ur 02

[JNES 63 no. 4 (2004)]ç 2004 by The University of Chicago.All rights reserved.0022–2968–2004/6304–0004$10.00.

283

REFLECTIONS ON SOME HOUSEHOLDS AND THEIR RECEIVING OFFICIALS IN THE CITY OF UR IN THE UR III PERIOD*

MAGNUS WIDELL, The University of Chicago

I. Introduction

The administration of the capital of the Ur III state is still not completely clear.One major problem is that a central archive of the king and the palace (if such an archiveever existed) has not yet been found. As in other cities in the Ur III state, the personnel ofthe documented households in the texts from Ur were maintained by rations,1 for the low-status workers (for example, different erin2-, geme2-, or gflurus workers), or allowances,2

for people of somewhat higher status (for example, sabra administrators, plowmen [engar],etc.). The most important product for these rations or allowances seems to have been bar-ley, which in Ur mainly came from the city’s central granary (gur7), sometimes throughthe official Ur-ku3-nun-na.3 In addition to the central granary, there were several minorgranaries supplying the households. Specialized scribes tied to their respective householdreceived the products. Among the close to 3,300 published Ur III documents from Ur, afew tablets dated to Ibbi-Suen’s sixth year as king record such receipts of barley rationsbetween the city’s granaries and the different households. Thus the scribe dNanna-sa4 re-ceived rations for the personnel of the textile-producing E2-dSara2

(ki),4 Mu-ni(ni)-mah5 forthe workers of Su-na-mu-gi4

(ki),6 and Lugal-igi-hus for the erin2 workers of the (templeof ) dNanna-gu2-gal.7

* I would like to thank Professor Wu Yuhong andDr. R. Mayr for several valuable comments on thisarticle. References to texts follow the abbreviations inM. Sigrist and T. Gomi, The Comprehensive Catalogueof Published Ur III Tablets (Bethesda, Maryland, 1991).

1 The expressions for different rations in the Ur IIItexts were: se-ba (grain), i3-ba (oil/lard), zu2-lum-ba(dates), ninda-ba (bread), ku6-ba (fish), tug2-ba (gar-ments) and sig2-ba (wool). Note however that the termse-ba is often found as a general term for rations re-gardless of the actual product given/received (see I. J.Gelb, “The Ancient Mesopotamian Ration System,”JNES 24 [1965]: 230–43, esp. 231 and 233). In somerare cases, meat rations are attested for workers, mostlikely only as temporary extra rations, however, in con-nection to especially demanding tasks (see R. K. Eng-lund, Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei[Berlin, 1990], pp. 6–7, n. 32).

2 I.e., se kur6-ra (grain), i3 kur6-ra (oil/lard), etc.(see n. 1 above).

3 It should be noted that dates were also stored inthe gur7 and delivered to the households by Ur-ku3-nun-na (see MVN 3 314).

4 For the small group of texts, all dated to Ibbi-Suenyear 6, where dNanna-sa4 is receiving barley from thegranary as rations for workers of the E2-dSara2

(ki), seeUET 3 964, 966, 974, 975, 990; UET 9 19; MVN 13196. For the relationship between the household and thetextile industry, see UET 3 1686 (see also H. Waetz-oldt, Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindus-trie [Rome, 1972], p. 167). Note that this official shouldnot be confused with the well-attested contemporaryscribe (UET 3 988, 160) and animal fattener (UET 31060; UET 9 1053) dNanna-sa4, who received (i3-dab5)or delivered (ki . . .-ta) animals (in some cases alsoattested receiving animal fodder [UET 3 988; UET 91059]) for religious purposes during the sixth and sev-enth years of Ibbi-Suen’s reign. This official can beassociated with the E2-udu-niga household (UET 31060, 1237, 1232), but he had nothing to do with theE2-dSara2

(ki) in Ur.

