Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2014
The attention of Assyriologists has long been focused on persons bearing the title of merchant in the various periods of Mesopotamian history. But it has been difficult to reconstruct the activities of merchants for any one period. Recent efforts to collect silver balanced accounts have made it possible to analyse in some detail the activities of a small group of merchants in the city of Umma during the Ur III period (2112–2004 B.C.).
There are many aspects of their activities that we do not yet understand, but in broad outlines the Umma silver balanced account system in which some merchants worked is clear to us, and its functions and purposes can be surveyed. Although in the course of investigation several texts came to light which were previously neglected or unpublished, these texts did not markedly alter the general view of the system.
1 The major works on Ur III merchants include Fish, T., “The Dam-Qar (Trader?) in Ancient Mesopotamia” (BJRL 22 (1938), 163 ff.Google Scholar; Curtis, J. B. and Hallo, W. W., “Money and Merchants in Ur III” (HUCA 30 (1959), 103–139)Google Scholar; and Førde, N., “The Sumerian DAM-KÀR-E-NE” (Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1964)Google Scholar. Leemans, W., The Old Babylonian Merchant: His Business and Social Position (Leiden: Brill, 1950), 40–48Google Scholar, surveys merchant activity before the Old Babylonian period. My Yale dissertation, “Ledgers and Prices: Ur III Silver Balanced Accounts” (1975), offers a basis for the reconstructions presented here. Professors W. W. Hallo and B. R. Foster kindly read a draft of the present paper; their suggestions are greatly appreciated, but errors of course remain my own.
2 Foster, B. R., “Umma in the Sargonic Period” (Dissertation, Yale University, 1975), 13Google Scholar, discusses the concept of accountability at Umma in the preceding century. Professor Foster informs me that in Chapter II Part 3 of the revised version of his study the matter is considered in some detail.
3 The example is MCS 2:69 (AS 3)Google Scholar = STA 22:2:1 ffGoogle Scholar. (AS 4 i).
4 The example is HUCA 30:113 f.Google Scholar:1: 7 ff. (AS 3) = AOS 32:S23:2:5 ffGoogle Scholar. (AS 4); and TCL V 6162:3:1 ffGoogle Scholar. (AS 4) = AOS 32:S23:1:1 ffGoogle Scholar. (AS 4). Compare now also the text edited by Sharashenidze, J. M., VDI 137/3 (1976), 108–120Google Scholar.
5 Førde, , “DAM-KÀR-E-NE”, 21Google Scholar.
6 For Magan copper, compare Limet, H., Le Travail du Métal au pays de Sumer au temps de la IIIe Dynastie d'Ur (Paris, 1960), 35Google Scholar.
7 Sauren, H., “Une Caravane sumérienne” (AIPHOS 20 (1968–1972), 389–394)Google Scholar.
8 Curtis and Hallo chose a measurement typology though they admitted it was not consistently found in the texts (p. 109).
9 Reiner, E., “Lipšur Litanies” (JNES 15 (1956), 129–149)Google Scholar.
10 See Muhly, J., Copper and Tin (Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 43 (1973), 220–232)Google Scholar; and compare Limet, , Métal, 85–99Google Scholar.
11 ZA 54 (1961), 86 fGoogle Scholar.
12 van Beek, G., “Frankincense and Myrrh” (Bi. Ar. 23 (1960), 69–95Google Scholar; reprinted in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader 2, Campbell, E. Jr., and Freedman, D., eds., (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press and ASOR, 1964; 1975 printing), 99–126)Google Scholar.
13 MLC 2602 is quoted by permission of Professor William W. Hallo of the Yale Babylonian Collection; I hope to publish it and other relevant Yale texts in the near future.
14 I owe permission to study unpublished material mentioned here to the generosity of Baruch Levine of New York University (Colgate 2, Lager 1) and of Gordon Young of Purdue University (FLP 558).
15 Note also that some Lagaš texts reflecting a system perhaps similar to Umma's are quite interested in foreign goods, notably TUT 121 (foreign woods), 122 (metals, resins), 131 (resins), and CT 7:46aGoogle Scholar (copper only).
16 The question of the public or private status of merchants in this period is one that cannot at present be resolved. In both earlier and later periods persons bearing the title appear to be private entrepreneurs who have among their clients government officials. In Ur III Umma, however, there is as yet no trace of a similar private status. That may simply be because the silver balanced accounts were composed by or for the government and reflect only governmental dealings with the merchants. Thus the analogy to the General Services Administration may be incorrect if one imagines merchants as employees only. Perhaps the balanced account operation comptroller contracted with independent merchants to supply his bureaux' needs.
17 Maekawa, K., “Agricultural Production in Ancient Sumer” (Zinbun 13 (1974), 40–42)Google Scholar, shows Ur III barley production yielded a comparatively high return per area-measure even though that return was less than had been achieved in earlier periods.
