Cooks and Kitchens

COOKS AND KITCHENS: CENTRALIZED FOOD PRODUCTION IN LATE THIRD MILLENNIUM MESOPOTAMIA by Lance Burris Allred A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland October 2006 © Lance Allred 2006 All Rights Reserved Abstract Cooks and Kitchens: Centralized Food Production in Late Third Millennium Mesopotamia This dissertation examines the organization and administration of the production of food in Mesopotamia during the Ur III period, ca. 2100-2000 B.C.E. In the first chapter, I present a brief history of the period, and argue that the political events – in particular, the Ur III state’s extensive military campaigning in the east – led to an increase in the administration of the processing of raw materials. The processing of raw materials was carried out in centralized centers I term production units, and I suggest that a study of one particular production unit– the é - m u h a l d i m, literally “house of the cook” or “kitchen”– will shed light on the overall administrative organization of the Ur III state. In chapter 2, I study the é - m u h a l d i m as documented in the texts from the sites of Nippur and Drehem in the province of Nippur. The é - m u h a l d i m at Drehem was run by the state, and the evidence suggests that it received animals paid as taxes from military officials stationed in the east. These animals were used to provision local guards, as well as messengers and foreign envoys. In chapter 3, I examine the data from sites outside of the Nippur province. The evidence from Girsu and Umma provide evidence for a provincially run é - m u h a l d i m. The data from these sites shed light on the workforce of these production units, and demonstrate the connections between food preparation, milling, and brewing. The evidence from the rural estate of Garšana, also examined in this chapter, shows that in some cases, these activities were carried out in singular complexes. -ii- I conclude by arguing that food production in the Ur III state in the é m u h a l d i m was done to provide for state and provincial officials while away from their traditional support networks. I tentatively propose that the best translation for the term é m u h a l d i m is not kitchen, but commissary, thus highlighting the role in the actual provisioning of prepared foods. In an excursus, I discuss the MU-sign and the Sumerian word m u h a l d i m, arguing that while the word m u h a l d i m is likely not originally be Sumerian, its origins are unclear. In an appendix, I present three previously unpublished texts from Girsu, Adab, and Uru-Sarig. Dissertation advisor: Jerrold S. Cooper Dissertation readers: Raymond Westbrook David I. Owen Glenn Schwartz Matthew Roller -iii- Acknowledgments I am very grateful to the faculty of the Department of Near Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins University for all their help throughout my graduate career. Betsy Brian, Jerrold S. Cooper, Richard Jasnow, Ted Lewis, P. Kyle McCarter, Glenn Schwartz, and Raymond Westbrook all provided much inspiration and support both in and out of the classroom. I am particularly indebted to my advisor, Jerrold S. Cooper, for all of his help, support, and encouragement over the years. The depth of his knowledge– Assyriological and otherwise– is vast, and I am honored that he has shared at least a small part of that with me. He always made himself available to discuss ideas and problems, and was kind enough to share his wonderful library when books were otherwise unavailable. The focus of this study falls far outside his usual areas of interest, and Prof. Cooper read through more drafts than he probably would have liked. Still, he offered many suggestions, comments and corrections, and improved this study in numerous ways. Similarly, Raymond Westbrook offered much as a mentor, both as an instructor and as a reader on my dissertation committee. I took much from his insightful approach to the study of legal and other administrative documents. I am thankful for the suggestions and critiques he offered for this study. He asked a number of important questions which have guided me in my research, and I have benefitted greatly from his input. David I. Owen was kind enough to sit on my committee. He made many early suggestions and corrections, and was always very encouraging. In addition, he made available to me much material that was either unpublished or in press and not yet available. Such material has proven invaluable in this study. I am particularly grateful to him for allowing me access to the unpublished Garšana material housed at Cornell University. He and the entire tablet room staff were very helpful and accommodating during the several visits I made to Ithaca in the summer of 2005 and winter of 2006 to study the material there. I am particularly grateful to Prof. Owen for allowing me to complete this dissertation even as I began work as a Postdoctoral Associate at Cornell University. I am indebted also to Lisa Kinney-Bajwa of the Cornell University tablet room, who helped with the technical aspects of properly scanning images. Computer databases of Ur III material are revolutionizing the study of this period, and I am thankful to Robert Englund and to Manuel Molina for giving me access to the files of the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI), and Database of Neo-Sumerian Texts (BDTNS), respectively. I benefitted from conversations with many others regarding the Sumerian language, the complexities of the Ur III period, and other aspects of Mespotamian studies, above all: Hagan Brunke, Steven Garfinkle, Piotr Michalowski, Gonzalo Rubio, Walther Sallaberger, Tonia Sharlach, and Benjamin Studeven-Hickman. Daniel C. Snell, who first interested me in the Ur III period while I was a graduate student at the University of Oklahoma, read a late version of this study. Among my colleagues at Johns Hopkins, Scott Rufolo provided me with information on Mesopotamian fauna that was useful for my treatment of the Drehem -iv- corpus. Alexandra Kleinerman read through several drafts of this study. She was always willing to discuss problems and ideas, and her extensive knowledge of the Garšana material was particularly valuable. Her help and support was much appreciated. Alhena Gadotti, of course, was helpful in ways too numerous to count. Indeed, this entire endeavor would have been a far less enjoyable without her. Moreover, she always worked to keep me focused, particularly when temptations such as sports, computers, and beer, distracted me. None of this would have been possible without my family, who have supported my odd pursuits– academic and otherwise– all my life. In particular, to my grandmother, Gladys Burris, my brother Brett, my mother Gladeen, and my late father Larry Allred, I will forever be in your debt. Lance Allred Baltimore, September, 2006 -v- Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgments iv Table of Contents vi List of Tables vii List of Figures viii Conventions 1 Chapter 1. Introduction 6 Chapter 2. The m u h a l d i m and é - m u h a l d i m in Nippur Province 36 Section 1: Nippur 36 Section 2: Drehem 43 Chapter 3. The m u h a l d i m and é - m u h a l d i m outside Nippur Province 106 Section 1: Lagaš Province 106 Section 2: Umma Province 144 Section 3: Garšana 177 Section 4: Other sites 204 Chapter 4. Conclusions 213 Excursus: The MU-sign and the word m u h a l d i m 223 Appendix: New tablets 234 Bibliography 238 -vi- List of Tables 2.1 Animal expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m in the Drehem corpus 81 3.1 e r i n2 - è š - d i d l i assignments to the é - m u h a l d i m 112 3.2 Items received by the é - m u h a l d i m in Girsu 117 3.3 The u g u l a of m u h a l d i m ù l ú - d i d l i in the Sadana millhouse documents 124 3.4 Individuals serving as m u h a l d i m 126 3.5 Reeds received by the é - m u h a l d i m in Umma 146 3.6 Clay items received by the é - m u h a l d i m in Umma 149 3.7 Animals received by the é - m u h a l d i m in Umma 152 3.8 Miscellaneous items received by the é - m u h a l d i m 153 3.9 Texts with Insasa’s seal 158 3.10 Texts with the seals of Biduga’s sons 161 3.11 Texts with Lu-kisal’s seal 165 3.12 Worker inspection accounts 181 3.13 Allotments for š i d i m working on the brewery-kitchen-mill complex 186 3.14 Expenditures for work on the brewery-kitchen-mill complex 187 3.15 Allotments for rituals during the construction of the brewery-kitchen-mill complex 188 3.16 The seals of Adallal 191 3.17 Grain products received by Adallal 194 3.18 Adallal’s receipt of miscellenous goods -vii- 197 List of Figures 2.1 Animal receipt and same-day disbural 48 2.2 Side-by-side comparison of PDT 1 448 and Nik. 2 462 69 5.1 Examples of scribal distinction between /mu/ and /u/ 225 5.2 Examples of the MU-sign from the Uruk through the NB periods 226 6.1 Copy of CUNES 49-13-043 236 -viii- Conventions and Abbreviations In general, this study follows the sign values put forward in Rykle Borger’s Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon.1 Readings not in accords with those of Borger are noted in the text. In addition, particularly rare sign values are cited with the more common value in parentheses for the aid of the reader e.g. i m  a  a3(ZÍZ.AN). Sumerian terms, when they appear in the body of the text, are presented with extended spacing, e.g. m u h a l d i m. In transliterations off-set from the main body, however, they appear with regular spacing. The transliteration of signs forming Akkadian words, regardless of where they appear, are in italics. For signs featuring both long and short values, e.g. the values d u11 and d u g4 for the KA-sign, I generally use the short form. There are some exceptions, however, such as when a term sometimes appears with its auslaut resumed by a subsequent sign. In such cases, I will use the short value when variants appear with the auslaut, but I will use the long form when it appears without it. In the phrase b í - d u11- g a, the final /g/ is obviously intended. Thus, when the final - g a is absent I will use b í - d u g4; even though the scribe did not add the final -g a, we can be sure that the /g/ is intended from the longer spelling. Finally, note that for V, CV, VC, and CVC signs, I will use the acute and grave accent marks, while for VCV and other signs, subscripts will be used. Thus, b í and t ú m, but u g u2 and s i l a3, and so on. For the Mesopotamian system of counting and measuring, readers are referred to Marvin Powell’s seminal discussion of Mesopotamian metrics for an exhaustive review of 1 Rykle Borger, Mesopotamisches Ziechenlexikon, AOAT 305 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2004). -1- the material.2 To represent the Sumerian system of weights and measures, I follow the conventions introduced by Robert Englund in his Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei.3 In general, for capacity measures, g u r appear before the semi-colon, while s i l a3 appear after it. For instance, a line reading 21.32;4,5,2 s i l a3 š e g u r thus measures 2(600)+1(60)+3(10)+2(1) g u r barley, and 4(60)+5(10)+2(1) s i l a3 barley, for a total of 1292 g u r and 292 s i l a3. Since one g u r is made up of 300 s i l a3, the above total represents almost 1293 g u r of barley. Note that one s i l a3 is equivalent to approximately one liter.4 Thus, one g u r is approximately 300 liters, while a g u r u7 is well over five million liters!5 Mesopotamian chronology is still hotly debated; here, absolute dates generally follow the so-called Middle Chronology. For relative chronology within the Ur III period, as well as issues of designating year names, months, etc., the CDLI has been followed.6 To represent Ur III year names in a concise, readable manner, a system based upon that of the CDLI has been employed. The format is: [Royal name][regnal year] [month] [day] 2 Marvin Powell in RlA 7 (1989) s.v. “Masse und Gewichte.” 3 Robert Englund, Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei, BBVO 10 (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1990), xiii-xvii. 4 RlA 7 s.v. “Masse und Gewichte §IV.” See also Ignace J. Gelb, “Measures of Dry and Liquid Capacity,” JAOS 102 no. 4 (1982): 585-90. 5 Of course, as Powell, “Masse und Gewichte §IV.5,” notes, g u r u7 “goes out of use subsequent to Ur III,” and its abandonment “is not surprising: it was never a unit of real mensuration, only of conceptualization and calculation.” 6 See The CDLI’s http://cdli.ucla.edu/wiki/index.php/Rulers_of_Mesopotamia. -2- Royal names appear in abbreviation (Š = Šulgi; AS = Amar-Sin; ŠS = Šu-Sin; IS = IbbiSin). Regnal years and days are represented in Arabic numerals, while months are represented in Roman numerals. The special designations for months m i n and d i r i are respectively marked “m” and “d” after the month in superscript. When an element is absent in the text, it is indicated in one of several ways. Elements replaced by brackets and an ellipsis (i.e. [ . . .]) denote that the text is broken, but presumably originally included the data in question. Missing elements indicate that it simply was not written down. Question marks indicate that the reading is not certain. Examples: Š42 v 15 Šulgi’s 42nd year, fifth month, 15th day. AS1 [. . .] 23 Amar-Sin’s first year, 23rd day of a month originally written but no longer preserved. ŠS1 xiid Šu-Sin’s first year, 12th month (d i r i) with no day indicated. ŠS[. . .] 20 20th day of an unpreserved year with no month given. Though not preserved, it can still nevertheless be assigned to the reign of Šu-Sin.7 Abbreviations used here follow those of the CDLI, with the following additions and exceptions:8 7 E.g. UTAMI 6 3515, where the preserved line gives m u ú[s - s]a dšu-dEN.ZU l[u g a l ...]. Thus, even though it is clearly a Šu-Sin year name, there is no way to know which year it is. 8 Available at http://cdli.ucla.edu/Tools/abbrev.html. -3- BAIAS Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society (London: Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, 1982- ) BPOA Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo Cohen Tablets to appear in David I. Owen, The Garšana Archives, CUSAS (forthcoming) CTMMA Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art CUNES Sigla for tablets in the Cornell University Department of Near Eastern Studies CUSAS Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology (forthcoming) DahlHebenstreit Tablets to appear in Jacob Dahl and Laurent Hebenstreit, “Some Ur III Texts from a Private Collection in Paris” (forthcoming) DN Divine name GN Geographical name; used to refer to cities and larger geopolitical entities Mesopotamia Mesopotamia: Rivista di Archeologia, Epigrafia e Storia Orientale Antica (Florence: LISCOSA, 1966- ) Nelson Sidney B. Nelson, “Nasha: A Study of Administrative Texts of the Third Dynasty of Ur” (Ph.D. diss, University of Minnesota, 1972) Nesbit David I. Owen, The Nesbit Collection (forthcoming) NSAM Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi PN Personal name SRD William Nesbit, Sumerian Records from Drehem (New York: Columbia University Press, 1914) TN Topographical name; used to refer to smaller geographical units such as fields, as well as for man-made structures like temples UTAMI Die Umma Texte aus den Archäologischen Museen zu Istanbul -4- WS Warka Survey; refers to sites surveyed and discussed in Robert M. Adams and Hans Nissen, The Uruk Countryside (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972) [sites 001-500], and Robert M. Adams, Heartland of Cities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981) [sites 501-1639] Note finally that for the sake of convenience, text translations will uniformly use the term “kitchen” for the Sumerian é - m u h a l d i m and “cook” for m u h a l d i m. For a fuller treatment of these terms, see chapter 4 of this study. -5- CHAPTER 1 Introduction: Administration and Production Units Under the Third Dynasty of Ur 1. Introduction The Third Dynasty of Ur (commonly abbreviated Ur III), dated from ca. 2112 to 2004 BCE, is one of the best documented periods in the entire ancient world. The vast majority of its nearly 100,000 documents are administrative in nature, recording the receipt and distribution of goods, tabulations of labor, inventories of agricultural production, and so on. Thus, one of the most frequently mentioned characteristics of Ur III Mesopotamia is its bureaucracy.9 The development of the Ur III state’s bureaucracy is often attributed to its second and most important king, Šulgi. In his seminal article “The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State: The Core and the Periphery,” Piotr Steinkeller argued that Šulgi, midway through his 48-year reign, began enacting “a series of remarkable political, administrative, and economic reforms, as a result of which Babylonia emerged as a highly centralized bureaucratic state.”10 According to Steinkeller, these reforms included, among others, the creation of a standing army, the reorganization of temple households, 9 More recently, some objection to the notion of a highly bureaucratic Ur III state was put forward by Steven Garfinkle, “Was the Ur III State Bureaucratic? Patrimonialism and Bureaucracy in the Ur III Period,” (paper presented at the 214th annual meeting of the American Oriental Society, San Diego, CA, March 11-15, 2004). 10 Piotr Steinkeller, “The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State: The Core and the Periphery,” The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, SOAC 46, 2nd edition, eds. McGuire Gibson and Robert Biggs (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1991), 15-34, 16. The notion of Šulgi’s reforms was, to my knowledge, first proposed by Edmond Sollberger, “Sur la chronologie der rois d’Ur et quelques problèmes connexes,” AfO 17 no. 1 (1954-55): 10-49, -6- the introduction of mechanisms for the collection and distribution of goods, and various administrative changes aimed at efficiently recording such transactions.11 It is the question of Šulgi’s administrative reforms and of the creation of centers for the collection, processing, and disbursement of goods which are of particular interest 11 P. Steinkeller, “The Administration and Economic Organization,” 16-17. A number of scholars have question the notion of such reforms, however. In his review of The Organization of Power, Hartmut Waetzoldt, JAOS 111 no. 3 (1991): 637-41, argued, for instance, that because evidence is lacking from northern Babylonian sites, it is difficult to argue for a unified northern and southern Babylonian administration. Other reforms claimed by Steinkeller, such as changes to the writing system, are also debatable. See, for instance, Walther Sallaberger, “Ur III-Zeit,” in Walther Sallaberger and Aage Westenholz, Mesopotamien Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, OBO 160/3 (Göttingen: Vendernhoeck and Ruprecht, 1999), 121-377, 148. Note also the problems in interpreting Šulgi’s 20th year, m u d u m u u r i2k i - m a l ú  i šg í d - š è k a b a - a b - k é š. Any reading beyond the literal “year the citizens of Ur were drafted as spearmen,” is difficult, and the suggestion by Steinkeller that it refers to a “standing army” is questionable. If, indeed, there is any far-reaching significance to the name, Sollberger’s interpretation in “Sur la chronologie des rois d’Ur,” 18, that Š20 refers to when Šulgi “augmente la puissance de son armée en la dotant d’un corps d’archers,” may be more reasonable, though rendering l ú iš g í d as “archers” is probably not correct; Steinkeller’s “spearmen” is certainly better. Note also the comments of Magnus Widell, “Reconstructing the Early History of the Ur III State: Some Methodological Considerations of the Use of Year Formulae,” JAC 18 (2003): 99-111, who argues that while Steinkeller’s (and, by extension, Sollberger’s) reading may be correct, an equally plausible– and much less radical– interpretation of the year formula, which no doubt would have been employed if this formula represented a year during Ibbi-Sin’s reign, could be that the Ur III state of the province of Ur suddenly felt threatened and therefore organized its defenses. Nevertheless, on some points Steinkeller is certainly correct. For instance, the b a l a system of taxation was certainly introduced by Šulgi, for which see now Tonia Sharlach, Provincial Taxation and the Ur III State, CM 26 (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Similarly, Šulgi introduced calendrical reform, and his selfdeification heralded a signfiicant reconception of kingship. Moreover, the evidence from Drehem indicates that governors from northern sites such as Puš and Babylon participated in the system of b a l a taxation similar to the governors from southern sites. Thus, Steinkeller’s suggestion for unified northern and southern administration is entirely likely. Of course, even southern sites were not completely uniform in their administration. As T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 159, rightly observes, Umma and Lagaš were not exactly alike in their size or their organization. While Umma apparently was run by the administration of the provincial governor and his bureaus, Lagaš seems to have been organized primarily in temple households. We must assume that other provinces, such as Babylon, Adab, and Puš, or any of the others, could, and probably were, organized in their own way. However, even if individual provinces on the local level were administered differently from one another, it is very likely they interacted with the state in a more uniform way. -7- for this study. As claimed by his year names, Šulgi was responsible for the foundation of Puzriš-Dagan, a large livestock park that is the source of many thousands of administrative documents. With the available documentation, the full nature of this complex can only be guessed at, but the archives show it to be a collection and redistribution center.12 Moreover, while Puzriš-Dagan may have been the most celebrated such center, it was certainly not the only one.13 A point only hinted at by Steinkeller, but which nevertheless needs further elaboration, is that the institution of these various administrative innovations was closely tied to the political history of the Ur III state.14 The complex administrative machinery so often associated with the Ur III state did not arise in a vacuum. Rather, I would argue that it was a direct and logical response to the geopolitical realities stemming from Šulgi’s activities during the middle of his reign. Before considering in greater detail several aspects of Ur III administration, a brief summary of the political history of the state is in order. 12 As T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 14, argues, [T]o characterize Puzriš-Dagan as only a stockyard is an oversimplification. The Drehem archives themselves show that a treasury and a shoe depot, among other things, were located there. While we know less about them than about the livestock center . . . lack of plentiful evidence should not be taken to imply that Puzriš-Dagan had a single function. 13 For instance, see Piotr Steinkeller, “On Editing Ur III Economic Texts,” review of Herbert Sauren, Les tablettes cunéiformes de l’epoque d’Ur des collections de la New York Public Library, JAOS 102 no. 4 (1982): 639-44, where he suggests that the provenance of the so-called “Guzana tablets” may have served a similar function. 14 Other have suggested this, though with only limited elaboration. See, for instance, R. Englund, Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei, 57, and, more recently, Benjamin Studevent-Hickman, “The Organization of Manual Labor in Ur III Babylonia,” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2006), 16 fn. 28. -8- 1.1. The Ur III State and the Ur-Nammu Dynasty The political history of the early Ur III state before the reign of Šulgi is murky at best, and little can be said of its founder, Ur-Nammu.15 There is some speculation that UrNammu may have been the brother of Utu-Hegal, ruler of Uruk when that city controlled much of southern Sumer.16 Other evidence regarding Ur-Nammu’s rise to power in Ur, 15 There is still debate surrounding the proper reading of the second half of the name, the sign ENGUR (LAGABxHAL), when it appears as a divine name. Traditionally, the name has been read n a m m u. However, Esther Flückiger-Hawker, in her Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition, OBO 166 (Fribourg: University Press, 1999), 8-9, argued for a reading n a m m a, making a case similar to the one Miguel Civil put forward in his “On Some Texts Mentioning Ur-Namma (Tab. VI),” OrNs 54 no. 1-2 (1985): 27-45, 27 fn. 1. Despite these new proposals, problems remain. Specifically, while some variants of Proto-Ea offer /namma/ as a phonetic value for the ENGUR-sign, others offer /nammu/. And while some phonetic writings of the name of the Ur III king Ur-Nammu suggest a final -a, these instances are rare and thus not particularly compelling. Also unconvincing are the attempts to explain the word as being derived from a reduplicated /nam/. As Civil, “On Some Texts Mentioning Ur-Namma,” 27 fn. 1, notes, the expected word resulting from such reduplication is *n a n n a m (C1VC2+C1VC2 > C1VC1C1VC2, e.g. /bar/+/bar/> b a b b a r), not n a m m a. Indeed, it is not even clear that the name of the deity was originally Sumerian. Given that the Sumerian language favored vowel harmony, the survival of the pronunciation /nammu/ in OB lexical lists suggests that this was the older pronunciation of the god’s name. Thus, throughout this study n a m m u will be used instead of n a m m a. 16 For this argument, see Claus Wilcke, “Zum Königtum in der Ur III-Zeit,” in Le Palais et la Royauté, RAI 19, ed. Paul Garelli (Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1974), 177-232, 180 and fn. 67. Wilcke’s reconstruction is based on a passage from UET 1 30:i 10-ii 6, which reads: i 9. . . . 10. ur-[ . . .] ii 1. šak[kan6? . . .] 2. uri5k[i . . .] 3. AMA [. . .] 4. é-k[iš? . . .] 5. g[ál . . .] 6. Š[EŠ . . .] 7. [. . .] Wilcke followed previous scholars in restoring the name in line i 10 as u r -[n a m m u] and, based on other more complete parallels, read line ii 6 as š[e š - a - n é]. However, other readings for line ii 6, such as u[r i5k i ...], are also possible. Indeed, given the rarity with which brothers of rulers are attested in the Lagaš II and Ur III periods, for which see Jacob Dahl, “The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2003), 287-96, Wilcke’s reconstruction seems unlikely. Moreover, the restoration of Ur-Nammu in line i 10 is not entirely secure; to my knowledge, there is no other evidence to indicate that the future king of Ur served as a general in Utu-Hegal’s military. -9- however, is limited.17 From Ur-Nammu’s year names, as well as from several Utu-hegal inscriptions, it is likely that the early Ur III state consisted only of the city of Ur and its immediate surroundings, perhaps including Eridu as well.18 Certainly, it did not extend to the GirsuLagaš region, and there is some evidence to indicate that early on, Ur struggled with Uruk for control there.19 Nevertheless, by the end of Ur-Nammu’s 18-year reign, it is clear that much, if not all, of southern Mesopotamia was under his rule.20 Much better understood is the 48-year reign of Ur-Nammu’s son Šulgi. As indicated by year names, the early part of Šulgi’s reign was focused on domestic and cultic 17 As E. Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma of Ur, 4, notes, “the texts available do not permit us to grasp the circumstances of Urnamma’s rise in Ur.” She nevertheless speculates that “it might be that the fragmentary prologue of the Codex Urnamma tells us how Urnamma came to be king of Ur.” If this is correct, then the much anticipated publication of a nearly complete manuscript of the Ur-Nammu Code in the Schøyen Collection (MS 2064) may resolve many of the questions surrounding the foundation of the Third Ur Dynasty. 18 For more on Ur-Nammu’s year names, see Douglas R. Frayne, Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC), RIME 3/2 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), and note Hartmut Waetzoldt, “Zu einigen Jahresdaten Urnammus,” NABU 1990 no. 1, note 6. Regarding the use of year names, M. Widell, “Reconstructing the Early History of the Ur III State,” 110, recently argued that while the general lack of other textual evidence certainly makes the year formulae one of the most important sources of information for the reconstruction of the complex political history of this period, it should be noted that the use of the year formulae also involves a number of problems. The main problem, no doubt, is to correctly interpret the formulae and to correctly apply the interpretation to the political development of the period. Moreover, because year names only commemorated a single event, such as a military campaign or building project, they can give a distorted picture of the actual history of the period. 19 D. Frayne, Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC), 10. 20 For more on Ur-Nammu’s reign, see W. Sallaberger, “Ur III-Zeit,”131-40, and E. FlückigerHawker, Urnamma of Ur, 1-7. -10- affairs.21 These included improvements in the state’s infrastructure,22 large construction projects,23 and ritual obligations.24 References to international affairs are limited to a diplomatic marriage between a daughter of Šulgi and the ruler of Marhaši.25 In contrast to the focus on domestic activities seen in the first 20 years of his reign, Šulgi’s third decade saw a marked shift in the king’s focus towards international affairs and military campaigns. During the 13 years that make up the span Š24 to Š36, fully nine of them reference military campaigns, and another notes a diplomatic marriage of the king’s daughter to the ruler of Anšan.26 Only Š28-29, which refer to the installation of 21 D. Frayne, Ur III Period (2122-2004 BC), 91-110, W. Sallaberger, “Ur III-Zeit,” 141-48. Note that the earliest of Šulgi’s year names are difficult to properly order, and scholars have sometimes debated whether some years should be attributed to Ur-Nammu, and vice versa, cf. the comments of E. Sollberger, “Sur la chronologie der rois d’Ur,” 15. Certainly, however, administrative documents, coupled with the years preserved on the date-list BE 1/2 125, allow for a secure ordering for the years Š6 to the end of his reign, cf. Albrecht Goetze, “The Chronology of Šulgi Again,” Iraq 22 (1960): 151-56, 153. RTC 273 demonstrates that Š1 was the expected m u š u l - g i l u g a l. The line immediately before Š6 in BE 1/2 125 reads +m u b à d GAL?,[...]., perhaps to be restored m u b à d - g a l é - a n - n a b a - d ù, “the year the great wall of the Eanna was built,” giving us the name for Š5. Thus, only 3 years– Š2-4– are not chronologically secured, cf. the differences between, e.g., Claus Wilcke “Neue Quellen aus Isin zur Geschichte der Ur-III-Zeit,” OrNs 54 no. 1-2 (1985): 299318, 300, D. Frayne, Ur III Period (2122-2004 BC), 94-97, and the reconstruction offered by the CDLI. 22 E.g. Š6: m u  ì r n i b r uk i s i b í - s á, “the year the road of/to Nippur was put in good 23 E.g. Š13: m u é - h a l - b i l u g a l b a - d ù, “the year the royal (palace) Ehalbi was built.” repair.” 24 E.g. Š14 m u dn a n n a n i b r uk i é - a b a - k u4, “the year Nanna of Nippur was brought into the temple.” 25 Š18: m u li-wir-mi-tá-šu d u m u - m u n u s l u g a l n a m - n i n m a r - h a - š ik i b a - í l, . daughter of the king, was elevated to queenship in Marhaši.” “year Liwir-mit. tašu, . 26 The marriage of Šulgi’s daughter to the king of Anšan in Š30 certainly failed to improve relations between Ur and Anšan; Šulgi’s year names relate that only four years later, in Š34-35, Ur engaged in a military campaign against Anšan! -11- Šulgi’s son to the office of e n of Eridu,27 and Š36, which refers to the bringing of Nanna to his temple in Karzida,28 focus on domestic matters. Of particular interest is the period Š37-38, when, according to his year names, Šulgi engaged in a massive building project for the construction of the b à d m a - d a, the “wall of the land.” As Piotr Michalowski has argued, this “wall” was likely in actuality “a line of fortifications which . . . protected the main line of defenses in the Marad-AbiakKazallu region.”29 The construction of the b à d m a - d a fortifications, then, served to solidify the Ur III state’s eastern boarders against the various rival polities located in the Zagros region and beyond. In addition, from these fortification installations, Šulgi could stage future campaigns with greater ease, and allowed the Ur III state to exact tribute from these conquered territories.30 The construction– or perhaps better, expansion of– the site of Esadana, along with re-christening it as Puzriš-Dagan, was Šulgi’s next major project, as indicated by his 27 Š28 m u e n - n a m - š i t a4 dš u l - g i - r a - k e4 b a - g u b e n de n - k i e r i d uk i - g a d u m u š u l - g i n i t a k a l a - g a l u g a l u r i5k i - m a l u g a l a n u b - d a l i m m u2- b a - k a b a - a - h u , “year Enamšita-Šulgi, son of Šulgi, the strong man, the king of Ur (and) of the four corners of the universe, was installed (to the office) of e n of Enki of Eridu. d 28 Š36: m u dn a n n a k a r - z i - d ak i é - a n - n a b a - a n - k u4, “year Nanna of Karzida was brought into his temple.” Variants of this name are common. Thus, while, e.g. MVN 6 165 has the fully preserved name, Princeton 1 477 offers just m u dn a n n a k a r - z i - d a. For more on this name, as well as the confusion with Š9, see Hartmut Waetzoldt and Fatma Y2ld2z, “Die Jahresnamen für das 9. und das 36. Regierungsjahr Šulgi’s,” OrAnt 22 no. 1-2 (1983):7-12. 29 Piotr Michalowski, “The Royal Correspondence of Ur” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1976), 79. P. Michalowski more recently expressed similar views on Šulgi’s wall in his paper “Stalking the Great Wall of Sumer” (paper presented at the 214th annual meeting of the American Oriental Society, San Diego, CA, March 11-15, 2004). 30 Piotr Michalowski, “Foreign Tribute to Sumer During the Ur III Period,” ZA 68 no. 1 (1979): 34-49. -12- year names for Š39-Š41.31 That Šulgi devoted three year names to this project indicates that it was a major undertaking. Indeed, the vastness of the project likely included not only the physical labor, but also radical changes in the ideology and bureaucracy of the Ur III state’s administration.32 The final seven years of Šulgi’s reign saw the Ur III state once again engaged in a prolonged series of campaigns against territories to the east. By the time of his death at the end of his 48th year, the size of the Ur III state was considerable. It was made up of some 19 provinces which spanned from Sippar in the north down to Ur.33 In addition to this core, the Ur III state also extended considerable control over a periphery of conquered settlements to the east and northeast. As Steinkeller has argued, “this region served as a strategic buffer zone protecting the northeastern flank of Babylonia, in many respects similar to the Roman limes.”34 Š39: mu dšul-gi lugal uri5ki-ma-ke4 lugal an ub-da 4-ba-ke4 é-puzur4-iš-dda-ganki é-dšul-gi-ra mu-dù, “the year Šulgi, king of Ur, king of the four quarters, built the house of Puzriš-Dagan, the house of Šulgi.” The following two years were so-called ú s - s a years, literally “following” or “the year after the year . . .” For more on this site, see section 2.2 below. It is possible to argue that the use of ú s - s a names for Š40 and 41 signify the importance of the founding (or rechristening) of the Puzriš-Dagan complex. However, as Marc van de Mieroop, “The Reign of Rim-Sin,” RA 87 no. 1 (1993):47-69, has argued, this is not always the case. For instance, the later Larsa king Rim-Sin’s use of of ú s - s a year names after his conquest of Isin did not signify the importance of the event. Rather, they indicate the king’s growing weakness, as “he did not accomplish anything worth celebrating in his year names,” 57. This is certainly not to suggest that Šulgi’s use of ú s - s a year names for Š40 and 41 was a sign of the king’s weakness. Rather, it is likely that the project was so massive that no other major projects were initiated during this span. 31 32 For this, see below. 33 As listed in T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 7-8, these were, from north to south: Sippar, Tiwe, Urum, Puš, Gudua, Babylon, Kiš, Kazallu, Apiak, Marad, Nippur, Uru-sarig, Isin, Adab, Šuruppak, Umma, Girsu, Uruk, and Ur. 34 P. Steinkeller, “Administrative and Economic Organization,” 28. -13- Šulgi died on or around the second day of Š48 xi,35 and was succeeded by AmarSin, his son by the queen Taram-Uram.36 We know nothing about Amar-Sin before his ascension to the throne. One possible explanation for the lack of textual references to Amar-Sin during Šulgi’s reign is to posit that the crown prince spent a good deal of time in the east, perhaps actively participating in the many military campaigns waged during the latter part of his father’s reign. Indeed, Amar-Sin’s successor to the throne, Šu-Sin, appears frequently in such a role.37 Alternatively, Amar-Sin may have been a throne name taken only after the death of Šulgi.38 In contrast to his father’s reign, the year names of Amar-Sin’s reign indicate a far more domestic focus. Of his nine years, fully five year names refer to religious activities, such as the installation of individuals to cultic positions,39 and only three highlight military campaigns.40 Amar-Sin died some time shortly before AS9 ii 9, and he was succeeded by ŠuSin.41 There has been some debate surrounding the relationship between Amar-Sin and his 35 Piotr Michalowski, “The Death of Šulgi.” 36 Johannes Boese and Walther Sallaberger, “Apil-kin von Mari und die Könige der III. Dynastie von Ur,” AoF 23 no. 1 (1996): 24-39. 37 For this, see below. 38 W. Sallaberger, “Ur III-Zeit,” 163. 39 For the full record of Amar-Sin’s year names, see again the list provided by the CDLI. 40 AS2 (Urbilum), 6 (Šašrum [for the second time]), and 7 (Bitim-rabium, Jabru, and Huhnuri). References to the  i šg u - z a da m a r - d EN.ZU, “throne of Amar-Sin,” appear by AS9 ii 9, indicating that the king’s death had happened at some point before then, for which see W. Sallaberger, “Ur III-Zeit,” 167. 41 -14- successor, Šu-Sin.42 In particular, it is not clear if Šu-Sin was Amar-Sin’s son or brother. The evidence from the unpublished Garšana material, particularly as it relates to the princess Simat-Ištaran, suggests that the Ur III state after Šulgi followed a pattern of patrilineal succession which expressed itself laterally.43 Thus, it seems likely that all three successors to Šulgi were brothers.44 Unlike Amar-Sin, Šu-Sin is attested in the years before his ascention to the throne. During the reigns of Šulgi and Amar-Sin, he is referred to as a š a k k a n6(ŠAGINA), “general” of Uruk and Durum.45 Morover, at least one text, dating to the time of AmarSin, refers to Šu-Sin as d u m u l u g a l, “son of the king.”46 Already in his second year, Šu-Sin began a renewed campaign against the Ur III state’s traditional enemies to the north and east. In particular, his third year name highlights the destruction of Simanum, a campaign also referenced in administrative and 42 See, e.g., D. Frayne, Ur III Period (2122-2004 BC), 285-86. 43 For a broader discussion of patterns of succession in Ur III Mesopotamia, see Jabob Dahl, “The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma,” 87-95. 44 Note also David I. Owen, “On the Patrynomy of Šu-Suen,” Nabu 2001 no. 1 note 17, and also Hartmut Waetzoldt, “König Šusuen, der Sohn Šulgis,” NABU 2001 no. 2 note 45. 45 Piotr Michalowski, “Durum and Uruk During the Ur III Period,” Mesopotamia 12 (1977): 8396. According to Michalowski, Durum was likely in the region of Uruk, possibly the site of Umm alWawiya, WS 439. 46 Note that the reference to Šu-Sin as d u m u l u g a l during Amar-Sin’s reign can nevertheless refer to his being a son of Šulgi, and not of Amar-Sin. A similar situation is found in documents referring to the ruling family of Adab. The earliest attested e n s i2 of Adab in the Ur III period is one Ur-Ašgi, who ruled the province until Š38, at which point his son Habaluge is attested, e.g., MVN 17 35. During Habaluge’s reign, one Lu-Utu is referenced as being š e š e n s i2, e.g., AUCT 3 31. However, Lu-Utu still used a seal (the impression of which appears on BE 3/1 13) that referred to him as d u m u e n s i2, that is, son of Ur-Ašgi, as late as ŠS8, 30 years after the death of his father. There obviously was still some prestige in being the son of a governor or king even long after the death of the father. -15- other documents.47 Like his father Šulgi, Šu-Sin followed up his initial military forays to the east with a major fortification project. Šu-Sin’s fourth and fifth year names celebrate the construction of the b à d m a r - t u mu-ri-iq ti-id-ni-im, “the m a r - t u ‘wall’ (called) ‘Fender-off of the Tidnum,’” Tidnum being an Amorite (m a r - t u) tribe. Unlike Šulgi, who appears to have renewed campaigning in east, Šu-Sin’s year names suggest that his focus after his fortification efforts was on religious activities. Only one year name attests to further military activity, namely against the land of Zabšali, a territory within the region of Šimaški.48 Šu-Sin reigned for nine years, and tablets citing offerings for his mortuary throne appear early in ŠS9 x.49 He was succeeded by Ibbi-Sin, whose corronations in the capitals Nippur, Uruk, and finally Ur, are documented in a number of texts.50 Like Šu-Sin, IbbiSin’s parentage is not clear. Nevertheless, while some scholars have generally assumed him to have been a son of Šu-Sin, the possibility that Ibbi-Sin, like Šu-Sin and Amar-Sin before him, was a son of Sulgi has also been considered.51 Indeed, as noted above, 47 Piotr Michalowski, “The Bride of Simanum,” JAOS 95 no. 4 (1975): 716-19. ŠS7, m u dšu- dEN.ZU l u g a l u r i5k i - m a - k e4 m a - d a z a - a b - š a - l ik i m u - h u l (e.g., PDT 1 455). For Zabšali, see Piotr Steinkeller, “The Question of Marhaši: A Contribution to the Historical Geography in Iran in the Third Millennium B.C.,” ZA 72 no. 1 (1982): 237-65 and “More on LÚ.SU(.A)=Šimaški,” NABU 1990 note 13. For Šimaški, see also Matthew Stolper, “On the Dynasty of Šimaški and the Early Sukkalmahs,” ZA 72 no. 1 (1982): 42-67, and Robert C. Henrickson, “Šimaški and Central Western Iran: The Archaeological Evidence,” ZA 74 (1984): 98-122. The victory over Šimaški is commemorated in seveal inscriptions, for which see RIME 3/2.1.4.3-6. 48 49 MVN 18 107 (ŠS9 x 4), where offerings are made to the thrones of Ur-Nammu, Šu-Sin, Šulgi, and Amar-Sin in Ur. 50 See W. Sallaberger, “Ur III-Zeit,” 172, with references. 51 See, e.g., E. Sollberger, “Sur la chronologie der rios d’Ur,” 22, where he speculates that -16- unpublished evidence from Garšana provides significant support to this last possibility. Various sources suggest that very early in the reign of Ibbi-Sin, the Ur III state began to collapse.52 Indeed, the speed with which these events occurred indicates that the factors leading to its collapse were well underway already during the reign of Šu-Sin. A number of cities– particularly in the periphery– ceased using Ibbi-Sin year names during the first few years of his reign.53 By IS8, Ur had lost control of the religious capital Nippur, symbolozing the end of Ur III hegemony on Babylonia.54 From this point on, the available documentation is limited solely to the material from the city of Ur itself, and is of little value for this study. 1.2. The administration of the Ur III state The core provinces of the Ur III state, as Steinkeller observed, were made up of a “main city– formerly the capital of a city-state, now the seat of the provincial government,” as well as “the surrounding hinterland with its towns, villages, and Il n'est pas impossible que l'héritier présomptif, Amar-Sin, l'ait même trouvé trop long et n'ait cherché le moyen d'y mettre un terme. Il y aurait donc eu complot des trois frères pour renverser le vieux roi, le prix de la participation de Šu-Sin et d'Ibbi-Sin à ce complot étant un réglement de la succession qui écartait les enfants d'Amar-Sin du pouvoir. 52 See, e.g., Tohru Gomi, “On the Critical Economic Situation at Ur Early in the Reign of Ibbisin,” JCS 36 no. 2 (1984): 211-42, and the survey presented by E. Sollberger in RlA 5 (1976), s.v. “Ibb§-Suen.” 53 These include Ešnunna and Susa, as well as the texts from the so-called Turam-ili archive. See W. Sallaberger, “Ur III-Zeit,” 174-75. 54 Note that, as Marc van de Mieroop, Crafts in the Early Isin Period, OLA 24 (Leuven: Department Oriëntalistiek, 1987), 120-28, has convincingly shown, the Isin king Išbi-Erra began dating in his own name when Isin claimed control over Nippur. -17- hamlets.”55 They were run by an e n s i2, or “provincial governor.”56 Evidence suggests that e n s i2's were largely from local families, though examples exist to show that this was not always the case.57 Indeed, it is likely that different provinces had slightly different systems of succession in place, any of which could have been altered as the king saw fit. In addition to the e n s i2, the core provinces were also home to a š a k k a n6, or “military commander.”58 Quite unlike the e n s i2, who was from the local population, the š a k k a n6 was generally an outsider to the province, often a member of the royal family. While the local governors ran the provinces and managed local affairs, the military commanders were “in charge of military personnel and other types of royal dependants settled in the province on crown land.”59 As noted above, one of the major obligations the provinces owed to the crown was its b a l a, or “tax.” Tonia Sharlach has convincingly shown that “the revenue that the crown received from the b a l a was large; it seems that the financial foundations of the Ur 55 P. Steinkeller, “Administrative and Economic Organization,” 19. 56 William W. Hallo’s often cited but never published “The Ensi’s of the Ur III Dynasty” (M.A. thesis, University of Chicago, 1953), is now sorely in need of updating. David I. Owen has presented much new material, e.g. his review of Die orts- und Gewässernamen der Zeit der 3. Dynastie von Ur, RGTC 2, by D. O. Edzard, and G. Farber, JCS 33 no. 3/4 (1981): 244-69, “Random Notes on a Recent Ur III Volume,” review of Catalogue of Cuneiform Texts in Birmingham City Museum, BCT 1, by P. J. Watson, JAOS 108 no. 1 (1988): 111-22, “The Ensis of Gudua,” ASJ 15 (1993): 131-52, all with references, but more work needs to be done. 57 See now J. Dahl, “The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma.” 58 P. Steinkeller, “Administrative and Economic Organization,” 20. Note that at least some provinces had more than one š a k k a n6(ŠAGINA). 59 P. Steinkeller, “Administrative and Economic Organization,” 20. -18- III state were rooted in funds sent from the provinces.”60 Goods were sent to the royal capitals– Nippur in particular– to be used by the crown. In addition, the provinces used goods and labor locally for royal projects as part of their b a l a obligation. Provinces sent barley, livestock, reeds and other raw materials, as well as finished goods such as clay and reed containers, as part of this tax. In contrast to the core provinces, the Ur III state appears to have controlled the periphery territories though military settlement.61 From these settlements, high-ranking military officials paid taxes, g ú n or g ú n m a - d a, in the form of livestock.62 These animals were collected and taken to various centers, such as Puzriš-Dagan, where they were then routed to their final destination. 1.2.1. Production units and the Ur III administration The above sketch provides a clear framework in which to better understand the rise of the administrative bureaucracy of the Ur III state. Though we cannot at present know why Šulgi began his decades-long military campaign against the various states to the east and north, we can nevertheless be sure that at some point midway into his third decade of rule, it was well underway. This was followed by the establishment of an administrative and military presence in the region. With this, Šulgi then had the means to exact tribute from these conquered regions. As these resources made their way into the 60 T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 159. 61 P. Steinkeller, “Administrative and Economic Organization,” 29. 62 P. Steinkeller, “Administrative and Economic Organization,” 25, notes that this tax was paid “almost without exception by a general.” In some cases, however, this person was called an e n s i2. Thus, he argues, 25 fn. 44, that regardless of the term used, “one finds here the chief administrator of a peripheral province, who exercised both civilian and military powers.” -19- core of the Ur III state, Šulgi established new centers (and renovated old ones) to receive them. To manage the collection and distribution of the tribute and taxes, improvements in the administrative machinery had to be implemented. At this point, it is important to ask how much of our assessment of the change in the Ur III state’s administrative complexity is due to the disparate chronological distribution of the documents themselves. It has been observed that roughly 95% of our documentation from the reign of Šulgi comes from his last twenty years.63 If this disparity is due simply to accident of preservation or discovery, then it is possible to argue that our picture of rapidly increasing complexity in the Ur III state’s administration during that period is a false one, based on the fact that our data are skewed so dramatically towards the end of Šulgi’s reign. However, it is clear that much of our documentation is designed to track the receipt of goods received by the state and its provinces, as well as the processing of those goods, and ultimately, their distribution. If, as argued above, Šulgi’s campaigns in the east and north led to an increase in the goods available to the state in the form of tribute and taxes, then it follows that the documents drawn up to record their receipt and movement would also increase.64 63 M. Widell, “Reconstructing the Early History of the Ur III State,” 100. 64 A similar view was recently expressed by Steven Garfinkle, “The Economy of Warfare in Southern Iraq at the End of the Third Millennium, B.C.” (paper presented at the 52e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Münster, July 17-21, 2006). Of course, scribes and other record-keepers threw out older archives to make room for new ones. Thus, our recovery of such records will naturally tend to include more recent documents. Nevertheless, the fact that we have early material at all suggests that such documents could and did survive, even if in a secondary (or tertiary) context. -20- As has been noted, through Šulgi’s successful military campaigns, the Ur III state established a presence in the territories to the east and north of the Sumerian heartland. Through this occupation, the state was able to collect taxes, the receipt of which was recorded in centers such as Puzriš-Dagan. Moreover, as goods and animals were routed through various offices to their final destination, other documents were drawn up. Indeed, the delivery of a single lamb could generate numerous texts before reaching its final destination. A similar situation is seen regarding the contribution of resources made by the provinces in the form of the b a l a, and other taxes. As noted above, the b a l a represented a significant portion of a province’s revenue, in some cases up to 48%.65 The term b a l a is attested at least as early as Šulgi’s 28th year– that is, around the time that, according to the historical survey outlined above, the Ur III state began a long period of military engagement against territories to the east and north.66 The term shows up much more frequently beginning with his 33rd year– shortly before the start of such major projects as the construction of the b à d m a - d a and of Puzriš-Dagan. Moreover, as Sharlach has already observed, “there seems to have been a surge of activity in the early years of ŠuSin,” which would similarly coincide with the construction of the b à d m a r - t u.67 To arrive at the proper totals for their obligations, provinces kept meticulous 65 T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 43. 66 T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 163, writes that “the earliest evidence for the b a l a system begins in the second decade of the reign of Šulgi,” but I can find no unequivocal attestation for the term before Š28 viii (Atiqot 4 pl. 06 34), though it is likely attested even in Š25. 67 T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 163. -21- records tracking agricultural production, available labor, and other resources, all of which were provided to the crown for b a l a assignments. In addition, agents for the king likely checked such assessments to prevent falsification. Finally, “after the province made its b a l a payments for the year, the accounts were balanced,” with deficits carried over to be paid in the following year.68 It seems unlikely to be mere chance, then, that the vast number of available Ur III administrative documents date to the latter half of the empire. Rather, the increase in documents seen in the final two decades of Šulgi’s reign, and continuing in the reigns of his sons Amar-Sin and Šu-Sin, were a direct result of the increased income the Ur III state saw as it exacted tribute from military campaigns, and collected taxes from its provinces– in part, it would seem, to fund such campaigns. While it is entirely likely that the ratio of published early Ur III to late Ur III documents is not exactly representative of what was actually written down and preserved, I would argue that it does in fact reflect an actual increase in administrative complexity to meet the demands of the geopolitical realities of the latter half of the Ur III state. As noted above, to more effectively manage the state’s tribute and tax income, Šulgi created centers to collect and disburse goods. Moreover, as Steinkeller has already observed in his discussion of Šulgi’s reforms, “a significant innovation of Šulgi’s reign was the creation of huge industrial complexes devoted to highly specialized commodity production and run directly by the government.”69 Unlike the case with Puzriš-Dagan, no 68 T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 162. 69 P. Steinkeller, “The Administration and Economic Organization,” 17. -22- year names celebrate the construction of such complexes, nor do any commemorative inscriptions, as they do the construction of temples and other edifices, or the digging of canals and the like. Yet, if it is clear that Šulgi exacted tribute from states to the east and north, instituted such things as the b a l a system of tax collection, and founded centers like Puzriš-Dagan for their collection, then it follows that within those centers– as well as elsewhere– industrial complexes were used to process, store, and distribute the collected goods. It is likely that in some cases, existing complexes were simply expanded to accomodate the increased influx of commodities and the demand for them. In other cases, however, new such complexes were constructed. This study will focus on one aspect of these industrial complexes, which I will refer to as production units, understanding the Sumerian é, literally “house, building, estate,” in that sense. Several features qualify the production unit (é) in the Ur III period. First, it was a physical structure made up of a building or complex of buildings. It received raw or minimally processed goods, then processed or further processed those goods, and finally distributed them either to another production unit, or to their ultimate destination. Production units were usually run either by the provincial administration or by the crown, though in some cases they may have existed outside of the purview of either. The term used to identify a production unit typically follows the formula é-[occupational title], literally “building (of) the [occupational title].” Examples of production units include the é - k i k k e n2, “grain mill,” and the é - u š - b a r, “textile mill.” The physical nature of the production unit may be contrasted with other aspects of the state’s economy, such as the work done by foresters or fishermen. As this work did -23- not require a physical structure, terms such as the *é -  i št i r - r a , literally “house of the foresters,” or *é - š u - k u6, literally ‘house of the fisherman,” do not exist. 