1. Introduction

The production of fish oil in 3^rd millennium BCE Mesopotamia is an elusive matter: its manufacturing methods, procedures, and relevant tools are not evidenced in the archaeological record nor in written documents (Greco/Pöllath 2024).

In general, we should keep in mind that documents from the 3^rd millennium BCE are basically the remnants of state and provincial administrations. Consequently, little direct information is available on the everyday life of the ancient Mesopotamian inhabitants and their activities beyond institutional control, including the production of fish oil. In fact, economic texts show that the bulk of the fish oil circulating within the institutions was independently produced on the non-institutional domestic level and issued by fishermen (šukud2), or by fish merchants (enku) and merchants (dam-gar3) playing as go-betweens (see also Chambon et al. forthcoming).

Nevertheless, some reflections on determinate aspects of fish oil production can be advanced. Moreover, while archaeological data on the storage of fish oil are hitherto still absent, the written sources offer some hints at its relevant vessels.

2. Timing

Economic documents from the Presargonic and Ur III periods might suggest that the production of fish oil took place in the winter months. Texts from the Emunus show that fish oil was expected on the occasion of the malt-eating festivals of Nanše and Ninĝirsu (see Dossier A.2.4.03), which fell in December and January, respectively. Texts from the Ur III period confirm the availability of fish oil towards the end of the year. Indeed, Nisaba 15/2 21 (AS.07.09.10), CUSAS 40-2 578 (AS.07.09.08), CUSAS 40-2 192 (AS.07.09.18), from Irisaĝrig, report that a royal messenger was sent to get fish oil in December. However, the hiring of purposely engaged workers (ku6.da.pa.kas4 fishermen) could already begin in September (BPOA 2 2628, AS.09.06.00 from Umma). While a possible higher content of fats¹A higher fat content would be suitable for the production of oil and unsuitable for the conservation process of fish (Englund 1990: 235 fn. 648). in this time frame for the fish types they use in the extraction of oil cannot be determined with certainty, one can note that catches were more rewarding between August and December, corresponding to the dry season in Mesopotamia (Greco/Pöllath 2024).

3. Fish types

The Mesopotamian landscape presented different aquatic biomes (rivers, canals, marshes, lakes, and the Gulf) hosting various fish types. Conceivably, fish were caught in every accessible body of water, and fish oil was very likely indiscriminately produced with freshwater, brackish, or marine fish types, according to the specific potential of the places of production.

A proper selection of the fish types seems unlikely, as suggested by the use of different fish types (lit. “mixed fishes”, ku6 ḫi-a) in the production of stinking oil (DP 329 U.03; see Dossier A.2.4.03), or by the fact the fish oil is never featured by any fish type in 3^rd millennium sources. Notwithstanding that, one can infer the employment of the most common fish types (hence not particularly valuable) available in the period immediately preceding the manufacturing of fish oil.

Among the most common freshwater fish types, one can surely count the type of carp called eštub in Sumerian, arsuppu in Akkadian, thriving also in brackish marshes. Fish oil from eštub-carp is explicitly attested in the 1^st millennium BCE (Landsberger/Kilmer 1962b), although one can infer that also in earlier times oil was obtained from carp. As for the marine fish types, among the most common ones, one can find the gir-fish (Akkadian šahû, lit. “pig-fish”) and the gur10-fish (lit. “sikle-fish”). Fish oil from the latter fish type is explicitly attested in the 1^st millennium BCE (Landsberger/Kilmer 1962b), although, also in this case, one can infer that oil could be obtained by gur-fishes already in earlier times. Other common fish types are attested in connection with freshwater, brackish, and sea waters, such as the agargara-fish (Akkadian agargarû), the suḫur-fish (Akkadian purādu, likely another carp type), and the ubi-fish (Akkadian abūtu), a small fish type abundantly attested in the Emunus archive, but absent in the Ur III documents, where it might have been hidden under the label ku6 niĝ2.ki, used to denote undistinguished small fishes (Bauer 1989-1990: 89-90).

Regardless of its actual diffusion, one can also consider the involvement of gamar-fish (and its sea counterpart, the gamar-izi-fish), a fish type graphically rendered through the same sign for oil, therefore likely characterized by a general high-fat content (ni(= i3)^ku6; Landsberger/Kilmer 1962b: 113). Note that both eštub-carp and gamar-fish were used for the production of the edible sauce known as stinking fish (ku6 ḫab2; DP 322 L.06).

4. Fish waste

Another point that can be discussed is whether the oil was obtained from the whole fish or from their viscera and heads, that is, the fish parts presenting the highest fat content. Economic documents from the 3^rd millennium BCE do not report the incoming fish waste resulting from the processed fish requested; therefore, it seems plausible that fishermen and their communities could keep the leftovers for their own profit or consumption. In the Presargonic archive of the Emunus, the most attested types of processed fish are „split“ (dar-ra), „smoked“ (su-su/ab-su-ga), and „salted“ (mun-na). From the Sargonic period onwards, „gutted“ (ša3-bar) and „beheaded“ (saĝ-pad/kur2) fish also appeared in economic documents, although both practices were already known in earlier times. Indeed, the gutting is attested as an entry of the ED Fish List (l. 91: ša3-bar ku6), while the beheading is confirmed by the recovering of fish remains in Early Dynastic contexts (Greco/Pöllath 2024).

