|
Cuneiform Digital Library Journal |
CDLI Home |
|
|
An Archive of Pasture Plots from Ur-III Ĝirsu Angela Greco Keywords |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
§0.1 The present contribution[1] seeks to analyze different tablets from Ur-III Ĝirsu belonging to a single archive, many of which share the characteristic of having a lenticular shape.[2] These texts record accounts (nig2-ka9 aka) concerning the number of sheep, which have grazed in a given field within a given year, and mention the individuals who were responsible for, or somehow connected to them. All the tablets are already been published, yet their information has been dispersed in the tangled network of information from the thousands of Ur-III documents; by treating them as a unit, we can appreciate the consistent insight they offer us (in their own way).
§1.0.3. Tablets from this archive (see §1.1) are now scattered in different museums and collections, though about half of them (17 tablets) are housed in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum.[5]
| No. | Tablet | Museum | No. | Tablet | Museum |
| 1 | MVN 2, 78 MAH 16511 |
Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, Geneva, Switzerland | 16 | DAS 274 AO 2541 |
Musée du Louvre, Paris, France |
| 2 | Amherst 20 51.2392 |
Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, Hungary | 17 | TCTI 1, 771 L 771 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey |
| 3 | TLB 3, 88 LB 920 |
Netherlands Institute for the Near East, Leiden, The Netherlands | 17 | TCTI 2, 4177 L 4177 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey |
| 4 | TLB 3, 89 LB 921 |
Netherlands Institute for the Near East, Leiden, The Netherlands | 19 | MVN 7, 583 L 8191 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey |
| 5 | CT 1, pl. 35 BM 12230 |
British Museum, London, United Kingdom | 20 | MVN 6, 140 L 7141 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey |
| 6 | TLB 3, 87 LB 2440 |
Netherlands Institute for the Near East, Leiden, The Netherlands | 21 | MVN 6, 276 L 7284 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey |
| 7 | HLC 1, 37 A 31707 |
Oriental Institute Museum, Chicago, IL, USA | 22 | MVN 6, 415 L 7436 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey |
| 8 | MVN 5, 203 Amherst 144 |
Private collection: Lord Amherst (dispersed) | 23 | MVN 6, 545 L 7575 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey |
| 9 | MVN 5, 204 Amherst 145 |
Private collection: Lord Amherst (dispersed) | 24 | MVN 6, 145 L 7148 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey |
| 10 | Ontario 2, 435[6] ROM 967.287.67 |
Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, ON, Canada | 25 | MVN 5, 176 / |
Private collection: Rassam 18 (dispersed) |
| 11 | TCTI 1, 743 L 743 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey | 26 | MVN 6, 544 L 7574 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey |
| 12 | TCTI 1, 802 L 802 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey | 27 | TCTI 2, 2702 L 2702 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey |
| 13 | TCTI 1, 850 L 850 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey | 28 | TÉL 250 / |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey |
| 14 | TCTI 2, 4176 L 4176 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey | 29 | MVN 6, 546 L 7576 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey |
| 15 | TCTI 2, 4178 L 4178 |
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey |
| Year | Tablets | Year | Tablets |
| Š 27 | Text 21? | AS 9 | Text 24 |
| Š 32 | Text 1 | ŠS 1 | Text 4; Text 5; 25; 26 |
| Š 35 | Text 19 | ŠS 6 | Text 6 |
| Š 36 | Text 20 | ŠS 8 | Text 7; 8; 9; 27 |
| Š 44 | Text 2? | ŠS 9 | Text 10; 11; 12 |
| Š 48 | Text 21? | IS 3 | Text 2?; 13; 14; 15; 28 |
| AS 1 | Text 22; 23 | [...] | Text 16; 17; 18; 29 |
| AS 5 | Text 3 |
§1.1.1. Archive is here understood as a group of tablets responding to a single administrative question, drawn up by a single office, hence very likely physically kept in the same place for the sake of convenience.
§1.1.2. Although these texts represent de facto sheep inventories, the underlying perspective is that of the fields, a perspective that conveys the information derived from other economic realities, which shared the convenience of benefitting from those plots.
§1.1.3. For multiple reasons, the texts of this group resemble the well-known corpus of the so-called Runde Tafeln (or Round Tablets), land surveys of the Ĝirsu province focused on yield projections and dating from Š 27 to IS 3.[7]
§1.1.4. Both groups share indeed some suggestive features: they are both concerned with the provincial land management (the ‘Round Tablets’ for its main concern, the yield; our texts for a complementary concern, the pasture areas), they both roughly encompass the same time frame (Š 32 is likely the earliest in our case). As for their shape, many, but not all, tablets of that corpus have a lenticular form, a common characteristic also in our corpus.[8]
§1.1.5. They differ in the underlying purpose (control of the yield vs control of the pasture areas) and in the way the information was gathered. Indeed, the ‘Round Tablets’ report direct information taken outdoors and the totals could be calculated and added, for the sake of convenience, to the already dry tablet, after the scribe returned to his ‘office’.[9] Our texts consist instead of summarizing tablets reporting information gathered by different single documents and therefore have been likely completely compiled ‘indoors’. In addition, they do not report total sections,[10] and the ‘missing information’ (<...>) we can find in them (see e.g. Text 16 (DAS 274)) probably tells us that something went wrong in the transmission of the primary information.
§1.1.6. That we are dealing with secondary information is made clear by the note ‚ 2 im-bi’, “the relevant tablets (are) 2” (Text 1 (MVN 2, 78); Text 19 (MVN 7, 583); Text 21 (MVN 6, 276), and Text 23 (MVN 6, 545)) and the even more explicit (albeit by default): nig2-ka9 NE nu-aka, “’this account was not compiled” (Text 29 (MVN 6, 546), obv. II, 8’), in reference to the sheep managed by a herdsman (na-gada).[11]
§1.1.7. Our texts are indeed summarizing accounts based on the information from:
§1.1.8. Not necessarily every single text combines all this information, since it was not relevant for every single pasture area.
§1.1.9. Texts explicitly concerning pasture areas are clearly drafted from the point of view of the field management and concern the optimization of plots in a supplementary way to their ‘main role’ as production units.[13] Portions of fields were indeed allocated to professional shepherds as grazing areas. Texts of this type are for instance PPAC 5, 1670 (IS 3/-), listing the plots located in unnamed fields and taken over by shepherds (rev. 16: aša5 dab5-<ba> sipa-e-ne) quoted by name and differentiated by category (n iku PNs (na-gada) sipa udu eme-gi-ra-me/sipa ud5-da-me/sipa udu gukkal-na-me). The specific expression ‘aša5 dab5-ba’ also occurs in ITT 4, 7048 (-/-), very likely a tag for tablet-containers, which reports: obv. 1-rev. 2: a-ša3 dab5-ba sipa udu gi / a-ša3 dab5-ba sipa gukkal / a-ša3 giri3-se3-ga e2 uš-bar / u3 a-ša3 zi-<ga> lugal / e2 dnanše, “fields taken over by shepherds of local sheep, fields taken over by shepherds of fat-tailed sheep, fields of the personnel of the weaving mill, and royal fields ‘expended’, in the household of Nanše”. The same expression is probably to be reconstructed in SNAT 126 (ŠS 1/-), listing the portions of plots located in different fields of Gu’aba to be understood as grazing areas taken over by unnamed shepherds (rev. 13-14: gur11-gur11-ra a-ša3 <dab5-ba> sipa ša3 gu2-ab-⸢baki⸣).[14] A more precise insight is offered by MVN 2, 42 [...], made up of a fragmentary tablet and envelope, which records the allocation of plots to different shepherds of the province as grazing areas. The initial section of MVN 2, 42, that is the ‘capital section’, distinguishes plots located in fields allotted to state dependents (e a-ša3 FN du3-du3-a eren2-na-ta),[15] plots located in fields administratively owned by the state/province (e a-ša3 FN ⸢nig2⸣-gal2-la-ta), and plots located in temple households (e a-ša3 FN ki sagga DN-ta). Due to the condition of the document, we cannot follow this subdivision in the ‘expenditure section’ (that is the allocation of plots to shepherds), but at the end of a subsection concerning the plots allocated to at least three herdsmen one can find the expression “plots taken over (by shepherds and that are) administrative property of the state/province” (Tab. rev. II, 12’: aša5 dab5-ba / nig2-gal2-la). Further information provided by this text concerns “fields yielding rent” (aša5 ku5-ra2 ba-ab-us2) and “fields not yielding rent” (aša5 ku5-ra2 nu-us2), offering a hint at the presence of tenants among the individuals who profited from the pasture areas (for more detail, see §2.3.3).
§1.1.10. Pasture areas clearly represented an optimization in the agricultural cycle of the plots,[16] regardless of the administrative temporary ownership of the fields, where they were located (see §1.2). This may be the reason why our texts could disregard the administrative condition of the pasture plots (leased out, allotted, directly managed), as well as that of the listed animals (on the ownership of the animals, see §3.4).
§1.2.1. The fields mentioned in our texts lay in the agricultural landscape managed by provincial offices, the same ones which commissioned our texts. In general, texts from Ĝirsu come from the provincial state archive, in particular the governor’s archive, and thus give little information on the land (and other assets) pertaining to the royal sector.[17] Our texts are not exception to this, yet they apparently offer a glimpse into plots located in provincial fields, but directly assigned by the crown to royal dependents in return of their service. ITT 4, 7048 (see §1.1), suggests that within a temple household (e2 dnanše) plots allocated to provincial institutional shepherds occur alongside plots defined as ‘zi-ga lugal’, thus allotted to individuals who worked for the royal sector.[18] Therefore, pasture areas falling in those fields were a royal concern. Nevertheless, the information about the animals that grazed there was transmitted to the office that produced our texts. This consideration also applies to the herds belonging to the royal family and entrusted to shepherds, whose activity is attested elsewhere in the provincial documentation, and to herds and plots pertaining to households that had a particular status or connection to the provincial central government, such as those of the high priestess of BaU and of the grand vizier.
§1.2.2. In order to explain the reason why our texts can bear traces of interaction among different sectors or households, we should consider their particular point of view. The absence of total sections in our corpus already betrays that the main concern of the texts was not the total number of animals in the grazing areas of each field, but the tracking of the total number of animals for each listed individual (§2).[19] Therefore, one can note a particular focus on the ones who were entitled to profit from the pasture plots, and the list of their names, each with their relevant information, already represents what can be seen as the ending point of the interlocution of different administrative realities: provincial and temple households, the household of the high priestess of BaU, that of the grand vizier, but also the royal sector. This kind of information is indeed made clear by the attribution of the sheep or some professionals (involved in herding or not) to the high priestess, the grand vizier, the king, the queen (e.g. udu ereš-dingir, na-gada nin, dub-sar lugal). Such characterizations can be considered as a re-elaboration of the primary information (§1.3.7), and, at the same time, they hint at the ownership of the herds or plots, which these professionals were tied to. Sections assigned to professional shepherds belonging to a specific household or sector record exclusively a given number of sheep and goats. Thus, we can imagine that the relative primary information was transmitted by the administration of those particular economic units or households without details on the availability of their sheep. In some cases, even the presence of shepherds tied to the sheep assigned to some individuals can be omitted, since the name of the professionals (somehow tied to the sheep) already satisfied the required information (see below §2.3.2.3).
§1.2.3. The lack of any characterization for the professionals involved in herding could indicate that they were institutional shepherds, and the lack in general of any characterization to professionals or untitled individuals would indicate that these individuals were tied to plots of institutional concern or were involved for labor duty in the herding of state-held flocks. However, in some cases, this type of information can be considered irrelevant or taken for granted, as may have been the case of the administrator of the household of the high priestess of BaU (see §2.3.1.2).[20]
§1.2.4. Naturally, not all the texts report the presence of individuals pertaining to different sectors or particular households, as the ownership of the plots varied according to the fields where the grazing areas were located.
§1.2.5. The presence of individuals tied to royal (nin/lugal) herds[21] or plots can be found[22] in Text 3 (TLB 3, 88); Text 4 (TLB 3, 89); Text 5 (CT 1, pl. 35, BM 12230); Text 7 (HLC 1, 37); Text 9 (MVN 5, 204); Text 17 (TCTI 1, 771); Text 22 (MVN 6, 415); Text 24 (MVN 6, 145); Text 25 (MVN 5, 176); thus the fields concerned are: a-ša3 bara2?-⸢si-ga gu2⸣ i7; a-ša3 dnin-e2-gal; a-ša3 i-šar-ra; a-ša3 du6-lugal-u3-a; a-ša3 e2? [...]; a-ša3 bad3-[...]/a-ša3 bad3-da-ri2 u3 ar-la-AN; a-ša3 gibil; a-ša3 gir2-nun.
§1.2.6. The presence of professionals tied to the household of the high priestess of BaU can be found in Text 8 (MVN 5, 203); Text 20 (MVN 6, 140); and Text 28 (TÉL 250). At the time of Text 20, Š 36, the high priestess of BaU was Geme-Lamma, the wife of the governor Ur-Lamma.[23] Differently, at the time of Text 8, ŠS 8, and Text 28, IS 3, the high priestess was BaU-ea, wife of the grand vizier.[24] The fields concerned are: a-ša3 e2-duru5 lu2-dšara2 and a-ša3 e2-duru5 ur-gešgigir, unclear if referring to the same village, whose name might have changed in the course of time.[25]
§1.2.7. The herdsman of a no further specified high priestess occurs in Text 1 (MVN 2, 78) (Š 32/-), the account of the a-ša3 e2-duru5 ša3-ku3-ge,[26] while sheep of a high priestess in Pasir[27] occur in Text 29 (MVN 6, 546) [...], where the field name(s) is(are) lost in the breaks of the tablet.
§1.2.8. Professional shepherds tied to the grand vizier are in: Text 8 (MVN 5, 203); Text 10 (Ontario 2, 435); Text 13 (TCTI 1, 850); Text 22 (MVN 6, 415); and Text 28 (TÉL 250); the fields concerned are: a-ša3 e2-duru5 ur-gešgigir, alongside with shepherds of the high priestess of BaU; a-ša3 e2-duru5 dinanna; a-ša3 gibil, alongside with a herdsmen of Nanna and a shepherd tied to the sheep of a royal cook. In Text 9 (MVN 5, 204) a certain number of sheep is assigned to an individual tied to the grand vizier (lu2 sukkal-maḫ) in the a-ša3 e2-duru5? [...], where also the sheep entrusted to a shepherd tied to his cook have grazed. Except for Text 22, dating to AS 1, the other texts have been drawn up when the grand vizier Urdu-Nanna, connected to the royal family, was also the provincial governor.[28]
§1.2.9. Professional shepherds tied to cultic personnel or temples can be found in Text 2 (Amherst 20), reporting the presence of a herdsman of the E-maḫ (na-gada e2-maḫ)[29] in the a-ša3 dlugal-a2-zi-da or a-ša3 ur-dig-alim; in Text 9 (MVN 5, 204), reporting the presence of a herdsman of Enki (na-gada den-ki) in the a-ša3 e2-duru5? [...]; and in Text 26 (MVN 6, 544), reporting the presence of a herdsman of the en-priest (na-gada en) in the field a-ša3 e2-anše or a-ša3 da-lugal. Differently, Text 13 (TCTI 1, 850) and likely Text 10 (Ontario 2, 435) report the presence of a lumaḫ-priest of Inanna (lu2-maḫ dinanna) in the a-ša3 e2-duru5 dinanna, without mention of the responsible shepherds. Finally, Text 22 (MVN 6, 415) and Text 24 (MVN 6, 145) report the presence of professionals and herds tied to the god Nanna[30] in the a-ša3 gibil and a-ša3 gir2-nun.