Journal of Near Eastern Studies284

I hope that this article will raise some questions concerning the Ur III households andthe few officials we know of who worked as receiving officials for these institutions. Anenhanced understanding of the function and structure of the Ur III households and theirrelation to the capital is no doubt of fundamental importance for our understanding of Su-merian society.

II. Ur-zikum-ma: The City’s Supervisor/Controller or Date Supplier

Several of the receiving officials (i.e., Mu-ni-mah, Lugal-igi-hus, and dNanna-sa4) arelisted on the undated text UET 9 957. The large quantities of dates for the first official onthe list, Mu-ni-mah, as well as the well-known practice in Ur III documents to list prod-ucts or officials hierarchically, seem to suggest that Mu-ni-mah and his household (see be-low) played an important role in the capital. The tablet represents a kind of control and/orsummary account of several individual tablets belonging to the officials listed in the text.The tablet is referred to as the “main tablet (concerning) dates” (sagfl-DUB8 zu2-lum), andit was to be returned/replaced (su-su-dam) by Ur-zikum-ma. If this somewhat unclear ex-pression refers to the “main tablet (concerning) dates” (and not the dates themselves), wecan perhaps assume that the return would take place as soon as the individual tablets ofthe different officials either had been drawn up or checked. This would, in turn, imply thatUr-zikum-ma may have played some kind of supervising or controlling role, at least forsome of the city’s distributions to the officials working for the households in, or in the vicin-ity of, the city. In any case, while the personal name Ur-zikum-ma appears in a few textsdealing with textiles from the sixth and seventh years of Ibbi-Suen’s reign—also discov-ered in the E2-dub-la2-mah (UET 3 1721 and 1176)—no further evidence seems to indicatethat Ur-zikum-ma was involved in the city’s distribution of rations to households. Nor canthe name Ur-zikum-ma otherwise be connected to the storing or production of dates in thecity. Text UET 9 957 reads in transliteration and translation as follows:

Obv.

1 1;3,4 5 sila3 zu2-lum2 Mu-ni-mah3 0;1,4 4 sila3 DUB Da-da n[a-gada?]4 0;4,0 1!/3 sila3 DUB Lugal-igi-hu[s!]5 0;3,3 6 sila3 DUB Lu2-ama-n[a]6 [0;2,2] ª5º sila3 DUB dNanna-sa4

5 For the identification of Mu-NI-NI-mah and Mu-ni-mah “his name (is) exalted,” suggesting that the sec-ond NI in Mu-NI-NI-mah should be understood as aphonetic indicator (i.e., Mu-nini-mah), see below.

6 The texts, also dated to Ibbi-Suen year 6, wherethe scribe Mu-ni(ni)-mah is receiving barley for rationsof the workers of Su-na-mu-gi4

(ki) include: MVN 13314, 733; UET 3 970. Note also UET 3 1415 fromIbbi-Suen year 6 (month IX) recording barley and datesas rations for a rather modest number of female work-ers (geme2) and their children. This text shows thatthe Su-na-mu-gi4

(ki) administration also included thetemple of dBa-u2.

7 Only UET 3 969 and 976, dated to the 10th and11th months of Ibbi-Suen year 6 respectively, are pub-lished so far; they document Lugal-igi-hus receipts ofbarley for the erin2 workers.

8 Literally “head-tablet.” Note that the sagfl-DUBhere should not be confused with the more commonsagfl-DUB, usually translated “main,” “full-fledged,” or“regular” workers (see, for example, T. Maeda, “Sub-groups of lú-KUR6-dab5-ba (I) – sag-dub and ses-bìr-ra – ,” Acta Sumerologica 4 [1982]: 69–84, 79–81, or,more recently, Englund, Organisation und Verwaltungder Ur III-Fischerei, p. 105, n. 335).

Households and Their Receiving Officials in the Ur III Period 285

Rev.

7 [. . . . . .] HI se8 (uninscribed line)9 su.nigflin2 4;0,3 1!/3 sila3 zu2-lum

10 sagfl-[DUB] zu2-lum11 Ur-ªzikumº-ma fisufl-su-da[m!]

