ウル第三王朝時代のラガシュにおける穀物関係文書について (II)

CT IX 41文書

抄録

In the first part of this paper, I did not deal with CT IX 41 as belonging to the same group of texts of temple estates, CT IX 38, OBTR 242, 252, and UDT 64. The reasons are that 1) I could not decide whether or not Ur-^dba-ú, a son of Ur-dun, who recorded the text, was a šabra or sanga of temples, 2) mu-túm “bringing” appeared uniquely in CT IX 41, while zi-ga “expenditure” was found in similar texts CT IX 38 etc. In part II of this paper, I will examine these points.
I. Ur-^dba-ú was recorded in CTNMC 53 as a person of “scribes of flour”. Since there were no šabra or sanga of temples among the scribes, Ur-^dba-ú worked in a place other than temples. In MVN VI 539, he had the same rank as šabra-sanga as a manager of an estate, but was not a šabra-sanga of the temple itself. It seems to me that he was a person belonging to the ensí's estate.
II. mu-túm. Gomi, ASJ, 2, 87 was concerned with the gathering of barley from several places in Lagaš in the name of Queen Nin₉-kal-la, and this process was referred to as mu-túm. CT VII 27 referred to this barley being brought to ú-URUxGU/ú-URUxA-a, a city of Elam, and this action was called zi-ga. mu-túm indicates that the barley was brought to Queen Nin₉-kal-la. From this example, we can assume that the barley referred to in CT IX 41 was also brought to the ensí's or royal estate.
One of the items of expenditure in CT IX 41 was grain seed, if we consider CT IX 41=MVN II 40 and SET 219 together, we find that the fields to which the grain seed was taken were under the management of ensí. The “expenditure of king” was also recorded in CT IX 41. In conclusion, I would like to suggest that CT IX 41 belonged to the texts of the ensí's estate, and not to those of the temple estate.