Keywords
Ur III, Archabbey Beuron, administration

Contents
§1.   Introduction
§2.   Administrative Documents from the Third Dynasty of Ur (2112-2004 BC)
         and Sumerian Votive Inscription of Sin-kašid of Uruk
§3.   Alphabetical Index of Words and Proper Names
§4.   Concordance of Registration Numbers (AM - EBKT)
§5.   Bibliography

§1. Introduction
The 22 cuneiform texts presented in the following were formerly part of the private collection of the late Professor Dr. Athanasius Miller OSB^[2] and are currently in the possession of St. Martin Archabbey Beuron, Germany. Purchased prior to the year 1912 in the Near East, 15 of these texts were mentioned in P. Dhorme’s publication “Tablettes de Dréhem a Jérusalem,” RA 9 (1912), 39-63,^[3] of which only five were reproduced in hand copies by Dhorme.^[4] The present contribution is the first comprehensive edition of all of the objects with cuneiform inscription— 21 Ur III administrative documents from Puzriš-Dagan and Umma as well as an Old Babylonian commemorative inscription of Sin-kašid of Uruk—once owned by Athanasius Miller.^[5]

§ 2.1. Delivery (mu-DU) of a Bear Cub by the King’s Son Ur-Suen

§2.1.1. For the “Central Bureau” of the Puzriš-Dagan organization, its principal officials, and activities, see Hilgert 1998, 13-15, 1.4.5. (with bibliographical references) and idem 2003, 53-64, 5.2.

§2.1.2. obv. 2: On Šulgi’s son Ur-Suen, see Michalowski 1977, 90 note 32; Frayne 1997, 169 no. 39 (with reference to Michalowski 1977).188-190 nos. 95-97; Mander 1998, 205 no. 17, line 11. 233 and note 26. The identity of Šulgi’s son Ur-Suen with a certain Ur-Suen who served as a military governor (šagina) at Uruk and Durum during Šulgi’s final regnal year was first proposed by Michalowski 1977, 90, and has been widely accepted ever since (see, e. g., Frayne 1997, 169 no. 39). Prosopographic evidence supporting Michalowski’s hypothesis may derive from an administrative document (BM 21797; 00-06-25; Girsu) recording a disbursal of bread and meat for ur-^dsuen dumu lugal aga₃-us₂ ensi₂ (AuOr 16, 204-205 T.17 rev. 11). Faced with the difficulty of reconciling the ostensibly conflicting social status indicators dumu lugal “son of the king” and aga₃-us₂ ensi₂ “soldier, escort of the governor” - a combination that, to my knowledge, is not attested elsewhere - one may wonder if syntactically the terms dumu lugal “son of the king,” aga₃-us₂ “soldier, escort,” and ensi₂ ”governor” should be analyzed as separate, appositional expressions referring to three different functions or titles of Ur-Suen (cf. Mander 1998, 233). Correspondingly, the occurrence of the latter two designations (aga₃-us₂, ensi₂) might possibly be seen as an attempt by the ancient scribe to paraphrase the meaning of the term šagina (i. e., an office implying being a “soldier” and a “city governor” at the same time [?]),^[6] which, for reasons unknown to us, he did not use. In this case, Michalowski’s hypothesis cited above would be proven correct.^[7] However, given the uncertainty governing our understanding of some aspects of the social hierarchy during the Ur III period and the officiary or functional distinctions and incompatibilities it may have brought about, this line of argumentation remains purely hypothetical.

§2.1.3. In addition to the present document, a “king’s son” named Ur-Suen occurs in several administrative records from various proveniences. Among these, all tablets offering a year date formula date to the reign of Šulgi. Pertinent references are in chronological order: TLB 3, 146 (= BBVO 10, 107-110) obv. ii 3. rev. i 13 (Šulgi 34-08-00); MVN 10, 149 (=BBVO 10, 111-113) rev. i 12 (Šulgi 35-02-00); SEL 3, 27 obv. ii 21. iii 25. rev. iii 1 (Šulgi 43-00-00); MVN 13, 706 obv. 6 (Šulgi 44-09-29); MVN 13, 121 obv. 4 (Šulgi 44-10-15); Trouvaille 81 rev. 22 (Šulgi 45-05-25); MVN 13, 513 rev. 10 (Šulgi 46-05-00); MVN 5, 105 obv. 8 (Šulgi 47-02-07); AuOr 16, 205, T.17 rev. 11 (00-06-25); ASJ 19, 228, 74 rev. ii 5 (00-00-00); NATN 299 obv. 6 (00-00-00); HLC 14 rev. I 4’ ([…]-00-00).^[8]

