text:
Jakob Andersson: An Ur III Messenger text from Umma in the Haldar collection
The following text belongs to a small group of documents once owned by Alfred Ossian Haldar, Uppsala. Two Old Babylonian contracts from the same collection, previously published by Pinches in 1917, were more recently treated by the author (Andersson 2008). Nine other Ur III texts were donated by Haldar to the National Museum in Copenhagen, including a text of similar type and content as the one treated here (Halvgaard and Johansen 2004: 9). The present text is the only Ur III text remaining in the Haldar collection. When and how the tablet entered into Haldar's possession is not known.
The document is small, as is typical for a messenger text, measuring 25×25×10 mm. The writing is minuscule, and not always very careful. The scribe seems to have misjudged the space available, as every other line on the obverse contains only a personal name, and, when compared with the reverse, the lines containing only personal names are written in a large and spacious hand. The repetitive format of most of the entries is helpful, but the right edge of the document where signs tend to spill over from both the obverse and the reverse is at times hard to make out. To facilitate the access to a single source of this type, the data of which become meaningful only when seen in combination with several other documents of the same sort, an electronic publication was seen as the most meaningful.
The text dates to Šu-Suen's third regnal year and no doubt originated in Umma or its close environs, as the date formula uses the Umma calendar. It records disbursements of the usual products: beer, bread, leeks, oil, potash, flour and semolina to ten named and an unknown number of unnamed recipients. A few names may tentatively be equated with persons appearing in other Ur III Umma documents. Several hundreds of similar texts have been published and discussed in earlier literature.
Haldar 3:obverse | |||
1. | 5 sila3 kaš 3 sila3 ninda 5 gin2 šum2 3 gin2 i3 2 gin2 naga | 5 liters of beer, 3 liters of bread, 41.5 grams of leeks, 5 centiliters of oil, 16.6 grams of potash | |
2. | puzur4-[ma]-ma | (to) Puzur-Mama | |
3. | 5 sila3 kaš 3 sila3 ninda 5 gin2 šum2 3 gin2 i3 2 gin2 naga | 5 liters of beer, 3 liters of bread, 41.5 grams of leeks, 5 centiliters of oil, 16.6 grams of potash | |
4. | nu-ur2-dsuen | (to) Nur-Suen | |
5. | 5 sila3 kaš 3 sila3 ninda 5 gin2 šum2 3 gin2 i3 2 gin2 naga | 5 liters of beer, 3 liters of bread, 41.5 grams of leeks, 5 centiliters of oil, 16.6 grams of potash | |
6. | lu2-sa6-ga | (to) Lu-Saga | |
7. | 5 sila3 kaš 3 sila3 ninda 5 gin2 šum2 3 gin2 i3 2 gin2 naga | 5 liters of beer, 3 liters of bread, 41.5 grams of leeks, 5 centiliters of oil, 16.6 grams of potash | |
8. | ku3-dnanna | (to) Ku-Nanna | |
9. | 5 sila3 kaš 3 sila3 ninda 5 gin2 šum2 3 gin2 i3 [2 gin2] naga [...] | 5 liters of beer, 3 liters of bread, 41.5 grams of leeks, 5 centiliters of oil, [16.6 grams] of potash (to) [...] | |
10. | 5 sila3 kaš 3 sila3 ninda 5 gin2 šum2 3 gin2 i3 2 gin2 naga nun-ne2 | 5 liters of beer, 3 liters of bread, 41.5 grams of leeks, 5 centiliters of oil, 16.6 grams of potash (to) Nune | |
reverse | |||
1. | 3 sila3 kaš 2 sila3 ninda 5 gin2 šum2 3 gin2 i3 2 gin2 naga ur-šu | 3 liters of beer, 2 liters of bread, 41.5 grams leeks, 5 centiliters. of oil, 16.6 grams of potash (to) Ur-šu | |
2. | 3 sila3 kaš 2 sila3 ninda 5 gin2 šum2 3 gin2 i3 2 gin2 naga al-la-x | 3 liters of beer, 2 liters of bread, 41.5 grams leeks, 5 centiliters. of oil, 16.6 grams of potash (to) Alla-x | |
3. | 3 sila3 kaš 2 sila3 ninda 5 gin2 šum2 3 gin2 i3 2 gin2 naga lu2-uš-gi-na | 3 liters of beer, 2 liters of bread, 41.5 grams leeks, 5 centiliters. of oil, 16.6 grams of potash (to) Lu-uš-gina | |
4. | 2 ban2 kaš 2 ban2 ninda 1/3 sila3 i3 i-ti-zu | 20 liters of beer, 20 liters of bread, 33 centiliters of oil (to) Idissu | |
5. | 3 ban2 kaš 1 dug dida saga 2 ban2 7 dug dida du 3 ban2 | 30 liters of beer, 1 jug of fine-quality sweet wort (containing) 20 liters, 7 jugs of sweet wort for travelling (containing) 30 liters | |
6. | 2 ban2 zi3-gu saga 4 barig 4 ban2 dabin 2 sila3 i3 | 20 liters of fine-quality flour, 280 liters of semolina, 2 liters of oil | |
7. | kas4 hu-hu-nu-riki-ta er-ra | (for) the messengers that have come from Huhnuri. | |
8. | |ŠU+LAGAB| 1 barig 2 ban2 9 sila3 kaš 1 dug dida saga 2 ban2 7 dug dida du 3 ban2 | Total: 89 liters of beer, 1 jug of fine-quality sweet wort (containing) 20 liters, 7 jugs of sweet wort for traveling (containing) 30 liters; | |
9. | |ŠU+LAGAB| 4 ban2 4 sila3 ninda 2 ban2 zi3-gu saga 4 barig 4 ban2 dabin | total: 44 liters of bread, 20 liters of fine-quality flour, 280 liters of semolina; | |
10. | |ŠU+LAGAB| 2/3 sila3 5 gin2 šum2 |ŠU+LAGAB| 2 2/3 sila3 7 gin2 i3 | total: 373.5 grams of leeks, 2.78 liters of oil; | |
11. | |ŠU+LAGAB| 18 gin2 naga | total: 149.9 grams of potash. | |
left | |||
1. | u4 2-kam iti pa4-u2-e mu si-ma-num2ki ba-hul | Second day, month: Pa'u'e, year: Simannum was destroyed. |
Most of the entries correspond to the quantities of Umma group B, as defined by McNeil in his unpublished Ph.D. thesis (1970), and reiterated by F. D'Agostino & F. Pomponio (2002: 14).
The case for ninda as bread and not gruel (e.g. Sallaberger 1999: 298-99) has been settled by Brunke (2011: 95-97). I am grateful to I. Schrakamp for drawing this piece of information to my attention.
Rev. 7: the messengers coming in from Huhnuri had obviously been on a mission to the eastern side of the head of the Persian Gulf. The same city is mentioned in year formulae dating back to 5 years before the date of the present text. Then, Šu-Suen's father Amar-Suen mentions Huhnuri amongst cities or territories he had destroyed. Also Šu-Suen's son and successor Ibbi-Sin mentions a campaign against Huhnuri in his year dates, see Sallaberger (1999: 158).
The non-finite verbal form er-ra I take to be a subordinate perfective e-re-a, "(the messengers) that have come (from Huhnuri)."
Andersson, Jakob | ||
2008 | "Some Cuneiform Texts from the Haldar Collection. Two Old Babylonian Contracts." OrSu 57: 5-22. | |
Brunke, Hagan | ||
2011 | Essen in Sumer: Metrologie, Herstellung und Terminologie nach Zeugnis der Ur III-zeitlichen Wirtschaftsurkunden. Munich: Herbert Utz. | |
D'Agostino, Francesco, and Francesco Pomponio | ||
2002 | Umma Messenger Texts in the British Museum, Part One. Nisaba 1. Messina: Dipartimento di Scienze dell'Antichità. | |
Halvgaard, Christian and Christina Johansen | ||
2004 | "Ur III Texts in the Danish National Museum." RA 98: 1-12. | |
McNeil, Robert | ||
1970 | The 'Messenger Texts' of the Third Ur Dynasty. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. | |
Pinches, Theophilus | ||
1917 | "Some Texts of the Relph Collection, with Notes on Babylonian Chronology and Genesis XIV". PSBA 39: 4-15, 55-72, 89-98. | |
Sallaberger, Walther | ||
1999 | "Ur III-Zeit". In P. Attinger and M. Wäfler, eds., Mesopotamien. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/3. Freiburg, Switzerland - Göttingen: Academic Press, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 121-390. |
Jacob L. Dahl: New and old joins in the Louvre proto-Elamite tablet collection
During the course of my work on the proto-Elamite tablets in the Louvre Museum I have been able to identify a number of new joins. I list them here with brief discussions of the content of the tablet and the nature of the join. At the end of this short note I list all other joins in the proto-Elamite collection known to me.
- MDP 26S, 5019 (Sb 15328) + 5027 (Sb 15336) + 5032 (Sb 15342): the lower third of pillow-shaped proto-Elamite tablet listing named(?) individuals. It presumably dates to the very end of the proto-Elamite period (see Dahl 2009). The tablet has not been formally reconstructed and glued by museum conservators, and the image of the joined tablet is preliminary.
- MDP 17, 314 (Sb 22471) + 376 (Sb 22530): small tablet recording large number of small barley containers. The join is based on the scribal design: there is no definite point of contact. I have discussed the use of scribal designs elsewhere (Dahl 2005a and forthcoming).
- MDP 6, 246 (Sb 15098) + 269 (Sb 15116) + 302 (Sb 15141) + 332 (Sb 15168): about half of a very large tablet, listing teams of workers and their rations. Sb 15098 and 15168 were already joined by Damerow and Englund (1989: 57 n. 156), Sb 15141 and 15116 were added by me in 2011. Note the total on the reverse with the unusual notation 1N14 11N1.
- MDP 6, 316 (Sb 15153) + 322 (Sb 15159) + 324 (Sb 15161) + MDP 26S, 335 (Sb 15255) + Sb 15247: about two thirds of a very large tablet, listing teams of workers and their rations. The text appears to lack a total (the text of the obverse spills over onto the reverse, rotating the tablet on its vertical axis; a total would be written on the reverse rotating the tablet on its horizontal axis, in some instances resulting in text running in opposite directions on the reverse). Sb 15247 is mentioned in the catalogue to MDP 6, although it was neither copied or included on the photographic plates (catalogue has N. F = non figuré.). A small piece has been joined to Sb 15161 since its publication in MDP 6; there is now a physical join between Sb 15247 and 15161. Sb 15247 and 15159 have not been fired, and are very different in color from the remaining three fragments that have all been fired and have had a glossy surface treatment done. The tablet has not been formally reconstructed and glued by museum conservators, and the image of the joined tablet is preliminary.
- MDP 17, 96 (Sb 22286) + 325 (Sb 22480) + 380 (Sb 22534): about two thirds of a large tablet listing the animals of some 15 herds. The text was edited in Dahl 2005b. The image of the joined tablet is preliminary.
- MDP 17, 297 (Sb 22454) + 299 (Sb 22456): a small late period proto-Elamite tablet listing named(?) individuals.
- MDP 6, 366 (Sb 15190) + MDP 26S, 5025 (Sb 15334): an almost complete standard period proto-Elamite account, with unknown contents. Note that Sb 15190 has been treated, whereas Sb 15334 has not, accounting for their difference in color. See MDP 6, 386 (Sb 15208) for a close parallel with same break pattern.
- MDP 17, 77 (Sb 22269) + 212 (Sb 22380) + 226 (Sb 22393): an almost complete tablet, recording rations to mid-level officials. The text was edited in Dahl 2005a.
- MDP 17, 189 (Sb 22360) + 336 (Sb 22491): the upper right quarter of a tablet with similar content to the previous.
- MDP 26S, 4846 (Sb 15321) + 5241 (Sb 15243): part of a very large, flat, and squarish tablet.
The following joins were made prior to my work in the Louvre collection.
- MDP 17, 273 + 280 + 291 (Sb 22435): fragment of a very large early period account of discrete inanimate objects, with very large numbers. Joined prior to the assignment of Sb numbers.
- MDP 17, 81 (Sb 22273) + 347 (Sb 22502): join identified by Meriggi (1974: 64 Ec 1 = B 81 + 347). The image of the joined tablet is preliminary.
- MDP 17, 205 (Sb 22374) + 213 (Sb 22381): join identified by Meriggi (1974: 92 Gr 9 = B 205 + 213)
- MDP 17, 250 (Sb 22413) + 251 (Sb 22414) : join identified by Meriggi (1974: 84 Gk 4 = A 251 + 250).
Dahl, Jacob L. | ||
2005a | "Complex Graphemes in Proto-Elamite." CDLJ 2005/3 | |
2005b | "Animal Husbandry in Susa During the Proto-Elamite Period." SMEA 47 81-134. | |
2009 | "Early Writing in Iran, a Reappraisal." Iran 47: 23-31. | |
forthcoming | "The Marks of Early Writing." | |
Damerow, Peter and Robert K. Englund | ||
1989 | The Proto-Elamite Texts from Tepe Yahya. Cambridge, Mass: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Harvard University. | |
Meriggi, Piero | ||
1974 | La Scrittura Proto-Elamica: Parte IIIa: Testi. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei |
Jerrold S. Cooper: A wine debt from Emar
A small (4.5 x 4 cm.) privately owned tablet, probably from Emar, records the repayment by a third party of a debt of wine. All of the PNN on the tablet are attested at Emar and Ekalte, but none of the father-son pairs is to be found in the data base of Emar PNN (Pruzsinszky 2003), nor could I find any in the Ekalte texts. The scribe, Ikun-Dagan, is not otherwise attested at Emar, but there is a scribe of that name at nearby Ekalte (Cohen 2009: 95). A vertical ruling creates a margin on the reverse, to the left of the witness list. The tablet is undated and not sealed.
Text 1:obverse | ||
1. | 8 dughu-pu kaš-geštin | |
2. | hu-bu-ul-li | |
3. | ša 1a-wi-ri | |
4. | dumu hi2-ma-ši | |
5. | 1da-da | |
6. | dumu ab-di-diš-ha-ra | |
7. | dumu-meš zu-dda-gan | |
8. | dumu i-ri-ib-dda-gan | |
lower edge | ||
9. | i-pu-ul-šu-nu | |
reverse | ||
1. | igi ip-qi2-dda-gan | |
2. | dumu mil-ka-ma | |
3. | igi i-ku-dda-gan dub-sar | |
4. | igi dda-gan-ma | |
5. | dumu zi-ik-ri |
Eight hupu-jars of wine, the debt of Awiri son of Himaši, Dada son of Abdi-Išhara paid to the sons of Zu-Dagan son of Irib-Dagan.
Witnesses: Ipqi-Dagan son of Milkama, Ikun-Dagan the scribe, Dagan-ma son of Zikri.
This unusual debt payable in jars of wine is paid off by a third party to the sons of a creditor, probably deceased. The hupu or hubu vessel at Emar is used for wine alongside the hizzibu vessel (Fleming 1992: 143f.). The hupu is the larger vessel, judging from the fact that it is generally listed first and in smaller quantities when it occurs together with the hizzibu, but it most likely is not the same as the huppum at Mari made from 12 mina of copper, which must have been very large indeed (Guichard 2005: 201). That the debt in our document is expressed in hupu-jars indicates that the hupu was standardized, as does the use of hupu to establish the amount of wine to be provided annually to the NIN.DINGIR-priestess at Emar (Fleming 1992 29:87). Note, as well, Emar 6/3, 364, where four hupu and three hizzibu of wine for one month, and eight hizzibu for a second month, are said to total ten hupu of wine, implying that the hupu is about twice the size of the hizzibu (11 hizzibu = 6 hupu, thus 1 hupu = 1.8 hizzibu). (As Arnaud [1986] notes, the numeral ten is written as 4+4+2, rather than the customary U. It might, then, be a misread numeral 8 [3+3+2], implying about a 3:1 ratio [4 hupu + 11 hizzibu = 8 hupu, so 11 hizzibu = 4 hupu, and 2.75 hizzibu = 1 hupu]).
Arnaud, Daniel | ||
1986 | Recherches au pays d'Aštata, Emar 6/3. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. | |
Cohen, Yoram | ||
2009 | The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age. HSS 59. Winona Lake, IL: Eisenbrauns. | |
Flemming, Daniel E. | ||
1992 | The Installation of Baal's High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Ancient Syrian Religion. HSS 42. Atlanta: Scholar's Source. | |
Guichard, Michael | ||
2005 | La vaisselle de luxe des rois de Mari. ARM 31. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. | |
Pruzsinszky, Regine | ||
2003 | Die Personennamen der Texte aus Emar. SCCNH 13. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. |
David I. Owen: Additions and corrections to Owen, "Supplemental Texts ..." (CUSAS 6, pp. 233-334)
Unfortunately a number of errors were noted in my contribution (Owen 2011a) to Garšana Studies (CUSAS 6 [Owen 2011b]) after the volume went to press. The following passages should be changed in my article. Similarly, the indexes should be updated accordingly.
- pp. 237-238, 1529a-b:4 change urudatùn > urudagiĝ4, "ax, adze," CAD P 267 s.v. pāšu.
- pp. 237-238, 1529a-b:4 change urudaŠUM > urudašum, "saw."
- p. 240, 1535:3-4 read i7-na-ra-am-dSuen-/ni-tum ba-ni-ib-è, line left out in transliteration. The canal name is written on two separate lines, not indented (see photo, p. 287).
- pp. 241, 1538:2 Probably no -a at the end, only traces of erased wedges.
- p. 242, 1538:3 change še-lé-pu-tum nu-bànda > še-lí-bu-um nu-bànda (see photo p. 289) and delete note 32.
- p. 242, 1538:8 change i-gi-si-ir > dumu kun-ší-ir.
- p. 242, 1538:13 change ibila zàh!-a-ba > ibila 3-a-ba, "his three heirs."
- p. 244, 1542:2 change kínken-é > kínken-ke4.
- p. 246, 1548: change ŠS 6/ezem-dnin-a-zu/- > AS 7/ezem-dnin-a-zu/- and correct catalogue, pp. 234-235.
- p. 248, 1552: urudukíĝ. The reading is not established. See Schrakamp (2009-2011). Read ĝeš-a dù-a rather than ĝeš-adù-a, i.e. "fitted with a wood(en grip)."
- p. 250, 1558:2 change a-x-šè -> a-níĝin-šè. Cf. CUSAS 3 437:1.
- p. 251, 1560b:2 change ba-an-d[ug4] > ba-an-z[uh].
- p. 251, 1560b:8 restoration uncertain.
- p. 251, 1560b:9 reading uncertain, perhaps x ĝeš ĝeš tir-ta in-ku5.
- p. 251, 1560:11 change su6(KA×SA)-bi > mangaga-bi.
- p. 251, 1560:14 change a-gàr-lúgud(LAGAB) > a-gàr-níĝin (for more common agar4-níĝin).
- p. 256, 1576:2: read 1.0.0.-a {space} 0.1.4-ta.
- p. 257, 1580:12 change x-x ù-ku > [x] ĝešù-suh5.
- p. 257, 1581:x+7: change sur-ru > sur-ra (see photo, p. 286).
Owen, David I. | ||
2011a | "Supplemental Texts Related to the Garšana Archives." In D. Owen, ed. Garšana Studies 6. CUSAS 6. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, pp. 233-334. | |
2011b | Garšana Studies. CUSAS 6. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. | |
Schrakamp, I. | ||
2009-11 | "Sichel". RlA 12, 443-45. |
Robert K. Englund, Peter Damerow, Jürgen Renn, Stephen J. Tinney, and Bertrand Lafont: A note to clarify CDLI's policy of open access, and of fair use of published images of cuneiform inscriptions.