§1.3.1. Although we can recognize the sections assigned to herdsmen as having been obtained from their accounts (see §2.1.1.3), information in these texts appears to have been processed[31] to a certain extent and in a uniform way, as is suggested by a series of characteristics: the peculiar terminology (NE.RI),[32] the consistent scribal abbreviations (KU), and the use of maš2 in place of ud5 as generic term for goats.
§1.3.2. As far as the sign KU is concerned, two uses can be distinguished:
§1.3.3. As far as the expression NE.RI[33] is concerned, it can be interpreted as a form of the verb de5.g, ‘to collect, gather, pick up’ referring to animal corpses gathered on the grazing place.[34] Therefore to be interpreted as:
n udu NE.RI = *n udu <a-ša3-ge> bi2-de5-<ga> = “n udu gathered on (the field)”.[35]
§1.3.4. In one case (Text 29 (MVN 6, 546), rev. I 1; III, 5), the expression ‘udu bi2-de5’ is associated with the term ‘iri’, “town”, likely meaning that the sheep had died (and their corpses have been gathered) before reaching the grazing area of the field, whereas ‘town’ can be interpreted as whatever village in the rural landscape.
§1.3.5. In some cases, the expression ‘udu bi2-de5’ is followed by KU, referring to the fact that the sheep had died (and consequently had been gathered) while being (or still not being, in the case of Text 21 (MVN 6, 276), obv. II 7) entrusted to someone.
§1.3.6. In most of the cases, the information about the dead sheep is specifically connected to the plot under the charge of the herdsman responsible for them (see §2.1.1.3, fn. 43).[36]
§1.3.7. An additional particular feature is the use of contextual descriptions, such as: “royal herdsman” (na-gada lugal) or “herdsman of the queen” (na-gada nin), referring to herdsmen actually involved in the management of the sheep of the royal family; “royal cook” (muḫaldim lugal) referring to a cook actually tied to the royal palace, or the title of “chief administrator” (šabra) for Lu-Kalkala, the administrator of the ‘new sheep-pen’ (see §2.1.5), whose seal attests to his scholarly title of scribe (dub-sar). Lastly, in some cases, the omission of the name of the responsible shepherds as well could be considered a form of re-elaboration of the primary information, whereas the name of the professionals somehow tied to the sheep or plots satisfied per se the requirements for the tracking of the sheep (see §2.3.2.3).[37]
§2.1.0.1. Our texts mention those individuals who were entitled to profit from pasture plots, regardless of the ownership of the herds. Sheep and goats are indeed assigned to skilled personnel, personnel purposely hired, professionals not belonging to the management of herds, and several individuals quoted just by name.
§2.1.0.2. Herdsmen (na-gada) or shepherds (sipa.d), shepherd assistants (gab2-us2), and chief livestock administrators (šuš3) can be understood as being the skilled personnel (with obvious different degrees of responsibility, competence and involvement) in the managing of state-held herds.
§2.1.1.1. The difference between herdsmen and shepherds in the administrative documentation can be elusive. Already Stępień[38] and Snell[39] noticed that the difference between the two titles is not completely clear. In his study of the SI.A-a archive, Garfinkle[40] noted that such differentiation can be blurred by the perspective of the texts: evidence from that ‘private’ archive indicates that the position of sipa was subordinate to that of na-gada, being that of na-gada a promotion from the sipa-level. Conversely, according to him, administrative documents belonging to the institutional economy may not describe the manner in which the shepherds organized themselves in their local hierarchies. Differently, Stępień[41] argued that there was no hierarchical relationship between the two professional titles; texts can indeed use the two terms alternately and often herdsmen, mentioned throughout the document as na-gada, collectively are referred to as sipa in the summary lines.
§2.1.1.2. The term sipa can indeed be understood as a generic label, while the title na-gada refers to a specific administrative level in herding (concerning also the cattle keepers, generically referred to as unu3) and what we find in our texts can be a generic or a specific designation. Nevertheless, the particular insight they offer can sometimes help in finding a criterion in the use of both terms.
§2.1.1.3. In our documents, it is clear that the account sections assigned to na-gada, explicitly defined as na-gada, concern the management of sheep and goats in terms of availability, that is “present/expended/shortfalls/dead” (gub-ba/zi-ga/la2-ia3/bi2-de5),[42] which clearly recall the structure of their single accounts or account sections: “present/expended/shortfalls/dead” (gub-ba/zi-ga/la2-ia3/de5-de5-ga),[43] where the title ‘na-gada’ is however not always explicit.[44]
§2.1.1.4. Therefore na-gada is the title of the usual administrative interlocutors[45] having directly to do with the managing of state-held sheep,[46] as well as with the individuals subordinated to them and the provincial institutions allocating grazing areas.
§2.1.1.5. Differently, individuals labelled as shepherds (sipa) occur in our texts exclusively in connection with sheep belonging to specific administrative units or households. Thus the information on the sheep entrusted to them concerns exclusively a given number of sheep and goats, as it is the case of non-institutional herdsmen (see §1.2.2).
§2.1.1.6. By comparing the information concerning the sheep of the high priestess of BaU, we can note that Au’u, Ba’aga, Ur-gula (Text 8 (MVN 5, 203)) and Ba-za, Ur-Nanše and Bazaga (Text 28 (TÉL 250)) are defined as na-gada, while Au’u, Baza, Ba’aga, Iabidu (TÉL 262, outside this group) and Ba’a, Baga, Iabidu, BaU-IGI.DU (Text 20 (MVN 6, 140)) are defined as sipa.[47] Therefore, it may be assumed that, when not considering the availability of sheep, texts can arbitrarily[48] refer to professional herdsmen with the generic title of shepherds. The issue concerning shepherds is however a little bit more nuanced. Many administrative texts from Ĝirsu on the topic show as direct subordinates of the herdsmen the “shepherd assistants” (gab2-us2), who in our texts are not mentioned. In one case, text 4 (TLB 3, 89), an individual defined as sipa occurs as clearly subordinated to an individual defined as na-gada nin, herdsman of the queen, thus probably referring to a shepherd assistant (gab2-us2), rather than to a herdsman.
§2.1.1.7. In addition, we can note that in MVN 2, 42 [...], which records an allocation of plots to skilled personnel as grazing areas (see §1.1), sipa is used as a generic designation or instead of ‘shepherd assistant’ in specific cases. This text substantially distinguishes plots entrusted to herdsmen (na-gada) and those to shepherd assistants (gab2-us2), the latter falling under the supervision of a herdsman[49] and uses the title sipa as referring to:
§2.1.1.8. Since there is also no trace of shepherd assistants (gab2-us2) in the SI.A.a’s archive, one may wonder whether sipa was a generic term consistently used in place of gab2-us2 in that very archive, whereas, at least in the institutional documentation of Ĝirsu, the generic term could apply to both herdsmen and shepherd assistants in contexts or texts disregarding their actual administrative level and the availability of sheep (as it already happens in colophons and tags, where the generic terms assume however a collective meaning).
§2.1.2.1. As already noted, many documents on the topic show shepherd assistants (gab2-us2) as the direct subordinates of herdsmen.[51] For example, CT 10, pl. 16-17, BM 12921 (AS 4/iv), a barley account concerning “shepherd assistants of fat-tailed sheep” (rev. II, 33: gab2-us2 udu gukkal-me) of Gu’aba and PPAC 5, 2 (Š 48/ix), a wool account of “shepherd assistants of fat-tailed sheep” (rev. II, 19: siki-[la2] gab2-us2 udu gukkal), both list the assistants by subdividing them in groups supervised by individuals who can be identified with herdsmen of Gu’aba.[52] At this point, the substantial absence of shepherd assistants in our texts may be probably explained by considering them as being ‘hidden’ in the sections assigned to herdsmen or by identifying them with the individuals quoted just by name, but with a certain degree of responsibility for state-held sheep (PN KU; §2.3.3.2).
§2.1.3.1. A chief livestock administrator (šuš3), official at the top of herd management, occurs only once in our texts (Text 1 (MVN 2, 78), obv. II, 7), in connection to a number of sheep, for which no further information is given, and a further number of sheep that had died while being entrusted to state dependent workers in a plot under his charge. Except for this single case, the absence of these officials in our group of texts is probably due to the fact that they acted on a higher level than that concerning the single pasture plots which our texts focus on. Indeed, as is made clear by the administrative documentation, they were responsible for more groups headed by herdsmen (regardless of the categories of herds) and managed their transactions on a larger scale.
§2.1.4.1. A fattener (kurušda)[53] is attested only once in our texts, in Text 21 (MVN 6, 276) (obv. I, 6), where he occurs in connection to a number of sheep, for which no further information is given, and to a further number of sheep that had died while not being entrusted to anyone in a plot under his charge. Since the specification of the title there is required by the occurrence of a homonymous herdsman, I would not exclude that other fatteners can occur in our texts among the individuals simply quoted by name, but with a sort of responsibility for the counted sheep (PN KU; see §2.3.3.2) or for the grazing plots (ki PN; see §2.4), as is probably the case of Text 19 (MVN 7, 583) (obv. 2 and rev. 4).
§2.1.5.1. A high official involved in animal fattening, Lu-Kalkala, occurs in Text 2 (Amherst 20) (obv. I, 6), Text 14 (TCTI 2, 4176) (obv. I, 4), and Text 18 (TCTI 2, 4177) (obv. II, 6). As already noted (§1.3.7), our texts describe him as a chief administrator (šabra), while his seal ascribes him the title of scribe. He can be identified with the scribe, son of Ur-Lamma, who administrated the ‘new sheep-pen’ (e2 udu gibil), that is, a provincial institution for animal fattening.[54] As noted by Maekawa,[55] sheep kept in the sheep-pens for fattening likely pastured in grasslands or fallow land in the favorable seasons. In each text of our group the sheep managed by Lu-Kalkala rely on different shepherds (regardless of the administrative level) to graze in different fields: in Text 2 (Amherst 20) (Š 44//IS 3/-) the sheep are entrusted to the shepherds KAgena (532 fat-tailed sheep and 5 goats) and Ur-metena (65 fat-tailed sheep and 2 goats) for grazing in the field of Lugal-azida or in that of Ur-Igalim; in Text 14 (TCTI 2, 4176) (IS 3/-) the sheep (501 sheep and 25 goats) are entrusted to Au’u for grazing in the field of Duabi; in Text 18 (TCTI 2, 4177) [...], the sheep are entrusted to Halah (91 sheep and 11 goats) and Kilula (271 sheep and 15 goats) in a field, whose name is lost in the break of the tablet.
§2.2.1. Apart from skilled personnel, also additional, likely unskilled, individuals could be employed in herding. This is clear by the employment of “state dependent workers” (eren2),[56] who were recruited on a rotational-term basis as corvée labor, occurring in the following texts: in Text 1 (MVN 2, 78); Text 7 (HLC 1, 37); Text 21 (MVN 6, 276); Text 25 (MVN 5, 176); Text 29 (MVN 6, 546).
§2.2.2. Beside them, we find individuals belonging to the category of dumu-dab5-ba,[57] lit. “seized children”,[58] in Text 3 (TLB 3, 88); Text 7 (HLC 1, 37); Text 12 (TCTI 1, 802); Text 15 (TCTI 2, 4178); Text 16 (DAS 274); Text 23 (MVN 6, 545); Text 25 (MVN 5, 176) and probably in Text 21 (MVN 6, 276). Their employment in herding was common, although not exclusive.[59]
§2.2.3. CBT 2, BM 15294, likely a tag for tablet-containers, lists the dumudaba among the shepherd categories: sipa udu gi-me / sipa ud5-me / ša3 gir2-suki / unu3-me / sipa e2-gal-me / sipa dumu-dab5-ba-me / sipa udu gi-me.
§2.2.4. The easily understandable categories concern the type of animals (sipa udu, sipa ud5, unu3) or the institution (sipa e2-gal), i.e. categories which were functional to worker inspections and relative payments. Therefore, we can wonder whether the category of dumudaba shepherds might have concerned the type of recruitment and consequent payment. Steinkeller[60] interprets them as a variant of lu2 dab5-ba, a term specifically describing conscripted eren2.
§2.2.5. In our group of texts, Text 7 (HLC 1, 37) and Text 25 (MVN 5, 176) are particularly enlightening on this topic, as they clearly show that PNs dumu-dab5-ba contrast with PNs eren2. This would explain the barley payments of the type described in MVN 22, 23 (Š 39/-) as (rev. II. 6): ša3-gal eren2 u3 ⸢dumu⸣-dab5-ba[61] “food for state dependent workers and dumudaba”.
§2.2.6. As usual with state dependent workers, Ontario 2, 190 (AS 3/-, prov. unknown) shows that dumudaba workers contrast with UNĝa6 workers, “menials”, and geme2, “female workers”. In addition, as state dependent workers, they could be described as dumu-gi7 “citizen”.[62] In our texts, this is made clear by the comparison between Text 17 (TCTI 1, 771), where Šunia, Ušalum and Ur-saga are defined as dumu-gi7, and Text 25 (MVN 5, 176), where Šunia, Ušalum and Ur-sasa are defined as dumu-dab5-(ba).[63]
§2.2.7. The dumudaba probably were adult male workers, whereas the kinship term (dumu) may have been conceived to stress the subordinate role to those who take charge (dab5) of them,[64] or to refer to their condition of citizens. Therefore, the difference with the eren2 probably concerned the recruitment. One possibility is that dumudaba may have been state dependent workers hired outside their period of conscription (see e.g. MVN 12, 47, obv. 5: a2 ḫug-ga2 eren2 bala tuš-a, “hired labor of state dependent workers ‘sitting out the duty’”),[65] whereas attestations referring to ‘hired dumudaba’[66] do not mention the duty cycle (bala), since, in this case, it should supposedly be taken for granted. However, since our texts were compiled on a yearly basis, a temporal distinction of the recruitment of the same individuals would have been pointless within a single text, as those very individuals would have been both dumu-dab5-ba and eren2 during the whole year.[67] Another possibility is that the dumudaba were not recruited from the ‘reservoir’ of state dependent workers, who the state via the province put at the disposal of the foremen or chief administrators, but hypothetically directly from a ‘reservoir’ of local population,[68] who – for some reasons – did not fall in the former category. Recently, Borrelli[69] assumed a connection of the dumudaba with the governor’s estates and the royal sector. In our texts, such a connection could be found in Text 3 (TLB 3, 88), Text 7 (HLC 1, 37), Text 17 (TCTI 1, 771), Text 23 (MVN 6, 545) and Text 25 (MVN 5, 176), where one can infer the presence of royal plots (see §1.2) or, from the field names, connections to an official (Badari)[70] or a settlement (Ursaĝpa’e)[71] tied to the governor’s holding.
