Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2016:1 (PREPRINT) <http://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlb/2015/cdlb2016_001.html> © Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative ISSN 1540-8760 Version: 24 November 2016 he Cuneiform Tablet Collection of the Los Angeles Uniied School District Sara Brumield Lance Allred Oklahoma City, OK Museum of the Bible, Oklahoma City, OK §1. Introduction §1.1. he Los Angeles Uniied School District’s (LAUSD) Art and Artifact Collection1 is comprised mainly of a large assemblage of Greco-Roman antiquities acquired by Edward W. Clark, an artifact enthusiast and principal of Venice High School in Los Angeles from 1917 to 1938. In addition to Classical antiquities, however, the collection also features a small assortment of 15 cuneiform documents, consisting of 13 Ur III administrative texts, a Gudea cone, and a neo-Babylonian herding account.2 he collection is currently housed in downtown Los Angeles in the administrative oices of the LAUSD. §1.2. Clark majored in Classics and graduated with an A.B. from Oberlin College in 1890. He continued his studies at the University of Chicago and later in Leipzig, earning his A.M. in 1895. When he returned from Germany, Clark accepted a position at Ripon College teaching Greek and Latin as well as archeology. Clark continued to travel abroad, occasionally purchasing Greek and Roman antiquities that he eventually used to form a small collection for the school. his collection at Ripon College now bears his name.3 Clark let Ripon College in 1909 and spent much of the next few years in Europe. 1 Our thanks to Leslie Fischer, LAUSD’s Art and Artifact Collection Consultant, who brought the collection to our attention and who was gracious enough to allow digital imaging of the documents. Ms. Fischer also provided much of the biographical information regarding Edward Clark. 2 he neo-Babylonian herding account (AA 74) will be treated elsewhere by Michael Kozuh. he Gudea cone (AA 135) bears the same inscription as RIME 3/1.1.7.63. For artifact images, consult CDLI. 3 Several years ater Clark let Ripon College, a professor of physics there, William H. Barber, agreed to purchase seven cuneiform tablets (EC.74.1, EC.74.2, EC.74.3, Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2016:1 In 1916, he returned to the United States and moved to California, where he taught at several high schools before becoming principal of Venice High School. In 1932, he started the Venice High School Latin Museum using pieces mainly from his own collection that he had acquired while traveling abroad. §1.3. hirteen tablets from Clark’s collection of antiquities are presented below dating to the Ur III period (2112-2004 BC). Six come from the sites of Drehem (ancient Puzriš-Dagān) and Umma respectively, while one tablet likely comes from Girsu. As with most collections of this type, these tablets represent a medley of known Ur III archives. And, as is typical of such administrative miscellany, this potpourri of tablets ofers certain insights into the terminology (šu-g id 2 , ab 2 -rig 5 ) and practices (ba la , abbreviating year names, sealing) of the Ur III state apparatus. §2. Texts §2.1. Girsu Tablet §2.1.1. No. 1 = AA 69 his Girsu tablet is a reckoning of Aba-isege’s debt to a household within the Lagaš province—likely a grain equivalent of labor—from his role as a foreman of weavers. he tablet is dated to Amar-Suen 1 xi. Obverse 1. ¿la2-ia3• 5(aš) še gur he carried over debt is 5 lugal royal gur of barley; 2. ¿si•-i3-tum [nig2-ka9-ak] the remaining debt of the balanced account 3. ¿a•-ba-i3-se3-ge-e (by) Aba-isege 4. su-su-dam to be replaced/repaid; EC.74.4, EC.74.5, EC.74.6, and EC.74.7) from Edgar Banks and donated them to the school’s Clark Collection of Ancient Art. page 1 of 11 Reverse blank space 1. ¿iti• še-sag11-ku5 month: “Barley harvest,” 2. ¿mu• damar-dsuen lugal year: “Amar-Suen is king.” kununa, both important oicials within the Drehem livestock administration.7 his tablet was recorded in Amar-Suen 6 vi. Obverse 1. 1(u) u8 sila4 nu-a 2. 1(u) ud5 maš2 nu-a 3. a-bi-a-bi-iÌ 4. 1(u) u8 5. 1(u) ud5 6. ur-niĝarĝar ab2-rig5-e Envelope Obverse 1. [la2-ia3 5(aš) še gur] lugal he carried over debt is 5 royal gur of barley; 2. [si-i3-tum] ¿nig2•-ka9-ak the remaining debt of the balanced account blank space 3. [a-ba]-¿i3-se3-ge• (by) Aba-isege 4. [su-su]-¿dam• to be replaced/repaid; Reverse blank space seal impression 1. [iti še- sag11]- ¿ku5• month: “Barley harvest,” 2. [mu damar-dsuen lugal] year: “Amar-Suen is king.” Seal 1. [a]-ba-i3-[se3-ge] Aba-isege 2. dumu [...] son of … 3. [...] §2.1.1.1. he provenience of this tablet is based on its prosopography; an Aba-isege occurs in a number of Girsu texts involving female weavers (g eme 2 uš-bar) from late in Šulgi’s reign into Amar-Suen’s reign. In several texts (e.g. ASJ 9, 327, 2 [AS 1 i]; HLC 68 [AS 2 iii 1]; UNT 34 [nd]; OTR 258 [AS 1 x]), Aba-isege is listed as a foreman of weavers (ug ula uš-bar) and associated with the e 2 uš-bar. He appears in three additional texts concerning female