By our unofficial reckoning, most authors of cuneiform editions that contained their own hand or electronic copies, or photographic plates of cuneiform inscriptions, support the effort made by our staff and collaborators to digitize and post to our pages all such inscription representations. Some few have sent us queries as to why we have not requested their specific permission to do so, and one colleague has, through the officials of the collection of tablets he has published, demanded that digitized facsimiles of his hand copies be removed from public access through our website. Knowing that the raw capture, processing, archiving and web posting of cuneiform drawings would represent a substantial investment of our resources, we have attempted to be clear in all communications that we pursue this effort based not just on the academic justification that a centralized and permanent database for primary source documentation--the core goal of CDLI—serves a broad community of researchers, general users, and, ideally, cuneiform collections curators and antiquities policing agencies, but based also on the legal application of "fair use," without which many Humanities web sites would be unthinkable.
U.S. Code, Title 17 chapter 1 § 107, deals with "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use" and states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [see the pertinent pages in <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf>, ref. RKE], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
The interpretation of fair use is unfortunately not uniform throughout the world, but we believe the academic benefits of its implementation as outlined by US Code Title 17 ch. 1, § 107, should be clear to any scholar. The Max Planck Society, CDLI's principal European partner, has been a leading proponent of an understanding of fair use, and more broadly of a general policy of open access that favors the unencumbered dissemination of scientific information and cultural heritage. We urge our colleagues to consult Max Planck's "Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities" (<http://oa.mpg.de/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/>) to inform themselves of their rights as authors, as archivists and as cultural heritage officials in an emerging environment of federated content production and dissemination. The declaration has thus far been signed by 248 major scientific and cultural organizations throughout the world and in particular Europe, including all major research foundations and science organizations in Germany (among many others the Wissenschaftsrat, the Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, the Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, and the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften), the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) in France, the Conférence suisses des Hautes Ecoles spécialisées (CSHES) and the Rat der Schweizerischen wissenschaftlichen Akademien in Switzerland, and 134 European Universities. For a complete list of current signatories see <http://oa.mpg.de/berlin-prozess/signatoren>.
Both of the CDLI-sponsored journals CDLJ and CDLB (<http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/pub.html>) encourage and utilize the power of hyperlinked primary source access, and have been listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (<http://www.doaj.org/> see <http://www.doaj.org/openurl?genre=journal&issn=15408779> and <http://www.doaj.org/openurl?genre=journal&issn=15408760>). We further welcome the fact that all articles in these journals are immediately harvested and made searchable through Google. We are convinced that this Web exposure promotes the impact of cuneiform studies in the academic world, but it also helps to fulfill the responsibility to communicate our understanding of the ancient Near East to a growing community of online informal learners—and, we might mention, to expert users world-wide whose libraries might not possess the means to purchase often expensive paper publications. Our source web pages will claim no copyright to any text, but we attempt to follow guidelines of image distribution that best serve the needs of academic specialists, cultural heritage administrators and the general public. Thus insofar as images in CDLI pages are concerned, we affirm that they are strictly for non-commercial use, and that we link to each text page a copyright notice specifying the restrictions of, in particular, their commercial use (see <http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/info/copyright.html>); that, while in the agglomerate the digital capture of line art copies of cuneiform inscriptions can constitute a substantial portion of a given publication, the publication itself is not recoverable from the images kept at such a low resolution that they are not viable files for commercial abuse (full line art files are almost exclusively 150ppi, but in rare instances 300ppi where a lower resolution degrades the academic use of very fine line art depictions); and that the effect of our fair use of cuneiform inscriptions does not and can not adversely effect the market value of the published work. To the contrary, the web presence generated by the online distribution of, as a rule, very isolated publications is widely believed to increase rather than limit the market value of text editions.
In the meantime, we are planning to improve the transparency of the authorship of all contributions to the documentation of primary cuneiform sources in CDLI pages. As a rule, all lead images of line art copies (Pnnnnnn_l.jpg) are those of the author(s) listed in the primary publication line of each text page. In the future, images and transliterations prepared for online access will be tagged to more clearly indicate their specific source, and the history of their eventual revisions. These steps will heighten the web presence of, and access to, collections, publications, and professional participation in cuneiform scholarship.
While we make every effort to avoid possible conflicts of interest with authors preparing editions of unpublished cuneiform collections—although we feel that in such cases, too, the online distribution of raw data can act to enhance the academic value of final publications—we believe that a fair use distribution of published materials is in the general interest of research, and we are grateful for the support of the field in our effort to achieve as broad a coverage of primary source documentation as is possible with our limited resources. We again request your support in adding to our files any documentation you might have or generate concerning your own, or publications of others not currently in our data base, or in submitting to us corrections of material found in our files. Any further queries about the use of text and images in CDLI pages may be directed to firstname.lastname@example.com.
[originally posted by the authors to the Agade list on 27 February 2008 (here with URL updates)]
Zsombor Földi: The career of a high-ranking official in Larsa: on CUSAS 17, 54
An inscribed fragment of an alabaster jar (MS 3268) has recently been published as CUSAS 17, 54 by Andrew R. George. Its fragmentary inscription relates that the jar was offered ('brought in') by a certain Nawiram-šarūr for the life of king Rīm-Sîn. This short paper aims to identify the person whose name appears in the inscription, based mainly on prosopographical and chronological data provided by contemporary legal-administrative text material from Larsa.
Line 4' of the inscription contains the name of Nawiram-šarūr, identified by his father's name (line 5'). The editor reads the father's name as Qīšti(BA)-Šamaš. The logographic writing of the name element Qīšti- was, however, rather uncommon in the Old Babylonian period, and the inscription itself bears no similarity to BA, but is rather u-bar and thus the name is to be read u-bar-dutu, i.e., Ubār-Šamaš.
It seldom happens that a person mentioned in a votive inscription is also attested in legal and administrative documents. In case of Nawiram-šarūr, son of Ubār-Šamaš, however, one may connect the person with a person bearing a similar name occuring in a field lease contract. The combination of a person's own and his father's name identifies a person with near certainty—that is, assuming that, at a given place in a given period (a lifetime?), there were no men identified by the same prosopographical combination (so with Harris 1972: 104 and Kalla 2006: 19, on the material from the Sippar region).
The relevant text is MHET 2/5, 564 (dated to Hammurapi 33; see Woestenburg 1997-1998: 356). Though it has been published among hundreds of Sippar texts, it certainly comes from southern Babylonia; a Larsan origin has been suggested (Stol 1997: 718; Woestenburg 1997-1998: 356). The prosopographical data seems to support this assumption, since two of the three witnesses appear also in other texts from Larsa. The second witness is Ibbi-[Šamaš], son of Šamaš-muba[lliṭ]; the reconstruction is supported by the seal inscription indentifying the owner as 'servant of Ha[mmurapi]' (for the collations see Woestenburg 1997-1998: 356). The same seal was impressed on the tablet YOS 12, 142 (Samsu-iluna 5). That text is prosopographically connected to L. 74.176, found in Larsa by French excavators (Charpin 1981: 538). The third witness is Šamaš-māgir, son of Ṣillī-Šamaš; his (former) sustenance field and his sons are dealt with in YOS 15, 35, a letter sent by Lu-Ninurta to Šamaš-hāzir (i.e., from Babylon to Larsa).
The first witness is Nawiram-[...], son of Ubār-[...]. The first name can be restored safely to Nawiram-[šarūr], due to the absence of other name types beginning with this element in Old Babylonian Larsa (on the various spellings see von Soden 1960: 166). The father's name cannot be restored with such certainty: there are names composed of the element Ubār- and various divine names, and there is also a hypocoristic form Ubārrum. However, the name Ubār-Šamaš is by far the most frequently used of them. The number of its occurrences well exceeds the number of all the others together. A restoration of the first witness's name as Nawiram-[šarūr], son of Ubār-[Šamaš] therefore appears to be fairly certain.
Considering the fact that not everyone will present an inscribed alabaster jar to (presumably) a god for the life of the king, Nawiram-šarūr must have been a man of some wealth and importance. In contracts, the witnesses were usually listed according to their status, i.e., the more important persons first, the others following. Ibbi-Šamaš, the second witness in MHET 2/5, 564, is identified in YOS 12, 142 as judge (presumably of the Šamaš temple). He also uses a seal dedicated to king Hammurapi, typical of royal officials and some higher-ranked members of the clergy (see Harris 1961). The title or office of Šamaš-māgir (the third witness) is not known; however, the four bur3 (ca. 0,26km2) of sustenance field he owned suggest a rather important person (cf. Kienast 1976-1980: 55). The fact that Nawiram-[šarūr] was listed as the first witness in MHET 2/5, 564, indicates his importance compared to the others, and therefore supports his identification with the person presenting the alabaster jar.
This identification may also help to resolve another problem with the inscription: the identification of the king called Rīm-Sîn. It is by no means certain which of the two kings called by this name is meant here. Unfortunately, the first part of the relevant line (line 2') on the jar fragment was broken off. Both the excellent handcopy and the photo suggest a restoration of the divine name determinative (the sign dingir) before the royal name. The presence of the divine determinative, however, does not help us either to decide whether Rīm-Sîn I or Rīm-Sîn II is meant. Its use before the name of Rīm-Sîn I became customary in the second third of his 60-year reign (see Van de Mieroop 1993: 67). In contrast, the name of the rebel king Rīm-Sîn II was always written with the determinative of divine names.
Assuming that Nawiram-[šarūr] of MHET 2/5, 564 is identical with Nawiram-šarūr who dedicated CUSAS 17, 54 for the life of his king, the date of MHET 2/5, 564 (Hammurapi 33) makes it very likely that the jar was granted for the life of king Rīm-Sîn I, presumably not so many years before the Babylonian conquest of Larsa.
Charpin, Dominique | ||
1981 | "La Babylonie de Samsu-iluna à la lumière de noveaux documents." Review of S. I. Feigin, Legal and Administrative Texts of the Reign of Samsu-iluna. YOS 12. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979. BiOr 38, 517-547. | |
Harris, Rivkah | ||
1961 | "On the Process of Secularization under Hammurapi." JCS 15, 117-120. | |
1972 | "Notes on the Nomenclature of Old Babylonian Sippar." JCS 24, 102-104. | |
Kalla, Gábor | ||
2006 | "Névadás és személyes vallásosság az ókori Mezopotámiában. [Namegiving and Personal Piety in Ancient Mesopotamia.]" Ókor V/3-4, 19-23. | |
Kienast, Burkhart | ||
1976-80 | "Ilku." RlA 5, 52-59. | |
von Soden, Wolfram | ||
1960 | "Status Rectus-Formen vor dem Genitiv im Akkadischen und die sogenannte uneigentliche Annexion im Arabischen." JNES 19, 163-171. | |
Stol, Marten | ||
1997 | Review of M. Sigrist – H. H. Figulla – C. B. F. Walker, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, vol. 2. London: British Museum Press, 1996. BiOr 54, 717-720. | |
Van de Mieroop, Marc | ||
1993 | "The Reign of Rim-Sin." RA 87, 47-69. | |
Woestenburg, Els | ||
1997-98 | Review of L. Dekiere, Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum V. Documents without Date or with Date Lost. Mesopotamian History and Environment Series, Texts II/5. Ghent: University of Ghent, 1996. AfO 44-45, 356-360. |
Robert K. Englund: Citing CDLI
In a highly interesting article by Azhideh Moqaddam describing the recent Jiroft discoveries ("Ancient geometry and "*Proto-Iranian" scripts, South Konar Sandal mound inscriptions, Jiroft," Fs Kreyenbroek [2009] 53-103), the author cites (p. 54 n. 12) a page from our CDLI domain in reference to the current state of a proto-Elamite sign list. The reader, however, will be hard-pressed to find the reference http://cdli.ucla.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Proto-Elamite&redirect;=no, p. 4 in the web. It might refer to what is currently <http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=proto-elamite>, a CDLI wiki page in which Jacob Dahl offers a quick overview of the growing electronic resources for proto-Elamite research. Since this is just one of a number of citations of CDLI URLs in recent paper publications, it may be timely to make a statement about the purpose and reliability of web resources such as ours when they are used in hard publications, in particular to underscore the distinct persistence of only three types of CDLI URLs:
1) the lead domain address itself, <http://cdli.ucla.edu>;
2) the journals page <http://cdli.ucla.edu/?q=publications> and the individual contribution URLs of CDLJ, CDLB and CDLN;
3) the addresses of individual cuneiform text artifacts of the form <http://cdli.ucla.edu/P115925>.
As is obvious to users, web research and communication have many strengths that slow-moving, analog resources such as bound books and journal volumes cannot match. For instance, web dissemination of information very radically expands the pool of potential readers and responders—and includes in the readership whole regions and demographics that would otherwise never be exposed to the AfOs and CMs of the Assyriological community, with their hefty price tags and often years-long production schedules, nor certainly to the raw file documentation of very dispersed artifact collections. Then too, hyperlinked resources compress to a few seconds the reference checks that otherwise occupy an afternoon, if the proofer is fortunate enough to work in Berlin, or Chicago, and these hyperlinks in academic publications, among other advantages, finally offer our footnote geniuses the opportunity to embed note in note, ad infinitum—flights of resource access that can transport established professors back to their heady days of discovery, seated at a table decked with "many a tome."
Well developed data creation and dissemination strategies look to text and image file format standardizations that protect data from generational loss, and in open access platforms they endeavor to facilitate the harvest, aggregation and re-use of core data and their annotation by experts, thus leading to a certain "cloud security" of important data sets. But the grave problem of simple URL decay remains. This is not just a matter of this or that website leaving the internet, funding disappeared or director incapacitated; nor the rollback of data access following the activities of intellectual property demons; but perhaps more importantly it points to the inherent instability of internal pages and their content within a given domain. CDLI is assuredly not alone in its understanding of its domain addresses as in part stable, in part unstable. There is much pressure to improve the usability of project web pages up and down the line; at the same time, everyone wants to build good research resources for long-term use. Administrators of small digital libraries know all too well how painful is the stage of converting operations to persistent, versioned data sets online—that is, at the point in the chart where the data persistence line moving up crosses the data production and improvement line moving down. This is in fact the stage where custodians of data persistence—librarians—enter our work and, by backing up archival files to versioned and permanent repositories, protect our data from ourselves and our various destinies. Thus CDLI is currently collaborating with UCLA's Digital Library Program to enter image and text files to the so-called "archival resource keys" assigned by the California Digital Library of the University of California; such keys—unique alpha-numeric strings—establish permanent URL's for all processed archival files associated with some discrete cuneiform text artifact. Such artifacts will continue to carry the internally generated "P numbers" that identify entries in CDLI, but will have the added protection of a state institution—the University of California—that will enjoy a longer life than most, and very probably all humanities projects.
We have created convenient short URL's for each cuneiform inscription in our files, for instance <http://cdli.ucla.edu/P361694> pointing to the web page documenting an Old Assyrian tablet in the recently digitized Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum collection published by M. Larsen as Old Assyrian Archives 1 (PIHANS 96; Leiden 2002) no. 51. Aside from the high domain address <http://cdli.ucla.edu> and the addresses of our online journal contributions (<http://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2009/cdlj2009_007.html> will, with high certainty, always lead to R. McC. Adams, "Old Babylonian Networks of Urban Notables," CDLJ 2009:7), these individual text addresses are the only URL's in CDLI that can be confidently cited in hard-print publications, though obviously still with less confidence than a reference to some printed resource deposited in a library. Should, one day, some other public institution agree to assume full responsibility for an ongoing CDLI, a simple redirect will care for the permanence of these current CDLI URL's found within the UCLA domain. I personally would not, for the time being, cite in print any resource in CDLI that makes no claim to at least the level of permanency offered by the individual text addresses and the top-level links to CDLI itself, and to its online journals. All else—and this includes transliteration content—is subject to eventual renaming, decay, or, as should be clear, is a moving target with content improvements that, given our resources, cannot at present be properly time-stamped for purposes of reliable print citation.
[originally posted by the author to the Agade list on 29 January 2010]
Robert K. Englund: Notes on KIDa
I offer here a few remarks to the article "More on the Archaic Writing of the Name of Enlil/Nippur" by P. Steinkeller (2010) that appeared in the Festschrift Owen, of which one might rather claim, "more is less, and less is more." The question of the graphic realization of Enlil/Nippur in the period from Late Uruk to Old Babylonian (ca. 3500-1500 BC) is in fact, after extensive research, still quite fascinating, leading the reader along various paths that touch on early Mesopotamian totemic cult symbols; pantheistic syncretisms, often "marriages made in heaven" by court theologians of the Early Dynastic period; complex paleographic tables of the signs E2 and KID; the history of Nippur; and the semantics of NUN and EN. Wang deals comprehensively with many of these issues in his recently published AOAT volume Metamorphosis of Enlil in Early Mesopotamia (2011), and this excellent study should be the basis of subsequent discussion. The following restricts itself to the method of presentation in the Steinkeller article, and on the reliability of his conclusions, with but passing notice given to the record of attestations of the sign combinations representing the Nippur pair Enlil and Ninlil in 3rd millennium texts. The ultimate etymology of "Enlil" is left aside, although it will be obvious from the data presented that the Semitic origin *il-ilī ("god-of-gods"), long believed by Gelb, then popularized by Steinkeller (1999: 114, n. 36) and others (for instance, Michalowski 1998; wisely rejected by Jacobsen 1989), merely perpetuates an ancient folk eymology.
