presence of gardens in the Ĝirsu area at the time of activity of the alleged garden administrator Ur-Inanna (see § 9.2.5), whose first attestation dates to ŠS 7. The text, undated, records the distribution of oil for the water drawers and arborists of some gardens in the areas of at least two garden administrators, though only the name of Ur-Inanna can be read. Indeed, the presence of a further official, lost in a missing part of the text, is suggested by the total amount for the whole transaction, that is, 1,690 liters, whereas the total amount under the responsibility of Ur-Inanna is 1,045 liters. The information regarding the gardens mentioned in the text is collected in the following paragraphs, with the exception of the unnamed garden (to which two arborists, one water drawer, and one garden expert, Biduisa, pertain). Also the unnamed garden was under the responsibility Ur-Inanna. 2.7.1. The garden of BaU -ninam ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d B a - U 2 -n in -a m 3 ) This garden is attested only in TÉL 80, which attributes to it the presence of only one water drawer earning 60 liters of oil. The name of the responsible garden administrator is lost in a break in the text.

–––––––––––––––––

587

The specification of the month name, information not always included in these types of documents, would indicate that the text was drafted in the period of the date harvest (vi-vii); however, such indication was erased for unclear reasons. 588 Das Schreckliche Haus, shrine of Ninĝirsu situated close the border with Umma, to which a settlement was connected (see Falkenstein 1966, 27; Selz 1995, 294). 589 In MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-), dating to nine years after, the offerings for the homonymous shrine (r. vii, 8) are supervised by the alleged garden administrator Ur-Inanna. In any case, a possible connection between the garden and Ur-Inanna remains conjectural. 590 A field named ‘new field of Lugal-ušumgal ( a - š a 3 g i b i l L u g a l - u š u m g a l ) is attested between Š 28 (ASJ 19 135 120) and IS 3 (Zinbun 14, 52 3). 591 See e.g. MVN 12, 87 (Š 46/x).

172

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

The garden name may refer to a personal name, after which neither structures nor fields seem to be attested. Text

Type

Workers

TÉL 80 (n.d.)

oil allotment for water drawers and arborists

SIG7-a

2.7.2. The pine garden ( ĝ e š k iri 6

ĝeš

Lu2-dBa-U2

Responsible official

Payments

[…]

0.1.0 i3

u 3 -s u h 5 )

This garden name is quite generic, thus it could be understood as an abbreviation or a contextual description.592 Most of the pertinent names of the water drawers and arborists are lost in a break in the tablet, but the name of the garden expert, Lugal-NUbanda, is preserved. This garden expert is attested also in MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-), in the area of the alleged garden administrator Ur-Inanna. The amount of the payments for the workers of this garden exceeds 470 liters of oil. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

TÉL 80 (n.d.)

oil allotment for water drawers and arborists

[...] 8+ PN (among them 3 SIG7-a) um-mi-a: Lugal- NUbanda3 (ugula)

Ur-dInanna 1.2.5+ gur i3

2.8. The garden of BaU-ninsisa ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d B a - U2 -n in -si-s a 2 ) This garden is mentioned in two texts, MVN 7, 153 (IS 1/-) and ITT 3, 5535 (IS 1/x), which ascribe it to the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Agu (§ 9.1.8). MVN 7, 153 records a delivery of silver (16.6 g) provided by Lu-Dumuzi (whose professional title is not specified) as ‘price’ (n iĝ 2 -s a m 2 ) of something (LAM-[...]) related to the garden: n iĝ 2 -s a m 2 ĝeš LAM-[...] k iri 6 d B a - U2 -n in -s i-s a 2 . Unfortunately, it is not possible to read what the price refers to. In addition, it should be noted that the document is sealed by the gardener (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) Ur-ki, although the text indicates the seal (k iš ib ) of Agu (see § 1.11.6). In the second text, ITT 3, 5535 (IS 1/x), Agu, likely the garden administrator, takes charge of a worker and his payment of 60 liters of barley (§ 1.8.7.1). No specific information is given about the worker, only that he was the son of a ‘carrier’ (u 2 -il 2 ) of the temple of BaU. The garden name probably refers to a personal name, after which a field of the province was also named.593 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Additional information

d

MVN 7, 153 (IS 1/-)

reciept (kišib) of silver

ITT 3, 5535 (IS 1/x)

employment (i3-dab5) of worker

Lu2-dBa-U2 dumu Ur-dNinmug u2-il2 e2 dBa-U2

ki ~ -ta: Lu2- Dumu-zi kišib: A-gu seal: Ur-ki /dumu NI.HI / nuĝeš kiri6

2 giĝ4 ku3-babbar LAM-[...]

A-gu i3-dab5

0.1.0 še

––––––––––––––––– 592 It was possibly (although not necessary) an abbreviation of the ‘pine garden before Enki’ (§ 2.2.34). 593 See Pettinato 1967 (UNL/I), 120.

173

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

2.9. The garden of Nisaba 18, 142 A further text, Nisaba 18, 142 (n.d.), records the presence of three gardens of the Ĝirsu area, as is suggested by their names recalling settlements of the district. These gardens are not mentioned elsewhere in the documentation and there is no evidence for the relevant garden administrator. The text, undated, records quantities of fruit, likely dates, pertaining to these gardens and reports just the name of the responsible gardener. 2.9.1. The garden of Ambar ( ĝ e š k iri 6 A m b a r k i ) This garden is attested only in Nisaba 18, 142 (n.d.), which attributes to it 660 liters (2.1.0 gur) in the name of the garden expert KUguna, who is not attested elsewhere.594 The garden name recalls a center595 of the Ĝirsu district, close to which the garden was likely situated. 2.9.2. The garden of the Ĝiri village ( ĝ e š k iri 6 e 2 -< d u ru 5 > Ĝiri 3 < k i > ) This garden is attested only in Nisaba 18, 142 (n.d.), which attributes to it 240 liters (0.4.0) in the name of the garden expert Urdu. The garden name, even lacking the determinative, could recall the name of a village (e 2 -d u ru 5 Ĝ iri 3 k i )596 of the district. 2.9.3. The garden of Kimadasala ( ĝ e š k iri 6 K i-m a -d a -sa l 4 -la k i ) This garden is attested only in Nisaba 18, 142 (n.d.), which ascribes to the garden three quantities of fruit in the name of three different garden experts: 660 liters (2.1.0 g u r) in the name of Ur-mes, 420 liters (1.2.0 g u r) in the name of Diĝira, and 360 liters (1.1.0 g u r) in the name of Ur-Ninmah. The garden name refers to a center of the Ĝirsu district.597 2.10. Particularities. The gardens of the governor’s family A group of 18 texts analyzed by Maekawa598 concerns the properties599 (n iĝ 2 -g u r 1 1 ) of the governor of Ĝirsu, Ur-Lamma, and his three sons, Lugal-suluhu, Dudu, Ur-BaU the administrator (sa ĝ ĝ a ) of NinMAR.KI, and his wife, within the provincial territory. Maekawa wondered if these texts might have concerned public assets ‘usurped’ by the family of the governor or have concerned private properties; and, further, whether such texts were drafted in view of an imminent confiscation ordered by the crown.600 It is not to be excluded that the concerned lands pertained, as prebend plots, to the officials belonging to the governor’s family and that they constituted one of the subsistence sources for these high-rank personalities. Seven texts of the group studied by Maekawa and providing detailed descriptions of the single assets also include the garden pertaining to the members of this family: - Text A: ASJ 18, 108 9 (AS 2/vii) - Text B: ASJ 18, 156 1 (AS 2/vii) ––––––––––––––––– Pomponio noted that this name is not attested elsewhere, unlike KUguzana (Anastasi and Pomponio 2009, 137). So, it is probable that the more attested name was intended. 595 See Edzard and Farber 1974, 7-8; Falkenstein 1966, 22; Frayne 1997, 249. With regard to the homonymous field, see Pettinato 1967 (UNL/I), 41 and 84-85. 596 See Falkenstein, A. 1966, 26. 597 See 3.1. The presence of gardens in the Ĝirsu province, in the introduction. 598 Maekawa 1996a, 103-168; Maekawa 1997, 273-291. However, the author examined additional texts; 18 refers to the total number of the properties of Ur-Lamma’s family. 599 With regard to the question concerning the property of lands during the Neo-Sumerian period, see Renger 1995; Steinkeller 1989; Steinkeller 1999a. 600 Maekawa 1997, 275. For a different interpretation, see Heimpel 1997, 63-65. According to this author, these texts relate to the end of a household. 594

174

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

-

Text C: ASJ 19, 287 11 (AS 2/vii) Text D: HLC 3, 391 (l.d.) Text E: ASJ 18, 161 4 (n.d.) Text F: ASJ 18, 159 3 (n.d.) Text G: SNAT 216 (n.d.)

Texts A-D601 frame measurements of gardens ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g id 2 -d a ). The structure of these texts reflects that of the texts of the same type (see § 1.6.3.1) as far as the subdivision of the areas, the relevant crops, the juxtaposition of the name of the responsible gardener, and the indication of the location602 are concerned; It diverges from that of the other texts as far as the indication of number of trees (here unspecified),603 the presence of a total summary section, the presence of the date formula, and the function of responsibility for the whole operation are concerned, a function which in these texts is entrusted to Lugal-magure, the high royal official (su k k a l) acting as conveyor (ĝ iri 3 ):604 e k a - a - DU/ ĝ e š n i m b a r / k i - ĝ a l 2 * PN u m - m i - a * ĝ e š k i r i 6 PN* šu-niĝin2 e* ĝ e š k i r i 6 g i d 2 - d a * center* ĝ i r i 3 PN s u k k a l irrigation inlet- / palm grove/uncultivated area (the dimensions of which are) e, (the responsible is) PN the garden expert, (in the garden), the total is e, garden measured in (the area of the) center, the conveyor (was) PN the royal official.

In contrast, texts E605-F606 list the entire proprieties (n iĝ 2 -g u r 1 1 ) of the governor’s sons, to include the garden plots. Text G607 lists the garden experts of the gardens pertaining to the governor’s family (see § 1.6). Unfortunately, the last line of the text is not entirely legible: r. 2: ĝeš k iri 6 -b i [...] / [...] mah [...]. The information relating to the gardens quoted by these texts is summarized in the following table:

––––––––––––––––– 601 At least three of these texts (ASJ 18, 108 9; ASJ 18, 156 1; ASJ 19, 287 11), which present a colophon, specify: ĝeš k i r i 6 g i d 2 - d a , measurement of gardens (lit. gardens measured). It seems plausible that also HLC 3, 391, the colophon of which is not preserved, originally showed the same expression; indeed, this text collects the information recorded in the other documents, each of them referring to only one member of the family. 602 The texts mention Ĝirsu and, thus, it is not clear whether they refer to the province or the district. Indeed, the indication reported in ASJ 18, 159 3 (Text F), ‘properties of the sons of the governor at Ĝirsu’ ( n i ĝ 2 - g u r 1 1 d u m u e n s i 2 - k a š a 3 Ĝ i r 2 - s u k i ) , and the indication ‘garden measuread at Ĝirsu’ ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 g i d 2 - d a š a 3 Ĝ i r 2 - s u k i ) , occurring in ASJ 18, 108 9 (Text A), ASJ 18, 156 1 (Text B), ASJ 19, 287 11 (Text C), could be intended as referring to the province, since the documents were addressed to the central administration of the state. For at least, two gardens pertaining to the governor’s sons, however, there is indication of a toponym, Erimzezena ( E r i m 2 - z e 2 - z e 2 - n a < k i > ) , the name of which recalls one of the gardens of STA 19 ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 E r i m 2 - z e 2 - z e 2 - G I - n a k i ), which was probably located in the northern area of the district (see § 2.2.4). 603 These texts, unlike the others pertaining to this category, do not include the counting of the trees, but only refer to the kind of crops present in the measured plots. 604 Compare the function of conveyor performed by Lugal-magure in these texts and that performed by Inim-Šara, land surveyor of the king in the texts recording the land surveys ordered by Šulgi during his reign (see 3.1. The presence of gardens in the Ĝirsu province, in the introduction). 605 The texts record the properties of ( n i ĝ 2 - g u r 1 1 ) Ur-BaU, to be understood as the administrator ( s a ĝ ĝ a ) of NinMAR.KI. Among the listed goods, there is the entry (o. 13) concerning his gardens, with a difference of 180 m2 (5 s a r ) with respect to the dimensions of the gardens of the administrator recorded in HLC 3, 391. 606 The text records the properties of the governor’s sons ( n i ĝ 2 - g u r 1 1 d u m u e n s i 2 - k a ). 607 The differences occurring among the garden experts of SNAT 216 (Text G) and those of HLC 3, 391 (Text D) could be due to the dates of redaction of the texts.

175

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Garden608

Palm groves

Other crops and interplanting areas

Uncultivated areas

Total

garden of the governor Ur-Lamma (ĝe škiri6 Ur-dLamma ensi2)

Ur-dŠa-u18-ša um-mi-a (G)

garden of Lugalsuhulu on the banks of 1 ½ iku (5,400 the irrigation ditch m2) (A) (D) Musar (ĝe škiri6 gu2 pa5 mu-sar Lugal-suhulu2) garden of Dudu of Erimzezena (ĝe škiri6 Du-du Erim2ze2-ze2-na< ki> ) 609

1 ½ ¼ iku (6,300 m2) (B) (D)

garden of Saĝrig the wife of the administrator of NinMAR.KI (ĝe škiri6 Saĝ-rig7 dam saĝĝa dNin-MAR.KI) garden of Ur-BaU the administrator of NinMAR.KI of Ebugu (ĝe škiri6 e-bu-gu610 ĝeš kiri6 Ur-dBa- U2 saĝĝa dNin-MAR.KI) garden of Ur-BaU the administrator of NinMAR.KI of Erimzezena (ĝe škiri6 Erim2-ze2-ze2na< ki> 611 ĝeš kiri6 Ur-dBa-U2 saĝĝa dNin-MAR.KI)

Responsible gardeners

¼ iku (900 m2) (D)

1 ¼ iku (4,500 m2) ĝeš hašhur ka-a-DU (B) (D)

1 iku (3,600 m2) (A)(D)

Ba-gara2-zi-ĝu10 nuĝeš kiri6 (A) (D)

½ iku (1,800 m2) (B) (D)

A2-bi2-lum nu-ĝeškiri6 (B) (D) Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su ummi-a (G)

1 iku 10 sar (3,960 m2) ĝeš ĝešnimbar ur2-ba nuur2-ma ka-a-DU (C) (D)

Ur-Saĝ-ub3ki nu-ĝeškiri6 (C) (D) Ur-dLamma um-mi-a (G)

4 ¼ iku 5 sar (15,480 m2) ĝešnimbar ur2-ba ¼ iku (900 m2) (D) nu-ur2-ma ka-a-DU (D)

Lu2-giri17-zal (G), Ureš-ku3-ga, Ur-Šul nu-ĝeškiri6 (D)

3 ¼ iku (11,700 m2) (D) ĝešnimbar ur2-ba nu-ur2-ma ka-a-DU

[...], Ur-dNanše nuĝeš kiri6/um-mi-a (D) (G)

¼ iku (900 m2) (D)

garden properties of Ur-BaU

8 ¼ iku (29,700 Ur-dNanše, Lu2-giri17m2) (E) zal um-mi-a (G)

garden properties of the governor’s sons at Ĝirsu

14 ¼ iku (51,300 m2) (F)

From the point of view of the composition, a substantial presence of irrigation inlet-areas hosting monocultures of fruit trees alongside intercultures of date palms and fruit trees can be noted. Indeed, except for the palm grove of Lugal-suhulu, the other gardens pertaining to the governor’s family present vast irrigation inlet-areas (which are not characterized as vineyards and do not include timber trees) alongside palm grove areas. As seen in the introduction and in § 1.6.3, indeed, vineyards were composed of irrigation inlet-areas supporting a great variety of fruit and timber trees, while in the mixed gardens the irrigation inlet-areas were typically smaller than the palm grove areas, except for the garden managed by the garden administrator Abba (§ 4.5.1). On the other hand, it seems that in the case of the gardens of the governor’s family this tendency was reversed; the ‘garden of Ebugu’, measuring in total 17,280 m2, was composed of 15,480 m2 of irrigation inlet-plot supporting date palms and pomegranates, while the remaining ––––––––––––––––– The name of the gardens seem to refer to contextual descriptions. 609 The name of the garden of Dudu recalls the name of a settlement (see above). 610 This garden name is unclear. It cannot be excluded that it referred to an irrigation ditch p a 5 (.E) or to a specific toponym. 611 See the homonymous garden above. Data pertaining to this garden are lost in the missing upper part of the tablet, but can be deduced using information in the total section. 608

176

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU

consisted of palm groves and uncultivated lands. The ‘garden of Erimzezena’ of Dudu, instead, alongside a palm grove area, included a slightly smaller irrigation inlet-area supporting a monoculture of apples, similar to that of the garden managed by Abba, which however supported other kinds of trees as well. The ‘garden of Erimzezena’ of the administrator of NinMAR.KI and that of his wife were exclusively composed of irrigation inlet-areas hosting date palms and pomegranates, except for 900 m2 (ca. 7% of the whole garden) of uncultivated land within the garden of the administrator. As seen in the introduction, fruit trees can be considered to have been élite crops in lower Mesopotamia of third millennium: they, indeed, required a more consistent water supply compared to date palms and they are more sensitive to high temperatures and salty soils, which is the reason why the fruit production was significantly lower than that of dates.612 It is thus not surprising that the more prized gardens gravitated around the higher offices of the province.613 Although there is no further data about these gardens, it cannot be excluded that they presented a situation similar to that of the gardens pertaining to the high priestess (e re š-d iĝ ir) of BaU, about which we have different information. The presence of fruit trees in the gardens of the priestess is indeed deducible from texts regarding the circulation of produce, where quantities of fruit are allocatted to the cult, the priestess herself, the governor and the king (see § 1.11.3), while the timber is allocated to the shipyard (m a r-s a ) of the household of the priestess (see § 5.2).614 From the point of view of the workers, there are no particular differences among the areas of responsibility of the experts of the gardens of the governor’s family and those of the other gardens, since these differences were mostly due to the composition of the gardens themselves (see § 1.6.3). It seems improbable, however, that the experts of the gardens of the governor’s family can be identified with the homonymous garden experts occurring in the ordinary administrative documentation, and consequently, that the management of these gardens was entrusted to garden administrators, although there is no direct evidence. HLC 3, 385 (n.d.), as seen in § 1.2.1, indicates a quantity of barley taken by the gardeners of the governor, and quotes as conveyor Lā-qīp, whose title is not specified. The description of the receivers of the expended barley as ‘gardeners of the governor’ (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 e n si 2 ) is somewhat exceptional; normally, the differentiations pertain to the crop (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š g a l-g a l and n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin ), or to the districts or centers (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 Ĝ ir 2 -su k i , n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 L a g a š k i , etc.), hence, reflecting the territorial subdivision of the garden administrators. Nevertheless, it seems to recall the terminology relevant to the gardeners of the extended complexes, according to which the workers directly take their payments rather than receiving them from the managers of the sector. Furthermore, the exceptions involving the gardeners of the high priestess of BaU (collected in § 1.11.3) may suggest the existence of different managerial dynamics for the garden plots of specific households, but less information is available about the activity of the garden experts pertaining to the governor’s family. However, since the governor was an expression of the local control on the province, state control on the production of these gardens may have resulted in a kind of marginalization of the figure of the garden administrator; their tasks might have been performed by individuals internal to the households, as it seems sometimes to have been the case

––––––––––––––––– 612 Brunke emphasized as fruit, except for dates, and some kinds of vegetables were considered at Sumer Luxusartikel. These kinds of products occur in the economic texts in small quantities and they are never distributed as payments (Brunke 2011, 221-222). See also the considerations of Postgate reported in the introduction (1.1. Garden composition). 613 This does not necessarily imply that all the orchards of the province pertained to high offices of the province or state; the garden supervised by the garden administrator Abba (§ 4.5.1), indeed, presents a vast area cultivated with fruit trees apparently not related to any particular relevant personality. The same is true for the prized crops supported by some gardens, as for example, the ‘ĝi’eden garden of Bagara’ (see § 4.3.4). 614 The cases here considered concern Geme-Lamma, according to Maekawa and Steinkeller, as already seen, probably the wife of Ur-Lamma, who is also attested until the first years of the reign of Amar-Suena (Maekawa 1996b, 171-179; Steinkeller 1999b, 120).

177

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

of the gardeners for the high priestess of BaU615 and as it may be imagined for those of the governor and his family.616 The analysis of Maekawa617 suggests that the confiscation of the properties of the governor and his family, ordered by the crown in the second year of AmarSuena, was specifically aimed at eradicating the local power which this family held over the territory and its resources.618 In fact, there is no trace of the family of Ur-Lamma, or of Ur-Lamma himself, in the documentation after the third year of reign of Amar-Suena.619

––––––––––––––––– However, as already noted in § 1.11.3, the activity of the garden administrator Ur-BaU (§ 9.1.7) in connection with gardens of the high priestess should be taken into account. 616 As seen in § 1.8.9, a tablet box label ( p i s a ĝ d u b - b a ) , MVN 11, E (n.d.), attests to the presence of garden administrators within the personnel of the temples of Ninĝirsu and BaU receiving prebend plots. For the connection between these temple households and the governor’s family, see Maekawa 1996b, 171-179. 617 See Maekawa 1997, 273-291. 618 See Maekawa 1996b, 171-179. Also de Maaijer talked about a turbulent atmosphere that may have followed the end of the long reign of Šulgi (de Maaijer 1998, 52). The persistence in the same offices of the members of some important local families, such as for example Ur-abba son of Bazi (see § 9.7.2.1), would suggest that these measures were targeted to specific personalities, rather than extended to all the families having some form of control or power in the provincial territory. 619 Two documents concerning garden products and dating to the fourth and fifth month of the third year of Amar-Suena still bear the seal of Ur-Lamma: MVN 9, 60 and MVN 22, 40 (see § 9.1.2). After this date, however, there are apparently no more attestations of this governor (Maekawa 1996b and 1997). For the commemoration of the independent rulers and governors of the province, among them Ur-Lamma, in Ur III times, see Michalowski 2013, 189192. The fruit offerings addressed to his cult in MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-) are managed by the garden administrator Agu (§ 9.1.8) and the alleged garden administrators Inana (§ 9.2.4), and Ur-Inanna (§ 9.2.5). 615

178

CHAPTER THREE

EXTENDED ECONOMIC COMPLEXES

According to the guidelines established by the propaganda of that time, as seen in § 1.6, the king declares to have put in order the ways of the land and planted gardens on the side of the palaces, where he established rest stations and stationed experts (lu 2 z u -a ), so that who comes from 'below' and from 'above' would rest in these places. Hymn A of Šulgi: ll. 28-33: ĝiri3 hu-mu-gur kaskal kalam-ke4 si he2-em-sa2-sa2 / danna hu-mu-gi e2-gal-la he2-bi2-du3 / za3ba kiri6 (SAR) he2-bi2-gub ki-ni2-dub2-bu he2-bi2-ĝar / ki-be2 lu2 zu-a he2-em-mi-tuš / sig-ta du igi-nim-ta du-e/ a2-šedx (MUŠ3.DI)-bi-še3 ni2 he2-eb-ši-te-en-te-en I organized the ways and put in order the highways; I established mile(-markers) and set them in palaces, at which side I planted gardens and resting-places; I settled experts there, so that who comes from South or from North can come near to its fresh shade (and refresh).

The administrative documentation offers evidence of the presence of gardens in the city, in the fields (NATN 382), and along the canal banks (MVN 12, 182), but also as part of big industrial compounds, such as mills (e 2 -k ik k e n 2 ), and rest stations (e 2 -k a š 4 ). It should be recognized, indeed, that garden trees, especially date palms, in addition to the value of their produce, were also valued for the shelter that their fronds could offer; a significant factor in the regions of lower Mesopotamia. This chapter analyzes gardens that were part of more articulate structures, sorts of complexes in which different units coexisted and supported the provincial and the central administration. With regard to garden personnel employed in these complexes, documentation provides evidence on the presence of workers (skilled and unskilled ones), and of garden experts (u m -m i-a ), while references to the presence of garden administrators (sa n ta n a ) are quite limited.620 3.1. Šulpa’e and the rest station A text, STA 20 (Š 47/ii), seems somehow to confirm the words of the Hymn Šulgi A, reporting the presence of nine gardens in an area dedicated to the god Šulpa’e and a rest station (e 2 -k a š 4 ). The text records the payments of the water drawers ( SIG7-a ) and arborists left in the granary, under the supervision (u g u la ) of a certain Lu-BaU, whose professional title is unknown.621 For some gardens a condition of inactivity (u š 2 ) is specified, while for others there is no indication. The colophon specifies that the payments allotted to the workers of these gardens are left in the granary,622 g u ru 7 -a ta k a 4 -a ša 3 ĝ e š k iri 6 d Š u l-p a -e 3 u 3 e 2 -k a š 4 ĝ a l 2 , ‘(payments) left in the ––––––––––––––––– 620 The tendency of the texts recording the payments for the gardeners employed in extended complexes to indicate the workers as those who take their payments (thus without the intermediation of administrators) was highlighted in § 1.2.1. At least for the case of the ‘garden of Kisura’ (§ 3.3), a certain connection between the garden and the activity of the santana Nabi (§ 9.1.4) seems however to emerge. 621 As seen in § 1.8.7.4, the relevant garden administrator could in these cases occur as supervisor of the undistributed amounts of barley. In the case of STA 20, the profession of the supervisor cannot be determined. Lu-BaU, indeed, represents a common name of the province, although no garden administrators are attested with this name; a gardener quoted by STA 20 also bear this name, however without any connection to the responsible official. 622 The spatial indication likely refers to the destination of the payments, rather than to the location of the granary. Given the conjunction ( u 3 ), it seems possible that not all the gardens specifically pertained to the rest station, though it is not clear which.

179

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

granary (for the workers) present in the gardens of Šulpa’e and the rest station’.623 The gardens quoted in this text do not occur elsewhere in the documentation, with the exception of the ‘garden of the bathhouse’ and the ‘new garden of Ĝ IR3.SIG.LA’. The ‘garden of Šulpa’e’ of the group of payments of Š 48 (see § 2.2.27) may not have been related to the area indicated in STA 20, which seems to include more gardens. According to Sallaberger,624 there were six cultic places dedicated to this deity in the province, as indicated by TUT 308 (n.d.): o. iii, 4': n iĝ 2 e z e m -m a e 2 d Š u lp a -e 3 6 -b a , ‘goods for the festival of the six ‘houses’ of Šulpa’e’, among them the ‘Šulpa’e of the palace’ ( d Š u l-p a -e 3 e 2 -g a l) is mentioned. Heimpel noticed the presence of a rest station tied to the ‘Šulpa’e of the palace’,625 a place which also occurs among the destinations of the regular offerings of fruit recorded in MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-).626 Finally, a text, TÉL 114 (ŠS 2/v) mentions among the addressees of the offerings of the festival of the fifth month the ‘Šulpa’e of the garden(s)’ ( d Š u l-p a -e 3 ĝ e š k iri 6 ),627 a name that could recall the colophon of STA 20. It is suggestible that the location of these gardens is to be sought in a peripheral area of the Ĝirsu district628 and that the rest station in question was situated next to one ‘house’ of Šulpa’e. The workers are listed by garden, except for one, who could have been a man of the storehouse, ⌈lu 2 ⌉ n a -[k a b -tu m ] (see § 1.4.1). The presence of garden experts is recorded only in one garden and their function is expressed by i 3 -d a b 5 (see § 1.6.8). The following table summarizes the information in STA 20: Garden ĝeš

d

Workers

Responsible official d

Payments

kiri6 Ba-U2-na

n workers for 1.0.3

ugula Lu2- Ba-U2

1.0.3

ĝeš

kiri6 e2 du10-us2

dam A-tu (0.0.3), SIG7a uš2 Lu2-ga (0.1.0), Ur3-reba-du7 (0.1.0), uš2 Lu2-balaugula Lu2-dBa-U2 sa6-ga (0.0.4) dumu A-tume, Sukkal-[...] (0.1.0), d Ig-alim (0.1.0);

1.0.1

ĝeš

kiri6 dĜa2-tum3-du10

Lu2-dBa-U2 (0.0.3)

ugula Lu2-dBa-U2

0.0.3

ugula Lu2-dBa-U2

0.0.2

Lugal-amar-ku3 (0.0.2), Šešugula Lu2-dBa-U2 kal-la (0.0.1)

0.0.3

d

ĝeš

kiri6 ĝeštin

ĝeš

kiri6 ĝi6-eden dInanna

Šeš-kal-la dumu Lu2- Ba-U2 (0.0.2)

ĝeš

kiri6 gibil4 Ĝ IR3.SIG.LA

Ur-ĝešgigir i3-dab5 12 PN (1.2.0+), 6 PN (0.4.4) Ur-dNanše i3-dab5 ugula Lu2-dBa-U2

2.1.4 + gur

ĝeš

kiri6 dInanna-min3

Ur-dBa-U2 dumu Ur-saĝ-HI (0.0.2)

ugula Lu2-dBa-U2

0.0.2

ĝeš

kiri6 Kaš4

SIG7-a

ugula Lu2-dBa-U2

0.1.0

ĝeš

kiri6 dNin-ĝeš-zi-da

SIG7-a SIG7-a

ugula Lu2-dBa-U2

0.2.0

Lugal-ĜEŠ.DU (0.1.0)

uš2 U4-da (0.1.0), uš2 Niĝir-HU-[...] (0.1.0)

Connection with other gardens

ĝeš

kiri6 e2-duru5 dInanna (§ 2.5.1)

ĝeš

kiri6 dBa-U2-ig-ga-su3 (§ 2.3.2); kiri6 dNin-MAR.KI (§ 2.2.24)

ĝeš

––––––––––––––––– In the present work, this interpretation of the colophon was based on the interpretation of the autograph copy of Chiera in STA; it seemed possible, indeed, to read g u r u 7 - a t a k a 4 - a rather than g u r u 7 - a d i r i (SI.A) and e 2 - k a š 4 (DU-sessig) ĝ a l 2 rather then e 2 g u 2 - ĝ a l 2 , since some Winkelhaken are added to the sign GU2, allowing the sign to be read DU-sessig. 624 Sallaberger 1993, 93. 625 Heimpel 1994, 29. 626 The offerings addressed to this place involve the garden expert Diĝira of the ‘garden of Tira’aš’ and the garden administrator Gu’umu (r. vii, 1-8). 627 Sallaberger 1993, 94. 628 The presence in STA 20 of the ‘garden of the bathhouse’, also occurring in TUT 268 (AS 4/-) together with the ‘garden of the Inanna village’ (see § 2.5.4), would further suggest a location of these gardens in a peripheral area of the Ĝirsu district. 623

180

E XTENDED E CONOMIC C OMPLEXES

3.1.1. The garden of BaU na ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d B a - U 2 -n a ) This garden is attested only in STA 20. In the text, it is the only garden for which the addressed barley quantity is given as a total, without indication of the payments for the single workers. The barley amounts to 330 liters, which could correspond to a minimum of six workers: five with 60 liters each, and one with 30 liters. The garden name probably refers to a personal name, after which neither structures nor fields seem to be attested. 3.1.2. The garden of the bathhouse ( ĝ e š k iri 6 e 2 d u 1 0 -u s 2 ) This garden occurs twice in the documentation of the province. Its first attestation dates to STA 20 (Š 47/ii), which records the payments of six workers of this garden, four of them belonging to a single family group: a woman, whose name is omitted (but who is referred to as the wife of Atu) and Atu’s three sons, one of which was a water drawer. A payment of 60 liters of barley is attributed to each worker, with the exception of the woman who is entitled to 30 liters and one of her sons, an arborist, who is entitled to 40 liters. The second attestation of this garden is provided by TUT 268 (AS 4/-) which records the yield inspection (k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a ) of two gardens, the ‘garden of the bathhouse’ and the ‘garden of the Inanna village’ (§ 2.5.1). For the ‘garden of the bathhouse’, 5,160 liters of dates are recorded in the names of two brothers, Ur-Igalim and LuBaU. Although Ur-Igalim was quite a common name, it cannot be excluded that he was the same gardener attested in STA 20 and acting as garden expert five years later. The garden name refers to a bathhouse,629 as is also the case for a field of the province.630 Text

Type

Workers

STA 20 (Š 47/ii)

dam A-tu (0.0.3), SIG7-a uš2 Lu2-ga (0.1.0), Ur3payments for re-ba-du7 (0.1.0), gardeners left in the uš2 Lu2-bala-sa6-ga granary ( (0.0.4) dumu A-tuguru7-a taka4-a) me, Sukkal-[...] (0.1.0), -dIgalim (0.1.0)

TUT 268 (AS 4/-)

garden yield inspection (ĝeškiri6 kab2 du11-ga)

Responsible official Payments

ugula: Lu2-dBa-U2

um-mi-a: Ur-dIgalim (10.2.3 gur), Lu2-dBa-U2 šeš-a-ni (6.3.3 gur)

Products

Co-occurrence

17.1.0 gur zu2lum

ĝeš

1.0.1 gur

/

d

kiri6 e2-duru5 Inanna (§ 2.5.1)

3.1.3. The garden of Ĝatumdu ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d Ĝ a 2 -tu m 3 -d u 1 0 ) This garden is attested only in STA 20, which ascribes to it the payment of 30 liters of barley for one arborist, Lu-BaU. As already noted, the correspondence with the name of the supervisor likely represents a case of homonymy. The name of the garden may refer to a smaller shrine dedicated to the goddess Ĝatumdu in the area of Šulpa’e or in that of the rest station. 3.1.4. The vineyard ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin ) The name of this garden is rather generic, probably a contextual reference, and could be related to a vineyard named otherwise in the documentation. With regards to this garden, STA 20 records only a payment of 20 liters of barley for Šeškala, who is indicated as son of Lu-BaU, likely the arborist of the ‘garden of Ĝatumdu’. ––––––––––––––––– 629 With regard to d u 1 0 - u s 2 as ‘bathing place, bathroom’, see Steinkeller 1980, 97. 630 See ASJ 11, 141 68 (Š 37/-).

181

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

3.1.5. The ĝi’eden garden of Inanna ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ i 6 -e d e n d In a n n a ) This garden, whose name recalls that of four other gardens of the province ,631 is attested only in STA 20. It ascribes to the garden the payments for two arborists, indicated as sons of Lu-sig, of 20 liters and 10 liters of barley respectively. 3.1.6. The new garden of Ĝ IR3.SIG.LA ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g ib il 4 Ĝ IR3.SIG.LA) The name of this garden is not clear. As seen in§ 2.2.24, a similar expression seems to follow the name of a garden in one of the texts of the group of payments of Š 48, HLC 3, 267 (o. 7'): ĝeš k iri 6 d N in - MAR.KI Ĝ IR3.SIG.IL(?).LA, and it is not to be excluded that two different garden names refer to the same structure or place. In CT 10, 24 BM 14313, the text recording the transfer of prisoners (g e m e 2 ĝ u ru š ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a ) to the mill, two gardeners pertaining to the ‘new garden of Ĝ IR3.SIG.LA’, Ur-Hendursaĝ and his wife Zalagzalaga,632 are indicated as having been assigned to the large mill due to a date shortfall (see § 1.3.6). STA 20 attributes to this garden the payments of 18 workers (ten arborists and eight water drawers) for a total of over 600 liters taken over by Ur-gigir and Ur-Nanše, therefore acting as garden experts, whereas no similar interventions are recorded for the other gardens quoted by the text. Most of the workers registered for this garden also occur in CT 5, 42 BM 17758 (see 1.6.8) under the supervision of the same garden experts.633 Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Additional information

ĝeš

STA 20 (Š 47/ii)

Ur- gigir i3-dab5 (1.2.0+ payments for gardeners gur for 12 PN), Urleft in the granary ( guru7-a taka4-a) 6 PN)

CT 10, 24 BM 14313 (Š 48/x)

transfer (mu-kux) of prisoners (geme2 ĝuruš ĝeš tukul-e dab5-ba) to the mill (e2-kikken2)

i3-dab5: ša13-dub-ba ĝiri3: Ka-tar-dBa-U2, Ur-dHendur-saĝ, ZalagLugal-igi-huš zalag-ga dam-ni (nu-dibresponsible for the whole ĝeš ba): nu- kiri6 transfer (ĝiri3): Ur-dNungal, Lugal-lu2-sa6-sa6

2.1.4+ gur

nu-ĝeškiri6-me mu zu2-lum la2-NI-še3 ša3 e2-kikken2 gu-la-še3

3.1.7. The second garden of Inanna ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d In a n n a -m in 3 ) This garden is attested only in STA 20. The name is generic, probably a contextual reference which indicates that this is the second garden of the goddess Inanna, probably in reference to the ‘ĝi’eden garden’ mentioned before in the text. The text attributes to this garden the payment of 20 liters of barley for a single worker, Ur-BaU. 3.1.8. The garden of K aš ( ĝ e š k iri 6 K a š 4 ) This garden is attested only in STA 20, which ascribes the payment of 60 liters of barley for the water drawer Lugal-ĜEŠ.DU to it. The name Kaš (K a š 4) could refer to the name of a garden ––––––––––––––––– § 2.2.10; § 2.2.11; § 2.3.6; § 4.3.4. 632 Since the name of Zalagzalaga is preceded by the indication n u , she is to be understood as one of the nontransferred female workers ( g e m e 2 n u - d i b - b a ) occurring in the total section referring to the gardeners. 633 The workers that occur in both texts are the water drawers (Ha)bazizi (STA 20, o. i, 10; CT 5, 42, o. i, 3), Utu-IG.DUL (STA 20, o. i, 5; CT 5, 42, o. i, 15) and the arborist Madamugina (STA 20, o. i, 10; CT 5, 42, o. ii, 4) of the area of Urgigir, and the water drawers Ur-gula (STA 20, o. i, 14; CT 5, 42, o. ii, 10), Ur-zikuma (STA 20, o. i, 15; CT 5, 42, o. ii, 18), Lu-Ninšubur (STA 20, o. i, 16; CT 5, 42, o. ii, 19) and the arborists Lugal-ludu (STA 20, o. i, 17; CT 5, 42, r. i, 1), Ur-saga (STA 20, o. i 18; CT 5, 42, r. i, 3), Lugal-azida (STA 20, o. ii 19; CT 5, 42, r. i, 10) of the area of Ur-Nanše. Further, in CT 5, 42 BM 17758 (n.d.), apparently the same persons occur who in HLC 1, 66 (Š 48/ii) take charge of the personnel in the ‘garden of Kisura’ (§ 3.3), although in this case the correspondence is not so evident (see § 9.1.4) and no worker name is attested in both texts. 631

182

E XTENDED E CONOMIC C OMPLEXES

expert,634 by considering the garden name as a contextual reference, as in the case of the ‘garden of Azam’ (see § 4.4.1) and the ‘garden of Ur-eninnu’ (see § 5.1.4). Of course, it can also refer to the rest station ( -k a š 4 ). 3.1.9. The garden of Ninĝešzida ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d N in -ĝ e š-zi-d a ) This garden is only present in the STA 20, which ascribes the payments of 60 liters of barley for two deceased (uš2) water drawers to it. The name of the garden may refer to a smaller shrine dedicated to the god Ninĝešzida in the area of Šulpa’e or in that of the rest station. 3.2. The garden/vineyard of Garšum ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 (ĝ e štin ) G a r 3 -š u m k i ) 635 This garden of the Ĝirsu area is present in 15 texts related to a period of time ranging from Š 47 to IS 3. However, a distinction should be observed: the first attestations, between Š 47 and AS 8, refer to one of the gardens of the group of payments of Š 48, mosty indicated as vineyard ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin ), under the responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu, but also attested elsewhere; from ŠS 6, at least as demonstrated by the available documents, the garden name seems to have referred to an area in which other structures were grouped, probably related to the cult, but also to a mill. From ŠS 8, then, the documents do not characterize the garden as vineyard, they group together the skilled workers with other professional figures and do not mention garden administrators. Therefore, it seems possible that from about the middle of the reign of this king, this garden had become part of a larger complex, which continued to use the name of garden.636 The first attestation of the garden dates to CST 28 (Š 47/x), which registers 460 liters allotted to the water drawers and arborists of the ‘garden of Garšum’ (o. 3: ĝ e š k iri 6 G a r 3 :šu m k i ? //k e 4 ?). The amount is taken by Katar-BaU, namely the same official involved in the transactions recorded in the group of texts Š 48 as supplier of the barley amounts (see § 9.7.1.2), while the name of the supplier cannot be read. Even in this attestation, the garden is not characterized as vineyard. Further, five texts of the group of barley payments for the water drawers and arborists of Š 48 mention this garden, attributing it to the area of the garden administrator Gu’umu in the Kisura territory. HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i) ascribed to the garden 220 liters of barley for five arborists. In HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii), 60 liters barley are allocated to the garden, as bimonthly payment of only one water drawer; HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi) assigns to the garden 370 liters of barley for an unspecified number of workers; in Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) 320 liters of barley are assigned to the vineyard as the bimonthly payments of the arborists; ultimately, in HLC 3, 267 (l.d.) 310 liters of barley are allotted to the ‘vineyard of Garšum’. Dating to eight years later, TCTI 2, 3366 (AS 8/x) records the transfer of bundles of reeds for fuel from the ‘garden of Engaldudu’ (§ 6.1) to the ‘vineyard of Garšum’. It cannot be excluded that already in this period the complex was meant, rather then the actual vineyard. The conveyor of the transaction is the gardener (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) Lu-balasaga, whose name, suggestibly, may recall that of an arborist employed in the garden in HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i), thus nine years before. MVN 6, 269 (ŠS 6/iii/25) records the expenditure of various commodities from three officials, whose titles are not indicated, and the name of the conveyor can be barely read. The expenditure consists of bread, vegetable oil, sesame, bran and a carcass of sheep allotted to the ––––––––––––––––– 634 Kaš may be the name of one of the workers listed in CT 5, 42 BM 17758 (r. ii, 10). In addition, the presence of a ‘vineyard of Kaš ’ in the area of the garden administrator Gamu close to provincial borders should probably not be excluded (§ 7.1.6) 635 There is little information about this site, other than it was especially connected with vineyards and rituals (Edzard and Farber 1974). 636 DAS 238 (ŠS 3/iv) record the delivery of goods for offerings ( n i ĝ 2 s i z k u r 2 - r a ) for the vineyard ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š t i n ) . If this garden was intended, the change of the garden may have taken place earlier.