weavers (CT 7, pl. 32 BM 18395 [Š 46]; MVN 22, 18 [...]; SET 240 [Š 45]),4 as taking amounts of grain into his administrative control (i 3 - dab 5 ).5 Based on the quantity of grain he receives in SET 240 and ASJ 9, 327, 2, he supervised between 24 and 32 weavers during the irst year of Amar-Suen’s reign.6 §2.2. Drehem Tablets §2.2.1. No. 2 = AA 76 his text notes a transfer of animals from Intae’a to Ur4 5 6 Jones & Snyder 1961: 134-135, assigned this text to Umma, but it is almost certainly from Girsu. Umma’s month one, še-sa g 11 -ku 5 , is the same as Girsu’s month eleven. Moreover, none of the names attested in SET 240 are particular to Umma. In MVN 22, 18, Aba-isege takes administrative control over unused rations/allocations from a weaver, NinŠulgi, who has recently died. he logical inference is that Aba-isege was her supervisor. his calculation assumes a 30-sila 3 ration for g eme 2 (Gelb 1965: 232). page 2 of 11 Reverse 1. ki in-ta-e3-a-ta 2. ur-ku3-nun-na 3. i3-dab5 4. iti a2-ki-ti 5. mu ša-aš-ruki ba-Ìul Let edge 1. 4(u) 10 pregnant ewes, 10 pregnant nanny goats, (of ) Abī-abiÌ; 10 ewes, 10 nanny goats, (of ) Ur-Niĝar, the abrig (oicial); rom Intae’a, Ur-kununa took (into his administrative control). month: “Akiti ( festival),” year: “Šašrum was destroyed.” 40 [total animals] §2.2.1.1. he agents recorded in this transaction are well known in the Drehem administration: Intae’a, a member of the shepherd’s oice,8 Ur-kununa, whose family is associated with the shepherd’s oice9 and Abī-abiÌ, a cup-bearer (sa g i) at Drehem who was oten involved in cult transactions.10 he presence of Abī-abiÌ in conjunction with an abrig oicial, Ur-niĝar, suggests that this tablet is recording a transfer of animals for cultic purposes. §2.2.1.2. he most striking feature of this text is the phrase ab2-rig5-e, which only occurs in one other text (CST 320 [AS 5 vi 20]), also qualifying the personal name Ur-niĝar. An alternative orthography ab2-ri2-ig eš3 occurs in Amorites 18, pl. 7-8 (AS 5 xii 1, 29) and its related account MVN 15, 192 (AS 5 xii, 29), both in conjunction with the personal name Ur-niĝar at Drehem. Syntactically and contextually, the term indicates the ofice or position held by Ur-niĝar at Drehem, interpreted here as abrig .11 7 Tsouparopoulou 2008: 225-227 and 218-220. 8 Metcalf 2010: §2.1a with references. See also, Tsouparopoulou 2008: 225-227. 9 Tsouparopoulou 2008: 218-220. 10 Tsouparopoulou 2008: 262. 11 hese two interrelated texts record Ur-niĝar amongst the chief singer (g a la-maÌ) and the šabra . Ur-niĝar receives a single lamb, which tends toward a cultic interpretation Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2016:1 §2.2.2. No. 3 = AA 79 his small tablet is an account of nine weaver garments (tug 2 uš-bar) given from Nūr-Suen into the administrative control of Lu-gina, the chief household administrator (šabra) during the 46th regnal year of Šulgi’s reign. he provenience is provisional, based on Nūr-Suen appearing in other Drehem texts from this time period.12 Obverse 1. 1(u) la2 1(diš) tug2 uš-bar 9 weaver garments, 2. ki nu-ur2-dsuen-ta rom Nūr-Suen; 3. lu2-gi-na šabra Lu-gina, chief household administrator, 4. šu ba-ti received. Reverse blank space 1. [mu] ¿Ìu•-ur5-[tiki ba-Ìul] year: “Ḫurti was destroyed.” §2.2.2.1. Nūr-Suen oten conducts various transactions with the other Drehem oices, including the dead animals’ oice; beginning in Amar-Suen’s reign, Nūr-Suen appears as a main oicial in the sub-division of this bureau that deals with the raw materials—hides and wool— and also the inished goods—leather and textiles.13 §2.2.2.2. It is unclear whether Lu-gina is the chief household administrator of a local cult near Drehem, or if he is in fact operating out of Numušda’s cult center of Kazallu.14 here are, however, three seals from Drehem that bear the title A R AD 2 d numušda (Turām-ilī [ŠS 9 iii-viii]; Šu-iškur [ŠS 9 vii-x]; Îalala [ŠS 9 v]), suggesting, at a minimum, that cultic activity related to Numušda’s temple was not uncommon at Drehem, at least in the latter Ur III period. §2.2.2.3. he short forms of year names can be ambiguous and problematic.15 M. Sigrist discussed most recently diiculties in diferentiating Šulgi 48 and Šulgi 46,16 over an association with the kitchen or slaughterhouse. For additional commentary on this term, see Brumield 2011. which in their long form, both mention the destruction of urti, a toponym situated in the western Kermanshah province of Iran:17 Šulgi 48 (long form) mu Ìa-ar-ši k i ki-maš k i Ìu-ur 5 -ti k i u 3 ma - da-bi u 4 1-bi ba-Ìul (e.g. AUCT 1, 149; MVN 2, 157; etc.) Šulgi 46 (long form) mu ki-maš k i Ìu-ur 5 -ti u 3 ma - da-bi u 4 1-še 3 18 baÌul (e.g. Aleppo 185; BPOA 1, 1181; etc.) §2.2.2.3.1. Judging from tablets that span multiple years—particularly the years immediately preceding or proceeding Šulgi 46 and 48 (e.g. MVN 14, 4)—it appears that scribes tended to abbreviate Šulgi 48 with a reference to the destruction of ÎarÒi, an event not referenced in Šulgi 46 (e.g. Princeton 2, 349). Since AA 79 does not reference the destruction of ÎarÒi, but only Îurti, a date of Šulgi 46 seems preferable. §2.2.3. No. 4 = AA 73 his tablet records modest amounts of various cattle transferred between the Ur III administration and the merchant (dam-g ar 3 ) Gudea, Adda-kala, a foreman of weavers (ug ula uš-bar), and Ṣelluš-Dagān. he text was recorded in Šulgi 46 ii.19 Obverse 1. [n] 7(diš) gu4 ¿niga• [...] 