S Alivernini J Mynarova Management of Re

Economic Complexity
Alivernini (eds.)
in the Ancient Near East
Mynářová
Management of Resources and Taxation
(Third – Second Millennium BC)
Economic Complexity in the Ancient Near East

Jana Mynářová – Sergio Alivernini (eds.)
ISBN 978-80-7308-991-7
9 788073 089917
Economic Complexity
in the Ancient Near East.
Prague
Charles University
2020
The book was published with support of the research project of the Czech Science Foundation GA ČR 18-01897S
“Economic Complexity in the Ancient Near East. Management of Resources and Taxation in the 3rd and
2nd Millennium BC.”
Reviewed by Elena Devecchi and Shai Gordin
Contributors: Sergio Alivernini, Heather Baker, Gojko Barjamovic, Giacomo Benati,

Odette Boivin, Marco Bonechi, Armando Bramanti, Grégory Chambon, Katrien De
Graef, Anne Goddeeris, Josué J. Justel, Jacob Lauinger, Jaume Llop, Jürgen Lorenz,
Kevin M. McGeough, Jana Mynářová, Susanne Paulus, Regine Pruzsinszky, Seth
Richardson
Cover: František Kupka, Babylon, 1906. Fotografie © Národní galerie Praha 2020
Type-setting layout: AGAMA® poly-grafický ateliér, s.r.o.

Print: Tiskárny Havlíčkův Brod a.s., Husova 1881, 580 01 Havlíčkův Brod
© Charles University, Faculty of Arts, 2020
ISBN: 978-80-7308-991-7
Contents
List of Abbreviations
Authors
Chapter 1.
Management of Resources and Taxation in the Ancient Near East.
An Introduction (Sergio Alivernini – Jana Mynářová) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chapter 2.
Management of Resources and Taxation in the Early Dynastic
and Sargonic Periods (Armando Bramanti) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Chapter 3.
The Fiscal Capacity of the Ebla State in the Early Bronze Age:
Taxation and Political Structure (Giacomo Benati – Marco Bonechi) . . . . . . . . 37
Chapter 4.
Management of Resources and Taxation in an Early Mesopotamian
Empire: the Case of the Third Dynasty of Ur (Sergio Alivernini) . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Chapter 5.
Extraction and Inequality in Middle Bronze Age Anatolia
(Gojko Barjamovic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Chapter 6.
The Fiscal Regime of Babylonia during the Old Babylonian Period
(Anne Goddeeris) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Chapter 7.
Taxation in the Late Old Babylonian Period. The Chief Dirge Singers’
Archive and Beyond (Katrien De Graef) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Chapter 8.
Old Babylonian Taxation as Political Mechanism (Seth Richardson) . . . . . . . . 217
Chapter 9.
Fiscal Regime and Management of Resources by the “King’s Household”
in Mari during the Old Babylonian Period (Grégory Chambon) . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Chapter 10.
Taxpayers and the Palace at the Time of the First Dynasty of the Sealand:
Social Aspects, Officials, and Keeping Track of the Barley (Odette Boivin) . . 279
Chapter 11.
Taxation and Management of Resources in Kassite Babylonia:
Remarks on šibšu and miksu (Susanne Paulus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Chapter 12.
Tributes and Taxes in the Middle Assyrian Documentation (Jaume Llop) . . . 327
Chapter 13.
Taxation and Management of Resources: the Case of Nuzi (Josué J. Justel) . . 341
3
Chapter 14.
Taxation and Management of Resources at Middle and Late Bronze
Age Alalah (Jacob Lauinger) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
Chapter 15.
Taxation and Management of Resources—The Evidence from
the Late Bronze Age Middle Euphrates Region (Regine Pruzsinszky) . . . . . . . 383
Chapter 16.
Taxation and Management of Resources at Ugarit (Kevin M. McGeough) . . . 399
Chapter 17.
Management of Resources and Taxation in the Southern Levant
in the Middle and Late Bronze Age (Jana Mynářová) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
Chapter 18.
Empire Period Hatti—Tax Heaven in the Late Bronze Age (Jürgen Lorenz) . 437
Chapter 19.
Management of Resources in Mesopotamia: the View from
the First Millennium BC (Heather Baker) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
4
List of Abbreviations
A. tablet siglum, Mari (in Chambon)