183

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

‘personnel of the vineyard of Garšum’ (ĝ iri 3 -se 3 -g a ĝ e š k iri 6 [ĝ e štin ] G a r 3 -š u m k i ). The personnel was not necessarily composed of gardeners only, but could have included workers inherent to the complex, according to the broadest meaning of the term ‘personnel’ in relation to the gardens (§ 1.1.1). SAT 1, 208 (ŠS 8/i), then, records some expenditures from the captain Lugal-nammah, to include that of a goat for the offerings of this garden. In this case, the function of conveyor is performed by a scribe. UCP 9-2-1, 34 (ŠS 9/-) is a balanced account drafted by an official, whose name is not completely legible ([...]-d U tu ). The garden is reported indirectly, since it is mentioned just as reference to the location of the granary, from which the barley quantity pertaining to one entry of the capital derives: (o. 6) g u ru 7 i 7 -a ĝ e š k iri 6 // G a r 3 -šu m k i -k a , ‘the granary on (the banks of) the canal, (where) the garden of Garšum (is situated)’. This quantity of barley, as well as those included in two preceding entries, whose conveyors are Lu-Utu and Duganizi, is indicated as coming from a warehouse (o. 8: e 2 -k išib -b a -ta ). In the expenditure section, part of the barley, over 8,100 liters, is described as the payments (š e -b a ) of the additional month (d iri) for the ‘garden of Garšum’(r. 7), and it is acquired by Duganizi, likely the same official mentioned before. The quantity of barley indicated in the text corresponds to the standard payments of 60 liters of about 135 workers, a number which can be imagined to have included more than just gardeners. Additionally, as noted in § 1.3.1, it cannot be excluded that the barley (900 liters) allotted for the ‘hired labor’ (a 2 h u ĝ -ĝ a 2 ) in ITT 3, 5367 (ŠS 9/viii) pertained to this garden or the economic complex named after it. The barley, supplied by an untitled official, is acquired by the major of Lullubu,637 and it is unclear whether the indication which follows ‘from the woodshed’ (ĝ a 2 -n u n ĝ e š-ta ) may refer to: the place where the hired workers had been employed, the provenience of the barley amount, or the place where the acquisition took place. CUSAS 16, 8 (IS 1/vi/12) records a transfer of prisoners (lu 2 ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a ); one of them is characterized as SIG7-a , who Ur-Inanna takes charge of and who is assigned to ‘garden of Garšum’. The profession of Ur-Inanna, as well as that of the conveyor of the transferred workers, UNga, is not indicated. Considering that at the time of the draft, the name of the garden refers to a complex including a mill, the specification SIG7-a for the worker does not necessarily refer to a water drawer.638 Furthermore, the identification of Ur-Inanna with the alleged contemporary garden administrator seems unlikely; there seems to be no evidence for the presence of garden administrators in the management of this garden when it became part of a larger compound, while the persistence of the workers of the gardens remains evident. BBVO 10, 87 282 (IS 2/xii) records expenditures of goods defined in excess (n iĝ 2 d iri) for 12 months. It represents the summarizing record concerning different single transactions, the records of which were previously stored together and referred to as ‘(documents) in the leather bag’ (ša 3 k u š d u 1 0 -g a n ).639 Among the listed goods, ranging from disbursements for cultic purposes and payments for the workers, the record of 600 liters of bread (n in d a ) occurs twice, a quantity taken by the garden experts, arborists and water drawers of the ‘garden of Garšum’. The text also records 608 liters of bread taken by the ‘eunuchs’ and garden workers (present) at the worker inspection (a m a r-k u 5 , u m -m i-a , d u 3 -a -k u 5 , a -b a la S I G 7 -a g u ru m 2 a k a ). In the total section, unfortunately not entirely legible, the working personnel of the garden is considered as a whole, though it includes workers of different spheres, suggesting however, that these different worker categories concerned the same area (see § 1.2.1). Two untitled officials and one scribe occur as responsible (k išib ) for the whole recorded transactions, while a further untitled official occurs as conveyor. ––––––––––––––––– To be understood as a settlement where prisoners of war from Lullubu have been settled. See Falkenstein 1966, 34; Steinkeller 2013, 354. 638 With regard to the types of profession which this designation could refer to, see Heimpel 2009a, 45-46. 639 The term k u š d u 1 0 - g a n indicates the sealed labels that were attached to the leather bags, which contained daily records summarized in multimonthly accounts (Veldhuis 2001, 90). 637

184

E XTENDED E CONOMIC C OMPLEXES

RA 58, 108 115 (IS 3/-) records an oil amount delivered by Ur-abba, likely the scribe son of Bazi (§ 9.7.2.1), for the payments of the female workers of the mill ( g e m e 2 k ik k e n 2 ) of the ‘garden of Garšum’, suggesting the presence of this structure within the complex named after the garden. The title of the reciever (k išib ), Ušgina is illegible, while that of the conveyor, Lu-BaU is not specified. WMAH 145 (-/x/17) and ITT 5, 6925 (-/x) both record expenditures of goods as offerings of the 10th month. The first record concerns the expenditure of flour as offerings (siz k u r 2 ) for the ‘garden of Garšum’; the flour is provided by Lugal-nammah, the same captain occurring with the same function in SAT 1, 208 (ŠS 8/i). The second text records the expenditures concerning five different offerings, among them three vessels of beer concentrate of good quality ( d u g d id a sa g a 1 0 ) as offering for the ‘garden of Garšum’. The text does not mention suppliers, recipients or conveyors. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

CST 28 (Š 47/x)

allotment of barley as payments (še-ba) for water n workers for 1.2.4 drawers (a-bala) and gur arborists (du3-a-ku5)

Payments

Additional information

šu ba-ti: Ka-tar-dBaU2

1.2.4 gur še

ki Ur-[...-ta]

d

HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/ii)

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/i-ii)

bimonthly payments (šeba) for water drawers (abala) and arborists (du3-aku5)

HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi)

Nin-MAR.KI-ka (0.1.0),640 Lu2-balasa6-ga (0.0.4), Lu2d Ba-U2 (0.0.3), ugula: Gu2-u3-mu Sukkal-di-de3 dumu

d Nin-MAR.KI-ka (0.0.3), Bi2-du11-i3-sa6 (0.1.0)

(0.1.0)

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

0.1.0 še

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

n workers for 1.1.1 še gur

ugula: [Gu2-u3-mu santana]

1.1.1 gur še

Amherst 54 (Š 48/viii-ix)

bimonthly payments (šeba) for arborists (du3-aku5)

n workers for 1.0.2 še gur

ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

1.0.2 gur še

TCTI 2, 3366 (AS 8/x)

transfer of reeds from the ‘garden of Engaldudu’ (ĝe škiri6 En-gal-du-du)

šu ba-ti: A-hu-a ĝiri3: Lu2-bala-sa6-ga nu-ĝeškiri6

MVN 6, 269 (ŠS 6/iii/25)

allotment of goods for the personnel (ĝiri3-se3-ga) of the ‘vineyard of Garšum’ (ĝe škiri6 [ĝeštin] Gar3šumki)

ĝiri3: Lu2-iri-[...] dumu dUtu-mu i3-[...] ki ~ -ta: Lu2-maš-gula, Ur-ab-ba, E2-nama-šul

SAT 1, 208 (ŠS 8/i)

expenditure (zi-ga) of goods as offerings (sizkur2)

ĝiri3: Lu2-dĜa2-tumdu10 dub-sar; ki ~ -ta: Lugal-nam2 NU-banda3

balanced account of barley (niĝ2-ka9 aka [...]-dUtu)

ĝiri3: Lu2-dUtu, Du11ga-ni-zi kišib: Du11-ga-ni-zi

UCP 9-2-1, 34 (ŠS 9/-)

SIG7-a AN-bu3-u2-a

0.3.4 še

1,020 sa gi-izi

1.0.0 gur ninda; 0.0.1 i3-ĝeš; 1.0.0 gur duh ĝeš-i3;1 ad6 udu 1 maš sizkur2 ĝeš kiri6 Gar3šumki 27.3.4 5 sila3 še (šeba iti diri); 12.3.5 gur še; guru7 i7-a ĝeškiri6 Gar3šumki-ka

––––––––––––––––– 640 The payment pertaining to this worker is recorded alongside the indication of the patronymic of the son.

185

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

ITT 3, 5367 (ŠS 9/viii)

allotment of barley for hired labor (a2 huĝ-ĝa)

n workers for 3.0.0 še gur (ĝeškiri6 gibil?-kiĝ2?ki)

ki ~ -ta: Lu2-dUtu kišib: dUtu-ba-e3 haza-num2 Lu-lu-buki ĝa2-nun ĝeš-ta

3.0.0 gur še

CUSAS 16, 8 (IS 1/vi/12)

transfer of prisoners ( ĝeštukul-e dab5-ba)

1 SIG7-a (0.1.0) ĝeškiri6 i3-dab5: Ur-dInanna Gar3-šumki ĝiri3: UN-ga6

BBVO 10, 87 282 (IS 2/xii)

summarizing record of the n um-mi-a du3-a-ku5 expenditures of goods in a-bala SIG7-a ĝeškiri6 excess (zi-ga niĝ2 diri) Gar3-šumki

oil payments for the RA 58, 108 115 female workers of the mill n geme2 kikken2 (IS 3/-) (e2-kikken2 ĝeškiri6 Gar3šumki) WMAH 145 (-/x/17)

expenditure (zi-ga) of goods as offerings (sizkur2)

ITT 5, 6925 (-/x)

expenditure (zi-ga) of goods as offerings (sizkur2)

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (šen workers for 1.0.1 še ba) for water drawers and gur arborists [a-bala du3-a-ku5]

Additional information

0.1.0 še

šu ba-ab-ti: um-mi-a a-bala du3-a-ku5 SIG7a ĝiri3 :Ur-dNin- MAR.KI dumu Lugal-ušumgal kišib: Ur-ni9-ĝar dumu Ur-dIg-alim; Lu2-Ba-gara2 dub-sar; Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-suki

2.0.0 gur ninda ara2 2-kam 2.0.0 8 sila3 (amarku5, du3-a-ku5, ummi-a a-bala SIG7-a)

ĝiri3: Lu2-dBa-U2 kišib: Uš-gi-na ki ~ -ta: Ur-ab-ba

0.0.1 4 5/6 sila3 i3

e2-kikken2 ĝeš kiri6 Gar3šumki [...] zi3 sizkur2 ĝeš kiri6 Gar3šumki

ki ~ -ta: Lugal-nam2mah

3 dugdida saga10 sizkur2 ĝeškiri6 Gar3-šumki ugula: Gu2-u3-mu santana

1.0.1 gur še

3.3. The garden of Kisura ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 K i-su r -r a k i ) 641 This garden is attested 11 times at Ĝirsu, including two times in texts belonging to the group of payments Š 48, and six times at Umma,642 between Š 46 and ŠS 2 (ŠS 4 at Umma). As seen in § 2.2, a further text of the group of payments Š 48, HLC 1, 102, does not provide attestation of the garden, but rather it indicates that the listed gardens were planted in the area of Kisura: K i-s u rra k i d u 3 -a . Furthermore, the colophon specified: š e -b a a -b a la d u 3 -a -k u 5 / ĝ e š k iri 6 [...]-k a , ‘barley payments for the water drawers and arborists of the ‘garden(s) of [...]’, an indication that would have somehow elucidated the difference among the gardens managed by the garden administrators Abbaĝu and Gu’umu and those managed by Nabi within the Kisura territory. Regardless of the presence of gardens in this district area, it seems likely that the expression ‘garden of Kisura’ referred to a specific place in the proximity of the homonymous settlement, where different economic units or structures may have coexisted: a rest station,643 garden and vegetable plots, and a cultic area to which offerings were addressed. In MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-), the text recording regular offerings of fruit to the gods (see § 1.6.5), there is the entry: (r. ix, 28'): [...]-k a Ĝ ir 2 -s u k i K i-s u r-ra , ‘[...] Ĝirsu Kisura’, among the cultic places receiving fruit offerings under the supervision of the garden administrator Ka. ––––––––––––––––– As seen in § 2.2, it was a settlement next to the northern border with Umma province. Heimpel noted that, although a rest station is never mentioned in this area (rather only gardens), there is evidence that donkies and mules were stationed there. It seems, indeed, that the designation itself ‘garden of Kisura’ represented the name of the complex, which consisted of a rest station and its surrounding gardens (Heimpel 1994, 27). 642 In the name of the garden of Umma, Kisura does not show the determinative (ki), with the exception of SAT 3, 1446 (ŠS 4/iv). Therefore, it is not to be excluded that the text refers to the ‘garden’ of Ĝirsu. 643 Heimpel 1994. 641

186

E XTENDED E CONOMIC C OMPLEXES

The first document in chronological order to directly quote the ‘garden of Kisura’ is Nisaba 18, 103 (Š 46/vii) which consists of envelope and tablet. The envelope, partially broken, reports a barley amount for the payments of three water drawers (SIG7-a ), of 60 liters each, and one arborist (whose amount is not recorded) assigned to the ‘garden of Kisura’. A further indication before the destination (š e -KA) could concern the matter of payment as well as the type of work to be done.644 The barley is acquired by Lu-diĝira son of Ur-Lisi, whose profession is not even mentioned in the seal. MVN 12, 117 (Š 46/xi) dates to four months later and records the transfer of workers from different centers or economic units to this garden, probably conveyed by captains.645 A certain Izu takes charge (i 3 -d a b 5 ) of nine workers, while a certain Ur-dam takes charge of the entire personnel. After the listed workers, but before the total section, the sealed document (k išib ) of Lu-diĝira son of Ur-Lisi is mentioned, the same official occurring in Nisaba 18, 103; it may be inferred that Lu-diĝira ‘acquired’ the workers who were not included in the group taken charge of by Izu. In the total section, the workers are subdivided into nineteen male workers (ĝ u ru š), one child, fourteen escaped (z a h 3 ) and two SIG7-a , most of whom were probably unrelated to the garden sphere.646 Further, HLC 1, 66 (Š 48/ii) records the payments for the water drawers and arborists of the ‘garden of Kisura’ for the second month of Š 48. The text concerns the payments of ca. 100 workers, of which ca. 85 are subdivided in seven groups headed by garden experts, according to the scheme presented in § 1.6.8. The remaining workers are subdivided into sixteen workers belonging the previous workforce (lib ir-a m 3 ), and at least five workers labeled as being ‘in addition to the previous ones’ ([d a h ] lib ir-m e ). The number of workers within the groups varies significantly; the group supervised by Alla-banzi is composed by thirteen adults, four children and one inactive worker, none of them indicated as water drawers, while the group supervised by UrNinazu is composed by four adults, of which three are water drawers (SIG7-a ), one of them no longer active; as a further example, the group supervised by Abba consists of seven adults, of which five are water drawers (SIG7-a ) and one is a child. As a result, there is a certain discrepancy between the amount under the responsibility of Alla-banzi, that is 845 liters of barley (which also includes his payment of 60 liters), the amount under the responsibility of Ur-Ninazu, 220 liters (which also includes his payment of 60 liters), and that of 380 liters under the responsibility of Abba (which also includes his payment of 60 liters). In a group of seven adult workers, of which three are water drawers (SIG7-a ) the presence of a ‘eunuch’ (a m a r-k u 5 ) and his son is indicated, under the responsibility of the garden expert Utu-bara (whose payment is not recorded). Finally, the group supervised by the garden expert Manšum (for whom a payment of 60 liters is indicated) consists of five adult workers, one woman, and a child ‘employed in an area next to tamarisks’ ( ĝ e š šin ig -d a tu š-a ). The total amount of the payments is 4,310 liters of barley and occurs under the responsibility of Nabi (2,115 liters), likely the garden administrator (§ 9.1.4), and of a certain [...]-gu ([2,195 liters]). Contemporary attestations of the ‘garden of Kisura’ are present, as already mentioned, in two texts of the payments of Š 48 (see § 2.2), where the information concerning the garden in question is considered in a separate section, outside the supervision of the garden administrators Gu’umu and Abbaĝu. MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) attributes to the ‘garden of Kisura’ 60 liters (likely corresponding to the payments of two water drawers) under the supervision of Ur-Alla son of Šumua.647 Further, HLC 3, 267 (l.d.) records 7,880 liters of barley for the ‘garden of Kisura’, an amount subdivided under the responsibility of Ur-Alla (4,200 liters) and Nabi ([3,680 liters]) and separated from those under the responsibility of the garden administrators Gu’umu and Abbaĝu. ––––––––––––––––– 644 Anastasi and Pomponio 2009, 111. 645 See § 1.9 and § 9.1.3. 646 For at least one worker, Ur-Igalim, the title of gardener ( n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 ) is specified, while some of them are designated as SIG7- a , and others are, instead, generically defined as dependent workers ( e r i n 2 ) or slaves ( u r d u 2 ), or just listed by name or else they are indicated as pertaining to categories unrelated to the garden sphere. 647 A garden administrator with this name is never attested in the documentation.

187

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

The ‘garden of Kisura’ is present also in HLC 2, 25 (l.d.), the text recording additional information about an inspection of workers employed in three gardens of Ĝirsu (see § 2.2). As seen, three workers no longer active are indicated as: ‘(workers) expended (from the) greenery plot (of the garden of Kisura), (whose presence was recorded) after (the supervision? of) Lugalegal’. This indication is followed by the name of one inactive worker under the supervision of UrBaU, whose title is not indicated. Therefore, the first three workers pertain to the greenery plot, here considered as part of the ‘garden of Kisura’, which other texts648 present as the place where offerings were directed to. This indication, in fact, could confirm the presence of gardens and greenery plots within an articulate complex, with buildings, cultic places and productive plots. Two copies of the same document, MVN 20, 139 and MVN 20, 143 (ŠS 2/i), record the expenditure (z i-g a ) of 20 liters of vegetable oil (i 3 -ĝ e š) and 50 liters of bran (d u h ) for unskilled workers (g a n -d a b 5 ) daily employed and assigned to the ‘garden of Kisura’. The conveyor is Ur-Ninĝirsu son of Lu-Nanše, whose title is unknown, while it is specified that the workers ‘took’ their own payments (šu b a -a b -ti). ITT 5, 6925 (-/x) records the expenditures of one vessel of beer concentrate of good quality ( d u g d id a sa g a 1 0 ), as offerings for the ‘garden of Kisura’, alongside those for the ‘garden of Garšum’ (§ 3.2) and the mouth of the canal BaU -heĝal (§ 2.2.9). Finally, the last attestation of the ‘garden of Kisura’ is given by HLC 2, 112 (-/x), a text recording the garment and barley payments of five workers, which were not distributed (5 ĝ u ru š n u sik i-b a še šu n u -ti-a ), in the ‘garden of Kisura’. It seems that the specified workers did not pertain to the garden sphere.649 Therefore, the ‘garden of Kisura’could refer to the garden(s) planted in a more articulate complex, which embraced also cultic places and a rest station, as proposed by Heimpel, in an area of the Ĝirsu district towards the Umma border. In the same territory, but apparently without any connection with other structures, there were gardens managed by the garden administrators Gu’umu and Abbaĝu and sometimes mentioned together with the ‘garden of Kisura’, probably on the basis of a territorial proximity. Text

Type

allotment of barley as Nisaba 18, payments (še-ba) for water 103 (Š 46/vii) drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5) MVN 12, 117 transfer (i3-dab5) of workers (Š 46/xi)

HLC 1, 66 (Š 48/ii)

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

MVN 12, 297 monthly payments (še-ba) (Š 48/x) for water drawers (a-bala)

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

3 SIG7-a, 1 du3-a-ku5

kišib: Lu2-diĝir-ra dumu Ur-dLi9-si4

+0.3.0 še

19 ĝuruš, AŠ dumu,14 ĝuruš zah3, 2 ĝuruš SIG7-a

i3-dab5: I3-zu, Ur-dam kišib: Lu2-diĝir-ra dumu Ur-dLi9-si4 NIM-mu among the conveyors (ĝiri3)

+100 du3-a-ku5/a-bala um-mi-a: Al-la-ba-an-zi, i -dab5: Na-bi (santana), Ab-ba, Ur-dNin-a-zu (2×), 3 [...]-gu; Ur-dBa-U2, dUtu-bar-ra, Ma-an-šum2 (ugula) SIG7-a

Lu2-bi-mu (0.0.3), Lugal-za3-mi (0.0.3)

ugula: Ur-dAl-la

Additional information

14.1.5 gur še

0.1.0 še

––––––––––––––––– WMAH 143 (ŠS 1/xii), Princeton 2, 294 (-/iv), Nisaba 18, 164 (-/v), WMAH 147 (XX/ix), TCTI 1, 1043 (-/ix), DAS 240 (-/xi) record goods, such as flour, oil, dates, as offering to the k i - n i s i g x ( S A R ) K i - s u r - r a k i , ‘greenery plot of Kisura’, while in SAT 1, 9 (-/vii) the offering place is indicated as k i - š u m 2 - s i k i l K i - s u r - r a k i , ‘alliaceous plant plot of Kisura’. 649 The group, indeed, is headed by someone designated as ‘apprentice of the group of ten (workers)’ (š e š - g a l n a m 1 0 ) , an expression that entails a category acting administratively on the same level of the garden experts (u m - m i - a ) , but in other economic sectors. 648

188

E XTENDED E CONOMIC C OMPLEXES

Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

Payments

MVN 20, 139-143 (ŠS 2/i)

expenditure (zi-ga) of goods n gan-dab5 u4 tuš-a (šu ba- ĝiri3: Ur-dNin-ĝir-su dumu 2 sila3 i3-ĝeš; for gan-dab5 workers ab-ti) Lu2-dNanše; 0.0.5 duh

ITT 5, 6925 (-/x)

expenditure (zi-ga) of goods as offerings (sizkur2)

HLC 2, 112 (-/x)

record of wool and barley not distributed (nu siki-ba še 5 ĝuruš šu nu-ti-a)

HLC 3, 267 (l.d.)

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists [a-bala du3-a-ku5]

HLC 2, 25 (l.d.)

(uš2) Lu2-dNa-ru2-a a-igiadditional information to du8, (uš2) Ur-dIg-alim, gardener inspection (gurum2 (uš2) Ur-Saĝ-ub3ki kiaka dib-ba nu-ĝeškiri6-ke4-ne) nisigx (SAR) (uš2) Al-la

Additional information

1 dugdida saga10

n workers for 26.1.2 še gur

[ugula:] Na-bi (santana) ugula: Ur-Al-la

26.1.2 gur še

ugula: Ur-dBa-U2

Further information about the gardens of this economic complex could be traced in two texts, though it is unclear whether they refer to the gardens lying in the north of the district, in the area of the garden administrators Abbaĝu and Gu’umu, or to the gardens of the complex. As seen in § 1.7, DAS 213 (-/vii) records the expenditure (z i-g a ) of bread (n in d a ) allotted to some workers who are defined as ‘the men of the wool distribution’ (lu 2 sik i-b a -m e ), including 300 liters for the water drawers and arborists of Ĝirsu (o. 1-2: 1.0.0 n in d a g u r / a -b a la d u 3 -a -k u 5 Ĝ ir 2 su k i -m e ), 70 liters for the water drawers and arborists of Kisura (o. 3: 0.1.1 n in d a a -b a la d u 3 a -k u 5 K i-s u r-ra k i -m e ). A further expenditure of 25 liters is allotted to the menials (UN-g a 6 ) and the ‘eunuchs’ (a m a r-k u 5 ), while a last amount of 25 liters is allotted to the ‘gardeners of Ninegal’ (r. 2: 0.0.2 5 s ila 3 n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 d N in -e 2 -g a l). The title of the conveyor is not specified. Nisaba 7, 12 (n.d.) records the allotment of barley amounts (lit. ‘clay tablet of the allotted barley’, im še h a -la -a ) to the personnel of different economic sectors of the whole province, varying from the worker categories, to the city personnel or that of specific households, among which 18,000 liters of barley are assigned as payments for the gardeners of Kisura (r. i, 17: n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 K i-su r-ra k i ) and 31,200 liters are assigned for gardeners (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) without further indication (r. i, 11), but probably intending the gardeners of Ĝirsu. 3.4. The garden of the mill ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 e 2 -k ik k e n 2 ) In the Ĝirsu province during the Neo-Sumerian period, there were at least six mills,650 with which other economic structures or units were associated, such as shipyards or gardens.651 Only two texts, RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/iv) and TCTI 2, 3721 (AS 7/ix), explicitly mention the gardens of the mill ( ĝ e š k iri 6 e 2 -k ik k e n 2 ). In the first text, RA 54, 130 44, which records the payments of the gardeners left in the granary (see § 1.8.7.4), the barley amount pertaining to two gardeners is neither under the supervision of garden administrators, nor are the workers themselves supervised by garden experts (as it happens for the other listed gardeners), but there is mention of the relevant garden, namely the ‘garden of the mill’. The second text, TCTI 2, 3721, records the transfer of timber from a garden to the shipyard. The garden of provenience is indicated by the name of the garden expert, GiKAmu,652 followed by the specification ‘[...] garden ––––––––––––––––– 650 See Milano 1993, 397. 651 In this regard, see Gregoire 1999. 652 GiKAmu is also present (r. ii, 20') acting as supervisor (u g u l a ) in the text recording the inspection of ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ gardeners, MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-), hence in a role similar to that played by the garden administrators

189

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

of the mill’. It is not to be excluded that the specification would refer to GiKAmu, thus indicating him as gardener of the mill ([n u ?]- ĝ e š k iri 6 ), rather than to the garden itself (see § 5.1). In chronological terms, the first indirect attestation of gardens in the area of a mill dates to CT 3, 9 BM 18344 (Š 48/xii), a text recording the barley payment of the ‘whole (personnel) of the mill’ (k ilib 3 -b a še -b a ša 3 e 2 -k ik k e n 2 ), which attests to the presence of a group of workers indicated as ‘garden personnel’ (ĝ iri 3 -se 3 -g a ĝ e š k iri 6 ). This group of workers is composed of 49 workers differentiated by payment, for a total of 2,735 liters of barley. In the text, all the listed workers are under the supervision of Lugal-igihuš and are defined as generic unskilled workers (g a n -d a b 5 ), so not to be intended as permanent and skilled personnel, while in the list they are divided into two larger groups taken charge of (i 3 -d a b 5 ) by two officials, Lu-Ninšubur and UrEngaldudu. The three officials involved653 are likely officials of the mill (§ 9.7.1). Further, HSS 4, 8 (AS 7/x) should be probably considered, the text recording the transfer of seven SIG7-a workers to the mill from Ur; three workers are taken charge of (i 3 -d a b 5 ) by Lugaligihuš, and four workers by Lu-Ninšubur, namely two officials also acting in CT 3, 9 18344. However, the purpose of the transfer is not expressed, nor is there particular indication suggesting an interpretation as water drawers of the workers characterized as SIG7-a .654 The conveyor is UrBaU son of Lugal-imrua, a scribe elsewhere involved in the payment of barley allotted to garden workers (see § 1.11.4). Finally, another clue may refer to gardens somehow connected with the mill, that is, the ‘dates of the mill’ (z u 2 -lu m k ik k e n 2 ), which occur as a type of dates along with those of ‘good quality’ (sa g a 1 0 ) and those ‘ordinary’ ( ) in three texts: MVN 15, 181 (l.d.), CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4), and MVN 5, 155 (AS 3/-).655 What type of dates this designation entails is unclear; however, at least in two cases,656 it refers to part of the dates produced in a specific garden, the ‘garden of Ur-Ninĝirsu I’ (§ 2.2.32). As shown by these texts, it would seem that the management of the gardens pertaining to the mills was not the responsibility of garden administrators. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

CT 3, 9 BM 18344 (Š 48/xii)

payments (še-ba) for the personnel of the mill

37 ĝuruš 0.1.0-ta; 7 ĝuruš 0.0.5-ta; 3 ĝuruš 0.0.4-ta; 1 ĝuruš 0.0.3- ugula: Lugal-igi-huš ta; 1 dumu 0.0.1 5 sila3- i3-dab5: Lu-Ninšubur ta (gan-dab5-me / ĝiri3se3-ga ĝeškiri6)

RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/iv)

payments for gardeners left in the granary (še- Ur-dIg-alim (0.1.0), d ba nu-ĝeškiri6-ke4-ne Utu-sa6-ga (0.1.0) guru7-a taka4-a)

Payments

Products

9.0.3 5 sila3 še

0.2.0 še

––––––––––––––––– occurring in the text. In this text, Atu son of Ur-niĝar also occurs as supervisor of a few workers; however, he is is never attested in connection with the garden management of the province. 653 See e.g. CT 10, 24 BM 14313 (Š 48/x), where Lugal-igihuš, the official of the mill (see § 9.7.1.1), together with the scribe Katar-BaU (see 9.7.1.2), acts as conveyor of prisoners transferred to the large mill; in this text, Lu-Ninšubur and Ur-Engaldudu also takes charge of some other prisoners. Ur-Engaldudu could have been an official of the mill as well (see CT 3, 40 BM 21336; Š 48/-). 654 See Heimpel 2009a. 655 Unlike the other two texts, MVN 5, 155 does not concern the garden management, but rather it records the inventory of products and artifacts likely pertaining to the warehouse (r. iv, 1-2: e 2 š u š u m - m a / š a 3 - k i š i b - < b a - k a > ). In the text, 48 liters of this type of dates (o. ii, 10) are indicated as being derived ‘from the date account’ (o. iii, 2: n i ĝ 2 k a 9 z u 2 - l u m - t a ) pertaining to Ĝirsu (š a 3 Ĝ i r 2 - s u k i ), in addition to hundreds liters of ordinary dates, dates of good quality or fresh, and other fruit types and palm by-products (see § 9.7.3.2). 656 It is not to be excluded that the ‘dates of the mill’ recorded in MVN 5, 155 (AS 3/-) have been produced in the ‘garden of Ur-Ninĝirsu I’ (48 liters, to be compared to the 10 liters recorded in MVN 15, 181 and the 30 liters recorded in CUSAS 16, 74 for this garden), while the remaining produce concerning the date account surely derived from the various gardens of the district.

190

E XTENDED E CONOMIC C OMPLEXES

Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

TCTI 2, 3721 (AS 7/ix)

expenditure of timber for the shipyard

Gi-KA-mu (um-mi-a)

ĝiri3: Ur-dLamma dub-sar

HSS 4, 8 (AS 7/x)

transfer (i3-dab5) of workers SIG7-a to the mill

7 SIG7-a

i3-dab5: Lugal-igihuš; Lu2-Nin-šubur ĝiri3: Ur-dBa-U2 dumu Lugal-im-ru-a

Payments

Products 222 ĝešu3-suh5 ĝeš mi-ri2-za ma2 60 gur; 10 ĝešgi-muš

3.4.1. The garden workers of the mill of Saĝdana A group of texts dating to AS 9-ŠS 1657 records the employment of workers at the mill of Saĝdana (e 2 -k ik k e n 2 š a 3 S a ĝ -d a -n a ).658 Among the listed personnel, there are Šulul the gardener (n u ĝeš k iri 6 ) from Ĝirsu, Ur-Hendursaĝ son of Lu-BaU and Lu-Narua son of Nin-kini, who are indicated as inactive arborists, under the supervision of NIMmu (quite possibly, the garden administrator; see § 9.1.3).

––––––––––––––––– 657 This group of texts was studied by Uchitel and amounts to 25 texts; however, only one text, CT 10, 26 BM 14315 (AS 9/iv/3), reports the presence of two arborists and a garden expert from Ĝirsu under the supervision of NIMmu. In 14 other texts there is only mention of the garden expert: CT 10, 26 BM 14315 (AS 9/iv/3); ASJ 18, 226 (AS 9/v/8); TUT 139 (AS 9/v/13); CT 10, 32 BM 23135 (AS 9/v/14); UDT 60 (AS 9/v/16); MVN 5, 165 (AS 9/v/25); MVN 5, 166 (AS 9/v/28); www.bonhams.com 16639 1 (AS 9/v/28); ASJ 6, 95 (AS 9/vi/6); CUSAS 16, 19 (AS 9/vi/10); CUSAS 16, 20 (AS 9/vi/12); HSS 4, 14 (AS 9/vi/30); HLC 2, 51 (AS 9/ix/8); HLC 3, 360 (AS 9/x/5); CT 3, 31 BM 19740 (ŠS 1/iv/8). For the interpretation of these texts, see Uchitel 1984. 658 The ancient name of Puzriš-Dagān, which was maintained in documents from Umma and Ĝirsu (Steinkeller 2001, 56).

191

CHAPTER FOUR

THE GARDENS OF GU-INIĜINŠEDU

This chapter aims at collecting the information provided by the documentation about the presence of gardens in the Gu-Iniĝinšedu district. References to the gardens of this district are various in nature and come from different types of texts, which relate to the management of gardens to different extents. In this regard, indeed, the available information varies from the presence and the dimensions of the garden areas lying in a territory that, in a broad sense, can be considered close to the provincial borders (for which the administrative pertinence of the governor is indicated), to the presence of garden plots, both proper gardens ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ) and irrigation inlet-areas (k a -a - DU) along the banks of the main canal of the district, the Niĝinšedu (divided into areas of responsibility of the household administrators). The documentation concerning this district also provides information about the garden administrators’ (sa n ta n a ) management of the single plots lying within the household territories, or about the detailed composition of the gardens and their crops, mostly of the Lagaš area, or of vast vineyard areas, in particular in the Niĝin area. Therefore, the information of this district offers a particular perspective on the garden reality: from a general view provided by the texts concerning land surveys (a -š a 3 g id 2 -d a ) which report the presence of gardens within the agricultural and administrative landscape, to the perspective provided by the texts concerning the planning of works, which more precisely frame the presence of gardens in connection with the main watercourses, to the detail of the descriptions offered by the texts concerning the measurements of gardens themselves ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g id 2 -d a ). To a lesser extent, more or less explicit information about the gardens in this area is offered by texts concerning the skilled workers. Therefore, the presentation of the gardens in this chapter roughly follows the path traced by the different texts illustrating the different degrees of responsibility for the garden areas, from the most generic role of the governor of the province and, to a lesser extent, of the household administrators, to the more detailed role of the garden administrators, differentiated by areas within the district. 4.1. Presence of gardens in the area of the north-western border Two texts recording land surveys, AfO 24, 17 (Š 36/-) and Mesopotamia 5-6, 300 (Š 36/-),659 document the presence of gardens within cities and fields, in an area which can be broadly considered to have been close to the borders of the province, borders which were redrawn during the Neo-Sumerian period.660 The previous chapters have dealt with the presence of gardens lying ––––––––––––––––– 659 Noteworthy is ASJ 8, 346 2 (l.d.), which apparently records the same text as Mesopotamia 5-6, 300 in a more fragmentary state, but which adds some measurements that in Mesopotamia 5-6, 300 were erased. As emphasized by Maekawa, these texts record specific land surveys of the province ( a - š a 3 g i d 2 - d a Ĝ i r 2 - s u k i) ordered by Šulgi, in which the responsible official was Inim-Šara land surveyor of the king ( s a ĝ - d u 5 ). According to this scholar, indeed, these surveys responded specifically to the ruler’s policy, which aimed at the reorganization of the arable lands of the province with respect to the temple households. In addition, the author also stressed that the texts describing the landscape in terms of agricultural units (see 3.1. The presence of gardens in the Ĝirsu province) pertain to the texts which document the reorganization of the lands during the Šulgi’s reign (Maekawa 1997b, 114-116). 660 Adams and Nissen stressed the paucity of evidence for the borders of the Neo-Sumerian provinces, especially on the borders between Ur, Ĝirsu and Umma (Adams and Nissen 1972, 48). Recently Steinkeller proposed a localization of GARšana, situated in the Umma province, southwest of Ĝirsu (Telloh), hence he did not exclude an identification with the site of Tell Nassirya, 13 km southwest of Telloh (Steinkeller, 2011, 375-384). Therefore, according to the

193

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

in an area on the border between Umma and Ĝirsu, known as Kisura,661 likely to be sought in the northern area of the Ĝirsu district; however, the area described by Mesopotamia 5-6, 300 and AfO 24, pl. 17 might have been rather located in an area which fell partly within the Ĝirsu district and partly in the Gu-Iniĝinšedu district, towards the western border. In particular, in these two texts it is specified: n iĝ 2 -ĝ a l 2 -la e n si 2 Ĝ ir 2 -s u k i -k a , ‘possession (in administrative terms) of the governor of Ĝirsu’ (in the case of AfO 24, 17) and n iĝ 2 -ĝ a l 2 -la Ĝ ir 2 -su k i -k a , ‘possession (in administrative terms) of Ĝirsu’ (in the case of Mesopotamia 5-6, 300), referring to the province rather than to the district. Mesopotamia 5-6, 300 and AfO 24, 17 provide at the end of the list of the registered fields and before the total section, the indication a -š a 3 G u 2 -e d e n -n a , understood by Pettinato as ‘march of the Gu’edena’.662 During Neo-Sumerian times, the Gu’edena represented a non-urbanized district of the Umma province663 and these texts may have reported how much of this area fell within the contemporary Ĝirsu province, referring even to the border with Ur and therefore intending a wider area. AfO 24, 17 begins with a separate section, in which some plots indicated as: niĝ 2 -ĝal 2 -la igi E 2 -igi-il 2 , ‘possession (in administrative terms) in front of E-igi-il’, are described.664 The text continues with the description of fields in the Gu-Iniĝinšedu territory, reporting the presence of two garden areas (of 7,200 m2 and 46,800 m2 respectively) and mentioning the center of Niĝin, by reporting the urban and garden areas (iri Niĝin 6 ki u 3 ĝeš kiri 6 ) 665 in a single entry (1,296,000 m2).666 Mesopotamia 5-6, 300 starts its description with the banks of the Tigris, continuing toward the Nun canal, a canal flowing between the province of Umma and Ĝirsu, which however fell within the territory of Umma during Neo-Sumerian times.667 The description continues towards

––––––––––––––––– reconstruction of the author, considering that Apisal (for which he proposed an identification with the site of Muhalliqiya, north of Ĝirsu) was located in the province of Umma in the Neo-Sumerian period, it may be suggested that at least part of the border between the two provinces ran along an N-E/S-W axis. Conversely, Heimpel assumed that the site of GARšana is to be sought in the area of Zabalam, north of Umma (Heimpel 2011a, 152-157). According to this suggestion, both sites of the Umma province would have lain north of Ĝirsu. 661 In § 2.2, with regard to the generic meaning of Kisura as border territory, the three inscriptions of Utu-heĝal were mentioned, in which the ruler claimed to have brought back the Kisura Lagaš to Ninĝirsu and to Nanše. Frayne interpreted these inscriptions as referring to the reorganization of the borders between Ĝirsu and Ur operated by Utuheĝal, as Mesalim of Kiš did years before, and he suggested a certain influence of Uruk on the province, at least for that period (Frayne 1993, 280-284.). In this regard, see also Wilcke 2011, 31-34. According to this scholar, Utu-heĝal had to face a boundary dispute between Ur and Lagaš, proclaiming to have given back the territory from the hands of the man of Ur (according to the author, Ur-Namma) to those of Nanše and Ninĝirsu. Wilcke further suggested that the situation returned to the favor of Ur after the conquests of Ur-Namma on Anšan and Susa and on Namhani of Lagaš, as suggested by the words of the prologue of the codex, where the ruler claims to have given back to Nanna the routes to Magan, therefore of the Persian Gulf (see also the introduction, 4. The Ĝirsu province). 662 Pettinato noted that at Lagaš, in contrast to Umma, the Gu’edena had a different meaning and indicated a broader territory (Pettinato 1970/71, 317-319). 663 See van Driel 1999/2000, 80. According to Vanderrost, the territories of Gu’edena and Mušbiana, both part of a single district, covered 20% of the Umma province (Vanderroost 2008, 137). For the historical conflict between Lagaš and Umma for the Gu’edena territory and the problems inherent to its localization, see Sauren 1966; Pettinato 1970/71; Selz 1995, 222-226. For a recent reconstruction of the localization of the Gu’edena and Mušbiana districts, see Steinkeller 2011, 375. 664 As seen in § 2.5.5, this toponym occurs in the Sargonic list of AfO 28, 141 alongside with other centers of the province, which, according to Foster, might represent the provincial borders at the time of the draft (Foster 1981/82, 141). Furthermore, the text mentions the Gu’edena itself (o. 8'), the last of the legible toponyms on the obverse of the tablet. A field named after this center is attested in NATN 382 which (after a redrawing of the border between Ĝirsu and Umma) seems to attribute some gardens to the Ĝirsu province (see § 7.1). 665 The combination of gardens and urban areas in a single entry may indicate that gardens were present inside the cities, but it may also have an administrative significance, the reason why even the garden surfaces lying among the described fields are measured in one single entry without mention of their composition. The same dynamic holds true for the indication of urban areas, gardens and orchards in the land surveys inherent to the agricultural units (see 3.1. The presence of gardens in the Ĝirsu province). 666 In the total section the extent of the village surfaces ( e 2 - d u r u 5 ) is added to those of gardens and urban centers for a total of 1,497,600 m2 (23.0.2 iku). 667 See Steinkeller 2001, 55-56. This scholar considered the Nun canal as a branch of the Tigris, which from the area of Apisal, north of Ĝirsu, ran southwards along the provincial border to reach Ur. According to him, the sources indicate that

194

T HE G ARDENS OF G U -I NIĜINŠEDU

south to the mouth of the Nannagugal canal, where the western border of the province of Ĝirsu ran in the direction of Ur,668 reporting the presence of a garden area (57,600 m2). If AfO 24, 17 explicitly describes an area regarding the center of Niĝin as well as its urban extent, Mesopotamia 5-6, 300 reports the presence and dimensions of urban areas (21 iku, 75,600 m2) without further indication. Indeed, it refers only indirectly to the Niĝin area, as it describes a field indicated as the ‘field opposite the marsh of Niĝin’ (a -š a 3 g a b a a m b a r N iĝ in 6 k i ), and probably it circumscribes an area lying north of that described in AfO 24, 17.669 Both texts record, therefore, the presence of gardens in the described area, without further details; AfO 24, 17 indicates their presence in cities and fields, Mesopotamia 5-6, 300, more generically, reports their presence within the rural landscape. Text

Garden/City surfaces

Garden surfaces in fields

AfO 24, pl. 17 (Š 36/-)

20.0.0 iku (1,296,000 m2) (Niĝin6ki)

0.0.2 iku (7,200 m2) a-ša3 ze2-na; 0.2.1 iku (46,800 m2) a-ša3 e-naURU×KAM-ne;

Mesopotamia 5-6, 300 (Š 36/-)

0.2.4 iku (57,600 m2) gaba a-ša3 dHendur-saĝ

4.2. Presence of gardens along the course of the Niĝinšedu canal670 The documentation provides some hints on the presence of gardens and irrigation inlet-plots in the proximity of the Niĝinšedu canal. Some texts,671 indeed, provide a description of the plots alongside the banks of this canal in correspondence with the centers of Niĝin and Ki’esa, on the one side, and of Alšana and the field ambartur-Nanna (ASJ 19, 142 127) or ambar-esa (Studi Saporetti 241), on the other: - TEXT A: ASJ 13, 214 (n.d.) - TEXT B: ASJ 19, 142 127 (Š 36/-) - TEXT C: Studi Saporetti 241 (n.d.) These texts deal with interventions on the banks of the canal that runs through the district of GuIniĝinšedu and, as stated by Civil for Text A,672 seem to aim at estimating the necessary work and

––––––––––––––––– in the Neo-Sumerian period the Tigris ran through the Ĝirsu province near the area of the Gu’edena, although it seems difficult to imagine that two relevant watercourses, the Tigris and the Nun canal, could share such a (relatively) narrow territory. 668 Pettinato 1970/71, 320. This scholar considered the Nannagugal canal as the border between Ur and Lagaš. According to Carroué, the marsh areas between the Nun canal and the Nannagugal canal were drained and restored for cultivation by Ur-Namma, who brought them back inside the borders of Ur (Carroué 1993, 59). 669 Since it seems that these texts describe both an area within the Ĝirsu district (particularly Mesopotamia 5-6, 300) and a southern area within the Gu-Iniĝinšedu district, the localization of the mentioned gardens inside Gu-Iniĝinšedu (except for the area connected with the center of Niĝin) can only be suggested. 670 For a detailed discussion of this text as well as for the history of this watercourse, see Carroué 1986, 13-57. This scholar quoted an inscription of URUKAgina which indicates that this canal connected the E-ninnu (where it started) to the E-sirara of Nanše, flowing 30-35 km towards S-E. According to him, its creation is to be attributed to the need for water supply primarily for agricultural purposes, but also as a navigable canal, of which there is also mention in the Neo-Sumerian documentation. A discussion on this text is also provided by Civil 1994, 119-120; Maekawa 1997b, 128131. For ASJ 19, 142 127 (Text B) and Studi Saporetti 241 (Text C), see also Mander and Notizia 2009, 239-246; Studevent-Hickman 2011. 671 In addition to these three texts, there is also MVN 9, 156 (n.d.), which, without describing the land, seems to sum up the succession of the centers along the two sides of the canal from its inlet ( k a i 7 - d a ) until the sea (a- a b - b a - š e 3 ), and the pertinent officials are indicated. The text starts describing a stretch that precedes that of ASJ 13, 214 (Text A), from the inlet of the canal (whose name is implied) to the mouth of the Enkizišaĝal canal on the banks of Ĝirsu and Alšana; a missing section probably corresponded to the stretch described in ASJ 13, 214 and MVN 9, 156, indeed, starts again with the stretch between the Kun canal and the Saĝerendua canal on the banks pertaining to the ‘field ambartur’ ( a - š a 3 a m b a r - t u r ) and the ‘field e’e’ ( a - š a 3 e - e 2 ) . The condition of the text unfortunately does not allow for following the canal course all the way to its outlet into the sea. 672 Civil 1994, 119-120.