7+ barley-fed oxen ... 2. n [...] ... 3. [n] gu4 4(diš) udu ¿1(diš) n oxen, 4 sheep, 1 goat ... maš2• x 4. [x] ¿gu3•-de2-a ¿dam•- ... Gudea, merchant, [gar3] 5. [n] gu4 niga 4(diš) [...] x n grain-fed ox(en), 4 ... 6. [n]+1(diš) udu 1(diš) x .. 1 sheep, 1 ... 7. x x x ... 8. [...] x [...] ... Reverse 1. [...] ... 2. [n] ¿maš2 ad•-da... goat, Adda-kala, foreman ¿kal•-[la] ugula uš-bar of weavers, 3. [n] ¿maš2• ‡e-lu-uš-dda-gan ... goat, ΩelluÒ-Dagān. blank space 4. ¿mu•-kux(DU) delivery; 5. iti ses-da-gu7 month: “Piglet feast,” 6. mu ki-maški u3 u-ur5-tiki year: “Kimaš and Îurti ba-¿Ìul• were destroyed.” 12 Nūr-Suen also appears in other textile accounts (e.g. VAMZ 3, 26-27 129 3 [AS 1 viii]; MVN 13, 11 [AS 3 viii]; TRU 304 [AS 1 xi]) within several years of this account. Moreover, the tablet shape adheres to the typology of Drehem tablets, in opposition to those from Umma. 13 Tsouparopoulou 2008: 154, 257. 14 See MVN 3, 364. 17 Steinkeller 1988: 201. See, for example, Wu 2010. 18 Sometimes 1-a is seen instead of 1-še 3 . Sigrist 2010: 232-33. 19 See §2.2.2.3 above for the discussion on this year name. 15 16 Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2016:1 page 3 of 11 §2.2.3.1. Despite the fragmentary state of this tablet, the preservation of the personal names helps situate it in its original context. Both Adda-kala and ΩelluÒ-Dagān appear individually in a number of texts where they are delivering lambs for deities (Inanna and Nanna respectively) in Drehem. hese two personal names appear together in at least two other texts where each is recorded giving a lamb into the possession of Nasa, the fattener of the king,20 at Drehem for cultic purposes (PDT 2, 1019 [Š 47 ii 4]; PDT 2, 1243 [Š 48 xi 13]). §2.2.4. No. 5 = AA 136 his text records expenditures of animals from Abba-saga,21 one of the chief oicials, to Šulgi-ayamu, a member of the disbursal oice in Drehem dating to Amar-Suen 2 iii 10.22 Obverse 1. 3(diš) gukkal babbar2 2. 1(diš) gukkal ĝeš-du3 babbar 3. 3(diš) gukkal 4. 2(diš) |U8.ÎUL2| 5. 7(diš) udu 6. 1(diš) sila4 Reverse 1. 1(diš) maš2 2. 1(diš) ud5 3. u4 1(u)-kam 4. ki ab-ba-sa6-ga-ta 5. dšul-gi-a-a-mu i3-dab5 6. iti u5-bi2-gu7 7. mu damar-dsuen lugal-e ur-bi2-lumki mu-Ìul Let edge 1. 2(u) la2 1(diš) 3 white fat-tailed sheep, 1 white pregnant fat-tailed sheep, 3 fat-tailed sheep, 2 ewes, 7 sheep, 1 lamb, 1 goat, 1 nanny goat, on the 10th day, rom Abba-saga, Šulgi-ayamu took (into his administrative control); month: “Ubi feast,” year: “Amar-Suen, the king, destroyed Urbilum.” 19 (total animals) §2.2.4.1. Curiously, a virtual duplicate of this text is BPOA 6, 703 (AS 2 iii 10), attributed to Drehem, which reads as follows: Obverse 1. 3(diš) gukkal babbar 2. 1(diš) gukkal ĝeš-du3 babbar Reverse 1(diš) ud5 u4 1(u)-kam 20 For a brief overview of Nasa’s career at Drehem, see Wu & Li 2013: 445-446. 21 Possibly Abba-saga son of Nasa the royal fattener at Drehem under Šulgi (Wu & Li 2013: 446). Abba-saga assumed his father’s oice under Amar-Suen. 22 Tsouparopoulou 2008: 332-334. page 4 of 11 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 3(diš) gukkal 2(diš) u8 gukkal 7(diš) udu 1(diš) sila4 1(diš) maš2 ki ab-ba-sa6-ga-ta dšul-gi-a-a-mu i3-dab5 iti u5-bi2-gu7 mu damar-dsuen lugal-e ur-bi2-lumki mu-Ìul §2.2.4.2. M. Hilgert compiled duplicates from Drehem during the reign of Amar-Suen.23 His list includes several texts involving Abba-saga and Šulgi-ayamu all dating from Amar-Suen 4-5. he pair presented here should be added to this list of Drehem duplicates. §2.2.4.3. here are some small diferences between these two texts, such as the line divisions and the use of | U 8 +ÎUL2 | in AA 136 compared to u 8 g ukka l in BPOA 6, 703. Moreover, our text appears to use in one instance (obv. 1) babbar 2 ( U 4 .U 4 ) instead of bab bar ( U 4 ), for describing the white color of the small cattle, whereas only babbar is seen in BPOA 6, 703. he practice of using babbar 2 to qualify small cattle at Drehem, predominantly the fat-tailed (g ukka l ) variety, is seen only until ca. Amar-Suen 6. In the other provinces, babbar 2 continues to be used in similar contexts regularly throughout the Ur III period with no such temporal restriction observed. he use of both babbar and bab bar 2 in the same text is attested in several tablets (e.g. Nik 2, 465 [Š 46 v 21] and MVN 5, 107 [Š 48 i 2]), but the distinction between their use and the signiicance of the variant orthographies remains unclear. In AA 136, Nik 2, 465 and MVN 5, 107, the choice appears to be one of aesthetic, where babbar 2 is used to ill out a short line and babbar is used in a crowded line. §2.2.5. No. 6 = AA 77 his text records the expenditure from the Drehem administration of two lambs to the cult of the moon god, Nanna, and ive ewes to the kitchen (e 2 -mu aldim) in Šulgi 46 v 29. hese animals were delivered on the same day that they were booked out, as recorded in OIP 115, 205. he delivery of two lambs ultimately destined for Nanna’s temple in Nippur agrees with Wu Y.’s and Li X.’s reconstruction of regular deliveries from Drehem to major cultic centers in Nippur during Šulgi’s reign and suggests that Enšakuge and Lu-Ninšubur were associated with the en of Inanna in Nippur.24 23 Hilgert 2003: 40-42. 