§2.2.8. In addition, Text 15 (TCTI 2, 4178) (IS 3/-) suggests a sort of territoriality and reiteration of employment, as attested (obv. I, 4’) by the dumudaba Gu’umu (bearing an uncommon name),[72] among the workers employed in a field of Gu’aba. The same dumudaba was already attested in CUSAS 16, 104 (ŠS 1/-), an account concerning sheep and goats ‘taken over’, drawn up 12 year earlier, where we can recognize the name of the herdsmen of Gu’aba.[73]
§2.2.9. Moreover, Text 23 (MVN 6, 545) and Text 25 (MVN 5, 176) show a possible hierarchy within the category during their employment in herding, as they attest dumudaba employed in plots under the responsibility of a herdsman (Text 23), or dumudaba responsible for the plots where the sheep entrusted to other dumudaba have grazed (Text 23 and Text 25; see §2.4.4). This feature is supported by texts recording sheep accounts subscribed by dumudaba,[74] acting therefore as herdsmen. In any case, our texts do not report information about the availability of the sheep entrusted to them.
§2.2.10. Finally, Text 4 (TLB 3, 89) (obv. II 9; rev. II 4) attests the involvement of Amorreans (mar-tu), very likely as a generic workforce in herding.
§2.3.0.1. Since our texts reflect the perspective of the field management, they do not necessarily mention the workers actually involved in herding, but whatever individual entitled to profit from the pasture areas and acting as interlocutors for the tracking of the sheep.
§2.3.1.1. Hypothetically, these individuals can be understood as beneficiaries or tenants of the plots where the counted sheep have grazed, or even as professionals occasionally involved in herding as fulfillment of their labor duty. This would not imply that they were actively involved in the herding of flocks which grazed on ‘their’ plots or that high-ranking individuals actually looked after flocks for labor duty; rather, this only means they were the administrative interlocutors for the tracking of the counted sheep, whereas the administration was not interested in private agreements, such as substitutions or compensations,[75] at least in our documents.
§2.3.1.2. In some cases, the professionals are clearly tied to a specific household, but the number of sheep assigned to them follows the section concerning that household’s sheep. Indeed, in two texts of our group (Text 8 (MVN 5, 203); Text 28 (TÉL 250), and TÉL 262 outside our group), a small section concerning the sheep assigned to Imtidam (respectively: obv. II 4-5; obv. II 2-3; rev. 7), the chief administrator (šabra) of the household of the high priestess of BaU, follows the section concerning the sheep of the high priestess. In a similar way, in Text 20 (MVN 6, 140), the section concerning the sheep of the high priestess is followed by a section concerning the sheep assigned to Ur-Damu (obv. 9), a scribe (dub-sar) tied to that household. At this point, one may wonder whether they were beneficiaries of assets belonging to the household they served or whether their labor duties were fulfilled within that very household.[76] Differently, the presence of professionals tied to the grand vizier apparently does not follow sections concerning his herding personnel; individuals tied to the grand vizier occur indeed in Text 9 (MVN 5, 204) (lu2 sukkal-maḫ, rev. I, 6, and muḫaldim sukkal-maḫ, rev. III, 1-2), while his herding personnel in Text 8 (MVN 5, 203); Text 10 (Ontario 2, 435); Text 13 (TCTI 1, 850); Text 28 (TÉL 250).
§2.3.1.3. As seen in §1.2, a further conjecture can be conceived: a connection between the professionals described as being royal in our texts (dub-sar lugal in Text 3 (TLB 3, 88) (obv. I 4) and Text 17 (TCTI 1, 771) (rev. II 1); šu-i lugal in Text 7 (HLC 1, 37) (rev. I 9); muḫaldim lugal in Text 9 (MVN 5, 204) (rev. II, 1) and Text 22 (MVN 6, 415) (rev. 2) and the plots defined as a-ša3 /aša5 zi-ga lugal in texts concerning land management. Such a connection could lead us to interpret those professionals as being beneficiaries of royal plots within institutional households.[77]
§2.3.1.4. In some cases it is clear that the sheep assigned to some professionals were actually entrusted to shepherds (sipa). This is the case of the sheep of the royal cooks in Text 9 (MVN 5, 204) (rev. I, 9-II, 1) and Text 22 (MVN 6, 415) (rev. 1-2), which are indeed entrusted to shepherds, or the case of the sheep of a cook of the grand vizier in Text 9 (MVN 5, 204) (rev. II, 13-III, 1), and those of a captain in Text 10 (Ontario 2, 435) (rev. II, 11-12). However, the presence of such shepherds is a kind of information, which our texts can omit[78] (see §2.3.2.3). Thus it can be inferred also in the cases, where the sheep are simply assigned to professionals. Differently, in the case of the boatman (ma2-gal) in Text 5 (CT 1, pl. 35, BM 12230) (obv. II, 5), one can infer that he was involved in herding for labor duty, since in CUSAS 16, 104 (ŠS 1/-), individuals defined as ma2-gal occur alongside dumudaba and herdsmen in connection to sheep ‘taken over’ (see §3.3.1).[79]
§2.3.1.5. In other cases, the involvement in herding for labor duty can be inferred thanks to the arrangement of the listed individuals according to a specific scheme (see §2.4).
§2.3.2.1. In some texts of our group, we can notice the consistent occurrence of individuals belonging to the same professional category:[80] in text 4 (TLB 3, 89), merchants (dam-gar3); in Text 18 (TCTI 2, 4177) [...] and Text 26 (MVN 6, 544) (ŠS 1/-), builders (šidim).
§2.3.2.2. They can be interpreted as professionals involved in herding as fulfillment of their labor duties or as beneficiaries of subsistence plots.
§2.3.2.3. By comparing the information of Text 18 (TCTI 2, 4177) and Text 26 (MVN 6, 544), we can notice that the sheep of these professionals could be entrusted to shepherds. Since the compilers of our texts were not particularly interested in the management of herds or in the payment of the involved individuals, they do not necessarily report such an information.
Text 18 (TCTI 2, 4177) (obv. I 1-II-1): n udu/maš2 PN sipa udu ur-dba-u2 /ur-dig-alim ugula šidim
Text 26 (MVN 6, 544) (rev. I 1-5): n udu/maš2 udu ur-dba-u2 /ur-dig-alim ugula šidim.
§2.3.2.4. Differently, in text 4 (TLB 3, 89) the entries concerning the sheep assigned to the merchants (obv. I 4-9) are separated from that concerning the sheep assigned to unquantified and unnamed shepherds possibly tied to merchants (obv. II, 5: sipa ⸢dam⸣-[gar3?-e]-/⸢ne⸣).
§2.3.2.5. Hypothetically, there could be a connection with the fields tied to these professions as a whole, likely as beneficiaries of sustenance allotments, and their involvement in a given pasture plot. This would be suggested by the field name of Text 26 (a-ša3 da-lugal), where the sheep assigned to six builders (šidim) have grazed and which is described as being related to builders in Managing the land T 11 (rev. 12: a-ša3 da-lugal šidim-e-ne).[81]
§2.3.3.1. Several individuals are simply quoted by name in our texts: some of them are followed by the sign KU, others lack any further information.
§2.3.3.2. PN KU: this expression implies a kind of responsibility for the counted sheep; since dab5 (KU) indicates the act of taking over, we can suppose that state-held sheep are meant. As seen in §2.1.2-3, in our texts there is no mention of shepherd assistants (gab2-us2), thus we can wonder whether this formula can refer to them. Indeed, MVN 2, 42 (see §2.1.1.7) clearly ascribes plots to shepherd assistants as grazing areas under the supervision of a herdsman. In some cases (Text 5 (CT 1, pl. 35, BM 12230), obv. I 12; Text 8 (MVN 5, 203), obv. I 7; and likely 15 (TCTI 2, 4178) obv. I 1’; Text 26 (MVN 6, 544), obv. I 8), it apparently refers to the herdsman quoted with his title some lines before. In addition, since in the expenditure section of the accounts of herdsmen we can find the expression n udu PN i3-dab5 (n sheep PN took over), a connection between these individuals and the individuals followed by KU in our texts can also be thought of.[82] In addition, in some specific cases KU can be interpreted as an abbreviation for <dumu>-dab5-<ba>, (see §1.3.2).
§2.3.3.3. PN: PNs may hypothetically refer to anyone, whether they were individuals involved in herding in low-ranking roles or beneficiaries or tenants of the pasture plots, or even individuals involved in the management of particular economic units. The choice to omit such information about their title or role remains unclear, whether it was taken for granted in the text bearing the primary information or considered irrelevant for the tracking of the sheep. However in all these cases (if not in very specific ones), it is impossible to carry out a reliable prosopographical analysis. The occurrence of tenants of institutional plots in our texts is suggested by the plots classified as “yielding rent” in MVN 2, 42, which fall under the supervision of a herdsman. In this text, indeed, plots classified as “fields yielding rent” (aša5 ku5-ra2 ba-ab-us2) and “fields not yielding rent” (aša5 ku5-ra2 nu-us2) can occur under the supervision of a herdsman, but are not included in the surfaces directly allocated to him or to a shepherd assistant. Therefore, one may wonder whether such plots were used as well as grazing areas and, in this case, if at least someone of the several untitled individuals occurring in our texts in connection with sheep can be considered as a tenant.
§2.3.3.4. Finally, an individual simply quoted by name in a text can be followed by the sign KU in another text. This is the case of Ur-anki in Text 10 (Ontario 2, 435) (obv. III 6) and Text 13 (TCTI 1, 850) (rev. I 6), without necessarily implying a shift in the administrative role played by him.
§2.4.1. Individuals can be simply listed or be framed in a scheme that can suggest an active involvement in herding. After a section concerning the sheep entrusted to a herdsman a section can follow that includes the sheep assigned to individuals in the plot under the charge of that very herdsman. Such sections ends, indeed, with the formula ki PN na-gada-<*ak-a>, “(in) the plot (under charge of) PN, the herdsman”.[83]
§2.4.2. This function is clarified by the expression ugula PN <na-gada> in MVN 2, 42, the text recording the allocation of plots as grazing areas to different herdsmen, and may indeed refer to a physical plot under the supervision of a herdsman, where sheep entrusted or pertaining to other individuals, skilled (shepherd assistants) and unskilled ones (unnamed), have grazed.
§2.4.3. At this point, when PN KU or PN is connected to ki PN na-gada, we can wonder whether individuals tied to the plots allocated as grazing areas under the supervision of a herdsman are meant. The difference between PN KU and PN would consist of an individual having an administrative responsibility for state-held herds and an individual somehow tied to the plots or the sheep which have grazed there (see §2.3.3).
§2.4.4. Responsibility for the plots is also assigned to: a chief livestock administrator (šuš3) in Text 1 (MVN 2, 78) (obv. II, 7-rev, I, 1); a fattener (kurušda) in Text 21 (MVN 6, 276) (obv. I, 6-8); cattle herdsmen (unu3) in Text 24 (MVN 6, 145) (rev. 7-11 and likely rev. 4-6); purposely hired personnel (dumu-dab5-ba) in Text 23 (MVN 6, 545) (obv. I, 1-rev. II, 1) and Text 25 (MVN 5, 176) (obv. 1-3; rev. 8-11); maybe an individual responsible for state-held sheep (KU) in Text 24 (MVN 6, 145) (obv. 9-12); untitled individuals apparently not quoted elsewhere in Text 25 (MVN 5, 176) (obv. 7; rev. 7), and Text 29 (MVN 6, 546) (rev. II, 9); an untitled individual to whom a gardener is subordinated in Text 24 (MVN 6, 145) (rev. 5). A singular case can then be found in Text 29 (MVN 6, 546), where (rev. II, 12-14) part of the sheep of the high priestess in Pasir is entrusted to a state-dependent worker (eren2) in a plot under the responsibility of the priestess herself (ki ereš-dingir). This could imply that the name of the herdsmen (or skilled professional) who took charge of the grazing area was not transmitted or considered irrelevant to the compilers of the text.
§2.4.5. Summing up, individuals can occur without any indication of their actual role in herding (PN), with a certain degree of responsibility for state-held sheep (PN KU), or for the grazing plot (ki PN), whereas the individuals listed according to this scheme could have had a subordinate role to the individual responsible for the grazing plot. When this scheme does not involve skilled personnel or purposely hired workers, one can wonder whether the quoted individuals and professionals had been involved in herding while being subjected to labor duty. This could be the case of the royal soldiers attested in Text 24 (MVN 6, 145), who apparently occur in a subordinate role to an untitled individual (obv. 1-5). By interpreting them as actively employed in herding, we should consider that they were contracted for works in the institutional economy[84] or that royal data have been (or had to be; see §3.3) transmitted to an institutional office (§1.2). In this text, also professionals tied to Nanna (a cook, a garden administrator and a cattle herdsman) occur in a subordinate role to a cattle herdsman of Nanna, thus we can infer an unordinary involvement in sheep herding as fulfillment of their labor duties.
§2.5.1. As discussed in §1.1, our texts summarize the information deriving from different documents and this situation may have affected the order in which the information is reported in each tablet. In those cases where the information derives from two tablets, one can infer that the sequence was conditioned by this twofold source of information (Text 19 (MVN 7, 583); Text 21 (MVN 6, 276); Text 23 (MVN 6, 545)), as well as in the texts concerning the pasture areas of two different fields (Text 2 (Amherst 20); Text 26 (MVN 6, 544)).
§2.5.2. Regardless of these cases, wherever the condition of the tablets allows for evaluation, it seems that the scribes basically started by listing the individuals that were assigned the largest number of sheep, although they do not continue by following a linear, decreasing, order.[85] In addition, each category of workers or professionals can be introduced by the individual responsible or connected to the largest number of animals. In any case, one may speak about trends, rather than proper rules, so that considerations on the alleged listing criteria are discussed in the sections following each text. Below, just some considerations.
§2.5.3. In text 4 (TLB 3, 89), we can note that the largest number of animals (including both sheep and goats) is recorded in the second section. Therefore in that case, the largest number of sheep does not match the largest number of animals assigned to a single individual. In Text 12 (TCTI 1, 802), the text begins by listing in a decreasing order the sheep tied to the workshop, then those entrusted to a dumudaba, and only then does it record the largest number of sheep assigned to a single individual. Text 17 (TCTI 1, 771), instead, completely disregards a sequence based on the number of animals.
§2.5.4. In any case, texts reporting partial numbers or incomplete drafts (see §3.3) suggest that the size of the flocks was somehow secondary to the list of individuals allowed to profit from the pasture area of a given field.
§2.5.5. A sort of ratio can also be found in the affiliation of the listed individuals. Indeed it seems that, where present, institutional herdsmen, shepherds tied to institutional sheep-pens, or additional personnel were recorded first, followed then by royal personnel, specific professionals or untitled individuals. Also in this case, however, we do not find a fixed rule, and indeed Text 18 (TCTI 2, 4177) starts by recording the animals assigned to builders (on them, see above §2.3.2). Texts concerning the sheep of the high priestess of BaU start by listing her flocks, followed then by those assigned to individuals tied to that very household and then to that of the grand vizier.
