A Babylonian Gang of Potters

A Babylonian Gang of Potters Reconstructing the Social Organization

of Crafts Production in the Late Third Millennium BC Southern Mesopotamia*

Jacob L. Dahl University of Oxford

Introduction

One of the more controversial hypotheses of the Soviet Orientalist Vasilii Vasil’evich Struve was the claim that the workers of the Ur III period toiled all year for the state, with little or no time of their own, while de-pending completely on the favors of the state.1 This hypothesis is hard to prove, however, since workers were treated in the administrative record in a way that does not, as a rule, allow us to perform any of the kind of prosopographical analyses which are central to our understanding of late third millennium BC societies.2 Struve was able to produce some evidence that workers could be as-

signed to the same institution, and the same work-crew, over a prolonged period of time during which they worked full time for that institution.3 It is

* An abbreviated version of this paper was read on the 27th of July, 2007, at

the Institute for Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg, during the 53e Rencontre As-syriologique Internationale. It was originally inspired by Natasha Koslova’s manuscript of more than 400 cuneiform tablets in the State Hermitage Museum (Koslova 2000) that was kindly made available to me in 1997. I wish to thank here above all Natasha Koslova for allowing me to study these texts prior to their pub-lication, and Bob Englund for discussing the texts and this article over the years. I wish also to thank the several participants at the 53e RAI who commented on my paper there, in particular Claus Wilcke, Hans Neuman, and Steven Garfinkle. In the following, standard abbreviations are used for ancient dates (AS 1 stands for the first year of Amar-Suen, month and day count is given when necessary). All other abbreviations follow CDLI standards (http://cdli.ucla.edu).

1 Struve 1969:129; Struve 1954:44. 2 R. McC. Adams pointedly remarked on the lack of studies of lower stratum

of Mesopotamian society in both archaeology and Assyriology in Adams 2008. 3 Struve discussed the work-team of Lugal-gu’e recorded in the two accounts

BIN 5, 272, and TCL 5, 5675 covering the years AS 3 and 4 in Struve 1969:139; and Struve 1954:48.

276 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period difficult to overstate the importance of Struve’s understanding of the social status of the Ur III workers, since it is paramount to state-formation and social evolution theories of, in particular, Marxist scholars working during the first three quarters of the twentieth century. In fact, Struve influenced general Soviet theories of state formation and social evolution.4 The posi-tion of Struve, and his Soviet colleagues, that the dependent workers of the Ur III state were in fact state-slaves was later contested by Western col-leagues, among others Ignace Gelb who vigorously promoted the so-called serf theory.5 The present study revisits that topic studying the social position of the potters attached to the household of the governor of Ur III Umma. Almost all our knowledge of Ur III pottery production has been de-

duced from two badly damaged accounts, MVN 1, 231 and 232.6 For the sake of convenience, and in an attempt to facilitate cross-referencing to Steinkeller’s 1996 study of the same two texts, MVN 1, 231 is here re-ferred to as text A, and MVN 1, 232 is referred to as text B.7 An almost completely preserved parallel text, MVN 21, 203, was published recent-ly.8 I call that new text C. Text C completes our understanding of the structure of texts A and B and of the nature of Ur III crafts-production as a whole. Using text C we are therefore able to advance well beyond what could be achieved by studying texts A and B alone. In addition to texts A, B, and C, I will discuss at length SAT 3, 1597, in the following called text D. TCL 5, 6036, the famous carpentry and basketry account of Agu, will serve as a model, and will be called text Ø. The key-texts are transliterated in the appendix, visual documentation of all texts, except D, are online in the pages of the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI).9

4 Prokhorov 1983 (Vol. 24, p. 608, and Vol. 2, p. 418). 5 For a sort of conclusion to the debate between, among others, Diakonoff and

Gelb see: Diakonoff 1987. 6 I wish to thank Dr. Barbara Geilich, curator of the Museum Forum der Völker

(Völkerkundemuseum der Franziskaner) in Werl, Germany, for providing me with pictures of text A and B.

7 Published by Pettinato et al. 1974; see also Waetzoldt’s detailed study of the same two texts in Waetzoldt 1970–1971. For a discussion of the same two texts see also Sallaberger–Civil 1996:34–37 and 62–65; Steinkeller 1996:245–251; Potts 1997:155–161; and Moorey 1994:141.

8 Koslova 2000. 9 Text A = http://cdli.ucla.edu/P113264; B = http://cdli.ucla.edu/P113265; C

= http://cdli.ucla.edu/P120440; D = http://cdli.ucla.edu/P144797; Ø = http://cdli. ucla.edu/P131750.

J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 277 In his 1996 article, entitled “The Organization of Crafts in Third

Millennium Babylonia: The Case of Potters,” Piotr Steinkeller dealt ex-tensively with texts A and B. The scope of that article was to investigate the social position of the Babylonian potter during the third millennium BC. Steinkeller used his 1996 conclusions to draw even broader conclusions concerning late 3rd millennium BC Babylonian society in a 2004 study expanding his 1996 conclusions to cover the entire Ur III crafts production.10 However, by comparing accounts A and B with the new text C, and other similar accounts from the same period, such as text Ø available for study since the days of Struve, I argue against Steinkel-ler’s reconstruction of texts A and B as well as the conclusions he drew concerning the social position of the potters, and other Ur III craftsmen. In figures 2 and 3 below, I have tried to map Steinkeller’s reconstruction of these two texts onto the text-model structure used in this article to de-scribe the Neo-Sumerian account (see fig. 1).11 This is not an easy task since Steinkeller’s understanding of central elements of ancient book-keeping is in direct opposition to the model used here. The Neo-Sumerian accounts have received more attention than any

other group of administrative documents from the same period. In par-ticular those accounts that calculate the rate at which the trade-agents ful-filled various obligations to the state, the so-called dam-gar3 accounts, have been studied in detail, if not always with clear conceptual founda-tions.12 These reports, written up by accountants of the state, calculate the rate at which the trade-agent converted the “goods,” put at his dispo-sition by certain agencies of the state, into commodities sought by the same or other agencies of the state.13 As a tool for computations, and sole-ly for that purpose, silver, as well as other commodities, could be used as a medium of equivalence (silver, as a commodity, ultimately for prestige

10 “In the case of craftsmen, for example, this mean that, having delivered the

required number of man-days to the state, they were free to work entirely for themselves and to sell or barter their wares on a free market, so to speak. … I hasten to offer the following caveat, however. There is no written evidence that the potters or, for that matter, any other category of craftsmen, actually sold or bartered their products” (Steinkeller 2004:94–95). One may add the complete absence of references to a market, free or not, in the extant, but extremely rich record.