24 Wu & Li 2013: 446, 450. According to their analysis, the en of Inanna in Nippur, consistently identiied by title alone, contributed two lambs or one lamb and one kid to Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2016:1 Obverse 1. 1(diš) sila4 mu-kux(DU) en-ša3-¿ku3•-ge 2. 1(diš) sila4 niga mukux(DU) lu2-dnin-šubur d 3. nanna 4. zabar-dab5 maškim 1 lamb delivery ( rom) Enšakuge, 1 barley-fed lamb delivery ( rom) Lu-Ninšubur, ( for) Nanna, the z abardab-oicial25 was maškim ; Reverse 1. 5(diš) u8 šu-gid2 5 ewes šu-g id 2 , 2. e2-muÌaldim-še3 for the kitchen; blank space 3. zi-ga u4 3(u) la2 1(dišt)-kam credited on the 29th day; 4. ¿iti• ezem-dnin-a-zu month: “Festival of Ninazu,” 5. mu us2-sa ur-bi2-lumki year: “he year ater Urbiba-Ìul lum was destroyed.” §2.2.5.1. his was one of at least two expenditures made to the kitchen on this day. he other, recorded in MVN 20, 185, notes that the kitchen received one barley-fed ox (g u 4 nig a), four barley-fed sheep (udu nig a) and one barley-fed billy goat (maš 2 g a l nig a) “on account of the runners” (mu kas 4 - e-ne-še 3 ). Together, these texts represent a fraction of the likely dozens of tablets drawn up on this day to document the movement of animals within and without the Drehem administration. §2.2.5.2. he exact meaning of the term šu-g id 2 remains elusive. Proposed translations include “general dues,”26 “tax,”27 “Ausschuss,”28 or as a designation of animals suitable to be eaten,29 among others. Based on literary contexts, Karahashi suggested “to accept” or, in the context of extispicy,30 “to examine” adopted by Englund.31 §2.2.5.2.1. In general, the term šu-g id 2 in the Drehem texts is used for animals expended to the kitchen.32 In Inanna, Nanna, Utu, An and Nanaya. he sang a primarily sent deliveries for Enlil and Ninlil. 25 For a brief discussion of the interpretation of this oicial see Johnson 2006: §2.2. 26 Kang 1972: 279. 27 Sigrist 1995: passim. 28 Sallaberger 2004: 49. 29 Tsouparopoulou 2008: 215. 30 Karahashi 2000: 161-2. 31 Englund 2004: 40 and 2010: 104. 32 Not all animals recorded as šu-g id 2 went to the kitchen; see, for instance BIN 3, 309. Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2016:1 a number of texts, they are distinguished from animals qualiied as “slaughtered” (ba -uš 2 /ug 7 ) (e.g. BIN 3, 490 [Š 43 vi 17], AUCT 1, 679 [AS 4 vi 27], etc.). However, not all animals are qualiied as either “slaughtered” or šug id 2 , and in many texts they appear with no designation at all (e.g. MVN 5, 103 [Š 46 ix 13]; BIN 3, 63 [AS 3 xi 2]). §2.2.5.2.2. An examination of same-day Drehem kitchen texts demonstrates another curious aspect of the use of the term šu-g id 2 . he text ASJ 3, 189 1 is a summary account of large cattle expenditures by the fattener Enlila made during the second month of Šulgi 43. Included are expenditures of oxen to the kitchen on the 3rd (7 oxen), 10th (1), 11th (2), 12th (1), and 19th (1) of the month. hese animals are not qualiied as šu-g id 2 . However, in NYPL 18, dated to the 12th day of the second month of Šulgi 43, there is an expenditure of some 20 small cattle of various types as well as one ox to the kitchen, all qualiied as šu-g id 2 . §2.2.5.2.2.1. he expenditure of an ox in NYPL 18, listed as šu-g id 2 , is unequivocally the same one listed in ASJ 3, 189 1 without any such designation. hat there are other instances of this phenomenon (e.g. MVN 13, 805 and Nisaba 30, 8 [Š 43 x 15]; AUCT 1, 876 and OIP 115, 314 [Š 47 viii 11]; AUCT 2, 72 and AUCT 1, 327 [AS 3 i 5], etc.) indicate that this was not simply a scribal error or some other administrative aberration.33 Instead, the use of the term šu-g id 2 depended upon whose tablet the transaction was being recorded: in general, šu-g id 2 was used when the transaction came from the account of the main Drehem oicials, e.g. Abba-saga and Intae’a. When that same transaction appeared in the records of fatteners such as Enlila, the designation šu-g id 2 was not used. §2.2.5.2.2.2. Oten, administrative records are abbreviated and, thus, omit non-compulsory information in the interest of time and/or space. Perhaps personal receipts, given to non-state employees, did not include supplementary information about the animals or transaction, especially if that information was informative only for internal record keeping. For additional discussion on this phenomenon, see §2.3.1.2. below. §2.2.6. No. 7 = AA 70 his Drehem text records both large and small cattle received by members of the Ur III administration. Intae’a and Ur-mes have been identiied as members working in 33 See Allred 2006: table 2.1 for many such pairs. page 5 of 11 the shepherd’s oice by previous Drehem research.34 his tablet was recorded in Šu-Suen 2 vi 20-22. Obverse 1. ¿1(diš)• amar maš-da3- 1 young gazelle doe, munus 2. ¿u4• 2(u)-kam on the 20th day, 3. ¿1(diš) sila4• 1(diš) amar 1 lamb, 1 gazelle, maš-da3-nita 4. u4 2(u) 1(diš)-kam on the 21st day, 5. 