§2.1.4. Finally, a considerable number of Drehem administrative documents record deliveries of bears by a certain Ur-Suen. Conspicuously, they exclusively date to the reign of Šulgi, more precisely to the last six years of that reign^[9]: OIP 115, 147 obv. 6 (Šulgi 43-01-14); OIP 115, 173 obv. 3-4 (Šulgi 44-01 min-14); MVN 13, 116 rev. 13-14 (Šulgi 45-10-16); AnOr 7, 151 obv. 1-2 (Šulgi 46-11-21); TRU 34, 1-2 (Šulgi 46-11-27); StOr 9-1, 24 rev. 13 (Šulgi 47-01-03); JEOL 33, 114, 05 obv. 11-rev. 12 (Šulgi 47-11-15); AUCT 2, 214 obv. 1-2 (Šulgi 47-11-23); OrSP 18 pl. 4 12 rev. 21 (Šulgi 47-11-28); OIP 115, 267 obv. 4 (Šulgi 47-12-10); OIP 115, 268 obv. 4 (Šulgi 47-12-12); OIP 115, 191 obv. 5-rev. 6 (Šulgi 48-12-05); OIP 115, 294 rev. ii 9 (Šulgi 00-00-00); OIP 115, 293 obv. 10 (Šulgi 00-[…]-07). Whether the Ur-Suen mentioned in these texts is identical with the son of Šulgi known by the same name, as EBKT 1 appears to indicate, cannot be ascertained at present.

§ 2.2. Transfer (i₃-dab₅) of Oxen from Ahuni to Nasa

§2.2.1. For the bureau of Ahuni and its activities within the naGaBtum organization (Puzriš-Dagan), see Hilgert 1998, 16-17, 1.4.9 (with bibliographical references) and 2003, 43-53, 5.1.

§2.2.2. obv. 1: For the qualification sag gu₄, “top ox,” literally “head/top of the oxen,” apparently a high-grade classification of grain-fed oxen in administrative documents from Puzriš-Dagan (see, e. g., OIP 115 p. 324a s. v. gu₄ niga sag gu₄; OIP 121 p. 401 s. v. gu₄ niga sag gu₄), compare CAD M/I 108-109 s. v. mahrû adj. with reference to har-ra : hubullu 13, 288. In this context, also compare the lucid discussion of the terms ur-sag, maš₂-sag, and ud₅-sag by Cavigneaux 2000, 52. obv. 3: For the eš-eš-festival of the seventh day and related cultic celebrations linked to the lunar cycle, see Sallaberger 1993a, 56-59.
rev. 3: The reading zah_x(ŠEŠ)-da-gu₇ of the sign sequence expressing the name of the second/third month of the calendar used in Puzriš-Dagan administrative documents is discussed by Steinkeller 2007, 17-19; cf. Sallaberger 1993a, 195.

§ 2.3. Disbursal (ba-zi) of Large and Small Cattle by Nasa for Various Purposes

§2.3.1. For the “Central Bureau” of the Puzriš-Dagan organization, its principal officials, and activities, see Hilgert 1998, 13-15, 1.4.5. (with bibliographical references) and 2003, 53-64, 5.2.

§2.3.2. rev. 4: Line inscribed over various erasures. rev. 6: The reading mehida of the sign mu when used to express the word “cook” is suggested by Proto-Ea 174: me-hi-da : mu (see Civil 1979, 38, 174; compare Ea III 179 [Civil 1979, 311, 179]).
rev. 11: The variant of the year date formula Šulgi 48 restored here is attested passim in administrative documents from Puzriš-Dagan issued during that year. Examples from the tenth month include CST 211 rev. 11 (Šulgi 48-10-02); OIP 115, 353 rev. 16 (Šulgi 48-10-02); CST 214 (Šulgi 48-10-23); OIP 115, 354 rev. 7 (Šulgi 48-10-24); RA 9, 46 SA 55 rev. 3 (Šulgi 48-10-25); SCT 11 obv. 3 (Šulgi 48-10-26); RA 9, 46 SA 56 rev. 3 (Šulgi 48-10-29); OIP 115, 451 rev. 8’ (Šulgi 48-10-30).