1.2.1.1. The é - m u h a l d i m as a production unit The following study will focus on one of the best-documented production units in the Ur III period, that of the é - m u h a l d i m. The term é - m u h a l d i m literally means “house of the cook,” and scholars have typically translated it as “kitchen.” As will be shown below, the é - m u h a l d i m does, in fact, appear to have served as a large, industrial kitchen. It received goods such as milled grain from which to make bread and other foodstuffs. It also received animals on the hoof. These animals were presumably slaughtered and prepared for consumption. I will propose that there was not one single production unit called the é m u h a l d i m. Rather, the evidence indicates that there were numerous é - m u h a l d i m throughout the Ur III state. Some were administered directly by the crown, the best attested example of which was the é - m u h a l d i m located in or near the site of PuzrišDagan. Other é - m u h a l d i m however, were run by the provinces themselves in provincial capitals. In addition to providing for local elites, the evidence suggests that the local, provincially-run é - m u h a l d i m also provided for the king and his royal entourage during royal visits. As the evidence from Garšana shows, the provincial and royal administrations did not control all production units. The estate of Garšana belonged to one Šu-Kabta, a š a k k a n6(ŠAGINA), or “general” and a - z u, or “doctor”, and passed to his presumed -24- wife Simat-Ištaran after his death in ŠS8.70 The estate included a number of prodution units, including a craft workshop (é - g a š a m), a pottry workshop (é - b a h a r2) and textile mill (é - u š - b a r). The estate also featured a large grain processing installation that included an é - m u h a l d i m, demonstrating that production units could also be administered outside of the the realm of the state or provincial sectors. Finally, I will also consider the make-up of the é - m u h a l d i m work force. It consisted of people qualified with the occupational title m u h a l d i m, but others as well. Particular focus will be made on the occupational title m u h a l d i m, as individuals bearing this title are most frequently associated with the é - m u h a l d i m. 1.2.1.2. Other production units There were numerous production units in the Ur III period. Some, such as the é k i k k e n2, “grain mill” and é - u š - b a r, “textile mill,” are reasonably well-attested.71 Others, such as the é - n a g a r, “carpentry workshop,” é - s i m u g, “smithy” and é - t ú g d u8, “felting workshop,” are sparsely attested, and little can be said about them at present.72 I do not mean to suggest that there was a single or monolithic model for how such 70 The nature of Šu-Kabta’s multiple positions is difficult to understand, as an individual having two such titles is otherwise unknown to me. The latter title, a - z u, seems more likely to be a sort of honorific title, rather than an actual indication of Šu-Kabta’s position or function. 71 Grain mills have been treated by Jean-Pierre Grégoire, “The Grain-Grinding-Households (éHAR.HAR) of Southern Mesopotamia at the End of 3rd Millennium Before the Common Era,” BAIAS 17 (1999): 7-38, and by William Brookman, “The Umma Milling Industry: Studies in Neo-Sumerian Texts” (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1984). For textile mills, see Hartmut Waetzoldt, Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie and Thorkild Jacobsen “On the Textile Industry at Ur Under IbbiSin,” in Studia orientalia Ionni Pedersen dicata (Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1953), 172-87. 72 For many of these, see Darlene Loding, “A Craft Archive from Ur” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1974) and Hans Neumann, Handwerk in Mesopotamien (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1987). -25- production units were administered during the whole of the Ur III period. As has been noted above, the various provinces within the Ur III state featured their own administrative structures, most likely based on systems in place long before they were subsumed under Ur-Nammu and Šulgi. Thus, production units also likely had their own peculiarities of administration. This is particularly the case when one considers that, for instance, a brewery likely had different administrative requirements than that of a gold smith’s workshop. Not all goods were produced by such production units, however. As Steinkeller has shown, evidence clearly demonstrates that in the main provincial centers of Girsu and Umma, much of the ceramic production was carried out by potters working “at home, in their own workshops, rather than in the facilities belonging to and directly managed by their respective institutions.”73 Indeed, according to Steinkeller, it seems likely that the majority of other, more utilitarian crafts, such as leatherworking (a š g a b), reed-working (a d - KID), carpentry (n a g a r), and possibly even metal-working (s i m u g, t i b i r a), were organized and operated very much like the pottery industry.74 Alternatively, items requiring more specialized raw materials, such as stone and gold (and perhaps other metals), were likely produced largely in specialized production units. Steinkeller’s hypothesis has the advantage of explaining why some units, such as the é n a g a r, are so rarely attested. It may simply have been the case that the state and provinces obtained the majority of such items from individuals working on the margins of 73 Piotr Steinkeller, “The Organization of Crafts in Third Millennium Babylonia: The Case of Potters,” AoF 23 no, 2 (1996): 232-53, 248. 74 P. Steinkeller, “The Organization of Crafts,” 251. -26- the administrative apparatus.75 However, in addition to the production of goods from specialized materials, the state may also have wished greater control over items which needed to be produced regularly and in massive quantities. For instance, bread and beer were consumed by certain state dependants at various meals throughout the day, and likely had to be produced constantly. To ensure the regular production of such items, the state likely would have needed an elaborate administrative apparatus. It is likely that only with a large apparatus that breweries and kitchens would have been ensured a constant supply of the processed grains needed for the production of beer and bread. Finally, as will be shown in the discussion of the é - m u h a l d i m below, the lines separating one production unit from another were not uniformly rigid. It is entirely likely that while in one province, gold was worked in a different production unit from where other metals were worked, in another province all metals were worked in a single production unit. For instance, at Umma, there is evidence to suggest that bread production took place alongside at least some beer production in a single production unit called the é - m u h a l d i m, whereas separate breweries (é - b a p p i r2) are also attested.76 75 There are attestations to an é - b a h a r2 (e.g. UTAMI 5 3435) in Umma, though they are extremely rare. This may indicate that at some point, the crown or a province briefly experimented with a more centralized system of ceramic production. Moreover, as I have argued above, because provincial administrations were varied, other as yet unrecovered records from other sites may demonstrate a completely different system than the one proposed by Steinkeller. On the other hand, at the estate of Garšana, almost certainly located in Umma province, an é b a h a r2 is very well-attested. That Garšana boasted such a production unit while the capital of Umma province apparently did not hints at the different levels of administration in the Ur III state. 76 See B. Studevent-Hickman, “Organization of Manual Labor,” 57 and, of course, section 3.2 below. -27- 1.3. Constraints 1.3.1. What Ur III documents do (and do not) say With few exceptions, an individual Ur III administrative document rarely adds much to our understanding of the culture, history, language, or society of the period.77 However, when considered together in archives and larger groups, these texts can significantly illuminate areas of life in the period they document.78 Nevertheless, the very nature of such documents imposes a number of limitations on our ability to reconstruct some parts of the Ur III state’s economy and administration, and of the production units, in particular. Take, for example, the text entry TUT 99 iv:7'-8': 0;1,3,0 d a b i n g u r é m u h a l d i m - š è k i š i b k u r - t a - m u - g i4, “90 s i l a3 (ca. 90 liters) semolina for the é - m u h a l d i m, sealed by Kurtamugi.” The entire text, from Girsu, is only partially preserved, but it appears to be a summary account of expenditures involving grain, flour, and similar products to various people and institutions. The line presented above notes the receipt of a relatively small amount of semolina by one Kurtamugi for the é m u h a l d i m. As shown in table 3.2 in Chapter 3, the é - m u h a l d i m in Girsu often received processed grain. A more difficult challenge, however, is to discern a production unit’s disbursements. In the case of the é - m u h a l d i m, for instance, there is, to my knowledge, 77 There are exceptions, of course. See, for instance, the text discussed in P. Michalowski, “The Death of Šulgi.” It should also be noted that the above statement generally applies to all administrative documents– be they Ur III, Neo-Babylonian, or modern grocery store receipts. 78 See, for instance, Tom B. Jones, “Sumerian Administrative Documents: An Essay,” in Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen, AS 20 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 41-62. -28- no attestation of an item being disbursed explicitly from the é - m u h a l d i m. Thus, in order to discern what the é - m u h a l d i m expended, the records of individuals associated with the é - m u h a l d i m must be examined. Unfortunately, PNs in the clause k i PN - t a, “from PN,” almost never appear with an occupational title or patronymic. Thus, it is virtually impossible to differentiate individuals so as to be sure that the person in question is the same as the one documented elsewhere as working in the é - m u h a l d i m. Account records – summaries of receipts and expenditures covering a specific period of time – can provide some information, as colophons and other indicators often indicate that the individual in question was associated with a certain production unit. In the present study, every attestion of the terms m u h a l d i m and é m u h a l d i m in the Ur III corpus known to me – a total of around 1,600 tablets – has been studied and considered. In addition, numerous other documents that do not contain these terms, but which nevertheless are directly or indirectly related to this production unit, have also been examined. Despite the limitations of Ur III texts discussed above, the relatively large number of texts related to the é - m u h a l d i m that are available for study have allowed for a fairly clear picture to emerge. 1.3.2. The problem of the MU-sign in Ur III (Sumerian) personal names In this study, there is an added problem in studying the occupational title most frequently associated with the é - m u h a l d i m, that of the m u h a l d i m. In Ur III administrative documents, occupational titles always appear after the name of the person so titled. In most cases, one can easily distinguish between the personal name on the one hand and, on the other hand, the occupational title that follows it. To cite but one -29- example, in DAS 206:11 we find l ú - d i n g i r - r a m á - l a h6. This can be broken up to include sign-group l ú - d i n g i r - r a , which makes up an unambiguous Sumerian phrase “man of god” and the additional m á - l a h6. The form is unquestionably a Sumerian personal name. Simiarly, the phrase m á - l a h6 is unambiguous. The MÁ-sign has no other value besides m á, “boat,” and when followed by l a h6, the meaning of “boatman” or “sailor” is clear. A problem arises, however, when looking in such texts for people with the occupational title m u h a l d i m. This is because the MU-sign, which is used to write the word m u h a l d i m, is also a frequent final element in Sumerian personal names. 1.3.2.1. When MU =/ m u h a l d i m 1.3.2.1.1. As a possessive marker in Sumerian personal names In many cases, the sense of the name makes it clear that the final M U is to be read  u10, that is, as the Sumerian first person singular possessive suffix. For instance, the name d šu l - g i - a - a - MU makes the most sense if we are to read it as dšu l - g i - a - a -  u10, giving “Šulgi is my father,” rather than simply “Šulgi the father” or perhaps “Šulgi is a father,” followed by the occupational title m u h a l d i m.79 Similarly, names such as dšu l g i - u r u - MU or l u g a l - u r u - MU are best read dšu l - g i - u r u -  u10, “Šulgi is my city” and l u g a l - u r u -  u10, “the king is my city.”80 79 This name is common in, for instance, the Drehem corpus, where one Šulgi-a’au is active from Š44 to AS9, cf. Marcel Sigrist, Drehem (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1992), 332-34. 80 The translation of this name is contra Henri Limet, L’anthroponymie sumerienne (Paris: Société d’Édition « Les Belles Lettres», 1968), 211-12, who argues that la phrase «le roi est ma ville» n’est plausible que dans la mesure où l’on admet une exégèse laborieuse: le roi m’est aussi cher que ma ville, il représente pour moi l’essentiel de la vie. Cette explication a un caractère artificiel. -30- 1.3.2.1.2. Serving other functions In some instances, the M U element makes less sense functioning as the possessive suffix. For instance, the well-attested name a r a d2- d n a n n a has a perfectly intelligible meaning, namely “servant of Nanna.” However, the name is also attested with the MUsign immediately following it.81 Henri Limet argued that in such instances, the M U might function as a term of He further notes that in Akkadian personal names, the element ali “n’est pas une forme de âlum «la villa», mais l’adverbe interrogatif ali «où...?».” Instead, then, Limet suggests reading u r u “comme équivalent de u r ux (GISAL) ou une forme de u r u ( n ), noté parfois u r ur u - n a,” which gives the idea of, among other things, “prince” or “hero.” Thus, for l u g a l - u r u -  u10, he argues for the meaning “the king is my hero.” Limet’s arguments are not particularly convincing. As he notes, there are no grammatical problems with the reading of “the king (or Šulgi, etc.) is my city.” Indeed, his rejection is based on what he considers to be the artificial character of the name’s sentiment. The “exégèse laborieuse” which Limet dismisses as artificial is his own, however, and not actually expressed in contemporary sources. It is then, by definition, artificial! Also artificial is his suggestion for a different meaning for the URU-sign when it is followed by the MU-sign; Limet has no real objection for reading URU as u r u, “city” in such names as l u g a l u r u - n a, “king of his city,” as a similar sentiment is expressed in, for example, Gudea Cyl. B i 15, where the line e n s i2- k e4 d i n g i r - u r u - n a, “the governor, god of his city...,” is found. Thus, he is left proposing the new meaning only in this specific context, a rather dubious proposition. Moreover, given that perfectly good Sumerian words exist for concepts such as “prince” and “hero,” it seems more logical to assume that a parent and/or scribe would use such words when naming or transcribing a name. Limet argues, 212 fn. 2, that the appearance of the personal name l u g a l - u r -  u10 gives weight to his suggested proposal. However, I would argue that the existence of such names works against him. Limet’s attempt to draw in Akkadian parallels is also unconvincing. After all, no one suggests that a good Akkadian name such as a-lí-a-hi, “where is my brother?” should somehow be read to include the idea of a city. One could argue, however, that a name such as a-lum-d ù g (cf. J.J. Stamm, Die Akkadische Namengebung, MVAG 44 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Verlag, 1939), 285), has a meaning of “the city is good,” (contra Stamm, who offers the rather implausible “wo ist der Gute?”) suggesting that in Akkadian, as in Sumerian, the city was something worth celebrating in personal names. Indeed, Limet himself, 209, notes that Mesopotamians had an attachment to their cities. Given this, is it unreasonable to assume that in a name celebrating the king, they might chose to also celebrate the city? In any event, Limet is correct to read the final MU-sign as the Sumerian possessive. It is also worth noting that to my knowledge, there is no Ur III personal name of the type which reads just l u g a l u r u, dšu l - g i - u r u, and so on, intending, perhaps, “the king/Šulgi is a city.” This suggests that the final MU-sign is indeed, part of the name and not the occupational title m u h a l d i m. 81 E.g. Ontario 1 133:4 -31- endearment for which “se traduria, si l’on cherche une équivalence assez exacte, par « mon cher ...» ou « mon petit ...».” In addition, according to Limet, “le réaction est ici d’ordre affectif; les parents cherchent à distinguer leur enfant de tous les authres qui portent le même nom.”82 Limet’s argument is, at least on the surface, unconvincing. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether terms of endearment are a phenomenon that would manifest themselves in the PNs found in administrative records of ancient Sumer, one might ask just how effective a strategy it would have been to add a MU to a child’s name in order to distinguish that child from another. Was “my little man of Bau” really so much different from “man of Bau”? And what would a Girsu family have done when its neighborhood included children named both u r - d b a - ú and u r - d b a - ú -  u10? Nevertheless, in at least some cases Limet may be right. Like a r a d2- d n a n n a, the name u r - s a6- g a has a clear meaning, “the man is happy.” One would thus be tempted to assign a MU-sign following the name the value m u h a l d i m. However, evidence suggests that, in fact, the final MU-sign belongs to the name. For instance, in BCT 2 156:1 we find u r - s a6- g a - m u d a m - g à r, “Ur-sagamu the merchant,” and in ASJ 19 228 74:ii 4 one u r - s a6- g a - m u s u k k a l, “Ur-sagamu the emissary.”83 Finally, an early e n s i2 of Gudua appears with the name u r - s a6- g a - m u.84 Since it is otherwise unattested that a 82 H. Limet, L’anthroponymie sumerienne, 95. 83 For more on the title s u k k a l, see now Tonia Sharlach, “Diplomacy and the Rituals of Politics at the Ur III Court,” JCS 57 (2005): 17-30. 84 See, for instance, the seal of the otherwise poorly preserved ITT 2 1001. See also David I. Owen, “The Ensi’s of Gudua,” 131-52. This city also appears in the literature as Kutha, cf. RlA s.v. -32- person might have the occupational title m u h a l d i m as well as some other title, the MUsign following the sequence u r - s a6- g a must, in this case, be part of the name, and not the title m u h a l d i m. Thus, at least in some names, the M U-sign may have functioned as a sort of term of endearment, as Limet has already suggested. Alternatively, it may have served some other function the meaning of which is now lost. In any event, it appears that names such as u r - s a6 - g a - m u, where the MU-sign is part of the name, are relatively rare; more often than not, when a Sumerian name makes sense without reading the MUsign as -  u10, the sign should be read m u h a l d i m. 1.3.2.1.3. In so-called “banana names” More complicated are the so-called “banana names,” which are not uncommon in the Ur III period.85 Frequently seen are names of the type X-MU, X-X, X-Y, X-X-MU, and X-Y-MU, among others.86 As the meanings of these names are unclear, it is difficult to know if, in the cases of X-X-MU, X-Y-MU, and even X-MU, the MU-sign is functioning as a part of the name or as the occupational title m u h a l d i m. 1.3.2.2. When MU = m u h a l d i m 85 As even a cursory glance at the index of personal names in Limet, L’anthroponymie sumerienne, shows, such names are quite well-attested in this period. T. J. Meek, “Iterative Names in the Old Akkadian Texts from Nuzi,” RA 32 (1935): 51-55, called them “iterative names,” which he characterized as having “iteration or reduplication of one syllable,” 51. Calling them “Les noms «ésotériques»” or “Lallnamen,” Limet, L’anthroponymie sumerienne, 99, expanded the definition to include names with “associations de syllabes, souvent redoublées, qui, à première vue, n’ont aucun sens.” I use the term “banana name” after I.J. Gelb’s “banana language,” which he used to describe one of the supposed pre-Sumerian substrate languages that featured divine names with reduplicated syllables. See A. Salonen, Zum Aufbau der Substrate im Sumerischen, StOr 32 part 3, 3 (Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1968). This is not to imply, of course, that such names belong to an actual pre-Sumerian substrate. 86 Following Limet, L’anthroponymie sumerienne, 102-03. Examples include b a - m u (e.g. MVN 17 49:4), d a - d a (e.g. MVN 10 216:10), l a - n i (e.g. NATN 175:seal 2), b a - b a - m u (e.g. MVN 6 322:10), and l a - a - m u (e.g. SET 293:3). -33- Despite the problems noted above, in many cases it is possible to determine when the MU-sign is to be read m u h a l d i m. One obvious example is when a name ends with two MU-signs; a sequence such as dšu l - g i - z i - MU-MU must certainly be read dšu l g i - z i -  u10 m u h a l d i m.87 In Akkadian names, a MU-sign after such names must almost certainly by taken as m u h a l d i m, and not as part of the name, as a final MU-sign in Akkadian sentence phrases does not otherwise make sense. Other, less obvious, means exist for determining when the MU-sign is to be read m u h a l d i m, such as when the name on a tablet does not match its appearance on the case or a seal. In such instances, the inconsistencies are more likely to result from the fact that the omitted part is the person’s title or profession, and not the name. Thus, in TCTI 2 3217:3 appears an individual named u r - k ù. However, on the seal is written u r - k ù MU. Given the context of the tablet, it is likely here that the name is not u r - k ù -  u10, but rather u r - k ù m u h a l d i m.88 Finally, contextual evidence can indicate when a MU-sign is to be read m u h a l d i m. More specifically, when one person appears in a context that is similar to one seen for a demonstrable m u h a l d i m, it is quite likely that that person is likely a m u h a l d i m, too. For instance, TUT 104 is an account of one u r - dig i - m a - š è MU. Cf. NATN 740:4. Other examples include u r i3ki - k i -  u10 m u h a l d i m (AUCT 1 363:3) and ut u -  u10 m u h a l d i m (BAOM 2 31 no. 71:7). 87 d 88 This is common with other occupations and titles, too. See also, for example, TCTI 2 2559, where we can safely reconstruct line 4 of the envelope to read: [n a - b a - s a6 š u b]a- t i. However, the tablet itself in lines 5-6 gives: n a - b a - s a6 nu - b a n d a3 / š u b a - t i. Similarly, in Princeton 1 337:4, we see the PN l u g a l - i t i - d a with no further qualification. This person’s seal, however, is more descriptive in that it adds his profession: n u - b a n d a3 g u4. Other examples of this phenomenon are not uncommon. -34- Because the name makes sense without the MU-sign, it is likely that it is to be read m u h a l d i m. This likelihood is confirmed when we consider that this account is similar to the accounts of other well-known m u h a l d i m. 1.3.2.3. Conclusions In the present study, every effort has been made to include only individuals who can clearly be demonstrated to be a m u h a l d i m. Thus, many individuals who may be m u h a l d i ms but who nevertheless cannot be identified as such with reasonable certainty will largely be excluded from this study. The impact of this limitation is minimized to some degree by that fact that in most cases, such individuals appear rarely, or in contexts which add nothing to the understanding of the m u h a l d i m or é - m u h a l d i m. In some cases, however, the evidence for a particular argument will be supplemented by examples of individuals whose names end in M U but cannot be clearly distinguished as m u h a l d i m. In those such instances the ambiguity will be noted. -35- CHAPTER 2 The m u h a l d i m and é - m u h a l d i m in Nippur Province 2.1. Nippur Nippur, modern Nuffar, is located in central Sumer, approximately 75 km NW of Umma, 110 km NW of Girsu, and 155 km NNW of Ur. The site shows a long occupation history, with evidence of settlement as early as the sixth millennium BCE. By the end of the third millennium, the city was quite large– perhaps 150 ha– and its modern-day remains rise some 20 meters above the surface.89 That Nippur served as a provincial capital is evidenced by the several provincial governors attested for it.90 Unlike most other provinces, however, Nippur did not pay into the b a l a system of royal taxation. Indeed, the evidence shows that the city of Nippur often received such payments.91 Other settlements within the province included ancient Puzriš-Dagan, as well as Tummal. The site of Nippur was first excavated briefly by Layard in the first two months of 1851. More extensive campaigns were carried out by the University of Pennsylvania at the end of the nineteenth century. After a long hiatus, excavations resumed under the auspices of the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Chicago in 1948. After the University of Pennsylvania withdrew from excavations after the 1954 season, the 89 See Richard Zettler’s entry in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. Eric Meyers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), s.v. Nippur. 90 For a history of Nippur’s e n s i2's, see William W. Hallo, “The House of Ur-Meme,” JNES 31 (1972): 87-95, and Richard Zettler, “The Genealogy of the House of Ur-Me-me: A Second Look,” AfO 31 (1984): 1-9. 91 T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 11-12. -36- University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute continued its work at Nippur through the late 1980's.92 2.1.1. The Corpus Almost all the published Ur III administrative documents– over 2,000 in all– were recovered from excavation. David Myhrman’s BE 3/1 contains material housed at the University of Pennsylvania, while Alfred Pohl’s TMH NF 1-2 contains the material from Jena. The monograph NRVN by Muazzez Çi— and Hatice K2z2lyay presents legal and administrative texts from Nippur housed in Istanbul. David I. Owen’s NATN includes tablets from the University of Pennsylvania– including new copies of tablets published earlier in BE 3/1– at well as material from the Oriental Institute in Chicago and The Iraq Museum in Baghdad. In addition to the published material, over 400 unpublished Nippur tablets are housed in the Department of Near Eastern Studies collections at Cornell University.93 Much of the material recovered from Nippur stems from private archives, and record the activities of merchants and other individuals. However, a number of tablets were also recovered from what were apparently state administrative contexts, as well.94 92 For a more extensive discussion of the excavations, as well as important bibliography, see again R. Zettler’s entry in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology, s.v. Nippur. 93 For a more extensive discussion of the Nippur administrative documents, including bibliography, see Jacob Klein’s entry in RlA 9 (1999) s.v. Nippur A.I §4.3. 94 See Richard Zettler, The Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur, BBVO 11 (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1992), 17-20, as well as Hans Neumann, “Zur privaten Geschäftstätigkeit in Nippur in der Ur III-Zeit,” in Nippur at the Centenial, RAI 35, OPSNKF 14, ed. Maria deJong Ellis (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1992), 161-76, Govert van Driel, “Private or Not-So-Private: Nippur Ur III Files,” in Cinquante-Deux Reflexions sur le Proch-Orient Ancien, MHEOP 2, ed. by H. Gasche, et al. (Leiden: Peeters, 1994), 181-92, and Steven Garfinkle, “Private Enterprise in Babylonia at the End of the Third Millennium BC” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 2000), 172 ff. Note that Zettler, “Written Documents -37- Finally, a substantial amount of documents were recovered from the Inanna temple in Nippur and make up that institution’s administrative archive.95 2.1.2. The m u h a l d i m and é - m u h a l d i m in Nippur 2.1.2.1. The é - m u h a l d i m in Nippur Only three Nippur texts– NATN 109, NATN 979, and 6 NT 195, mention the é m u h a l d i m.96 In NATN 109 (Š48 vi 23), we have: 1. 1 munusáš-gàr-niga 2. šà uri5ki-ma 3. ki lugal-si4 d 4. ìr ta-abšul-gi . 5. 1 máš é-muhaldim 6. ìr é-kur-ra-hi-li-bi 7. u4 20 zal-la (r.) 8. [. . .] udu-niga 9. [š]a-at-dEN.ZU 10. u4 23 zal-la 11. šu-nigin2 1 udu-niga 12. šu-nigin2 2 máš 13. ba-zi itiki-dinanna 12. mu ús-sa ki-maški ba-hul-a mu ab-ús-sa 1 grain-fed female kid in Ur, from Lugal-si, the conveyor is Tab-Šulgi. . 1 goat (for) the kitchen, the conveyor is Ékura-hilibi, on the 20th. [. . .] grain-fed sheep, (for) Šat-Sin on the 23rd. Total: 1 grain-fed sheep; total: 2 goats, expended. Š48 vi 23 This text appears to be a summary list recording the expenditures of a number of animals, all of which took place toward the end of the sixth month of the Nippur calendar. Among these, one goat went to the é - m u h a l d i m. This expenditure was likely for Nippur’s as Excavated Artifacts and the Holistic Interpretation of the Mesopotamian Archaeological Record,” in The Study of the Ancient Near east in the Twenty-First Century, eds. Jerrold S. Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 81-102, and particularly Garfinkel, have argued that the modern distinctions between public and private was not so clear in Ur III Mesopotamia. 95 See R. Zettler, The Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur, 91-102, for a discussion of the archive. 96 6 NT 195 is published in R. Zettler, The Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur. Inexplicably, Zettler does not give the tablets presented at the end of his work new publication numbers. Instead, he uses the rather cumbersome excavation numbers to designate his tablets. 6 NT 195 is transliterated on p. 274 of his monograph. -38- provincially run é - m u h a l d i m, and not for the nearby é - m u h a l d i m so often mentioned in the Drehem corpus. Though they are not common, the documents from other provincial centers do show that local é - m u h a l d i m’s did receive animals. In addition to animals, the é - m u h a l d i m in Nippur received other commodities, such as beer, as shown in NATN 979 (vii): 1. 12 kaš-sig5 dug 2. ní na-a lugal 3. ìr má-X-a-ba?-du-ba 4. 14 kaš-sig5 GIR? 5. ìr má-du8-a (r.) 6. maškim lugal-šu-mah 7. 2 kaš-sig5 dug-gal 8. é-+muhaldim, 9. maškim ur-á-gi-a 10. ba-zi 11. ki sipa-inim-gi-na-ta 12. iti du6-kù 13. šà uru 12 jars of quality beer, beverage for the king to drink, the conveyor was . . .97 14 . . . of quality beer, the conveyor was Madua, the m a š k i m-official was Lugal-šumah.98 2 large jars of quality beer for the kitchen, the m a š k i m-official was Ur-gagia.99 Expended by Sipa-inim-gina in the city. vii This tablet records the expenditures of beer for consumption by the king, as well as for the é - m u h a l d i m. According to the final line on the text, the expenditures were all to be made š à u r u, that is, “within the city,” and not to a destination outside of Nippur. Though we are not told explicitly, it is likely that these expenditures were for related events. 97 A PN is expected here, and names beginning with the initial element má- are not uncommon, cf. H. Limet, L’anthroponymie sumerienne, 461, for a few examples. This phraseology is otherwise unattested, and if it is not a PN, it is difficult to understand. Note also that the following PN also begins with a m á; that these two names both begin with this sign is suspicious. 98 The name Madua written m á - d u8 - a is otherwise unattested. However, a Madu, written madu8, does appear in YOS 4 13 as the father of one d i n g i r - z i - z i. 99 This name is not uncommon at Nippur, though it is almost always written u r -  á - g i4 - a. -39- In the Drehem texts there are a number of references to the royal trips to Nippur.100 The expenditures recorded in NATN 979 included beer directly for consumption by the king and his entourage and for é - m u h a l d i m. The other allotment of beer likely served as special compensation for the personnel of the é - m u h a l d i m as they prepared for the royal visit. A particularly interesting text is 6 NT 195. This text, found in the Inanna temple in Nippur, lists ration allotments for various institutions and people. In particular, listed among a group qualified as k i k k e n2 s á - [d u11] s i z k u r2 ù [e z e m - d i d l i - m e], “they are millers of regular deliveries, prayer offerings, and (offerings for) various festivals,” is an allotment of 10 liters of barley to the é - m u h a l d i m.101 The top and bottom portions of the tablet are broken, however, and it is difficult to understand its overall organization. On the surface, its appearance among a list of ration allotments in the Inanna temple in Nippur would suggest that the é - m u h a l d i m in 6 NT 195 was a part of the temple complex, and thus not the same é - m u h a l d i m appearing in the texts above. There is little evidence anywhere in the Ur III period that any é - m u h a l d i m was part of a temple complex, however, so this seems unlikely. Nevertheless, because the available documentation sheds little light on temples in the Ur III period, it is difficult to state with any certainty if local temples had installations for food preparation called é - m u h a l d i m 100 See in particular table 2.1 below. 101 Following Walther Sallaberger, “Der Babylonische Töpfer und Seine Gefässe,” MHEM III (Ghent: University of Ghent, 1996), 1-119, 33. -40- as was the case with the provincial and state administrations. 2.1.2.2. The m u h a l d i m in Nippur As noted above, only a few m u h a l d i m’s are attested in the Nippur corpus. They most typically appear receiving grain, as shown in NRVN 1 22 (ŠS8): 10,500 liters102 barley from Ahua’a, until Kazallu,103 Ubarum received. Seal: Ubarum the cook, servant of Rubat. ŠS8 1. 35;0,0,0 še gur 2. ki a-hu-a-a 3. a-di ka-zal-luki 4. u-bar-+um, 5. šu ba-ti 6. mu má-gur8 mah ma-dù Seal: u-bar-um muhaldim / arad2 ru-ba-a[t] This unusual document records the receipt of a large amount of barley from Ahua’a by one Ubarum. From the seal impression, we know that Ubarum was a m u h a l d i m. As will be shown in the documentation from other sites, m u h a l d i m often received significantly large disbursements of barley and other grains. 2.1.2.2.1. The m u h a l d i m l u g a l in Nippur Several m u h a l d i m l u g a l appear in the Nippur corpus. In NATN 15 (ŠS2 xii), one Anamu received KAL-flour:104 1. 1;1,3,0 gur zì-KAL 390 liters KAL-flour from 102 As noted above, p. 41, one s i l a3 is approximately one liter, and 300 s i l a3 make up one g u r. thus, 35 g u r are 10,500 s i l a3, or approximately 10,500 liters of barely. 103 The expression a-di GN is otherwise unknown to me in Ur III administrative documents and is difficult to interpret. I have taken is as the Akkadian preoposition adi, meaning “until” as does Markus Hilgert, Akkadische in der Ur III-Zeit, IMGULA 5 (Münster: Rhema, 2002), 118. Does it refer to the location of Ahua’a when he made the disbursement, or does it reference the final destination of Ubarum? 104 For the possible meaning of “gold-colored” for KAL, often read s i g15, see Marvin Powell, “Metron Ariston: Measure as a Tool for Studying Beer in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Drinking in Ancient Societies, HANES 6, ed. Lucio Milano (Padova: Sargon srl, 1994), 91-119, 104-6. A more recent treatment is to be offered by Hagan Brunke in his “Food in the Garšana Texts,” in Commentaries to the Garšana Archives, CUSAS, ed. David I. Owen (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, forthcoming). -41- 2. ki im-ti-dam-ta 3. kišib á-na-mu (r.) 4. iti še-kí-ku5105 5. mu má-dara3 ba-ab-du8 Seal: á-na-mu / muhaldim lugal / dumu lúd nin-[. . .]-ZU? Imtidam, seal(ed) by Anamu. Seal: Anamu, royal cook, son of Lu-Nin[. . .]. ŠS2 xii A similar transaction is seen in NATN 698 (AS8 xi): 1. 0;1,0,0 zì-KAL 2. ki ba-l[a-. . .-ta] 3. +lugal,-[gaba] (r.) 4. [šu ba-ti] 5. iti ezem-me-ki-ál 6. mu en eriduki ba-hun Seal: lugal-gaba / dumu ku-li / muhaldim lugal 60 liters KAL-flour from Bal[a . . .], Lugal-gaba [received]. Seal: Lugal-gaba, son of Kuli, royal cook. AS8 xi One Aba-dingir, called a m u h a l d i m l u g a l in his seal, appears in NATN 708 (vi), though the tablet is poorly preserved and the context is not clear. 2.1.3. Conclusions Though only a few texts from the Nippur corpus reference the é - m u h a l d i m or m u h a l d i m, some observations can be made. As will be shown in the following chapters, the é - m u h a l d i m often received barley and flour, as well as animals on the hoof. The Nippur texts show that its é - m u h a l d i m received similar such items. Unfortunately, the few sources available allow for little speculation on the organization or administration of the é - m u h a l d i m in Nippur. 2.2. Drehem106 105 There has been some debate as to how to read this month name. However, I will follow Mark Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993), 120-23 in reading the month as š e - k í  - k u5. More evidence for this has been provided by Gary Beckman, “Month XII,” NABU 2000 no. 3 note 46. 106 Note that according to M. Sigrist, Drehem, 12, “la prononciation du nom du tell est Drehim et non Drehem.” See also Marcus Hilgert, Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of Amar- -42- The modern site of Drehem was situated approximately 10 km southeast of Nippur. Though never scientifically excavated, the site was surveyed as part of the fieldwork undertaken by Robert Adams from 1968-1975. Of the site (WS 1001), Adams observed that it measured 560 m long (oriented to the northwest) by 275 m wide. Moreover, he noted that it was over eight meters high, but that it “reach[ed] this h[eigh]t only in a small eminence suggestive of a ziggurat near the [southeast] end of the site.” Indeed, according to Adams, “most of the area [was] less than [two meters] in elevation,” suggesting a rather limited period of occupation.107 Moreover, the pottery sample collected “was consistent with an occupation limited to the Ur III-Larsa period.”108 During the Ur III period, the site of Drehem went by several names. It appears that the settlement was originally called Esadana Nibru, often just Esadana, meaning “the house at the head of a d a n a (of) Nippur,” where a d a n a is a unit of measure approximately equivalent to 11 km.109 This name appears in the corpora from Umma and Girsu, along with variant spellings such as Etena, Esatena, Sadana, and the like.110 In the Suena, vol. 2 of Cuneiform Texts from the Ur III Period in the Oriental Institute, OIP 121 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2003), 1 fn. 1, where he observes that while “the toponym ‘Drehem’ is a western adaption of the site’s Arabic name tall Kad-duraihim (‘mound of the little drachma’) and by convention widely used among Assyriologists . . . a transcription of tall Kad-duraihim as Dr‘him . . . has to be considered more correct philologically.” Nevertheless, for scholarly convention I will use here the traditional Drehem. This is due in large part because the site went by several different names in the Ur III period, for which see below. 107 R. Adams, Heartland of Cities, 269. 108 R. Adams, Heartland of Cities, 269. 109 For this argument, see Claus Wilcke “É-sa-da-na Nibruki: An Early Administrative Center of the Ur III Empire,” in Nippur at the Centenial, 311-24. 110 For the argument that these are all variant spellings for the Esadana in Nippur province, see Piotr Steinkeller, “New Light on the Hydrology and Topography of Southern Babylonia,” ZA 91 no. 1 -43- Garšana material, the name always appears as Edana. In his 39th year, Šulgi re-christened the site Puzriš-Dagan. Outside of Drehem, however, the use of the older name of Sagdana (and its variants) continnued. 2.2.1. The corpus Over 12,000 Drehem tablets have been published.111 The earliest Drehem tablet dates to Š26, though most of the material comes after Š41.112 The last known tablet from the corpus dates to the final day of the year IS2.113 The vast majority of these texts dates to the last few years of the reign of Šulgi and the reign of Amar-Sin.114 The Drehem material was first recovered in 1908 or 1909, and was closely followed by the publication of several large collections.115 Because the site was never scientifically excavated, however, Drehem tablets made their way into the collections of hundreds of museums, universities, and individuals entirely through the antiquities trade, especially in the United States by Edgar Banks. Thus, the publication of Drehem tablets are scattered among hundreds of monographs, articles, and dissertations. 2.2.2 Overveiw of the Drehem administration of animals A reconstruction of Drehem’s administrative structure was first presented by Tom (2001): 22-84, 56-65. 111 A search of the CDLI’s database gives 12,632 texts. This number is increasing all the time. 112 M. Sigrist, Drehem, 20. The earliest Drehem document known to me is OIP 115 1 (Š26 vii). 113 Cf. M. Sigrist, Drehem, 20 fn. 31 for mention of AUCT 3 438 dated to IS2 xii 30. 114 M Sigrist, Drehem, 20. 115 T. Jones, “Sumerian Administrative Documents,” 46. -44- Jones and John Snyder in their seminal 1961 study Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Dynasty of Ur.116 Since then, a number of scholars, including Tohru Maeda, Setsuko Oh’e, Marcel Sigrist, and Markus Hilgert, have reexamined its administration in light of the significant increase in material available since Jones and Snyder’s work.117 This study largely follows the treatment by Jones and Snyder, keeping in mind the more recent treatments noted above. In general, animals were delivered to Drehem where they were received by an official, called the “Receiving Official” by Jones and Snyder.118 The receipt of animals into the Drehem complex was documented in the texts with the expression m u - DU PN ì d a b5, “delivery received by PN.”119 A sample text is PDT 1 101 (Š47 iii 26): 1. 2 udu-niga 2. 1 sila4-niga 3. i-mi-id-ili 4. 1 sila4 5. ad-da-banda3 6. mu-DU 7. na-sa6 ì-dab5 2 grain-fed sheep, 1 grain-fed lamb, from Imid-ili, 1 lamb from Adda-banda. Delivery received by Nasa. Š47 iii 26. 116 Tom Jones and John Snyder, Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1961), 212-38. 117 Tohru Meada, “Bringin (mu-túm) Livestock and the Puzurish-Dagan Organization in the Ur III Dynasty,” ASJ 11 (1989): 69-111, Setsuko O’he, “On the Function of the Maškim, I,” ASJ 5 (1983): 113-126, M. Sigrist, Drehem, and Neo-Sumerian Texts from the Royal Ontario Museum I: The Administration at Drehem (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1995), and M. Hilgert, Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of Šulgi, vol. 1 of Cuneiform Texts from the Ur III Period in the Oriental Institute, OIP 115 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1998), and Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of Amar-Suena. The latter two volumes contain a particularly extensive bibliography of the Drehem administration. 118 T. Jones and J. Snyder, Sumerian Economic Texts, 215. 119 T. Jones and J. Snyder, Sumerian Economic Texts, 213. The reading /ku/ or /kur/ has been proposed for the DU-sign in this context by J. Krecher, “DU=kux(-r) ‘eintreten’, ‘hinausbringen’,” ZA 77 (1987): 7-21. However, in this study the conventional mu-DU will be used. -45- 8. iti u5-bí-gu7 9. mu ús-sa ki-maški ba-hul Left Edge: u4 26-kam In this text, a number of animals qualified as m u - DU, “deliveries,” from several individuals were received by Nasa. The Receiving Official in the earliest receipt texts in the Drehem corpus was not named.120 However, Nasa appears as early as Š47 i 3 (StOr 9-1 24) and is attested receiving animals until AS1 vii 24 (AUCT 2 40). Nasa was succeeded by his son Abbasaga, who received animals from AS1 viii (OIP 121 74) to AS8 i 8 (OIP 121 105), and again from AS8 viii 5 (BIN 3 185) to AS9 vi 6 (PDT 1 561).121 During the interlude, animals were received by Abbasaga’s brother Lugal-amarku.122 The final Receiving Official was Intaea, attested in that office from AS9 viii 2 (MVN 4 96) to IS2 viii 26 (NYPL 13). Once received, animals were either disbursed to a final destination, or routed to caretakers within the Drehem organization. An example of the former is Princeton 1 78 (Š47 iii 3), where lambs are disbursed for cultic purposes: 1. 1 sila4 den-líl 2. 1 sila4 dnin-líl 3. mu-DU šeš-da-da sanga 4. zabar-dab5 maškim 5. u4 3-kam 1 lamb for Enlil, 1 lamb for Ninlil, delivery of Šešdada the temple official, the z a b a r - d a b5 was the m a š k i m-official. Expended from Nasa. Š47 iii 3 120 The question of whether the official in the anonymous texts was in fact Nasa has been considered most recently by M. Hilgert, Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of Šulgi, 14. For a contrary opinion, see Tohru Maeda, “The Receiving and Delivering Officials in Puzuriš-Dagan,” ASJ 10 (1988): 297-300, 298. 121 OIP 121 74 is only dated to the month. The earliest daily account of Abbasaga is MVN 13 442, dated to AS2 i 9. 122 The earliest attestation of Lugal-amarku receiving animal deliveries is AS8 ii 20 (Ontario 1 74), while the latest is AS8 iii 25 (TSU 78). -46- 6. ki na-sa6-ta ba-zi 7. iti u5-bí-gu7 8. mu ús-sa ki-maški ba-hul An example of the latter is seen in the monthly summary account BIN 3 44 (AS2 xi 1-30), where a large number of animals are transferred from the Receiving Official Abbasaga to Ur-kununa, an official in charge of keeping small animals. Figure 2.1 appearing on the following page, is a comparison of OIP 115 275 and JMEOS 12 45 3503. Both texts are dated to the same day – Š46 iv 29 – and record activities involving the same animals. This shows that in many, if not most, cases, received animals were disbursed on the same day. -47- OIP 115 275 JMEOS 12 45 3503 1. 2 sila4 1. 1 sila4 den-líl 2. šeš-da-da sanga 2. 1 sila4 dnin-líl 3. 1 sila4 á-da-a 3. mu-DU šeš-da-da sanga 4. 1 máš nu-úr-ì-lí 4. 1 sila4 hur-sa-ga-lam-ma 5. lú dur eb-laki 5. mu-DU á-da-a (r.) 6. 1 sila4 ur-dEN.ZU 6. 1 sila4 den-líl 7. mu-DU na-sa6 ì-dab5 7. mu-DU ur-dEN.ZU! 8. iti ki-siki-[d]nin-a-zu 8. zabar-dab5 maškim 9. mu ús-sa ki-maški ba-hul 9. 1 gu4 1 áb L.E. u4 30-lá-1-kam 10. šu-gíd é-muhaldim-šè 11. u4 30-lá-1-kam 12. ki na-sa6-ta ba-zi 13. iti ki-siki-dnin-a-zu 14. mu ús-sa ki-maški ba-hul Figure 2.1: Animal receipt and same-day disbursal In the text on the left, OIP 115 275, Nasa received the deliveries of animals from several people, namely Šešdada, Ada’a, Nur-ili, and Ur-Sin. In the text on the right, JMEOS 12 45 3503– again, dated to the same day– Nasa disbursed animals for cultic purposes and for the kitchen. In several cases, it is clear that the transactions are linked. The two lambs that Nasa received from Šešdada were sent to the cults of Enlil and Ninlil, while the lamb from Ada’a was sent to the cult of Hursa-galama, and so on. Of course, the comparison shows that some transactions accounted for among the deliveries are missing in the list of disbursals. For instance, the goat from Nur-ili recorded in OIP 115 275 does not appear in the same-day disbursal recorded in JMEOS 12 45 -48- 3503. Moreover, the large cattle recorded in JMEOS 12 45 3505 as going to the é m u h a l d i m do not appear in the list of received animals from OIP 115 275. We can posit, then, that originally, other tablets were drawn up to record these transactions as well. A shift in the Drehem administration appears early in the reign of Amar-Sin. As Maeda already observed, disbursals to the é - m u h a l d i m from at least AS3 ix 1 were no longer handled by the Receiving Official. Instead, they were generally expensed only from the account of another official, the “Delivering Official,” using Maeda’s terminology.123 Thus, animals received by the Receiving Official were first transferred to the Delivering Official before being expensed to the é - m u h a l d i m. An example of this type of transfer is seen in OIP 121 140 (AS3 xi 13): 1. 1 sila4 2. u4 13-kam 3. ki ab-ba-sa6-ga-ta 4. in-ta-è-a 5. ì-dab5 6. iti ezem-me-ki-ál 7. mu dgu-za den-líl-lá ba-dím LE. 1 1 lamb from Abbasaga, Intaea received. (Total:) 1. AS3 xi 13 Intaea could then route the animal to another official within the Drehem administration, or expend it to its final destination. Intaea held the position of Delivering Official from AS3 ix 1 (OrSP 5 47 5) to AS7 xi 16 (PDT 1 108). The position was then held by Duga, who is attested as Delivering Official from AS8 i 18 (NYPL 229) to ŠS3 xid 26 (SA 33), and finally Ur-kununna, who 123 T. Maeda, “Bringing (mu-túm) Livestock,” 72-74. For expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m from the accounts of other officials in the Drehem organization, see below. -49- was Delivering Official from ŠS4 v 1 (CST 427) to IS2 xi 12 (SRD 27). Shortly into his stint as Delivering Official, Intaea moved to the position of Receiving Official. Unlike Abbasaga and Lugal-amarku, Intaea was not a son of Nasa, the earliest attested Receiving Official, and it is unclear why a member of the Nasa family (e.g. another son of Nasa, or a son of Abbasaga, etc.) was not appointed Receiving Official.124 Moreover, the Delivering Officials after Intaea appear to have had no relation to either the Intaea or the Nasa family. This suggests that while early appointments to Drehem’s highest administrative positions may have been hereditary, later such appointments were made based on other considerations. The reasons for the creation of a new position within the Drehem administration are not clear. However, I believe that this change reflects the overall change in the nature of the Drehem expenditures during the reign of Amar-Sin. As M. Hilgert has already observed, the ultimate desitnation of animal expenditures during this time shifted dramatically.125 Whereas most Drehem animals expenditures during the reign of Šulgi went for cultic purposes such as offerings to gods, under Amar-Sin, most such expenditures went to the é - m u h a l d i m and other non-cultic functions. As Hilgert notes, the dramatic decline in the number of livestock expenditures for cultic purposes immediately after Šulgi’s death emphatically suggests that the main administrative function of the Puzriš-Dagan organization may have shifted as early as under the reign of Šulgi’s successor, Amar-Suena, to more ‘secular’ responsibilities, such as 124 That is, if the Intaea appearing in the seal on MVN 13 447 is the same as the Delivering/Receiving Official of the same name– a likely scenario. If so, then he was the son of one Luduga, and thus almost certainly was not part of the immediate Nasa family. 125 M. Hilgert, Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of Amar-Suena, 14-16. It is important to note that while Hilgert’s observations are based solely on the 605 texts presented in his OIP 121, they can, in general, nevertheless be applied to the whole of the Drehem texts published thus far. -50- the provision of meat for the numerous ‘kitchens,’ soldiers, messengers, foreign embassies, and the extended entourage of the king.126 Thus, if expenditures from the Drehem administration shifted largely towards, among other things, the é - m u h a l d i m, then the creation of a new administrative post to oversee such expenditures seems entirely likely. 2.2.3. The é - m u h a l d i m and m u h a l d im at Drehem 2.2.3.1. The é - m u h a l d i m at Drehem The é - m u h a l d i m appears in the Drehem corpus exclusively in the context of receiving animals. These animals were first received by a Receiving Official who then either disbursed the animals to their final destination outside the Drehem administration, or routed them to individuals within the administration. Early in the reign of Amar-Sin, however, the Receiving Official no longer expended animals to the é - m u h a l d i m. Instead, this task was usually performed by the Delivering Official. In some cases, however, expenditures to the é- m u h a l d i m were made by an official other than the Receiving or Delivering Official. For instance, in CST 309 (AS5 iv 10), we have: 1. 12 udu-niga 2. mu šakkan6-e-ne-šè 3. 7 udu 126 12 grain-fed sheep, for the generals, 7 sheep, 3 ewes š u - g í d127 for the guards, for the kitchen. Šul-[. . . is M. Hilgert, Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of Amar-Suena, 16. 127 This term is difficult to understand, and remains untranslated in this study. For one possible explanation, however, see Sigrist, Drehem, 40-43, where he suggested that it refered to an animal being unfattened. However, this explanation seems unsatisfactory. In same-day texts noting expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m, for instance, the same animals that in one text are unqualified are in the other text called š u - g í d, e.g. OIP 115 312 and TCL 2 4680 (both dated to Š47 vii 25). Moreover, animals qualified as š u - g í d are often contrasted with animals qualified as b a - ú š, “dead,” e.g. OIP 121 386 (AS5 iii 7). This dichotomy does not lend itself to Sigrist’s suggestions. -51- 4. 3 u8 5. šu-gíd mu aga3-ús-e-ne-šè 6. é-muhaldim-šè (r.) 7. dšul-[. . . maškim] 8. iti u4 10 ba-zal 9. ki na-lu5-ta 10. ba-zi 11. šà nibruki 12. iti ki-siki-dnin-a-zu 13. mu en-unu6-gal dinanna ba-hul L.E. 22 the m a š k i m-official]. Expensed from Nalu, in Nippur. (Total:) 22. AS5 iv 10 In this text, various animals are expensed to the é - m u h a l d i m for š a k k a n6 (“generals” or perhaps just “officers”) and a g a3- ú s (“guards”). They are not expended from the account of Intaea as we might expect, however. Instead, they are expended from one Nalu. One interesting aspect of this text is the phrase š à n i b r uk i, “in Nippur.” The fact that Nalu, like a number of officials in the Drehem organization, is occasionally mentioned in association with different geographic names– most often Nippur and Ur– led Jones and Snyder to label his position as a “Travelling Official.”128 However, in her study of Nalu, Margaret Mahoney argued that it was unlikely that these officials actually travelled to such locations.129 Instead, it seems that the animals were in one way or another destined for those locations. This is clearly demonstrated in the text Orient 16 42 10 (Š46 viii 3): 1. 2 udu-niga 2. 2 máš-gal-niga 3. mu lú-kin-gi4-a lú ià-ab-ti-um 4. ù lú-kin-gi4-a lú ma-ríki-šè 128 2 grain-fed sheep, 2 grain-fed billy goats, for the emissary of the ruler of Iabtium and the emissary of the ruler of Mari, T. Jones and J. Snyder, Sumerian Economic Texts, 235-37. 129 Margaret Mahoney, “A Study in Sumerian Administrative History of the Third Ur Dynasty” (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1965), 33-35. -52- 5. šà nibruki 6. 2 gu4 7. 1 áb (r.) 8. 22 udu 9. 18 u8 10. 1 udu-gi6 11. 10-lá-1 u8-gi6 12. 4 máš-gal 13. 23 ud5 14. šu-gíd é-muhaldim-šè 15. mu aga3-ús-e-ne-šè 16. arad2-u10 maškim 17. iti u4 3 ba-zal 18. zi-ga ki lú-dingir-ra 19. iti šu-eš5-[ša] 20. mu ki-maški hu-ur5-tiki ba-hul in Nippur. 2 oxen, 1 cow, 22 sheep, 18 ewes, 1 black sheep, 9 black ewes, 4 billy goats, 23 nanny goats, š u - g í d for the kitchen, for the guards. Aradu was the m a š k i mofficial. Expended from Lu-dingira. Š46 viii 3 In this text, animals were expended for foreign envoys. They are specifically said to have been in Nippur. Conversely, the expenditure to the é - m u h a l d i m for the guards has no such designation. Thus, it seems certain that this was a local expenditure in Drehem, and not elsewhere. This conclusion has important ramifications for our understanding of the é m u h a l d i m. Again, if, as shown in the two examples above, a scribe was compelled to record that the é - m u h a l d i m to which the animals were expended was in Nippur, and not in Drehem, then it follows that when such designations are not made, then the é m u h a l d i m referenced was the local one in Drehem.130 If the animals expended in CST 309 were not for the é - m u h a l d i m in Drehem, why were they sent to the é - m u h a l d i m in Nippur? It seems likely that at least some of the references to the é - m u h a l d i m in Nippur were for the é - m u h a l d i m under 130 A similar conclusion was reached by Walther Sallaberger, “Schlachtvieh aus Puzriš-Dagan. Zur Bedeutung dieses königlichen Archivs,” JEOL 38 (2003-2004): 45-62, 59. -53- provincial authority. If this is so, then it is difficult to explain why the Drehem administration under the authority of the crown would see fit to expend animals to the é m u h a l d i m run by a province. One possible solution to the problem emerges when we consider that a) Drehem texts recording expenditures to an é - m u h a l d i m outside of Drehem are not common; b) they are limited almost exclusively to the cities of Nippur, Ur, and Uruk, the three “capitals” of the Ur III state,131 and c) they are almost always recorded as being for a specific group, such as a g a3- ú s, “guards,” k a s4, “messengers,” or l ú - k i n - g i4- a, “envoys,” rather than simply for the é - m u h a l d i m. In the discussion of the Nippur é - m u h a l d i m above, I noted a text NATN 979 which records expenditures of beer to the é - m u h a l d i m, ostensibly for a royal visit to Nippur. The expenditure was likely either for consumption by the king and his entourage, or as special compensation to local workers as they prepared for the visit. In a similar vein, records in the Drehem corpus for animal expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m in Nippur, Ur, or Uruk may note animal expenditures for royal personnel such as messengers, or even for foreign envoys, as they traveled throughout the state. That such expenditures are only rarely attested suggests that local é - m u h a l d i m’s were generally capable of provisioning the royal entourage and foreign dignitaries during visits. Alternatively, it is possible that the crown also ran an é - m u h a l d i m in Nippur. Given the prominance that Nippur had in the Ur III state, and the frequency with which royalty and other important officials visited the city, this is entirely likely. As noted above, 131 For the notion of multiple capitals for the Ur III state, see T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 8- 9. -54- however, the limited evidence from Nippur makes it difficult to draw any concrete conclusions. As with the expenditures to, for example, the é - m u h a l d i m š à n i b r uk i, or “in Nippur,” the Drehem records often similarly noted expenditures made to its local é m u h a l d i m for a g a3- ú s, “guards” and other groups. Those receiving such expenditures are designated with the formula m u . . . - š è, “for (or on account of . . .).” For example, in NYPL 197 (AS6 ix 23), we have: 1. 