195

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

its assignation to supervisors and personnel. The type of work to be carried out is not specified in the texts A and B, but is indicated for both banks. Text C, instead, specifies u 3 d u 3 -a in the colophon, therefore reporting the planning of works on the embankments,673 under the supervision (u g u la ) of the administrator (sa ĝ ĝ a ) of Nindara, whereas text B lists as responsible officials Habazizi and Ur-Ninpirig acting in the role of conveyors (ĝ iri 3 ).674 Text A describes the plots bordering the banks of the Niĝinšedu canal in an area between the canal Enkizišaĝal (which represented the border between the districts of Ĝirsu and Gu-Iniĝinšedu) and the canal Kun. On the bank corresponding to Niĝin there is no mention of gardens but only of the irrigation inlet-plots. From another text, CT 10, 49 BM 14334 (n.d.), we know that a vineyard was located along the banks of the Kun canal in the Niĝin area, which encompassed an irrigation inlet-plot of 9,000 m2 (see § 4.5.4). However, its location along the canal course was probably distant from the point where this canal was connected with the course of the Niĝinšedu. The opposite bank, attributed to Alšana, alongside irrigation inlet-plots, hosted an area referred to as ‘SUH ig i-n im ĝ e š k iri 6 U š-tu r-m a h ’, ‘SUH-device675 above the garden of Ušturmah’, without further clarification. Then, between this area and the mouth of the Nanna canal, a bank stretch of 9 meters is linked to the name of the garden administrator Lugal-irida (§ 9.5.6), without any information about the land type. Texts B and C represent the continuation of the description of the two banks of the canal, from the Kun canal to the Saĝerendua canal; in B, the banks of the canal refer to Ki’esa, on the one side, and the field ambartur-Nanna, on the other. The presence of two gardens is reported for the side of the field in correspondence to an area between the ‘above’ (ig i-n im ) and the ‘below’ (s ig ) parts of Ki’esa, indicated by virtue of the works to be performed within them. A length of 120 meters is recorded within the first garden, for which an amount (probably of earth) of 6 m3 every 6 meters is calculated, while a length of 60 m is recorded in the second garden, for which 9 m3 every 6 meters is calculated. Both plots pertain to an area that falls within the responsibility of the administrator (ša b ra ) of Nanna and which also includes an irrigation inlet-plot with a riverfront side of 3 meters facing low Ki’esa and another irrigation inlet-plot with a riverfront side of 9 meters. The description of an area under the responsibility of the administrator (sa ĝ ĝ a ) of Nindara follows, in which there are two irrigation inlet-plots with sides facing the canal and measuring respectively 3 meters and 360 meters,676 while a stretch of the area described after pertains to the governor of Susa.677 Text C basically contains a description of the same area, roughly the same size and with the same officers in charge, but is ––––––––––––––––– As seen in § 1.5, the element u 3 / 5 could represent an old levee, spoil bank or causeway. 674 Notizia suggested that these three texts and MVN 9, 156 (n.d.) were drafted in the same period (Š 36/-), after an inspection of the canal and its pertinent structures, in order to evaluate their condition, likely after a specific weather event. The scholar supposed that Studi Saporetti 241 (Text C), as already suggested by Civil for ASJ 13, 214 (Text A), represents a preliminary document reporting the estimation of the work to be performed and the functionaries involved, constituting the basis for the draft of ASJ 19, 142 127 (Text B), that is, the official document (Mander and Notizia 2009, 240-241). 675 The expression SUH indicates a specific device of the canal system, for which, see Sauren 1966, 64-65; in reference to this text, the scholar interpreted: “bis zum SUH oberhalb von den Gärten des Ušturmah”. The function of this structure, also attested in the vicinity of Engaba-ri of Umma, is however unclear. The mentioned garden, which refers to a personal name, is not attested elsewhere, like the other two gardens located further south and mentioned by texts B and C. It is unclear to whom these names refer, whether to the responsible gardeners or to the officials responsible for the area, or to the persons whom the garden pertained to (see § 1.5). 676 Alhough a length of 6 m would be more appropriate given the average of the length of the sides of the other irrigation inlet-plots facing the canal, a value 360 m is suggested by the total length reported for the involved bank. Indeed, assuming that this stretch measured 360 m (ASJ 19, 142 127 Text B, o. iii, 20), the total length of the bank would amount to 5,319 meters, that is 12 meters more than what was calculated by the scribe, 5,307 m. However, in general, the length of the riverfront sides of these plots are significantly more limited; according to the calculations of Heimpel, in fact, irrigation inlet-plots presented an average of a ½ hectare of area with a riverfront side of 7.8 meters, consequently the author calculates an average of 640 m for the length of the sides, noting that such a shape recalls that of the contemporary fields proposed by Liverani (see Heimpel 2011b, 88-89, with previous literature). 677 Maekawa 1997b, 131. This scholar maintained that the reconstruction of Carroué is to be reconsidered on the basis of this information. As noted by Steinkeller the eastern border of the province is at the moment undeterminable (Steinkeller, P. 2007). 673

196

T HE G ARDENS OF G U -I NIĜINŠEDU

distinct from the previous text in some particular aspects; for example, it starts with the description of the opposite bank, which here is named ambar-esa.678 These differences probably derive from contextual descriptions, since both texts seem to describe the same area and are likely contemporary, given the presence of the same officials in charge. We therefore have Niĝin and Ki’esa on the western bank and Alšana and the fields ambartur-Nanna or ambar-esa on the eastern bank.679 The table below shows the presence of gardens and irrigation inlet-plots680 on both banks of the canal, as described in the texts (A/B/C), and the relative responsible officials (i 3 -d a b 5 ). Gardens ( ĝeškiri6)

Irrigation inlet-plots (ka-a-DU)

a2 Niĝin6ki-bi (A)

1 ½ nindan (9 m) šabra dNanna i3-dab5; 1 nindan (6 m) šabra dNin-gal i3-dab5; 1 nindan (6 m) šabra dNin-gublaga i3-dab5; 2 ½ nindan (15 m) ka i7 kun;

a2 Al-ša-naki-ka-bi (A)

1 ½ nindan (9 m) šabra dNanna i3-dab5; 1 nindan (6 m) šabra dNin-gal i3-dab5; 1 ½ nindan (9 m) saĝĝa dNanše i3-dab5; 1 ½ nindan 1 sar-ta (not ka-a-DU) Lugal-irida santana (Ulu3-lal2 šabra i3-dab5); 1 nindan (6 m) NU-banda3 Niĝ2-dBa-U2;681

SUH igi-nim ĝeškiri6 Uš-tur-mah saĝĝa dNanše i3dab5;

a2 Ki-es3-sa2ki-bi (B) (C)

2 ½ nindan (15 m) ka-a-DU ka i7 kun; saĝĝa dNin-dara6a i3-dab5; (B)

20 nindan gid2 ⅓ (sar)-ta (120 m/6 m3) ša3 ĝeškiri6 a2 a-ša3 ambar-turUr-ĝa2-nun;682 10 nindan ½ (sar)-ta (60 m/9 m3) d Nanna-bi (B) ša3 ĝeškiri6 Na-ba-sa2;683 a2 ambar-es2-sa-ka-bi (C) šabra dNanna i3-dab5; (B) (C)

½ nindan (3 m) (B) (C); 1 ½ nindan (9 m) šabra dNanna i3-dab5 (B); 1 ½ nindan ka-a-DU [...] (C); ½ nindan (3 m) ugula Ad-da-ĝu10684 (B); 60 nindan (360 m) saĝĝa dNin-dara6a i3-dab5 (B) (C)

As already seen, the planning of works relating to canals, even those involving garden plots, did not involve garden administrators, but rather the officials (ša b ra or s a ĝ ĝ a ) who managed the temple or palace households. The mention of the garden manager Lugal-irida in connection with a stretch which was not characterized as garden is unclear; the name of Lugal-irida, quoted with his professional title, was juxtaposed with the measurement which, together with those measurements recorded in the names of officials mentioned without their title, represented the total stretch of land which the administrator (ša b ra ) Ulu-lal took charge of (i 3 -d a b 5 ), a stretch which did not include plots defined as irrigation inlet-plots or gardens.685 ––––––––––––––––– 678 In the text occurs: a m b a r - e s 2 - s a , whereas it is normally written as a m b a r - e s 3 - s a 2 (see e.g. MVN 6, 300, l.d.). 679 Carrouè noticed that the description defines the eastern bank as being longer than the western one and therefore he inferred that the eastern bank was characterized by a more remarkable sinuosity (Carrouè 1986, 30). See figure 9, which is in fact based on the drawing made by the author following the description of the texts. 680 Based on the assumptions of Civil (1994, 119-120), Heimpel stated that the stretches on the canal designated as irrigation inlet-plots seem to have been excluded from maintenance work, as they were likely kept constantly in the desired shape (Heimpel 2011b, 88-89). 681 The stretch pertaining to the irrigation inlet-plot recorded in the name of the captain (N U - b a n d a 3 ) constitutes only a part of the stretch recorded in his name, which, in turn, refers to the part of bank which the administrator ( s a ĝ ĝ a ) of Nindara took charge of. 682 Both texts report the same measurements and agree on the location of the garden which corresponds to the stretch between the ‘above’ ( i g i - n i m ) and ‘below’ ( s i g ) parts of Ki’esa, on the opposite side of the Niĝinšedu canal. 683 This garden is attested in both texts; for this garden, the same considerations regarding the garden Ur-ĝanun should be taken into account. 684 The stretch supervised by Addaĝu (whose title is not indicated) seems to have fallen in the area which the administrator ( s a ĝ ĝ a ) of Nindara took charge of, which also comprises the subsequent irrigation inlet-plot. 685 A similar situation may be represented by MVN 22, 31 (n.d.), which seems to record the preliminary measurements and calculations which form the basis for an official document (see § 1.5). As in MVN 22, 31, indeed, where the name and the title of the garden administrator Agu refers to the gardens of his area, it may be suggested that the name of Lugal-irida was also quoted as interlocutor (in terms of rental fees) of the official (š a b r a ) who administrated the area of the relevant stretch and plot (see 1.8.5). However, it should be noted that, unlike other plots explicitly referred to as k a - a - DU or ĝ e š k i r i 6 , what was attributed to the garden administrator is not further specified.

197

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Figure 9. Presence of gardens on the banks of the Niĝinšedu canal, from Carroué 1986, 30.686 ––––––––––––––––– The diverging measurements between this figure and that reported in Carrouè is due to the value of 6 meters for the n i n d a n (see Civil 1994, 138), rather than that of 5.93 meters used by Carrouè, but also to the fact that here the distance among different elements was emphasized.

686

198

T HE G ARDENS OF G U -I NIĜINŠEDU

4.3. The gardens managed by Anana The gardens collected in the following sections concern the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Anana (§ 9.5.3) in the Lagaš territory. The information concerning these gardens is essentially provided by a text recording the measurement of gardens, CUSAS 6, 85-87 (§ 1.8.3). In this text, the supervision of the garden administrator occurs alongside that of the captain/overseer (NU-b a n d a 3) Ga’a; it is not clear whether the Ga’a acting in this text as captain/overseer can be identified with the homonymous garden administrator who was active in the same district, especially in connection with the centers of Ki’esa and Kinunir (see § 4.4 and § 9.4.1). 4.3.1. The garden of Alšana ( ĝ e š k iri 6 A -a l-š a -n a k i ) This garden is mentioned only in CUSAS 6, 85-87 (n.d.), which ascribes it to the area of the garden administrator Anana. The garden is under the responsibility of the garden expert LuĜatumdu and presents a total extent of 36,900 m2, consisting of a palm grove area (12,600 m2), a irrigation inlet-area (4,500 m2) and a vast uncultivated area (19,800 m2). Furthermore, the text attributes to the garden the presence of 172 palms and other trees, including timber trees, in particular pines ( ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 ), but also junipers ( ĝ e š š e -d u 1 0 ),687 hackberries ( ĝ e š m e s), tamarisks ( ĝ e š šin ig ), and fruit trees, such as apple trees ( ĝ e š h a š h u r), pomegranates ( ĝ e š n u -u r 2 -m a ), ĝipar-trees, and fig trees ( ĝ e š p e š 3 ). The counted trees amount to 811 units, of which 810 are pines, 10 of them classified as boards (m i-ri 2 -z a )688 and 800 classified as long (g id 2 ), and one juniper classified as a post (d im ). In addition, the counting considers the presence of 290 HARelements connected to the other tree types which are variously classified. The garden administrator Anana, in the function of supervisor (u g u la ) and the captain/overseer Ga-a occur as the responsible officials for the recorded operation. The garden name recalls a settlement of the district, which was situated along the eastern bank of the Niĝinšedu canal (see § 4.2), where another garden administrator seems to have also been in charge, Lugal-irida (see 9.5.6). Text

CUSAS 6, 85-87 (n.d.)

Responsible gardener

Type

Composition

Trees and timbers

garden measurement (ĝe škiri6 gid2-da) ša3 Lagaški

0.0.1 ¼ iku kaa-DU; 0.0.3 ½ iku ĝeš ĝešnimbar; 0.0.5 ½ iku ki-ĝal2;

172 ĝešĝešnimbar; 10 ĝešu3-suh5 mi-ri2-za; 800 ĝešu3-suh5 gid2; 96 ĝeš ĝeš HAR hašhur; 51 HAR nu-ur2-ma; 1 HAR ĝeš ĝeš peš3 gal; 82 HAR peš3 gid2; 2 HAR ĝešĝiparx um-mi-a: Lu2d gal (KISAL); Ĝa2-tum3-du10 10 HAR ĝešĝiparx gid2 (KISAL); 1 ĝešše-du10 dim; 6 HAR ĝešmes gid2; 42 HAR šinig gid2;

Responsible official

ugula: A2-nana santana NU-banda3 Gaa

4.3.2. The garden of Ĝatumdu-nin-Gudea ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d Ĝ a 2 -tu m 3 -d u 1 0 -n in - d G u 3 -d e 2 -a ) This garden is known from two texts, CUSAS 6, 85-85 (n.d.), a text concerning the measurement of gardens in the Lagaš area, and TUT 115 (l.d.) which could represent a balanced account of garden administrators (see § 1.8.6). In both texts, the relevant garden expert is Ur-NIĜ . CUSAS 6, 85-87 attributes to the garden a total extent of 40,500 m2, consisting of a palm grove area (18,900 m2), an irrigation inlet-area (3,600 m2), and a vast uncultivated area (18,000 m2). The presence of trees concerns 182 palms and timber trees, especially pines (464 units; two boards and 462 long ––––––––––––––––– 687 Powell asserted that neither the reading nor the identification of this species has been established (Powell 1992, 115116). Recently Heimpel suggested an identification with juniper. This type of tree is attested mainly in the NeoSumerian documentation from Umma, but also in Early Dynastic documentation from Ĝirsu (Heimpel 2011b, 128-130). 688 Unlike the counting of pine timber, where this kind of characterization refers specifically to elements for the building of boats of different capacities, here the indication appears generic (see § 1.6.4).

199

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

ones), but also kab-willows (5) and tamarisks (2) classified as posts, and a ĝipar-tree classified as long. Moreover, the presence of 246 HAR-elements connected to various kinds of trees (variously classified) is to be added: apple trees (83), pomegranates (44), fig trees (32), grapevines (6), junipers (17), and tamarisks (64). In TUT 115, the mention of the garden follows a section whose entries are mostly lost in a break in the tablet, thus only the part relating to the resulting ‘difference’ (la 2 -NI) in the name of Ur-NIĜ can be read.689 This consists of an unclear amount of ĝipar-fruit, an undeterminable quantity of brooms (n iĝ 2 -k i-lu h ),690 leaves from 20 midribs (p e š m u rg u 2 )691 and 10 kg of midribs (z e 2 -n a ). Given the great variety of crops of this garden, it cannot be excluded, however, that the quantity of fruit recorded as expenditures in the preceding column could be attributed to this garden.692 The garden name, which refers to the deified governor of the Second Dynasty of Lagaš, Gudea, and the goddess of Lagaš, Ĝatumdu, indicated as his lady, had no apparent counterparts in the field, canal or structure names of the province.693 Text

Type

TUT 115 (l.d.)

garden product balanced account [niĝ2-ka9 aka]

CUSAS 6, 85-87 (n.d.)

garden measurement (ĝe škiri6 gid2-da) ša3 Lagaški

Composition

Responsible gardener

Products [...] ĝešĝiparx(KISAL); [...] niĝ2-ki-luh; 20 peš murgu2; ⅓ ze2-na;

0.0.1 iku ka-aDU; 0.0.5 ¼ iku ĝeš ĝešnimbar; 0.0.5 iku ki-ĝal2;

um-mi-a: UrNIĜ2

182 ĝešĝešnimbar; 2 ĝešu3-suh5 mi-ri2-za; 462 ĝešu3suh5 gid2; 83 HAR ĝešhašhur; 44 HAR ĝešnu-ur2-ma; 6 HAR ĝešpeš3 gal; 26 HAR ĝešpeš3 gid2; 1 ĝešĝiparx um-mi-a: Urgid2 (KISAL); NIĜ2 17 HAR ĝešše-du10 gid2; 6 HAR ĝešĝeštin gid2; 5 ĝeš kab dim; 2 šinig dim; 64 HAR šinig gid2;

Responsible official

[...]

ugula: A2-nana santana NU-banda3 Ga-a

4.3.3. The vineyard within the walls of Bagara ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin ša 3 b a d 3 B a -g a ra 2 ) This vineyard is attested only in CUSAS 6, 85-87 (n.d.), the text recording the measurement of some gardens in the Lagaš area under the responsibility of the garden administrator Anana. The text attributes to the vineyard dimensions of 2,700 m2 (see § 1.6.3), without mentioning the ––––––––––––––––– In the text, a similar section ends with the notation of the ‘difference’ of produce in the name of certain Lunimuzu, followed by the indication, partially broken, of a garden (r. i, 15'): ⌈ k i r i 6 ⌉ d a b 5 - b a ⌈ŠID/RA⌉(?). The indication may not refer to the garden name, and it can tentatively be reconstructed as: ĝ e š k i r i 6 - < a > d a b 5 - b a , ‘(produce) taken over (in the) garden’, although such a notation does not occur elsewhere in the documentation. As far as the second element is concerned, an interpretation as š i d - < d a > ‘(amount) counted’ would hardly fit with the type of recorded produce. Furthermore, a gardener named Lunimuzu is not attested elsewhere in the documentation of the province, so that it seems impossible to determine which garden was meant. 690 Brooms made of palm fronds. In this regard, see Landsberger 1967, 22-30; Streck 2004, 265-266. 691 Palm by-product, according to Landsberger, to be identified with the leaves (peš ) which develop from the midribs, described as spines (m u r g u 2 ), of the date palm fronds. In the documentation of the province the counting of leaves followed the number of midribs from which they derived. See Landsberger 1967, 27-29; Volk 2003/05, 286; Streck 2004, 268-270. According to Barreveld, the number of leaves on midribs may be in the range of 120 to 240; see Barreveld 2003. 692 Although the number of lines lost in the break of the upper part of the tablet cannot be determined, it can be inferred that the quantity of fruit recorded as expenditures in the preceding column could refer to the capital concerning this garden; these expenditures relate to 88 liters of dates, 80 liters fresh figs and 20 fresh grapes as regular offerings and festivals connected to the temples of Bagara and Šulgi, 30 liters of fresh figs as regular offerings conveyed by UNga, as well as a less legible quantity of fresh figs conveyed by Šeškala son of Anana the garden administrator ( o. ii, 4'-10': 0.1.2 8 s i l a 3 z u 2 - l u m / 0.1.2 ĝ e š p e š 3 d u r u 5 0.0.2 ĝ e š ĝ e š t i n d u r u 5 / s a 2 - d u 1 1 n i ĝ 2 e z e m - m a u 3 n u m u n d u 1 0 / e 2 d B a - g a r a 2 e 2 d Š u l - g i / 0.0.3 ĝ e š p e š 3 d u r u 5 s a 2 - d u 1 1 / ĝ i r i 3 UN-g a 6 / [...] ĝ e š p e š 3 d u r u 5 ĝ i r i 3 Š e š - [ k a l ] - l a d u m u A 2 - n a - n a ). As already noted in § 1.8.6, the profession of the conveyors cannot be determined. 693 As suggested in § 2.2.22, this garden may have been a new plantation commissioned by Šulgi and dedicated to the commeration of the old governor. With regard to the cult of Gudea in Ur III times, see Michalowski 2013, 189-196. For a different interpretation of the name, see Heimpel 2011b, 87. 689

200

T HE G ARDENS OF G U -I NIĜINŠEDU

presence of trees.694 The responsible garden expert, Kitušlu, is the only one in the text to be designated with the title of gardener (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ). The garden name would seem to refer to its location within the enclosure wall of the Bagara temple.695 4.3.4. The ĝi’eden garden of Bagara ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ i 6 -e d e n B a -g a ra 2 ) This garden, whose name recalls that of four other gardens of the province,696 is mentioned only in CUSAS 6, 85-87 (n.d.), which attributes it to the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Anana. The responsible garden expert is Lu-Ĝatumdu son of Ur-lugal.697 The garden presents a total extent of 13,500 m2, mostly cultivated as palm grove (9,900 m2), but presenting an irrigation inlet-area (3,600 m2) as well. Further, the text ascribes to the garden the presence of 128 palms, which mainly would have stood in the palm grove area, and a great variety of fruit and timber trees, 352 variously classified and 207 connected with HAR-elements. As far as the involved crops are concerned, there are trees attested elsewhere in irrigation inlet-plots (junipers, hackberries, kab- and manu-willows, tamarisks, pomegranates, grapevines, fig and ĝipar-trees), alongside more particular species, which are less attested in the contemporary sources, such as olives ( ĝ e š s e 2 -e r-d u m ), 698 abba-trees (ĝ e š-a b -b a ) 699 and halub-trees ( ĝ e š h a lu -u b 2 ).700 As noted by Heimpel, indeed, such a garden features as a wide assemblage of local and exotic trees, among them highly esteemed tree types, so that it can be considered as a sort of botanical garden.701 Apart from date palms, tree types present to a greater extent in this garden are pomegranates (122 variously classified and 68 connected with HAR-elements), tamarisks (85 variously classified and 84 connected with HAR-elements) and olives (87 variously classified and 21 connected with HAR-elements). Text

CUSAS 6, 85-87 (n.d.)

Type

garden measurement (ĝe škiri6 gid2da) ša3 Lagaški

Composition

0.0.1 iku ka-aDU

0.0.2 ½ ¼ iku ĝeš ĝešnimbar

Trees and timbers

Responsible gardener

128 ĝešĝešnimbar; 120 ĝešnu-ur2-ma e2-da; 2 ĝešnuur2-ma dim; 68 HAR ĝešnu-ur2-ma gid2; 3 HAR ĝeš peš3 gid2; 5 ĝešĝiparx gal (KISAL); 1 ĝešmes e2-da; 10 HAR ĝešše-du10 gid2; 30 ĝešse2-er-dum e2-da; 57 um-mi-a: Lu2ĝeš se2-er-dum dim; 21 HAR ĝešse2-er-dum gid2; 2 d Ĝa2-tum3-du10 ĝeš HAR ha-lu-ub2 gid2; 44 ĝeš-ab-ba gal; 2 ĝeš-abdumu Ur-lugal ĝeš ba dim; 3 ma-nu e2-da; 84 HAR šinig gid2; 73 ĝeššinig gal; 2 sag-ku5 ĝeš šinig gal; 2 ĝeššinig e2-da; 8 ĝeššinig dim; 3 ĝeškab gal; 19 HAR ĝešĝeštin gid2

Responsible official

ugula: A2-nana santana, NU-banda3 Ga-a

––––––––––––––––– 694 If there were no crops, we would have expected a characterization of the soil as ‘uncultivated’ (k i - ĝ a l 2 ) or even as ‘uncultivated vineyard’ (k i - ĝ a l 2 ĝ e š t i n ; see § 4.5.3). The absence of trees could be due to the fact that the counting of trees for the area (administratively designated as vineyard) did not fall within the responsibility of the officials mentioned by the text, according to a dynamic similar to that involving the gardens of STA 19 lying outside the responsibility of the garden administrator Abbaĝu and for which no barley amount is recorded (see § 2.2). For a discussion on this topic, see the § 5.9. 695 Bagara, dedicated to the god Ninĝirsu, was one of the main temples of Lagaš, mentioned several times in the inscriptions of Gudea. In this regard, see Falkenstein 1966, 157-158; Bauer 1980/83, 421; Römer, 2010. 696 See § 2.2.10; § 2.2.11; § 2.3.6; § 3.1.5. 697 The indication of the patronymic is due to the ambiguity with the homonymous gardener of the ‘garden of Alšana’. 698 This would indicate olives, cultivated especially in the north, but also in the south of the country (Powell 2003/05, 18; Heimpel 2011b, 133-134). 699 This tree type has not exactly been identified; in this regard, see the considerations of Heimpel 2011b, 126-127 (Russian olive?) and Stol 2013, 731. 700 As stated by Heimpel, the identification of this type of tree is not yet definitively determined (Heimpel 2011b, 87 and 132). It would be a tree characterized by precious hard wood. 701 Heimpel 2011b, ibid.

201

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

4.3.5. The garden before the Bagara temple ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ig i e 2 B a -g a ra 2 ) This garden situated in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Anana is mentioned only in CUSAS 6 85-87 (n.d.). This text ascribes to this garden, a proper palm grove, a total extent of 20,700 m2, consisting of cultivated (5,400 m2) and uncultivated (15,300 m2) surfaces. In addition, the text indicates the presence of 85 palms and the responsible garden expert, Ur-Damu. The garden name simply refers to its location before the Bagara temple. Text

Type

Composition

Trees and timbers

Responsible gardener

Responsible official

CUSAS 6, 85-87 (n.d.)

garden measurement (ĝe škiri6 gid2-da) ša3 Lagaški

0.0.1 ½ iku ĝeš ĝešnimbar 0.0.4 ¼ iku ki-ĝal2

85 ĝešĝešnimbar

um-mi-a: Ur-dDamu

ugula: A2-na-na santana, NU-banda3 Ga-a

4.3.6. The garden of Lagaš( ĝ e š k iri 6 L a g a š k i ) This garden is mentioned in only one text, MVN 9, 118 (l.d.) which, despite its fragmentary condition, seems to concern the employment of workers. This text records for this garden the presence of one worker under the supervision of a certain Kitušlu on behalf of Nam-irina, and the presence of another worker under the supervision of someone whose name is lost. Both the supervised workers are indicated as sons of a certain Ur-ig. The garden name is quite generic and there is no evidence that it was situated in the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Anana; however, it cannot be excluded that the supervisor Kitušlu is to be identified with the garden expert in charge of the vineyard of the Bagara temple (see § 4.3.3) in the area of Anana or even with the homonymous (alleged) garden administrator (§ 9.4.5). Text

Type

Workers

Responsible person

MVN 9, 118 (l.d.)

worker employment (?)

Lugal-me-lam2 dumu Ur-ig; A-gin7-ba-an-bi dumu Ur-ig;

ugula: Ki-tuš-lu2 saĝ Nam-iri-na-še3; [...]

Within the documentation, references to gardeners in this area, such as the ‘gardeners of Lagaš’ (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 L a g a š )702 are rather to be understood as references to gardeners active in the area of Lagaš and not to a specific garden. In NATN 382 (Š 28/viii), there is mention of a garden lying in a field named Lagaš, the ‘garden of Šakuge’ (see § 7.1.5), while ITT 4, 7577+7578 (l.d.) attests to the presence of 72,000 m2 of land cultivated as vineyard in the ‘field of the marsh of Lagaš’, a -ša 3 [a m b a r]-L a g a š . The documentation attributes the field to the responsibility of the administrator (sa ĝ ĝ a ) of Dumuzi703 or to that of the administrator (sa ĝ ĝ a ) of Igalim.704 4.4. The gardens managed by Ga’a The presence of some gardens in the Gu-Iniĝinšedu area is also attributable to the garden administrator Ga’a whose activity seems to have been concentrated especially in the area of Ki’esa and Ki-nunir (see § 9.4.1), although it is not to be excluded that it extended to other areas of the district. As already mentioned, it is unclear whether it is possible to relate this garden administrator to the homonymous captain/overseer who occurs in texts recording the measurement of gardens at Lagaš (§ 4.3) and Niĝin (§ 4.5.1). The information concerning these ––––––––––––––––– See e.g. ASJ 17, 224 114 (n.d.). 703 See e.g. CT 7, 24 BM 15310 (n.d.). 704 See e.g. ASJ 3, 54 3 (Š 36/-). 702

202

T HE G ARDENS OF G U -I NIĜINŠEDU

gardens is mostly provided by texts relating to the management of garden plots within temple households. 4.4.1. The garden of Azam ( ĝ e š k iri 6 A z -a m 3 ) This garden is mentioned only by one text, Zinbun 21, 11 44 (AS 1/-), which records the barley and silver fees for the plots pertaining to the temple of Nindara (see § 1.8.5). The text attributes to the ‘garden of Azam’ a plot of 11,700 m2, for which 600 liters of barley and 16.6 grams of silver are counted in the name of the garden administrator Ga’a. The colophon specifies: [n iĝ 2 ]-ĝ a l 2 la [e 2 ] d N in -d a ra 6 a , ‘possession (in administrative terms) of the temple of Nindara’, in reference to the plots leased out by the institution. The personal name after which the garden is named seems to belong to the garden expert responsible for it, whom the scribe of the text (likely internal to the management of this temple household) refers to. Azam is attested as a gardener active in the area of the garden administrator Ga’a in TCTI 2, 3838 (ŠS 2/-), where indeed, he acts as conveyor of a quantity of figs provided by Ga’a (see § 9.4.1). Apart from this single evidence, there is no information about the crops of this garden. Text

Type

Extension

Responsible official

Fee

Zinbun 21, 11 44 (AS 1/-)

list of plots ([niĝ2]-ĝal2-la [e2] dNin-dara6a) and pertaing fees

0.0.3 ¼ iku

Ga-a santana

0.0.3 ¼ iku maš 2 giĝ4 -ta / 2.0.0 gur še-bi ša3 ĝeškiri6 Az-am3

4.4.2. The garden of apple trees ( ĝ e š k iri 6

ĝeš

h a šh u r)

The presence of an apple tree garden is documented in two texts: NFT 185 (Š 36/v) and RA 80, 26 (Š 48/iii), although likely two different gardens are meant since the garden name generically refers to the type of crop which characterize the garden itself. The first attestation of an ‘apple garden’ is in NFT 185,705 which indicates the garden as one stage of a procession inherent to the festival of the fifth month.706 Indeed, this text describes a three day procession involving the boats of Nanše, Nindara and Dumuzi in the Gu-Iniĝinšedu district; on the first day, the festival concerned Usur-bara, on the second one, Lazawi and the apple garden, and on the third one, again Usur-bara. The second text, RA 80, 26, belongs to a group of three texts studied by Foxvog.707 These texts record the accounts concerning ex-voto (a -ru -a ) addressed to the gods in an area comprised between Saĝub and Kinunir708 for a period of time ranging from Š 44/viii to Š 48/iii. Among the ex-voto, an apple garden of 3,600 m2 is recorded in the section relating to the remnants (s i-i 3 tu m ) of the previous year (Š 47).709 Therefore, it seems possible that the garden acquired by the garden administrator Ga’a in the subsequent expenditure section (z i-g a ) is the same garden mentioned in the first section of the text where the specification of the crop was no longer necessary (see § 9.4.1). ––––––––––––––––– 705 This text was studied by Kutscher (1983, 59-66) and by Sallaberger (1993, 285-287). 706 With regard to this festival, see Sallaberger 1993, 283-287. 707 This scholar followed the work of Gelb (“The Arua Institution”, RA 66, 1972), who had already analyzed two of the three texts considered by him (see Foxvog 1986b). 708 According to Foxvog, the toponyms represented respectively the western (Saĝub) and eastern (Kinunir) borders of the Gu-Iniĝinšedu district (Foxvog 1986b, 25). 709 Since the section of the remnants does not distinguish the ex-voto by destination, it is unclear which temple household the garden ‘acquired’ by the garden administrator pertained to. However, it can be tentatively suggested that the garden pertained to the temple of Nindara, as a comparison with the other plots managed by the same official may suggest.

203

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

4.4.3. The garden of the pasture ( ĝ e š k iri 6 n a - KAB-tu m ) This garden is attested only in TÉL 79 (l.d.), a fragmentary text recording the dimensions and the yield, likely in terms of rental fees (see § 1.8.5), of each treated plot. With regard to this garden, there is the following notation: r. iii, 4'-7': 1.0.0 iku 0.0.3 ša3 ⌈ĝeš⌉< kiri6> / Lu2-dub-la2 nu-[ĝeškiri6?] / 0.0.3? / ša3 ĝeškiri6 na-KAB-[tum] r.iii, 4'-7': 64,800 m2, 30 liters (is the fee) in the garden (?) of Lu-dubla the gardener (?), 30 liters in the garden of the pasture (area).

Therefore, the text indicates the presence of a plot of 64,800 m2, for which 30 liters are counted ‘in the garden (? š a 3 ⌈ ĝ e š ⌉< k iri 6 > ) where the gardener Lu-dubla (?)710 is in charge’ and 30 liters ‘in the pasture garden’. The intended product could be sesame (še -ĝ e š-i 3 ), as is indicated for the other plots mentioned in the text. In Zinbun 21, 11 44 (AS 1/-), some plots under the responsibility of the garden administrator Ga’a (among them the ‘garden of Azam’) are indicated as lying in the pasture (naKABtum) area 711 of Ki’esa and pertaining to the temple of Nindara. However, the attribution of this garden to the Gu-Iniĝinšedu district is basically due to the occurrence in the text of the ‘field of Lazawi’ (a -ša 3 L a -z a -w i), the only plot for which the name can be read, which indeed pertained to the temple of Nindara.712 This field is further quoted in Zinbun 21, 5 38 (l.d.), where the garden administrator Ga’a also occurs (see § 9.4.1). 4.5. Niĝin Some areas cultivated as vineyards and a garden, which may be considered partly palm grove and partly orchard, are attributable to the territory of Niĝin. These gardens are attested in undated texts which record the measurement of gardens or specifically of vineyards ( ĝ e š k iri 6 (ĝ e štin ) g id 2 d a ) and the counting of trees (ĝ e š šid -d a ) in the area of Niĝin (see § 1.6.3.1). In the case of the mixed garden, this one is under the responsibility of the garden administrator Abba (§ 9.5.1) whereas the operation is registered in the name of the captain/overseer Ga’a. As seen in the previous section, Ga’a also occurs in the measurement of the gardens of Lagaš under the responsibility of the garden administrator Anana. With regard to the vineyards, in one case, the text could represent a report drafted in the name of one of the listed garden experts (§ 4.5.2); in the remaining two cases, the supervision is entrusted to Ur-gigir (§ 4.5.4-5)713 and Lu-Niĝin (§ 4.5.3) who may have been officials in charge of the area in question, yet external to the garden management, while Sipa-Ninĝirsuke-inpad, attested both as captain/overseer (§ 4.5.5) and without ––––––––––––––––– Neither the garden nor the gardener occur elsewhere in the documentation of the province. 711 Heimpel suggested that the indication n a - k a b - t u m (n a - K A B - t u m ) is in some cases to be understood as pasture rather than storehouse. Indeed, in the first case the term is connected to nagbu, ‘ground water’, and consequentially nagabtu, ‘moist meadowland’, while in the second case the term refers to nakkamtu (see Heimpel 2011b, 80). In the case of the name of the garden and that of the area of the Ki’esa territory, the meaning pasture can be assumed. However, in contrast to Heimpel’s suggestion, in this study the l u 2 n a - k a b - t u m are interpreted as ‘men of the storehouse’. 712 See ASJ 11, 138 66 (AS 1/-) and CT 7, 32 BM 18394 (AS 2/-). 713 Apart from his function as supervisor in a text concerning the measurement and counting of trees of a vineyard along the banks of the Kun canal and in another vineyard along the banks of the nearby Turtur canal, a certain Ur-gigir occurs as responsible for the supply of food allotted to some workers assigned to the Kun canal. Indeed, some texts register food transactions allotted to workers, who likely had been employed in works related to the restoring of fields wasted by storms in the area of Kun canal at Niĝin, as is reported in BBVO 18, 327 (Š 42/xi) and TCTI 1, 3306 (Š 42/xi). The texts concerning the activity of Ur-gigir as supplier of the food for the workers are: TÉL 234 (Š 42/-), TCTI 2, 3237 (Š 42/xi), TCTI 2, 3981 (Š 42/xi), ITT 3, 5111 (Š 42/xi), SAT 1, 261 (Š 42/xi). Although Ur-gigir is a widespread name, it cannot be excluded that he might have been the same official whose activity was somehow connected with the area in question. There is no evidence suggesting he was a garden administrator and he may have been an official external to the garden management. 710

204

T HE G ARDENS OF G U -I NIĜINŠEDU

title (§ 4.5.3-4),714 is indicated as the one responsible for the recorded operations. In these texts, the vineyards are not mentioned by a fixed name, but rather by contextual descriptions of their location. 4.5.1. The garden managed by Abba CBT 3, BM 25293 (n.d.; n.p.) describes the area of a mixed garden in Niĝin (see § 1.6.3), the name of which might not have been mentioned or may have been lost. This text reports the counting of its trees, followed by the name of the responsible garden expert, the supervision of the garden administrator Abba and that of the captain/overseer Ga’a. The garden, whose total extent is 17,100 m2, is subdivided into a palm grove area (8,100 m2) and into one slightly broader area classified as irrigation inlet-plot (9,000 m2) which can be understood as orchard. According to the counting, the garden supported a considerable number of date palms (271 or 380),715 a consistent number of apple trees (not further classified; 685), HAR-elements connected with pomegranates (271), but also with fig trees (2 or 120) and grapevines (23), as well as hackberries, classified as axes (5 or 300) or long (14). Though the distribution of the mentioned trees within the described area is unknown, it can be inferred that the majority of date palms were in the area cultivated as a palm grove, and that the majority of the other trees were interplanted in the irrigation inlet-areas and, to a lesser degree, at the roots of date palms within palm groves. Because of the large number of apple trees (685), we cannot exclude that at least a portion of them were planted as monoculture in the irrigation inlet-area (see § 2.10). The name of the quoted garden expert is probably Nanše-izu who is most likely indicated with the title of gardener (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ).716 Text

CBT 3, BM 25293 (n.d.; n.p.)

Trees and timbers

Responsible gardener

Type

Composition

garden measurement and counting of trees (ĝe škiri6 gid2-da ĝeš šid-da) ša3 ⌈Niĝin6⌉ki

270 ĝešĝešnimbar; 2(×60?) ĝešĝešnimbar u2 du11-ga;718 685 ĝešhašhur; 0.0.2 ¼ iku 271 HAR ĝešnu-ur2-ma; um-mi-a: dNanšeĝešnimbar717 2(×60?) HAR ĝešpeš3; i3-[zu nu-ĝeškiri6 ?] 0.0.2 ½ iku ka-a-DU 5(×60?) ĝešmes e2-da; 14 ĝeš mes gid2; 23 HAR ĝeš ĝeštin

Responsible official

ugula: Ab-ba santana NU-banda3: Ga-a

––––––––––––––––– 714 It is not clear whether such personality may be considered a sort of expression of the receiving institution, at least in those cases where he occurs without any title. Generally, he seems to have been an official unrelated to the garden management. He is, in fact, qualified by his seal with a dedication to Šulgi as cup-bearer ( s a g i ) in MVN 17, 36 (AS 1/v), a text recording the delivery of sheep leathers for covering vessels, and in two cases UDT 74 (Š 46/-) and MTBM 244 (AS 1/v), the leathers are allocated for the covering of vessels containing grapes. Therefore, apart from his attestation as captain/overseer in association with the vineyards of the Niĝin area, the activity of this official would seem to have been somehow connected to the vineyards of the district. It is therefore possible that the activity of SipaNinĝirsuke-inpad might have concerned a complex administrative system, possibly devoted to the storage of products directly run on behalf of the crown and implying interlocution with various economic-production units. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the absence of garden administrators in those texts is due to a marginalization of the role played by this profession within the management of the vineyards in general, or in particular, to these specific vineyards which suggestibly were managed by a royal official. However, the presence of territorially responsible officials in these vineyards and the absence of attestations of fruit transactions directly involving Sipa-Ninĝirsuke-inpad should be taken into account (see § 5.9 and 5.10). 715 As indicated in the introduction, the transliterations of CBT 3, BM 25293 and CBT 3, BM 28832 were kindly supplied by Dr. K. Focke. This scholar pointed out an ambiguity between the indication 1 and 60. 716 Focke, regarding the second line of the reverse d ⌈ N a n š e - i 3 ⌉ -[...], considers the possible reconstruction: d N a n š e i3-zu nu-ĝeškiri6. 717 Unlike the counted date palms, the palm grove area does not show any semantic determinative. 718 The expression could refer to beaten-down trees; see Attinger 1993, 733.