§ 2.4. Transfer (šu ba-ti) of Small Cattle Carcasses from Šu-Mama to Šulgi-irigu

§2.4.1. For the bureau of Šu-Mama and its activities within the Puzriš-Dagan organization, see most recently Hilgert 2003, 77, 5.14.

§ 2.5. Transfer (šu ba-ti) of Small Cattle Carcasses from Šulgi-aagu to Ur-nigar

§2.5.1. For the bureau of Šulgi-aagu and its activities within the naGaBtum organization (Puzriš-Dagan), see most recently Hilgert 2003, 43-53, 5.1.

§2.5.2. obv. 1-2: For sig₁₇(GI) “yellow, tan” as a term denoting the coat color of goats and sheep, see Steinkeller 1995, 55-56.
obv. 3: On the toponym PI-DA-al-tum, see Hilgert 2002, 328 and note 53 (with bibliographical references); cf. Sigrist 1992, 71 and note 103.
rev. 5: The criteria for distinguishing the date formulae for the years Šulgi 45 and Amar-Suen 2 in administrative documents from Puzriš-Dagan are discussed in Hilgert 2003, 19-20.

§ 2.6. Disbursal (ba-zi) of Male Lambs of Sheep by Nalu for Various Purposes

§2.6.1. For the bureau of Nalu and its activities within the Puzriš-Dagan organization, see Hilgert 1998, 15-16, 1.4.8. (with bibliographical references) and idem 2003, 64-65, 5.3.

§2.6.2. obv. 4. rev. 1: For the term KA-NE “roasted meat, roast,” see Hilgert 2003, 77 and note 257; Sallaberger 1993a, 113 and note 511; Steinkeller 1995, 49 and 62 note 6; further attestations of this expression in Ur III administrative documents are listed in Archi & Pomponio 1990, 99 on 164 obv. 2 and 5.
obv. 9: To my knowledge, the expression uzu nim is attested in three additional administrative documents from Puzriš-Dagan (ASJ 18, 74, 2 rev. 9 [Šulgi 46-05-19; bureau of Nalu]; AUCT 1, 377 obv. 4 [Amar- Suen 1-01-00 [bureau of Lu-dingira, son of Inim-Šara]; Torino 1, 164 obv. 4 [Amar-Suen 7-03-00; bureau of Nalu]). The context in which this expression occurs suggests that the word represented by the sign NIM refers to a specific kind of meat preparation or processing^[10] which, according to all pertinent sources, was based on the meat of male grain-fed lambs (sila₄ niga).^[11] Whether uzu nim might be associated with maš₂/sila₄/ udu nim “autumn goatling/lamb,” terms attested from the Old Sumerian period onward,^[12] is uncertain.
rev. 2: For activities of Aa-kala recorded in Puzriš-Dagan administrative documents similar to the present one, see Hilgert 2003, 77 and notes 257-258 (with bibliographical references).

§ 2.7. Transfer (i₃-dab₅) of Fat-tailed Sheep From Aba-saga to Uta-mišaram

§2.7.1. For the “Central Bureau” of the Puzriš-Dagan organization, its principal officials, and activities, see Hilgert 1998, 13-15, 1.4.5. (with bibliographical references) and 2003, 53-64, 5.2.

§2.7.2. obv. 4: For Uta-mišaram and his activities within the Puzriš-Dagan organization, see Hilgert 2003, 71 (with bibliographical references). 74-75.

§ 2.8. Disbursal (ba-zi) of a Ram by Šulgi-aagu

§2.8.1. For the bureau of Šulgi-aagu and its activities within the naGaBtum organization (Puzriš-Dagan), see most recently Hilgert 2003, 43-53, 5.1. For the present document and further disbursals intended for the “thrones” (^gešgu-za) of various individuals, see Sallaberger 1993a, 147 note 696.