P. 239. "The logograms such as UNUG.UTU = Larsa, UNUG.INANA = Zabalam, UNUG×HA = Nina/Nimin, and kulUNUG = Kulab demonstrate the primacy of Uruk as a political and cultural center during the Uruk period." UNUG is merely one of a string of complex signs and sign combinations based on the sign AB. Thus AB.MUŠ3/INANNA = ZABALA(~a; of the 38 Late Uruk attestations, a singular instance [W 15771,w] is said to be written with the UNUG sign, but it derives from the reading of a poor photo of an inaccessible and heavily damaged fragment in the Iraq Museum); AB×KU6 = NANŠE/NINA (12 Late Uruk attestations, one ED I-II, exclusively with AB); UD.AB = ARARMA2/LARSA (12 Late Uruk attestations, three ED I-II, exclusively with AB). The source of the author's "kulUNUG = Kullab" seems to be two instances of SI NUMUN UNUG in UET 2, 274 and 279, and thus not from the Uruk period, but also with no likelihood that NUMUN would signify anything other than "seed." The author does not mention the combination URI3.AB = URI5 that, while attested only four times in the proto-cuneiform records, does lead both the lexical Archaic Cities List as well as the Jemdet Nasr Cities Seal that themselves also demonstrate only the presumed "household" referent AB in toponyms, but that offer the interesting graphic indication that the striations incised within the base of the AB sign to form UNUG might indicate the terraces of a stepped tower, or rather the niches of the Anu Ziggurat (cp. Mattthews 1993: 37-38). UNUG is, incidentally, in fourth position in the Cities List and the JN Cities Seal (disregarding Steinkeller 2002: 254-255) and therefore not likely, in the conceptual world of the ancients, to offer a good justification for an Uruk primacy exposed by proto-cuneiform orthography—if anything, one would have to argue that the replacement of AB with UNUG, inconsistently in the ED I-II period (for instance, Ur City Sealings nos. 4 and 9-11 in Matthews 1993: 61-62 and figs. 12-13) and more systematically in the ED IIIa period, signalled a shift of cultural focus to Uruk only after the close of the Late Uruk period ca. 3000 BC. The matter of EN KIDa//NUNa found in the second (list) and third (seal) entries, respectively, and apparently representing Nibru, did not seem pertinent to the author in this connection (discussed in Matthews 1993: 34; but cp. Wang's argument [2011: 43-46] that the seal entry is to be read ENx+KIDx!?.NUNx?). Quite aside from any UD.GAL.NUN or rebus speculation, however, the pair is of some syntactical relevance, given the correspondences between Late Uruk Cities List l. 38 (ATU 3, pp. 35 and 147) and ED IIIa Cities witness OIP 99, 21, obv. iii 4 with E2?.NUN and KID.NUN, respectively (of the archaic witnesses, ATU 3, pl. 77 W 23998,1 appears to have E2 NUNa+E2, while the other three are damaged, making the reading of the component "E2" uncertain), on the one hand, and ED IIIa witness SF 23 obv. iii 1 with NIN.KID = NINLIL on the other, suggesting that the local cults of "EN.KIDa" and "E2 (or KIDa).NUNa" (Wang's comments [2011: 88] on ED IIIa NIN // NUN are unclear to me) were conjoined in the span between Late Uruk and ED IIIa times to form the union EN.E2 and NIN.KID in Nippur (EN.E2ki). In the full archaic corpus, there are more than 100 instances of "EN NUNa" and "EN+NUNa" recorded, many reaching back to the Uruk IV period (cf. expecially the references in ATU 5; EN+NUNa has, based on its appearance in the list entries Lu2 A l. 92 and Officials l. 14, usually been considered a professional designation), and 25 of "E2 NUNa" (plus 14 in the ED I-II period). We should remember that NUNa (NUNb, with a single long horizontal stroke, is a glyph derived from the buckling [young male goat] sign MAŠ), as one of a series of signs representing early cult totems (Englund 1998: 102), is usually considered the standard of the Enki cult of Eridu to the far south, and therefore of Eridu itself—and that the classical Sumerian pantheon as it emerged in the ED IIIa god lists is nowhere to be found in proto-cuneiform texts, so that discussions of archaic cults remain highly speculative, but should also not leave the ground of the textual evidence.
p. 240. "Englund then chose to analyze the sign in question [namely, KIDa of ENLIL] as a variant of KID ...". It remains a source of some frustration for those of us who have contributed to the Hans J. Nissen-led Uruk project that the basic precept of consistency in readings vs. preference in readings will not set in the minds of some casual users of our data. The proto-cuneiform sign list ATU 2 is most assuredly not "Green and Englund" as Steinkeller cites the volume in fnn. 7 and 9, but was created and published by Margaret W. Green and Nissen; it offers a variety of signs that the authors determined should be gathered under specific designations (and note that the lexical lists volume ATU 3 is authored by Englund and Nissen, whereby major contributions to that volume were made by Green and Nissen well before I became a project staff member in Berlin). As I and others have stated, in the course of transferring the proto-cuneiform transliterations to electronic form, we had to make decisions about a number of these graphic variants that were at odds with the leveling intent of ATU 2. One of many such instances is the case of KID that, in the Green/Nissen scheme, contained at least four relatively distinct graphic forms consisting of a rectangle with varying iterations and orientations of strokes incised within. Semantically neutral graphic variation will of course be greater in the earlier phases of writing systems, but we nevertheless assiduously assigned distinguishing tags to many of the Uruk IV period exemplars that in a more mature stage of decipherment can, where justified, be removed, so that KID signs were initially entered and may be referenced in our online files as KIDa, KIDb (Uruk III forms), KIDc and KIDd (Uruk IV forms; the Uruk III period KIDe was added later; all Late Uruk variants can be accessed via CDLI search). Of these entries, that labeled by us as KIDa was the grapheme which corresponded to the sign I inspected in the Baghdad text ATU 3, pl. 76, W 21126. Whether this KIDa or the graphically similar, but syntactically distinct sign KIDb (a tripartite KID frame but with oblique strokes top to bottom), is the true precursor of KID = reed mat is not clear; the pictographic referent of KIDa may have been something like three wooden slats woven together with reed or rope (see figure 1).
Pp. 240-241. Of the three ED I-II EN.E2 references offered as corroborating evidence for the line of reasoning in this article, no. (1) is a seal rendering that could be E2, could be KIDa—one needs merely move on from this seal to the second in Matthews' convenient compilation of Ur City Sealings (1993: 61 and fig. 12 nos. 1-2) to find the presumably intended rendering of KIDa in the sequence Ur – Larsa - Nippur; no. (2) (now CUSAS 17, 104), based on the much better images available at <http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P251646>, could be E2, could be KIDa; no. (3) may be KIDa, at least according to the hand drawing fig. 3 (the image p. 242 is illegible), but the discussion p. 241 of ED I and II has neither archaeological nor paleographic credibility. Read E2 or KIDa as you will, all three corroborate nothing at all.
Figure 1: 3rd millennium Enlil/Ninlil (click on reference texts for more information)
I offer in figure 1 above my own hypothetical paleography of Enlil (and Ninlil) that derives from evidence available through the CDLI. The Uruk IV forms are little more than idle speculation. In Uruk III, "Enlil"/"Nibru" is written EN.KIDa/NUN, whereby the stone text MSVO 4, 73, offers an excellent parallel to the form of EN ("ENc") found in the JN City Seal (and note the strong resemblance of this sign to the offering of stacked beveled-rim bowls carried by an officiant standing above the bearded ram in the uppermost frieze of the Uruk Vase), and "Ninlil" appears to be written E2.NUN (quotation marks signal conventional pronunciations; incidentally, an image of the tablet MSVO 4, 73 = AO 19936 may be viewed at the commercial site <http://www.lessing-photo.com/> and for those of a mind even purchased in limited license for about $100). Both the ED I-II tablets and the City Sealings excavated at Ur contain some evidence for the continued use of the Late Uruk sign combinations for Enlil and Ninlil, and we might posit that the transfer of the KIDa glyph to a seal surface effected its replacement by the more classical KID form found in the ED IIIa writing of Ninlil. Thus, during the initial phases of the Early Dynastic, the short vertical (using the conventional orientation) strokes impressed in the upper and lower registers of the left half of the sign, and the middle register of the right, are being simplified to full strokes top to bottom left and right, but retaining the bold stroke down the middle. The intrusion of the archaic E2 form in the ED IIIa rending of Enlil cannot be explained on paleographic grounds, unless it was motivated by the syncretism of archaic EN.KID/Enlil and E2.NUN/Ninlil. In this period, the sign E2 represents both e2, "household," and lil2 as a component of Enlil, but not of Ninlil (passim, for instance in the same text in ELTS 106, 122-123; MVN 10, 83; RTC 13; etc.—RIME 3/18.104.22.168, ex. 39c obv. 4 is a good example of an early Ur III royal text with exactly the same sign used for both e2, and for lil2 of Enlil). (It is unclear why KID in the early periods can also represent or qualify a very large number, for which compare the vocabulary ATU 3, pl. 81, W 20335,3 obv. i 3 [Uruk III]; TSŠ 190 obv. i 2 [ED IIIa]; MEE 3, 72 TM.75.G.2200 obv. 3 ["kid'u"!, for which cp. further the practice text OSP 1, 12 obv. ii 3'-4'], MEE 4, 78 TM.75.G.1678 rev. ii 2 (šar2-KID = 10×603?; both late ED IIIb]; and MAD 5, 112 rev. 1 [Old Akkadian surface measure text with fantastically large numbers, including šar2-KID as a bundling step above šar'ugal, representing 216,000 bur3 or ca. 5400 square miles—50 times the recorded arable land of neo-Sumerian Girsu; s. Friberg 2005, §4.7 with literature]). The stone tablet RIME 126.96.36.199 ex. 1 iv 3 appears to document use of den-KID in an Ur-Nanše inscription, but the line art publication of the Louvre text (CIRPL Urn 26 = AO 3177) requires collation, and the common genetive+ergative marker -ke4 (=KID) found after den-lil2 in royal inscriptions may have intruded in the orthography of the name itself. The KID form of lil2 (reading "lilx") in Ninlil is replaced only in the Old Akkadian period (BiMes 3, 31 obv. ii 3 is a potential exception, but requires collation—and may read dnin-e2-šum2, as in SF 1 ii 17), and even the few examples in CDLI files of nin-E2 are uncertain. We note that the Early Dynastic KID sign with reading ke4 or ge2 itself, as genetive+ergative and as an element of the "cult prostitute" kar-ke4 (ke4 replacing ED IIIa ke3/AK in ED IIIb [VS 27, 33 obv. v 14]), held through the Old Akkadian period (but note one Old Akkadian instance of kar-ke3 in MAD 1, 276 rev. 1), and was replaced by the E2 form thereafter. Old Akkadian (for instance, Adab 632 obv. ii 2 [and cf. the less common older form in ASJ 14, 102 no. 6 obv. 4], with an often still prominent final vertical impression within the rectangular form) and Lagash II scribes used a form of E2 (see figure 1, with wedge heads aligned diagonally within the rectangle, eventually dropping the lowest horizontal stroke; this graphic form is common, though not always displayed in published hand copies of 3rd millennium documents—photographic images are currently available, for instance, for RIME 3/184.108.40.206, ex. 2 l. 8, and DCS 21 rev. 4, to cite both a royal and an administrative text) exclusively for e2 "household," in the Ur III period usually for lil2 in Enlil, and seldom for lil2 in Ninlil; Ninlil appears to retain the "new" kid (old e2) form (this is best checked by searching CDLI for image-documented texts with the "dates referenced" entry for Šu-Suen 6, that is, 'Shu-Suen.06,' which in its fuller form is mu dšu-dsuen lugal uri5ki-ma-ke4 na-ru2-a-mah den-lil2 dnin-lil2-ra mu-ne-du3, "year: 'Šu-Suen, king of Ur, erected the Great-Stele for Enlil and Ninlil'," for instance in AAICAB 1/1, pl. 46, 1911-483, and CUSAS 3, 37). Old Babylonian scribes writing the name den-lil2 may have merged the older form of E2 (that is, new KID) for lil2 still used for Ninlil in the Ur III period with that used for Enlil known from Old Akkadian, and Ur III royal inscriptions on stone. A clear and archaizing (Ur III) example of the distinction of the two signs is evident in the stone insciption of the Codex Hammurapi stele, comparing, for instance, i 3 den-lil2 with ii 1 e2 abzu.
Englund, Robert K. | ||
1998 | "Texts from the Late Uruk Period." In P. Attinger and M. Wäfler, eds., Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. OBO 160/1. Freiburg, Switzerland - Göttingen: Academic Press, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 13-233. | |
Friberg, Jöran | ||
2005 | "On the Alleged Counting with Sexagesimal Place Value Numbers in Mathematical Cuneiform Texts from the Third Millennium BC." CDLJ 2005/2. | |
Jacobsen, Thorkild | ||
1989 | "The líl of dEn-líl." In H. Behrens, D. M. Loding & M. Roth, eds., DUMU-É-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, pp. 267-276. | |
Michalowski, Piotr | ||
1998 | "The Unbearable Lightness of Enlil." In J. Prosecky, ed., Intellecutal Life of the Ancient Near East. RAI 43. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute, pp. 237-247. | |
Matthews, Roger J. | ||
1993 | Cities, Seals, and Writing: Archaic Seal Impressions from Jemdet Nasr and Ur. MSVO 2. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. | |
Steinkeller, Piotr | ||
1989 | "On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship." In K. Watanabe, ed., Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, pp. 103-137. | |
2002 | "Archaic City Seals and the Question of Early Babylonian Unity." In T. Abusch, ed., Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, pp. 247-257. | |
2010 | "More on the Archaic Writing of the Name of Enlil/Nippur." In A. Kleinerman and J. Sasson, eds., Why Should Someone Who Knows Something Conceal It? Cuneiform Studies in Honor of David I. Owen on His 70th Birthday. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, pp. 239-243. |
Sara Brumfield: Two Early Dynastic Capacity Standards
This tablet comes from a small, private collection of the Rev. David Alderfer of Downers Grove, Illinois. The remainder of this collection will be published by Lance Allred.
Its shape (76mm x 61mm x 20mm) and the general palaeography of the ŠU, DA and KA signs are consistent with Early Dynastic IIIb and pre-Classical Sargonic forms (Gelb 1977: 6-7; Biggs 1973: 45). Additionally, the use of Sumerian personal names also supports this suggested date range. However, the phrase še zi-ga is more prevalent in the Old Akkadian period, known from Girsu, Umma and Adab, than during the ED III period. Therefore, a date range of ED IIIb – early Old Akkadian seems likely. The provenience is uncertain, but could possibly be Adab based on the rare personal names Ur-Urimaš (see CUSAS 13, 65) and Pirig-nam (Banca d'Italia 1, 154).
This is a ration account recording the disbursement of large quantities of barley to individuals. The most interesting feature of this account are the two distinct standards used to qualify ration measurements.
Alderfer 11 |
transliteration | translation | |
obverse | |||
col. i | |||
1. [n] 3(uc) [...] še gur | n+30 gur of barley | ||
2. ur-duri3-maš | for Ur-Urimaš | ||
3. 2(geš2c) mu-ni-da | 120 (gur of barley) for Munida; | ||
4. 2(geš2c) lugal-ša3 | 120 (gur of barley) for Lugal-ša; | ||
5. 1(geš2c) ur-dinanna? | 60 (gur of barley) for Ur-Inanna; | ||
6. 1(geš2c) 1(ašc) ur-den-lil2 | 61 (gur of barley) for Ur-Enlil; | ||
7. 2(uc) 2(ašc) ur-kal-ga | 22 (gur of barley) for Ur-kalga; | ||
8. 2(uc) ur-dingir | 20 (gur of barley) for Ur-dingir; | ||
9. 4(geš2c) 3(uc) numun GAN2 geš? mu11 | 270 (gur) ... | ||
col. ii | |||
1. lugal-ša3 | for Lugal-ša3 | ||
2. 1(uc) ur-dutu | 10 (gur of barley) for Ur-Utu; | ||
3. sila3 zabar!(KA.BAR)-ta-am3 | each being the bronze standard. | ||
4. 1(uc) ur2-bi-še3 | 10 (gur of barley) for Urbiše; | ||
5. 2(geš2c) 1(uc) 5(ašc) e2-u4 | 135 (gur of barley) for E'u; | ||
6. 1(geš2c) ur-pisan | 60 (gur of barley) for Ur-pisan; | ||
7. 3(uc) ur-dnirah | 30 (gur of barley) for Ur-Nirah; | ||
8. 3(geš2c) 3(uc) su-bappir-a | 210 (gur of barley) for Su-bappira; | ||
9. 2(geš2c) 1(uc) 6(ašc) lugal-[ša3] | 136 (gur of barley) for Lugal-[ša]; | ||
reverse | |||
col. i | |||
1. 4(uc) pirig-nam | 40 (gur of barley) for Pirig-nam; | ||
2. 1(geš2c) 3(uc) bar-us2 | 90 (gur of barley) for Bar-us; | ||
3. 3(uc) 1(ašc) 2(barigc) ur-x-mu | 31 (gur of barley) and 120 sila for Ur-x; | ||
4. 1(ašc) a? ziz2 maš2 | 1 (gur) ... emmer for Maš; | ||
5. 4(uc) la2 3(ašc) ur-dnin-pirig | 37 (gur of barley) for Ur-Nin-pirig; | ||
6. sa2-du11-ta-am3 | each being the sattukkum standard. | ||
col. ii | |||
1. šu-nigin2 2(geš'uc) 5(gesz2c) 2(uc) 6(ašc) 3(barigc) še gur | Total: 1526 gur and 180 silas of barley | ||
2. sila3 zabar-ta | according to the bronze standard; | ||
3. še zi-ga | credited barley | ||
4. 1(ikuc) GAN2 geš mu11-kam-[...] | 1 iku ... |
The first entry is broken, but given the total at the end of the account and the preserved numbers, 33 gur and 60 sila must be reconstructed in the lacunae. With 30 gur already extant in this first line, the addition of another 30 would make an odd notation for 60. The calculations are problematic and I cannot offer a coherent reconstruction of the first entry at present.
The first nine entries, but subsequently the entire account, are described as being measured according to the bronze standard (sila3 zabar). There are only a few contemporary texts that utilize the bronze standard: an ED IIIb text from Adab (CUSAS 11, 42) and an ED IIIb text from Nippur (OSP 1, 64). There are two addition examples in CUSAS 13, 71 and 76. Moreover, there is an unpublished Old Akkadian text of unknown provenience; however, the surface damage to the text does not allow for a clear reading of the account.
OSP 1, 64 records an entry for 3(u) 1(barig) še lid2-ga sila3 zabar-ta ("7,260 true/standard liters of barley measured according to the bronze standard"). The lidga measurement, widely attested during the Fara period, corresponds to a 240-liter gur (Powell 1989: 495-96). An association between the use of the bronze standard and the 240-liter gur is also seen in CUSAS 11, 42. The calculations work perfectly if we assume a 240-liter gur:
obverse | |||
col. i | |||
1. | 1(geš'uc) 5(geš2c) 8(ašc) la2 3(ban2c) ziz2 gur | 907 gur and 210 sila of emmer, | |
2. | gur zabar-ta | from the bronze standard; | |
3. | x x mah | ... | |
4. | 6(geš2c) 3(uc) 1(ašc) 1(barigc) lugal-ša3 nu-banda3 | 391 gur and 60 sila of emmer for Lugal-ša, the nubanda; | |
col. ii | |||
1. | 6(geš2c) 2(uc) la2 2(ašc) giri3-ne2 šuš3 | 378 gur of emmer for Girine, the cattle administrator; | |
2. | 7(geš2c) 4(uc) 8(ašc) 1(barigc) 3(ban2c) ur-pisan | 468 gur and 90 sila of emmer for Ur-pisan; | |
3. | 1(geš'uc) 4(uc) 2(ašc) 3(ban2c) ur-UD-BU | 642 gur and 30 sila of emmer for Ur-UD-BU. | |
reverse | |||
col. i | |||
1. | GAN2-IŠ | Field: IŠ | |
col. ii | |||
1. | šu-nigin2 4(geš'uc) 6(geš2c) 2(uc) 7(ašc) 2(barigc) 3(ban2c) sze ziz2 gur | Total: 2787 gur and 150 sila of barley and emmer. | |
2. | giri3-gen-na | It was for the trip | |
3. | lugal-x-kam | of Lugal-x. |
The second standard recorded in Alderfer 11 is the sa2-du11 (Akkadian: sattukku) describing the preceding eleven entries. This standard is known in ED IIIb Girsu for liquid capacity (Powell 1989: 506-7). Clearer correlations in grain metrology come from Old Akkadian Adab, where it is used interchangeably with the gur-mah suggesting a capacity of 240 liters (Zhi 1989: 64-5). However, given the qualification of the bronze standard on the total for the account, it is likely that the sattukku is subsumed under the bronze standard. It is also possible that in this text the notation is not metrological, but rather descriptive.
It appears that in the ED IIIb – Old Akkadian periods at Adab, Nippur and possibly the surrounding areas, the sattukku standard and the bronze standard were based on the 240-liter gur. These standards survive into the Ur III period and become based on the 300-liter gur and demonstrate more distinct spheres of application (e.g. CDLB 2007/2 6).
Based on general observations of the Ur III standards, the sattukku standard appears most frequently with offerings for the temple (e.g. UCP 9-2-1, 53; SAT 2, 1015; BPOA 7, 2212)—as the name implies. Conversely, the bronze standard is closely associated with the royal gur (e.g. ASJ 3, 162 131; BCT 2, 172; CST 649; CST 712; MVN 6, 482). The exact correlation between these standards is still unclear; however, it seems certain that both the bronze and sattukku standards were 240-liter units in the ED IIIb-Old Akkadian period, while in the subsequent Ur III period, they both became based on the 300-liter gur. The precise nature of their transition from one system to the next is not yet understood.