(1)1 (gur), 3 (bariga), 4 (ban2) (and) 5 sila3 dates (= 525 liters): (2) (on) the tablet of/seal: Mu-ni-mah.(3) 1 (bariga), 4 (ban2) (and) 4 sila3 (= 145 liters): (on) the tablet of/seal: Da-da, the herdsman. (4)4(bariga) (and) 1!/3 sila3 (= 241!/3 liters): (on) the tablet of/seal: Lugal-igi-hus. (5)3 (bariga), 3 (ban2)(and) 6 sila3 (= 216 liters): (on) the tablet of/seal:Lu2-ama-na. (6)[2 (bariga), 2 (ban2)] (and) 5 sila3(= 145 liters): (on) the tablet of/seal: dNanna-sa4. (7). . . (8)(uninscribed line) (9)Total: 4 (gur), 3 (ban2)(and) 1!/3 sila3 dates (= 1231!/3 liters). (10)The main tablet (of ) dates, (11)Ur-zikum-ma: it is to bereturned/replaced.

III. Su-na-mu-gi4(ki)

and the Receiving Official Mu-ni(ni)

-mah

Text MVN 13 733 from Ibbi-Suen’s sixth year (month VI) may serve as an example ofthe more specific documentation of a transaction between the granary in Ur and Su-na-mu-gi4

(ki):

Obv.

1 1;4,0 se gur2 se-ba erin2 Su-na-mu-gi43 ki Ur-ku3-nun-na-ta4 Mu-ni-mah

Rev.

5 su ba-an-ti6 gfliri3 Ur-dªGAR3º-A-U27 (seal impression) Seal 1 Mu-ni-mah8 iti ezem-dNin-[a-zu] 2 du[b-sar]9 mu bad3-gal ba-du3 3 dumu Gfl iri3-ni [. . .]

(1)1 gur, 4 (bariga) barley (= 540 liters), (2)rations of the erin2 workers of Su-na-mu-gi4, (3)fromUr-ku3-nun-na-ta, (4)Mu-ni-mah (5)received. (6)Responsible: Ur-dGAR3-A-U2. (7)(seal impres-sion) (8)The month of the festival of Ninazu (= month VI), (9)The year (when) the great wall wasbuilt (= Ibbi-Suen, year 6).

Seal: (1)Mu-ni-mah, (2)the scribe, (3)the son of Gfl iri3-ni.

The text is nearly identical to UET 3 970 and MVN 3 314 from the same year. In UET 3970 a scribe called Mu-NI-NI-mah (dumu Ur-dSa-u18-sa) receives 2 gur (= 600 liters) ofbarley as rations for the erin2 workers of Su-na-mu-gi4. Since the exceedingly rare per-sonal name Ur-dSa-u18-sa also appears in a seal impression on a text from Su-Suen year6,9 this time as the father of a scribe called Mu-ni-mah, we may assume that Mu-NI-NI-mah and Mu-ni-mah in these texts in fact refer to the same person and that the reading ofthe name in UET 3 970 should be Mu-nini-mah. The seal used in UET 3 1359 with Mu-ni-mah may have been lost or for other reasons discarded when UET 3 970 was written

9 See UET 3 1359.


and sealed with Mu-nini-mah’s seal 9 years later. Text MVN 3 314 is not sealed, but wefind Mu-ni-mah receiving rations of barley and dates for the erin2 workers of Su-na-mu-gi4.Texts UET 3 970 and MVN 3 314 are dated to the eighth and ninth months of Ibbi-Suen’ssixth year respectively, and it seems indeed a strange coincidence that the organization ofSu-na-mu-gi4