§ 2.9. Transfer (šu ba-ti) of a Ram’s Carcass from Dahiš-atal to Šulgi-irigu

§2.9.1. For the bureau of Dah(i)š-atal and its activities within the Puzriš-Dagan organization, see most recently Hilgert 2003, 76-77, 5.13.

§ 2.10. Transfer (šu ba-ti) of Small Cattle Carcasses from Lu-dingira to Ur-nigar

§2.10.1. or the bureau of Lu-dingira, son of Inim-Šara, and its activities within the naGaBtum organization (Puzriš-Dagan), see Hilgert 1998, 17, 1.4.10. (with bibliographical references) and idem 2003, 43-53, 5.1.

§ 2.11. Transfer (i₃-dab₅) of Newborn Lambs of Sheep to Šulgi-aagu

§2.11.1. For the bureau of Šulgi-aagu and its activities within the naGaBtum organization (Puzriš-Dagan), see most recently Hilgert 2003, 43-53, 5.1. For an analysis of administrative documents similar to the present one, see ibid., 47-49.

§2.11.2. rev. 3: For the intercalary month ezem-mah min/min₃ of Amar-Suen’s fourth regnal year, see Sallaberger 1993a, 8 note 22 (with bibliographical references) and, most recently, Englund 2004, 37 note 14. Attestations of this intercalary month not listed in Whiting 1979, 18, are in alphabetical order: AUCT 1, 592; AUCT 2, 126 and 350; HSAO 9, 37 XXX, 1; Hirose 166- 167; JCS 52, 10, 36; MVN 8, 50- 51; MVN 9, 219; MVN 13, 910; SAT 2, 797. 821; Torino 1, 170.

§ 2.12. Transfer (šu ba-ti) of Carcasses of Sheep from Igi-Enlilše to Šulgi-irigu

§2.12.1. For the bureau of Igi-Enlilše and its activities within the Puzriš-Dagan organization, see most recently Hilgert 2003, 79, 5.17.

§ 2.13. Delivery (mu-DU) of Large and Small cattle to Intaea

§2.13.1. For the “Central Bureau” of the Puzriš-Dagan organization, its principal officials, and activities, see Hilgert 1998, 13-15, 1.4.5. (with bibliographical references) and 2003, 53-64, 5.2. For the significance of the delivery recorded in the present document and an analysis of the pertinent administrative terminology, see Sallaberger 1993a, 32-35. 56 and note 234; 1993b, 15 table 6a; 1999, 195-196 and note 246. Compare Maeda 1994, 125-126 (with reference to EBKT 13 = AM 13). 160; Sharlach 2004, 131-136. 347 (chart 4.3). 359 (chart 5.1). 367 (chart 6.1; all charts with reference to EBKT 13 = AM 13).

§2.13.2. obv. 3: The identification of the animal referred to by the Sumerian word šeg₉-bar with a cervid, possibly the Mesopotamian fallow deer (dama mesopotamica), was first proposed by Steinkeller 1995, 50. obv. 7: For the “grand-vizier” Aradgu/Arad-Nanna, see Huber 2000; Sallaberger 1999, 189-190 and notes 228 (with bibliographical references), 251.

§ 2.14. Delivery (mu-DU) of Small Cattle to Intaea

§2.14.1. For the “Central Bureau” of the Puzriš-Dagan organization, its principal officials, and activities, see Hilgert 1998, 13-15, 1.4.5. (with bibliographical references) and 2003, 53-64, 5.2.

§2.14.2. obv. 5: For the possible location of the settlement referred to by the toponym Pu-ut-tu-li-um^ki, see Owen 1997, 380-381.
obv. 8: For animal deliveries designated as gun₂ ma-da, “tax of the mada-territory,” see the discussions by Steinkeller 1987, 30-41, and Sallaberger 1999, 196-199; compare the remarks by Sallaberger 1993a, 27 and note 104.

§ 2.15. Delivery (mu-DU) of a Male Lamb to Aba-saga

§2.15.1. For the “Central Bureau” of the Puzriš-Dagan organization, its principal officials, and activities, see Hilgert 1998, 13-15, 1.4.5 (with bibliographical references) and 2003, 53-64, 5.2.