205

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

4.5.2. The vineyard in the marsh of Niĝin ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin a m b a r N iĝ in 6 k i ) 719 An extended area cultivated as vineyard is known from PPAC 5, 288 (n.d.); as already seen in § 1.6.3.1, although this text presents the same structure as the measurement texts, in the colophon there is no trace of the key expression but only of the vineyard where the measurement was carried out, namely the ‘vineyard (lying) in the marsh of Niĝin’ (l.e. iii, 2: ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin a m b a r N iĝ in 6 k i ). The total dimensions of this vineyard are 98,100 m2, an area comprising an irrigation inlet-plot (59,400 m2) and a uncultivated land (38,700 m2), subdivided by parcels maintained by 11 garden experts. The irrigation inlet-area of the first parcel is labeled as vineyard, a specification that can be considered as implied for the remaining 10 plots. However, alongside date palms (1 or 60), a certain variety of fruit trees, but not grapevines, are attested (see the considerations in note 277 in § 1.6.3): pomegranates (12 or 720 HAR-elements), figs (5 or 300 HAR-elements) and apple trees (44 or 988 HAR-elements), as well as timber trees: hackberries (52+ or 252 units and 4 or 240 HAR-elements), black poplars (ĝ e š ild a g 2 ; 28 or 1,680 units and 14 or 840 HAR-elements) and Euphratic poplars (ĝ e š a sa l 2 ; 86 or 104 units), tamarisks (42 or 101 units and 130 HAR-elements) and kab-willows (8 or 480 units and 71 or 425 HAR-elements). Moreover, as seen in § 1.6.3.1 and § 1.6.7, the first garden expert mentioned in the text might be the same one who occurs as supervisor of the whole registered operation. In fact Lugal-abbairi is indicated as supervisor (u g u la ), that is, the same name as the first gardener mentioned in the text. Therefore it is not clear whether he might be identified with the supervisor of the entire operation or if we are dealing with a homonym, whose differentiation relied on the function carried out (that is, name juxtaposed with plot/u g u la ; considering in any case that Lugal-abbairi is not a very widespread name in the province).720 If the same person was meant, then the entire operation would have been conducted under the responsibility of a gardener, already responsible for his parcel. Therefore, it is not clear whether the text deals with an exceptional event or if it is to be understood as a draft (hence the lack of the key expression in the colophon), drawn in the name of one of the garden expert involved in the operation, thus betraying a sort of internal hierarchy. Text

Type

Composition

Composition, trees and timbers by gardener

Responsible person

Lugal-ab-ba-iri: 0.0.1 ½ ¼ iku ĝeštin ka-a-DU; 0.0.1 ½ ki-ĝal2; 2(×60?) HAR ĝešnu-ur2-ma; 2(×60?) ĝešmes dim; 1(×60?) ĝešmes gid2; 2(×60?) HAR ĝešildag2 gal; 4(×60?) ĝeš ildag2 dim; 1(×60?) ĝeššinig dim; 42 HAR ĝeššinig gid2;

PPAC 5, 288 (n.d.)

vineyard measurement and 16 ½ iku ka-a-DU counting of trees 10 ½ ¼ iku kiUr-dNanše: 0.0.1 ½ ¼ iku ka-a-DU; ½ iku ki-ĝal2; (ĝe škiri6 ĝeštin ĝeš mes dim; 5(×60?) HAR ĝešildag2 (?) gid2; ki ambar Niĝin6 )

Lugal-ab-ba-iri

Lu2-dNin-šubur: 0.0.1 ½ ¼ iku ka-a-DU; ½ iku ki-ĝal2; 10+ ĝešmes dim; 7(×60?) ĝešmes e2-da;722

––––––––––––––––– As noted in the introduction, within the agricultural panorama marsh areas characterized by reed-beds, grasses and various shrubs were interspersed among the cultivated lands. The marsh area of Niĝin, in particular, occurs as topographical reference for location of a field mentioned in Mesopotamia 5-6, 300 (see § 4.1). Further, there is evidence of a ‘captain/overseer (of) the vine(yards)’ (NU-b a n d a 3 ĝ e š ĝ e š t i n ) in connection with a marsh area of Niĝin, defined indeed as vineyard (see § 1.9). 720 It should be recognized that, in two cases in the text, a garden expert named Ur-Siana is mentioned. This name is quite common in the province and, as the most probable hypothesis is that we are dealing with two different persons in charge of two different parcels of the vineyard, the scribe did not resort to any patronymic to solve the ambiguity. Therefore, it seems to be a situation in which the profession of the workers is not specified and the need to avoid the ambiguity due to the homonymy is not perceived. 721 In the text, the total dimension of the area is not reported; only the single parcels headed by the gardeners are described. 722 Considering the information of the text as far as the crops are concerned to be exhaustive, it would represent an area of 6,300 m2 hosting a monoculture of hackberries. 719

206

T HE G ARDENS OF G U -I NIĜINŠEDU

Text

Type

Composition

Composition, trees and timbers by gardener

Responsible person

Ur-dSi4-an-na: 0.0.1 ½ ¼ iku ka-a-DU; 0.0.1 iku ki-ĝal2; 2(×60?) ĝešmes gal; 8(×60?) ĝešmes e2-da; 3(×60?) ĝešmes dim; 2(×60?) HAR ĝešhašhur; 6(×60?) HAR ĝešnu-ur2-ma; 2? ĝeš ĝeš ? ĝeš HAR kab gid2; 50 asal2 gid2; 16 šinig gid2; Ĝeš-sa6-sa6: 0.0.1 ½ ¼ iku ka-a-DU; 0.0.1 iku ki-ĝal2; 4(×60?) HAR ĝešhašhur; 2(×60?) HAR ĝeškab gid2; 25 ĝeš šinig gid2; Niĝir-an-ne2-zu: 0.0.1 ½ iku ka-a-DU; 4 [HAR] ĝešhašhur; 2(×60?) HAR ĝešpeš3 gal; 6(x60?) ĝešmes e2-da; 50 HAR ĝeš kab gid2; Niĝin6ki-ki-du10: 0.0.1 ½ ¼ iku ka-a-DU; 0.0.1 ¼ iku kiĝal2; 1(x60?) ĝešĝešnimbar; 12 HAR ĝešhašhur; 1(×60?) ĝeš ĝeš ĝeš HAR nu-ur2-ma; 2(×60?) kab dim; 16 HAR hašhur ĝeš ĝeš gid2; 40 HAR šinig gid2; 4(×60?) asal2; Lugal-KA-gi-na: 0.0.1 ½ iku ka-a-DU; 0.0.1 ¼ iku kiĝal2; 3(×60?) ĝešildag2 e2-da; 5(×60?) HAR ĝešildag2 gid2; 2(×60?) ĝešmes e2-da; 3(×60?) HAR ĝešpeš3 gid2; 2(×60?) ĝeš HAR kab gid2; A-tu: 0.0.1 iku ka-a-DU; 0.0.1 iku ki-ĝal2; 2(×60?) ĝeš ildag2 e2-da; 6(×60?) ĝešildag2 gid2; 3(×60?) ĝešmes e2da; 2(×60?) ĝešasal2 e2-da; 6(×60?) ĝeškab gid2; 16 HAR ĝeš šinig gid2; Ša3-ba-na-sig: 0.0.1 iku ka-a-DU; 0.0.1 iku ki-ĝal2; 8(×60?) HAR ĝešhašhur; 1 HAR ĝešnu-ur2-ma; 1(×60?) ĝeš ildag2 e2-da; 2(×60?) ĝešildag2 gid2; 2(×60?) ĝeškab gid2; 19 HAR ĝeššinig gid2; Ur-dSi4-an-na: 0.0.1 iku ka-a-DU; 0.0.1 ½ ¼ iku ki-ĝal2; 6(×60?) HAR ĝešhašhur; 1(×60?) ĝešmes gal; 4(×60?) ĝeš mes dim; 4(×60?) HAR ĝešmes gid2; 3(×60?) ĝešildag2 e2da; 5(×60?) ĝešildag2 gid2; 15 HAR ĝeškab gid2; 13 HAR ĝeš šinig [...]; 30 ĝešasal2 gid2;

4.5.3. The vineyard opposite the field of Enlil ( ĝ e š k iri 6 < g e štin > g a b a a -ša 3 d E n -lil 2 -la 2 ) 723 This vineyard is mentioned only in CT 10, 49 BM 14334 (n.d.), a text recording the measurement of vineyards and the counting of trees under the supervision of Sipa-Ninĝirsuke-inpad. The surface of the vineyard in question consists of 13,500 m2 of uncultivated vineyard headed by the garden expert Ur-Siana, for which no timber are recorded. The supervision of the transaction for this garden is carried out by Lu-Niĝin, whose profession is not indicated and who does not necessarily belong to the management sphere of the gardens, as is the case for the official responsible for the entire transaction (see § 4.5).

––––––––––––––––– 723 MCS 8, 69 (n.d.) records a land survey concerning seven fields, among which the ‘field Enlilaĝara’ ( a - š a 3 d E n l i l 2 - l a 2 - ĝ a r - r a ) . In the ‘field of Ur-Igalim martu’ ( a - š a 3 U r - d I g - a l i m m a r - t u ) 19 ½ i k u (70,200 m2) of land are indicated as lying ‘alongside the garden’ ( d a ĝ e š k i r i 6 ), while in the ‘field of Ur-PA’ ( a - š a 3 U r -PA) 5 i k u (18,000 m2) are indicated as a - š a 3 d a ĝ e š k i r i 6 ,’ field alongside the garden’. In any case there is no evidence suggesting that the garden name referred to the ‘field Enlilaĝara’ in an abbreviated form; in addition, since in MCS 8, 69 the proximity between the fields close to gardens and the ‘field Enlilaĝara’ has not been clarified, it is not possible to ascertain any connection with the gardens known from CT 10, 49 BM 14334. In reference to the ‘field of Enlil’ and the ‘field Enlilaĝara’ , see Pettinato 1967 (UNL/I), 204-206.

207

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Text

Type

Composition

Responsible gardener

CT 10, 49 BM 14334 (n.d.)

vineyard measurement and counting of trees (ĝe škiri6 ĝeštin gid2-da ĝeš šid-da) ša3 Niĝin6ki

3 ¾ iku ki-ĝal2 um-mi-a: Ur-dSi4-an-na ĝeštin

Official responsible General for the transaction responsible per garden official ugula: Lu2-Niĝin6ki

ugula: Sipa-dNinĝir2-su-ke4-in-pad3

4.5.4. The vineyard on the bank of the Kun canal ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin g u 2 i 7 k u n ) 724 This vineyard is only mentioned in CT 10, 49 BM 14334 (n.d.). The area of the vineyard in question consists of 9,000 m2 of irrigation inlet-land defined as vineyard, and 6,300 m2 of uncultivated land. Inside this area the presence of an u 3 (interpreted as ‘island’, ‘old canal bank’ or ‘spoil bank’) is indicated along the canal Turtur725 opposite the Babbar field. The timbers counted in this garden are: 50 HAR-elements connected to tamarisks which are defined as long (g id 2 ), 60 HAR-elements connected to ĝipar-trees, similarly defined as long, and 60 kab-willows classified as axes (e 2 -d a ). The vineyard is under the responsibility of two garden experts, both explicitly indicated as gardeners (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ), Ur-Lamma (responsible for a irrigation inlet-plot of 4,500 m2 and 60 HAR-elements connected with ĝipar-trees and 60 kab-willow) and Ur-abzu (who is responsible for the remaining area and the remaining elements), whereas the supervision of the operations conducted in this garden is entrusted to Ur-gigir, whose profession is not cited, and who is probably to be identified with the supervisor of the operation recorded in CBT 3, BM 28832, concerning the vineyard along the banks of the closeby Turtur canal (see § 4.5 and § 4.5.5). Text

CT 10, 49 BM 14334 (n.d.)

Type

vineyard measurement and counting of trees (ĝe škiri6 ĝeštin gid2-da ĝeš šid-da) ša3 Niĝin6ki

Official responsible General for the transaction per responsible garden official

Composition

Compostion, trees and timbers by gardener

2 ½ iku ĝeštin kaa-DU; 1 ½ ¼ iku ki-ĝal2

Ur-abzu nu-ĝeškiri6: 1 ½ iku ĝeštin ka--DU; 60 ĝeš kab e2-da; 60 HAR ĝeš ĝiparx gid2 (KISAL); u3 i7 tur-tur gaba a-ša3 ugula: Ur-ĝešgigir babbar2 d ĝeš Ur- Lamma nu- kiri6: 1 ½ iku ĝeštin ka-a-DU; 1 ½ ¼ iku ki-ĝal2; 50 HAR ĝeš šinig gid2;

ugula: Sipad Nin-ĝir2-su-ke4in-pad3

4.5.5. The vineyard on the banks of the Turtur canal ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin g u 2 i 7 tu r -tu r ) 726 The presence of a vineyard along the banks of the Turtur canal is mentioned only in CBT 3, BM 28832 (n.d.; n.p.) which record a vineyard measurement at Niĝin. There is no mention of a specific name for the garden, only the indication of the location where the operation took place. The supervisor is Ur-gigir, while Sipa-Ninĝirsuke-inpad is attested as the captain/overseer. Both officials likely occur in CT 10, 49 BM 14334 (n.d.) in connection with the measurement of the ––––––––––––––––– ASJ 13, 214, ASJ 19, 142 127, Studi Saporetti 241 describe the banks of the Niĝinšedu canal and have in common the description of the mouth of this canal, to which an irrigation inlet-area is attributed, with a riverfront side of 15 m on the banks of the Niĝinšedu. ASJ 13, 214 attributes this area to the bank of Niĝin, whereas the other two texts attribute it to the bank of Ki’esa. This specific place might have represented the junction point of the territories pertaining to the two centers of the district (see § 4.2). 725 The inlet of this canal was on the bank of the Niĝinšedu canal, which is followed after 1,947 meters by the inlet of the Kun canal as described in ASJ 13, 214 (see § 4.2). Because the garden seems to have involved both watercourses, it may be inferred that it was located far from the banks of the Niĝinšedu, possibly in an area where the two watercourses get closer. See further the considerations made by Carrouè 1986, 39-40. 726 See Figure 9. 724

208

T HE G ARDENS OF G U -I NIĜINŠEDU

vineyard along the banks of the Kun canal at Niĝin (see § 4.5.4). The total extent of this vineyard is 115,200 m2, comprising a irrigation inlet-area (61,200 m2) and an uncultivated area (54,000 m2), further subdivided by parcels maintained by 12 garden experts. Apart from grapevines (10 or 600 units and 11 or 660 HAR-elements), the cultivation which characterizes the described area,727 a certain variety of fruit and timber trees are attested: pomegranates (14 or 250 HAR-elements), fig trees (12 or 720 HAR-elements), apple trees (4 or 240 units and 45 or 1,225 HAR-elements), hackberries (21 or 1,260 units), tamarisks (99 or 453 HAR-elements), kab-willows (31 or 680 HARelements). The presence of date palms is also attested (10 or 600). In the text, the first mentioned gardener, Ur-Dumuzi, is indicated as gardener, n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 (the specification ‘of the vineyard’ (ĝ e štin ) might be considered redundant), while for the other gardeners mentioned the indication of their title could be interpreted as implicit. Text

Type

Composition

Composition, trees and timbers by gardener

Responsible official

Ur-Dumu-zi: 0.0.1 ½ iku ĝeštin ka-a-DU; 0.0.1 ¼ iku ki-ĝal2; 2(×60?) ĝešĝešnimbar; Aga-saĝ-keš2: 0.0.1 ¼ iku ka-a-DU; 2(×60?) HAR ĝeš peš3; 6(×60?) HAR ĝeškab gid2; 13 HAR ĝeššinig gid2; Lu2-giri17-zal: 0.0.1 iku ka-a-DU; 0.0.1 iku ki-ĝal2; 6(×60?) HAR ĝešpeš3; 2(×60?) ĝešmes gid2; 18 HAR ĝeš šinig gid2; Ur-dBa-U2: 0.0.1 ¼ iku ka-a-DU; 0.0.1 iku ki-ĝal2; 2(×60?) ĝešĝeštin gal; 2(×60?) HAR ĝešĝeštin gid2; 5(×60?) HAR ĝešhašhur; CBT 3, BM 28832 (n.d.; n.p.)

vineyard measurement (ĝeškiri6 ĝeštin gid2-da) ša3 Niĝin6ki

17 iku ka-a-DU 15 iku ki-ĝal2728

Ba-zi-ge: 0.0.1 iku ka-a-DU; 0.0.1 iku ki-ĝal2; 1(×60?) ĝeš ĝešnimbar; 2(×60?) ĝešĝeštin gal; 1(×60?) ĝešmes e2da; 1(×60?) ĝešmes dim; 10 HAR ĝešhašhur; Da-ti: 0.0.1 ¼ iku ka-a-DU; ½ iku ki-ĝal2; 1(×60?) ĝeš mes gal; 5(×60?) ĝešmes gid2; 1(x60?) ĝešĝeštin e2-da; 3(×60?) HAR ĝešĝeštin gid2; 1(×60?) HAR ĝešhašhur kab2-kul; 4(×60?) HAR ĝeškab gid2; 4(×60?) HAR ĝeš šinig gid2

ugula: Ur-ĝešgigir; NU-banda3:

SipaNin-ĝir2-su-ke4-i3pad3 d

d

Nanše-ma-an-šum2:729 0.0.1 iku ka-a-DU; 0.0.1 ¼ iku ki-ĝal2; 1(×60?) ĝešĝešnimbar; 7(×60?) HAR ĝešhašhur; 1(×60?) HAR ĝešnu-ur2-ma; 2(×60?) HAR ĝeššinig gid2; Ur-mes: 0.0.2 ¼ iku ka-a-DU; 0.0.2 ¼ iku ki-ĝal2; 2(×60?) ĝešĝešnimbar; 4(×60?) HAR ĝešhašhur; 3(×60?) ĝeš ĝeš ĝeš HAR peš3; 6(×60?) HAR ĝeštin gid2; 14 HAR šinig ĝeš gid2; 20 HAR kab gid2;

––––––––––––––––– 727 Also in this case ‘ĝ e š t i n ’ is indicated as a characterization of the first described irrigation inlet-plot, but it is probably tacit for the other parcels. 728 In the text, the total dimension of the area is not reported; only the single parcels headed by the gardeners are described. 729 This garden expert could be identified with the conveyor of 300 liters of dates provided by the garden administrator Ga’a (§ 9.4.1) in MVN 9, 17 (Š 47/vi) and with the homonymous gardener acting as expert (r. i, 7; r. i, 11) in AR RIM 7, 18 (l.d.), a text likely recording the payments for the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ (see § 1.6.4). If the texts deal with the same gardener, it may be suggested that the 300 liters of dates conveyed by him in MVN 9, 17 came from the same plot described here, supporting 1 or 60 palms. Assuming the presence of only one palm, it should be taken into account that 300 liters represent the highest capacity attested for a single tree, whereas the average is about 70 liters. On the other hand, assuming the presence of 60 palms, the average would equal to 5 liters, 3.75 kg per palm, hence a yield falling short of the average of 4-5 kg reached by the palms during their first years of life (Zettler 1992, 136 and previous literature).

209

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Text

Type

Composition

Composition, trees and timbers by gardener

Responsible official

Lu2-dNanše: 0.0.1 iku ka-a-DU; ½ ¼ ki-ĝal2; 2(×60?) ĝeš ĝeštin gal; 1(×60) ĝešĝeštin dim; 4(×60?) ĝešhašhur; 3(×60?) ĝešmes dim; 2(×60?) ĝešmes gid2; 15 HAR ĝeššinig; Ba-mi2: ½ ¼ iku ka-a-DU; 0.0.1 iku ki-ĝal2; 4(×60?) ĝeš mes e2-da; 4(×60) ĝešĝeštin dim; 2(×60?) HAR ĝeš hašhur; 3(×60?) HAR ĝešnu-ur2-ma; 20 HAR ĝeššinig gid2; Ur-dSuen: 0.0.1 ½ ¼ iku ka-a-DU; 0.0.4 ¼ iku ki-ĝal2; 1(×60?) ĝešĝešnimbar; 15 HAR ĝešhašhur; 10 HAR ĝešnuur2-ma; 1(×60?) ĝešmes e2-da; 13 HAR ĝeššinig gid2; I3-pa3-da:730 0.0.2 iku ka-a-DU; ½ ¼ ki-ĝal2; 3(×60?) ĝeš ĝešnimbar; 1(×60?) ĝešmes gal; 1(×60?) ĝešmes dim; 1(x60?) HAR ĝešhašhur; 1(×60?) HAR ĝešpeš3; 1(×60?) ĝeš HAR kab gid2;

4.6. Presence of gardens attributable to the district in scattered references Information about the presence of gardens in this district can be obtained by other texts, as well as from the activity of the garden administrators in charge in the district, for which see § 9.4 and § 9.5. Two texts, JEOL 33, 127 13 (l.d.) and HLC 3, 394 (AS 5/vi) report the presence of gardeners defined as ‘gardeners of Ninegal’ (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 d N in -e 2 -g a l) for this district (see § 1.7), further examples are then offered by MTBM 265 and MVN 11, 69. MTBM 265 (Š 41/-) records the yield inspection ( ĝ e š k iri 6 k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a ) of the gardens of the high priestess (e re š-d iĝ ir) of Hendursaĝ at Niĝin. The text registers only the quantity of dates, 1,640 liters (5.2.2 g u r), without mentioning garden experts, neither the specific garden of reference nor the officials in charge. MVN 11, 69 (ŠS 1/vi) testifies (though indirectly) to the presence of vineyards in this district. The text in fact reports information on workers no longer active at Niĝin (two workers, Ipada and Ur-Nanše) and Kinunir (two workers, Lu-diĝira and Dumuzikam), who are indicated as: r. 2-3: b a -u g 7 n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin -m e / G u 2 -i 7 -N iĝ in 6 k i -še 3 -d u , ‘(they) are deceased gardeners of the vineyards (in the) Gu-Iniĝinšedu’. For each gardener, there is the indication of the corresponding payment and the month to which the inactivity refers. The operation is recorded in the name of the captain Ziĝu and there is no reference to a possible worker inspection, further the payments are not reflected in a total section (see § 1.9). The presence of vineyards or timber tree gardens in the district is then inferable from the attestations of the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ and the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ active in it, for which, see § 5.8.

––––––––––––––––– It is not unlikely that this gardener is to be identified with the ‘gardener of vineyards’ of Niĝin, which MVN 11, 69 (ŠS 1/vi) described as no longer active (see below § 4.6).

730

210

CHAPTER FIVE

TIMBER AND GARDENS

Among the different kinds of garden produce, there were types of trees whose timber was used as material for building boats and furnishings. The production of timber was not restricted to just gardens, but there were also (as seen in the introduction) productive units which were designated as forests ( ĝ e š tir) and other monoculture areas identified neither as gardens nor as forests, such as areas cultivated with tamarisks to which specific workers known as ‘men of the tamarisks’ (lu 2 ĝeš šin ig ) 731 were assigned. However, it should be taken into account that in addition to trees cultivated exclusively for their timber there was the availability of wood supplied by the fruit trees732 present in gardens. As seen already, texts recording the measurements of gardens ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g id 2 -d a ) and the counting of timber (ĝ e š š id -d a ) list a great variety of tree types growing alongside date palms in the gardens of the province during the Neo-Sumerian period.733 This type of documents, however, only marginally relate to what might be called the ‘circulation of timber’, as they only describe the plantations, without preluding any specific immininent transaction. In any case, in relation to the gardens of the province, the most attested type of timber tree is the ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 , a kind of pine used mainly in the building of boats.734 In plots that can be considered gardens, pines are attested in the same area as other types of trees or alone,735 and for two gardens of the province the term ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 characterized the garden name, probably implying that it was the main product.736 In this chapter, the transactions involving the garden as ‘place of production’ and therefore ‘supplier’ of raw materials have been put in relation with the places where these materials were processed, therefore the receiving institutions, primarily the shipyard (m a r-sa ).737 In addition, different attestations of the gardens supporting timber trees and of the relevant gardeners (n u ĝeš k iri 6 ĝ e š g a l-g a l) have been collected; finally, the end of the chapter is devoted to some considerations about the working personnel and the officials involved in the ‘circulation of timber’. 5.1. Contacts with the shipyard A text, ITT 5, 6957 (ŠS 2/v), records materials delivered to the mill by a scribe of the shipyard acting as conveyor.738 Among such materials, this text lists ropes of palm fiber (šu -sa r ––––––––––––––––– 731 See Heimpel 2011b, 78 and previous literature. 732 For example, fig trees and pomegranates are attested as materials used in the shipyard, see Alivernini 2013, 134. 733 For a detailed study of tree species and the use of their wood in the Neo-Sumerian period, see Heimpel 2011b. 734 To the best of my knowledge, transactions of the timber of other types of trees (whose use is however attested) are not directly connected to the gardens in the documentation (unlike pine timber). The only documents that connect the gardens and the timber of these trees are those concerning the measurement of gardens and the counting of trees. 735 See, for example, Nisaba 11, 27 (n.d.) from Umma. 736 See § 2.2.34 and § 2.7.2. As highlighted in these paragraphs, the documentation provides only a nominal connection between these gardens and this type of crop; attestations of these gardens mainly relate to employed workers and their payments, without any references to their production. 737 The administrative structure of the shipyard has been studied by Alivernini (2013). According to this author, 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 the materials required for building boats. The point of contact between the gardens and shipyard would lie in the administrative sector, involving the responsible scribes. Moreover, the materials stored in the shipyard could also be used for purposes other than the building of boats (Alivernini, ibid. 46). 738 See § 9.7.1.1.

211

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

m a n g a g a ) and timbers defined as garden pine timber ( ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 ĝ e š k iri 6 ). Usually, pine timber was counted in the gardens themselves in terms of items (e.g. ĝ e š g i-m u š, ĝ e š m i-ri 2 -z a , ĝeš šu -d im 2 ) for the construction of boats of various capacities or without further indication.739 Earlier § 1.6.4 discussed the structure of the texts recording the counting of pine timbers ( ĝ e š u 3 su h 5 šid -d a ) in the name of gardeners (u m -m i-a /n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š g a l-g a l), through the examples of Amherst 66 and TLB 3, 144. The subsequent phase can be found in the transactions of timber coming from the gardens and directed to the mill or to the shipyard.740 In these texts, the provenience of the timber is generically attributed to the garden, rather than to officials or gardeners, probably the same garden where previously the counting had taken place. In contrast, the name of the conveyor and that of the recipient, both unrelated to the management of gardens, are usually indicated. Transactions of this kind are not numerous and will be reported below. In MVN 11, 126 (Š 48/v), pines for boards (m i-ri 2 -z a ) coming from the ‘garden of Ninĝirsu’ (§ 5.4) are received by one scribe of the shipyard,741 while the conveyor is KatarBaU.742 o. 1-2: 2,450 ĝešu3-suh5 mi-ri2-za ma2 gur 60.0.0 / 960 ĝešu3-suh5 mi-ri2-za ma2 gur 30.0.0 r. 1-3: ĝeškiri6 dNin-ĝir2-su-ta / Eš-am3 šu ba-ti / ĝiri3 Ka-tar-dBa-U2 o. 1-2: 2,450 pines (for) boards (for building) boats with a capacity of 18,000 liters, 960 pines (for) boards (for building) boats with a capacity of 9,000 liters. r.1-3: from the ‘garden of Ningirsu’, Ešam took them, the conveyor (was) Katar-BaU.

As already seen in § 2.2.19, in SNAT 57 (Š 48/iv/7), the transaction of timber from the ‘garden of Mani’ to the shipyard of the mill is run by officials probably related to these two institutions, but not to the garden: o. 1-3: 300 ĝešu3-suh5 mi-ri2-za ma2 gur 60.0.0 / 180 ĝešu3-suh5 mi-ri2-za ma2 gur 30.0.0 / ĝeškiri6 Ma-ni-ta r. 1-4: mar-sa e2-kikken2-še3 / Ad-da-ĝu10 / šu ba-ti / ĝiri3 Inim-dBa-U2 o. 1-2: 300 pines (for) boards (for building) boats with a capacity of 18,000 liters, 180 pines (for) boards (for building) boats with a capacity of 9,000 liters from the ‘garden of Mani’. r. 1-4: (allocated) to the shipyard of the mill, Addaĝu took them; the conveyor (was) Inim-BaU.

TCTI 2, 3721 (AS 7/ix) records a transfer of timber from a garden (named after the responsible garden expert, GiKAmu) to the shipyard (see § 3.4). The timber consists of pines for boards for the construction of boats with a capacity of 18,000 liters and poles (g i-m u š), apparently unrelated to boat construction. The name of the garden is followed by the indication ‘garden of the mill’, although there is probably an illegible sign that precedes the indication ĝ e š k iri 6 . Two explanations can be found for this indication: the first one is that the timber should be allocated to a structure situated in the garden of the mill of the shipyard (since they were associated structures); the second more probable explanation, is that the garden maintained by GiKAmu was part of the mill and, therefore, the notation aimed at specifying the role of GiKAmu as gardener of the mill. TCTI 2, 3721 (AS 7/ix) o. 1-4: 222 ĝešu3-suh5 mi-ri2-za ma2 60.0.0 gur / 10 gi-muš / ĝeškiri6 Gi-KA-mu-ta / [nu-?] ĝeškiri6 e2-kikken2 r. 1-2: mar-sa-še3 / ĝiri3 Ur-dLamma dub-sar ––––––––––––––––– Englund noted how little we know about the meaning of most of the components of boats (Englund 2010, 18). For a discussion of the materials used in the shipyard, see Alivernini 2013, 127-135. 740 In many cases, these structures were somehow connected; as stated by Alivernini, although they were administratively separated, these structures maintained a continuous exchange of workers, materials, and scribes, and they worked together to ensure the production and transportation of food. See Alivernini 2013, 115. 741 The official who receives the timber is Ešam scribe of the shipyard (d u b - s a r m a r - s a ). 742 For the activity of this scribe in connection with gardens, see § 9.7.1.2 739

212

T IMBER AND G ARDENS o. 1-4: 222 pines (for) boards (for building) boats with a capacity of 18,000 liters, 10 poles from the ‘garden of Gi-KA-mu’, the garden[er?] of the mill. r. 1-2: (allocated) to the shipyard, the conveyor (was) the scribe Ur-Lamma.

As seen in § 2.2.28, an atypical transaction seems to have been recorded in ITT 5, 6994 (ŠS 1/iv), in which the timber coming from the shipyard is allocated to a structure (whose name is illegible) connected to a garden of the Ĝirsu district, the ‘garden of Tira’aš’: o. 1-5: 50 ĝešu3-suh5 / mi-ri2-za ma2 60.0.0 gur / [...] ĝeškiri6 Ti-ra-aš2-še3 / [mar]-sa-ta / [ki Nam]-mah-ta r. 1-2 [kišib Niĝ2]-dBa-U2 / [ĝiri3 ...]-dNin-ĝir2-su seal: Niĝ2-dBa-U2 / dub-sar / dumu Ba-zi o. 1-5: 50 pines (for) boards (for building) boats with a capacity of 18,000 liters, (allocated) to [...] of the ‘garden of Tira’aš’, from the shipyard, supplied by Nammah. r. 1-2: [seal of Niĝ]-BaU, [the conveyor was X]-Ninĝirsu. seal: Niĝ-BaU scribe son of Bazi.

5.2. The gardens of the high priestess of BaU The gardens recorded in WMAH 3 (AS 1/-), the balanced account of the shipyard and sailors (m a 2 -la h 5 ) of the household of the high priestess of BaU (n iĝ 2 -k a 9 a k a m a r-s a m a 2 -la h 5 -e n e e 2 e re š-d iĝ ir d B a - U 2 ) at Ĝirsu,743 occur as the places of provenience for raw materials. There is no explicit indication suggesting the physical proximity between the gardens and the shipyard, although this proximity is probable for at least some of them. At the time of the draft, the high priestess was Geme-Lamma, attested in this office until the first years of reign of AmarSuena.744 Responsible for the account is Inim-BaU-idab, the administrator (ša b ra ) of the household. All the gardens occur in the capital section (sa ĝ -n iĝ 2 -g u r 1 1 -ra -k a m ), obviously because of their function as suppliers of raw material for the shipyard. The following table summarizes the information provided by the text in regards to the timber supplied from the gardens of the priestess: Garden ĝeš ĝeš

Timber

d

kiri6 Iškur ereš-diĝir-ra kiri6 gibil ereš-diĝir-ra ĝeš

21

ĝeš

mi-ri2-za

60

ĝeš

eme-sig

14

ĝeš

u3-suh5

ĝeš

kiri6

ĝeš

kiri6 Ur-e2-ninnu nu-ĝeškiri6

120 ĝešmi-ri2-za

ĝeš

kiri6 Lugal-iri-da NU-banda3 uš-bar

60745 ĝešmi-ri2-za

Ĝeštu ereš-diĝir-ra

Responsible official

ugula: Inim-dBa-U2-i3-dab5 šabra

The following paragraphs are devoted to the gardens recorded in WMAH 3 (AS 1/-). The names of the gardens apparently refer to structures or person of contextual relevance, as the garden named after the garden expert responsible for it,746 Ur-eninnu, would suggest.

––––––––––––––––– 743 Waetzoldt 1972, 98. 744 See § 2.10. 745 The graphic ambiguity between 1 and 60 in this text is avoided thanks to the presence of the total. 746 The same feature is documented, as seen in § 4.4.1, for the garden named after the garden expert Azam in connection with the plots leased out by the temple of Nindara.

213

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

5.2.1. The garden of Iškur of the high priestess ( ĝ e š k iri 6 d Išk u r e re š -d iĝ ir-ra ) This is the only attestation of this garden. The text attributes 21 boards ( ĝ e š m i-ri 2 -z a ) to it. The name of the garden could perhaps refer to the name of a smaller shrine dedicated to the god Iškur, in the area of the high priestess. 5.2.2. The new garden of the high priestess ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g ib il e re š-d iĝ ir-ra ) This is the only attestation of this garden. The text records 60 planks ( ĝ e š e m e -s ig ) coming from it. The name of the garden refers explicitly to a new plantation in the area of the high priestess. 5.2.3. The garden of Ĝeštu of the high priestess ( ĝ e š k iri 6

ĝeš

Ĝe štu e re š -d iĝ ir-ra )

This is the only attestation of this garden. The text records 14 pines ( ĝ e š u 3 -su h 5 ) without further specification on the use intended for such trees. The name of the garden may indicate an attribute (wisdom) of the high priestess or it may refer to the name of an official whose activity in connection with the household of the high priestess is apparently not documented elsewhere. 5.2.4. The garden of Ur-eninnu the gardener ( ĝ e š k iri 6 U r-e 2 -n in n u n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) The name of the garden refers to the name of the garden expert in charge of it. The text records 120 boards ( ĝ e š m i-ri 2 -z a ) from this garden. Ur-eninnu was a gardener of the priestess already known from other texts (see § 1.11.3). In BPOA 2, 1843 (Š 42/-), the text recording an apple yield inspection of the gardens of the priestess, a quantity of fruit is recorded in the name of Ur-eninnu. Although not specified in the text, it can be assumed that the boards were of pine wood, as numerous parallels offered by documentation would suggest. The interplanting of apple trees and pines is attested,747 therefore it cannot be excluded that both texts refer to the same garden, here named after the responsible gardener.748 Unlike the other gardens quoted by the texts, the information concerning this garden dates back to Š 47 rather than to Š 48. 5.2.5. The garden of Luga-irida the captain of the weavers ( ĝ e š k iri 6 L u g a l-iri-d a N U -b a n d a 3 u š-b a r) This garden, whose name clearly refers to the name of an official, is documented only in this text. It attributes 60 boards ( ĝ e š m i-ri 2 -z a ) to it. A text, ASJ 18, 149 73 (l.d.), records the properties (n iĝ 2 -g u r 1 1 ) of Lugal-irida, designated as captain (NU-b a n d a 3 ); among the properties this text lists the personnel of a garden (r. i, 20: ĝ iri 3 -se 3 -g a ĝ e š k iri 6 -m e ), which consisted of nine water drawers and seven arborists. However, there is no evidence that ASJ 18, 149 73 refers to the same official, hence to the same garden that supplied the shipyard of the high priestess. 5.3. The garden of the grand vizier ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 su k k a l-m a h ) The ‘garden of the grand vizier’ is known from four texts, DAS 68, TCTI 2, 2810, TCTI 2, 2811 and TÉL 113, dating to the second year of the reign of Šu-Suen. At that time, the grand vizier Urdu-Nanna was also the governor of the province. The first three texts list workers of the shipyard (lu 2 m a r-s a ) and masters (g a ša m ),749 thus unrelated to the garden sphere, with regard to a time span of about a month. The workers are divided into groups taken charge of (i 3 -d a b 5 ) ––––––––––––––––– See e.g. Nisaba 11, 27 (n.d.), from Umma. 748 The indication n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 is followed by a sequence of unclear signs, although it would seem possible to reconstruct [ ĝ e š ] ⌈ g a l ⌉ - [ g a l ] - ⌈ t a ⌉ , hence referencing ‘gardener of the large trees’ (n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š g a l - g a l ) . 749 As seen in § 1.6, the term means ‘expert’ like u m - m i - a , but it refers to other professional domains, the workshop, carpentry, but it applied also to farmers. 747

214

T IMBER AND G ARDENS

by officials whose profession is not indicated. In TCTI 2, 2810, the colophon specifies the location of the garden, reporting: (r. ii, 20-21) ĝ e š k iri 6 su k k a l-m a h ša 3 [P a 5 ]-h a l-li 2 < k i > , ‘garden of the grand vizier in [Pa]hali’.750 The fourth text, TÉL 113, defines the garden as the place of provenience of various tree units, differentiated by type (155 ĝ e š m i-ri 2 -z a , 580 ĝ e š a m a -a d ) or generically indicated as ‘mixed large trees’ (1,375 ĝ e š g a l h i-a ). An official (whose title is not indicated) then takes the timber. The reason why workers of the shipyard and masters have been connected to this garden is not clear; it is perhaps feasible that the garden name in fact designated a larger complex,751 which comprised at least a shipyard and gardens of timber trees. SNAT 139 (ŠS 6/iii/24) records transactions of timber allocated to different destinations through officials of the shipyard. The timber (50 large pines) is specified as being ‘pines of the grand vizier coming from the mill’ (r. 3-4: ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 s u k k a l-m a h / e 2 -k ik k e n 2 -ta ), and it is acquired by Nammah, a scribe of the shipyard of Ĝirsu. The conveyors are two scribes of the shipyard of Ĝirsu, Nammah himself and Kaĝu.752 Finally, SAT 1, 377 (ŠS 7/-) records a quantity of timber (32 pines) for the construction of boats, expended by an official of the shipyard (k i N a m -m a h -ta ) and allocated to the temple of Šu-Suen at Urbilum; also in this text the timber is indicated as ‘pines of the grand vizier, coming from the mill’ (o. 4-5: ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 s u k k a l-m a h / e 2 -k ik k e n 2 -ta ), and it is acquired by Abba, a royal messenger (lu 2 k iĝ 2 -< g i 4 > -a lu g a l), while a high royal official (su k k a l) acts as inspector (m a šk im ). It seems plausible that the timber of this garden was meant in both texts, a garden which was therefore related to a shipyard and a mill. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official

DAS 68 (ŠS 2/iv/5)

employment of men of the shipyard and masters (ša3 ĝeškiri6 sukkal-mah)

80 lu2 mar-sa, 10 gašam

14 PN i3-dab5

TCTI 2, 2810 (ŠS 2/iv/26)

employment of men of the shipyard and masters (ša3 ĝeškiri6 sukkal-mah ša3 ⌈Pa5⌉hal-li2)

77 gub-ba la2-NI 4 ĝuruš lu2 mar-sa, 10 gašam (same names of DAS 68)

14 PN i3-dab5

TCTI 2, 2811 (ŠS 2/v)

employment of men of the shipyard and masters (ša3 ĝeškiri6 sukkal-mah)

[...] lu2 mar-sa, [...] gašam (same names of DAS 68)

14 PN i3-dab5

TÉL 113 (ŠS 2/-)

delivery (šu ba-ti) of timber from the ‘garden of the grand vizier’ (ĝe škiri6 sukkal-mah)

Ur-dŠul-gi šu ba-ti

Timber

1,375 ĝeš gal hi-a, 155 ĝešmi-ri2-za, 580 ĝeš a-ma-ad

5.4. The garden of Ninĝirsu ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 d N in -ĝ ir 2 -s u ) This garden is mentioned in only one text, MVN 11, 126 (Š 48/v), already seen in § 5.1; this text, indeed, quotes the ‘garden of Ninĝirsu’ as the place of provenience of pine timbers ( ĝ e š u 3 -su h 5 ) allocated to the shipyard (m a r-s a ). The timber is taken by Ešam, the scribe of the shipyard, and is conveyed by the scribe Katar-BaU. The garden name, which refers to the city god, is very generic; it cannot thus be excluded that it occurs in this text as an abbreviation753 indicating one of the gardens dedicated to Ninĝirsu which are attested elsewhere in the documentation (see § 2.2.22 and § 2.2.23). There is no evidence for its location within the province. ––––––––––––––––– 750 The exact location of this settlement is unknown; it is quoted in three texts from Drēhem (PDT 2, 1051, IS 1/iv/30; BIN 3, 594, IS 1/vii/19; MVN 15, 358, IS 2/ii) and in one from Umma (SAT 3, 1922, IS 1/x). 751 As is the case for the ‘garden of Garšum’ (see § 3.2) and the ‘garden of Kisura’ (see § 3.3). 752 See Alivernini 2013, 60 and 66-70. 753 DAS 265 (n.d.) mentions a ‘garden of Ninĝirsu’ alongside a ‘garden of BaU’, probably as the places where the six listed workers were assigned to. This text does not seem to be an official document, the reverse is anepigraph and the obverse quotes only the workers names. It seems thus likely that the garden names are abbreviations referring to gardens named after the city gods and elsewhere attested with more articulated names.