5 ud5 šimaški 2. šu-gíd é-muhaldim 3. mu aga3-ús-e-ne-šè 4. arad2-u10 maškim 5. iti u4 23 ba-zal 6. ki lú-dingir-ra-ta 7. ba-zi 8. iti ezem-mah 9. mu ša-aš-ruki ba-hul L.E. 5 5 Šimaškian nanny goats, š u - g í d for the kitchen, for the guards. Aradu is the m a š k i m-official. Expensed from Lu-dingira. (Total:) 5. AS6 ix 23 Table 2.3, presented at the end of this chapter, provides a chronological list of every expenditure of animals to the é - m u h a l d i m in the Drehem corpus known to me. Even a cursory review of the list reveals that the most common group designated in the texts by far is the a g a3- ú s, or “guards.” Indeed, the only other groups mentioned with any frequency at all are the g à r - d u, a group similar to the a g a3- ú s, and k a s4, “messengers.”132 Other individuals or groups which received expenditures at Drehem’s é m u h a l d i m do so only but once or twice in the whole of the corpus. For instance, in 132 The g à r - d u and their relationship to the a g a3- ú s were discussed in greater detail in my “Provisioning the a g a3- ú s in the Ur III Period” (paper presented at the 216th annual meeting of the American Oriental Society, Seattle, WA, March 17-20, 2006). -55- PDT 1 67 (Š43 vi 25) 7 large cattle and 32 small cattle were expended to the é m u h a l d i m, specified as being m u šu-dš u l - g i - š è, “for Šu-Šulgi.” The size of the expenditure is quite large, and it is impossible to know if the Šu-Šulgi mentioned here is the prince (d u m u l u g a l) found in JCS 54 12 82, the s u k k a l, or “emissary,” who frequently appears in the Drehem corpus as a conveyor ( ì r), or another individual. In any event, he never again appears in the Drehem corpus as receiving animals expended to the é - m u h a l d i m. On several occasions, an expenditure is made to Drehem’s é - m u h a l d i m for the é - g i(4)- a, “daughter-in-law” of an individual. For instance, in TRU 344 (AS6 iv 6), we find: 1. 2 udu-niga 2. 3 máš-gal-niga 3. mu kas4-e-ne-šè 4. ìr dšul-gi-uru-u10 5. 1 udu-niga gu4-e-ús-sa 6. mu geme2-dnanna é-gi-a bù-ú-du-šè 7. ìr kù-dnanna sukkal 8. é-muhaldim-šè 9. . . . 2 grain-fed sheep, 3 grain-fed billy goats for the runners, the conveyor was Šulgi-uruu. 1 barley-fed sheep,133 for Geme-Nanna, daughter-in-law of Bu’udu the conveyor was Ku-Nanna, the emissary, to the kitchen . . . Another example is MVN 5 116 (AS7 iii 9), when two grain-fed sheep were expended to the é - m u h a l d i m for the wife of Iddin-Dagan. Again, it is important to stress that the above examples of expenditures to the é m u h a l d i m for people other than the a g a3- ú s (or g à r - d u) are extremely rare and, in most cases, unique events. Indeed, when such individuals or groups do appear, it is almost 133 Literally, “sheep that follows an ox.” For a fuller explanation, see Piotr Steinkeller, “Sheep and Goat Terminlogy in Ur III Sources from Drehem,” BSA 8 (1995): 49-70, 57. -56- always with the designation š à GN discussed above. For instance, l ú k i n - g i4- a, “envoys,” never receive expended animals in Drehem. Rather, they always appear receiving animals expended to the é - m u h a l d i m in Nippur. 2.2.3.1.1. The a g a3- ú s and the é - m u h a l d i m at Drehem If the a g a3- ú s are the most frequently designated recipient of animal expenditures to the Drehem é - m u h a l d i m, then better understanding the a g a3- ú s will add much to our overall understanding of the é - m u h a l d i m, both at Drehem and elsewhere. Typically, the term a g a3- ú s has been translated as “soldier,” based, no doubt, on the lexical equivalents to the Akkadian r‘dû, a term often associated with military activity. In his treatment of the a g a3- ú s/r‘dû in the Old Babylonian period, Steven Voth observed that ‘soldier’ has traditionally been the most common term applied to the a g a3- ú s and with good reason. If one looks at the outset at the Code of Hammurapi one immediately gets the distinct impression that the a g a3- ú s is a soldier. There are laws governing his actions; there are laws that protect him in this role.134 But while soldiering does seem to have been a part of the activities of the a g a3- ú s in the Ur III period, they clearly took on other duties, as well. Indeed, in their convincing discussion of the term, Remco de Maaijer and Bram Jagersma argued that based on the activities of the a g a3- ú s most typically found in the Ur III material, a translation of “guardsman” was most appropriate.135 134 Steven M. Voth, “Analysis of Military Titles and Function in Published Texts of the Old Babylonian Period” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College, 1981), 44. See also CAD R s.v. r‘dû for a similar impression. 135 Remco de Maaijer and Bram Jagersma, review of PSD A/3, eds. Åke Sjöberg, et al., AfO 50 (2003/2004): 351-55. -57- In fact, I would take the arguments put forward by de Maaijer and Jagersma a step further, and suggest that the notion of a single fixed definition for the a g a3- ú s is a false one. A study of the military in the Ur III period is desperately needed, but it is nevertheless clear at this point that a number of terms used for military personnel had civilians application as well. This can be demonstrated in the case of the n u - b a n d a3. In the Ur III period, the term n u - b a n d a3 was certainly a term for a military officer of some rank, as shown in Dahl-Hebenstreit 1 (ŠS1 vii 21-22): 1. +3 gu4 250 udu, 2. u4 21-[kam] 3. 90 udu 4. šu-gíd é-muhaldim-šè 5. mu šakkan6 nu-banda3 6. ù ugula-iš-da kaskal-ta 3 oxen, 250 sheep, on the 21st day, 90 sheep, š u - g í d to the kitchen for the generals, captains, and ‘commanders-of-60 [men]’ upon their returning from the campaign. 1 dead gazelle kid to the storehouse on 7. er-ra-ne-šè (r.) 8. 1 amar-maš-dà +ba-uš, 9. é-+kišib-ba-šè, 10. u4 22-kam 11. ki du11-ga-[ta] ba-zi 12. iti ezem-dšul-gi 13. mu dšu-dEN.ZU lugal Seal: dšu-dEN.ZU / lugal kala-ga / lugal uri5ki-ma / lugal an-ub-da limmu2-ba / ur-dšul-pa-è / dub-sar / dumu ur-dha-ià / IR2.ZU136 the on the 22nd day. Expended from Duga. Seal: Šu-Sin, the strong king, king of Ur, king of the four quarters of the universe, Ur-Šulpae the scribe, son of Ur-Haia (is) his servant. ŠS1 vii 21-22 In this text, a very large number of animals are expended to the é - m u h a l d i m at Drehem m u š a k k a n6 n u - b a n d a3 ù u g u l a -  i š - d a k a s k a l - t a e r - r a - n e š è, “for the generals, captains, and ‘overseers-of-60 [men]’ upon their returning from the 136 For a discussion of the proper reading of IR2/11.ZU, see Rudolf Mayr, Seal Impressions of Ur III Umma (Yale University Press, forthcoming), 103-4, who convingly argues that the expression was to be understood as a third-person form, and not a second-person form. -58- campaign.” Here, n u - b a n d a3 is clearly a military rank. However, in many cases in the Ur III corpus, the term n u - b a n d a3 refers not to a military official, but rather to an official with a high position of authority in a production unit or other institutional setting. Moreover, it seems likely that these two positions did not overlap. That is, I argue that a n u - b a n d a3 serving as a ranking member in the military was always serving in that role, and not switching back and forth between his military role – likely in the Zagros or elsewhere in the Ur III periphery – and that of a high-ranking official in a production unit in, say, Umma, or Girsu. Somewhat similarly, it seems clear that some a g a3- ú s did, indeed, play a role in the military of the Ur III state. However, in other cases people called a g a3- ú s were not, in fact, associated with the military. Instead, they clearly had police-like roles and engaged in such activities as travelling with emissaries, as guards for governors and temple administrators, and towing boats, as will be shown below.137 In the animal expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m at Drehem, the a g a3- ú s almost always appear without any other qualification. Thus, on the surface it is difficult to know if they are to be considered as members of the Ur III military, or in a more local role as “guards” or perhaps “retainer.” A few texts, however, serve to clarify the matter to a great degree. In RA 9 53, SA 210 (ŠS3 x 21), we find: 1. 2 gu4-[ú] 2. 72 udu-ú 3. 38 máš-gal-ú 2 grass-fed oxen, 72 grass-fed sheep, 38 grass-fed billy goats,138 š u - g í d to the kitchen for the 137 See again the discussion in de Maaijer and Jagersma’s review in AfO 50: 351-50. 138 For ú as “grass-fed,” see P. Steinkeller, “Sheep and Goat Terminlogy in Ur III,” 57. -59- 4. šu-gíd é-muhaldim 5. mu aga3-ús uriki-ta má lugal gíd-da-ne-šè (r.) 6. arad2-u10 maškim 7. u4 21-kam 8. ki du11-ga-ta ba-zi 9. ìr hu-la-al dub-sar 10. iti ezem-an-na 11. mu si-mu-númki ba-hul L.E. 2 gu4 110 udu guards’ towing the royal boat from Ur. Aradu was the m a š k i m-official. Expensed from Duga. The conveyor was Hulal the scribe. (Total:) 2 large cattle, 110 small cattle. ŠS3 x 21 This text states clearly that the animals expended to the Drehem é - m u h a l d i m were for the a g a3- ú s on account of their activities related to the towing of the royal boat from Ur. Such duties are consistant with those of the a g a3- ú s acting in a capacity as something other than in a military role. If I am correct in my argument that such duties did not overlap, then it is safe to assume that the a g a3- ú s at Drehem were not part of a military regiment stationed at Drehem, but part of a general-purpose guard detatchment, almost certainly at the disposal of the king and other high-ranking royal officials. This is made clear when we consider MVN 5 115 (AS6 vii 25): 1. 12 udu 2. 83 u8 3. 25 máš 4. 35 ud5 5. mu aga3-ús kaskal-ta er-ra-ne-šè 6. dingir-kal sukkal maškim 7. 10-lá-1 udu 11 u8 (r.) 8. 10 ud5 9. mu aga3-ús-ke4-ne-šè 10. šu-gíd é-muhaldim-šè 11. . . . 12 sheep, 83 ewes, 25 goats, 35 nanny goats, for the troops upon their returning from the campaign. Dingir-kal the emissary was the m a š k i m-official. 9 sheep, 11 ewes, 10 nanny goats for the guards, š u - g í d for the kitchen. . . . In this text a distinction is made between the a g a3- ú s who have returned “from the road” (k a s k a l - t a), almost certainly a reference to military campaigning, and the a g a3- ú s already at Drehem. This makes clear the notion that the local a g a3- ú s at Drehem were -60- not military officials, but rather the “guardsmen” discussed by de Maaijer and Jagersma above. 2.2.3.1.2. Animal expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m with no designation While a number of Drehem texts record specific people or groups as the recipients of animal expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m, more frequently, such expenditures were made without qualification. Moreover, a comparison of BIN 3 509 and BIN 3 514, both dated to Š47 v 10, demonstrates that a scribe’s decision to mention or not mention a designated recipient such as a g a3- ú s was not arbitrary. In BIN 3 509, we have: 1. 1 máš-gal-niga šimaški 2. mu-DU s. e-lu-uš-ddagan 3. 1 sila4 é-uz-ga 4. ur-dba-ú maškim 5. 1 sila4 dlamma-lugal 6. dnanše-ul4-gal maškim 7. mu-DU zabar-dab5 (r.) 8. 3 gu4 2 áb 9. šu-gíd é-muhaldim mu aga3-ús-e-ne-šè 10. arad-u10 maškim 11. u4 10-kam 12. ki na-sa6-ta ba-zi 13. iti ezem-dnin-a-zu 14. mu ús-sa ki-maški ba-hul 1 grain-fed Šimaškian billy goat delivery of S. eluš-Dagan, 1 lamb for the E’uzga, Ur-Ba’u was the m a š k i m-official, 1 lamb for Lamma-Lugal, Nanše-ulgal was the m a š k i m-official, delivery of the z a b a r - d a b5 official. 3 oxen, 2 cows š u - g í d to the kitchen for the guards. Aradu was the m a š k i m-official. Expended from Nasa. Š47 v 10 This text is a typical Drehem text from the reign of Šulgi and notes expenditures for various cultic functions, for the E’uzga, and for the é - m u h a l d i m.139 The animals expended for the é - m u h a l d i m are qualified as being m u a g a3- ú s - e - n e - š è, “for the guards.” BIN 3 514, however, gives us: 139 For the E’uzga, see section 2.2.3.2.1 below. -61- 1. 1 sila4 den-líl 2. 1 sila4 dnin-líl 3. mu-DU zabar-dab5 4. 1 sila4 den-líl 5. mu-DU ensi2 šuruppagki 6. 1 sila4 dnin-líl 7. mu-DU šar-ru-um-ì-lí nu-banda3 (r.) 8. zabar-dab5 maškim 9. 1 gu4-mu-1 10. 3 áb šu-gíd é-muhaldim 11. u4 10-kam 12. ki na-sa6-ta ba-zi 13. iti ezem-dnin-a-zu 14. mu ús-sa ki-maški ba-hul 1 lamb for Enlil, 1 lamb for Ninlil, delivery of the z a b a r - d a b5 official 1 lamb for Enlil, delivery of the governor of Šuruppak. 1 lamb for Ninlil, delivery of Šarrum-ili the captain. The z a b a r - d a b5 official was the m a š k i m-official. 1 oneyear-old ox, 3 cows š u - g í d for the kitchen. Expended from Nasa. Š47 v 10 Dated to the same day, this text documents another transation of animals expended from Nasa for various cultic purposes and for the é - m u h a l d i m. However, unlike the expenditure in BIN 3 509 above, the expenditure to the é - m u h a l d i m in BIN 3 514 makes no mention of the a g a3- ú s or guards. Moreover, the numbers and types of animals expended to the é - m u h a l d i m are different in both texts. Thus, we can be sure that they represent two different expenditures. Some of the animals were specifially for the guards, while others were expended with no special qualification. Another example of this comes from the comparison of AnOr 7 13 and NYPL 160, both dated to Š46 xii 5.140 If expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m qualified for guards went only for guards, and if expenditures qualified for messengers went only for messengers, then it is important to ask for whom non-qualified expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m were intended. If we assume that texts which note expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m without further 140 AnOr 7 13 is actually a summary text recording expenditures over a period of seven days, from Š46 xii 4 to 10. The summary given for Š46 xii 5 is different than the individual expenditure recorded on NYPL 160, dated to Š46 xii 5. Moreover, the latter text specifies that its expenditure was for the guards, while the former does not. -62- referencing a geographic designation– that is, without a clause such as š à n i b r uk i, etc.– were intended for Drehem’s é - m u h a l d i m, then it follows that they were for individuals living in or around Drehem. That is, it is reasonable to assume that these expenditures were for the very officials, functionaries, and other elites running the Drehem organization. Dozens of named individuals regularly appear as officials in the Drehem corpus. However, we must imagine that the site served as much more than a stockyard or animal depot.141 Thus, there were dozens of other officials whose names and records have not yet been recovered from Drehem. Moreover, as will be argued in the discussion of the é m u h a l d i m and m u h a l d i m from Girsu, below, numerous workers in and around Girsu were sent to work in mills, slaughterhouses, and other such installations and production units at Drehem.142 Thus, the population at Drehem was likely often in flux, with a constantly changing make-up of workers and their supervisors. Of course, we have no way at present of knowing exactly how or to whom food was distributed. It is possible that officials from certain parts of the Drehem administration were served from the é - m u h a l d i m on a certain rotational basis. Alternatively, the system of provisioning such individuals may have been more haphazard, or based on other factors. When considering this question, it is important to examine more closely the nature of the expenditures themselves as they were made to the é - m u h a l d i m. The text 141 Cf. the comments of T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 14. 142 See section 3.1 below. -63- CTMMA 1 10 is a summary account for one Enlilla, an official in the Drehem administration charged with receiving, keeping, and expending large cattle – g u4, “oxen” and á b, “cows.” The text coveres the period of Š43 vii, or one month. It records expenditures of oxen to the é-muhaldim on the following days: 1 (4 oxen), 2 (1), 6 (2), 8 (7), 9 (1), 11 (3), 12 (9), 14 (3), 15 (3), 17 (2), 18 (1), 19 (1), 21 (1), 22 (1), 25 (1), and 27 (3). That is, 43 oxen expended for just over half of the month’s 30 days. This number represents 10% of 430 oxen Enlila expended overall for the month as given in the text. However, the summary is incomplete. The text AUCT 1 844 is another, smaller summary account of Enlila also dated to Š43 vii, and covering just two days: 3 (3 oxen), and 16 (1 ox). Combined, these two texts show that Enlila variously expended 47 oxen to the é m u h a l d i m on 18 different days over the span of one month. If other texts like AUCT 1 844 existed, but, due to accident of discovery or preservation, are not otherwise available, then it is possible to assume that during Š43 vii, Enlila expended oxen on as many as 22 or 23 different days, totalling perhaps as many as 55 oxen for the month. Such summary account texts are rare, and so it is difficult to know if CTMMA 1 10 and AUCT 1 844 are typical of Enlila’s monthly activities. However, they do suggest that expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m were not regular with regards either to fequency or to the number of animals expended. This is consistent with the notion that the population at Drehem was not stable, but in flux. Temporary work gangs moved in and out, and groups of a g a3- ú s moved to different locations as part of their towing, escorting, and other duties. Thus, in some cases, the obligations of the state to provision its workers was great, such as on Š43 vii 12, when nine oxen were expended to the é -64- m u h a l d i m. On other days, however, their needs were slight and no such oxen were expended. A second aspect of this question is to ask how many people an ox or a goat could feed. The answer is difficult to arrive at, but taking some basic assumptions from modern meat processing can provide a rough starting point.143 In general, a modern beef animal will yield approximately 400 to 500 pounds of edible (pre-cooked) meat. While it is difficult to arrive at viable numbers for the size of a Mesopotamian ox or cow, we can begin by conservatively positing a total weight of perhaps 10% less than its modern counterpart.144 Thus, the total edible beef from a single animal was likely around 400 pounds. If we postulate that one pound could feed 1.5 men, then, a single ox or cow animal could feed approximately 600 men. Using similar methods, a smaller animal such as a sheep or goat could feed far fewer people, perhaps providing 40 pounds of edible meat, feeding approximately 60 men. Trying to extrapolate these numbers to estimate how many people the é m u h a l d i m supplied is difficult given the rather incomplete nature of the archives. However, from the rough sketch provided above, it seems reasonable to assume that this only rarely reach numbers greater than 1,500 or 2,000, and more typically ranged from a few hundred to 1,000.145 This is in line with the idea that the Drehem é - m u h a l d i m 143 Much of this exprapoliation is based on Duane Wulf, “Did the Locker Plant Steal Some of my Meat?” The Shepherd 44 no. 1 (1999): 12-13. 144 Some of the problems in determining the weight of ancient animals were discussed by Richard Lyman, “Available Meat from Faunal Remains: A Consideration of Techniques,” American Antiquity 44 no. 3 (1979): 536-46. 145 This is assuming that every person at Drehem ate meat at least once a day. -65- supported local officers and workers, small, temporary teams of work gangs, and a contingent of royal guards, henchmen, messengers, and the like. 2.2.3.1.3. Receipt of animals by the é - m u h a l d i m at Drehem One final question to consider regarding Drehem’s é - m u h a l d i m is the source for the animals expended to it. In general, texts documenting the receipt of animals by the Receiving Official document from whom the animals came. For instance, PDT 1 448 (Š47 xii 9) records the receipt of various animals by Nasa in Drehem: 1. 1 amar maš-dà 2. lú-GUL-zi-da 3. 1 gu4 10 udu 4. erin2 pu-úh-zi-gàrki 5. ugula a-mur-é-a 6. 4 udu-niga šar-ru-um-ba-ni 7. 2 sila4 (r.) 8. puzur4-dEN.ZU nu-banda3 9. 1 sila4 ensi2 ummaki 10. 1 amar maš-dà 11. é-a-ì-lí 12. 2 sila4 zabar-dab5 13. mu-DU 14. na-sa6 ì-dab5 15. iti še-kí-ku5 16. mu ús-sa ki-maški ba-hul LE. u4 10-lá-1 kam 1 gazelle calf from Lu-GULzida; 1 ox, 10 udu from the troops of Puhzigar, the lietenant is Amur-Ea; 4 grain-fed sheep from Šarrum-bani; 2 lambs from Puzur-Sin the overseer; 1 lamb from the governor of Umma; 1 gazelle calf from Ea-ili; 2 lambs from the z a b a r - d a b5 official. Delivery, Nasa received. Š47 xii 9 This text lists a variety of animals all said to be from various individuals and a military contingent. In some cases, individuals listed in such texts can be identified as important officials, members of the royal household, other elites, or, as in this case, listed by title alone.146 Conversely, texts recording expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m make no 146 To note just two examples, CST 80 (Š44 x 29) notes deliveries from the prince Lugal-azida, Šeš-dada the temple official, the governor of Šuruppak, the governor of Nippur, and Watarum the temple official. CST 323 (AS5 vi 30) records deliveries from the prince Inim-Nanna, the priest of Inanna, and -66- mention of the source of the animals. Consider, for instance, the text JMEOS 12 45 3505, given in figure 2.1 above. While the sources for the cultic expenditures are given, the source for the ox and cow for the é - m u h a l d i m is not. Moreover, comparing JMEOS 12 45 3503 with the same-day text OIP 115 275 is of little help. While the cultic expenditures can be accounted for in both texts, OIP 115 275 includes the receipt of a goat from one Nur-ili, leader of Dur Ebla. This does not match up with the same-day expenditure of an ox and cow to the é - m u h a l d i m. In light of the above, a potential solution to this question can be found when we examine Nik 2 462. This texts records Nasa’s expenditures to various cults, and to the kitchen, and is dated to the same day (Š47 xii 9) as PDT 1 448 discussed above: 1. 1 udu-niga den-líl 2. 1 udu-niga dnin-líl 3. 1 udu dnanna 4. 1 udu dutu 5. mu-DU šar-ru-um-ba-ni 6. 1 sila4 den-líl 7. 1 sila4 dnin-líl 8. mu-DU puzur4-d[EN.ZU] nu-banda3 9. 1 sila4 dnanna 10. mu-DU ensi2 ummaki 11. 1 amar maš-dà dutu 12. mu-DU lú-GUL-zi-da (r.) 13. 1 sila4 dnin-hur-sa 14. 1 sila4 dšul-pa-è! 15. mu-DU zabar-dab5 16. dnanše-ul4-gal maškim 17. 1 amar maš-dà é-uz-ga 18. mu-DU é-a-ì-lí 19. a-[a-kal]-la! maškim 20. 5 [. . .] gu4 25 udu 21. 50 [. . .] 6 máš 1 grain-fed sheep for Enlil, 1 grainfed sheep for Ninlil, 1 sheep for Nanna, 1 sheep for Utu, delivery of Šarrum-bani; 1 lamb for Enlil, 1 lamb for Ninlil, delivery of Puzur-Sin the overseer; 1 lamb for Nanna, delivery of the governor of Umma; 1 gazelle fawn for Utu, delivery of Lu-GULzida; 1 lamb for Nin-hursa, 1 lamb for Šulpae, delivery of the z a b a r - d a b5 official, Nanše-ulgal was the m a š k i m-official; 1 gazelle fawn for the E’uzga, delivery of Ea-ili, A’[akal]la was the m a š k i mofficial; 5 [. . .] oxen, 25 sheep, 50 [. . .] 6 billy goats, 60+[. . .]-1 nanny goats, š u - g í d for the kitchen. Expended From Nasa. Š47 xii 9 Šara-kam, the governor of Girsu. -67- 22. 60+[. . .]-lá-1 ud5 [šu]-gíd [é-muhaldi]m-šè 23. u4 10-lá-1 kam 24. ki na-sa6-ta ba-zi 25. iti še-kí-ku5 26. mu ús-sa [ki-maš]ki ba-hul Figure 2.2 on the following page is a side-by-side comparison of these two texts. As the figure shows, virtually all of the deliveries Nasa received in PDT 1 448 were, in Nik 2 462, immediately routed to serve either various cultic functions, or the E’uzga. The only delivery in PDT 1 448 not immeditely accounted for in Nik 2 462 is the delivery of an ox and 10 goats from the soldiers of Puhzigar. Conversely, the only expenditure in Nik 2 462 not accounted for in PDT 1 448 is the large disbursal of animals to the kitchen. These two items are marked on bold in Figure 2.2 below. -68- PDT 1 448 Nik 2 462 1. 1 amar maš-dà 1. 1 udu-niga den-líl 2. lú-GUL-zi-da 2. 1 udu-niga dnin-líl 3. 1 gu4 10 udu 3. 1 udu dnanna 4. erin2 pu-úh-zi-gàrki 4. 1 udu dutu 5. ugula a-mur-é-a 5. mu-DU šar-ru-um-ba-ni 6. 4 udu-niga šar-ru-um-ba-ni 6. 1 sila4 den-líl 7. 2 sila4 7. 1 sila4 dnin-líl (r.) 8. puzur4-dEN.ZU nu-banda3 8. mu-DU puzur4-d[EN.ZU] nu-banda3 9. 1 sila4 ensi2 ummaki 9. 1 sila4 dnanna 10. 1 amar maš-dà 10. mu-DU ensi2 ummaki 11. é-a-ì-lí 11. 1 amar maš-dà dutu 12. 2 sila4 zabar-dab5 12. mu-DU lú-GUL-zi-da 13. mu-DU (r.) 13. 1 sila4 dnin-hur-sa 14. na-sa6 ì-dab5 14. 1 sila4 dšul-pa-è! 15. iti še-kí-ku5 15. mu-DU zabar-dab5 16. mu ús-sa ki-maški ba-hul 16. dnanše-ul4-gal maškim LE. u4 10-lá-1 kam 17. 1 amar maš-dà é-uz-ga 18. mu-DU é-a-ì-lí 19. a-[a-kal]-la! maškim 20. 5 [. . .] gu4 25 udu 21. 50 [. . .] 6 máš 22. 60+[. . .]-lá-1 ud5 [šu]-gíd [é-muhaldi]m-šè 23. u4 10-lá-1 kam 24. ki na-sa6-ta ba-zi 25. iti še-kí-ku5 26. mu ús-sa [ki-maš]ki ba-hul Figure 2.2: Side by side comparison of PDT 1 448 and Nik 2 462 -69- Though the relevant portion of Nik 2 462 is poorly preserved, one can speculate that the delivery of animals from the soldiers of Puhzigar were part of a larger group of animals that were ultimately routed to the kitchen. Indeed, often when comparing sameday texts involving the é - m u h a l d i m, the text documenting the receipt of animals by the Receiving Official includes a delivery of animals from the periphery of the Ur III state which cannot be paired with the expenditures of animals to the cult and é m u h a l d i m.147 That these pairs did not match up is likely explained by the fact that the Receiving Official did not immediately expend these animals. Rather, he routed them to fatteners and breeders. After an unspecified duration, these fatteners and breeders, in turn either routed the animals to the é - m u h a l d i m themselves, or routed them to the Receiving or Delivering Official, who routed them to the é - m u h a l d i m.148 Piotr Steinkeller observed in his article on Ur III administrative and economic organization that the taxes paid by military officials in the periphery were made in livestock, “with the amount of livestock delivered dependent on the payer’s military rank.”149 Moreover, the tax appears to have followed rather rigid ratios of large cattle to small cattle, generally 1:10.150 With this in mind, it is interesting to note that in more than a few instances, animal expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m at Drehem are made in this ratio. For instance, in TRU 270 (Š46 xi 30), one ox, eight sheep, and two goats were 147 Note, for instance, JMEOS 12 45 3503 and OIP 115 275 mentioned above. 148 This is discussed in greater detail in T. Maeda, “Bringing (mu-túm) Livestock,” 74-78. 149 P. Steinkeller, “Administrative and Economic Organization,” 25. 150 P. Steinkeller, “Administrative and Economic Organization,” 30 and fig. 5. -70- expended to the é - m u h a l d i m. In a summary account for Nalu, AnOr 7 13 (Š46 xii 410), small cattle are expended to the é - m u h a l d i m on days 4, 5, 8, and 10. Each expenditure totals ten animals. Thus, on the fourth there were six sheep, one ewe, and three goats expended. On the fifth, there were eight sheep and two goats expended. On the eighth, there were six sheep, three ewes, and one goat expended. On the tenth, there were seven sheep, one ewe, and two goats expended. Though large cattle are not listed, it is certain that those expenditures were nevertheless made and recorded on another tablet. Indeed, CST 152, dated to Š46 xii 10 and therefore matching the last of Nalu’s summary tablet, we find an expenditure to the é - m u h a l d i m consisting of one ox, seven sheep, one ewe, and two goats. In MVN 8 106 (Š47 vi 29), Enlila expended 8 large cattle to the é - m u h a l d i m. In MVN 8 105, dated to the same day, Ur-kununna expended 80 small cattle to the é - m u h a l d i m. Of course, in many cases, the animals expenditures to the é-muhaldim do not match the 1:10 ratio observed by Steinkeller. This is largely due to the incomplete nature of the cuneiform record. For instance, in AUCT 2 216 (AS1 ii 11), the ratio of large cattle to small cattle is 1:15. Additional texts dated to the same day may correct this ratio to the expected 1:10. Alternatively, the system for calculating tax payment noted by Steinekeller may have been more nuanced than initially proposed. Thus, the approximate correlation of the 1:10 ratio of animals disbursed to the é m u h a l d i m with the 1:10 ratio of animal taxes on territories military officials operating -71- in the periphery supports the notion that these are one and the same animals.151 If this is correct, then it immediately introduces into our discussion the question of how the animals got from the periphery to Drehem. That is, if we are to assume that references to an é m u h a l d i m in Drehem are not simply an administrative fiction and that there is, in fact, such a structure and accompanying administrative apparatus in Drehem – or its immediate surroundings – then we must ask how the animals got from the Zagros foothills to central Sumer. One solution is to imagine that certain animals were, in fact, herded from the east to Drehem. These were duly recorded, and then transferred to the royal herds where they were tended by Drehem officials. When ready, they were transferred from the acocunts of these officials and expended to the é - m u h a l d i m for slaughter. Of course, one can imagine other possiblities as well. However, without further evidence, it is difficult to arrive at an entirely convincing argument. 2.2.3.2. The m u h a l d i m at Drehem 2.2.3.2.1. The m u h a l d i m and the E’uzga Only a few individuals called m u h a l d i m are attested in the Drehem corpus. However, these individuals show up quite frequently. Moreover, they appear almost exclusively in association with an institution called the E’uzga (written é - u z - g a), and not with the é - m u h a l d i m.152 A typical example is AUCT 2 155 (AS8 xi 18) 1. 2 amar az 2 bear cubs, to the E’uzga, delivery 151 Note also that just as the animals sent to the é - m u h a l d i m seem to match those coming from the periphery, so too is it the case that wild animals at Drehem – e.g. gazelle, bears, etc., are with but rare exception never disbursed to the é - m u h a l d i m, just as they are never received as taxes from the periphery. 152 For the sole exception, see see section 2.2.3.3.2 below. -72- 2. é-uz-ga 3. mu-DU ur-dištaran 4. ur-dba-ú muhaldim maškim 5. u4 18-kam (r.) 6. ki ab-ba-sa6-ga-ta ba-zi 7. ìr da-a-a-ti dub-sar 8. iti ezem-me-ki-ál 9. mu en eriduki ba-hu LE. 2 of Ur-Ištaran, Ur-Bau the cook was the m a š k i m-official. Expended from Abbasaga, the conveyor was Da’ati the scribe. (Total:) 2 AS8 xi 18 In some cases, the occupational title m u h a l d i m is absent, as is the case with SACT 2 1042 (AS7 xii 29): 1. 1 amar maš-dà nita2 2. é-uz-ga 3. mu-DU ì-lál-lum 4. ur-dba-ú maškim 5. u4 29-kam (r.) 6. ki ab-ba-sa6-ga-ta 7. ba-zi 8. iti še-kí-ku5 9. mu hu-úh-nu-riki LE. 1 1 male gazelle calf for the E’uzga, delivery of Ilallum, Ur-Bau was the maškim-official. Expensed from Abbasaga. (Total:) 1 AS9 xii 29 Despite the lack of the occupational title in this text, we can be certain that Ur-Bau was a m u h a l d i m based on texts such as AUCT 2 115 presented previously. In both texts, Ur-Bau the m u h a l d i m served as the m a š k i m-official for an expenditure of animals to the E’uzga. Indeed, when m u h a l d i m are associated with the E’uzga, they always appear as the m a š k i m-official. These include A’akala, who was the m a š k i m-official from Š44 iii 9 (ArOr 25 560 16) to AS9 xi 20 (DoCu EPHE 237), UrBau, from Š47 iv 2 (MVN 13 839) to ŠS1 [. . .] 20 (MVN 13 126),153 Hababatum, from 153 Only the final part of the month name is preserved, leaving [. . .]-dni n - a - z u. Thus, the tablet must date either to month iv (restoring [k i - s i k i]-dni n - a - z u) or month v (restoring [e z e m]d ni n - a - z u). -73- AS6 ii 21 (PDT 1 189) to AS6 iii 14 (TCL 5 5601), Ur-Šulpae on AS8 iii 29 (BIN 3 152), and Arad-Nanna on AS9 xii 9 (Ontario 1 133). I will return to the question of the m a š k i m-official below. First, though, it is important to note that not all m a š k i m-officials responsible for expenditures to the E’uzga appear with the ocupational title m u h a l d i m. For instance, Ur-Šulgira, who is attested as a m a š k i m-official for the E’uzga from Š43 iii 3 (BIN 3 493) to Š45 viii 30 (YOS 18 12), never appears as such with the m u h a l d i m title. However, it is worth noting that in general, individuals acting as m a š k i m-officials for animal expenditures to the E’uzga who do have the occupational title m u h a l d i m are only rarely attested with it. For example, while Ur-Bau is attested as a m a š k i m-official for expenditures to the E’uzga from Š47 to ŠS1– a period of just over ten years– he appears with the title m u h a l d i m only in a few texts dating from late AS8 to early AS9. Moreover, the tablets in which Ur-Bau is given the title m u h a l d i m are consecutive. That is, from AS8 xi 18 (AUCT 2 155) to AS9 ii 25 (AUCT 2 108), Ur-Bau appears as a m a š k i m-official in nine texts. In all nine, he bears the occupational title m u h a l d i m. When he appears as a m a š k i m-official for the E’uzga before and after this span, he never has the title m u h a l d i m. A similar situation is seen with A’akala.154 On the surface, it is tempting to speculate that all maškim-officials responsible for expendtures to the E’uzga were, in fact, m u h a l d i m, and the absence of the title for, say, Ur-Šulpae is simply due to accident of preservation. However, the rather curious 154 For a more or less complete list of m a š k i m for expenditures to the E’uzga, see M. Sigrist, Drehem, 159. -74- pattern of attestations of the title m u h a l d i m for m a š k i m-officials such as Ur-Bau and A’akala make this speculation at least somewhat questionable. In his discussion of the E’uzga, Marcel Sigrist argued that such instances represent “les promotions de certains m a š k i m qui deviennent m u h a l d i m,” but this is almost certainly not correct.155 Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that a person could be “promoted” to the title of m u h a l d i m and then, after a period of three or four months, be “demoted” and have the title taken away.156 Moreover, it is clear from Ontario 1 36 (Š48 viii) that the occupational title m u h a l d i m in these cases was not a temporary one: 1. 7 udu [. . .] 2. é-[uz-ga] 3. a-a-kal-l[a maškim] 4. ki na-lu5-[ta] (r.) 5. iti šu-eš-ša ba-[zi] 6. mu ha-ar-šiki ki-maški ba-hul Seal: dšul-gi / nita kala-ga / lugal uri5ki-ma / lugal an-ub-da limmu2-ba / a-a-kal-la / muhaldim / IR11.ZU 7 sheep [. . .] for the E’uzga, A’akala was the [m a š k i m-official]. Expended from Nalu. Seal: Šulgi, strong king, king of Ur, king of the four quarters of the universe, A’akala the cook (is) your servant. Š48 viii Here, A’akala’s seal makes clear that regardless of the notation in the text, he was considered to be a m u h a l d i m. Nevertheless, I am unable to provide an adequate solution to the rather interesting phenomenon regarding the unusual frequency for the indication of the occupational title m u h a l d i m in texts related to the E’uzga. Returning to the question of the m a š k i m-official in the Ur III period, Setsuko Oh’e aruged that “although the m a š k i m should not be regarded as an independent 155 M. Sigrist, Drehem, 160. 156 Note furthermore that A’akala appears twice as a m u h a l d i m– once for a short span in AS5, and again for part of AS8. This again makes Sigrist’s suggestion unlikely. -75- occupation, certain officials always acted as m a š k i m quasi-professionally.”157 From the available evidence, though, it seems likely that the m a š k i m was somehow connected to the destination of the animals in the Drehem corpus. It was the job of the m a š k i m to order or request the animals for the institution to which he was connected. With regards to the E’uzga, the animal expenditures were made at the request of but a few regularlyoccuring individuals some of whom, at least at times, bore the occupational title m u h a l d i m. The role of the m u h a l d i m as m a š k i m-officials for animal expenditures to the E’uzga leads to the question of the E’uzga itself. In their discussion of the Drehem administration, Jones and Snyder observed that expenditures to the E’uzga were both small– most often just a single animal– and infrequent.158 They speculated that it may have been a poultry yard for keeping geese or other birds, with the animals expended to it serving as food for the officials and workers associated with it.159 Conversly, Sigrist examined that available evidence and argued that the E’uzga “est un résidence où peuvent être trouvés les plus grand notables du pays.”160 This view was challenged by Robert Englund, who, following Wu Yuhong, argued that the E’uzga “may after all be connected to the processing of meat, possibly because of the amount of 157 S. Oh’e, “On the Function of the m a š k i m I,” 121. 158 T. Jones and J. Snyder, Sumerian Economic Texts, 227-28. 159 T. Jones and J. Snyder, Sumerian Economic Texts, 231. 160 M. Sigrist, Drehem, 161. -76- reeds being transported there connected to a type of ‘smoke house.’”161 2.2.3.2.2. Other m u h a l d i m activities at Drehem Rarely, m u h a l d i m at Drehem are attested as m a š k i m-officials for expenditures destined for places other than the E’uzga. For instance, in Ontario 1 144 (ŠS1 ix 20), we have: 1. 1 máš-gal gu-za dur-nammu 2. 1 máš-gal gu-za dšul-gi 3. 1 máš-gal gu-za damar-dEN.ZU 4. ur-dšul-pa-è muhaldim maškim (r.) 5. šà mu-DU-ra-ta 6. u6 20-kam 7. ki in-ta-è-a-ta 8. ba-zi 9. ìr nu-úr-dEN.ZU dub-sar 10. iti ezem-mah 11. mu dšu-dEN.ZU lugal LE. 3 1 billy goat for the (mortuary) throne of Ur-Nammu, 1 billy goat for the (mortuary) throne of Šulgi, 1 billy goat for the (mortuary) throne of Amar-Sin, Ur-Šulpae was the cook m a š k i m-official, from the deliveries. Expended from Intaea. Nur-Sin the scribe was the conveyor. (Total:) 3. ŠS1 ix 20 Here, Ur-Šulpae acts as a m a š k i m-official not for the E’uzga, but instead for what are almost certainly offerings to the deceased first three kings of the Ur III state. In PDT 1 215 (Š48 xi 29), one A’akala m u h a l d i m received grain-fed small cattle over a series of seven days from Nalu. The animals were said to be s á - d u11 k i iš gu - z a, “regular deliveries at the place of the throne,” undoubtedly the throne of the recently deceased king Šulgi. It is likely that both Ur-Šulpae and A’akala here are the same individuals as those who act as m a š k i m-officials bearing the occupational title m u h a l d i m. 161 Robert Englund, “The Ur III Collection of the CMAA,” CDLJ 2002:1, 3, and Wu Yuhong, “The Ewe without Lambs and the Lambs Cooked in the é-uz-ga, ‘the Private House of the King,’ in the Drehem Archives,” JAC 11 (1996): 65-109. See also W. Sallaberger, “Schlachtvieh aus Puzriš-Dagan,” 59. -77- As I noted above, animal deliveries to Drehem tend to have been made by prominant individuals. These included provincial governors, members of the royal family, and other elites. In some cases, m u h a l d i m also made such deliveries. In OIP 115 153 (Š43 vi 12), we find: 1. 2 sila4 2. šeš-da-da sanga 3. 4 udu-niga 1 sila4-niga 4. dingir-kal162 muhaldim 5. 1 udu 1 u8 6. re-ì-si-in 7. mu-DU 8. iti á-ki-ti 9. mu en dnanna maš-e ì-pàd LE. u4 12-kam 2 lambs from Šešdada the temple official, 4 grain-fed sheep, 1 grain-fed lamb from Dingir-kal the cook, 1 sheep, one ewe from Reisin163, delivery. Š43 vi 12 Another example is MVN 15 195 (Š48 vi 9), where one Duga, bearing the occupational title m u h a l d i m, delivered two grain-fed sheep to the E’uzga.164 These examples suggest that at least in some cases, individuals bearing the occupational title m u h a l d i m held positions of some significance in Ur III society. Finally, in some rare instances, people called m u h a l d i m are seen in activities which do not involve expending animals to a destination. In PDT 1 372 (Š42 x-xii) is: 1. 0;0,1,0 ì-nun 2. 0;0,0,8 sila3 ga 3. ki lugal-+má,-gur8-ra-<ta> 4 ìr tu-ra-am-dda-gan 5. kišib ur-dšul-pa-è muhaldim 162 10 liters ghee, 8 liters milk, from Lugal-magura, Turam-Dagan was the conveyor, sealed by Ur-Šulpae the cook. Expended from Nur-Sin. From month x to This name could perhaps be transliterated ilum-dan. 163 This name is unusual and its meaning is unclear. Perhaps it is from the Akkadian re’û, “shepherd” with the final s i - i n a phonetic spelling for the DN Sin? 164 The other three examples known to me are MVN 2 97 (Š46 ii 14), MVN 13 514 (Š46 v 29), and MVN 13 429 (Š47 xi 30). -78- (r.) 6. ki nu-úr-dEN.ZU-ta 7. ba-zi 8. iti ezem-an-na-ta 9. iti še-kí-ku5-šè 10. iti 3-kam 11. mu ša-aš-ruki ba-hul month xii, 3 months. Š43 x-xii Here, Ur-šulpae sealed for dairy products. He bears the occupational title m u h a l d i m, and it is likely that he is the same Ur-Šulpae m u h a l d i m seen elsewhere in the Drehem corpus. The amount is small, particularly when considered over a span of three months, and it is unclear if these items were for Ur-Šulpae’s private use, or if they were for institutional use in the E’uzga or, perhaps, é - m u h a l d i m. 2.2.4. Conclusions A close examination of the extensive data from Drehem provides much information for our understanding the é - m u h a l d i m. For instance, while previous scholarship has often suggested that the é - m u h a l d i m at Drehem was primarily concerned with providing for the military, I have argued above that most of the animals expended to the é - m u h a l d i m were intended for the officials and workers stationed at Drehem. Moreover, the a g a3- ú s who are so frequently seen as recipients of animal expenditures were in general not soldiers, as typically thought. Rather, they appear to have been a group employed by the king to serve as guards, escorts, laborers, and so on, at the behest of the king. As I have shown, however, there was, in fact, a connection between the Ur III state’s military and the é - m u h a l d i m at Drehem. The animals expended for cultic and for some secular functions at Drehem were generally supplied by elites such as members of -79- the royal family, provincial governors, and the like. However, animals used for expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m appear to have been made up in large part by the taxes paid by the military occupying the territories to the north and east of the Ur III state. The m u h a l d i m at Drehem appear to have held positions of some prominance. Though they are almost never attested as associated with the é - m u h a l d i m, they frequently acted as m a š k i m-officials for transactions involving the E’uzga, an institution that, whatever its function, clearly had close ties to the royal family and other elites. Similarly, they also acted as m a š k i m-officials when animals were expended as offerings for the cults of the deceased Ur III kings. Finally, though rare, some muhaldim also appear in texts as delivering animals to the Drehem administration. A survey of such texts indicates that this activity was restricted in large part to the state’s elites, suggesting that at least some m u h a l d i m were of high status within the Ur III state. 2.2.5. Table of animals expended to the é - m u h a l d i m in the Drehem records The following table, table 2.1, presents every attestion known to me of animal expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m appearing in the Drehem corpus. After the tablet and date are indicated, the total number of animals is listed. They are groups according to large cattle (g, for g u4, “ox,” but also generically used for all large cattle), small cattle (u, for u d u, “sheep,” but, like g u4, also generically used for all small cattle), and others (m, or miscellanious animals, including gazelles, deer, etc.). In general, animals that were expended to the é-muhaldim were qualified as š u - g í d. When no such qualification exists, the text is marked with an asterisk. The use of curly brackets around a number are to indicate that an animal is qualified as b a - ú š, or “dead.” Because dead animals cannot -80- also be š u - g í d, texts which note only dead animals have both an asterisk and curly brackets. After the animal totals are given, the person expending the animals is given. Finally, if the animals are specified for a person, group, or other reason, this is indicated. *OIP 115 79 Ontario 1 30 AAICAB 1/1 p. 55 1923-421 Ontatio 1 31 OIP 115 215 PDT 1 102 OIP 115 216 Š42 vii 9 Š42 ix 24 1 g. 7 u. 5 g. 29 u. anon. anon. Š42 xi 19 Š43 i 7 Š43 i 10 Š43 i 18 Š43 i 21 [. . . ]+4 u. 5 u. 1 g 28 u. 10 u. 4 g. 40 u. Nalu anon. anon. anon. anon. MVN 13 822 SACT 1 134 Nesbit 10 *ASJ 3 189 1 NYPL 18 *OIP 115 219 Š43 i 24 Š43 i 28 Š43 i Š43 ii 3-19 Š43 ii 12 Š43 ii 28 8 u. 2 g. 20 u. 20 u. 12 g. 1 g. 18 u. 3 u. anon. anon. anon. Enila anon. anon. NYPL 337 *PDT 1 520 PDT 1 79 OIP 115 221 *Aegyptus 19 237 6 OIP 115 222 *SET 48 *BCT 1 62 BIN 3 490 Princeton 1 97 PDT 1 67 PDT 1 69 *CTMMA 1 10 *AUCT 1 844 OIP 115 224 MVN 13 840 OIP 115 226 NYPL 25 SA 18 *MVN 13 805 Nesbit 12 Š43 iv 3 Š43 iv 18-21 Š43 v 8 Š43 v 9 Š43 v 11 Š43 v 12 Š43 vi 10-28 Š43 vi 13-20 Š43 vi 17 Š43 vi 24 Š43 vi 25 Š43 vi 28 Š43 vii 1-27 Š43 vii 3-16 Š43 vii 9 Š43 vii 22 Š43 ix 22 Š43 ix 23 Š43 x 1 Š43 x 3-25 Š43 x 15 2 u. 6 g. 2 u. 1 u. {1 g. 3 u.} 70 u. 64 g. 3 g. {1 g.} 3 g. 1 gu4 8 u. 7 g. 30 u. 10 u. 43 g. 4 g. 1 g. 7 u. 1 g. 7 u. 1 g. 12 u. 62 u. 7 […]+7 u. 15 g. 1 g. 17 u. anon. Enlila anon. anon. anon. anon. Enlila Enlila Enlila anon. anon. anon. Enlila Enlila anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. Enlila anon. -81- aga3-ús-e-ne geme2 dumu d en-lí[l-lá]-ke4-ne mar-tu-ne; lú nu-ì-dake4-ne aga3-ús-e-ne šu-dšul-gi ur-niin3-ar šbt ur-niin3-ar šbt UCP 9-2-2 40 MVN 2 166 BIN 3 4 *MVN 13 430 TRU 255 SET 49 OIP 115 227 MVN 5 97 CST 58 Ontario 1 32 MVN 13 704 * BCT 1 65 OIP 115 228 SACT 1 135 SACT 1 126 PDT 1 119 MVN 5 99 PDT 1 418 TJAMC FM 45 (pl. 45) OIP 115 230 MVN 5 100 CST 80 SACT 1 127 AAICAB 1/1 p. 55 1923-426 OIP 115 231 OIP 115 232 OIP 115 233 Nik 2 530 ASJ 16 105 1 OIP 115 234 OrSP 18 pl. 2 5 MVN 15 317 Nesbit 16 CST 88 MVN 13 813 MVN 15 361 OIP 115 235 OIP 115 236 CST 91 OIP 115 237 Š43 x 22 Š43 x 29 Š43 xi 5 Š43 xii 10-29 Š43 xii 21 Š44 i 25 Š44 ii 1 Š44 ii 9 Š44 ii 25 Š44 iii 18 Š44 iii 21 Š44 iv 2-4 Š44 iv 3 Š44 iv 27 Š44 vii 16 Š44 vii 21 Š44 viii 2 Š44 viii 4 15 u. 15 u. 2 u. [. . .]+16 g. 1 g. 15 u. 25 u. 1 g. 1 g. 25 u. [...] u. 1 g. 9 u. 20 u. 12 u. 1 g. 1 u. 3 g. 2 u. 7 g. 3 u. 11 g. 13 u. 11 u. 6 g. anon. anon. anon. Enlila anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. Ur-kununa anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. Š44 viii 8 Š44 x 9 Š44 x 28 Š44 x 29 Š44 xii 18 6 g. 60 u. 7 u. 2 g. 26 u. 2 g. 9 u. [. . .]+1 g. [. . .]+38 u. anon. anon. anon. anon. 2 g. 30 u. [. . .]+17 u. 2 g. 4 g. 6 u. 10 u. 9 u. 1 g. 16 u. 2 g. 32 u. 6 g. 10 u. 20 u. 1 g. 42 u. 2 g. 53 u. 1 g. 41 u. 2 g. 222 u. 1 g. 205 u. 1 g. 208 u. 5 g. 135 u. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. Š44 xii 28 Š44 im 13 Š44 iim 11 Š44 iiim 19 Š44 iiim 24 Š44 iiim 25 Š44 ivm 12 Š44 vim 11 Š44 vim 13 Š45 vi 29 Š45 viii 1 Š45 viii 4 Š45 viii 6 Š45 viii 12 Š45 viii 13 Š45 viii 17 Š45 viii 23 -82- anon. ur-niin3-ar šbt AUCT 1 314 Nik 2 456 OIP 115 238 SET 50 Nik 2 473 MVN 13 116 PDT 2 996 *CST 481 OIP 115 240 OIP 115 241 TRU 259 TRU 260 SET 51 MVN 2 155 OIP 115 247 SACT 1 138 TLB 3 17 *TCL 2 5516 OIP 115 248 Š45 viii Š45 ix 6 Š45 ix 17 Š45 ix 25 Š45 x 12 Š45 x 16 Š45 x 17 Š45 x 22 Š45 xii 7 Š45 xii 15 Š45 xii 17 Š46 i 4 Š46 i 13 Š46 i 15 Š46 i 18 Š46 i 29 Š46 ii 1 Š46 ii 3-30 Š46 ii 14 BIN 3 307 MCS 7 19 Liv 51 63 51 MVN 4 118 CST 98 PDT 1 168 OIP 115 250 STA 36 SET 52 AUCT 2 145 MVN 10 138 StOr 9-1 19 (pl. 5) MVN 15 201 OIP 115 438 Nik 2 457 BIN 3 13 OIP 115 251 NYPL 227 TRU 263 CST 105 BIN 3 501 Š46 ii 27 CST 497 Š46 ii 28 Š46 ii 29 Š46 iii 6 Š46 iv 5 Š46 iv 5 Š46 iv 6 Š46 iv 8 Š46 iv 9 Š46 iv 12 Š46 iv 13 Š46 iv 14 Š46 iv 14 Š46 iv 15 Š46 iv 18 Š46 iv 19 Š46 iv 19 Š46 iv 20 Š46 iv 21 Š46 iv 25 Š46 iv 26 62 u. 3 u. 25 u. 3 g. 14 u. 52 u. 16 u. [. . .]+24 u. 5 g. 30 u. 1 g. 4 u. 7 g. 2 g. 10 u. 55 u. 41 u. 1 g. 4 u. 1 g. 17 u. 6 u. 2 u. 9 g. [...]+1 g. [...]+8 u. 1 g. [. . .]-DÙ? anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. Enlila 4 g. 65 u. 1 g. 6 u. 40 u. 2 g. 30 u. 2 u. 60 u. 6 g. 90 u. 7 g. 35 u. 4 g. 1 u. 6 g. 89 u. 4 g. 40 u. 1 g. 15 u. 5 g. 40 u. 4 g. 39 u. 1 g. 10 g. 90 2 g. 6 u. 12 g. 150 u. 8 g. [. . .]+35 u. 2 g. 10 u. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. Lu-dingira anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. -83- aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne anon. anon. anon. anon. aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-[ús-e-ne] aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne [aga3]-ús-e-ne OIP 115 252 OIP 115 253 OIP 115 254 TRU 262 CST 109 CST 111 Nakahara 12 TRU 264 TRU 265 PDT 2 1151 Š46 iv 27 Š46 iv 28 Š46 iv 29 Š46 iv 30 Š46 v 1 Š46 v 3 Š46 v 9 Š46 v 10 Š46 v 13 Š46 v 14 16 g. 40 u. 6 g. 31 u. 20 u. 1 g. 20 u. 4 g. 40 u. 4 g. 38 u. 1 g. 15 u. 1 g. 35 u. 1 g. 25 u. 6 u. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. Ahuni Ontario 1 33 *Ontario 1 46 BIN 3 499 Š46 v 15 Š46 v 15 Š46 v 19 anon. Lu-dingera anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. Lu-dingira anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. SACT 1 129 SAT 2 463 OIP 115 255 *MVN 20 185 ArOr 25 560 14 OIP 115 242 MVN 13 807 ASJ 19 202 7 Ontario 1 34 PDT 1 432 OIP 115 243 KM 89206 CST 125 TRU 266 CST 126 PDT 1 134 Orient 16 42 10 Š46 v 20 Š46 v 22 Š46 v 27 Š46 v 29 Š46 vi 2 Š46 vi 6 Š46 vi 12 Š46 vi 13 Š46 vi 15 Š46 vi 21 Š46 vi 23 Š46 vii 1 Š46 vii 12 Š46 vii 16 Š46 vii 18 Š46 vii 20 Š46 viii 3 1 g. 25 u. 4 u. 11 g. [. . .]+25 u. 1 g. 40 u. 40 u. 1 g. 5 u. 29 u. 2 g. 26 u. 1 g. 50 u. 5 g. 155 u. 21 u. 2 g. 50 u. 5 u. 14 g. 25 u. 1 g. 4 u. 6 g. 6 u. 4 g. 6 u. 7 g. 25 u. 3 g. 81 u. PDT 1 467 MVN 5 102 Ontario 1 35 TRU 269 JCS 31 35 BMC 2 *MVN 5 103 Š46 viii 4 Š46 viii 7 Š46 viii 35 Š46 ix 3 Š46 ix 4 Š46 ix 13 20 u. 1 g. 2 u. 3 g. 23 u. 71 u. 6 g. 2 g. -84- aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne lú ur-bí-lumki lú hé-šu-um-maki ù martu-ne kas4-ke4-ne aga3-ús-e-ne kas4-e-ne; šà unuki-ga aga3-ús-e-ne lú-kin-gi4-a lú ìa-abti-um ù lú-kin-gi4-a lú ma-ríki šà nibruki ; aga3-ús-ene *BIN 3 12 Š46 ix 18 7 u. Nalu PDT 1 479 *PDT 1 428 OrSP 18 pl. 3 9 NYPL 128 CST 147 CST 148 SACT 1 130 CST 149 TRU 270 OIP 115 244 AUCT 1 902 OIP 115 245 NYPL 160 OIP 115 246 Š46 ix 25 Š46 ix 28 Š46 x 21 Š46 xi 6 Š46 xi 19 Š46 xi 20 Š46 xi 24 Š46 xi 29 Š46 xi 30 Š46 xii 1 Š46 xii 2 Š46 xii 4 Š46 xii 5 Š46 xii 8 anon. Lu-dingira Lu-dingira Lu-dingira anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. anon. Lu-dingira CST 152 OIP 115 434 PDT 2 1121 PDT 2 1080 CST 156 CST 153 PDT 1 512 SACT 1 140 BIN 5 47 Tavolette 77 CST 155 Nesbit 21 OIP 115 324 Tavolette 59 CST 164 Nakahara 14 OIP 115 326 OLP 8 9 6 Š46 xii 10 Š46 xii 13 Š46 xii 15 Š46 xii 17 Š46 xii 19 Š46 xii 22 Š46 xii 22 Š46 xii 22 Š46 xii 47 Š46 xii 23 Š46 xii 28 Š47 i 6 Š47 i 25 Š47 ii 11 Š47 ii 16 Š47 ii 22 Š47 ii 25 Š47 iii 9 Nasa *CST 168 Š47 iii 14 20 g. 400 u. 3 g. 96 u. 16 u. 9 u. 1 g. 15 u. 1 g. 5 u. 20 u. 2 g. 22 u. 1 g. 10 u. 10 u. 3 g. 15 u. 10 u. 27 u. 2 g. [. . .]+15 u. 1 g. 10 u. 1 g. 20 u. 12 u. 5 u. 6 u. 1 g. 17 u. 29 u. 5 u. 1 g. 10 u. 1 g. 20 u. 2 g. 10 u. 106 u. 180 u. 4 g. 20 u. 120 u. 15 g. 195 u. 79 u. 4 g. [. . .]+25 u. 10 u. Tavolette 65 Š47 iii 17 10 u. -85- anon. anon. Lu-dingira Lu-dingira Lu-dingira Lu-dingira anon. anon. Lu-dingira anon. anon. anon. Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Lu-dingira Lu-dingira ha-ši-pá-tal lú mar-hašiki ù ama-GÌR-še-er šà uri5ki-ma rá-gaba-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne šà nibruki lú kin-gi4-a lú mar-dama-niki lú kin-gi4-a lú ha-buraki ù kas4-ke4-ne šà nibruki aga3-ús-e-ne MVN 13 839 PDT 1 45 Š47 iv 2 Š47 iv 4 4 g. 1 áb 4+[. . . u.?] Nasa Nasa *Princeton 1 86 Š47 iv 10 5 u. Lu-dingira OIP 115 327 OIP 115 448 Š47 iv 16 Š47 iv 18 4 g. 35 Nasa Lu-dingira Nik 2 507 JMEOS 12 45 3503 OIP 115 332 MVN 13 113 BIN 3 509 BIN 3 514 MVN 2 156 OIP 115 334 OIP 115 335 *AUCT 1 490 *TCL 2 5639 *PDT 1 665 *MVN 8 103 *AUCT 1 897 CST 177 PDT 1 405 NYPL 239 *TCL 2 5643 *Orient 16 43 14 *MVN 8 104 *ASJ 18 74 3 *Dahl-Hebenstreit 2 *AUCT 1 642 *MVN 8 106 *MVN 8 105 *AUCT 1 515 *BCT 1 68 Š47 iv 25 Š47 iv 29 Š47 v 3 Š47 v 8 Š47 v 10 Š47 v 10 Š47 v 16 Š47 v 20 Š47 v 21 Š47 vi 2 Š47 vi 3 Š47 vi 5 Š47 vi 6 Š47 vi 7 Š47 vi 7 Š47 vi 10 Š47 vi 16 Š47 vi 19 Š47 vi 19 Š47 vi 20 Š47 vi 23 Š47 vi 25 Š47 vi 27 Š47 vi 29 Š47 vi 29 Š47 vii 3 Š47 vii 5 2 g. 2 g. 1 g. 2 g. 5 g. 4 g. 2 g. 4 g. 10 u. 160 u. 10 u. 20 u. 25 u. 2 g. 2 g. 27 u. 2 g. 25 u. 4 g 10 u. 30 u. 8 g. 10 u. 20 u. 15 u. 12 g. 8 g. 80 u. 10 g. 10 Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Enlila anon. anon. anon. Ur-kununa Enlila Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Enlila Enlila Ur-kununa Enlila Nalu PDT 2 1016 Š47 vii 8 [...]+2 g. 10 u. 11 g. 110 u. anon. anon. TRU 271 Š47 vii 10 -86- lú kin-gi4-a na-ha-pátal lú ku-miki ù kas4-ke4ne šà nibruki kaš4-e-ne; aga3-ús-ane; kuš ummu3; aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne lú ši-mu-nu-um ù lú ni-nu-a šà uri5ki-ma aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne šà unuki aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne *AUCT 1 955 MVN 13 417 BIN 3 17 OIP 115 310 *Dahl-Hebenstreit 3 *AUCT 1 898 OIP 115 311 *MVN 13 418 OIP 115 312 *TCL 2 4680 Nik 2 450 *AUCT 1 896 *AUCT 2 288 *AUCT 1 909 MVN 8 107 Š47 vii 10 Š47 vii 12 Š47 vii 12 Š47 vii 15 Š47 vii 15 Š47 vii 17 Š47 vii 24 Š47 vii 24 Š47 vii 25 Š47 vii 25 Š47 vii 30 Š47 vii 30 Š47 viii 1 Š47 viii 4 Š47 viii 5 13g. z. 4 g. 3 g. 16 u. 4 g. 20 u. 20 u. 6 g. 4 g. 20 u. 4 g. 5 g. 30 u. 5 g. 6 g. 30 u. 30 u. 30 u. 10 u. 9 g. 15 Enlila Lu-dingira anon. Nasa Ur-kununa Enlila Nasa Enlila Nasa Enlila Nasa Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Ur-kununa u. Nasa Nelson 1 Š47 viii 6 11 g. 10 u. Nasa *AR RIM 4 11 *PDT 2 795 OIP 115 314 Š47 viii 9 Š47 viii 10 Š47 viii 11 20 u. 20 u. 6 g. 30 u. Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Nasa *AUCT 1 876 MVN 15 36 Š47 viii 11 Š47 viii 12 30 u. 15 g. 45 u. Ur-kununa Nasa *MVN 13 419 *TCL 2 4681 *UDT 108 OIP 115 315 Š47 viii 13 Š47 viii 13 Š47 viii 14 Š47 viii 15 9 g. 75 u. 69 u. 13 g. 30 u. Enlil Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Nasa *AUCT 1 882 Nesbit 25 Š47 viii 16 Š46 viii 18 30 u. 6 g. 30 u. Ur-kununa Nasa *UDT 105 *AUCT 1 917 OIP 115 316 Š47 viii 19 Š47 viii 20 Š47 viii 22 4 gu4 5 áb z. ki den-líl-lá 20 u. Ur-kununa 6 g. 30 u. Nasa *MVN 8 108 *AUCT 2 256 *Rochester 20 MVN 13 530 Š47 viii 22 30 u. Ur-kununa Š47 viii 27 23 u. Ur-kununa Š47 viii 28 40 u. Ur-kununa Š47 ix 1 13 g. 45 u. Nasa aga3-ús-e-ne; ur-niin3-ar šbt Š47 ix 1 45 u. Ur-kununa *MVN 8 109 -87- aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne; ur-niin3-ar šbt aga3-ús-e-ne; ur-niin3-ar šbt aga3-ús-e-ne; ur-niin3-ar šbt aga3-ús-e-ne; ur-niin3-ar šbt aga3-ús-e-ne; ur-niin3-ar šbt aga3-ús-e-ne; ur-niin3-ar šbt aga3-ús-e-ne; ur-niin3-ar šbt *OLP 8 9 5 CST 183 Š47 ix 2 Š47 ix 4 60 u. 1 g. 30 u. Ur-kununa Nasa *MVN 8 110 JCS 35 189 1165 Š47 ix 5 [Š47 ix] 5 85 u. 5 g. 85 u. Ur-kununa Nasa BIN 3 511 Š47 ix 7 2 g. 41 u. Nasa *AUCT 1 494 Nik 2 489 MVN 2 309 *AUCT 1 6541 *Syracuse 350 MVN 2 161 *AUCT 1 880 OIP 115 320 CST 185 SAT 2 551 OIP 115 321 Š47 ix 9 Š47 ix 11 Š47 ix 13 Š47 ix 16 Š47 ix 19 Š47 ix 20 Š47 ix 21 Š47 ix 30 Š47 x 2 Š47 x 15 Š47 x 22 Ur-kununa Nasa Nasa Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Nasa Ur-kununa Nasa Lu-dingira Nasa MVN 13 112 *CST 193 Š47 x 25 Š47 x 25 65 u. 4 g. 72 u. 8 g. 80 u. 66 u. 66 u. 50 u. 49 u. 6 g. 70 u. 2 u. 2 g. 64 u. [...]+2 g. [...]+7 u. 3 g. 25 u. 10 u. NYPL 46 JEOL 33 114 5 TRU 295 OIP 115 322 MVN 13 114 MVN 15 318 Nelson 7 CST 194 JMEOS 12 42 3491 Rochester 21 Nelson 2 Tavolette 144 STD 10 *TRU 404 MVN 15 201 Š47 xi 8 Š47 xi 15 Š47 xi 20 Š47 xi 21 Š47 xi 24 Š47 xi 25 Š47 xi 26 Š47 xi 30 Š47 xid 1 Š47 xii 4 Š47 xii 20 Š47 xii 26 Š47 [...] 15 Š47 [...] 