were determined on the basis of the original size of the herd, employing simple rules
of thumb for the prospective number of lambs and the wool to be expected per head
of sheep. Animals and wool in excess of expectations would remain the property of
the herdsman who, on the other hand, was expected to make up for any shortfalls as
well. Normally, herdsmen probably did not tend the sheep themselves; this was done
by shepherds who often were of West Semitic origin – as in other periods, animal
husbandry was the sector of the economy in which the world of the (semi-)nomadic
tribes encountered that of the urbanised agriculturalists most regularly.
The flocks roamed quite widely to find adequate grazing. Urukean sheep could be
found in regions as far away from their home as the trans-Tigridian area north-east
of Babylonia. The principal product of animal husbandry was wool, the raw material
for Babylonia’s textile ‘industry’; meat and milk products were of lesser importance.
Especially in the south, where sheep breeding overall played a larger role for the
institutional economy than in the north, wool was used frequently as a means of
payment. The second most important product of animal husbandry for the temples
were young male lambs, the most common offering to the gods. Contrary to, for
instance, the Old Babylonian period, there is very little information on the involvement
of private city dwellers in sheep breeding.
Other sectors of animal husbandry were cattle and bird raising. Cattle breeding
never reached the scale of sheep breeding for the simple reason that large herds of
cattle could not easily be maintained in southern Mesopotamia. The principal
importance of cattle lay always in their use as draught animals, especially for ploughing.
There is some evidence for private persons being involved in cattle breeding; typically,
single animals would be rented out or put at the disposal of a farmer or cattle minder
for the purpose of profit sharing by their owners. Bird breeding, like sheep breeding,
is nearly exclusively attested in temple archives. Large flocks of ducks and geese were
held, and bred to contract, mostly for the purposes of the offering regime.
THE ECONOMIC USE OF THE MARSHESHunting, fishing and bird catching were the activities normally associated with the
periodically or permanently inundated parts of the country.^11 Very little written
documentation survives. Fish was occasionally offered to the gods, which made the
work of fishermen of some importance for temple administrations. One also hears of
payments for fishing rights and of fish ponds which were exploited commercially by
entrepreneurs.
THE CITYAs in all other periods of Mesopotamian history, the city and its inhabitants are the
main focus of the written record.^12 However, the documentation strongly privileges
certain parts and strata of society: the propertied upper class, and the institutional
sector. The latter is represented predominantly by temples (and their archives).
THE TEMPLESFirst-millennium Babylonian temples were complex economic entities – households,
according to the most frequently used model – with often several thousand
— Michael Jursa —