(ki) should employ two different scribes with such similar names for thesame receiving function during the same period of time. We may therefore assume thathere, too, Mu-nini-mah and Mu-ni-mah should be understood as the same individual. Ifwe go one step further and make the highly plausible assumption that the receiving scribeMu-ni-mah in MVN 13 733, cited above, also refers to this receiving official, we are facedwith another problem: according to the seal impression on this text, Mu-ni-mah’s father iscalled Gfl iri3-ni.10 One possible explanation for the two “fathers” of Mu-ni(ni)-mah couldbe that Ur-dSa-u18-sa and Gfl iri3-ni actually referred to one individual who used two differ-ent names. Apart from appearing in MVN 13 733, the name Gfl iri3-ni also appears in a textfrom Ur dated to Ibbi-Suen’s second year (month XI).11 In this text he is recorded as thefather of Ur-dNin-subur, who might thus perhaps be considered the brother of Mu-ni(ni)-mah. Unfortunately, the remaining material from Ur does not provide any further informa-tion concerning a possible relationship between these individuals.

Another possible explanation for Mu-ni(ni)-mah’s two “fathers” could be that Gfl iri3-ni, orUr-dSa-u18-sa, or both should be understood as some kind of legal or economic guardian(s)rather than Mu-ni(ni)-mah’s biological father(s). Dumu’s additional meaning of “agent”was first suggested by T. B. Jones and J. W. Snyder and has since been echoed by a numberof scholars, especially in connection with different Umma merchants.12 D. M. McGuiness,who has argued for the traditional meaning, “son,” for dumu, has demonstrated the com-plexity of naming practices in the Ur III period. These practices are further complicatedby the still unknown procedures in cases of death, adoption, (re-)marriage, etc., andMcGuiness is certainly right in emphasizing the problems connected to the constructionof prosopography based solely on personal names in unrelated or undated texts.13 As forour Mu-ni(ni)-mah, the period of only two months between the writing of MVN 13 733and UET 3 970 makes it difficult to accept an explanation assuming a biological father onone seal and a stepfather on the other. A further problem is that Mu-ni(ni)-mah actually isattested with the father Ur-dSa-u18-sa both before and after he records Gfl iri3-ni as his fa-ther. This indicates that we are not dealing with a successive replacement of “fathers” dueto death, family conflict, etc., nor can we suggest that the problem with Mu-ni(ni)-mah’stwo “fathers” was because his biological father for some reason suddenly decided tochange his name from Ur-dSa-u18-sa to Gfl iri3-ni.

10 The right edge of the seal impression is damaged,and there is a slight possibility that Gfl iri3-ni is followedby one additional sign. The broken area is rather smalland would scarcely permit the restoration Gfl iri3-ne2-[sa6](and certainly not Gfl iri3-ne2-i3-sa6, which is attested inUr). None of the usual “shorter” names beginning withGfl iri3-NI-. . . (for example, Gfl iri3-ni-ni or Gfl iri3-ni-ba)are attested in the material from Ur.

11 UET 3 1372.12 T. B. Jones and J. W. Snyder, Sumerian Economic

Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty: A Catalogue and Dis-cussion of Documents from Various Collections (Min-

neapolis, 1961), p. 330. See also D. C. Snell, Ledgersand Prices: Early Mesopotamian Merchant Accounts(New Haven, Conn. and London, 1982), p. 100, n. 72with further references. The most recent comprehen-sive study of “multiple patronymy” of Ur III officials(in Umma) is R. H. Mayr, “The Seal Impressions ofUr III Umma” (Ph.D. diss., Leiden University, 1997),pp. 141–47.

13 D. M. McGuiness, “Ur III Prosopography: SomeMethodological Considerations,” Archiv Orientální 50(1982): 324–42.


As for Mu-ni(ni)-mah’s use of several seals, it is well known that some Ur III officialsused different seals during their careers.14 None of the traditional explanations for new orchanged seals (i.e., changed political conditions, changed family conditions, private pro-fessional advancement/change, a worn out or damaged seal, or a practice of using specificseals in specific situations/transactions), however, seem to offer any satisfactory explana-tion for Mu-ni(ni)-mah’s use of different seals. In conclusion, the activities of Mu-ni(ni)-mah can be summarized in Table 1 as follows:

As can be seen, we seem to be dealing with one single official who uses two differentnames, three different seals, and has two different “fathers” in his official dealings withthe city of Ur.