26? Š48 iv 14 1 g. 36 u. 3 g. 47 u. 6. u. 31 u. 4 g. 26 u. 11 u. 2 g. 24 u. 4 g. 126 u. 42 u. 1 g. 109 u. 2 g. 27 u. 56 u. 54 u. 4 g. 4 g. 40 u. 165 Nasa Nasa Lu-dingira aga3-ús-e-ne; ur-niin3-ar šbt aga3-ús-e-ne; ur-niin3-gar [šbt] aga3-ús-e-ne; ur-niin3-ar šbt aga3-ús-e-ne mar-tu šà unuki-ga za-rí-iq lú a-šur5ki šu-dšul-gi ti-ša-dda-hi ù lú ši-ma-nu-umki-ke4-ne šà nibruki Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa aga3-ús-e-ne anon. aga3-ús-e-ne The appearance of the ur-niin3-ar here makes the placement of this text almost certain despite the fact that the date is not preserved. -88- OIP 115 337 BIN 3 518 MVN 15 195 AnOr 7 94 OrSP 18 pl. 4 14 Š48 iv 28 Š48 vi 5 Š48 vi 9 Š48 vi 11 Š48 vi 26 7 g. 13 u. 3 g. 20 g. 120 u. [. . .]+21 u. 1 g. 10 u. Nasa Nasa anon. Nasa Lu-dingira OIP 115 340 MVN 5 108 MVN 10 115 OIP 115 341 OIP 115 342 OIP 115 343 OIP 115 344 TLB 3 19 OIP 115 345 Babyloniaca 8 Pupil 29 CST 201 OIP 115 346 TRU 297 Babyloniaca 7 77 10 MVN 13 841 *MVN 13 737 Š48 vii 1 Š48 vii 4 Š48 vii 5 Š48 vii 10 Š48 vii 11 Š48 vii 12 Š48 vii 14 Š48 vii 15 Š48 vii 16 1 g. 21 u. 2 g. 2 g. 8 g. 20 u. 1 g. 5 u. 7 g. [. . .]+5 2 g. 96 u. 11 g. 30 u. Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Š48 vii 18 Š48 vii 20 Š48 vii 21 Š48 vii 22 Š48 vii 27 Š48 vii 28 Š48 viii 12 46 u. 5 m. 15 g. 47 u. 13 g. 72 u. [. . .]+35 u. [. . .] g. 13 u. 4 u. Nasa x-da?-um?-ta Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Lu-dingira MVN 13 111 *PDT 1 419 Š48 viii 13 Š48 viii 13 1 g. 6 u. 1 g. 12 u. Nasa Lu-dingira OIP 115 348 OrSP 5 54 18 MVN 10 140 MVN 2 162 MVN 2 163 AnOr 7 95 Š48 viii 17 Š48 ix 10 Š48 ix 11 Š48 ix 24 Š48 ix 27 Š48 ix 29 2 g. 111 u. 1 g. 26 u. 8 g. 34 u. 106 u. 60 u. 1 g. [. . .]+15 u. 1 g. 10 u. 10 u. 8 u. 11 g. 18 u. 6 g. Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa ASJ 11 327 21 CST 214 OIP 115 354 OrNS 46 225 MVN 8 113 Š48 x 21 Š48 x 23 Š48 x 24 Š48 xi 2 Š48 xi 3 -89- Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa nu-úr-ì-lí lú ši-ši-il-la-ab?ki ù kas4-ke4-ne šà nibruki aga3-ús-e-ne. šu-sal-la sa12-ti-umlú ni-da-ù-hi ù lú kin-gi4-a ha-ši-pá-tal šà nibruki ki šu-sal-la sa12-ti-um lú šu-mi-umki lú ià-da-ùki ù lú kin-gi4-a ha-ši-pátal šà nibruki AUCT 1 406 OIP 115 357 TrDr 20 Š48 xi 5 Š48 xi 6 Š48 xi 11 3 g. 9 u. 5 g. 100 g. 2 g. 33 u. Nasa Nasa Nasa *NYPL 349 Š48 xi 12 21 Nalu MVN 20 78 DoCu 255 TCL 2 5531 AUCT 1 328 MVN 15 333 PDT 1 508 Š48 xi 16 Š48 xi 20 Š48 xi 25 Š48 xii 1 Š48 xii 2 Š48 xii 4 16 g. 100 u. 1 g. 120 u. 1 g. 13 u. 2 g. [. . .]+125 u. 1 g. 2 g. 10 u. 12 g. 60 2 g. 5 u. 30 u. 9 g. [. . .]+20 u. [. . .]+29 g. 536 u. 7 g. 40 u. {2 u.} 4 g. 4 g. 1 g. 3 g. 2 g. 40 u. 2 g. 1 u. 2 g. 10 u. 1 g. 11 u. 5 u. 30 g. [. . .]+58 u. Nasa Nasa MVN 8 114 AUCT 1 453 *UDT 116 YOS 4 226 OrSP 47-49 3 MVN 15 329 OIP 115 359 Š48 xii 7 Š48 xii 12 Š48 xii 12 Š48 xii 15 Š48 xii 29 Š49 x 22 [Š...] viii 24 ASJ 15 141 19 AS1 i 17 *TRU 299 *AUCT 3 478 TCL 2 5563 AUCT 1 244 OrSP 47-49 5 OrSP 47-49 6 AUCT 2 261 CHEU 92 Mes 8-9 149 5 CST 218 *PDT 1 594 OIP 121 432 MVN 15 58 AS1 i 26 AS1 i 29 AS1 i 30 AS1 ii 2 AS1 ii 7 AS1 ii 9 AS1 ii 11 AS1 ii 14 AS1 ii 16 AS1 ii 20 AS1 iii 4 AS1 iii 22 AS1 iii 22 OrSP 47-49 7 *HUCA 29 75 4 AS1 iii 27 5 g. AS1 vi 25-27 6 u. Nasa Nasa Lu-dingira Nasa Nasa Nasa Ahuni Nasa Nasa Lu-dingira aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne kas4-ke4-ne šà nibruki aga3-ús-e-ne Nasa Nasa Nasa Duga Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Nasa Lu-dingira Nalu aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-úš-e-ne Nasa aga3-ús-e-ne [u4] lugal uru-sa-rig7ki-ta ì-imen-na Nasa Ahuni -90- aga3-ús-e-ne a-rá 2-kam šà puzur4-iš-dda-gan dam na-ap-la-núm martu aga3-ús-e-ne kas4-ke4-ne šà nibruki aga3-ús-e-ne ma-ar-hu-ni ù erin2 mu-da-a-re-e-ša-a lú ha-ar-šiki-me Nik 2 509 TCL 2 5571 TAD 17 MVN 8 121 MVN 8 122 AUCT 1 280 AUCT 1 829 SAT 2 672 OrSP 47-49 9 SANTAG 7 133 OIP 121 37 *MVN 13 529 MVN 11 217 ASJ 9 266 69 AUCT 1 110 MVN 15 38 PDT 2 825 AUCT 1 417 TrDr 12 ASJ 9 266 70 Princeton 1 84 OLP 8 11 7 DoCu BIN 3 49 MVN 15 328 PDT 2 840 PDT 2 846 SAT 2 696 CST 252 OrSP 47-49 12 StBibFran 4 p. 43 BIN 3 43 MVN 8 117 MVN 8 118 PDT 2 820 ASJ 9 267 71 UDT 164 TAD 65 BIN 3 40 AS1 vii 21 AS1 viii 8 AS1 viii 10 AS1 viii 13 AS1 viii 20 AS1 viii 29 AS1 ix 6 AS1 ix 9 AS1 ix 10 AS1 ix 12 AS1 ix 16 AS1 ix 21 AS1 x 18 AS1 x 19 AS1 xi 2 AS1 xi 27 AS1 xii 1 AS1 xii 17 AS1 xii 23 AS2 i 4 AS2 ii 5 AS2 iii 9 AS2 iii 11 AS2 iii 13 AS2 iii 14 AS2 iii 15 AS2 iii 17 AS2 iii 18 AS2 iv 1 AS2 iv 2 AS2 iv 8 AS2 iv 14 AS2 iv 15 AS2 iv 16 AS2 iv 26 AS2 iv 27 AS2 iv 28 AS2 v 8 AS2 v 9 90 u. 6 g. [. . .]+39 u. 3 g. 40 u. 3 g. [. . .]+18 u. [. . .]+91 u. [...] g. 36 u. 25 u. 7 g. 90 u. [. . .] u. 90 u. 12 u. 2 g. 10 u. 1 g. 51 u. 31 u. 18 u. 60 u. 2 g. 1 u. 2 u. 1 u. 4 g. 2 u. 6 g. 5 u. 4 g. 3 g. 1 g. 2 g. 3 u. 3 g. 1 u. 5 u. 12 g. 8 u. 4 g. 3 u. 5 g. 2 g. 2 g. 4 g. 21 u. 11 u. 1 g. 15 u. 4 u. 9 g. 15 u. 4 g. -91- Ahuni aga3-ús-e-ne Abasaga Nasa Nasa Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Ahuni Lu-dingira Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Lu-dingira Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga aga3-ús-e-ne kas4-ke4-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne MVN 20 192 AUCT 1 336 PDT 2 867 AnOr 7 97 CTMMA 1 14 CST 253 TRU 305 AS2 v 11 AS2 v 12 AS2 v 21 AS2 v 23 AS2 v 26 AS2 vi 3 AS2 vi 4 1 g. 1 g. 2 u. 3 g. 1 g. 3 g. 6 g. 2 u. Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Lu-dingira MVN 8 119 Ebla 1975-1985 AS2 vi 6 AS2 vi 8 1 g. {1 u.} 9 u. Abasaga Abasaga 287 A Princeton 1 90 TRU 308 OrSP 47-49 14 AS2 vi 9 AS2 vi 11 AS2 vi 13 4 g. 1 u. 1 g. [. . .?] 26 g. 50 u. Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga BIN 3 56 OIP 121 124 PDT 2 815 AUCT 2 365 AUCT 2 373 BCT 1 77 OrSP 47-49 17 AUCT 2 373 AUCT 2 360 OrSP 47-49 18 AUCT 1 418 OrSP 47-49 19 AUCT 2 285 OrSP 47-49 20 TAD 67 OrSP 47-49 21 PDT 93 TrDr 9 Nik 2 513 ASJ 9 268 75166 AUCT 2 216 AS2 vi 21 3 g. 15 u. AS2 vi 24 1 g. AS2 vii 5 20 u. AS2 vii 30 2 g. 36 u. AS2 viii 5 60 u. AS2 viii 6 1 g. 53 u. AS2 viii 11 20 u. AS2? viii 5 60 u. AS2 viii 22 5 g. 90 u. AS2 viii 24 6 g. 140 u. AS2 viii 25 6 g. 180 u. AS2 viii 27 7 g. 244 u. AS2 viii 28 6 g. AS2 ix 13 3 g. 10 u. AS2 ix 23 5 g. 8 u. AS2 ix 24 5 g. 223 u. AS2 ix 25 1 g. 77 u. AS2 x 7 1 g. AS2 x 20 1 g. 35 u. AS[2?] x 21 15 u. AS2 xi 15 [. . .]+3 g. [...]+24 166 mar-tu maš-maš dilmun e-ra-ne mar-tu maš-maš dilmun<ki>-ta e-ra-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne lugal uri5ki-šè DU.NI má-a ba-a-ar Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga aga3-ús-e-ne Abasaga aga3-ús-e-ne Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga aga3-ús-e-ne Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga Abasaga The year on this text is no preserved. However, the apearance of Abasaga helps to place it in the first half of the reign of Amar-Sin. Its placement here is the latest possible date for the text, but it could be earlier. -92- OIP 121 130 MVN 13 534 TrDr 5 AUCT 1 190 ASJ 9 267 72 *OIP 121 9 OIP 121 133 AUCT 2 245 AUCT 1 327 *AUCT 2 72 TrDr 15 *SET 60 AUCT 2 39 KM 83.2.2 PDT 2 891 AUCT 1 86 MVN 13 695167 TrDr 6 *TRU 318 BIN 3 423 AUCT 1 415 TRU 310 OrSP 5 47 5 Wengler 20 PDT 1 71 MVN 4 115 Tavolette 277 NYPL 194 Tavolette 262 *BIN 3 63 *BCT 1 78 OIP 121 365 Orient 16 24 26 OIP 121 366 OIP 121 367 SACT 1 147 SACT 1 146 AS2 xi 18 13 u. Abasaga AS2 xi 25 [...] u. Abasaga AS2 xii 2 2 g. 8 u. Abasaga AS2 xii 4 2 g.[. . .?] Abasaga AS2 xii 5 8 u. Abasaga AS2 xii 10 1 g. 6 u. Lu-dingira kas4-ke4-ne; a-bí-sí-imti; geme2-é-an-na é-gi4-a AS2 xii 26 5 g. 5 u. Abasaga AS3 i 2 10 u. Abasaga AS3 i 5 5 g. 58 u. Abasaga AS3 i 5-28 25 g. Enlila AS3 i 27 6 g. Abasaga AS3 ii 1-28 78 g. Enlila AS3 iii 23 10 u. Lu-dingira aga3-ús-e-ne AS3 iv 19 15 u. Šulgi-a’au aga3-ús-e-ne AS3 v 4 15 u. Abasaga AS3 v 26 2 g. 5 u. Abasaga [AS3?] v 27 5 u. Abasaga AS3 v 28 30 u. Abasaga AS3 vi 2-30 35 g. Enlila AS3 vi 8 [...]+3 udu Nalu šà nibruki AS3 vii 27 [...]+9 u. Abasaga AS3 vii 29 2 u. Abasaga AS3 ix 1 6 g. 35 u. Intaea AS3 ix 25 41 u. AS3 x 3 60 u. AS3 x 10 118 u. AS3 x 25 126 u. AS3 x 29 5 g. AS3 xi 2 6 g. 2 u AS3 xi 16 [...] u. AS3 xi 19 1 g. 30 u. AS3 xi 24 2 g. 51 u. AS3 xi 25 3 g. 18 u. AS3 xi 2 g. 15 u. Intaea AS3 xid 28 45 u. AS3 xii 20 1 g. 23 u. 167 Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Šulgi-uruu Intaea Intaea Intaea ér sù-a šà unuki kas4-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne šà nibruki Intaea Intaea As with ASJ 9 268 75 The year on this text is no preserved. However, the apearance of Abasaga helps to place it in the first half of the reign of Amar-Sin. Its placement here is the latest possible date for the text, but it could be earlier. -93- BIN 3 528 TCND 237 TCND 238 Tavolette 240 ASJ 4 66 10 AS3 xii 28 AS4 i 12 AS4 i 15 AS4 i 18 AS4 i 19 32 u. 20 u. 7 u. 4 g. 49 u. 8 g. 80 u. Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea BIN 3 90 AS4 i 24 90 u. Šulgi-a’au OIP 121 368 PDT 2 1120 OIP 121 45 AUCT 1 13 OIP 121 444 ASJ 18 76 7 OrSP 18 pl. 6 19 SACT 1 149 TRU 329 OIP 121 369 MVN 5 111 MVN 13 542 Ontario 1 96 SACT 1 150 Tavolette 92 *SACT 1 151 AUCT 1 697 AS4 i 20+[...] AS4 ii 2 AS4 ii 8 AS4 ii 10 AS4 ii 18 AS4 ii 26 AS4 iii 17 AS4 iv 18 AS4 iv 26 AS4 v 5 AS4 v 9 AS4 v 17 AS4 vi 2 AS4 vi 3 AS4 vi 17 AS4 vi 22 AS4 vi 27 2 g. 20 u. 1 g. 2 u. 10 u. 10 u. 20 u. 10 4 g. 10 u. 10 u. 1 g. [. . .]+20 u. 2 g. 8 u. 7 u. 1 g. 29 u. {3 g. 14 u.} 3 g. 5 u. {10 u.} 11 g. 35 u. 30 u. Intaea Intaea Šulgi-a’au Nalu Nalu Šulgi-a’au Intaea Šulgi-a’au Šulgi-a’au Intaea Šulgi-a’au Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea OIP 121 371 MVN 8 221 AS4 vii 1 AS4 vii 5 MVN 3 384168 PDT 1 360 SACT 1 167 PDT 2 1155 OIP 121 373 [. . .] iii 7 AS4 viii 9 AS4 viii 19 AS4 viii 22 AS4 viii 24 TrDr 2 Intaea Intaea Intaea 5 u. Šulgi-a’au 7 g. 10 u. Intaea 7 g. 30 u. Intaea 7 g. 42 u. Intaea 5 g. {4 g.} 20 u. Intaea AS4 viii 40 udu 168 lugal nibruki DU.NI má-a ba-a-á-ar. má-a gar-ra aga3-ús-e-ne šà unuki-ga aga3-ús-e-ne šà nibruki šà nibruki aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-ke4-ne šà á-ki-ti šu-numun lugal ga-eški-šè DU.NI má-a ba-na-a-a-ar kas4-e-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne anon. kaš dé-a d en-líl d nin-líllá u4 The presence of Šulgi-a’au makes this the latest possible date for the tablet. Earlier dates are possible, however. -94- d amarEN.Z U-ke4 ša-ašruki ù šu-ruud-huumki mu-hula d TCND 258 *SACT 1 168 *CST 505 Tavolette 96 MVN 8 206 *PDT 1 466 AS4 ix 5 AS4 ix 11 AS4 ix 17 AS4 x 20 AS4 x 22 AS4 x 25 NYPL 304 AS4 xi 19 MVN 15 24 AS4 xi 20 RA 9 51 AS4 xi 22 SA 202 (pl. 5) Hirose 174 AS4 xi 25 OIP 121 375 AS4 xi 26 SACT 1 170 AS4 xi 27 PDT 1 478 AS4 xii 20 SACT 1 170 OIP 121 452 *OIP 121 377 OIP 121 378 OIP 121 379 AS4 xii 27 AS5 i 18 AS5 ii 2 AS5 ii 7 AS5 ii 8 OIP 121 380 AS5 ii 17 OIP 121 381 AS5 ii 20 OIP 121 382 OIP 121 383 *OIP 121 384 OIP 121 385 OIP 121 386 *OIP 121 387 AS5 ii 25 AS5 ii 26 AS5 iii 5 AS5 iii 6 AS5 iii 7 AS5 iii 13 4 g. 19 u. {4 g. 28 u.} {26 g. 19 u.} 15 u. 20 u. 2 g. 27 u. Intaea Intaea Intaea Šulgi-a’au Abasaga Ahu-wer 70 u. 46 u. 20 u. Šulgi-a’au Intaea Šulgi-a’au 1 g. 27 u. 3 g. 15 u. 15 u. 1 g. 55 u. Intaea Intaea Šulgi-a’au Intaea 15 u. 45 u. {1 g. 15 u.} 8 u. 2 g. 10 u.{4 u.} 4 g.{1 g.} {5 u.} 3 g. 4 u. {1 u.} 2 g. 10 u. 2 g. 15 u. {2 g.} 2 g. 4 g.{2 g.} {4 u.} Šulgi-a’au Nalu Intaea Intaea -95- aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne kas4-e-ne; šagina! gešbun2 ba-tuš-a-ne kas4-e-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne lugal nibruki-šè DU.NI má-a ba-a-á-ar šà unuki-ga aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne šà nibruki Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea šà unugki šà unugki *OIP 121 389 OIP 121 391 CST 309 AS5 iii 18 AS5 iii 28 AS5 iv 10 {1 g.} 3 g. 22 u. Intaea Intaea Nalu OIP 121 392 OIP 121 394 SACT 1 156 OIP 121 396 *OIP 121 398 Ontario 1 97 OIP 121 399 BIN 3 117 AS5 iv 19 AS5 v 21 AS5 vi 3 AS5 vi 4 AS5 vi 12 AS5 vii 18 AS5 vii 23 AS5 vii 25 Intaea Intaea Šulgi-a’au Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea šagina-e-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne šà nibruki SA 38 SACT 1 181 NYPL 243 *OIP 121 403 OIP 121 404 AS5 ix 22 AS5 x 9 AS5 x 19 AS5 xi 3 AS5 xi 7 20 u. 2 g. 2 g. 15 u. 2 g. {3 g. 7 u.} 2 g. 25 u. 5 g. 15 u. 4 g. {1 g.} 2 u. {4 u.} {1} 20 u.{16 u.} {3 g.} 15 u. {12 u.} 1 g. 45 u. 3 g. 65 u. 45 u. {4 u.} 31 u. *PDT 2 1001 *OIP 121 406 OIP 121 407 *OIP 121 408 OIP 121 409 Ontario 1 49 AUCT 2 234 YOS 18 14 AS5 xi 17 AS5 xi 18 AS5 xi 20 AS5 xi 22 AS5 xi 25 AS5 xi 26 AS5 xi 28 AS5 xii 20 {44 u.} {1 g. 106 u.} 30 u. {5 u.} {28 u.} 18 u. {12 u.} 38 u. {18 u.} 39 u. {25 u.} 46 u. Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Intaea Nasa AUCT 2 318 OIP 121 410 UCP 9-2-2 13 Hirose 229 NYPL 133 MVN 13 540 *TRU 344 AS5 xii 22 AS6 i 10 AS6 iii 14 AS6 iii 22 AS6 iii 25 AS 6 iv 4 AS6 iv 6 32 u. 3 u. {5 u.} 8 u. 6 u. 5 u. 3 u. 6 u. PDT 1 643 AUCT 2 217 AS6 iv 17 AS6 v 8 15 u. 10 Nalu Intaea Intaea Turam-Dagan Ahu-wer aga3-ús-a-ne Utamišarum Ahuni kas4-e-ne; geme2d nanna é-gi-a bù-ú-du Nalu aga3-ús-e-ne šà nibruki Nalu aga3-ús-e-ne šà nibruki *OIP 121 400 OIP 121 401 OIP 121 402 AS5 ix 6 AS5 ix 8 AS5 ix 14 -96- aga3-ús-e-ne Intaea Intaea Intaea lugal uru-sa-rig7ki-šè DU.NI má-a ba-a-a-ar [aga3-ú]s-e-ne šà nibruki aga3-ús-e-ne šà nibruki *CST 346 AS6 v 10 BIN 3 274 TCND 250 ASJ 7 124 20 MVN 5 115 AS6 v 27 AS6 vi 10 AS6 vii 21 AS6 vii 25 {1 g.} { [. . .]+31 u.} Intaea 10 u. Nalu [. . .]+5 u. Nalu [. . .]+16 u. Intaea 185 u. Intaea PDT 2 1201 AS6 viii 24 8 u. Lu-dingira NYPL 197 PDT 2 1091 TRU 345 PDT 2 1082 OIP 121 531 TLB 3 31 AS6 ix 23 AS6 x 9 AS6 xi 1 AS6 xi 4 AS6 xi 19 AS6 xii 24 5 u. 2 g. 49 u. 30 u. 11 u. 2 g. 10 u. Lu-dingera Intaea Ahu-wer Lu-dingira Ur-tur Lu-dingira Rochester 69 AS7 i 20 5 u. Šumama *BCT 1 80 *PDT 1 636 AS7 ii 3 AS7 ii 18 {5 u.} 10 u. Intaea Nalu *MVN 5 116 AS7 iii 9 7 Šumama *PDT 2 783 OIP 121 515 AS7 iv 28-29 6 g. AS7 v 2 4 u. Enlila Utamišarum OIP 121 28 AS7 vi 6 {2 u.} 5 u. Ahu-wer OIP 121 516 AS7 vii 22 2 u. Utamišarum SACT 1 159 AS7 vii 23 4 u. Utamišarum OIP 121 412 AS7 viii 1 TRU 334 AS7 viii 10 1 g. {1 g.} 16 u. {13 u.} Intaea 1 g. Intaea aga3-ús-e-ne šà nibruki aga3-ús-e-ne šà nibuki aga3-ús kaskal-ta er-re-ne; aga3-ús-ke4-ne geme2 dumu na-gábtum u4 túg-ba šu ba-abti ba-ab-gu7 ugula lú-dingir-ra aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne gàr-du damar-dEN.ZUke4-ne gàr-du damar-dEN.ZUke4-ne šà nibruki kas4-e-ne; gàr-du-e-ne šà nibruki dam i-din-dda-gan; kas4-ke4-ne gàr-du damar-dEN.ZUke4-ne dam dsulgi-ha-sí-is; gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du damar-dEN.ZUke4-ne gàr-du damar-dEN.ZUke4-ne nu-banda3 ù gàr-du amard EN.ZU kaskal-ta erra-ne; gàr-du-e-ne kas4-e-ne; gàr-du-e-ne šà tum-ma-alki d 70 u. {21 u.} MVN 15 244 AS7 viii 20 En-dingiru 44 u. -97- MVN 3 235 AS7 viii 29 {3 u.} 5 u. En-dingiru Ontario 1 126 MVN 2 332 AS7 ix 9 AS7 ix 11 22 u. {8 u.} 3 u. Intaea Utamišarum BIN 3 138 AS7 xi 7 16 u. 1 m. Utamišarum YOS 18 22169 PDT 1 108 BCT 1 82 MVN 2 331 NYPL 229 [...] xi 12 AS7 xi 16 AS8 i 5 AS8 i 7 AS8 i 18 [. . .]+53 u. 10 u. 1 g. 5 u. 30 u. Intaea Intaea Ur-tur Ur-kununa Duga *BIN 3 477 OIP 121 415 ASJ 4 141 6 *CTMMA 1 27 TCL 5 5611 JANES 21 76 9 PDT 1 324 BIN 3 403 PDT 1 544 TRU 307 ASJ 19 206 21 TRU 324 AUCT 3 459 AS8 i 18 AS8 i 21 AS8 i 22 AS8 i 25 AS8 i 27 AS8 ii 7-22 AS8 ii 11 AS8 ii 26 AS8 ii 29 AS8 iii 9 AS8 iii 14 AS8 iii 14 AS8 iii 26 1 g. 18 u. 12 u. 3 u. 5 u. {2 u.} {2 g.} 2 g. 1 g. 21 u. 20 udu 4 m. 5 u. 5 udu 10 u. Šumama Duga Duga Duga Duga Enlila Enlila Duga Nalu Lu-dingira Duga Nalu Utamišarum AUCT 3 349 BIN 3 170 Princeton 1 68 BIN 3 169 AS8 iii 27 AS8 iii 27 AS8 iii 28 AS8 iv 2 16 u. 6 u. 2 m. 10 u. 2 g. Duga Lu-dingira Duga Enlila PDT 1 461 AS8 iv 2 20 u. Duga OIP 121 416 OIP 121 417 PDT 2 951 AS8 iv 4 AS8 iv 10 AS8 iv 15 10 u. 11 u. 20 u. Duga Duga Šu-Mama 169 šagina-e-ne; gàr-du-ene šà tum-ma-al gàr-du damar-dEN.ZUke4-ne gàr-du-damar-dEN.ZUke4-ne gàr-du-ne kas4-ke4-e-ne; gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du-e-ne gir4-gub-ne? šà nibruki kas4-e-ne gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du-e-ne šà nibruki gàr-du-damar-dEN.ZUke4-ne gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du-ne gàr-du-e-ne lugal šuruppakki-šè DU.NI má-a ba-a-gá-ar lugal šuruppakki-šè DU.NI má-a ba-a-gá-ar gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du-e-ne The presense of Intaea makes this the latest possible date for the tablet. Other earlier dates are possible. -98- MVN 18 688170 [AS8] iv 20 [. . .] En-dingiru PDT 2 1145 MVN 10 238 BIN 3 479 BIN 3 480 OIP 121 418 SANTAG 7 114 AUCT 3 295 PDT 2 951 MVN 15 204 Ontario 1 81 AS8 iv 26 AS8 iv 29 AS8 v 1? AS8 v 6 AS8 v 7? AS8 v 9 AS8 v 14 AS8 v 15 AS8 v 28 AS8 vi 17 20 4 g. 14 u. 4 g. 10 u. 7 u. 15 u. 20 u. 2 u. 2 u. Duga Enlila Duga Enlila Duga Duga Zubaga Šu-Mama Igi-Enlilše Duga CTNMC 5 AUCT 3 268 YOS 18 15 Hirose 268 AUCT 1 890 AS8 vi 27 AS8 vii 2 AS8 vii 7 AS8 vii 12 AS8 vii 15 10 u. 1 g. 10 u. 10 u. 1 g. Duga Enlila Duga Duga Enlila AUCT 3 490 AS8 vii 15 82 u. Duga NYPL 250 NYPL 244 PDT 1 489 AS8 vii 18 AS8 vii 27 AS8 viii 7 8 u. 10 u. 15 u. Duga Igi-Enlilše En-dingiru SACT 1 163 AS8 viii 13 20 u. Duga OIP 121 419 AS8 viii 15 11 u. Duga PDT 2 1257 OIP 121 420 AS8 viii 18 AS8 viii 20 1 g. 25 u. Enlila Duga OIP 121 421 AS8 viii 22 25 u. OIP 121 554 AS8 viii 29 1 g. BCT 1 83 PDT 2 1147 AS8 ix 16 AS8 x 13 5 u. 15 udu *BCT 1 85 AS8 x 22 1 g. 170 gàr-du-[e-n]e-šè šà nibruki gàr-du-e-ne [gàr-d]u-ne gàr-du-e-ne [gàr]-du-e-ne gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du-e-ne gar3-du-e-ne šà unukiga gàr-du-e-ne šà uri5ki-ma gàr-da-e-ne šà uri5ki-ma gàr-du-e-ne šà unuki-ga lugal nibruki DU.NI má-a ba-a-á-ar lugal nibruki-šè DU.NI ma-a ba-a-gá-ar gàr-du-e-ne šà nibruki gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du-e-ne šà tum-ma-alki gàr-du-e-ne šà tum-ma-alki gàr-du-e-ne šà tum-ma-alki gàr-du-e-ne [šà tum-ma-a]lki Duga gàr-du-e-ne šà tum-ma-alki Zubaga na-ap-la-núm mar-tu šà tum-ma-alki Zubaga kas4-e-ne Duga gàr-du-e-ne šà uri5ki-ma Ur-Šugalama kas4-e-ne Due to the limited span in which the g à r - d u appear in the Drehem corpus, this text must almost certainly date to AS8. -99- OIP 121 582 OIP 121 557 Aegyptus 19 237 8 ASJ 11 327 22 KM 89246 Aegyptus 19 238 9 AS8 xi 2[2?] AS8 xii 4 AS8 xii 16 AS8 xii 17 AS9 i 8-28 AS9 i 17 25 u. 15 u. 1 m. 1 m. 20 g. 10 u. Igi-Enlilše Zubaga Lu-dingira Lu-dingira Enlila Duga Princeton 1 63 AS9 i 20 Princeton 1 65 AS9 ii 18 OIP 121 422 AS9 ii 29 Princeton 1 64 AS9 iii 2 RA 9 51 AS9 iii 3 SA 187 (pl. 5) Ontario 1 83 AS9 iii 23 Ontario 1 84 AS9 iii 29 5 u. 2 u. 7 u. [. . .]+12 u. 25 u. Duga Duga Duga Duga Duga 11 u. 14 Duga Duga *ASJ 18 76 8 SACT 1 166 OIP 121 423 NYPL 323 OIP 121 424 ArOr 25 559 9 RA 9 51 SA 190 OIP 121 425 AS9 iii 30 AS9 iv 7 AS9 iv 15 AS9 v 14 AS9 v 15 AS9 v 21 AS9 v AS9 vi 2 {8 u.} 21 u. 30 u. {1 u.} 16 u. {4 u} 28 u. 24 u. 20 u. {12 u.} 25 u. {8 u.} Zubaga Duga Duga Duga Duga Duga Duga Duga OIP 121 426 OIP 121 495 OIP 121 427 AS9 vi 8 AS9 vi 10 AS9 vi 22 15 u. {3 u.} 3 m. 30 u. Duga Lu-dingira Duga PDT 2 1160 OIP 121 428 AS9 vi 29 AS9 vii 19 13 u. 25 u. Duga Duga CST 394 MVN 15 190 PDT 1 20 MVN 20 183 CST 396 ASJ 7 123 17 *MVN 2 164 AS9 viii 8 AS9 viii 21 AS9 viii 25 AS9 ix 2 AS9 ix 9 AS9 ix 23 AS9 x 7 22 u. 30 u. {1 u.} 35 u. {1 u.} 20 u. {28 u.} 35 u. {4 u.} 25 u. {6 u.} 60 udu Duga Duga Duga Intaea Duga Duga Duga Princeton 1 67 AS9 x 10 30 Duga -100- gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du-ne gàr-du-ne gàr-du-e-ne šà a-šà d amar-dEN.ZU-engard en-líl-lá gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du-e-ne gàr-du-e-ne kas4-ke-ne lugal uri5ki DU.NI má ba-a-á-ar gàr-du-e-ne lu2 BAD.AN{ki} ur3n; gar3-du-e-ne d šul-gi-uru-u10 šbt aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne kas4-ke4-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne šà uri5kima aga3-ús-e-ne šà á-ki-ti kas4-ke4-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne kas4-ke4-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne šà uri5ki-ma *AUCT 1 968 OIP 121 429 AS9 x 10 AS9 x 11 OIP 121 430 AS9 x 17-20 169 u. {7 u.} Duga TRU 348 AS9 x 24 36 u. TRU 319 CST 397 UCP 9-2-1 74 *CST 399 AS9 xi 1-7 AS9 xi 6 AS9 xi 7 AS9 xi 23 14 g. {9 g.} Enlila 10 u.{6 u.} Duga 10 u. {[. . .] g.} Enlila 35 u. Duga TLB 3 32 PDT 1 283 Babyloniaca 7 77 9 South Dakota 17 *CST 401 AUCT 3 86 18 u. {3 u.} Duga 50 u. {3 u.} Duga 5 u. {33 u.} Duga 87 u.{15 u.} N/A {2 u.} Duga PDT 1 244 PDT 1 491 AS9 xii 10 AS9 xii 8 AS9 xii 15 AS9 xii 25-27 AS9 xiii 8 AS9 xiii 15-16 AS9 xiii 17 AS9 xiii 18 AS9 xiii 26-27 ŠS1 i 14 ŠS1 i 21 UDT 168 ŠS1 i 25 MVN 13 401 ŠS1 i 26-27 BIN 3 550 BIN 3 200 BIN 3 434 CUT CUA 3 {4 g.} 60 u. Enlila Duga Duga 3 g. 1 g. 23 u. Enlila Enlila Duga 5 g. 5 u.{1 u.} 1 g. 13 u. Enlila Duga Duga lú máš-da-ra-a-ke4-ne išbunx (KI.BI) ér sù-a šà uri5ki-ma aga3-ús-e-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne lugal nibruki-šè DU.NI má-a ba-a-á-ar; geme2 dumu dinanna-šè; aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne šà unuki-ga aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne kas4-ke4-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne kas4-ke4-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne Duga aga3-ús-e-ne ŠS1 i 28 1 g. 14 u. {2 u.} 3 g. 2 u. {4 u.} 16 u. {1 u.} Duga Duga TCL 2 5527 ŠS1 ii 1-30 17 g. {1 g.} Enlila BIN 3 216 Ontario 1 148 ŠS1 ii 18 ŠS1 iii 19 10 u. {1 u.} 21 u. {2 u.} Duga Duga aga3-ús-e-ne kas4-ke4-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne um-ma dnin-líl-lá-ke4ne aga3-ús-e-ne lugal uru-sa-rig7ki-šè DU.NI má-a ba-a-a-ar AUCT 3 93 ŠS1 iv 2 1 g. {1 g.} Duga -101- AUCT 3 441 ŠS1 iv 4 21 u. Duga *Princeton 1 69 Rochester 83 ŠS1 v 1 ŠS1 v 7 {12 u.} {1 g.} 27 u. Duga Duga KM 89187 AUCT 3 87 PDT 2 1014 ŠS1 v 8 ŠS1 v 18-20 ŠS1 vii 16 {1 g.} 10 u. 13 u. {5 u.} 4 g. {1 g.} 10 u. Duga Duga Dahl-Hebenstreit 1 ŠS1 vii 21-22 3 gu4 345 u. Duga PDT 1 480 ŠS1 ix 1 5 g. 13 u. {4 u.} Duga Duga PDT 1 464 ŠS1 ix 6 19 u. PDT 1 476 ŠS1 ix 15 PDT 1 443 PDT 2 1008 ŠS1 xi 23 ŠS1 xi 24 2 g. 5 u. {1 u.} 1 g. 21 u. 1 g. 19 u. {1 u.} [. . .]+2 g. {1 g.} 2 g. 282 u. {[. . .] u.} AUCT 1 413 Nik 2 498 NYPL 241 PDT 2 1054 BAOM 2 34 86 NYPL 326 CST 414 ASJ 12 43 14 PDT 2 1277 PDT 1 487 OrAnt 24 pl. 19 ŠS1 xi 28 ŠS1 xii 8 ŠS2 iii 11 ŠS2 v 19 ŠS2 vii 5-29 ŠS2 viii 9 ŠS2 ix 16 ŠS2 ix ŠS2 ix ŠS3 i 25 ŠS3 ii 24-29 Duga 10 u. [...]+2 u. {1 u.} 12 g. {2 g.} 4 m. 21 u. {5 u.} 20 u. {3 u.} 20 u. 406 [u.] 2 g. 10 u. [. . .]+8 g. -102- gašan-e-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne kas4-ke4-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne kas4-ke4-ne kas4-ke4-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne šakkan6 nu-banda3 ù ugula-iš-da kaskal-ta er-ra-ne nar-munus-e-ne; aga3ús-e-ne kas4-ke4-ne; aga3-ús-ene Duga Duga aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne Duga aga3-ús-e-ne Enlila Duga Duga [...]KI?[...]-e-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne Duga aga3-ús-e-ne Enlila Duga Duga Duga DU10-ili Duga Lugal-melam aga3-ús-e-ne; ur-mah kas4-e-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne geme2-dumu den-líl d nin-líl-lá-ke4-ne nígdab5 ezem gu4-si-su; kas4-ke4-ne TRU 351 ŠS3 vii 25 RA 9 53 ŠS3 x 21 StA 210 (pl. 6) Nesbit 74 ŠS3 x [. . .] 9 u. {6 u.} 2 g. 110 u. Duga Duga 1 g. 15 u. [. . .] *CST 427 Syracuse 281 AUCT 1 2284 ŠS4 v 1 ŠS4 vii 26 ŠS4 viii 30 {3 u.} Ur-kununa 4 u. {1 u.} Ur-kununa 26 u. {11 u.} Ur-kununa Amorites 20 (pl. 9) MVN 20 211 MVN 5 126 Utah 9 NYPL 397 ŠS4 ix 2 ŠS5 v 3 ŠS5 vii 1 ŠS6 [...] 9 ŠS7 iii 18 7 u. 5 u. 4 u. 11 u. {1. u.} 4 g. 10 u. Ur-kununa Ur-kunna Duga Duga Ur-kunna MVN 8 203 SACT 1 175 ŠS7 iv 28 ŠS7 v 22-23 2 u. 2 g. 1 m. 10 u. Ur-kununa Ur-kununa aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús uri5ki-ta má lugal gíd-da-ne geme2-dumu an-nu-ni-tum-ke4ne-šè lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne aga3-ús ù lú-šuku-rake4-ne kas4-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-ke4-ne aga3-ús-e-ne lugal uru-sa-rig7ki-šè DU.NI má-a ba-a-á-ar lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne; ur-mah lú-šuku-ra-ke4 aga3-ús uri5ki-ta má lugal gíd-da-ne MVN 15 151 OLP 8 12 8 ŠS7 v 29 ŠS7 vii 14 7 u. 30 u. Ur-kununa Ur-kununa AUCT 1 362 TRU 340 ŠS7 xii 3-25 ŠS8 i 8 2 g. 2 g. 20 u. PDT 1 11 ŠS8 ii 11 10 u. TRU 341 ŠS8 iii 19-20 3 g. 25 u. KM 89079 AnOr 7 104 ŠS8 viii 21 ŠS8 x 25 1 g. 10 u. 67 u. Lugal-melam Ur-kununa aga3-ús kin-gi4-a gi4-a-ne Ur-kununa aga3-ús a tu5-a ka é-gal-la ku4-ra-ne Ur-kununa kas4-e-ne; lugal uru-sa-rig7ki-šè DU.NI má-a ba-a-á-ar Ur-kununa lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne [Ur-ku]nuna geme2 dumu dinannake4-šé; lugal nibruki-šè DU.NI má-a ba-a-á-ar AUCT 3 96 ŠS9 ii 15 [. . .]+9 u. {3 u.} Ur-kununa aga3-ús-e-ne; lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne 2 g. 20 u. {24 u.} Ur-kununa geme2 dumu dnin-líl-láke4-ne; TJAMC ŠS9 iii 6-8 FM 52 (pl. 48) -103- BIN 3 584 Orient 16 56 54 PDT 1 235 PDT 1 682 ŠS9 iv 5 ŠS9 vi 7-9 ŠS9 ix 1 ŠS9 ix 9 5 u. 35 u. {2 u.} 2 g. 5 u. 18 u. Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Ontario 1 157 ŠS9 ix 22 30 Ur-kununa MVN 15 291 ŠS9 ix 27 2 g. 14 u. Ur-kunnua BIN 3 581 ŠS9 x 23 1 g. 15 u. Ur-kununa AUCT 3 79 BIN 3 460 ŠS9 x ŠS9 xi 27 2 g. 107 u. 16 {6 u.} [Ur-ku]nuna Ur-kununa MVN 13 395 PDT 1 482 JAOS 33 178 10 PDT 2 1267 BIN 3 255 ŠS9 xii 3 ŠS9 xii 21 ŠS9 xii 25 IS1 i 24 IS1 ii 12 21 u. 2 m. 1 g. 10 u. 1 g. 20 u. 15 u. Ur-kununa Dugali Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Ur-kununa PDT 2 1217 BIN 3 600 Syracuse 73 MVN 13 488 BCT 1 113 CST 56 AUCT 2 27 IS1 iv 3 IS1 iv 28 IS1 xii 17 IS1 xii IS1 xiii 28 IS2 i 17 IS2 ii 10 u. 5 u. 1 m. 2 m. 3 u. 1 m. 5 u. Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Dugali [. . .] Ur-kununa Dugali [. . .] MVN 13 522 IS2 iii 28 32 u. Šulgi-ili AUCT 1 400 TRU 343 BIN 3 262 IS2 v 8 [. . .] vii 13 IS2 ix 1 1 g. [. . .]+2 u. 5 u. Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Ur-kununa 171 lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne; kas4-ke4-ne lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne kas4-ne; aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús ù lú-šuku-rake4-ne aga3-ús ù lú-šuku-rake4-ne aga3-ús á tu5-a ka é-gal-la ku4-ra-ne; lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne šà unuki-ga aga3-ús ù lú-šuku-rake4-ne šà unuki-[ga] aga3-ús-e-ne a tu5-a ka é-gal-la ku4-ra-ne; lúšuku-ra-ke4-ne lú-šuku-ra-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne aga3-ús a tu5-a ka é-gal-la ku4-ra-ne; lú-šuku-rake4-ne kas4-ke4-ne lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús a-tu5-a ka égal-la-šè ku4-ra-ne kas4-ke4-ne; lú-šukura-ke4-ne lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne171 nar bala den-líl d nin-líl-lá-ke4-ne This is the latest possible date for the tablet. Other earlier dates are possible however. -104- MVN 13 547 IS2 ix 1-5 50 u. Ur-kununa PDT 2 1280 SRD 27 AUCT 3 487 IS2 ix 20 IS2 xi 12 IS[. . .] 21 6 u. 3 u. [. . .]+13 Ur-kununa Ur-kununa Puzur-Enlil AUCT 2 122 [. . .] 11 19 u. {2 u.} N/A 4 g. 210 u. N/A 73 g. [. . .] [. . .]+1 u. [Enlila] Lu-dingira [. . .] TJAMC [. . .] vii 6 FM 46 (pl. 46) Nebraska 66 [. . .] 1-17 YOS 18 23 [. . .] 27 AnOr 7 111 [. . .] nar bala den-líl d nin-líl-lá-ke4-ne; lú-kas4-ke4-ne kas4-ke4-ne aga3-ús-e-ne kaš-ke4-ne; lú-šuku-ra-ke4-ne kas4-ke4-ne; aga3-ús ù lú-suku-rake4-ne aga3-ús-e-ne aga3-ús-e-ne Table 2.1 Animal expenditures to the é - m u h a l d i m in the Drehem corpus -105- CHAPTER 3 The m u h a l d i m and é - m u h a l d i m Outside Nippur Province 3. Girsu Girsu, modern Telloh, is situated in southeastern Sumer, approximately 110 km SE of Nippur, 55 km NE of Uruk, 25 km ESE from Umma, and 65 km N of Ur. The site covers an area of ca. 100 ha, and was occupied at least from the Ubaid period to the Sasanian period, though after the late second millennium settlement appears to have been sparse.172 During the Ur III period, Girsu was the capital of Lagaš province.173 Ernst de Sarzec first investigated the site in 1877 and excavated regularly until 1900. Further work was subsequently undertaken by G. Cros, H. de Genouillac, and A. Parrot until 1933, the last year it was scientifically excavated. Additionally, as Tom Jones has amply demonstrated, Girsu was already the subject of illicit digging by locals as early as the 1890's.174 3.1. The corpus At present, ca. 17,000 of the perhaps 35,000 documents recovered from Girsu have 172 See the entries by R.J. Matthews in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology, s.v. “Girsu and Lagash,” and Adam Falkenstein and R. Opificius in RlA 3 s.v. “Girsu.” 173 I follow scholarly convention here in referring to the province as Lagaš province, though it was known by the name of its capital city Girsu in the Ur III period. In earlier periods, the region was known by the eponymous city Lagaš (modern al-Hiba). Unfortunately, Lagaš has been the subject of only limited archaeological excavation, for which see Donald P. Hanson’s entry in RlA 6 s.v. “Lagaš B. Archäologish.” Other major urban areas in Lagaš province included Niin (or Nina, modern Zurghul, see now D.O. Edzard’s discussion in RlA 9 s.v. “NINA”), and Kinunir (location unknown; see RlA 5 s.v. “Kinunur, Kinirša”). Note also Mamoru Yoshikawa’s discussion of the region in his “Lagaš and KiLagaš, Unug and Ki-Unug,” ASJ 7 (1985): 157-66. 174 See especially T. Jones, “Sumerian Administrative Documents.” -106- been published.175 Major collections of the Girsu material are housed in London, Istanbul, Berlin, and Paris. Collections also belong to smaller museums in Europe and the United States.176 The corpus dates from ca. Š26 to IS2, and is made up of the archives of both the provincial administrator as well as those of various temple households, including, among others, the temples of Ningirsu and Nanše.177 Particularly numerous among the Girsu administrative corpus are documents concerned with the organization of agriculture and labor management, as well as messenger texts.178 3.1. The m u h a l d i m and é - m u h a l d i m in Lagaš province 3.1.2. Overview of the é - m u h a l d i m There are over 40 tablets from the Girsu corpus that directly mention the é m u h a l d i m. Over half – 25 in total – come from a group of tablets summarizing work assignments within and without the province for different groups of  u r u š-workers. Other texts note the é - m u h a l d i m’s receipt of milled barley and other products. Evidence for understanding the é - m u h a l d i m also comes from various people associated with the é - m u h a l d i m. The most prominent individual associated with the é m u h a l d i m is one Ur-niinar, who frequently appears as a foreman for m u h a l d i m, 175 For these figures, see T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 1, fn. 3. 176 T. Jones’ discussion of the early publication of the Girsu material suggests that already by 1910, tablets were scattered throughout many museums and universities in Europe and the Uited States, see T. Jones, “Sumerian Administrative Documents,” 42-4. 177 T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 62-3. 178 W. Sallaberger, “Ur III-Zeit,” 286. -107- and was also called a n u - b a n d a3 é - m u h a l d i m.179 The texts show that he received various raw materials for the production of bread and beer, and he was also responsible for distributing these items. Together, the data from Girsu allow us to speak not only about the function of the é - m u h a l d i m, but also about its place within the Ur III administration. More specifically, the evidence suggests that the provincial administration of Girsu operated an é - m u h a l d i m within its own borders. This é - m u h a l d i m provided prepared foodstuffs such as bread and beer for local consumption, but was also charged with preparing items to meet royal obligations. 3.1.2.1. The  u r u š-assignment texts As noted above, most of the texts directly referring to the é - m u h a l d i m detail the  u r u š, “workers,” under the authority of various supervisors and their work assignments.180 For example, in ASJ 18 225 ((HSM 6435) [AS1] iii 14)181: 1. 97 [uruš] 2. nu-banda3 ur-išgigir 3. 60 lá 2 uruš nu-banda3 igi-zu-bar-[ra] 4. 36 uruš nu-banda3 ur-niin3-ar 5. 46 uruš nu-banda3 lú-dba-ú 6. šu-nigin2 237 uruš 97 workers from Ur-gigir the overseer; 58 from Igizubara the overseer; 36 from Ur-niinar the overseer; 46 from Lu-Bau the overseer; Total 237 workers. From this: 10 for the 179 More recently, scholars have proposed reading u r - niin3-ar, a name meaning “man of the cella (or other small building),” as u r - n i  a rx a r or even u r - n i9 -  a r, following H. Waetzoldt, review of Der Mythos “Inanna und Enki” unter besonder Berücksichtigung der Liste der me, by G. FarberFlügge, BiOr 32 no. 5/6 (1975): 382-84. However, in this study I will use the conventional reading. 180 These texts were discussed in some detail by Alexander Uchitel, “Erin2-èš-didli,” ASJ 14 (1992): 317-338 and “Erin2-èš-didli (II): Patterns of Conscription and Work Assignment during the Years AS8 - ŠS1,” ASJ 18 (1996): 217-28. 181 For the dating of this text, see below. -108- E’uzga; 7 for the slaughterhouse;182 30 for royal followers; 5 for carrying reeds; 5 for . . .;183 3 grooms; 3 . . . on the royal boat; 1 at the Ur-Nammu temple; 1 scribe (responsible for) date oil; 3 scribe (responsible for) the workshop; 1 scribe (responsible for) emmer; 1 scribe (responsible for) HAsar-vegetables;184 1 scribe (responsible for) barley groats;185 1 scribe (responsible for) chaff;186 [. . .] in the storehouse; [. . .] sitting at the storeroom; 6 for the brewery under Lugal-anatum; 1 for the brewery under Ur-Mes; 1 under UrNinazu; 1 under Nammah; 3 at the well edge in Nippur; 1 at the well 7. šà-bi-ta 8. 10 é-uz-ga 9. 7 é-gu4-gaz 10. 30 lugal-ra ús-sa 11. 5 gi íl 12. 5 gú-peš 13. 3 sipa anše-sí-sí 14. 3 gú-peš má lugal 15. 1 é-ur-dnammu 16. 1 dub-sar ì zú-lum 17. 3 dub-sar giš-kin-ti 18. 1 dub-sar imaa3(ZÍZ.AN) 19. 1 [dub]-sar HAsar 20. [1 dub-sar] ar-za-na 21. [1 dub-sar i]n-bul5-bul5 22. [. . .] é-kišib-ba (r.) 23. [. . .] á-nun-da tuš-a 24. 6 <é>-bappir187 ki lugal-an-na-tum 182 Literally, “the cattle slaughterhouse” (é - g u4- g a z). As these texts show (see, e.g. MVN 5 240:9-10), there were at least two Egugaz installations, one in Nippur and the other in Puzriš-Dagan. 183 Other texts of this type, e.g. MVN 11 83:10, sometimes follow g ú - p e š with e n g u r or e n g u r - r a (or, perhaps e s i r or e s i r - r a; the sign in question is an inscribed LAGAB, but it is not clear if the inscribed sign is HAL or n u m u n (KUL)). In some cases, such as line 14 in this text, and in the previously unpublished text (presented as Text 1 in the appendix to this study), the term g ú - p e š is followed by m á - l u g a l. In Text 1, the term is also followed by s i g4 - g u r8. Despite these clues, I am unable to come up with a satisfactory translation for the term. 184 A. Uchitel, “Erin2-èš-didli,” 321 offers “fennell,” following Bertrand Lafont, Documents administratifs sumériens (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985), 39, who tentatively suggested “fennell” or “anise,” but offers no compelling reasons for his suggestion. This term is otherwise unattested outside these  u r u š-assignment texts, and beyond the basic understanding of a type of vegetable or legume, it is difficult to arrive at a more precise definition. 185 For this and other terms for processed grain, see Lucio Milano’s discussion in RlA8 (1993) s.v. Mehl §4. 186 For a value of /bul/ for LAGABxSUM, see Piotr Steinkeller, “More Evidence for the Reading of bulx for LAGABxSUM,” RA 73 no. 1 (1979): 91-92. 187 The restoration of the É-sign here is based on Text 1, presented in the appendix to this study. It should also be noted that there is some question regarding the reading of /bappir/ for the ŠIM-sign, as well as its graphic varients ŠIMxGAR and ŠIMxA. These can mean both the term for brewer, as well as the term for one of the main ingredients for brewing, namely beer bread. As the evidence from the lexical material shows, the reading for the latter is fairly consistent, while the reading for the former is quite varied. For instance, Canonical Ea v 51-53 offers: -109- edge in Sadana; 10 for pit-digging at the village; 3 (under) Adad-bani 12 for loading boats with reeds to Uruk; 18 for the kitchen under Ur-niinar; 18 for the kitchen under Ur-Nanše; 1 at the gate (?) of the palace;188 1 sick (from) the 25. 1 <é>-bappir ki ur-mes 26. 1 ur-dnin-a-zu 27. 1 ki nam-mah 28. 3 gú pú nibruki 29. 1 gú pú sa-da-na 30. 10 pú ba-al šà é-duru5-ka 31. 3 dadad-ba-ni 51. [lu?-u]n-gi 52. si-ra-áš 53. ba-bi-ir ŠIMxGAR ŠIMxGAR ŠIMxGAR MIN ninda MIN [ši-ra]-šu-ú MIN ninda MIN [MIN] MIN ninda MIN ba-pi-rum Similarly, Canonical Aa v/1 195-198 gives: 195. bap-pi-ru 196. MIN 197. lu-um-gi 198. ni-in-gi ŠIM ŠIMxGAR ŠIMxGAR ŠIMxGAR bap-[pi-rum] MIN si-[ra-šu-u] MIN Thus, in the two examples cited, values for ŠIMxGAR when meaning brewer include l u m g i, n i n g i, and l u n g i (or perhaps n u n g i). Miguel Civil, in his “Hymn to the Beer Goddess and a Drinking Song," in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 196), 67-89, 88, used l u n g a, but added that it was “arbitrarily chosen from the manifold variants of this foreign word.” P. Steinkeller, in his Sale Documents of the Ur III Period, FAOS 17 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1989), 291, noted that “the reading of this term is not entirely clear,” but argued that l u n g a is to be preferred, with the initial LÚ serving as a phonetic indicator, i.e. l úl u n g a. Steinkeller’s argument has generally been followed, cf. Hans Neumann, “Weitere Ur III-Texte aus dem Sammlungsbestand der Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore,” in Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurük, HSAO 9, edited by Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Hauptmann (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 2004), 211-15, 212. Steinkeller’s proposal has the advantage of conforming to the vast majority of Sumerian professional terms appearing in the Ur III corpus, e.g. a d - k u p4, a š l a g, a š g a b, b a h a r2, k a s4, m u h a l d i m, n a g a r, š u - i, etc., which usually do not begin with l ú. Alternatively, however, it may be the case that the l ú is not phonetic, but used to disambiguate the ŠIMxGAR so the reader understands that the occuption and not the ingredient is meant. Regardless, in light of this it is likely that, when preceded by the É-sign, the expression is to be read é - l u n g a instead of é - b a p p i r2, particularly in light of MVN 6 106:5, where we find 6;0,0,0 ki éLÚ.ŠIM-ta. This also fits with the established pattern of naming production units in the form of ‘building of [occupational title].” However, as this reading is not generally used by scholars, I will retain the use of é - b a p p i r2 for the sake of convention and convenience. 188 Opinions differ on how to read this line. Miguel Civil “Brèves Communications,” RA 61 no. 1 (1967): 63-68, 65 n. 5, read KA in this expression as i n i m, offering in part “aux orders du palais.” In his translation of DAS 55, Lafont suggested “en service à la porte du palais,” reading the KA for k á. More recently, Uchitel, “Erin2-èš-didli,” 321 argued that the KA in the phrase k a é - g a l was “not a phonetic writing for k á . . . but an abbreviation for <nì>-gú-<dé>,” based on such texts as HLC 175. However, in MVN 2 287:17-18, we find: 2 e r i n k a é - g a l g u b - b a / 8 g u - z a - l á n ì - g ú - d é A.+X, [. . . ]. If the KA in line 17 was an abbreviation for n ì - g ú - d é, why, in the following line, was the full word written out? Additionally, it is worth noting that in two tablets from the Garšana archive (see below, section -110- 32. 12 má lá-a gi unugki-šè 33. 20-lá-2 é-muhaldim ki ur-niin3-ar 34. 20-lá-2 é-muhaldim ki ur-dnanše 35. 1 ka é-gal 36. 1 dú(TU) al-la 37. 6 ba-an-na-ti 38. 1 zì íl ki nam-mah 39. 1 zì íl ki ur-dba-ú 40. 20-lá-3 šà gá-nun 41. šu-nigin2 177 uruš gub-ba 42. lá-NI 46 nu-banda3 lú-dba-ú 43. lá-NI 7 nu-banda3 ur- gišgigir 44. 4 uru-ta nu-è lá-NI 3 45. nu-banda3 igi-zu-bar-ra 46. u4 14-[kam] 47. iti ezem dli9-[si4] gang of Ala; 6 (under?) Banati;189 1 for carrying flour under Nammah; 1 for carrying flour under Ur-Bau; 17 at the storehouse. Total: 177 workers employed, 46 remaining from Lu-Bau the overseer, 7 remaining from Ur-gigir the overseer, 4 did not go out from the city, 3 remaining from Igizubara the overseer. iii 14 Like all texts from this series, the above example is divided into three parts. The first part (lines 1-6) lists the number of workers attributed to their respective supervisors. The second part (7-40) enumerates specific tasks and the number of workers assigned to each. The final part (41-47) notes what appears to be the remaining, unassigned workers, and the supervisors under whom the unassigned  u r u š regularly worked.190 3.3), reference is made to work performed at the gate of the palace, e.g. Cohen 2:17-18, where we find: 0;0,2,6 sila3 <ninda>-šu-ra-en 0;0,0,0, ½ sila3 tuh maš-en-kak ká é-gal-ka gub-ba íb-gu7, “26 s i l a3 beaten bread, ½ s i l a3 bran, for the consumption of dependants employed at the gate of the palace.” 189 Though this looks like a PN, I can find no other attestation for it. 190 The total number of  u r u š listed in the summary in the first part of the text (line 6) is 237. The total number of workers assigned, however, is 177, the number correctly given in the summary in line 41. The difference, 60, can be reached when the  u r u š qualified as lá-NI, are added to those qualified as u r u - t a n u - è. Note that the three ugula with the largest compliment of  u r u š– Ur-gigir, Igizubara, and Lu-Bau– all appear to have leftover workers. The expression u r u - t a n u - è, literally “did not go out from the city” is difficult to understand. A. Uchitel, “Erin2-èš-didli,” 319, held that the term represented “absentees.” In her brief discussion of these texts, T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 97, suggested that the expression simply referred to those people who performed their tasks within the city (or province). However, it is clear when comparing the total number of workers with the total assigned that u r u - t a n u - è must refer to the leftover  u r u š who were not assigned. For instance, in MVN 11 88, the total number of workers available (line 6) is 104. The total given in the summary of assignments (line 26) is 84, a number which matches the actual assignments listed in the text. The difference is 20, which is exactly the sum of the total listed as u r u - t a -111- According to A. Uchitel, there were three ways in which these texts described the work assignments in the second section: task, place assigned to work, or “by the name of the official responsible for them before their conscription, using the expression ki PN-<ta>” (emphasis his).191 Uchitel’s interpretation of the third method of description is incorrect, in my opinion, in light of his understanding of the rest of the text. If the first portion of the text lists the total number of  u r u š to be assigned from each supervisor, and the second portion of the text enumerates their work assignments, then the expression k i PN cannot also list  u r u š to be assigned from a supervisor. I take the expression k i PN to be not a clipped form of k i PN-t a, “from PN,” but rather to mean “(at the) place of PN,” or, less literally, “under the authority of PN.”192 That is, the  u r u š under the supervisors listed in the first section of the text are being assigned to work temporarily on a particular task or at a particular place under the watch of the person specified with the k i PN clause.193 The advantage of this solution is that it makes consistent the entries in the second part of these texts– the assignments are described by the type of task, the place where the task is to be performed, the person under whom the task is to be performed, or some n u - è (18) and those listed as l á - NI (2) under the u g u l a Nabasa. A similar situation is seen in MVN 17 69, where the difference between the available workers, 213 (line 12), and the total assigned workers, 189 (line 44), is 24, the same number as those u r u - t a n u - é (no workers are listed as l á - NI of a particular u g u l a). 191 A Uchitel, “Erin2-èš-didli,” 319. 192 It is interesting to note that to my knowledge, in no text from this archive does the scribe write out Uchitel’s expected k i PN-t a in full. 193 Note that in some cases, it appears that the scribe omitted the initial ki, such as in line 26. -112- combination of the type or place of the task and the supervisor. In the above text, g i í l, “hauling reeds,” in line 11 is an example of the first method of description. In line 15 é u r - dna m m u, “temple of Ur-Nammu,” is an example of the second. An example of the third is found in line 27, k i n a m - m a h, “under Nammah.” In some cases, the descriptive methods are combined, such as in line 38, z ì í l k i n a m - m a h, “hauling flour under Nammah.” A list of texts which include assignments to the é - m u h a l d i m is listed in table 3.1 below: Text Date194 No. workers to é-muhaldim MVN 2 287 Š46?195 21 MVN 11 83 (AS1) ii 7 6 MVN 11 88 (AS1) ii 9 6 MVN 11 85 (AS1) ii 10 6 ASJ 18 224 (HSM 6434) (AS1) ii 30 5 TUT 173 (AS1) iii 4 5 BM 20030 (AS1) iii 6 5 BM 20036 (AS1) iii 9 3 CT 7 47 (BM 1775) (AS1) iii 13 3 ki nam-mah ASJ 18 225 (HSM 6435) (AS1) iii 14 36 ki ur-niin3-ar; ki ur-dnanše MVN 11 107 (AS1) iii 18 10 BM 20014 (AS1) iii 21 5 Comments 194 All but the first of these texts are dated only to the month and day. However, A. Uchitel, “Erin2-èš-didli,” 317, has convincingly argued that in most cases they date to AS1. 195 The end of the tablet is broken. However, one can recover from the left edge [m]u k i - m a šk i [. . .], which suggests a date of Š46. It is unclear why Uchitel, “Erin2-èš-didli,” 318, prefers a date of AS1. -113- STA 30 (AS1) iii 25 10 MVN 11 95 AS1 iii 26 10 Text 1196 (AS1) iii 29 36 ki ur-niin3-ar; ki ur-dnanše DAS 55 (AS1) iv 18 5 ki nam-mah ASJ 14 334 17 (AS1) [...] 10 HLC 268 (AS1) [...] 5 HLC 286 (AS1) [...] 10 HLC 322 (AS1) [...] 10 BM 20020 (AS1)?197 36 (ki ur-niin3-ar; ki urnanše?)198 d Table 3.1: e r i n2- è š - d i d l i assignments to the é - m u h a l d i m As this table shows, the é - m u h a l d i m assignments are sometimes qualified as being under someone’s authority. For instance, in the above text there are three assignments which call for a group of 18  u r u š to serve in the é - m u h a l d i m each under a different supervisor– in the first case (line 33) Ur-niinar, and in the second (line 34) Ur-Nanše. These two appear together in the same roll again in Text 1, with each also assigned 18 workers, and almost certainly again in BM 20020.199 The listing of two individuals with the é - m u h a l d i m in the same text may suggest that it was staffed at least in part by several teams of workers, each under a 196 Presented in the appendix to this study. 197 Note Uchitel’s reservations in “Erin2-èš-didli (II),” 217-18, about the dating of BM 20020 and HSM 6434. 198 BM 20020 is not copied or transliterated in Uchitel’s article. However, given the pattern shown in ASJ 18 225 (HSM 6435) and Text 1, it is almost certain that the 36  u r u š sent to the é m u h a l d i m in BM 20020 were under Ur-niinar and Ur-Nanše. 199 For more on Ur-niinar and Ur-Nanše, see below. -114- different supervisor.200 Unfortunately, the mention of a particular person in conjunction with the é - m u h a l d i m in this archive is rare; the only other person to appear with it is Nammah, who is assigned 3 (CT 7 47 [BM 17775]) and 5 workers (DAS 55). More typically, the assignment is listed without a supervisor. The texts – most dated to the second through fourth month of one year – show that the é - m u h a l d i m was assigned anywhere from three to 36 workers, but usually between five and ten. There appears to be no pattern in the number of people assigned either in number or date.201 Additionally, as noted above, in a few cases the é - m u h a l d i m is not listed at all.202 The significance of the fact that almost all the tablets in this archive are dated the first few months of one year is unclear. These texts show that the provincial administration assigned  u r u š to work at the é - m u h a l d i m on a day-by-day basis. Because the texts recording these assignments were dated to a specific day, it is likely that the  u r u š served only on a temporary basis, perhaps just for that day in question.203 However, if these texts are typical, it is clear that 200 For a somewhat similar structure in the weaving industry, see Hartmut Waetzoldt, Untersuchungen zur Neusumerischen Textileindustie, 92. An alternate possibility is to propose that there was more than one é - m u h a l d i m installation in Girsu. However, were that the case, we would more likely expect the designation to qualify the different groups of assigned  u r u š not by their supervisors, but by their location within Girsu. 201 One possible exception is when Ur-niinar and Ur-Nanše appear together– in those cases they are each assigned 18 workers, by far the largest assignment to the é - m u h a l d i m. In the two texts there these large numbers are assigned however, they appear just before the middle and end of the month. It may be, then, that these increases were related to important festivals. 202 E.g. MVN 11 104. However, in most cases where the text is completely preserved, an assignment for the é - m u h a l d i m is given. 203 Regarding temporary assignments, Robert Englund notes that “[the state] wanted to keep work teams flexible enough that they could at any time assume other labor roles. This system of labor organization offered distinct advantages: variably assignable work teams could overcome, quickly and -115- assignments were not handed out every day, but rather on an irregular basis– at most only a few times each week. During this span, the é - m u h a l d i m might be assigned only a handful of  u r u š, perhaps just 10 to 15 per week. The conclusion, then, is that while the administration routinely allotted the é - m u h a l d i m a complement of laborers, the number was generally quite small. An interesting text in this corpus is ITT 2 3503, dated to AS5 v 22. Unlike the texts listed in table 3.1 above, the é - m u h a l d i m is assigned no workers. Instead, as is shown the excerpt presented below, it is listed among groups providing the available workers: 1. 50 uruš ugula lugal-gú-gal 2. 20 erin2 é-muhaldim 3. 10 erin2 gi gišma-nu 4. [šu-nigin2] 130? 5. [šà]-bi-ta 6. . . . 50 workers (from) Lugal-gugal the foreman, 20 people (from) the kitchen, 10 people (from) the reed (and) m a n u-wood (carriers); Total: 130.204 From it ... The remainder of the text largely conforms to the other texts of this archive in terms of assignments. ITT 2 3503 is important for our understanding of the é - m u h a l d i m within the Ur III administration. Though not explicitly stated, the list of available workers given at the without serious consequences for their own specific labor performance quotas, those production bottlenecks which necessarily arose in an economic year consisting of obvious labor intensive periods.” See R. Englund, “Hard Work– Where Will It Get You? Labor Management in Ur III Mesopotamia,” JNES 50 no. 4 (1991): 255-80, 257. The observations of Natalia Koslova, “Fluktuation der Arbeitskräfte im Umma der Ur III-Zeit: SANTAG 6:384,” in Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic Studies, vol. 1 of Babel und Bibel (Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities, 2004), 23-81, though based on Umma material, apply in general to the whole of the Ur III period. 204 The total given, 130, obviously does not add up to the three numbers (50+20+10) shown in the copy. In their collations given in TCTI 1 3503, B. Lafont and F. Y2ld2z imply that de Genouilliac indeed copied the text correctly. Thus, we must assume that the scribe made an error, intending a down-stroke instead of a Winkelhacken in line 2 or 3, which would give us either 50+70+10 or 50+20+60, both of which give the proper total of 130. -116- beginning of these texts appears to be from local officials who answered to the local governor, and not the crown. Indeed, as has already been observed, the whole of the Girsu archive was largely that of the local governor.205 Thus, from the fact that ITT 2 3503 places the é - m u h a l d i m at the beginning of the list– among the groups providing personnel, rather than among those receiving them– we can conclude that the é - m u h a l d i m in these texts was in fact under the authority of Girsu province, and not under royal control. 3.1.2.2. Other texts Other texts from the Girsu corpus demonstrate some of the functions of the é m u h a l d i m. Most frequently, it received d a b i n, “semolina,” as seen in MVN 12 204 (Š47 i), shown here: 1. 4;1,3,0 dabin gur lugal 2. ki ma-an-sum-ta 3. é-muhaldim-šè (r.) 4. kur-ta-mu-ge4 5. šu ba-ti 6. sa nu-ak 7. iti gana2-maš 8. mu ús-sa ki-maški 4 g u r, 90 s i l a3 (ca. 1,290 liters) semolina from Mansum to the kitchen, received by Kurtamuge . . .206 Š47 i Usually, the semolina is described as coming from a named individual, though in SAT 1 391 (ii) it is said to have come “from the storehouse.” The amount of d a b i n varied: in the above text, the é - m u h a l d i m received 4 g u r, 90 s i l a3 d a b i n, while in, for example, MVN 12 381 (AS3 xid), it received only 2 g u r, 10 s i l a3. Unfortunately, we do not have 205 See, e.g., W. Sallaberger, “Ur III-Zeit,” 286. 206 Line 6 of this text is unclear. The s a  may be a reference to account texts, which begin with a section labeled s a  - n í  - g u r11- r a - k a m. Perhaps the expression signifies that this expenditure was not to be placed on Kurtamuge’s account, cf. J. Dahl, “The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma,” 28-39. -117- enough texts of this type to comment quantitatively on the overall supply of grain to the é m u h a l d i m in Girsu. The é - m u h a l d i m also received other items, as shown in table 3.2: Text Date Item(s) From MVN 7 191 Š32 xi 79 fattened sheep ku-li MVN 7 267 Š37 x 18 10 sheep MVN 12 204 Š47 i 1,290 liters of semolina ma-an-sum SAT 1 239 AS1 v 30 10,230 liters of semolina má-gur8-re MVN 12 356 AS2 ii 600 liters of semolina d Receiver/ Destination d nin-pirig Comments sá-du11 é-muhaldim ù zi-ga didli é-muhaldim207 é-muhaldim; kur-ta-mu-ge4 sa nu-ak ur-dun muhaldim é-muhaldim zi KA erin2-na 610 liters of semolina arad2-u10 ur-dnisaba; é-muhaldim ìr ur-tur é-kišib-ba é-muhaldim MVN 12 381 AS3 xi SAT 1 391 ii 1,140 liters of semolina SAT 1 245 vi 15 23,320 liters of semolina and flour é-muhaldim TUT 110 xi 8 300 liters of ordinary beer é-muhaldim SAT 1 215 xi 5 sheep é-muhaldim HLC 372 [...] 39 erin2? é-muhaldim TUT 99 [...] 90 liters of semolina é-muhaldim al-še6(NE) kišib kur-ta-mu-gi4 Table 3.2: Items received by the é - m u h a l d i m in Girsu The text HLC 372 is an important text for understanding the é - m u h a l d i m. The 207 Given that many of the other expenditures listed in this text are for deities more commonly associated with places outside of Lagaš province e.g. for Enlil and Ninlil, but also for Utu and Ninsun, among others, it may be that the animals designated for the é - m u h a l d i m here were, in fact, destined for the royally-controlled é - m u h a l d i m in Nippur province. -118- text is divided into four columns– two each on the observe and reverse. The beginning and end of the text are not preserved so the context is not clear. The obverse is concerned with allotments of semolina to various temple households and their administrators, beginning with the Eningirsu temple, followed by the house of the š a b r a, the temple of the deified king Šulgi, and so on. This is qualified as “flour for Girsu” (ii 16: z ì g í r - s uk i).208 The reverse notes assignments of workers to temple households. Though there is some overlap between the temples listed on the obverse and those on the reverse, not all institutions appear in both sections, nor is the order repeated exactly.209 Following the list of temples on the reverse are allotments– apparently of e r i n2, though this is not clear– to various production units and offices, such as the office of the animal fattener (é - k u r u š d a) and various shrines (è š - d i d l i). Included among these is the é - m u h a l d i m (iv 3: 40-l á-1 é - m u h a l d i m), suggesting that it belonged to the provincial administration.210 This shows again that the é - m u h a l d i m that appears in Girsu texts was a distinct production unit, unattached to other institutions. Not surprisingly, m u h a l d i m were associated with the é - m u h a l d i m.211 For 208 Though qualified as d a b i n, or “semolina” in the first line of the text, the summary clearly refers to the processed grain as z ì, “flour.” It is likely that just as the term u d u could mean specifically “sheep” or more generically “small cattle” including sheep, goats, and the like, so could z ì mean both a finely milled flour and, more generally, any barley or grain that had been processed. 209 E.g. i 11-12: 26;0,3,0 g u r é - dig - a l i m, where it is the sixth temple listed on the obverse, but iii 2: 46 é - dig - a l i m, where it is perhaps the second or third (but definitely not the sixth) temple listed on the reverse. 210 For the role of the e n s i2 and his family in the control of Girsu’s temple estates, see K. Maekawa, “The Governor’s Family and the ‘Temple Households’ in Ur III Girsu,” in Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia, RAI 40, edited by Klaas Veenhof (Leiden: Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut, 1996), 171-79. 