11 Adopted in parts from Englund 1991, fig. 1. 12 Snell 1982; Englund 1990:14–51. 13 Englund 1990. For a historical perspective see Christian 1957; Struve 1969;

Struve 1954; Landsberger 1967.

278 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period objects, is of course also present in the administrative record). In the same manner, accounts involving crafts production or agricultural pro-duction, are best understood as accounts calculating the way in which the overseer of a crafts production or work team disposed of the man-days given to him in the first place, that is, the workers of his crew. Production records applied a sophisticated system of equivalences for evaluating the relative value of the production. The pottter’s accounts and the other Ur III accounts concerning craft production, are entirely similar. The only exception is that the accounts of craft production involving valuable ma-terials, such as text Ø, had a more involved calculation of the value of the production. This is entirely due to the nature of the production, and does not concern the status of the workers. In short, the first section of an Ur III account contains the ‘debits’ of

the accounted. As a rule it ends with the subscript sag-nig2-gur11-ra-kam, but this and other technical terms can be left out and inferred from the general structure of the document. sag-nig2-gur11-ra-kam can loosely be translated as ‘the first section of the account,’ referring to the placement of that section in the text, rather than the nature of the goods. The second section, initiated by the Sumerian ša3-bi-ta, ‘from its middle,’ and termi-nated by zi-ga-am3, ‘is torn out’ (or ‘booked out’), represents the ‘credits’ of the accounted. Again the terminology is perhaps best understood as relat-ing to the physical structure of the document. If the value of the second section surpassed that of the first, the result would be termed a ‘surplus’ (diri). On the other hand, a ‘deficit’ (la2-ia3)

14 was introduced in those in-stances where the value, expressed by means of equivalences, of the first section outweighed that of the second. As has been sufficiently demon-strated, such an “operating balance” could be transferred to the next ac-count, but it could also be settled immediately.15 The severe consequences resulting from an unsettled deficit are well-known: jail-time was not an un-common fate for those unable to settle their ‘deficit’ (la2-ia3).

16 When a defi-cit was transferred to the next account it was called the ‘remainder’ (si-i3-

14 Traditionally read la2-NI. A reading la2-ia3 (deficit, nominalized form of la2,

‘to hang’) is suggested by the writing of the parallel term zi-ga. 15 Snell 1982:104–108 and tables 31 and 33; Englund 1990:33–51. 16 See the examples in Englund 1990:46–48. Add MVN 18, 505 mentioning a

person who has been freed from prison (en-nu-ga2) where he was incarcerated because of his deficit (obverse, line 1: [mu] la2-ia3-na-še3

QenR-[nu]-ga2 i3-in-

QtiR-[la]-am3).

J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 279 tum),17 and it was then entered at the very beginning of the account, as part of the ‘debits’ (the sag-nig2-gur11-ra-kam). A ‘surplus’ (diri), on the other hand, could be transferred to the ‘credits’ (ša3-bi-ta … zi-ga-am3) of the next account, but it was more likely treated as the personal profit of the accounted.18 Accounts were usually concluded with a colophon, containing information about the accounted, and the date of the accounting period. Accounts concerning work used a sophisticated system of equivalences

based on the fictitious value of a man-day. Struve, first to realize this, de-scribed the unparalleled historical implications of this finding in his 1948 article.19 The Ur III administrative calendar, with its year consisting of 12 months, each with 30 days, was the foundation of the administration of labor.20 Englund (1988) suggested that each of the 12 (13) lunar months in the Ur III cultic calendar were given a rounded value of 30 days in the administrative calendar (each lunar month would be in average about 29 ½ days, as a result each month would, presumably, alternate between having 29 and 30 days). The lunar year, thus, had approximately 355 days and could easily be intercalated to conform with the solar year, inserting one intercalendrical month (iti diri) every third year. The administrative year, on the other hand had 360 days. Foremen of work-crews would in this system lose approximately five work-days a year for which they had to show a production. On the other hand, anyone in charge of rations, for animals or humans, would gain five ration-days a year.21 By fixing the val-ue of a laborers work as a standard unit, and by standardizing the calendar, the Ur III accountants were able to convert any piece of work into a meas-urable unit, easily calculated in the sexagesimal system. A man-day had a value in such different realms as a measurement of refined grain, a quanti-ty of excavated soil, an area plowed, harrowed, or hoed, a surface area of reed mats woven, and ultimately a silver equivalence. When calculating the value of the products of a crafts production unit,

it was necessary to split them into their individual components. The an-cient bookkeepers would then calculate the, sometimes, very complicated relationships between the (fictitious) value of, say, a basket and the reed, the different pieces of wood, and the man-days, needed for its manufac-

17 si’tum, written si-i3-tum, see already Gelb 1957:262–263 (and CAD Š3 136

with reference to MAD 5, 30:7 and MAD 1, 267:5). See also Snell 1982:323. 18 Englund 1991:264. 19 Struve 1969:128 (first published in Russian in 1949), in particular pp. 52–53. 20 Englund 1988:124–125. 21 Ibid. 129.

280 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period ture. For that reason the ‘credits’ section of large accounts pertaining to the production of crafts was split in two: one recording the content of the actual receipts and one bundling the products and calculating the worth of each. For example, the value of a certain basket was calculated accord-ing to the standard production rates of a reed-worker, who was supposed to fabricate 6 m² of matting each day.22 Since the raw-materials used in the production of pottery were assigned no accounting value, save for the reeds used either as fuel or to mix with the clay, the accounts concerning the Umma pottery workshop furnished the pots and jars only with a work- day equivalence. Unfortunately no meaningful system of conversion has been discovered concerning the application of these equivalences. Ur III pottery production

In his 1996 article, Steinkeller argued that the Ur III pottery workers en-joyed a relatively prosperous economic situation. We can summarize Steinkeller’s claims in four points. He claimed that the potters worked in-dependently, with no direct supervisors (p. 248), that they were based at home (p. 249), had free time during which they could hire themselves out for wages (p. 247), and finally, that the potters received land allot-ments making them independent (pp. 238–239). Steinkeller’s article relies heavily on textual sources, rather than ar-

chaeological data or anthropological parallels, and we may therefore ask to what extent the texts are able to support these kinds of claims. Texts A and B were key-texts for Steinkeller, but his reconstruction of the two is impossible to follow. It is presumably based on a number of mistaken readings, evident when comparing the two texts with text Ø, or the new potters account, text C. In figures 2 and 3, below, I have tried to map Steinkeller’s reconstruction onto the text-model used in this study (see fig. 1). In addition, Steinkeller confused data concerning different groups of potters and based his conclusions on the result. In this study I investi-gate only the one gang of potters, presumably attached to the household of the governor of Umma, and controlled by its chief administrator. This work-crew is attested in texts A, B, C, D, and other texts, covering a peri-od of almost 20 years. Other teams existed in Umma; however, they are much less well documented, but they were probably structured in the same way as the team described here, since no strong evidence to the contrary exists.