Biggs, Robert | ||
1973 | "On Regional Cuneiform Handwritings in Third Millennium Mesopotamia." OrNS 42, 39-46. | |
Gelb, Ignace J. | ||
1977 | "Thoughts About Ibla: A Preliminary Evaluation, March 1977." Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 1/1, 3-30. | |
Powell, Marvin | ||
1989 | "Masse und Gewichte." RlA 7, 457-530. | |
Visicato, Giuseppe and Aage Westenholz | ||
2010 | Early Dynastic and Early Sargonic Tablets from Adab in the Cornell University Collections. CUSAS 11. CDL Press: Bethesda, MD. | |
Zhi, Yang | ||
1989 | Sargonic Inscriptions from Adab. Changchun: IHAC. |
Robert K. Englund: The State of CDLI's Ur III Transliterations
In October of 2008, Dan Foxvog posted an announcement through the Agade list registering his completion of additions and collations to the then 2051 ED IIIb administrative texts in CDLI files. Through his efforts, the ED IIIb administrative corpus thus became, after that of the Late Uruk period, the second set of reliable transliterations in CDLI's full dataset. Our Ur III transliteration files are on a different order of magnitude, consisting of slightly less than 59,000 entries and 822,000 lines of text in conventional, so-called ASCII transliteration format (ATF; note that Oracc describes transliterations formatted for CDLI archival storage and use as Canonical ATF, or C-ATF [<http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/doc/builder/cdli>]). The transliterated corpus represents 62% of the 95,781 Ur III texts currently catalogued in CDLI. This communication is to announce the reintroduction to the CDLI website of a more standardized full set of Ur III transliterations that has been cleansed of many irregularites, but that remains a work in progress.
A number of factors played into the realization that our Ur III transliterations were in need of greater attention. The major hurdle we needed to overcome to increase the usability of this very large data set was the fact that the transliterations were gathered together from a wide variety of legacy sources, including the initial capture of all electronic transliterations prepared in the 1990's by the Leiden researchers Bram Jagersman and Remco de Maaijer (following a data migration to CDLI, their pioneering site was retired in September of 2003). Conversion of the Leiden data, at the time 270,000 lines of text (incl. text header and format lines), was slow, and in the end incomplete for a number of reasons, in particular due to CDLI's policy that numerical notations must, as closely as feasible, adhere to a strict mirroring of actual cuneiform notations and therefore should not reflect the often non-standardized decimal interpretations of various cuneiform specialists. In many ways, the Leiden files were in this conversion our easiest target, since they had an internal, if still imprecise method of numerical transcription, and, as the creation of a closed and professional set of collaborators, followed limiting rules in the interpretation of signs and words. However, the CDLI continued to gather electronic transliterations of Ur III texts wherever we could locate them, thus bringing in at the same time all forms of idiosyncratic computer work by a variety of Assyriologists, including files submitted for publication with all the horrors of Microsoft formatting. In terms of text structure and font description, such files invariably contain a myriad of greater and lesser irregularities that, if not found and eliminated directly, can hide in dark corners, multiply, and eventually emerge as incompatible characters in text parsing. In the critical case of numerical notations, capacity or surface measurement notations may be interpreted by the conversion program as sexagesimal, or may disappear altogether, misidentified by the processor as text line numbers rather than counts of objects. The standardization of signs and words, on the other hand, is in itself just a matter of some pattern recognition, and a measure of perseverence. Quite a number of the choices made in this process will be challenged by experts, but the eventual correction of a unified, if incorrect reading is substantially less onerous than would be the correction of multiple variants, and the search string via sign names is very much facilitated.
Some of these errors can, in a large data set like that of our Ur III files, be detected using some of the same inline markers that Steve Tinney used in the initial cleansing of legacy transliterations. Where, for instance, the signs sze (sz = š in CDLI ATF) and gur ("barley" and "kor," respectively) were located in one line, the parser would generally assume that the numerical notation preceding these signs was a grain capacity notation and therefore that 12.4;4,3 should be converted to 1(gesz'u) 2(gesz2) 4(asz) 4(barig) 3(ban2), but in many hundreds of instances the conversion program interpreted slightly differing notations, or true grain capacity notations without inline word markers, as sexagesimal, and wrote to our files 1(szar2) 2(gesz'u) 4(gesz2) 4(u) 3(disz).
The next and remaining obstacle in correcting such files rests in the fact that specialists have dispensed with preparation and publication of hand copies of texts in publications, most notably in the Ur III texts that make up the bulk of both unpublished artifacts in established collections, and of texts that since the Kuwait War have left Iraq via the antiquities market. We must have understanding for the decision of colleagues to dispense with the time-consuming hand-copying of Ur III texts, but we are less sympathetic with the too easily reached decision that no image documentation whatsoever was needed to support published transliterations, where these publications exhibited a weak adherence to the principal that the original cuneiform should be directly and correctly reconstructable with nothing more than a set of rules attached to the text transliterations. This publication policy has, admittedly, probably facilitated the appearance of text transcriptions more quickly than would otherwise have been the case, given the very frustrating guidelines often imposed by collections officials, that all imaging should be performed in-house by photography departments and that these images should enter the public domain only under the strictest of conditions; but the experience of CDLI has demonstrated that the initial scanning of tablets can be efficient and inexpensive, and that no book need wait for CD insertions (that are rightly anathema to librarians anyway), since the Web is an ideal medium for such file dissemination—indeed, CDLI is happy to host such images in its pages, and to care for their permanent free access through its University of California and Max Planck Society partners. Without such image documentation, the correction of existing transliterations is hindered; and in all of this, we should restate the charter of CDLI and other web services in cuneiform studies that the primary purpose of images rests in their exploitation to prepare exacting, searchable transliterations—paleographic studies are, really, a distant second.
Some elements in our project history, though, could be exploited to ease the necessary work on CDLI's Ur III files. First and foremost, we have enjoyed what must be considered an unprecedented level of support from national and private funding agencies in the United States and in Europe, and the continuing institutional support of UCLA and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, with which project staff and collaborators have digitized a substantial number of physical cuneiform artifacts in a variety of collections worldwide, as well as a set of published hand copies that, in the case of Ur III documents, is nearing completion. Some few major collection administrators, or the legal officers they consulted, have resisted efforts to access, catalogue, and scan their artifacts, in particular defending caches of tablets still unpublished after many decades, in some cases more than a century of museum storage (we cannot address the shielding from public view of such cultural heritage artifacts as unique witnesses of Babylonian history, now often reduced to Old Babylonian administrative archives, without asking, who is harmed by their dissemination to the heirs of those early cultures?), while to date only one Ur III specialist has threatened legal action to, sadly with success, thwart CDLI's posting of his published hand copies, a practice of research data dissemination that CDLI contends falls under the realm of fair use of limited content of publications for non-commercial, academic purposes—and one that, we might add, is simply correct and proper. Second, we have, in the Madrid project site BDTNS (<http://bdtns.filol.csic.es/>) directed by Manuel Molina, a stable and growing source of specifically neo-Sumerian data that acts as an invaluable corrective to lapses or hypercorrections in our files. My own computer work on CDLI files has a BDTNS browser window running in the corner of my screen, brought up regularly to check the Madrid team's collated readings, or simply to learn what our pre-conversion numerical notations were without having to sort back through our old files.
What began, with an announcement in June of 2010 to CDLI collaborators that I would, for purposes of correction, block access to Ur III transliterations in our ATF management system for a period of perhaps half a year, was, after thirteen months of time-devouring work, completed last week with the re-entry of my file by Robert Casties and Dirk Wintergrün of CDLI's Berlin offices. Final cleansing of the updated files was facilitated by the use of Steve Tinney's ATF processor at <http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/util/atfproc.html>, and of Perl scripts written for me by Wenjae Chang, a computer science graduate student at UCLA who is currently programming CDLI's SQL data management software. The scripts written by Ms. Chang will be uploaded shortly to a new interface for transliteration entry that identifies the period of Babylonian history of some set of new texts, and runs their sign readings, and their words through a full grapheme/lexeme glossary of Ur III ATFs in CDLI, challenging new, and therefore probably incorrect or non-standardized, transliteration. In this, there will be some few inconsistencies with the grapheme/lexeme lists employed in the Oracc toolkit that will need to be addressed regularly—but I think so few (for instance, the seven introduced readings noted below) as to raise no serious alarms. While this update represents a major standardization and improvement of CDLI's Ur III files, still the process of converting the many irregular legacy files to ATF did create quite a lot of corruption, and we call again on collaborators to offer their time to collate individual transliterations using available images on CDLI pages, or, where these are not available, cross-checking CDLI files against those in BDTNS or in original publications.
I offer below some remarks that are directed more to CDLI ATF contributors, but that might be of interest to other Ur III specialists and to cuneiformists generally who use CDLI datasets in their research. Comments, criticisms and/or corrections are of course welcome. Specialists will recognize our close adherence to the readings of Borger/Ellermeier's SG and ABZ, and of Borger's MZL, with some very few additions. The principal behind these, and generally the readings of German Assyriololgy, is that our transliterations should, so far as possible, reflect the best estimate of how Sumerian would have sounded at the time of the recovered text artifacts; thus short values are preferred where they are indicated in Proto-Ea and in 3rd millennium orthography (primarily phonetic glosses, allography, and Auslaut continuation), and we avoid recently proposed new sign readings where they, no less than long values, would not inform specialists, and would confuse more general users (to cite one of innumerable instances, a recent volume of ZA carried the Sumerian value bešeŋ, that in Google search brings up [5 August 2011] only this ZA reference [vol. 101, p. 5 n. 13] and one other page written in Chinese, and that draws a blank in ePSD search, itself a confusion of "b/pisaĝ1-3" 's eventually leading to the common value pisan of the sign GA2 best known in the header "pisan dub-ba" of tablet baskets; Ur III specialists will follow, and ultimately reject, the lexical reasoning in bešeŋ and many other uncommon readings, while, through its use instead of common pisan, specialists from related fields, academic generalists, and the informal learners who finance such exotic research are unnecessarily excluded from participation in Assyriological discussions). Nasal-g, further, has not been introduced to our files, and, at least in the case of Sumerian 1st singular possessive, should be (other nasal-g readings are given by the common and unique readings [gar, ga2, kin, nigar, etc.] and by published lists in circulation, and can be globally corrected in the future); yet even here the variant characters chosen by authors and editors to represent this phoneme make its citation in publications, and certainly in a data repository like that of CDLI or BDTNS, undesirable.
CDLI's current Ur III transliterations may be accessed in full (with the exception of some few files not freed for distrubution) at our download page (<http://cdli.ucla.edu/downloads.html>) together with copies of the grapheme and lexeme lists deriving from those transliterations. The current work concerned itself above all with the standardization of graphemic and less so with that of lexemic readings—it is, for instance, often a challenge to decide whether zi3 sig15 should be considered one (as in BDTNS) or two words (in our files), in CDLI practice signaled by the use of hyphens and other boundary characters; cf. Tinney's primer at <http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/doc/builder/cdli>.
The corrections of the current update have, as stated, been dependent either on hand copies and images of originals, or, lacking these aids, on the "rule of an imposing majority," when this appeared prudent. Where, for example, SAT, BPOA, UTI or Nisaba appeared to be in singular conflict with sign readings found in other texts with images, they were corrected to show the more likely readings, usually with a question mark added, or, where the evidence was not entirely clear from other texts, they were left as is, again with a question mark. For instance:
- in the case of the 11 recorded cases of mu us2-sa2 (instead of expected mu us2-sa), 10 derive from the transliteration publications of Yale texts by M. Sigrist in the series SAT, and one is in the text ZA 53, 61 6—without exception published without image documentation; one text—SAT 2, 594—includes a comment correcting written sa2 to sa. BDTNS corrected the SAT readings to us2-sa without notice;
- there were 19 instances of the PN "ugu-dul" in file, most from publications without image documentation; those that had images were in all cases "ugu2-dul" in accordance with 30 instances of ugu2-du6 in CDLI Ur III (often as the father of Šeškalla). These were usually correct A.KA.DUL in BDTNS;
- "lah4" is another example of readings retained where there is no likelihood that the sign [DU over DU] was used, resulting from careless transliteration of texts with no image documentation—images in all cases confirmed the reading lah5 [DU followed by DU]; thus, undocumented lah4 are now "lah5?"; there is only one clear example of lah4 in our files, in the unedited Michigan text KM 89348 obv. 3 (PN ma2-lah4-e), but the boatman Ur-Damu is in the other attestation of his name with ma2-DU.DU written ma2-lah5 (ASJ 19, 226 72 obv. iii 6');
- "dli-si4" (li instead of NE = li9) was found in published copies of three Nippur texts;
- a final example is ad6 (LU2×BAD) vs. ad7 (LU2šesig; KWU 82 and 81, resp.), and potential uses of KWU 81 for dim3 ("doll") in the field name sur3-KWU 81 (with a -ma Auslaut continuation in one case); ad8 is AD7(LU2šesig)×BAD (see below).
CDLI ATF notations for "sub-totals" up to "grand totals" now comprise:
|SZU+LAGAB| → |SZU+NIGIN| → nigin2-ba → nigin-ba
(a good example is Amorites 18 rev. iii 22 - v 13).
The sign LAGAB interpreted as nigin2 in the context of bundles of wood and reed removes kilib as a value of LAGAB from CDLI's Ur III sign readings list. LAGAB has been left as lagab in cases of na4, "stone," but we might wonder what formulations like n(umber) "nigin2" {gesz}ma-nu mean. It seems that nigin2-ba-bi can represent the total of 2 nigin-ba's, for which see SAT 2, 163 end—no image is available—and note M. Civil, Fs Sigrist 36 rev. iii:
23. gu-nigin2-ba 1(u) 3(disz) sa-ta
25. gu-nigin2-ba 1(u) 2(disz) sa-ta
26. gu-nigin2-ba-bi 2(gesz2) 5(u) 5(disz) (= 5 × 25, but this seems to be just counting the numbers of bundles)
as well as UET 3, 1058 rev. 4.
This complex, still unresolved (as is the reading of ŠU+LAGAB vs. ŠU+NIGIN[=ŠU+LAGAB+LAGAB], both true ligatures [complex signs made up of two or more graphemes that, in cuneiform, share at least one wedge] in the Ur III text corpus and therefore not to be transliterated šu-nigin2/nigin), is to be noted to Heimpel 2003.
Note to chronological notations: CDLI ATF isolates month and year names on one line; thus, where a tablet might indicate full year names over several tablet line cases, CDLI merges them to one; where, as is often the case with spacious left edge notations or with one-sign month names such as diri or RI (CDLI "dal"), month names and year names are formally in one line, CDLI adds a line number to isolate both, preceded by comment line "# text moved to next line"; to disambiguate long lines that might include content formally part of numerical notations together with month and year names, one formal case line might be cut into three or four.
CDLI ATF introduces the readings saga (for the sign SIG5), nigar (for NIGIN3, clear since Krecher 1966: 128-129), udru (for AŠ2), ad7-8, nag4 and šakkan. Only saga and nigar are otherwise not found in the standard sign lists.
- the reasons for the reading saga of SIG5 (instead of sag10, and this should not conflict with Borger's saga from SAG since that is a nasal-g Auslaut) are: the already often noted numerous instances of seal legend sa6-ga corresponding to SIG5 in personal names of recipients found in records (most recently Wilcke 2010: 12 n. 28, and confer Waetzoldt 2010); SAT 1, 434, obv. i 22 with dutu-SIG5sa6-ga; there is no instance in availalbe files of a /g/ continuation of SIG5; its reading /seg/ or /sag/ is indicated beginning only in the OB period (PrEa 411 SIG5 = sa3-ag (vars. sa6-ga, sa3-a; MSL 3, 38 351-352 has SIG5 = se-eg)
- udru is a new entry based on the various readings of AŠ2 in the month usually read ZIZ2-A but corrected by Cohen (1993: 118-119) to ud2-duru5 (add to his remarks the instance of u3AŠ2 in AUCT 2, 28 obv. 5)—and following the udra series and likely amissible-u d(u)ru value of a in haydru and so on (we wait yet a moment before correcting iti GAN2-maš to Cohen's iti burux(GAN2)-maš(2) [Cohen 1993: 43-44])
- Carcasses in current Ur III ATFs: ad3 is LU×BAD
- nag4 avoids an abundance (and exclusive use) of readings naga4ga2 in munu4/mun/ŠIM nag4-ga2-de3 / al-nag4-ga2; I find no instance in 40 relevant attestations that would indicate an intended 3rd millennium reading naga4 of KUM (despite PrEa 607);
- šakkan for ŠAGAN (szakkan and SZAGAN in ATF) derives from an attempt to make sense of Borger's splitting of kk and k values in the šakan series in MZL, whereby for GIR3 he allows both
- (NB: qur8 might be helpful to distinguish its use in qur8-ad and zi-qur8 from that in ma-gur8)
ad6 is LU2×BAD
ad7 is LU2šesig
ad8 is (LU2×BAD)šesig
Note the reading du (meaning "geläufig" or the like) of DU instead of gin or gen as a qualifier of animals or commodities, indicated by the unlikelihood of a nasal-g Anlaut of /gi(n)/ "firm," which seems to be the thinking of most who use it; by the lack of a consonantal Auslaut indication in the texts; and see ITT 3, 5235 obv. 5 with SZIM du2 (though note possible reference to du8 as in CT 10, pl. 48, BM 19067 obv. 9 (3(gesz2) 3(u) la2 3(disz) SZIM du8 in sequence saga, du, du8, also used with ninda); parallel to now saga instead of sig5/sag10.
To uruda/zabar: where uruda stands before sexagesimally counted objects, often followed by ki-la2-bi, transliterate as a semantic gloss {uruda}x except in cases of uruda {d}nn, uruda e2 nn; if weighed, then just uruda; where zabar stands after an object it qualifies, transliterate simple zabar; where zabar is before the object, consider as uruda to be a semantic gloss ({zabar}).
The sign dub = kišib3 is written with two verticals at beginning, and the reading dub is now reserved for dub gid2-da and dub didli, then dub = šapākum.
The sign mes (= kišib) is written with one, used in ur-mes, mes-lam-ta, gilgames3, etc.
The sign um is usually written with no initial vertical (see Allred [forthcoming]).
The complicated /kudr/, to enter, will be dealt with systematically by Dahl (forthcoming). In short,
lil = "fool" (lil2/kid/e22 = "wind")
ku4 = "to (cause to) enter"
tu/du2 = "to give birth"
(watch for potential instances of ŠE+LIL, such as Old Akkadian RTC 142 rev. ii 1)
Ur III
ku4 = "ku4?" in ATF, uncertain since the sign occurs in 700+ instances in texts with no image documentation
kux(KWU636) (=ŠE.ŠU)
kux(KWU147) (=LIL)
kux(TU) (all copies need collation; if correct, this may be ku4)
du2(d) = TU
Old Babylonian
ku4 = TU
ku4 = ŠE+TUG2 in some 6N-T texts
The reading of "e2-a" is in many Ur III accounts not sufficiently justified, and thus now read E2-A in CDLI, including esir2 E2-A, where A might be duru5 for "fluid" as opposed to had2 "dry," weighed out where esir2 E2-A is in capacity notations; e2-a might otherwise often refer to "affiliated workgang," "village," usually e2-duru5.
CDLI ATF uses DIB = dab, not dib, and retains for now nin in nin-dingir, etc.
CDLI follows in its transliteration of MS 2064 the section numbers of the Ur-Namma code adopted by Civil 2011: 237-246.
dusu2-munus etc. is now used (instead of dusu2 munus) because of parallels to u8 udu-nita2 etc.; nita/nita2 are generally left as in their originating file—they do alternate with no apparent semantic nuance.
There are four instances of "sag nig2-gar-ra" (instead of expected sag nig2-gur11(GA)-ra) in CDLI files, none with image documentation.
We note that the very confused matter of dug dida versus kasz dida in ATFs is not resolved in this update—this includes both the use of diš (vertical stroke) and aš (horizontal) and the readings of dug or kaš. The ca. 3200 instances of dida (U2-SA) include very nearly 1500 each of the qualifier following dug or kasz, respectively; the labor involved in resolving this matter seemed too great to me, given also that a great number of the notations cannot be clarified in the absence of image documentation, and the presence of less than careful transliterations of DIŠ as opposed to AŠ in publications.
Again, many decimal notations such as MVN 9, 140 rev. 9. sze-bi 134 sila3 appear to be defective, but cannot with final certainty be corrected (to 2(barig) 1(ban2) 4(disz) sila3) in the absence of image documentation.
CDLI's UET 9 transliterations are incomplete, as are many ITT 2 entries.