211 For more on the m u h a l d i m in Girsu, see section 3.1.3 below. -119- instance, in CT 10 49 (BM 12245), one unnamed m u h a l d i m is listed as working for the é - m u h a l d i m. Additionally, however, other people associated with the é m u h a l d i m were qualified by different professional designations. The just mentioned CT 10 49 (BM 12245), for example, lists potters (b a h a r2) among those who worked for the é - m u h a l d i m. The Sadana millhouse texts discussed below record other people who are ostensibly linked to the é - m u h a l d i m but are listed with other professional designations, including “merchant” (d a m - g à r), “reed worker” (a d - k u p4), and “barber” (š u - i). The é - m u h a l d i m was also responsible for seconding workers when needed. As noted above, ITT 2 3503 records that 20  u r u š from the é - m u h a l d i m were among those assigned to perform various tasks on a daily basis. Similarly, the archive of the Sadana millhouse, discussed below, suggests that workers from the é - m u h a l d i m at Girsu were routinely sent to perform duties at the mill in Nippur province. 3.1.3. The m u h a l d i m in Lagaš province 3.1.3.1. Ur-niinar Among the best-documented m u h a l d i m in Girsu is Ur-niinar son of Ursukkal. However, several factors make positively identifying him in the Girsu corpus difficult. The first stems from the fact that at Girsu, there were two different men by this name associated with the é - m u h a l d i m : one – examined here – was the son of Ursukkal, while the second was a son of Lu-Nanše. Indeed, the two frequently appear together. Complicating the problem is that the texts never directly say that Ur-niinar the -120- son of Ur-sukkal was a m u h a l d i m.212 Nevertheless, the evidence shows that it was so. Moreover, references to Ur-niinar without his patronymic but with the professional designation m u h a l d i m almost certainly refer to the son of Ur-sukkal and not the son of Lu-Nanše. TIM 6 2 establishes that Ur-niinar son of Ur-sukkal was a m u h a l d i m. The beginning and end of the text are broken, but it appears to be a balanced account of a person whose name is lost in the broken section.213 In vi 2, we read that 8 g u r (ca. 2400 liters) barley was listed as coming from Ur-niinar, the m u h a l d i m. In the totals that appear at the end of the text, we find the 8 g u r attributed to Ur-niinar, but this time he is listed not as m u h a l d i m but as the son of Ur-sukkal. It is thus clear that the two are one and the same. Conversely, Ur-niinar son of Lu-Nanše rarely appears except when in conjunction with Ur-niinar son of Ur-sukkal. Additionally, as evidenced by the seal on TCTI 2 3993 (ŠS2 x), Ur-niinar son of Lu-Nanše was not a m u h a l d i m. According to the transliteration, the seal for Ur-niinar son of Lu-Nanše (no. 249) reads: u r - n i  i n 3 -  a r / d u m u l ú - d n a n š e / l ú - d u gu t u l2(KAM) However, I know of no other instances of this profession in the Ur III period. It is therefore likely that the authors misread the seal, mistaking a (perhaps poorly written) l úl u n g a for l ú - d u gu t u l2(KAM). This would make 212 In other words, no texts or seals read something to the effect of “Ur-niinar m u h a l d i m, son of Ur-Sukkal.” 213 The last line of the text before it breaks off is [n í g - k] a9 - a k s i - ì - t u m. -121- Ur-niinar son of Lú-Nanše a brewer.214 At least one other son of Ur-Sukkal is attested. In TCTI 2 2707 (ŠS8), we find: 1. 0;0,2,0 še 2. al-la-sa6-ga 3. lú HU.KU.BU 4. ki ur-niin3-ar-ta 5. sa6-sa6-ga maškim 6. mu má-gur8-mah ba-dím Seal: ur-nanše / dub-sar / dumu ur-sukkal. 20 liters barley (for?) Alla-saga the . . .-worker215 from Ur-niinar, Sasaga was the conveyor. Seal: Ur-Nanše, scribe, son of Ur-sukkal. ŠS8 His seal also appears in BM 18327a, a record of a barley transaction. Additionally, an UrNanše without a patronymic frequently appears with Ur-niinar in other contexts. It is likely that in such cases, the Ur-Nanše listed is the son of Ur-sukkal and the brother of Urniinar. Ur-niinar, either as son of Ur-sukkal or as m u h a l d i m, appears in over 20 tablets from Girsu. Frequently, he is listed as an u g u l a in the Sadana millhouse texts. Other tablets describe Ur-niinar’s involvement in such activities as grain receipt and 214 The picture is complicated somewhat by TMH NF 1-2 68 (AS3 iii). The tablet records that one Ur-niinar m u h a l d i m received barley. The case of the tablet includes a seal which Pohl read as: u r - n i  i n3-  a r / d u m u l ú -[...] / l ú - g u d? [...]. It is possible to reconstruct this to read ur-n i  i n3 a r / d u m u l ú -[dn a n š e?] / l úl u n [ g a]. In either case, we are still left to explain why Ur-niinar m u h a l d i m appears in the tablet, while the seal is that of a different Ur-niinar, one who is neither a m u h a l d i m nor a son of Ur-Sukkal. One reasonable solution is to posit that while the former was the person who received the barley, he was not present to seal the document when it was drawn up. In his stead, the latter sealed the document to indicate receipt. For such practices, see Piotr Steinkeller, “Seal Practice in the Ur III Period,” in Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East, BiMes 6, edited by McGuire Gibson and Robert D. Biggs (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1977), 41-53, Rudolf Mayr, Seal Impressions, 82-83, and also Piotr Steinkeller, “The Function of Written Documentation in the Administrative Praxis of Early Babylonia,” in Creating Economic Order, edited by Michael Hudson and Cornelia Wunsch (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2004), 63-88. 215 The term l ú HU.KU.BU occurs almost exclusively in Girsu (the rare examples from texts placed elsewhere, e.g. Umma in MVN 16 683, may in fact be Girsu texts; there is little evidence for a definitive provenance). The term appears to refer to a type of worker, though B. Studevent-Hickman, “The Organization of Manual Labor,” 283-85, has argued that HU.KU.BU is a toponym, despite lacking the determinative KI. -122- loans. 3.1.3.1.1. The Sadana millhouse texts The archive concerning the so-called Sagdana millhouse has been most recently studied by Alexander Uchitel.216 Its 28 tablets span the period between AS9 iv 3 and ŠS1 iv 8, approximately one year. Each tablet lists various individuals belonging to one or more categories, all of whom are said to be employed at the Sadana millhouse.217 Relevant for this discussion is the portion of workers who are m u h a l d i m. This groups always appears immediately after the larger group, qualified as g a n - t u š - m e under the authority of Lugal-melam. An example comes from CT 10 32 (BM 21355) transliterated below: col. iv 2. . . . . . . they are h é - d a b5-workers, 3. hé-dab5-me Lugal-melam is the foreman. 4. ugula lugal-me-lám Uneni-saga218 (under) Ur-niinar 5. 1 u4-ne-nì-sa6-ga son of Lu-Nanše the foreman; Basa 6. ugula ur-niin3-ar dumu lú-dnanše the merchant, Ur-Igalim the barber 7. 1 ba-ša6 dam-gár (under) Ur-niinar son of Ur8. 1 ur-dig-alim šu-i sukkal; Iluma the reed worker; 9. ugula ur-niin3-ar dumu ur-sukkal Ur-Igalim the reed worker (under) 10. 1 ì-lum-ma ad-kup4 Lugal-ušumgal the foreman; Lu11. 1 ur-dig-alim ad-kup4 ugula lugal-ušum-gal Ningirsu the carpenter. Total: 30 12. 1 lú-dnin-gír-su nagar workers– 2 at half-wages; total: j k 13. šu-nigin2 30 uruš 2 á ½ 3 female workers. They are 14. šu-nigin 3 geme2 h é - d a b5-workers. Total: 6 workers 15. hé-dab5-me (who are) cooks and various others. 216 Alexander Uchitel, “Daily Work at Sagdana Millhouse,” ASJ 6 (1984): 75-98. Note also an additional tablet belonging to this archive, HSM 6453, presented as an appendix to his article “Erin2-èšdidli (II).” In addition to the 26 texts published by Uchitel, two additional texts belonging to this group are to appear in Steven Garfinkel and Marc van de Mieroop, The Columbia University Ur III Collections, CUSAS (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, forthcoming). 217 E.g. our sample text, which reads in iv 17-18: é - k i k k e n2 - a g u b - b a š à s a g - d a - n ak i. That Sadana may be Drehem, see again P. Steinkeller, “New Light on the Hydrology,” 60-65. 218 The name is written u4 - NE.GAR- g a; though others have interpreted it differently, e.g. Uchitel’s u4 - b í -  a r - s a6 - g a in “Erin2-èš-didli (II),” 227 (HSM 6453 col. 4:7'). -123- 16. šu-nigin2 6 uruš muhaldim ù lú-didli 17. é-kikken2-a gub-ba 18. šà sa-da-naki 19. u4 24-kam 20. iti munu4-gu7 21. mu en dnanna kar-zi-da ba-hu Employed at the millhouse in Sadana. AS9 v 24 Here, the tablet lists individuals appearing in groups of one or two under a supervisor, as well as one person appearing with no supervisor. The total number of people listed in this section– not counting the supervisors– is six. This corresponds nicely to the total in line 16: š u - n i  i n2 6  u r u š m u h a l d i m ù l ú - d i d l i, “total: 6 workers– cooks and various others.” According to A. Uchitel, Sadana is located in the “district of Lagaš.”219 However, as Steinkeller has argued, the use of Sadana in the Girsu tablets referred not to a settlement in the Lagaš province, but rather to the site of Esadana, later named PuzrišDagan, modern Drehem.220 Thus, people described as cooks were among the people stationed at the millhouse in Drehem. Of the 28 texts belonging to this corpus, nine feature such a section of m u h a l d i m ù l ú - d i d l i, as shown in table 3.3 below221: Text Date Ur-niinar (d. Ur-sukkal) Ur-niinar (d. Lu-Nanše) Lu-dingira CT 10 26 (BM 14315) AS9 iv 3 X X X 219 A. Uchitel, “Daily Work,” 75. 220 P. Steinkeller, “New Light on the Hydrology,” 60-65. 221 Lugalušumgal In the table, sigla in roman type indicate texts which include both m u h a l d i m and l ú d i d l i; italicized sigla represent texts which mention m u h a l d i m without l ú - d i d l i. For more on this, see below. -124- ASJ 18 226 (HSM 6453) AS9 v 8 X X X X TUT 139 AS9 v 13 X X X X CT 10 32 (BM 21355) AS9 v 14 X X X UDT 60 AS9 v 16 X X X HLC 51 AS9 ix 8 X X X MVN 13 321 AS9 xi 11 X X X X TUT 140 AS9 [. . .] X [. . .] X [. . .] CT 3 31 (BM 19740) ŠS1 iv 8 X X X Table 3.3: The u g u l a of m u h a l d i m ù l ú - d i d l i in the Sadana millhouse documents As the table shows, four individuals regularly appear as formen of m u h a l d i m ù l ú - d i d l i. Appearing in all texts is Ur-niinar son of Ur-sukkal, and likely also Urniinar son of Lu-Nanše, though the fact that TUT 140 is largely broken in this section makes this unclear. Lu-dingira and Lugal-ušumgal appear respectively seven and five times each in this section. Two texts not appearing in the chart, MVN 5 165 and MVN 5 166, include a section only of l ú - d i d l i with no m u h a l d i m. In both cases, the supervisor is Lugalušumgal. Moreover, in the three of the four texts (CT 10 26 [BM 14315], HLC 51, and CT 3 31 [BM 19740]) where the section includes only m u h a l d i m and no l ú - d i d l i, Lugalušumgal is not present.222 Thus, it is possible to propose that three of the four supervisors who appear in this section– Ur-niinar son of Ur-sukkal, Ur-niinar son of Lu-Nanše, and Lu-dingira– were formen of m u h a l d i m, while one– Lugal-ušumgal– was a foreman for l ú - d i d l i. Curiously, however, the people listed under Lugal-ušumgal are always 222 The exception is ASJ 18 226 (HSM 6453). -125- qualified with the designation a d - k u p4, “reed workers.” Given this, one might expect the section to be labeled m u h a l d i m ù a d - k u p4! There is a strong association between individual m u h a l d i m and their supervisors. For instance, in CT 10 26 (BM 14315), a person named Saga is listed among the people under Ur-niinar son of Ur-sukkal, and he appears again in CT 3 31 (BM 19740), dated almost a year later, also under Ur-niinar son of Ur-sukkal. Similarly, a person named Basa appears for Ur-niinar son of Ur-sukkal in TUT 139, and again, under the same supervisor, in CT 10 32 (BM 21355), dated to the following day. He is not listed in the subsequent texts from this archive. The total list of workers and their supervisors is given below in table 3.4:223 Texts: A= CT 10 26 (BM 14315); B= ASJ 18 226 (HSM 6453); C=TUT 139; D= CT 10 32 (BM 21355); E= UDT 60; F= HLC 51; G= MVN 13 321; H= TUT 140; I= CT 3 31 (BM 19740)224 A B C D E F G H I Ur-ni in ar (d. Ur-sukkal) Saga X Ur-Lama X Ur-Igalim X Lu-dingira the merchant X X Basa the merchant X Ningirsu-isa X Šeškala X X X X 223 Note that because some texts are partially broken, not all individuals assigned to these supervisors are presented here; only the PNs that could fully be reconstructed are included. 224 Tablets are arranged according to date, as given in table 3.3 above. -126- Ur-Igalim the barber X X Ur-dingira the [. . .] X Eše-kia X Utu-uruna X X Lu-Narua X X Anta-heal X X Ur-NinMAR.KI X Mauu, in place of En-ikal X Adaa X Lugal-ušur X Ur-ni in ar (d. Lu-Nanše) Ur-Igalim brother of Lugal-Melam X Banzi X Ur-Igalim X Unenisaga X X X X X Ka’a the šešgal? X Ur-gar X Lugal-šala X Ba’a X Lugal-HAR X Lugal-heal X Banti X Lu-dingira Lu-Ninšubur X Lu-Narua X Arad-guzala X X X Šeškala the šešgal? X Uru-niba X Lu-Ningirsu the carpenter X -127- X X Ur-Iškur X Ur-Bau X Lu-Inanna the reed worker X Ur-Sin X Ur-Šulpae X X Šeškala son of Ur-Šulpae225 En-kušu X X Lu-Šulgi X Lu-Utu X Table 3.4: Individuals serving as m u h a l d i m As the table indicates, in some cases duplicate names are found serving under two different u g u la’s. However, it is most likely that those cases refer to two different people bearing the same name, rather than that the same person is listed under different supervisors. This can be demonstrated with respect to Ur-niinar son of Ur-sukkal. In both HLC 51 and CT 3 31 (BM 19740), Lu-Narua appears under Ur-niinar son of Ursukkal. However, a Lu-Narua also appears in the same two texts under the u g u l a Ludingira. Moreover, in the first text in this archive, CT 10 26 (BM 14315), one Lu-Narua appears under Lu-dingira, but not under Ur-niinar son of Ur-sukkal. Thus, there are two Lu-Naruas here: one served under Ur-niinar son of Ur-sukkal, while the other served under Lu-dingira. Similarly, the Ur-Igalims who appear in CT 10 26 (BM 14315) as serving both under under Ur-niinar son of Ur-sukkal and under Ur-niinar son of LuNanše are two different Ur-Igalims. A review of the people listed as m u h a l d i m ù l ú - d i d l i shows that most were 225 The text actually reads š e š - k a l - l a d u m u - n i, “his son” where the “his” refers to UrŠulpae in the line above. -128- stationed at the Sadana millhouse only once during the year. Of the 46 people listed, only 14 appear more than once. Of those, only a few– Unenisaga under Ur-niinar son of LuNanše, Basa under Ur-niinar son of Ur-sukkal, Lu-Narua under Lu-dingira– served regularly. It is unclear if there is any significance to the pattern of when people served. In his analysis of this corpus, Uchitel argued that the workers who served limited terms “were recruited on the basis of a compulsory corvée service for a limited period of time and after the end of their term they were replaced by another group.”226 However, none of the individuals listed above served for the extended periods as did the  u r u š listed in Table IV of Uchitel’s treatment of the archive.227 Thus, it seems more likely to posit that these workers were stationed at the Sadana millhouse not according to a prescribed pattern of work, but rather to fill a perhaps unanticipated deficit of laborers. That the texts of this archive are dated to the day is worth noting. Though the 26 tablets span a period of around one year, they were often drawn up only a few days apart,228 and in many such examples, the same individual is listed in both texts.229 However, as P. Steinkeller has observed, a trip from Girsu to Puzriš-Dagan could take up to twenty 226 A. Uchitel, “Daily Work,” 85. 227 Indeed, Uchitel excludes people “who are recorded for a period of less than one month” from his table. The people serving less than a month were a group largely made up of, among others, the m u h a l d i m discussed here. See A. Uchitel, “Daily Work,” 82-84. 228 See the chart in A. Uchitel, “Daily Work,” 76. While 2 texts comes from month iv, 5 each come from moths v and vi. Month ix is represented by 7 tablets, month x by (perhaps) 2 tablets, and month xi by (perhaps) 4. 229 E.g. CT 10 32 (BM 21355), dated to AS9 v 14, and UDT 60, to AS9 v 16, where Ur-Igalim the barber (š u-i), working under Ur-niinar son of Ur-sukkal is listed in both. -129- days.230 Even if such lengths represent the upper extreme, it is impossible to imagine that an individual was sent from Girsu to Puzriš-Dagan, returned, and was then sent out again all in the span of three days.231 Similarly, since information in Ur III Sumer traveled only as fast as a person could travel, it is impossible to assume that the workers were sent to PuzrišDagan to work while their regular attendance was being tallied in Girsu. One possible solution to this problem is to posit that traveling with these workers was a scribe who kept track of what individuals were working when. These records were then sent to Girsu and stored. Later in the year, this information could be condensed and transferred to other tablets so supervisors could calculate the status of their unit’s labor obligations to the state’s mill in Drehem. 3.1.3.1.2. Other Ur-niinar texts In addition to the Sadana millhouse texts, Ur-niinar son of Ur-sukkal appears in the Girsu corpus in a number of other contexts. In some cases, he appears in conjunction with the é - m u h a l d i m. In others, his actions are not clearly related to it. As noted above, the Sadana millhouse texts show that Ur-niinar son of Ursukkal was an u g u l a. Moreover, in SNAT 270 he is listed as an u g u l a of the é m u h a l d i m. The picture of Ur-niinar’s relationship to the é - m u h a l d i m is complicated somewhat when SAT 1 372 is considered: 230 ITT 5 6983, cited in Steinkeller, “New Light on the Hydrology,” 81, notes that a trip from Girsu to Nippur on the Tigris took 20 days. A trip downstream on the Euphrates from Nippur to Drehem took less than a day. Note, however, that in the Garšana corpus, the number of days given for travel between locales varies in the extreme, calling into question Steinkeller’s arguments regarding the distance between places. 231 Indeed, round trip travel from Umma– closer by some degree to Nippur than Girsu– took at least 10 days. See Steinkeller, “New Light on the Hydrology,” 78-79. -130- 900 bundles of reeds for baskets,232 wood from the storehouse from Mansum, son of Ada. Sealed by Ur-niinar, overseer of the kitchen, b a l a for Nippur. Seal: Ur-niinar, son of Ur-sukkal. [. . .] iii 1. 900 sá gi-šid 2. gá-nun giš-ta 3. ki ma-an-sum dumu a-da-ta (r) 4. kišib ur-nigin3-gar 5. nu-banda3 é-muhaldim 6. nibruki-šè bala tuš 7. iti ezem dli9-si4 8. mu [. . .] Seal: ur-niin3-ar / dumu ur-sukkal Here, Ur-niinar receives reed bundles from Mansum son of Ada. Though the seal makes it clear that this Ur-niinar was the son of Ur-sukkal, the text identifies him neither as a m u h a l d i m nor by his patronymic, but instead it qualifies him with the phrase n u b a n d a3 é - m u h a l d i m. As the term n u - b a n d a3 appears to have been a higher rank than that of ugula, SAT 1 372 may indicate in increase in rank for Ur-niinar.233 However, the date is broken so it is impossible to make a chronological comparison between this tablet and others that qualify Ur-niinar as a m u h a l d i m or u g u l a.234 Ur-niinar is often recorded as receiving grain. For instance, in TMH NF 1-2 68, discussed above, Ur-niinar received 600 liters of barley. However, the tablet further notes that this grain is to be replaced (s u - s u - d a m). It is likely, however, that this was a type of personal loan, and not necessarily related to his role as an overseer of Girsu’s é - 232 For more on g i - š i d, and on reeds in general, see Hartmut Waetzoldt, “Rohr und dessen Verwandungsweisen anhand der neusumerischen Texte aus Umma,” BSA 6 (1992), 125-46. 233 See, e.g., MVN 11 107:4-6, where 34  u r u š are listed under the u g u l a Lu-Dumuzi, and 29 under the u g u l a Nabasa, both of whom appear to have under the n u - b a n d a3 Lu-Utu. 234 In his “Private or Not-So-Private: Nippur Ur III Files,” 186 n. 43, G. van Driel notes that in Nippur, there appear three texts with the PN l u g a l - d ú r, where “in the first two texts he bears the title of ugula, and in the last he is called a nubanda. It should be investigated whether this type of change occurs more often or whether this is a mistake, as [it] has repercussions on prosopographic studies.” -131- m u h a l d i m.235 Not surprisingly, the evidence frequently shows that the grain came from mills. In CT 3 40 (BM 21336), dated to Š48, he received 64 g u r semolina.236 According to the text, an account of Ur-Bau son of Balu of the New Mill, this expenditure, as well as several others, were made as part of the b a l a d u b - s a g, or the first of Lagaš province’s two b a l a payments. In CT 3 44 (BM 21338), an account of Ur-Lamma son of Erinda, from the mill and also dated to Š48, Ur-niinar received 6 g u r semolina as part of the b a l a d u b - s a g.237 MVN 12 268, dated to Š48, is an account of the transactions Lugal-melame made throughout the course of a year.238 Among the entries in the expenditures is a section, lines 19-22, devoted to Ur-niinar the m u h a l d i m: 18. . . . 19. 30;2,5,9 2/3 sila3 kišib tuku 20. 6 kišib nu-tuku 21. igi-15-ál-bi 2;2,1,2 sila3 gur 22. ugu2 ur-niin3-ar muhaldim ba-a-ar 23. . . . . . . 9240 liters with sealed receipts, 1800 liters without sealed receipts, (and) 1/15th (of that)– 790 liters– placed against the account of Ur-niinar the cook. . . . The text records that Lugal-melame disbursed over 10,800 liters of what was presumably 235 For loans in the Ur III period – particularly from and for members of high social standing – see now. S. Garfinkle, “Private Enterprise in Babylonia,” 240-43. 236 CT 3 40 (BM 21336) iii 1-2: 1.04;0,0,0 dabin gur ugu2 ur-niin3-ar dumu ur-sukkal ba-a-gar. 237 Interestingly, the text records that for the bala egir, the second part of Girsu’s bala payment, Ur-niinar received over 47 g u r of flour and semolina, with the receipt indicated by the use of the Sumerian term k i š i b, or “seal(ed).” Similarly, the b a l a e g i r portion of CT 3 27 (BM 19027), an account of Ur-Hendursag son of Ur-Bagara, notes that Ur-niinar received (again using k i š i b) over 51 g u r semolina. He does not appear in the b a l a d u b - s a g portion of CT 3 27. For more on these three texts, see T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 77-8. 238 Reverse 28: n í g - k a9- a k l u g a l - m e - l á m - m e. -132- barley to Ur-niinar. Over 9000 liters were distributed with sealed receipts. Another 1,800 liters were made with no sealed receipts. Additionally, an amount equivalent to 1/15th the total received grain, just over 600 liters, was also placed against the account of Urniinar. It is unclear what this final fifteenth represented, but it may have been interest due to Ur-niinar for the barley and/or other grain products ostensibly loaned out to Lugalmelame at an earlier point in time.239 The texts also record transactions where Ur-niinar is distributing grain and other products. He appears in MVN 2 19 (Š46 vii), an account of one Nigurum, as having given over 15 g u r barley and fine flour. Ur-niinar is the only one from whom Nigurum received fine flour; the remaining entries in the account record only the receipt of barley and silver. In MVN 12 104 (Š46 xi), one Ur-Bau received over 30 g u r semolina (d a b i n) and barley groats (a r - z a - n a), as well as 3 g u r salt (m u n), from Ur-niinar, called a m u h a l d i m, and Ur-Igalim who is listed without a professional designation or patronymic. CM 26 143 (Š46 xid) is an important text, as it is an account of Ur-niinar– here called son of Ur-sukkal– dated to Š46. The account is for two months and is identified as being part of Girsu’s b a l a payment. The text is broken in many places, but we can see in the preserved portion of the capital section that various types of flour and other products are listed that total over 1,000 g u r. In the expenditures section, we see, in addition to flour, bread, silver, and other products being issued. 239 For more on the meaning of the expression u g u2 . . .  a r, see J. Dahl, “The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma,” 28-39. See also Robert Englund, “The Year ‘Nissen Returns Joyous from a Distant Land,” CDLJ (2003): 1, n. 6. -133- Though he is qualified in this text as being the son of Ur-sukkal and not, for example, as a m u h a l d i m or foreman for the é - m u h a l d i m, it is likely that this account represented at least part of the b a l a obligation the é - m u h a l d i m in Girsu owed to the crown. Additionally, as T. Sharlach has shown, the b a l a payments of Lagaš province were quite large.240 Thus, while 1,000 gur was a substantial sum, it likely represented only a small portion of the province’s total contribution to the b a l a. 3.1.3.2. Other m u h a l d i m in Lagaš Province 3.1.3.2.1. Receipt and distribution of grain products Other m u h a l d i m in Girsu appear engaging in activities similar to those of Urniinar. In TCTI 2 2738 (AS6), one Lu-dingira is said to have received a little over 300 liters of semolina from Ninana. The semolina is qualified as “for the fodder (of the) m u h a l d i m” (š à - g a l m u h a l d i m - š è).241 Additionally, we are told that in place of Lu-dingira, the tablet was sealed by Ur-ar.242 The seal in the tablet reads: u r - g a r m u h a l d i m / d u m u l ú - g i4. Thus, Ur-ar– a m u h a l d i m according to his seal– sealed a receipt for grain marked for use by m u h a l d i m. It will be recalled that one of the supervisors of m u h a l d i m listed in the Sadana millhouse texts was also named LuDingira, and it is tempting one to speculate that these two are one and the same individual. The account of one Ur-Bau, HCL 53 (AS1 iii), is a useful text for discerning the 240 T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 66-76. 241 It is unclear to me why m u h a l d i m would need fodder. Did they keep animals for some time before slaughter? 242 This name is typically transliterated u r - n í g. However, in light of MVN 6 115:6, where we have u r - N Í G - r a, it seems more likely that the reading  a r for the NÍG sign is to be preferred. -134- activities of the m u h a l d i m and the é - m u h a l d i m. The capital section includes semolina and flour received from the é - k i k k e n2 and other sources totaling over 30,000 liters in all. The listed expenses, however, are qualified as different types of bread, so UrBau’s production unit must have been involved in turning flour into baked products. Unfortunately, the professional designation of this person is not well copied, but he is probably the same as the m u h a l d i m Ur-Bau who received products from the é k i k k e n2 in RA 10 65 22 (viii).243 It is worth noting that the  i r3 function in Ur-Bau’s account was exercised by Ur-niinar, without professional designation or patronymic, but very likely the Ur-niinar who is a m u h a l d i m and son of Ur-sukkal discussed above. In TUT 104 (Š47), the account of one Ur-Igimaše, called a m u h a l d i m, we find a similar situation. The initial section records semolina from various people, including UrLama son of Erinda, who, as was shown in CT 3 44 (BM 21338) discussed above, worked for the mill. The total amount of semolina came to over 51 g u r (ca. 15,300 liters). Most of this– over 44 g u r (ca. 13,200)– was expended for a royal banquet (k a š d é - a l u g a l). Because other expenditures were in the form of bread, we may assume that the semolina used for the royal banquet was also processed as bread or, perhaps, as beer bread. 3.1.3.2.2. Work in other institutions The m u h a l d i m in Girsu also apparently worked on a regular basis for institutions outside the é - m u h a l d i m. For instance, HLC 2 (AS1), an inventory of goats 243 The copy itself is not clear, though Barton’s drawings, made in the early 1900's, can hardly be considered reliable, cf. Tohru Maeda’s collations in his review of Barton’s HLC, ASJ 2 (1980), 197-224. Additionally, Maeda himself notes that his “collations [are] merely a tentative one and must be amended after the clay-tablets are cleaned and baked,” 197. -135- given to the personnel under the charge of foremen or otherwise associated with various temples and other administrative units, lists a m u h a l d i m with the é - k a s4 (“road station”). In RTC 401 (IS2 xii), 3 unnamed m u h a l d i m are listed among the personnel of the cult of Pabilsa and Ninisin. In MVN 17 3 (Š37), 2 g e m e2 and 1  u r u š are listed as working for the m u h a l d i m s a g i, “cook (of the) cup-bearer.” The list is qualified as coming from the workers under the the supervisor of the administrator of the Nindara temple (u g u l a s a n g a dn i n - d a r - a - t a). The text TCTI 1 625, also dated to IS2, is an account of Ur-šugalama son of Dada concerning the wages of a group of individuals labeled as m u h a l d i m.244 The account covers the wages of 23.5  u r u š giš gí d - d a , and 25.5  u r u š U N - í l , and spans the period of IS1 x to the end of IS2 ix.245 The total balance carried forward was almost 18,000 worker-days. This total came from the wages of e r i n2, totaling 8,460 worker-days, plus the wages of U N - í l, totaling 9,180 man-days. Taking the total days of wages earned (8,460+9,180=17,640) and dividing them by the total number of workers (23.5+25.5=49) gives 360, or a full year’s work, assuming that each month was artificially standardized to have 30 days.246 Unfortunately, the text provides little information about Ur-šugalama son of Dada, as no professional designation is given. Based on CT 3 40 (BM 21336), however, it is 244 The colophon in iv 4-5 reads: n ì g - k a9- a k á m u h a l d i m / u r - š u - g a - l a m - m a d u m u d a - d a, “account of wages for m u h a l d i m of Ur-Šugalama son of Dada.” 245 That the account covered a full year is gleaned from iv 6-8: iti 12-kam mu en dinanna-unuki-ga máš-e ì-pàd. 246 See R. Englund, “Hard Work– Where Will It Get You?” 268 n. 18. -136- possible to speculate that Ur-šugalama son of Dada was neither a m u h a l d i m nor associated with the é - m u h a l d i m. The text, an account of Lu-Bau son of Balu of the New Mill, lists various expenditures made during the year Š48.247 The end of the account records expenditures made to a group of people qualified as u g u l a k i k k e n2- m e, “overseers of millers,” among whom is Ur-šugalama son of Dada.248 Assuming that the Ur-šugalama son of Dada from TCTI 1 625 is the same as the one mentioned in CT 3 40 (BM 21336), then we can say that as a foreman of millers, part of Ur-šugalamma’s responsibilities included paying the wages of m u h a l d i m, or the wages of muhaldim used as  u r u š giš gí d - d a or  u r u š UN- í l. Moreover, if Ur- šugalamma were employed by the New Mill, then ostensibly so must the people called m u h a l d i m who appear in his account. The link between m u h a l d i m and the mill is also seen in MCS 4 20 17 (Š39 xid). The text reads: 1. 0;0,3,4 sila3 zì-dub lugal 2. 0;0,4,0 nì-àr-ra imaa3(ZÍZ.AN) 3. sá-du11 ku5-rá 4. ki ur-mes (r.) 5. iti diri še-kí-ku5 34 liters ritual flour 40 liters emmer groats unconsumed (part) of the regular offering.249 From Ur-mes. xid The envelope of the tablet differs from the tablet itself in that in line 4 it reads: k i š i b u r - 247 CT 3 40 (BM 21336) viii 6-9: nì-ka9-ak / lú-dba-ú dumu ba-lu5 / é-kikken2 gibil / ugula ur-den- gal-du-du. 248 CT 3 40 (BM 21336) vii 10-11. 249 For a detailed discussion of the phrase s á - d u11 k u5- r á see T. Maeda, “Bringing (mu-túm) Livestock,” 105-6, fn. 11. -137- m e s u g u l a k i k k e n2.250 However, the seal reads: u r -[. . .] / m u h a l d i m dš [u l g i?]. The qualification of the occupational title m u h a l d i m with a royal or temple name is otherwise unknown to me.251 Nevertheless, MCS 4 20 17 provides more evidence that m u h a l d i m were not limited to work in the é - m u h a l d i m. 3.1.3.2.3. Court records People called m u h a l d i m also appear in the published court records, or d i t i l - l a from Girsu.252 Such texts provide insight into the social and economic status of the m u h a l d i m. For example, NSGU 35 (ITT 2 925) records a dispute between one Etamuzu, whose mother Atu– perhaps when faced with dire financial straights after the death of her husband– was forced to sell her daughter into the service of Ur-šugalama, called a m u h a l d i m. Unfortunately for Etamuzu, Ur-šugalama won the case and she was to remain a slave. The price of the sale of Etamuzu to Ur-šugalamma was 4 1/2 shekels of silver. In his study of Ur III sale documents, P. Steinkeller observed that women typically sold for around five to six shekels of silver.253 That Etamuzu was likely a minor when she was sold 250 The envelope also has, in lieu of the month name, the year formula for Š39. 251 If we posit that this term is a precursor to the m u h a l d i m l u g a l, then we are left trying to explain why a person within the royal organization is an overseer of what is ostensibly a provincial production unit. For more on the m u h a l d i m l u g a l, see section 3.1.4 below. Other professions were called such. For instance, in Ontario 2 409, there is the seal of one Lugalegalesi, called l úl u n g a dš a r a2, “brewer of Šara.” Did this indicate that he served in the Šara temple in Umma, or is some other meaning intended? 252 The three-volume edition by Adam Falkenstein, Die neusumerische Gerichtsurkunden, BAW 39-40, 44 (Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1956-57), is still be best treatment of the genre as a whole. 253 Piotr Steinkeller, Sale Documents, 135-38. -138- explains her slightly lower selling price.254 In any case, Etamuzu’s selling price was not out of the ordinary. Thus, we can assume that this transaction was not out of the ordinary, and that therefore, m u h a l d i m can and did own property, including slaves. BM 19360 is a court document discussing the affairs of the estate of Ur-tur the m u h a l d i m after his death.255 The text shows that the house of Ur-tur was to go to his son Ur-Lamma, and not to his wife Sila-tur, since his wife had, in the period after Ur-tur’s death, married another man. These two court records allow us to say several things about m u h a l d i m in Girsu during the Ur III period. As expected, m u h a l d i m were free citizens who could buy and sell property. Thus, while owning a slave was not necessarily a sign of wealth per se, it does suggest that the slave owner – in this case a m u h a l d i m – was a free person with at least some disposable income.256 Moreover, the legal ruling regarding Ur-tur’s house demonstrates that at least some m u h a l d i m could own houses. 3.1.4. The m u h a l d i m - l u g a l in Lagaš province In addition to the m u h a l d i m under the authority of the province in Girsu, there also existed m u h a l d i m under the authority of the royal administration. As P. Steinkeller has observed, several other professions were similarly structured.257 Unfortunately, like the 254 For a discussion of the sale of humans in general in Ur III, see P. Steinkeller, Sale Documents, 255 This text is published in AOAT 25 438 and is dated to ŠS4. 256 See also ITT 2 752. 128-32. 257 Piotr Steinkeller, “The Organization of Crafts in Third Millennium Babylonia: The Case of Potters” AoF 23 no. 2 (1996): 232-53. -139- royal potters discussed by Steinkeller, the m u h a l d i m l u g a l , “royal m u h a l d i m,” of Girsu are rarely attested.258 DAS 218 (AS9 xid) is a record of the provisions provided by Ur-Bau, qualified as a m u h a l d i m l u g a l.259 The items listed include various types of beer, flour, and other grain products. In addition, also seen are g a z i and other herbs, ghee (ì - n u n), and two grass-fed sheep.260 An Ur-Bau appears in an almost identical list – TCTI 2 3712 (AS9 x) – dated just months apart from DAS 218. Like DAS 218, TCTI 2 3712 lists various types of beer, flour, and other grain products which were the provisions expensed by Ur-Bau. However, this Ur-Bau is called simply a m u h a l d i m. But while an Ur-Bau m u h a l d i m is attested at Girsu, based on the similarities between these two texts, as well as their close proximity in date, it is likely that the Ur-Bau in DAS 218 and TCTI 2 3712 are the same person, with the missing l u g a l in the latter text a result of scribal error or, perhaps, simply a scribal convention.261 Evidence that scribes did not always distinguish between a m u h a l d i m and m u h a l d i m l u g a l comes from MVN 13 211. The text is an account of one Lu-Nindara. 258 P. Steinkeller, “The Organization of Crafts,” 236-37. 259 DAS 218:12 igi-kár ur-dba-ú muhaldim lugal. For the phrase i g i - k á r, see Piotr Steinkellr, “On the Reading and Meaning of igi-kár and gúrum (IGI.GAR),” ASJ 4 (1982):149-53, though note now the evidence from the Garšana corpus, for which see now Wolfgang Heimpel, Commentary on the Garšana Worker-Inspection Accounts, CUSAS (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, forthcoming). 260 For the g a z i-plant, see the discussion in Piotr Steinkeller, “The Foresters of Umma: Toward a Definition of Ur III Labor,” in Labor in the Ancient Near East, AOS 68, ed. by Marvin Powell (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1987), 73-116, 92, and, more recently, Robert Englund, “Regulating Dairy Productivity in the Ur III Period,” OrNs 64 no. 4 (1995): 377-429, 417-81 fn. 70. 261 Ur-Bau m u h a l d i m appears in HCL 53 (pl. 72). -140- Because his expenses are converted into equivalent values in grain, we may surmise that they were not actually grain but rather other items, likely bread, beer, and other grain products.262 Of interest for this discussion is the fact that while in the text Lu-Nindara is called a m u h a l d i m, his seal makes clear that he was a m u h a l d i m l u g a l: l ú - d n i n - d a r ! - a / m u h a l d i m l u g a l. In discussing the royal potters, P. Steinkeller notes that “our data are . . . considerably less extensive” than for the potters under the authority of the provincial administration.263 The situation seems similar when talking about the m u h a l d i m and m u h a l d i m l u g a l. This is hardly surprising considering that most of our tablets from Girsu (and Umma) came from the provincial archives. Nevertheless, as the above examples show, in at least some cases individuals labeled as m u h a l d i m and ostensibly working for the provincial administration may, in fact, be m u h a l d i m l u g a l and part of the royal organization. It is interesting to note that both the m u h a l d i m l u g a l discussed above bore personal names with uniquely Girsu-specific theophoric elements. While it may have been the case that these individuals took local names, it more likely suggests that even though they were part of the royal organization, they and their ancestors had strong ties to Girsu. Thus, it seems that the people who held the position of m u h a l d i m l u g a l in Girsu were not implants from the royal capitals of Ur or Uruk, but rather came from local 262 E.g. lines (r)18-20: 4;4,0,0 g u r s á - d u11 / i t i 1 - k a m i t i 7 - š è / š e - b i 3 3 - l á - 1 263 P. Steinkeller, “The Organization of Crafts,” 236. g u r. -141- families. 3.1.5. Conclusions The é - m u h a l d i m in our texts was an economic unit of production unattached to other economic units or temples, and under provincial authority. It received raw goods– usually semolina or other processed grains and flour– and with that material, produced various breads and beers. The é - m u h a l d i m also received other items. The receipt of animals, while rare, is attested, though evidence for their ultimate destination is not available. There is evidence of m u h a l d i m receiving fodder for animals. The texts also record the receipt of reeds, which were likely used as fuel for cooking, as well as perhaps for making baskets and other reed items for the storage and transport of goods. The number of people employed by the é - m u h a l d i m is difficult to establish. It had several foremen (u g u l a) associated with it, as well as at least one overseer (n u b a n d a3). Even assuming that each of these supervisors had under them an unusually large contingent of  u r u š, it is unlikely that it employed more than 150 to 200 people on a permanent basis at any one time. In times when the é - m u h a l d i m was understaffed, the provincial administration could assign to it additional people as temporary workers. In addition to the  u r u š who worked in the é - m u h a l d i m for the entire year, the é - m u h a l d i m also employed a number of people of named professions. These included m u h a l d i m, but also potters, who not only made pots for the storage and transport of goods, but also likely made and repaired the clay ovens for baking different types of breads, and the pots for storing and fermenting beer. The fact that supervisors of the é - m u h a l d i m distributed beer suggests that it also had in its employ brewers, -142- though the texts do not state this directly.264 The court records show that m u h a l d i m’s were free citizens capable of owning slaves and property. And while many worked in the é - m u h a l d i m, m u h a l d i m’s were also assigned to work in other economic production units within the province. These include road stations (é - k a s4), as well as mills, where they are frequently attested. In addition to the m u h a l d i m who served within the provincial administration, there were m u h a l d i m l u g a l, who were part of the royal organization. Unfortunately, m u h a l d i m l u g a l are poorly attested within the Girsu corpus, though this should not come as a surprise since most of the corpus seems to have come from the governor’s administrative archives. Nevertheless, from what we do know, the m u h a l d i m l u g a l seem to have engaged in many of the same activities– such as, for example, distributing bread and beer– as the m u h a l d i m who worked for the é - m u h a l d i m of the province. Additionally, we can speculate that these people were not newcomers sent from Ur or Uruk to work for the crown in Girsu. Instead, they appear to have belonged to families that had lived in Lagaš province for at least several generations. 264 For more on the relationship between the é-muhaldim and brewing beer, see the sections on Umma and Garšana below. -143- 3.2. Umma265 Umma, modern Jokha, is situated in southern Sumer, approximately 75 km SE of Nippur, 45 km NE of Uruk, 30 km WNW of Girsu, and 75 km NNW of Ur. Though it did not lie on the Tigris proper, it was less than a day’s journey south of the river, connected to it via the í d - u m m ak i, the Umma canal.266 The Umma canal continued south past Umma, perhaps joining with the Magur canal some 10-25 km downstream from Umma.267 The province contained several important settlements in addition to Umma. The largest was Apisal, which was clearly located near the Lagaš border, though its exact identification has yet to be determined. Another significant town was Zabalam, situated along the Tigris just downstream from the Umma Canal-Tigris junction.268 In addition, a smaller, but now significant town of Garšana was located somewhere south of Zabalam. Umma was never scientifically excavated.269 However, it was studied as part of the 265 There has recently been some debate surrounding the reading of the reading the name of ancient Jokha, GIŠ.KUŠUki. I follow scholarly convention in reading the name as Umma, cf. Benjamin Foster, Umma in the Sargonic Period, MCAAS 20 (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1982), 2. However, some have suggested, it is entirely possible that GIŠ.KUŠUki, modern Jokha, was to be read Giša, while Umma referred to the ancient name of modern Umm al-Aqarib, located near Jokha. See, e.g., R. Mayr, Seal Impressions, 4-5. 266 That is, the ancient course of the Tigris. For a discussion of the watercourses of the southern Mesopotamia, see now P. Steinkeller, “New Light on the Hydrology,” 22-84. 267 P. Steinkeller, “New Light on the Hydrology,” 52 n. 121. 268 P. Steinkeller, “New Light on the Hydrology,” 40 (map 1) and 50 (map 2). Note also the discussion by G. Van Driel, “The Size of Institutional Umma,” AfO 46/47 (1999/2000): 80-91, 81-3. Finally, excellent surveys of the province of Ur III Umma are presented in J. Dahl, “The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma,” 130-148, and B. Studevent-Hickman, “Organization of Manual Labor,” 20-25. 269 The Iraqi Department of Antiquities and Heritage apparently began excavations at Umma in late 2000 or early 2001 but no results have been published, and the site has since suffered near destruction at the hands of looters. -144- Warka Survey carried out in 1967 by Robert McC. Adams, recorded as site WS 197.270 The site is approximately 1500 m in diameter and shows evidence of occupation from the Uruk to Old Babylonian periods.271 Though never excavated, tablets and other artifacts from the site were nevertheless recovered by locals looking to sell their finds to dealers in Baghdad. As Tom Jones has noted, tablets were already making their way into private collections in the early 1900's.272 3.2.1. The corpus The number of Umma tablets published to date totals over 18,000, with thousands more still unpublished.273 Many texts from the Umma corpus are stored in Istanbul, but thousands more are housed in small museum and university collections throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia.274 The corpus ranges in date from ca. Šulgi 33 to the early years of Ibbi-Sin’s reign. The subject matter of texts in the Umma corpus is quite disparate, and documents a variety of activities, ranging from the management of labor for canal work and textile production to merchant accounts.275 3.2.2 The m u h a l d i m and é - m u h a l d i m in Umma province 270 Published as Robert McC. Adams and Hans J. Nissen, The Uruk Countryside (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972). Note also the discussion of the site by R. Mayr, Seal Impressions, 6. 271 R. McC. Adams and H. J. Nissen, The Uruk Countryside, 227. 272 T. Jones, “Sumerian Administrative Documents,” 47-49. 273 T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 2. Sharlach suggests that “the Umma archives may be the largest of the three [major Ur III] archives found to date. 274 For this, and the early publication history of the Umma corpus, see T. Jones, “Sumerian Administrative Texts,” 45-47. 275 W. Sallaberger, “Ur III-Zeit,” 315-16. -145- 3.2.2.1. Reed Receipt Texts The most frequent item the é - m u h a l d i m in Umma province receives are reeds and reed products. Thirteen documents records such transactions. They range in date from AS7 to ŠS9, as listed below: Text Date Item(s) From Receiver Comments Hirose 365 AS7 90 reed bundles šeš-kal-la ensi2 UTAMI 5 3137 AS9 viii 210 reed baskets ba-za da-a-ga šà bala-a UTAMI 3 1919 AS9 15 reed bundles lú-dnin-ur4-ra lú-kisal šà bala-a MVN 16 1144 AS9 590 reed bundles lú-igi-sa6-sa6 lú-dingir-ra šà bala-a MVN 16 1235 ŠS1 3,780 reed bundles ur-dšul-pa-è lugal-šà-lá šà bala-a UTAMI 4 2446 ŠS1 600 reed bundles šeš-kal-la ì-kal-la MVN 14 444 ŠS2 16 60 reed bundles šeš-kal-la d šara2-kam MVN 14 406 ŠS2 17 150 reed bundles šeš-kal-la d šara2-kam BPOA 2 2127 ŠS3 7 reed baskets a-gu ì-kal-la ní aga3-ús; šà bala-a UTAMI 3 1603 ŠS3 50 reed baskets a-gu a-du mu ì-kal-la-ta Nik. 234 ŠS4 vi 72 reed baskets a-gu ì-kal-la šà bala-a SAT 3 167 ŠS6 1 reed container a-gu ì-kal-la šà bala-a UTAMI 4 2709 ŠS8 11 reed baskets a-gu ì-kal-la šà bala-a BPOA 1 1088 ŠS9 v 40 reed baskets a-gu ì-kal-la <šà> bala-a Umma 67 ŠS9 60 reed bundles šeš-kal-la ì-kal-la šà bala-a bala-a Table 3.5: Reeds received by the é - m u h a l d i m in Umma As the chart shows, reeds typically came either in bundles (s a g i), or as the main material used in baskets, often so-called “travel baskets” (g ik a s k a l). The reed bundles were apparently used as fuel, as shown in MVN 16 1235 (ŠS1): 1. 1.30.00 sa gi 3,780 reed bundles in bales of 24 -146- 2. gu-nigin2-ba276 24 sa-ta 3. gi ninda du8-a 4. é-muhaldim-šè (r.) 5. ki ur-dšul-pa-è-ta 6. kišib lugal-šà-lá 7. šà bala-a 8. mu dšu-dEN.ZU lugal seal: lugal-šà-lá / dub-sar / dumu da-a-na bundles each, reeds for baking bread. To the kitchen from Ur-Šulpae, sealed by Lugal-šala. From the bala. Seal: Lugal-šala, scribe, son of Da’ana. ŠS1 Reed was also used to help in the physical maintenance of the é - m u h a l d i m, as shown in Hirose 365 (AS7): 1. 90 sa gi 2. é-muhaldim dù-dè 3. ki šeš-kal-la-ta 4. kišib3 ensi2-ka (r.) 5. mu hu-úh-nu-riki ba-hul Seal: dšu-dEN.ZU / [nita] kala-ga / [lugal] uri5ki-ma / lugal an-ub-[da] limmu2-ba / ur-dli9-[si4] / ensi2 / ummaki / IR11.ZU 90 reed bundles to repair the kitchen, from Šeškalla, seal of the governor. Seal: Šu-Sin– strong man, king of Ur, king of the four quarters– Ur-Lisi, governor of Umma, is his (?) servant. AS7 The phrase š a b a l a - a frequently shows up in the texts recording these transactions. As T. Sharlach has shown, the expression ša b a l a - a typically refers to expenditures of commodities – usually, but not always, in small amounts – that were sent to the capitals or to royal production centers such as Puzriš-Dagan.277 These records note the “items destined for a variety of different households administered by the crown, many of which can be located at the capitals.”278 Such households included the é - g u 4 - g a z, the é - u z - g a – both located in Nippur province – and the Enlil temple, located in the city of Nippur itself. 276 For the reading n i g i n2 versus k i l i b, see now Wolfgang Heimpel, “gu2-nigin2, ‘bale,’”CDLN 2003, note 3. 277 T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 27-28. 278 T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 50. -147- In light of this, it is tempting to see the é - m u h a l d i m as another royal-controlled household to which Umma province sent items such as reeds and reed products. However, as will be shown below, a closer examination of the evidence suggests that references to the é - m u h a l d i m in the Umma corpus actually indicate that the province had its own é - m u h a l d i m administered not by the crown, but rather by the e n s i2 (provincial governor). This interpretation fits well with a second aspect of the phrase š à b a l a - a as noted by Sharlach. In some cases, the š à b a l a - a transactions “supported productive households such as mills or bakeries, probably because these households were engaged in producing foods that would then be packed up and shipped for use in the capitals.”279 These items represented “expenses incurred locally through payment of the bala obligation.”280 A text such as MVN 16 1235, then, represented a business expense for the provincial administration. In this particular case, the province owed the crown a certain amount of bread and other baked goods as part of its yearly obligation. In addition to the cost of the baked goods themselves – i.e. the raw materials such as flour, spices, etc., that made up the bread – the province was allowed to factor in the costs of making the goods. This included reeds for fuel, and likely also the labor that went into the baking process. The “travel baskets” likely represented a similar business expense. These and other containers were no doubt used to store and transport the commodities produced by the é - 279 T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 47. 280 T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 42. -148- m u h a l d i m. When those items were part of the province’s b a l a obligation, the cost of storage and transport was noted and factored into its total payment for the year. 3.2.2.2. Clay Item Receipt Texts In addition to reeds and reed products, the é - m u h a l d i m also occasionally received various items made out of clay, as shown in table 2.2: Text Date Item(s) From Receiver Comments SNAT 329 AS2 10 ovens šeš-kal-la in-sa6-sa6 é-muhaldim x KUR? MVN 1 231 AS4 12 ovens UTAMI 3 1675 AS6 50 ovens and pots ukken-né in-sa6-sa6 šà bala-a JCS 25 176 AS7 45 ovens and pots lú-kal-la in-sa6-sa6 šà bala-a UTAMI 4 2474 ŠS1 6 pots lugal-iti-da da-a-ga šà bala-a BCT 2 195 ŠS6 52 pots lugal-iti-da a-tu šà bala-a UTAMI 4 2748 n.d. 1 oven ukken-né in-sa6-sa6 šà ÍB.TÙRki in-sa6-sa6 Table 3.6: Clay items received by the é - m u h a l d i m in Umma Two texts which mention the receipt of clay objects by the é - m u h a l d i m deserve special treatment. One is SNAT 329 (AS2): 1. 10 imtu-<ru>-na 2. é-muhaldim x KUR? 10 clay ovens281 for the kitchen . . . for baking bread in . . .282 281 i m tu - r u - n a is a phonetic spelling for the Sumerian word for oven, d u r u n a2, written LAGABxIM. As Miguel Civil has already observed in “Notes on Sumerian Lexicography, II,” JCS 25 no. 4 (1973): 171-77, “the word has to be considered as a pre-Sargonic borrowing from Semitic, or from a third unknown language which gave tenãru to Akkadian,” 174. For its entry in AHw s.v. tinãru, von Soden maintained that the origin of the word was unknown, and indeed, it seems likely that d u r u n a2/tenãru was a Kultur- or Wanderwort which followed the technology of oven-making, cf. G. Rubio, “On the Alleged Pre-Sumerian Substratum,” JCS 51 (1999): 1-16, esp. 8ff. For more on ovens, see A. Salonen, “Die Öfen der Alten Mesopotamier,” BagM 3 (1964): 100-24. im 282 b ú r - a is unclear, a problem not helped by the fact that the sign partially broken. The entry in PSD B s.v. búr B provides a meaning only of “a container?” but suggests that it is “perhaps the same word as bara2 B.” The PSD entry s.v. bara2 B gives the meaning “a sack, container,” but both b ú r and b a r a2 -149- 3. ninda +búr,?-a du8-dè from Šeš-kalla, sealed by Insasa. 4. [ki še]š-kal-la-ta Seal: Insasa son of Biduga. AS2 5. ki[šib3 in-s]a6-[sa6] (r.) 6. mu damar-dEN.ZU lugal-e ur-bí-lumki mu-hul seal: in-sa6-sa6 / dumu bí-dug4-ga The third sign of line two is difficult to discern. Previous scholars emended it to é, suggesting that at least one é - m u h a l d i m was part of the Ekur temple of Enlil in Nippur.283 The reference to an é - m u h a l d i m being part of a temple – the E-kur or otherwise – is not elsewhere attested, however. In addition, the grammatical phrasing of the line is unusual. Ideally, to write “to the é - m u h a l d i m of the é - k u r” we would expect something like *é - m u h a l d i m é - k u r - r a - k a - š è. Granted, Ur III scribes are not known for always fully representing grammatical elements in the administrative corpus. Nevertheless, texts which record deliveries to the é - m u h a l d i m almost always include the terminative element - š è. More difficult to explain is UTAMI 4 2748. The text reads: 1. +1, tu-ru-na 2. ki ukken-né-ta 3. é-muhaldim-šè 4. kišib in-sa6-sa6 5. šà ÍB.TÙR ki Seal: illegible 1 oven from Ukkene to the kitchen, sealed by Insasa in Tummal. The final line of this text appears to place the é - m u h a l d i m in the locale of Tummal.284 seem to be most frequently associated with s i k i, wool, and not bread. 283 Note the reading by Tohru Gomi and Susumu Sato, Selected Neo-Sumerian Account Texts from the British Museum (Chiba: Japan, 1990), text 329. 284 For the reading of ÍB.TÙRki as Tummal, see Remco de Maaijer, “ÍB.TÙRki=Tummal,” NABU 1999 no. 4, note 92. Even though the phrase š à ÍB.TÙRk i appears after k i š i b i n - s a6- s a6 and not -150- As Steinkeller has argued, the geographic designation ÍB.TÙR shows up frequently in Umma texts and is likely a reference to Tummal in Nippur province.285 This interpretation immediately poses several questions. First, how does the é m u h a l d i m in Tummal relate to the é - m u h a l d i m in Umma province? Second, why is Insasa sealing for something to be received in Tummal? The textual evidence allows for some insight into the first question, but the second is more difficult to answer. As for the é - m u h a l d i m in Tummal, Steinkeller has suggested that “the kitchen in question [i.e. in Tummal] is conceivably the one so often mentioned in Puzriš-Dagan sources.”286 Alternatively, the é - m u h a l d i m in Tummal may be part of Nippur province’s administration. Whether or not Steinkeller is correct, this é - m u h a l d i m contrasts with the é - m u h a l d i m located in Umma province. Evidence for this distinction comes from the very fact that in UTAMI 4 2748, the scribe saw it necessary to qualify the é - m u h a l d i m with the phrase š à t u m - i m m a l k i. Geographical qualifications for the é - m u h a l d i m– for example, expressions such as é m u h a l d i m š à GN– do not usually appear. Thus, when they do appear it likely signifies situations that are out of the ordinary. In the case of UTAMI 4 2748, the qualification indicates that the oven was not for the é - m u h a l d i m in Umma province as was usually the case, but rather for a different é - m u h a l d i m situated in Tummal in Nippur province. directly after the mention of the é - m u h a l d i m, it is best interpreted as referring to the destination of the oven, and not the place where the document was sealed, cf. P. Steinkeller, “The Function of Written Documentation,” 68-73. 285 R. de Maaier, “ÍB.TURki=Tummal,” and P. Steinkeller, “New Light on the Hydrology,” 68-70, in particular 69 n. 205. 