Cuneiform Digital Library Notes

CDLN 2011:002
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 (*).

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 In addition to these tablets, a previously unpublished text within the cuneiform collection of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh has extended the date that Ur-Nungal is known to have functioned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:

A complete treatment of this text will appear in Halton Forthcoming as text 60.

CDLN 2011:003
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-gur-ra, as has been demonstrated by Maekawa (1988: 53-54 [and see Englund 1990: 72 n. 242]; in the present examples, sag nig2-gur-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-gur-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.

ASJ 9, 251 28

ASJ 11, 142 BM 106112

CDLN 2011:004
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
   ad6 is LU2×BAD
   ad7 is LU2šesig
   ad8 is (LU2×BAD)šesig
• 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)

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(DU)
   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
@tablet
@obverse
$ 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
@reverse
$ 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
@tablet
@obverse
@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
@reverse
@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
@obverse
$ 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
@tablet
@obverse
@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
@reverse
@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

CDLN 2011:005
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:

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.

Return to top

CDLN 2011:006
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.

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 3/2.1.1.24, 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 1.9.1.9 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 3/1.1.7.3, 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.

Return to top

CDLN 2012:001
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.ucla.edu/wiki/doku.php/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/pub.html> 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]

Return to top

CDLN 2012:002
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.

Return to top

CDLN 2012:003
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 cdli@ucla.edu.

[originally posted by the authors to the Agade list on 27 February 2008 (here with URL updates)]

Return to top

CDLN 2012:004
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).

Return to top

CDLN 2012:005
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.

   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]).

Return to top

CDLN 2012:006
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).

Return to top

CDLN 2013:001
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.

Commentary

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)."

Return to top