Economic texts do not specify the types of fish which were gutted and beheaded; relevant characterizations rather concern the shape (gid2: “long”; sig: “small, thin”), or sporadically the provenance (marshes according to UET 3 1310 IS.06.00.00, freshwater fishing grounds according to UTI 3 1836 AS 08.04.00).

Gutted fish was available all year round (see, e.g., Ur III: Ledgers, pl. 13 no. 8 AS.06.02.00; Santag 6 340 IS.02.12.00), while the performing of the work explicitly took place in October (RA 110 24 AS.08.07.00) and December (BPOA 6 1234 Šu.23.09.00), therefore in a period suitable for the extraction of fish oil.

Beheaded fish was available and issued during the whole year, but the performing of the work cannot be circumscribed to a specific period. As a consequence, we can infer that fishermen could all year long rely on heads from presumably small fish²Since beheaded fish was usually delivered in high numbers and in containers with a small capacity, Englund (1990: 228) hypothesises that small fishes were commonly beheaded. for their own consumption, profit, or for the extraction of by-products.

The manufacture from the waste of ‘institutional fish’ (that is, the fish the fishermen caught during their institutional service) would represent an optimization of fishermen’s output, but it would also explain the reason fish oil could be embedded in the context of the institutional labour even if independently produced (see Dossier A.2.4.03, A.2.4.01).

5. Production places

Because of the smell originating during its manufacturing, installations for the production of fish oil were likely situated in the periphery of official and domestic spaces. A similar installation might have been the workshop connected to the preparation of stinking oil and located in a garden of the Emunus (DP 329 U.03). Conceivably, the field names recalling fish oil (a-ša3 i3-ku6) could also point to similar installations scattered in the agricultural landscape. However, it is unclear whether these fields hosted independent activities or were somehow connected to the ku6.da.pa.kas4 fishermen (see Dossier A.2.4.01), or even whether they hosted installations already dismissed in the Ur III period, as the occasional occurrence of the non-orthographic spelling a-ša3 i3-ku3 (BDTNS 059327 (Šu.40.00.00), o. iii 28, r. ii 10; Nebraska 37 (Šu.43.00.00) r. i 16) could suggest.

6. Storage: relevant vessels

Fish oil is commonly attested in the extant Sumerian documentation with the general term for “jar” (dug).

Jars of fish oil are implicitly already attested in the Archaic period when dug was part of the sign for fish oil: dug_b×ku_6a (Wagensonner 2020: 22; Greco forthcoming; see Chambon/Paoletti/Sallaberger Forthcoming for a different interpretation). In the Presargonic period, there are attestations of fish oil counted in  “jars” (dug) of 20 litres capacity and “large-bellied bottles” (gur4-gur4) of 9 litres capacity (Powell 1990: 504-506; Sallaberger 1996: 101) during the reign of Enentarzi (DP 283). From the reign of Lugalanda onwards, fish oil was mostly quantified in litres and in litres was established the quantity of fish oil each fisherman had to provide within a year (RTC 33, L.01; see Dossier A.2.4.03). However, two texts suggest that the “jars” (dug) were also used as a concrete parameter of quantification during Lugalanda’s reign: RTC 35 (L.02), attesting to the delivery of 15 and 10 litres of fish oil by two fishermen, then summarized as 1 jar and 5 litres in the total section; and Nik 1 269 (L.04), attesting to a delivery of 1 jar minus two litres, thus 18 litres.

In the Sargonic and Lagaš II period, fish oil was quantified both in ”jar” (dug) (Sargonic Ĝirsu: CT 50 178; likely ITT 2 5836; Lagaš II: AGGT 388) and litres (Sargonic Ĝirsu: ITT 5 6740). It is also worth mentioning the Lagaš II reference to a boat loaded (or to be loaded) with (jars of) fish oil (AGGT 559).

In Ur III times, references to fish oil are primarily expressed in litres rather than in jars. References to ”jars” (dug) come from Irisaĝrig, in connection to the materials allocated for the caulking of a ḫi.bar (Nisaba 15/2 367 (ŠS.06.08.00)), and in a legal text, which gives a range of the capacity of the relevant jars: 30, 15 and 10 litres text (Studies Leichty 392, undated).

In general, we can infer that the quantification in litres reflects the abstract thought of the administrative-accounting system, whereas the registration of a few or hundreds of litres of fish oil does not actually point to the actual storage or transportation facilities. Similarly, references to jars presumably bespeak the actual praxis.