286 P. Steinkeller, “New Light on the Hydrology,” 70 n. 207. -151- More curious is the role of Insasa in this transaction. As will be shown below, Insasa belonged to a well-attested and prominent family in Umma, some members of which were associated with the é - m u h a l d i m, as well as with such activities as brewing. As is clear from table 3.6 above, he is attested several times receiving clay ovens and pots for the é - m u h a l d i m in Umma. Insasa’s role in sealing for a shipment of materials to the é - m u h a l d i m in Tummal is likely tied to his role in Umma’s provincial administration. As an official for Umma’s é - m u h a l d i m, Insasa occasionally may have had a responsibility to provide other such production units with materials. However, the failure of the text to note that the transaction was part of Umma’s b a l a payment may suggest that some other factor played a role in this transaction. 3.2.2.3. Animal receipt texts A number of texts relating to the Umma é - m u h a l d i m document the receipt of animals, as shown in table 3.7: From Receiver/Desti nation 9 sheep and goats a-lu5-lu5 é-muhaldim IS3 8 sheep and goats gu-du-du a-lu5-lu5 MVN 1 143 vi 1 ox and 5 sheep nin-á é-muhaldimšè MVN 4 98 vi 1 sheep SANTAG 6 349 vi 1 sheep Text Date Animals MVN 5 32 AS5 vi 5 sheep and goats SNAT 409 AS8 iv MVN 13 562 é-muhaldimšè nin-á é-muhaldimšè -152- Comments sá-du11 zà ma šara2 d BIN 5 127 ix l ox and 10 sheep nin-á é-muhaldimšè Table 3.7: Animals received by the é - m u h a l d i m in Umma In most cases, the number of animals received by the é - m u h a l d i m was low. A typical example comes from MVN 13 562 (IS3): 1. 8 udu é-muhaldim 2. ki gu-du-du-ta 3. kišib a-lu5-lu5 4. mu di-bí-dEN.ZU lugal-e si-mu-ru-umki ba-hul Seal: a-lu5-lu5 / dumu inim-dšara2 / kurušda dšara2 8 sheep (for) the kitchen, from Gududu, sealed by Alulu. Seal: Alulu, son of Inim-Šara, animal fattener of Šara. IS3 Alulu’s seal on this text indicates that he received the eight sheep from Gududu for the é m u h a l d i m. His seal notes that he was an animal fattener. We can surmise that Alulu received these animals with instructions to fatten them up before they were to be distributed to the é - m u h a l d i m. Support for this idea comes from SNAT 409 (AS8 iv), a month long account of Alulu. It lists a number of animals distributed to various people and production units, including the é - m u h a l d i m. As indicated in the final summary of the animals expended, these sheep were fattened on grass – that is, free-range fed – before being handed over.287 3.2.2.4. Other Receipt Texts The Umma administrative documents occasionally note other objects which the é m u h a l d i m received: 287 We read in ii 8: 10-l á-1 u d u é - m u h a l d i m. However, in the totals there is no entry for simply u d u. When one totals all the unqualified udu in the document, though, this number matches the total from ii 13: š u - n i g i n2 38 u d u - ú. These sheep fattened on grass are to be contrasted with, for example, sheep fattened on grain (u d u n i g a). -153- Text Date Item(s) From Receiver Comments TCL 5 pl. 44 AS4 various spices sag-ku5 balanced account AAICAB 1 1 AS5 xi reeds and spices pà-da sá-du11 lugal, balanced account CTNMC 31 AS7 10 bundles of grass ur-dšara2 dingir-ra UTAMI 4 2870 AS8 1 door a-gu dingir-ra AnOr 1 148 ŠS1 various wooden items UTAMI 4 2422 ŠS1 261 slats of different types of wood MVN 16 1138 ŠS4 vi 5 bundles of slats of wood VO 8/1 56 vii CHEU 1 3 lú-kal-la šà bala-a [. . .] lugal-šà-lá šà bala-a ur-é-maš ì-kal-la šà bala-a various spices i-ti šà a-pi4-sal4ki beer da-da-a; igi-dim-mu Table 3.8: Miscellaneous items received by the é - m u h a l d i m in Umma Like reeds, items such as g u g-grass appear to have been used in the physical maintenance of the é - m u h a l d i m, as seen in CTNMC 31 (AS7): 1. 10 sa úgug4 2. é-muhaldim dù-dè 3. ki ur-dšara2-ta 4. kišib3 dingir-ra (r.) 5. mu hu-úh-nu-riki ba-hul seal: dingir-ra / dub-sar / dumu lú-ga 10 bundles g u g-grass for repair of the kitchen, from Ur-Šara, sealed by Dingira. Seal: Dingira the scribe, son of Luga. AS7 This sort of grass was of some importance in Umma, and, in addition to use in building, it was used to make ropes and baskets, among other things.288 Interestingly, both this text and Hirose 365 discussed above are dated to the same year, AS7. We might speculate that in Umma the é - m u h a l d i m– clearly a building or 288 Manuel Molina and Marcos Such-Gutiérrez, “One Terms for Cutting Plants and Noses in Ancient Sumer,” JNES 63 no. 1 (2004): 1-16, 14-16. -154- complex of buildings – was in some need of repair by the end of Amar-Sin’s reign. That the governor would seal for the receipt of some of the materials used in this repair, as was the case in Hirose 365, again suggests a location within Umma province for the é m u h a l d i m. 3.2.3. The m u h a l d i m in Umma Province The Umma corpus is a rich source for improving our understanding of the activities of the m u h a l d i m. Though a number of individuals can reasonably be identified as m u h a l d i m, few occur regularly in the corpus. Nevertheless, at least some m u h a l d i m can be directly linked to the é - m u h a l d i m, though they also seem to engage in other activities, such as brewing. Additionally, the Umma material sheds light on the social status of the m u h a l d i m in Ur III society. 3.2.3.1. The family of La’asa289 La’asa was the patriarch of an important family at Umma, and two of his grandsons were prominently linked to the é - m u h a l d i m. Unfortunately, the activities of La’asa are impossible to reconstruct as he appears only in seals as the patronymic of his son Biduga. No other sons of La’asa are attested. Unlike his father, Biduga is prominently attested in the Umma corpus. His career spanned from at least Š33 to ŠS4 – over 29 years. Over forty documents bear his seal, attesting to a wide variety of activities that he engaged in during his career. These included most frequently sealing for labor (e.g. Princeton 1 467 [Š35 v], Syracuse 45 [Š47 vi], 289 My thanks to Benjamin Studevent-Hickman for sharing with me a preliminary version of his excursus on the family of La’asa from his “The Organization of Manual Labor.” -155- BPOA 1 1116 [ŠS1], etc.), and for the receipt of reeds (e.g. NYPL 292 [Š48 xi], BPOA 1 923 [AS1], MVN 16 1124 [ŠS2], etc.), but occasionally he received other commodities such as wooden objects (e.g. Syracuse 44 [Š33 ix]). The Biduga texts often note that items went to Nippur province, such as SACT 2 155 (AS1 i), where he authorized reeds and other objects to enter the storehouse at PuzrišDagan: 1. 1.02.00 sa gi 2. gú-nigin2-ba 14 sa-ta 3. 3 gišdal 4. gá-nun é-da-na ba-an-ku4 5. ugula ukken-né 6. gìr ur-dšul-pa-è 7. kišib bí-dug4-ga 8. šà bala-a 9. iti še-kí-ku5 10. mu damar-dEN.ZU lugal 3720 reed bundles – 14 bundles in each bale (and) 3 wooden beams entered the storehouse of Edana.290 The overseer was Ukkene, the conveyor was Ur-Šulpa’e, sealed by Biduga. From the b a l a. AS1 i In some cases, the texts reveal that Biduga sealed in his capacity as a šatammu-official. For instance, in BRM 3 126 (Š46 iii), we read: 1. 3 guruš 2. 3 á 2/3 3. u4 3-šè 4. e-sa-dúr-ra a-šà GÁN-gišbanšurx(RAxIGI) (r.) 5. sahar si-ga 6. ugula da-a-gi 7. kišib nam-šà-tam bí-du11-ga 8. iti še kar-ra-ál-la 8. mu ús-sa ur-bí-lumki ba-hul Seal: bí-dug4-ga / dub-sar / dumu la-a-sa6 290 3 guruš, 3 (at) wages (of) two-thirds for 3 days filling the bottom of the irrigation ditch of the GAN-banšur field. The overseer was Da’agi, sealed by Biduga the šatammu-official. Seal: Biduga, the scribe, son of La’asa. Š46 iii As Steinkeller, “New Light on the Hydrology,” 61 n. 160 has tried to show, the Umma scribes spelled Esadana (Puzriš-Dagan), in a number of related but different ways, including é - d a - n a, but also s a g - d a - n a, s a g - t e - n a, é - t e - n a, and even á - t e - n a, among others. However, this has not been universally accepted. -156- The exact function of the šatammu (or š à - t a m)-office in the Ur III period remains unclear. In her article on the šatammu, Maureen Gallery touched on its function in the Ur III period only briefly.291 She suggested that, at Umma, there was “a certain independence of the individual from the function,” and that “the service as š[atammu] may have been performed on a temporary or rotating basis by a large pool of officials who also had other duties.”292 Based on her analysis, the šatammu in the Old Babylonian period was an official who “served in almost every department of the palace economy, in the capacity of inventory controllers, recording and authorization clerks.”293 Perhaps with this in mind, Sharlach, in her discussion of Umma’s b a l a texts, suggested that Biduga “resided in Puzriš-Dagan for at least part of the year to help the e n s i2's administration receive and record its tax payments.”294 The Umma texts also suggest that Biduga was connected to the brewing industry. For instance, in SNAT 376 he appears as a forman for people who received large amounts of barley. The end of the text reads: š e š u t i - a lú l u n g a - k e4- n e, “barley received by brewers.”295 STA 3, a large balanced account belonging to Biduga, indicates that he dealt in 291 Maureen Gallery, “The Office of the šatammu in the Old Babylonian Period,” AfO 27 (1980): 1-36. 292 M. Gallery, “The Office of the šatammu,” 3. See also J. Dahl, “The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma,” 172 n. 440, where he argues that “there is no consensus as to a translation of the term š a t a m (or k i š i b n a m - š a t a m), but it may relate to the physical seal or the act of using another person’s seal.” 293 M. Gallery, “The Office of the šatammu,” 12. 294 T. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation, 38. 295 Unfortunately, Biduga appears here without a patronymic to identify him. However, there is no evidence in seals or patronymics to indicate that more than one Biduga operated in Umma during this time; every time a patronymic of Biduga is indicated, he is the father of La’asa. Thus, in texts where -157- barley, flour, malt, and beer. Curiously, in no text is Biduga directly qualified with an occupational title.296 Moreover, he is not directly associated with the é - b a p p i r2 in Umma, either.297 However, in NSAM 6 3 (AS7), a Biduga does appear listed among people collectively qualified as brewers.298 Biduga’s lack of a professional title is in contrast to his sons, some of whom were directly associated with the é - m u h a l d i m. The best attested example is that of Insasa. Though he usually appears with no professional designation, he is in at least one text called a m u h a l d i m.299 Moreover, the Umma texts show that Insasa received items for the é m u h a l d i m, and engaged in other activities which associated him with the é m u h a l d i m and m u h a l d i m. The documents which bear his seal are listed in table 3.9 below: Biduga appears without a patronymic, it is likely that he is nevertheless the son of La’asa. 296 But see below for the discussion of his sons’ seals for possible exceptions to this. 297 Though it does appear, in Umma the é - b a p p i r2 is only rarely attested. In some cases, attestations refer to the é - b a p p i r2 in Garšana, and not Umma, e.g. MVN 21 194. For more on the é b a p p i r2 in Garšana, see section 3.3 below. 298 The text itself is an account of reed allotments. The entire first column lists 23 people each of whom received between 20 s i l a3 (ca. 20 liters) and 5 g u r (ca. 1500 liters) of reeds. Note that the transliteration l ú - m u n! for line i 14, is probably incorrect, as the rest of the column is made up of actual personal names, and not professional titles. Noe also line 13, where one Lu-dingira is qualified as a s i m u g, “smith”– the only person to be listed with a distinct profesional title. Biduga appears in line i 22 without qualification as having received 30 s i l a3 (ca. 30 liters). 299 MVN 15 390 i 61. Though the text appears to have come from Tummal, it is likely that this is the same Insasa, cf. UTAMI 4 2748 discussed above. -158- Text Date Description Comments SAT 2 668 AS1 xii reeds from é-udu SNAT 329 AS2 10 ovens for é-muhaldim UTAMI 4 2383 AS3 20 ovens for making bread in Umma MVN 18 207 AS5 ix reeds MVN 1 110 AS6 xi 6 reeds bundles for the é-k[išib-ba?] UTAMI 3 1675 AS6 clay objects for the é-muhaldim MVN 16 997 AS8 vi 10 baskets for bread MVN 16 1119 AS8 vi 33 baskets for bread UTAMI 3 1635 AS8 vi reed and wood items for a boat SNAT 431 AS9 ix rations for PN (lú-[. . . ]) MVN 13 781 ŠS1 vii wooden objects MVN 1 170 ŠS1 viii rations for PNs MVN 16 1343 ŠS3 ii 2 reed baskets Ontario 2 387 ŠS3 v 4 reed baskets for carrying bread BPOA 2 2351 ŠS3 12 large reed baskets CST 564 ŠS4 iii wooden objects BPOA 1 1033 ŠS4 5 reed baskets JCS 2 199, NBC 4401 ŠS4 reed and wood items for a boat BPOA 2 2472 ŠS5 6 reed baskets BPOA 1 1698 ŠS7 6 reed baskets for bread [. . .] UTAMI 6 3572+3611 ŠS7 rations for PN muhaldim BPOA 1 1306 ŠS9 reed mats CUNES 48-11-008 [...] grain from the storehouse See table 3.6 šà bala-a mu dšu-dEN.ZU lugalšè še-ba zà mu Table 3.9: Texts with Insasa’s seal -159- ní ezem-nesa2-ka As the table shows, Insasa frequently seals for the receipt of commodities such as reeds and clay objects. In a few cases these are specified as being for the é - m u h a l d i m, but in other cases no such qualification is made. Nevertheless, is likely that these items were intended for use by the é - m u h a l d i m. For instance, in Ontario 2 387 (ŠS3 v), we read: 1. 4 gikaskal ninda 2. ki a-gu-ta 3. ninda ga6-ga6-dè 4. in-sa6-sa6 5. šu ba-ti (r.) 6. iti RI300 7. mu ús-sa si-ma-númki ba-hul Seal: in-sa6-sa6 / dumu bí-dug4 muhaldim 4 reed travel baskets for bread From Agu, for carrying bread. Insasa received. Seal: Insasa, son of Bidug(a), the cook. ŠS3 v While no reference is made to the é - m u h a l d i m in this text, the presence of Insasa, as well as the inclusion of the intended use of the reed baskets – for carrying bread – suggests that it was, in fact, the destination. Indeed, this text is quite similar to UTAMI 3 1603 (ŠS3), where the destination – é - m u h a l d i m – is, in fact, noted: 1. 50 gikaskal 0;0,1,0-ta 2. é-muhaldim-šè 3. mu ì-kal-la-ta 4. ki a-gu-ta (r.) 5. kišib a-du 6. šá bala-a 7. mu si-ma-númki Seal: a-du / dumu lú-ga / aga3-ús ensi2 50 reed baskets, 10 liters (in capacity) each, for the kitchen, . . . Ikala, from Agu sealed by Adu. From the b a l a. Seal: Adu, son of Luga, guard of the governor. Of particular importance for understanding more about the family of La’asa are the 300 The reading and translation of this month is unclear. See M. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars, 173. However, see now Robert Englund, “Banks in Banning,” in Von Sumer nach Ebla und Zurük, HSAO 9, eds. Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harold Hauptmann (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 2004), 35-44, 38 n. 16, where he suggests a possible meaning of “flight” based on the activities attested with birds. -160- seals of his grandchildren, the sons of Biduga. These include Insasa, noted above, as well as Lu-kisal and Arad-Šara. In these seals, the patronymic of Biduga appears either as b í d u11- g a and as b í - d u g4 MU, that is, m u h a l d i m. Table 3.10 below presents a chronological list of texts which include the seals of Biduga’s sons, as well as the form of the patronymic contained on the seal: Text Date Son Seal SACT 2 195 Š35 vi lú-kisal bí-[. . .] SAT 2 668 AS1 xii in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 muhaldim SNAT 329 AS2 in-sa6-sa6 bí-du11-ga Orient 16 65 79 AS2 lú-[kisal] bí-dug4 [. . .] UTAMI 4 2383 AS3 in-sa6-sa6 bí-du11-ga TCNU AS5 vi in-sa6-sa6 bí-[. . .] MVN 18 207 AS5 ix in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 [. . .] MVN 1 110 AS6 xi in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 +muhaldim, UTAMI 3 1675 AS6 in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 [. . .] MVN 16 997 AS8 vi in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 muhaldim MVN 16 1119 AS8 vi in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 muhaldim UTAMI 3 1635 AS8 vi in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 [. . .] SACT 2 185 AS8 vi lú-kisal bí-dug4 muhaldim SNAT 431 AS9 ix in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4-ga UTAMI 3 1919 AS9 lú-[kisal] bí-dug4 [. . .] MVN 13 146 ŠS1 vi lú-kisal! bí-dug4 muhaldim MVN 13 781 ŠS1 vii in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 [. . .] MVN 1 170 ŠS1 viii in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 +muhaldim, MVN 16 1131 ŠS1 lú-kisal bí-dug4 muhaldim YBC 13633 ŠS2 vi arad2-dšara2 bí-dug4 muhaldim MVN 14 455 ŠS2 lú-kisal bí-dug4 muhaldim -161- MVN 16 1343 ŠS3 ii in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 muhaldim MVN 1 115 ŠŠ3 iv arad2-šara2 (dub-sar) bí-dug4 [. . .] Ontario 2 387 ŠS3 v in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 muhaldim BPOA 2 2351 ŠS3 in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 muhaldim CST 564 ŠS4 iii in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 [. . .] JEOL 34 31 4 ŠS4 v arad2-dšara2 (dub-sar) bí-du11 [. . .] JCS 2 197, YBC 11834 ŠS4 v arad2-dšara2 (dub-sar) [bí-dug4 . . .] 301 BCT 2 94 ŠS4 in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 muhaldim BPOA 1 1033 ŠS4 in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 muhaldim?302 JCS 2 199, NBC 4401 ŠS4 in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 muhaldim303 MVN 14 342 ŠS5 vi 5 arad2-dšara2 (dub-sar) bí-dug4-ga MVN 13 218 ŠS5 vii lú-kisal bí-dug4 muhaldim BPOA 2 2472 ŠS5 in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 muhaldim BPOA 1 1698 ŠS7 in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 muhaldim UTAMI 6 3572+3611 ŠS7 in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4-[. . .] BPOA 1 1306 ŠS9 in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 muhaldim BPOA 1 431 ŠS9 lú-kisal bí-dug4 mu[haldim] CST 597 IS2 vi lú-[kisal] bí-dug4 muhaldim Ontario 2 365 IS2 lú-kisal bí-dug4 muhaldim UTAMI 4 2381 ix lú-kisal bí-dug4-[. . .] 301 Unfortunately, while Albrecht Goetze, in his article “Umma Texts Concerning Reed Mats,” JCS 2 no. 3 (1948): 165-202, indicates in his table (172) that YBC 11834 does include Arad-Šara’s seal, he gives no indication as to the patronymic. Moreover, his copy omits any representation of the seal. Internal factors nevertheless suggest that the Arad-Šara mentioned is, indeed, the son of Biduga, a fact confirmed in R. Mayr, Seal Impressions, 234 (seal 305B). 302 Tohru Ozaki and Marcel Sigrist, Ur III Administrative Tablets from the British Museum, Part I, BPOA 1 (Madrid: CSIC, 2005), 281, note that “the last sign looks like either a MU or GA.” 303 Cf. R. Mayr, Seal Impressions, 223 (seal 265F). -162- CUNES 48-11-008 [. . .] in-sa6-sa6 bí-dug4 muhaldim Table 3.10: Texts with the seals of Biduga’s sons As the table shows, most of the seal impressions in which the entire patronymic is preserved give b í - d u g4 m u h a l d i m, and not b í - d u11- g a. However, there appears to be no chronological pattern to the use of one version over the other. Insasa’s seals, for instance, read b í - d u11- g a in AS2 and AS9, but b í - d u g4 m u h a l d i m in AS1 and AS8. Alternatively, Lu-kisal’s seals, when preserved, always give b í - d u g4 m u h a l d i m. Moreover, after AS9 Biduga’s sons almost always used the b í - d u g4 m u h a l d i m seals. In Ur III seals, a professional designation following the patronymic typically refers to the profession of the father.304 But as has been noted above, Biduga is never called by a professional designation, be it m u h a l d i m or l úl u n g a/l u n g a3, nor does he appear in a text in conjunction with the é - m u h a l d i m. Thus, it is difficult to imagine how his sons’ seals might identify him as such. As Studevent-Hickman has suggested, however, in these cases the m u h a l d i m in the seals of Biduga’s sons may, in fact, refer to the sons themselves, and not to Biduga. He noted that, for instance, the antecedent of the phrase IR11.ZU found in such seals as this one from MVN 21 14: u r - dl i9- s i4 / e n s i2 / u m m aki / b a - s a6 / d u b - s a r / d u m u l u g a l - s a6- g a / IR11.ZU, “Ur-Lisi – governor of Umma – Basa the scribe, the son of Lugalsaga, is his (?) servant,” clearly refers to the son – in this case Basa – and not his father Lugalsaga.305 Given Biduga’s sons’ more direct association with the é - 304 R. Mayr, Seal Impressions, 28. 305 B. Studevent-Hickman, “Organization of Manual Labor,” 57 fn. 93. -163- m u h a l d i m, it is likely that the m u h a l d i m in their seals refers to them – Insasa, Lukisal and likely Arad-Šara – and not to Biduga. Note also the example of one Lu-Ninura. In the text CUNES 48-08-012 (AS8), presented below, he receives grain from one Bazi: 1. 0;0,1,7 sila3 zì <<gur>> 2. ki ba-zi-ta 3. kišib lú-dnin-ur4-ra (r.) 4. mu en eriduki ba-hun Seal: lú-dnin-ur4-ra / dumu lú-me-lám muhaldim 17 liters flour from Bazi, sealed by Lu-Ninura. Seal: Lu-Ninura, son of Lu-melam, the cook. AS8 As with Biduga’s sons, it is unclear from the seal impression if the m u h a l d i m is referring to the son (Lu-Ninura) or the father (Lu-melam). However, a line in YBC 15079 reads k i š i b l ú - dn i n - u r4- r a m u h a l d i m but bears a seal which reads only l ú - dn i n - u r4r a / d u m u l ú - m e - l á m. Thus, the muhaldim in the seal on CUNES 48-08-012 almost certainly refers to the son– Lu-Ninura, and not the father.306 Unlike his brother Insasa, Lu-kisal’s association with the é - m u h a l d i m is only sparsely attested. Nevertheless, several texts demonstrate this connection beyond doubt. For instance, in UTAMI 3 1919 (AS9), he receives reeds from Lu-Ninura for the é m u h a l d i m.307 In JCS 2 188 (NBC 3307 (AS5 ii)), he is himself called a m u h a l d i m: 1. 8 gikid ni-ur-rum 2. ki-lá-bi 2/3 šar 3. 10 sa gi 8 reed mats,308 their size is 2/3 š a r, 10 reed bundles for covering flour in a boat. 25 large reed baskets . . ., 306 See R. Mayr, “Seal Impressions,” 277 seal 450c. 307 See table 2.1 above. 308 For more on this and other terms relating to reed mats, see M. Civil, “Brèves Communications,” 67-68. -164- the bala for b a r a k a r a-workers309 for the governor of Adab, from Agu sealed by Lu-Kisal the cook. AS5 ii 4. má zì-da ba-a-dul9 5. 25 gikaskal gal +x, 6. bala bar-ra kar-ra 7. ensi2 adabki-šè 8. ki a-gu-ta 9. kišib lú-kisal muhaldim 10. iti sig4 gišì-šub ar 11. mu ús-sa en-mah-gal-an-[na] Seal: illegible In MVN 16 956 (AS2), he is called a foreman of m u h a l d i m. Similarly, in MVN 18 307, he is a foreman for a group of m u h a l d i m receiving wool rations. Though in none of these instances where Lu-kisal is called a m u h a l d i m (or foreman of m u h a l d i m) is his seal preserved, his association with m u h a l d i m and the é - m u h a l d i m in other texts makes this identification clear. Documents bearing Lu-kisal’s seal are presented in table 3.11 below: Text Date Description SACT 2 195 Š35 vi baskets for fish from lú-ka-la Orient 16 65 79 AS2 seals for labor SACT 2 185 AS8 vi reed mats for boats carrying bread UTAMI 3 1919 AS9 reed for building the é-muhaldim MVN 13 146 ŠS1 vi large reed baskets from ba-za MVN 16 1131 ŠS1 reed bundles from ab-ba-gi-na šà uri5ki MVN 14 455 ŠS2 reeds en-du8-du and baking bread from lúdug3-ga šà é-ta-na; šà bala-a MVN 13 218 ŠS5 vii rations for ur-dnin-sun muhaldim BPOA 1 431 ŠS9 reed mats for boat carrying bread 309 Comments ugula in-sa6-sa6 Following R. Englund, “Hard Work– Where Will It Get You?,” 264 (Erlenmeyer 155, (obv.) i 9). -165- CST 597 IS2 vi wool from šeš-kal-la Ontario 2 365 IS2 reed bundles from inim-dšara2 UTAMI 4 2381 ix clay oven from ukken-né Table 3.11: Texts with Lu-kisal’s seal Owing to the fact that Arad-Šara is not an uncommon name at Umma, and that texts rarely bear his seal, little can be said about Biduga’s son Arad-Šara. Unlike his brothers, his seal indicates that he was a scribe. He is never directly associated with the é m u h a l d i m, but he does engage in some activities that are similar to ones in which the é m u h a l d i m was involved, such as in MVN 1 115 (ŠS3 iv), where he received wood staves from Ur-Emaš: 1. 5;0,0,0 gú pa-ku5 2. ki ur-é-maš-ta 3. kišib lú-eb-<gal> 4. iti nesa 5. mu ús-sa má den-ki ba-ab-du8 Seal: arad2-dšara2 / dub-sar / dumu bí-dug4 +muhaldim?,310 5 planks? of wood staves from UrEmaš, sealed by Lu-eb[gal]. Seal: Arad-Šara the scribe, son of Bidug(a) the cook. This is similar to MVN 16 1138 (ŠS4 vi 11), where one Ikala received the same commodity from Ur-Emaš for the é - m u h a l d i m. Of particular interest is the fact what while MVN 1 115 states that it was sealed by one Lu-Ebgal, it in fact bears the seal of Arad-Šara. As can be shown by SACT 2 109 (AS4), Lu-Ebgal was the son of Arad-Šara’s brother Insasa: 1. 15 geme2 u4 2-šè 2. ninda má-a á-a 3. šà ummaki 15 work women for 2 days, putting bread in boats in Umma. The foreman is Lu-Balasag, sealed 310 The seal is somewhat damaged at this point, and it may be possible to read -g a instead of m u h a l d i m. -166- 4. ugula lú-bala-sag10 (r.) 5. kišib in-sa6-sa6 6. mu en-gal-mah-an-na ba-hun Seal: lú-eb-gal / dumu in-sa6-sa6 by Insasa. Seal: Lu-Ebgal son of Insasa. AS4 As has already been noted, it is not unusual to see a tablet sealed not by the person indicated, but by that person’s relative. In most cases, however, the sealer was a direct relative, i.e. a father or son; instances where the sealer was an uncle or nephew are less common.311 Unfortunately, the name Lu-Ebgal is a common one at Umma and several prominent Lu-Ebgals are attested.312 Moreover, his seal is attested only once. Nevertheless, his association with the loading of bread, suggesting that he, too, was a m u h a l d i m or at least associated with the é - m u h a l d i m. One final text sheds light on the family of La’asa. Orient 16 65 79 (AS2) is a worker list. It is headed by Insasa and followed by his son Lu-Ebgal. These two, as well as several other named individuals, are all qualified as d u m u - g i7. The foreman of the group is Insasa, likely the same person as the one heading the list. The entire text is sealed by Lukisal. No one is qualified by any professional designations, nor are the workers assigned any tasks.313 Thus, it is impossible to know what, if any, connection the people other than 311 Note, however, that as our understanding of Umma’s prosopography improves, it may be revealed that such instances are not, in fact, uncommon. 312 For instance one Lu-Ebgal is a son of Ur-Gipar, a guda-priest of Inanna (e.g. UTAMI 4 2503). In addition, several Lu-Ebgals are qualified by professional designations like ad-kup4 (“reed worker” e.g. UTAMI 4 2832), na-gada (“herdsman” SET 275), and bahar (“potter” Rochester 158). 313 The exception is one Lu-Inanna, who is qualified as the son of Lugal-gigire the farmer (Sumerian e n g a r). However, it is likely that the professional term here refers to Lugal-gigire, and not his son. -167- the La’asa family members have to the é - m u h a l d i m. Nevertheless, it suggests that Biduga’s sons and grandson(s) worked together in a number of different capacities.314 3.2.3.2. Other m u h a l d i m in Umma Province 3.2.3.2.1. Receipt of reeds Several other m u h a l d i m are attested in Umma, though none as prominently as the members of the La’asa family discussed above. Many of the activities they engage in are similar to those noted for the La’asa family. For instance, in MVN 16 1516 (AS8), one UrLamma m u h a l d i m received a reed mat, which was qualified as a š à b a l a - a transaction. Similarly, in SACT 2 205 (ŠS1), we find: 1. 40 gikaskal ninda GIŠ.AŠ 40 travel baskets for bread . . . gi 2. 30 kaskal ninda-gal gìr dù-a 30 travel baskets for large bread 3. ki a-gu-ta (loaves) . . . From Agu, sealed by 4. kišíb da-a-[ga] muhal[dim] Da’aga the cook. For the bala. 5. šà bala-a Seal: Da’aga the scribe, son of Urd d 6. mu šu- EN.ZU lugal gišaga. ŠS1 Seal: da-a-ga / dub-sar / dumu ur-giš-šà-ga Unfortunately, none of the receivers of goods listed in tables 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11 above is called m u h a l d i m. However, in other texts like-named individuals do appear qualified as such. For instance, in MVN 16 1144 (AS9) one Lu-dingira received reeds for the é - m u h a l d i m. Though not called a m u h a l d i m in the text, a Lu-dingira m u h a l d i m received reeds in MCS 3 42 3 (ŠS4). It is likely that these two texts are referring to the same individual. 3.2.3.2.2. Ration allotments A number of documents note that m u h a l d i m received rations. MVN 18 307, 314 For more on this text, see B. Studevent-Hickman, “The Organization of Manual Labor,” 64. -168- discussed above, notes that m u h a l d i m under the foreman Lu-kisal received wool rations. Texts also record the receipt of barley rations. These are sometimes qualified as being rations for the new year (š e - b a z à - m u), as shown in SAT 2 20 (Š30 xi): 1. 0;0,1,0 še lugal 2. še-ba zà-mu 3. lugal-má-gur8-re 4. [. . .] še ha-ni-ša-ga muhaldim 5. dumu simat-dšara2 muhaldim-me 6. é-kikken2-ta 7. ki ur-dli9-si4-ta 8. iti pa5-ú-e 9. mu dumu-<munus> lugal 10 liters barley, (they are) barley rations for the new year (for) Lugal-magure, [. . .] barley rations (for) Hanišaga the cook, son of Simat-Šara. They are cooks. (Grain) from the mill house, from Ur-Lisi. Š30 xi Other examples of ration distribution to m u h a l d i m include MVN 18 125 (wool), MVN 13 218, SAT 2 335 (barley), and so on. 3.2.3.2.3. Work in other institutions As with Girsu, m u h a l d i m are also associated with instituions outside the é m u h a l d i m. In YOS 18 115 we learn that the courier service had several m u h a l d i m listed among its attendants ( ì r - s ì - g a z i - k u m - m a), as did the governor ( ì r - s ì g a e n s i2).315 Evidence for m u h a l d i m working for the governor’s palace also comes from the seal of a m u h a l d i m named Gurzan.316 He is called a m u h a l d i m in the 315 YOS 18 115 x 1 and x 33 for the courier service; v 18-22 and vii 14 for the governor. For more on the courier service, see Wolfgang Heimpel, “Toward an Understanding of the Term siKKum,” RA 88 (1994): 5-31. 316 Gurzan’s name is spelled in various ways, including with gur4 (LAGAB, e.g. YOS 18 97), gur8 (TE-gunu, e.g. YOS 18 102), gur14 (HUR, e.g. NBC 5189 (seal)), and gur16 (KUR, e.g. YOS 18 97 (seal– note that while the publication gives seal 11, it is actually seal 12)). In many cases, his name is spelled one way on the tablet while completely differently on the tablet’s seal (e.g. YOS 18 97 below). That the scribes wrote the name in such varied ways suggests that they themselves did not understand the name. Thus, it is likely that it was a foreign (i.e. not Sumerian or Semitic) word, as already noted by D. Snell in Daniel Snell and Carl Lager, Economic Texts from Sumer, YOS 18, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), 21-22, where he suggests possible Amorite or even Gutian connections. At least one other Gurzan is attested, this one the son of Alla (e.g. Ontario 2 12, and NBC 3101). -169- texts as well as in his seals. In some cases, however, his seals call him m u h a l d i m e n s i2. For instance, in YOS 18 97 (Š48 xii), we find: 1. 2/3 ma-na siki 2. lá-NI túg gú-na uru 3. ki da-da-ga-ta 4. gur4-za-an su-su-dam (r.) 5. iti ddumu-zi 6. mu ha-ar-ši<ki> ki-maški ba-hul Seal: gur16(KUR)-za-an / dumu du-la-a-bi / muhaldim ensi2 2/3 mana wool remainder of the g u n a-tax of the 317 city. From Dadag, Gurzan will repay. Seal:Gurzan, son of Dulabi, cook of the governor.318 In other cases, however, Gurzan’s seal calls him simply m u h a l d i m. For instance, in MVN 20 148 (AS7 viii 25) we find: 1. 4;0,0,0 zì-KAL gur 2. ki a-du-ta 3. kišib gur4-za-an 4. iti é-iti-6 5. u4 25-kam (r.) 6. mu hu-hu-<nu>-umki ba-hul Seal: gur8(TE-gunu)-za-an muhaldim / dumu du-la-bi 1,200 liters KAL-flour from Adu sealed by Gurzan. Seal: Gurzan the cook, son of Dulabi. AS7 viii 25 As with his namesake the m u h a l d i m, scribes opted between several different ways of spelling the first element in the name. That the name of this Gurzan’s father, Alla, does not appear to be Sumerian or Semitic further suggests a foreign ancestry. 317 See H. Waetzoldt, Textilundistrie, 141. 318 Understanding the name of Gurzan’s father is difficult. Snell, YOS 18 seal 12 (page 15), read x- l a - a - b i , with the comment that “the fist sign of the father’s name is probably not IŠ or TAG4.” From his copy, a DU-sign is possible. Indeed, in his MVN 20 148, F. d’Agostino read DU-la-BI for this name. R. Mayr, Seal Impressions, 213 (seal 224a-d) clearly shows that the name is d u - l a - ( a ) - b i, but normalizes it as Dula-abi. This Semitic reading is unsatisfying, as it is unclear how to understand the initial element dula. It seems more likely to posit a foreign origin for this name. Note also YBC 12531, where the seal spells the patronymic d u - ú! - l à - b i. That Ur III scribes failed to consistently write the name further suggests that this name, like that of Gurzan, was a foreign one. The example from MCS 2 75, where T. Fish read DA.IŠ.TUR, is curious. Unfortunately, no copy of the text is available. Moreover, Fish obviously had some troubles reading the text– most of it is provided in transliteration only, but the parts where he had difficulty transliterating were presented in cuneiform copy. One can imagine that what he transliterated as TUR was, in fact, a BI. However, I am unable to see how Fish’s DA.IŠ could have been a mistake for DU.LA.(A). Nevertheless, it seems entirely unlikely that there were two m u h a l d i m e n s i2’s in Umma named Gurzan. -170- Gurzan the m u h a l d i m was clearly associated with the é - k a s4. MCS 2 75 (BM 113075 [ŠS3]) reads: 1. 190 kilib šúm-gaz 2. 4 igi-sa šúm-gaz 3. é-kas4-šè 4. ki lugal-níg-lagar-e-ta (r.)5. kišib gur4-za-an 6. mu si-ma-númki ba-hul Seal: gur4-za-an muhaldim / dumu DU!.LA!.BI!319 190 bunches of crushed garlic, 4 . . . crushed garlic, to the road house from Lugal-Niglagare, sealed by Gurzan. Seal: Gurzan the cook, son of Dulabi. ŠS3 A similar text is BPOA 1 1044 (ŠS1). In MVN 4 173 (ŠS2 iv 30), we have a list of goods – including beer, bread, and onions – specified as being the regular delivery for the messengers in Umma (s á - d u11 k a s4 š à u m m ak i). The conveyor for this transaction was Gurzan the m u h a l d i m. In Syracuse 426 (Š44), a list of wages for various people, there is a Gurzan who is said to be at the road house in Umma (g u r8- z a - a n é - k a s4 š à u m m ak i). Though not called a m u h a l d i m, this is likely the same individual as the Gurzan the m u h a l d i m. 3.2.4. The m u h a l d i m - l u g a l in Umma province Several texts demonstrate that in addition to m u h a l d i m working under local authority, m u h a l d i m under royal authority also operated within Umma province. SNAT 340 (AS3) notes that two people qualified as m u h a l d i m - l u g a l received land allotments.320 These m u h a l d i m - l u g a l must stand in contrast to the m u h a l d i m discussed above who were in service to the provincial administration. In many cases, they engage in activities similar to m u h a l d i m working for the 319 For problems with this reading, see above. 320 For this, see P. Steinkeller, “The Organization of Crafts,” 238 and fn. 39. -171- province. In MVN 14 388 (ŠS5), we see the receipt of reeds by Aradu: 1. 60 sa gi 2. še-ta sa10-a 3. ki šeš-kal-la-ta 4. kišib arad2-u10 5. šà bala-a 6. mu ús-sa dšu-dEN.ZU lugal bàd mar-tu mu-dù Seal: arad2-u10 / dumu lugal-u4-sù-šè / muhaldim lugal “60 reed bundles for buying barley. From Šeš-kala, sealed by Aradu for the b a l a. Seal: Arad-u, son of Lugal-usuše, the royal cook. ŠS5 In STU 50 (ŠS9 xi), we find dead animals being allotted to various individuals: 1. 10 àd udu 2. lugal-ní-lagar-e lunga 3. 1 ur-išgigir muhaldim dumu lú-dingir-ra muhaldim 4. 3 a-rá-1-kam 5. 2 a-rá-2-kam 6. ba-sag10 sagi (r.) 7. 2 tab-ša-la-giš 8. 4 ki gu-du-du 9. 4 ì-kal-la 10. 1 ur-sukkal muhaldim-lugal 11. <šu-nigin2> 27 àd udu 12. iti pa5-ú-e 13. mu é-šara2 ba-dù 10 sheep carcasses (for) Lugalnilagare the brewer.321 1 (for) Ur- gigir the cook, son of Lu-dingira the cook, 3 first time, 2 second time (for) Basa the cupbearer. 2 (for) Tabšalagiš. 4 at the place of (?) Gududu. 4 (for) Ikala. 1 (for) Ur-sukkal, the royal cook. <Total> 27 dead sheep. ŠS9 xi Here, we find that Ur-sukkal, a m u h a l d i m - l u g a l, received a dead sheep. Also in the list is one Ur-išgegir, called a m u h a l d i m as was his father, Lu-dingira. They also, however, received other items, as shown in MVN 16 1301 (ŠS4): 1. 11 kuša-á-lá 2. 10 kušdu10-gan 1-sila3-ta 3. muhaldim-lugal-ke4 šu ba-ti 4. ki a-a-kal-[la-ta] (r.) 5. kišib lugal-ní-[lagar-e] 6. mu ús-sa si-ma-númki ba-hul Seal: lugal-si-bil-[e] / dub-sar / dumu 321 11 leather sacks, 10 leather bags (of) 1 liter(capacity) each, the royal cook received from A’akala, sealed by Lugal-nilagare. Seal: Lugal-sibile, the scribe, son of Lugal-saga. ŠS4 Alternatively, this name can be transliterated l u g a l - n ì - l a g a r - e. -172- lugal-sa6-g[a] In this text, an unnamed m u h a l d i m - l u g a l is said to have received some leather goods from one A’akala. Two lines later, however, we see that the text was sealed by one Lugalnilagare. In STU 50, discussed above, one Lugal-nilagare was called a brewer. If he is the same person as the one in MVN 16 1301, when we can speculate that while he was not a m u h a l d i m l u g a l, he was nevertheless responsible for their receipt of goods. This is not an unlikely scenario, as there are strong associations between brewers and m u h a l d i m. In MVN 16 1411 (ŠS1) we find a similar transaction: 1. 25 kuša-á-lá 2. 20 kušdu10-gan 1-sila3-ta 3. mun gazi bala-a 4. se-ge4-dè (r.) 5. muhaldim-lugal-ke4 6. šu ba-ti 7. šà bala-a 8. mu dšu-dEN.ZU lugal Seal: lugal-si-bil-e / dub-sar / dumu lugal-sa6-ga 25 leather sacks, 20 leather bags (of) 1 liter (capacity) each, in order to be filled (?)322 with salt (and) g a z i (for) the b a l a,323 the royal cook received for the b a l a. Seal: Lugal-sibile, the scribe, son of Lugalsaga. ŠS1 According to the latter text, the leather bags – used, apparently, to hold salt and mustard spices – were part of Umma’s b a l a-obligation. We can speculate that a m u h a l d i m under the authority of the crown took possession of these bags as well as, perhaps, the spices for which they were intended, to deliver to them to the royal capitals. Curious is the relationship in the former text – MVN 16 1301 – betweeen Lugal322 The verb “to fill” in Sumerian, s i, does not have a -g auslaut. However, her discussion of si.g, M. Thomsen, The Sumerian Language, 314, notes that “the meaning of this verb is not very clear . . . but it also seems to be confused with si ‘to fill.’” 323 Note the appearance in the OB Forerunner to Hh XI 70 (MSL 7 p. 216) of k u šd u10- g a n g a z i. -173- nilagare, and the person sealing the tablet, one Lugal-sibile. These two names appear together in over 170 texts, always with Lugal-nilagare listed in the text, but Lugal-sibile appearing in the seal. While it is not unusual to occasionally find a name in the seal which differs from the text, the frequency with which we see it here is peculiar. In the example of Lugal-sibile/Lugal-nilagare, the sheer number of instances wherein the text provides one name while the seal a second makes it quite unlikely to assume that one was simply sealing in the place of another. R. Mayr discusses this phenomenon at some length.324 In general, two practices can explain this discrepancy: allonymy, where one person used two different names concurrently; and multiple patronymy, where a person had two patronymics used either concurrently or in sequence, and where one patronym represented the person’s actual father and the other represented a more distant relative.325 Mayr argues that unless a scribe “explicitly state[d] that someone other than the seal owner rolled the seal,” then “there is no reason to assume that any person other than the seal owner would use a seal.”326 Nevertheless, [t]he authorization Lugal-nilagare . . . which appears on tablets impressed with eleven different seals bearing the name lugal-si-bil-e and four different patronymics . . . is extremely difficult. There is no corroborative evidence to suggest that all four seal inscriptions should refer to the same individual, and there is no clear chronological pattern to the use of the seals.327 324 R. Mayr, Seal Impressions, 85-89. 325 R. Mayr, Seal Impressions, 85. 326 R. Mayr, Seal Impressions, 88. For Mayr, 89, officials used allonyms “to avoid confusion with similarly named officials.” 327 R. Mayr, Seal Impressions, 87. -174- Thus, the example of Lugal-nilagare/Lugal-sibile “does not submit to the explanations of allonyms and dual patronymics.” I cannot offer any other explanation for this odd occurance. 3.2.5. Conclusions The Umma material sheds much light on the function and activities of the é m u h a l d i m. Through the reed receipts, we know that the é-muhaldim was responsible for the baking of bread. This bread was often transported in reed baskets, and in some cases, it was designated for consumption by royal elites. The receipt of clay ovens also demonstrates the role of the é - m u h a l d i m in baking bread and preparing other foodstuffs, while the receipt of clay pots and jars suggests that it bore some responsibility for transporting those goods to their destinations. I have argued that in the Ur III period, there existed multiple production units called é - m u h a l d i m. One, under royal control, was located in Nippur province and is well documented in the Puzriš-Dagan material. However, in addition to this royal é m u h a l d i m, each province also had its own é - m u h a l d i m. The Umma corpus helps demonstrate my position. As has been shown, for instance, the é - m u h a l d i m was a physical structure in Umma province. It occasionally needed items for repair and, in UTAMI 4 2870, it was in need of a door. Moreover, in UTAMI 4 2748, we find an apparent reference to an é - m u h a l d i m in Tummal. This stands in contrast to the remainder of the Umma corpus, when the é - m u h a l d i m is never qualified with a geographical designation. This is best explained by positing that the é - m u h a l d i m in Tummal was to be distinguished from the é - m u h a l d i m to which the scribes more -175- frequently referred – the é - m u h a l d i m in Umma. The family of La’asa is important for understanding both m u h a l d i m and the é m u h a l d i m in Umma. While it is not clear if La’asa’s son Biguda was a m u h a l d i m, it is certain that at least two of his grandsons, Insasa and Lu-kisal were. It is also likely that his great-grandson, Lu-Ebgal, was as well. These m u h a l d i m engaged in activities similar to what is seen for the é - m u h a l d i m, such as receiving reeds and clay objects. The sons of Biduga were responsible for leading labor teams, ostensibly of m u h a l d i m, in performing various types of work. They were also responsible for provisioning these laborers with wool and grain rations. The texts from Umma show that other m u h a l d i m likewise received reeds and reed objects. Finally, the Umma corpus shows that the m u h a l d i m themselves were distinguished into groups under the local, provincial authority and those under royal authority. Though little evidence is available regarding the latter group, they did appear to receive spices and other food-related items. Additionally, they were granted plots of land in exchange for their work. -176- 3.3. Garšana(k)328 The exact location of Garšana is unknown. However, the available evidence places it in Umma province.329 Indeed, the site may be close to Zabalam.330 3.3.1. The corpus The available Garšana material numbers over 1,400 tablets, nearly all of which are housed in the Department of Near Eastern Studies collections at Cornell University. The corpus runs from ŠS1 (CUNES 48-06-041) to IS5 i (CUNES 49-15-355) – a span of 13 years – though most date to the years ŠS6-IS2. Unlike the material from Drehem, Girsu, and Umma, the Garšana tablets do not stem from a large institutional center. Instead, they belong to the rural estate of one Šu-Kabta, a general and physician, and his wife, SimatIštaran, a princess– a daughter of Šulgi or Amar-Sin. 3.3.2. The m u h a l d i m and é - m u h a l d i m at Garšana 3.3.2.1. Overview of the é - m u h a l d i m There are 46 texts in the Garšana corpus which mention the é - m u h a l d i m. The 328 This chapter could not be possible without the generosity and cooperation of Prof. David I. Owen and the staff of the Jonathan and Jeannette Rosen Seminar in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at Cornell University. Prof. Owen kindly put at my disposal all of his preliminary manuscripts on the Garšana tablets and permitted unlimited access to the tablets themselves. Furthermore, he has allowed me to quote all relevant texts before publication. I am also indebted to Prof. Wolfgang Heimpel, whose preliminary commentary on the worker assignment texts was also made available via Prof. Owen, and to Dr. Rudi Mayr, whose book on the Umma seals I was able to consult in manuscript form. My colleague at Johns Hopkins University, Alexandra Kleinerman, was particularly helpful guiding me through the Garšana texts in her capacity as Prof. Owen’s research assistant. The publication of the Garšana tablets is currently in preparation by a team led by Prof. Owen. An extraordinarily helpful analytical index of the archive has been compiled by Prof. Owen and Alexandra Kleinerman. 329 See, e.g., Edmond Sollberger, “Garš-ana(k),” AfO 18 no. 1 (1957): 104-8. 330 David I. Owen, personal communication. -177- types of texts that mention the é - m u h a l d i m include: (1) worker assignments for constructing the é - m u h a l d i m in inspection accounts; (2) allotments of provisions to workers for work done on the é - m u h a l d i m; and (3) records of the receipt of grain products by the é - m u h a l d i m. In almost every instance where the é - m u h a l d i m appears, it is in conjunction with the é - b a p p i r (brewery) and é - k i k k e n2 (grain mill). Indeed, a number of texts indicate that the three production units– the é - b a p p i r, é - m u h a l d i m, and é k i k k e n2– were all housed in the same physical structure or complex of structures.331 This is particularly evident in CUNES 50-03-093 (ŠS7 vii): 1. 1 dug dida2-en 0;0,3?,0-ta 2. 1 sila3 dabin 3. [. . . si]la3 eša 4. [siz]kur2-šè 5. u4 ká é-bappir é-muhaldim ù é-kikken2 kéš-r[á-a] 6. 1 [si]la3 dabin 7. 1 sila3 eša 8. sizkur2 gir4?(U?.AD) 9. ki dadad-tillati-ta (r.) 10. ba-zi 11. ìr puzur4-dnin-kar-ak dub-sar 12. iti á-ki-ti 13. mu dšu-dEN.ZU [. . . za-ab]-ša-li[ki mu-hul] Side: gaba-ri 1 jug ordinary d i d a-beer 30 liters each,332 1 s i l a3 semolina, [. . .] s i l a3 e š a-flour333 for an offering when the gate of the brewery, kitchen, and mill was bound. 1 liter semolina, 1 liter e š a-flour for the offering for the oven. Expensed from Adad-tillati, the conveyor was Puzur-Ninkarak the scribe. Side: copy. ŠS7 vii Here, provisions were provided as ritual offerings for the fashioning of a gate for the é - 331 See W. Heimpel, Commentary on the Garšana Worker-Inspection Accounts. 332 For more on this term, see, e.g, Remco de Maaijer, review of Der babylonische Töpfer and seine Gefäße nach Urkunden altsumerischer bis altbabylonischer Zeit, by Walther Sallaberger (Ghent: University of Ghent, 1996), in AfO 46/47 (1999/2000): 247-253. 333 For the interpretation of e š a as fine flour, see Lucio Milano, RlA 8, s.v. Mehl §4.1, where it is described as “a fine grade flour . . . mostly derived from emmer.” -178- b a p p i r, é - m u h a l d i m and é - k i k k e n2, and the construction of an oven. The mention of a gate (k á) here refers not to separate gates for each of the three production units mentioned, but to a single gate for a physical complex that includes all three production units– the brewery, the kitchen and the mill.334 There are, however, occasions when references are made to construction work on the brewery and mill, with no mention made of the kitchen. An example comes from CUNES 52-04-045:26-27 (ŠS7 vi 9), where such activities are described as a l - t a r k i s á - a é - b a p p i r ù é - k i k k e n2, “construction work on the retaining wall (of the) brewery and mill.”335 Moreover, CUNES 48-12-024:22'-23' makes reference to work done specifically on the brewery: 1  u r u š š i d i m 2  u r u š 10 g e m e2 é - b a [p p i r  i š] ù r k e š e2- r á, “1 builder, 2 workers, 10 female workers for binding the roof-[beams] at the br[ewery].” In light of this, it seems likely that the brewery, kitchen, and mill were housed in a building complex made up of several buildings. The brewery and mill appear to have been in close proximity to each other– perhaps even sharing a wall or walls, and the entire complex was surrounded by a wall which had at least one gate. 3.3.2.1.1. Worker inspection accounts The é - m u h a l d i m appears most frequently in the Garšana corpus in so-called worker inspection (g u r u m2 a k) texts. The format of these texts is fairly standardized, 334 See already David I. Owen, “An Akkadian Ur III Community in the Sumerian Heartland,” (paper presented at the 48e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, July 1-4, 2002), and W. Heimpel, Commentary on the Garšana Worker-Inspection Accounts. 335 There are a number of similar examples, e.g. CUNES 52-04-118, 48-04-052, 48-07-033, etc. -179- and is composed of three parts. The first lists numbers of workers and their supervisors. These are further divided into two sections: servants from the household (a r a d2 é - a m e - é š), and hired workers (l ú - h u  -  á - m e - é š). The second part of these texts, appearing after the available workers are totaled, enumerates various tasks, along with the number of workers assigned to each. These are totaled again before the final part, wherein we are told that the work was expensed (z i - g a - à m), and inspected (k u r u m7 - a k a ). The inspection accounts are dated to month, year, and day. A sample text is CUNES 4807-037 (ŠS7 vii 10): 1. 3 uruš šidim lú dníg-dba-ú 2. 2 uruš šidim lú dì-ma-at-kál-bu-umki 3. 2 uruš šidim lú ur-dšul-pa-è 4. 3 uruš šidim 5. 16 uruš gub-ba 6. 2 uruš šeg12 en-nu ak 7. 1 e-pe-eš na-am-dú-ra 8. ugula be-lí-ì-lí 9. arad2 é-a-me-éš 10. 22 uruš 32 geme2 ugula ba-zi 11. 15 uruš 27 geme2 ugula simat-é-a 12. 20-lá-1 uruš 16 geme2 ugula za-la-a 13. [1]6 uruš ugula ib-ni-ilum 14. 3 geme2 li-la-a 15. 10 geme2 ugula ša-at-[èr-ra] 16. 1 uruš ugula šál-ma[h] 17. lú-hu-á-me-[éš] 18. (blank line) 19. šu-nigin2 10 uruš šidim 20. šu-nigin2 92 uruš 21. šu-nigin2 88 geme2 22. šà-bi-ta 23. 1 uruš šidim um-mi-a 24. 7 uruš šidim 12 uruš šu-dím 336 3 builders, men of Nig-Bau, 2 builders, men of Dimat-kalbum, 2 builders, men of Ur-Šulpae, 3 builders, 16 workmen employed, 2 workmen guarding bricks, 1 . . . sick (?), the foreman is Beli-ili; they are servants from the household. 22 workmen, 32 workwomen (under) the forewoman Bazi,336 15 workmen, 27 workwomen (under) Simat-Ea the forewoman, 19 workmen, 16 workwomen (under) Zala’a the foreman. 16 work men (under) Ibni-ilum the foreman, 3 workwomen(under) Lila’a, 10 workwomen (under) Šat-Erra the forewoman, 1 workman (under) Šalmah the forewoman; they are hired workers. Total: 10 builders; total: 92 workmen; total: 88 workwomen. From within it: 1 master builder; 7 builders, 12 workmen, builing; 6 workwomen, making the du’um-structure; 7 work- This presumably is a hypocoristic, for b a - z i - n a - t u m, cf. the seal in CUNES 49-15-143 (ŠS6 xi). -180- 25. 6 geme2 du-ú-um ak women quarrying clay, 13+[. . .] 26. 7 geme2 im gíd workwomen carrying earth,337 (r.) 27. [. . . uruš+1]3 geme2 im ga6-á 3 workmen, 4 workwomen trimming 28. 3 uruš 4 geme2 gi-sal-la gul-la thin reeds – construction 29. al-t[ar] é-bappir é-muhaldim ù é-kikken2 work on the brewery, kitchen and 30. 1 uruš šidim 3 uruš 4 geme2 mill; 1 builder, 3 workmen, 4 work31. é-bu-ta-nu-um dù-[a] woman consturcting the house 32. 1 uruš šidim 15 uruš [. . . geme2] of Butanum; 1 builder, 15 workmen 33. DÙN-bal iškiri6 gar-ša-an-naki dù-a [. . .], building the Dunbal at the 34. 25 uruš im lu-a garden of Garšana; 25 workmen 35. 13 uruš kišig(Ú.ÁD) uru-ki-íd-[da]-šè mixing earth; 13 work-men en-<<BA>>338-na gone to Urukigida for boxthorn; 36. 17 [uruš] kišig(Ú.ÁD) uru-ki-[íd-da-šè] 17 [wor men] gone to Urukigida lá-e-de en-[na] to transport boxthorn; 2 workmen 37. 2 uruš šeg12(SIG4) en-n[u ak] guarding bricks; 1 workmen was 38. 1 uruš dú-ra sick; Total: 10 builders; total: 92 39. šu-nigin2 10 uruš šidim 92 workmen; total: 88 workwomen, 40. šu-nigin2 92 uruš expensed and inspected. The 41. šu-nigin2 88 geme2 conveyor(s) were Puzur-Ninkarak 42. zi-ga-àm and Adad-tillati. ŠS7 vii 10 43. gurum2 ak 44. gìr puzur4-dnin-kar-ak 45. ù adad-dtillati 46. iti á-ki-ti 47. mu dšu-dEN.ZU ma-da za-ab-ša-liki mu-hul Side: u4-10-kam Relevant to our discussion are lines 23-29. Here, various laborers are listed as having engaged in a number of activities, such as building (š u d í m - m a), or trimming thin reeds (g i - s a l - l a g u l - l a), all of which are described as “construction work (on the) brewery, kitchen, and mill” (a l - t a r é - b a p p i r é - m u h a l d i m ù é - k i k k e n2). The inspection account texts that mention work on the brewery-kitchen-mill 337 For the meaning of both “clay” and “earth” for im, see W. Heimpel, Commentary on the Garšana Worker-Inspection Accounts. 338 The insertion of a BA here is certainly a scribal error; the scribe misunderstood the reading here of the DU-sign as g u b, when it is always followed by - b a. However, in this case the DU-sign is to be read  e n, when it is never followed by - b a. -181- complex are listed in table 3.12 below: Text Date Work done CUNES 48-07-028 ŠS7 v 11 [. . .] CUNES 48-07-032 ŠS7 v 24 building: plastering; carrying bricks; removing earth CUNES 48-09-013 [ŠS7] vi 26 building: construction of a du’um structure; quarrying clay; carrying earth; retaining wall ŠS7 vi 30 building: construction of a du’um structure; quarrying clay; carrying earth; trimming and carrying reeds ŠS7 vii 5 building: construction of a du’um structure; quarrying clay; carrying earth; trimming and carrying reeds ŠS7 vii 6 building: construction of a du’um structure; quarrying clay; carrying earth; trimming and carrying reeds [ŠS7 vii 7] building: construction of a du’um structure; quarrying clay; carrying earth; trimming and carrying reeds CUNES 48-07-041 ŠS7 vii 8 building: construction of a du’um structure; quarrying clay; carrying earth; trimming and carrying reeds CUNES 48-07-037 ŠS7 vii 10 building: construction of a du’um structure; quarrying clay; carrying earth; trimming reeds CUNES 48-07-038 ŠS7 vii 11 building: construction of a du’um structure; quarrying clay; carrying earth; trimming reeds ŠS7 vii [1]2 building: carrying earth; binding roof-beams; building: carrying earth; plastering walls; . . . reeds;339 delivering bricks for building ŠS7 vii 13 building: construction of a du’um structure; quarrying clay; carrying earth; [. . .] reeds; binding roof-beams CUNES 48-07-035+ 49-04-026 CUNES 48-07-050 CUNES 52-04-050 CUNES 48-08-003 CUNES 49-09-138 CUNES 48-07-052 339 CUNES 49-09-138:32 gives 2  u r u š 2 g e m e2 g i - s a l g i - i r k e4- d e. Beyond the reference to the g i - s a l, “thin reeds,” the meaning is unclear. -182- ŠS7 vii [...] building: carrying earth (for) plastering walls; building: carrying earth (for) binding roof-beams; building: construction of a du’um structure; quarrying clay; carrying earth; depositing bricks at the wall; CUNES 48-07-042 ŠS7 vii [19] building: carrying earth (for) plastering walls; building: carrying earth; depositing bricks at the wall; CUNES 48-07-051 [ŠS7 vii] 19 [. . .]; carrying earth (for) binding roof-beams; depositing bricks at the wall340 ŠS7 [...] building: construction of a du’um structure; quarrying clay; carrying earth (for) binding roofbeams; trimming reeds CUNES 48-12-043 [ŠS7 vii ...] building: carrying earth (for) plastering walls (and) binding roof-beams; building: carrying earth; plastering the gate; hauling cross-beams341; hauling roof-beams; making reedwork panels342 CUNES 48-07-040 ŠS7 vii 26 [building: . . .]; binding roof-beams; hauling crossbeams, making reedwork panels CUNES 51-05-024 [ŠS7 vii 27] plastering cross-beams; pressing sesame; plastering the wall; building a reed hut; finishing work?; constructing the Emugu343; making reedwork planks CUNES 49-09-137 ŠS7 vii 28 [. . .] CUNES 52-04-046 ŠS7 viii 5 waterproofing the roof; constructing drains; plastering cross-beams; plastering the wall; setting it in place CUNES 50-04-021 ŠS7 viii 8 plastering cross-beams; constructing the oven; waterproofing the roof; setting it in its place CUNES 48-07-039 CUNES 50-09-007 340 CUNES 48-07-051 is apparently a copy of CUNES 48-07-042. However, the latter makes no mention of binding roof-beams, while the former does. Because the data in both tablets otherwise match, the omission in 48-07-042 is likely due to scribal error. 341 CUNES 48-12-043:(r.) 18' reads: 20  u r u š [bí-n]i-tum g í d - d è. For binitum, see CAD B s.v. bin§tu B as well as W. Heinpel’s commentary. 