§ 2.16. Receipt (ba-zi) Concerning Irrigation System Labor Force

§2.16.1.1. obv. 3: For the expression u₄ du₈-a “free day,” see Sallaberger 1993a, 72 note 317 (with bibliographical references). The ratio between workdays and off-days attested here (10:1) is the customary one for male workers during the Ur III period; see Englund 1991, 275-279; Waetzoldt 1988, 36-38. obv. 4-5: The translation offered here as well as the grammatical analysis on which it is based are entirely tentative, as I am not aware of any elucidating parallels. For kun-zi-da “dam, weir,” see Civil 1994, 129-130. 134. 136 note 8, and Steinkeller 2001, 35 and note 46.

§2.16.1.2. Whether the expression i₇ pa₂-ri₂-ik-tum^[13] indeed refers to a transversal canal, as suggested by an Old Babylonian legal document (CT 8, 17b, 3),^[14] or rather should be understood as a proper name, cannot be decided without further pertinent evidence. While i₇ pa₂-ri₂-ik-tum appears to be a hapax legomenon within the corpus of published Ur III administrative documents, a noun pa₂-ri-ik-tum occurs in an Akkadian incantation from the Ur III period excavated at Nippur (6N-T105, 3’),^[15] albeit in a rather obscure context.^[16] It remains unclear if both texts contain the same lexeme. For a-ša₃ dal-ba-na, “in-between area; balk,” compare Civil 1994, 112-115, on eg₂ dal-ba(-an)-na; CAD B 252-255 s. v. birītu s. For the occurrence of this expression in mathematical cuneiform texts, see Friberg 1987-1990, 564-565. Ur III administrative documents containing the expression a-ša₃ dal-ba-na are ASJ 8, 346, 2 obv. ii 11’; BPOA 1, 577 rev. 4; CST 40 obv. 1; 883, obv. ii 12’; Iraq 5, 173, 21 rev. 13; MVN 3, 358 obv. 4; NATN 60 obv. 2 (dal^al-ba-na); Ontario 1, 167 obv. 6;^[17] SNAT 261 obv. i 10; TRU 374 obv. 4; rev. 10. However, as Civil 1994, 137 note 17, has pointed out with regard to Syracuse 149 obv. 2, dal-ba-na may sometimes serve as a proper name or part thereof (compare the corresponding references listed by Pettinato 1967,138, 178-179). It appears as if the varying usages of the term were not easy to distinguish, a fact adding even more uncertainty to the proposed analysis and translation of the passage at hand.^[18] For kun, “tail, outlet (of a canal),” see Kang 1974, 437-438. 440 fig.; Sauren 1966, 49.

§2.16.1.3. rev. 1: As the personal name Ku-li is well attested within Ur III administrative documents from various proveniences and EBKT 16 does not provide any prosopographical information in addition to Kuli’s name, the identity of the functionary in question as well as the document’s provenience remain uncertain.^[19]
rev. 4: In all probability, this line offered the year date formula. Given the space available on the tablet surface and provided that the identification of the sign ti in rev. 10 is correct, the year date formula most likely to be reconstructed is one indicating Šulgi’s 47^th year (Šulgi 47a), since some variants of this year date formula contain the toponym Hurti the last syllable of which is always represented by the sign ti (e. g., mu us₂-sa ki-maš^ki (u₃) hu-ur/ur₅-ti^ki ba-hul “year following [the year]: Kimaš and Hurti were destroyed”^[20]).

§ 2.17. Transfer (kišib) of a Mountain Ram’s Carcass from Ur-ru to Lu-kala

§2.17.1. For administrative documents similar to the present one and its principal officials, Ur-ru and Lukala, son of Ur-e’e, see Stepien 1996, 182-183, 358a, and 151-154, 217a, respectively. Receipts concerning dead animals and sealed with the seal of Lu-kala, son of Ur-e’e, are discussed by Dahl 2007, 106-108 and fig. 9. For the seal of Lukala, son of Ur-e’e, see Bergamini 1995, 383, S.33; Mayr 1997, 307-308, 344.1; further occurences of this well attested are, e. g., listed in Waetzoldt & Yıldız 1994, xvii, 96a-b, and Koslova 2000, xlii, 40a-b.