§3.0.1. Animals counted in this group of texts are sheep (udu) and goats (maš2) without any information on age, gender and quality. Sheep could be however fat-tailed (udu gukkal) or mountain sheep (udu kur,[86] or implicitly, through the title na-gada kur in Text 22 (MVN 6, 415), rev. 4-5). Thus it can be assumed that, when not further specified, local sheep are meant (udu gi). Further characterizations of sheep could be found in Text 24 (MVN 6, 145) (obv. 9:BU.KU) and in the shepherd’s title (gab2-KU) in Text 20 (MVN 6, 140) (obv. 1).
§3.0.2. Finally, in one case, text 4 (TLB 3, 89) (obv. I 3), a lamb (sila4) is mentioned, which can however be interpreted as a mistake for udu.
§3.1.1. Herds under the charge of herdsmen can be made up of sheep (local or fat-tailed ones), goats or both.[87]
§3.1.2. The number of animals assigned to each herdsman varies widely[88] and this could reflect the difference in the size of the plots assigned to each of them and the consequent number of individuals employed under their charge, a kind of information that our texts do not report, but which can be found in other administrative documents of the province.
§3.1.3. For example, PPAC 5, 2 (Š 48/ix), the wool account of shepherd assistants of fat-tailed sheep of Gu’aba, counts 93 individuals unevenly grouped under the supervision of 8 different herdsmen: the herdsman Ur-BaU heads a group of 8 assistants (obv. I, 1-10), while the herdsman Irduga a group of 35 assistants (obv. I, 11-rev. I, 6), the herdsman Ur-Ḫendursaĝ a group of 4 assistants (rev. II, 8-12), the herdsman Lugal-ezem only 1 assistant (rev. II, 13-14). One can compare an account of the sheep managed by Lugal-ezem in that very year in Gu’aba, recorded in MTBM 289 (Š 48/-), where only 18 sheep ‘present’ (gub-ba) are counted with the 2259 sheep assigned to 6 shepherds assistants under the charge of Irduga two years later in HSS 4, 37 (AS 2/-). Five of the shepherd assistants attested in HSS 4, 37 (Lugal-KAgena, Lugal-ušime, Ur-Suen, Dada and Lu-Dumuzi) also occur in the group headed by Irduga in PPAC 5, 2.
§3.1.4. In addition, CT 10, pl. 16-17, BM 12921 (AS 4/iv), the barley account concerning “shepherd assistants of fat-tailed sheep” (see §2.1.2.1), indicates that there were 111 shepherd assistants of fat-tailed sheep active at the same time in the Gu’aba district under the supervision of 15 different herdsmen. Here, the herdsman Ur-BaU heads a group of 12 assistants (obv. I, 1-15), among whom it is possible to recognize some assistants attested four years earlier under his supervision in PPAC 5, 2 (Ezi, Ur-zikuma, Ur-Suen, Lu-Narua, Lu-Ninšubur, and probably Lu-kigula), while a group of 30 assistants is headed by the herdsman Lugal-dalla[89] and a group of 25 by Abba-kala, both absent in PPAC 5, 2.
§3.1.5. In addition, MVN 2, 42 clearly shows that the pasture areas assigned to herdsmen may vary as far as both size and administrative features are concerned. In this text, indeed, we can note herdsmen responsible for plots assigned to themselves, while other herdsmen occur as responsible for plots assigned to themselves and to assistants under their supervision, or still other herdsmen responsible for plots assigned to themselves, to assistants under their supervision and additional plots classified according to the rent capacity, or even herdsmen responsible for the plots assigned to themselves and those classified according to the rent capacity. As far as the dimension of the plots is concerned, they vary from 186 iku (rev. VI’, 1’: [šunigin 1] na-gada 9.2.0 iku), 669,600 m2 (in plots yielding rents) to 5 iku (0.0.5) 18,000 m2, (obv. V, 4’-5’). Such an inconsistency is also reflected in their benefit and consequent duties. Priests and Officials 101 App. 4a-b (-/-), recording an account of ziKA flour, indicates the presence of about 100 herdsmen[90] of local sheep and goats in Gu’aba and in the Inanna temple (rev, II, 8-14). The flour amounts assigned to them vary[91] from 360 liters (rev. II, 8: 1.1.0 <1?> na-gada) to 60 liters (rev. II, 11-13: 6 na-gada 0.1.0-ta / 90 na-gada 0.1.0-ta).[92]
§3.1.6. Having said that, trying to sort out an average of the animals assigned to each herdsman in our texts can be pointless, since there were considerable differences depending on the case; differences that surely affected the actual fulfillment of their job and their role in society.[93]
§3.1.7. An example of these variations can be found in the first column of Text 1 (MVN 2, 78), where we can notice the difference between the sheep managed by the herdsmen Lu-Urub (930 sheep and 240 goats present; 13 expended and 2 recorded after the plucking), Lu-Utu (21 sheep present), and Ur-mes (15 sheep present). The average deduced from this sample, that is 428 animals per herdsman, perfectly agrees with the average estimated in Umma, which is about 400 sheep per shepherd, with a size of the flocks ranging from 38 to 1,287.[94]
§3.1.8. The same considerations apply to sheep and goats assigned to other professionals and untitled individuals, whose connection to sheep or plots cannot even be considered univocal, nor the presence of ‘hidden shepherds’ could be sufficiently detected (see §2.3-2.4).
§3.2.1. The state-held sheep and goats managed by herdsmen have already been classified according to the parameters of availability of the central administration at the moment our texts were drawn up. The office which conceived our texts was not interested in the final destination of the animals and the zi-ga section occurring in them probably simply refer to the herdsmen’ accounts, highlighting the way the compilers tracked the total number of sheep and goats which have grazed in a given field (see §1.2.2; §2.1.1.3). In this context, however, a mention of the ‘weapon of Ninĝešzida’ is found in in connection to goats classified as ‘present’ in the section concerning the goats managed by the herdsman Kitušlu, since he was also responsible for their fattening (see notes to Text 10 (Ontario 2, 435), obv. I, 1-II-4; §5.1.10.2).
§3.2.2. In addition, some other texts (Text 2 (Amherst 20); Text 12 (TCTI 1, 802); Text 20 (MVN 6, 140); Text 27 (TCTI 2, 2702)) attest sheep assigned to untitled individuals and associated with workshops (ša3 geš-kin-ti, lit. “in the workshop”). As places where skins and hides were collected,[95] we would have expected animal carcasses in connection with them. Hypothetically, it can be assumed that the sheep described as being in the workshop are those that had grazed in the mentioned fields under the responsibility of a shepherd (regardless of the administrative level), but already deceased and transferred to the workshop at the time of the inventory.[96] This information could indeed contrast or complete that referring to dead sheep gathered on the field (bi2-de5; see §1.3). However, only in one case can the individual tied to the workshop in our texts be identified with a herdsman, that is in Text 20 (MVN 6, 140), where the name of Ba’a can refer to a herdsman of the high priestess of BaU (§2.1.1.6), who was also responsible for the plot where the sheep have grazed.
§3.2.3. The reason why our texts report the shortfalls (la2-ia3) is that shortfalls did not depend on the number of sheep present and those expended, but they concern the sheep which the central administration eventually claimed from herdsmen, likely as part of their share of the growth of the herds.[97] Thus they can be counted as physical animals which have grazed in fields.
§3.2.4. In economic documents libir may refer to the information of an older (previous) account, rather than to the physical age of animals.[98] Were this the case, sections referring to animals recorded as being “old” in our texts (Text 6 (TLB 3, 87); Text 10 (Ontario 2, 435); Text 16 (DAS 274); and probably in Text 29 (MVN 6, 546)) would imply that an ‘old herd’ (checked and counted in a previous account) was enriched with a new acquisition of animals. In Text 10 (Ontario 2, 435), the ‘new acquisition’ concerns the goats that the herdsman Kitušlu took over for fattening in view of their allocation to the “weapon of Ninĝešzida” (obv. I 3-4). In Text 16 (DAS 274), the ‘new acquisition’ concerns someone’s sheep (obv. I 4-5), which the herdsman could have taken over during his service.[99] Notwithstanding the lack of hints about possible ‘new acquisitions’, this consideration also applies to Text 6 (TLB 3, 87) and Text 29 (MVN 6, 546).
§3.2.5. Lastly, among the parameters of availability of the animals, in Text 1 (MVN 2, 78) and Text 29 (MVN 6, 546), we find the expression (n udu/maš2) egir udu. It seems plausible that such an additional information could have concerned the number of sheep or goats, which - for unknown reasons - have been counted after the plucking, hence a possible reconstruction as udu/maš2 egir udu <ba-ur4>.[100] Counting and plucking were indeed contextual to the cyclic control of herds, after which they return to the shepherds’ custody.[101]
§3.3.1. Some texts of the group apparently record only a partial number of the animals, which probably grazed in a given field. This is particularly evident in texts using a peculiar system for counting a few units of sheep and goats, where each AŠ corresponds to a sheep and each DIŠ to a goat.[102] Texts of our group reporting such a system are: Text 20 (MVN 6, 140); Text 22 (MVN 6, 415); Text 24 (MVN 6, 145); Text 25 (MVN 5, 176). Outside our group of texts, this system is used in CUSAS 16, 104 (ŠS 1/-), a ‘multiple account’ of sheep and goats ‘taken over’ (šunigin 50 udu 3 maš2 dab5-ba) and TÉL 262 (IS 1/-), a text very similar to those of our group, which however reports the total number of sheep taken over (rev. 8-10: a-ša3 e2-duru5 ur-gešgigir / udu ba-dab5 / 12 udu 10 maš2). This situation can be reflected in texts that, for this reason, cannot be considered as proper pasture texts (see §1.1). This is the case, for example, of PPAC 5, 601 (AS 5/-), listing fields of the whole province, to which a few units of sheep and goats are assigned (n udu FN), without mention of the responsible shepherds or information on the size of the involved plots. The total section of this text (rev. III, 5-6) simply reports the total number of sheep and goats, while the specification giri3 šid-da “counted en route” (obv. 3) seems to concern only part of the sheep assigned to the first listed field.
§3.3.2. In some cases, the small number of sheep can be understood as referring to a proportional fee to be paid (za3-1(u) or 5(diš)-bi ba-dab5) in case of loss (udu zaḫ3) of state-held animals while grazing in a given field, as for example in ITT 4, 7085 (Š 46/-), where a small number of sheep is assigned to different individuals (one of them being a herdsman) for this very purpose. However, a connection between the small number of sheep consistently assigned to the plots in our texts and the payment of the fee at loss of animals is unlikely, since Text 22 (MVN 6, 415) refers to an expected number of sheep (corpses) gathered on field (obv. 9: <...> <udu> bi2-de5 didli), a kind of information incompatible with disappeared animals.
§3.3.3. In this regard, we can note that texts reporting what we can understand as partial numbers also present missing information on the numbers of animals assigned to each listed individuals, and Text 27 (TCTI 2, 2702) even shows only missing information. This would imply that the office which produced our documents already knew who was entitled to let sheep graze in the plots allocated as pasture areas, but were still missing the information about the number of sheep involved, leaving the document incomplete. The presence of the peculiar notation for counting sheep would hypothetically suggest that the primary information was obtained from texts that used it, hence the information about the sheep assigned to herdsmen would not have derived from their own accounts, but rather from texts such as CUSAS 16, 104 or TÉL 262, both specifying sheep ‘taken over’. Both texts also present a total section, which justified the employment of that peculiar counting system. In addition, in CUSAS 16, 104 the mention of a field (or more than one) could be lost in the breaks of the tablet, while TÉL 262 refers to sheep taken over in the field of the village of Ur-Igalim, hence the 22 animals counted there in IS 1 (TÉL 262) can be compared with the 2108+ animals counted there in IS 3 (Text 28 (TÉL 250)) and the 2033+ animals counted there in ŠS 8 (Text 8 (MVN 5, 203)).
§3.3.4. It is unclear to me, whether one could imagine these ‘partial texts’ as being complementary to the main accounts recording a presumably complete number of animals (although no element in their colophons would suggest this), or if they actually reflect a minor presence of sheep in a given field in a given year (although the entries with missing information would be meaningless).
§3.4.1. We can suppose that sheep and goats entrusted to institutional herdsmen belonged to the state, like those entrusted to individuals as fulfillment of their labor duties, while those entrusted to royal herdsmen concerned the herds the royal family held in the Ĝirsu province, like probably those entrusted to individuals tied to the royal sector as fulfillment of their labor duties. The sheep of the high priestess of BaU may have been private property disguised as institutional property, as well as those of the grand vizier. Individuals and professionals, who can hypothetically be understood as beneficiaries of plots, may have been the owners of sheep assigned to them. This would explain why our texts can disregard the shepherds whom they were entrusted to, as they would not be paid by the central administration. The right to use rented fields for grazing was included in the payment of the irrigation tax,[103] thus untitled individuals without administrative relevance, who can hypothetically be understood as tenants, were very likely the owners of the sheep assigned to them. Lastly, a case of private ownership can be found in Text 29 (MVN 6, 546) (rev. I, 12), which specifies that the sheep assigned to a certain Ur-BaU and entrusted to the herdsman Lugal-Kusig have been bestowed (a-ru-a) by Ur-BaU, entering therefore into state-held herds.
§4.1. Agricultural lands (and related pasture areas) stretched over the three main districts of the province, that is Ĝirsu, Gu-Iniĝšedu and Gu’aba. However, only 24 out of 29 tablets preserve data on the location the accounts refer to. Among them, fields located in Ĝirsu are: a-ša3 e2-duru5 dinanna (Text 10 (Ontario 2, 435) <e2-duru5>; Text 13 (TCTI 1, 850)); a-ša3 gir-nun (Text 24 (MVN 6, 145)); a-ša3 ur-sag-pa-e3 (Text 19 (MVN 7, 583); Text 23 (MVN 6, 545)).
§4.2. Fields located in Gu-Iniĝšedu are: a-ša3 da-lugal (Text 26 (MVN 6, 544)); a-ša3 lagaš (Text 27 (TCTI 2, 2702)); a-ša3 dlugal-a2-zi-da (Text 2 (Amherst 20)); a-ša3 ur-dig-alim (Text 2 (Amherst 20)); a-ša3 e2-anše (Text 26 (MVN 6, 544)). Probably also a-ša3 du-a-bi (Text 14 (TCTI 2, 4176)) was located in Gu-Iniĝšedu, while Text 18 (TCTI 2, 4177) hints to a location in that district.
§4.3. Fields located in Gu’aba are: a-ša3 du6-eš3 (Text 11 (TCTI 1, 743)); a-ša3 du6-lugal-u3-a (Text 7 (HLC 1, 37)); a-ša3 e2-duru5 ur-gešgigir (Text 8 (MVN 5, 203); Text 28 (TÉL 250)); a-ša3 e2-duru5 [...] (Text 9 (MVN 5, 204)); a-ša3 ḫu-rim3ki (Text 15 (TCTI 2, 4178)); a-ša3 i-šar-ra (Text 5 (CT 1, pl. 35, BM 12230)); a-ša3 kun-zi-da gu2-ab-baki (Text 21 (MVN 6, 276)); a-ša3 dnin-a2-zi-da (Text 6 (TLB 3, 87)). The a-ša3 e2-duru5 lu2-šara (Text 20 (MVN 6, 140)) as well was probably located in Gu’aba; finally both Text 16 and 29 hint to a location in Gu’aba.