342 For this, see Alexandra Kleinerman and David I. Owen, An Analytical Index and Prosopography of the Garšana Archives, CUSAS (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, forthcoming), where it is equated with the Akkadian murudû. Cf. CAD M/1 s.v. murudû. 343 It is unlikely that this term, written é - m u - g u, is the house or estate of an individual. Instead, it seems to be some sort of an auxiliary building in the complex. However, its exact meaning or function is unclear. -183- ŠS7 viii 9 waterproofing the roof; constructing the oven; constructing drains; plastering the gate; plastering cross-beams CUNES 52-04-052x ŠS7 viii 9 waterproofing the roof; constructing the oven; constructing drains; plastering the gate; plastering cross-beams CUNES 52-04-047 ŠS7 viii 10 constructing the oven; plastering cross-beams; placing reed mats CUNES 50-03-089 ŠS7 viii 21 plastering the gate CUNES 48-00-005 Table 3.12: worker inspection accounts The chronological arrangement of the above chart offers some evidence for how this complex was constructed. For instance, the earliest work on the complex was limited largely to quarrying clay and hauling earth, as well as for trimming and hauling reeds. These tasks seem to be logical first steps in the construction process, as they likely refer to the procuring of building material and the clearing of the construction site. Another task mentioned early on is the construction of the du’um structure. The exact meaning of the term du’um, written du-ú-um, is not clear. The form of the term suggests that it is Akkadian, and it is tempting to relate it to the Akkadian dû, a platform or cella.344 In addition to being constructed in conjunction with the brewery-kitchen-mill complex, a du’um structure also appears with the construction of the é - u š - b a r (e.g. CUNES 48-07-014 [Š6 vii 1]), and with that of individual houses, e.g. of one Baha’a (e.g. CUNES 52-04-045 [Š7 vi 9]). Later projects included work on the roof, as well as finishing work such as plastering and waterproofing. Several auxiliary buildings, such as a reed hut (Sum. g i s i g), were also constructed. As shown in CUNES 48-09-006 (Š6 [vi . . .]), such structures 344 For a discussion of this term and its relationship to the Sumerian d u6, see CAD D s.v. dû. -184- were used by the mill. The construction of the oven (gir4[U.ÁD]) was one of the last projects listed. While in the Isin-Larsa and later periods, this term was used for a type of kiln, in Ur III it referred to a type of bread oven.345 The oven construction took several days, at least from ŠS7 viii 8 to ŠS7 viii 10, and most likely lasted longer than that. The number of people listed as working for the project– 28 at one point– and the length of time taken to complete the task suggest that the oven was to be of a significant size and intended for large-scale use. In several texts of this type, a retaining wall (k i - s á - a) of the brewery-kitchen-mill complex is mentioned. For example in CUNES 48-09-013:24-26 ([...] vi 26) we find: 24. 6 geme2 im gíd 25. 48 geme2 im ga6-á 26. [a]l-tar ki-sá-a é-bappir é-muhaldim ù é-kikken2 6 workwomen, quarrying clay, 48 workwomen carrying earth, construction work at the retaining wall of the brewery, kitchen, and mill. The mention of the retaining wall in relation to the brewery-kitchen-mill complex stops early in the archive, as it does not appear after the sixth month of ŠS7. It seems likely then that the retaining wall was among the first projects completed in the construction of the brewery-kitchen-mill complex. After this, construction (a l - t a r) appears to take place at the complex itself, and not at its retaining wall. 3.3.2.1.2. Special worker allotments Six texts from the Garšana archive note the allotment of provisions– usually beer or bread– to builders (š i d i m) for their work on brewery-kitchen-mill complex. An example is CUNES 50-03-044 (ŠS7 vii): 345 See A. Salonen, “Die Öfen der Alten Mesopotamier,” 118-19. -185- 1. 1 sila3 dabin 2. ½ sila3 [eš]a 3. sizkur2-šè 4. 0;0,2,0 kaš-gen 5. šidim-[e-n]e íb-[na] 6. u4 al-tar é-bappir é-muhaldim é-kikken2 (r.) 7. ki dadad-tillati-ta 8. b[a-z]i 9. [ìr] puzur4-dni[n-kar]-ak dub-[sar] 10. iti á-ki-ti 11. mu dšu-dEN.ZU lugal-e ma-da za-ab-ša-liki mu-hul Side: gaba-ri 1 liter semolina, ½ liter e š a - flour as an offering. 20 liters ordinary beer consumed by builders when they worked on the brewery, kitchen, and mill. Expensed from Adad-tillati, the conveyor was Puzur-Ninkara the scribe. Side: copy. ŠS7 vii The specification that the beer was consumed (í b - [n a ]) by the builders is unusual in that it is rarely seen in texts outside of the Garšana corpus.346 It is tempting to connect this activity with the allotment of flour as s i z k u r2, or as “an offering,” seeing the provisions in these texts as special allotments given to workers to celebrate a certain stage in the construction process.347 The texts noting beer and bread allotments for work (a l t a r) done on the brewery-kitchen-mill complex appear in table 3.13: Text Allotments Comments CUNES 50-03-044 20 liters ordinary beer íb-na CUNES 50-03-045 50 liters bread, [. . .] liters ordinary beer íb-gu7 CUNES 50-03-071 20 liters ordinary beer íb-na CUNES 49-15-436 10 liters ordinary beer íb-na CUNES 49-12-039 50 liters bread, 20 liters ordinary beer íb-gu7 ù íb-na CUNES 49-09-143 445 sila3 dates šidim ù lú-hu-á-e-ne 346 The restoration of the n a  here is secured based on similar texts, e.g. CUNES 49-15-436. 347 In documents from other corpora, mention of offerings are not uncommon. For instance, in the Umma text Ontario 2 399 (ŠS4 vi 27), a large amount of m a n u-wood was designated as an offering. Similarly, the Girsu text HLC 147 (ix) records various amounts of beer, bread, and flour appear as an offering. In both cases, however, the text makes no mention of why the offering was made. -186- Table 3.13: Allotments for š i d i m working on the brewery-kitchen-mill complex. All dated to ŠS7 and expensed by Adad-tillati While the above texts mention the workers involved (i.e. š i d i m and also, in one case, l ú - h u  -  á), the nature of the work is vague, described only as construction work (a l - t a r). However, some texts describe in more detail the type of work done at the brewery-kitchen-mill complex. CUNES 50-03-093, which refers to the fashioning of a gate, was discussed above. Another example is CUNES 48-06-037 (vi 26). The text is only partially preserved, but in the relevant portion we read: 9. 1 dug dida2-en 10. 1 sila3 dabin 11. 0;0,1,0 eša 12. zì-dub-dub-šè 13. u4 išùr ba-kéš-rá 14. é-bappir é-muhaldim ù é-kikken2 15. ki dadad-tillati-ta ba-zi 16. ìr puzur4-[dnin-kar-ak dub-sar] 17. [. . .] 1 jug ordinary d i d a-beer, 1 liter semolina, 10 liters e š a-flour for ritual use,348 when the roof-beams of the brewery, kitchen and mill were attached. Expended from Adad-tillati, the conveyor was Puzur-[Ninkarak the scribe . . .] As in CUNES 50-03-093, as well as in some of the worker inspection accounts discussed above, the work described in this tablet indicates that the brewery, kitchen, and mill were not only administratively interconnected, but that they were indeed all housed in the same building complex. Two texts record expenditures of materials for construction, shown in tablet 3.14, below: Text Date Expended items For CUNES 49-12-040 ŠS7 vii wood and reed products gate CUNES 50-06-002 ŠS7 vii reed products roof-beams 348 Literally, this term refers to a small heap of flour. However, it appears to have served a ritualized function, following, e.g., CAD Z s.v. zidubdubbû, for “(a small heap of a certain type of flour used for cultic purposes).” -187- Table 3.14: Expenditures for work on the brewery-kitchen-mill complex In addition, two other texts record allotments for rituals carried out during construction: Text Date Allotted items Occasion CUNES 50-03-093 ŠS7 vii beer and flour Ritual for biding the gate CUNES 50-06-002 ŠS7 vii beer and flour ritual for fastening roof-beams Table 3.15: Allotments for rituals during the construction of the brewery-kitchenmill complex 3.3.2.1.3. Receipt of Goods CUNES 49-15-523 records a large expenditure of reeds to the brewery-kitchen-mill complex: 1. 2980 sa g[i-N]E 2. a-rá-1-kam 3. 2970 sa g[i-N]E 4. a-rá-2-kam 5. 1078 sa gi-NE 6. a-rá-3-kam 7. gi-sal é-bappir (r.) 8. é-muhaldim ù é-kikken2 9. ba-a-ar 10. ki dadad-tillati-ta 11. ba-zi 12. ìr puzur4-dnin-kar-ak 13. iti á-ki-ti 14. mu ma-da za-ab-ša-liki mu-hul Side: gaba-ri 2980 bundles of N[E-re]eds the first time, 2970 bundles of N[E-re]eds the second time, 1078 bundles of NE-reeds the third time. Thin reeds deposited at the brewery, kitchen and mill. Expensed from Adad-tillati, the conveyor was Puzur-Ninkarak. Side: copy. ŠS7 vii The only hint as to the purpose of these reed expenditures comes from line 7, where the NE-reeds appear to be qualified as g i - s a l, which are otherwise known to have used in roof construction.349 However, texts from Umma show that NE-reed was more commonly 349 For g i - s a l as reeds used “in roof construction between bricks or packed earth,” see A. Kleinerman and D. I. Owen, An Analytical Index. Note also the Akkadian equivalent gisallû, meaning “eaves.” -188- used as fodder, as a material for making mats, and as kindling.350 Indeed, given the large number of reeds expended, it seems likely that the reeds were used as fuel. According to table 3.12 above, construction on the oven does not appear have been completed this time. However, it is entirely possible that the brewery-kitchen-mill complex at Garšana had other ovens or kilns in use at this time. In some cases, reeds are expended in conjunction with items appearently used for ritual purposes. For instance, in CUNES 49-15-457 (ŠS7 vii) we find: 1. 1 sila3 dabin ½ sila3 eša 2. zì-dub-dub-šè 3. é-bappir é-muhaldim ù é-kikken2 4. 0;0,2,0 še 5. 5 sila3 ninda 6. lú-ištir-ra 7. 0;0,1,5 sila3 kaš-en 8. šidim-e-ne íb-na 9. 0;0,4,0 tuh-a-sig5 gibil 10. lú-hu-á-e-ne ba-na-ha-la 11. 2 sa gi-NE 12. 2 gu-niin2 A.ZZII.ÉŠ 13. gir4 1-kam 14. ki dadad-tillati ba-zi 15. ìr puzur4-dnin-kar-ak 16. iti á-ki-ti 17. mu dšu-dEN.ZU lugal uri5ki-ma-ke4 ma-da za-ab-ša-liki mu-hul Side: gaba-ri 1 liter semolina, ½ liter e š aflour for ritual use (for the) brewery, kitchen and mill. 20 liters of barley, 5 liters bread for the foresters. 15 liters ordinary beer for the builders’ consumption. 40 liters fine dried chaff (for) fuel divided up by the hired workers. 2 bundles NE-reeds,351 2 bales of rushes (for) the kiln, 1 time. Expensed from Adad-tillati, the conveyor was Puzur-Ninkarak. Side: copy. ŠS7 vii Here, among a list of expenditures from Adad-tillati, we find that a small amount of semolina and fine flour were to go to the brewery-kitchen-mill complex as z ì - d u b - 350 See H. Waetzoldt, “Rohr and dessen Verwendungsweisen,” 135. 351 In his treatment of reeds in the Ur III period, “Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisenanhand der neusumerischen Texte aus Umma,” 135, H. Waetzoldt, offered “‘vermischtes’ oder ‘unsortiertes’ Rohr,” for the NE-reed. -189- d u b - š è for some ritual purpose. As with the special allotments discussed above, these appear with bread and beer allotments for š i d i m, “builders” and l ú -  i št i r - r a, “foresters.” Unfortunately, while we are not told why these items were expended to the complex. However, the allotments of reeds are quite small in comaprison to CUNES 4915-523 discussed above, and it may be that all the expenditures seen in this text were for ritual purposes. As noted above, the é - m u h a l d i m almost always appears in conjunction with the é - b a p p i r and the é - k i k k e n2, and, as has been suggested, the three were all physically located together in a single building or building complex. However, in two cases the é m u h a l d i m appears singularly without the é - b a p p i r or é - k i k k e n2, such as in Cohen 3 (IS2 iii 26), which records various expenditures made in conjunction with special events.352 In lines 22-23 we find: 1 š á h - z é - d a é - m u h a l d i m m u simat-di š t a r a n <š è>, “one piglet (to the) kitchen for Simat-Ištaran.” A similar expenditure is found in CUNES 49-13-021 (ŠS9 iv 4).353 All three units of the brewery-kitchen-mill complex had obvious uses for items such as reeds– either a fuel for brewing or for baking bread– or grain for milling, brewing, and baking. However, neither the brewery nor the mill would have much use for livestock. Thus, it is worth noting that in the two instances in the Garšana corpus where the é - 352 E.g. Cohen 3:15-18, where grains, breads, and other items are expended u4 m á simati š t a r a n é - dš a r a2- t a g a r - š a - a n - n aki- š è m u - u n - g í d - š a - a, “when the boat of SimatIštaran was towed from the Šara temple to Garšana.” d 353 CUNES 49-13-021:15 reads 1 š á h - z é - d a é - m u h a l d i m - š è. For more on Pigs at Garšana, see now David I. Owen, “Pigs and Pig By-Products at Garšana in the Ur III Period,” in De la domestication au tabou: Le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancien, eds. B. Lion and C Michel (Paris: Maison René-Ginouvès, 2006), 75-87. -190- m u h a l d i m appears independent of the brewery or mill, it is for the receipt of livestock. Obviously, the piglets mentioned in Cohen 3 and CUNES 49-13-021 were slaughtered and prepared for consumption, likely to celebrate special events such as the arrival in Garšana of the princess’ boat from Umma. 3.3.2.2. The m u h a l d i m in Garšana 3.3.2.2.1. Adallal The most frequently appearing muhaldim in the Garšana archive– indeed, perhaps the best-attested m u h a l d i m in the Ur III period– is one Adallal.354 Over 25 texts mention him, in which he receives grain and flour (including semolina), oversees workers, and appears as a witness in legal texts. An unusual aspect of Adallal’s career is his use of his seals. No less than ten different seals of Adallal, the m u h a l d i m, have been identified by their impression on the tablets in the Garšana corpus. Adallal’s seals are presented below in table 3.16: Seal Dates used Inscription A ŠS6 ii355 - ŠS7 iii a-da-làl muhaldim / arad2 šu-kab-tá356 B ŠS6 ix - ŠS7 iii a-da-làl muhaldim / arad2 šu-kab-tá C ŠS7 ii - ŠS8 ii a-da-làl / arad2 šu-kab-tá D ŠS7 v a-da-làl / arad2 šu-kab!?-tá 354 Like most PNs from Garšana, Adallal’s name– always written a-da-làl– is Semitic, meaning “I praise,” with a theophoric element understood. This name was particularly common in the late third and early second millennia, cf. CAD D s.v. dal~lu A c., and J.J. Stamm, Die Akkadische Namengebung, 202. 355 It is possible that this seal was used even in ŠS6 i, as the month name in CUNES 48-12-015, where this seal also appears, is not preserved. 356 The final sign of both lines, i.e., the m u h a l d i m from the first line and the - t á of the second line, do not fit on the lines themselves and are squished immediately below the preceding sign. -191- E ŠS7 v - ŠS7 vi a-da-làl / arad2 šu-kab-tá F ŠS7 vi a-da-làl [muhaldim] / arad2 šu-kab-[tá] G ŠS7 x - ŠS8 i a-da-làl mu[haldim] / arad2 šu-kab-tá357 H ŠS8 vi - IS 3 i358 a-da-làl muhaldim / arad2 šu-kab-tá I IS3 i - IS3 ii a-da-làl muhaldim / arad2 šu-kab-tá J IS3 iv - IS3 xi a-da-làl muhaldim / arad2 simat-dištaran Table 3.16: The seals of Adallal The question as to why an individual might have many different seals during the course of his career is difficult to answer. In his work on the Umma seals, where some individuals similarly use multiple seals, Rudolf Mayr notes that [t]he most obvious explanations do not apply: as a bureaucrat progressed through his career, presumably his position, role and titles changed; but it is abundantly clear that such changes were rarely reflected in the inscription of his new seal. Increased status might be reflected in the scene of his seal, but only in a general way. Thus the question remains: why did these people need so many seals? Abrasion of the old seal is only occasionally the reason; while it is true that seals made of relatively soft stone would wear down over time and then needed to be recarved or replaced, it is clear that most seals were replaced while still in good condition. As far as could be determined, seal owners did not keep different seals for different purposes such as, for example, to use different seals on tablets regarding different types of transactions. One may speculate that it was not really necessary for seals to be replaced as frequently as they were; that common replacement of seals was an essentially superfluous extravagance. But not knowing the reasons for this extravagant behavior, it is perhaps best to assume that there was some pressing need for these bureaucrats to have several different seals.359 Mayr speculated that the use of multiple seals may have been a strategy employed by seal 357 Note that the final - t á is squished immediately below the preceding sign. 358 One text upon which this seal appears, CUNES 49-04-004, is very fragmented and has no date preserved. 359 R. Mayr, Seal Impressions, 97. -192- owners to thwart forgeries,360 but it is difficult to imagine that forgeries would have been such a problem so as to merit Adallal’s having ten seals in a span of only 6 years. Moreover, as there is significant overlap in the use of Adallal’s seals, e.g. seals A-C each being used in ŠS7, and in particular that the first attestation of seal C comes before the last attestations of seals A and B, it is hard to imagine how effective his use of multiple seals would have been in preventing such fraud. It is perhaps possible that seals were given to Adallal (and others) by their masters, in this case Šu-Kabta, as gifts and hence an individual might acquire a number of seals without any specific function.361 Curiously, Adallal is never explicitly associated with the é - m u h a l d i m in the Garšana corpus. Nevertheless, I assert that he was directly involved with the administration of the é - m u h a l d i m, and likely with the entire brewery-kitchen-mill complex. As I demonstrated in the sections above, the most prominent m u h a l d i m from the major urban centers of Umma and Girsu received items for the é - m u h a l d i m. Ur-niinar, the best attested m u h a l d i m at Girsu, was a high-ranking official within the é - m u h a l d i m, called in one text a n u - b a n d a3. Moreover, the data from Umma and Girsu show a strong association between m u h a l d i m on the one hand, and mills and breweries on the other. For instance, at Umma, one of the best attested m u h a l d i m, Biduga, was at one point called a foreman of brewers. In Girsu, Ur-Niinar sent people in his charge– ostensibly m u h a l d i m– to work at the mills in Puzriš-Dagan. Thus, while the Garšana material does not explicitly place him in the é - m u h a l d i m or of the brewery-kitchen-mill 360 R. Mayr, Seal Impressions, 97-8. 361 My thanks for Prof. Owen for this suggestion. -193- complex, comparative evidence from elsewhere in the Ur III corpus suggests that Adallal held a position of some importance in one or the other. This is supported as well by the nature of the commodities he received. 3.3.2.2.1.1. Receipt of grain products Adallal usually appears in the Garšana corpus as receiving foodstuffs and comestibles. He most often received grain and grain products from various individuals. The person seen most frequently disbursing grain to Adalla, however, is one Malik-bani, and it is likely that Malik-bani was a person of some authority at Garšana’s mill. An example of such a transaction is seen in CUNES 49-15-034 (ŠS7 ii): 1. 0;2,0,0 zì-gu-ús 2. 0;2,0,0 dabin al-ús-sa 3. ki dma-lik-ba-ni-ta 4. a-da-làl 5. šu ba-an-ti 6. iti máš-dà-gu7 7. mu ma-da za-ab-ša-liki mu-hul Seal: a-da-làl / arad2 šu-kab-tá 120 liters second quality pulse flour, 120 liters roasted semolina from Malik-bani, Adallal received. Seal: Adallal, servant of Šu-Kabta. ŠS7 ii Other such similar products Adallal received included, among other things, emmer, various types of flour, semolina, and barley, as shown in table 3.17 below: Text Date Item From CUNES 49-15-038 ŠS6 xi 120 liters of flour and emmer CUNES 50-04-011 ŠS6 xi 160 liters of bread and flour CUNES 49-15-032 ŠS6 xii 1,500 liters of semolina CUNES 48-04-042 ŠS7 ii 1,200+[. . .] liters of semolina CUNES 48-06-016 ŠS7 ii CUNES 49-15-034 ŠS7 ii Comments d ma-lik-ba-ni ninda u4-tuh-hu-umšè d ma-lik-ba-ni ninda na-qáb-tum-šè d ma-lik-ba-ni ninda na-qáb-tum<šè> 60 liters of semolina d ma-lik-ba-ni šà-g[al] nam-ra-ak 240 liters of pulse flour and semolina d ma-lik-ba-ni -194- CUNES 40-15-036 ŠS7 v 3,030 liters of semolina d adad-tillati CUNES 40-15-037 ŠS7 v 4,010 liters of semolina d adad-tillati še tár-ra-umki CUNES 49-15-042 ŠS7 v 300 liters of semolina d ma-lik-ba-ni ninda na-qáb-tum-šè CUNES 49-15-043 ŠS7 v 6,690 liters of flour and semolina d adad-tillati ninda na-qáb-tum-šè CUNES 49-15-044 ŠS7 vi 10 liters of semolina d adad-tillati CUNES 49-15-045 ŠS7 vi 300 liters of semolina d ma-lik-ba-ni CUNES 50-04-024 ŠS7 vi 2,340 liters of semolina d adad-tillati CUNES 49-15-394 ŠS7 vii 300 liters of semolina d ma-lik-ba-ni CUNES 49-11-026 ŠS7 ix [. . .] flour d ma-lik-ba-ni CUNES 49-15-046 ŠS7 x 900 liters of semolina d ma-lik-ba-ni CUNES 49-15-047 ŠS7 xi 900 liters of semolina d ma-lik-ba-ni CUNES 49-15-050 ŠS8 i 60 liters of semolina d ma-lik-ba-ni CUNES 49-15-468 ŠS9 vi 8,001 liters of semolina and flour CUNES 49-15-056 IS3 i 1,020 liters of semolina and flour CUNES 49-15-057 IS3 ii 1,710 liters of barley and emmer CUNES 49-15-059 IS3 ii CUNES 49-15-061 IS3 ix ninda na-qáb-tum-šè ninda na-qáb-tum-šè ninda na-qá-<ab>tum-šè ì-lí-an-dùl d adad-tillati d adad-tillati 970 liters of barley d adad-tillati 150 liters of barley d adad-tillati Table 3.17: Grain products received by Adallal As can be observed from the above table, in some cases the grain products Adallal received are qualified as being for a specific purpose. Most commonly, products are said to be for making naqabtum-bread, as shown in CUNES 49-15-032 (ŠS6 xii):362 1. 5;0,0,0 dabin gur 2. ninda na-qáb-tum-šè 1,500 liters semolina, for stable bread from Malik-bani, Adallal the 362 For more on the term nag/qabtum, cf. A. L. Oppenheim’s commentary to Eames C3. However, it is clear that the term is in need for further study. See, e.g., Hagan Brunke, “Food in the Garšana Texts.” -195- 3. ki dma-lik-ba-ni-ta 4. a-da-làl muhaldim (r.) 5. šu ba-ti 6. iti ezem-me-ki-ál 7. mu dšu-dEN.ZU lugal-e na-rú-a-mah mu-ne-dù Seal: a-da-làl muhaldim / arad2 šu-kab-tá cook received. Seal: Adallal the cook, servant of Šu-Kabta. ŠS6 xii Semolina is commonly designated for this purpose, though different types of flour, including roasted semolina, as shown in CUNES 49-15-043 (ŠS7 v): 1. 0;4,4,0 zì-kum-sig5 2. 1;1,2,0 zì gur 3. 0;0,3,0 dabin al-ús-sa 4. 13;4,0,0 dabin gur 5. 0;0,2,0 eša 6. ninda na-qáb-t[um-šè] 7. 0;1,0,0 ní-àr-ra 8. ki dadad-tillati-ta 9. a-da-làl 10. šu ba-an-ti 11. iti ki-siki-dnin-a-zu 12. mu dšu-dEN.ZU lugal-e ma-da za-ab-ša-li[ki] mu-hul Seal: a-da-làl m[uhaldim] / arad2 šu-kab-tá “280 liters fine z i k u m flour,363 370 liters flour, 30 liters roasted semolina, 4,140 liters e š a-flour, for naqabtum-bread, 60 liters groats from Adadtillati, Adallal received. Seal: Adallal the c[ook], servant of Šu-Kabta. ŠS7 v 3.3.2.2.1.2. Receipt of other items Adallal received other various items in addition to grain and grain products. These included foodstuff such as dates (e.g. CUNES 49-15-060), sesame oil (e.g. CUNES 49-15052), and g a z i (e.g. CUNES 48-06-020), perhaps a type of mustard or licorice. Adallal also received reeds (e.g. CUNES 49-15-051) and chaff (e.g. CUNES 49-15-049), designated as fuel for baking bread and the like. In other cases, he received clay jars for the storage of wine or other purposes. The tablets that mention Adallal’s receipt of For this flour, see CAD I s.v. isqãqu, where it is called “a fine quality of flour,” typically written with the logogram ZÌ.UD, but written phonetically z ì - g u and z ì - k u m. 363 -196- miscellaneous goods are presented in table 3.18 below: Text Date Item From Comments CUNES 49-15-379 ŠS6 vii vases for wine d adad-tillati CUNES 48-04-043 ŠS6 viii various containers d adad-tillati CUNES 48-12-015 ŠS6 measuring containers d adad-tillati CUNES 49-15-031 ŠS7 ii sieves and other items d adad-tillati CUNES 49-15-033 ŠS7 ii large jugs d adad-tillati CUNES 49-15-035 ŠS7 iii 9 requisitions d ma-lik-ba-ni ezem a-bu-um-ma-šè CUNES 49-15-041 ŠS7 v beer d adad-tillati egir buru14 ge4-ge4-dè CUNES 48-06-020 ŠS7 vi g a z i-plants d adad-tillati CUNES 49-15-049 ŠS8 I chaff d adad-tillati gibil-šè CUNES 49-15-051 ŠS8 vi reeds d adad-tillati ninda du8-dè CUNES 49-15-052 ŠS9 iv sesame oil d adad-tillati CUNES 49-15-053 IS1 x g a z i-plants èr-ra-ba-ni CUNES 48-02-021 IS3 iv dates d adad-tillati CUNES 49-15-060 IS3 vii dates and leather sacks d adad-tillati Table 3.18 Adallal’s receipt of miscellaneous goods Several texts are of particular interest in order to understand Adallal’s career as a m u h a l d i m in Garšana. CUNES 49-15-041 (ŠS7 v) appears to be a loan whereby Adallal received beer, the value of which was to be repaid following the harvest: 1. 1 dug dida-en 0;0,3,0 2. še-bi 0;1,0,0 3. ki dadad-tillati-ta 4. a-da-làl muhaldim (r.) 5. šu ba-ti 6. egir buru14 ge4-ge4-dè 7. (blank space) 8. iti ki-siki-dnin-a-zu 9. mu ma-da za-ab-ša-liki mu-hul Seal: a-da-làl / arad2 šu-kab-tá 1 jug of 30 liters ordinary d i d a2beer, its (equivalent) is 60 liters barley, from Adad-tillati, Adallal the cook received. After the harvest, it will be returned. Seal: Adallal, servant of Šu-Kabta. ŠS7 v -197- The expression g e4- g e4- d è, is not typically used in the Ur III period as a repayment clause for loans, though it does appear, e.g. in NRVN 1 185. In general, loans in the Ur III period are considered to be private, and on the surface, it appears unlikely that Adallal was acting in his capacity as an overseer of the Garšana é - m u h a l d i m in this transaction. However, most Ur III loans feature witnesses, and the commodity loaned is typically barley or silver.364 Moreover, most of our data about loans in the Ur III period come from Nippur and the SI.A-a and Turam-ili archives, and it is unclear if the observations made from those archives apply more broadly to the whole of southern Mesopotamia during this period. The lender in this transaction was Adad-tillati, the major domo of the Garšana estate. This may indicate that Adallal was, in fact, participating in this transaction as the overseer of the é - m u h a l d i m. Indeed, the amount of beer Adallal received in this loan was substantial, and, in fact, amounts to slightly more than the payment listed as special allotments given to builders for work performed on the brewery-kitchen-mill complex as noted above. The text in question does not specify why Adad-tillati loaned Adallal beer, but we can speculate that it may have been necessary to make up for the temporary inability of Adallal to adequately compensate builders or other craftsmen for work performed on the complex. Two texts – CUNES 49-15-049 (ŠS8 i) and CUNES 49-15-051 (ŠS8 vi) – make mention of the receipt of materials for use as fuel. CUNES 49-15-051 is particularly revealing: 1. 70 sa gi-NE 364 70 bundles of NE-reeds for For a discussion of Ur III loans, see S. Garfinkle, “Private Enterprise in Bablonia,” 54-98. -198- 2. ninda du8-dè 3. ki dadad-tillati-ta 4. a-da-làl (r.) 5. šu ba-ti 6. (blank space) 7. iti ezem-dnin-a-zu 8. mu má-gur8-mah den-líl dnin-líl-ra Seal: a-da-làl muhaldim / arad2 šu-kab-tá baking bread from Adad-tillati, Adallal received. Seal: Adallal the cook, servant of Šu-Kabta. ŠS8 vi In this text, Adallal received reeds to be used as fuel for baking bread. This use of reeds in association with the é - m u h a l d i m has already been shown above both in Girsu and Umma, and again suggests that Adalla received such goods in his capacity as an administrator within the brewery-kitchen-mill complex at Garšana. 3.2.2.1.3. Overseeing workers Two texts, 48-02-055 (ŠS8 viii) and CUNES 49-15-058 (IS3 i), document Adallal’s role in overseeing workers. In CUNES 48-02-055, for instance, we find: 1. 10 guru[š u4-. . .-šè ] 2. ugula simat-é-[a] 3. [munu4 n]a4(KUM)-á-dè366 4. [a]-da-+làl , [muhaldim]367 5. ì-d[ab5] 6. (blank space) (r.) 7. [kurum7] aka 10 workers (for . . . days), (under) the forewoman365 Simat-Ea, Adallal (the cook) took in charge to crush [malt] with a mortar. Inspected. ŠS8 viii 365 Note Simat-Ea’s seal, appearing on at least four texts, e.g. CUNES 50-04-002 (ŠS7 x): simaté-[a] / dumu-munus mi-[. . .]-ša?, “Simat-Ea, daughter of [. . . ].” 366 The restoration of this line is secure, cf., e.g. CUNES 49-15-427 (IS2 ii):1-2, where we read 15 g e m e2 u š - b a r u4 - 1 - š è m u n u4 n a  4 -  á - d è, “15 female weavers for one day to crush malt with a mortar.” In addition allowing for a secure restoration, this text is also useful in that it shows how workers can be shifted from their typical tasks– in this case weaving– to other tasks– here milling– during periods when, presumably, such tasks were in high demand. For this, see again N. Koslova, “Fluktuation der Arbeitskräfte im Umma der Ur III-Zeit,” and note the comments of Alexandra Kleinerman, “The Leather Industry at Garšana,” paper presented at the 52e Renctonre Assyriologique Internationale, Münster, July 17-21, 2006. 367 The tablet is poorly preserved at this point, but assuming a sign follows the final l à l, it is likely a smaller sign, e.g. m u h a l d i m, and not a larger sign or complex of signs. -199- 8. (blank space) 9. iti ezem-dšul-gi 10. mu ma-da za-ab-ša-liki mu-hul Here, Adallal took in his charge several workers from the work group under Simat-Ea. Though not explicitly stated, it is likely that Adallal was short-staffed and needed to call on extra workers to complete the tasks required of his office. Adallal is recorded as receiving grain as wages for millers in CUNES 49-15-054 (IS2 vi) and CUNES 49-15-055 (IS2 ix), shown here: 1. 1;0,0,0 še gur 2. á geme2-kikken2-šè 3. ki dadad-tillati-ta 4. a-d[a-l]àl (r.) 5. šu ba-ti 6. iti šu-eš-ša 7. mu en dinanna unuki-[ga] máš-e ì-pàd Seal: a-da-làl muhaldim / arad2 šu-kab-tá 1 gur barley, wages for miller women, from Adad-Tillati, Adallal received. Seal: Adallal the cook, servant of Šu-Kabta. IS2 ix Though it is possible to speculate that Adallal received these wages to pay millers working in the é - m u h a l d i m– either as a permanent part of its workforce, or as temporary workers seconded to the é - m u h a l d i m during a period in which it had high labor demands– it is also possible to hypothesize that Adallal’s role within the Garšana administration included responsibility not just for the é - m u h a l d i m, but at least to some extent for the entire brewery-kitchen-mill complex. This second option is favored given the close physical proximity between the é - m u h a l d i m and the é - k i k k e n2 in Garšana. 3.3.2.2.2. Da’a368 368 According to H. Limet, L’anthoponymie sumerienne, 105, the name Da’a, written d a - a - a in Garšana and elsewhere, e.g. NATN 872:4, RTC383:8, and so on, belongs to the class of so-called “noms «ésotériques»,” cf. section 1.3.2.1.3 above. -200- Like Adallal, Da’a is never explicitly associated with the é - m u h a l d i m at Garšana. Nevertheless, his position as a m u h a l d i m, coupled with the activities the texts record him performing, suggest that he worked within the brewery-kitchen-mill complex at Garšana. Da’a is not as well-attested as Adallal in the Garšana coprus, appearing in but six documents during the brief span of ŠS8 ro IS3. Nevertheless, these texts record Da’a as having performed many of the same activities as did Adallal, as well as those of m u h a l d i m at Girsu and Umma discussed above. For instance, in CUNES 49-15-153 (ŠS9 iv), he received clay pots: 1. 2 dugutul2(KAM) 0;0,1,0-ta 2. 1 dugutul2(KAM) 0;0,0,5 sila3 3. ki dadad-tillati-ta 4. da-a-a muhaldim (r.) 5. šu ba-ti 6. (blank space) 7. iti u5-bí-gu7 8. mu dšu-dEN.ZU lugal-e é-šara2-ummaki-ka mu-dù Seal: da-a-a muhaldim / dumu šu-ma-ma / arad2 šu-kab-tá 2 large bowls, 10 liters each, 1 5liter bowl from Adad-tillati, Da’a the cook received. Seal: Da’a the cook, son of Šu-mama, servant of Šu-Kabta. (ŠS9 iv) Similar transactions appear in CUNES 49-15-152 and CUNES 49-15-151. CUNES 50-09-002 (IS2 vii-xii) is a balanced account belonging to Da’a. The sixmonth account notes that Da’a disbursed over 900 liters of bread during the period in question, most of it going to the é - k i š i b3- b a, “storeroom.” Bread sent to the storeroom could then be quickly routed to other workers on the estate. 3.3.2.3.3. Other texts As noted above, CUNES 49-15-051 records that Adallal the m u h a l d i m received -201- reeds for the purpose of baking bread, an activity associated with m u h a l d i m and é m u h a l d i m elsewhere in the Ur III state. Other texts in the Garšana corpus note similar activities, though a connection with m u h a l d i m or é - m u h a l d i m is not explicitly stated. For instance, in CUNES 48-04-051:15-19, we find: (r.) 15. [. . .]+119 sa gi-NE 16. [ninda ba]-ra-du8 ù tu7 ba-ra-še6(NE) 17. [. . . ]+65 dugsila3-bur-zi 18. tu7 ba-a-šé(SI)369 19. an-ta-lú agrig maškim “[. . .] 119 bundles of NE-reeds for baki[ng bread] and cooking soup, [. . .] 65 1-liter offering bowls for cooking soup. Antalu the steward was the m a š k i m-official.” Here, several disbursements reeds are made for the preparation of bread and soup. The destination of the reeds is not stated, nor is the place where the bread and soup are to be made. Yet, given that other texts records the é - m u h a l d i m’s receipt of reeds for baking bread and ingredients for soup, we can speculate that in this instance the materials were similarly destined for the é - m u h a l d i m. 3.3.3. Conclusions The Garšana material adds much to our understanding of the é - m u h a l d i m in the Ur III period. Though hinted at in the Umma corpus, the physical nature of the é m u h a l d i m is made clear in Garšana. The worker inspection account texts discussed above show the activities associated with the construction of Garšana’s e - m u h a l d i m in some detail. Moreover, the fact that the Garšana é - m u h a l d i m was a physical structure makes unequivocal the argument that multiple production units existed in the Ur III state. 369 The term š é here is a shortened form of the value /še/, “to cook” (cf. line 16), as demonstrated by line 20-21 of this text, where we find the // auslaut resumed: 80 sa gi-NE k u6 š é -  e6d[è], “80 bundles of NE-reeds to cook fish,” see also A. Kleinerman and D. I. Owen, An Analytical Index, s.v. -202- In the earlier treatments of the data from Umma and Girsu, I noted a number of connections between the é - m u h a l d i m and other production units such as the é b a p p i r and é - k i k k e n2. The Garšana material above demonstrates that at least in some cases, those connections were significant, and went as far as having such units placed together as part of a larger grain-processing complex. This is not to suggest that Umma or Girsu boasted similar such complexes. Indeed, as I stressed in the introduction to this study, provincial centers probably all employed different administrative systems and institutions, based, no doubt, on practices that went back long before the creation of the Ur III state. Nevertheless, the evidence from Umma, Girsu, and Garšana demonstrates that the logical connection between milling, brewing, and cooking were not lost on Ur III society, and that physical proximity and administrative connections between activities doubtlessly served to facilitiate on another. The two attested m u h a l d i m at Garšana, Adallal and Da’a, are, unfortunately, hard to link directly to its é - m u h a l d i m. Nevertheless, their activities make it clear that they were, in fact, officials associated with it. For instance, both Adallal and Da’a were involved in the production and distribution of bread. Moreover, some of Adallal’s activities, such as overseeing the distribution of wages to millers, as shown in CUNES discussed 49-15-055 above, highlight Adallal’s administrative role in the é - m u h a l d i m at Garšana. All of these activities conform in large part to what is known of people bearing the occupational title m u h a l d i m elsewhere in the Ur III corpus. -203- 3.4. Other sites In addition to the main corpora of Drehem, Girsu, Umma, and Garšana, m u h a l d i m occasionally appear in the tablets from other Ur III sites. The few references in the Nippur corpus were discussed in section 2.1above. In addition, a few references appear in the material from Adab, and from the capital city of Ur.370 3.4.1 Adab Adab, modern Bismaya, is located in the central part of the Ur III state, approximately 40 km NW from Umma, 35 km SE of Nippur and 30 km E of Isin. It was identified by Edgar Banks, who carried out excavations of the site in 1903-04.371 A number of tablets and other inscribed objects have been recovered from the site, most of which date to the Sargonic period.372 Only a few administrative documents from the Ur III period are thus far known, the bulk of which appear in David I. Owen’s publication of the John Frederick Lewis Collection in the Free Library of Philadelphia.373 370 Searches through the corpora of such sites as Ešnunna and Uruk, as well as through the SI.A-a and Turam-ili material, yielded no occurrences of the terms m u h a l d i m or é - m u h a l d i m. Similarly, neither of these terms appears in the Uru-sarig material made available to me by David I. Owen and to appear in his forthcoming Unprovenanced Texts Primarily from Iri-sarig/}l-šarr~k§. 371 For more on the excavations, see also Yang Zhi, “The Excavation of Adab,” JAC 3 (1988): 123. A preliminary presentation of some of the unpublished Banks material was made available by Karen L. Wilson, “Edgar J. Banks and the University of Chicago Expedition to Bismaya 1903-05: A Reappraisal” (paper presented at the 216th meeting of the American Oriental Society, Seattle, WA, March 17-20, 2006). 372 Most of these appear in Daniel D. Luckenbill, Inscriptions from Adab, OIP 14 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930), and Yang Zhi, Sargonic Inscriptions from Adab (Changchun: IHAC, 1989). 373 David I. Owen, The John Frederick Lewis Collection, MVN 3 (Rome: Multigrafica Editrice, 1975). For more on the Ur III material from Adab, see Sallaberger, “Ur III-Zeit,” 208 and Magnus Widell, “A Previously Unpublished Lawsuit from Ur III Adab,” CDLJ 2002: 2. According to K. Wilson, “Edgar J. Banks and the University of Chicago Expedition to Bismaya,” perhaps as many as 500 Ur III texts from Adab remain unpublished in the Oriental Institute. -204- Adab was the capital of its own province during this period, as evidenced by the fact that several provincial governors (e n s i2) are attested for it.374 The records from Drehem frequently record b a l a payments made by Adab’s governors.375 Unfortunately, little else is known about Adab during the Ur III period. 3.4.1.1. The m u h a l d i m and é - m u h a l d i m in Adab Province Given the small size of the published corpus, it is perhaps not surprising that there is no reference to the é - m u h a l d i m in the Adab material. However, three texts in the Adab corpus do detail the activities of m u h a l d i m. In MVN 3 250 (Š38 14), we find: 1. 6;4,0,0 zì-kum 2. ù zì KAL gur 3. dub muhaldim-e-ne 2040 liters z i k u m and KALflour, (according to) the tablet of cooks. From Ezitum,376 374 The earliest attested e n s i2 of Adab is one Ur-Ašgi, who appears in dedicatory seals in MVN 3 166 and 174, both dated to Š39. However, his son, Habaluge, appears already in Š38 (MVN 17 35). As has already been suggested by David I. Owen, The John Frederick Lewis Collection, 32 fn. 32, this discrepancy can be explained if we assume that Habaluge came to power in Adab in, or shortly before Š38, but that people used seals dedicated to Ur-Ašgi, even after his son Habaluge succeeded him. Habaluge is attested at least until ŠS5, though he may, in fact, have ruled longer. That Ur-Ašgi was the father of Habaluge can be confirmed by AUCT 3 31 (ŠS7 x) and BE 3/1 13 (ŠS8 ii). The former, from Drehem, records the expenditure of a lamb for one Lu-Utu, called š e š e n s i2 a d a bk i, or “brother of the governor of Adab.” The seal impression on this text, also belonging to Lu-Utu, is dedicated to Habaluge. The latter text, likely from Drehem, includes the impression of a different seal of Lu-Utu, which reads, in part l u - du t u / d u m u u r - d a ša š7- g i4 / e n s i2 / a d a bk i, “Lu-Utu, son of UrAšgi, governor of Adab.” As Lu-Utu was the son of Ur-Ašgi and brother of Habaluge, then so, too must Habaluge have been the son of Ur-Ašgi. Finally, it is unclear if the e n s i2 a d a bk i in BE 3/1 13 refers to Ur-Ašgi or to Lu-Utu. Thus, it is possible that by ŠS8, Lu-Utu has succeeded his brother as e n s i2 of Adab. Fratrilineal succession, of course, is not uncommon in the Ur III period, as discussed in J. Dahl, The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma. Alternatively, of course, Lu-Utu may simply have been using a seal indicating that he was, in fact, the son of the e n s i2. 375 E.g. MVN 5 112 (AS5 ii 30), PDT 1 483 (AS1 v), etc. 376 As is frequently the case in the Adab texts, the scribe has omitted the final -ta from the expected k i . . . - t a formula in the k i PN1- t a / PN2 š u b a - t i clause, cf. MVN 3 184, 211, etc. The omission is not universal in the Adab texts, however, cf. MVN 3 188. The meaning of name Ezitum – almost certainly a Semitic name – escapes me. It is perhaps a feminine form of the Akkadian ezzu, “anger, fury” often used as an epithet of gods, cf. CAD E s.v. However, to my knowledge this word is never used in Akkadian PNs. -205- 4. ki e-zi-tum 5. amar-šuba3(MÙŠ.ZA)377 šu ba-t[i] (r.) 6. šà pu-úski 7. u4 14-kam 8. mu ús-sa bà[d] ba-dù Seal: ha-ba-lu5-gé / ensi2 adabki / amar-šuba3 / dub-sar IR11.ZU Amar-Šuba received in Puš. Seal: Habaluge, governor of Adab, Amar-Šuba the scribe is his (?) servant. Š38 14 Here, two different types of flour are received by one Amar-Šuba, a transaction which, according to the tablet, took place in the city of Puš. The mention in the third line of the text of the “tablet of m u h a l d i m’s” (d u b m u h a l d i m - e - n e) likely refers to a letterorder requesting the flour.378 A similar text is MVN 3 166 (Š39 viii379), in which one Ur377 The name Amar-Šuba is, to my knowledge, unique to Adab. The Sumerian š u b a3 is a type of stone. However, as Joan Westenholz, “Metaphorical Language in the Poetry of Love in the Ancient Near East,” in La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien, RAI 38, eds. Dominique Charpin and Francis Joannès (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1992), 381-87, 385, notes, “its mineralogical identification is unknown, and its meaning controversial.” In a few cases, e.g. MVN 3 369 below, the š u b a3 in the PN is deified, perhaps linking it with the Adab month name e z e m - dš u b a3- n u n - n a. Šuba-nunna was local Adab goddess, apparently a daughter of Iškur, cf. M. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars, 203. The name Amar-Šuba, then, could include a hypocristic of this deity. 378 That so-called š u b a - t i texts are often drawn up as proof of receipt of items requested via a letter-order, see David I. Owen, “A Unique Ur III Letter-Order in the University of North Carolina,” JCS 24 no. 4 (1972): 133-34, where he discusses a š u b a - t i text that is wrapped as an envelope around a letter-order. This suggests a direct relationship between the order and the receipt. 379 The order of the Adab calendar in the Ur III period is unclear. D. I. Owen, The John Frederick Lewis Collection, 17, proposed: iá-ki-ti iii  á - u d u - u r4 vii e z e m - dš u b a3 (MÙŠ.ZA)- n u n - n a (read by Owen as dš u b i - n u n - n a) viii e z e m - dn i n - m u g xi š u -  a r with the month e z e m - dš u l - g i unplaced. To this, we can also add a month e z e m - m a h (cf. MVN 13 26), níg-den-líl-lá (cf. MVN 13 886) and e z e m - a n - n a (cf. MVN 3 369; for the argument that this is an Adab text, see beow). In his discussion of Ur III months names from Adab, however, M. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 2025, suggested a different order based on the older Sargonic calendar, placing, for instance, the month á-kiti as month iv. Noting that in MVN 13 895, the span of time from e z e m - dn i n - m u g to á - k i - t i was 6 months, he placed the former as month xi. With such a small body of texts, it is difficult to get an accurate picture of the Adab system. This is particularly the case when one considers that royal edicts and calendrical corrections often changed the calendar, adding, deleting, or otherwise altering months either -206- Pamura received 180 liters of zikum flour, and 660 liters of various other types of flour. More revealing is MVN 3 369380: 1. 1;0,0,0 zì ù bu-úh-ru-um gur 300 liters flour and buhrum381 2. dub ur-pa4-mu-ra (according to) the tablet of Ur3. 0;3,0,0 dub zu-ga-ni Pamura; 180 liters (according to) 4. 0;1,0,0 dub i-l[a]-a the tablet of Zugani; 60 liters 5. 0;1,0,0 dub lú-ulu3 (according to) the tablet of Ila’a; 6. 0;1,0,0 dub kal-lí-a 60 liters (according to) the tablet 7. dub muhaldim-e-ne of Lu-ulu; 60 liters (according to) (r.) 8. ki lú-na the tablet of Kalia; (these are (?)) d 9. amar- šuba3 šu ba-ti the tablet(s) of cooks. From Lu-na, 10. iti ezem-an-na Amar-Šuba received. Seal: ki Seal: ha-ba-lu5-gé / ensi2 adab / amar-šuba3 / Habaluge, governor of Adab, dub-sar IR11.ZU Amar-Šuba the scribe is his (?) servant. This text relates that Amar-Šuba– the same recipient as in MVN 3 250 above– received a large amount of flour and buhrum as requested by several individuals, whose requests (d u b) are summarized as “requests of m u h a l d i m’s”.382 The Ur-Pamura noted in line two is almost certainly the same who received flour in MVN 3 166 discussed above. 3.4.1.1.2. The m u h a l d i m l u g a l in Adab Province In addition to m u h a l d i m in Adab, at least one text demonstrates that muhaldim on a temporary or permanent basis. Thus the assignment here of this text to month viii is tentative, at best. 380 This is listed among the Drehem texts in MVN 3, no doubt because of the month name. However, the content of the text, as well as the PNs listed, strongly suggests that it indeed belongs to the Adab corpus, and not that of Drehem. However, it is at present unclear where to fit this month in the Adab calendar. 381 According to CAB B s.v. buhru, this term, translated as “(a hot dish prepared with cereals),” is attested almost exclusively in SB. However, in a Forerunner to Hh, it is also attested as a type of millstone, ostensibly for grinding certain grains or for grinding grains in a particular way. Though not otherwise attested in the published Ur III corpus, the eventual publication of the Ur III Adab tablets housed in Chicago may reveal it to have been more common than currently thought. 382 The d u b here almost certainly refers to letter orders. -207- lugal also worked there. In Text 2 of this study (CUNES 49-13-043)383, we find: 1. 32;0,0,0 še gur 2. sa10 gi-šè 3. kišib ur-é-mah 4. tùm-dam (r.) 5. [. . .] 6. [. . .] 7. [mu . . .] +ì,-pàd Seal: èr-ra-ma-lik / dumu zu-ga-ni / muhaldim lugal 9,600 liters of barley for the purchase of reeds. Sealed by Ur-Emah, it will be brought. [. . .] Seal: Erra-malik, son of Zugani, royal cook. [Date broken] Here, a large amount of barley is to be used for the purchase of reeds. But while the tablet indicates that it was sealed by Ur-Emah, the actual seal impression belongs to one Erramalik, son of Zugani, a m u h a l d i m l u g a l. It is interesting to note that Zugani appears among the m u h a l d i m listed in MVN 3 369 discussed above. With only a small corpus of Adab tablets available, it is impossible to say for certain if the Zugani listed among m u h a l d i m in MVN 3 369 is the same as the father of Erra-malik the m u h a l d i m l u g a l. In either case, the fact that Erra-malik’s father bears a name found only in Adab suggests that he and his family had long ties to the city. Though he was a m u h a l d i m l u g a l and served under the authority of the crown, he was nevertheless an individual with local ties, and not a transplant from the capitals of Ur and Uruk. This is similar to the evidence of m u h a l d i m l u g a l in, for example, the Girsu corpus. 3.4.1.2. Conclusions 383 My thanks for David I. Owen, curator of the tablet collection of the Department of Near Eastern Studies at Cornell University, for permission to present here this tablet from the Cornell University’s collection. Note that though the month name of this tablet is not preserved, its provenance is almost certainly Adab; the PN Zugani is attested exclusively at Adab. A copy of this tablet is presented in the appendix below. -208- Though none of the texts from Adab mention the é - m u h a l d i m, it is almost certain that Adab province, like, for instance, the provinces of Lagaš and Umma, had an é m u h a l d i m. As I have argued above, the evidence from Girsu and Umma suggests that the provincial authority had control over its own é - m u h a l d i m. Thus, if, as seems likely, Adab province had an é - m u h a l d i m, then it was also likely that it was run by the local provincial authorities. But while the Adab corpus provides no direct information regarding its é m u h a l d i m, it does shed light on individuals bearing the professional title m u h a l d i m. As with the m u h a l d i m from Girsu and Umma, the m u h a l d i m in Adab received processed grain. In MVN 3 166, it appears that the grain came directly from the mill. Though the texts do not indicate as much, it is certain that this processed grain was used to make bread and, perhaps, beer. 3.4.2. Ur Ur, modern Tell Muqayyar, was located along the Euphrates some 55 km SE of Uruk and ca. 65 km due south of Girsu in Sumer’s deep south. The site features a long occupational history, extending back as far as the Ubaid period, when its size may have reached 10 ha, to the Neo-Babylonian period. In the Ur III period, during which time the city served as the primary seat of power, the site covered an area of ca. 50 ha. Ur was first investigated by J. E. Taylor in the late 1850's. Several brief excavations were subsequently carried out, including ones by the University of Pennsylvania, and by R. Campbell Thompson. The most extensive excavations, however, were carried out by -209- Leonard Woolley beginning in 1922 and lasting through 1934.384 3.4.2.1. The corpus Almost all the Ur material presently available was recovered from Woolley’s excavations, and are housed in the British Museum in London, and the University of Pennsylvania’s University Museum. Most of these– just over 3,100 tablets– appear in L. Legrain’s UET 3 and Darlene Loding’s UET 9. The Ur corpus spans from Š24 all the way to the last years of Ibbi-Sin’s reign (cf. UET 3 711, dated to IS24 xii 22). These tablets shed light on a number of important parts of the city’s economy, such as textile and craft production.385 3.4.2.2. The m u h a l d i m and é - m u h a l d i m in Ur As with Adab above, the available evidence from the Ur corpus makes no mention of the é - m u h a l d i m. Moreover, only two Ur texts known to me mention m u h a l d i m. In MVN 2 267 (ix), we find: 1. 1;0,0,0 šim sig5 gur 2. ki ur-bàd-dúr-ra-ta 3. ur-dig-alim (r.) 4. šu ba-ti 5. iti šu-eš-ša Seal: ur-d-ig-alim / dumu ur-dlama / lú-muhaldim386 300 liters quality aromatics from Ur-badura, Ur-Igalim received. Seal: Ur-Igalim, son of Ur-Lama, the cook. ix 384 A general survey of the site along with extensive bibliography is presented in Susan Pollock’s entry in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology, s.v. Ur. 385 See, for now, the list put together in Magnus Widell, The Administrative and Economic Ur III Texts from the City of Ur (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2003), 9-36. 386 While the appearance of the occupational title m u h a l d i m is not uncommon on Ur III seals, the phraseology l ú - m u h a l d i m in this context is otherwise unattested. Indeed, as noted above, most Sumerian occupational titles do not include a l ú prefix. Of course, some terms, such as a š g a b, “leatherworker,” while typically written without l ú, do, on occasion, appear with it, cf. SAT 2 208:4 -210- This text documents the receipt of beer malt by Ur-Igalim. His seal indicates that he was a m u h a l d i m. The second text, UET 3 950 (IS1 i), shows a muhaldim possibly in possession of an unclear amount of grain that was part of a confiscated estate. The confiscation of property by the royal administration has been discussed at length by Kazuya Maekawa.387 However, in this particular text the role of Nur-Eštar m u h a l d i m is unclear. It seems very unlikely that Nur-Eštar was, along with a small amount of barley, the property of Tahišatal to be confiscated. It is possible that Tahišatal’s grain was in the possession of Nur-Eštar, perhaps in Nippur. 3.4.2.3. Conclusions Given the size of the Ur corpus, the lack of any reference to the é - m u h a l d i m is somewhat surprising. Certainly the much larger corpora of Drehem, Girsu, and Umma reference the é - m u h a l d i m, as does the smaller corpus of Garšana. The Nippur corpus, only slightly smaller than that of Ur, also mentions the é - m u h a l d i m, though only rarely. While curious, this lack of attestations for the term é - m u h a l d i m in the Ur corpus is most likely a result of the accident of discovery; the future recovery of tablets from the site may well include documents that mention the é - m u h a l d i m. Alternatively, the fact that Ur was directly controlled by the crown and not run by a provincial authority may have resulted in a different administrative organization than that of provincial centers such as (AS4). 387 Kazuya Maekawa, “Confiscation of Private Properties in the Ur III Period: A Study of é d u l - l a and n í g-GA,” ASJ 18 (1996):103-68. -211- Girsu or Umma. The people labeled with the professional title m u h a l d i m in Ur, though only sparsely attested, engage in activities similar to those of m u h a l d i m’s from other cities. For instance, in MVN 2 267, Ur-Igialim, a m u h a l d i m according to his seal, received aromatics (š i m), likely to be used in baking beer bread or perhaps for brewing beer itself.388 In UET 3 950, a m u h a l d i m is associated with barley, though the exact context is unclear. 388 Cf. M. Civil, “A Hymn to the Beer Goddess,” 77. -212- CHAPTER 4 Conclusions 4. Production units and the Ur III administration redux In the preceeding pages, I have investigated but one example of the administrative and organizational phenomenon which I termed the production unit. In the introduction to this study, I argued that the Ur III state constructed such units – or, in most cases more likely expanded pre-existing ones – in order to more efficiently manage a growing influx of raw materials. This resulted from both the implementation of a comprehensive tax on the state’s core provinces, as well as the imposition of taxes paid by military officials occupying conquered territories to the north and east of the Ur III state. These production units, in turn, processed such materials into finished goods for use or consumption largely by members of the royal family, provincial administrators, and other members of the upper echelons of Ur III society. The é - m u h a l d i m was chosen as the focus of this study as it is one of the bestattested production units in the entire Ur III period. Nearly 1,600 tablets from the sites of Drehem, Umma, Girsu, Garšana, and Nippur mention the é - m u h a l d i m, providing a wealth of material from which to construct a model of production units in the Ur III period. Based largely on the work of Piotr Steinkeller, I posited a bilateral system of production unit administration. On the one hand, the state ran some production units. However, other production units, engaged in the same or similar activities, were administred by the provinces. An example of the former comes from the Drehem corpus, discussed in section 2.2 Examples of the latter come from the texts from Girsu and Umma, -213- discussed in sections 3.1 and 3.2. While it is tempting to speculate that the scant material from Nippur also indicates a provincially run é - m u h a l d i m, the data are at the moment, unclear. The case of Garšana (section 3.3) presents a small-scale application of this model to a rural estate. The Garšana corpus provides data for an é - m u h a l d i m, as well as for production units devoted to work on brewing, milling, textile production, leather production, and so on. These references clearly refer to local units at Garšana and the goods produced appear to have been for local consumption. It is clear that the Garšana estate had little to do with the administration at Umma, the capital of the province in which Garšana was certainly situated. Moreover, it is difficult to find evidence of direct state control at Garšana. Šu-Kabta, who ran the estate, was a general, and therefore was a representative of the crown. Moreover, by virtue of his presumed marriage to the princess Simat-Ištaran, Šu-Kabta was himself a member of the royal family. In light of this, it is tempting to speculate that the Garšana é - m u h a l d i m represents yet another example of an é - m u h a l d i m under royal authority. However, there are a number of references in the Garšana corpus to commodities qualified as n í g g ú - n a, a type of tax.389 The appearance of this term suggests that Garšana was not directly run by the state. Thus, the available archives from Garšana appear to represent an administration run by an authority distinct from both the state and the 389 For example, in CUNES 48-09-013:(r.)37 is found 17  u r u š n í  g ú - n a  á -  á é - d a n a - š è  e n - n a, “17 workmen, having gone to Edana to deposit the ‘commodity tax.’” If we assume that the Edana mentioned here is simply the local term for Puzriš-Dagan as suggested by P. Steinkeller, “New Light on the Hydrology,” 55-65, then this is an example of the Garšana estate paying taxes to the state. ki -214- province. If other large estates like Garšana existed in the Ur III period, then we can posit that they, too, had production units which represented a third type of administration. However, until further work is done on the Garšana archives, such suggestions must remain pure speculation. 