Economy and administration

Despite the difficulties along the borders, the portion of Mesopotamia located between the ‘wall of the land’ (or the ‘wall of the Martu’) and the Persian Gulf experienced a phase of great prosperity under the Third Dynasty of Ur. The Akkadian attacks and the more recent incursions of nomadic groups had left a significant mark on Mesopotamia. Consequently, the types of settlements developing in the Ur III period (which would continue throughout the Old Babylonian period) were different from the ones of the Early Dynastic II-III and Akkadian periods. Smaller settlements experienced a period of crisis, mainly due to two main factors. In fact, the foreign incursions of Amorites or Gutians affected more these smaller, unprotected villages, rather than the fortified cities. This caused a mass movement of people towards urban settlements. Moreover, land ownership and management began to be concentrated around temples, which did not hire ‘free’ workers from villages anymore, but began to employ full-time workers without property who lived in the cities. Overall, the population grew, and it seems that this increase was the highest attested for the entire Pre-Classical period (Figure 9.3).

Figure 9.3 The occupation of Lower Mesopotamia from 2100 to 1600 bc. Left: Ur III and Isin—Larsa period; Right: Old Babylonian period.

Among the cities that had flourished during the Early Dynastic period, many were now in decline, especially in the south (such as Eridu, Uruk and Shuruppak). On the contrary, some cities, such as Umma, Larsa and Isin, experienced a period of significant growth. Moreover, other settlements only now began to rise as influential centres (such as Babylon and other cities in the north). The main axis of Mesopotamia now shifted to the north, balancing the former power struggles between Sumer and Akkad. This fact is clearly shown by the royal titulature of the time. The construction of new canals, favouring certain routes above others, caused considerable migrations to the west, following the slow movement of the Euphrates riverbank in that same direction.

This impressive urban and ideological reorganisation is attested in the texts, which describe several restorations of temples, walls and canals. The building programs of Ur-Nammu and his successors focused on several cities (most importantly in the prestigious Ekur of Nippur), but were predominantly concentrated in Ur. It is there that the main temple complex, which included the most important temples of the city, took its definitive shape. Ur-Nammu built its imposing ziggurat (a terraced step pyramid), which was destined to a long history of restorations well into the Neo-Babylonian period (Figure 9.4).

In the Neo-Sumerian period, the population of Ur was ca. 200,000 people. Both this population increase and the urban improvements were largely supported by agricultural activities. This was certainly not new, just like the state’s interventions improving hydric infrastructures and the creation of new fields. However, the characteristic feature of all Ur III interventions (and in this regard Shulgi is the ruler deserving most credit) was a clear intention to organise and unify the management of the state. An important indicator of this is the visible increase of Neo-Sumerian administrative texts compared to any other period (unparalleled until the Neo-Babylonian period) and their uniformity (with some local variations) throughout the empire. Therefore, alongside an increase in the quantity of these texts, there was a visible qualitative improvement. This change indicates a desire to keep a thorough account of estimates and results, as well as the workforce employed and their productivity, through the systematic use of fixed parameters. In other words, there was a clear intention to improve economic structures, in order to efficiently and uniformly manage an empire of unprecedented size.

The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied it throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur. The bureaucratic management of these provinces was uniform and interchangeable, and could be applied throughout the land (although some local variations remained in place).

Figure 9.4 The ziggurat of Ur, with modern restorations.

This system was kept in place through an intense exchange of royal messengers. Shulgi’s pride in his scribal and administrative abilities therefore acted as a model for his delegates, and clearly expressed the ideology of the empire. The unification and reorganisation of administrative procedures were based both on previous local developments and the Akkadian example. Therefore, they were implemented by combining the previous palace and temple bureaucracies. Regarding land management, the unifying role of the divine king (which was different and innovative compared to the former Akkadian model) led to an ideological inclusion of all ‘great organisations’ into a single organic system, making them a constitutive part of the empire. Temples in particular continued to be at the centre of Neo-Sumerian economy.

The increased availability of sources allows us to analyse many sectors of the empire’s economy. Agricultural activities can be reconstructed thanks to the presence of land registers (from Lagash), which can be analysed in conjunction with other texts (Text 9.2). The resulting social picture is a pyramidal structure starting from individual farmers and moving up to functionaries responsible for the management, taxation and control of the fields. The agricultural landscape was predominantly made of long fields (thin strips of land, whose long side was at least ten times longer than their short side) located along irrigation canals. Their yields were

Text 9.2 Neo-Sumerian agriculture: an example of a cadastre, including the measurements of a field (divided into four parts) and an estimate of its yields

‘[1.] 660 GAR on the long side, 77 GAR on the short side, 78 iku added, 12.75 iku detracted: (in total) a field of 573.50 iku. (From this:) 91.25 iku at 60 (sHa = litres, of harvest per iku), 44.50 iku at 180, 38 iku at 300; 399.75 iku to be left empty. Barley (to be collected) = 2/3 of the harvest) 16,590 litres. Ur-Shulpae is the scribe.