The Su-na-mu-gi4(ki) is rarely attested in the Ur III material and is found mainly in the

texts from the city of Ur.15 The exact location of the center/city is uncertain.16 That the ex-pression referred to a center/city of its own can be seen in its occasional postpositional de-terminative ki17 or in the attestations of the construction ma-da Su-na-mu-gi4

ki “the landof S.”18 Similar constructions using ma-da before city names are relatively common intexts from Ur (e.g., ma-da Ga-es5

ki, ma-da Gfl ir2-suki, ma-da Ummaki, etc.). Furthermore,the expression sag4 Su-na-mu-gi4 uruki “in S., the city” seems in this context noteworthy.19

TABLE 1

Date and Reference Seal Text Summary

Su-Suen year 6Type 1

Mu-ni-mah, the scribe and dumu of [Ur]-dSa-u18-sa,UET 3 1359 receives [barley] for (i.e., in) Su-na-mu-gi4ki.

Ibbi-Suen year 6, month VIType 2

Mu-ni-mah, the scribe and dumu of Gfl iri3-ni,MVN 13 733 receives barley for Su-na-mu-gi4.

Ibbi-Suen year 6, month VIIIType 3

Mu-nini-mah, the scribe and dumu of Ur-dSa-u18-sa,UET 3 970 receives barley for Su-na-mu-gi4.

Ibbi-Suen year 6, month IXNo seal

A certain Mu-ni-mah receives barley and dates forMVN 3 314 Su-na-mu-gi4.

14 See, most recently, W. Sallaberger and A. Westen-holz, Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit and Ur III-Zeit (Frei-burg, Switzerland and Göttingen, 1999), pp. 229–30with further references or, for more details, Mayr, “TheSeal Impressions of Ur III Umma,” pp. 155–63.

15 See L. Legrain, Ur Excavation Texts III: BusinessDocuments of the Third Dynasty of Ur: Indexes, Vo-cabulary, Catalogue, Lists (London and Philadelphia,1947), p. 45 (add: MVN 13 314, 733; UET 3 970, 978,993, 1037[?], 1644).

16 According to D. O. Edzard and G. Farber, DieOrts- und Gewässernamen der Zeit der 3. Dynastie vonUr (Wiesbaden, 1974), p. 185 (referring to H. Sauren,Topographie der Provinz Umma nach den Urkundender Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur, Teil I: Kanäle undBewässerungsanlagen [Bamberg, 1966], pp. 89, 92,129), the forest of Su-na-mu-gi4 was located to thenorth of Zabalam, two days away from KA-sahar. Forfurther details, see also F. Carroué, “Études de géo-graphie et de topographie sumériennes. II. À la re-

cherche de l’Euphrate au IIIe millénaire,” ActaSumerologica 13 (1991): 111–56, 139– 40, and 155,n. 149. In agreement with earlier studies, Carroué lo-cated the forest some two days (or ca. 50 km) south-east of KA-sahar and Nippur, about 30 km (one day)northwest of Umma and about five travel days awayfrom the capital. Note, however, that the forest of Su-na-mu-gi4 was not necessarily situated at the same lo-cation as the rest of the Su-na-mu-gi4 household. Thequestion of the location of the Su-na-mu-gi4 householdis further complicated, since Su-na-mu-gi4, without thedeterminative KI, is attested as a personal name. Areference to field, garden, forest, etc. of Su-na-mu-gi4might thus be a reference to a person’s property ratherthan to the property of the Su-na-mu-gi4 household (forexample, the gana2 Su-na-mu-gi4 in MVN 2 33 iv 12).