4.1. What did the é - m u h a l d i m do? The examination of the data presented in this study gives two pictures for the activities of the é - m u h a l d i m. On the one hand, the evidence from provincial centers such as Girsu and Umma demonstrate the receipt of a wide array of commodities by the é - m u h a l d i m. These included mostly milled grains, but also dates, sesame oil, and spices and condiments. Documents from the provincial centers only rarely note the receipt of animals on the hoof. In addition to foodstuffs, the data show that the é - m u h a l d i m also received many non-comestible items, as well. The receipt of clay jars, for instance, was not uncommon, and were used for the storage or transport of goods. The Umma corpus, in particular, indicates the receipt of items such as reed baskets, as well as reeds used in the contruction or repair of its é - m u h a l d i m, and for use as fuel for baking bread. In contrast to the provincial centers, the Drehem texts document exclusively the expenditure of animals from the central administration to the é - m u h a l d i m. Missing are references to other comestibles such as grain, dates, spices, or oil, as well as noncomestibles such as pots or reeds. We can imagine that the Drehem é - m u h a l d i m received such items, however. The fact that we do not have them is simply a result of the accident of discovery; elswhere on the site were certainly other receiving bureaus charged -215- with collecting and expending the items listed above. Because the texts occasionally note that, for example, reeds received were to be used in the baking of bread, it is clear that the principle function of the é - m u h a l d i m was to prepare food. Unfortunately, aside from a few scant references, extensive detail as to what and how much was prepared is lacking. Such constraints are due in part because of the nature of the available cuneiform record (section 1.3). 4.2. Who was associated with the é - m u h a l d i m? Much of our knowledge about the é - m u h a l d i m in the Ur III period comes not from documents mentioning the é - m u h a l d i m, but from the people associated with it. Most often, such people bore the occupational title m u h a l d i m. This was not always the case, however, and people associated with activities such as pottery manufacture and reed work are also seen. A few summary account texts for m u h a l d i m survive in the cuneiform record. The frequent mention of grain and bread certainly strengthens the notion that one of the main activities of the é - m u h a l d i m was bread production. However, other activities of the m u h a l d i m are not as well documented. Indeed, when reviewing the data, one gets the impression that while the m u h a l d i m did have some involvement with cooking, they appear to have had a more administrative role. Throughout this study, I have generally refrained from translating the term m u h a l d i m.390 The conventional translation, “cook,” in English, at least, imparts a 390 The exception being in the text translations where, for concerns of space and formatting, the conventional translation of “cook” is used. See p. 5 above. -216- meaning more associated with the actual act of food preparation. The administrative documents from the Ur III period, however, suggest nothing of the sort. Instead, the texts describe a person in charge of the day-to-day administrative needs of the kitchen: taking charge of workers, receiving raw materials such as grain, and so on. A more appropriate translation might be the English “chef,” for which the Oxford English Dictionary offers “the man who presides over the kitchen of a large household; a head cook.”391 Even with this term, however, there is some hint at the act of cooking, so perhaps the more specific (but decidedly more cumbersome) “kitchen administrator” is to be preferred. 4.3. What was the é - m u h a l d i m? Ultimately, the above investigation must at least attempt to address the question of what the é - m u h a l d i m actually was. In the introduction to this study, I noted that the term é - m u h a l d i m literally meant “house of the cook,” but was typically translated “kitchen.” However, as with the Sumerian m u h a l d i m mentioned above, I have generally refrained from translating the term. The English “kitchen” generally indicates a place of small-scale food production. A review of the data in this study suggests that the é - m u h a l d i m was certainly not smallscale. However, even if we qualify “kitchen” with words such as “large-scale” or “indistrial,” we fail to acknowledge what appears to have been an additional role of the é m u h a l d i m. Indeed, it appears likely that in addition to preparing food, the é - m u h a l d i m was also charged with serving food for large numbers of people. While some types of bread 391 Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. -217- can remain edible for days, prepared comestibles such as meats and soups almost certainly had to be consumed immediately or risk going rancid. Moreover, anachronisms aside, the logistics in attempting to cater prepared meals even on a small, local scale, renders untenable such suggestions. Thus, we must posit that the é - m u h a l d i m included some sort of dining facility, as well. If we accept the above interpretation, however, we must ask for whom the é m u h a l d i m was providing. Above, I suggested that the é - m u h a l d i m at Drehem supplied local officials and administrators, work gangs, and royal messengers, foreign enoys, guards, and henchmen with meals (section 2.2.3.1.1). This was due in large part to the fact that many such individuals were at Drehem only on a temporary basis. As such, rations doled out to these workers as unprocessed barley would have been of little use. More often, however, elites had their own means of procuring meals. The king certainly had palaces in which he, his family, and other elites dined, and local governors had provincial residences and the like. In light of this, on the surface, it is difficult to imagine why a provincial é - m u h a l d i m was needed in Umma or Girsu at all. Data from Umma show that its é - m u h a l d i m often received items qualified as š à b a l a - a, that is, marked against the province’s royal obligations. As I argued above, if the é - m u h a l d i m was preparing largely perishable foods, then those foods had to have been consumed in short order and thus in the province. Indeed, it seems likely that they were consumed in or around the é - m u h a l d i m itself. On at least some occasions, the cost of food preparation was billed out against the province’s obligations to the state, and it is likely that such food was intended for state -218- officials. A number of texts document the travels of the king, and it is not unreasonable to posit that he and his entourage frequently moved about the state’s major provinces.392 In addition, royal messengers, overseers, guards, and others, certainly travelled extensively delivering and collecting news, resolving disputes, and the like. Indeed, while the so-called messenger-texts so common in the Ur III corpus have received little treatment thus far, they nevertheless indicate that messengers did travel within and without the Ur III state, and that they were provisioned.393 Foreign dignitaries, too, must have occasionally stopped at major provincial centers on their way to the royal court. It was likely that provinces were charged with caring for such individuals as they were on their missions, and could then subtract such expenses from their b a l a-obligations. One possible example for this may come from the messenger texts from Uru-sarig. For instance, Text 3 of this study, dated to AS5 and to appear in David I. Owen’s forthcoming Unprovenanced Texts from Irisarig/}lsarr~k§ gives:394 1. 2 sila3 tu7 2 ku6 2. šu-ku-bu-um lú-kin-gi4-a lugal 3. 2 sila3 tu7 2 ku6 4. i-na-ah-ilum lú-kin-gi4-a lugal 5.u4 erin2 udu ud5 zi-zi-dè im-e-re-ša-a 6. 2 sila3 tu7 2 ku6 2 liters of soup, 2 fish (for) Šukubum, the royal envoy, 2 liters soup, 2 fish (for) Inah-ilum, the royal envoy, when the gang went to remove the sheep and nanny goats. 2 liters soup, 2 fish (for) 392 To cite but two examples, Ontario 1 148 (ŠS1 iii 19) documents a royal visit to Uru-sarig, while AUCT 1 890 (AS8 vii 15) documents a visit to Nippur. 393 The most significant study thus far remains Robert C. McNeil’s unpublished “The ‘Messenger Texts’ of the Third Ur Dynasty” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1970). The difficulty in understanding these texts nevertheless remains, as expressed in the comments of Tonia Sharlach, review of Umma Messenger Texts in the British Musem, Part 1, NSCAM 1, by F. D’Agostino and F. Pomponio, JAOS 124 no. 4 (2003): 867-69. 394 My thanks to David I. Owen for sharing this tablet with me and allowing its presentation here in advance of his publication. -219- 7. ma-šum lú-kin-gi4-a lugal 8. u4 a-šà-nigin-ne im-en-na-a (r.) 9. 1 sila3 tu7 1 ku6 10. ur-dšul-pa-è lú-kin-gi4-a lugal 11. u4 maškim lú-di-da-ka-šè im-en-na-a 12. 1 sila3 t[u7 1] ku6 13. [. . .]-x-sa-re lú-kin-gi4-a lugal 14. [u4 . . . GN]ki-ta 15. [ki lugal-šè b]a-en-na-a 16. [iti ezem-li9]-si4 17. [mu en-unu6-ga]l-[dinanna-b]a-[hu] Side: u4 30-kam Mašum the royal envoy, when he went around the fields.395 1 liter soup, 1 fish (for) Ur-Šulpae the royal envoy, when he went to the m a š k i m-official of the man of the lawsuit. 1 liter soup, 1 fish for [. . .]-sare the royal envoy, when he went from [GN] to the place of the king. AS5 ? 30.396 This texts lists not only the names of the royal envoys, but the nature of their mission. While on their mission, the envoys were provisioned with soup and fish, items that likely would have spoiled unless consumed soon after preparation. As the records from Girsu indicate, the size of the workforce of a provincial é m u h a l d i m does not appear to have been large. This is in line with the role just described for such an é - m u h a l d i m. Indeed, it is likely that on some days it had few, if any obligations. Similarly, we can imagine that while the Garšana estate certainly supported temporary workers during construction projects, it only rarely hosted important dignitaries. Because some of Adalla’s receipts note significant amounts of semolina and flour, then it follows that the workforces of the é - m u h a l d i m of the provinces or of large rural estates could be quite large. To return to the problem raised at the beginning of this section, if the translation “kitchen” is unsatisfactory for the term é - m u h a l d i m, then what is? As I have just 395 This most likely refers to surveying or otherwise recording data about fields. 396 The proper order of the month names for Uru-sarig has not been secured. -220- argued, there was clearly a dining component to the é - m u h a l d i m, rendering adjectives such as “industrial” or “large-scale” insufficient when talking about the é - m u h a l d i m as a kitchen. It may be possible to speak of the é - m u h a l d i m as a “mess” or “mess hall,” following the definition of the Oxford English Dictionary, “the place where meals are taken by [a military unit or ship’s company]; a place where personnel, esp. of similar rank regularly eat or take recreation together (also occas. in non-military contexts).”397 This definition is not entirely satisfactory either, and I might tentatively suggest “commissary” or “commissariate” defined as a “department of the military service which is charged with the duty of providing food and other supplies for the army,” and, by extention, “any nonmilitary department or organization for the supply of provisions,” as a viable translation. However, we may ultimately concede that on some occasions there is no modern term that can adequately serve to convey the meanings of a particular ancient one. 4.4 Final remarks In some ways, this investigation has opened up more questions than it has resolved. In the introduction, I posited a general model for how raw materials were manufactured into finished goods and distributed to their ultimate destinations. This model was based largely on a single production unit, however, and it remains to be seen if other such units in the Ur III period conform to this model or not. Moreover, there are some aspects of the é - m u h a l d i m and m u h a l d i m which remain elusive. We can hope that in time, as more material becomes available, some of those aspects will be resolved, or at least clarified to a greater degree. We can also hope 397 Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. -221- that at some point in the near future, stability will return to Iraq– the modern state that sits atop the ruins of Mesopotamia. Then, perhaps, archaeological data can be incorperated into this investigation. Until then, however, this treatment can serve as a starting point for a better understanding of the é - m u h a l d i m in particular and for the administration of production in the Ur III period in general. -222- EXCURSUS The MU-sign and the word m u h a l d i m 5. The Graphic Representation of the MU-sign The MU-sign is attested in the earliest examples of writing from the Uruk IV period. However, from the corpus of approximately 5,000 archaic texts and fragments the MU-sign appears rather infrequently.398 Graphically the sign appears to represent a stalk of grain or some other similar form of vegetation. In the later periods the sign is usually depicted as a horizontal line which sometimes widens towards the right. However, in the Uruk period, it was oriented 90o clockwise, so the horizontal line is a vertical line widening at the bottom. (For examples of the sign from from various periods, see Figure 5.2 below.) The sign is flanked on the top by a pair of strokes that move diagonally down and to the right, eventually meeting the central horizontal line. This pair is mirrored by a similar pair below the central line. In the Fara period, the sign undergoes only small changes and remains largely similar to the earlier form. The Presargonic form of the sign again remains similar, though it was simplified somewhat: the horizontal line is now clearly a single stroke of the stylus, and two short diagonal strokes– one each on the top and bottom of the horizontal stroke– are clearly positioned on the right end of the sign, remnants of the original increased width of that end in the archaic examples. The Sargonic form of the sign closely resembles the Presargonic 398 ZATU no. 363, where only 22 attestations are listed among the administrative corpus of archaic texts. This number is likely smaller, as a number of the instances of the MU-sign are dubious, e.g. W 9655ac (ATU 5, p. 92 and pl. 82) and W 9656fv (ATU 5, p. 102 and pl. 109). -223- form. In the Ur III period the right-most strokes tend to flair out less than in earlier forms, but the shape is otherwise similar to the earlier Presargonic and Sargonic forms. Note that Miguel Civil has suggested that at least in early Ur III Girsu, scribes attempted to distinguish between the MU-sign when it had the phonetic value /mu/, and when it had the phonetic value /u/. More specifically, while the former was drawn up as the conventional Ur III MU-sign, the latter was missing the two left-most bottom strokes. However, the scribes were not uniform in making the distinction, and this experiment appears to have been short lived. An example is shown in Figure 5.1 on the following page: -224- Figure 5.1: Examples of scribal distinction between /mu/ (highlighted with a dotted line) and /u/ (highlighted with solid lines)399 The shape of the MU-sign only begins to noticeably change in the later NeoAssyrian and Neo-Babylonian scripts, when the diagonal strokes of the sign gradually shift towards the right of the horizontal, ultimately resembling the Neo-Assyrian ŠE-sign with an added horizontal stroke meeting it on the left. 399 Example is from MVN 10 124. -225- a. c. b. d. e. f. Figure 5.2. Examples of the MU-sign from the Uruk through the NB periods.400 5.1. The Values of the MU-sign 400 Example a (Uruk IV) is taken from ATU 3, Zeichenglassar s.v. MU. The sign has also been rotated to show it in its original orintation; b (ED IIIb) from RSP no. 438; c (Ur III) from OIP 121 543 (r.); d (OB), e (NA), and f (NB) from MEA no. 61. Note that in example c, a Drehem text from the Ur III period, there is no distinction between the two MU-signs even though the first sign (highlighted with the solid line) has the phonetic value /u/, and the second (highlighted with the dotted line) has the value /mu/. -226- As noted above, the sign itself appears to have represented a type of grain or other vegetation. In her Presargonic sign list, Yvonne Rosengarten grouped the MU-sign among those signs “représentant les feuilles d’un végétal, comprenant ce motif ou un motif leur ressemblant.”401 Other signs that she grouped in this category include the sign TAH U (written as M MU), as well as the signs ŠE, TIR, and TUD, among others. The key characteristic shared by all these signs is the flourish of intersecting diagonal wedges appearing at the start (e.g. TIR, SAR, LI) or end (e.g. GI, GI4) of the sign. In many cases, the above signs grouped together by Rosengarten do, in fact, carry a meaning related to grain or vegetation. For instance, the ŠE-sign, with the value š e, meaning “grain” or “barley.” Similarly the Sumerian t i r means “forest”, while g i means “reed.” However, despite the resemblance of the MU-sign to a type of vegetation, the only evidence that the MU-sign ever referred to such a thing is in the small archaic fragment W 24008,9, where it is followed in the next case by U2b A (U2 in Sumerian can mean “grass”).402 It is tempting to read the sequence GALa +MU, in the large archaic fragment W 20266, 22 (list Unidentified 40x), where it would then fit in a pattern of the form GALa X, perhaps a list of professions, so that this could refer to a chief (GAL) cook.403 However, 401 Yvonne Rosengarten, Répertoire commenté des signes présargoniques sumériens de Lagaš (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1967), 81. 402 ATU 3, 175 and pl. 99. The fragment is associated with the lexical series “Unidentified 78x.” 403 Hans Nissen, Peter Damerow, and Robert Englund, Archaic Bookkeeping, trans. Paul Larsen (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 111. -227- most of the signs following the initial GALa in each of the preserved cases of this list are poorly preserved and the reading of MU for the sign in question is not certain.404 The MU-sign also appears in the so-called Swine List as entry number 47, where it appears with the ŠUBUR-sign.405 According to Robert Englund, this text appears to represent pigs qualified by age and other adjectives commonly associated with large and small cattle in later periods.406 Unless we posit that the entry ŠUBUR MU represented a type of pig, perhaps one fed on MU vegetation, it is difficult to understand how to read the MU-sign, here. Other alternatives are possible, however. As has been observed already by P. Steinkeller, the rather diverse nature of the recognizable signs appears to have little to do with pigs.407 Steinkeller’s proposal to read the ŠUBUR-sign as š u b u r, and to give it the meaning of “servant” or “slave” allows one to see the MU-sign then not as a grain product but as a profession or type of laborer.408 Unfortunately, the archaic professions list ED LU A does not include the MU-sign. However, the later ED LU C does include the MU-sign, suggesting that certainly by the Fara period the MU-sign had among its values that of a profession.409 404 ATU 3, 169 and pl. 90. 405 ATU 3, 102 and pl. IV. 406 Robert Englund, “Late Uruk Pigs and Other Herded Animals,” in Beiträge zur Kulturegeschichte Vorderasiens. Festschrift Boehmer, eds. Uwe Finkbeiner, Reinhard Dittman, and Harold Hauptmann (Mainz: Pilipp von Zabern, 1995), 121-33, 129-32. 407 Piotr Steinkeller, review of ATU 3, edited by Robert Englund and Hans Nissen, AfO 42/43 (1995/1996): 211-14. 408 P. Steinkeller, review of ATU 3, 212-13. Note, however, the objections to this interpretation by R. Englund, “Late Uruk Pigs and Other Herded Animals,” 129 and esecially n. 26. 409 MSL XII, 14-15. -228- The earliest phonetic values for MU appear in the lexical series Proto-Ea lines 171174: 171 mu-ú 172 mu-u/u4 173 ta-ah410 174 me-hi-da MU MU MU MU The later canonical version of the Ea series, tablet III lines 176-179, has: 176 mu-ú 176a 177 gu-ú 178 su-uh 179 m[u-hal-dim] MU m[u-hal-dim-mu] MU MU M[U [MIN MIN MIN] šat-tu li-tu ia-ú] ta-hu-u nu-ha-ti-mu As the above lists show, there were several different meanings for the MU-sign, which, curiously, in later periods was called the muhaldimmu-sign.411 The first, with the sign read as m u, was the word for “year” (Akkadian šattu), as well as the homonym “name” (whence the Akkadian littu, “offspring”). A second value for the sign is  u10, used for the first person singular pronominal suffix.412 A third value is t à h (a scribal error?) or s u h7, equated with the Akkadian meaning t~hu, “interior”– a value that appears to be limited solely to lexcial lists. The forth value is m u h a l d i m, (m e h i d a in Proto-Ea) which is equated with the Akkadian nuhatimmu, “cook.” Before looking more closely at the fourth value for the MU-sign in the Ea series, it is worth noting that no value for a type of grain or other vegetation is assigned to MU. If 410 A variant reads t a - ú h, see MSL XIV, 38. 411 For sign names, see Yushu Gong, Die Namen der Keilschriftzeichen, AOAT 268 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000) and, more recently, “The Names of Cuneiform Signs,” JAC 17 (2002): 1-22. 412 Note that Proto-Ea distinguishes /mu/ and /u/ by using different vowel extensions; Ea by contrasting consonants. -229- the assumption is correct that the MU-sign originally represented something vegetal, then the lack of a corresponding value of grain is difficult to explain. One solution is simply that early on, the word “mu” (or something similar) was Sumerian for a type of vegetation which, by the later Uruk period, had fallen out of use. Nevertheless, the MU-sign would have been included in the graphic inventory because its phonetic value was useful for representing more abstract concepts like possession (i.e.  u10), “year” (i.e. m u), and the common verbal prefix m u -. Alternatively, it is possible to suggest that the developers of the cuneiform script were not, in fact, Sumerian speakers, but speakers of another language. According to this solution, these speakers had a particular type of grain or vegetation they called “mu” (or, again, something similar), which was graphically represented by a stylized image of the plant. When Sumerian-speaking scribes adopted the cuneiform script, they opted to keep the sign in their inventory because, as noted above, its phonetic value /mu/ was the same as or similar to a number of more abstract Sumerian terms.413 However, the notion that the earliest cuneiform script may originally have belonged to non-Sumerian speakers has been challenged by Marvin Powell, who observed that such arguments never [come] to grips with the obvious qustion: is it likely– not is it possible– but is it really probable in the view of the evidence as a whole that ‘people X’ invented cuneiform, and presumably were responsible for things like the so-called ‘Inanna 413 Robert Englund made a similar argument in his “Texts from the Later Uruk Period,” in Josef Bauer, Robert Englund, and Manfred Krebernik, Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit OBO 106/1 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1998), 73-81, asking, for example, “why Sumerian ‘foot’ is written with the sign g i r i3, a pictogram of an equid, and not with d u, the pictogram of a foot. One possibility: /giri/ or /gri/ might be the name of an animal in a lost language, and its pictrographic representation was chosen as a rebus by ED Sumerian intruders,” 80. -230- Vase’ . . ., then somehow miraculously disappeared leaving their script and culture to the Sumerians?414 5.1.1 The origin of m u h a l d i m and its connection to the MU-sign The word m u h a l d i m and its relationship to the MU-sign are particularly vexing. As noted above, the final entry in Proto-Ea offers a reading of m e h i d a for MU. The canonical version, however, gives m u h a l d i m and translates it with the Akkadian nuhatimmu. If we are to assume that the final entry of Proto-Ea corresponds to that of the canonical version, then we could assume that at some point the reading of the value of MU related to the Akkadian nuhatimmu shifted from m e h i d a to m u h a l d i m. The Akkadian nuhatimmu looks like a loan from a Sumerian *n u - h a d i m, on the pattern of Sumerian words for profssions beginning n u - < l ú, “person,” to which the later form is close, except that it is difficult to explain the addition of the lateral approximate /l/. Thus, perhaps the canonical m u h a l d i m is more accurate than the earlier m e h i d a. While sumerian words of the type C1aC2C3iC4 , as a hypothetical *h a l d i m, do exist, e.g. m a š k i m and g a n z i r, they are not common. In general, consonant clusters are not a regular feature in Sumerian, and vowel dissimilation is quite rare. This, coupled with the fact that there is no attested *h a l d / t i m or even *h a d i m in Sumerian, makes the suggestion of a m u- or n u- attached to a Sumerian root seem weak.415 Indeed, the final /-im/ ending looks suspiciously Semitic. If so, then it is possible to 414 Marvin Powell, review of Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit, by Josef Bauer, Robert Englund, and Manfred Krebernik, JAOS 120 no. 2 (2000): 245-47, 46. 415 Some of these problems were discussed by Åke Sjöberg, “UET VII, 73: An Exercise Tablet Enumerating Professions,” in Tablettes et images aux pays de sumer et d’akkad, APHAO 1, eds. Önhan Tunca and Danielle Deheselle (Liège, 1996), 117-140, 131-32. -231- explain the initial /mu-/ prefix as a marker of the Semitic participle. As such, one could then posit that the remaining *hld/t is a Semitic root, making m u h a l d i m a Semitic loan into Sumerian.416 Although, no such Semitic roots exist in Akkadian, an examination of other Semitic languages allows for some possibilities. For instance, the Arabic root h.lt. can mean “to mix,” and one could posit that it refers to the act of mixing ingredients. But such an explanation must remain in the realm of conjecture. In any event, none of the above serves to explain the shift from the Old Babylonian Proto-Ea entry of m e h i d a to the later canonical Ea entry of m u h a l d i m. One explanation may simply be to posit scribal error, e.g. that an original m u h a l d i m was corrupted and copied as m e h i d a. This solution is unsatisfactory, however, in light of the fact that there are multiple exemplars for the relevant section of Proto-Ea; while it is possible to have one such corrupted passage copied, it is unlikely that all such cases would have been so. The opposite case, m e h i d a consistently miscopied as m u h a l d i m, is equally unlikely. At this point, it is worth noting that the phonetic realization of Sumerian loanwords into Akkadian is not always a transparent process, as n u - b a n d a3 > laputtû and n u k i r i6 > nukarippu testify. The case of m e h i d a / m u h a l d i m > nuhatimmu is similarly opaque, and the opacity extends to the phonology and transmission of the Sumerian word as well.417 416 Gonzalo Rubio, personal communication. 417 And note Marvin Powell, “Sumerian Area Measures and the Alleged Decimal Substratum,” ZA 62 no. 2 (1972): 165-221, 190, fn. 60: It seems to be generally assumed that the Akkadian word nukaribbu is a loan from Sumerian . . . -232- This is an unsatisfactory etymology, since the Sumerian word n u - (GIŠ.)SAR ends in final /k/ and is obviously a genetive construction parallel to n u - ÈŠ : nêšakku . . . It is worthy of note that nukaribbu is parallel in form to nuhatimmu, also supposed to be of Sumerian origin but which has an attested Sumerian form (m u h a l d i m) that cannot be accommodated to the Akkadian form. On the basis of the preceding observations, I draw the following conclusions: 1) the reading of (GIŠ.)SAR in n u - (GIŠ.)SAR has not been determined, and 2) the origin of nuhatimmu and nukaribbu is likewise unestablished. This sentiment was also expressed by D. O. Edzard, reveiw of CAD N/1 and CAD N/2, edited by Erica Reiner, et al., ZA 71 no. 2 (1981): 280-88. -233- Appendix: New Tablets This study includes the presentation of three hitherto unpublished Ur III documents. These were made availalbe to me by Prof. David Owen, and I am grateful to him for permission to publish them here. The first is presented below as Text 1. It belonged to a private collection, and was originally transliterated by Herbert Sauren. The location of this text is no longer known. It originated in Girsu, and belongs to the group of so-called  u r u š-assignment texts, discussed in 3.1.2.1 above. Text 1 1. 97 uruš nu-banda3 ur-išgigir 2. 70-lá-2 nu-banda3 igi-zu-bar-ra 3. 36 nu-banda3 ur-niin3-ar 4. 6 [nu-banda3 l]ú-dba-ú 5. šu-nigin2 197 uruš 6. šà-bi-ta 7. 30 lugal-ra ús-sa 8. 10 é-uz-ga 9. 5 é-gu4-gaz 10. 5 tuh íl 11. 5 gú-peš 12. 5 gú-peš má-lugal 13. 5 gú-peš sig4 gur8 14. 3 sipa anše-sí-sí 15. 20-lá-2 <é>-muhaldim ki ur-niin3-ar 16. 20-lá-2 <é>-muhaldim ki ur-dnanše 17. 5 é-bappir ki lugal-an-na-tum 18. 2 é-bappir ki ur-mes 19. 1 é ur-dnammu 20. 1 gú pú sa-da-na 21. 1 zì íl ki ur-dba-ú 22. 1 zì íl ki nam-mah 418 97 workers from Ur-gigir the overseer; 69 from Igi-zubara the overseer; 36 from Ur-niinar the overseer; 6 from Lu-Bau [the overseer]; Total: 197 workers.418 From this: 30 for royal followers; 10 for the E’uzga; 5 for the slaughterhouse; 5 for carrying bran419; 5 for . . .; 5 for . . . the royal boat; 5 for . . . brick (?); 3 grooms; 18 for the kitchen under Urniinar; 18 for the kitchen under UrNanše; 5 for the brewery under Lugalanatum; 2 for the brewery under Urmes; 1 at the Ur-Nammu temple; 1 at the well edge in Sadana; 1 carrying flour under Ur-Bau; 1 carrying flour under Nammah; 1 carrying flour under Lugal-kagi; 2 carrying clay; 2 sitting at the storeroom; 1scribe (responsible) for the workshop; 1 scribe (responsible The total is incorrect; it should be 207 workers. 419 I suspect that Sauren’s transliteration tuh(GAB)-íl is a misreading of gi-íl. No other text belonging to this series includes the assignment “carrying bran,” and the most commong assignment after the group of assignments for royal followers, the E’uzga, and slaughterhouse is, in fact, for g i - í l, or “carrying reeds.” -234- 23. 1 zì íl ki lugal-ka-gi 24. 2 im íl 25. 2 gá-nun-da tuš-a 26. 1 dub-sar [is-kin]-ti 27. 1 dub-sar ì zú-lum 28. 1 dub-sar in-bul5-bul5 29. 1 dub-sar àr-za-na 30. 1 dub-sar zì-ní-ar-ra imaa3(ZÍZ.AN) 31. 1 dub-sar HAsar 32. 1 ur-dnin-a-zu 33. 1 ur-sa6-ga tuš-tuš? 34. 1 ki nam-mah 35. 1 ur-dba-ú gaba-ri? 36. 1 ka é-gal 37. 2 má gukkal unuki-šè 38. 5 má išma-nu 39. 10 má gi-lá 40. 10 é ensi2 41. 3 gi íl šà nibruki 42. 3 má ì-si-inki 43. 7 [. . .] ki dEN.ZU? 44. 20-lá-3 im-du8-a 45. 1 dú(TU) al-la 46. 1 dú(TU) lú-é-a 47. 1 šutug dmes-lam-ta-è-a 48. šu-nigin2 188 uruš gub-ba 49. 4 uru-ta nu-banda3 igi-zu-bar-ra 50. 3 uru-ta lá-NI 2 nu-banda3 ur-išgigir 51. u4 30-lá-1-kam 52. iti ezem-dli9-si4 for) date oil; 1 scribe (responsible for) chaff; 1 scribe (responsible for) barley groats; 1 scribe (responsible for) emmer; 1 scribe (responsible for) HAsar-vegetables; 1 (under) UrNinazu; 1 (under) Ur-Saga . . .; 1 under Nammah; 1 under UrBau . . .; 1 at the gate of the palace; 1 on the boat for fat-tailed sheep to Uruk; 1 for the boat of m a n u-wood; 1 for loading the boat with reeds; 1 at the house of the governor; 1 carrying reeds to Nippur; 1 on the boat to Isin; 1 [. . .]; 17 for the mud wall; 1 sick from the workgang of Ala; 1 sick from the workgang of Lu-ea, 1 at the reed hut of Meslam-taea. Total: 188 workers employed. 4 did not go out from the city (under?) Igi-zubara; 3 did not go out from the city; 3 remaining from Ur-gigir the overseer. iii 29.420 Text 2 was discussed in section 3.4 above. A copy of this text and its seal presented on the following page. This text, from Adab, belongs to the tablet collection of Cornell University, CUNES 49-13-043. 420 The numbers in this final section do not add up to the expected totals. Moreover, the phraseology in lines 49 and 50 does not conform to what is expected based on the other tablets from this corpus. It is unclear if this is an error in transliteration, or by the scribe. -235- 1. Figure 6.1: Copy of CUNES 49-13-043, tablet (obverse only; left) and seal (right) A transliteration and translation of the text appears on page 208 above, but is presented here for convenience: Text 2 1. 32;0,0,0 še gur 2. sa10 gi-šè 3. kišib ur-é-mah 4. tùm-dam (r.) 5. [. . .] 6. [. . .] 7. [mu . . .] +ì,-pàd Seal: èr-ra-ma-lik / dumu zu-ga-ni / muhaldim lugal 9,600 liters of barley for the purchase of reeds. Sealed by Ur-Emah, it will be brought. [. . .] Seal: Erra-malik, son of Zugani, royal cook. [Date broken] Finally, Text 3, a so-called messenger text from Uru-sarig, was discussed in section 4.3 above. It is presented here again for convenience: Text 3 1. 2 sila3 tu7 2 ku6 2. šu-ku-bu-um lú-kin-gi4-a lugal 3. 2 sila3 tu7 2 ku6 4. i-na-ah-ilum lú-kin-gi4-a lugal 5.u4 erin2 udu ud5 zi-zi-dè im-e-re-ša-a 6. 2 sila3 tu7 2 ku6 7. ma-šum lú-kin-gi4-a lugal 8. u4 a-šà-nigin-ne im-en-na-a (r.) 9. 1 sila3 tu7 1 ku6 2 liters of soup, 2 fish (for) Šukubum, the royal envoy, 2 liters soup, 2 fish (for) Inah-ilum, the royal envoy, when the gang went to remove the sheep and nanny goats. 2 liters soup, 2 fish (for) Mašum the royal envoy, when he went around the fields. 1 liter soup, 1 fish (for) Ur-Šulpae the -236- 10. ur-dšul-pa-è lú-kin-gi4-a lugal 11. u4 maškim lú-di-da-ka-šè im-en-na-a 12. 1 sila3 t[u7 1] ku6 13. [. . .]-x-sa-re lú-kin-gi4-a lugal 14. [u4 . . . GN]ki-ta 15. [ki lugal-šè b]a-en-na-a 16. [iti ezem-li9]-si4 17. [mu en-unu6-ga]l-[dinanna-b]a-[hu] Side: u4 30-kam royal envoy, when he went to the m a š k i m-official of the man of the lawsuit. 1 liter soup, 1 fish for [. . .]-sare the royal envoy, when he went from [GN] to the place of the king. AS5 ? 30. -237- Bibliography Adams, Robert M. Heartland of Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Allred, Lance. “Provisioning the a g a3- ú s in the Ur III Period.” Paper presented at the 216th annual meeting of the American Oriental Society, Seattle, WA., March 17-20, 2006. Beckman, Gary. “Month XII.” NABU 2000 no. 3 note 46. Boese, Johannes and Walther Sallaberger. “Apil-kin von Mari und die Könige der III. Dynastie von Ur.” AoF 23 no. 1 (1996): 24-39. Borger, Rykle. Mesopotamisches Ziechenlexikon. AOAT 305. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2004. Brookman, William. “The Umma Milling Industry: Studies in Neo-Sumerian Texts.” Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1984. Brunke, Hagan. “Food in the Garšana Texts.” In Commentaries to the Garšana Archives. CUSAS. Edited by David I. Owen. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, forthcoming. Civil, Miguel. “Hymn to the Beer Goddess and a Drinking Song." In Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim, 67-89. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. —. “Brèves Communications.” RA 61 no. 1 (1967): 63-68. —. “Notes on Sumerian Lexicography, II.” JCS 25 no. 4 (1973): 171-77. —. “On Some Texts Mentioning Ur-Namma (Tab. VI).” OrNs 54 no. 1-2 (1985): 27-45. Cohen, Mark. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993. Dahl, Jacob. “The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2003. de Maaijer, Remco, “ÍB.TÙRki=Tummal,” NABU 1999 no. 4 note 92. de Maaijer, Remco and Bram Jagersma. Review of PSD A/3, edited by Åke Sjöberg, et al., AfO 50 (2003/2004): 351-55. Edzard, D.O. Reveiw of CAD N/1 and CAD N/2, edited by Erica Reiner, et al. ZA 71 no. 2 (1981): 280-88. —. “NINA.” In RlA 9. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001. Englund, Robert. Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei. BBVO 10. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1990. —. “Hard Work– Where Will It Get You? Labor Management in Ur III Mesopotamia.” JNES 50 no. 4 (1991): 255-80. —. “Late Uruk Pigs and Other Herded Animals.” In Beiträge zur Kulturegeschichte Vorderasiens. Festschrift Boehmer. Edited by Uwe Finkbeiner, Reinhard Dittman, and Harold Hauptmann, 121-33. Mainz: Pilipp von Zabern, 1995. —. “Regulating Dairy Productivity in the Ur III Period.” OrNs 64 no. 4 (1995): 377-429. —. “The Ur III Collection of the CMAA.” CDLJ 2002: 1. —. “The Year ‘Nissen Returns Joyous from a Distant Land.’” CDLJ 2003: 1. —. “Banks in Banning.” In Von Sumer nach Ebla und Zurük. HSAO 9. Eds. Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harold Hauptmann, 35-44. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 2004. -238- Falkenstein, Adam. Die neusumerische Gerichtsurkunden. BAW 39-40, 44. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1956-57. Falkenstein, Adam and R. Opificius. “Girsu.” In RlA 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1957. Flückiger-Hawker, Esther. Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition. OBO 166. Fribourg: University Press, 1999. Frayne, Douglas R. Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC). RIME 3/2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Gallery, Maureen. “The Office of the šatammu in the Old Babylonian Period.” AfO 27 (1980): 1-36. Garfinkle, Steven. “Private Enterprise in Babylonia at the End of the Third Millennium BC.” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 2000. —. “Was the Ur III State Bureaucratic? Patrimonialism and Bureaucracy in the Ur III Period.” Paper presented at the 214th annual meeting of the American Oriental Society, San Diego, CA, March 12-15, 2004. —. “The Economy of Warfare in Southern Iraq at the End of the Third Millennium B.C.” Paper presented at the 52e Renctonre Assyriologique Internationale, Münster, July 17-21, 2006. Garfinkle, Steven and Marc van de Mieroop. The Columbia University Ur III Collections. CUSAS. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, forthcoming. Gelb, Ignace J. “Measures of Dry and Liquid Capacity.” JAOS 102 no. 4 (1982): 585-90. Goetze, Albrecht. “Umma Texts Concerning Reed Mats.” JCS 2 no. 3 (1948): 165-202. —. “The Chronology of Šulgi Again.” Iraq 22 (1960): 151-56. Gomi, Tohru. “On the Critical Economic Situation at Ur Early in the Reign of Ibbisin.” JCS 36 no. 2 (1984): 211-42. Gomi, Tohru and Susumu Sato. Selected Neo-Sumerian Account Texts from the British Museum. Chiba: Japan, 1990. Gong, Yushu. Die Namen der Keilschriftzeichen. AOAT 268. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000. —. “The Names of Cuneiform Signs.” JAC 17 (2002): 1-22. Grégoire, Jean-Pierre. “The Grain-Grinding-Households (é-HAR.HAR) of Southern Mesopotamia at the End of 3rd Millennium Before the Common Era.” BAIAS 17 (1999): 7-38. Hallo, William W. “The Ensi’s of the Ur III Dynasty.” M.A. thesis, University of Chicago, 1953. —. “The House of Ur-Meme.” JNES 31 (1972): 87-95. Hanson, Donald P. “Lagaš.” In RlA 6. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. Heimpel, Wolfgang. “Toward an Understanding of the Term siKKum.” RA 88 (1994): 531. —. “gu2-nigin2, ‘bale.’”CDLN 2003, note 3. —. Commentary on the Garšana Worker-Inspection Accounts. CUSAS. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, forthcoming. Henrickson, Robert C. “Šimaški and Central Western Iran: The Archaeological Evidence.” ZA 74 (1984): 98-122. -239- Hilgert, Marcus. Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of Šulgi. Vol. 1 of Cuneiform Texts from the Ur III Period in the Oriental Institute. OIP 115. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1998. —. Akkadische in der Ur III-Zeit. IMGULA 5. Münster: Rhema, 2002. —. Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of Amar-Suena. Vol. 2 of Cuneiform Texts from the Ur III Period in the Oriental Institute. OIP 121. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2003. Jacobsen, Thorkild. “On the Textile Industry at Ur Under Ibbi-Sin.” In Studia orientalia Ionni Pedersen dicata, 172-87. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1953. Jones, Tom B. “Sumerian Administrative Documents: An Essay.” In Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen, AS 20, 41-62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975. Jones, Tom B. and John Snyder. Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1961. Klein, Jacob. “Nippur.” In RlA 9. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001. Kleinerman, Alexandra. “The Leather Industry at Garšana.” Paper Presented at the 52e Renctonre Assyriologique Internationale, Münster, July 17-21, 2006. Kleinerman, Alexandra, and David I. Owen. An Analytical Index and Prospopgraphy of the Garšana Archives. CUSAS. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, forthcoming. Koslova, Natalia. “Fluktuation der Arbeitskräfte im Umma der Ur III-Zeit: SANTAG 6:384.” In Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic Studies. Volume 1 of Babel und Bibel, 23-81. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities, 2004. Krecher, Joachim. “DU=kux(-r) ‘eintreten’, ‘hinausbringen’.” ZA 77 (1987): 7-21. Lafont, Bertrand. Documents administratifs sumériens. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985. Limet, Henri. L’anthroponymie sumerienne. Paris: Société d’Édition « Les Belles Lettres», 1968. Loding, Darlene. “A Craft Archive from Ur.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1974. Luckenbill, Daniel D. Inscriptions from Adab. OIP 14. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930. Lyman, Richard. “Available Meat from Faunal Remains: A Consideration of Techniques.” American Antiquity 44 no. 3 (1979): 536-46. McNeil, Robert C. “The ‘Messenger Texts’ of the Third Ur Dynasty.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1970. Maekawa, Kayuza. “The Governor’s Family and the ‘Temple Households’ in Ur III Girsu.” In Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia. RAI 40. Edited by Klaas Veenhof, 171-79. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1996. —. “Confiscation of Private Properties in the Ur III Period: A Study of é - d u l - l a and n í g-GA.” ASJ 18 (1996): 103-68. Mahoney, Margaret. “A Study in Sumerian Administrative History of the Third Ur Dynasty.” Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1965. Matthews, R.J. “Girsu and Lagash.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the -240- Near East. Edited by Eric Meyers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Mayr, Rudolf. Seal Impressions of Ur III Umma. Yale University Press, forthcoming. Meada, Tohru. Review of Haverford Library Collection of Cuneiform Tablets, by George A. Barton. ASJ 2 (1980), 197-224. —. “Bringing (mu-túm) Livestock and the Puzurish-Dagan Organization in the Ur III Dynasty.” ASJ 11 (1989): 69-111. Meek, T. J. “Iterative Names in the Old Akkadian Texts from Nuzi.” RA 32 (1935): 51-55. Michalowski, Piotr. “The Bride of Simanum.” JAOS 95 no. 4 (1975): 716-19. —. “The Royal Correspondence of Ur.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1976. —. “Durum and Uruk During the Ur III Period.” Mesopotamia 12 (1977): 83-96. —. “The Death of Šulgi." OrNs 46 no. 2 (1977): 220-225. —. “Foreign Tribute to Sumer During the Ur III Period.” ZA 68 no. 1 (1979):34-49. —. “Stalking the Great Wall of Sumer.” Paper presented at the 214th annual meeting of the American Oriental Society, San Diego, CA, March 12-15, 2004. Milano, Lucio. “Mehl.” In RlA 8. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993. Molina, Manuel and Marcos Such-Gutiérrez. “One Terms for Cutting Plants and Noses in Ancient Sumer.” JNES 63 no. 1 (2004): 1-16. Nelson, Sidney B. “Nasha: A Study of Administrative Texts of the Third Dynasty of Ur.” Ph.D. diss, University of Minnesota, 1972. Neumann, Hans. Handwerk in Mesopotamien. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1987. —. “Zur privaten Geschäftstätigkeit in Nippur in der Ur III-Zeit.” In Nippur at the Centenial, RAI 35, OPSNKF 14. Edited by Maria deJong Ellis, 161-76. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1992. —. “Weitere Ur III-Texte aus dem Sammlungsbestand der Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.” In Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurük. HSAO 9. Edited by Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Hauptmann, 211-15. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 2004. Nissen, Hans, Peter Damerow, and Robert Englund. Archaic Bookkeeping. Translated by Paul Larsen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. O’he, Setsuko. “On the Function of the Maškim I.” ASJ 5 (1983): 113-126. Owen, David I. “A Unique Ur III Letter-Order in the University of North Carolina.” JCS 24 no. 4 (1972): 133-34. —. The John Frederick Lewis Collection. MVN 3. Rome: Multigrafica Editrice, 1975. —. Review of Die orts- und Gewässernamen der Zeit der 3. Dynastie von Ur, RGTC 2, by D. O. Edzard, and G. Farber. JCS 33 no. 3/4 (1981): 244-69. —. “Random Notes on a Recent Ur III Volume.” Review of Catalogue of Cuneiform Texts in Birmingham City Museum. BCT 1, by P. J. Watson. JAOS 108 no. 1 (1988): 111-22. —. “The Ensis of Gudua.” ASJ 15 (1993): 131-52. —. “On the Patrynomy of Šu-Suen.” Nabu 2001 no. 1 note 17. —. “An Akkadian Ur III Community in the Sumerian Heartland.” Paper presented at the 48e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, July 1-4, 2002. —. “Pigs and Pig By-Products at Garšana in the Ur III Period.” In De la domestication au -241- tabou: Le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Edited by B. Lion and C. Michel, 75-87. Paris: Maison René-Ginouvès, 2006. —. The Garšana Archives. CUSAS. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, forthcoming. —. Unprovenanced Texts from Irisarig/}lsarr~k§. Forthcoming. Ozaki, Tohru and Marcel Sigrist. Ur III Administrative Tablets from the British Museum, Part I. BPOA 1. Madrid: CSIC, 2005. Pollock, Susan. “Ur.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by Eric Meyers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Powell, Marvin. “Sumerian Area Measures and the Alleged Decimal Substratum.” ZA 62 no. 2 (1972): 165-221. —. “Masse und Gewichte.” In RlA 7. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990. —. “Metron Ariston: Measure as a Tool for Studying Beer in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Drinking in Ancient Societies. HANES 6. Edited by Lucio Milano, 91-119. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria, 1994. —. Review of Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. By Josef Bauer, Robert Englund, and Manfred Krebernik. JAOS 120 no. 2 (2000): 245-47. —. “Obst und Gemüse.” In RlA 10. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. Rosengarten, Yvonne. Répertoire commenté des signes présargoniques sumériens de Lagaš. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1967. Rubio, Gonzalo. “On the Alleged Pre-Sumerian Substratum.” JCS 51 (1999): 1-16. Sallaberger, Walther. “Der Babylonische Töpfer und Seine Gefässe.” MHEM III, 1-119. Ghent: University of Ghent, 1996. —. “Ur III-Zeit.” In Mesopotamien. Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. OBO 160/3. By Walther Sallabrger and Aage Westenholz, 121-377. Göttingen: Vendernhoeck and Ruprecht, 1999. —. “Schlachtvieh aus Puzriš-Dagan. Zur Bedeutung dieses königlichen Archivs.” JEOL 38 (2003-2004): 45-62. Salonen, Armas. “Die Öfen der Alten Mesopotamier.” BagM 3 (1964): 100-24. —. Zum Aufbau der Substrate im Sumerischen. StOr 32 part 3, 3. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1968. Sharlach, Tonia. Review of Umma Messenger Texts in the British Musem, Part 1, NSCAM 1, by F. D’Agostino and F. Pomponio. JAOS 124 no. 4 (2003): 867-69. —. Provincial Taxation and the Ur III State. CM 26. Leiden: Brill, 2004. —. “Diplomacy and the Rituals of Politics at the Ur III Court.” JCS 57 (2005): 17-30. Sigrist, Marcel. Drehem. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1992. —. Neo-Sumerian Texts from the Royal Ontario Museum I: The Administration at Drehem. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1995. Sjöberg, Åke. “UET VII, 73: An Exercise Tablet Enumerating Professions.” In Tablettes et images aux pays de sumer et d’akkad. APHAO 1. Edited by Önhan Tunca and Danielle Deheselle, 117-40. Liège, 1996. Snell, Daniel and Carl Lager. Economic Texts from Sumer. YOS 18. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991. Sollberger, Edmond. “Sur la chronologie der rois d’Ur et quelques problèmes connexes.” -242- AfO 17 no. 1 (1954-55): 10-49. —. “Garš-ana(k).” AfO 18 no. 1 (1957): 104-8. —. “Ibb§-Suen.” In RlA 5. Berlin: Walther de Gruyet, 1976. Stamm, J.J. Die Akkadische Namengebung. MVAG 44. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Verlag, 1939. Steinkeller, Piotr. “Seal Practice in the Ur III Period.” In Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East. BiMes 6. Edited by McGuire Gibson and Robert D. Biggs, 41-53. Malibu: Undena Publications, 1977. —. “More Evidence for the Reading of bulx for LAGABxSUM.” RA 73 no. 1 (1979): 9192. —. “On Editing Ur III Economic Texts.” Review of Les tablettes cunéiformes de l’epoque d’Ur des collections de la New York Public Library, by Herbert Sauren. JAOS 102 no. 4 (1982): 639-44. —. “The Question of Marhaši: A Contribution to the Historical Geography in Iran in the Third Millennium B.C.” ZA 72 no. 1 (1982): 237-65. —. “The Foresters of Umma: Toward a Definition of Ur III Labor.” In Labor in the Ancient Near East. AOS 68. Edited by Marvin Powell, 73-116. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1987. —. Sale Documents of the Ur III Period. FAOS 17. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1989. —. “More on LÚ.SU(.A)=Šimaški.” NABU 1990 no. 1, note 13. —. “The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State: The Core and the Periphery.” In The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East. SOAC 46. 2nd edition. Edited by McGuire Gibson and Robert Biggs, 1534. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1991. —. “Sheep and Goat Terminlogy in Ur III Sources from Drehem.” BSA 8 (1995): 49-70. —. Review of ATU 3, edited by Robert Englund and Hans Nissen. AfO 42/43 (1995/1996): 211-14. —. “The Organization of Crafts in Third Millennium Babylonia: The Case of Potters.” AoF 23 no, 2 (1996): 232-53. —. “New Light on the Hydrology and Topography of Southern Babylonia.” ZA 91 no. 1 (2001): 22-84, 56-65. —. “The Function of Written Documentation in the Administrative Praxis of Early Babylonia.” In Creating Economic Order. Edited by Michael Hudson and Cornelia Wunsch. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2004. 63-88. Stolper, Matthew. “On the Dynasty of Šimaški and the Early Sukkalmahs.” ZA 72 no. 1 (1982): 42-67. Studevent-Hickman, Benjamin. “The Organization of Manual Labor in Ur III Babylonia.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2006. Thomsen, Marie-Louise. The Sumerian Language. Mesopotamia 10. 3rd edition. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 2001. Uchitel, Alexander. “Daily Work at Sagdana Millhouse.” ASJ 6 (1984): 75-98. —. “Erin2-èš-didli.” ASJ 14 (1992): 317-338. —. “Erin2-èš-didli (II): Patterns of Conscription and Work Assignment during the Years -243- AS8 - ŠS1.” ASJ 18 (1996): 217-28. van de Mieroop, Marc. Crafts in the Early Isin Period. OLA 24. Leuven: Department Oriëntalistiek, 1987. —. “The Reign of Rim-Sin.” RA 87 no. 1 (1993):47-69. van Driel, Govert. “Private or Not-So-Private: Nippur Ur III Files.” In Cinquante-Deux Reflexions sur leProch-Orient Ancien. MHEOP 2. Edited by H. Gasche, et al., 181-92. Leiden: Peeters, 1994. —. “The Size of Institutional Umma.” AfO 46/47 (1999/2000): 80-91. Voth, Steven M. “Analysis of Military Titles and Function in Published Texts of the Old Babylonian Period.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College, 1981. Waetzoldt, Hartmut. Untersuchungen zur Neusumerischen Textileindustie. Rome: Instituto per l’Oriente, 1972. —. Review of Der Mythos “Inanna und Enki” unter besonder Berücksichtigung der Liste der me. By G. Farber-Flügge, BiOr 32 no. 5/6 (1975): 382-84. —. “Zu einigen Jahresdaten Urnammus.” NABU 1990 no. 1, note 6. —. Review of The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, SOAC 46, edited by McGuire Gibson and Robert Biggs. JAOS 111 no. 3 (1991): 637-41 —. “Rohr und dessen Verwandungsweisen anhand der neusumerischen Texte aus Umma.” BSA 6 (1992), 125-46. —. “König Šusuen, der Sohn Šulgis.” NABU 2001 no. 2 note 45. Waetzoldt, Hartmut and Fatma Y2ld2z. “Die Jahresnamen für das 9. und das 36. Regierungsjahr Šulgi’s.” OrAnt 22 no. 1-2 (1983):7-12. Westenholz, Aage. “The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture.” In Mesopotamian. Akkade-Zeit und Ur III Zeit. OBO 160/3. By Aage Westenholz and Walther Sallaberger, 17-117. Göttingen: Vendernhoeck and Ruprecht, 1999. Westenholz, Joan. “Metaphorical Language in the Poetry of Love in the Ancient Near East.” In La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le ProcheOrient ancien. RAI 38. Edited by Dominique Charpin and Francis Joannès, 381-87. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1992. Widell, Magnus. “A Previously Unpublished Lawsuit from Ur III Adab.” CDLJ 2002: 2. —. “Reconstructing the Early History of the Ur III State: Some Methodological Considerations of the Use of Year Formulae.” JAC 18 (2003): 99-111. —. The Administrative and Economic Ur III Texts from the City of Ur. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2003. Wilcke, Claus. “Zum Königtum in der Ur III-Zeit.” In Le Palais et la Royauté. RAI 19. Edited by Paul Garelli, 177-232. Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1974. —. “Neue Quellen aus Isin zur Geschichte der Ur-III-Zeit.” OrNs 54 no. 1-2 (1985): 299318. —. “É-sa-da-na Nibruki: An Early Administrative Center of the Ur III Empire.” In Nippur at the Centenial. RAI 35. OPSNKF 14. Edited by Maria deJong Ellis, 311-24. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1992. Wilson, Karen L. “Edgar J. Banks and the University of Chicago Expedition to Bismaya -244- 1903-05: A Reappraisal.” Paper presented at the 216th meeting of the American Oriental Society, Seattle, WA, March 17-20, 2006. Wulf, Duane. “Did the Locker Plant Steal Some of my Meat?” The Shepherd 44 no. 1 (1999): 12-13. Yoshikawa, Mamoru. “Lagaš and Ki-Lagaš, Unug and Ki-Unug.” ASJ 7 (1985): 157-66. Yuhong, Wu. “The Ewe without Lambs and the Lambs Cooked in the é-uz-ga, ‘the Private House of the King,’ in the Drehem Archives.” JAC 11 (1996): 65-109. Zettler, Richard. “The Genealogy of the House of Ur-Me-me: A Second Look.” AfO 31 (1984): 1-9. —. The Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur. BBVO 11. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1992. —. “Written Documents as Excavated Artifacts and the Holistic Interpretation of the Mesopotamian Archaeological Record.” In The Study of the Ancient Near east in the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Jerrold S. Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz, 81102. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. —. “Nippur.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by Eric Meyers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Zhi, Yang. “The Excavation of Adab.” JAC 3 (1988): 1-23. — . Sargonic Inscriptions from Adab. Changchun: IHAC, 1989. -245- Curriculum Vita November 21, 1972 Born, Tulsa, OK May 1995 EDUCATION B.A. Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA May 1999 M.A. History, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK Fall 2006-Present EMPLOYMENT Postodoctoral Associate, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Fall 2005-Present RESEARCH Research Associate, Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictonary Spring 2006 TEACHING Ancient Medicine (teaching assistant), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD Spring 2004 Reading Akkadian Texts, Catholic University, Washington, DC Fall 2003 Introduction to Akkadian, Catholic University, Washington, DC Forthcoming PUBLICATIONS “More erin2-eš-didli.” CDLJ. July 2006 PRESENTATIONS “The Kitchen at Garšana.” Paper presented at the 52e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, July 17-21, Münster. March 2006 “Provisioning the aga30us2 in the Ur III Period.” Paper presented at the 216th annual meeting of the American Oriental Society, March 17-20, Seattle, WA November 2005 “The Kitchen in the Ur III State.” Paper presented at the American Schools of Oriental Research meeting, November 16-19, Philadelphia, PA -246-