A final note to ATF text structure:
To eliminate inconsistencies such as "some number missing," "a few lines missing," "around 4 or 5 lines missing," and so on that, as free text, plagued earlier transliterations, Ur III ATFs follow now simplified rules for describing preservation of damaged artifacts. Thus, if it is clear how many lines are missing, reconstruct them with 1. [...], 2. [...] etc. If not, use only "$ beginning broken" or "$ rest broken" at the beginning and end of surface or column. Within surface or column, either reconstruct broken lines (for instance, 12. [...], 13. [...], etc.) or if the number of missing lines is unclear, use "$ n lines broken" (use "n") and number the following lines accordingly, though after break not restarting with 1'., 1''., etc., but successively with the number that follows the last preserved line number. This should reduce break variables to a manageable number and should give strict rules in assigning numbering and level of preservation to (partially) preserved lines, but even if still found to be flawed it results in consistent IDs that can be systematically corrected.
@bottom is allowed only where used for subtotals (for instance, in LoC 11); ATF definition must clarify use of further qualification added to @bottom to avoid confusion of same-surface duplication.
Some imagined examples follow.
A single-column tablet:
&P500000 = JCS 89, 222 no. 12
#atf: lang sux
$ beginning broken
1'. [...] 2(disz) [x]
2'. [...] SIG7-a giri3 [...] nu2-a
$ n lines broken
$ blank space
$ n lines broken
3'. [...] ga6 [...] dumu-gi7-lil#-[la-am3]
$ rest broken
$ broken
means: the beginning of a one-column obverse is broken, and an unclear number of lines are missing. Lines are numbered successively 1'. ff., including over breaks of an unclear number of lines. In the example above, the reverse is completely missing.
A multi-column tablet, first column preserved:
&P500001 = JCS 89, 222 no. 13
#atf: lang sux
@column 1
$ beginning broken
1'. [... ki] sumun
2'. 5(bur3) nu-banda3
@column 2
$ beginning broken
1'. [...]
2'. [...] dub-sar
3'. 1(asz) dub-sar
@column 1
1. a-sza3# u3-x-ku-tum
2. 2(barig) ugula
$ rest broken
@column 2
1. [... ki] sumun
$ rest broken
A multi-column fragment, left column(s) missing:
&P500002 = JCS 89, 222 no. 14
#atf: lang sux
$ beginning broken
@column 1'
means: some unclear number of columns are broken, followed by @column 1' etc.
If the tablet is reconstructable, do so:
&P500003 = JCS 89, 222 no. 14
#atf: lang sux
@column 1
$ broken
@column 2
$ broken
@column 3
$ beginning broken
1'. [... ki] sumun
2'. 5(bur3) nu-banda3
@column 4
$ beginning broken
1'. [...] dub-sar
2'. 1(asz) dub-sar
$ rest broken
@column 5
$ broken
@column 6
$ broken
@column 1
$ broken
@column 2
$ broken
@column 3
1. a-sza3# u3-x-ku-tum
2. 2(barig) ugula
$ rest broken
@column 4
1. [... ki] sumun
$ rest broken
Allred, Lance | ||
forthcoming | Review of M. Sigrist and T. Ozaki, Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts from the Yale Babylonian Collection I-II. BPOA 6-7 (2009) | |
Civil, Miguel | ||
2011 | "The Law Code of Ur-Namma." In A. George, ed., Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 17. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, pp. 221-286 | |
Cohen, Marc | ||
1993 | The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press | |
Dahl, Jacob | ||
forthcoming | "A Paleographic Study of Sumerian ku(dr), 'to enter'." | |
Heimpel, Wolfgang | ||
2003 | "gu-nigin2, "bale"." CDLN 2003:003 | |
Krecher, Joachim | ||
1966 | Sumerische Kultlyrik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz | |
Waetzoldt, Hartmut | ||
2010 | "Die Bedeutung von igi–saĝ/saĝ5/sag9/sag10." In A. Kleinerman and J. M. Sasson, eds., Why Should Someone Who Knows Something Conceal It? Cuneiform Studies in Honor of David I. Owen on His 70th Birthday. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, pp. 245-255 | |
Wilcke, Claus | ||
2010 | "Sumerian: What We Know and What We Want to Know." RAI 53, 5-76 |
Robert K. Englund: A Note on one of Kazuya Maekawa's Ur III Contributions
Working through CDLI ATFs recently, I noticed that the project had only a partial transliteration, and an incorrect copy online of ASJ 9, 251 28, a neo-Sumerian feed-and-seed account from Girsu published by D. Snell (1987) and partially edited by T. Gomi (1997: 36), so I decided to take a moment to correct them. One thing led to another in this text, in particular to the strange and very exacting calculations of "5/6 fodder," where we are more accustomed to the conventional fraction of 1/2 employed in Ur III agricultural texts (the common seeding rate of 300 sila3 per bur3 supplemented by 150 sila3 of plough-oxen fodder, etc.). While 5/6 fodder appears attested thus far only in this and one other text (ASJ 11, 142 BM 106112), and while the precision of the grain calculations both for furrows based on the "one seed-grain per two fingers" rule (=30 sila3 per furrow and bur3) and for their corresponding oxen fodder reaches down to the level of 1/360 of a sila3 (for which see my notes and translation here), the really interesting passage in the two, in bold below, is the clear example of ugu2 ba-a-gar ... zi-ga being posted to sag nig2-gur11-ra, as has been demonstrated by Maekawa (1988: 53-54 [and see Englund 1990: 72 n. 242]; in the present examples, sag nig2-gur11-ra is implicit following the grain totals in obv. ll. 6 and 16-18, respectively), but in accounting transactions so complex as to defy convincing comparison. In beautifully simple terms, the first of our present accounts, dealing with the office of the oxen manager Ur-mes, records within its credits (ša3-bi-ta ... zi-ga) section a sum of "1 gur 4 barig 1 ban2 barley, set to the debit section of of Ipa'e('s account)" (rev. 5); this sum of barley is then recorded in the debits (sag nig2-gur11-ra) section of the second account, dealing with the affairs of this same Ipa'e: "1 gur 4 barig 1 ban2 from Urmes" (obv. 12). We may thus with confidence date the second text to the same year as the first, that is, to Šu-Suen 4. By stating that this forcefully logical instance of Ur III credits-and-debits organization was also recognized, and correctly analyzed by Maekawa in his treatment of BM 106112 (Maekawa 1989: 143), I note again how fundamental that scholar's contributions to 3rd millennium Babylonian history have been; it does, however, require our close attention to appreciate them in his many table-laden publications of British Museum texts.
obv. | 1. | 5(u) 3(barig) 3(ban2) 4(diš) [sila3 še gur] | 50 [gur] 3(barig) 3(ban2) 4 [sila3 barley]. |
2. | 3(aš) 1(barig) 3(ban2) gur ša3-gal [amar] | 3 gur 1 barig 3 ban2, fodder [of the calves], | |
3. | ki ka-guru7-⸢ta⸣ | from the grain depot manager; | |
4. | 4(barig) 1(ban2) duh du še-bi [5(ban2)] | 4 barig 1 ban2 regular bran, its barley: [5 ban2] | |
5. | ki uš-⸢mu⸣-[ta] | from Ušmu; | |
1 line blank | |||
6. | |ŠU+LAGAB| 5(u) 4(aš) 5(ban2) ⸢4(diš)⸣ [sila3 gur] | together: 54 [gur] 5 ban2 4 [sila3]. | |
7. | ša3-⸢bi⸣-[ta] | Therefrom: | |
8. | 1(bur3) 2(eše3) 1(iku) GAN2 1(u) ⸢2(diš)⸣-[ta] | 1 bur3 2 eše3 1 iku surface at 12 (furrows per running ninda) [each], | |
9. | 1(bur3) 4(iku) GAN2 1(u) ⸢1(diš)⸣-[ta] | 1 bur3 4 iku surface at 11 [each], | |
10. | 1(bur'u) 3(bur3) 2(eše3) 4(iku) 1/2(iku) 1/4(iku) GAN2 1(u)-⸢ta⸣ | 13 bur3 2 eše3 4 3/4 iku surface at 10 [each], | |
11. | 3(bur3) GAN2 1(u) la2 ⸢1(aš@45)-ta⸣ | 3 bur3 3 iku surface at 9 [each], | |
12. | še-numun-bi ⸢2(u) 3(ban2) 2(diš) 1/2(diš)⸣ sila3 gur | its barley seed: 20 gur 3 ban2 [2] 1/2 sila3, | |
calculation: ((1 13/18) × 12 × 30) + ((1 4/18) × 11 × 30) + ((13 16.75/18) × 10 × 30) + ((3 × 9) × 30) = 6012.5 = 20;0,1,2 1/2 [text has 20;0,3,2 1/2 = 6032.5s] | |||
13. | mur-gu4 5/6(diš)-bi 1(u) 6(aš) 3(barig) ⸢4(ban2)⸣ 7(diš) sila2 5(diš) gin2 [gur?] | its fodder at 5/6 (that of seed grain): 16 [gur?] 3 barig 4 ban2 7 sila3 5 shekels, | |
calculation: 6032.5s × 5/6 = 5027.083s = 16;3,4,7 5/60 (exact) | |||
14. | gu4-e uru4-a | (seed-)plowed by oxen; | |
15. | 4(iku) GAN2 1(u) 2(diš)-ta | 4 iku field at 12 (furrows per running ninda) each, | |
16. | še-numun-bi 1(barig) 2(ban2) | its barley seed: 1 barig 2 ban2, | |
calculation: 4/18 × 12 × 30 = 80 (exact) | |||
17. | gešgaba-tab-e uru4-a | (seed-)plowed by gabatab; | |
18. | a-ša3 da-ummaki | field of Da-Umma. | |
reverse | |||
1. | 5(bur3) 1(eše3) ⸢4(iku) GAN2 1(u) 2(diš)⸣-ta | 5 bur3 1 eše3 4 iku surface at 12 (furrows per running ninda) each, | |
2. | še-numun-bi ⸢6(aš) 3(barig)⸣ 2(ban2) gur | its seed grain: 6 gur 3 barig 2 ban2, | |
3. | mur-gu4 5/6(diš)-bi 5(aš) 2(barig) ⸢4(ban2)⸣ 6(diš) 2/3(diš) sila3 gur | its fodder at 5/6 (that of seed grain): 5 gur 2 barig 4 ban2 6 2/3 sila3 | |
calculation: 2000s × 5/6 = 1666.67 = 5;2,4,6,2/3 (exact) | |||
4. | a-ša3 a-pi4-sal4ki | field of Apisal. | |
5. | 1(aš) 4(barig) 1(ban2) še gur ugu2 i7-pa-e3 ba-a-gar | 1 gur 4 barig 1 ban2 barley, set to the debit section of of Ipa'e('s account). | |
blank space | |||
6. | |ŠU+LAGAB| 5(u) 1(aš) 5(ban2) 6(diš) sila3 1(u) 5(diš) gin2 še gur | Together: 51 gur 5 ban2 6 sila3 15 shekels barley | |
7. | zi-ga-am3 | booked out, | |
8. | la2-ia3 2(aš) 4(barig) 5(ban2) 8(diš) 2/3(diš) sila3 5(gin2) še gur | deficit: 2 gur 4 barig 5 ban2 8 2/3 sila3 5 shekels barley, | |
blank space | |||
9. | nig2-ka9 ak še-numun mur-gu4 | account of seed grain and fodder | |
10. | ur-mes nu-banda3 ⸢gu4⸣ | of Urmes, the oxen manager. | |
11. | a de2-a | Flooded. | |
12. | mu si-ma-[num2ki] ⸢ba⸣-[hul] | Year: "Simanum was destroyed." (ŠS 4) | |
single ruling |
obv. | 1. | 5(u) ⸢2(aš)⸣ 3(barig) 3(ban2) ⸢5(diš)⸣ [sila3 še gur] | 52 [gur] 3 barig 3 ban2 5 [sila3 barley,] |
2. | [3(aš)] ziz2 [gur] | [3 gur] emmer, | |
3. | [1(barig)] ⸢1(ban2)⸣ 2(diš) sila3 [gig] | [1 barig] 1 ban2 2 sila3 [wheat,] | |
4. | ⸢še⸣-numun mur-[gu4] | seed grain and fodder, | |
5. | 1(aš) 2(barig) gur ša3-gal ⸢amar⸣ | 1 gur 2 barig, fodder of the calves, | |
6. | 4(aš) 3(barig) 3(ban2) gur ša3-gal gu4 ⸢HI⸣-[da] | 4 gur 3 barig 3 ban2, fodder of the ...-oxen, | |
7. | ki ka-guru7-⸢ta⸣ | from the grain depot manager; | |
8. | 4(barig) 1(ban2) dug du še-bi 5(ban2) | 4 barig 1 ban2 regular bran, its barley: 5 ban2 | |
9. | ki uš-mu-ta | from Ušmu; | |
10. | 4(barig) 2(diš) 1/2(diš) sila3 še ki lugal-nesag-[e]-⸢ta⸣ | 4 barig 2 1/2 sila3 barley from Lugal-nesage, | |
11. | 2(barig) 3(ban2) ki lugal-e2-mah-e-ta | 2 barig 3 ban2 from Lugal-emahe, | |
12. | 1(aš) 4(barig) 1(ban2) gur ki ur-mes-ta | 1 gur 4 barig 1 ban2 from Urmes, | |
13. | 2(barig) 8(diš) 1/3(diš) sila3 ki ku3-ga-ni-ta | 2 barig 8 1/3 sila3 from Kugani, | |
14. | 2(aš) 4(ban2) 3(diš) sila3 1(u) 1(diš) 2/3(diš) gin2 gur | 2 gur 4 ban2 3 sila3 11 2/3 shekels | |
15. | ki ur-gešgigir dumu a-si-lu-ta | from Ur-gigir, son of Asilu; | |
16. | |ŠU+LAGAB| 1(geš2) 4(aš) 3(barig) 2(ban2) 9(diš) sila3 1(diš) 2/3(diš) gin2 še gur | together: 64 gur 3 barig 2 ban2 9 sila3 1 2/3 shekels barley, | |
17. | |ŠU+LAGAB| 3(aš) ziz2 gur | together: 3 gur emmer. | |
18. | |ŠU+LAGAB| 1(barig) 1(ban2) 2(diš) sila3 gig | together: 1 barig 1 ban2 2 sila3 wheat. | |
19. | ša3-bi-ta | Therefrom: | |
20. | 1(eše3) 2(iku) GAN2 1(u) 2(diš)-ta | 1 eše3 2 iku surface at 12 (furrows per running ninda) each, | |
21. | 1(bur'u) 2(bur3) 2(eše3) 1/2(iku) 1/4(iku) GAN2 1(u)-ta | 12 bur3 2 eše3 3/4 iku surface at 10 each, | |
22. | 2(bur3) 1/2(iku) GAN2 1(u) la2 1/2(diš)-ta | 2 bur3 1/2 iku surface at 9 1/2 each, | |
23. | 9(bur3) 2(iku) GAN2 1(u) la2 1(diš)-ta | 9 bur3 2 iku surface at 9 each, | |
24. | 2(bur3) 3(iku) GAN2 a-ša3 bala-a 1(u)-ta | 2 bur3 3 iku surface, bala field, at 10 each, | |
reverse | |||
1. | še-numun-bi 2(u) 3(aš) 3(barig) 5(ban2) 8(diš) 1/3(diš) 5(diš) gin2 gur | its barley seed: 23 gur 3 barig 5 ban2 8 1/3 (sila3) 5 shekels, | |
2. | ziz2-numun-bi 3(aš) gur | its emmer seed: 3 gur, | |
3. | gig-numun-bi 1(barig) 1(ban2) 2(diš) sila3 | its wheat seed: 1 barig 1 ban2 2 sila3, | |
4. | mur-gu4 5/6(diš)-bi 2(u) 1(aš) 1(barig) 2(ban2) 3(diš) 2/3(diš) sila3 5/6(diš) gin2 gur | its fodder at 5/6 (that of seed grain): 21 gur 1 barig 2 ban2 3 2/3 sila3 5/6 shekel, | |
calculations ll. 1-3: ((8/18) × 12 × 30) + ((12 12.75/18 × 10 × 30) + ((2 0.5/18) × 9.5 × 30) + ((9 2/18 × 9) × 30) + ((2 3/18 × 10) × 30) = 7660.4167s = 25;2.4.25/60 = 23;3.5.8 25/60 + 1/2! × 3;0.0 + 0;1.1.2 (exact, when ziz2 is halved [meaning unclear to me]) calculation l. 4: 7660.4167s × 5/6 = 6383.68s = 21;1.2.3 40.83/60 (exact) | |||
5. | gu4-e uru4-a | (seed-)plowed by oxen; | |
6. | 1(eše3) 2(iku) GAN2 1(u) 2(diš)-ta še-numun-bi 2(barig) 4(ban2) | 4 iku field at 12 (furrows per running ninda) each, its barley seed: 1 barig 2 ban2, | |
calculation: 4/18 × 12 × 30 = 80 (exact) | |||
7. | gešgaba-tab-e uru4-a | (seed-)plowed by gabatab; | |
8. | a-ša3 da-ummaki | field of Da-Umma. | |
9. | 5(bur3) 2(iku) GAN2 1(u) 2(diš)-ta | 5 bur3 2 iku field at 12 (furrows per running ninda) each, | |
10. | 3(bur3) 1(eše3) 3(iku) GAN2 1(u) 1(diš) 1/2(diš)-ta | 3 bur3 1 eše3 3 iku field at 11 1/2 each, | |
11. | še-numun-bi 1(u) 4(ban2) 7(diš) 1/2(diš) sila3 gur | its barley seed: 10 gur 4 ban2 7 1/5 sila3, | |
calculation: 5 2/18 × 12 × 30 + 3 3/19 × 11.5 × 30 = 3047.5 = 10;0.4.7 1/2 (exact) | |||
12. | mur-gu4 5/6(diš)-bi 8(aš) 2(barig) 1(ban2) 9(diš) 1/2(diš) sila3 5(diš) gin2 gur | its fodder at 5/6 (that of seed grain): 8 gur 2 barig 1 ban2 9 1/2 sila3 5 shekels, | |
calculation: 3047.5s × 5/6 = 2539.583s = 8;2.1.9 35/60 (exact) | |||
13. | a-ša3 a-pi4-sal4ki | field of Apisal. | |
14. | 1(aš) 2(barig) gur ša3-gal amar | 1 gur 2 barig fodder of the calves. | |
15. | |ŠU+LAGAB| 1(geš2) 5(aš) 3(barig) 9(diš) sila3 1(u) 5/6(diš) gin2 gur | Together: 65 gur 3 barig 9 sila3 10 5/6 shekels (barley), | |
16. | ⸢|ŠU+LAGAB| 3(aš)⸣ ziz2 gur | together: 3 gur emmer, | |
17. | ⸢|ŠU+LAGAB|⸣ [1(barig) 1(ban2)] ⸢2(diš)⸣ sila3 gig | together: [1 barig 1 ban2] 2 sila3 wheat, | |
18. | [zi]-⸢ga⸣-am3 | booked out, | |
19. | [diri 4(barig) 4(ban2)] ⸢5/6(diš)!⸣ sila3 8(diš) 1/3(diš) gin2 | [surplus: 4 barig 4 ban2] 5/6 sila3 8 1/3 shekels, | |
calculation with emendation: 65;3,0,9 10.83/60 - 64;3,2,9 12/60 = 0.4,4,0 58.83/60 | |||
20. | [nig2-ka9 ak] ⸢še-numun mur-gu4⸣ | [account] of seed grain and fodder | |
21. | [i7-pa]-⸢e3 dumu lugal-ušurx(|LAL2.TUG2|)⸣ | of Ipa'e, son of Lugal-ušur. | |
22. | [a de2-a] | [Flooded.] | |
23. | [mu si-ma-num2ki ba-hul] | [Year: "Simanum was destroyed." (ŠS 4)] |
Englund, Robert K. | ||
1990 | Organization und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei. BBVO 10. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. | |
Gomi, Tohru | ||
1997 | "A Note on Some Kinds of Fodder for Cattle in the Ur III Period." AoF 24, 35-38. | |
Maekawa, Kayuza | ||
1988 | "New Texts on the Collective Labor Service of the erín-people of Ur III Girsu." ASJ 10, 39-94. | |
1989 | "The Agricultural Texts of Ur III Lagash of the British Museum (VI)." ASJ 11, 113-143. | |
Snell, Daniel C. | ||
1987 | "The Ur III Tablets in the Emory University Museum." ASJ 9, 203-275. |
Charles Halton: Weighing Offials at Ur III Umma
During the Ur III period, administrators that weighed garments and metals were naturally very important. The individuals that functioned in this manner are indicated within economic texts with the phrase PN in-la2. Jacob Dahl presents a helpful list of the weighing officials at Umma (2007: 76 n. 279), however, based on a study of the texts within the CDLI database we can add individuals to this list as well as adjust the dates for which these administrators functioned as weighing officials.
