Altorientalische Forschungen | 29 | 2002| 2| 330-338 Jaco Dan Land Allotments During the Third Dynasty of Ur Some Observations Introduction At our Seminar in 1998/99 discussing “public space” in the Ancient Near East, Thad the opportunity to read a paper on the land allotments of the Third Dynasty of Ur, concentrating my analysis on the provincial city of Umma. Due to the lengthy period of time since my first draft, 1 am thankful to the publishers for allowing me to edit my contribution, Working with the social history of the end of the 3“ millennium BC. one might be troubled by the title of the first Berlin - Copenhagen Seminar, in short: “public space”. Which texts can possibly shed light on such a topic? Explanatory texts, and vital information readily available to scholars working on other periods of Mesopotamian history are not available to the student of the Third Dynasty of Ur (hereafter Ur IIL). Restricted by dubious excavations and an enormous bias in the textual evidence, the Ur IL period seems to conform, at a first glance, to the theories put forward early in the 20% century of an all encompassing state, leaving no room for private space, making all space and property the estate of the king. Since the province of Umma has been the focus of my research for an extended period of time, I decided to limit myself to the documentation from this city. Such a circumscription of sources might seem paradoxical since the province of Girsu/Lagash has always had the reputation among Assyriologists of being the agricultural center of the Ur ITI state. However, my choice is justified, in part, by the fact that I do not intend to investigate the methods of cultivation, but rather the relationship between agricultural workers and the land on which they work- ed as well as the relationsship between the recipients of rations and the land which produced these rations. For this purpose the province of Umma has yielded sufficient evidence compared with any other province in the Ur III empire. In short, the administrative documents from the Ur I period do not explicitly tell us who owned the fields, rather they provide us with a wealth of informa- tion about the agricultural workers, their work, and the administration of agri-Land Allotments During the Third Dynasty of Ur 331 cultural work. Additionally, the texts tell us who held land allotments and who received rations, When compared with the position of this paper, ie, that the extent of the private sector during the Ur III period was limited or that the private sector was almost entirely lacking, we are faced with the fact that our definition of private property, when dealing with the Ur II period is in need of reevaluation, Aspects of Ur III society relevant to the present discussion Any student working on Ur III matters is bound by tradition to take a stand on the ongoing debate concerning the nature of the Ur Ill social system. The special role in history played by the Third Dynasty of Ur, due to its enormous bureaucracy, has created theoretical terms, such as “templestate” and “redistribu- tive economy”, which continue to be used at times dogmatically in the field. At the end of the 3“ millennium BC. the ruler of Ur successfully expanded his realm to cover all of Southern Mesopotamia, later developments brought even neighboring regions under the sway of Ur. During the 21* year of the second king of the third Ur dynasty, Shulgi, certain social reforms were formulated which seem to have eased the conversion of the population at large into a state of dependence on the crown.! This resulted in a ponderous bureaucratic machine that eventually crumbled under its own weight only 40 years after its creation? In other words, the Ur III society was a staterun enterprise of 1 Thus the beginning of the bureaucratic age of Ur II is introduced by the following year- formula: mu Snin-urta ensirgal ¢endily-lay-ke, €, demil; Snindil-layke, esh-barkin ba-an- duy)-ga “shul-gi lugal urist-ma-ke, GAN, niskay sha, e) “emil; nindilylayke, si biysaya Mackawa translates: “The year Ninurta, the ‘great governor’ of Enlil, pronounced an ominous decision in the temple households of Enlil and Ninlil, (and) Shulgi, king of Ur, put in order the fields (and) the accounts/management in the temple households of Enlil and Ninlil.” K. Maekawa, “The ‘Temples’ and the “Temple Personnel’ of Ur Il Girsu- Lagash”, in K. Watanabe ed., Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East - ‘The City and its Life held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitalxa, Tokyo), Sonderdruck (Heidelberg 1999) 61-95, p. 66 (see also p. 68 for further remarks on the meaning of the year formula and the reforms), 2 The end of the Ur II administrative system Suen’s sixth year (the last king of the dynasty weal uri: urisma-ke, bad, gal-bi mu-du,, “Year Ibbi-Sin the king of Ur built wails in greatness for Nippur and Ur. See Th. Jacobsen, “The Reign of Ibbisin,” JCS 7 [1953] 36-47. According to Jacobsen the dynasty crumbled due to a shortage of grain caused by security problems as indicated by the building of fortifications, the loss of the provinces, and, at least according to the later literary tradition, due to unrest to the north-east of the Sumerian heartlands. See also T. Gomi, “On the Critical Economic Situation at Ur Early in the Reign of Iipbisin, JCS 36 [1984] 211-242. The problems are, as described by the author (pp. 211-212), an increase in the price of grain due to shortage, which led to a substitution of the regular grain rations with rations of sesame oil and dates. The dramatic increase in prices began during Ibbi-Suen’s 5 year and accelerated during the following three years Apparently the trouble had started dunng the reign of Shu-Suen the brother and pre- decessor of Ibbi-Sin, who also had to build a protective wall introduced by the yearformula of Ibbi- mu Sebiz's urikemeke, nibrus!332 Jacob Dahl immense proportions which only lasted briefly and which paralleled the other despotic regime so frequent in the evolution of human society that they seem the rule rather than the exception. Like the other five, previously independent, provinces of the Sumerian heartland, the province of Umma enjoyed some autonomy. The city-governor (Sumerian ensi,) was, however, completely subordinate to the king at Ur.} The city of Umma was run entirely by the members of one family, all of whom held important offices in the state administrations Based on the size of the state land holdings, itis likely that a large percentage of the population of Ur I Umma was dependent on the crown. This is shown. by the text BM 105334, a landsurvey of Umma in the second year of Amar- Suen’, the entire size of Umma state land totaled more than 2200 bur,: enough to feed more than 15,000 souls, and the pottery production texts such as MVN. 21, 203¢, which shows a yearly production of approximately 65,000 “ration” bowls. The case of the potters was discussed by Steinkeller in 1996. This discus- sion has bearing, as we shall later see, on the whole topic of this brief paper.” Ur IIT fields had names, and some of these names are of interest for our study: the asha; gibil, “the new field”*, the asha, lugal, “the royal field”, and the a-sha; 3 This is above all documented in the land-survey texts (e.g. the text BM 105334, see later this study) which compute the sustenance field of the city governor together with the domain land of the state. State interference in local politics is also suggested in the so called erducla texts; the favors which the king bestowed upon his subjects were reversible at any time. Supposedly, UrLisi, one of the well-known Umma governors, lost all his possessions and possibly his life in the eighth year of AmarSuen, perhaps in relation the struggle for power at the court. See, e.g,, K. Maekawa, “Confiscation of Private Pro- petties in the Ur III period: A study of édul-la and nig-GA,” AS} 18[1996] 103-168, p. 127. ‘The question of the relationship between the royal appointee to the province of Umma. the general (Sum. shagina), and the governor will not be discussed here, see, €.g., JP. Gré- goire, Archieves Administrative Sumériennes (Paris 1970) p. xiv, and pp. 80-83. See note 3 above. > See K. Maekawa, “The Management of Domain Land in Ur I] Umma: A Study of BM 110116”, Zinbun 22 [1987] 25-82, p. 38 and table 7, citing a Japanese article by T. Gomi in Orient 21 [1985] 1-2. © Compare with MVN 1, 231 and 232. A study of the pottery production in Ur II] Umma is under preparation by the author. P. Steinkeller, “The Organisation of Crafts in Third Millennium Babylonia: The Case of Potters,” Altorientalische