A. museum siglum, Louvre (in Boivin)
A museum siglum, Assur tablets, Istanbul Museum; Donbaz, V., 1976. Nin-
urta-Tukulti-Assur. Zamanına ait orta Asur idarî belgeleri. Ankara: Türk
tarih kurumu basimevi (in Llop)
ÄA Ägyptologische Abhandlungen
AAAS Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes. Revue d’archéologie et d’his-
toire
AAICAB Grégoire, J.-P., 1996. Archives administratives et inscriptions cunéi-
formes: Ashmolean Museum, Bodleian Collection, Oxford. Paris: Libraire
Orientaliste Paul Geuthner
AAS Grégoire, J.-P., 1970. Archives administratives sumériennes. Paris: Li-
braire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner
AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
ÄAT Ägypten und Altes Testament
AbB Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung
Ac. CS/Ac. St siglum, Acemhöyük material (cylinder seal/stamp seal)
Ad Ammiditana
AdŠ Wilhelm, G., 1980–. Das Archiv des Šilwa-Teššup. Wiesbaden: Harras-
sowitz.
Ae Abiešuh
AfO Archiv für Orientforschung
AHw von Soden, W., 1959–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz
AION Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. Sezione linguis-
tica
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages
Akk. Akkadian
Akkadica Akkadica. Périodique bimestriel de la Fondation Assyriologique Georges
Dossin
AKT Ankara Kültepe Tabletleri / Ankara Kültepe Tablets or Texts
ALASP Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas
AlT siglum, Alalah texts; Wiseman, D., 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. Occasional
Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 2. Lon-
don: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara
AMD Ancient Magic and Divination
ANESS Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series
AnOr Analecta Orientalia
AnSt Anatolian Studies
AO museum siglum, Louvre (Antiquités orientales)
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
AoF Altorientalische Forschungen
AOS American Oriental Series
ARCANE Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the
Eastern Mediterranean
5
ArchAnz Archäologischer Anzeiger
ARCHIBAB Archives babyloniennes (XXe–XVIIe siècles av. J.-C.)
ARET Archivi reali di Ebla. Testi
ARM Archives royales de Mari
ArOr Archiv Orientální
AS Amar-Suena (in Alivernini)
AS Assyriological Studies
ASAW Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
Leipzig, Philologisch-Historische Klasse
Ashm. museum siglum, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
ASJ Acta Sumerologica
Ass. siglum, Assur tablets; Frahm, E., 2002. Assur 2001: Die Schriftfunde.
MDOG 134, 47–86
Assur Assur. Monographic Journals of the Near East
Aṣ Ammiṣaduqa
ÄuL Ägypten und Levante
AUCT Andrews University Cuneiform Texts
AuOr Aula Orientalis
BagF Baghdader Forschungen
BagM Baghdader Mitteilungen
BAH Bibliothèque archéologique et historique
BAR IS British Archaeological Reports. International Series
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BATSH Berichte aus der Ausgrabung Tall Šēh Hamad/Dūr katlimmu
BBVO Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderer Orient
BBVOT Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderer Orient Texte
BDTNS Base de Datos de Textos Neosumericos, CSIC, Madrid
BE The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania
BF Baghdader Forschungen
BiMes Bibliotheca Mesopotamica
BIN Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis
BLMJ siglum, Emar texts; Westenholz, J. G., 2000. Cuneiform Inscriptions in
the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem. The Emar Tablets.
CM 13. Groningen: STYX Publication
BM museum siglum, British Museum, London
BN NF Biblische Notizen NF
BPOA Biblioteca del Pròximo Oriente Antiguo
BSA Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture
CA Current Anthropology
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago
CChEM Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean
CCT Cuneiform Texts from Cappadocian Tablets in the British Museum
CDA Black, J., 2012. Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Wiesbaden: Harras-
sowitz
CDLB Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin
CDLI Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative
CDOG Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
CH Codex Hammurabi
CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East
CIRAAS Centro internazionale di ricerche archeologische anropologiche e sto-
riche, Missione archeologica italiana nell’Anatolia Orientale
6
CM Cuneiform Monographs
CMET Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino
CNIP Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications
col. column
CRRAI Compte rendu de la Rencontre Assyriologique lnternationale
CSMS Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies
CT Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum
CTMMA Corpus of Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art
CTN Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud
CUSAS Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology
DAS Lafont, B., 1985. Documents administratifs sumériens, provenant du site
de Tello et conservés au Musée du Louvre. Mémoires 61. Paris: Éditions
Recherche sur les Civilisations
Di museum siglum, Sippar-Amnānum tablets, Iraq Musem, Baghdad
DN divine name
EA siglum, Amarna tablets; Knudtzon, J. A., 1964. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, mit
Einleitung und Erläuterungen. VB 2. Aalen: O. Zeller (2nd edition); Rainey,
A. F., 1978. El Amarna Tablets 359–379. AOAT 8. Kevelaer – Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker – Neukirchener Verlag
EBA Early Bronze Age
ED Early Dynastic (Period)
EI Eretz-Israel
Ek. siglum, texts from Ekalte; Mayer, W., 2001. Tall Munbāqa – Ekalte. Die
Texte. WVDOG 102. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag
EN Excavations at Nuzi
ePSD electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary Project
ETCSL The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature Literature
(http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk; last accessed on April 2, 2020)
FAOS Freiburger altorientalische Studien
FM Florilegium marianum
GMTR Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record
GN Geographical name
Gr. Greek
Gs. Kutscher siglum, Emar texts; Siegrist, M., 1993. Seven Emar Tablets. In A. F. Ra-
iney, ed. kinattūtu ša dārâti. Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume. Tel
Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 165–187
H Hittite
HAD siglum, Ekalte texts
HAM museum siglum, Hatay Archaeological Museum
HANEM History of the Ancient Near East. Monographs
HANES History of the Ancient Near East. Studies
HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik
HEO Hautes études orientales
HG Kohler, J. – Peiser, F. L. – Koschaker, P. – Ungnad, A., 1904–1923. Ham-
murabis Gesetz. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung
HSAO Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient
HSS Harvard Semitic Series
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
Hurr. Hurrian
ICDOG Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
IM museum siglum, Iraq Museum, Baghdad
7
IS Ibbi-Sîn
ISAW Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York University
IstM Istanbuler Mitteilungen
ITT Inventaire des tablettes de Tello
JA Journal asiatique
JAA Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
JAC Journal of Ancient Civilizations
JAEI Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections
JANEH Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History
JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JAS Journal of Archaeological Science
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JCSSS Journal of Cuneiform Studies Supplemental Series
JEN Joint Expedition with the Iraq Museum at Nuzi (= Publications of the
Baghdad School. Texts)
JEOL Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux
JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
KAJ Keilschrifttexte aus Assur juristischen Inhalts
KAV Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts
KB Keilschriftlichen Bibliothek
KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi
KIM Kültepe International Meetings
KKS Matouš, L. – Matoušová-Rajmová, M., 1984. Kappadokische Keilschrift-
tafeln mit Siegeln aus den Sammlungen der Karlsuniversität in Prag.
Prag: Karlsuniversität Prag
Kt inventory number, Kültepe texts
KTP The Cappadocian Tablets in the University of Pennsylvania Museum
KTU Dietrich, M. – Loretz, O. – Sanmartín, J., 2013. The Cuneiform Alphabetic
Texts from Ugarit, Ras ibn Hani, and Other Places, third, enlarged edition
(KTU3). AOAT 360/1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag
KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi
KuE Kudur-Enlil
l(l). line(s)
LAOS Leipziger altorientalische Studien
LAPO Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient
LBA Late Bronze Age
LH Laws of Hammurabi
LL Laws of Lipit-Ištar
M. tablet siglum; Mari (in Chambon)
MA Middle Assyrian (Period)
MAG Mittelassyrische Gesetze
MAH museum siglum, Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, Geneva
MAI Marduk-apla-iddina I
MARV Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte
MB Middle Babylonian (Period)
MBA Middle Bronze Age
MC Mesopotamian Civilizations
MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin
MEE Materiali epigrafici di Ebla
8
MHEM Mesopotamian History and Environment, Memoirs
MHEOP Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications
MHET Mesopotamian History and Environment
MIO Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung
MNA Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē
mng. meaning
MRWH Petschow, H. P. H., 1974. Mittelbabylonische Rechts- und Wirtschaft-
surkunden der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena. ASAW 64/4. Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag
Msk excavation siglum, Tell Meskene (Emar)
MSKH Brinkman, J. A., 1976. Materials and Studies for Kassite History Vol. 1.
A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the
Kassite Dynasty. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago
MSVO Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients
MŠ Meli-Šipak
MTBM Sigrist, M., 1990. Messenger Texts from the British Museum. Potomac:
Pennsylvania State University Press.
MUN Sassmannshausen, L., 2001. Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft
Babyloniens in der Kassitenzeit. BF 21. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von
Zabern
MVAG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft
MVN Materiali per il vocabulario neosumerico
n. note
NA Neo-Assyrian (Period)
NABU Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires
NATN Owen, D. I., 1982. Neo-Sumerian Archival Texts Primarily from Nippur.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns
NBC siglum, Nies Babylonian Collection, Yale Babylonian Collection, New
Haven
Nbn. Strassmaier, J. N., 1889. Inschriften von Nabonidus, König von Babylon.
BT 1 – 4. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs
NEA Near Eastern Archaeology
Neşr. C1 Kültepe tablet siglum, collection Kalley(?)
Nisaba Studi Assiriologici Messinesi
NKU Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur
NM Nazi-Maruttaš
no. number
NYPL Sauren, H., 1978. Les tablettes cunéiformes de l’époque d’Ur de la New
York Public Library. PIOL 19. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique
de Louvain, Institut orientaliste
OA Old Assyrian (Period)
OAAS Old Assyrian Archives Studies
OB Old Babylonian (Period)
OBC Orientalia biblica et christiana
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OBTIV Greengus, S., 1979. Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity.
PIHANS 40. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologische Instituut
te Istanbul
OBTR Dalley, S. – Walker, C. B. F. – Hawkins, J. D., 1976. Old Babylonian Texts
from Tell al Rimah. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq
obv. obverse
9
OECT Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts
OIP University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Publications
OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology
OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
OLP Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
OPBF Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund
OPSNKF Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund
OrAnt Oriens Antiquus
OREA Oriental and European Archaeology
OrNS Orientalia Nova Series
p(p). page(s)
PBS University of Pennsylvania. Publications of the Babylonian Section
PDT Çig, M. – Kizilyay, H. – Salonen, A., 1956. Die Puzriš-Dagan-Texte der Is-
tanbuler archäologischen Museen. Teil 1, Nr. 1–725. Helsinki: Helsinki
Suomalaiene Tiedeakat
PIE Proto-Indo-European
PIHANS Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de
Stamboul
PIOL Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain
PN personal name
PPAC Periodic Publications on Ancient Civilisations
PRU Palais royal d’Ugarit. Mission de Ras Shamra
PSD The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University of
Pennsylvania
QA excavation siglum, Qalʿat al-Bahrain tablets
QuadSem Quaderni di Semitistica
RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale
RAE siglum, Emar texts; Arnaud, D., 1985–1987. Recherches au pays d’Aštata.
Emar VI/1–4. Paris: ERC
RE siglum, Emar texts; Beckman, G., 1996. Texts from the Vicinity of Emar
in the Collection of Jonathan Rosen. HANES 2. Padova: Sargon
REL Revised Eponym List
rev. reverse
RGTC Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes
RIMA The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods
RIME Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods
RINAP Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period
RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie
RS siglum, Ras Shamra (Ugarit)
RSO Ras Shamra – Ougarit
S Syrian
SAA State Archives of Assyria
SAAB State Archives of Assyria Bulletin
SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies
SAHL Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant
SANER Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records
SANTAG SANTAG. Arbeiten und Untersuchungen zur Keilschriftkunde
SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization
SAT Sigrist, M., 1993. Texts from the British Museum. Sumerian Archival
Texts 1. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press
SCCNH Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians
10
SD Studia et documenta ad iura Orientis antiqui pertinentia
Sd Samsuditana
Si Samsuiluna
SEL Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico
SET Jones, T. B. – Snyder, J. W., 1961. Sumerian Economic Texts from the
Third Ur Dynasty. A Catalogue and Discussion of Documents from Vari-
ous Collections. Minneapolis: Unviersity of Minnesota Press
SH Syro-Hittite
SLT Chiera, F., 1929. Sumerian Lexical Texts from the Temple School of Nip-
pur. OIP 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
SMEA Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici
SNAT Gomi, T. – Sato, S., 1990. Selected Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts
from the British Museum. Chiba: not stated
SPC Sumerian Proverbs Collection
StAT Studien zu den Assur-Texten
StBoT Studien zu den Boghazköy-Texten
StCh Studia Chaburensia
StOr Studia Orientalia
StPohl SM Studia Pohl Series Maior
STTI Donbaz, V. – Foster, B., 1982. Sargonic Texts from Telloh in the Instanbul
Archaeological Museum. OPBF 5 / American Research Institute in Tur-
key Monographs 2. Philadelphia: The University Museum
Sum. Sumerian
s.v. sub voce
Š Šulgi
ŠS Šū-Sîn
TA Tel Aviv
TAVO Tübinger Atlas des Vorderedn Orients. Wiesbaden 1977ff.
TBR siglum, Emar texts; Arnaud, D., 1991. Textes syriens de l’âge du bronze
récent. AuOr Suppl. 1. Barcelona: AUSA
TC Contenau, G., 1920. Tablettes cappadociennes. Paris: Paul Geuthner
TCL Textes cunéiformes. Musées du Louvre
TCTI Tablettes cunéiformes de Tello au Musée d’Istanbul, datant de l’époque
de la IIIe Dynastie d’Ur
TEBA Birot, M., 1989. Tablettes économiques et administratives d’époque ba-
bylonienne ancienne conservées au Musée d’art et d’histoire de Genève.
Paris: Paul Geuthner.
THeth Texte der Hethiter
TIM Texts in the Iraq Museum.
TIM AkkS Texts in the Iraq Museum. Akkadian Series
TJA Szlechter, E., 1963. Tablettes juridiques et administratives de la IIIe dy-
nastie d’Ur et de la Ire Dynastie de Babylone conservée au Musée de l’uni-
versité de Manchester et à Cambridge, au Musée Fitzwilliam, à l’Institut
d’études orientales et à l’Institut d’égyptologie. Publications de l’Institut
de droit remain de l’Université de Paris 21. Paris: Recueil Sirey
TK siglum, Tell Khaiber tablets
TLB Tabulae Cuneiformes a F. M. Th. de Liagre Böhl I collectae
TLOB Richardson, S. F. C., 2010. Texts from the Late Old Babylonian Period.
JCS SS 2. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research
TM excavation siglum, Tell Mardikh (Ebla)
TMH Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection
TR siglum, Tell al-Rimah
11
TS siglum, Tell Sifr; Jean, Ch.-F., 1931. Tell Sifr: textes cunéiformes, con-
servés au British Museum. Paris: Paul Geuthner
TVOA Testi del Vicino Oriente antico
UAVA Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie
UEM excavation siglum, Umm el-Marra text; Cooper, J. – Schwartz, G. – West-
brook, R., 2005. A Mittani-Era Tablet from Umm el-Marra. In D. I. Owen
– G. Wilhelm, eds. General Studies and Excavations at Nuzi 11/1. SCCNH
15. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 41–56
UET Ur Excavations. Texts
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
Ug. Ugaritica. Mission de Ras Shamra
UM museum siglum, University Museum, Philadelphia
UTI Die Umma-Texte aus den Archäologischen Museen zu Istanbul
VA museum siglum, Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin
VB Vorderasiatische Bibliothek
VO Vicino Oriente
VS Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der (Königlichen) Museen zu Berlin
WAW Writings from the Ancient World, Society of Biblical Literature
WF Deimel, A., 1968. Wirtschaftstexte aus Fara. WVDOG 45. Osnabrück:
Zeller
WO Die Welt des Orients
WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
WZJ HS Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes
YN year name
YNER Yale Near Eastern Researches
YOS Yale Oriental Series. Babylonian Texts
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie
ZAR Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte
ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins
12
Authors
Sergio Alivernini is Research Fellow at the Oriental Institute of the Czech Academy
of Sciences in Prague. He studied at “Sapienza” University of Rome, Madrid (Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), and Heidelberg (Seminar für Sprachen und
Kulturen des Vorderen Orients – Assyriologie). He has written extensively on the ad-
ministration in the third millennium Mesopotamia and he is also the author of a book
on the “mar-sa” (shipyard) in Ur III period, and an edition of unpublished cuneiform
tablets kept in the British Museum.
Heather D. Baker teaches ancient Near Eastern history at the University of Toronto,
having previously held research positions at the University of Helsinki and at Vienna
University. Her research focuses on Assyria and Babylonia in the first millennium BC,
on urbanism and the built environment, and on the integration of textual and archaeo-
logical data. Publications include The Archive of the Nappahu Family (Vienna 2004)
and Neo-Assyrian Specialists: Crafts, Offices, and Other Professional Designations
(Helsinki 2017). She has led research projects on the Neo-Assyrian royal household
(2009–2015) and on Machine Translation and Automated Analysis of Cuneiform Lan-
guages (2017–2019).
Gojko Barjamovic is Senior Lecturer on Assyriology in the Department of Near East-

ern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University. He works on the economic his-
tory of the first half of the second millennium BC with focus on the development of
early markets and trans-regional interaction. He also conducts research on the study
of state power and local institutions of governance, ancient foodways, and mobility.
He has written, edited or co-authored several books, including A Historical Geography
of Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Colony Period (2011) and Libraries Before Alexan-
dria (2019).
Giacomo Benati is a postdoctoral fellow at the Department of History and Cultures of

the University of Bologna. His research targets the determinants of state formation in
the Ancient Near East, analyzed through an interdisciplinary approach combining his-
tory, archaeology and social scientific methods and theories. He has taken part to field-
work activities in Italy, Turkey and Iraq and has published in top journals in the field
of archaeology and Mesopotamian studies (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie, Cuneiform Digital Library Journal, Journal of Archaeological Research).
His 2015 article published in the Cuneiform Digital Library Journal received the Inter-
national Assyriological Association award for best article on Mesopotamian studies
written after the Ph.D. He is preparing a book on the rise of bureaucratic governance
in Early Dynastic Mesopotamia.
Odette Boivin is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Institute for the Study of the An-
cient World, New York University (US). She earned her Ph.D. in Assyriology from the
University of Toronto and specializes in Babylonian history. She published in 2018 The
First Dynasty of the Sealand in Mesopotamia, a history of a southern Babylonian polity
in the mid-second millennium BC and its later historiography. She is now working on
the later history of the southern Babylonian town of Larsa, using a 6th century BC fam-
ily archive that she is reconstructing and editing, as well as other textual and archaeo-
13
logical sources. Her interests include Babylonian economic, political, and cultural his-
tory, Mesopotamian historiography, and memory studies.
Marco Bonechi, Assyriologist, is a CNR researcher in Rome. He deals mainly with