§4.4. Unclear location: a-ša3 bad3-[...] (Text 17 (TCTI 1, 771)); a-ša3? bad3-da-ri2 u3 ar-la-AN (Text 25 (MVN 5, 176)); a-ša3 bara2?-si-ga gu2 i7 (text 3 (TLB 3, 88)); a-ša3 e2-duru5 ba-zi (Text 12 (TCTI 1, 802)); aša5 e2-duru5 ša3-ku3-ge (Text 1 (MVN 2, 78)); a-ša3 gibil (Text 22 (MVN 6, 415)); a-ša3 dnin-e2-gal (text 4 (TLB 3, 89)).
§4.5. Finally, at least 8 fields are named after a village (e2-duru5)[104] or a small rural settlement (ur-sag-pa-e3). In two cases this information can be inferred by the readable signs (Text 9 (MVN 5, 204); Text 25 (MVN 5, 176)), while in one case by the information within the text (Text 29).[105] In addition, in two cases (Text 17 (TCTI 1, 771); Text 25(MVN 5, 176)) the field names are likely contextual descriptions referring to the name of the officials who were responsible for the employed workers.
§5.1.1. Text 1: MVN 2, 78 (Š 32/-)
WMAH 78; Sauren 1969
MVN 2, 78; Sauren 1974
CUSAS 17, 273; Civil 2011
Photo/hand copy
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 1(geš’u) 6 (geš2) 3(u) 3(diš) udu / kur | 993 mountain sheep |
| 2. | 4(geš2) maš2 | 240 goats |
| 3. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 4. | 1(u) 3(diš) udu zi-ga | 13 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 5. | 2 udu egir udu!(KU) <ba-ur4> | 2 sheep (counted) after sheep (have been plucked) |
| 6. | lu2-urubx(URU×KAR2)ki na-gada | Lu-Urub, the herdsman |
| 7. | 2(u) 1(diš) udu kur | 21 mountain sheep |
| 8. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 9. | lu2-dutu na-gada | Lu-Utu, the herdsman |
| 10. | 1(u) 5(diš) udu kur | 15 mountain sheep |
| 11. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | ur-mes na-gada | Ur-mes, the herdsman |
| 2. | 3(geš2) 1(u) 4(diš) udu 3(diš) maš2 | 194 sheep 3 goats |
| 3. | urdu2-da-ni / la2-<NI> 6(diš) <udu> na-gada ereš-dingir | Urdudani, the herdsman of the high-priestess, (whom) a shortfall of six sheep (is counted) |
| 4. | 1(u) <udu> lu2-dna-ru2-a / eren2 | 10 (sheep), Lu-Narua, the state dependent, |
| 5. | ki urdu2-da-ni | (in) the plot (under charge of) Urdu-dani |
| 6. | 1(geš2) la2 3(diš) udu 1(u) 5(diš) maš2 | 57 sheep 15 goats |
| 7. | udu šeš-kal-la / šuš3 | sheep of Šeškala, the chief livestock administrator |
| 8. | 1(u) <udu> bi2-de5 didli eren2 | 10 (sheep) gathered there (while entrusted to) various[106]state dependents |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | ki šeš-kal-/la | (in) the plot (under charge of) Šeš-kala |
| blank space | ||
| column ii | ||
| blank space | ||
| in blank space: 2(diš) im-bi | the relevant tablets are 2 | |
| 1. | [nig2]-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 2. | aša5 e2-duru5 ša3-ku3-ge | field of the village of Šakuge |
| 3. | mu si-mu-ru-umki/ a-ra2 3(diš)-kam-aš / ba-ḫul | year: (when) Simurum was destroyed for the 3rd time |
§5.1.1.1.1 The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 3 institutional herdsmen, 1 herdsman of a no further specified high priestess, 1 state dependent employed in the plot under authority of the herdsman of the high priestess, 1 chief livestock administrator, who is also responsible for the plot where a number of sheep that had died while being entrusted to various unnamed state dependent workers is counted. The text begins by recording the largest number of sheep assigned to a single person, but it does not continue in a linear, decreasing, order. For 2 sheep of the herdsman Lu-Urub, the text specifies that they have been counted after the plucking (see § 3.2.5). In addition, the text specifies that the reported information was obtained from 2 different documents; hypothetically one referring to the sheep of the herdsmen and the other one to the sheep of the chief livestock administrator.
§§5.1.1.1.2 The concerned pasture plot was located in the field of the village of Šakuge, whose location within the provincial territory is unclear. This field is attested (obv. II, 7) among those listed in PPAC 5, 601 (AS 5/-), which ascribes it 1 sheep and 3 goats (see § 3.3.1) to be compared with the 1573 animals (1315 sheep and 258 goats) counted here.
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 5(diš) [maš2?][112] | 5 [goats?] |
| 2. | 8(geš2) 5(u) ⸢2(diš)⸣ / udu gukkal | 532 fat-tailed sheep |
| 3. | KA-ge-na / sipa | KAgena, the shepherd |
| 4. | 1(geš2) 5(diš) udu gukkal / 2(diš) maš2 | 65 fat-tailed sheep 2 goats |
| 5. | ur-mete-na / sipa | Ur-metena, the shepherd |
| 6. | udu lu2-<d>kal-kal/-la šabra | sheep of Lu-Kalkala, the chief administrator |
| 7. | 1(geš2) 5(diš) udu | 65 sheep |
| 8. | udu nig2-dba-u2 / ša3 geš-<kin-ti> | sheep of Niĝ-BaU in the workshop |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | [...] udu | [...] sheep |
| 2. | 5(geš2) maš2 | 300 goats |
| 3. | udu na-ba-sa6 / ša3 geš-<kin-ti> | sheep of Nabasa in the workshop |
| 4. | 3(geš2) la2 2(diš) maš2 | 178 goats |
| 5. | a2-lu5-mu / na-gada e2-maḫ | Alumu, the herdsman of the E-maḫ |
| 6. | 1(geš2) la2 1(diš) udu 1(geš2) 2(diš) maš2 | 59 sheep 62 goats |
| 7. | udu ur-mes KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Ur-mes |
| 8. | 1(geš2) 1(diš) udu 5(geš2) maš2 | 61 sheep 300 goats |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | udu ab-ba-/ge-na KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Abba-gena |
| 2. | 1(geš2) 2(diš) maš2 | 62 goats |
| 3. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 4. | na-a-na na-gada | Na’ana, the herdsman |
| 5. | 1(geš2) 1(u) 5(diš) udu 2(geš2) maš2 | 75 sheep 120 goats |
| 6. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 7. | ur-dnanše na-gada | Ur-Nanše, the herdsman |
| 8. | 1(geš2) 1(u) 5(diš) maš2 | 75 goats |
| 9. | [udu] gub-ba-[am3] | sheep ‘present’ |
| 10. | ⸢ku3⸣-dnanna / na-⸢gada⸣ | Ku-Nanna, the herdsman |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 1(geš2) 6(diš) udu | 66 sheep |
| 2. | udu gub-ba | sheep ‘present’ |
| 3. | dnanše-kam na-gada | Nanšekam, the herdsman |
| blank line | ||
| <nig2-ka9 aka> | (accomplished account) | |
| 4. | a-ša3dlugal-a2-/zi-da | field of Lugal-azida |
| 5. | ⸢a-ša3⸣ ur-dig-/alim | field of Ur-Igalim |
| 6. | mu si-mu-ru-um/ki ba-⸢ḫul⸣ | year: (when) Simurum was destroyed |
§5.1.2.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 2 shepherds (regardless of the administrative level) under the authority of a chief administrator, 2 individuals in connection to a workshop, 1 herdsman of the Emaḫ temple, 2 individuals somehow responsible for state-held sheep (KU), and 4 institutional herdsmen. The text apparently[113] begins by recording the section with the largest number of sheep assigned to a single person, but it does not continue in a linear, decreasing, order.
§5.1.2.1.2. The reported information concerns the pasture plots of 2 different fields. The field of Ur-Igalim may refer to the field attested elsewhere (AfO 24 pl. 17, Truro 1, Š 36/-; MCS 8 AO 8106, -/-) as “field of Ur-Igalim, the Amorrean” (a-ša3 ur-dig-alim mar-tu), likely lying in the western border of the province,[114] while there is no information on the location of the “field of Lugal-azida”. In any case, the area of activity of the herdsmen mentioned in this text would suggest a location in the Gu-Iniĝinšedu district. The total number of animals counted in both fields is 2025+ (923 sheep and 1104 goats). The label ‘accomplished account’ was very likely accidentally omitted.
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| blank line | ||
| 1. | [...]+ 2(diš) maš2 | [...] 2+ goats |
| 2. | [udu] lugal-si-gar / dumu-dab5 | [sheep] of Lugal-siĝar, the dumudaba |
| 3. | 1(geš2) 2(diš) udu 5(diš) maš2 | 62 sheep 5 goats |
| 4. | udu ur-dnanše / dub-sar lugal | sheep of Ur-Nanše, the royal scribe |
| 5. | 3(u) la2 2(diš) udu 1(diš) maš2 | 28 sheep 1 goat |
| 6. | [udu ur-d]lamma KU | sheep of Ur-Lamma, the (dumu)daba(<dumu>-dab5?) |
| 7. | [...]+1(geš2) 2(u) 4(diš) udu gukkal | 84+ fat-tailed sheep |
| 8. | 1(u) 5(diš) maš2 | 15 goats |
| 9. | diškur-an-dul3 / na-gada lugal | Iškur-andul, the royal herdsman |
| column ii | ||
| blank line | ||
| 1. | 1(u) la2 1(diš) [udu] [...] | 9 [sheep] |
| 2. | udu ur-dingir-ra [...] | sheep of Ur-diĝira [...] |
| 3. | 2(u) 4(diš) udu 2(u) 1(diš) ⸢maš2⸣ | 24 sheep 21 goats |
| 4. | udu a2-lu5-⸢lu5⸣ [...] / zi-gum2 | sheep of Alulu, [...] of the sikkum |
| 5. | 1(geš2) 3(u) 5(diš) udu | 95 sheep |
| 6. | 1(u) 4(diš) maš2 | 14 goats |
| 7. | udu ur-d[...] | sheep of Ur-[...] |
| 8. | 1(geš2) 4(u) 1(diš) udu | 101 sheep |
| 9. | 3(u) 6(diš) maš2 | 36 goats |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| ca. 6/7 broken lines | (...) | |
| 1’. | [4(u)]+ [... udu][120] | 40+ [sheep] |
| 2’. | udu ⸢ur⸣-sukkal ⸢na⸣-[gada nin?] | sheep of Ur-sukkal, the her[dsman of the queen?] |
| 3’. | 3(u) 2 (diš) udu 5(diš) maš2 | 32 sheep 5 goats |
| 4’. | udu ⸢gub⸣-ba-am3? | sheep ‘present’? |
| 5’. | 1(geš2) 1(u) [... udu] 3(u) ⸢maš⸣2 | 70+ [sheep] 30 goats |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 2(u) 3(diš) udu | 23 sheep |
| 2. | 1(u) 1(diš) [maš2] | 11 [goats] |
| 3. | udu [...] | sheep [...] |
| ca. 2 broken lines | ||
| 4’. | [a]-ša3 ⸢A.KU-si-ga gu2⸣ / i7 | field of Bara?-siga on the banks of?the river |
| 5’. | mu en dinanna / ba-a-ḫug | year: (when) the en-priest of Inanna was appointed |
§5.1.3.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 1 dumudaba, 1 royal scribe, 1 individual involved in herding (KU or dumudaba), 1 royal herdsman, 2 individuals (possible information on them is lost), 1 individual tied to the sikkum.[121] The occurrence of further individuals is surely lost in the several breaks of the tablet, among them, at least 1 herdsman tied to the sheep labelled as being ‘present’ in the first column of the reverse. The breaks in the tablet hamper the understanding of a possible decreasing order in the arrangement of the sections.
§5.1.3.1.2. The interpretation of the first part of this field name is unsure; thus, it is unclear whether it can be connected with the field bara2-si-ga gu2 i7 attested (obv. III, 11) in PPAC 5, 601 (AS 5/-), which ascribes 13 animals to it. In addition, we cannot exclude that a further field name is lost in the broken lines of the last column of the reverse. The total number of animals counted in this text is 708+ (568 sheep and 140 goats).
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| blank line | ||
| 1. | 1(geš2) 4(u) 2(diš) udu | 102 sheep |
| 2. | 1(u) 1(diš) maš2 | 11 goats |
| 3. | sila4(sic)[124] nam-maḫ KU | lamb?‘entrusted’ to Nammaḫ |
| 4. | 1(geš2) 3(u) 5(diš) udu 4(u) la2 / 1(diš) maš2 | 95 sheep 39 goats |
| 5. | udu nig2-gur11 dam-gar3 | sheep of Niĝgur, the merchant |
| 6. | 3(u) udu 4(diš) maš2 | 30 sheep 4 goats |
| 7. | udu ur-duš-gid2-/da dam-gar3 | sheep of Ur-Ušgida, the merchant |
| 8. | 3(u) udu | 30 sheep |
| 9. | udu ur-dba-u2 / dam-gar3 | sheep of Ur-BaU, the merchant |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | [...] [udu] | [sheep] |
| 2. | 3(u) [maš2] | 30 [goats] |
| 3. | ur-d[...] | Ur-[...] |
| 4. | 2(u) la2 1(diš) [udu] | 19 [sheep] |
| 5. | sipa ⸢dam⸣-[gar3?-e]-/⸢ne?⸣ | (entrusted to) shepherds of the mer[chants?] |
| 6. | 1(u) 6(diš) maš2 | 16 goats |
| 7. | en-ša3-ku3-⸢ge-/en⸣ | En-šakugen |
| 8. | 1(ĝeš2) 1(u) 4(diš) udu | 74 sheep |
| 9. | udu lu2-gu-/la mar-tu | sheep (entrusted to) Lu-gula, the Amorrean |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| blank line | ||
| 1. | 2(u) maš2 | 20 goats |
| 2. | udu ur-dsuen KU / ša3 šu-[...]-na | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Ur-Suen in the [...] |
| 3. | 1(u) 8(diš) udu / lu2-dba-[u2 ...] | 18 sheep, Lu-Ba[U] [...] |
| 4. | [...] | |
| ca. 6/7 broken lines | ||
| column ii | ||
| blank line | ||
| 1. | a-kal-la / sipa | (entrusted to) A-kala, the shepherd |
| 2. | lu2-me-lam2 / na-gada nin | (under charge of) Lu-melam, the herdsman of the queen |
| 3. | 4(u) la2 2(diš) udu | 38 sheep |
| 4. | udu gu3-de2-a mar?-/tu? | sheep (entrusted to) Gudea, the Amorrean? |
| blank line | ||
| 5. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 6. | a-ša3dnin-e2-gal | field of Nin-egal |
| 7. | mu dšu-dsuen lugal (EN./ZU) | year: (when) Šu-Suen (became) king |
§5.1.4.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 1 individual somehow responsible for state-held sheep (KU), at least 3 merchants, unquantified and unnamed shepherds of merchants(?), 1 individual quoted just by name, 2 Amorreans, 1 individual with some responsibility for the sheep and tied to an unclear place (šu-[...]-na), 1 individual quoted just by name (further information on him may be lost), 1 shepherd under the charge of a herdsman of the queen. The texts begins by recording the largest number of sheep assigned to a single person, although the number of goats in the following section entails it was not the largest flock.