1(diš) sila4 1(diš) gu4 1 lamb, 1 ox, 6. 7(diš) ab2 7 cows, 7. 1(u) la2 1(diš) dusu29 jacks, ¿nita• 8. 2(diš) dusu2-munus 2 jennets, 9. šu-gid2 u4 2(u) 2(diš)-kam šu-g id 2 on the 22nd day, 10. ki in-ta-¿e•-[a]- ¿ta• rom Intae’a; Reverse 1. 5(diš) udu ¿ki• 5 sheep rom Nalu; na-lu5-[ta] blank space rom here written on dried clay 2. ¿ša3•-bi-¿ta• credits: 3. ¿5(diš) udu• ša3 e2 5 sheep to the kitchen via muÌaldim ĝiri3 šu-i3-li2 Šu-ilī, 4. 2(diš) sila4 2(diš) amar 2 lambs, 2 young gazelles, maš-da3 5. ĝiri3 in-ta-e3-a via Intae’a, 6. ur-mes i3-dab5 Ur-mes took (into his administrative control); 7. 8(diš) ab2 1(u) 1(diš) 8 cows, 11 donkeys, dusu2 8. den-lil2-la2 i3-dab5 Enlila took (into his administrative control); blank space 9. iti a2-ki-ti month: “Akiti ( festival),” 10. mu ma2 dara3-abzu ba- year: “he boat Dara-Abzu ab-du8 was caulked.” §2.2.6.1. Here, a small number of animals are being transported via Intae’a to Ur-mes; however, the majority of Intae’a’s animal deliveries to the Ur III state are taken (i 3 - dab 5 ) by the individual Duga and only sealed by Ur-mes.35 Ur-mes is a curious igure in the Drehem shepherd’s oice. Tsouparopoulou speculates that he may have been an administrative link between the oice of the shepherds and the shepherds themselves.36 His status is somewhat nebulous given that he is never described as a 34 35 36 Tsouparopoulou 2008: 211-248. he last attestation of Ur-mes’ seal dates to Šu-Suen 4 vi, which likely indicates that Ur-mes retired/died sometime between the 6th and 10th month of that year. Tsouparopoulou 2008: 237-240. page 6 of 11 scribe.37 his is part of an intricate pattern of exchange between Intae’a, Duga and Ur-mes discussed fully by Tsouparopoulou.38 §2.3. Umma Tablets §2.3.1. No. 8 = AA 72 his tablet records amounts of reeds (g i) and willow (ĝ e š ma -nu) given from Šešani to Lugal-ezem, acting on behalf of the Ur III state. his text is marked as being part of the still poorly understood ba la account of the administration. he date of this tablet is reconstructed as Šulgi viii based on the presence of Šešani in ša 3 ba la accounts received or sealed by Lugal-ezem during the latter part of Šulgi’s reign. his would argue, contextually, for a placement of AA 72 in the second half of Šulgi’s reign.39 Obverse 1. 1(u) gu2 gi 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1(u) gu2 ĝešma-¿nu• ki šeš-a-ni-¿ta• lugal-ezem šu ba-ti iti e2-iti-6(diš) ¿ša3 bala•-a Reverse seal impression uninscribed Seal 1. lugal-ezem 2. dub-sar 3. dumu lugal-e2-maÌ-e 4. šabra 10 talents of reed (~ 300 kg), 10 talents of willow wood, rom Šešani; Lugal-ezem received; month: “House of the 6 moons;” rom the bala (account). Lugal-ezem, scribe, son of Lugal-emaÌe, chief household administrator. §2.3.1.1. Lugal-ezem, son of Lugal-emaÌe, dealt with reeds and related goods at Umma, recorded almost exclusively during the 8th month and oten, but not consistently, denoted as ša 3 ba la . For example, OrSP 47-49 176 and Aleppo 112 record a similar ba la transaction between these two individuals, but in the seventh month of Šulgi 34. §2.3.1.2. here are two distinct seals attested for Lugal-ezem, son of Lugal-emaÌe.40 he shorter seal inscrip37 Tsouparopoulou 2008: 237, fn. 111. 38 Tsouparopoulou 2008: 93, 240. For a brief discussion on sealing by proxy, see Mayr 1997: 139. 39 Huehnergard & Sharlach 2000: 123-124, fn. 3. 40 A broken attestation of a Lugal-ezem seal dating as late Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2016:1 tion tends to appear on a transactions of various goods occurring throughout the year, almost to the exclusion of the 8th month. Conversely, Lugal-ezem’s longer seal inscription predominantly with transactions for reeds in the 8th month, oten with an explicit ba la designation. his pattern suggests that oicials may have used distinct seals to denote diferent types of transactions—in this instance ba la and non-ba la exchanges.41 Ater all, ba la was not consistently recorded on ba la transactions (see the undated duplicate SACT 2, 73, of CDLJ 2009:6 §1).42 his paradigm permits the suggestion that in addition to administrative terminology, ba la transactions could also be denoted by a separate seal.43 §2.3.2. No. 9 = AA 80 his Umma text records a large quantity of reeds (g i) from Lugal-itida listed with his patronymic, in the account of Lukalla, as debits. his transaction was sealed by Ur-Šara, son of Lugal-ušur, during Amar-Suen 3.44 Obverse 1. 3(ĝeš’u) 9(ĝeš2) 1(u) gu2 gi 2,350 talents of reeds (~ 60.5 metric tons), 2. še-ta sa10-a exchanged in grain, 3. ki lugal-iti-da-ta rom Lugal-itida, 4. dumu ĝiri3-ne2 son of Ĝirine, 5. ugu2 lu2-kal-la ba-¿a•-ĝar placed in the debit account of Lukalla; Reverse 1. kišib3 ur-dšara2 ša13sealed document of Ur-Šara, dub-ba archivist; seal impression 2. mu ku3 gu-za den-lil2-la2 year: “A shining throne for ba-dim2 Enlil was built.” Seal 1. ur-dšara2 Ur-Šara, 2. dub-sar scribe, 3. dumu lugal-ušur3 son of Lugal-ušur. as Šu-Suen 5 is found in Owen 1994: 23-24, no. 13, from Umma. Because of its fragmentary state, it is not certain which seal of Lugal-ezem is attested in Šu-Suen 5. 