17 UET 3 1359, 1361, 1779, and (possibly) UET 31078.

18 UET 3 1361.19 UET 3 1721.

Journal of Near Eastern Studies

288

L. Legrain considered it an institution for cloth and wool, but it seems to me that theamount of available evidence still remains insufficient for a secure identification of the na-ture of the organization of

S

u-na-mu-gi

4(ki)

.

20

Apart from boasting female workers,

21

aswell as an apparently very large contingent of erin

2

workers,

22

the administration of

S

u-na-mu-gi

4(ki)

also employed people to work in the fields using cattle (nu-banda

3

gud).

23

Texts from cities other than Ur reveal that the

S

u-na-mu-gi

4

also kept a significant amountof barley,

24

and the forest (tir) of

S

u-na-mu-gi

4

situated in the province of Umma is wellknown.

25

In addition to referring to a specific area/city, it seems that

S

u-na-mu-gi

4

was alsoa personal name in Ur and in other Ur III cities as well.

26

IV. Su-Bu and the Receiving Official

I-

ti

-

ZU/

d

ZU/

d

EN.ZU

Another interesting example of the maintenance of workers of a center/city in the vicin-ity of Ur is offered by a MVN 3 261 from Ibbi-Suen year 6 (month VII). The text records

I-ti-

ZU as the receiving official of barley for the rations of different workers and personnelin the land of Su-bu:

Obv.

1 6;0,4

s

e gur2 gur

7

-nig

fl

2

-erim

2

-/[nu]-dib-ta3

s

e-ba

s

ag

4

-gud

ªs

ag

4

º

-sahar-ra4 u

3

g

fl

ir

3

-sig

5

-ga E

2(!BA)

-tug

2

Rev.

5

s

ag

4

ma-da Su-bu6

I-ti-

ZU Seal 1

I-ti-

d

EN.ZU7

s

u ba-an-ti 2 dub-sar8 iti a

2

-ki-ti 3 arad

2

-

d

Nanna9 (uninscribed line)

10 mu

d

I-bi

2

-

ª

d

EN

º

.ZU / lugal-e bad

3

-gal / mu-du

3

(1)

6 gur, 4 (ban

2

) barley (

=

1840 liters),

(2)

from the granary “evil that not comes by,”

27

(3)

rations(for) the cattle drovers, earth workers

(4)

and the personnel (of ) the garment house,

(5)

(in) the heartof the land of Su-bu,

(6)

I-ti-

ZU

(7)

received.

(8)

The month of the a

2

-ki-ti (= month VII),

(9)

(unin-scribed line)

(10)

The year (when)

d

I-bi

2

-

d

Suen,

the king, built the great wall (= Ibbi-Suen, year 6).

Seal:

(1)

I-ti-

d

Suen,

(2)

the scribe,

(3)

the servant of the god Nanna.

20

Legrain,

Ur Excavation Texts III,

p. 193. See alsoWaetzoldt,

Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textil-industrie,

pp. 103–4.

21

UET 3 1415.

22

UET 3 970, 1433; MVN 13 314, 733.

23

UET 3 1660. Note here also the “round tablet”CT 1, pls. 41–42, col. ii, lines 7–8, from Laga

s

(Amar-Suen year 8), referring to a farmer called Ur-gu-la work-ing on the “ox-field” of

S

u-na-mu-gi

4

(Ur-gu-la engar,gana

2

-gud

S

u-na-mu-gi

4

).

24

MVN 15 234.

25

See P. Steinkeller, “The Foresters of Umma:Toward a Definition of Ur III Labor,” in M. A. Powell,ed.,

Labor in the Ancient Near East,

AOS, vol. 68 (NewHaven, Conn., 1987), pp. 73–115. See also n. 14 above.