Forschungen 23 [1996] 232-253. On a large scale, new land was brought under the plow during Ur Ill This is corroborated by the high number of fields (and the substantial area covered by these fields) designated as ashay gibil, as well as other evidence, mainly concerning yield and cultivation methods. See K. Maekawa, “Cultivation Methods in the Ur III Period,” BSA 5 [1990] 115-145. The high costs involved in bringing new land under the plow suggest that this could only have been a task of the state, a fact also corroborated by the administrative documents pertaining to those new-ficlds. Consequently, “the new field” need not be a proper name but is pehaps only a description. The same is true for the a-sha, lugal and the a-sha shuku ensi,, but not for fields such as a-sha; la-mah, or a-shas damar!suens’shara,Land Allotments During the Thitd Dynasty of Ur shuku ensi,, “the sustenance? field of the city-governor’. All agricultural work was recorded by the state, i.e, the administrators are all known state-employees."” There are no references to private individuals performing agricultural work, or to the work done by free-men on their own fields, or by hired workers on private fields. Of the more than 15,000 published Umma texts from the third Ur dynasty, I have been unable to find a single reference to any private property This is remarkable, since these texts were all unearthed illegally, and therefore would be expected to provide a more diversified selection of find spots than those excavated by a controlled excavation with focus on, e.g. central complex, Workers and land allotments It is the thesis of this brief paper that the value of a land allotment did not impact the social mobility of the recipient: that the recepient of rations, Le. the dependent worker, and the recipient of land allouments, i.e, the semi-free worker, were both confined by socioeconomics to the lower levels of the social hierarchy. This thesis is substantiated by a comparison between the value of a land allounent and the average size of the rations given to the dependent worker. ‘The size of the rations given to dependent workers has long been established at 2 sila, of barley per day on average for an adult male.!? A Neo-Sumerian sila, is believed to equal approximately one liter.'3 Other forms of sustenance/comn- pensation given to the dependents of the Ur III state were the so-called wages (Sum, a.) paid to hirelings (lu, hun-ga,), these average around 6 sila, per workk- day.§ The familial and social status of the dependent worker as well as that of the hireling are not explicated in the sources, but it seems likely that a ration equivalent to 2 liters of barley supported one adult person at most. The uncer- tainties connected with the position of a hireling might account for his relatively large daily wage. on the other hand, the position as hireling during Ur III might as well have been rather comfortable, considering the posibility that the hireling ® A translation “sustenance” is prefered over “prebend”, since the Akkadian equivaient to Sumerian shuku seems to be kusrumatu, which is understood as something which serves as the sustenance for a person, that being a land allotment, or rations 2 All extant Umma texts seem to come from the archive of the city-governor. 4 Steinkeller (1996) understands the potters as free men who could hire themselves out in return for wages (p. 247). He understands the pottery production accounts as records of the days of the year when the potters were obligated to perform service for the state (p. 249). The land allotments given to potters support this view according to Steinkeller (p. 249). 8 1. Gelb, “The Ancient Mesopotamian Ration System,” JNES 24 [1961] 230-243. '5 M. Powell, “Masse und Gewichte,” p. 457-530 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorder- asiatischen Archdologie, RLA, Band 7 (1989) p. 503, “ K. Maekawa, “Rations, Wages and Economic Trends in the Ur III Period,” AFO 16 [1989] 42-50, pp. 47-48,334 Jacob Dahl was in possession of other means of production than his work, ie, the possibility that he held private land not visible in the extant sources. ‘The average size of a land allotment given to a worker was 6 iku®, an iku equals 100 shar, and a shar, the traditional Sumerian garden plot, measured 6 by 6 meter or 36 m2. Consequently, 6 iku equals 21,600 m? or 2.16 ha. The yields recorded from 3*¢ millennium fields have been questioned, but an estimated yield of 20 to 30 gur (1 gur ~ 300 sila) per bury (1 bur, = 18 iku) during the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur seems reasonable.” Being generous, a land allotment of 6 iku might yield as high as 5 1/2 sila, of barley per day, using the fairly regular yield ratio of 20:1, and not adding any expenses on the part of the holder of the land allotment, such as oxen for plowing or fallow land.!