§2.17.2. obv. 1: For the Sumerian animal terminology in Umma administrative documents, see Stepien 1996, 16-31 (with bibliographical references). The semantic difference between the expressions ba-uš₂/ug₇ and ri-ri-ga-am₃ in these texts is treated ibid., 41 and note 23. 77-78. 199. obv. 4: For the proposed reading dal of RI in the present month name, see Englund 2004, 38 note 16.
Seal inscription 3: For the administrative activities of Ur-e₁₁-e, see most recently Dahl 2007, 85-96; Studevent- Hickman 2006, 29. 47-48 (with bibliographical references).
The various duties and functions of officials referred to as šuš₃ in Umma administrative documents are discussed by Stepien 1996, 38-40. 57-58. 61-62, Studevent- Hickman 2006, 29 and note 47, and, most recently, by Dahl 2007, 85-96.

§ 2.18. Transfer (kišib) of Small Cattle Carcasses from Girini-idab to Lukala

§2.18.1. For administrative documents similar to the one at hand and its principal officials, girini-idab and Lu-kala, son of Ur-ee, see Stepien 1996, 124, 94a, and 151-154, 217a, respectively. Receipts concerning dead animals and sealed with the seal of Lu-kala, son of Uree, are discussed by Dahl 2007, 106-108 and fig. 9. For the seal of Lu-kala, son of Ur-e’e, see Bergamini 1995, 383 S.33; Mayr 1997, 307-308, 344.1; further occurences of this well attested are, e. g., listed in Waetzoldt & Yıldız 1994, xvii, 96a. 96b, and Koslova 2000, xlii, 40a-b. Compare the remarks on EBKT 17, seal inscription 3, above.

§2.18.2. obv. 3: For the significance of the expression de₅-de₅-ga-am₃ in the present context and in similar administrative documents, see Stepien 1996, 41 and notes 23, 77-78, 199 (“ri-ri-ga-am₃”).

§ 2.19. Memorandum (?) of La-ni-mu Concerning Small Cattle

§2.19.1. Due to the extremely sparse information given, provenience and administrative significance of this text cannot be ascertained beyond doubt. Possible interpretations range from aide mémoire to transfer account. One or several individuals known by the name of La-NIMU are attested as principal official in Ur III administrative documents recording the transfer or management of small cattle. They include (in chronological order) Santag 6, 59 (Šulgi 44-00-00); MVN 15, 214 (Šulgi 46-00-00); Santag 6, 72 (Šulgi 46-00-00); SACT 1, 69 (Šulgi 47-00-00); SACT 2, 253 (Šulgi 47-00-00); MVN 9, 40 (Amar-Suen 2-00-00). However, whether the same individual referred to as La-NIMU in EBKT 20, 3 also occurs in one or several of these texts, remains unclear. Ur III administrative documents closely related to EBKT 20 with regard to contents and structure are CDLB 2007:2, no. 2 (00-00-00)^[21] and Buffalo SNS 11-2 144, 12 (00-00-00; for both texts, see Allred - Gadotti 2007, §2.2).