§5.1.4.1.2. The exact location of the ‘field of Nin-egal’ within the provincial territory is unclear and the individuals quoted in this text do not provide reliable hints on this matter. The number of animals that have grazed there in ŠS 1 is 526+ (406 sheep and 120 goats).
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| blank line | ||
| 1. | 1(šar2) 9(geš2) 5(u) / 3(diš) udu | 4193 sheep |
| 2. | 1(aš) maš2 | 1 goat |
| 3. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 4. | 3(geš2) udu zi-ga | 180 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 5. | da-da na-gada | Dada, the herdsman |
| 6. | 1(geš’u) 4(geš2) 3(u) la2 1(diš) udu | 869 sheep |
| 7. | 1(u) 1(diš) maš2 | 11 goats |
| 8. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 9. | 1(geš2) 3(u) udu zi-ga | 90 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 10. | lu2-giri17-zal na-/gada | Lu-girizal, the herdsman |
| 11. | 5(geš2) udu | 300 sheep |
| 12. | udu da-da / KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Dada |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 2(geš2) udu 2(geš2) maš2 | 120 sheep 120 goats |
| 2. | udu in-u9-u9[127] | sheep of Inu’u |
| 3. | 3(geš2) udu ma-an-sa6 | 180 sheep, Mansa |
| 4. | 4(geš2) udu bi2-du11-i3-/sa6 | 240 sheep, Biduisa |
| 5. | 3(geš2) udu la-la-mu ma2-gal | 180 sheep, Lalamu, the ‘boatman’ |
| 6. | 2(geš2) udu lugal-sukkal-du8 | 120 sheep, Lugal-sukkaldu |
| 7. | 3(geš2) udu lu2-dba-u2 | 180 sheep, Lu-BaU |
| 8. | 2(geš2) udu urdu2-dam | 120 sheep, Urdudam |
| 9. | 3(geš2) 2(u) udu na-ni KU | 200 sheep ‘entrusted’ to Nani |
| 10. | 5(geš2) <udu> dam lu2-/giri17-zal KU | 300 (sheep) ‘entrusted’ to the wife of Lu-girizal |
| 11. | ki da-da | (in) the plot (under charge of) Dada |
| 12. | 4(geš2) 2(u) 6(diš) udu | 266 sheep |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 2(u) la2 2(diš) maš2 | 18 goats |
| 2. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 3. | 1(u) 3(diš) udu zi-ga | 13 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 4. | ur-dba-u2 na-gada | Ur-BaU, the herdsman |
| 5. | 2(geš2) 3(u) 4(diš) udu 2(u) 5(diš) maš2 | 154 sheep 25 goats |
| 6. | bi2-de5 KU | gathered there (while) ‘being entrusted’ |
| 7. | ki ur-dba-u2 | (in) the plot (under charge of) Ur-BaU |
| 8. | 6(geš2) 3(u) la2 2(diš) udu 1(u) la2 1(diš) maš2 | 388 sheep 9 goats |
| 9. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 10. | 2(u) udu zi-ga | 20 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 11. | ab-ba-ge-na na-gada | Abba-gena, the herdsman |
| 12. | 1(geš2) 5(u) udu dinanna-ka | 110 sheep, Inannaka |
| 13. | ki ab-ba-ge-na | (in) the plot (under charge of) Abba-gena |
| 14. | 3(geš2) 2(u) udu | 200 sheep |
| 15. | udu gub-ba-am3(A./AN) | sheep ‘present’ |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 1(u) 1(diš) udu zi-/ga | 11 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 2. | la2-ia3 4(u) la2 2(diš) udu | shortfall: 38 sheep |
| 3. | ur-gu-la na-gada | ur-gula, the herdsman |
| 4. | 2(geš2) 1(u) 2(diš) udu | 132 sheep |
| 5. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 6. | 5(diš) udu zi-ga | 5 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 7. | nam-sipa-da-ni-du10 / na-gada | Namsipanidu, the herdsman |
| 8. | 2(geš2) la2 2(diš) ⸢udu⸣ gukkal | 118 fat-tai[led] sheep |
| 9. | ur-dba-u2 na-gada nin | Ur-BaU, the herdsman of the queen |
| blank line | ||
| 10. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 11. | a-ša3 i-šar-ra | field of Išara |
| 12. | mu dšu-dsuen / lugal | year: (when) Šu-Suen (became) king |
§5.1.5.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 6 institutional herdsmen, 1 herdsman of the queen, 6 untitled individuals, 1 boatman, and 2 individuals employed in herding (KU) in the plot under the charge of one of the institutional herdsmen, and 1 untitled individual in the plot under the charge of another herdsman. The text begins by recording the largest number of sheep assigned to a single person, the largest attested in our texts, but it does not continue in a linear, decreasing, order. By considering the section comprised between obv. I-11 and obv. II, 11 with its highest value (as reported in the transliteration), we can notice a consistent presence of round numbers.
§5.1.5.1.2. The field of Išara lay in Gu’aba, as shown in SNAT 126 (ŠS 1/-) (rev. 8), which lists the surfaces of different fields assigned as grazing areas to shepherds in Gu’aba (see § 1.1.9). Since both texts have been drawn up in the same year, we can estimate that 8911 animals (8727 sheep and 184 goats) grazed over an area of 71 iku (3.2.5), 225,600 m2, with a ratio of 1 animal per 25.3 m2. By considering the section comprised between obv. I-11 and obv. II, 11 with its lowest value, the total number would be 7377 with a ratio of 1 animal per 30.5 m2.
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| blank line | ||
| 1. | 2(geš2) 3(u) la2 2(diš) / udu | 148 sheep |
| 2. | udu gub-ba-am3(A./AN) | sheep ‘present’ |
| 3. | 1(u) 2(diš) udu zi-ga | 12 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 4. | libir-am3 | (of the) ‘old’ (herd) |
| 5. | 4(u) 6(diš) udu | 46 sheep |
| 6. | udu gub-ba-am3(A./AN) | sheep ‘present’ |
| 7. | ki sipa-du10 | (in) the plot (under charge of) Sipadu |
| [...] | ... | |
| column ii | ||
| blank line | ||
| 1. | uš-ge-/na na-gada | Ušgena, the herdsman |
| 2. | 1(geš2) 5(diš) udu | 65 sheep |
| 3. | bi2-de5 | gathered there |
| 4. | ki uš-ge-na | (in) the plot (under charge of) Ušgena |
| 5. | 1(geš2) 6(diš) udu 2(diš) maš2 | 66 sheep 2 goats |
| 6. | udu lu2-urubx(URU×KAR2)ki KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Lu-Urub |
| 7. | 3(u) [...] | 30 |
| ca. 2 broken lines | ||
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | udu ab-[ba]-/ge-na ⸢KU⸣ | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Abba-gena |
| 2. | 1(geš2) 5(diš) udu 2(diš) maš2 | 65 sheep 2 goats |
| 3. | udu ur-zikum-ma / KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Ur-zikuma |
| blank space | ||
| column ii | ||
| blank space | ||
| 1. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 2. | a-ša3 nin-a2-zi-/da | field of Nin-azida |
| 3. | mu na-<ru2-a> maḫ den-/lil2-la2 ba-ru2 | year: (when) the great stele of Enlil was erected |
§5.1.6.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 2 institutional herdsmen and at least 3 individuals somehow responsible for state-held sheep (KU). The text begins by recording the largest number of sheep assigned to a single person, but it does not continue in a linear, decreasing, order.
§5.1.6.1.2. The field of Ninazida lay in Gu’aba; from SNAT 126 (ŠS 1/-) we know that a surface of 10.75 iku (obv. 10: 0.1.4 1/2 1/4 iku), 38,600 m2, in this field had been allocated as grazing plot 6 years earlier. With a total of 436 animals (432 sheep and 4 goats) in ŠS 6 the ratio would have been 1 animal per 88.5 m2.
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 6(geš2) 1(u) 1(diš) udu | 371 sheep |
| 2. | 3(geš2) 1(u) 5(diš) maš2 | 195 goats |
| 3. | udu ur-dlamma / dumu-dab5-ba | sheep of Ur-Lamma, the dumudaba |
| 4. | 2(geš2) 2(u) 1(diš) udu 5(diš) maš2 | 141 sheep 5 goats |
| 5. | udu gu4-KU dumu-dab5 | sheep of GuKU, the dumudaba |
| 6. | 1(geš2) 1(u) 1(diš) udu 5(u) 1(diš) maš2 | 71 sheep 51 goats |
| 7. | udu ur-mes dumu-dab5 | sheep of Ur-mes, the dumudaba |
| 8. | 2(geš2) 1(u) 5(diš) udu 2(u) maš2 | 135 sheep 20 goats |
| 9. | udu ur-eš2-da / dumu-dab5 | sheep of Ur-ešda, the dumudaba |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 5(u) 1(diš) udu | 51 sheep |
| 2. | 4(u) la2 2(diš) maš2 | 38 goats |
| 3. | udu ḫu-ba dumu-dab5 | sheep ofḪuba, the dumudaba |
| 4. | 2(geš2) 1(u) 2(diš) udu 1(u) 5(diš) maš2 | 132 sheep 15 goats |
| 5. | udu ba-a-a dumu-dab5 | sheep of Ba’a, the dumudaba |
| 6. | 2(geš2) 4(u) [...] | 280 ... |
| 7. | 4(u) 1(diš) [...] | 41 ... |
| 8. | udu [...] | sheep of ... |
| blank line? | ||
| 9. | 2(geš2) 3(u) [...] | 150 ... |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 2(geš2) 5(diš) maš2 | 125 goats |
| 2. | udu!(siki) la-a-a | sheep of La’a |
| 3. | 1(geš2) 5(diš) udu | 65 udu |
| 4. | udu in-da-a / dumu-dab5 | sheep of Inda’a, the dumudaba |
| 5. | 3(geš2) 2(u) la2 2(diš) udu | 198 sheep |
| 6. | 3(u) 5(diš) maš2 | 35 goats |
| 7. | udu ur-mes eren2 | sheep of Ur-mes, the state dependent |
| 8. | 1(geš2) 3(diš) udu 5(diš) maš2 | 63 sheep 5 goats |
| 9. | udu ur-dšul-pa-e3(UD./DU) šu-i lugal | sheep of Ur-Šulpa’e, the royal barber |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 3(u) la2 2(diš) udu | 28 sheep |
| 2. | 5(diš) maš2 | 5 goats |
| 3. | udu lu2-du10-ga eren2 | sheep of Lu-duga, the state dependent |
| blank space | ||
| 4. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 5. | a-ša3 du6-lugal-u3-a | field of Dulugalua |
| 6. | mu ma2-gur8 maḫ / ba-dim2 | year: (when) the great barge was fashioned |
§5.1.7.1.1. This text does not quote skilled personnel, but state dependent workers (at least 2) and dumudaba (at least 7; see § 2.2), 1 individual quoted just by name, and 1 royal barber. The text begins by recording the largest number of sheep assigned to a single person, but it does not continue in a linear, decreasing, order.
§5.1.7.1.2. The field of Dulugalua lay in Gu’aba; SNAT 126 (ŠS 1/-) shows that 8 years earlier 71.75 iku (obv. 2: 3.2.5 1/2 ¼ iku), 258,300 m2, have been allocated as pasture area. With a total of 2220 animals (1726 sheep and 494 goats) in ŠS 8 the ratio would have been of 1 animal per ca. 116.3 m2. In addition, PPAC 5, 601 (rev. II, 13-14: a-ša3 du6-lugal-u3-a / u3 e2-duru5 ur-gešgigir) suggests that it was contiguous to the field of the village of Ur-gigir, which Text 8 (MVN 5, 203) and Text 28 (TÉL 250) refer to.
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| blank line | ||
| 1. | 3(geš2) 1(u) 6(diš) udu | 196 sheep |
| 2. | 3(geš2) maš2 | 180 goats |
| 3. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 4. | 7(geš2) udu zi-ga | 420 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 5. | a2-u2-u2 na-[gada] | Au’u, the her[dsman] |
| 6. | [...] la2 1(diš) maš2 | ... minus 1 goat |
| 7. | [...] a2-u2-u2 KU | ... ‘entrusted’ to Au’u |
| 8. | [...]+ 1(geš2) 4(u) 2(diš) maš2 | ... +102 goats |
| 9. | [ba]-a-ga na-gada | Ba’aga, the herdsman |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 1(geš2) 4(u) 2(diš) / udu | 102 sheep |
| 2. | ur-gu-la / na-gada | Ur-gula, the herdsman |
| 3. | udu!(KU) ereš-dingir dba-u2 | sheep of the high priestess of BaU |
| 4. | 4(u) 2(diš) udu 4(diš) maš2 | 42 sheep 240 goats |
| 5. | udu!(KU) im-ti-/dam šabra | sheep of Imtidam, the chief administrator |
| 6. | 2(u) 3(diš) udu | 23 sheep |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | udu!(KU) lu2-giri17-/zal KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Lu-girizal |
| 2. | 5(geš2) 1(diš) udu ⸢gukkal⸣ | 301 fat-tailed sheep |
| 3. | en-i3-na-kal na-[gada] | En-inakal, the her[dsman] |
| 4. | 4(geš2) la2 2(aštenû) udu 60+40 maš2 | 238 sheep 100 goats |
| 5. | udu!(KU) bi2-de5 KU | sheep gathered there (while) ‘being entrusted’ |
| 6. | udu en-i3-na-kal | sheep of En-inakal |
| 7. | 1(geš2) la2 2(diš) udu 1(u) maš2 | 58 sheep 10 goats |
| 8. | udu!(KU) lu2-dutu ⸢KU⸣ | sheep ‘entrust[ed]’ to Lu-Utu |
| 9. | 2(u) 1(diš) udu [...] | 21 sheep ... |
| 10. | udu lugal-[...] / ⸢KU⸣ | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Lugal-[...] |
| column ii | ||
| blank space | ||
| 1. | [nig2]-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 2. | [a-ša3 e2]-duru5! ur!-<geš>gigir! | [field] of the village of Ur-gigir |
| 3. | mu ma2-gur8 maḫ /den-lil2-la2 ba-/dim2 | year: (when) the great barge of Enlil was fashioned |
§5.1.8.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats of the high priestess of BaU entrusted to 3 herdsmen, those assigned to the chief administrator of that household, 1 herdsman, likely tied to the sheep of the grand vizier, and 2 individuals somehow responsible for state-held sheep (KU). The text begins by recording the largest number of sheep assigned to a single person, but it does not continue in a linear, decreasing, order.