cuneiform texts of the Early and Middle Bronze Age, paying particular attention to
those of the Northern Levant (Ebla) and Upper Mesopotamia (from Mari to Nagar).
His research often aims to deepen the understanding of historical and geographical
issues through the investigation of scribal practices, prosopography, and toponymy,
focusing especially on the political relevance of accounting records and correspon-
dence. These are complemented by studies on written and figurative sources that in-
form us about solar theology and the conceptualization of wisdom in pre-classical
Near Eastern societies. Furthermore, he is interested in the History of Oriental Studies,
with a preference for Victorian and Edwardian England.
Armando Bramanti got a B.A. in History (2010) and a M.A. in Archaeology at Sapienza
– Università di Roma (2012). He then obtained a Ph.D. in Assyriology in a joint program
between Sapienza and Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena with a dissertation on land
management in the Early Dynastic Umma region (2017). After numerous pre- and post-
doc research stays in Italy, Germany, Spain, US, and Switzerland he is currently work-
ing in Spain at CCHS – CSIC, Madrid. He has been editorial assistant at the “Reallexikon
der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie” in Munich (2016–2018) and vis-
iting professor at several universities in Brazil, Argentina, and Chile (2019). His re-
search mainly focuses on the management of resources and administration in lower
Mesopotamia in the third millennium BCE. He is also active in the fields of cuneiform
paleography, archaic Mesopotamia, historical geography, and science dissemination.
Grégory Chambon is Directeur d’études (Professor) at the School for Advanced Studies
in the Social Sciences (french EHESS), Paris (France). He has been trained in Assyriology
and the history of science and technology. His main research focus is the accounting
and administrative practices in Syria and Mesopotamia (middle of third to late second
millennium BC). He is specially interested in the use and representation of measures
and numbers in their social and cultural context, and more generally, in the ancient con-
cept of numeracy. He also works on the continuities and the discontinuities in metro-
logical and scribal practices in Syria from the middle of the third millennium (Ebla) until
the last centuries of the second millennium (Alalah and Emar) BC. He has written a book
on metrology in ancient Syria and two books with an edition of cuneiform texts on the
management of wine and grain respectively in the Old Babylonian palace of Mari. He is
preparing a book on the notion of “state” in Ancient Near East.
Katrien De Graef obtained her Ph.D. in Assyriology from Ghent University, Belgium
in 2004. She was a postdoctoral fellow with the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders,
visiting scholar at CNRS Paris and fellow with the Department of Near Eastern Lan-
guages and Civilizations at Harvard University. She is currently Associate Professor of
Assyriology and History of the Ancient Near East at Ghent University. Her research fo-
cuses primarily on the socio-economic history of the Old Babylonian Period (2000–
1500 BC) in general, and that of the cities of Sippar (Iraq) and Susa (Iran) in particular,
including gender studies and sealing praxis, and the relation between Babylonia and
Elam in the third and second millennium BC. She published 2 monographs and more
than 50 articles and book chapters, spent various research stays at the Louvre, the
British Museum and the National Museum of Iran to study and collate tablets from
Sippar and Susa, and was epigraphist during the Belgo-Syrian excavations at Chagar
Bazar (Syria).
14
Anne Goddeeris (Ph.D. KULeuven 2001) is an Assyriologist currently affiliated to
Ghent University. She has published two volumes with new Old Babylonian legal and
administrative documents from Kisurra (now in the British Museum, 2009) and from
Nippur (now in the Hilprecht Sammlung, 2016). Her research focuses on social and
economic history of Babylonia during the Old Babylonian Period, in particular on the
function of the temple and the cult in shaping the social and economic fabric.
Josué J. Justel is currently Assistant Professor of Ancient History (Assyriology) at the

University of Alcalá, Spain. He graduated in History in the University of Zaragoza (ex-
traordinary degree award, 2002) and he obtained his Ph.D. in 2007 with a study on the
social position of women in Late Bronze Age Syria. His scientific career as researcher
subsequently continued into different post-doctoral fellowships (Collège de France,
Universität Leipzig, CNRS in Nanterre and Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg).
During this time, he has been Alexander-von-Humboldt fellow, CAI-Europe program
fellow as well as postdoctoral researcher contracted by the Spanish Ministry of Edu-
cation. He has specialised in the legal documentation from North Mesopotamia and
Syria during the Late Bronze Age, focusing mainly on the written sources from the
Kingdom of Arrapḫe.
Jacob Lauinger, Ph.D. (2007), University of Chicago, is Associate Professor of Assyriolo-

gy at The Johns Hopkins University and a staff epigrapher of the Koç University’s Ex-
pedition to Alalah/Tell Atchana, the University of Toronto’s Tayinat Archaeological
Project, and the Siwan Regional Project’s Khani Masi Excavations. His monograph, Fol-
lowing the Man of Yamhad: Settlement and Territory at Old Babylonian Alalah (Brill,
2015) studied the cuneiform texts from Middle Bronze Age Alalakh that record the pur-
chase or exchange of entire settlements and the socio-economic practices that these
texts reflect. He has a particular interest in the use of cuneiform Akkadian in peripheral
(i.e., extra-Mesopotamian) areas of the ancient Near East.
Jaume Llop Raduà, Ph.D. (2001), University of Barcelona, is Professor of the Depart-
ment of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology at the Complutense University
of Madrid (Spain). He is an Assyriologist specialised in Late Bronze Age Assyria.
Jürgen Lorenz is Research Assistant at Philipps-Universität Marburg (Germany). He

has written extensively on economic and political history of the ancient Near East
(Nabukadnezar III/IV. Die politische Wirren nach dem Tod des Kambyses im Spiegel der
Keilschrifttexte, Dresden 2008) and he specializes in social and economic history of the
Hittite Empire.
Kevin M. McGeough is Professor of Archaeology in the Department of Geography at

the University of Lethbridge in Canada and holds a Board of Governor’s Research
Chair in Archaeological Theory and Reception. He has been the editor of the Annual
of the American Schools of Oriental Research, ASOR’s Archaeological Report Series, and
is currently co-editor of the Alberta Archaeological Review. McGeough is the author of
a three-volume series on the reception of archaeology, called The Ancient Near East in
the Nineteenth Century. McGeough has also written extensively on economic issues at
the Late Bronze Age site of Ugarit, including two books, Exchange Relationships at
Ugarit and Ugaritic Economic Tablets: Text, Translations, and Notes.
Jana Mynářová, Ph.D. (2004), is Associate Professor of Egyptology at Charles Univer-

sity, Prague (Czech Republic). She is the author of several studies and two volumes
dealing with philological aspects of the so-called Amarna letters, Languages of Amarna
15
– Language of Diplomacy. Perspective on the Amarna Letters (2007) and Handbook of
Amarna Cuneiform Palaeography. Vol. I. International Correspondence and Related Texts
(2021). Her research focuses on political, social, and economic history of the Near East
and Egypt in the Late Bronze Age with special attention to written sources in Periph-
eral Akkadian, cuneiform palaeography, diplomacy, and scribal culture.
Susanne Paulus (Ph.D. University of Münster) is an Associate Professor of Assyriology

at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Her research focuses on the socio-
economic and legal history of Babylonia, especially that of the Kassite Period. Her
monograph Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur früh-
neunbabylonischen Zeit (Ugarit-Verlag, 2014) is a comprehensive edition and discussion
of all Babylonian kudurru-inscriptions.
Regine Pruzsinszky is an Assyriologist at the Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Ar-

chaeology at the University of Freiburg. Her research interests focus on cuneiform
records from the late Bronze Age, the chronology of Mesopotamia, Ancient Near East-
ern onomastic and the socio-cultural role of musicians. She is the author of Die Perso-
nennamen der Texte aus Emar (Bethesda 2003), and Mesopotamian Chronology of the
2nd Millennium BCE, An Introduction to the Textual Evidence and Related Chronological
Issues (Wien 2009). Among other edited books on the Mesopotamian Dark Age or on
the role of musicians in the tradition of literary works, she has edited a volume on
Policies of Exchange, Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the
Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. (Wien 2015) together with Birgitta Eder.
Seth Richardson is a historian of the ancient Near East who works on the history of
Mesopotamia’s Old Babylonian period and the Fall of Babylon in 1595 BC. He did his
Ph.D. in ancient Near Eastern History at Columbia University in 2002, and has been at
the University of Chicago since 2003, where he is now Managing Editor of the Journal
of Near Eastern Studies and Associate at the Oriental Institute. Richardson works on
the history of state sovereignty and political subjectivity, violence and bodies, and as
a generalist/comparativist working on diverse socio-cultural topics such as women’s
history, icon-building, and divination. His most recent work includes studies of slavery,
royal narratives, social bandits, concepts of imperialism, the social location of animals
and men in law, and the Syro-Babylonian wine trade. All his work is freely available
online.
16
4_KUPKA_zlom_alivernini.qxp_Sestava 1 11.11.20 9:14 Stránka 69
Chapter 4
MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES AND TAXATION

IN AN EARLY MESOPOTAMIAN EMPIRE: THE CASE
OF THE THIRD DYNASTY OF UR
Sergio Alivernini*
1. Introduction1
When we approach general concepts related to the economy (such as “taxes”) in
Mesopotamian history, we have to deal with the obvious problem that ancient
economies were structured differently from modern ones. Concepts such as “public”
or “private” “moneylending at interest,” as we understand them, are far from Me-
sopotamian thought.2 Moreover, we should also highlight that the definition of “tax”
in modern languages is sometimes confused with, or used to include, other terms such
as “fee” or “tribute.” Therefore, before starting to discuss “taxes” in the Ur III Period
(here conventionally dated to 2112–2004 BC), we shall try to better define the word
“tax.” If one looks in different English dictionaries, several definitions of tax appear:
according to Merriam-Webster, a tax “is a charge usually of money imposed by au-
thority on persons or property for public purpose.” According to the Collins Dictionary,
a tax “is an amount of money that you have to pay to the government so that it can
pay for public services.” The Cambridge Dictionary defines the tax as “(an amount of)
money paid to the government that is based on your income or the cost of goods or
services you have bought.” The Business Dictionary defines it as a “Compulsory mon-
etary contribution to the state’s revenue, assessed and imposed by a government on
the activities, enjoyment, expenditure, income, occupation, privilege, property, etc., of
individuals and organizations.”
As we can see, all the dictionaries agree in defining a tax as a payment which is
imposed by the Government on the people or goods under his legal authority. It is
a compulsory contribution. Moreover, the Merriam-Webster and Collins dictionaries
add the concept of “public services/purposes.” Bramanti (in this volume) has already
highlighted the problems of such concepts, but we need, as Bramanti wrote, “a possible
working definition in order to aid in approaching the sources.” We could say that in
a modern interpretation the concept of “tax” implies three main actors: a higher
*
Oriental Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague. This chapter was written as part of re-
search funded by the Czech Science Foundation within the scope of the project GA ČR 18-01897S “Eco-
nomic Complexity in the Ancient Near East. Management of Resources and Taxation in the 3rd and
2nd Millennium BC.”
1
The texts in this article are transliterated using the following conventions: “/” indicates the end of a
line, whilst “//” indicates an indented line. Moreover, the following abbreviations are also used in
this paper: AS: Amar-Suena; IS: Ibbi-Sîn; Š: Šulgi; ŠS: Šū-Sîn. When followed by numbers, they indicate
the year, month, and day of the reign (YY/mm/DD). The author wishes to thank Dr. Armando Bra-
manti and Dr. Angela Greco for their helpful comments. Any errors remaining are the sole respon-
sibility of the author.
2
For a detailed analysis of the concepts of modern economics applied to Mesopotamian history see,
most recently, Garfinkle 2012: 5–17.
69
authority, people and institutions under this higher authority, and good(s). The basic
concept of a tax is that goods go from people (or some kind of institution) to a higher
authority. In the case of the Ur III centralized state,3 the highest authority is repre-
sented by the king (lugal), while the institutions under his rule were constituted by
the provinces4 and their inhabitants (the core of the empire) and by the periphery of
the empire, called, in Sumerian “ma-da.”5 The king withdrew resources from these
two sectors for the following purposes:6
1) public works;7
2) military expenses;
3) upkeep of the religious system;8
4) maintenance of the ruling elites.9
2. The Organization of the Ur III Economy