* The text TCL 5, 5676, discussed later in this study, further suggests that the state took care of the allotments of the cultivators mentioned in that text. ‘The text TCL 5, 5676 is a long account of field work performed by a regular work- crew under the control of Ur!Nin-zu, the estate manager (Sum. nu-banday-gu,). Like all other Ur I running accounts it begins with a debit section, in this text the debit consists of a remainder (si-i;tum; Akk. loanword in Sumerian) from the previous year (the first year of Shu-Suen)®, the man-days*? of the regular workcrew?! plus additional workers®, and the workday equivalence of an ‘The potters investigated by Steinkeller (1996) who worked full-time for the state received 6 iku (p. 238). However, R. Englund, Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur II-Fischerei (© BBVO 10; Berlin 1990). p. 158 ~ fn. 507, suggests the average allotment to be between 4\/, and 9 iku. And see below on the cultivators of TCL 5, 5676 for a possible average allotment of 4 1/ iku. See also the text BM 105334 which gives the clear equivalence one cultivator = 6 iku 16 N, Postgate, “The problem of yields in Sumerian tex p.97 and pp. 101-102 See, €.g,, Maekawa (1987), The fields mentioned in BM 110116 yield a surprisingly low average of around 18 gur per bury, See also K. Maekawa, “Cereal cultivation in the Ur IIT period,” BSA 1 [1984] 73-96, pp. 82-83 for an estimate of 30 gur per bur, in Neo-Sume- rian Umma. “SK. Butz, Landwirtschaft, pp. 470-486 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiati- schen Archéiologie, RLA, Band 6, 1980-83, p. 484 suggested 2 of 5 years to be fallow. © Col. 1, line 2: [si-i,]-[tum! mu shu-tuen lugal 2 On the term man-days see V.V. Struve, “Some new data on the organization of labour and on social structure in Sumer during the reign of the III Dynasty of Ur" (originally written in Russian in 1948), in Diakonoff, I. M. ed., Ancient Mesopotamia: Socio Economic History A Collection of Studies by Soviet Scholars (Moscow 1969) 127-172. 4 Col, |, lines 3-20. The crew is made up by unnamed cultivators (gurush engar dumu-ni), named carriers (ugy-#as-me), and named dumu-gis workers (for the social status of the dumurgi,, see R. Englund, “Fischerei” (1990), p. 75-76 ~ n. 250) Col. 1, lines 28-29: 9; gurush uy I-shey / ki ishar-um-ta, 9 '/, work days received from Isharum BSA 1 [1984] 97-102, see especiallyLand Allotments During the Third Dynasty of Ur 335 amount of barley to be used as wages to hirelings.3 The credit section, which is divided up according to the seasons in which the work was carried out, is recorded in the same format as all other Ur II accounts; that is, the individual receipts of the work, converted into artificial work-days, are recorded one after another# The crew works on several different fields, and the text is important for our understanding of the work on Neo-Sumerian fields in general, The balance records a small surplus of work-days. As for our brief analysis, the text is important because it mentions ten cultivators (engar) and their sons (or subordinates (dumu-ni)), and also the fields termed “the sustenace field of the cultivators” (GAN) shuku engar). Without manipulating the sources, it seems reasonable to suspect that the sustenance fields of the cultivators refer to the same cultivators mentioned in the debit section of the account25 The sustenance fields of the cultivators amount to 2 bur; | eshe; and 3 iku, which gives an average of 4 1/, iku per cultivator (and/or assistant). The other fields are all summarized as GAN;gu,, which is commonly understood as domain land belonging to the state. Not only are the cultivators called gurush in this text (a term believed in the Neo-Sumerian period to cover a