22 Ibid. 170, fn. 43.

J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 281 According to my model, texts A and B are structured in precisely the

same way as Ø and text C. Partially due to the close relationship between B and C I am able to reconstruct large parts of B. Text A

Text A is an account of the work of one potter during 13 months. It is dated to the fourth year of Amar-Suen. It is most likely an ‘additional’ ac-count covering the work of some unspecified ‘extra’ performance by an ‘added’ worker, or the like. The main Umma potters account from AS 4 probably remains to be found. The name of this potter is unfortunately lost in a break. Although the ‘credits’ section is well preserved,23 it is not possible to reconstruct the total (the subscript sag-nig2-gur11-ra-kam is missing). However, it was larger than the total of the ‘debits,’ resulting in a surplus (diri) partly visible on the hand copy of Waetzoldt. In his reconstruction, Steinkeller added the sums or partial sums of

the ‘credits’ and ‘debits’ to reach what he termed a total of man-days available (p. 246). He then suggested that the balance could be computed by subtracting another partial sum of the ‘credits,’ from the so-called total man-days available (p. 246). He then tried to reconstruct the preserved numerical signs to make these fit his reconstruction (p. 246, fn. 79). In doing so he violated basic rules of numerical notations (Steinkeller restored the notation: 3600 [la2 120]

Q3R ⅓ 7! (text: 3) g[in2] = 3600 – 123 – 27 gin2 = 3476 33 gin2). In sexagesimal notations la2 is used to subtract 1, 2, or in very rare cases 3 or more from 10 or another higher order notation, but never to subtract a string of numbers as is the case in Steinkeller’s reconstruction. Finally, Steinkeller presumably read Qugula(PA)R […]-am3 in line 3′ of the reverse (section 7 in Steinkeller’s fig. 2, p. 246), instead of QziR-[ga]-Qam3

R, a technical term which is always entered after the total of the section it frames, introduced by the technical term ša3-bi-ta. Steinkeller thus placed the colophon before the balance. Text B

Text B is dated to the seventh year of Amar-Suen. The ‘balance’ of B was positive and it was later entered in the ‘credits’ of C. Although text B is poorly preserved we are nevertheless able to analyze its superstructure, without the help of the close parallel text C. The text begins by listing the

23 None of the receipts used to write this section have been found.

282 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period members of a work-crew. Following this list we find a number of minor additions, such as hirelings, etc. (see also below). The very damaged ‘credits’ section had two parts like all other crafts production accounts: the first summarizing the actual receipts, written during the year of ac-counting,24 the second totaling these and calculating the equivalence value of products. The total of the ‘credits’ is also damaged, but here we may use the surplus entered in text C to reconstruct backwards whereby we are in fact able to reconstruct all the totals in text B. The section that Steinkeller in his 1996 discussion of text B called “total labor invested in the production” (section 4) (p. 247) is in fact only the surplus from the previous year which is listed in both parts of the credits section, for accounting purposes. In his reconstruction Steinkeller omitted the actual total of the ‘credits’ of which a few signs are visible, but calculated the ‘balance’ by subtracting the surplus (diri) from the previous year, from the ‘debits’ (p. 247). Text C

Text C is an almost completely preserved large account with the subscript ‘finalized account of work of potters, concerning Lu-kala’ (rev. vi 3′: nig2-ka9 aka a2 ba¶ar3 / lu2-kal-la). We can use the colophon of text C to reconstruct that of text B, and perhaps even text A (see figures 2 and 3 above). Text C covers the first eleven months of AS 8. The ‘debits’ of text C starts with a list of persons, some of whom are

qualified in a particular way (see below). A work-day equivalence corre-sponding to an amount of reed is found together with a few other addi-tions.25 The sum of the ‘debits’ is entered, but like in A the subscript

24 The following receipts from AS 7 relate to text B: BIN 5, 177 (ki

lu2-kal-la-ta), corresponding to lost entry; JCS 25, 176 (ki lu2-kal-la-ta), corre-sponding to lost entry, recaptured in summary section (rev. iv 19–20); UTI 4, 2574 (ki lu2-kal- la-ta), corresponding to lost entry.

25 Some of the terminology is difficult to interpret, however the calculations remain the same. Parts of or the entire regular work-crew is in texts B and C (B: obv. i 27; C: obv. i 22) described with the Sumerian sa2-du11 ensi2 lugal-¶e2-gal2 (in text A an addition of 66 work-days termed a2-ba¶ar3 sa2-du11-ke4-ne is found after the work-days of the ‘singular’ potter making up the ‘crew’ of that account). A literal translation, ‘work of the sa2-du11 potters,’ is of little help when asking of the real meaning of this technical term. The term sa2-du11 is well-understood, and can confidentially be interpreted as ‘regular delivery,’ or (in a transferred meaning) ‘regular offering.’ The same term is also found in connection with one of the products listed in all three accounts described here: it is part of the name

J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 283 sag-nig2-gur11-ra-kam is missing. The ‘credits’ section, which is a true production-record, was drawn up using the many receipts produced dur-ing the accounting period, when the workshop made deliveries to other institutions in Umma (see fig. 4). Many of these receipts have been pre-served.26 These receipts mostly accord with the format of the simple šu-ti-a doc-

uments (Product / from PN1 (ki PN1-ta) / PN2 received (PN2 šu ba-ti) or: sealed by PN3 (kišib3 PN3) / Date / Seal). As always, when trying to classify Ur III documents, there are numerous derivations from the standard type. Often the person receiving the items and the person sealing the of the bowl produced in the largest numbers, the dug sila3 sa2-du11. The produc-tion numbers of this bowl range from at least 800 in A to more than 60,000 in both B and C. The phrase sa2-du11 ensi2 lugal-¶e2-gal2 remains enigmatic, how-ever: there was no governor of Umma named Lugal-hegal; nor do we know of any high-ranking member of society with that name. One may hypothesize that the sa2-du11 bowls were distributed to cultic personnel and thus produced by spe-cial workers, in some way or the other sanctioned to perform this task. The par-ticular destination of many of these bowls (not always recorded), supports this hy-pothesis (see for example the sacrifice lists JCS 23, 68, No. 1; Atiqot 4, pl. 11, No. 67; NABU 1992/42 and UTI 5, 3467, see also Princeton 1, 243 recording the pro-visions and sila3 sa2-du11 bowls for the queen-dowagers visit to Zabalam in ŠS 1; and UTI 5, 3274 where 180 sila3 sa2-du11 bowls together with other kinds of pot-tery were destined for the gu2-tul2 of the king). N. Koslova has suggested to in-terpret the term under consideration ‘(for working with) regular deliveries of the governor’ (personal communication). Another ambiguous term, bar-ra kar-ra, is used in B and C. It too designates a special category of workers or a special pe-riod of work-time. See Balke 1998, for the suggestion that workers recorded as bar-ra kar-ra were additional workers brought from outside (the city).