The economic history of the Ur III Period presents something of a paradox to those
who would study it: its administrative activities are documented by means of a large
number of textual records, especially of an economic nature, resulting from the pri-
mary role which bureaucracy played in the administration of every level of the State.
There are more than 100,000 known texts from this period,10 but there are probably
also hundreds of thousands of additional items kept in the museums of the world, and
many more have yet to be excavated. More than the 95% of the documentation is of
an administrative nature and records all those aspects linked to the management and
organization of the empire: production units (mills, fields, orchards, etc.), accounts of
cattle numbers, the labor-force and goods, food assignments to workers, letter-orders,
and so on. Despite the richness of documentation that survives from this short era,
3
For the reforms that lead to the centralization of the Ur III state see Steinkeller (1987: 20–22). We
have to note that it is still a matter of debate what precise political denomination should be used to
denote the political organization of Ur III. In scholarly works we encounter “state,” “kingdom,”
“reign,” or “empire.” Without delving into the theoretical and terminological questions, especially
in the absence of an autochthonous terminology, in this paper the terms “kingdom”, “state,” and
“empire” are used interchangeably.
4
Despite this paper’s focus on taxes organized under the authority of the crown, we should highlight
the fact that the provinces also had their own “taxes”: an example is given by the maš/maš2 (a-ša3-
ga), an irrigation fee received by the Umma administration (Ouyang 2010). However, as demon-
strated by Steinkeller (1981: 127) and Ouyang (2010: 339), much of this revenue was not recycled
into the local economy, but was transferred by the governor to the crown to pay, for example, the
maš2-da-ri-a, or for celebratory occasions.
5
For a more detailed definition of the “core” and “periphery” of the Ur III state see Steinkeller (1987:
22–41), and paragraph 2 of this paper.
6
Jursa – Moreno García 2015: 120.
7
See Bramanti (in this volume) for the concept of “public purpose.” For a definition of “public works,”
see Steinkeller (2015: 137) and, in this paper, paragraph 3.5.
8
Celebrations for festivals in the central shrines of the state belong to this category: for example, the
nesaĝ, “firstlings” (Sallaberger 1993: 154–155), and du6-ku3 (Cohen 1993: 106–112).
9
An example of this is the e2-uz-ga. According to Sallaberger (2003: 58), “Übernimmt man die Deutung
des Wortes als uzug2 ‘Tabu,’ so bezeichnet diese Institution die ‘Verbotene Stadt,’ den inneren, dem
Normalsterblichen verschlossenen Bereich des königlichen Palastes.” The e2-uz-ga was the recipient
of goods (fuel, pots, reed mats, workers, etc.) from both Ĝirsu (see, for example, DAS 55 [-/iv/18],
workers [that are] reed carriers for the e2-uz-ga) and Umma (see, for example, YOS 18 87 [ŠS 6/-/20],
reeds for the e2-uz-ga).
10
According to Molina (2016: 2), we could estimate the total number of administrative texts kept in
museums and private collections all over the world to be 120,000. To this number, we have to add
an indeterminate number of texts kept in the Iraq Museum, and probably hundreds of other docu-
ments housed in small private collections and texts which are being illegally excavated in south-
ern Iraq. Of this number, ca. 96,000 texts are in the Database of Neo-Sumerian Texts (BDTNS,
http://bdtns.filol.csic.es/index.php?p=formulario_urIII, consulted on April 15, 2020).
70
the majority of documentation comes from three archaeological sites: Umma, Ĝirsu,
and Puzriš-Dagān.11 We have little or no documentation for other provinces or cities
and, above all, we do not have the massive amount of documentation which must have
been kept in the capital city of Ur.12 This means that we only have a partial view of
the economic history of the Ur III state.
The area directly controlled by the Ur III state can be divided in two parts: the core
and the periphery. The first part, the core, was probably composed of nineteen
provinces,13 each of them governed by a provincial governor: an ensi2. Apart from the
governor, each province had a district military commander, or general (Sumerian
šakkan6), who, like the governor, resided in the province’s capital. Although the lines
of authority between the governor and the general are not entirely clear, it is probable
that the governor controlled all the temple households and their employees, both in
the capital and in the provincial towns and villages, while the general was in charge
of military personnel and other types of royal dependents settled in the province on
crown lands.14 In other words, each province comprised two administrative and eco-
nomic entities: (1) the province proper, run by the province’s governor; (2) the royal
sector, which was run directly by the crown. These sectors represented what we can
call “the state economy” or “institutional economy” and are abundantly documented
in the written records. Nevertheless, aside from these “institutional economies” there
is also a third one—that is, the independent (or non-institutional) sector.15 The “non-
institutional” or “independent” sector is poorly documented: we have just a few texts
that shed light on it, so we can describe it based only on a few archives.
The second part, the periphery of the state (ma-da) was a wide and uninterrupted
belt from around the Lesser Zab to the sea and it represented a buffer zone protecting
the east side of the empire. This territory was probably composed of several political
structures: it comprised vassal statelets and centers under the direct control of Ur with
šakkan6/ensi2 and military colonists.16
It is clear that both the provinces and the periphery were linked together in the
management of resources. Although the majority of goods probably came from the
provinces, the periphery was vital from an economic point of view, as it provided a
significant percentage of the livestock documented in the Puzriš-Dagān tablets. From
both the provinces and the periphery, the central state retained the right to withdraw
a proportion of goods through different systems of taxes that these regions owed to
the crown. Moreover, some goods were taken outside Mesopotamia by professional
personnel (merchants) whose activities were also connected with the payment of taxes
(see paragraph 5.2).
11
It is worth stressing the differences in the typologies of archives: while the texts in Umma and Ĝirsu
represent provincial archives, Puzriš-Dagān represents a royal archive or a state archive (see Sal-
laberger 2004: 46).
12
According to Molina (2016: 9), we have ca. 30,000 from Umma, ca. 27,000 texts from Ĝirsu, and ca.
16,000 from Puzriš-Dagān. Moreover, we have to highlight that we also have ca. 4,200 from Ur, 3,600
from Nippur, 1,500 from Garšana, and 1,100 texts from Irisaĝrig.
13
Sharlach 2004: 6–8 (with further bibliography). The provinces were Adab, A.HA, Apiak, Babylon,
Ĝirsu/Lagaš, Isin, Irisaĝrig, Kazallu, Kiš, Kutha, Marad, Nippur, Puš, Sippar, Šurrupak, Umma, Ur,
Uruk, Urum.
14
Steinkeller 1987: 25.
15
Steinkeller 1987: 27. This article is not the place to face the problem of “public” and “private” in the
Mesopotamian economy. For a detailed analysis of these concepts in Ur III see, most recently, Garfin-
kle 2012: 18–27.
16
D’Agostino – Pomponio forthcoming.
71
3. One State, Several Taxes

The crown collected resources from the provinces and the periphery of the state by
means of a widespread system of taxation. The subdivision of the kingdom into a core
(the provinces) and a periphery (ma-da) is also reflected in the system of taxation: the
provinces paid the so-called bala tax, while the periphery paid the gun2 ma-da tax.
Moreover, the central state added a series of other taxes for other purposes, such as,
for example, financing the cult in the most important shrines in the country or finding
resources for projects of “national” interest. The following paragraphs are intended
to provide an overview of the currently known typologies of taxes starting with the
two most important ones: the gun2 ma-da and the bala.17
3.1 The gun2 ma-da18 and Other Taxes in the Periphery