41 here does not appear to be a diference in the placement (e.g. obverse, reverse) of the “short” (three lines) and “long” (four lines) seals of Lugal-ezem, as outlined by A. Di Ludovico in his study of Ur III Umma administrative tablets (2012: 277-278). 42 See Widell 2009 for the potential duplicate accounts. An additional example is given in Brumield forthcoming. Moreover, ba la may not indicate the same type of system for all participants in the Ur III administrative apparatus; Garinkle (2002: 30 fn. 8) and Van de Mieroop (1986: 15 & fn. 49) each argue for a distinct ba la in the private archives of Tūram-ilī. 43 here is extant evidence for variant practices for recording administrative transactions in the Ur III period. For example, compare BCT 2, 27 and 28 (Š 44 xi), two Umma tablets recording the same work of reed workers but with slightly diferent information recorded on each tablet (Heimpel 2009: 45): 1(u) 5(diš) gurus / a2 u4 1(diš)-bi gu-nigin2 4(u) 5(diš)am3 / šunigin 1(ĝeš’u) 2(ĝeš2) 4(u) 5(diš) gu-nigin2-am3 / a2 u4 1(u) 7(diš)-bi-im / ur-e11-e i3-dab5 / blank space / iti pa5-u2-e / mu si-mu-ru-umki ba-Ìul 15 male workers, the labor of 1 day: 45 bales, the total is 765 bales, being the labor of 17 days, Ur-e’e took (into his administrative control); month: “Pa’ue,” year: “Simurrum was destroyed” (BCT 2, 27). 1(u) 5(diš) ĝurus a2 u4 1(diš)-bi u2|ZI&ZI|-a gu-nigin2 3(diš)? -ta-am3 / šunigin 1(ĝeš’u) 2(ĝeš2) 4(u) [5(diš)] gu-nigin2-am3 / [a2 u4] 1(u) ¿7(diš)•-bi-¿im• / saĝniĝ2-gur11-ra-kam / ša3- bi -ta / 1(ĝeš’u) 2(ĝeš2) 4(u) 5(diš) gu-nigin2-am3 / ur-e11-e i3-dab5 / ku?-ga? ma2-daga-še3? su?-us2? / iti pa5-u2-e / blank space / mu si-mu[ru]-umki ba- Ìul / erasures? / blank space 15 male workers, the labor of 1 day: rushes, 3? bales each, the total is 765 bales, being the labor of 17 days, it is the debits; credits are 765 bales; Ur-e’e took (into his administrative control); … Magda … month: “Pa’ue,” year: “Simurrum was destroyed” (BCT 2, 28). Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2016:1 §2.3.2.1. Ur- Šara, an archivist (šadubba), is a prominent oicial in the Umma administration whose career extended from the middle of Šulgi’s reign through his predecessor Amar-Suen.45 §2.3.2.2. Lugal-itida, son of Ĝirine, also possessed several seals throughout his career.46 Lugal-itida’s seals show a variant orthography for his name as Lugal-tida. In Šulgi 37, but possibly as early as Šulgi 34, his seal reads as follows: W. Heimpel’s assertion that the second (incorrectly identiied as sealed) text was given to Ur-e’e, an agent of the Ur III state, seems to be the most logical interpretation of the diferences between administrative records (although see Widell 2009: §2.3.7 for the arguments in favor of scribal drats). he more abbreviated record would be suicient for the workers to prove their payment of reeds; however, the state would require supplementary details. Based on the duplicate accounts presented by Heimpel as well as those discussed in Brumield, forthcoming, such supplementary details could include sealing agent/authorizing party, terminology used in running accounts, toponyms, commodity speciication, additional agents or account type. 44 he family of Lugal-ušur is outlined in Mayr 1997:150151. 45 Dahl & Hebenstreit 2007: 48; Dahl 2007: 76, fn. 279. 46 Mayr 1997: 469-470. page 7 of 11 Lugal-tida son of Ĝirine soldier of the governor §2.3.2.2.1. Beginning in Šulgi 48 and continuing to Šu-Suen 5, Lugal-itida assumes the oice of nu-banda 3 g u 4 and adopts a fuller orthography for his name: and accounted to the Ur III state by Lu-Ninšubur, who is identiied with both a profession and patronym on the accompanying sealing. his text is from Amar-Suen 6 with accounting entries for months: iii, iv, viii, xi. Obverse 1. 3(u) sa gu 30 bundles of cords, 2. niĝ2-dab5 iti še-kar-¿ra•- requisitions (during the) ĝal2-la month: “Barley at the harbor;” 3. 1(ĝeš2) sa gu 60 bundles of cords, 4. ezem nesaĝ (requisitions during the) month: “First ofering;” 5. 1(ĝeš2) sa gu 60 bundles of cords, 6. ezem e2-iti-6(diš) (requisitions during) “Festival of the house of 6 moons;” Reverse 1. 3(u) sa gu 30 bundles of cords, 2. ezem pa4-u2-e (requisitions during) “Festival of Pa’ue,” 3. ki ur-dnin-tu-ta rom Ur-Nintu, 4. kišib3 lu2-¿d•nin-šubur sealed document of LuNinšubur; seal impression 5. ¿mu ša•-aš-šu2-ru-um year: “Šašrum was destroyed a-ra2 2(diš)-kam ba-Ìul for a second time.” Seal 1. lu2-dnin-šubur Lu-Ninšubur, 2. dub-sar scribe, 3. dumu šeš-kal-la son of Šeškalla, 4. šabra chief household administrator. Lugal-itida overseer of the oxen son of Ĝirine §2.3.3. No. 10 = AA 82 Tablet AA 82 records the total fodder consumed by a herd of 30 sheep over the course of one month. hese animals are being purposefully fattened in preparation for cultic slaughter by Alulu, a fattener (kurušda) of the deity Šara, at Umma. his tablet dates to Amar-Suen 6 i. Obverse 1. 