215

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

5.5. The garden of Gudea ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 G u 3 -d e 2 -a ) This garden is mentioned in three texts dating to Š 46, which do not give evidence for its location within the province. Probably, its first attestation is given by Amherst 66 (Š 46/-), already seen in § 1.6.4, which records the counting of pine timbers ( ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 šid -d a ) in this garden. The timber is allocated for the building of boats of different capacities or defined as thin (sig ), while it is defined as ‘mixed pines’ ( ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 h i-a ) in the total section. Two garden experts (in the text: n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) occur as responsible for the timber, Ur-Alla and Lu-Ninhursaĝ; each of them was thus responsible for a portion of garden from which the timber derives. As already seen, the recorded transaction does not involve the presence of garden administrators; the conveyor, Urebabbar, as already mentioned, could be identified with the homonymous official occurring in another text, AAICAB 1/1, Ashm. 1924-693 (Š 46/xid). This text records an example of what could be the subsequent step (not necessarily concerning the timber of this garden), that is, the delivery of pine timbers ( ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 , ĝ e š š u -d im 2 m a 2 60.0.0 g u r, ĝ e š m i-ri 2 -z a ) from Gu’aba via Ur-ebabbar son of Ur-saga the judge of Gu’aba and Dudutur, together with timber from a forest ( ĝ e š tir), conveyed by another official. The timber, explicitly delivered to the mill (e 2 k ik k e n 2 b a -a n -k u 4 ), is counted (in -š id ) by Manšum, an official of the mill.754 The second attestation of this garden is provided by BBVO 10, 71-79 (Š 46/v), which records an account concerning the state dependent workers assigned to the collecting, bringing of reeds for fuel (e rin 2 g i-iz i la 2 ),755drafted in the name of Alla son of Lugal-ERIM, whose title is not specified. The text indicates that a number of workers, likely water drawers (SIG7- in the detail section, ĝ u ru š in the total section), corresponding to 75 working days are stationed in the ‘garden of Gudea’ ( ĝ e š k iri 6 G u 3 -d e 2 -a g u b -b a ) under the responsibility of Šeškala, whose professional title is not indicated. Further, the text specifies that the workers ‘should still be placed on (his) account’ (a -g u 3 ĝ a 2 -ĝ a 2 ). The last attestation of this garden is given by a contemporary text, HLC 2, 46 (Š 46/vii/11), which, as seen in § 1.9, records the employment of skilled and unskilled workers (a -b a la , d u 3 -a -k u 5 and g a n -d a b 5 ) in two gardens under the responsibility of a captain. 25 workers are attributed to the garden in question, among them, some workers generically designated as adult male workers (ĝ u ru š ), while others are designated as water drawers (SIG7-a ), arborists and unskilled workers. This text mentions another garden, the ‘garden of Ur-Šul’ ( ĝ e š k iri 6 U r-Š u l), hence named after a personal name and not attested elsewhere; it attributes seven workers to it (one male worker, four water drawers and two arborists). The garden name very likely refers to Gudea, the governor of the Second Dynasty of Lagaš,756 as is the case of the ‘garden of Ur-Ninĝirsu I’ (see § 2.2.32) and the ‘garden of Urmama’ (see § 2.2.33) in the Ĝirsu district.757 ––––––––––––––––– MVN 12, 87 (Š 46/x), MVN 12, 91 (Š 46/x) attests to the seal of Manšum son of Ur-Suen, connecting him to the mill of the god Ninĝirsu. 755 See Englund 1990, 78. 756 See also the ‘garden of Ĝatumdu-nin-Gudea’ in § 4.3.2; in name of that garden, the name of Gudea is preceded by the determinative for ‘god’. 757 In addition, it cannot be excluded that the garden expert who in MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-) acts as provider and conveyor of fruit quantities for the offerings to Gudea, Lu-Ninhursaĝ, is to be identified with the homonymous garden expert who in Amherst 66 (Š 46/-) is responsible for part of the counted trees and, thus, that the same garden expert was in charge of part of the garden for 17 years. Further, in MVN 9, 87, Lu-Ninhursaĝ provides 80 liters of dates and 70 liters of fresh grapes under the supervision of the garden administrator Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2), while he also occurs as the conveyor of the fruit quantity provided by the garden expert Šeškala under the supervision of the garden administrator Agu (§ 9.1.8); as already noted in § 1.6.5, the involvement of Lu-Ninhursaĝ as conveyor in the latter transaction may have been due to a sort of connection with the place of destination. This situation may be similar to that of Diĝira and the ‘garden of Tira’aš’, for whom, however, there is direct evidence for the attribution of the garden to the area of the garden administrator Gu’umu (see § 2.2.28). Since Lu-Ninhursaĝ, as well as Ur-Alla (the other garden expert attested in Amherst 66), are the names of garden experts attested in the area of Gu’umu in other documents (see Table 6 in § 1.8.1), it may be inferred that this garden fell within the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu. However, it should be taken into account that Gu’umu is never attested in connection with this garden or with transaction regarding timbers (see § 5.9), and that Lu-Ninhursaĝ and Ur-Alla are quite common names. 754

216

T IMBER AND G ARDENS

Text

Type

Trees and timber elements by gardener/workers d

ĝeš

Responsible official Timber

ĝeš

Ur- Al-la nu- kiri6 (6,298: 59 šu-dim2 ma2 60 gur; 179 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 30 gur; 555 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 20 gur; 2,196 ĝešgi-muš ma2 60 gur; 951 ĝešmi-ri2-za ma2 20 gur; 358 ĝešu3-suh5 sig)

Amherst 66 (Š 46/-)

counting of pine timbers (ĝe šu3-suh5 šid-da) Gu3-de2-a

BBVO 10 71-79 (Š 46/v)

account of workers (niĝ2-ka9 aka) for five months

Šeš-kal-la (a-gu3 75 ĝuruš/SIG7- u4 1-še3 ĝeškiri6 Gu3-de2-a gub-ba; ĝa2-ĝa2); Al-la erin2 gi-izi la2 dumu Lugal-ERIM

HLC 2, 46 (Š 46/vii/11)

transfer (kišib) of workers

5 ĝuruš, 7 SIG7-a, 4 du3-a-ku5, 9 gan-dab5759

d

ĝeš

ĝeš

Lu2- Nin-hur-saĝ nu- kiri6 (5,489: 22 šu-dim2 ma2 60 gur; 60 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 30 gur; 111 ĝeššudim2 ma2 20 gur; 2.402 ĝešgi-muš ma2 60 gur; 660 ĝeš mi-ri2-za ma2 30 gur; 347 ĝešu3-suh5 sig)758

ĝiri3: Ur-e2-babbar2

11,787 ĝešu3suh5 hi-a

kišib: Lu2-dNin-ĝir2su NU-⌈banda3⌉

5.6. The garden of Hurim ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 H u -r im 3 k i ) 760 This garden was situated in the Gu’aba district as suggested by the toponym after which it is named, and it is attested only once in TUT 100a (l.d.). Unfortunately, only the lower part of the tablet is preserved and, therefore, the purpose of the text is not completely clear. It records quantities of an unspecified product, which however is differentiated into ‘good quality’ (a few dozen of liters) or unmarked (hundreds liters), and associated with the names of different individuals. The recorded quantities, which are designated as ‘good’ (sa g a 1 0 )/‘ordinary’ (implied) quality, mostly occur in connection with dates (in the same proportions), and seem to refer to products recorded in the name of garden experts in accordance with the redactional formulas of the reports of production (see § 1.6.4). In the first column of the obverse, the quantities of produce recorded in the name of Lugalsisa son of Ur-Lamma (60 liters of good quality and 2,720 liters of ordinary quality) and Ur-gula son of UNga (60 liters of good quality and 1,741 liters of ordinary quality) are isolated from the rest of the text; in the second column of the obverse and in the first column of the reverse, a second group of workers are specified as ‘gardeners of the large trees’ (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š g a lg a l). These workers are: NinMAR.KI-isa, in whose name 60 liters of good quality and 31,121 liters are recorded, Abbaĝu, with 301 liters, Lu-kala,761 with 61 liters, followed by the specification: (o. ii, 5'-6') 1.1.0 < g u r> < ĝ e š > k iri 6 u m -m i-a n u -tu k u / ig i ĝ e š k iri 6 g u -la , ‘360 liters of the garden without experts’,762 opposite the large garden’. A final amount (60 liters of good quality and 3,721 liters of ordinary quality) is recorded in the name of Lugal-nammah.763 After this group of workers, the following names, Kuli with 120 liters and Bazi with 363 liters, are associated with the indication ĝ e š ĝ e štin , which may refer to gardeners ( ––––––––––––––––– 758 With regard to this text, see also Heimpel 2011b, 109. 759 For two unskilled workers ( g a n - d a b 5 ) it is specified that no wool was to be distributed to them (n u - s i k i - b a ). 760 This center was situated near Gu’aba (Falkenstein 1966, 31). Heimpel suggested that this settlement may have been situated between Gu’aba and the eastern bank of the Niĝinšedu canal (Heimpel, 1994, 18-27). The homonymous field fell within the 100 agricultural units described in ASJ 17, 229 118 (Š 31/-); see 3.1. The presence of gardens in the Ĝirsu province. For the field, see Pettinato 1967 (UNL/I), 282-283. 761 Although they bear widespread names, it may be inferred that the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ NinMAR.KI-isa, Abbaĝu and Lu-kala were the same gardeners of the garden of Gu’aba attested in TLB 3, 144 (Š 46/-), for which see the next paragraph and § 5.10. 762 As already suggested in § 2.1, the notation could have intended a temporary situation of a plot for which there were no responsible workers in charge and acting as administrative referents for the central administration at the time of the draft; or, an unusual administrative situation may have occurred the managerial dynamics of which remain unexplained. 763 Lugal-nammah could be indentified with the homonymous ‘gardener of the large trees’ of the Gu’aba area attested in HSS 4, 2 (Š 42//AS 6/i); in this text, which records the distribution of barley, wool and garments to ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ of Gu’aba, Lugal-nammah occurs (o. ii, 6) as taking charge ( i 3 -dab5) of the workers, hence acting as garden expert (see § 1.6.8).

217

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD ĝeš

ĝ e štin ) or to grape quantities.764 Following the break in the tablet, the text continues in the second column of the reverse, where an isolated name (Lamlama) and the indication of 60 liters of good quality and 1,100 liters with the name of Ur-Ninĝešzida occur in connection with the garden in question. For this garden, no evidence exists about the nature of its crops other than dates; the garden was included in this section because of the presence of gardeners labeled as n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š g a l-g a l,765 thus pertaining to gardens which likely supported the interplanting of palms and pines or other timber trees. 5.7. The garden of TLB 3, 144 TLB 3, 144 (Š 46/-) records the counting of pine timbers ( ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 šid -d a ) 766 in a garden of Gu’aba, whose name is lost in a break in the tablet (r. iii, 2-3: ĝ e š u 3 -su h 5 šid -d a ĝ e š k iri 6 [...] / ša 3 G u 2 -a b -b a k i ). The timber is counted in terms of items for the building of boats of various capacities or defined as long (g id 2 ) in the name of the responsible garden expert. There is no mention of the supervision of officials, it should be recognized, however, that the counting follows the parameters of the shipyard, hence referring to the receiving institution. Text

Type

Trees and timbers by responsible gardener Ur-gu-la (880): 19 ĝeš u3-suh5 gid2

ĝeš

šu-dim2 ma2 20-gur; 29

Timber ĝeš

gi-muš; 580

ĝeš

mi-ri2-za; 252

Ba-ta-e3 (732): 2 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 30-gur; 2 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 20-gur; 51 ĝešgimuš; 381 ĝešmi-ri2-za; 296 ĝešu3-suh5 gid2 Ur-dLamma dumu A-tu (533): 12 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 20-gur; 114 ĝešgi-muš; 301 ĝeš mi-ri2-za; 106 ĝešu3-suh5 gid2 Da-da (593): 7 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 30-gur; 11 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 20-gur; 64 ĝešgi-muš; 336 ĝešmi-ri2-za; 175 ĝešu3-suh5 gid2 Ba-zi dumu Ban-da (1,242): 4 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 60-gur; 19 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 30gur; 57 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 20-gur; 299 ĝešgi-muš; 599 ĝešmi-ri2-za; 264 ĝešu3-suh5 counting of pine timbers gid2 TLB 3, 144 ĝe š ( u3-suh5 šid-da) (Š 46/-) Lu2-bala-sa6 (1,227): 18 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 60-gur; 11 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 40-gur; 19 ša3 Gu2-ab-baki ĝeš šu-dim2 ma2 30-gur; 86 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 20-gur; 208 ĝešgi-muš; 533 ĝešmi-ri2za; 347 ĝešu3-suh5 gid2

9,833 ()

d

Nin-MAR.KI-i3-sa6 (685): 3 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 60-gur; 5 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 40-gur; 9 šu-dim2 ma2 30-gur; 48 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 20-gur; 126 ĝešgi-muš; 322 ĝešmi-ri2za; 172 ĝešu3-suh5 gid2 ĝeš

Lu2-kal-la (3,106): 25 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 60-gur; 32 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 40-gur; 49 ĝeš šu-dim2 ma2 30-gur; 211 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 20-gur; 600 ĝešgi-muš; 1,256 ĝešmiri2-za; 933 ĝešu3-suh5 gid2 Ab-ba-ĝu10 (900): 2 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 60-gur; 3 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 40-gur; 7 ĝeššudim2 ma2 30-gur; 19 ĝeššu-dim2 ma2 20-gur; 55 ĝešgi-muš; 258 ĝešmi-ri2-za; 556 ĝeš u3-suh5 gid2

––––––––––––––––– As a rule, texts recording reports of production consider only one type of produce at time (with the exception of the palm by-products), hence it may be suggested that here ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ are meant, in whose names quantities of dates are recorded. However, the limited amounts, not even differentiated, could imply quantities of grapes as well. 765 If it had been a vineyard, given the probable occurrence of ĝ e š ĝ e š t i n in the text, we would have expected the designation in the name itself of the garden: ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š t i n H u - r i m 3 k i . In addition, the identification of the recorded products with dates may indicate the presence of date palms alongside that of timber trees, a kind of interplanting elsewhere attested. In any case, the specification ‘gardeners of the large trees’ in this context somehow denotes a differentiation between fruit and timber within the circulation of goods and materials (see §§ 5.9-10). 766 See § 1.6.4. 764

218

T IMBER AND G ARDENS

Among the quoted garden experts, there are Ur-gula (o. i, 6), Ba(r)ta’e (o. i, 13), and Dada (o. ii, 7) who also occur in HSS, 4 2 (Š 42//AS 6/i), the text recording the allotment of barley, wool and garments to the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ of Gu’aba. If in TLB 3, 144 the name of the gardeners are simply juxtaposed with the timber amount (§ 1.6.4), in HSS 4, 2, Ur-gula (o. i, 13), Barta’e (o. i, 16) and Dada (o. ii, 16) take charge of (i 3 d a b 5 ) the working personnel (§ 1.6.8). Further, the garden experts Abbaĝu (r. i, 18), Lu-kala (r. i, 9) and NinMAR.KI-isa (o. iii, 16) could be identified with the homonimous gardeners who are defined as ‘gardeners of the large trees’ (o. ii, 2'-4') in TUT 100a (see § 5.6), in whose names quantities of fruit, likely dates, are recorded. This connection would imply that this garden also supported date palms. 5.8. Presence of timber tree gardens in the province in scattered references The presence of timber tree gardens within the province is in any case implicitly suggested by the texts mentioning the occurrence of ‘gardeners of the large trees’, mostly associated with the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’, more rarely with the ‘gardeners of Ninegal’. These gardeners are often quoted in connection with the main centers in the area which they were situated. CT 10, 38 BM 15296 (AS 1/xi), as seen in § 1.7, records an account of some barley transactions inherent to a period of three months at Ĝirsu, among them the barley payments for the ‘gardeners of the large trees’, ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ a nd ‘gardeners of Ninegal’. From a starting amount of 86,580 liters (288.3.0 g u r) associated with the center of Urub, there is the detail (ša 3 -b i-ta ) of the payments for the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ (18,725 liters [62.2.0 5 sila 3] for the month viii, ‘not distributed’ [še -b a n u -b a -a ]; 24,720 liters [82.2.0 g u r], for the month ix; 24,720 liters, for the month x), and for the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ and ‘gardeners of Ninegal’, which are instead listed in a single entry (5,520 liters [18.0.4 g u r] for the month viii, not distributed; 5,520 liters, for the month ix; 5,520 liters, for the month x), to which 2,115 liters (7.0.1 5 sila 3 g u r) for the month xi are added without further specification. At the end of this section, the amount is taken over by NIMmu (likely the garden administrator; § 9.1.3) and it is generically attributed to the ‘gardeners of the large trees’. CT 3, 5 BM 18343 (Š 44/xii) records a yearly balanced account (13 months) of barley transactions inherent to the centers of Lagaš and Niĝin. Here, 1,625 liters (5.3.4 5 s ila 3 g u r) are attributed to the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and 300 liters (1.0.0 g u r) to the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ of Lagaš, while 5,745 liters (19.0.4 5 s ila 3 g u r) to the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and 5,750 liters (19.0.5 g u r) are attributed to the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ of Niĝin. For the same centers, CT 10, 28 BM 14316 (AS 2/xii) records the account of the payments left in the granary (g u ru 7 -a ta k a 4 ) and pertaining to ten months, among them 3,220 liters (10.3.4 g u r) for the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ of Lagaš (one ‘deceased’ worker, u š 2 , for 20 liters) and Niĝin (six ‘escaped’ workers, z a h 3 , and four ‘deceased’, u š 2 , for the remaining 3,200 liters). Then, some payments recorded in TCTI 1, 790 (l.d.) are probably attributable to the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ (1,920 liters [6.2.0 g u r] for an unspecified number of workers) and ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ (290 liters [0.4.5] for five adults, among them one water drawer, and one child) of these two centers (cf § 1.2.2). As seen in § 1.7, JEOL 33, 127 13 (l.d.) records the presence of 150 ‘gardeners of the large trees’, considered to be under the supervision of a single individual, as well as 23 ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ and 37 ‘gardeners of Ninegal’, considered to be under the supervision of a single individual, and further 62 ‘gardeners of the large trees’and 42 ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ at Niĝin; because of a break in the tablet, only 14 ‘gardeners of the large trees’ can be attributed to Kinunir; finally, there is the indication of 36 ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and 12 ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ at Gu’aba. For the center of Gu’aba, CT 7, 26 BM 18371 (n.d.), an account of various wool allotments of the district (n iĝ 2 -k a 9 a k a sik i-b a d id li) attributes ca. 126 kg (4 g u 2 12 ½ m a -n a ) of wool to the ‘gardeners of the large trees’, and 34 kg (1 g u 2 8 m a -n a ) to the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’. As already seen, HSS 4, 2 (Š 42//AS 6/i) records the allotment of barley, wool and 219

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

garments to the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ of Gu’aba. It is probably subdivided into two main sections (likely corresponding to the different categories of gardeners), each of them ending with a total section. The total number indicated in the first total section, which likely refers to the gardeners of the large trees, amount to at least 75 arborists (among them 17 children) and 11 water drawers. The total section pertaining to the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ is lost, but the presence of at least 16 workers can be recognized (see § 1.6.8). In addition, TUT 146 (l.d.) records the whole barley allotments at Gu’aba (še -b a k ilib 3 -b a / ša 3 G u 2 -a b -b a k i ), where the payments for the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ (210 liters [0.3.3] for three adults, among them two water drawers, and two children) and those for the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ (70 liters [0.1.1] for one adult and two children) are also listed. 5.9. Some considerations on the officials involved in the circulation of timber Unlike other garden products, such as fruit and palm by-products, timber for the building of boats, wagons, ploughs, or furniture seems to have been directly delivered by the gardeners to the officials of the receiving institutions, primarily the shipyard. Apparently, these operations normally took place without the mediation of garden administrators and, indeed, there is no trace of this type of product in the transactions managed by them, nor it seems is there evidence for the interaction between garden administrators and scribes of the shipyard and the mill as far as the circulation of garden products is concerned.767 The previous phase is attested in the province768 through the texts recording the garden measurements and the counting of trees. These documents in every case include the presence of the garden expert responsible for the described plot, while the function of the supervisor of the whole operation could involve the garden administrator responsible for the considered area alongside captains or officials tied to the receiving institutions, or they may simply provide information on the district or center where the measurement took place (see §§ 1.6.3-4). Here, whether the counting of timber in the colophon is specified or not, it is interesting to note that the trees were counted according to specific parameters, which grosso modo reveal the use that the administration meant for them; only date palms were not differentiated or counted according to parameters reflecting their eventual use;769 furthermore, date palm by-products fell into (what in this work) was defined as the ‘circulation of fruit’, distinct from what may have been the ‘circulation of timber’, which however included species of trees which were cultivated both for their fruit and timber. The measurement itself of gardens as production units ( ĝ e š k iri 6 g id 2 -d a ) seems to have interested the central administration, with an eye to the possible use of the timber to be allocated to specific economic-administrative units. In some cases, it seems probable that the documents highlight the mediation of the central administration, while others reflect the point of view of the ––––––––––––––––– These considerations concerning the circulation of timber relate to the Ĝirsu province and are, in fact, based on the information provided by the documentation of the province known to me, mostly consisting of published material. Obviously, the study of new material may change the framework described here, confirming a more concrete role of the professional figure of the garden administrators inside the circulation of garden timber; so far, the lack of evidence of wood in the several texts that record the goods expended by the garden administrators, would seem to confirm a marginal role of the garden administrators in the circulation of such products. To the best of my knowledge, the only case of a garden administrator delivering timber in the Neo-Sumerian period is given by UET 3, 782 from Ur, where the garden administrator Niĝulpa’e consigns to Baga’a ( š u b a - t i ), the scribe of the ĝanun (see UET 3 1397), timber and palm by-products. 768 There is no attestation in the province of garden inventories ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 š u š u m 2 - m a ), as PDT 2, 918 from Drēhem or CUSAS 3, 1375 and CUSAS 3, 1256 from GARšana. In these three texts, the inventory is granted by garden administrators and, in the case of the GARšana texts, what is listed is then respectively taken over ( i 3 - d a b 5 ) or took ( š u b a - a n - t i ) by a garden expert. Therefore, it seems that the garden experts had administrative responsibility for what counted or was inventoried under the responsibility of the garden administrators. 769 In the texts concerning garden measurements of the province, only in the case of the garden managed by the garden administrator Abba (see § 4.5.1), the indication of some date palms may refer to the availability of trunks at the time of the counting, without, however, information on an eventual use or even the dimensions. 767

220

T IMBER AND G ARDENS

receiving institution, as is the case of the counting of pine timbers ( ĝ e š u 3 -su h 5 ); hence, on the one hand, the absence or the variety and greater generality of the characterizations of the trees in some texts, summarily specified as wood/tree (ĝ e š), the presence of garden administrators alongside that of captains,770 and, on the other hand, the selectivity of the information (no mention about the area and the counting of one type of tree only) and the specificity of the characterizations of the trees in other texts, where the timbers are counted and classified already according to the parameters of the receiving institution.771 Therefore, it seems plausible that the timber went directly from the responsibility of the garden expert in charge of the plot where it was produced (for which he was responsible still at the time of the counting) to the responsibility of the official of the receiving institution (under whose responsibility the counting may have been),772 although there is no direct evidence for the delivery of the products and, in the subsequent step, attested solely for pine timber, there is only mention of the garden of provenience (already noted as the place where the counting took place). This would resemble the same dynamic, indeed, which applied for the circulation of the other garden produce, according to which the production of the single units (areas of responsibility of the garden experts) was conveyed through officials whose area of authority was wider, however, not garden administrators in this case. Nevertheless, the garden administrators were not completely excluded by the management of the gardens of timber trees. It seems clear that at least some of the gardens managed by them supported timber trees, but the timber left the domain of the garden at the moment in which it was delivered to the officials of the receiving institutions, likely by the garden experts themselves. The ‘garden of Mani’, presented in this chapter as a garden supplying timber, as seen in § 2.2.19, was managed by the garden administrator Abbaĝu at the time of the draft of the text (Š 48). It can be recognized that the garden administrators were responsible for the plots where the timber was produced (hence the presence of the relevant garden administrator in the texts of garden measurements), but they were not involved in the circulation of this kind of product within the province. Conversely, palm by-products, also used in the construction of boats or tools, as for example palm fibers (m a n g a g a ), fell among the products which were managed by the garden administrators and, in fact, they are included among the deliveries managed by them as well as in the accounts drafted in their name. See, for example, TÉL 310 (n.d.), where palm fronds and fibers are delivered by some garden administrators of Ĝirsu (see § 1.3.4), while a rope made of palm fibers (šu -s a r m a n g a g a) is indicated as being supplied by the shipyard (m a r-sa ). Unfortunately, the receiving official or institution cannot be read, but what emerges from this text is the delivery of raw material from the garden and of the same manufactured material from the shipyard. Further, RA 58, 103 68 (Š 42/xi) indicates that palm by-products (in the text z e 2 -n a , midribs of the frond) could reach the shipyard through the warehouse known as e-kišiba (see § 9.7.3.2).773 ––––––––––––––––– 770 For the role played by the captains within the garden management, see § 1.9. Their occurrence in texts concerning the garden management mostly relate to timber and external workforce. 771 A sort of selectivity of the information seems to relate in general to the texts which describe the vineyards. Indeed, this is suggested by dearth of evidence for what should be the main crop, ĝ e š ĝ e š t i n , and for the occurrence of the indication ĝ e š t i n for measured irrigation inlet- plots where no grapevines are counted, even in the cases in which the recorded operations were apparently not connected to any receiving institution. However, an interpretation of ‘vineyard’ as an administrative designation of some plots (hence, not necessarily reflecting the actual crops involved) should be taken into account. 772 In at least one case, as is evident for the ‘garden of Gudea’ (§ 5.5), it seems possible to identify the official occurring as conveyor in the counting (Amherst 66, Š 46/-) with the conveyor of a transaction concerning the delivery of the timber at the mill (AAICAB 1/1, Ashm. 1924-693, Š 46/xid). 773 Apparently there is no attestation of palm by-products delivered by garden administrators of the province directly to the scribes of the shipyard, but only attestation of palm by-products delivered by garden administrators to the scribes of the warehouse (e-kišiba); it may be thus inferred that the warehouse served as an intermediary structure for this kind of product, between the two economic units, at least as far this province is concerned.

221

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

There is a last consideration on the role of garden administrators with respect to the timber produced in gardens, and in particular that of the timber and fruit trees cultivated in vineyards; leaving aside what is supposed to be a prospectus, the cases in which the measurement of the surfaces and the counting of the trees or timbers concern vineyard plots would not seem to involve garden administrators, rather officials external to the garden management (see § 4.5). With regard to the vineyards, therefore, it is unclear if a sort of marginalization of the figure of the garden administrator is attributable to the particular management of these plots, hence probably the distinction between garden administrators and vineyard managers (whose activity, however, is not properly known; see § 1.10) or if it has to do with the activity of a specific official, SipaNinĝirsuke-inpad, occurring in the texts of measurements of vineyards of the province known to us; it is also possible that this is only an impression induced by the type of texts that, even while describing the plots, are focused on the trees and timbers. As seen in § 4.3.5, in the case of the ‘vineyard within the walls of Bagara’, it cannot to be excluded that the absence of trees for this vineyard is attributable to the fact that the counting of timber within the vineyards was not a task of the garden administrators; hence their absence in CBT 3, BM 28832 (§ 4.5.5) and CT 10, 49 BM 14334 (§ 4.5.3-4), which specifically record vineyard measurements, and their presence in CUSAS 6, 85-87 (§ 4.3) and CBT 3, BM 25293 (§ 4.5.1), which record instead garden measurements. On the other hand, the documentation provides examples of vineyards managed by garden administrators, such as the ‘garden/vineyard of Garšum’, which was managed by the garden administrator Gu’umu before its development as part of a complex (§ 3.2) or the ‘vineyard on the banks of the BaU-heĝal canal’, managed by the garden administrator Abbaĝu (§ 2.2.11); there may have been others for which there is no information at present, as texts such as MVN 15, 178 may suggest. The conditions of this text, however, do not allow for establishing any linear connection between vineyard plots and garden administrators (§ 1.8.7.6). In any case, it is important to note that the fruit produced in vineyards was included among the produce managed by these officials. With regard to the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’, namely the gardeners in charge of plots demostrating a more complex connection with the sector managers, the only case attesting a garden administrator taking the payments allotted to them involves NIMmu, whose activity, however, was unusual (see § 9.1.3). On the other hand, the payments for the workers of gardens indicated as vineyards ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin ) or pine gardens ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š u 3 -s u h 5 ) were managed by garden administrators (see § 2.2). 5.10. Some considerations on the gardeners involved in the circulation of timber According to the information provided by the province’s documentation, it would seem that the designations ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ occur almost exclusively in texts recording the payments allotted to them, while there is seldom mention of these designations in other types of texts. It may be imagined that such a characterization is sometimes implicit because it is already made clear by the garden name774 or is inferable by the type of product considered,775 or is superfluous for the purposes of the recorded procedure. Precisely because these designations principally occur in some types of texts and not in others, one wonders what the involved dynamics were, which in some cases implied the need for such distinctions, and what the criteria were for the attribution of gardeners to these categories. Below, some considerations in this regard are reported. The label ‘gardeners of the large trees’ is tied to the concept of large tree (ĝ e š g a l) which could be extended to a variety of timbers (see ĝ e š g a l h i-a , ‘mixed large trees’; see § 5.3) and

––––––––––––––––– As is the case, for example, for the gardeners mentioned in CT 10, BM 14334 (n.d.); see §§ 4.5.4-5. 775 As is the case, for example, for the gardeners mentioned in Amherst 66 (Š 46/-); see § 5.5. 774

222

T IMBER AND G ARDENS

was mostly related to the raw materials used in the shipyards.776 It seems possible that the cultivation of large trees, mainly pines, was not exclusively circumscribed to special gardens, but rather it could go along with the cultivation of other types of trees.777 It follows, then, that the designation ‘gardeners of the large trees’ could also pertain to gardeners in charge of plots which supported interplanting. As seen in § 5.7, a possible correspondence can be traced between the garden experts of the garden of Gu’aba who were responsible for the quantities of pine timber in TLB 3, 144778 and the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ who were responsible for their work groups in HSS 4, 2 and, probably, the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ who were responsible for date quantities in TUT 100a (§ 5.6). Furthermore, for the gardeners of the ‘garden of Gudea’ mentioned in Amherst 66 (§ 5.5), such a correspondence (although not confirmed by other texts)779 is highly plausible. That such a definition might have involved gardeners in charge of plots supporting other kinds of crops is furthermore suggested by the case of the gardener of the high priestess of BaU, Ur-eninnu (§ 1.11.3). For this gardener, it can indeed be assumed that he was in charge of a plot in which there were apple trees (thanks to a text recording a yield inspection of the gardens of the priestess, BPOA 2, 1843) and pines (thanks to a text concerning the shipyard of the household of the priestess, WMAH 3 1; see § 5.2.4); in the latter text, it is not to be excluded that the gardener’s name is followed by the indication ‘gardeners of the large trees’, whereas, in other types of texts, the same gardener occurs with the title of gardener.780 Therefore, considering that the plots in which ‘gardeners of the large trees’ were in charge supported other kinds of crops as well, it is unclear whether such a designation had indiscriminately concerned all the gardeners at the head of plots supporting large trees, or if the proportion had played a role. Compare the data reported in the following table concerning the timber quantities (in terms of timbers and HAR-elements) counted along with the names of garden experts in charge in mixed gardens,781 Lu-Ĝatumdu of the ‘garden of Alšana’ (§ 4.3.1) and Ur-NIĜ of the ‘garden of Ĝatumdu-nin-Gudea’ (§ 4.3.4), and those counted along with the names of the garden experts of the ‘garden of Gudea’ (§ 5.5) and the garden of Gu’aba mentioned in TLB 3, 144 (§ 5.7).

––––––––––––––––– 776 It is interesting to note that the ‘large trees’ were not exclusively taken into account as building material; in some documents there is mention of aromatic oils in connection with the large trees; in this regard, see Brunke and Sallaberger 2010, 48-55. 777 An idea on the proportion and number of gardeners in charge of plots supporting monocultures or the interplanting of timber trees can be inferred by the information provided by Nisaba 11, 27 (n.d.) from Umma. The text, indeed, shows that in an area of 441,000 m2 there were 46 garden experts ( u m - m i - a ) . Such an area was composed of palm groves for over 83% (367,200 m2), of the interplanting of date palms, timber and fruit trees for almost 5% (21,600 m2), of the interplanting of timber and fruit trees for over 7% (34,200 m2), and of a monocultures of timber trees for over 4% (18,000 m2, further subdivided in 10,800 m2 cultivated with pines and 7,200 m2 with tamarisks). Therefore, a distribution of the 46 recorded garden experts can be approximately calculated with 38 experts employed in palm groves, two in areas with interplanting of date palms, timber and fruit trees, four in areas with interplanting of timber and fruit trees and two in areas with a monoculture of timber trees (one of them to be considered as l u 2 ĝ e š š i n i g ?). 778 It should be taken into account that the timbers counted for the ‘garden of Gudea’ and the garden of TLB 3, 144 relate to an operation specifically defined as ‘counting of pines’ ( ĝ e š u 3 - s u h 5 š i d - d a ) , and is the reason why the possible presence of other crops is not reflected, as it is outside the interest of the specific recorded operation. 779 Although in § 5.5 a connection was suggested between the garden expert who was responsible for the counted pine trees in Amherst 66 and the one providing dates and grapes for the offerings to Gudea in MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-), it should be recognized that the dynamics concerning the fruit transactions in the latter text are not entirely clear; as seen in § 1.6.5, some gardeners, who in MVN 22, 31 (n.d.) turn out to be in charge of plots which supported only palms, act as providers of quantities of different types of fruit in MVN 9, 87, according to dynamics which remain unexplained. 780 For example, in CT 10, 20 BM 14308 (Š 48/xii), where a similar specification might have been superfluous (see § 1.11.3). 781 The data pertaining to the ‘ĝi’eden garden of Bagara’ (§ 4.3.4) were not taken into account, since this garden, besides the absence of pines, hosted rare as well as ordinary crops which characterize it as unusual.

223

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Gardener

Total timber

Lu-Ĝatumdu (garden of Alšana)

811 units (810 ĝešu3-suh5); 290 HAR (1,101 + 172 palms)

Ur-NIĜ (garden of Ĝatumdu-nin-Gudea)

472 units (464 ĝešu3-suh5); 246 HAR (718 + 182 palms)

Average I

641 units; 268 HAR (910)

Ur-Alla (garden of Gudea)

6,298 units (ĝe šu3-suh5)

Lu-Ninhursaĝ (garden of Gudea)

5,489 units (ĝe šu3-suh5)

Ur-gula (garden of TLB 3, 144)

880 units (ĝe šu3-suh5)

Barta’e (garden of TLB 3, 144)

732 units (ĝe šu3-suh5)

Ur-Lamma son of Atu (garden of TLB 3, 144)

533 units (ĝe šu3-suh5)

Dada (garden of TLB 3, 144)

593 units (ĝe šu3-suh5)

Bazi son of Banda (garden of TLB 3, 144)

1,242 units (ĝe šu3-suh5)

Lu-balasaga (garden of TLB 3, 144)

1,227 units (ĝe šu3-suh5)

NinMAR.KI-isa (garden of TLB 3, 144)

685 units (ĝe šu3-suh5)

Lu-kala (garden of TLB 3, 144)

3,106 units (ĝe šu3-suh5)

Abbaĝu (garden of TLB 3, 144)

900 units (ĝe šu3-suh5)

Average II

1,971 units

The quantities of timber, specifically of pine timber, recorded in the name of the garden experts Lu-Ĝatumdu and Ur-NIĜ were, on average, more modest than those recorded in the name of the garden experts of the ‘garden of Gudea’ and the garden of TLB 3, 144, although in detail, they can be compared to the single amounts of some gardeners of TLB 3, 144.782 Considering the connection between the gardeners of TUT 100a and TLB 3, 144, it can be inferred that at least NinMAR.KI-isa, Abbaĝu and Lu-kala were in charge of plots which also supported date palms, though it is unclear in which proportion783 (exactly like the gardens of Lu-Ĝatumdu and Ur-NIĜ , for which there is instead no evidence of their title).784 With regard to the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’, it can easily be assumed that such a designation had referred to gardeners in charge of vineyards ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e štin ). The definition vineyard, as seen in § 1.6.3.1 and § 4.5, concerns principally irrigation inlet-areas supporting the interplanting of grapevines, other fruit trees and timber trees, and to a lesser extent, date palms, thus grosso modo the same variety of trees hosted in mixed gardens (§ 4.3), if not for the absence of pines or particularly valuable trees. A further characteristic, as already noted, is that in texts recording the measurements of gardens the indication of the title (in its generic form n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) occurs primarily in connection ––––––––––––––––– As seen in § 1.6.7, the detectable differences among the amounts recorded in the name of single gardeners may concern the composition, the dimensions and the productivity of their respective plots of responsibility. At least in two cases, the significant number of timbers would suggest the presence of monocultures, whereas, in the cases where only a few timbers are concerned, this scarcity could be due to the higher presence of different tree species hosted in the plot and ignored by the operation recorded by the text. 783 As seen in § 5.6, the dates attributed to Abbaĝu and Lu-kala amount to a few hundreds liters, while those attributed to NinMAR.KI-isa and Lugal-nammah are more substantial, 1,181 liters and 3,781 liters respectively. Considering an average of 50 kg for each grown palm (see § 1.6.4), in the case of NinMAR.KI-isa, the recorded amount would refer to the presence of ca. 30 palms, while in the case of Lugal-nammah, ca. 100 palms. The gardens of responsibility of LuĜatumdu and Ur-NIĜ , however, besides a higher number of palms, supported a discrete variety of other tree types as well. 784 Ur-NIĜ of the ‘garden Ĝatumdu-nin-Gudea’ (see § 4.3.2) occurs in two different types of texts, none of them, however, mentioning his title; the composition of his garden is known from the text of garden measurement (CUSAS 6, 85-87, n.d.) while only a difference of production can be surely read in connection with his name in the text concerning the circulation of dates, fruit and palm by-products (TUT 115, l.d.). 782

224

T IMBER AND G ARDENS

with the garden experts of vineyards,785 whereas for the garden experts in charge in other types of plots only the name is specified (see CUSAS 6, 85-87). However, the generic title of gardener (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) occurs also in connection with the garden experts responsible for the timber counted in Amherst 66. In some cases, it can be recognized that such specification had been necessary when referring to operations external to the garden management, while in the case of CUSAS 6, 85-87, the reason why such differentiation was felt as necessary is unclear. It may tentatively be argued that the distinction between these designations of gardener categories, ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and ‘gardeners of the vineyards’, may have concerned the administrative relationship between these gardeners and the gardens: the gardens maintained by them were managed by garden administrators, but they consigned to them only part of the production. This could reflect a different administrative balance inherent to the garden management, and the reason why the management of their payment was distinct786 from those of the ‘gardeners’ (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ). It would be a strictly administrative matter, which does not concern the amount of the payments,787 but rather it would justify the distinct management of the payments for these types of gardeners. Despite its incomplete condition, TUT 100a could attest to the point of contact788 among the garden administrators and these two types of gardeners on the production level, considering, indeed, the spread of the practice of interplanting. However, the distinction between the various categories of gardeners is not apparent in what may be considered the circulation of timber; as it was seen throughout this chapter, the gardens themselves were presented as suppliers of this product.

––––––––––––––––– 785 As seen in § 1.6.3, such specification occurs in CBT 3, BM 28332, PPAC 5, 288 and CT 10, 19 BM 14334. 786 One wonders at this point if it may be plausible that the ‘gardeners of Ninegal’, whose payments occur allotted together with those of the ‘gardeners of the large trees’ and the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’, were some kind of gardeners pertaining to specific economic productive structures associated with the circulation of timber (see § 1.7). In any case, since these differentiations of category apparently occur only in this province, it can be inferred that this specific administrative balance was aimed at an optimization of the circulation of goods within a vast and articulate province, such as that of Ĝirsu. 787 As noticed in § 1.8.7.1, there is no connection among the amounts allotted as payments for the gardeners and the amounts of products consigned to the central administration; the amount of the payments, indeed, was based on the employed personnel, and, at least in one case, MVN 7, 176 (-/vi/22), there is mention of a worker inspection at a ‘garden of the large trees’ ( g u r u m 2 ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š g a l - g a l ); see § 9.4.3. 788 It is not unlikely that a further point of contact is to be found in the transactions of fruit delivered by garden administrators and involving garden experts in function of conveyor (see. § 1.6.6), although there is little evidence.

225

CHAPTER SIX

THE REED-BED

It seems that there existed plots which can be interpreted exclusively as reed-beds,789 despite that their names refer to gardens or fields. Indeed, a red-bed is designated as a field (a -ša 3 E n -g a b a ri 6 ) in the Umma province, while there is mention of a reed-bed designated as a garden in the Ĝirsu province, the ‘garden of Engaldudu’. With regards to this reed-bed, neither professional figures of the garden management nor garden personnel are attested, hence it can be understood that it was a garden only on a nominal level. However, it should be taken into account that reeds did not grow exclusively in reed-beds and at least in three texts 790 there is mention of g i ĝ e š k iri 6 , ‘garden reeds’. 6.1. The garden of Engaldudu ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 E n -g a l-d u -d u ) This garden is attested in six texts dating to a period spanning between AS 1 and ŠS 9 and always in connection with activities concerning reeds. MVN 11, 87 (AS 1/v), as already seen in § 1.9, seems to be the only text recording the counting of reeds (g i šid -d a ) in connection with the garden sphere. Indeed, this text specifies that reeds of the ‘garden of Engaldudu’ (g i ĝ e š k iri 6 E n -g a l-d u -d u ) are concerned. The counting is subdivided according to the quantities of reeds pertaining to groups of workers differentiated by category: unskilled workers (250,050 kg), menials (22,395 kg), ‘men of the barley distribution’ (56,100 kg), in addition to an amount attributed to a captain (79,980 kg), one attributed to garden administrators (59,185 kg), and one attributed to an untitled individual (108,330), for a total of 576,330 kg. The quantity associated with the unskilled workers (g a n -d a b 5 ), including 7,920 kg of garden reeds (g i ĝ e š k iri 6 ), is under the supervision of a captain, while the title of the supervisor of the reed amounts associated with the menials (UN-g a 6 ) is not specified. The mention of garden administrators in this text does not seem like sufficient evidence for an interpretation of the ‘garden of Engaldudu’ as a proper garden; the remaining sources, indeed, present it as a simple reed-bed without any clear connection with the garden sphere. TCTI 2, 4244 (AS 6/xii) records the expenditure of female workers (g e m e 2 ) for different tasks, among them 32 female workers to be employed for one day in the transfer of reeds from the ‘garden of Engaldudu’ to the ĝanun-depot. The conveyor is a general (ša g a n a ), while an administrator (š a b ra) seals the document. ITT 3, 5154 (AS 8/-) records the expenditure of bread (200 liters) for one worker, defined as ‘invalid’ of ‘the small shrines’ (lu 2 h u -b u 7 b u e š 3 d id li),791 who was stationed (tu š-a ) for three months and ten days by the ĝanun-depot of the ‘garden of Engaldudu’. The conveyor is Guzani, whose profession is not specified. TCTI 2, 3366 (AS 8/x) records 1,020 bundles of reeds for fuel (g i-iz i) coming from the ‘garden of Engaldudu’ and directed to the ‘vineyard792 of Garšum’. The ––––––––––––––––– 789 For the dynamics inherent to the production and supply of reeds in regards to the ‘state’ households at Umma, see Wilcke 2008, 261-285. 790 MVN 11, 87 (AS 1/v), TÉL 272 (AS 8/xi), DAS 19 (AS 8/xii). 791 See Heimpel 1998, 394: “The single shrines administration is well attested in the provinces of Ĝirsu and Umma. It was an administrative unit grouping together a large number of small temples which were not part of the larger temple households and were dispersed throughout the provinces”. With regard to this text, see also § 1.3.5. 792 In the text, ĝ e š t i n occurs before ĝ e š k i r i 6 and seems to refer to the type of reed; since this type of reed is never attested elsewhere and since the name of the garden, ‘vineyard of Garšum’ (§ 3.2), can be recognized, it can be

227

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

conveyor is the gardener (n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ) 793 Lu-balasaga and the receiver is Ahūa, whose profession is not specified. TCTI 2, 3659 (AS 9/vii) records the employment of 25 adult workers (ĝ u ru š) for ‘cutting reeds’ (g i z e 2 -a ) in the ‘garden of Engaldudu’; the workers are specified as state dependent workers of the ‘the small shrines’ (e rin 2 e š 3 d id li), under the supervision of a certain Lu-diĝira, whose profession is not specified. Finally, DAS 263 (ŠS 9/ix) records the employment of 65 workers for an unspecified number of days for ‘cutting grass’ (g u g 4 z e 2 ) and ‘plaiting ropes’794 (d u r s u r) in the ‘garden of Engaldudu’, under the supervision of the throne bearer (g u z a -la 2 ) Ur-Lamma. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible official NU-banda3:

Products

Lugal-igi-huš,

Si-du3 gan-dab5, UN-ga6, lu2 še-ba ugula: EREN-da; santana, Ur-dNungal

19,211 gu2 gi (of which 264 gi ĝeškiri6 and 1,972 gu2 5/6 from santana)

MVN 11, 87 (AS 1/v)

counting of reed (gi šid-da)

TCTI 2, 4244 (AS 6/xii)

trasfer (zi-ga) of workers

32 femal workers for one day for the transfer of reeds

ĝiri3: E-mul šagana; kišib: Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su šabra

ITT 3, 5154 (AS 8/-)

expenditure of bread for an invalid worker (lu2 hubu7bu) settled at ĝa2-nun ĝeš kiri6 En-gal-du-du

A-tu lu2 hu-bu7bu

ĝiri3: Gu-za-ni

0.3.2 ninda

TCTI 2, 3366 (AS 8/x)

transfer of reeds

šu ba-ti: A-hu-a ĝiri3: Lu2-bala-sa6-ga nuĝeš kiri6

1,020 sa gi

TCTI 2, 3659 (AS 9/vii)

workers employment (erin2 eš3 didli)

25 ĝuruš for one day for cutting reeds

ugula: Lu2-diĝir-ra

DAS 263 (ŠS 9/ix)

workers employment

65 ĝuruš for cutting grass and plaiting ropes

ugula: Ur-dLamma gu-zala2

––––––––––––––––– suggested that the vineyard was the destination of the recorded reeds, as the ‘garden of Engaldudu’ is already indicated as place of provenience. 793 As seen in § 1.6.6, the garden experts can occur as conveyors in transactions of garden products. In this case however it is unclear whether the gardener is associated with the garden of provenience or with the reed-bed of destination; in the latter case, there could be evidence for considering the reed-bed as a garden. It should be recognized that the indication of the profession ( n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 ) occurs especially in texts which do not concern the garden management. As suggested in § 3.2, he could have been a gardener of the ‘vineyard of Garšum’ and thus, in this text, he would represent the receiving institution. 794 Foxvog 1986a, 62.