The existence of this payment was first noted by Hallo in 1960. Hallo suggested that
the gun2 (literally “load,” “burden”) represented a “territorial tribute” for which a
given geographical area was collectively responsible.19 In 1973, the gun2 ma-da was
briefly discussed by Gelb,20 who notice that this tax was paid by people settled outside
of the core area of Ur III. In 1978, a group of gun2 ma-da texts was collected and studied
by Michalowski, who interpreted this payment as a tribute or impost paid by the un-
incorporated territories of the Ur III state. In his view, these territories represented
the buffer zone of the empire, which served as the “defense line as well as the staging
area for military expeditions against the enemy.”21 The question of the gun2 ma-da
was also studied in 1987 by Steinkeller:22 he demonstrated that this payment was made
in livestock, and that the payers of the gun2 ma-da were military personnel, with the
amount of livestock delivered depending on the payer’s military rank. Moreover, he
confirmed Gelb’s interpretation, since he noticed that all the places mentioned in con-
nection with gun2 ma-da were outside the core of the Ur III state, and therefore con-
cluded that it was a tax paid by military personnel living in the periphery.
It is worth stressing that the periphery also paid at least other two taxes: šu-gid223
and maš2-da-ri-a,24 which were paid mainly in livestock, but also in silver or other
goods. We cannot exclude the possibility that these contributions were in fact more
important than the gun2 ma-da, but we have to contend with the problem that the eco-
nomic activities of the periphery are poorly documented. However, the documentation
shows that the periphery not only made contributions to the central government but
also received certain goods (mostly cereals) in exchange.25
17
In Ur III documentation there are, to the best of my knowledge, two other terms that are sometimes
translated as “tax”: nig2 gu2-na and nig2-ba. But both seem to be very general expressions to indicate
different forms of payment: nig2 gu2-na could also indicate, for example, the load of a boat (see, for
example, from Puzriš-Dagān, RA 62 12 18 [ŠS 1/-/-]), while nig2-ba could also indicate a ration (see,
for example, from Ĝirsu, MVN 6 74 [Š 34/-/-]) or “a gift.”
18
Sometimes sources called it simply “gun2” but the term “gun2” seems to be a very general term since
it sometimes refers to “bala” (Jursa – Moreno García 2015: 126).
19
Hallo 1960: 88–89.
20
Gelb 1973: 85.
21
Michalowski 1978: 46.
22
Steinkeller 1987: 30–41.
23
šu-gid2 also seems to indicate a designation of animals (see, for example, from Puzriš-Dagān, ASJ 4
66 10 [AS 4/i/19]). For “šu-gid2” as a tax in the periphery see Steinkeller (1987: 40). According to
Tsouparoupoulou (2013: 153–154) the expression šu-gid2 applied to animals in Puzriš-Dagān, and
probably indicated animals destined for slaughter.
24
For maš2-da-ri-a see paragraph 3.3.
25
72
3.2 bala
The complexity of the Ur III empire necessitated a highly efficient method for the
movement of goods throughout the country, and in the core of the state this need was
met by the bala26 system.
The bala system is crucial to any understanding of the structure of the Ur III state.
Hallo was the first to examine the bala in detail.27 He studied the different meanings
of the word bala and established that, in the context of Ur III texts from Puzriš-Dagān,
bala referred to a rotating obligation from the city governors and temple administra-
tor to supply sacrificial animals for the central cult of Nippur. On the basis of analogies
to Greek and Biblical leagues, Hallo defined this system as a “amphictyony,” a mani-
festation of a common feeling of group unity. In 1987, Steinkeller laid out a new model
for the bala system, including new evidence from Lagaš and Umma. He did not reject
Hallo’s idea of livestock contributions from provincial officials for the cult, but he ob-
served that “this obligation was only one aspect of the total picture.”28 He identified
three basic principles of the bala system:
1. the bala contributions consisted of those goods in whose production a particular
province was specialized;
2. the value of the contributions made by a province constituted its bala fund; once
the province met its obligations, it could then use this fund to obtain other goods or
services as needed;
3. the bala contributions were delivered either to redistribution centers or directly
to the interested parties, especially if neighboring provinces were involved.
Steinkeller concluded that “the bala institution functioned as a central redistribu-
tion center, integrating all the provinces into one interdependent whole.”29
In 1994 and 1995 Maeda published two articles on this topic. In the first one he
compared the model of Hallo with the model of Steinkeller, deciding in favor of
Hallo’s model. Moreover, he identified some of the officials involved in the bala sys-
tem. In the second article, he took into consideration texts from Umma identified by
the expression ša3 bala-a, “within the bala,” trying to understand if this expression
referred to the bala payments or to a period of time (the month when Umma was on
bala duty). He concluded, with no clear evidence, that the ša3 bala-a expression was
only a temporary designation. Additional comments on the bala system have been
presented by Sallaberger, who concluded that the governors whose provinces pro-
vided sacrificial animals for the central shrines may have retained the usufruct of
the animals.30 Sallaberger viewed the bala system as an entitlement system—that is,
a system which involves an entity paying a fee which qualifies it to participate in
a group’s affairs. All these works laid a foundation for the study of the bala system,
but none of them had presented a comprehensive model for it. In 2004, Sharlach pub-
lished a book entitled “Provincial taxation and the Ur III state”: this publication rep-
resents the most complete work on bala, taking into account the three major archives
26
The word “bala” basically means “rotation” or “transfer” and had a wide range of uses (Sharlach
2004: 16–17) beyond denoting the rotational system of payments made by the provinces to the
crown. For example, the word “bala” could also refer, with the meaning of “to transfer,” to boats
moved from one canal to another (Sharlach 2004: 16). For the use and the meaning of bala see, re-
cently, Sallaberger (2016). For the forerunners of the bala system in the earliest periods see Bramanti
(in this volume) with previous literature.
27
Hallo 1960.
28
29
30
Sallaberger 1993: 33; Sallaberger – Westenholz 1999: 195–196.
73
of Ĝirsu, Umma, and Puzriš-Dagān. She was able to describe a system through which
significant quantities of agricultural products and raw materials were transported to
the capitals or to collection centers run by the central government.31 Provinces had
to deliver to the government a certain percentage of their supply of key commodities.
The demands made by the central government took into account the economic spe-
cializations of the provinces. For example, some provinces produced predominantly
barley, and others livestock and wool, or finished goods. Moreover, the cost of trans-
porting the taxed goods (the cost of boats, packing and loading the goods, and hauling
the boats) were added to the tax load during the bala period. The provinces’ obliga-
tions were monitored by the royal administration. A sophisticated accounting system
was in use that allowed the conversion of the value of every imaginable commodity
into either silver, grain, or labor time, and these three could also be converted into
each other. In the final accounts for a taxation period, the total value of a province’s
contribution was computed and compared to expectations. Overall credits or debits
were carried over to the following accounting period. The province was “on duty for
the bala” for a specified period of time, usually one month.32 According to Sharlach
(2004: 21), the bala system incorporated elements of four systems: it was a tax, in the
sense that the payments were fixed by the government, a forced contribution of
wealth paid to the central state. But the bala was also a fund in that credits and debits
could be issued on it. It also contained redistributive elements because a province
seems to have received some of the value of its payment back in the form of livestock.
Finally, the bala payments can also be viewed as an entitlement fee, allowing a
province to participate in the livestock allocation system. Bala was paid by almost all
the provinces in Mesopotamia plus Ešnunna, Išīm-Šulgi, and Susa that, in addition to
bala, also paid the gun2 ma-da. Nippur, Dabrum, and Ereš had a governor but did not
pay the bala, probably because of their status as holy towns. Ur and Uruk were di-
rectly under the king’s control and their bala was paid, as a rule, by the sangas or the
šabras. As for percentages, Sharlach (2004: 67–76) has pointed out that it is difficult
to know the tax rate for commodities. Based on some texts, she speculates that, for
example in Ĝirsu/Lagaš, the tax rate for barley could have been between 44% and
48% of the total production. However, it is not clear if Ĝirsu/Lagaš’s bala consisted of
48% of the barley production in addition to a fraction of the production of other com-
modities, or whether the entire value of the bala fund was equal to 48% of the grain
production. Neither do we know if this rate also applied to other commodities or only
to cereals.
3.3 maš2-da-ri-a
The mašdaria (literally “goat led at one’s side”)33 seems to have been a tax paid by the
provincial governors and temple administrators (for example, šabras) to the central
government. It was also paid from the regions (or, at least, some of them) in the pe-
riphery of the empire.34 This payment was mainly in the form of livestock or silver35
31
As observed by Sharlach (2004: 8–9), there were three capitals in the Ur III state: Ur, Uruk, and Nip-
pur (that were, therefore, at the same time, capital provinces and capital cities). Each of these
provinces received bala payments from other provinces. Moreover, royal control also extended to
Puzriš-Dagān, which was the collection center for livestock.
32
But this aspect can vary considerably from one year to the next. In AS 4, for example, Ĝirsu paid
bala in months 1, 2, and 5 (Sharlach 2004: 100).
33
Selz 1995: 251.
34
35
In addition to livestock and silver, other goods also appear, such as, for example, flour (see, for ex-
ample, from Ĝirsu, CUSAS 16 93, unknown date), fish (see, for example, from Ĝirsu, ITT 2 3410, AS
7/-/-), or fruit (see, for example, from Ĝirsu Orient 16 90 132, AS 3/iv/-).
74
and was intended primarily for festivals in Ur benefiting the king and the royal family
directly.36
3.4 za3-10
In Ur III sources, the za3-10 (tithe), which was a proportional tax, is documented in
ca. 50 documents, coming from Ĝirsu (3 documents), Nippur (3 documents), Puzriš-
Dagān (17 documents), Umma (16 documents), and Ur (18 documents).37 This tax
seems to have been in the form of livestock,38 cereals,39 fishes,40 dates,41 garlic,42 and
wool,43 and the documentation from Ur shows that it was mostly paid to temples.44
A text from Puzriš-Dagān45 records an expenditure of animals in Uruk to the temple
of Enlil and Ninlil, and a text from Umma46 records livestock as a tithe for the priest-
ess (egi-zi) of Ninurra. The tithe seems to have been a quite general tax on products
imposed on different kinds of goods to meet the needs of the province. However, it
is clear that the tithe on products was also applied for the maintenance of the cen-
tral shrines and their festivals. For example, the tithe was applied on amounts of
fish circulating within the provinces and eventually sent to Nippur for the nesaĝ-
festival and the duku-festival.47
Different people paid the tithe: gardeners (nu-ĝeškiri6) in Ĝirsu paid a considerable
amount of dates.48 In Ur, the merchant Lu2-dEn-lil2-la2 paid barley as a “tithe of sea-
faring trade.”49 Some of these tithes may not have been imposed for cultic reasons: for
example, in Umma, the text BPOA 1 1018 (AS 5/xii/-) records a tithe of fish from the
provincial governor entered in the (royal?) palace.
3.5 One-off Taxes

Some of the Ur III texts record large disbursements of goods withdrawn by the crown
from the provinces. These disbursements are not defined by any specific terms, be-
cause the items taken from the provinces were intended for exceptional needs. This
category includes what Steinkeller has defined as “public works”—that is, “large, and
therefore labor-intensive, projects that were planned, financed, and executed by the
central government.”50 Such projects involved the active participation of the entire
empire and all the provinces had to contribute with labor and materials. They in-
cluded the excavation of new canals and major works on existing water-related infra-
structure, the building of roads and relay stations, and so-called “national building
projects.”51
36
Sallaberger 1993: 160–169.
37
As well as two texts of unknown provenience (TLB 3 152, unknown date, and SET 140, ŠS 2/-/-).
38
See, for example, from Umma, SET 139 (ŠS 2/-/-).
39
See, for example, from Umma, SAT 3 2039 (-/-/-).
40
See, for example, from Ĝirsu, MVN 7 347 (Š 30/-/-).
41
See, for example, from Nippur, NATN 865 (IS 2/-/-).
42
See, for example, from Puzriš-Dagān, PDT 2 911 (AS 7/i/-).
43
See, for example, from Ur, UET 3 1755 ([-/-/-]).
44
See, for example, from Ur, UET 3 1770 ([-]/xii/-) where the tithe is given to the temple of Nin-gal.
45
JCS 52 11 47 (ŠS 8/vii/2).
46
MVN 11 Y (Š 35/-/-).
47
See Greco (forthcoming) for the tithe on fish and for the role of the enku.
48
MVN 22 119 (-/-/-).
49
UET 9 962 ([x]/v/-): ˹za3-10˺ nam-gaeš a-a[b-ba-(ka)].
50
51
Steinkeller 2015: 143. The texts document the existence of at least three of these projects: the royal
palace in Tummal, the building of the temple of Nanna in Karzida/Gaʾeš, and the temple of Šara in
Umma.
75
4. Taxes and Resources

Supposedly, all the resources managed in the Ur III state were subject to taxation. But,
despite the large amount of goods documented in the texts, we have to highlight that
the majority of the goods involved in the system of taxation belong to three categories:
cereals (especially barley),52 livestock,53 and labor obtained via corvée. Indeed, the gov-
ernors of the provinces also had a series of labor obligations due to the king, and there-
fore used some of their workers for royal purposes:54 for example, sending goods outside
the province to the capitals incurred labor costs needed to pack the boats and to sail or
tow them. Such costs were part of the ensi’s bala obligation. The evidence suggests that
some workers remained in the province but worked for the royal sector, while others
were physically moved to Ur or Nippur.55 Although livestock, barley, and the labor force
represented the greater part of the items disbursed for bala taxation, other commodities
sometimes appear (for example, beer, bitumen, and pottery). The following paragraphs
are devoted to the study of one of these “minor goods” involved in taxation: bitumen.
4.1 Bitumen: Typologies and Collecting Places

Bitumen (Sumerian esir2) was one of the most important materials in the days of Ur
III. There are several typologies of bitumen documented in Ur III texts: esir2 e2-a (liq-
uid bitumen), esir2 had2 (bright bitumen), esir2 a-ba-al (dry bitumen), esir2 hur-sag
(bitumen [coming from the] mountains), and esir2 gul-gul (broken bitumen).56 The ex-
ploitation of bitumen must have been limited to the obvious deposits, that is surface
deposits. This because, on the one hand, mining methods could not have been well
developed, and, on the other, it would have been impossible to guess there was an
oil formation under the ground where surface indications did not exist. Bitumen was
used for a variety of purposes thanks to its waterproofing and adhesive properties:
first of all, bitumen was largely used as mortar in the construction of palaces, temples,
and ziggurats. Since the Neolithic, bitumen had served to waterproof containers (bas-
kets, earthenware jars, storage pits).57 Reed and wooden boats were also caulked with
bitumen.58 Bitumen was also a widespread adhesive in antiquity and served to repair
broken ceramics and fix eyes and horns on statues.59 Schwartz and Hollander (2016:
885) have demonstrated that, in the fourth millennium, the bitumen sources in areas
near to Southern Mesopotamia were located around the area of modern Hit (whose
ancient name was Madga60) and in Khuzistan in Iran.61
This is also partly confirmed by the Ur III texts from both Ĝirsu and Umma:
from Ĝirsu, AION 31 171 1 (Š 47/-/-) records that bitumen was taken from Mad-
ga;62 AAICAB 1/1, Ashm. 1924-650 (ŠS 7/ii/15) from Garšana documented guruš workers
52
Sharlach 2004: 66–90.
53
Sharlach 2004: 104–153.
54
Sharlach 2004: 53.
55
See Steinkeller (2015) and Sharlach (2004: 52–56, 90–98) for the relationship between the labor force
and taxation.
56
We also have to add the igi-esir2 to these typologies, which is rarely attested in the documentation
(17 attestations from Umma, 11 from Ĝirsu, 1 from Iri-saĝrig, and 1 from Puzriš-Dagān. The features
of this bitumen are unknown to me).
57
Heimpel 2011: 108.
58
Potts 1997: 130–132.
59
Actually, the majority of transactions regarding bitumen within the bala system in Umma did not
involve bitumen per se, but mostly objects covered with bitumen (esir2 su-ba). See, for example,
Syracuse 254 (Š 47/ii/-).
60
For the identification of Madga with Hit see Heimpel 2009. For Hit as a place where bitumen was
collected, see also, from Ĝirsu, AION 31 172 2 (ŠS 2/xi/-).
61
Schwartz and Hollander 2016: 887 fig. 2.
76
going to Madga and from Madga to Umma to tow a ship loaded with bitumen. Iran is
also a place where bitumen was taken: see, for example, RA 19 044 MIO 10543 (-/xi/-),
a messenger text where bitumen from Gar-NE.NE is documented.63 Once the bitumen
was collected, it was kept in warehouses, and taken from there to be used. The bitumen
stored in the provinces could be used, for royal purposes, in two different ways:
1. it could be shipped, to be used either in the capitals or in the crown lands within
the provinces themselves (for example, in the frame of the bala taxation system);64
2. it could be used for what we can call “public works” or “national building proj-
ects.”65
4.1.2 The Movement of Bitumen for Royal Purposes