26 BPOA 1, 632 (ki lu2-kal-la-ta), corresponding to obv. iv 6′–11′; MVN 14, 531 (ki dutu-sag10-ta), corresponding to obv. vi 21–29; UTI 3, 2200 (delivering agent not specified), corresponding to lost entry; UTI 5, 3420 (ki lu2-kal-la-ta), corresponding presumably to obv. v 17–22; UTI 4, 2380 (ki dutu-sag10), corre-sponding to rev. i 3–5. Numerous receipts from alternate years complete our re-construction of this procedure: MVN 14, 523 (AS 6) (ki lu2-kal-la-ta); UTI 3, 1700 (AS 9) (ki lu2-kal-la-ta); MVN 16, 842 (ŠS 1) (ki lu2-kal-la-ta); UTI 3, 1733 (ŠS 1) (ki lu2-kal-la-ta), corresponding roughly to entry 4′ of text C (obv. iv 12–16). Several receipts from AS 9 (MVN 16, 1423; SNAT 428; SAT 2, 1121; BIN 3, 543; BIN 3, 545; BIN 3, 615) record information presumably identical to that summarized by entry 6′ of text C (obv. iv 34 – v 2). JCS 25, 176 (AS 7) corre-sponding to lost entry of text B, is virtually identical to entry 7′ of text C (obv. v 3–11), identical receipts exists from the year AS 2 (SNAT 329), AS 3 (UTI 4, 2383), AS 6 (UTI 3, 1675), and one from an unknown year (UTI 4, 2748). The high number of receipts from years not covered by A, B, or C, is indicative of the longevity of the workshop under investigation.

284 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period transaction were the same; in such cases either one of the two entries would be left out. In many cases the information in the seal-impression is not in agreement with the information in the text; this is mostly due to a not entirely well understood social organization that allowed brothers, cousins, and others to roll their seal on the documents of their relatives.27 We would expect the primary documents relating to the accounts of

Lu-kala, to indicate that the items were credited to him (ki lu2-kal-la-ta), just as the case with for example the deliveries made from the workshop of Agu summarized in the text Ø, mentioned above.28 In the case of Lu- kala this is not always so. In a majority of the extant instances it is not Lu- kala who is credited with the delivery of the finished product.29 We can identify the other people making deliveries from this workshop with members of the work-crew listed in the beginning of accounts B and C (see below for a discussion of the work-crew).30 This fact perhaps led Steinkeller to his assumption that the potters worked independently. As I shall show in the following it was the foreman, and members of his family mainly, who besides Lu-kala could be credited with the deliveries.

27 See Dahl 2007. 28 For example the entry of Ø recorded in obv. v 31–37 which summarizes two

receipts sealed by Lugal-Emah’e, one of which is SAKF 5; the entry recorded in obv. vi 7–19 which summarizes four receipts sealed by Lu-hegal, one of which is JCS 2, 187 (YBC 767), and another by JCS 28, 212, No. 15; the entry recorded in obv. vii 11–22 which summarizes two receipts sealed by Ur-Šulpa’e, one of which is UTI 4, 2770; and the entry recorded in obv. vii 23–29 which summarizes the primary document MVN 14, 87 sealed by Lugal-niglagare. See also forthcoming study of text Ø by the author.

29 The following 16 texts, dating to between AS 2 to ŠS 1, all list deliveries of pottery production credited to Lu-kala: UTI 4, 2700 (AS 2); MVN 16, 1288 (AS 3); SET 127 (AS 4); Princeton 1, 237 (AS 5); MVN 14, 523 (AS 6); MVN 14, 523 (AS 6); UTI 4, 2574 (AS 7); BIN 5, 177 (AS 7); UTI 5, 3420 (AS 8); BPOA 1, 632 (AS 8); UTI 3, 1700 (AS 9); MVN 14, 359 (AS 9); MVN 16, 842 (ŠS 1); MVN 16, 1564 (ŠS 1); Princeton 1, 243 (ŠS 1); UTI 3, 1733 (ŠS 1).

30 In particular Utu-sag, a member of the work-crew listed in texts B and C, and Lugal-šala (not attested for the years AS 7 and 8), whose identity and rela-tionship to the workshop under investigation remains uncertain, but most likely a member of the crew during the years not covered by our texts (his seal may be that of lugal-ša3-la2 / dub-sar / dumu a2-zi-da attested, in for example BPOA 2, 2653). Note in that connection, the strong evidence produced by BPOA 2, 2145, that although the pots may be ‘credited’ to Lugal-šala (ki lugal-ša3-la2-ta) the transaction could be sealed by Lu-kala (in this instance the goods were trans-ferred to the ‘debits’ of Lu-gina (ugu2 lu2-gi-<na> ba-a-gar)).

J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 285 Following the “production record” we find a list of the products bun-

dled together according to typology.31 For each product a work-day equivalence was calculated (see fig. 4). A substantial surplus (diri), corre-sponding to the surplus of text B, was entered at the end of the first part of the ‘credits’ section. Surprisingly, the scribe erred crossly while repeat-ing the entry at the end of the second part of the ‘credits’ section (writing 2.38.30 la2 1 instead of 2.27.20).