§ 2.20. Receipt (kišib) Concerning Agriculture Labor Force

§2.20.1.1. obv. 2: The entry “Ur-^gešgigir šabra” occurs rather frequently (more than 100 attestations^[22]) within administrative documents from Umma of varied contents dating to the reigns of Šulgi, Amar-Suen, and Šu-Suen. It does not appear unlikely that all texts refer to the same individual, even though this cannot be established with certainty. In AuOr Suppl 11, 522 (=MVN 18, 522; […]-00-00) obv. 9, a certain Ur-gigir is qualified as šabra Ab-ba-mu “chief administrator of Aba-mu,”^[23] suggesting that this particular individual was not the “chief administrator” of a temple. Umma administrative documents containing the entry kišib Ur-^gešgigir šabra, “seal of Ur-gigir, the chief administrator” often bear impressions of a seal the inscription of which reads: Ur-^gešgigir / dub-sar / dumu Bar-ra-an, “Ur-gigir, scribe, son of Bara-an” (see, e. g., in chronological order, MVN 16, 1485 [Amar-Suen 8-00-00]; UTI 5, 3464 [Amar-Suen 9-00-00]; UTI 5, 3447 [Šu-Suen 1-00-00]; UTI 5, 3166 [Šu-Suen 2-00-00]; for further references and the seal of Ur-gigir, see Bergamini 1995, 400 S.62; Mayr 1997, 440, 748). It may be considered certain that this seal inscription refers to Ur-gigir, the chief administrator.^[24] Furthermore, several other Umma administrative documents with the entry kišib Ur-^gešgigir šabra are sealed with the seal of Ur-gigir’s son, Lu-Šara, the inscription of which reads: Lu₂-^dŠara₂ / dub-sar / dumu Ur-^gešgigir (see, e. g., in chronological order, SACT 2, 17 [Šu-Suen 2-00-00]; UTI 5, 3173 [Šu-Suen 2-00-00]; BPOA 2, 2575 [Šu- Suen 4-00-00]; for further references and the seal of Lu-Šara, see Mayr 1997, 331, 402.2; compare ibid., 330, 402.1 and 331, 402.3). To my knowledge, EBKT 21 is the only Umma administrative document mentioning Ur-gigir, the chief administrator, in connection with a parcel of land.
obv. 4: For Ur-^gešgigir nu-banda₃ gu₄, a well attested individual in Umma administrative documents, see Stepien 1996, 176, 333d.^[25] According to UTI 5, 3389 (Šu- Suen-00-00), a seal of Ur-gigir’s bore the inscription: Ur-^dLi₉-si₄ / ensi₂ Umma^ki / Ur-^gešgigir / ARAD₂-zu; for this and two additional seals of Ur-gigir identifying him as the son of a certain A₂-si-lu (e. g., MVN 16, 1239 [Šu-Suen 3-00-00]. 1504 [Šu-Suen 3-00-00]), see Mayr 1997, 438-439, 742. The seal of an individual appearing to be Ur-gigir’s son, Inim-Šara, is, e. g., impressed on UTI 3, 1761 (Amar-Suen 7-00-00; for this seal, see Mayr 1997, 265, 219).^[26] As in the case of Ur-^gešgigir šabra (obv. 2), EBKT 21 is the only source known to me that links Ur-gigir, the chief plot manager (“inspector of the oxen”), to a land parcel.
obv. 6: Several different individuals named Lugal-gu₄-e are attested in Umma administrative documents, among them one or several officials bearing the title nu-banda₃ gu₄, the chief plot manager (“inspector of the oxen” e. g., OrAnt 17, 43, 225 seal 2 [Šulgi 41-11-00]; AUCT 1, 797 obv. 1 [Amar-Suen 1-06-00]; BPOA 1, 1599 obv. 3 [Amar-Suen 2-00-00]; TCL 5, 5675 rev. vi 5 [Amar-Suen 4-12-00]; UTI 3, 2028 obv. 2 [Amar- Suen 5-00-00]; SNAT 420 rev. i 1 [Amar-Suen 6 and 7-00-00]; SNAT 419 obv. 14 [Amar-Suen 9-00-00]; Santag 6, 216, obv. 5 [Šu-Suen 1-09-00]).^[27] The identification of Lugal-gue in the present document is uncertain.
obv. 7: For the difference between the actions described by the Sumerian verbs zi_x(SIG₇) and ku₅,^[28] see now, with extended bibliographical references, the detailed discussion in Molina & Such-Gutiérrez 2004, 5-7. For the reading hirin_x of the sign KWU 318/LAK 175 and the weed referred to by this term, see most recently ibid., 12.
obv. 8: For the a-geština-field in Umma administrative documents, see Pettinato, 1967, 66-68. The number of textual references for this particular cultivated area has grown considerably since the publication of Pettinato’s study. A detailed analysis of the new data appears to be in order, but cannot be undertaken here.

§2.20.1.2. rev. 1: The entry ugula Lu₂-giri₁₇-zal is attested passim in Umma administrative documents.^[29] In none of the pertinent texts known to me, the personal name Lu₂-giri₁₇-zal is qualified by a patronymic and/ or an occupational title. Thus, it is impossible to determine with certainty which documents refer to the same individual, respectively.
rev. 2: For Šeš-kala, the son of Dada, see Mayr 1997, 142-143. 146; compare the critical remarks by Dahl 2007, 81 note 293. For references to tablets recording transactions authorized by Šeš-kala, son of Dada, and bearing impressions of the seal of Lugal-nig-lagare, the scribe and son of Dada, see Mayr 1997, 370, 508.
rev. 3: For the proposed reading dal of RI in the present month name, see Englund 2004, 38 note 16.
Seal inscription: For the seal of Lugal-nig-lagare, the identity of its owner, and Umma administrative documents sealed with it, see the bibliographical references cited in the commentary on line rev. 10 of the present text.