3(u) udu niga 5/6(diš) 30 barley-fed sheep ( fed) 5/6 sila3 še-ta liter of grain each, 2. ¿2(ban2)• 4(diš) sila3 24 liters of bran, duÌ 3. ¿u4• 3(u)-še3 for 30 days; 4. šunigin še-bi 2(aš) the total of its barley is 750 2(barig) 3(ban2) gur liters; 5. šunigin duÌ-bi the total of its bran is 720 2(aš) 2(barig) gur liters; Reverse 1. sa2-du11 dšara2 ša3 ummaki regular oferings for Šara in Umma, 2. ĝiri3 a-lu5-lu5 via Alulu; 3. iti še-sag11-ku5 month: “Barley harvest,” 4. mu us2-sa en-¿maÌ-gal•- year ater: “EnmaÌgalanna an-na ba-Ìuĝ was installed.” §2.3.3.1. his text is typical for Alulu’s activities as an animal fattener at Umma. He is involved in numerous transactions of fattened animals for the Umma cults (see NYPL 20 [AS v 2] for a similar account to AA 82). he hereditary nature of Alulu’s oice has already suggested by Mayr,47 Stepien, 48 and Widell.49 §2.3.4. No. 11 = AA 81 his tablet records quantities of cord bundles (sa g u) transferred in four installments across non-consecutive months at Umma. he goods were delivered by Ur-Nintu 47 Mayr 1997: 153. 48 Stepien 1996: 38-39. 49 Widell 2009: §3.3-3.3.5. page 8 of 11 §2.3.4.1. his particular seal of Lu-Ninšubur appears on Umma texts beginning in Šulgi 34 until Šu-Suen 1. Variations of this seal are also attested at Umma, one as late as Šu-Suen 9 (e.g. PDT 1, 586). Mayr indicates that there may be as many as six distinct seals for Lu-Ninšubur at Umma throughout his lifetime.50 his leads to some confusion for seals without a clear patronym (e.g. Tavolette 360 [AS 7 iii]; BPOA 1, 700 [ŠS 3 xiii]), but in cases with patronyms, such as AA 81 here, his identity is more secure. §2.3.4.2. SET 274 has a similar entry to this text, but dates several years earlier to Amar-Suen 2 iii, iv, viii, xi. his pattern extends to many other texts from Umma involving Ur-Nintu and Lu-Ninšubur (e.g. BPOA 6, 1442 [AS 2 xi]; USC 6612 [AS 3 viii]): Reverse ii 50 Mayr 1997: 318-319. Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2016:1 … 33. 1(ĝeš2) 3(u) sa gu 34. niĝ2-dab5 ezem še-kar-ra-ĝal2-la u3 ezem nesaĝ 35. 1(ĝeš2) sa gu 36. niĝ2-dab5 ezem e2?-iti-6(diš) Reverse iii 1. 3(u) sa gu 2. niĝ2-dab5 ezem pa5-u2-e blank space 3. kišib3-bi 4(diš)-am3 4. kišib3 lu2-dnin-šubur … §2.3.4.3. Several texts from Umma that record bundles of cords transactions do not contain month information, so it is diicult to claim any pattern deinitively (e.g. BPOA 2, 2652 [Š 44], and Nisaba 9, 220 [Š 44], for Ur-Nintu entries). (muÌaldim) (e.g. MCS 2, 75, BM 113075 [ŠS 3]), a fuller (azla g ) (e.g. SAT 3, 1332 [ŠS 3 xi]) and a smith (simug ) (e.g. Rochester 158 [ŠS 3 vii]). It is diicult to conidently state which Gurzan is represented in the text here; however, contextually the exchange of baked bread would suggest that this Gurzan was a cook at Umma.51 §2.3.6. No. 13 = AA 78 his text is a brief labor account for the equivalent of 60 labor days for work performed at the threshing floor (ki-su 7 ) of the Ninurra ield. he foreman (ug ula) is Šeškala and the sealing agent (kišib 3 ) is Ur-Šulpa’e, son of Lugal-kugani. his account is dated to Šu-Suen 3. Obverse 1. 1(ĝeš2) [guruš u4 1(diš)-še3] 2. ki-¿su7 a-ša3-dninur4-ra• gub-ba §2.3.5. No. 12 = AA 75 his Umma account records 355 liters of “large bread” (ninda g a l ) given by Gurzan and associated with the šunir. his text was sealed by Ayakala, the governor (ensi 2 ) of Umma from Amar-Suen 9 until the end of Šu-Suen’s reign. Accordingly, this text was recorded on Šu-Suen 3 xiii. Obverse 1. 1(aš) 5(ban2) 5(diš) sila3 ninda gal gur 2. zi-ga šu-nir 3. ki gur4-za-an-ta Reverse 1. kišib3 ensi2 seal impression 2. iti diri mu si-ma-num2ki ba-Ìul Seal col. i 1. dšu-dsuen 2. lugal kal-ga 3. lugal uri5ki-ma 4. lugal an ub-da limmu2-ba col. ii 1. a-a-kal-la 2. ensi2 3. ummaki 4. ARAD2-zu 3. [ugula] ¿šeš•-kal-¿la• 4. [kišib3 ur]- ¿d•šul-pa-e3 Reverse seal impression 1. mu us2-sa dšu-dsuen lugal -e ¿bad3• mar-tu ¿mu•-[du3] Seal 1. ur-dšul-pa-e3 2. dub-sar 3. dumu lugal-ku3-ga-ni 355 liters of large bread, credited to the šunir, rom Gurzan; sealed document of the governor; month: “Extra,” year: “Simanum was destroyed.” Šu-Suen, strong king, king of Ur, king of the heaven with its four corners; Ayakala, governor, of Umma, your servant. §2.3.5.1. here are at least three distinct individuals named Gurzan at Umma active in Šu-Suen 3: a cook Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2016:1 60 labor days, stationed at the threshing loor of the Ninurra field, the foreman is Šeškala, sealed document of Ur-Šulpa’e; year ater: “Šu-Suen , the king, built the western wall.” Ur-Šulpa’e, scribe, son of Lugal-kugani. §2.3.6.1. he place name ki-su 7 a-ša 3 - d nin-ur 4 -ra occurs only in Umma texts; moreover, this ield features prominently in a list of Umma ields in SAT 2, 1114 (AS 8). here are several other work assignment records for this location, mostly groups of male laborers (g uruš) illing and punting or towing52 (g id 2 ) boats (e.g. UTI 4, 2447 [ŠS 4]; SACT 2, 76 [ŠS 1]). §2.3.6.2. he reconstruction of ug ula in obv. 3 is supported by BPOA 1, 10 (iv 10), and BPOA 1, 908 (ŠS 3). Speciically, BPOA 1, 10, lists the foremen responsible for work in the ield of Ninurra in Umma: Obverse 1. 