228

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE GARDENS OF ĜIRSU IN THE DOCUMENTATION OF OTHER PROVINCES

This chapter gathers the information from different Neo-Sumerian provinces, which however refers to gardens of Ĝirsu. This information is essentially provided by two texts, NATN 382 from Umma and BE 3-1, 136 from Nippur, both of them dated to the second part of the reign of Šulgi, the former in Š 28, the latter in Š 30. It may be argued that both texts were written down on occasion of the redrawing of the boundaries of both the provinces of Umma and Ĝirsu in the NeoSumerian period. This possibility seems to be suggested by the indication of the month in BE 3-1, 136, where the ninth month was expressed with the name that it had in Umma (iti e z e m - d Š u lg i) and in Ĝirsu (iti m u -š u -d u 7 ). In contrast, the context in which PDT 2, 1301 was written is not clear. It dates to the eighth year of the reign of Amar-Suena and although it is from Drēhem, it explicitly refers to Ĝirsu. Additionally, further texts mentioning gardens and attributed to Ĝirsu, in my opinion, may instead concern Nippur, Farmer’s Instructions 8.5.1 (Š 44/-),795 Umma, MVN 9, 183 (ŠS 5/vi),796 or Drēhem, BJRL 9, 241 (AS 3/xii).797 7.1. Umma A text from Umma, NATN 382 (Š 28/viii), reports the presence of six gardens and the relevant personnel in the Ĝirsu province: (r. 22) ĝ e š k iri 6 ša 3 Ĝ ir 2 -s u k i .798 These gardens, the names of which refer to personal names, do not occur elsewhere in the documentation. This is probably due to the fact that the text dates to a period preceding (circa 20 years) the draft of most of the documents concerning the gardens of the province. The dichotomy city/field regards two of the listed gardens, although it is unclear which urban centers are referred to.799 The following table summarizes the data about the gardens quoted in the text:

––––––––––––––––– 795 Gardens quoted in this text are not documented in other textual sources of the province. However, the name of two gardens, the ‘garden by the mouth of the Tummal canal’ ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 k a i 7 T u m - m a - a l - l a ) , the ‘garden of Esaĝdana’ ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 E 2 - s a ĝ-d a - n a ), would suggest a connection with the Nippur territory. 796 The text records the yield inspection ( k a b 2 d u 1 1 - g a ) of a garden according to the redactional formula used at Umma, which implies the counting of trees differentiated by expected yield. The ambiguity likely derives from the recorded month ( i t i š u - n u m u n ) which is the fourth one in the Ĝirsu calender, but the sixth one in Umma calendar. 797 One of the mentioned months refers to the Drēhem calendar ( i t i m a š - d a 3 - g u 7 ), as well as likely the location of the mentioned gardens ( š a 3 B a - b a - a z k i ). 798 As has noted in 3.1 and § 4.1 Maekawa (Maekawa 1997b, 114-115) pointed out that specific land surveys of the province commissioned by the king date to the years Š 28, Š 31, and Š 36. The texts dealing with land surveys seen in the previous paragraphs only mentioned the extent of the garden surfaces lying in the measured area, since information on garden plots fell outside the interest of the specific operations recorded by the texts. Therefore, NATN 382 dates back to the same years in which specific land surveys were committed by the king, although there is no mention here of royal officials as responsible for the recorded operation, nor information about the composition of the relevant gardens, but only of their personnel. 799 This dichotomy is justified by the fact that the gardens involved refer to the persons whom the gardens likely pertained to. This, indeed, would explain the reason why there is no mention of them in the later Neo-Sumerian documentation, as well as the reason why the same name can refer both to a garden in a city and one in a field, hence in different contexts.

229

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Garden

ĝeš

ĝeš

Workers

Responsible workers

kiri6 La-la (a-ša3 E2-igi-il2)

8 (DIL) PN SIG7-a (1 AB), 9 (DIL/DIŠ) PN, Ur-dLamma -tir (DIL); ĝiri3-se-ga ĝeškiri6 La-la

kiri6 La-la (ša3 iri)

3 (DIŠ) PN (dumu um-mi-a), 2 (DIL) SIG7-a, 2 (AŠ) PN du3-a-ku5

kiri6 Lu2-sa6-ga (a-ša3 ĝir2)

ĝeš

kiri6 Lu2-sa6-ga (ša3 iri)

(DIL) SIG7-a An-ta-lu2

ĝeš

kiri6 Ša3-ku3-ge (a-ša3 Lagaški)

(DIL) SIG7-a An-ta-lu2, SIG7-a Urdu2-dNanna, A-bi2-sa-du

ĝeš

kiri6 Šu-du7-a (a-ša3 e2 Ĝeš-barre)

ugula: A-tu i3-dab5: A-tu : Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su um-mia (DIL) i3-dab5: Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su : Nam-ha-ni um-mi-a (DIL)

ĝeš

General responsible personnel

ki ~ -ta: A-tu i3-dab5: Ni9-ĝar-ki-du10

: Ur-mes um-mi-a (DIL)

(DIŠ)800 Lugal-bi

7.1.1. The garden of Lala in the field of E-igi-il ( ĝ e š k iri 6 La-la a -š a 3 E 2 -ig i-il 2 < k i > ) This garden is attested only in NATN 382, where it occurs opposite to the homonymous garden located in the city. By comparing the two of them, it is clear that the garden in the field involved more workers, hence it was likely larger than that in the city. The workers attributed to this garden are indicated as ‘personnel of the garden of Lala’, ĝ iri 3 -s e -g a ĝ e š k iri 6 L a -la . The personnel is differentiated by parameters qualifying their labor capacity and comprises water drawers (SIG7a ),801 two family groups including workers quoted just by names (thus arborists),802 and finally one forester (lu 2 - ĝ e š tir), namely a skilled worker of the forests ( ĝ e š tir).803 The profession of Atu, the supervisor (u g u la ), who also takes charge of (i 3 -d a b 5 ) the group, is not expressed, although he might have been a garden expert, as the performed function suggests, especially in comparison with the functions performed by those who are clearly indicated as u m -m i-a elsewhere in the text. However, unlike the other garden experts, Atu is also indicated as the supplier (k i ~ -ta ) of the entire personnel taken then charge of (i 3 -d a b 5 ) by Niĝar-kidu. The function played by these two persons took place on a higher administrative level not tied to the single garden, thus comparable to that of a captain or a garden administrator. Unfortunately, the date of the text and the diffusion of the names do not allow us to solve the question through a prosopographical study. The name of the field where the garden was situated recalls the name of a garden attested in MVN 17, 55 (AS 4/-), a text dating to 24 years later which mentions the ‘garden of Uz of E-igi-il’ (§ 2.5.5). The description of the fields pertaining to an area opposite E-igi-il is reported in AfO 24, 17 (Š 36/-), as seen in § 4.1. As toponym E-igi-il (E 2 -ig i-il 2 k i ) is attested in AfO 28, 141 (r. 6'), probably the description of the province in the Sargonic period.804 7.1.2. The garden of Lala in the city ( ĝ e š k iri 6 š a 3 iri L a -la ) This garden is attested only in NATN 382. The personnel attributed to it is supervised by the garden expert Lu-Ninĝirsu, who takes also charge of them. The workers are three sons of Lu––––––––––––––––– In the case of this worker the indication of the labor capacity preceeds the garden name. 801 The first of them is preceded by the unclear indicaton AB. 802 As shown by the section concerning the homonymous garden in the city, only for the arborists who are not indicated as sons of someone the profession is specified. 803 See the differentiation of tree types according to the types of plot analyzed by Powell 1992, 99-122. 804 See Foster 1981/82, 141. The text reports: r. 3'-8': A - p i 4 - s a l 4 k i / I r i - s a ĝ k i / E 2 - n a m - D U . D U k i / E 2 - i g i - i l 2 k i / U 3 - M a r - t u - n e k i / D a - L u g a l k i / [...]. Following the author’s hypothesis, this garden should be located at the northwestern border of the province. 800

230

T HE G ARDENS OF Ĝ IRSU IN THE D OCUMENTATION OF O THER P ROVINCES

Ninĝirsu to be intended as arborists, two water drawers, and another two arborists. As is also the case for all the other workers mentioned in the text, their employment is under the responsibility of Atu and Niĝar-kidu. 7.1.3. The garden of Lu-saga in the field ĝir ( ĝ e š k iri 6 L u 2 -s a 6 -g a < ša 3 > a -š a 3 ĝ ir 2 ) This garden is only documented in NATN 382, which attributes to it the presence of only one garden expert (u m -m i-a ). The field where it was situated (a -š a 3 ĝ ir 2 ), is not attested elsewhere, although it cannot be excluded that the text used a shortened form to indicate the ‘field ĝirnun’, dedicated to the Ĝirsu’s processional path and attested in the Neo-Sumerian documentation of the province from Š 37 (BPOA 2, 1886) to IS 1 (MVN 6, 324). 7.1.4. The garden of Lu-saga in the city ( ĝ e š k iri 6 š a 3 iri L u 2 -sa 6 -g a ) This garden is attested only in NATN 382, which attributes the presence of only one garden expert and one water drawer to it. 7.1.5. The garden of Šakuge in the field of Lagaš ( ĝ e š k iri 6 Š a 3 -k u 3 -g e < ša 3 > a -ša 3 L a g a š k i ) This garden is only attested in NATN 382, which attributes two water drawers and one arborist to it. The name of this garden also reflects a personal name, while the field where it was situated is attested three times from Š 37 (WMAH 41) to ŠS 8 (TCTI 2, 2702). 7.1.6. The garden of Šudua in the field of the Ĝešbar’e village ( ĝ e š k iri 6 Š u -d u 7 -a < ša 3 > a ša 3 e 2 -< d u ru 5 > < d > Ĝe š-b a r-r e ) This garden is mentioned only in NATN 382, which attributes to it the presence of only one worker. An indirect reference to this garden may be present in Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.): o. i, 23-24: e 2 d Ĝ e š-b a r-e 3 GU2 / ĝ e š k iri 6 [...]-ta ,805 as one of the places from which the workers are recruited in the area of the garden administrator Gamu. It seems plausible that the name of the garden does not refer to the temple of Ĝešbar’e, but rather to a village (e 2 -d u ru 5 d Ĝ e š-b a r-e 3 [ki]) which is attested among the toponyms occurring in the Sargonic text AfO 28 141 (r. 8'), likely reporting the borders of the province at that time.806 7.2. Nippur A text from Nippur, BE 3-1, 136 (Š 30/ix), records the ‘allotment of wool and garments for the garden personnel of Ĝirsu’: (r. 3-4) tu g 2 -b a sik i-b a ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ iri 3 /-s e 3 -g a Ĝ ir 2 -s u k i -k a . As already noted, the text quotes the ninth month according both to the calender of Umma (iti e z e m - d Š u l-g i) and that of Ĝirsu (iti m u -šu -d u 7 ), thus referring to both provincial administrations. Although the text does not mention places (only workers), it can be suggested that the redactional context was still tied to a phase of administrative adjustment entailed by the redrawing of the borders between the two provinces. The text lists 11 workers, among them three water drawers (SIG7-a), who are provided by Lugal-gigire the administrator (ša b ra ). The total reports the relative amounts of wool (8 kg) and garments (2), without further indication (r. 1-2: 16 m a -n a sik i [...] / 2 t u g 2 u š-b a r).

––––––––––––––––– 805 It is not clear if it can be read ĝ e š k i r i 6 ⌈ ĝ e š t i n ? K a š 4 ? ⌉ [...]- t a . See § 9.1.5. 806 See Foster 1981/82, 141. The text reports: o. 6'-8': e 2 - d u r u 5 d Ĝ E Š .BAR.E3[ k i ] / BAD3 - l u g a l - z i / [ G u 2 ] - e d e n - n a / [...]. Following the author’s proposal, that is, starting from the southeast the text proceeds to northwest, hence the settlement should be located east of Gu’edena.

231

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

7.3. Drēhem A fragmentary text form Drēhem, PDT 2, 1301 (AS 8/vi), records the allottment of barley and garments as well as the worker inspection of water drawers and arborists at Ĝirsu. At the beginning of the text, there are traces of the term sa n ta n a followed by the indication of a irrigation inlet-area and by a list of the workers, according to the second type of redactional formula seen in § 1.8.7.6. The recorded month belongs to the Drēhem calendar (iti a 2 -k i-ti) but the text clearly states that the operation pertained to Ĝirsu: (r. ii, 2') š a 3 Ĝ ir 2 -su k i . It is not clear the reason why this text, which should have been compiled at Ĝirsu, was written in Drēhem. 7.4. The gardens of Umma in the documentation of Ĝirsu Texts from Ĝirsu which quote gardens of the other provinces, specifically Umma, follow exclusively technical reasons. In particular, two texts concern the gardens of the Umma province: the first one relate to the planning of works that involved areas next to the provincial borders, the second one relate to the transfer of personnel, from one province to another one. 7.4.1. The garden of Kuli ( ĝ e š k iri 6 K u -li) This garden is mentioned in the Ĝirsu documentation only in ASJ 14, 243 92 (n.d.), a text recording the planning of works concerning canals and relevant devices. The garden is mentioned as topographical reference indicating the location of a ‘bench’ (ĝ e š-h u m -m a ) by the mouth of the canal Šulgi-pirig;807 indeed, the text specifies that the bench was in front of the ‘garden of Kuli’ (ĝ e š-h u m -m a g a b a -ri ĝ e š k iri 6 K u -li). The garden is also listed in a text from Umma, Nik 2 100 (Š 33/xi), which records the payments for ‘hired workers’ (lu 2 h u ĝ -ĝ a 2 ) stationed in this garden. Therefore, this garden is likely to be attributed to the Umma province, occurring in the Ĝirsu documentation only as topographical reference contextual to the planning of the works concerning a canal that likely crossed both provinces. Text

Type

Workers

Responsible

Note

Nik 2, 100 (Š 33/xi) Umma

payments for hired workers (lu2 huĝ-ĝa2)

5 ĝuruš with 0.1.0 še each

A-da-am maškim kišib: Nu-ru-a

1.0.0 gur še

ASJ 14, 243 92 (n.d.)

planning of works

ugula: saĝĝa dNin-ĝir2-su

ĝeš-hum-ma gaba-ri ĝeš kiri6 Ku-li-še3

7.4.2. The garden of Mušbiana ( ĝ e š k iri 6 M u š-b i-a n -n a ) This garden, whose name recalls the district of the Umma province near the border with Ĝirsu, is attested only in one text from Ĝirsu and two from Umma. HLC 1, 253 (AS 2/-) from Ĝirsu records the inspection of menials (g u ru m 2 a k a UN-g a 6 -e -n e ) of the temple of Ĝatumdu, hence in the Ĝirsu province, who have been transferred to the garden of Mušbiana ( ĝ e š k iri 6 M u š-b ia n -n a -še 3 ). More than 30 workers are specified as belonging to the previous workforce (lib ira m 3 ), while five workers are specified as being ‘(in) addition’ (d a h -h u ). It could be assumed that this garden was located in the Umma territory to which some workers from Ĝirsu have been assigned.

––––––––––––––––– This canal belonged to the Ĝirsu district, but it is mentioned also in texts from Umma (Sauren 1966, 164).

807

232

CHAPTER EIGHT

GARDENS ISOLATED IN THE DOCUMENTATION

This chapter collects the information related to those gardens for which it was not possible to gather more information in the documentation, mostly those gardens which are mentioned no more than once and without any reference to their administrators or the district they belonged to. 8.1. The garden of Amar-Suena in BaU(-namerim?) ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 d A m a r - d S u e n ša 3 d B a - U 2 ⌈n a m -e r im 2 ⌉) This garden is documented only in MVN 12, 401 (AS 4/iii), a text recording the expenditure (z ig a ) of 300 liters of bread (1.0.0 n in d a g u r) and 17 sheep carcasses (a d 6 u d u ) for unskilled workers (g a n -d a b 5 ) and prisoners (lu2 ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a ). In this text, the workers take (šu b a -ti) what was allotted to them, according to the formula which apparently concerns the personnel of articulated complexes (see § 1.2.1). An untitled official, Lu-Gudea son of Ur-saga, seals the document. It seems possible808 that the name of the garden can be read: (o. 4) ĝ e š k iri 6 d A m a r- d S u e n š a 3 d B a - U 2 -⌈n a m -e rim 2 ⌉, hence it would be possible to consider a connection with the ‘garden of BaU-namerimku’ listed in WMAH 285 (l.d.) (see § 2.3.4). In that case, it might have been the same garden, later renamed809 and likely integrated in a greater complex. 8.2. The garden of E-gibile ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 E 2 -g ib il 4 -< le k i > ) This garden is only attested in TCTI 2, 3828 (IS 1/ix), which records the expenditure (z i-g a ) of 300 liters of ‘semolina’ (1.0.0 d a b in g u r) as ‘allotment’ to the gardeners of the garden of E-gibil (o. 2-3: n iĝ 2 -[b a ] n u -ĝ e š k iri 6 / ĝ e š k iri 6 E 2 -g ib il 4 ). The product is supplied by Ur-Nanše, whose profession is not indicated, while the scribe Lu-Bagara seals the document. The garden name could refer to E-gibile (E 2 -g ib il 4 -le k i ), a toponym sporadically occurring in texts from Ĝirsu and also attested as a village name (e 2 -d u ru 5 E 2 -g ib il 4 -le ), after which some fields (the large and the small ones: a -š a 3 E 2 -g ib il 4 -le tu r; a -š a 3 E 2 -g ib il 4 -le g u -la ), and a grain store (i 3 -d u b ) are also named.810 8.3. The garden of the temple of N inMAR.KI ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 e 2 d N in -MAR.KI) This garden is only mentioned in a label of tablet boxes (p isa ĝ d u b -b a ), ITT 5, 9727, which records the indication: š e -n u m u n / u g u la ĝ e š k iri 6 e 2 d N in -MAR.KI, ‘barley seeds, under the supervision of the garden of the temple of NinMAR.KI’. It is not clear if this garden could be identified with any of the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ of the Ĝirsu district or it refers to a garden pertaining to the temple NinMAR.KI of Gu’aba or that of Niĝin.811 ––––––––––––––––– 808 The reading of the garden name was unclear also to T. Gomi, who reports: g i š k i r i 6 d A m a r - d S u e n - š a 3 - d B a - u 2 ba-KAM? al-la?!. 809 Although the date formula of WMAH 285 is lost, some features could ascribe the text to the first half of the NeoSumerian period (see § 1.8.7.6). 810 See Edzard and Farber 1974, 43. Since the grain store is attested both as i 3 - d u b E 2 - g i b i l 4 - l e k i and as i 3 - d u b e 2 - g i b i l 4 - ( l e ) , it can be assumed that, even without semantic determinative, the center of the province was intended. 811 See Falkenstein 1966, 165. On the basis of TUT 146 (l.d.), the author assumed the presence of a sanctuary of this goddess at Niĝin.

233

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

8.4. The vineyard o f HU.ĜEŠ ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 ĝ e štin HU.⌈Ĝ E Š ⌉) This vineyard is documented in WMAH 282 (l.d.), a very damaged tablet which probably records a worker inspection, where the name of the garden is almost illegible. 8.5. The garden of the ‘sonship’ ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 n a m -d u m u -k a ) This garden is quoted only in MVN 7, 149 (Š 32/-), which records the barley allotted to three workers for two months. The workers, quoted just by name, are indicated as being the sons of a certain ĜEŠGALnana. A payment of 60 liters is attributed to them for each month, for a total of 360 liters (1.1.0 g u r) of barley. Indirectly, there is mention of this garden in three texts recording the payments for the workers of the ‘temple of the sonship’, E-namdumu (e 2 n a m -d u m u ),812 among them skilled gardeners. However, these texts could date back to a period before the Third Dynasty of Ur.813 MVN 6, 105 (-/ii) records the barley payments of the second month for the workers of the Enamdumu, among them: r. 2'-7': [...] a-bala [...]-ta 1 du3-a-ku5 [...] / ugula An-dul3 / 3 a-bala 0.0.5-ta 1 du3-a-ku5 0.0.3-ta / 1 geme2 0.0.3 ugula Lu2-gi-na / še-bi 1.2.2 gur r. 2'-7': [...] water drawers with 50 liters each, 1 arborist with [...], the supervisor (was) Andul, 3 water drawers with 50 liters each, 1 arborist with 30 liters, 1 female worker with 30 liters, the supervisor (was) Lu-gina, the relative barley (is) 440 liters.

MVN 6, 492 (-/v) records the barley payments of the fifth month for the workers of the Enamdumu, among them: r. 12'-16': 4 a-bala 0.0.5-ta 1 du3-a-ku5 0.0.3 / ugula An-dul3 / 3 a-bala 0.0.5-ta / 1 du3-a-ku5 0.0.3 / 1 geme2 0.0.3 ugula Lu2-gi-na / še-bi 1.2.3 gur r. 12'-16': [...] water drawers with 50 liters each, 1 arborist with [...], the supervisor (was) Andul, 3 water drawers with 50 liters each, 1 arborist with 30 liters, 1 female worker with 30 liters, the supervisor (was) Lu-gina, the relative barley (is) 440 liters.

MVN 6, 335 (-/xi) records the barley payments of the eleventh month for the workers of the Enamdumu, among them: r. 12'-16': 4 a-bala 0.0.5-ta 1 du3-a-ku5 0.0.3 / ugula An-dul3 / 3 a-bala 0.0.5-ta 1 du3-a-ku5 0.0.3 / 1 geme2 0.0.3 ugula Lu2-gi-na / še-bi 1.2.3 gur r. 12'-6': [...] water drawers with 50 liters each, 1 arborist with [...], the supervisor (was) Andul, 3 water drawers with 50 liters each, 1 arborist with 30 liters, 1 female worker with 30 liters, the supervisor (was) Lu-gina, the relative barley (is) 450 liters.

Given their function as supervisors of the workers, it seems possible that Andul and Lu-gina were garden experts. 8.6. The garden of the archivist ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 ša 1 3 -d u b -b a -k a ) The sole attestation of this garden is given by MVN 7, 224 (n.d.), a text listing 16 workers with the indication: (r. 7) ĝ e š k iri 6 š a 1 3 -d u b -b a -k a a ša 5 -g a n u -g u b -b a -m e , ‘(workers of the) garden of the archivist not stationed in the field’. It seems that the text concerns a garden worker inspection that took place in a field, as occurs in MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-), for which, see § 1.4.2. In ––––––––––––––––– For the e 2 n a m - d u m u as economic unit pertaining to the governor’s sons in Pre-Sargonic Lagaš, see Maekawa 1996b, 171-179. On this topic, see also Gregoire 1962. 813 In all these texts the payments are registered in the name of Šuna, while the barley comes from Agade. To the best of my knowledge, texts involving Šuna and barley from Agade date to the Second Dynasty of Lagaš (MVN 7, 438; MVN 7, 509; BPOA 2, 1809). 812

234

G ARDENS I SOLATED IN THE D OCUMENTATION

addition, one must not exclude that this garden is to be identified with the garden elsewhere mentioned as the ‘garden of Lu-Ninĝirsu the archivist’ (§ 2.2.18). 8.7. The garden of Šu-Suen ( ĝ e š k ir i 6 dŠu-dSuen) In the Ĝirsu province, a garden dedicated to this divinized king is only documented in two texts dating back to his reign, ITT 2, 811 (ŠS 5/-) and TCTI 2, 3408 (ŠS 7/xi). The former one records a barley amount delivered by Ur-Ištaran and taken by Ur-Lamma; the title of both officials is unknown. Probably, another functionary, whose name is not completely readeable, acts as conveyor. The barley, 4,200 liters (14.0.0 g u r), is allocated as payment for ‘hired labor’ (a 2 h u ĝ -ĝ a 2 ), as seen in § 1.3.1. The second text records the delivery of two ‘copper hoes’ ( u r u d a h a -b u 3 -d a ), of ca. 952 grams (1 5/6 m a -n a 4 g iĝ 4) for this garden. They are weighed by Nabasa and received by Uršugalama from Lu-Bagara and Lu-diĝira who acted as conveyors. There is no indication of the title of any of the functionaries mentioned.

235

CHAPTER NINE

THE GARDEN ADMINISTRATORS OF THE PROVINCE

This last chapter aims at presenting an overview of the activities of the individual garden administrators (sa n ta n a ) attested in the administrative documentation of the province of Ĝirsu,814 following a district subdivision, wherever possible. The Neo-Sumerian documentation of the province provides in total 33 names of garden administrators, not considering the two vineyard administrators (sa n ta n a ĝ e štin ), whose attestations are collected in § 1.10, or the number of persons attested as acting as garden administrators whose professional title is lacking. As seen in § 1.8.1, the list recorded in TCTI 2, 2788 (n.d.) suggest the presence of at least 17 garden administrators in charge at the same time in the province.815 At the end of the chapter, the activities of those officials who acted as administrative interlocutors of the garden administrators are listed, highlighting the points of contact between their activities and the garden management. The following table provides an overview of the garden administrators (including the alleged ones) who are attested in the administrative documentation of the province in a chronological order. Garden administrator

Period of attestation

Ur-Šul(pa’e) son of Lugal-gigir

Relevant district/area

Co-occurence with other garden administrators

§

Š 27 or Š 31-Š 35 /

/

9.6.7

Lugal-irida

(Š 36)

Alšana

Enlila (Niĝin)

9.5.6

Lugal-imrua

Š 38- Š 40 ca.

Gu’aba(?)

/

9.3.1

Aga son of Lugal-imrua

Š 40-AS 8

Gu’aba

List of TCTI 2, 2788; UNga

9.3.2

Ur-BaU

Š 41- Š 46

Ĝirsu

Ubimu

Š 42

/

Ur-BaU (santana ĝeštin)

9.6.1

Ur-BaU

Š 42-AS 5

/

/

9.1.7

Anana

Š 44

Lagaš

Ur-Igalim son of the scribe Šadanudu (Niĝin); Ga’a (NU-banda3)

9.5.3

Ga’a

Š 44-ŠS 8

Gu-Iniĝinšedu

Ur-BaU, Kitušlu (Gu-Iniĝinšedu); Gu’umu, Ka, Agu, Ĝirini, Ur-Lisi (Ĝirsu) (NU-banda3) Anana (Lagaš), Abba (Niĝin)

9.4.1

Ur-Igalim son of the scribe Šadanudu

Š 44

Niĝin

List of TCTI 2, 2788; Anana (Lagaš)

9.5.8

Abbaĝu

Š 45-AS 4

Ĝirsu (Kisura)

List of TCTI 2, 2788; Ur-Šulpa’e, Ur-Ninĝirsu

9.1.1

Gu’umu

Š 46-IS 2

Ĝirsu (Kisura)

List of TCTI 2, 2788; Agu, Ĝirini, Ur-Lisi, Inana, UrInanna, Išibmah (Ĝirsu); Ga’a, Ur-BaU (Gu-Iniĝinšedu)

9.1.2

9.1.7

––––––––––––––––– 814 Most of the attestations concerning the activities of the garden administrators were collected through a prosopographical analysis. The presence of rare names, as for example Gu2-u3-mu (conventionally given as Gu’umu in this work) which occurs only at Ĝirsu and 34 times (27 in connection with the garden management, but only four times with his professional title), allowed for establishing a plausible connection between the professional figure of the s a n t a n a and the relative administrative functions. 815 Issues of the list concerning the number of garden administrators in charge at the same time in the territory and their distribution within the district are highlighted in § 1.8.1.

237

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Garden administrator

Period of attestation

Relevant district/area

Co-occurence with other garden administrators

§

NIMmu

Š 46-ŠS 3

Ĝirsu

List of TCTI 2, 2788; Ur-Bagara(?); Nabi

9.1.3

Udani

Š 46-AS 6

Gu’aba

UNga (Gu’aba); Ga’a (Gu-Iniĝinšedu)

9.3.2

UNga

Š 46-AS 8

Gu’aba

Aga, Udani (Gu’aba); Ga’a (Gu-Iniĝinšedu)

9.3.2

Ur-Bagara

(Š 46)

Kinunir

List of TCTI 2, 2788

9.4.3

Ur-kigula

Š 46

/

/

9.6.2

Nabi son of Lugal-saga

Š 48-AS 6

Ĝirsu (Kisura)

NIMmu, Abbaĝu, Gu’umu

9.1.4

Kitušlu

AS 1-IS 5

Gu-Iniĝinšedu

Ga’a

9.4.5

Gamu

(AS 2)-AS 4

Ĝirsu

List of TCTI 2, 2788

9.1.5 9.1.6

Ka

AS 2-ŠS 7

Ĝirsu

List of TCTI 2, 2788; Agu, Ĝirini, Ur-Lisi, Inana, UrInanna, Išibmah (Ĝirsu); Ga’a, Ur-BaU (Gu-Iniĝinšedu)

Abbaĝu

(Š/AS)

Niĝin

List of TCTI 2, 2788; (?) Ur-Šulpa’e, Ur-Ninĝirsu

9.5.2

Manšum

(Š/AS)

Niĝin

List of TCTI 2, 2788

9.5.7

Urani

(Š/AS)

Ki’esa

List of TCTI 2, 2788

9.4.2

Enlila

AS 3

Niĝin

List of TCTI 2, 2788; Lugal-irida (Alšana)

9.5.4

Ur-BaU

AS 3

Ĝirsu

List of TCTI 2, 2788

9.1.7

Agu

AS 3-IS 1

Ĝirsu

Gu’umu, Ka, Ĝirini, Ur-Lisi, Inana, Išibmah, Ur-Inanna (Ĝirsu); Ga’a, Ur-BaU (Gu-Iniĝinšedu)

9.1.8

Ĝirini

AS 7

Ĝirsu

Gu’umu, Ka, Agu, Ur-Lisi (Ĝirsu); Ga’a, Ur-BaU (Gu-Iniĝinšedu)

9.2.1

Ur-Lisi

AS 7-IS 3

Ĝirsu

Gu’umu, Ka, Agu, Ĝirini, Inana, Ur-Inanna, Išibmah (Ĝirsu); Ga’a, Ur-BaU (Gu-Iniĝinšedu)

9.1.9

Lu-diĝira

AS 7

Ĝirsu

Gu’umu, Agu, Ur-Lisi

9.2.2

Išibmah

AS 7

Ĝirsu

Gu’umu, Ka, Agu, Ĝirini, Ur-Lisi

9.2.3 9.4.4

Ur-BaU

AS 7

Gu-Iniĝinšedu

Gu’umu, Ka, Agu, Ĝirini, Ur-Lisi, Inana, Išibmah (Ĝirsu); Ga’a, (Gu-Iniĝinšedu)

Inana

ŠS 7-IS 1

Ĝirsu

Gu’umu, Ka, Agu, Ur-Lisi, Ur-Inanna

9.2.4

Ur-Inanna

ŠS 7

Ĝirsu

Gu’umu, Ka, Agu, Ur-Lisi, Inana

9.2.5

Abba

/

Niĝin

Lugal-amarku, Ga’a (NU-banda3)

9.5.1

Lugal-amarku

/

Niĝin(?)

Abba

9.5.5

Ur-KISAL

/

/

/

9.6.3

Ur-Luma

/

/

/

9.6.4

Ur-Ninĝirsu

/

/

Ur-Šulpa’e, Abbaĝu

9.6.5

Ur-Siana

/

/

/

9.6.6

9.1. The garden administrators of Ĝirsu The documentation pertaining to the Ĝirsu district present nine816 different garden administrators over a period of time ranging from Š 45 (Abbaĝu) to IS 3 (Ur-Lisi). The presence of other garden administrators, whose attestations do not allow us to infer the relevant district, could alter this data. Besides the nine garden administrators, another five personalities are to be considered, Ĝirini, Lu-diĝira, Inana, Ur-Inanna and Išibmah, for whom a textual attestation of their professional title is lacking but who occur in the texts and with the same functions that officials ––––––––––––––––– The number is indicative, since it considers the presence of only one garden administrator named Ur-BaU in the district.

816

238

T HE G ARDEN A DMINISTRATORS OF THE P ROVINCE

explicitly known as s a n ta n a have. The list of TCTI 2, 2788 indicates the presence of eight garden administrators in charge at the same time in the Ĝirsu district. The first chapter sketched some kinds of transaction and the related functions performed by these officials, taking as an example the texts concerning the activity of the garden administrators of the province. Most of the texts treated concern the activities of garden administrators of the Ĝirsu district, especially those highlighting the internal hierarchy of the working structure of the gardens and the relationship between production and professional figures. § 1.4.2 and § 1.8.7.6 show the role played by the garden administrators in the inspection of gardeners ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ through the example of MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-), where the garden administrators Abbaĝu (§ 9.1.1), Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2), Ka (§ 9.1.6) and probably Gamu (§ 9.1.5) occur. The same paragraphs report, then, the example of Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.) which attests to the role played by these officials in regard to the payments allotted to the ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ workers and the regularly employed gardeners. The garden administrators present in this text are Gamu (§ 9.1.5) and Ka (§ 9.1.6), so it can be assumed that the text does not date later than AS 4, the last year in which Gamu is attested. The function of responsibility over the barley left in the granary pertaining to the payments for the gardeners of their area of responsibility is illustrated in § 1.8.7.4 through the example of RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/iv), where Abbaĝu (§ 9.1.1), Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2), Gamu (§ 9.1.5), Ka (§ 9.1.6) and, by way of exception, the scribe Ur-BaU son of Lugal-imrua (§ 1.11.4), occur. Then, § 1.8.4.1 shows the role played by the garden administrators in regards to the garden produce through the example of texts recording yield inspection of gardens ( ĝ e š k iri 6 k a b 2 d u 1 1 g a ), or texts recording amounts of produce without any key expression. These examples concern SAT 1, 173, where the garden administrator Ur-BaU occurs (§ 9.1.7), CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4), where Abbaĝu (§ 9.1.1), Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2) and Ur-BaU, likely the scribe son of Lugal-imrua (§ 1.11.4) occur, and MVN 17, 18 (n.d.), where Abbaĝu (§ 9.1.1) and Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2) occur, hence dating no later than the middle of Amar-Suena’s reign, when Abbaĝu is no longer attested. For the same reason, HLC 2, 25 (l.d.), seen in § 1.4.2 and § 2.2, could date to the same period. The text records additional information about an inspection of workers employed as gardeners and involves Abbaĝu (§ 9.1.1) and Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2). As seen in § 1.8.4.3, the role of the garden administrators in texts recording transactions of fruit and palm by-products is illustrated through the example of SAT 1, 408 (AS 3/iii), where Abbaĝu (§ 9.1.1), Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2) and Ur-BaU (§ 9.1.7) occur, and the example of TCTI 1, 935 (AS 7/xii), where Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2), Ka (§ 9.1.6), Agu (§ 9.1.8), Ur-Lisi (§ 9.1.9) and the alleged garden administrators Ĝirini (§ 9.2.1), Išibmah (§ 9.2.3) occur. The function of responsibility performed by these officials in texts concerning the payments for gardeners is illustrated in § 1.6.8 and § 1.8.7.1, through the example of MVN 6, 317 (n.d.), TUT 143 (l.d.), and of TÉL 82 (l.d.), where the workers are defined as ‘invalids of the gardens’ (see § 1.3.5). In TUT 143 the garden administrators that occur are Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2), Ka (§ 9.1.6), Agu (§ 9.1.8), Ur-Lisi (§ 9.1.9) and probably the alleged garden administrators Ĝirini (§ 9.2.1) and Išibmah (§ 9.2.3), this being the reason why the text should be dated to the end of the AmarSuena’s reign (see TCTI 1, 935). The preserved names of garden administrators in MVN 6, 317 are those of Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2), Ka (§ 9.1.6), Ur-Lisi (§ 9.1.9) and Išibmah (§ 9.2.3), thus the date of the text is to be placed between the end of the Amar-Suena’s reign and the reign of Šu-Suen. TÉL 82 attests to the presence of Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2), the alleged garden administrator Inana (§ 9.2.4) and probably Agu (§ 9.1.8), this being the reason why the text should be dated to a period between the end of Šu-Suen’s reign and the beginning of that of Ibbi-Suen. As seen in § 1.6.5, MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-) records an account concerning the regular offerings of the gardeners for the gods and dates to the end of Šu-Suen’s reign. The text reports as supervisors of the transactions Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2), Ka (§ 9.1.6), Agu (§ 9.1.8), Ur-Lisi (§ 9.1.9) and the alleged garden administrators Inana (§ 9.2.4) and Ur-Inanna (§ 9.2.5). § 2.2 shows the group of texts of payments dating to year 48 of Šulgi’s reign, regarding the water drawers and arborists employed in gardens lying in the north of the district. The garden administrators involved, here 239

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

acting as responsible for the barley amount allotted to the workers of the gardens of their areas of authority, are Abbaĝu (§ 9.1.1), Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2) and Nabi (§ 9.1.4). The following sections present the activities of each garden administrator of the district according to their chronological sequence in the territory. 9.1.1. Abbaĝu Abbaĝu is among the most attested garden administrators of the province, even though his activity is documented only seven years. He is present in the list of TCTI 2, 2788 (n.d.) among the garden administrators of Ĝirsu, while a homonym is attributed to Niĝin. Further, Abbaĝu is one of the garden administrators occurring in the group of texts concerning payments for the water drawers and arborists of Š 48 (see § 2.2) which provide the names of 16 gardens lying in his area of responsibility in a northern area of the district,817 some of them in the territory of Kisura: The garden of Allaĝu; the garden of enNE; the garden of Geme-Ištaran; the vineyard on the banks of the BaU-heĝal canal; the ĝi’eden garden of BaU; the ĝi’eden garden of Ninĝirsu; the garden of ĝeškiĝ-trees; the large garden in the city; the garden of Igalim; the garden of Lu-Utu; the garden of Mani; the garden of NinMAR.KI (ĜIR3.SIG.IL2(?).LA); the garden of Ninšubur; the garden of Urdam; the garden of Ur-mama; the pine garden before Enki. The first attestation of Abbaĝu is given by Princeton 2, 266 (Š 45/-) in which the garden administrator delivers leaves from 10 palm midribs (p e š m u rg u 2 ) to Ur-abba son of Bazi, thus likely entering the warehouse (see § 9.7.3.1). It seems possible to read in the last line before the date formula the indication: [...] d E n -k i. It is not clear if such an indication may have referred to the ‘pine garden before Enki’ ( ĝ e š k iri 6 ĝ e š u 3 -su h 5 g a b a -ri d E n -k i-k a ) as the place of provenience of the products, since this garden fell within the authority of the garden administrator in question (see 2.2.34).818 The following year, in BPOA 1, 102 (Š 46/v), Abbaĝu delivers 570 liters of dates again to Ur-abba son of Bazi. The text refers to the sealed document of NammahBaU, likely the scribe tied to the provincial taxation system (see § 9.7.2.2.4); however, it indicates Ur-abba as the recipient (šu b a -ti) and indeed the seal on the tablet belongs to Ur-abba. Therefore, as seen in § 2.2, eight texts dating to Š 48 record the payments for the water drawers and arborists employed in the area of authority of Abbaĝu. STA 19 (Š 48/i) records a barley amount (665 liters) supplied by the scribe Ur-BaU (likely the son of Bazi) and allotted to the arborists of ten gardens under the supervision of Abbaĝu. The text also lists other 13 gardens and one lu 2 -LAM worker, without indication of the relevant barley payments. HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii) shows Abbaĝu as responsible (k išib ) for part of the supplied barley amount for the bimonthly payments of the water drawers and arborists (2,340 liters), and also for the barley amount (2,510 liters) to be distributed to the workers of eight gardens (in part corresponding to those of STA 19), and to two men of the storehouse (lu 2 HUL2 n a -k a b -tu m ; see § 1.4.1) under his supervision (u g u la ). Further, HLC 1, 100 (Š 48/iii) attests to Abbaĝu as responsible for 320 liters of barley for the payments of the water drawers and arborists belonging at least to three gardens, while HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi) reports him as responsible for 3,555 liters of barley allotted to the workers of at least five gardens and the men of the storehouse. In Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix), concerning the bimonthly payments for the arborists, Abbaĝu occurs as responsible for 2,450 liters of barley for ––––––––––––––––– As seen in § 2.2, some of the gardens attested in STA 19 (garden of Meluhha of NinMAR.KI; garden of Nanše of Simurrum; garden of U’udua; garden of Urub), to which no barley amounts are attributed, do not necessarily fall into the area of responsibility of Abbaĝu, though in the text they formally are under the supervision of this official; indeed, their occurrence in the text may be explained by their pertinence to area of authority of the scribe responsible for the barley supply, whose activity may have gone beyond the district subdivision. 818 Normally the transactions of produce supplied by garden administrators do not indicate the garden of provenience, since this professional figure channeled the production of many gardens lying in a given area. Nevertheless, in this case, the delivery of only 10 units may have concerned the production of a single garden. Similar cases are indeed attested elsewhere: see, e.g., MVN 22, 271 (IS 3/XX) in § 9.1.9. 817

240

T HE G ARDEN A DMINISTRATORS OF THE P ROVINCE

the payments of the workers of nine gardens and the men of the storehouse. In MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) Abbaĝu is responsible for 1,080 liters of barley as payments of the water drawers of nine gardens. In CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.) Abbaĝu occurs as responsible for 1,860 liters of barley allotted to the water drawers of nine gardens. Finally, in HLC 3, 267 (l.d.), the name of Abbaĝu is lost in a break in the tablet, however his occurrence is inferable from the sequence of gardens belonging to his area. Thus he ends up being responsible for at least 2,360 liters of barley allotted to the workers of at least nine gardens. With regard to the produce of the gardens, CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4) attests to Abbaĝu819 as supervisor of the date amount pertaining to the ‘large garden in the city’, a garden lying in his area of authority (see § 2.2.12). The date quantity, concerning 600 liters of dates of good quality and 36,360 liters of ordinary dates, is recorded in the names of two individuals, likely two garden experts. One of them, Ur-Lisi, is indicated as son of Abbaĝu, however it is difficult to determine whether he was the son of the garden administrator. Furthermore, in MVN 17, 18, Abbaĝu occurs as supervisor820 of the date quantity (210 liters), pertaining to the ‘garden of Lu-Utu’, where Eheĝal son of the garden administrator Gu’umu acts as a garden expert. Abbaĝu also occurs in two texts recording the inspection of gardeners, MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-) and HLC 2, 25 (l.d.). In MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-), Abbaĝu occurs twice: once as supervisor (u g u la ) of at least five workers, among which Nimĝir-išibmah the arborist of the ‘garden of enNE’ can be recognized, while other names are lost in a break in the tablet; the second time, after the total of the inspected personnel, as the recruiter of a man of the storehouse (Ĝiri-Nanše-idab)821 present at the inspection (see § 1.4.1). The second text concerning a worker inspection, HLC 2, 25 (l.d.), reports the presence of Lu-duga in the ‘pine garden before Enki’ (see § 2.2.34), a waif whose presence at the inspection was guaranteed (lit. from the word) by the garden administrator Abbaĝu. Moreover, Abbaĝu occurs in MVN 6, 290 (AS 2/-), a text belonging to the second type of texts recording worker inspections and allotment of barley, wool and garments (see § 1.8.7.6). Here, Abbaĝu occurs twice: at the beginning of the text as the one who takes charge of one worker ‘left to self’ (n i 2 -e ta k a 4 ) and his son, and at the end as supervisor of the whole procedure. The text records an area of 25,200 m2 classified as ‘SAR irrigation inlet-land’ (SAR k a a - DU)822 and subdivided into: 3,600 m2 not further described, and 21,600 m2 taken over by Luduga, whose professional title is not expressed.823 This section is then followed by a list of workers,824 most of them water drawers (SIG7-a ). SAT 1, 408 (AS 3/iii), as seen in § 1.8.4.3, records quantities of garden produce delivered by some garden administrators of Ĝirsu: 1,200 cucurbitaceae (u k u š 2 ) are generically indicated as delivered by them (k i sa n ta n a -n e ), while the fruit quantities are distinguished according to ––––––––––––––––– 819 As already mentioned, the reading of the last sign of the name in the text is not completely clear, although it seems plausible that the garden administrator who is also attested as responsible for the same garden in five texts dating to the previous year was intended. 820 As seen in § 2.5.3, it may have been an exceptional intervention of the garden administrator in the area of Gu’umu. 821 Ĝiri-Nanše-idab can be identified with one of the men of the storehouse occurring in the texts of payments of Š 48 in the area of the same garden administrator. 822 With regard to this kind of plot, see § 1.8.7.6. 823 As suggested in § 1.8.7.6, he may have been an official or a garden expert who took charge of the inspection carried out in that plot. 824 The attribution of this attestation to the garden administrator of Ĝirsu, rather than to the homonym of Niĝin, is suggested by the occurrence of I-turtur and his son (o. i, 9: DIŠ I 3 - t u r - t u r - DIŠ L u g a l - u s u r 4 d u m u - n i ) at the top of the listed workers, as well as the occurrence of a son of Kuli (o. i, 14: U r - g u 2 - [ . . . ] d u m u K u - ⌈ l i ⌉ ) . Both I-turtur and Kuli, indeed, occur as recruiters of workers (hence acting as garden experts, see § 1.6.8) in MVN 6, 298 under the supervision of Abbaĝu. In MVN 6, 298, Kuli occurs (o. ii, 12) as recruiter of two workers, one of them, Šeškala, indicated as his son, while I-turtur (o. ii, 9) as recruiter of Niĝir-išibmah, likely the arborist of the ‘garden of enNE’. In any case, the recruiter and the recruit did not necessarily pertained to the same garden, as seen in § 1.6.2 for the arborist Eluti of the ‘garden of Tira’aš’ who was recruited by the garden expert of the ‘garden of Ur-Ninĝirsu I’. Hence there is no connection between the area described by MVN 6, 290, where I-turtur was employed probably as garden expert, and the ‘garden of enNE’.

