SUMERCE ÇİVİ YAZILI METİNLERE GÖRE KAYBOLAN HAYVANLARIN TAKİBİ HAKKINDA BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Öz

Bu makale, III. Ur dönemine (MÖ 2112-2004) ait çivi yazılı arşivleri temel alarak Sumer bürokrasisinde kaybolan hayvanların nasıl kayda geçirildiğini, soruşturulduğunu ve telafi edildiğini incelemektedir. Çalışma üç ana belge türüne odaklanır: rasyon listeleri kaybı ilk saptayan metinlerdir; soruşturma defterleri eksikliğin nedenini, sorumlularını ve tanık be-yanlarını ayrıntılandırır; tazminat tabloları ise kaybın ayni hayvan veya arpa eşdeğeriyle telafisini resmîleştirir. Bu belgeler, “gu₄-gaz” ve “udu-sikil” gibi terimlerle niceliksel kaybı ve hukuki statüyü aynı anda işaret ederek kurumsal tutarlılığı sağlar. Makale, soruşturma sürecinde yemin, kefalet ve çift kayıt tekniklerinin idari şeffaflığı güçlendirdiğini; telafi hesaplamalarında ise sosyal statüye bağlı farklılıkların belirleyici olduğunu gösterir. Hırsız-lık (gazi) vakalarında tazminatın olağan bedelin %50 üzerine çıkarılması, bürokrasinin caydırıcı boyutunu yansıtır. Sonuçta kayıp hayvan vakaları, Sumer ekonomisinde stok denetimi kadar toplumsal hiyerarşi ve bürokratik meşruiyetin sürdürülmesinde de kritik işlev görür. Bu bulgular, Sumer idari pratiğinin niceliksel kontrol ile hukuksal-mali yaptırımı tek dosya zincirinde birleştiren gelişmiş bir sistem kurduğunu ortaya koyar.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sumerliler
• Kayıp hayvan kayıtları
• Telafi mekanizmaları
• Çivi yazılı idari belgeler.

An Assessment of Tracking Lost Livestock According to Sumerian Cuneiform Texts

Öz

This article examines how cases of lost livestock were recorded, investigated, and compen-sated within the bureaucratic apparatus of Sumer by analysing cuneiform archives from the Ur III period (2112–2004 BCE). It focuses on three interrelated document types: ration lists, which first register the loss; investigation dockets, which detail the cause, the responsi-ble parties, and witness statements; and compensation tablets, which formalise restitution either by an animal in kind or by its barley equivalent. Terms such as “gu₄ gaz” and “udu sikil” simultaneously denote the quantitative deficit and its juridical status, thereby ensuring institutional consistency. The study shows that oaths, sureties, and a double entry technique reinforced administrative transparency, while compensation calculations were shaped by social status. In theft (gazi) cases, indemnities could rise to 150 percent of the ordinary value, highlighting the system’s deterrent function. Ultimately, incidents of lost livestock served a critical role not only in stock control but also in maintaining social hier-archy and bureaucratic legitimacy within the Sumerian economy. These findings demon-strate that Sumerian administrative practice developed a sophisticated system that inte-grated quantitative oversight with legal financial enforcement inside a unified documen-tary chain.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sumerians
• Lost livestock records
• Compensation mechanisms
• Cuneiform administrative tablets

Kaynakça

1. Algaze, G. (2008). Ancient Mesopotamia at the dawn of civilization: The evolution of an urban landscape. University of Chicago Press.
2. Al-Mutawalli, N., & Sallaberger, W. (2017). The cuneiform documents from the Iraqi excavation at Drehem. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, 107, 184–191.
3. Béranger, M. (2020). Les troupeaux des temples d’Ur (20e–18e s. av. J.-C.): Aspects administratifs, religieux et archéologiques. In Nouvelles recherches sur les archives d’Ur d’époque paléo-babylonienne Archibab 4, pp. 233–304.
4. Culbertson, L. E. (2009). Dispute resolution in the provincial courts of the Third Dynasty of Ur [Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan].
5. Englund, R. K. (2012). Equivalency values and the command economy of the Ur III period in Mesopotamia. In J. K. Papadopoulos & G. Urton (Eds.), The construction of value in the ancient world (pp. 427–449). Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
6. Garfinkle, S. J., Van De Mieroop, M., & Sauren, H. (2010). Ur III tablets from the Columbia University Libraries (CUSAS 16). Eisenbrauns.
7. Kang, S. T. (1972). Sumerian economic text from the Drehem Archive. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press)
8. Kramer, S. N. (2002). Sümerler (Ö. Buse, Trans.). Kabalcı Yayınları. (Original work published in English)

9. Kuhrt, A. (2013). Eski Çağ’da Yakındoğu (M.Ö. 3000–330) (D. Şendil, Trans., Vol. 1). Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. (Original work published in English)
10. Lafont, B., & Westbrook, R. (2003). Neo-Sumerian period (Ur III). A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, Vol.I, pp. 183–226.
11. Liu, C. (2021). Prosopography of individuals delivering animals to Puzrish-Dagan in Ur III Mesopotamia. Akkadica, 142(2), 120–130.
12. Molina, M. (2016). Archives and Bookkeeping in Southern Mesopotamia During The Ur III. Comptabilités, 8, 9–15.
13. Owen, D. I., & Mayr, R. H. (Eds.). (2007). The Garšana archives (CUSAS 3). CDL Press.
14. Sallaberger, W. (1993). Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit (UAVA 7). de Gruyter.
15. Sallaberger, W. (2015). Special cases and legal matters: Diction and function of letters in the state of the Third Dynasty of Ur (2110–2003 BC). In S. Procházka, L. Reinfandt, & S. Tost (Eds.), Official epistolography and the language(s) of power: Proceedings of the First International Conference of the Research Network Imperium & Officium (pp. 15–30). Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
16. Sigrist, M. (1992). Drehem. CDL Press.
17. Sigrist, M., & Ozaki, T. (2009). Neo-Sumerian administrative tablets from the Yale Babylonian Collection. Part One (BPOA 6). CSIC.
18. Snell, D. C. (1986). The Ram of Lagash. Acta Sumerologica, 8, 133–218.
19. Steinkeller, P. (1995). Sheep and goat terminology in Ur III sources from Drehem. Bulletin for Sumerian Agriculture, 8, 49–70.
20. Stepien, M. (1996). Animal husbandry in the ancient Near East: A prosopographic study of third-millennium Umma. CDL Press.
21. Tsouparopoulou, C. (2013). A reconstruction of the Puzriš-Dagan central livestock agency. CDLJ, 2013(2), 1–2.
22. Veldhuis, N. (2005). [Review of the book Cuneiform texts from the Ur III period in the Oriental Institute, Vol. 2: Drehem administrative documents from the reign of Amar-Suena (OIP 121), by M. Hilgert]. Orientalia, 74(1), 116–119.
23. Zeder, M. A. (1994). Of kings and shepherds: Specialized animal economy in Ur III Mesopotamia. In G. Stein & M. S. Rothman (Eds.), Chiefdoms and early states in the Near East: The organizational dynamics of complexity (pp. 175–191). Prehistory Press.