1. Introduction
This dossier gathers information on the ways fish oil was afforded in the Ur III provinces of Umma and Ĝirsu. In the Ur III period, Umma and Ĝirsu were economically important provinces, which, in general, benefited from a certain degree of freedom in the local management. Ĝirsu, however, suffered more intense intrusion of state officials over fishermen’s labour and boat transport, while the Umma administration relied on a well-established net of local bureaucrats for managing the labour of fishermen and the procurement of fish. In general, we can note that the dynamics of production and demand were similar to those seen for the Emunus, with part of the fish oil produced in institutional workshops and the bulk supplied as a finished product (see Dossier A.2.4.04). But whereas the texts of the Emunus describe the running of one single household, similar dynamics can be projected on a larger scale in the Ur III documentation from Umma and Ĝirsu, since these are tied to the running of entire provinces.
2. Umma
2.1. Primary suppliers
The labour accounts concerning fishermen always refer to fish oil as an already finished product, that is, no man-days were counted or expended for its production, but just for catching or processing fish (AION 64 41, ŠS.02.00.00;1Note that this account specifically concerns the firstling provisions for Nippur managed by Lugal-niĝlagar’e son of Lugal-saga. The firstling provisions didn’t include fish oil, which is the reason why the balance section of this text reports the remnant of the man-days expended, but the same quantity of fish oil as the starting capital. L’uomo 49, ŠS.03.00.00; CDLI P512831, date lost). This implies that, although common fishermen were not supposed to spend their institutional time producing fish oil, they had to provide quantities of fish oil within the frame of institutional labour (see Dossier A.2.4.04). Fishermen’s labour consisted of man-days, during which state-held fish was acquired, plus the fish oil that the fishermen had to deliver, as is the case with sea fishermen in Presargonic Emunus. This is furtherly cleared by Babyl 8 Pupil 21 (Šu 45-46), recording the „shortfalls“ (la2-ni) of man-days and fish oil ascribed to two fishermen for two years, managed by the scribe Ur-BaU, son of Da’aga.
Fish oil delivered to the provincial administration could be labelled as freshwater or as ku6.da.pa.kas4 (Borrelli 2021: 14; see UTI 4 3304 AS.09.00.00, UTI 3 1984 ŠS.02.00.00). In Umma, which is situated at a certain distance from the sea, we would expect oil produced exclusively from freshwater fish. The obscure term ku6.da.pa.kas4 never occurs as a characterization of fish or even of fish oil in texts recording its expenditures, but rather, it seems to refer to the way fish oil was supplied. Accordingly, we can perhaps assume that ku6.da.pa.kas4 may have denoted individuals purposely hired for fish oil production.2This assumption of a fishery lease is corroborated by the fact that fishermen (šuku2) are identified as ku6.da.pa.kas4 in Orient 21, p. 6 o. ii 25; such persons also provided silver which supports the argument made: “from the K.’s”, ki ku6.da.pa.kas4-ke3-ne-ta, AAICAB 1/4, Bod. S 476: 1; see also the references collected by Borrelli 2021: 14, but also add BPOA 14 430 BM 26214; Huber-Vulliet 2019: 430-432. The differentiation might have been, on the one hand, oil produced independently by freshwater fishermen and requested as an already finished product (the largest quantities) and, on the other hand, that produced in institutional workshops, as in the case of the stinking oil in Presargonic Ĝirsu (see Dossier A.2.4.03). However, note that both freshwater and ku6.da.pa.kas4 fish oil could be delivered by a chief fisherman in one single transaction (UTI 5 3304; UTI 3 1984).
Transactions of fish oil supplied (or still to be supplied) by single chief fishermen commonly concerned a few dozen litres. The provincial administration also obtained fish and fish oil through “fish merchants” (enku in Sumerian). Texts do not specify precisely how fish merchants obtained those commodities, what they report is that they handled huge amounts of them (Greco 2022). In two cases, the fish oil (hundreds of litres) available to a fish merchant is attributable to two scribes (SNAT 347, AS.04.00.00: 664 litres; BPOA 6 1411, AS.02.00.00: 14 jars, from a maximum of 420 litres with jars at 30 litres each, to a minimum of 140 litres with jars at 10 litres each). Also interesting is the reference in a legal text (Studies Leichty 392, undated) reporting the case of 9 jars of fish oil with different capacities (10 L, 15 L, 30 L, for a total of 180 litres) stolen by Umma fishermen and likely sold to a fish merchant of Ĝirsu (Sigrist 2006; (Greco 2021b)).
2.2. Secondary suppliers
The fish oil delivered by fishermen (UTI 3 1984; UTI 5 3304) and fish merchants (NYPL 75, AS.05.00.00; Nisaba 6 34, AS.06.00.00; CDLI P 322305, AS.06.00.00; BPOA 1 1206, AS.08.00.00; UTI 5 3284, AS.09.00.00) was collected by the scribe Ur-Sulpa’e, son of Lugalkugani, who managed the circulation of several commodities stored in local warehouses. Indeed, Ur-Sulpa’e played a key role in the provincial circulation of fish oil, delivering it to its final destinations. Only in one case is the fish oil delivered by a fish merchant received directly by the provincial governor (UCP 9-2-2 122, AS.01.00.00). Except for an early reference in the year Šu 37 (SAT 2 178) involving the scribe Lugal-izim, Ur-Sulpa’e is consistently attested as a provider of fish oil (and other commodities) from Šu 45 onwards for the local shipyards (Vicino Oriente 81/1 26, Šu.45.00.00; Santag 6 104, AS.01.00.00; BPOA 7 1644, AS.02.00.00; Nik 2 312, AS.04.00.00; MVN 16 664, AS.09.00.00), for the governor (Santag 6 165, AS.06.12.00), and for the merchants (TLC 5 6046, AS.05.00.00; UTI 4 2862, ŠS.02.00.00).
3. Ĝirsu
In Ur III Ĝirsu, the circulation of fish oil appears more elusive. Information on the primary suppliers is scarce. The supply of fish oil to shipyards was basically entrusted to merchants, directly or indirectly3According to BPOA 2 1877 (Š 32), the mediation of merchants is implicit since the „temple administrators“ (saĝĝa) attested as providers of fish oil actually managed the silver for acquiring it. (BPOA 2 1877, Šu.32.00.00; BPOA 1 318, AS.04.00.00 and probably Nisaba 33 974, AS.04.11.00), or to captains conveying (the products of) fishermen labour (MVN 22 183, date lost).
The activity of fish merchants is barely attested in the provincial archive of Ĝirsu, although we can infer that they could have been a counterpart in the marketing of the fish oil acquired by Ĝirsu merchants in what we can imagine was a short-range context. This could be suggested by the case reported in Studies Leichty 392 (undated), stating that fish and likely also jars of fish oil were stolen by Umma fishermen and sold to a fish merchant of Ĝirsu (Sigrist 2006; Greco 2021b), who was presumably able to easily find buyers. Lastly, and noteworthy, is the marginal involvement of the scribe Urabba, son of Bazi, in the circulation of fish oil and, in general, of materials for the shipyards, such as timber (Greco 2015).