241

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

officials. In the case of Abbaĝu, the fruit quantity concerns two baskets (IL2) of 15 liters capacity filled with grapes and two baskets (IL2) of the same capacity filled with figs. In the same year, he is attested in MVN 11, 118 (AS 3/iv), a text recording the delivery of fruit to the palace, where eight baskets (IL2) of over 16 liters of capacity filled with dates and 50 pomegranates are recorded in his name as a mašdaria-tax. In the text, other garden administrators of Ĝirsu also occur as providers of fruit. Finally, RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/iv) attests to Abbaĝu as supervisor of the barley amount left in the granary for the payments of some gardeners of the ‘garden of enNE’ (240 liters). His supervision also concerns the payments of two men (90 liters), among them Ĝiri-Nanše-idab, the man of the storehouse. Further evidence of this garden administrator might be given by MVN 6, 499 (n.d.), which, however, may also refer to the homonymous official of Niĝin (see § 9.5.2). As seen in § 1.9, the text records the engagement of skilled, unskilled and external workers825 subdivided into groups which different garden administrators take charge of under the general supervision of the captain Ur-BaU. Moreover, one must not exclude that Abbaĝu is to be identified with the homonymous captain who, along with a captain named Gu’umu (see § 9.1.2), in Berens 23 (Š 44/-) is responsible for 24 male workers for whom one liter of bread each is allotted (see § 9.7.1.1). In this case, it should be noted that this attestation precedes those which attest to him as garden administrator. Date

Text

Type

Š 45/-

Š 46/v

Š 48/i

Š 48/i-ii

Š 48/iii

Š 48/vi

Š 48/viii-ix

Attestation

Notes

Princeton 2, 266

delivery (šu ba-ti) of palm byproducts

o. 2: ki L. santana-ta

10 peš murgu2; Ur-ab-ba dumu Ba-zi šu ba-ti; ĝeš kiri6 ĝešu3-suh5 gaba-ri dEn-kika?

BPOA 1, 102

delivery (kišib/šu ba-ti) of dates

o. 2: ki L. -ta

1.4.3 zu2-lum gur; kišib Nam-mah-dBa-U2; Ur-ab-ba dumu Ba-zi šu ba-ti

r. ii, 9: ugula L. santana

2.1.0 5 sila3 še gur for 10 of the 23 listed gardens; barley suppliers: ki ~ -ta: Ur-dBa-U2; ĝiri3 Ur-dŠul-pa-e3

o i, 1-2: 7.3.4 še gur / kišib L. santana; r. ii 29': ugula L.

8.1.5 še gur for at least 8 gardens; other barley suppliers: ca. 5 gur Ka-tar-dBa-U2; 4.1.0 gur E2-he2-ĝal2; ca. 1 gur Nimĝir-išib-mah

r. 12': ugula L. santana

1.0.2 še gur for at least 3 gardens; barley suppliers: ki ~ -ta: Ur-dBa-U2; ĝiri3 Ur-dSahar- dBa-U2 11.4.1 5 sila3 še gur for at least 5 gardens; barley supplier: ĝiri3 Ka-tar-dBa-U2

STA 19

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

HSS 4, 7

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

HLC 1, 100

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

HLC 1, 102

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5)

r. 9': ugula L. santana

bimonthly payments (še-ba) arborists (du3-a-ku5)

8.0.5 še gur lugal for 9 gardens; barley suppliers: r. 11: ugula L. santana ki ~ -ta: Ur-dBa-U2; kišib Ur-ĝešgigir u3 Ka-tar-dBaU2 ;

Amherst 54

––––––––––––––––– Among the workers under the charge of garden administrators, there are workers generically indicated as adult workers (ĝ u r u š ) or arborists (d u 3 - a - k u 5 ) , specialists of the gazi-plant ( l u 2 - g a z i , see § 1.3.3), but also two doorkeepers (i 3 - d u 8 ) , not attested elsewhere in connection with gardens.

825

242

T HE G ARDEN A DMINISTRATORS OF THE P ROVINCE

Date

Text

Type

Attestation

Notes

Š 48/x

MVN 12, 297

monthly payments (še-ba) water drawers (a-bala)

r. ii, 13: ugula L. santana

3.3.0 še gur for 9 gardens; barley supplier: kišib Ka-tar-dBa-U2;

r. ii, 1: ugula L.

Ab-ba-⌈ĝu10⌉; 2.0.0 gur zu2-lum saga10, 121.1.0 zu2-lum; ĝeš kiri6 gu-la ša3 iri;

AS 1/-/4

CUSAS 16, 74

record of date production

AS 2/-

MVN 6, 298

inspection of gardeners ‘released o. iii, 1': ugula L.; (from the duty cycle)’ (gurum2 r. iii, 8': ki L. -ta

aka erin2 BUR2 nukiri6)

[...] um-mi-a: I3-tur-tur, Ku-li, Lu2d Nin-ĝir2-su;

AS 2/-

MVN 6, 290

inspection and barley and wool allotment for gardeners (gurum2 aka še-ba siki-ba nu-kiri6ke4-ne)

o. i, 1: DIL L. santana; o. 1, 5: santana i3-dab5; r. ii, 3': ugula L.

7 iku SAR ka-a-DU; (6 iku Lu2-du10-ga i3-dab5) 14 PN+ (I3-tur-tur; [...] dumu Ku-⌈li⌉)

AS 3/iii

SAT 1, 408

record of fruit and cucurbitacee

o. 1: ki L.

2 IL2 ĝeštin 0.0.1 5 sila3-ta; 2 IL2 ĝešpeš3 0.0.1 5 sila3-ta

AS 3/iv

MVN 11, 118

delivery of fruit and dates to the palace (e2-gal-la ba-an-ku4)

o. 3: ki L. -ta

8 IL2 zu2-lum 0.0.1 6 ⅔ sila3-ta, 50 nu-ur2-ma; maš-da-ri-a; ĝiri3 Ur-dNanše

AS 4/iv

RA 54, 130 44

payments for gardeners left in the granary (še-ba nu-ĝeškiri6-ke4- o. i, 15: ugula L. ne guru7-a taka4-a)

1.0.3 še gur; ĝeš kiri6 en-NE and lu2 na-kab-tum

l.d.

HLC 3, 267

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for [water drawers and arborists]

[ugula L. santana]

7.2.2+ še gur for at least 9 gardens

l.d.

HLC 2, 25

additional information to gardener inspection (gurum2 aka dib-ba nu-ĝeškiri6-ke4-ne)

o. ii, 6: inim L. santana-ta

PN ni2-e taka4-a; ĝeš kiri6 ĝešu3-suh5 gaba-ri dEn-kika; ša3 Ĝir2-suki

n.d.

TCTI 2, 2788

list of garden administrators (santana)

o. 3: 1 L.

ša3 Ĝir2-suki

n.d.

CT 10, 46 BM 21381

plan of payments for water drawers (a-bala)

r. 19: ugula L.

6.1.0 še gur for 9 gardens

n.d.

MVN 17, 18

record of date production

r. 4: ugula L.

0.3.3 zu2-lum; ĝeš kiri6 Lu2-dUtu; um-mi-a: E2-he2-ĝal2

n.d.

MVN 6, 499

worker employment

o. 6: L. santana

32 ĝuruš, 17 du3-a-ku5, 2 i3-du8, 2 lu2-gazi; d NU-banda3: Ur- Ba-U2;

9.1.2. Gu’umu Gu’umu is one of the best attested garden administrators of the province and his activity is documented for a period of time of 23 years. He is present in the list of TCTI 2, 2788 (n.d.), which assigns him to the Ĝirsu district. Together with Abbaĝu, Gu’umu is present in the group of texts of payments for the water drawers and arborists of Š 48 (see § 2.2), which provide the names of 12 gardens lying in his area of authority, in a northern area of the district, most of them situated in the territory of Kisura. Other documents concerning the activity of this official add another four826 garden names: The (large) garden of Amanu; the garden ex-voto of Lu-Nanše; the garden of the Inanna village; the garden of Gaeš; the garden of Geme-Šulpa’e; the garden/vineyard of Garšum; the garden of ––––––––––––––––– 826 As seen in § 5.5, it cannot be excluded that the ‘garden of Gudea’ was under the responsibility of this garden administrator as well, although clear evidence is lacking.

243

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Irisaĝ; the garden of Lu-Ninĝirsu the archivist; the garden of Lu-duga; the garden of Ninĝirsuadah-Šulgira; the garden of Ninĝirsu-namerim; the garden of Šulpa’e; the garden of Šulgi-akalama; the garden of the ‘palace administrator’; the garden of Tira’aš; the garden of Ur-Ninĝirsu I. The first attestation of Gu’umu is given by RA 54, 124 6 (Š 46/viii), where he delivers leaves from 240 palm midribs (p e š m u rg u 2 ) to Ur-abba son of Bazi, thus likely entering the warehouse (see § 9.7.3.1). The purpose of the delivery is indicated as ‘ropes for the boxes of tablets’, šu -sa r p isa ĝ im -s a r-ra -š e 3 . As seen in § 2.2, Gu’umu occurs as a supervisor of the barley amounts allotted to the water drawers and arborists employed in his area of authority recorded in the group of texts dating to Š 48. In HSS 4, 10 (Š 48/i) Gu’umu occurs as responsible for 2,180 liters of barley allotted to the arborists of nine gardens and to one lu 2 - LAM, Lu-ušgina (§ 1.11.2) and one man827 of the storehouse (lu 2 HUL2 n a -k a b -tu m ; see § 1.4.1). In HSS 4, 7 (Š 48/ii), the presence of Gu’umu, whose name is lost in a break in the tablet, can be inferred from the sequence of at least five gardens pertaining to his area, to which circa 2,100 liters of barley are allotted. In this text, part of the supplied barley amount for the bimonthly payments actually appears in the name of his son Eheĝal, the garden expert acting here by way of exception (see § 1.11.5). The presence of Gu’umu is again inferable in HLC 1, 100 (Š 48/iii), thanks to the occurrence of two gardens belonging to his area and to the difference of 280 liters between the starting amount of barley (600 liters), and the amount supervised by Abbaĝu (320 liters). In HLC 1, 102 (Š 48/vi), the presence of Gu’umu can again only be inferred by the occurrence of eleven gardens lying in his area of authority. His name might indeed be lost in the missing section that follows the amount of barley (⌈5,610⌉ liters) allotted to the gardeners and the men of the storehouse. Amherst 54 (Š 48/ix) records 4,390 liters of barley under the supervision of Gu’umu as bimonthly payments for the arborists of 12 gardens, the lu 2 - LAM and the men of the storehouse. Then, MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x) records 270 liters of barley for the water drawers of four gardens under his supervision. As regards the remaining texts of the group, Gu’umu occurs as responsible for 5,700 liters of barley for the workers of at least nine gardens, one lu 2 - LAM and four the men of the storehouse in HLC 3, 267 (l.d.) and of 960 liters of barley for the water drawers of four gardens in CT 10, 46 BM 21381 (n.d.). CUSAS 16, 74 (AS 1/-/4) attests Gu’umu as the supervisor of the quantities of dates (240 liters of good quality and 3,060 liters of ordinary quality) pertaining to three gardens lying in his area of responsibility: the ‘garden of Lu-Ninĝirsu the archivist’, where the quantitiy appears in the name of the expert Bagara-ziĝu (see § 2.2.18), the ‘garden of Ur-Ninĝirsu I’, in the name of the expert Urdudani, and the ‘garden ex-voto of Lu-Nanše’, where the quantity appears in the name of Lu-ušgina the lu 2 - LAM (see § 1.11.2). In MVN 17, 18 (n.d.), Gu’umu occurs as the supervisor of the date quantities (5,310 liters) pertaining to four gardens lying in his area and recorded in the name of four garden experts: Diĝira, Ur-BaU brother of the garden administrator Gamu, Daga mother of E-hili, and Šeškala; interesting to note is the occurrence of his son, E-heĝal, acting as expert of the ‘garden of Lu-Utu’ under the supervision of the garden administrator Abbaĝu, rather than under that of his father. In the inspection of gardeners recorded in HLC 2, 25 (l.d.), Gu’umu is indicated as supervisor of the ‘garden of Šulgi-a-kalama’, for which only a deceased worker is recorded, Uresaĝa, under the supervision of the captain Lu-BaU. Gu’umu is also present in MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-) acting as supervisor of fourteen gardeners ‘released (from the duty cycle)’. In SAT 1, 408 (AS 3/iii), one basket (IL2) with 7½ liters of grapes and another basket with the same quantity of figs are recorded in the name of Gu’umu. MVN 11, 118 (AS 3/iv), dating to the following month, records the delivery to the palace of baskets of fruit as mašdaria-taxes, among them eight baskets (IL2) with 16⅔ liters of dates in the name of Gu’umu. MVN 9, 60 (AS 3/iv), seen in § 1.8.4.3, records for the same month the delivery to the palace for the ma-uzala of ––––––––––––––––– As seen in § 1.4.1, the name of the worker is followed by the notation k u 5 - a d a b 5 - b a , which may entail that the worker had also been engaged for the cutting of the produce he had to deliver.

827

244

T HE G ARDEN A DMINISTRATORS OF THE P ROVINCE

10 baskets (IL2) with 15 liters of dates for the first time (a-ra2 1-kam), 18 baskets (IL2) of the same capacity classified as not inspected (k a b 2 n u -d u 1 1 -g a ), 540 liters of apples and five baskets (IL2) with 10 liters of grapes, conveyed by Ur-Igalim the messenger (see § 9.7.2.2.7). The seal of the governor Ur-Lamma is on the envelope, where the number of baskets of dates is recorded without differentiation in a single entry. A further fruit transaction involving Gu’umu and UrLamma is recorded in MVN 22, 40 (AS 3/v), a closed envelope dating to the following month. The text, only partially legible, attests to unclear amounts of dates, figs, apple and pomegranates described as old (40) and new (120). In RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/iv), Gu’umu is responsible for 180 liters of barley left in the granary, corresponding to the payments of three deceased (u š 2 ) water drawers.828 In TCTI 1, 935 (AS 7/xii), 259 kg of palm fibers are recorded in the name of this official. In MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-) Gu’umu is involved as supervisor of the transactions of fruit concerning the regular offerings for at least ten cultic places and gods. He appears as the only supervisor of the offerings addressed to Tira’aš, Ningula, and Šulpa’e of the palace, for a total of 280 liters of dates, 280 fresh apples (of which 80 liters are supplied by him), and 200 liters of fresh figs and grapes. In addition, alongside with other garden administrators he supervises transactions of fruit for the offerings to Ninsun, Ninhursaĝ, NinMAR.KI, Ĝeštinana, and the old governor Gudea, for a total of 340 liters of dates, 230 of fresh figs and grapes, 200 liters of fresh apples (provided by him). Given the breaks in the text, the quantities of fruit for the offerings to Igalim and Damgalnun supervised by Gu’umu can no longer be read, with the exception of 20 liters of figs and 60 liters of fresh apples supplied by him under his own supervision and conveyed by the garden expert Ur-Ninĝešzida. The last dated attestation of Gu’umu is given by MVN 7, 299 (IS 2/-), a text recording the yield inspection of the ‘garden of Tira’aš’, where Gu’umu occurs as supervisor of the date amounts recorded in the name of the garden experts Diĝira, Ur-Igalim and Lugal-gugal, for a total of 1,380 liters, as seen in § 2.2.28. In CUSAS 16, 176 (-/v)829 the name of Gu’umu (G u2--mu) can be recognized. Here, he delivers 600 liters of dates to Nammah-BaU, a scribe tied to the provincial taxation system (see § 9.7.2.2.4). In MVN 22, 290 (l.d.), Gu’umu takes over (i 3 -d a b 5 ) 1,950 liters of dates and four strings with figs measuring three meters delivered by two garden experts.830 Finally, Gu’umu is present in MVN 7, 292 (n.d.), a text recording the expenditure (z i-g a ) of amounts of a good not better specified, probably dates,831 and strings with figs in the name of two garden administrators of the province, Gu’umu and Ur-Lisi, and of a certain Lu-diĝira. The expenditures are followed by the record of ‘differences’ (la 2 -NI), probably to be intended as remainders, surplus of palm byproducts,832 in the name of Agu, Dānum and Lu-diĝira. This text ascribes to Gu’umu 360 liters of the considered good. MVN 6, 317 (n.d.), dating to the end of the Amar-Suena’s reign and the beginning of that of Šu-Suen (see § 9.1), lists some gardeners and relative payments. In the text, the name of Gu’umu follows a missing section, so that the exact number of gardeners (and relative payments) taken charge of (i 3 -d a b 5 ) by him remains unclear; however, the presence of at least 15 workers under the supervision of at least 7 garden expert can be recognized. TUT 143 (l.d.), dating grosso modo to the same period, records the employment and the payments of some gardeners under the charge of garden administrators (see § 1.6.8). Here, Gu’umu takes charge of 17 workers supervised by 12 garden experts and the amount of their payments, corresponding to 840 liters. Finally, TÉL 82 ––––––––––––––––– 828 A garden expert, Ĝešani, occurs as supervisor of only one of them; for the other two workers no supervisor is indicated. 829 This text is given in transliteration in the appendix (text 4). 830 As seen in § 1.6.4, this text records the administrative handing over of the production. 831 Given the quantity of the amounts, the differentiation into good and second quality ( s a g a 1 0 / u s 2 ), and the involvment of garden administrators, dates may have been meant. 832 The good ( n i ĝ 2 - k i - l u h , broom) is specified only for the difference in the name of Lu-diĝira, likely to be identified with the alleged garden administrator (see § 9.2.2). Conversely, Dānum does not seem to be attested elsewhere in texts relating to the garden management of the province.

245

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

(l.d.) shows Gu’umu, together with the alleged garden administrator Inana (who is not attested before the end of the Šu-Suen’s reign), taking charge of five invalids (lu 2 h u -b u 7 b u ) and their payments, supervised by at least two garden experts. As noted above, Gu’umu is quite a rare name in the documentation of the province; thus, one must not exclude the possibility that the garden administrator is to be identified with the homonymous captain who, along with a captain named Abbaĝu (see § 9.1.1), in Berens 23 (Š 44/-) is responsible for 25 male workers for whom one liter of bread each is allotted (see § 9.7.1.1). In this case, it should be noted that this attestation precedes those which attest to him as garden administrator. Date

Text

Type

Attestation

Notes

Š 46/viii

RA 54, 124 6

delivery (šu ba-ti) of palm byproducts

o. 2: ki L. -ta

240 peš murgu2; šu-sar pisaĝ im-sar-ra; Ur-ab-ba dumu Ba-zi šu ba-ti

Š 48/i

HSS 4, 10

monthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

r. ii, 17': ugula L. (Gu2-u3-mu)

7.1.2 še gur for 9 gardens

[ugula L.]

7 še gur for at least 5 gardens; barley suppliers: kišib: 7.3.4 gur Ab-ba-ĝu10 santana, ca. 5 gur Ka-tar-dBa-U2, 4.1.0 gur E2he2-ĝal2, ca. 1 gur ca. Nimĝir-išibmah

HSS 4, 7

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-aku5)

Š 48/iii

HLC 1, 100

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-aku5)

[ugula L.]

0.3.3 še gur for at least 2 gardens; barley suppliers: ki ~ -ta: Ur-dBa-U2; ĝiri3 Ur-dSahar-dBa-U2

Š 48/vi

HLC 1, 102

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-aku5)

[ugula L.]

[18.3.3] še gur for 11 gardens; barley supplier: ĝiri3 Ka-tar-dBa-U2

Š 48/viii-ix Amherst 54

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for arborists (du3-a-ku5)

o. 17: ugula L. santana

14.3.1 še gur for 12 gardens; barley supplier: ki ~ -ta: Ur-dBa-U2 dumu Ba-zi kišib Ur-ĝešgigir u3 Ka-tar-dBa-U2

Š 48/x

MVN 12, 297

monthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers (a-bala)

o. ii, 9: L. santana

0.4.3 še gur for 4 gardens; barley supplier: kišib Ka-tar-dBa-U2;

AS 1/-/4

CUSAS 16, 74

record of date production

o. ii, 1: ugula L.

um-mi-a: Ba-gara2-zi-ĝu10, Urdu2-dani Lu2-uš2-gi-na lu2-LAM;

AS 2/-

MVN 6, 298

inspection of gardeners ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ (gurum2 aka erin2 BUR2 nu-kiri6)

o. ii, 7: ugula L.

13 ĝuruš and 1 dumu-nita2; among the um-mi-a: Ba-gara2-zi-ĝu10, Lu2-nimĝir, Ur-dNin-MAR.KI (see Table 4 in § 1.6.2 and Table 6 in § 1.8.1)

AS 3/iii

SAT 1, 408

record of fruit and cucurbitacee

r. 4: ki L.

1 IL2 ĝeštin 7 ½ sila3-ta; 1 IL2 ĝešpeš3 7 ½ sila3-ta

AS 3/iv

MVN 11, 118

delivery of fruit and dates to the palace (e2-gal-la ba-an-ku4)

o. 5: ki L.-ta

8 IL2 zu2-lum 0.0.1 6 ⅔ sila3-ta; maš-da-ri-a; ĝiri3 Ur-dNanše; present other santana of Ĝir2-suki

t. r. 1: ki L. -ta e. o 4: ki L. -ta

28 IL2 zu2-lum 0.0.1 5 sila3-ta, 1.4.0 ĝeš hašhur gur, 5 IL2 ĝeštin 0.0.1-ta; kab2 nu-du11-ga; ma2-u4-zal-la; ĝiri3 Ur-dIg-alim ; seal: ensi2 Ur-dLamma;

Š 48/i-ii

AS 3/iv

AS 3/v

MVN 9, 60

delivery of fruit and dates to the palace (e2-gal-la ba-an-ku4)

MVN 22, 40

delivery (kišib) of fruit and dates () (Gu2--mu)

246

[...] zu2-lum, [...] ĝešhašhur, [...] ĝešpeš3, 40 nu-ur2-ma sumun, 120 nu-ur2-ma gibil; seal: ensi2 Ur-dLamma

T HE G ARDEN A DMINISTRATORS OF THE P ROVINCE

Date

Text

Type

Attestation

AS 4/iv

RA 54, 130 44

payments for gardeners left in the granary (še-ba nu-ĝeškiri6-ke4-ne guru7- o i, 6: ugula L. a taka4-a)

0.3.0 še; um-mi-a: Ĝeš-a-ni

AS 7/xii

TCTI 1, 935

record of palm fibers

8 gu2 38 ma-na for 8 months; ša3 Ĝir2-suki

o. 8: ki L. -ta

Notes

MVN 9, 87

record of the regular offerings for the gods (sa2-du11 diĝir-re-ne) gathered passim ki L.-ta; from the account of the gardeners ugula L. ĝeš (niĝ2-ka9 nu- kiri6-ke4-ne-ta šu su-ba)

ugula: 2.0.2 zu2-lum gur, 1.3.0 ĝeš hašhur duru5; 1.2.3 ĝešpeš3 ĝeštin duru5; ki ~ -ta: 1.0.4 ĝešhašhur duru5; among the destinations of the offerings Ti-ra-aš2 via Diĝir-ra, Gu3de2-a via Lu2-dNin-hur-saĝ; among the um-mi-a: Lu2-dNin-hursaĝ, Diĝir-ra, Ur-dIg-alim, Ur-Saĝub3ki, Lu2-dNin-ĝir2-su (see Table 4 and Table 6)

IS 2/-

MVN 7, 299

garden yield inspection (ĝe škiri6 kab2 du11-ga)

r. 5: ugula L.

4.3.0 gur zu2-lum; ĝeš kiri6 Ti-ra-aš2; um-mi-a: Diĝir-ra, Ur-dIg-alim, Lu2gu2-gal

-/v

CUSAS 16, 176

receipt (kišib) of dates

o. 2: ki L. -ta

2.0.0 gur zu2-lum; seal: Nam-mah-dBa-U2;

l.d.

HLC 3, 267

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for [water r. 4': ugula L. drawers and arborists] santana

19.0.0 še gur for at least 9 gardens;

employment of gardeners and relative payments

o. ii, 5: L. i3-dab5

2.4.0 gur še?; 17 ĝuruš (du3-a-ku5) and 12 um-mi-a (among them): Ba-gara2-zi-ĝu10, E2he2-ĝal2, Ur-Saĝ-ub3ki, Lu2-dNin-hursaĝ, Ur-dInanna (see Table 4 and Table 6)

ŠS 7/-

l.d.

TUT 143

l.d.

HLC 2, 25

additional information to gardener inspection (gurum2 aka dib-ba nuĝeš kiri6-ke4-ne)

o. i, 14: ugula L.

l.d.

MVN 22, 290

transfer (i3-dab5) of fruit and dates

o. 5: L. i3-dab5

6.2.3 zu2-lum, 4 ĝešpeš3 6 kuš3; um-mi-a: Lugal-im-ru-a, Lu2-dNinĝir2-su

l.d.

TÉL 82

payments for invalids (lu2 hu-bu7bu) employed in gardens

o. 8: L. [i3-dab5]833

[...] present I3-na-na and probably A-gu

n.d.

TCTI 2, 2788

list of garden administrators (santana)

o. 4: 1 L.

ša3 Ĝir2-suki

n.d.

CT 10, 46 BM 21381

o. 12: ugula L. santana

3.1.0 še gur for 4 gardens

plan of payments for water drawers (a-bala)

ĝeš

kiri6 dŠul-gi-a2-kalam-ma;

n.d.

MVN 17, 18

record of date production

o. 14: ugula L.

14.2.5 zu2-lum, 3.0.4 u3-hu-in; ĝeš kiri6 Ti-ra-aš2 (Diĝir-ra); ĝeškiri6 e2duru5 dInanna (Ur- dBa-U2); ĝeškiri6 d Nin-ĝir2-su-a2-dah-dŠul-gi-ra (Da-ga ama E2-hi-li); ĝeškiri6 šabra e2 (Šeš-kalla)

n.d.

MVN 6, 317

payments for gardeners

r. iii, 5': L. i3-dab5

among the um-mi-a: Lu2-niĝir, Urd Nin-MAR.KI, Lu2-ga, E2-hi-li (see Table 4 and Table 6)

n.d.

MVN 7, 292

expenditure (zi-ga) of dates and fruit and surplus (l a 2 -NI) of palm byproducts

o. 1: 1.1.0 L.

––––––––––––––––– 833 The integration i 3 - d a b 5 is suggested by the structure of the text, where the garden experts occur as supervisors ( u g u l a ), while the garden administrators, in the text Inana (§ 9.2.4), take charge ( i 3 - d a b 5 ) of them.

247

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

9.1.3. NIMmu The only attestation of NIMmu as garden administrator is given by the list in TCTI 2, 2788 (n.d.), where his name is preceded by three personal markers (see § 1.8.1). The name NIMmu occurs only 30 times in the documentation from Ĝirsu, where one can distinguish a vizier (s u k k a l), a gendarme (lu 2 ĝ e š tu k u l),834 a captain (NU-b a n d a 3 ) whose activity is attested in connection with gardens, and the garden administrator. With the title of captain (NU-b a n d a 3 ), NIMmu is attested in HSS 4, 149 (n.d.) as responsible for royal soldiers (a g a 3 -u s 2 ) and throne bearers (g u -z a -la 2 ) indicated as gardeners,835 who are still to be transferred, ‘expended’ (z i-z i-d a m ). Other attestations of NIMmu, mentioned without a title, are traceable in other texts which concern the garden management. In MVN 12, 117 (Š 46/xi), NIMmu occurs twice as conveyor (ĝ iri 3 ) of at least seven workers assigned to work in the ‘garden of Kisura’ (§ 3.3). The workers apparently come from different centers of the kingdom and about half of them are defined as fugitives (z a h 3 ). NIMmu is responsible for four workers indicated as coming from a place defined g u 2 i 7 e 3 and at least three from Kamari.836 Among the four conveyors837 occurring in the text there is also a certain Ur-Bagara, likely the garden administrator of Kinunir or a homonymous official. The entire personnel is then taken charge of by Ur-dam, whose professional title is not specified, while nine workers (among them also those from g u 2 i 7 e 3 ) are indicated in the list as being taken charge of by a certain Izu and the remaining (among them also those from Kamari) are indicated as being ‘acquired’ by a certain Lu-diĝira son of Ur-Lisi. Another text which involves NIMmu in the transfer of workers is HLC 3, 366 (AS 6/iv/3), seen in § 1.3.6 and § 1.9. In this text, NIMmu takes charge (i 3 -d a b 5 ) of eighteen prisoners (ĝ u ru š ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a ), supervised by two captains and an archivist, assigned to work in a garden ( ĝ e š k iri 6 [...] KIĜ 2)838 and the barley amount of their payments. The workers and the relative barley, 360 liters, are supplied by Lugal-tida, whose title is not specified. CT 10, 38 BM 15296 (AS 1/xi) records some barley transactions inherent to a period of three months (viii-x) in the Ĝirsu district and attests to NIMmu taking over (i 3 -d a b 5 ) 86,400 liters of barley for the payments of the ‘gardeners of the large trees’, the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ and the ‘gardeners of Ninegal’ (see § 1.7 and in § 5.6). In MVN 12, 414 (AS 5/-), NIMmu is the conveyor of 9,000 liters of dates allocated as a mašdaria-tax for the ezemmah-festival and 1,800 liters defined as ‘goods for baskets’ (n iĝ 2 KIŠ-la m ), for which the purpose is not specified.839 The text records other quantities of fruit delivered through officials, such as Ur-BaU son of Lugalimrua (§ 1.11.4) and the messenger Ur-Igalim (§ 9.7.2.2.7), both conveyors of 10,200 liters of dates as a mašdaria-tax for the akiti-festival. With regard to these transactions it is indicated that Ur-abba, likely the scribe of the warehouse (§ 9.7.2.1), should still bring the sealed document, that it was not brought that day, and that Ur-abba should replace it (r. 7-9: k išib -b i U r-a b -b a tu m 3 -d a m / u 4 -d a n u -m u -d e 6 / U r-a b -b a su -s u -d a m ). In this case, the function of NIMmu is comparable to those of the other officials who turn out to be external to the garden management.

––––––––––––––––– See Nisaba 22, 15 (ŠS 2/ix), o. 12. The author reads Elam-mu. 835 In this case, the indication ‘gardeners’ might refer to an occasional function performed by these people. 836 Kamari was a center lying between Umma and Apisal, which, together with Apisal, fell into the Lagašite territory during the Sargonic period (see Sauren, H. 1966, 113; Edzard and Farber 1974, 90). With regard to the other place mentioned ( g u 2 i 7 e 3 ) , it is unclear whether a geographical reference is meant or a specific toponym; see Edzard and Farber 1974, 260. 837 As noted in § 1.9, there is no explicit mention of the title of the involved officials, but their names, and in one case also the patronymic, correspond to those of the captains occurring in MVN 5, 270, Lugal-lusasa and Ur-Nanše son of Nammah, in connection with the employment of some workers in a garden. 838 As already seen, it is unclear whether the expression indicates the garden name or the work to be performed. 839 As seen in § 1.11.3, there is mention of date amounts labeled as ‘goods for baskets’ ( n i ĝ 2 KIŠ- l a m - m a ) and addressed to the provincial taxation system or to the šuagina-offerings. 834

248

T HE G ARDEN A DMINISTRATORS OF THE P ROVINCE

In ASJ 3, 151 100 (AS 6/-), NIMmu receives from the garden administrator Nabi 1,950 liters of dates ‘as the price for apples’, n iĝ 2 -s a m 2 ĝ e š h a šh u r-š e 3 .840 In RA 54, 126 18 (AS 8/-), NIMmu delivers to Ur-abba over 22,000 liters of fruit, dates (19,054 liters), dried apples (1,950 liters), ĝipar-fruits (44 liters), grapes (190⅔ liters), and more than 156 strings with figs for different purposes: regular offerings (sa 2 -d u 1 1 ), goods for the festival of gods (n iĝ 2 e z e m d iĝ ir-re -n e ),841 or for the du-kuga-festival (n iĝ 2 d u 6 -k u 3 -g a )842 and for the weaving women (g e m e 2 u š-b a r). The quantity of fruit provided by NIMmu in this case goes far beyond the fruit quantities normally delivered by garden administrators; it must not be excluded that the text represents a summarizing account, in which the fruit amounts concerning four different destinations are gathered. A further substantial delivery of fruit is recorded in ITT 5, 6775 (ŠS 1/vi), which reports the transaction of 60 baskets (IL2) with 15 liters of dates, provided by NIMmu for the ma-uzala (m a 2 -u 4 -z a l-la ). Despite the break affecting the lower part of the tablet, it seems possible to recognize the name of Ur-Igalim the messenger, probably acting as conveyor, thus it cannot be excluded that the fruit was directed to the palace (see § 9.7.2.2.7). Similarly, MVN 11, 139 (ŠS 3/vi) records the transaction of 120 baskets (IL2) with 15 liters of dates provided by NIMmu and addressed to the palace for the ma-uzala through Ur-Igalim the messenger acting as conveyor. In TCTI 2, 2679 (ŠS 3/-), less than 600 liters of fruit (dates, apples, ĝipar-fruits, grapes, figs), indicated as shortfall repaid (la 2 - NI s u -g a ), are delivered by NIMmu to Ur-abba, thus likely entering the warehouse (e-kišiba). The conveyor is a certain Ninĝirsu-isa, whose title is not indicated. Finally, a last attestation is given by HLC 3, 384 (l.d.), a text recording a certain number of boats and relevant barley loads allocated for different purposes. In the text, NIMmu acts as conveyor of two boats loaded with 18,000 liters of barley reserved for the regular offerings of the governor (sa 2 -d u 1 1 e n si 2 ) and two boats of the same capacity allocated to the payments of the gardeners (še -b a n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 ). The activity of NIMmu seems particularly varied even for a garden administrator, since certain tasks, such as the management of the payments for the ‘gardeners of the large trees’, the ‘gardeners of the vineyards’ and the ‘gardeners of Ninegal’ in CT 10, 38 BM 15296 and the function of conveyor of boat cargo in HLC 3, 384, are attested in connection with the garden administration only through the activity of this official. It is plausible that the captain and the probable garden administrator were the same person; in that case, his presence in the list of TCTI 2, 2788 might be due to the domain of the activity of this official, rather than to his actual professional title.843 The following table collects the attestations of NIMmu, the garden administrator or the captain, which regard to the management of gardens and their produce.

––––––––––––––––– 840 § 1.8.6 shows the value correspondences between fruit and external products or between the same type of fruit, dried or fresh, but examples indicating the correspondence between two different types of fruit are not known to me. Indeed, in ASJ 3, 151 100 only the quantity of dates is specified, but not its value in apples. Nevertheless, it may be imagined that apples had a higher value than dates, on the basis of the comparison between the correspondences that these types of fruit had with silver; so, even though this information is obtained at a distance of 11 years (MVN 22, 180, Š 43, and LB 538, AS 6), it should be recognized that the apples had a corresponding value in silver, three times higher than dates (see § 1.8.6). In any case, this kind of transaction can explain the quanties of fruit directly provided by garden administrators without mention of gardens or gardeners in texts concerning dynamics internal to the garden management; see § 1.6.5 and § 9.3.3. 841 This indication entails goods reserved for the festival of the gods, single or generic ones. In the province, quantities of fruit reserved for this purpose are counted according to capacity, rather than to number of baskets with different capacities. 842 This expression intends goods (n i ĝ 2 ) for the festival of the month vii, for which see Sallaberger 1993, 129-130. 843 See also the case of the garden administrator Ga’a (§ 9.4.1) who, however, is not attested in the list of TCTI 2, 2788, but, unlike NIMmu, occurs with the title of s a n t a n a in several of his attestations. Additionally, two garden administrators occurring in that list, Abbaĝu and Gu’umu, may have also be attested as captains; see § 9.1.1 and § 9.1.2.

249

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Date

Text

Type

Notes

o. i, 9: ĝiri3 L.; r. i, 7': ĝiri3 L.;

gu2 i7 e3-ta; Ka-ma-ri2ki-ta; i3-dab5: I3-zu, Ur-dam kišib: Lu2-diĝir-ra dumu Ur-dLi9-si4 ĝeš kiri6 Ki-sur-raki-še3

Š 46/xi

MVN 12, 117

AS 1/xi

CT 10, 38 BM record of barley transactions 15296 pertaining to three months

o. i, 23: L. i3-dab5

nu-ĝeškiri6 ĝeš gal-gal, nu-ĝeškiri6 ĝeštin u3 d Nin-e2-gal; payments (še-ba) for the months viii, ix, x; ša3 Ĝir2-suki

AS 5/-

MVN 12, 414

delivery of dates

o. 4: ĝiri3 L.

30.0.0 gur zu2-lum maš-da-ri-a ezem-mah; 6.0.0 gur niĝ2 KIŠ-lam

AS 6/-

ASJ 3, 151 100

delivery (šu ba-ti) of dates as price o. 4-r. 1: L. / šu ba- 6.2.3 zu2-lum; (niĝ2-sam2) for apples ti o. 3, ki Na-bi-ta

AS 6/iv/3 HLC 3, 366

transfer (i3-dab5) of workers

Attestation

transfer (i3-dab5) of prisoners (lu2 ĝeš tukul-e dab5-ba) and barley (šebi)

r. 15': L. i3-dab5

18 ĝuruš ĝeštukul-e dab5-ba; še-bi 3.1.0; d NU-banda3: Na-ba-sa6; Lu2- Ba-U2 ugula: ša13-dub-ba supplier: ki ~ -ta: Lugal-ti-da ĝeš kiri6 [...]-KIĜ2

AS 8/-

RA 54, 126 18

delivery (šu ba-ti) of dates and fruit

r. 3: ki L. -ta

Ur-ab-ba šu ba-ti; 63.2.3 4 zu2-lum gur, 6.2.4 la2 10 sila3 ĝeš hašhur had2 gur, 0.0.4 4 sila3 ĝeš ĝiparx(KISAL), 0.3.1 4 ⅔ sila3 ĝeštin, 156+ ĝeš peš3 6 kuš3; sa2-du11 niĝ2 ezem diĝir-re-ne and niĝ2 du6ku3-ga u3 geme2 uš-bar

ŠS 1/vi

ITT 5, 6775

delivery of dates ()

o. 3: ki L. -ta

60 IL2 zu2-lum 0.0.1 5 sila3-ta; ma2-u4-zal-la; [ĝiri3] Ur-d⌈Ig⌉-alim [ra2]-⌈gaba⌉

ŠS 3/vi

MVN 11, 139

delivery of dates (e2-gal-la ba-anku4)

o. 3: ki L. -ta

120 IL2 zu2-lum 0.0.1 5 sila3-ta; ma2-u4-zal-la; ĝiri3 Ur-dIg-alim ra-gaba

ŠS 3/-

TCTI 2, 2679

delivery (šu ba-ti) of fruit as shortfall repaid (la2-NI su-ga)

r. 1: L.