It is sometimes difficult to understand if the bitumen collected in the provinces was
used for royal purposes because texts often record just the names of the officials who
received it with no other information. However, there are some indications in the texts
which help us to understand that a certain amount of bitumen was being shipped for
purposes related to the centralized state. This was the case, for example, when the bi-
tumen was moved “within the bala” (ša3 bala), or “for the bala” (bala-še3).66 But we
have to highlight that sometimes it is not easy to decide whether a certain amount of
bitumen was being moved within the bala system because the word “bala” does not
appear at all, although the shipment was being made in the frame of the bala taxation
system.67 Another indication could be when bitumen was moved to other provinces
or for public works.
Texts from both Umma and Ĝirsu essentially give us three different pieces of in-
formation: the quantity of bitumen, the name of the official who is responsible for the
expenditure of bitumen, and the official who received it. As in most administrative
transactions, the person responsible for the expenditure is recorded as “ki PN-ta,”
while the one who received the bitumen can be recorded as “PN šu ba-ti” or “kišib
PN.” Sometimes these two last expressions can be omitted and replaced by the seal on
the tablet.68 It is worth noting that behind every official there is an administrative unit,
but its name is seldom recorded in the texts. The following chart shows all the different
texts which recorded the movement of bitumen in the province of Umma and Ĝirsu.
62
The same text also records Guʾabba as a place where bitumen was taken: rev. 1–2: 219 gu2 esir2 had2
/ Gu2-ab-baki-ta (219 talents of bright bitumen from Guʾabba). Given the few attestations of bitumen
coming from Guʾabba, one might wonder if there was actually a deposit of some sort in the Guʾabba
region or if such texts record bitumen that was taken from another place and just brought into
a warehouse in Guʾabba.
63
See also RA 5 92 AO 3469 (-/x-6). Although the location of Gar-NE.NE is still unknown, it was part
of ma-da (Steinkeller 1987: 36 n. 56). Therefore, it is highly probable that it was located in the area
of modern Iran.
64
The movement of bitumen from the provincial sector to the crown within the same provinces is
more difficult to understand from the texts because, to the best of my knowledge, we do not have
any specific terms for this. However, we could have some hints: one possibility could be when bi-
tumen is shipped for the sukkal-mah (sukkal-mah-še3). See, for example, from Ĝirsu, TCTI 1 647
(ŠS 2/v/-).
65
See also paragraph 3.5. An example is given by ITT 5 8222 (AS 8/iii/-), from Ĝirsu, and Nisaba 9 139
(AS 2/v/-), from Umma, where Šarrum-ili receives a massive amount of bitumen from the ensi2 of
Umma. Šarrum-ili is probably identical with the colonel (nu-banda3) of the conscripts in Ĝirsu/Lagaš
province. As already observed by Steinkeller (2015: 185 n. 186) “Given the large volume of bitumen
involved, this expenditure may have been intended for a building project of some sort, perhaps
even the initial stage of the Gaʾeš construction.”
66
As highlighted by Sharlach (2004: 41–42), the term “ša3 bala” refers to the province’s bala payments
made in its appointed month. For a different opinion see Dahl 2006: 79–80 with previous bibliography.
67
Sharlach 2004: 16–17.
68
See, for example, from Ĝirsu, MTBM 318 (Š 46/iv/-).
77
78
Umma:
Text Material and quantity ki NP-ta NP šu ba-ti kišib NP ĝiri3 Institution Aim Seal
(from)
RA 16 19 (Š 36/ix/-)69 1.3.4 esir2 e2-a gur lugal nig2-kas7-aka Mu-zu-da

10 la2 1.0.0 esir2 had2 / ša3 Tum-ma-alki
gur
AAICAB 1/2, Ashm. 0.0.2 esir2 e2-a Ka-tar Šeš-kal-la ša3 bala
1937-93 (Š 40/-/-)
SANTAG 6 41 0.1.4 esir2 e2-a Tum-alx(TUR3)ki-še3

(Š 41/-/-)70
MVN 13 603 (Š 43/-/-) 2.0.0 esir2 e2-a gur Lugal-ezem Lu2-igi-sa6-sa6 bala-še3
d
Syracuse 174 (Š 44/-/-) 1.3.3 esir2 e2-a gur lugal Ur- Dumu- Lu2-igi-sa6-sa6 ša3 bala-a
zi-da
BPOA 7 2061 (Š 47/-/-) 2.0.0 esir2 had2 gur Ur-dŠara2 Na-ba-sa2 Arad2-mu na-kab-tum ša3 bala-a / iti še-KIN
lugal 0.0.3 5 sila3 esir2 Na-ba-sa2 -ku5

e2-a71 0.2.0 esir2 e2-a72
CUSAS 17, p. 278 0.0.1 3 sila3 esir2 e2-a Lu2-igi-sa6-sa6 Lu2-ge-na ša3 bala-a iti sig6-sig4
(Š 47/ii/-)
NYPL 324 (Š 48/-/-) 1.0.5 7 sila3 gur Šeš-kal-[la] Na-ba-[sa6] ša3 bala-a / ša3 e2 Na-ba-sa6 / dub-sar /
Puzur4-Da-gan dumu A [...]
Orient 16 063 75 12.0.0 esir2 had2 Šeš-kal-la Inim-dŠara2 gir-ra ba-a-gar / ša3 Na-ba-[sa2] / dub-sar /
(Š 48/-/-) gur lugal dam-gar3 ma2-gin2 e2 Puzur4-Da-gan / ša3 dumu A.KA.[DU6]
bala-a
SAT 2 646 (AS 1/-/-) 0.1.4 esir2 e2-a A-a-mu Lu2-igi-sa6-sa6 ša3 bala-a
Šeš-kal-la
JRAS 1939 32 (AS 6/xi/-) 0.0.2 5 sila3 esir2 e2-a Lu2-kal-la

0.0.1 esir2 e2-a 0.0.1 esir2 AN.BU3.ZI
e2-a A-gu73
69
This text refers to building activities in Tummal. For a detailed comment on this text see Steinkeller (2015: 212–213).
70
This text refers to building activities in Tummal. For a detailed comment on this text see Steinkeller (2015: 213–215).
71
These two quantities have Arad2-mu as conveyor.
72
This quantity has Na-ba-sa2 as conveyor.
73
Lu2-kal-la received the first quantity (0.0.2 5 sila3 esir2 e2-a); AN.BU3.ZI the second one (0.0.1 esir2 e2-a); and A-gu the third one (0.0.1 esir2 e2-a).
74
This text refers to the building of the temple of Nanna in Karzida/Gaʾeš (Steinkeller 2015: 220).
BPOA 7 2288 (AS 6/-/-)74 0.0.2 esir2 e2-a Ur-dDumu- Ab-ba-ge-na Ga-eški-še3 Ab-ba-ge-na / dub-sar
zi-da / dumu Lugal-ma2-
gur8-re
AR RIM 7 17 1275 0.2.0 esir2 ⌈had2⌉ Ab-ba-ge-na / e2-gi6-<par4> Ga-eški

(AS 7/-/-) dumu Lugal-
ma2-gur8-re
YOS 4 256 (AS 7/-/-)76 33.1.0 esir2 had2 gur zi-ga e2 Ga-eš Ab-ba-ge-na / dub-sar
1.1.0 esir2 e2-a gur / dumu Lugal-ma2-
gur8-re
UTI 4 2667 (AS 8/-/-) 0.1.2 esir2 e2-a Ur-dŠul-pa-e3 Lu2-kal-la ki-a-nag Ur-dNamma / Lu2-[kal-la] / dub-[sar] /
ša3 bala-a dumu Ur-E11-[e šuš3]
AAS 65 (AS 8/-/-) 1.2.0 3 1/2 sila3 esir2 zi-ga-am3 /

e2-a gur 9 1/2 ma-na nig2-kas7-aka
igi-esir2 8 1/2 ma-na dam-gar3 ša3
esir2 had2 bala-a
AnOr 7 146 (AS 9/viii/-) Lugal-iti-da Lugal-iti-da /

3 sila3 esir2 e2-a Ur-dŠul-pa-e3 e2 ki-a-nag Ur-dNamma

/ ša3 bala-a nu-banda3-[gu4] /
[dumu Giri3-ni]
Akkadica 138, p. 156 8 26.1.0 esir2 had2 gur Hu-wa-wa zi-ga bala-a nig2-
(AS 9/x/-) 0.3.0 5 sila3 esir2 e2-a A-gu77 kas7-aka Pa3-da
0.3.0 esir2 e2-a
YOS 18 123 (AS 9/-/-) 0.1.0 esir2 e2-a 12.3.0 Hu-wa-wa zi-ga bala-[a] nig2-
esir2 had2 gur 3 sila3 Lu2-dEn- kas7-aka nig2-sam2-
esir2 e2-a lil2-la278 ma / Ur-dDumu-zi-da
dam-gar3
ASJ 07 126 30 64.1.0 esir2 had2 gur A-a-kal-la Lu2-dingir-ra e2-temen-na ⌈ba⌉-ab-
(ŠS 2/vi/-)79 ensi2 šakkan6 / u3 du8 / zi-ga e2 ⌈dŠara2⌉
Ur-dIGda-alim -ka
šidim
MVN 14 0317 (ŠS 2/vii/-) 5 sila3 esir2 e2-a A-gu Lu2-kal-la e2-uz-ga gub-ba / ša3 Lu2-kal-la / dub-sar /
bala-a dumu Ur-E11-e šuš3
75
This text refers to the building of the temple of Nanna in Karzida/Gaʾeš (Steinkeller 2015: 225–226).
76
This text refers to the building of the temple of Nanna in Karzida/Gaʾeš (Steinkeller 2015: 222–225).
77
Hu-wa-wa received the first two quantities (26.1.0 esir2 had2 gur and 0.3.0 5 sila3 esir2 e2-a); A-gu the third one (0.3.0 esir2 e2-a).
78
Hu-wa-wa received the first two quantities (0.1.0 esir2 e2-a and 12.3.0 esir2 had2 gur); Lu2-dEn-lil2-la2 the third one (3 sila3 esir2 e2-a).
79
Although the text records the movement of bitumen from Umma for the temple of Šara, which is located in Umma itself, we have seen above (paragraph 3.5) that this text is recor-
ding a so-called “national building project.”
79
80
BPOA 7 2244 (ŠS 2/-/-) 10 gu2 esir2 had2 Ur-E11-e ša3 e2 dŠara2-ka Ur-E11-e / dub-sar /
dumu Ur-nigarx
(GAR.E2)gar
TCL 5 5680 (ŠS 2/-/-)80 2.1.3 esir2 e2-a gur Lugal-[x] e2 dŠara2-ka-ke4 ba-ab-
su-⌈ub⌉ nig2-kas7-aka
Ur-[d]Dumu-zi-da
dam-gar3
SAT 3 1473 (ŠS 4/-/-) 5.4.2 4 sila3 esir2 e2-a Lu2-dHa-ia3 ša3 bala-a Lu2-ib-gal / dub-sar
gur 44.1.0 esir2 had2 gur / dumu Ur-gi6-par4 /
gudu4 dInanna
TCL 5 6037 (ŠS 6/-/-) 7.0.4 7 2/3 sila3 esir2 e2-a [nig2]-⌈kas7⌉ bala-a-ka
gur 59.3.1 esir2 had2 gur a-[gu3]-a ga2-ga2-dam
nig2-kas7-aka dam-gar3-
ne / Lu2-kal-la
SNAT 504 (ŠS 6/-/-) 0.2.2 esir2 e2-a 1.0.0 esir2 bala-še3 zi-ga-am3 /
e2-a gur 20 gu2 esir2 nig2-kas7-aka dam-gar3
had2 / Lu2-dHa-ia3
BPOA 6 242 (ŠS 9/-/-) 0.0.2 esir2 e2-a Lu2-du10-ga A-gu ša3 bala-a
AOS 32 S23 ([-/-/-] 5.0.0 esir2 had2 gur dam-gar3-ne [Lu2?]-kal-la
80
See the previous footnote.
Ĝirsu
Text Material and ki NP-ta NP šu ba-ti kišib NP Aim

quantity
MVN 11 101 3.0.0 esir2 nig2-kas7-aka Ur-dŠu-

(Š 44/i/-) e2-a gur 1 gu2 44 l-pa-e3 dam-gar3 ša3
ma-na esir2 had2 Uri5ki-ma iti ezem-še
10 gu2-ta -il2-la iti burux
(GAN2)-maš iti 2-kam
bala-bi 1-am3
MVN 17 061 2.2.1 4 sila3 esir2 ša3 Uri5ki-ma bala