3(ĝeš2) guruš ša3-gu4 180 ox driver workers, 51 Allred 2006: 169-71. 52 For the possible translation “punting” of g id 2 instead of the traditional “towing,” see the recent arguments set forth in Englund 2010. page 9 of 11 2. ugula ur-dšul-pa-e3 3. 3(ĝeš2) ugula lugal-a2zi-da 4. 2(ĝeš2) ugula šeš-kal-la the foreman is Ur-Šulpa’e; 180 (ox driver workers), the foreman is Lugal-azida; 120 (ox driver workers), the foreman is Šeškalla; 5. 1(ĝeš2) ugula lu2-banda3da 60 (ox driver workers), the foreman is Lubanda; 6. 2(ĝeš2) ugula ur-dma-mi 120 (ox driver workers), the foreman is Ur-mami; Reverse 1. gurumx(|IGI.ERIM|) inspected on the 10th day; u4 1(u) 2. iti nesaĝ 3. ki-su7 a-ša3 dnin-ur4-ra month: “First oferings,” at the threshing loor of the Ninura field. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allred, Lance 2006 Brumield, Sara 2011 forthcoming Dahl, Jacob L. 2007 Cooks and Kitchens: Centralized Food Production in Late hird Millennium Mesopotamia. Dissertation, Johns Hopkins. “he Term ab2-RI-e in Ur III Sources.” CDLB 2011:2. “A Note on Administrative Inconsistencies.” he Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis of a Provincial Elite Family in Southern Riaq ca. 2100-2000 BC. PIHANS 108. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Dahl, Jacob L. & Hebenstreit, Laurent F. 2007 “19 Ur III Texts in a Private Collection,” RA 101, 35-49. Di Ludovico, Alessandro 2012 “he Uses of the Cylinder Seal as Clues of Mental Structuring Processes inside Ur III State Machinery.” In G. Wilhelm, ed., Organization, Representation and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East. RAI 54, Würzburg. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 275-289. Englund, Robert K. 2004 “Banks in Banning.” In: H. Waetzoldt ed., Von Sumer nach Ebla und Zurück. HSAO 9. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, pp. 35-44. 2010 “BU!” 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. Fs. Owen. Bethesda: CDL, pp. 95-114. Garinkle, Steven 2002 “Turam-ili and the Community of Merchants in the Ur III Period.” JCS 54, 29-48. Gelb, Ignace J. 1965 “he Ancient Mesopotamia Ration System.” JCS 24, 230-243. Heimpel, Wolfgang 2009 “he Location of Madga.” JCS 61, 25-61. Hilgert, Markus 2003 Drehem Administrative Documents during the Reign of Amar-Suena. OIP 121. Chicago: he Oriental Institute. Huehnergard, John & Sharlach, Tonia M. 2000 “A ša3 bala-a Tablet.” JCS 52, 123-125. page 10 of 11 Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2016:1 Johnson, J. Cale 2006 “he Ur III Tablets in the Valdosta State University.” CDLJ 2006:2. Jones, Tom B. & Snyder, John W. 1961 Sumerian Economic Texts rom the hird Ur Dynasty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kang, Shin T. 1972 Sumerian Economic Texts rom the Drehem Archive. SACT 1. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Karahashi, Fumi 2000 Sumerian Compound Verbs with Body-Part Terms. Dissertation, University of Chicago. Mayr, Rudi H. 1997 he Seal Impressions of Ur III Umma. Dissertation, Leiden 1997. Metcalf, Christopher 2010 “Six Ur III Tablets from the Hulin Collection in Oxford.” CDLB 2010:1. Owen, David I. 1994 “More Neo-Sumerian Texts from American Collections.” JCS 46, 17-27. Sallaberger, Walther 1993 Der kultische Kalendar der Ur III-Zeit. Teil 1. Berlin: de Gruyter. 2004 “Schlachtvieh aus Puzriš-Dagan, Zur Bedeutung dieses königlichen Archivs.” JEOL 38, 45-62. Sharlach, Tonia M. 2004 Provincial Taxation and the Ur III State. CM 26. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Sigrist, Marcel 1992 Drehem. Bethesda: CDL. 1995 Neo-Sumerian Texts rom the Royal Ontario Museum I: he Administration at Drehem. Bethesda: CDL. 2010 “Les noms d’année du règne du roi Šulgi.” 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. Fs. Owen. Bethesda: CDL Press, pp. 219-238. Steinkeller, Piotr 1988 “On the Identity of the Toponym LÚ.su(.A).” JAOS 108, 197-202. 1995 “Sheep and Goat Terminology in the Ur III Sources from Drehem.” BSA 8, 49-70. Stepien, Marek 1996 Animal Husbandry in the Ancient Near East. Bethesda: CDL Press. Tsouparopoulou, Christina 2008 he Material Face of Bureaucracy: Writing, Sealing and Archiving Tablets for the Ur III State at Drehem. Dissertation. Cambridge University. Van de Mieroop, Marc 1986 “Tūram-ilī: An Ur III Merchant.” JCS 38, 1-80. Widell, Magnus 2009 “Two Ur III Texts from Umma: Observations on Archival Practices and Household Management.” CDLJ 2009:6. Wu Yuhong 2010 “Diferentiating Šulgi 43 and Amar-Suen 4.” CDLN 2010:1. Wu Yuhong & Li Xueyan 2013 “he Regular Oferings of Lambs and Kids for Deities and the e2-uz-ga during the Reign of Šulgi.” In S. Garinkle and M. Molina, eds., From the 21st Century BC to the 21st Century AD. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 445-448. Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2016:1 page 11 of 11