32 Both the ‘debits’ and the ‘credits’ of C are totaled, and the size of the ‘credits’ is greater than that of the ‘debits’ resulting in a (substantial) ‘surplus’ (figs. 5 and 6). Text D

A transliteration of text D (SAT 3, 1597) was published by Marcel Sigrist in 2000. Unfortunately, that transliteration suffers from an unusually high number of errors some of which are apparent only after collations.33 A completely revised transliteration is available through the CDLI (http:// cdli.ucla.edu/P144797, see also appendix D), it has been partly recon-structed using information from texts B and C as well as from other Ur III documents. Text D, from ŠS 5, is a sealed work-crew list recording the yearly ra-

tions allotted to members of the same work-crew recorded in texts B and C, respectively six and seven years earlier. Not all the same members were still present in text D but enough correlations can be established, using also primary texts such as SNAT 497 (below) to confirm that this was indeed the same team (for a reconstruction see fig. 7). D is sealed with the seal of Inim-Šara, the son of Lugal-itida. This Inim-Šara is known from many texts, and there are hints in the extant record that he took over the man-agement of the central Umma pottery work-shop some time during the reign of Šu-Suen, when several texts relating to matters of that unit were

31 Waetzoldt calculated the production time for many pottery products in his

article: Waetzoldt 1970–1971, in particular pp. 155–162, among others have de-voted several pages to describing the products manufactured by the Umma pot-tery workshop, I refer to those studies for information on specific pieces of pot-tery mentioned in the texts discussed here.

32 Although this confusing fact may be seen as lending support to Steinkeller’s reconstruction of text B (see fig. 3) the reconstructed sum of the work-day equivalence of the total production would have been 2.35.21 5/6 7 gin2, a notation very far from the one recorded.

33 Collated from photo made available by associate curator of the Babylonian Collection at Yale University, Ulla Kasten.

286 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period sealed by him.34 The rations recorded in D are for the most part slightly larger than those given to the regular worker, the guruš. The guruš would presumably receive a daily ration of 2 sila3 (ca. 2 liters) of barley, whereas the first two workers in D received ca. 3 ⅓ sila3 per day (= 1200 sila3 per year). The remaining potters listed in text D received around 3 sila3 per day (with the exception of Lu-Šara of line 13 who also received 3 ⅓ sila3). The potters of our team were therefore only marginally better served than the workers of regular crews doing manual field labor. The Umma pottery workshop, its crew, foreman

and responsible officer

It is possible to reconstruct the work-crew listed in text B using text C. After a successful reconstruction of the first column of B, we are present-ed with the almost unique opportunity of analyzing a work-crew in two successive years. Using other texts such as D, we can further suggest that this crew existed for some twenty years. Figure 7, below, presents the re-constructed gang as it is found in texts B and C as well as in the list of workers found in text D years later.35

34 See for example Princeton 1, 145 (from AS 9) a sealed document of Inim-

Šara recording how the potters received a number of hides (ba¶ar3-e-(ne) šu ba-(ab)-ti) (similar receipts exist from ŠS 1, month 6 (BPOA 1, 935); ŠS 2 (MVN 18, 401)); UTI 3, 2075 and UTI 4, 2719 from ŠS 1, recording the delivery of various pots by Inim-Šara; BPOA 1, 1295 (ŠS 1) listing the monthly rations for an unspecified number of potters booked out from Inim-Šara; MVN 16, 865; MVN 16, 1005; and MVN 16, 1080 from ŠS 2, recording various expenditures con-cerning the construction of a pottery workshop (e2 ba¶ar3), the information from the first of these receipts concerning the work of unskilled labors was entered into the account of the agricultural overseer Lu-Šara (CDLJ 2003/1, 1 rev. i 1–3, see the discussion of that text in: Englund 2003); SAT 3, 1502 from ŠS 4 recording among other things the rations of a certain run-away potter by the name of (Lugal)-niglagare then living in the ‘prison’ (ennux): he is presumably identical to Lugal-niglagar of obv.:9 of text D, suggesting that he was reintroduced into the team after a completed incarceration.

35 The reconstruction of the damaged text B is aided by the calculations. We can use the total of the debits, 8,285 man-days (2 (šar2) 1 (geš’u) 8 (geš2) 5 (diš)), and calculate backwards restoring the total man-days of the regular crew to 7,800 (2 (šar2) 6 (geš2)). That can easily be divided by 360 (12 months at 30 days per month) whereby we learn that the regular crew was made up of 21 workers. The ambiguity of line 37, 8 (diš) guruš u4

Q5 (diš)!R-[še3], recording the work-days of the a2 bar-ra kar-ra [ba¶ar3] sa2-du11 (line one of the following column) is easily sorted out since adding the hypothesized total of the permanent work-crew, the additions to the permanent crew, the total of the ‘hired potters’ (ba¶ar3 ¶un-ga2:

J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 287 The first important observation we can make from this significant dis-

covery of a work-crew in two successive years is that the list of workers seems to have been standardized, naming the workers in the same order in the two successive years. Strikingly, parts of the same list of workers, ordered in more or less the same way, is preserved in a rations-list from the year Šu-Suen five, six years later (D). The gang of potters listed in texts B and C consists of a core crew of

twenty-one workers, one of whom is classified as dumu-gi7.36

In text B three workers are listed apart from the regular crew. The same workers are listed within the boundaries of the regular crew in text C. However, in that text three other workers were listed after the regular crew. The first of these three people in text C is qualified as being ‘old’ (libir-am3), the other two as being ‘additions’ (da¶-¶u-am3).

37 Both the additional workers are listed as half output workers. Two primary docu-ments, and circumstantial evidence can be used to develop our under-standing of the system of influx and retirement of workers. In the text SAT 2, 444, dated to Š 44, Lugal-magure and Abi-ili are entered into the crew. Both are listed as full time members of the regular crew in texts B and C, and they may even be identical to potters by the same names found in the rations-account D from ŠS 5. SAT 2, 444, and text D are separated by almost twenty years. In the text SNAT 497, from ŠS 4 (five years after text C was written, and one year before D), Utu-sag, who is mentioned as a dumu-gi7 in text C, receives a person conscripted to pot-tery work. Although this person has the same name as one of the workers in our crew (Lu-duga) the two need not be identical. Finally, Pešam, who is listed as dead in text C, was presumably the older brother of Utu-sag and his predecessor as overseer of the work-team. Utu-sag, the dumu-gi7 of our gang, is a well-known person from Um-

ma, and it can be established independent of our accounts that he was an overseer of potters. His seal is found on three texts.38 It is a simple seal giving only the name of the holder and that of his father. Utu-sag’s father was called Ur-Nigar. This Ur-Nigar is presumably identical with the pot- presumably to be understood as ‘people hired as potters’) plus the potters qualified as bar-ra kar-ra ša3 bala equals the total of the ‘debits’ (obv. ii 4). In the second—and better preserved text C—we can calculate from the beginning using the total to correct the broken parts.