§5.1.8.1.2. At the time this text was drawn up, the high priestess of BaU was BaU-ea, wife of the grand vizier (see § 1.2). The interpretation of the field name is based on a possible reading of the signs reported in the handcopy and a comparison with Text 28 (TÉL 250) (IS 3/-) and TÉL 262 (IS 1/-). PPAC 5, 601 (rev. II, 13-14: a-ša3 du6-lugal-u3-a / u3 e2-duru5 ur-gešgigir) suggests that it was contiguous to the field Dulugalua (see Text 7 (HLC 1, 37)), both located in the Gu’aba district. Animals counted in this field in ŠS 8 are 1797+ (1401 sheep and 396 goats), to be compared to the 2108+ animals counted there 4 years later in IS 3 (see Text 28 (TÉL 250)).
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| blank line | ||
| 1. | 1(geš’u) 4(geš2) 1(u) 2(diš) / udu | 852 sheep |
| 2. | 2(u) maš2 | 20 goats |
| 3. | udu gub-ba-am3(A./AN) | sheep ‘present’ |
| 4. | 3(u) 5(diš) udu zi-/ga | 35 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 5. | [u4-de3-nig2]-⸢sa6⸣-/ga na-gada | [Ude-niĝsa]-ga, the herdsman |
| 6. | [...]+ 5(diš) udu | +5 sheep |
| 7. | [udu] bi2-de5 KU | [sheep] gathered there (while) ‘being entrusted’ |
| 8. | ki u4-de3-/nig2-sa6-/ga | (in) the plot (under charge of) Ude-niĝsaga |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 4(u) 1(diš) udu gub-ba | 41 sheep ‘present’ |
| 2. | ur-<d>šul-<pa-e3> na-gada | Ur-Šul(pa’e), the herdsman |
| 3. | 4(u) 4(diš) udu | 44 sheep |
| 4. | udu gub-ba | sheep ‘present’ |
| 5. | dutu-kalam-/e na-<gada> | Utu-kalame, the herdsman |
| 6. | 5(u) 2(diš) udu | 52 sheep |
| 7. | udu gub-ba | sheep ‘present’ |
| 8. | [...] | ... |
| 9. | ur-dlamma na-/gada | Ur-Lamma, the herdsman |
| 10. | 3(u) 5(diš) udu | 35 sheep |
| 11. | udu gub-ba | sheep ‘present’ |
| 12. | la2-ia3 8(diš) udu | shortfall: 8 sheep |
| 13. | nam-maḫ na-gada | Nammaḫ, the herdsman |
| 14. | 1(geš2) 5(diš) udu | 65 sheep |
| column iii | ||
| 1. | udu gub-/ba | sheep ‘present’ |
| 2. | nig2-dba-u2 <na-gada?> | nig2-dba-u2, (the herdsman?) |
| 3. | 4(u) la2 2(diš) udu | 38 sheep |
| 4. | udu e3-⸢lugal⸣ | sheep of E-lugal |
| 5. | 1(geš2) la2 2(diš) udu 5(diš) maš2 | 58 sheep 5 goats |
| 6. | udu ⸢UN-ga⸢6? | sheep of UNĝa |
| 7. | 7(geš2) 1(u) 2(diš) udu 1(u) maš2 | 432 sheep 10 goats |
| 8. | nig2-d[...] / na-gada lugal? | Niĝ[...], the royal herdsman |
| 9. | 1(geš2) 2(diš) udu | 62 sheep |
| 10. | ur-ma-ma na-gada nin? | Ur-mama, the herdsman of the queen |
| 11. | 3(geš2) 2(u) udu 1(u) maš2 | 200 sheep 10 goats |
| 12. | lu2-sukkal / sipa | Lu-sukkal, the shepherd |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 2(geš2) 4(u) 1(diš) udu | 161 sheep |
| 2. | 5(geš2) maš2 | 300 goats |
| 3. | [...] sipa (⸢PA⸣.LU) | ... the shepherd |
| 4. | [...]-AMAR | [...]-AMAR |
| 5. | [... udu] / [...] maš2 | ... sheep ...goats |
| 6. | udu dšul-gi-/nin-e-ki!(KU)-ag2 / lu2 sukkal-maḫ | sheep of Šulgi-ninekiaĝ, the one of the grand vizier |
| 7. | 6(geš2) 4(diš) udu | 364 sheep |
| 8. | 1(geš2) 2(u) 7(diš) maš2 | 87 goats |
| 9. | dingir-sa6-ga [...] / sipa | Diĝir-saga, the shepherd |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | udu uri5ki-/ki-du10 muḫaldim / lugal | sheep of Urim-kidu, the royal cook |
| 2. | 1(geš2) 2(u) 2(diš) udu | 82 sheep |
| 3. | 3(u) 5(diš) maš2 | 35 goats |
| 4. | udu sipa [...] | sheep of the shepherds... |
| 5. | aša5 /e2 [...] | field/house ... |
| 6. | 5(u) 2(diš) [udu] | 52 [sheep] |
| 7. | 1(geš2) [maš2] | 60 [goats] |
| 8. | ⸢lugal⸣-[u2]-šim-/e na-gada / den-ki | Lugal-[u]šime, the herdsman of Enki |
| 9. | 1(geš2) la2 2(diš) maš2 | 58 goats |
| 10. | udu gub-ba | sheep ‘present’ |
| 11. | ur-mes-«mes» / na-gada | Ur-mes, the herdsman |
| 12. | 6(geš2) 3(diš) udu 1(u) maš2 | 363 sheep 10 goats |
| 13. | dinanna-ka sipa | Inannaka, the shepherd |
| column iii | ||
| 1. | udu a-ḫu-/ni muḫaldim | sheep of Aḫuni, the cook |
| 2. | sukkal-maḫ | of the grand vizier |
| blank space | ||
| 3. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 4. | [a]-⸢ša3⸣ e2-⸢duru5?⸣ [x] | [f]ield of the village?.... |
| 5. | mu ma2-gur8 maḫ ba-dim2 | year: (when) the great barge was fashioned |
§5.1.9.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 6 institutional herdsmen, 2 royal herdsmen (1 of the king and 1 of the queen), 1 herdsman of the god Enki, 2 individuals quoted by name, 1 shepherd (unclear whether tied to a specific household), 1 individual tied to the grand vizier, 1 shepherd (regardless of the administrative level) tied to the sheep of a royal cook, 1 shepherd (regardless of the administrative level) tied to the sheep of the cook of the grand vizier, unquantified and unnamed shepherds tied to a household or a field (aša5 /e2). The text begins by recording the largest number of sheep assigned to a single person, but it does not continue with a linear, decreasing, order.
§5.1.9.1.2. The name of the field is no longer readable; the interpretation of the visible sign as e2 is tentative and based on the occurrence of several fields lying in villages (e2-duru5) in this group of texts and on the possibility to read the following sign as A(=duru5). The names of the involved herdsmen and the presence of a herdsman of Enki suggest a location in the area of Gu’aba. In ŠS 8 3544+ animals (2949 sheep and 595 goats) have grazed in this field.
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| blank line | ||
| 1. | 5(geš2) 4(u) 1(diš) maš2 | 341 goats |
| 2. | libir-am3 | (of the) ‘old’ (herd) |
| 3. | 2(u) maš2 | 20 goats |
| 4. | maš2 geštukul / dnin-geš-zi-/da | goats for the weapon of Ningešzida |
| 5. | udu gub-ba-am3(A./AN) | sheep ‘present’ |
| 6. | 1(geš2) 2(diš) maš2 | 62 goats |
| 7. | [udu] ⸢zi-ga⸣ | [sheep] ‘expended’ |
| 2/3 broken lines | ... | |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | ki-tuš-lu2 / na-gada | Kitušlu, the herdsman |
| 2. | 3(geš2) la2 2(diš) udu | 178 sheep |
| 3. | bi2-de5 KU | gathered there (while) ‘being entrusted’ |
| 4. | ki ki-tuš-lu2 | (in) the plot (under charge of) Kitušlu |
| 5. | 1(geš2) 1(diš) udu | 61 sheep |
| 6. | udu ur-diškur / KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Ur-Iškur, |
| 7. | 2(geš2) 2(diš) udu | 122 sheep |
| 8. | udu i3-tur-ra / KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Itura |
| 9. | 3(u) 5(diš) udu | 35 sheep |
| 10. | [...]-u2 | [...]-u |
| ca. 2 broken lines | ... | |
| column iii | ||
| 1. | udu ur-/dba-u2 / šabra | sheep of Ur-BaU, the chief administrator |
| 2. | 2(geš2) 3(u) 1(diš) udu | 151 sheep |
| 3. | 3(u) la2 1(diš) maš2 | 29 goats |
| 4. | udu ur-dlamma / sa12-du5 | sheep of Ur-Lamma, the land recorder |
| 5. | 1(geš2) 2(diš) udu 2(diš) maš2 | 62 sheep 2 goats |
| 6. | udu ur-an-ki | sheep of Ur-anki |
| 7. | 1(geš2) 5(u) 2(diš) udu | 112 sheep |
| 8. | 1(geš2) 3(u) la2 1(diš) maš2 | 89 goats |
| 9. | [udu] lu2-maḫ? [...] | [sheep] of thelumaḫ-priest ... |
| ca. 1 broken line | ... | |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| blank line | ||
| 1. | 4(u) la2 2(diš) [udu] | 38 [sheep] |
| 2. | udu lu2-dšul-gi KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Lu-Šulgi |
| 3. | 5(u) la2 2(diš) udu 2(diš) maš2 | 48 sheep 2 goats |
| 4. | udu amar-ku3 KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Amarku |
| 5. | 1(u) la2 1(diš) udu 1(diš) maš2 | 9 sheep 1 goat |
| 6. | udu ur-dba-u2 ugula? kikken(ḪAR)? | sheep of Ur-BaU, the supervisor of the mill? |
| 7. | 5(u) 2(diš) udu 1(geš2) 2(diš) maš2 | 52 sheep 62 goats |
| 8. | udu lu2-sa6-/ga KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Lu-saga |
| 9. | 2(u) la2 1(diš) udu 3(diš) maš2 | 19 sheep 3 goats |
| 10. | udu nig2-lagar-DI-e / KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to NiĝlagarDIe |
| column ii | ||
| 2/3 broken lines | ... | |
| 1’. | [... udu] | ... [sheep] |
| 2’. | [...] maš2 | ... goats |
| 3’. | udu lu2-den-ki / [šeš ga]-eš8 | sheep of Lu-Enki, [brother of Ga]’eš |
| 4’. | 2(geš2) 1(u) 2(diš) udu 1(u) maš2 | 132 sheep 10 goats |
| 5’. | ur-du6!sipa | Ur-du, the shepherd |
| 6’. | 1(geš2) 4(u) 1(diš) udu 2(u) maš2 | 101 sheep 20 goats |
| 7’. | lu2-me-lam2 sipa | Lu-melam, the shepherd |
| 8’. | udu sukkal-maḫ | sheep of the grand vizier |
| 9’. | 1(geš2) 3(u) 1(diš) udu | 91 sheep |
| 10’. | 4(u) 6(diš) maš2 | 46 goats |
| 11’. | la-gu2 sipa | Lagu, the shepherd |
| 12’. | udu lu2-giri17-zal / nu-banda3 ki-[...] | sheep of Lu-girizal, the captain of Ki-[...] |
| column iii | ||
| 2/3 broken lines | ... | |
| blank space | ||
| 1’. | nig2-[ka9 aka] | accomplished account |
| 2’. | a-ša3 e2-<duru5>? dinanna | field of the temple/village of Inanna |
| 3’. | mu e2 dšara2 / ba-du3 | year: (when) the temple of Šara was built |
| blank space |
§5.1.10.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 1 institutional herdsman, at least 6 individuals somehow responsible for state-held sheep (KU), 1 chief administrator, 1 land recorder, 2 individuals quoted by name, 1 lumaḫ-priest, 1 individual (likely supervisor of the mill), 2 shepherds tied to the sheep of the grand vizier and 1 shepherd tied to the sheep of 1 captain. The text begins by recording the largest number of goats assigned to a single person, and it continues with no linear decreasing order concerning both sheep and goats.
§5.1.10.1.2. A field named after the temple of Inanna is attested only here. Given the analogies with Text 13 (TCTI 1, 850) (IS 3/-), drawn up 4 years later and concerning the sheep which have grazed in the field of the village of Inanna (a-ša3 e2-duru5 dinanna), one can wonder if the field meant here must be interpreted as a-ša3 e2-<duru5> dinanna, hence referring to the field located in the Ĝirsu district. PPAC 5, 601 (ŠS 1/-) ascribes to that field (obv. III, 5) 5 sheep and 14 goats to be compared to the 1898+ animals (1211 sheep and 687 goats) recorded in ŠS 9 and the 1963+ (1077 sheep and 886 goats) recorded in IS 3 (see Text 13).
| Obverse | ||
| 1. | [...]+ 5(diš) udu | +5 sheep |
| 2. | [...] 1(u) 4(diš) maš2 | + 14 goats |
| 3. | [udu] lu2-dnin-gir2-su [KU] | [sheep] [‘entrusted’ to] Lu-Niĝirsu |
| 4. | [...] 5(diš) udu 3(u) 5(diš) maš2 | +5 udu 35 goats |
| 5. | udu gu3-de2-a KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Gudea |
| 6. | 1(geš2) 1(u) 2(diš) udu 1(u) 5(diš) maš2 | 72 sheep 15 goats |
| 7. | udu lu2-sukkal!-an-ka KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Lu-sukkalanka |
| Reverse | ||
| 1. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 2. | a-ša3 ⸢du6⸣-eš3 | field of Du’eš |
| 3. | [mu e2] dšara2 ba-du3 | [year: (when) the temple] of Šara was built |
§5.1.11.1.1. This text only quotes individuals somehow tied to state-held sheep (KU), see § 2.3.3.2.
§5.1.11.1.2 The field of Du’eš was located in Gu’aba and, as shown (rev. 5) in SNAT 126 (ŠS 1/-), 9 years earlier 36 iku (rev. 4: 2.0.0), 129,600 m2, had been allocated as pasture areas. With a total of 146+ animals (82 sheep and 64 goats) in ŠS 9 the ratio would have been of 1 animal per ca. 887.6 m2. However, the breaks in the tablet hamper a riable evaluation.