state dependent worker of the lowest social level), but the work on their own landallotments is recorded together with the work on the regular domain land of Umma. Conclusions If we are concerned with the true nature of the social system of the Ur III state we should not be too occupied with the land allotments given to workers such 's the potters or the cultivators, for they represented no real freedom or economic set which would make them socially mobile. Of greater interest are the land allotments given to the administrators, the people of status. I suggest we view these land allotments as yet another method by which the state could maximize production, leaving the responsibility of the a 28 Col. 1, lines 23-27: 36;1,2 (1) she gur / ay 6silayta / abi uy 30.13 1/5 / arluy-hun-ga, ashay ga/ ki ka-gururta, An amount of barley received from the chief of the granary (a certain Inq, Cmu) brother of the ensi,) is converted into workdays of hirelings + See note 29 below. * According to Maekawa, Zinbun 22 [1987] 37, each cultivator managed 4-6 bur, (a com- putation of the, albeit broken, section col. 5 1.2 to col. 6, 7 of TCL 5, 5676 suggests an average of land managed by each cultivator of around 4 bur,). According to BM 1105334 each cultivator would hold an allotment plot of 6 iku. 26 K. Mackawa, “The Agricultural Texts of Ur II Lagash of the British Museum (IV)," Zinbun 21 [1986] 91-157 plts I-XII, pp. 101-119; and K. Maekawa, “The Agricultural Texts of Ur 11] Lagash of the British Museum (V),” AS} 9 1987] 89-129, pp. 95-98.336 Jacob Dahl production on the shoulders of the accounted, defining expectations, and using these expectations in the computation of the production accounts as the debit of the person recorded in the account, Thus the system of land allotments may resemble the system of equivalencies employed in all other known sectors of the Ur Il economy” The following three texts are vital for our understanding of the land allot ments given to highranking administrators, such as the city governor23 The first example is a receipt for the sustenance barley of the governor, the second, the result of a calculation of the deficit of the account of the sustenance barley of the governor, and the last isa small running account of the sustenance barley of the govenor, Although from different years, the texts testify to the existence of land allotments given to the governor. In addition, the texts help to illuminate ~ The equivalencies applied by the Ur II administrators were neither prices, nor actual conversions, but represented the fictional conversions or expectations, converted or expected by the state, based on the state's view of the worth of the product/work. An s expressed in Sumerian by the phrase she/kuy/a, -bi x: its grain/silver/ he strongest evidence for the artificial nature of the equivalencies is the nice fractional relationship between the product/work and its equivalency, persistent from text to text, year after year. To elucidate this let me provide the reader with two examples, the first pertaining to agricultural products, the second to work: TCL 5, 6037, column 2, line 5-6 reads: 39 2/, sila, geshtin had, / ku bi 1 gin, la, 1 1/, she: “39 2/, sila, of raisins, its silver is 1 shekel minus 1 1/, grains”. The equivalence-conversion would at first seem hot to represent a nice number, but, "/; divided by 1 "/,», equals exactly 40, the known equivalence value of raisins! In other words, the trade-agent responsible for the balance of this text delivered 39 +/; sila; of raisins, the recipient converted this into a artif silver value by using the known equivalence value of 40 sila, raisins per shekel silver. When calculating the work-Jay equivalencies, the work would likewise be valued and converted according to set standards. TCL 5, 5668 obverse. 2, lines 13-16 reads: 22 1/, shar sahar / ale 10 gin, i-bi Uy 4.30-kam / kishib urs!TUC 22 Y/, shar of dirt, per hoe 10 gin, each, its work is 270 days, under the seal of UcTUGNUNka’, In other words, the workers have dug a hole of the size 22 '/, shar (that is 405 m8), and the overseer is credited with '/¢ of a shar per hoe per day (3 m? per day), which ought to be 135 days. In this text however, concerning female workers, they are two females per hoe, its work is 270 days! (Note to R. Englund, “Fischerei”, (1990) pp. P. 88 + fn. 284). For more on the system of equivalencies see R. Englund, “Fischerei”,(1990) pp. 18ff, Following R. Englund, “Regulating Dairy Productivity in the Ur III Period,” Or 64/4 11995] 377-429, p. 425 + n. 81, and against D. Snell, “The Activities of some Merchants of Umma," traq_ 39 [1977] (~ 23. RAL, Birmingham), 45-50, p. 50. 