Dahl split his list into two parts comprising: 1) officials that weighed garments, and 2) officials that weighed metals. While there is some overlap between these groups, the presentation below will follow Dahl in first listing the officials that weighed garments and then those that weighed metals. Additions and adjustments to Dahl's list are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Garments:Governor, *Š 40 viii (MMFM 2005, 32, 9) to AS 9 vi
Dadaga and Ikala, Š 47 x to Š 48 vi
Dingira, AS 7 viii to *ŠS 2 vii (BPOA 1, 598)
Gududu, ŠS 9 to *IŠ 1 vii (SAT 3, 1943)
*Ikala (alone), Š 46 x (Nisaba 9, 303) to ŠS 2 iii (UTI 3, 2193)
*Ku-Ninura, ŠS 9 ix (Ontario 2, 487)
Lu-kala (alone), *Š 42 xii (AAICAB 1/2 pl. 87, 1935-520) to *ŠS 5 x (BPOA 7, 2864)
*Lu-kala and Ikala, Š 47 vi (BPOA 1, 989) to Š 47 ix (BPOA 1, 468)
Ur-E'e, *AS 2 vii (BPOA 7, 2393) to *ŠS 5 x (UTI 5, 3373) (AS 9 xi)
*Ur-Nungal, ŠS 2 iv (Princeton 1, 308) to ŠS 5 viii (AAICAB 1/2, pl. 83, 1933-0389d)
*Ur-Šara, Š 48 x (BPOA 7, 2122) to AS 1 ix (BPOA 1, 672)
*Archivist (ša3-dub-ba), -- v (SAT 3, 2095)
Governor (ensi2), Š 45 xii to AS 1 v
*Akalla, Š 47 (Princeton 2, 384)
ARAD2(mu), Š 46 vi to AS 1 vii
Dingira, AS 7 v to ŠS 1 vii
Ea-šar, ŠS 7 xii (not vii as listed in Dahl 2007)
*Gududu, IS 3 vi (UTI 5, 3103)
*Lu-banda, Š 44 (BPOA 7, 1667)
*Lugal-Emahe, Š 45 iv (JCS 52, 45 58)
Lu-kala (alone), *AS 7 vi (BPOA 7, 2941) to ŠS 7 i
Lu-kala and Ur-Nungal, AS 5 vi (OrSP 47-49, 339)
Lu-kala and Ur-Šara, *Š 28 iv (BRM 3, 144) to *AS 07 xi (BPOA 7, 2369)
*Ur-E'e, date not preserved (UTI 4, 2767)
*Lu-dLamma, ŠS 7 viii (Nik. 2, 421)
Ur-Nungal, AS 5 vi to *IS 3 xii (CDLN 2011/2 [CMNH 30498-20])
Ur-Šara (alone), *Š 33 ix (MVN 20, 40) to *AS 9 x (SAT 2, 1143)
*Ur-dŠe'e, AS 1 vi (DoCu 222)
*Ur-dNinlil Š 48 v (SAT 624)
The "archivist" in the above list of officials that weighed metals probably refers to Ur-Šara, who had the title ša3-dub-ba, "archivist" (e.g. Princeton 1, 320). However, it may also have referred to Ur-Šara's son Ur-Nungal, who assumed this title in Šu-Suen 5 (UTI 3, 1962).
This list was compiled by examining over 200 texts from Umma within the CDLI database that contain the verb in-la2. In addition to these tablets, a previously unpublished text within the cuneiform collection of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh has extended the date that Ur-Nungal is known to have functioned as a weighing official:
obverse | |||
1. | 1(diš) uruda zi-ir | 1 copper zir-pot, | |
2. | ki-la2-bi 6 1/2(diš) ma-na 8(diš) gin2 | its weight (is) 6 1/2 minas 8 shekels, | |
3. | ki i3-kal-la-ta | from Ikala | |
4. | tug2-ba-a bala-a-še3 | its garments amount for the bala | |
reverse | |||
1. | ku3-dnin-ur4-ra | Ku-Ninura | |
2. | in-la2 | weighed. | |
3. | iti dli9-si4 | Month, "Lisi" (9th month), | |
4. | mu e2-dšara2 ba-du3 | year: "The Šara temple was built" (ŠS 9). |
A complete treatment of this text will appear in Halton Forthcoming as text 60.
Dahl, Jacob | ||
2007 | The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prospographical Analysis of an Elite Family on Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago. Leiden: Netherlands Institute for the Near East | |
Halton, Charles | ||
Forthcoming | "A Study on Tablets in the Collection of the Carnegie Museum." Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College. |
Gábor Zólyomi: Lipit-Eštar and the Moat of Isin: A Reconstructed Cone Inscription
IB 1939, a clay cone, a fragmentary new inscription of Lipit-Eštar, king of Isin, was published by Walter Sommerfeld (1992: 155, 159). The second column of this cone was damaged, and Sommerfeld could only tentatively restore it. With the web publication of another manuscript of this inscription, Kress 164, which comes from a private German collection, it has now become possible to reconstruct the whole inscription. The transliteration given below is the composite text of the two manuscripts:
Lipit-Eštar 11
Col. I (1) dli-pi2-it-eš18-dar (2) sipa sun5-na (3) nibruki (4) engar zi (5) uri5ki-ma (6) muš3 nu-tum2-mu (7) eriduki-ga (8) en me-te (9) unuki-ga (10) lugal i3-si-inki-na (11) lugal ki-en-gi ki-uri
Col. II (1) ša3-ge de6-a (2) dinanna-me-en (3) ḫi-ri-tum (4) i3-si-inki-na (5) iriki nam-lugal-ga2-ka (6) u4 nig2-si-sa2 (7) ki-en-gi ki-uri-a (8) i-ni-in-gar-ra-a (9) mu-ba-al
When I, Lipit-Eštar, the humble shepherd of Nippur, the true farmer of Ur, ceaseless provider of Eridu, the en priest suitable for Uruk, king of Isin, king of Sumer and Akkad, the favorite of Inanna, established justice in Sumer and Akkad, then I dug the moat of Isin, my royal city.
Note that RIME 4 lists nine inscriptions of Lipit-Eštar. Since its publication, two new inscriptions have become known: a cone inscription dedicated to Nanaya (Lipit-Eštar 10), published by G. Pettinato (1998), and our text. According to a preliminary arrangement between the project Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Royal Inscriptions (ETCSRI) and CDLI, the Toronto series RIME forms the cataloguing basis for all early Babylonian royal inscriptions, including text witnesses or even full inscriptions uncovered subsequent to the publication of specific RIME volumes; thus, these two royal compositions are listed in CDLI as RIME 4.01.05.add10 and RIME 4.01.05.add11, respectively.
Pettinato, Giovanni | ||
1998 | "Lipit-Eshtar a la dea Nanaja." In M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, eds., Dubsar anta-men: Studien zu Altorientalistik. Festschrift für Willem H. Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. AOAT 253. München: Ugarit-Verlag, pp. 267-279. | |
Sommerfeld, Walther | ||
1992 | "Die Textfunde der 10. und 11. Kampagnen (1988 und 1989)." In B. Hrouda, ed., Isin - Išān Baḥrīyāt, IV: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1986-1989. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 144-164. |
Jerrold S. Cooper: Blind Workmen, Weaving Women and Prostitutes in Third Millennium Babylonia
W. Heimpel (2009) was right to look for blind workers in Ur III administrative accounts, since king Šu-Suen himself reported that, after a successful campaign (RIME 3/220.127.116.11 iv 15-31):
nam-guruš iriki iriki-˹ba˺ / sa2 ba-ni-in-du11-ga-˹a˺ / igi-˹bi im˺-[ma]-an-du8-du8 / geškiri6 den-˹lil2˺ / dnin-lil2-˹la2˺ / u3 / ˹geš˺kiri6 dingir [gal]-˹gal˺-e-ne-[ka] / ˹giri3˺-še3 im-mi-in-se3 / u3 nam-˹geme2˺ / iriki iriki-[ba] / sa2 ba-ni-in-du11-˹ga˺-[a?] / e2-uš-˹bar˺ / den-lil2 / dnin-lil2-la2 / u3 / e2 dingir gal-gal-e-ne-ka / sag-še3 im-mi-[in]-˹rig7˺
He blinded the working men of the cities he had conquered and put them in service in the gardens of Enlil and Ninlil, and in the gardens of the major gods. He presented the working women of the cities he had conquered as oblates to the textile mills of Enlil and Ninlil, and to the temples of the major gods.
The translation of igi—du8, lit. "to open the eyes," as a euphemism for "to blind," can hardly be doubted, and is supported by OB Lu B iv 48 (MSL 12 183; now DCCLT Lu2-azlag2 B-C Seg. 2, 103) igi-du3-du3 = ša īnāšu nasḫā, "whose eyes are torn out," and the first millennium lexical equations igi-du8-du8 = īnān nasḫātu "torn out eyes" (CAD s.v. nasāhu, pointed out by G. Rubio) and du8 = napālu ša2 IGI, nasāḫu ša2 IGI "to gouge/tear out, of the eye" (CAD s.v. napālu A).
That Šu-Suen had his blinded captives set to work in temple gardens accords well with both Heimpel's evidence for workers designated SIG7-a primarily working in gardens, and, as Heimpel points out, with the ED Girsu workers, primarily working in gardens, designated igi nu-du8. Although this designation unambiguously means "not seeing," many scholars have been reluctant to accept that these workers were actually blind, as Heimpel notes (though see Selz 1995: 51 n. 230: "Vielleicht… geblendete Kriegsgefangene.")
Perhaps supporting Heimpel's suggestion that SIG7-a means "blind" is the sign SIG7 itself, IGI-gunû, that is, the sign for "eye," IGI, barred or canceled.
Whereas Šu-Suen had his male captives blinded, the female captives were not mutilated, but sent off as is to the textile mills, as were, most famously, Zimrilim's female captives several centuries later (LAPO 18, 1166-1167). The latter, however, explicitly ordered that the prettiest women be sent to the royal harem for music lessons, where some, at least, were available sexually to the king (see Ziegler 2007: 37, 168-169). Several years ago, I noted that there were male personnel at Ur III Girsu who were identified not by patronyms, but as sons of prostitutes, alongside others who were listed as sons of female weavers (RlA 11, 16; see now Heimpel 2010). Prostitution and weaving seem to be the only women's professions used to identify male personnel; in the case of prostitutes, it is understandable that the fathers of their children would not be known, and women weavers, especially captives, may also have been sexually vulnerable (as were the captives of Zimrilim), and hence unable to identify the fathers of their children. It is also possible that some of the Ur III prostitutes, about whom we know next to nothing, were captives as well.
Heimpel, Wolfgang | ||
2009 | "Blind Workers in Ur III Texts" KASKAL 6, 43-48. | |
2010 | "Left to Themselves. Waifs in the Time of the Third Dynasty of Ur." In A. Kleinerman and J. Sasson, eds., Why Should Someone Who Knows Something Conceal It? Cuneiform Studies in Honor of David I. Owen on his 70th Birthday. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, pp. 159-166. | |
Selz, Gebhard J. | ||
1995 | Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaates von Lagash. OPKF 13. Philadelphia: University Museum. | |
Ziegler, Nele | ||
2007 | Les Musiciens et la musique d'après les archives de Mari. Florilegium marianum IX. Mémoires de NABU 10. Paris: SEPOA. |
Robert K. Englund: Recently Published Catalogues of Cuneiform Collections
Two recent volumes of cuneiform texts are resulting in headaches for CDLI. CUSAS 16 by Steven Garfinkle, Herbert Sauren and Marc Van De Mieroop comprises an edition of the Columbia University Library collection with its very welcome set of collated transliterations, but the authors unfortunately did not prepare a full text concordance for the publication, in particular of Robert Lau, Old Babylonian Temple Records (=Columbia University Oriental Studies 3; New York 1906, reprinted 1966), even though this historically interesting volume contained often detailed catalogue and transliteration content on the texts, and was the basis for their inclusion in both Manuel Molina's BDTNS and in the CDLI. Based on OTR, ABTR and two smaller publications, CDLI (as BDTNS) has 279 entries for Ur III CUL texts that must be lined up with this new publication prior to the entry of its catalogue to our own. Thus, just looking through the 1906 catalogue, OTR 42 is apparently CUSAS 16, no. 125; OTR 199 appears to be CUSAS 16, no. 121; etc., but, given the time involved in tracing catalogue data through the copies and transliterations offered in CUSAS 16, a singularly unrewarding job in the post-publication stage, it is unlikely that the work will be done. As a consequence, Lau's catalogue and annotation efforts are likely to eventually disappear from our increasingly electronic records. Only the 61 OTR tablets that included hand copies were cross-referenced in the volume, and the 1906 copies were republished together with those of the remainder of the CUL texts left in the US many years ago by the co-author H. Sauren.
It remains, moreover, a mystery what aside from collations noted in transliterations but not noted in the hand copies, the purpose can be in the (re)publication of this large set of dated hand copies, already used by B. Jagersma and R. de Maaijer to produce CUL tablet transliterations freely available through BDTNS, together with their hand copies through CDLI, and the same use of legacy hand copies has happened in a second recent volume, YOS 15. Uncollated copies by A. Goetze in this latter book will compete for specialist attention against those of the same texts that have been produced by leading specialists, for instance in the case of publications by M. Sigrist, or D. I. Owen. Fair enough; this is presumably a sort of posthumous Festschrift, or a clearing of someone's desk, but then after many decades in waiting—publication permission for a number of small collections seems also granted to Yale Press from the beyond—the accurate reporting of the physical whereabouts of the published texts, as well as cross-references of legacy research to more recent publications are the more vital. Beyond contacting collection managers to verify reported holdings, there are many resources now available to do this for those who do not have the inclination, or the files to themselves check for previous publications. In the case of collection verification, we have some cause for concern. To take one example, texts 159, 200 and 205 are reported p. 73, with acknowledgement p. x, to be at Hunter College, NY. However following a time-consuming and ultimately unsuccessful correspondence with Julio L. Hernandez-Delgado, Head, Archives & Special Collections, Hunter College Libraries, then with Stephen Kowalik, Head of Hunter's Judith and Stanley Zabar Art Library, and finally with Professors Green and Koehl of the Department of Classical and Oriental Studies, I have given up the chase after these three tablets that are in clear need of collation and imaging. Who then did the editors of YOS 15 speak to at Hunter about these texts? Or is there another Hunter College in New York State that we are not aware of? Of course this need not be the failing of the editors of disparate cuneiform collections, where particularly in colleges and their various libraries such unusual artifact collections can be difficult to find. But to avoid potential problems in locating a published artifact is precisely why catalogues need to be meticulous—and open to inspection and corrections by experts—and where tablets from legacy work can no longer be found at the time of publication, this fact should be noted, sparing others from wasting their own time in the search. In the case of referencing earlier editions of texts published in the volume, no one has withheld relevant resources from the editors of YOS 15, which would have constituted the only justification I can see for the unprofessional bibliographical work that went in to it, if justification were sought. If a text is reported to be in a Saint Louis collection, then simply search for Saint Louis in one of the online catalogues, and check what you find against texts you propose to publish; these are after all not British Museum numbers of texts. Where hand copies or photos of tablets without further bibliographical data are prepared for publication, it is, similarly, a quick matter for the Assyriologist to simply check some section of the texts' transliterations against those offered online. You need not even be a registered user of BDTNS to search for the combination "ca3-gal cidim-e-ne" (using that site's "c" for "š") in line 2 of YOS 15, 206, where the user will see that this text is entered as D. I. Owen, MVN 15, 107. Collaborators of research efforts to gather and make available primary cuneiform sources for cuneiform studies, for related disciplines and for the global community of informal learners are, unfortunately and unnecessarily, stymied by this lack of publication care, leaving us to do the work of others in cleaning up defective or incomplete catalogues; outsiders like ourselves, however, must work without access to internal resources, for instance the letters and notes of Goetze, that will have been available to those participating in a collective publication.
CUSAS 16's failings will not be repaired in the near future, if ever, but some of those of YOS 15 can be removed, at least for texts from epigraphic periods marked by online collaborations, that is, now nearly all periods of the late 4th and of the 3rd millennium BC, but, with the exception of the Old Assyrian corpus now in CDLI, the Hittite texts in the Hethitologie Portal Mainz and growing data sets in the Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus, relatively little from later periods. We of course cannot include in these resources those internal files held back from public view, but apparently not consulted in this publication by Yale editorial staff. One might wonder why even Yale's own catalogue publication of 21 of the YOS 15 entries in CBCY 2 and 4 was not cross-referenced in the concordances, where in the 1990's Yale curators expended some effort in compiling, with public funding, a full electronic catalogue of their holdings that is being exported and published piecemeal in paper volumes, however with the full electronic catalogue itself jealously guarded from public access among others under the claim that it constitutes Yale University intellectual property. Below is a list of those entries to YOS 15 that were available for research prior to its appearance, including some 60 texts noted by the editors, above all 33 from the former collection of the Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School, Rochester, New York, published in more reliable form by M. Sigrist in 1991, and sold at auction in 2003; with the kind collaboration of M. Molina, I was able to identify, using online tools available to anyone, anywhere, two dozen more texts as having already been published, or distributed through persistent online websites. Where photos and catalogue data of otherwise unpublished texts are freely available online, and, as we at CDLI have tried to make abundantly clear, permanently archived, they should be noted somewhere in text editions that they silently support; such references are set here in brackets. With my own, and the limited current online coverage of 2nd and 1st millennium texts, I cannot speak to the accuracy of their respective catalogue entries in YOS 15.