§ 2.21. Clay Bulla Detailing the Contents of an Administrative Document Container

§2.21.1. For the “Central Bureau” of the Puzriš-Dagan organization, its principal officials, and activities, see Hilgert 1998, 13-15, 1.4.5. (with bibliographical references) and idem 2003, 53-64, 5.2. Clay bullae referring to records of disbursal (zi-ga) issued under the authority of Nasa of the “Central Bureau” are in chronological order BRM 3, 039 (Šulgi 40-12-00, Nasa [?]), NYPL 353 (Šulgi 47-02-00), BRM 3, 043 (Šulgi 48-10-00), SAT 2, 0645 (Šulgi 00-09-00, Nasa [?]), MVN 10, 232 (Amar-Suen 1-03-00), OIP 115, 361 ([…]-[…]-[…]). EBKT 22 is an extremely well preserved exemplar exhibiting distinct impressions of the rope around which it was moulded. Puzriš-Dagan administrative documents that record disbursals by Nasa during the ninth month of Šulgi’s 48^th year and therefore might have been stored in the container sealed with the present bulla include in chronological order: MVN 2, 160 (Šulgi 48-09-00); OIP 115, 350 (Šulgi 48-09-01); Nik 2, 474 (Šulgi 48-09-06); OrSP 5, 54, 19 Wengler 27 (Šulgi 48-09-07); Nik 2, 469 (Šulgi 48-09-08); OrSP 18 pl. 5, 17 (Šulgi 48-09-09); OrSP 5, 54, 18 Wengler 26 (Šulgi 48-09-10); MVN 10, 140 (Šulgi 48-09-11); MVN 8, 112 (Šulgi 48-09-12); BIN 3, 519 (Šulgi 48-09-13); CST 208 (Šulgi 48-09-15); TRU 298 (Šulgi 48-09-23); MVN 2, 162 (Šulgi 48-09-24); MVN 2, 163 (Šulgi 48-09-27); AnOr 7, 95 (Šulgi 48-09-29).

§2.21.2. obv. 1: For the meaning of the term E₂-tum (bītum “house”) in this particular context, see Hilgert 2003, 76 and note 255 (with bibliographical references).

§2.21.3. Seal inscription: For the activities of Naram-ili within the Puzriš-Dagan organization, see Maeda 1994, 126-130, and the bibliographical references cited in Hilgert, 1998, 10. For examples of Drehem administrative documents sealed with Naram-ili’s seal, see Maeda 1994, 128.^[30]

§ 2.22. Sumerian Inscription Commemorating Building Activities at the Royal Palace in Uruk

§2.22.1. For yet another exemplar of this inscription, see now Allred - Gadotti 2007 §2.1.

§3. Alphabetical Index of Words and Proper Names^[31]

§4. Concordance of Registration Numbers (AM = “Athanasius Miller”, EBKT = “Erzabtei Beuron, Keilschrifttexte”)

§5. Bibliography

Notes

Version: 7 July 2008  

@article{Hilgert2008Cuneiform,
	note = {[Online; accessed 2024-04-23]},
	address = {Oxford; Berlin; Los Angeles},
	author = {Hilgert,  Markus},
	journal = {Cuneiform Digital Library Journal},
	issn = {1540-8779},
	number = {2},
	year = {2008},
	publisher = {Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative},
	title = {Cuneiform {Texts} in the {Collection} of {St}. {Martin} {Archabbey} {Beuron}},
	url = {https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/articles/cdlj/2008-2},
	volume = {2008},
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Hilgert,  Markus
DA  - 2008///
PY  - 2008
ET  - 2008/7/7/
ID  - cdlj-2008-2
IS  - 2
J2  - CDLJ
SN  - 1540-8779
T2  - Cuneiform Digital Library Journal
TI  - Cuneiform Texts in the Collection of St. Martin Archabbey Beuron
UR  - https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/articles/cdlj/2008-2
VL  - 2008
Y2  - 2024/4/23/
ER  -