1 view the equivalencies as an effective means of the state to maximize production, It is in this light that 1 also see the land allotments of the Ur III period ** BM 105334 gives the size of not only land allotments to the cultivators, but also the size of the sustenance field of the ensi;, and the sustenance fields of other administrators (albeit grouped together without any differentiation), The size of the GAN, shuku ensiyka is 60 bur, a field of considerable size, and certainly big enough to produce the 246,000 liters of barley mentioned in our short receipt (MVN 16, 934). The early Ur Ill text OrSP 47-49, 500, can be interpreted as a list of the produce of the land allotments given to high-ranking officials of the Ur IU administration, since it is a list of names of adminis trators accompanied by grain amounts, grouped together according to fields.Land Allotments During the Third Dynasty of Ur 337 the nature of this grant which clearly was not his private property since he was held accountable for the produce of these holdings, However, vital points of concern remain to be explained: it is uncertain whether the value of a land allotment was given as an estimate, to be fulfilled by the time of harvest, as T have suggested, or whether the holder of a large land allotment perhap was obligated to use his harvest as rations to his immediate subjects. This is still unclear to me. A tranliteration of the three texts in question might spark an interest in the problem. MVN 16 934 dated to Shu-Suens third year, month 3 obx. 1) 13.40,00 she gur 2) she shukuera 3) ensiy rev. 1) (blank space) 2)iti RI 3) mu-usysa ma; “enki bacab-duy UTAMI 3 1687 dated to ShuSuens third year. oby. 1) LAYNI 1Mi4,5.4 1/5 2) LA; IN nigkayak 3) she shuku-raensiy -ka 4) kishib [ada]-[ga’l 2) ensiz ummas* 3) arclarga 4) dubsar iryy-2u 820 gur (c. 246,000 liters) of barley Gs the) sustenance barley (of the) city governor The month RI The year after (the was caulked, sar) the boat of Enki Deficit 14 gur and 294 1/5 sila, (c. 4.494 1/5 liters) (of barley) (itis) the defecit of the account ‘of sustenance barley of the city governor. Seal of Adaga ‘The year the boat of Enki was caulked Uris City governor of Umma Adaga the scribe, (is) your slave MVN 21 334 (ism. 14742) dated to Shu-Suens eight year oby. 1) 1820 she gur 2)igdub kissus saharuy-uy 3) 131.3 gur isdub kiss (blank line) 5) SHU*NIGIN 19:33 she gue 6) shasbita 7) 143,07 5 silay gur (blank line) (Rasur) rev I) kishib luykala (blank line) 3) SHU+NIGIN) 14: 4) zi-gacams 07 1/4 silas gur 18 gur and 120 silas (c. 5.5220 liters) of barley at the idub of the threshing-floor of the field Saharwa 1 gur and 90 sila (c. 390 liters) at the idib of the threshing/floor of the field Ushgidela, Total 19 gur and 210 silay Ce. 5910 Mit barley Out of it Mi gurand 187 1), sila, (¢. 4.387, liters) 1s) of under the seal of Lukalla Total M4 gur and 187 '/5 sila (¢. 4.38 istorn out /sliters)338 Jacob Dahl 5) LAyNI 50,2 2 2/, sila, she gur Deficit 5 gur and 22 +g sila, (c. 1,522 liters) of barley 6) nigkay ak she shuku-ra ensiy ‘The account of the sustenance barley of the city governor 7) gitis luydingir-ra via Ludingira s)mu ‘gut mah batim, The year the lofty magurboat was fashioned, Since the small land allotments granted to specific workers of the Ur III society? (c. 6 iku) would only yield slightly more barley than the rations paid to a depen- dent worker, and thus, as suggested above, would not affect their social posi- tion, and since the administrators of the Ur IE state did perhaps receive their rations as land allotments, T have suggested that land allotments might represent another way by which the Ur III state sought to maximize production, by making the estimated yield of a land allotment the personal debt of the prebend holder, and the yield his credit: making him liable for the balance of the production. » Presumably everyone beyond the level of a gurush could receive land allotments.