36 See Koslova 2008:174; Koslova 2006:48. 37 According to N. Koslova, personal communication, libir-am3 refers to all 23

workers listed above and not only to Šeš-kala (see also BM 106132rev. i 17). 38 BPOA 1, 1250; SNAT 497; and MVN 1, 167.

288 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period ter Ur-Nigar attested in a few texts dated to the later years of Šulgi and early years of Amar-Suen.39 MVN 1, 167, dated to Amar-Suen year one, and concerning rations for members of our crew, is sealed with the seal of Utu-sag although Pešam is named as the overseer, ugula, of the trans-action. Pešam was most likely Utu-sag’s older brother and we can specu-late that Utu-sag, in MVN 1, 167, acted as his assistant. Pešam’s seal, which can be reconstructed using the information from Utu-sag’s seal and the circumstantial evidence briefly discussed here, reads Pešam, son of Ur-Nigar, the potter.40 At the end of Utu-sag’s career, we find a refer-ence to one of his sons, Aba-kala, being transferred to the account of a certain Inim-Šara (MVN 21, 127 (ŠS 8)). The tablet is said to be a copy of the sealed tablet of Lu-kala,41 the person responsible for the balance of all three accounts discussed here. Inim-Šara took control of our work-crew at the latest in Šu-Suen five, and he was involved with the production of pots much earlier.42 Apart from Utu-sag and his brother Pešam, three other members of the work-crew are attested delivering pots from our ac-counts, or receiving reed for the production. I suggest that two of them, Ur-Gilgameš and Erraya, were sons of either Utu-sag or his brother Pešam (although Erraya’s seal probably named him as servant of a god, as in for example SAT 2, 579 and perhaps Umma 76) (see fig. 8). The third, Šešani, is attested in only one primary document, receiving reed. According to his seal, he was the son of a certain Damqar (AAICAB 1/1, pl. 51, 1912–1147). Šešani entered the team in Amar-Suen year 7. Several of the remaining members of the work-crew are known from oth-

er sources, such as ration lists, transfer-receipts, etc.43 It is no surprise that we cannot find in our reconstructed work-crew all of the people otherwise

39 Umma 77 from AS 1 (Ur-Nigar the potter is receiving reed, a function later attested for Utu-sag).

40 See SET 235 (and collations in ASJ 15, pp. 235–236 and 262): 1 (barig) še- ba lugal / Qa-kal-la ba¶ar3

R / kišib3 x (aš?)-am3 // iti e2-iti-6 / mu

damar-dsuen lugal // seal: Qpeš2

R-am3 / Qdumu urR-[nigargar] ba¶ar3.

41 gaba-ri kišib3 lu2-kal-la: for tablet copies see Dahl 2003. 42 Utu-Sag is recorded as being old (libir) in a textile rations text from ŠS 5

month 8 (Rochester 121). 43 BIN 5, 309 (AS 5 11) receipt of monthly ration for Ur-Gilgameš the potter;

AAICAB 1/1, pl. 51, 1912–1147 (AS 1) receipt of reed sealed by Šeš-ani the potter; VO 8/1, 3 (Š 39 10) receipt for 49 work-days of potters carrying barley from one field to another (booked out of Ur-Gilgameš, sealed by ARAD2-mu); or SAT 2, 253 (Š 40) where 23 guruš and 32 un-ga6 workers are classified as potters under the overseer lugal-[x] plowing the field of Šara. For transfer receipts see SNAT 497 (discussed below).

J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 289 known to have received reed, or delivered pots at any given time in Umma. Some of these persons may long have left the work-crew by the time of our accounts, others may not have entered it yet.44 It is also possible that other smaller but comparable crews existed in Umma at the same time.45 The daily business of the team was managed by a few of its members

most likely belonging to the same family. This family is one of the first Ur III workers families to be described in the literature. One of its members was classified as a dumu-gi7 in one of our sources (text C). This category of workers is often speculated to be used about “free men” or “native Sumeri-ans.”46 However, using the evidence produced above it can be suggested that the dumu-gi7 was a dependent worker of a slightly higher standing than the ordinary workers, and that he served as the daily leader of a team to which he himself belonged.47 It is thus possible that we can use this sort of evidence to describe the social position of different Ur worker categories, where we would otherwise have to rely on speculative guesses referring to later literary sources, or on traditional philological studies. The person responsible for the balance and thus ultimately in charge

of all three accounts discussed here is simply called Lu-kala. His title or familial affiliation is not given, but there can be little doubt that this Lu- kala is identical with Lu-kala the son of Ur-E’e, and thus a member of the so-called ruling family of Ur III Umma.48 Only one high-ranking person named Lu-kala is found in the extant Umma sources after Amar-Suen’s first year. I have previously described the genealogy of the ruling family of Ur III Umma, and the patterns of succession to office within that fami-ly.49 The prevailing system of succession seems to have been one of sen-iority where inclusion was determined by patrilinial descent, but the or-der of succession on a number of factors such as number of male off-spring, training etc.: in the end a system favoring fratrilineal succession.50

44 For example AUCT 3, 346 (AS 1 12) where Lugal-daga the potter is re-

corded receiving a monthly ration of barley from Lu-duga. This Lu-duga is per-haps identical to Lu-duga in text B obv. i 32 who contributed with 80 workdays to the ‘debits’ of Lu-kala.

45 For example the crew found in NYPL 204 (AS 5), and other texts referred to as the ba¶ar3 ma-da.

46 See most recently Koslova 2008. 47 See Høyrup 2002. 48 In particular BPOA 2, 2145 cited in fn. 30 above, which is sealed with the

seal of Lu-kala, can be used to support this hypothesis. 49 Dahl 2007. 50 See also fig. 8, and compare with Steinkeller 1987, fig. 8.

290 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period This can also be observed within the royal family of Ur. Lu-kala held the title chief administrator, šabra, presumably an abbreviation of šabra e2 ensi2, chief household administrator of the governor. Although this is based on only one textual reference, MVN 16, 1294, it is supported by a multitude of arguments.51 Lu-kala was preceded in this office by his two uncles Ayakala and Dadaga, and succeeded by his (younger) cousin Gududu. Conclusions

Instead of a negative review of the conclusions Steinkeller drew in his 1996 study (repeated in 2004), the shortcomings of which are highlighted by the fortunate discovery of text C and D, I will briefly present my own reconstruction of the social status of Ur III potters. This reconstruction may not apply to all pottery workers of the Ur III state, and it is possible that other specialized craftsmen such as metal-workers were privileged and organized in a different way. The twenty odd potters connected to the governor’s household

worked together in a gang, under the direction of a foreman who was a privileged member of the same group. They most likely worked in a workshop (e2 ba¶ar3), and not from home.