(Š 48/xi/-) e2-a gur 30 la2 Ur-dLamma ensi2
1 ma-na igi-esir2 Gir2-suki
CM 26 no. 067 0.0.1 esir2 e2-a ša3 Uri5ki-ma bala

d
(AS 6/i/-) Šara2-kam / [e]nsi2
Gir2-suki-ka
ITT 3 5070 4 gu2 20 ma-na Nam-mah Ur-dŠul-pa-e3 dumu bala-še3

igi-esir2 Ur-dLamma
TCTI 2 03227 5 gu2 3 1/3 ma-na / Nam-mah Ur-dLamma dumu / bala-še3

(ŠS 3/iii/-) igi-esir2 SIG4-zi
TCTI 2 03329 6.0.0 esir2 e2-a Nam-mah Ur-sa6-ga / nig2-gu3-de2 / bala-še3

(ŠS 3/x/-) gur-//lugal dam-gar3-10
As we can see from the charts above, there was little movement of bitumen for the
crown according to the records of Ĝirsu and Umma. This limited movement of bitu-
men from the two provinces could be due to the fact that the capitals had access to a
different supply line. More specifically, the abundance of bitumen at Ur would seem
to suggest that there was a nearby source. Actually, the literary text from the Old Baby-
lonian Period Šulgi D seems to suggest that there was a source of bitumen near Eridu,
since it records that the boat of Šulgi was caulked with bitumen given by Enki and
coming from Abzu:
Transliteration
35580 ma2-gur8-za-gin3-nam-lugal-la ba-ni-in-du8-a-ni
356 si-ku3-su3-su3 udu-u’a-guškin-bi an-ša3-ga hud-hud
357 esir2-bi esir2 igi-su dEn-ki-ka
358 abzu-ta mi2-zi du11-ga-am3
Translation
355 His shining royal magur-boat, which he had caulked
356 which was adorned with pure “horns,” whose “golden ram” was shining in
the midst of the sky
357 whose bitumen was the ..., bitumen of Enki
358 provided generously by the Abzu
80
The line numbers, transliteration, and translation are the ones from the composite text in Klein
(1981: 85–87).
81
5. Taxes and Trade

5.1 Introduction
The relationship between taxes collected by the central state and trade is quite a com-
plex topic, essentially due to the fact that we do not have, to the best of my knowledge,
texts that directly connect them.81 The movement of goods between the different
provinces of the Ur III state could not have been intended as proper trade because it
had to do with the management of resources within the empire and its fiscal organi-
zation (especially in the system of bala).82 This does not mean, of course, that goods
were not sent and taken from regions outside the core of the Ur III empire. There is
no doubt that at least some part of the goods obtained by the crown through taxation
were used to obtain goods lacking in Mesopotamia through trade. As is well known,
the region of Sumer lacked natural resources such as building materials, precious
stones, and wood, and metal for tools. All these materials could be used for both the
upkeep of the ruling elites (especially the acquisition of luxury goods such as precious
stones) and in order to manage public works (especially the acquisition of building
materials). This is not the place for an extensive treatment of that topic as it is well
treated elsewhere.83 What is more interesting for the relationship between taxes and
trade in Ur III is that the management of both involved the presence of merchants.
5.2 Merchants, Trade, and Taxes

The Sumerian word for merchant is dam-gar3, and it has been suggested that dam-
gar3 is rather more all-encompassing than the translation “merchant” would suggest.
Foster has proposed that it should more accurately be translated as “man of business”
or “business agent,”84 as such individuals also seem to have lent money and carried
out commissions for state institutions and for individuals. In the Ur III period, because
their activities required record-keeping, and because of their distinct professional des-
ignation, merchants are relatively easy to identify in the texts and we have extensive
records of merchants from all the major centers of the Ur III state: Ĝirsu, Umma,
Puzriš-Dagān, Ur, and Nippur.85 Although it is quite clear that merchants were also in-
volved in economic transactions regarding the state, their relationship is not clear:
were the merchants state dependents (with just a “space” for managing private activ-
ities), or were they independent businessmen? In other words, did the merchants
work for the state or just with the state? In relation to this problem the documentation
is fundamentally unclear and, indeed, there is no agreement among scholars. The two
positions can be summarized by Steinkeller (2004: 97–98) and Garfinkle (2012: 143).
The first has written: “As everybody else in the Ur III state, merchants enjoyed the sta-
tus of éren, i.e., state dependents. During the period of their employment, merchants
were alimented with grain, wool, and oil allotments and at least some of them were
in addition provided with plots of arable land. After their work-duty for the state was
fulfilled, they had complete freedom to engage in an independent economic activity.”
On the contrary, Garfinkle has argued “There is no indication in the texts that the mer-
chants were direct employees of the state.” However, as has been observed by Jursa,86
in a certain sense it is not very important whether the merchants were private busi-
81
Except for the text cited in paragraph 3.5, UET 9 962 ([x]/v/-), where the merchant Lu2-dEn-lil2-la2
paid barley as a “tithe of sea-faring trade.”
82
Although a sort of local trade did exist (Steinkeller 2004: 105–111).
83
See Steinkeller 2004 (especially 97–11); Crawford 2013; Laursen – Steinkeller 2017: 47–62, 79–88.
84
Foster 1977: 35.
85
Garfinkle 2010b: 308.
86
Jursa 2002: 69.
82
nessmen or agents of the state because, in both cases, they were elements of the
planned economy in their dealings with the institutional sector.
The organization of the merchants has been highlighted by Steinkeller (2004: 102–
103) and Garfinkle (2012: 188–194), who has shown that merchants were organized
in a sort of “guild” or a “corporate body.” The existence of this organization is indicated
by the presence of officials called “foreman of the merchants” (ugula dam-gar3-ne87),
“mayor of the merchants” (ha-za-num2 dam-gar3-ne88), and “merchant in charge of 10
merchants” (dam-gar3 1089), which presupposes the existence of a hierarchy among
them. Moreover, it seems that they had their own headquarters called “the house of
the merchants” (e2 dam-gar3).90 The relationship between merchants and the state
probably involved two different aspects: merchants were involved in the procurement
of foreign goods for the state,91 and they helped the circulation in the state economy
of goods that could not efficiently be handled by central redistributive mechanisms.92
The former activity is not well documented in Ur III documents. Steinkeller has iden-
tified two texts that allow us to speculate, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that
the merchants did travel abroad.93 The first document is NATN 511 (unknown date),
which records a legal dispute between the merchants Ur-Nuska and Adaʾa, both of
whom are well documented as merchants at Nippur. Ur-Nuska had sent to Adaʾa three
minas of silver to purchase 120 bushels of sesame in Zimudar, a locality in the Diyala
Region.94 The text makes it clear that Adaʾa was staying in Zimudar at that time, since
he communicates with Ur-Nuska through his messenger, a certain Ušpurani. More-
over, Steinkeller also found another text, ITT 2 776 (ŠS 8/xi/-), from Ĝirsu, showing that
an institutional form of long-distance trade operated at the time of Ur III: in this text,
the trader Puʾudu shipped barley to Makkan (modern Oman) on behalf of the state
(here represented by the governor of Ĝirsu/Lagaš). Moreover, as has been demon-
strated by Garfinkle (2010a: 195), Ur III merchants managed large amounts of cop-
per that had to be imported from outside southern Mesopotamia (probably from
Makkan95).
As for the second activity, Garfinkle (2010a: 188–194; 2012: 105) has shown that sev-
eral texts from both Ĝirsu and Umma seem to indicate that merchants, as a result of
their professional responsibilities, acted as “agents” for institutional and non-institu-
tional households. These households had standing accounts with merchants and they
frequently placed “purchase orders” with them to obtain goods. These transactions
involved the transfer of barley, wool, or silver from the institutions to one or more
merchants to acquire goods, and these goods were also used to pay the bala.96 At the
provincial level, merchants helped administration to arrange their bala payments by
87
See, for example, from Umma, Nik. 2 447 (AS 3/xi/-).
88
See, from Ĝirsu, SNAT 220 (-/-/-).
89
See, for example, from Nippur, NATN 367 (AS 2/x/9).
90
Steinkeller 2004: 103. See, for example, from Ĝirsu, PPAC 5 240 (-/-/-), and, from Nippur, NATN 511
(-/-/-).
91
Especially for workshops that required raw materials not locally available in Mesopotamia (Garfin-
kle 2010a: 187).
92
93
94
Frayne 1992: 62.
95
Steinkeller (2017: 57) has argued that, in the Ur III period, there was probably an elimination of
Meluhha and Dilmun from active participation in the Gulf trade and this void was filled by Makkan.
96
See, for example, from Ĝirsu, CM 26 no. 134 (AS 1/xii/-) where Ur-gu2-en-na, the merchant, acquires
wool for the bala from the house of Ur-DUN. For this text, see also Notizia (2019: 15–16). In general,
the payment of bala tax was not the only goal of these transfers of goods from institutions to mer-
chants: with this credit, merchants also acquired goods for the institutions which were not needed
for the payment of taxes.
83
collecting goods. Sometimes, merchants were involved directly in collecting the bala,
as shown by several texts where the merchants act “on behalf of bala” (mu bala-še3).97
Moreover, as has been shown by Garfinkle (2010a: 190–191), it seems that the mer-
chants could collect the goods, convert them into silver, and then deliver the silver to
the central administration.
6. Conclusion
The Ur III system of taxation reflects the organization of the empire: the provinces
paid the bala and the periphery paid the gun2 ma-da, and both the core and the pe-
riphery received something in exchange. Thanks to the bala and gun2 ma-da, all the
most important commodities in the Ur III economy (barley, livestock, and labor) cir-
culated throughout the state. But the upkeep of the state also required other key com-
modities (for example, building materials, metals, and stone) which were not available
in Mesopotamia. For this reason, the state relied on merchants to obtain these goods.
Moreover, since the provinces had been asked to provide a huge amount of commodi-
ties to the crown, they used merchants to simplify the procedures: the primary busi-
ness of the merchants in this period was the sale and purchase of items on behalf of
their clients (a group that consisted of both institutional and non-institutional house-
holds) and some of the goods obtained through the merchants were used by the
provinces to contribute to the central administration. The crown also had forms of
taxation other than bala and gun2 ma-da: with these taxes, all the kingdom had to con-
tribute to the maintenance of the most important shrines in the country and their fes-
tivals (especially in Nippur) as well as to “public” works which were considered
important by the central administration. The transportation of taxes from different
regions of the empire also had another implication: the movement of people across
the country. This movement helped to develop a sense of community. People of differ-
ent regions come into contact by travelling together, working together, and living to-
gether far from home. Moving far from the thinking of the modern world, where taxes
are often seen as a sort of “robbery” of the citizens by the state, Ur III taxes could create
a feeling of unity in a region that, except under the Sargonic empire, was never uni-
fied.
Bibliography
Cohen, M. E., 1993. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Crawford, H., 2013. Trade in the Sumerian World. In H. Crawford, ed. The Sumerian
World. London – New York: Routledge, 447–461.
Dahl, J. L., 2006. Revisiting Bala. Provincial Taxation and the Ur III State by Tonia M.
Sharlach. JAOS 126/1, 77–88.
D’Agostino, F. – Pomponio, F., forthcoming. Ur III. In G. Rubio, ed. Handbook of Ancient
Mesopotamia. New York – Berlin: de Gruyter.
Foster, B., 1977. Commercial Activity in Sargonic Mesopotamia. In J. D. Hawkins,
ed. Trade in the Ancient Near East. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq,
31–44.
Frayne, D., 1992. The Early Dynastic List of Geographical Names. AOS 74. New Haven:
American Oriental Society.
97
The involvement of the merchants with the bala is evident from the archive of Turam-ili (Garfinkle
2012: 105). This is shown, for example, by the text JCS 38 73 36 (IS 3/-/-), which records 53 gur of
grain loaded on a boat from I3-li2-en-nam, the šabra, to Turam-ili the merchant, on behalf of the bala
(see also Garfinkle 2012: 97–98).
84
Garfinkle, S. J., 2010a. Merchants and State Formation in Early Mesopotamia. In