26

See UET 3 1644 and (perhaps) UET 3 1037. Forthe personal name

S

u-na-mu-gi

4

attested in other cities,see, for example, OrSP 47–49 44 (Uruk), MVN 13 251,424, MVN 15 198, OrSP 47– 49 128, 130 (Puzri

s

-Dagan), MVN 2 176 xi 27, MVN 6 349 v 9, MVN 2 33iv 12 (Laga

s

), TCL 5 6038 iv 2 (Umma).

27

Note that Ur-ku

3

-nun-na did not work in this gra-nary (see UET 3 1092).


I-ti-ZU is also recorded as being responsible for the “keeping” (in-da-gflal2) of very largeamounts of barley within Su-bu, so large in fact that it seems unlikely that more than apart of the barley was destined as worker rations or allowances.28 The exact meaning ofthe text is not completely clear: if we assume that the close to 183 gur barley (about 55 cu-bic meters), referred to as kud-a gflal2-la29 in the text, represented an (average) annual har-vest in the land of Su-bu, the text seems to imply that the more than 1,048 gur barley (i.e.,about 315 cubic meters) already deposited in the household corresponded to almost sixannual (average) harvests. In any case, the text indicates that Su-bu should be considereda very important grain producing/storing center that, for some reason, received its barleyrations from the capital. These two texts published in MVN 3 represent the only attesta-tions of I-ti-ZU in Ur, but there are two other texts from Ur where barley is received forthe rations of the people of Su-bu. The three texts where Su-bu is attested as receivingbarley for rations from the granary in Ur can be summarized in Table 2 as follows:

Although the texts are quite likely to have been composed during roughly the same periodof time, the name of the recipient is written differently in each text and two different sealshave been used. Still, we can hardly assume that the administration of Su-bu incidentallyemployed three different scribes and “servants of Nanna” with such similar names for thesame job during the same time. Instead, it seems certain that the recipient and the sealowner in the texts refer to one single official. H. Waetzoldt has already demonstrated thatdZU and ZU were alternative writings of dEN.ZU in the Ur III period.30 While these writ-ings of the name thus may be explained as abbreviations for dEN.ZU or dSuen, it is difficultto explain why I-ti-ZU/dZU/dEN.ZU, like his colleague in Su-na-ma-gi4

(ki), owned andused different seals with different spellings of his name in his dealings with the city of Ur.

TABLE 2

Date and Ref. Prod. Source Purpose Destination Recipient Seal Inscription

[Ibbi-Suen 6], VII Barley gur7 sa2-dug4 [. . . S]u-bu I-ti-dEN-ZU I-ti-dEN.ZU, dub-UET 3 1016 se-ba sar, arad2-dNanna

Ibbi-Suen 6, VII Barley gur7-nigfl2- se-ba sag4-gud, sag4-sahar-ra I-ti-ZU I-ti-dEN.ZU, dub-MVN 3 261 erim2-nu- u3 gflir3-sig5-ga E2

(!BA)- sar, arad2-dNannadib tug2, sag4 ma-da Su-bu

Ibbi-Suen 6, VIII [Barley] Ur-ku3- sa2-dug4 aga3-us2 Su-bu I-ti-dZU I-ti-dZU, dub-sar,UET 3 157 nun-na se-ba arad2-dNanna

28 MVN 3 318. This text, together with MVN 3261 (see below), would seem to render a collation ofUET 3 157, which, according to Legrain’s copy hasI-ti-dZU, superfluous (see H. Waetzoldt, “Zur Lesungund Aussprache von dEN.ZU am Ende des 3. Jahrtau-sends,” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires1990/95, n. 2).