YOS 15 | Publication history | Collection | Museum no |
1 | Porter, H. and Pinches, Th., PEF Quarterly Statement 32 (1900) 123-124 (photo) and 273 (copy); Pientka, R., Die spätaltbabylonische Zeit (1998) 133-134 (noted in YOS 15 catalogue, not concordance); Lafont, B., AUB catalogue no. 23 (forthcoming, Fs Lenoble) = [http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P387646] (photo) (not noted in YOS 15) | American University of Beirut Archaeological Museum, Beirut, Lebanon (AUB) | AUB 34.57 |
20 | CBCY 2, p. 57, NBC 7348 (the CBCY volumes were not referenced in YOS 15) | Yale Babylonian Collection, New Haven, Connecticut, USA (YBC) | NBC 7348 |
21 | CBCY 2, p. 72, NBC 7850 | YBC | NBC 7850 |
22 | CBCY 2, p. 91, NBC 8696 | YBC | NBC 8696 |
23 | CBCY 4, p. 119, YBC 6509 | YBC | YBC 6509 |
24 | CBCY 4, p. 190, YBC 9959 | YBC | YBC 9959 |
25 | CBCY 2, p. 73, NBC 7858 | YBC | NBC 7858 |
26 | CBCY 2, p. 74, NBC 7885 | YBC | NBC 7885 |
27 | CBCY 4, p. 142, YBC 7567 | YBC | YBC 7567 |
28 | CBCY 4, p. 200, YBC 10436 | YBC | YBC 10436 |
30 | CBCY 4, p. 190, YBC 9957 | YBC | YBC 9957 |
38 | CBCY 2, p. 32, NBC 6290; Charpin, D., MOS Studies 2 (1998) 195 + n. 36 | YBC | NBC 6290 |
39 | CBCY 2, p. 31, NBC 6270 | YBC | NBC 6270 |
40 | CBCY 2, p. 33, NBC 6306 | YBC | NBC 6306 |
41 | CBCY 2, p. 33, NBC 6312 | YBC | NBC 6312 |
42 | CBCY 2, p. 33, NBC 6308 | YBC | NBC 6308 |
43 | CBCY 2, p. 31, NBC 6264 | YBC | NBC 6264 |
44 | CBCY 4, p. 246, YBC 13339 | YBC | YBC 13339 |
45 | CBCY 2, p. 34, NBC 6320 | YBC | NBC 6320 |
47 | CBCY 2, p. 33, NBC 6310 | YBC | NBC 6310 |
48 | CBCY 2, p. 31, NBC 6276 | YBC | NBC 6276 |
49 | CBCY 2, p. 32, NBC 6282 | YBC | NBC 6282 |
52 | [http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P270635] (not noted in YOS 15; the Cornell Library texts are being prepared for publication in CUSAS 15 by A. Gadotti and M. Sigrist) | Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York, USA (RMC-CUL) | RMC 1 |
53 | [http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P270643] (") | RMC-CUL | RMC 9 |
54 | [http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P270736] (") | RMC-CUL | RMC 116 |
55 | [http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P270658] (") | RMC-CUL | RMC 24 |
56 | [http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P270683] (") | RMC-CUL | RMC 52 |
57 | [http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P270674] (") | RMC-CUL | RMC 42 |
58 | [http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P270660] (") | RMC-CUL | RMC 26 |
59 | [http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P270656] (") | RMC-CUL | RMC 22 |
72 | Stol, M. JCS 25 (1973) 228; Charpin, D., JA 270 (1982) 47 n. 47 (noted in YOS 15 catalogue, not concordance) | Allegheny College, Meadville, Pennsylvania, USA (Allegheny) | Allegheny 15 |
73 | Owen, D. I. & Stone, E., MC 3, 27; Westbrook, R., AfO Beih. 23 (1988) 138 (noted in YOS 15 catalogue, not concordance); [http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P270638] | RMC-CUL | RMC 4 |
96 | Richardson, S., OrNS 74 (2005) 42-50 (noted in YOS 15 catalogue, not concordance) | Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, USA | Smith College 272 |
98 | Michalowski, P., Letters no. 108; Lafont, B., AUB catalogue no. 19 (forthcoming, Fs Lenoble) = [http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P200495] (not noted in YOS 15) | AUB | AUB 34.53 |
99 | TCS 1, 132 (noted in YOS 15 catalogue, not concordance); Michalowski, P., Letters no. 166; Chiera, E., CBCT-PUL Ex 1104 (not noted in YOS 15) | Princeton University Library, Princeton, New Jersey, USA | PUL Ex 1104 |
100 | Steinkeller, P., Sale Documents 95 (noted in YOS 15 catalogue, not concordance) | McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, Illinois, USA | McCTS 26 |
101 | Steinkeller, P., Sale Documents 117 (noted in YOS 15 catalogue, not concordance) | Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey, USA (PTS) | PTS 1004 |
102 | Princeton 1, 365 | PTS | PTS 533 |
103 | Rochester 233 | sold; was Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School, Rochester, New York, USA (CRCDS) | was Crozer 87 |
104 | Rochester 131 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 95 |
105 | Allred, L., Cooks and Kitchens 234, 1; id., Fs Sigrist 16, no. 4 (not noted in YOS 15) | private: Garrett, Robert, Baltimore, Maryland, USA | Garrett 1 |
114 | Rochester 159 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 76 |
116 | Rochester 167 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 80 |
120 | Rochester 165 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 75 |
124 | StLouis 156 (not noted in YOS 15) | Kenrick-Glennon Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, USA (Kenrick) | Kenrick 13 |
127 | StLouis 155 (not noted in YOS 15) | Saint Louis City Art Museum, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA (SLCAM) | StLCAM 131:22 |
128 | StLouis 148 (not noted in YOS 15) | SLCAM | StLCAM 132:22 |
131 | Rochester 110 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 78 |
132 | Rochester 106 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 79 |
133 | Rochester 105 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 81 |
134 | Rochester 138 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 84 |
135 | Rochester 123 (not 12!) | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 82 |
137 | Rochester 129 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 89 |
138 | Rochester 124 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 90 |
139 | Rochester 140 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 91 |
141 | Rochester 113 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 92 |
142 | Rochester 119 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 93 |
143 | Rochester 135 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 94 |
144 | Rochester 120 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 96 |
145 | Rochester 118 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 34 |
146 | Rochester 169 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 7 |
147 | Rochester 145 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 32 |
148 | Rochester 121 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 10 |
149 | Rochester 107 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 14 |
150 | Rochester 132 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 17 |
151 | Rochester 117 (missed in concordance p. 78) | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 18 |
152 | Rochester 109 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 15 |
153 | Rochester 146 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 21 |
154 | Rochester 127 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 20 |
155 | Rochester 144 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 23 |
156 | Rochester 115 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 25 |
158 | Goetze, A., JCS 17, 9 etc. ("Miss"[ouri] in subsequent publications mistakenly "Mississippi"); Klein, J., ZA 80 (1970) 38; Owen, D. I., JCS 33 (1979) 260; id., ASJ 15 (1993) 145 36; Michalowski, P., Fs Łyczkowska (2009) 152 (not noted in YOS 15) | Missouri School of Religion ("Bible College of Missouri"; reportedly on loan to the Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of Missouri-Columbia), Jefferson City, Missouri, USA | MSR 1 |
166 | Johnston, M., CUCT 4; Cohen, M., Calendars 98 (not noted in YOS 15) | Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA (CUA) | CUA 4 |
167 | Johnston, M., CUCT 117 (not noted in YOS 15) | CUA | CUA 117 |
169 | Johnston, M., CUCT 115 (not noted in YOS 15) | CUA | CUA 115 |
170 | Rochester 12 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 85 |
176 | MVN 15, 115 (not noted in YOS 15) | Allegheny | Allegheny 10 |
186 | Johnston, M., CUCT b (not noted in YOS 15) | CUA | CUA b |
189 | Johnston, M., CUCT 1 (not noted in YOS 15) | CUA | CUA 1 |
193 | Rochester 136 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 97 |
195 | Rochester 239 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 88 |
200 | SMS 2-3, 15 12 (not noted in YOS 15) | Hunter College, New York, New York, USA ? (not located) | HC 1 ? |
201 | Lafont, B., AUB catalogue no. 40 (forthcoming, Fs Lenoble) = [http://cdli.ucla.edu/P387663] (not noted in YOS 15) | AUB | AUB 34.74 |
206 | MVN 15, 107 (not noted in YOS 15) | Allegheny | Allegheny 5 |
212 | Johnston, M., CUCT a (not noted in YOS 15) | CUA | CUA a |
213 | MVN 15, 248 (not noted in YOS 15) | Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA | Wellesley 57f |
214 | Rochester 166 | sold; was CRCDS | was Crozer 83 |
Lance Allred: More Šu-Suen Seals During the Reign of Amar-Suen
As already noted by Waetzoldt (1970/71), there are several tablets that, while dated to the reign of Amar-Suen, nevertheless bear seal impressions with a dedication to his successor Šu-Suen. The recent publications of BPOA 6 and 7 (Sigrist and Ozaki 2009) add 10 new such tablets to this group. These include (arranged by date):
BPOA 6, 788 (AS 8 xii 12)
BPOA 6, 824 (AS 9 i 2)
BPOA 7, 2818 (AS 9 i 30)
BPOA 6, 786 (AS 9 vii 30)
BPOA 6, 445 (AS 9 x 9)
BPOA 6, 250 (AS 9 xi)
BPOA 7, 1672 (AS 9 xii 16)
Several of these occurrences date to late in Amar-Suen˺s ninth year, after the king˺s death around AS 9 ii 9 (Sallaberger 1999: 167), and may simply be explained as honoring the new king—Šu-Suen—even if, for administrative purposes, the calendar had not yet recognized his ascension to the throne.
Nevertheless, at least five of the texts listed above are dated to before Amar-Suen˺s death. In his discussion of this phenomenon, Waetzoldt (1970/71) posited a co-regency for Amar-Suen and Šu-Suen, but the argument remains unconvincing (Sallaberger 1999: 166). Thus, other possibilities must be explored.
In attempting to answer this question, a comparative approach is useful. In particular, it is noteworthy that there are no attestations of seals dedicated to Amar-Suen before AS 1. Indeed, such seals are not even present during the short time between Šulgi˺s death ca. Š 48 xi 2 (Michalowski 1977b) and AS 1.
The case of Ibbi-Sin, the last king of the dynasty, is somewhat more complicated. Several tablets, e.g. SA 154, NYPL 264, and Nik 2, 190, bear impressions of dedicatory seals to Ibbi-Sin, but are dated to ŠS 9. The former is dated to the 11th month of the year, and thus approximately one month after Šu-Suen˺s death (Sallaberger 1999: 171). It is likely that NYPL 264 and Nik 2, 190, while not dated to the month, were similarly written after Šu-Suen˺s death.
More vexing are texts like SAT 3, 1892, BIN 3, 585, and SET 115. The first is dated to ŠS 9 ix 18, just a few days before our terminus ante quem for Šu-Suen˺s death. The texts BIN 3, 585 and SET 115, however, are unequivocally dated to a time when Šu-Suen was alive; the former to ŠS 9 v and the latter to ŠS 8. If, as in the case of Amar-Suena and Šu-Suen, a co-regency between Šu-Suen and Ibbi-Sin seems unlikely, then some other explanation is necessary. Was the end of Šu-Suen˺s reign plagued by internal strife as has been tentatively posited for the case of Amar-Suen (Michalowski 1977a)? Or can this phenomenon be explained via some mundane administrative practice that has yet to be discerned?
Michalowski, Piotr | ||
1977a | "Amar-Su˹ena and the Historical Tradition." In M. Ellis, ed., Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein. Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books, pp. 155-157. | |
1977b | "The Death of Shulgi." OrNS 46, 220-225. | |
Sallaberger, Walther | ||
1999 | "Ur III-Zeit." In P. Attinger and M. Wäfler, eds., Mesopotamien. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/3. Freiburg, Switzerland - Göttingen: Academic Press, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 121-390. | |
Sigrist, Marcel, and Ozaki, Tohru | ||
2009 | Neo-Sumerian Administrative Tablets from the Yale Babylonian Collection, Parts 1 and 2. BPOA 6 and 7. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. | |
Waetzoldt, Hartmut | ||
1970/71 | "Thronfolger auch Mitregent?" Mesopotamia 5/6, 321-323. |
Gábor Zólyomi: On G. Marchesi's understanding of Eanatum 5 v 9-17
In his book on the proper name LUM-ma (Marchesi 2006), Gianni Marchesi offers a bold interpretation of the often discussed passage (v 9-19) in the Boulder A inscription of Eanatum (RIME 1.09.03.05):
u4-ba, e2-an-na-tum2-ma, e2-an-na-tum2, mu u2-rum-˹ma˺-ni, mu GIR3.GIR3-ni, ˹lum˺-ma-a, dnin-˹gir˺-su-˹ra˺, ix(A) gibil, mu-na-dunOn pp. 123-125, he summarizes in seven points the problems that cast doubt on the traditional interpretations of the passage in his view. This short note is concerned with his problems nos. 2, 3, and 5.
Marchesi's problem no. 2 relates to the interpretation of ll. v 10-12; about which he states:
"É-an-na-túm-ma É-an-na-túm mu ú-rum-ma-né, lit. 'of E'annatum, E'annatum is his own name', represents a unique departure from the standard Sumerian syntactic construction of a nominal clause opening with an anticipatory genitive. If the commoninterpretation of the line were correct, we would expect it to be worded *É-an-na-túm¬ma mu ú-rum-ma-né É-an-na-túm ('of E'annatum, his own name [that is, E'annatum's own name] is E'annatum'), instead." (p. 123)
Following Gerd Steiner (1975: 15-17), Marchesi then assumes that the name of Eanatum is mistakenly placed in l. 11, and emends the text accordingly. Unfortunately, Marchesi does not quote any evidence on which his expectation concerning the structure of v 10-12 is based. As a matter of fact, there is overwhelming evidence that his expectation is unfounded. Consider, for example, ll. 12-14 of Ur-Ningirsu I 4 (RIME 3/1.01.01.04):
maš-da-ri-a-ba / nin-gu10 he2-ma-zi-zi / mu-biThis construction is used commonly for referring to name of entities in Sumerian royal inscriptions. Its structure consists of at least three parts in this order (it may or may not be followed by a copula depending on the syntactic context): (a) ENTITY=ak (b) "NAME" (c) mu=bi/ani [(d) =copula], and never in the order *ENTITY=ak mu=bi/ani "NAME" (as suggested by Marchesi in the passage quoted above). An example from an Ur III sale document (FAOS 17, 93: 2) is:
Of this votive gift, "May my lady raise him for me!" is its name.
sag-ba ha-ba-lu5-ke4 mu-ni (a) (b) (c) "the slave with the name of Habaluke"
An example from an Ur III royal inscription is Ur-Namma 28 (RIME 3/2.01.01.28) ii 10-13:
i7-da, d˹nanna˺-gu2-gal mu-bi, i7 ki-sur-ra-kam, mu-ba-al
(a) (b) (c) "He (= Ur-Namma) dug the canal with the name of Nanna-gugal, a border-canal." (lit. "The canal with the name of Nanna-gugal is a border-canal, he dug it.")
These constructions follow the pattern of structures that are used to identify an entity with a proper name, and in which the description of the entity consists of a genitive construction. The reason for the use of the anticipatory genitive appears to be that the topic (= the anticipated possessor) and the subject (= the proper name) of the copular clause is different. An example from an Ur III royal inscription is Šu-Suen 1 iv 44-46 (RIME 3/2.01.04.01):
iriki-ba, dšu-dsuen, dingir-bi-im
(a) (b) (c)+(d) "Their town's god is Šu-Suen"
The passage in Ean. 5 v 10-12 is another example of this common construction: (a) Eanatum=ak (b) "Eanatum" (c) mu urum=ani. Its oddity is due to the fact that here the person whose name is specified with this formula is referred to in part (a) by the very name which is then mentioned in part (b). The reason for this is clear: v 10-12 contrast with v 13-14, the former gives Eanantum's usual name, while the later must give another name of his. It seems to me that the proper analysis of v 10-12 in fact supports that traditional understanding of the structure of Ean. 2 v 10-14 and makes Marchesi's questionable, whatever the correct reading and interpretation of the graphemes GIR3.GIR3 in v 13 may be.
Marchesi's problem no. 3 is concerned with the apparently chiastic structure of v 11-14. He asserts that "examples of this type of chiasm (syntactic chiasm) are very rare in Sumerian and are confined to literary texts. To find one example in an otherwise prosaic dedicatory inscription is wholly unexpected." (p. 124). This is an argument that can be countered with an example from another dedicatory inscription, Lugalzagesi 1 (RIME 22.214.171.124), ii 21-22:
bara2-bara2 ki-en-gi, ensi2 kur-kur-ra "the sovereigns of Sumer, the rulers of all the foreign countries"Here the reduplicated nouns are in a chiastic arrangement (cf. Wilcke 1990: 478).
Marchesi's 5th problem relates to the analysis of the morpheme after the name LUM-ma. He states:
"The final -a of LUM-ma in line 14 remains unexplained. All the analyses that have been proposed (genitive, locative or ergative postposition; morpheme of the 'relative sentence'; enclitic copula) are either ungrammatical or in contrast with the scribal spelling conventions in use in the Pre-sargonic period" (p. 124).
Without evidence it is difficult to see which of his statements relate to the ergative postposition. It seems to me that none. If the referent of the complex construction in v 10-14 is Eanatum, then he must be the subject of the transitive verb in the clause, an ergative case-marker is thus expected at the end of the construction. The writing of the ergative case-marker as -a after a word ending in /a/ is well attested in later periods, and Attinger (1993: 211) quotes two examples in administrative texts from the period of Eanatum's inscription (Nik 1, 148 rev. ii 5 and Nik 1, 149 rev. ii 1). Both of his examples contain the suffix -/'a/ before an ergative case-marker, and this may well also apply to the form written as LUM-ma-a.
Attinger, Pascal | ||
1993 | Eléments de linguistique sumérienne. La construction de du11/e/di 'dire'. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Sonderband. Fribourg, Switzerland - Göttingen. | |
Marchesi, Gianni | ||
2006 | Lumma in the Onomasticon and Literature of Ancient Mesopotamia. HANES 10. Padua. | |
Steiner, Gerd | ||
1975-76 | "Zwei Namen Eannatums oder Jahresnamen?" WO 8, 10-21. | |
Wilcke, Claus | ||
1990 | "Orthographie, Grammatik und literarische Form. Beobachtungen zu der Vaseninschrift Lugalzaggesis (SAKI 152-156)." In T. Abusch et al., eds. Lingering over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Harvard Semitic Studies 37. Atlanta, pp. 488-498. |
Wu Yuhong: Differentiating Šulgi 43 and Amar-Suen 4
Robert K. Englund in CDLN 2007:002 published an Umma tablet from a private collection and treated the year name of the document as Amar-Suen 4. Since the year name of Šulgi 43 is easily confused with that of Amar-Suen 4, I believe that in fact, the year name in the text, mu en dnanna maš-e i3-pa3, "Year: 'the en(-priestess) of Nanna was chosen through extispicy'," is not the year name of Amar-Suen 4, but of Šulgi 43. Although both year names are about the en-priestess of Nanna, the verbs are different: it is maš2-e i3-pa3 in Š 43, but ba-hun in AS 4: mu en-mah-gal-an-na en-dnanna ba-hun.
The year name of Šulgi 43 is as follows:
- The special long form: mu en-ubur-zi-an-na en dnanna maš/maš2-e i3-pa3, "Year: En-ubur-zi-anna, the en(-priestess) of Nanna, was chosen through extispicy' " (RlA 2, 137, 62).
- The general short form: mu en dnanna maš/maš2-e i3-pa3, "Year: the en(-priestess) of Nanna was chosen through extispicy' ".
- The general long form: mu en-mah-gal-an-na en dnanna ba-hun-ga2, "Year: 'En-mah-gal-anna, the en(-priestess) of Nanna, was installed' " (AnOr 13, 24 4b, and see MS 1915 obv. 4 [J. Dahl forthcoming]).
- The general short form: en dnanna ba-hun, "Year: 'the en(-priestess) of Nanna was installed' ".
- The special or mistaken forms:
mu en dnanna damar-dsuen-ra ki-ag2-an-na maš2-e i3-pa3 (?), "Year: 'the en(-priestess) of Nanna who loves Amar-Suen in heaven was chosen through extispicy'." The ghost AS YN 4d = false AS 9, since the verb is always ba-hun, and i3-pa3 is not found in any form of YN of AS 9. Compare AS 8: mu en-nun-e ki-ag2 damar-dsuen-<ra> en eriduki ba-hun.
mu en-mah-gal-an-na en dnanna maš2-e i3-pa3, "Year: 'En-mah-gal-anna, the en(-priestess) of Nanna, was chosen through extispicy' " (only in two texts of Girsu: SAT 1, 247 and SNAT 159).
Robert K. Englund: A Minnesota Estate
In the late 1990's, Stephen Osman of Minneapolis, Minnesota, purchased a small cuneiform tablet at a local estate sale. The purchase price was five dollars. Through a generous and informative correspondence with the owner, I am able to offer below the text from Ur III Umma in line art copy, transliteration and translation. It dates to the 6th month of Amar-Suen 4 (thus late fall, ca. 2040 BC), and measures 37 x 37 x 16mm.