Ur-ab-ba šu ba-ti; 0.0.3 4 sila3 ĝeš[hašhur], 0.0.3 2 sila3 ĝeš ĝiparx(KISAL) had2, 1 sila3 ĝeštin had2, 3 ĝeš peš3 6 kuš3, 1.2.0 zu2-lum; ĝiri3 dNin-ĝir2-su-i3-sa6

l.d.

HLC 3, 384

expenditure (zi-ga) of barley via ships

r. ii, 14': ĝiri3 L.

2 ma2 60 gur še sa2-du11 ensi2; 2 ma2 60 gur še-ba nu ĝeškiri6

n.d.

TCTI 2, 2788

list of garden administrators (santana)

o. 1: 3 L.

ša3 Ĝir2-suki

9.1.4. Nabi son of Lugal-saga The activity of the garden administrator Nabi seems to have concerned the territory of Kisura, a settlement near Ĝirsu, and in particular, the gardens concerning an extended economic complex which probably comprised a rest station.844 He does not occur in the list of TCTI 2, 2788 (n.d.), although his activity is contemporary to those of the other occurring garden administrators.845 The first attestation of this official is given by HLC 1, 66 (Š 48/ii), a text recording the barley payments for the water drawers and arborists of the ‘garden of Kisura’, as seen in § 3.3. In the ––––––––––––––––– It was already seen in § 2.2 and § 3.3 that the area of Kisura supported both gardens under the responsibility of the garden administrators Abbaĝu and Gu’umu and an economic complex named ‘garden of Kisura’, where the gardens under the responsibility of Nabi were located. It is not to be excluded, however, that the area under the authority of this garden administrator extended to other gardens of the district. 845 See the considerations on the list reported in § 1.8.1. 844

250

T HE G ARDEN A DMINISTRATORS OF THE P ROVINCE

text, Nabi occurs twice: the first time as supplier of 140 liters of barley allotted to a subgroup of workers,846 the second time as taking over (i 3 -d a b 5 ) 2,025 liters of barley allotted to the gardeners of his area of responsibility. In the same year, in MVN 3, 215 (Š 48/ix), Nabi acquires an amount of silver (ca. 18 grams) indicated as ‘shortfall of the gardeners to be repaid within the year’: la 2 -NI n u - ĝ e š k iri 6 -k e 4 -n e m u -u 3 -a su -su (see § 1.8.4.2). The document, consisting of a tablet and an envelope, bear his seal: N a -b i / sa n ta n a / d u m u L u g a l-s a 6 -g a . The name of Nabi can be recognized in HLC 3, 267 (l.d.), a text of the group of payments for the water drawers and arborists of Š 48 (§ 2.2), where, on the left edge, the barley amount allocated to the ‘garden of Kisura’ is recorded in the name of Ur-Alla847 (4,200 liters) and Nabi ([3,680 liters]), whereas the barley amounts allocated to the other gardens are under the responsibility of the garden administrators Abbaĝu and Gu’umu. MVN 15, 243 (AS 3/xi) is an account drafted in the name of a captain, whose name is lost. In the expenditure section, 780 workers for one work-day stationed in a garden (780 ĝ u ru š u 4 1 še 3 ĝ e š k iri 6 g u b -b a ) are recorded as being assigned to Nabi the garden administrator. As already seen, in ASJ 3, 151 100 (AS 6/-), Nabi delivers 1,950 liters of dates ‘as the price for apples’ (n iĝ 2 -s a m 2 ĝ e š h a šh u r-š e 3 ) to NIMmu. The text does not provide indication for the purpose of the exchange nor the equivalent value of the apples (see § 9.1.3). MVN 22, 181 (n.d.) records amounts of oil, bread, fruit, dates and palm by-products which are still to be delivered (sila -a ĝ a l 2 -la , lit. ‘(goods) which are in the street’). The products are recorded in the names of different persons (whose title is not always specified), among them 3½ strings with figs848 in the name of Nabi of Kisura (N a -b i K i-s u r-ra k i ). In addition, related to some date quantities, the name of some garden experts of Ĝirsu can be recognized, such as UrNinmug and Eninakal,849 while other fruit quantities are attributed to officials who are explicitly unrelated to the garden sphere. It is unclear whether the garden administrator could be connected to the Nabi who occurs in CT 5, 42 BM 17758, an undated text listing workers, likely water drawers (SIG7-a ) and arborists (unmarked), and relative payments. The workers are taken charge of (i 3 -d a b 5 )850 by gardeners of the expert level (see § 1.6.8), although there are the names of Nabi and a certain A 2 -[...]-g u , who may have been the same person acting as garden administrator in HLC 1, 66 together with Nabi.851

––––––––––––––––– 846 Some aspects of Nabi’s activity might be maybe related to their pertinence to a circumscribed economic reality, as that of an extended complex can be, hence different from the activity of other garden administrators, which probably involved the management of productive units scattered throughout the territory. There is, however, no evidence confirming that the activity of Nabi was limited to the gardens of this complex, nor is there sustantial information about the management of the gardens pertaining to those economic realities of the province, as seen in chapter 3. 847 It may be that Ur-Alla is a poorly documented garden administrator or a garden expert or scribe involved by way of exception in procedures connected to gardens; as seen, in the same group of texts of Š 48, in MVN 12, 297 (Š 48/x), UrAlla, son of Šumua, occurs as responsible for the barley amount allotted to the water drawers of the ‘garden of Kisura’, whereas the garden administrators Abbaĝu and Gu’umu occur as responsible for the payments of the water drawers of the other gardens. 848 The counting of figs is reported by units rather than by capacity, so it seems likely that strings with figs are concerned, although the length is not indicated. 849 They would be garden experts in charge in the area of the administrator Gamu, see Tables 6-8 in § 1.8.1, and § 9.1.5. 850 For some of the names of those who take charge of the workers, the expression i 3 - d a b 5 is not specified, yet it can be considered to be implied. 851 As already seen, the first section of CT 5, 42 BM 17758 (n.d.) lists experts and workers of gardens also occurring in STA 20 (Š 47/ii) in connection with the gardens which may pertain to a rest station (§ 3.1.6), while names belonging to another section may have been connected to the complex of Kisura, although they may be homonyms.

251

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Date

Š 48/ii

Text

Type

Attestation

HLC 1, 66

monthly payments (še-ba) for the waters o. ii, 29-31: ki L. / 6.3.4 5 drawers (a-bala) and arborists (du3-a-ku5) of sila3 / L. i3-dab5 ĝeš ki the kiri6 Ki-sur-ra

Notes 6.3.4 5 sila3 še gur; 43 a-bala/du3-a-ku5 and 4 um-mi-a; [...]-gu i3-dab5

Š 48/ix

MVN 3, 215

receipt (kišib) of silver

t. r. 1: kišib L. e. o. 4: kišib L.

2 giĝ4 igi-4-ĝal2 8 ½ še ku3babbar; la2-NI nu-ĝeškiri6-ke4-ne mu-u3-a su-su; seal: Na-bi / santana / dumu Lugal-sa6-ga

AS 3/xi

MVN 15, 243

account (niĝ2-ka9 aka [...]) of workforce

r. 13: ki L. santana-< še3>

780 ĝuruš u4 1-še3 ĝeškiri6 gub-ba

AS 6/-

ASJ 3, 151 100

delivery (šu ba-ti) of dates as price (niĝ2sam2) for apples

o. 3: ki L.-ta

6.2.3 zu2-lum gur; NIM-mu šu ba-ti

n.d.

CT 5, 42 BM 17758

list of gardeners and relative payments

r. i, 21: L.

1 SIG7-a and 4 0.0.5 5 sila3

n.d.

MVN 22, 181

record of fruit and other goods

r. 15: 3 ½ ĝešpeš3 L. Ki-surraki

sila-a ĝal2-la

l.d.

HLC 3, 267

bimonthly payments (še-ba) for [water drawers and arborists]

l.e. 2: [...] L.

[12.1.2 še gur]

9.1.5. Gamu Gamu is one of the garden administrators attested in the list of TCTI 2, 2788 (n.d.),852 which ascribes him to the Ĝirsu district. His activity is attested for a short period of time during the first years of the Amar-Suena’s reign. The first attestation of Gamu is represented by MVN 11, 118 (AS 3/iv), already seen for Abbaĝu and Gu’umu, where he provides seven baskets (IL2) with ca. 16½ liters of dates to the palace as a mašdaria-tax. In Orient 16, 90 132 (AS 3/iv), 40 liters of fresh apples and six baskets (IL2) with 20 liters of dates provided by Gamu are addressed to the palace as a mašdaria-tax for the queen (m a š 2 -d a -ri-a n in ). In the text, Gamu occurs together with Ur-BaU, likely the garden administrator, while there is no mention of receivers or conveyors. In RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/iv), Gamu occurs as supervisor of the barley amount left in the granary (540 liters), corresponding to the payments of nine gardeners of his area of responsibility. In Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.) together with the garden administrator Ka, Gamu occurs as supervisor of the allotment of wool and garments for the skilled and unskilled workers employed in some gardens (see § 1.4.2 and § 1.8.7.6). As was already pointed out, despite the several breaks in the tablet, it seems that the text is subdivided into two main sections concerning each garden administrator. A list of workers, but neither garden names853 nor a total section, can be ascribed to the area of Gamu (information now probably lost in the missing part of the tablet). Finally, Gamu is present in TUT 160 (l.d.) which records the transfer of personnel belonging to different economic sectors and coming from different centers of the province and of the kingdom. In the text, Gamu, mentioned with his title, occurs as supervisor of the transfer of one worker (whose profession is not specified) from Kinunir to Ĝirsu. ––––––––––––––––– In the list, his name is written G a - a - m u . With regard to these types of names, of which the name of the garden administrator Ga’a (G a - a ) is also an example, see Limet 1968, 101-105. In this work they are conventionally transcribed as Gamu and Ga’a respectively. 853 As noted in § 7.1.6, it is not clear if it can be read ĝ e š k i r i 6 ĝ e š t i n k a š 4 ( vineyard of Kaš) in relation with the indication: (o. i, 23-24) e 2 - < d u r u 5 > d Ĝ e š - b a r - e 3 GU2 / ĝ e š k i r i 6 ⌈ ĝ e š t i n ? K a š 4 ? ⌉ [...]- t a , ‘( workers) from the Ĝešbar’e village GU2(?) the ‘vineyard? of Kaš? [...]’. In this case, however, it would seem that the garden is just mentioned as a topographical indication. A ‘garden of Kaš’ ( ĝ e š k i r i 6 K a š 4 ) , not characterized as vineyard, is attested i n STA 20 in connection to a rest station (see § 3.1.8). However, Kaš is also the name of one of the garden experts who recruits (ki ~ -ta) workers in the area of Gamu in Iraq 62, 41 21 (o. i, 30). 852

252

T HE G ARDEN A DMINISTRATORS OF THE P ROVINCE

It must not be exluded that the presence of Gamu would originally have been attested in MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-) in the missing section preceding the list of workers supervised by Ka. In this text, indeed, the occurrence of the garden experts Ur-Ninmug, Niĝgurani and Eninakal, gardeners of Gamu’s area of authority (see Table 8), is followed by a break that may have contained the official’s name. On the basis of the succession of these same garden experts in TUT 143, it seems plausible that Ĝirini (§ 9.2.1) had taken over some gardens of responsibility of Gamu. The documentation provides evidence for the existence of a garden expert, Ur-BaU, brother of Gamu, whose activity was bound to the ‘garden of the Inanna village’ which fell into the area of responsibility of the garden administrator Gu’umu (see § 2.5.4). Date

Text

Type

Attestation

Notes

AS 2/-

MVN 6, 298

inspection of gardeners ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ (gurum2 aka erin2 BUR2 nu-kiri6)

[...]

um-mi-a: Ur-dNin-mug, En-i3-nakal, Niĝ2-gur11-ra-ni, Ur-mes (See Table 6 and 8 in § 1.8.1)

AS 3/iv

MVN 11, 118

delivery of fruit and dates to the palace (e2-gal-la ba-an-ku4)

o. 7: ki L.-ta

7 IL2 zu2-lum 0.0.1 6 ⅔ sila3-ta; maš-da-ri-a; ĝiri3 Ur-dNanše; present other santana of Ĝir2-suki

AS 3/iv

Orient 16, 90 132

delivery of fruit and dates to the palace (e2-gal-la ba-an-ku4)

o. 3: ki L.-ta

0.0.4 ĝešhašhur duru5, 6 IL2 zu2lum 0.0.2-ta; maš-da-ri-a nin-a-še3; present Ur-dBa-U2

AS 4/iv

RA 54, 130 44

payments for gardeners left in the granary (še-ba nu-ĝeškiri6-ke4-ne guru7-a taka4-a)

r. i, 12: ugula L.

1.4.0 še gur; um-mi-a: Ur-dNin-mug, En-inna-kal, Niĝ2-gur11-ra-ni, Ur-dBad U2, Ur- Al-la, Išib-mah

l.d.

TUT 160

transfer of workers

d DIL 0.0.5 Nanše-ĝu10 dumu r. iii, 17: ugula L. santana Ma-zu uš-bar, Ki-nu-nirki-ta; ša3 Ĝir2-suki

n.d.

TCTI 2, 2788

list of garden administrators (santana)

o. 5: 1 L. (Ga-a-mu)

ša3 Ĝir2-suki

Iraq 62, 41 21

wool and garment allotment (tug2-ba siki-ba) for workers employed in gardens

r. iv', 30-32: tug2-ba sikiba ugula L. / u3 Ka5a

among the um-mi-a: Ur-dBa-U2, Ur-dAl-la, Ur-dNin-mug, Ur-mes, Kaš4, Niĝ2-gur11-ra-ni (See Table 6 and 8)

n.d.

9.1.6. Ka Ka is one of the garden administrators attested in the list of TCTI 2, 2788 (n.d.) which ascribes him to the Ĝirsu district. As for Gu’umu, the activity of this official is documented for quite a long period of time, circa 15 years. Probably two garden names can be ascribed to the area of Ka, the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ (§ 2.2.24) and the ‘garden of BaU of Bad’ (§ 2.3.2). Ka is first attested in MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-), where he occurs as supervisor of six workers. In RA 54, 130 44 (AS 4/iv), Ka is responsible for the barley amount left in the granary (240 liters) pertaining to the payments of four water drawers of his area of authority. In TCTI 1, 935 (AS 7/xii), 334 kg of palm fibers are recorded in his name. In RA 54, 126 27 (ŠS 3/vi),854 Ka consigns 6,000 liters of dates to the merchant Ur-saga. In MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-) he occurs as supervisor and, to a lesser extent, as provider of quantities of fruit under his own supervision. Indeed, Ka is involved as supervisor of the transactions of fruit concerning the regular offerings for at least 13 cultic places and gods. He appears as the only supervisor of the offerings addressed to Ensignun, Ninazu, the old (temple of) Ninisina, and five other partially legible destinations (among them, ––––––––––––––––– 854 This text is given in transliteration in the appendix (text 5).

253

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

[...]-ka of Ĝirsu Kisura; see § 3.3), for a total of 400 liters of dates, 40 liters of fresh figs, and 120 liters of apples. In addition, alongside with other garden administrators, he supervises transactions of fruit for the offerings to Iškur, Ninšuba, Ninĝešzida, Inanna, for a total of 320 liters of dates (of which 120 are supplied by him), 240 liters of fresh apples (supplied by him), and 140 liters of fresh figs and grapes (of which 120 are supplied by him). Further, he occurs as the conveyor855 of 40 liters of fresh apples supplied by Ur-Inanna under the supervision of Ur-Inanna in the offerings addressed to Nin-šuba and Ninĝešzida (both also consisting of other transactions supervised by him), and Geme-Šulpa’e. In Iraq 62, 41 21 (n.d.), Ka occurs together with Gamu as supervisor of the allotment of wool and garments for the skilled and unskilled workers employed in some gardens (see § 1.4.2 and § 1.8.7.6). The total concerning the subsection recorded in his name attributes to him the responsibility for 16 kg of wool and 33 garments, corresponding to the payments of 41 workers, while that of Gamu seems to be lost in a missing section of the tablet. In TUT 143 (l.d.), Ka takes charge of thirteen workers supervised by eight garden experts and the amount of their payments, which corresponds to 680 liters of barley. In MVN 6, 317 (n.d.), he takes charge of at least six workers and their payments under the supervision of at least five experts. In MVN 22, 176 (l.d.), a fragmentary text recording transactions of various vegetables, Ka and a certain Ur-Igalim856 occur as conveyors of an amount (50 liters) defined as: š u m 2 n iĝ 2 -s u r k ilib -b a , ‘onion for seeds857 in bundles’, allocated to Lagaš’.858 Ka occurs in TUT 108 (l.d.), a very fragmentary text, in a section concerning various expenditures (z i-g a d id li), as provider of 600 liters of an unclear product. In the last two texts, the profession of Ka is explicitly expressed, probably because of the redactional context external to the garden management. Date

Text

Type

Attestation

Notes

MVN 6, 298

inspection of gardeners ‘released (from the duty cycle)’ (gurum2 aka erin2 BUR2 nu kiri6)

r. ii, 14': ugula L.

6 ĝuruš; among the um-mia: Lu2-bala-sa6-ga, Ur-dNinĝeš-zi-da, Ur-dEn-ki (see Table 5 in § 1.6.2 and Table 6 in § 1.8.1)

AS 2/-

AS 4/iv

RA 54, 130 44

payments for gardeners left in the granary (še-ba nu-ĝeškiri6-ke4-ne guru7-a taka4-a)

o. ii, 15: ugula L.

0.4.0 še; um-mi-a: Lu2-balasa6-ga, Niĝ2-dBa-U2

AS 7/xii

TCTI 1, 935

record of palm fibers

o. 6: ki L.-ta

11 gu2 8 ma-na for 8 months; ša3 Ĝir2-suki

ŠS 3/vi

RA 54, 126 27

delivery (šu ba-ti) of dates

o. 2: ki L.-ta

20.0.0 zu2-lum gur; Ur-sa6-ga dam-gar3 šu ba-ti

passim, ki L.-ta/ ugula L. r. vi, 14: ĝiri3 L. r. vii, 34: ĝiri3 L. r. viii, 41: ĝiri3 L.

ugula: 2.2.0 zu2-lum gur, 1.1.0 ĝešhašhur duru5, 0.3.0 ĝeš peš3 ĝeštin duru5, [...]; ki ~ -ta: 0.2.0 zu2-lum; 0.4.0 ĝeš hašhur duru5; 0.2.0 ĝeš peš3 ĝeštin duru5, [...]; ĝiri3: 0.2.0 ĝešhašhur duru5; among the um-mi-a: Ur3-reba-du7, Ur-dNin-ĝeš-zi-da (See Table 5 and Table 6)

ŠS 7/-

MVN 9, 87

record of the regular offerings for the gods (sa2-du11 diĝir-re-ne) gathered from the account of the gardeners (niĝ2-ka9 nu-ĝeškiri6ke4-ne-ta šu su-ba)

––––––––––––––––– Fruit transactions provided by garden administrators and conveyed by other garden administrators are known, although the underlying dynamics are not clear; see § 1.8.4.3. 856 The profession of Ur-Igalim son of Lugal-bi is not indicated, nor does he seem to be attested elsewhere in the documentation. 857 For the interpretation of š u m 2 n i ĝ 2 - s u r as ‘Zwiebeln (als) Pflanzgut’, see Waetzoldt, H. 1987a, 45. 858 Given the involvement of a garden administrator of Ĝirsu, it seems plausible that the amount of produce derived from that district. In addition, this text provides evidence for the presence of alliaceae among the products managed by the garden administrators of the province. 855

254

T HE G ARDEN A DMINISTRATORS OF THE P ROVINCE

Date

Text

Type

Attestation

Notes

l.d.

TUT 143

gardener employment and relative payments

r. ii, 3: L. i3-dab5

2.1.2 še (?) gur; 13 ĝuruš and 8 um-mi-a, among them: Ur3-re-ba-du7, Ur-dNin-MAR.KI; Ur-dLi9-si4 (See Table 5 and Table 6)

l.d.

MVN 22, 176

delivery of alliaceae

o. ii', 8': ĝiri3 L. santana u3 Ur-dIg-alim

0.0.2 saĝ šum2-GAZ, 0.0.2 numun šum2-GAZ, 0.0.1 šum2-GAZ-aš; niĝ2-sur kilib-ba ša3 Lagaški

l.d.

TUT 108

record of various expenditures (zi-ga didli)

r. i. 10': 2.0.0 gur L. santana

n.d.

TCTI 2, 2788

list of garden administrators (santana)

o. 6: 1 L.

ša3 Ĝir2-suki

n.d.

Iraq 62, 41 21

wool and garment allotment (tug2-ba siki-ba) for workers employed in gardens

r. iv', 28: L. r. iv', 30-32: tug2-ba sikiba ugula Ga-mu / u3 L.

32 (in text 38) ma-na siki, 33 tug2 for 41 workers; among the um-mi-a: Lu2bala-sa6-ga, Ur-dNin-ĝeš-zida, Ur-dEn-ki, Ur-dLi9-si4 (See Table 5 and Table 6)

n.d.

MVN 6, 317

payments for gardeners

l.e. 1-2: [...] L.? / L. i3dab5

um-mi-a: Ga-ga-mu, Lu2bala-sa6-ga, Ur3-re-ba-du7, Ur-dNin-MAR.KI;

9.1.7. Ur-BaU Since Ur-BaU is the most common name in the area of Ĝirsu, it is neither simple nor possible – in absence of a patronymic – to outline the activity of a single garden administrator with this name. There is indeed evidence of homonymous garden experts, water drawers, arborists and also of a scribe occasionally involved in the garden management of the province, Ur-BaU son of Lugalimrua (§ 1.11.4). In the list of TCTI 2, 2788 (n.d.) a certain Ur-BaU is present among the garden administrators of Ĝirsu and a second one, probably a garden expert, among those of Niĝin. This section tries to outline the activity of the garden administrator of Ĝirsu mentioned in the list, mainly thanks to the co-occurrence of contemporary garden administrators of the district. The first attestation of this garden administrator is given by SAT 1, 408 (AS 3/iii), where two baskets (IL2) with 15 liters of figs are registred in the name of Ur-BaU. In Orient 16, 90 132 (AS 3/iv), a text which also reports the delivery in the name of the garden administrator Gamu, UrBaU delivers five baskets (IL2) with 20 liters of dates addressed to the palace as a mašdaria-tax for the queen (m a š 2 -d a -ri-a n in ). In MVN 11, 118 (AS 3/iv), which records the delivery of fruit provided by the garden administrators of Ĝirsu to the palace as mašdaria-tax, eight baskets (IL2), with 16⅔ liters of dates each, are attributed to Ur-BaU. Date

Text

Type

Attestation

Notes

AS 3/iii

SAT 1, 408

record of fruit and cucurbitacee

r. 6: ki L.

2 IL2 ĝešpeš3 0.0.1 5 sila3-ta; other present santana: Ab-ba-ĝu10 and Gu2-u3-mu

AS 3/iv

Orient 16, 90 132

delivery of dates to the palace (e2-gal-la ba-an-ku4)

r. 1: ki L.-ta

5 IL2 zu2-lum 0.0.2-ta maš-da-ri-a nin-a-še3; present Ga-mu

AS 3/iv

MVN 11, 118

delivery of dates to the palace (e2-gal-la ba-an-ku4)

r. 2: ki L.-ta

8 IL2 zu2-lum 0.0.1 6 ⅔ sila3-ta; maš-da-ri-a; ĝiri3 Ur-dNanše; present other santana of Ĝir2-suki

n.d.

TCTI 2, 2788

list of garden administrators (santana)

r. 2: 1 L.

ša3 Ĝir2-suki

255

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

Additionally, there is evidence of a certain Ur-BaU, who might have been linked to the management of the gardens of the high priestess (e re š -d iĝ ir) of BaU, although it is not to be excluded that he was the same garden administrator whose activity is illustrated above or further below. Therefore, Ur-BaU occurs acting as a conveyor in SAT 1, 173 (Š 41/-), the text recording the yield inspection of the gardens ( ĝ e š k iri 6 k a b 2 d u 1 1 -g a ) of the high priestess, where 851 liters of figs are recorded in the name of three different garden experts (see § 1.8.4 and § 1.11.3). In Atiqot 4, 33 78 (l.d.), Ur-BaU acquires (k išib ) 7,940 liters of barley for the payments of water drawers and arborists. In the text, Atašuta also occurs (whose seal is dedicated to the high priestess of BaU) as responsible for the payments of the menials (UN-g a 6 ).859 Finally, in Amherst 45 (Š 46/-), a text recording barley amounts without indication of their purpose, Ur-BaU the garden administrator delivers 300 liters, while 240 liters are attributed to Anebabdu, who is known as a gardener of the priestess (see § 1.11.3). Date

Text

Type

Attestation

Notes

Š 41/-

SAT 1, 173

yield inspection of the gardens of the high priestess of BaU (ĝe škiri6 kab2 du11-ga ereš-diĝir dBa-U2)

r. 2: ĝiri3 L. santana

2.4.1 1 sila3 ĝešpeš3 gur; um-mi-a: Ur-dŠul-pa-e3, Ur-e2ninnu, Ur-dBa-U2

Š 46/-

Amherst 45

record of barley expenditures

o. 6: 1.0.0 gur ki L. santana-ta

explicited professions: engar and santana; 0.4.0 ki An-ne2-ba-ab-du7-ta

l.d.

Atiqot 4, 13 78 receipt (kišib) of barley

o. ii, 4: kišib L. santana

26.2.2 [še gur] / še-ba a-bala du3-[aku5]; o.ii. 6-7: še-ba UN-ga6 / kišib A2-tašu-ta

The following section collects the attestations referring to a garden administrator Ur-BaU, without any hints to the relevant district. There is also evidence, indeed, for a garden administrator Ur-BaU in charge in the Gu-Iniĝinšedu district in AS 7 (see § 9.4.3). In MVN 6, 344 (Š 42/vi/5), seen in § 1.3.6, a garden administrator Ur-BaU takes charge of eight prisoners (lu 2 ĝ e š tu k u l-e d a b 5 -b a ) who have to be employed as generic workers (g a n d a b 5 ). The workers are supervised by the administrator (sa ĝ ĝ a ) of NinMAR.KI, the administrator (sa ĝ ĝ a ) of Urub, and by an untitled official. In MVN 13, 325 (Š 43/viii), a text recording the allotment of barley for the bimonthly payments of 28 water drawers and arborists, Ur-BaU occurs as supervisor (u g u la ) of the relative barley amount of 2,640 liters. The barley is supplied by an official whose title is not indicated and, as seen in § 1.2.2 and § 1.8.7.1, the number of workers is differentiated according to payment and labor service capacity (a2). A further attestation of a garden administrator Ur-BaU could be traced in MVN 7, 106 (Š 44/xi), which records 120 liters of dates for the regular offerings, 20 liters of pomegranates for the preparation of cakes (PAD s a ĝ se 3 -g a ) 860 for the temple of Ninĝirsu and still 180 liters of pomegranates for the ešeš-festival (e š 3 -e š 3 ) 861 provided by a certain Ur-BaU. The conveyor of the transaction is Alla, whose title is not specified. As seen in § 1.8.7.3, Nisaba 10, 84 (Š 47/ii) records 1,270 liters of barley defined as ‘loan repaid by the state dependent workers’ (š e u r 5 -ra e rin 2 -n e 2 su -g a ). The barley is supplied by a certain Nammah and readdressed as payments for the water drawers and arborists ––––––––––––––––– Atašuta occurs as responsible for the payments of menials (UN-g a 6) in at least four other texts, among them BPOA 1, 151 (Š 36/viii) and Nisaba 18, 42 (Š 42/x; close envelope), which attest his seal dedicated to Geme-Lamma, the high priestess of BaU. Atašuta also occurs in Princeton 2, 322 (Š 43/v), already mentioned in § 1.2.2, as the recipient of the barley amount allotted to the workers under the responsibility of a gardener (U r - m e s n u - ĝ e š k i r i 6 ), where, however, there is no mention of the caterogy which the workers belonged to. As seen in § 1.3.7, though rarely, cases are found of menials employed in gardens or of gardeners classified as menials as well. 860 A type of cake prepared with fruit and reserved for cultic offerings. See Brunke 2011, 209-222. 861 Festival linked to the moon cycle, although not exclusively. See Sallaberger 1993, 41 and 92. In the province, quantities of fruit provided by garden administrators and reserved for this festival are counted by capacity, rather than by baskets of various capacities. 859

256

T HE G ARDEN A DMINISTRATORS OF THE P ROVINCE

under the supervision of Ur-BaU the garden administrator. Finally, HLC 3, 330 (AS 5/ii) records 4,200 liters of fresh figs provided by a certain Ur-BaU and directed to the palace of Nippur for the ma-uzala. Date

Text

Type

Attestation

Notes

Š 42 /vi/5

MVN 6, 344

transfer (i3-dab5) of prisoners (lu2 ĝeš tukul-e dab5-ba) to be employed as unskilled workers (gan-dab5)

r. 9: L. santana i3dab5

ugula: I3-sa6-ga, saĝĝa dNin-MAR.KI and saĝĝa Urubxki (URU×KAR2)

Š 43/vii-viii

MVN 13, 325

allotment of barley as bimonthly payments (še-ba) for water drawers and arborists (a-bala du3-a-ku5)

r. 5: ugula L. santana

8.4.0 še gur; barley supplier: ki ~ -ta: Ĝiri3-dBa-U2-i3-dab5

Š 44/xi

MVN 7, 106

delivery (mu-kux) of dates and fruit

r. 1: ki L.-ta

0.2.0 zu2-lum, 0.3.2 nu-ur2-ma; sa2-du11, PAD saĝ se3-ga, e2 dNin-ĝir2-su; eš3-eš3; ĝiri3 Al-la

Š 47/ii

Nisaba 10, 84

allocation of barley as payment (šer. 1: ugula L. ba) for for water drawers and arborists santana (a-bala du3-a-ku5)

4.1.1 še gur; barley supplier: ki ~ -ta: Nam-mah

HLC 3, 330

delivery of fruit to the palace (e2-galla ba-an-ku4)

14.0.0 ĝešpeš3 gur; [ma2]-u4-zal-⌈la⌉;862 ša3 Nibruki; ĝiri3 Ur-dIg-alim

AS 5/ii

o. 2: ki L.-ta

9.1.8. Agu The garden administrator Agu is attested for a period of time spanning 16 years, but he is absent in the list of TCTI 2, 2788 (n.d.). The documentation provides information about at least three gardens lying in his area of authority, to which another three gardens are probably to be added, one of them, however, with a name which is no longer legible: The garden of BaU-ninsisa; the garden of NinMAR.KI; the garden of Nanše; the garden of Ištaran (?); the garden of Lu-Igimaše (?).

The first attestation of Agu is provided by MVN 11, 118 (AS 3/iv), a text already seen in the dicussions pertaining to other garden administrators of the district, where 600 liters of fresh figs directed to the palace as a mašdaria-tax are recorded in his name. In TCTI 1, 935 (AS 7/xii), 142 kg of palm fibers are attributed to Agu, here written as A 2 -g u . Further, Agu occurs as the supervisor of the transactions of fruit concerning the regular offerings for at least 12 cultic places and gods in MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-). He appears as the only supervisor of the offerings addressed to the old governors Ur-NIĜ (of the Second Dynasty of Lagaš), Lu-girizal, and Hala-Lamma (probably the daughter of Lu-girizal)863 for a total of 120 liters of dates and 120 liters of fresh apples. In addition, alongside with other garden administrators, he supervises transactions of fruit for the offerings to Namerešanidu (probably the wife of the governor Lu-girizal),864 Ĝatumdu, Nanše, Ninĝešzida, Inanna, Ĝeštinana, and the old governors Gudea (of the Second Dynasty of Lagaš) and Ur-Lamma, for a total of 340 liters of dates, 580 liters of fresh apples, 166 liters of fresh figs and grapes. Unfortunately, the offerings of fruit addressed to Šulgi under his supervision are lost in a break in the tablet. In MVN 7, 153 (IS 1/-), Agu acquires (k išib ) 16.6 grams of silver as the price for a certain element (LAM-[...]) connected to the ‘garden of BaU-ninsisa’. The silver is delivered by a certain Lu-Dumuzi and the seal impression actually occurring on the tablet refers to the gardener Ur-ki, ––––––––––––––––– 862 The reconstruction of the term m a 2 - u 4 - z a l - l a is suggested by the occurrence of Ur-Igalim, likely the messenger, acting as conveyor (see § 9.7.2.2.7). 863 See Michalowski 2013, 190. 864 See Michalowski ibid.

257

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

son of NI.HI (§ 1.11.6). In the same year, in ITT 3, 5535, Agu takes charge of a worker assigned to the same garden (§ 2.8) and the relative payment of 60 liters. The text does not specify the type of work to be performed and the official occurs without his title. In MVN 22, 31 (n.d.), two gardens (the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ and the ‘garden of Nanše’) are ascribed to the authority of Agu, here occurring with his title,865 although it seems plausible that the other gardens mentioned (the ‘garden of Ištaran’, the ‘garden of Lu-Igimaše’, and the garden whose name is lost) also belonged to the area of this official.866 Considering, however, only the ‘garden of NinMAR.KI’ and the ‘garden of Nanše’, it can be assumed that the area of authority of this garden administrator covered at least 83,466 m2 (ca. 23 iku), an area where seven garden experts were in charge. In TUT 143 (l.d.), Agu takes charge of three workers, supervised by three different garden experts, and the barley of their payments amounting to 180 liters. The last text mentioning Agu is MVN 7, 292 (n.d.). As already seen, this text records the expenditure of a product (likely dates) and strings with figs in the name of the garden administrators Gu’umu, Ur-Lisi and Lu-diĝira, and the ‘difference’, surplus (la 2 -NI) of palm by-products867 in the name of Agu, Dānum and Lu-diĝira. The name of Agu is associated with a ‘difference’ of 90 kg. As seen in Table 7 in § 1.8.1, it seems plausible that Agu succeeded as garden administrator in an area exceptionally managed by the scribe Ur-BaU son of Lugal-imrua for a certain period of time (see § 1.11.4). Furthermore, it seems plausible that Agu, or Ur-BaU, was originally attested in MVN 6, 298 (AS 2/-), where the names of some garden experts of the area of Agu are followed by a missing section. On the basis of the succession of these same gardeners (see Table 7), then, it seems possible that Agu was also involved in the transaction of workers and relevant payments recorded in TÉL 82 (l.d.), for which, see § 1.8.7.1. Date

Text

Type

AS 3/iv

AS 7/xii

ŠS 7/-

IS 1/-

Attestation

Notes

MVN 11, 118

delivery of fruit and dates to the palace (e2-gal-la ba-an-ku4)

r. 4: ki L.-ta

2.0.0 gur ĝešpeš3 duru5; maš-da-ri-a; ĝiri3 Ur-dNanše; present other santana of Ĝir2-suki

TCTI 1, 935

record of palm fibers

o. 4: ki L.-ta (A2-gu)

4 gu2 44 ma-na for 8 months; ša3 Ĝir2-suki

record of the regular offerings for the gods (sa2du11 diĝir-re-ne) gathered from the account of the gardeners (niĝ2-ka9 nu-ĝeškiri6-ke4-ne-ta šu su-ba)

ugula: 1.2.4 zu2-lum gur, 2.1.4 ĝeš hašhur duru5, 0.2.4 6 sila3 ĝeš ĝeštin ĝešpeš3 duru5, [...]; among the um-mi-a: Šeš-kal-la, passim ugula L. Dim3-mi, dUtu-kalam-e, Urd Hendur-saĝ, Ur-dNin-ĝeš-zi-da (See Table 6 and Table 7 in § 1.8.1)

MVN 9, 87

MVN 7, 153

receipt (kišib) of silver

o. 4: kišib L.

2 giĝ4 ku3-babbar; ĝeš d LAM-[...] kiri6 Ba-u2-nin-sisa2; seal: Ur-⌈ki⌉ / dumu NI.HI / nu ĝeš kiri6

––––––––––––––––– As seen in § 1.5, the document refers to Agu probably as administrative interlocutor for the activities of restoration to be carried out in the gardens managed by him. Indeed, the management of the payments for the works required for the restoration of gardens very likely fell among the tasks of the garden administrators, whereas the payments were calculated in terms of garden products in the name of the garden expert responsible for the involved plot (see § 1.8.6). Therefore, the figure of the garden administrator acts, in this case, as the administrative intermediary between the institution planning the works and the responsible gardeners. 866 Considering that the garden for which the name is lost presents as experts Šeškala and Utu-kalame, who (unless homonymy cases) occur also in MVN 9, 87 in the area of Agu (see § 1.6.5), it seems plausible that the other gardens mentioned in MVN 22, 31 were also under the responsibility of this official. 867 As already seen, the good (n i ĝ 2 - k i - l u h , broom) is indicated only for the ‘difference’ in the name of Lu-diĝira. In any case, the text presents other abbreviations, as for the example, the implication of the intended object in the first section. 865

258

T HE G ARDEN A DMINISTRATORS OF THE P ROVINCE

Date

Text

Type

Attestation

Notes

IS 1/x

ITT 3, 5535

transfer (i3-dab5) of a worker and his payment

r. 1: L. i3 dab5

0.1.0 še; Lu2-dBa-U2 dumu Ur-dNin-mug u2-il2 e2 dBa- U2; ĝeš kiri6 dBa-U2-nin-si-sa2

l.d.

TUT 143

gardener employment and relative payments

o. ii.13: L. [i3 dab5]

0.3.0 še?; um-mi-a: Ur-dNin-ĝeš-zi-da, Ursa6-ga, Ur-Ba-gara2

l.d.

TÉL 82

payments for invalids (lu2 hu-bu7bu) employed in gardens

[...]

um-mi-a: Dim3-mi, dUtu-kalame, Lugal-u2-šim-e

n.d.

MVN 7, 292

expenditure (zi-ga) of dates and fruit and surplus (l a 2 -NI) of palm by-products

r. 2: la2-NI 3 L.

3

garden description for work plan

o. 16: L. santana

um-mi-a: Dim3-mi, Šeš-kal-la, Ur-dHendur-saĝ, Ur-mes, E2-hili, Uš, Ur-dNin-ĝeš-zi-da; dUtukalam-e; A-kal-la; Šeš-kal-la

n.d.

MVN 22, 31

9.1.9. Ur-Lisi Ur-Lisi is a garden administrator documented for a period of 14 years during the last phase of the Neo-Sumerian period in the province; for this reason he does not occur in the list of TCTI 2, 2788 (n.d.), which should date to the first years of the Amar-Suena’s reign. To the best of my knowledge, the only attestation of Ur-Lisi as garden administrator might be provided by HLC 3, 278 (ŠS 6/xid), a fragmentary text which likely records a quantity of palm by-products and fruit and the relative difference in the name of Ur-Lisi, the garden administrator (r. 2'-3' la 2 - N I -a m 3 / U r- d L i 9 -s i 4 GAL.[N I ?]). A first amount (at least 77,670 kg of brooms of palm fronds and 2,317½ liters of an unclear fruit) is defined as n iĝ 2 -ĝ a l 2 -la ‘possesion’, and probably entailed what still available to the administration (see § 2.2); a second amount seems to deal with the record of the ‘difference’ (la 2 - N I ), counted in terms of baskets (IL2), attributed to Ur-Lisi. In addition, the tablet report the seal of an untitled official son of a scribe. The activity of Ur-Lisi, however, attested also together with those of other garden administrators, seems to be attributable in the cases here presented to this professional figure. His first attestation is provided by TCTI 1, 935 (AS 7/xii), where 218½ kg of palm fibers are listed with the name of Ur-Lisi. In the text, his son Ur-gigir is also mentioned as provider of (mere) 15 kg of fibers.868 In MVN 9, 87 (ŠS 7/-), Ur-Lisi is involved as supervisor of at least five transactions concerning regular offerings to different destinations, but given the several breaks in the tablet one transaction of at least 40 liters of dates for Nungal and another one of 80 liters of fresh apples869 for Ninsun can only be fully read. In addition, his supervision concerns at least 190 liters of dates, 106 liters of fresh figs, 36 liters of fresh grapes and 20 liters of fresh apples. In MVN 22, 288 (ŠS 8/vii), the name of Ur-Lisi, likely the garden administrator, can be recognized in connection with the supervision of a quantity of palm by-products (3,030 kg of palm fronds and leaves from 48 midribs), received by the scribe Ur-eškuga for the taxation system (b a la -[še 3 ? ]). The indication which follows the quantity of palm by-products, (o. 3-4) KA.KUN-ta / Ĝ ir 2 -s u k i , could perhaps refer to the mouth of the Kun canal (k a < i 7 > k u n -ta ) as the place of provenience of the products, a canal which was situated along the banks of the canal Niĝinšedu, between Niĝin and Ki’esa (see § 4.2). The further specification (Ĝirsu) could therefore refer to the place where the transaction took place under the supervision of Ur-Lisi. In this case, if the text deals with the garden administrator, it would follow that he supervised a transaction of garden products coming ––––––––––––––––– 868 This would seem to be the only attestation of Ur-gigir son of Ur-Lisi within the garden management. 869 This amount is provided by the garden expert Ur-eninnu, who can be identified with the garden expert who in MVN 22, 237 (IS 3/viii), hence five years later, consigns to Ur-Lisi palm by-products; see below.

259

G ARDEN A DMINISTRATION IN THE Ĝ IRSU P ROVINCE DURING THE N EO -S UMERIAN P ERIOD

from gardens external to his area.870 In MVN 7, 292 (n.d.), a text recording the expediture of fruit quantities and the ‘differences’ of palm by-products, as seen for the garden administrators Gu’umu (§ 9.1.2) and Agu (§ 9.1.8), 900 liters likely of dates and four strings of three meters with figs are recorded in the name of Ur-Lisi. In TUT 143 (l.d.), Ur-Lisi takes charge of a no longer legible number of workers and the amount of their payments (360 liters),871 while in MVN 6, 317 (n.d.), Ur-Lisi takes charge of at least seven workers and their payments under the supervision of at least one garden expert. In the year IS 3, Ur-Lisi is attested in three documents concerning palm by-products probably addressed to the warehouse of Ur-abba (see § 9.7.2). In the first one, MVN 22, 237 (IS 3/viii), UrLisi takes over (i 3 -d a b 5 ) palm by-products (1,500 kg of palm fronds (p a ĝ e š ĝ e šn im b a r),872 1,290 kg of brooms, and leaves from 180 midribs)873 from three different garden experts: Urniĝdu, Ur-eninnu and Ur-Damgalnun.874 The colophon specifies: š a 3 e 2 -k išib -b a / k išib n u tu k u , ‘in the warehouse, (transaction) without seal(ed document)’; therefore, it can be inferred that the palm by-products provided by the gardeners to Ur-Lisi have not yet been ratified by the scribe of the warehouse. In the second text, MVN 6, 262 (IS 3/viii), Ur-Lisi delivers at least 54,000 kg of palm brooms and 16,200 kg of fronds(?) (