Apart from the texts already mentioned, Su-bu alsoappears in UET 3 842, 1281; MVN 3 316; UET 9 203,etc. In MVN 3 316 from Ibbi-Suen year 2, the land ofSu-bu is listed together with ma-da Unugki, E2-dSara2ma-da Ummaki, and Ga-es5

ki showing that the Su-bu,like the Su-na-mu-gi4

(ki), was an important center lo-cated outside the city of Ur. Note here also UET 3 999from Ibbi-Suen year 6 (month IX) where I-ti-dEN-ZU

(dub-sar, arad2-dNanna) receives grain from the gur7(and) Ur-ku3-nun-na as the seed for sowing the fielda-gflis-bansur-ra. Although not further substantiated inthe texts, it is possible that the field a-gflis-bansur-ra (alsoattested in UET 9 1008 and UET 9 1370) was locatedin the land of Su-bu.

29 I.e., “kept cut (barley)” as a parallel to the nigfl2gflal2-la (lit. “kept goods”) in line 2. I prefer this read-ing and translation to the somewhat dubious (but by nomeans impossible) sila-a gflal2-la “kept in the street.”

30 Waetzoldt, “Zur Lesung und Aussprache vondEN.ZU am Ende des 3. Jahrtausends.” For other gen-eral variations of spellings of personal names, see alsoMayr, “The Seal Impressions of Ur III Umma,” pp. 97–98 with additional literature.


V.dNanna-gu2-gal and the Receiving Official Lugal-igi-huS

Our final example of a scribe working as a middleman between the city of Ur and itsgranaries and his own household is Lugal-igi-hus. This scribe is documented as receivingbarley rations for erin2 workers in two nearly identical texts dated to the 10th and 11thmonths of Ibbi-Suen year 6. The two texts can be summarized in Table 3 as follows:

While the recipient Lugal-igi-hus is written identically on the tablets, the seal impressionsare different and once again present us with the problem of an official having two different“fathers.” As in the case of Mu-ni(ni)-mah, the texts are more or less contemporary andpractically identical (even the amount of barley received seems to be the same in thetexts). The fact that the texts are dated to two successive months within the same yearmakes it highly unlikely that we are dealing with a biological father on the first seal anda stepfather on the other, or that an adoption took place somewhere between the first andthe second text. No other texts from Ur indicate any relation or connection between La-qi4-ip or Na-sa6.

VI. Conclusion

In this article, I have studied the attestations of three of the few known scribes receivingthe workers’ rations from the granaries of the city of Ur. The attestations show clearly that,prosopographically speaking, we have to accept several rather problematic facts about theseofficials.

All three officials used multiple seals during the same period in completely identicaltransactions. None of the traditional explanations for officials attested with multiple seals,such as changed political conditions, changed family conditions, private professional ad-vancement/change, a worn or damaged seal, or a practice of using specific seals in spe-cific situations/transactions, can explain the use of multiple seals in our texts.

Both Mu-ni(ni)-mah and I-ti-ZU/dZU/dEN.ZU wrote their names in different ways dur-ing the same period in completely identical transactions.

Both Mu-ni(ni)-mah and Lugal-igi-hus apparently saw no problem in being officiallyrecorded as the “son” (dumu) of more than one male person during the same period oftime. Since all our texts are from Ibbi-Suen’s sixth year and should be considered more orless contemporary, this can only be explained in two ways: (1) Ur III individuals (in thiscase the “fathers”) could be referred to with completely different personal names duringthe same period of time, or (2) the dumu on these seals should not be understood as “son,”but rather as a person economically or legally under the protection or supervision of anindividual, possibly (but not necessarily) a relative such as a biological father or grand-father, and that a person (i.e., a “son”) could have several such economic/legal guardianssimultaneously.

TABLE 3

Date and Ref. Prod. Source Purpose Destination Recipient Seal Inscription

Ibbi-Suen 6, X Barley Ur-ku3- se-ba erin2-dNanna-gu2-gal Lugal-igi-hus Lugal-igi-hus, dub-UET 3 969 nun-na sar, dumu La-qi4-ip

Ibbi-Suen 6, XI Barley gur7-mah se-ba erin2-dNanna-gu2(!TA)- Lugal-igi-hus Lugal-igi-hus, dub-

UET 3 976 «e2»-gal sar, dumu Na-sa6