Osman 1 | Translation | ||
obv. | 2(barig) še-ba ˹lugal˺ | 2(barig, ca. 120 liters) of ration barley (according to the) royal (measure) | |
˹nin˺?-ur2-˹ra-ni˺ | for Nin-urani | ||
ki na-ba-sa2-ta | from Nabasa, | ||
kišib a-da-ga | sealed document of Adaga. | ||
iti šu-numun | Month: "Sowing" (6th month, Umma calendar). | ||
rev. | ˹mu en dnanna maš-e i3-pa3˺ | Year: "The en-priestess of Nanna was chosen through extispicy" (Amar-Suen 4). | |
(seal impression) | |||
seal | ur-dli9-si4 | Ur-Lisi, | |
ensi2 | ensi | ||
ummaki | of Umma: | ||
a-da-ga | Adaga, | ||
dub-sar | the scribe, | ||
ARAD2-zu | is your servant. |
Robert K. Englund: New Hits for Erlenmeyer 152
UTI 3, 1630, offered only a partial fit to a credit entry of the large account Erlenmeyer 152, as noted in CDLJ 2003:1 §16. Since there was a difference of 42 workdays between the two records, and since Erlenmeyer 152 indicated that its scribe was looking at two sealed documents for this entry, I stated that "the second [missing] sealed tablet is a copy of this one, exchanging 42 for 2.15 in the first line." A recent publication of Ur III tablets in the British Museum by Tohru Ozaki and Marcel Sigrist (BPOA 1; Madrid 2006) contains the missing receipt in number 608 (=BM 106886), though in a form slightly more complex than initially suspected:
UTI 3, 1630 | BPOA 1, 608 | Erl. 152 obv. v 21-23 | |
6 guruš u4 1-še3 | |||
a2 mu iti-da | |||
2.15 guruš u4 1-še3 | 12 guruš u4 3-še3 | 2.57 guruš u4 1-še3 | |
a-ša3-ge a du11-ga | a-ša3-ge a du11-ga | a-ša3-ge a du11-ga | |
a-ša3 dšara2-gu2-gal | a-ša3 dšara2-gu2-gal | a-ša3 dšara2-gu2-gal | |
ugula lu2-dšara2 | ugula lu2-dšara2 | ||
kišib a-gu-gu | kišib a-gu-gu | kišib 2 a-gu-gu | |
(seal) | iti dli9-si4 | ||
mu ma2 den-ki ba-ab-du8 | mu ma2 den-ki ba-ab-du8 | ||
seal legend | seal legend | ||
ur-e2-mah | ur-e2-mah | ||
dub-sar | dub-sar | ||
dumu da-da | dumu da-da |
While the result is as anticipated (6 + (12×3) = 42), the new text separates from a three-day work period of 12 laborers a six-workday period described as a2 mu iti-da (unclear to me).
A second partial primary document hit for our Erlenmeyer 152 is BPOA 1, 767 (=BM 107053), corresponding to Erl. 152, obv. iv 19 - v 1 (below). Both new texts were dated to the 9th month of the year of Erl. 152 (SS 2; note to CDLJ 2003:1, n. 34 and correct v 1 to kišib ˹2˺! lu2-gi-na), as was Princeton 1, 380, that exhibited similar irregularities (CDLJ 2003:1, n. 19).
BPOA 1, 767 | Erl. 152 obv. iv 19 - v 1 | |
10 guruš u4 1-še3 | ˹10˺ guruš u4 1-še3 | |
kuša-ga2-la2 keš2-ra2 | kuša-ga2-la2 ˹keš2˺-ra2 | |
ma2-da-ga ma2 a-pi4-sal4ki-ta | ma2-da-ga ma2-a gar [a]-˹pi4˺-sal4ki -ta | |
ka gir13:giz-še3 | ka gir13-giz-še3 | |
ma2 gid2-da | ˹ma2˺ gid2-da | |
u3 ma2 gur-ra | u3 ma2 gur-ra | |
ugula lu2-dšara2 | ||
kišib lu2-gi-na | kišib ˹2˺! lu2-gi-na | |
iti dli9-si4 | ||
mu ma2 den-ki ba-ab-du8 | ||
seal legend | ||
lu2-gi-na | ||
dub-sar | ||
dumu ša3-ku3-ge |
Robert K. Englund: Three Texts from Uqair
In the course of scanning work performed in March of 1996 in the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin, three proto-cuneiform texts were discovered that should have been included with the 35 tablets published by the author as MSVO 4, 1-35, and reported there, following M. Green, ASJ 8 (1986) 77-83, as possibly from Uqair. VAT 5288-5290 bring to a total of 38 those texts that were, together with a number of other tablets, purchased by the Pergamon Museum in 1903 from the Baghdad dealer Schaûl (Akten-Nr. I 2063/03). To insure that dispersed archaic texts all appeared in a readily available form, these three and one other text had at the time been planned as a short supplement to the Erlenmeyer volume MSVO 3, now being prepared for publication by Peter Damerow and myself. In the meantime, several hundred more proto-cuneiform tablets have become available to research, due primarily to the breakdown in Iraq antiquities department security following the 1991 Kuwait war, and to the disturbing efficiency of the antiquities markets in the Middle East, Europe and the US. These three, and a series of other heretofore unpublished and unprovenienced cuneiform inscriptions will, in cursory form, be edited in the CDLN.
Download a vector graphic copy of these tablets |
CDLN 2006/2, no. 1 (=VAT 5288, 40×34×17mm) O0101 [ ] ; [ ] O0102 ˹4N14˺ ; ˹SUHUR˺ [ ] X X O0103 ˹1N14˺ ; SUHUR ˹SUKUD+SUKUDb˺ O0201 [ ] ; [ ] R0101 ˹1N1˺ [ ] ; [ ] R0102 ˹2N34˺ [ ] ; [ ] R0201 4N34 3N14 ; BA ˹SUHUR˺ [ ] CDLN 2006/2, no. 2 (=VAT 5289, 37×44×17mm) O0101 [ ] ˹2N14˺ ; ˹ŠEa BA ABa˺ [ ] O0201 ˹7N14˺ ; ˹ŠEa˺ X [ ] O0202 [ ] ; [ ] CDLN 2006/2, no. 3 (=VAT 5290, 42×40×18mm) O0101 [ ] ; [ ] ˹ZATU759˺ O0102 [ ] ; [ ] MUŠEN O0201 [ ] ; [ ] ENa KISALb1 R0101 ; [ ] R0201 ; [ ] |
It is not readily apparent why Falkenstein did not include these texts in the original publication of VAM's 1903 text acquisition (=ATU 1, 621-656), since they entered the VAT inventory with the first three numbers of the lot of 38 texts (originally 39, since VAT 5307 and 5325 join as, currently, MSVO 4, 27) under the museum numbers VAT 5288-5327. It appears that our CDLN 2006/2, no. 1, might join with the fish account MSVO 4, 10 (=VAT 5317).
Rikke Wulff Krabbenhøft: Accession Numbers of the Royal Ontario Museum
In preparing a paper recently on a topic of neo-Sumerian geography, I discovered some irregularities in the CDLI treatment of relevant texts in the collection of the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). A productive correspondence with Bob Englund at UCLA and with Bill Pratt of the ROM led to the elimination of most questions concerning the museum's accession system that apparently derived from insertion in the CDLI databank of pre-publication files from M. Sigrist's two Ur III ROM volumes (Neo-Sumerian Texts from the Royal Ontrario Musuem I: The Administration at Drehem, Betheda 1995; Neo-Sumerian Texts from the Royal Ontario Museum II: Administrative Texts Mainly from Umma, Betheda 2003). It may be helpful to others to make the Ontario numbering system clear in this note.
ROM originally numbered its cuneiform tablet collection in a D series (D denoting Mesopotamian material). In 1949 the D series was replaced with a 900 series denoting the year and other data pertaining to acquisition. The 900 series consists of three groups of numbers: first, the year of acquisition, then the lot the object is part of, and finally the object number itself. An accession number such as 925.62.234 thus describes the 234th object in lot 62 acquired in 1925. In some cases where the exact year of acquisition of a tablet is uncertain, but the latest year it could have entered the collection is known, the museum uses an "x" to denote that the tablet was acquired no later than a certain year. The 1910 accession series represents all previous cuneiform acquisitionsof ROM, and is thus to be referred to as 910x.
In the past, the object number was often dropped if there was only one object in an acquisition lot. This is the case with the accession number 972.356 (=Ontario 1, 102). Today one would number it 972.356.1 but in general, the Royal Ontario Museum does not revise these numbers.
In the editing of Sigrist's Ontario 1, two accession numbers were printed erroneously. The accession number 267.287.18 (Ontario 1, 133) should be 967.287.18 and the accession number 295.62.296 (Ontario 1, 147) should be 925.62.296.
Duplication of accession numbers in the volumes appear in three instances; the accession numbers concerned are 925.62.263 (Ontario 1, 26 and Ontario 1, 92); 925.62.270 (Ontario 1, 81 and Ontario 2, 213); 925.62.496 (Ontario 1, 39 and Ontario 2, 94). At present this issue can not be resolved (designations "a" and "b" in CDLI are artificial).
For unclear reasons, Marcel Sigrist included three digits in front of the accession numbers in the catalogue of texts in volume 1. Exactly what these three digits stand for remains uncertain. They are not included in the catalogue in volume 2.
Stefania Altavilla: An Account of Vegetable Oil from Girsu
The tablet BM 15956 (96, 6-12-176)1 belongs to a group of texts from Girsu characterized by the technical term nig2-ka9-aka, "(balanced) account," of PN. There is another term that is peculiar to this category of texts: ša3-bi-ta that divides the former section of the balanced accounts, dedicated to the incomes, from the latter one that records the withdrawals. As a matter of fact, ša3-bi-ta does not appear in our tablet, but it is likely that it was mentioned in the initial break of the text, preceded by the amount of oil to be delivered. On the basis of this hypothesis and the comparison with the other texts of the group that will be published by F. D'Agostino and F. Pomponio, The Texts ša3-bi-ta from Girsu in the British Museum (=Nisaba 7; Messina 2005)2, we present the following transliteration of the tablet, including a reconstruction of the first two lines:
obv. | ||
1. | [1(barig) 1(ban2) 4(diš) sila3 i3-geš] | [74 'liters' of vegetable oil, |
2. | [ša3-bi-ta] | therefrom:] |
3. | [4(ban2) 6(diš)] ˹sila3˺ i3-geš ˹mu? ˺-[DU?] | [46] 'liters' of vegetable oil, as delivery(?), |
4. | giri3 gu3-de2-a | conveyor: Gudea; |
5. | 1(ban2) 9(diš) 1/2(diš) sila3 giri3 šu-eš18-dar | 19 1/2 'liters': conveyor Šu-Ešdar. |
(blank) | ||
6. | |ŠU+LAGAB| 1(barig) ˹5(diš) 1/2(diš) sila3˺ i3-geš mu-DU | Total: 65 1/2 'liters' of vegetable oil, as delivery. |
rev. | ||
1. | si-i3-tum 8(diš) 1/2(diš) sila3 i3-geš | Remainder: 8 1/2 'liters' of vegetable oil: |
2. | mu-tum-ilum | Mutum-ilum. |
3. | nig2-ka9-aka dba-ba6-zi-mu | Balanced account of Baba-zimu, |
4. | giri3 šu-eš18-dar | conveyor: Šu-Ešdar. |
5. | ˹iti˺ še-KIN-ku5 | Month: "harvest" (11th month), |
6. | [mu] ˹ma2˺- gur8-˹mah˺ [...] | Year: "the processional boat [(was caulked)]" (ŠS 8). |
If our interpretation is correct, this text records an amount of vegetable oil with two withdrawals, each with a different conveyor. The total, as well as perhaps the former issue, is defined "delivery" (mu-DU), a term that in the balanced accounts of Girsu seems to characterize a type of "withdrawals," used in parallel, but distinct from the term zi-ga, "expenditure." After the total of the two deliveries, the "remainder," indicated as si-i3-tum, instead of the normal la2-NI, is calculated. The name that follows, Mutum-ilum, should be that of the official to whom this remainder is due. The term "(balanced) account of Baba-zimu" defines our tablet and it mentions the author of its compilation. A conveyor, who is the same conveyor of the latter amount of the issued oil, is cited before the date (month and year), in reference to the oil of the entire operation.
rev. 2. This personal name is unusual: it belongs to a conveyor of an amount of barley, together with i-ri-ib-bu-um (MVN 3, 376 obv. 3, from Adab, without date) and to a "fugitive" mentioned in a long roster from Girsu (CST 263 obv. i 11; AS 3).
1The tablet is of a reddish grey colour and its dimensions are 48×58×23 mm. It is published with the kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. The text was transliterated during a mission in London as part of the research PRIN 2004-2006 with the title of "Catalogazione, pubblicazione e studio delle tavolette neo-sumeriche inedite appartenenti alle Collezioni del British Museum," coordinated by F. Pomponio.
2Fourteen texts from Girsu that register, in the section of the document following the term ša3-bi-ta, expenditures characterized by the term mu-DU, are discussed in D'Agostino and Pomponio, Nisaba 7, pp. 9-10.
Wolfgang Heimpel: gu-nigin2, "bale"
Reed and twigs were bundled into bundles (sa) and bound into bales (gu-nigin2) of various numbers of bundles for transport. I adopt the translation "bale" from A. Sallaberger ("Zum Schilfrohr als Rohstoff in Babylonien," in B. Scholz, ed., Der orientalische Mensch und seine Beziehungen zur Umwelt: Beiträge zum 2. Grazer morgenländischen Symposion [Graz 1989] 326, note 63). It is current convention to posit two words for bale, gu-nigin2 and gu-kilib. E. Sollberger, in his glossary to Business and Administrative Correspondence under the Kings of Ur (=TCS 1; Locust Valley, New York, 1966) 122, sub voce "gu" states: "These two words are not only synonyms but homographs and it is only when they are followed by a suffix that the actual reading can be ascertained: the context does not help." This view has been generally accepted. H. Waetzoldt, "Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen," BSA 6 (1992) 126, observed "Den Ausdruck gu-kilib(-ba) benutzte man in Umma, während in den anderen Provinzen eher gu-nigin2(-na) üblich war."
In M. Sigrist, SAT 2, 506 and 586, is found the form gu-NIGIN2-bi. The suffix -bi must be the possessive suffix. This shows that the suffix -ba in gu-NIGIN2-ba could be a locative added to the possessive suffix. The contrast between gu-NIGIN2-na and gu-NIGIN2-ba could accordingly consist of a form with and a form without the possessive suffix. That would allow positing a single word, gu-nigin2, "bale."
This solution is confirmed by the fact that the reading kilib of the sign LAGAB is not attested. It is missing among the entries 27-33 in Proto-Ea (MSL 14, 31) and makes only a half-hearted appearance in the form of ke-el = LAGAB = napharu in Ea I, 42 (MSL 14, 178) and ki-li = [LAGAB] = napharu in Aa 2 (MSL 14, 211).
The formula n sa gi gu-nigin2-na n sa-ta (i3-gal2) means "n bundles reed. (Contained) in a bale (are) n bundles each" and the formula n sa gi gu-nigin2-ba a sa-ta (i3-gal2) "n bundles reed. (Contained) in its bale (are) n bundles each."
Niek Veldhuis: The Sumerian word na-IZI
The Sumerian word na-IZI (qutrēnu = incense) is to be read na-de3. The verb that is usually used with this noun is si(g), "to pile up," in the phrase na-de3 si-ga. This collocation appears in two Ur III tablets; in the ritual text PBS 13, 35 obv. 5 and in the recently published Umma text SANTAG 6, 100 obv. 3. Gudea Cylinder B iv 4-5 reads dnin-dub išib-mah eriduki-ka-ke4 na-de3 ba-ni-si: "Nindub (...) piled up incense." The expression further appears in a few Old Babylonian literary texts (Iddin-Dagan A 147 and 196 and Home of the Fish 4); in Old Babylonian incantations (e.g. YOS 11, 56 obv. 6-7); and in later bilingual compositions (see CAD s.v. qutrīnu).
The reading na-de3 rather than na-izi is demonstrated by the Old Babylonian Kusu Hymn l. 22: [x im]-mi-in-si na-RI si-ga (YBC 9860; see P. Michalowski in Fs. Hallo p. 153). Here, the same collocation is found with the spelling na-RI, to be read na-de5. A second attestation of this spelling is lu2 = ša II iii 22': na-de5-´ga` igi-bar-ra = min (=barû) ša qutrinni (MSL 12, 120, and cp. MSL 16, 344, 52'; for the reading of lu2 = ša II iii 22' see CAD s.v. qutrīnu).
The alternative spelling na-de5 was used alongside the traditional na-de3, and may have been introduced to suggest an association with the expression na-de5, to purify (elēlu).
Wolfgang Heimpel: The Akkadian Personal Name DI-NI-NI
M. Hilgert, Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit, IMGULA 5 (Münster 2002) 76, understands this name as Dīn-Ilī "Judge, oh my god!" or Dīnni-Ilī "Judge me, oh my god!" In note 96, he refers to the Old Akkadian name DI.KU5-i3-li as alternative interpretation. Following W. Sommerfeld, he understands the latter spelling as Dīn-ilē "Judgment of the gods."
The alternation between DI and di-ku5 in the spelling of the name DI-NI-NI is also found in the text of PDT 2, 1353 and the legend of the seal that is impressed on this tablet. I cannot resolve the inherent difficulties: on the one hand, the equation di-ku5 = dīnu is suspect because di = dīnu, and di-ku5-ra2, but not di-ku5, could qualify as synonym of di. On the other hand, DI does not seem to be scribal abbreviation for di-ku5 = dayyānum "judge," because TI.NI.NI is found in Ur III texts as a variant spelling of DI-NI-NI.
CDLN Info
Full CDLI publications
Editorial Notes
CDLI wiki
CDLI Home
Search CDLI
Wolfgang Heimpel: The Akkadian Personal Name DI-NI-NI
Niek Veldhuis: The Sumerian word na-IZI
Wolfgang Heimpel: gu-nigin2, "bale"
Stefania Altavilla: An Account of Vegetable Oil from Girsu
Rikke Wulff Krabbenhøft: Accession Numbers of the Royal Ontario Museum
Robert K. Englund: Three Texts from Uqair
Robert K. Englund: New Hits for Erlenmeyer 152
Robert K. Englund: A Minnesota Estate
Wu Yuhong: Differentiating Šulgi 43 and Amar-Suen 4
Gábor Zólyomi: On G. Marchesi's understanding of Eanatum 5 v 9-17
Lance Allred: More Šu-Suen Seals During the Reign of Amar-Suen
Robert K. Englund: Recently published catalogues of cuneiform collections
Jerrold S. Cooper: Blind Workmen, Weaving Women and Prostitutes in Third Millennium Babylonia
Gábor Zólyomi: Lipit-Eštar and the Moat of Isin: A Reconstructed Cone Inscription
Charles Halton: Weighing Offials at Ur III Umma
Robert K. Englund: A Note on one of Kazuya Maekawa's Ur III Contributions
Robert K. Englund: The State of CDLI's Ur III Transliterations
Sara Brumfield: Two Early Dynastic Capacity Standards
Robert K. Englund: Notes on KIDa
Robert K. Englund: Citing CDLI
Zsombor Földi: The career of a high-ranking official in Larsa: on CUSAS 17, 54
Robert K. Englund, Peter Damerow, Jürgen Renn, Stephen J. Tinney, and Bertrand Lafont: A Note to clarify CDLI's policy of open access, and of fair use of published images of cuneiform inscriptions.
David I. Owen: Additions and corrections to Owen, "Supplemental Texts ..." (CUSAS 6, pp. 233-334)
Jerrold S. Cooper: A wine debt from Emar
Jacob L. Dahl: New and old joins in the Louvre proto-Elamite tablet collection
Jakob Andersson: An Ur III Messenger text from Umma in the Haldar collection