52 They worked full-time, year out, and year in, with little or no time of their own. Additional unskilled workers were hired in peak-periods, just as members of our crew could be transferred to other teams, performing for example manual field work (see text C, obv. v 30 to vi 8). Run-away potters were incarcerated (SAT 3, 1502 and fn. 34 above), and they could be reintroduced into their orig-inal team after serving their time. Some potters were attached to this crew for about twenty years. They were given rations by the state (about 3 liters a day), and they did not hold land allotments (none of the potters that Steinkeller showed receiving allotments (p. 238–239 and fn. 39) were mem-bers of our crew, they all, except one, belonged to special groups such as the gir3-se3-ga of the king, or a temple). The two additional workers listed after the regular crew in C were perhaps allotment holders (see BCT 2, 58 (AS 7–6) and Rochester 158 (ŠS 3–8)). These potters belonged to the large social group of “unskilled” workers, called guruš in Sumerian.

51 See Dahl 2007:105–113. 52 Several texts speaks about the construction of the e2 ba¶ar3 (see also fn. 34

above).

J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 291 The foreman and his assistants could deliver the finished products,

had seals, and could sign for the receipt of raw materials and rations, making them, at least formally, seem like a privileged group. One of these was classified as a dumu-gi7. Two were called foremen, ugula, inde-pendent of the accounts discussed here. These privileged members of the gang also received rations, but their rations were only slightly larger than those of the regular guruš workers. They too did not hold land allot-ments. The workshop was centrally controlled by the governor’s nephew and chief administrator, Lu-kala. Let us briefly return to the hypothesis of Struve that the workers of

the Ur III state were de-facto state-slaves. The present study of a work- crew in Umma has to some extent proven Struve’s hypothesis by showing that workers could be attached to the same team year after year, with no or little time of their own, receiving all their allowances from the state and being subjected to sudden transfers from one place of work to anoth-er. The odd fact that run-away workers would be incarcerated and rein-troduced into the work-crew supports this interpretation. Other teams with a different organization may have existed, and the influence of the state was probably limited to a fraction of the entire province of Umma. However, whereas Struve’s hypothesis was based on a study of the status of agricultural workers only, it can now been shown that (some) special-ized workers were also largely unfree. .

292 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

Structural analysis accounting terminology

original terminology comments

Calculation of man-days Reference

‘debits’ sag-nig2-gur11- ra-kam

workers and raw materials 3.41.22 ⅔ 4 gin2

obv. i 1 to obv. iv 7

1st part of ‘credits’ ša3-bi-ta …

production record: list of the original receipts

obv. iv 8 to obv. x 46

surplus from previous year diri mu AS 3 surplus from

previous year (no man-days in

surplus) obv. x 47 to rev. i 8

2nd part of ‘credits’

calculation of worth of production

rev. i 9 to rev. vi 29

surplus from previous year

total of ‘credits’ summation of

raw materials: total of credits

1.32.44 1 gin2 rev. vi 30 to rev. vii 24

… zi-ga-am3

la2-ia3 2.08.34(8)! ⅔ 3

gin2 rev. vii 25 to rev. viii 6

‘balance’ diri

‘balance’ is made up of both deficit and surplus, due to the complex composition of

goods

(no man-days in surplus)

rev. viii 7 to rev. viii 27

colophon

[nig2-ka9]-ak a-gu [dub]-sar gašam [mu] AS 4

rev. x 1 to 2

Fig. 1. Outline of the structure of text Ø. Only the man-days have been included in this figure: the account includes large amounts of different kinds of reeds and

wood as well .

J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 293

Structural analysis Calculation of man-days accounting terminology

original terminology

Steinkeller 1996

Steinkeller 1996


Reference

‘debits’

*sag-nig2-gur11- ra-kam (technical term missing in text A, present in most parallel accounts)

Section 1: “… labor provided by potters dur-ing the current year”

516 8.36 obv. i 1 to 11

1st part of ‘credits’ ša3-bi-ta …

Section 2: “… pots produced and expended by the potters”

obv. i 12 to rev. i 2

surplus from

previous year

diri mu AS 3

Section 3: “… labor left from the previous year”

2960.55 49.20 ½ 3 gin2

rev. i 1 to 2


Section 4: “tallies the pro-duced pots and the labor invest-ed in their man-ufacture”

rev. i 3 to rev. ii 29

surplus from

previous year

Section 5: “reiterates … section 3”

2960.55 49.20 ½ 3 gin2

rev. ii 29

total of ‘credits’

Section 6: “… total of man- days avail-able …” (section 1 plus section 3)

Q3476.55R 1.[1x.xx] + 4 ⅔! 3 gin2

rev. iii 1

….

QziR-[ga]-Qam3R Section 7: “names the offi-cial in charge”

rev. iii 2

‘balance’ diri

Section 8: “records the man-days still left” (section 6 minus section 4)

x […] + 15 ⅔! rev. iii 3

colophon

[nig2-ka9-ak a2-ba¶ar3] [lu2-kal-la] [mu AS 4]

rev. iii 4 to 6

Fig. 2. Outline of text A


Structural analysis Calculation of man-days accounting terminology


Steinkeller 1996 Steinkeller 1996


Reference

‘debits’ sag-nig2-gur11- ra-kam

Section 1: “… [t]his appears to be the total.labor provided by the potters in that year …”

8285 2.18.05 obv. i 1 to obv. ii 5

1st part of ‘credits’

ša3-bi-ta … Section 2: “lists the produced and expended.wares”

obv. i 6 to ?


diri mu AS 6

– [2.00.00 11 gin2]

?