S. Melville – A. Slotsky, eds. Opening the Tablet Box. Near Eastern Studies in Honor
of Benjamin R. Foster. CHANE 42. Leiden – Boston: Brill, 185–202.
Garfinkle, S. J., 2010b. What Work Did the Damgars Do? Towards a Definition of Ur III
Labor. In L. Kogan – N. Koslova – S. Loesov – S. Tishchenko, eds. City Administration
in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53 Rencontre Assyrilogique Interna-
tionale, vol. 2. Babel und Bibel 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 307–316.
Garfinkle, S. J., 2012. Entrepreneurs and Enterprise in Early Mesopotamia. A Study of
Three Archives from the Third Dynasty of Ur (2112–2004 BC). CUSAS 22. Bethesda:
CDL Press.
Gelb, I. J., 1973. Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia. JNES 32/1, 70–98.
Greco, A., forthcoming. Neglected Source of Prosperity. Marsh Resources and the Role
of the “Enku” in Third Millennium BC Southern Mesopotamia. In P. Notizia – A. Ro-
sitani – L. Verderame, eds. dNisaba za3-mi2. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor
of Francesco Pomponio. dubsar 19. Münster: Zaphon.
Hallo, W. W., 1960. A Sumerian Amphictyony. JCS 14, 88–114.
Heimpel, W., 2009. The Location of Madga. JCS 61, 25–61.
Heimpel, W., 2011. Twenty-Eight Trees Growing in Sumer. In D. I. Owen, ed. Garšana
Studies. CUSAS 6. Bethesda: CDL Press, 161–175.
Jursa, M., 2002. Prywatyzacja i zysk? Przedsiębiorcy a gospodarka instytucjonalna
w Mezopotamii od 3 do 1 tysiąclecia przed Chr. Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo
Przyjaciół Nauk.
Jursa, M. – Moreno García, J. C., 2015. The ancient Near East and Egypt. In A. Monson
– W. Scheidel, eds. Fiscal Regimes and the Political Economy of Premodern States.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 115–166.
Klein, J., 1981. Three Šulgi Hymns. Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Šulgi of Ur.
Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press.
Laursen, S. – Steinkeller, P., 2017. Babylonia, the Gulf Region, and the Indus. Archeolog-
ical and Textual Evidence for Contact in the Third and Early Second Millennium B.C.
MC 21. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Maeda, T., 1994. Bal-ensí in Drehem Texts. ASJ 16, 115–164.
Maeda, T., 1995. Sà-bal-a in Umma Tablet: bal duty of the Ensí of Umma. ASJ 17, 145–
174.
Michalowski, P., 1978. Foreign Tribute to Sumer during the Ur III Period. ZA 68, 34–49.
Molina, M., 2016. Archives and Bookkeeping in Southern Mesopotamia during the Ur
III period. Archéologie de la comptabilité. Culture matérielle des pratiques compta-
bles au Proche-Orient ancien 8. https://journals.openedition.org/comptabilites/1980
(last accessed on June 10, 2020).
Notizia, P., 2019. How to “Institutionalize” a Household in Ur III Ĝirsu/Lagaš: the Case
of the House of Ur-DUN. JCS 71, 11–34.
Potts, D. T., 1997. Mesopotamia Civilization. The Material Foundation. Athlone Publica-
tions in Egyptology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies. London: The Athlone Press.
Ouyang, X., 2010. Administration of the Irrigation Fee in Umma during the Ur III Period
(ca. 2112–2004 BCE). In L. Kogan – N. Koslova – S. Loesov – S. Tishchenko, eds. City
Administration in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53rd Rencontre As-
syrilogique Internationale, vol. 2. Babel und Bibel 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
317–349.
Sallaberger, W., 1993. Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit. UAVA 7/1. New York – Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Sallaberger, W., 2004. Schlachtvieh aus Puzriš-Dagān. Zur Bedeutung dieses königli-
chen Archivs. JEOL 38, 45–62.
85
Sallaberger, W., 2016. Getreide messen. In P. Corò – E. Devecchi – N. De Zorzi – M. Ma-
iocchi, eds. Libiamo ne’ lieti calici: ancient Near Eastern studies presented to Lucio
Milano on the occasion of his 65th birthday by pupils, colleagues and friends. AOAT
436. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 237–248.
Sallaberger, W. – Westenholz, A., 1999. Akkade Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. OBO 160/3. Freiburg
– Göttingen: Universitatsverlag – Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Schwartz, M. – Hollander, D., 2016. The Uruk expansion as dynamic process: A recon-
struction of Middle to Late Uruk exchange patterns from bulk stable isotope analyses
of archaeological bitumen. JAS Reports 7, 884–899.
Selz, G. J., 1995. Maš-da-ři-a und Verwandtes. Ein Versuch über da-ři „an der Seite
führen“: ein zusammengesetztes Verbum und einige nominale Ableitungen. ASJ 17,
251–274.
Sharlach, T. M., 2004. Provincial Taxation and the Ur III State. CM 26. Leiden – Boston:
Brill – Styx.
Steinkeller, P., 1981. The Renting of Fields in Early Mesopotamia and the Development
of the Concept of “Interest” in Sumerian. JESHO 24, 113–145.
Steinkeller, P., 1987. The Administrative and Economic Organization of Ur III State: the
Core and the Periphery. In McG. Gibson – R. Biggs, eds. The Organization of Power:
Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East. SAOC 46. Chicago: Oriental Institute
of the University of Chicago, 19–41.
Steinkeller, P., 2004. Toward a Definition of Private Economic Activity in Third Millen-
nium Babylonia. In R. Rollinger – C. Ulf, eds. Commerce and Monetary Systems in
the Ancient World. Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction. Proceedings of
the Fifth Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage
Project Held in Innsbruck, Austria, October 3rd–8th, 2002. Melammu Symposia 5.
München: Franz Steiner Verlag, 91–111.
Steinkeller, P., 2015. The Employment of Labor on National Building Projects in the Ur
III Period. In P. Steinkeller – M. Hudson, eds. Labor in the Ancient World. Interna-
tional Scholars Conference on Ancient Near Eastern Economies 5. Dresden: ISLET-
Verlag, 137–236.
Tsouparoupoulou, C., 2013. Killing and Skinning Animals in the Ur III Period: the
Puzriš-Dagan (Drehem) Office Managing of Dead Animals and Slaughter By-prod-
ucts. AoF 40/1, 150–182.
86
Economic Complexity
Alivernini (eds.)
in the Ancient Near East
Mynářová
Economic Complexity in the Ancient Near East

ISBN 978-80-7308-991-7
9 788073 089917

S Alivernini J Mynarova Management of Re

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

S Alivernini J Mynarova Management of Re

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Economic Complexity

Economic Complexity in the Ancient Near East

Jana Mynářová – Sergio Alivernini (eds.)

Reviewed by Elena Devecchi and Shai Gordin

Contributors: Sergio Alivernini, Heather Baker, Gojko Barjamovic, Giacomo Benati,

Type-setting layout: AGAMA® poly-grafický ateliér, s.r.o.

© Charles University, Faculty of Arts, 2020

A. tablet siglum, Mari (in Chambon)

Gojko Barjamovic is Senior Lecturer on Assyriology in the Department of Near East-

Giacomo Benati is a postdoctoral fellow at the Department of History and Cultures of

Marco Bonechi, Assyriologist, is a CNR researcher in Rome. He deals mainly with

Josué J. Justel is currently Assistant Professor of Ancient History (Assyriology) at the

Jacob Lauinger, Ph.D. (2007), University of Chicago, is Associate Professor of Assyriolo-

Jürgen Lorenz is Research Assistant at Philipps-Universität Marburg (Germany). He

Kevin M. McGeough is Professor of Archaeology in the Department of Geography at

Jana Mynářová, Ph.D. (2004), is Associate Professor of Egyptology at Charles Univer-

Susanne Paulus (Ph.D. University of Münster) is an Associate Professor of Assyriology

Regine Pruzsinszky is an Assyriologist at the Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Ar-

MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES AND TAXATION

2. The Organization of the Ur III Economy

3. One State, Several Taxes

3.1 The gun2 ma-da18 and Other Taxes in the Periphery

3.5 One-oﬀ Taxes

4. Taxes and Resources

4.1 Bitumen: Typologies and Collecting Places

4.1.2 The Movement of Bitumen for Royal Purposes

RA 16 19 (Š 36/ix/-)69 1.3.4 esir2 e2-a gur lugal nig2-kas7-aka Mu-zu-da

SANTAG 6 41 0.1.4 esir2 e2-a Tum-alx(TUR3)ki-še3

lugal 0.0.3 5 sila3 esir2 Na-ba-sa2 -ku5

JRAS 1939 32 (AS 6/xi/-) 0.0.2 5 sila3 esir2 e2-a Lu2-kal-la

AR RIM 7 17 1275 0.2.0 esir2 ⌈had2⌉ Ab-ba-ge-na / e2-gi6-<par4> Ga-eški

AAS 65 (AS 8/-/-) 1.2.0 3 1/2 sila3 esir2 zi-ga-am3 /

AnOr 7 146 (AS 9/viii/-) Lugal-iti-da Lugal-iti-da /

3 sila3 esir2 e2-a Ur-dŠul-pa-e3 e2 ki-a-nag Ur-dNamma

AOS 32 S23 ([-/-/-] 5.0.0 esir2 had2 gur dam-gar3-ne [Lu2?]-kal-la

Text Material and ki NP-ta NP šu ba-ti kišib NP Aim

MVN 11 101 3.0.0 esir2 nig2-kas7-aka Ur-dŠu-

MVN 17 061 2.2.1 4 sila3 esir2 ša3 Uri5ki-ma bala

CM 26 no. 067 0.0.1 esir2 e2-a ša3 Uri5ki-ma bala

ITT 3 5070 4 gu2 20 ma-na Nam-mah Ur-dŠul-pa-e3 dumu bala-še3

TCTI 2 03227 5 gu2 3 1/3 ma-na / Nam-mah Ur-dLamma dumu / bala-še3

TCTI 2 03329 6.0.0 esir2 e2-a Nam-mah Ur-sa6-ga / nig2-gu3-de2 / bala-še3

5. Taxes and Trade

5.2 Merchants, Trade, and Taxes

Garfinkle, S. J., 2010a. Merchants and State Formation in Early Mesopotamia. In

Economic Complexity in the Ancient Near East

You might also like