[2.] 670 GAR on the long side, 50 GAR on the short side, 9.50 iku added, 58.50 iku detracted: (in total) a field of 286 iku. (From this:) 30 iku at 180 (litres per iku), 42 iku at 120, 49.50 iku at 60; 170.50 iku to be left empty. Barley: 8740 litres. Ur-Shaga son of Baada is the scribe.

[3.] 630 GAR on the long side, 36 GAR on the short side, 15.50 iku added, 0.75 iku detracted: (in total) a field of 241.50 iku. (From this:) 37.75 iku at 120 (litres per iku), 31.75 iku at 180, 14 iku at 60; 158 iku to be left empty. Barley: 7390 litres. Ur-Minmug is the scribe.

[4.] 630 GAR on the long side, 34.50 GAR on the short side, 15.50 iku added, 1.25 iku detracted: (in total) a field of 234.50 iku. (From this:) 25.50 iku at 120 (litres per iku), 27.25 iku at 180, 15.50 iku at 60; 166.25 iku to be left empty. Barley: 5930 litres. Lu-Suen son of Ur-bagara is the scribe.

Dada will collect (the barley). (Name of) the field: Lugal-namuruna. (Intensity of cultivation) 11 furrows per GAR. Supervisor: the priest of the goddess Nin-MAR. KI. Under the supervision of Baa.

The year following the one in which Kimash was destroyed (= 47th year of Shulgi).’

This table (which does not take into account the additions and detractions of land, since they are difficult to measure and relatively small) displays the agricultural landscape of the time, characterised by long fields. This was the typical layout of planned colonisation, with fields laid out along the irrigation canals. Ca. 2/3 of the land seems to have been left fallow.

Carefully calculated following fixed parameters. The administration recorded the size of every field (multiplying the long side by the short side, and taking into account eventual additions or deductions), and was able to estimate yields before harvests by multiplying the area of a field by the established parameters.

In order to maintain an effective control of agricultural production, the administration also established and calculated the quality of the soil, the degree of salinisation, the distance between furrows, the intensity of sowing and the ratio between seeds and harvest. The available evidence only concerns public lands, which were the only ones requiring precise accounting. This is because they were not privately managed and required the involvement of several professionals. Conversely, there is a considerable gap in the evidence on lands owned by individuals or families, including lands given by the state to its workers and the lands owned by ‘free’ families. Over time, these two categories would eventually converge into one.

The farming of cattle, sheep and goats also underwent careful controls through the re-structuring and standardisation of estimates. This is particularly attested in the specialised administrative centre of Puzrish-Dagan (Drehem) near Nippur. This centre accumulated cattle before sending it to the main temple. The farming of cattle and other animals mainly produced milk and dairy products (butter and cheese). When the administration entrusted a herd to a particular centre, it recorded the composition of the herd, establishing the parameters for the herd’s growth each year, as well as the quantity of dairy products to be produced (Text 9.3a). The parameters were purely theoretical. What really happened within the production unit escaped the control of the administration, and was therefore not recorded. The administration’s conventions were that a cow never died and gave birth to half a calf a year, alternating between a female and a male calf. The quantity of butter and cheese required from each cow was moderate, but one that had to be provided to the administration, no matter what the actual situation was.

The farming of sheep was mainly focused on the production of wool. When a herd was entrusted to a shepherd, its composition was recorded and the parameters of births and deaths were established. Similarly, the quantity of wool to be produced was calculated, keeping in mind the differences between sheep and rams, as well as their size. Wool was then ranked according to its quality (there were at least six or more categories) and sent to manufacturing centres. Each operation had its own parameters. The administration took into account losses during manufacturing (carding, spinning and washing) and the working days it required. Consequently, a given amount of wool needed a certain number of working days to produce a certain quantity of thread (either warp thread or weaving thread). In order to produce a fabric of given dimensions, then, the administration knew the quantity of working days and warp and weaving thread required. It was then able to calculate the cost and raw materials needed before the whole operation even began.

The monitoring of raw materials, the calculation of the losses and of the working days required were also the core parameters for other sectors in which the workforce was specialised (unlike the textile industry, which employed a large number of female workers, usually slaves, concentrated in hundreds of workshops resembling proper prisons). In pottery production, due to the accessible and inexpensive nature of clay, the administration only established the amount of working days needed to create a vase of a specific type and capacity, leading to a standardisation of pottery types (Text 9.3b). On the contrary, in metallurgy, where working days were not easy to estimate and less important, the administration was mainly concerned with the expensive raw material. Therefore, in order to control the correct and satisfactory use of metal provided to the craftsmen, there were parameters for the ratio between copper and tin, losses during manufacturing and the weight of each piece of equipment.