Section 3: “tallies the totals of pro-duced wares and the labor invest-ed in their man-ufacture”

? to rev. iv′ 22


Section 4: “[t]his is probably the to-tal labor invested in the production (section 3)”

7206.2 2.00.00 11 gin2

rev. iv′ 23

total of ‘credits’

– [4.4]5.25 rev. v′ 1

….[zi-ga]-Qam3R rev. v′ 2

‘balance’ diri

Section 5: “… probably record-ed the remaining labor … appar-ently calculated by subtracting … [s]ection 4 from ... [s]ection 1”

[1078.8] [2.27.20] rev. v′ 3

colophon

[nig2-ka9-ak] a2-ba¶ar3 [lu2-kal]-la [mu] AS 7

rev. v′ 4 to 6

Fig. 3. Outline of text B


Fig. 4. Visualization of the accounting strategy of collecting the receipts throughout the year and entering their content into the first section of the

account. In the subsequent second part of the ‘credits’ all products of the same type were bundled and their equivalence value in man-days calculated

Structural analysis

accounting terminology


Calculation of man-days

Reference

‘debits’

*sag-nig2-gur11-ra-kam (technical term missing in text C, present in most parallel accounts)

2.08.33 obv. i 1 to obv. ii 7

1st part of ‘credits’ ša3-bi-ta … obv. ii 8 to rev. i 27


diri mu AS 7 2.27.20 rev. i 26 to 27

2nd part of ‘credits’ rev. i 28 to rev. v 12


*2.38.30 la2 1 rev. v 12

total of ‘credits’ 5.02.41 5/6 7 gin2 rev. vi 1

… zi-ga-am3

‘balance’ diri [2.54.08 5/6 7 gin2] rev. vi 2 rev. vi 3

colophon

Qnig2-ka9R-ak a2-ba¶ar3 lu2-kal-la mu AS 8

rev. vi 4 to 6

Fig. 5. Outline of text C


Fig. 6. Outline of the structure of texts B and C, and the relationship between them


Fig. 7. The work-crew of potters working for the household of the governor of Umma

Fig. 8. The family of Ur-Nigar, the potter


Appendices

Appendix A


Appendix B1


Appendix B2


Appendix C1


Appendix C2


Appendix D: obverse and reverse

304 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period References

Adams 2008 Balke 1998 Christian 1957 Dahl 2003 Dahl 2007 Diakonoff 1987 Englund 1988 Englund 1990 Englund 1991 Englund 2003 Gelb 1957 Høyrup 2002 Koslova 2000 Koslova 2006 Koslova 2008 Landsberger 1967 Moorey 1994

Adams, R. McC. An Interdisciplinary Overview of a Mes-opotamian City and Its Hinterlands. CDLJ 1. Balke, Th. E. Anmerkungen zum Terminus bar-ra(-)kar-ra in den neusumerischen Wirtschaftstexten. Dietrich, M.; Loretz, O. (eds.). dubsar anta-men. Studien zur Altorientalistik. Festschrift für Willem H. Ph. Römer zur Vol-lendung seines 70. Lebensjahres, mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT 253). Münster. Pp. 1–16. Christian, V. Sumer. lal-Ì ‘Soll’, dirig(-Ì) ‘Haben.’ RSO 32:31–34. Dahl, J. L. A Note on Ur III Text Duplicates. CDLB 5. Dahl, J. L. The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Proso-pographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago (PIHANS 108). Leiden. Diakonoff, I. Slave-Labour vs. Non-Slave Labour: The Problem of Definition. Powell, M. A. (ed.). Labor in the Ancient Near East (AOS 68). New Haven. Pp. 1–3. Englund, R. K. Administrative Timekeeping in Ancient Mesopotamia. JESHO 31:121–185. Englund, R. K. Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fi-scherei (BBVO 10). Berlin. Englund, R. K. Hard Work: Where Will It Get You? Labor Management in Ur III Mesopotamia. JNES 50:225–280. Englund, R. K. The Year: ‘Nissen Returns Joyous from a Distant Island.’ CDLJ 1. Gelb, I. J. Glossary of Old Akkadian (MAD 3). Chicago. Høyrup, J. How to Educate a Kapo, or, Reflections on the Absence of a Culture of Mathematical Problems in Ur III. Steele, J. M.; Imhausen, A. (eds.). Under One Sky. Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (AOAT 297). Münster. Pp. 121–145. Koslova, N. Neusumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Umma aus der Sammlung der Eremitage zu St. Petersburg, Russland (MVN 21). Roma. Koslova, N. Barley Rations in Umma during the Third Dynasty of Ur. B&B 3:41–58. Koslova, N. Bezeichnungen der Arbeitskräfte in Umma der Ur III-Zeit. Garfinkel, S. J.; Johnson, J. C. (eds.). The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration (BPOA 5). Madrid. Pp. 149–207. Landsberger, B. The Date Palm and Its By-Products accord-ing to the Cuneiform Sources (AfO Bh 17). Graz. Moorey, P. R. S. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and In-dustries: The Archaeological Evidence. Oxford.

J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 305 Pettinato et al. 1974 Potts 1997 Prokhorov 1983 Sallaberger–Civil 1996 Snell 1982 Steinkeller 1987 Steinkeller 1996 Steinkeller 2004 Struve 1954 Struve 1969 Waetzoldt 1970–1971

Pettinato, G.; Waetzoldt, H.; Schollmeyer, F. A. La Colle-zione Schollmeyer (MVN 1). Roma. Potts, D. T. Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foun-dations (Athlone Publications in Egyptology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies). London. Prokhorov, A. M. (ed.). Great Soviet Encyclopedia. New York. Sallaberger, W.; Civil, M. Der Babylonische Töpfer und seine Gefässe: nach Urkunden altsumerischer bis altbabylonischer Zeit sowie lexikalischen und literarischen Zeugnissen (MHEM 3). Ghent. Snell, D. C. Ledgers and Prices: Early Mesopotamian Merchant Accounts (YNER 8). New Haven. Steinkeller, P. The Foresters of Umma: Towards a Defi-nition of Ur III Labor. Powell, M. A. (ed.). Labor in the Ancient Near East (AOS 68). New Haven. Pp. 73–115. Steinkeller, P. The Organisation of Crafts in Third Mil-lennium Babylonia: The Case of Potters. AoF 23:232– 253. Steinkeller, P. Toward a Definition of Private Economic Ac-tivity in Third Millennium Babylonia. Rollinger, R.; Ulf, C.; Schnegg, K. (eds.). Commerce and Monetary Systems in the An-cient 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, Oct. 3rd–8th 2002. Stuttgart. Pp. 91–111. Struve, V. V. The Accounts of Work-Team Overseers on a Royal Estate under the Third Dynasty of Ur. 23 International Congress of Orientalists. Papers Presented by the USSR Delegation. Moscow. Pp. 43–51. Struve, V. V. Some New Data on the Organization of Labour and on Social Structure in Sumer During the Reign of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Diakonoff, I. (ed.). Ancient Mesopotamia: Socio-Economic History, a Collection of Studies by Soviet Scholars. Moscow. Pp. 127–172. Waetzoldt, H. Zwei unveröffentlichte Ur-III-Texte über die Herstellung von Tongefäßen. WO 6:7–41.

A Babylonian Gang of Potters

Documents

Transcript of A Babylonian Gang of Potters