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 4(geš2) 3(u) 2(diš) udu | 272 sheep |
| 2. | 3(u) 4(diš) maš2 | 34 goats |
| 3. | udu dingir-bu3-ka ša3 geš-kin-<ti> | sheep of Diĝirbuka in the workshop |
| 4. | 3(geš2) la2 2(diš) udu | 178 sheep |
| 5. | 8(diš) maš2 | 8 goats |
| 6. | [udu] ur-dda-⸢mu⸣ ša3 geš-[kin-ti] | sheep of Ur-Damu in the work[shop] |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 1(geš2) 5(u) [udu] | 110 [sheep] |
| 2. | 1(u) 2(diš) [maš2] | 12 [goats] |
| 3. | udu ḫu-[...] ša3 geš-[kin-<ti>] | sheep of Ḫu-[...] in the work[shop] |
| 4. | 3(u) la2 2(diš) [udu] | 28 [sheep] |
| 5. | udu ur-d[šul]-pa-e3 dumu-dab5-ba | sheep of Ur-[Šul]pa’e, the dumudaba |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 1(geš’u) 6(geš2) 5(u) [udu] | 1010 [sheep] |
| 2. | 2(u) 5(diš) [maš2] | 25 [goats] |
| 3. | udu dutu-[...] | sheep of Utu-[...] |
| 4. | 1(geš’u) 1(u) la2 1(diš) ⸢udu⸣ | 609 sheep |
| 5. | udu NE-[...] | sheep of NE-[...] |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | ⸢nig2⸣-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 2. | a-ša3 e2-duru5 ba-zi | field of the village of Bazi |
| 3. | mu e2dšara2 ba-du3 | year: (when) the temple of Šara was built |
§5.1.12.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 3 individuals in connection to a workshop, 1 dumudaba, and to 2 individuals, for whom further information is lost in the breaks of the tablet. The text begins by recording the largest number of sheep tied to the workshop.
§5.1.12.1.2. The exact location of the village of Bazi is unknown. The total number of animals which have grazed there in ŠS 9 is 2286 (2207 sheep and 79 goats).
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 4(geš2) 3(u) 4(diš) maš2 | 274 goats |
| 2. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 3. | 1(geš2) 5(diš) maš2 | 65 goats |
| 4. | zi-ga | ‘expended’ |
| 5. | la2-ia3 3(geš2) 3(u) 5(diš) maš2 | shortfall: 215 goats |
| 6. | ki-tuš-lu2 na-gada | Kitušlu, the herdsman |
| 7. | 4(geš2) 5(diš) udu | 245 sheep |
| 8. | udu bi2-de5 didli KU | sheep gathered there (while) ‘being entrusted’ to various (individuals) |
| 9. | 3(u) 5(diš)?udu | 35?sheep |
| 10. | udu ⸢ur⸣-dba-u2 | sheep of Ur-BaU |
| 11. | [...] KI | .... |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | ki ki-tuš-lu2 | (in) the plot (under charge of) Kitušlu |
| 2. | 5(u) 1(diš) udu | 51 sheep |
| 3. | 2(diš) maš2 | 2 goats |
| 4. | udu lu2-maḫ! dinanna | sheep of thelumaḫ-priest of Inanna |
| 5. | 5(u) la2 2(diš) udu | 48 sheep |
| 6. | 2(diš) maš2 | 2 goats |
| 7. | udu lu2-[...] | sheep of Lu-[...] |
| 8. | 2(geš2) 2(u) 2(diš) [udu] | 142 [sheep] |
| 9. | 1(geš2) la2 2(diš) ⸢maš2⸣ | 58 goats |
| 10. | lu2-dnin-[...] na-gada | (under charge of) Lu-Nin[...], the herdsman |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 3(geš2) 5(u) la2 1(diš) udu | 229 sheep |
| 2. | [...] maš2 | [...] goats |
| 3. | ur-du6 [sipa] | Ur-du [the shepherd] |
| 4. | udu sukkal-maḫ | sheep of the grand vizier |
| 5. | 1(geš2) la2 2(diš) udu 4(diš) maš2 | 58 sheep 4 goats |
| 6. | udu ur-an-ki KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Ur-anki |
| 7. | 1(geš2) 5(diš) udu | 65 sheep |
| 8. | udu ur-sukkal KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Ur-sukkal |
| 9. | 1(geš2) 1(u) 1(diš) maš2 | 71 goats |
| 10. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 11. | ur-mes na-gada | Ur-mes, the herdsman |
| 12. | 3(geš2) 2(u) 4(diš) udu | 204 sheep |
| 13. | 3(geš2) 1(u) 5(diš) maš2 | 195 goats |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | [...] | ... |
| 2. | [...] | ... |
| 3. | [udu] lu2-[...]-ki? šeš ga-eš8 | ...(sheep) of Lu-[En]ki?, the brother of Ga’eš |
| blank line | ||
| 4. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 5. | a-ša3 e2-duru5dinanna | field of the village of Inanna |
| 6. | mu si-mu-ru-umki ba-ḫul | year: (when) Simurum was destroyed |
§5.1.13.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 3 institutional herdsmen, at least 3 individuals quoted by name, 1 lumaḫ-priest, 2 individuals somehow responsible for state-held sheep (KU), 1 shepherd (regardless of the administrative level) tied to the sheep of the grand vizier. Some of the individuals quoted here also occur in Text 10 (Ontario 2, 435) (ŠS 9/-), drawn up 4 years earlier. As in Text 10, Text 13 begins by recording the largest number of goats assigned to a single person, also in this case the herdsman Kitušlu, but it does not continue with a linear, decreasing, order.
§5.1.13.1.2. The field of the village of Inanna was located in the Ĝirsu district. Notwithstanding the breaks in both tablets, the comparison between the two shows that in ŠS 9 (1898+) and in IS 3 (1963+) roughly the same number of animals grazed there.
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 8(geš2) 2(u) 1(diš) / udu | 501 sheep |
| 2. | 2(u) 5(diš) maš2 | 25 goats |
| 3. | a2-u2-u2 / sipa | Au’u, the shepherd |
| 4. | udu lu2-<d>kal-/kal-la / šabra | sheep of Lu-Kalkala, the chief administrator |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 1(geš2) 2(diš) ⸢udu⸣ | 62 she[ep] |
| 2. | 5(diš) ⸢maš2⸣ | 5 goa[ts] |
| 3. | udu lu2-[...]-/i3-[...] | sheep of Lu-[...] |
| 4. | 3(u) 3(diš) [... udu] | 33+ [sheep] |
| 5. | 2(u) 1(diš) [maš2] | 21 [goats] |
| 6. | udu TAR-[...] | sheep of TAR-[...] |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| uninscribed | ||
| column ii | ||
| 1. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 2. | a-ša3 du-a-/bi | field of Duabi |
| 3. | mu si-mu-ru-/umki ba-ḫul (IGI./UR) | year: (when) Simurum was destroyed |
§5.1.14.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep entrusted to 1 shepherd (regardless of the administrative level) tied to a provincial sheep-pen and those assigned to individuals, about whom further information is no longer available. The text begins by reporting the largest number of sheep assigned to a single person and continues according to a decreasing order.
§5.1.14.1.2. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only attestation of this field. The exact location of the village Duabi (e2-duru5 du-a-bi), after which the field is named, is unknown. We can note, however, that the sheep from the same sheep-pen both in Text 2 (Amherst 20) (Š 44//IS 3/-) and Text 18 (TCTI 2, 4177) [...] have grazed in fields of the Niĝin area. The total number of animals which have grazed here in IS 3 is 647+ (596 sheep and 51 goats).
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| ca. 3 broken lines | ... | |
| 1’. | ⸢udu⸣ lugal-ur-/sag KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Lugal-ursaĝ |
| 2’. | [...] udu | ... sheep |
| 3’. | [...] 4(u) 1(diš) maš2 | 41+ goats |
| 4’. | ⸢udu⸣ gu2-u3-mu / dumu-dab5 | sheep of Gu’umu, the dumudaba |
| 5’. | 3(u) la2 2(diš) udu | 28 sheep |
| 6’. | udu KU-gu-za-na / KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to KUguzana |
| 7’. | [... udu] 3(u) maš2 gub-/ba | ... sheep 30 goats ‘present’ |
| 8’. | ⸢lu2⸣-kal-la na-gada | Lu-kala, the herdsman |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 1(geš2) 2(u) la2 2(diš) udu | 78 sheep |
| 2. | udu gub-ba-⸢am3⸣ | sheep ‘present’ |
| 3. | 1(u) udu ⸢zi⸣-[ga] | 10 sheep ‘expend[ed]’ |
| 4. | gu2-u3-[mu na-gada] | Gu’u[mu, the herdsman] |
| 5. | 1(geš2) 4(u) udu 2(diš) maš2 | 100 sheep 2 goats |
| 6. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 7. | 2(diš) udu zi-ga | 2 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 8. | ur-mes na-gada | Ur-mes, the herdsman |
| 9. | 2(geš2) 3(u) 4(diš) udu | 154 sheep |
| 10. | udu gub-ba | sheep ‘present’ |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 6(diš) udu | 6 sheep |
| 2. | zi-ga | ‘expended’ |
| 3. | ab-ba-sa6-ga / na-gada | Aba-saga, the herdsman |
| 4. | 2(geš2) 1(u) 2(diš) udu 2(diš) maš2 | 132 sheep 2 goats |
| 5. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 6. | 5(diš) udu zi-ga | 5 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 7. | lu2-nam-tar-ra na-gada! | Lu-namtara, the herdsman |
| 8. | 3(geš2) 2(u) 1(diš) udu 3(diš) maš2 | 201 sheep 3 goats |
| 9. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 10. | 1(u) udu zi-ga | 10 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 11. | a-kal-la na-gada | A-kala, the herdsman |
| 12. | 2(u) 6(diš)?udu 2(diš) maš2 | 26? sheep 2 goats |
| 13. | gub-[ba-am3] | ‘present’ |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 3(diš) udu zi-ga | 3 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 2. | la2-ia3 1(geš2) 4(u) la2 2(diš) udu | shortfall: 98 sheep |
| 3. | ḫa-ba-lu5-ge2 / na-gada | Ḫabaluge, the herdsman |
| 4. | 5(u) 2(diš) udu gub-ba | 52 sheep ‘present’ |
| 5. | 3(u) la2 2(diš) udu zi-ga | 28 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 6. | la2-ia3 1(geš2) 5(diš) udu | shortfall: 65 sheep |
| 7. | ⸢nig2⸣-sa6-ga na-gada | [N]iĝ-saga, the herdsman |
| blank space | ||
| 8. | [nig2]-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 9. | <a>-ša3 ḫu-rim3ki | field of Ḫurim |
| 10. | ⸢mu⸣ si-mu-ru-umki/ ba-ḫul | [ye]ar: (when) Simurum was destroyed |
§5.1.15.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 2 individuals somehow responsible for state-held sheep (KU), 1 dumudaba, and 8 institutional herdsmen.
§5.1.15.1.2. The field of Ḫurim was located in the Gu’aba district. The interpretation of r. II 9 as referring to the field named after Ḫurim, rather than to center of Ḫurim itself, is based on the comparison with the other texts of the group. The total number of animals which have grazed there in IS 3 is 1078+ (998 sheep and 80 goats).
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 3(geš2) 4(u) 6(diš) / udu | 226 sheep |
| 2. | 1(u) 1(diš) maš2 | 11 goats |
| 3. | udu libir-/am3 | sheep (of the) ‘old’ (herd) |
| 4. | 6(geš2) udu 8(diš) maš2 | 360 sheep 8 goats |
| 5. | udu a-lu5-a | sheep of Alua |
| 6. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 7. | 2(u) la2 1(diš) udu | 19 sheep |
| 8. | zi-ga | ‘expended’ |
| 9. | la2-ia3 1(u) 6(diš) udu | shortfall: 16 sheep |
| 10. | lu2-ge-/na na-/gada | Lu-gen[a], the herdsman |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 1(geš2) la2 2(diš) udu | 58 sheep |
| 2. | 4(diš) maš2 | 4 goats |
| 3. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 4. | 5(geš2) udu zi-ga | 300 sheep ‘expended’ |
| 5. | la2-ia3 1(u) 2(diš) udu | shortfall: 12 sheep |
| 6. | gu-za-ni na-/gada | Guzani, the herdsman |
| 7. | 4(u) udu 2(diš) maš2 | 40 sheep 2 goats |
| 8. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 9. | la2-ia3 5(diš) udu | shortfall: 6 sheep |
| 10. | ur-dnin-šubur / na-gada | Ur-Ninšubur, the herdsman |
| 11. | 2(geš2) 2(u) 4(diš) udu | 144 sheep |
| 12. | 1(u) maš2 | 10 goats |
| 13. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| column iii | ||
| 1. | 4(u) 1(diš) udu | 41 sheep |
| 2. | zi-ga | ‘expended’ |
| 3. | la2-ia3 3(u) la2 2(diš) ⸢udu⸣ | shortfall: 28 she[ep] |
| 4. | a-tu na-⸢gada⸣ | Atu, the her[dsman] |
| 5. | <...> udu | ... sheep |
| 6. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 7. | lugal-KA-ge-/na na-gada | Lugal-KAgena, the herdsman |
| 8. | blank line<...> | |
| 9. | lugal-KA-/ge-[na] ⸢na-gada⸣ (sic) | Lugal-KAge[na], the [he]rdsm[an] |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 5(u) la2 2(diš) udu | 48 sheep |
| 2. | 1(u) 3(diš) maš2 | 13 goats |
| 3. | [...]-sizkur2 | [...]-sizkur |
| 4. | [... udu] 1(u) 3(diš) maš2 | ...[sheep] 13 goats |
| 5. | [...]-ga | [...]-ga |
| 6. | [... udu] 7(diš) maš2 | ...[sheep] 7 goats |
| 7. | [...] udu? | ... sheep? |
| 8. | [... udu] 5(diš) maš2 | ... [sheep] 5 goats |
| 9. | [...] | ... |
| 10. | [... udu] 5(u) 1(diš) maš2 | ...[sheep] 51 goats |
| 11. | [...] ⸢dumu-dab5⸣ | ..., the dumudaba |
| 12. | [...] 1(u) la2 1(diš) udu 5(diš) maš2 | 9+ sheep 5 goats |
| 13. | ⸢udu ku-li⸣ KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Kuli |
| 14. | 2(geš2) 4(u) 5(diš) udu | 145 sheep |
| 15. | 1(geš2) la2 1(diš) maš2 | 59 goats |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | udu ba-zi | sheep of Bazi |
| 2. | [...] dumu [...] | .... |
| ca. | 10 lines lost | ... |
| 3’. | 3(u)?[...] | 30 ... |
| 4’. | udu lu2-bala-/sa6-ga dumu-/dab5 | sheep of Lu-balasaga, the dumudaba |
| column iii | ||
| blank line | ||
| 1. | 2(u) 2(diš) udu | 22 sheep |
| 2. | 5(diš) [maš2] | 5 [goats] |
| 3. | udu [...] | sheep ... |
| 4. | 1(geš2) [...] | 60 ... |
| 5. | udu [...] | sheep ... |
| blank line | ||
| 6. | nig2-[ka9 aka] | [accomplished ac]count |
| 7. | a-[ša3...] | fie[ld] ... |
| 8. | mu [...] ba-a-⸢du3⸣ | year: (when) [...] was bui[lt] |
§5.1.16.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to at least 5 institutional herdsmen, 2 dumudaba, 1 individual quoted by name and 1 individual somehow responsible for state-held sheep (KU). The text begins by recording the largest number of sheep assigned to a single person, but it does not continue in a linear, decreasing, order.
§5.1.16.1.2. As suggested by the involved herdsmen, the concerned field(s) may have been located in Gu’aba. Disregarding the missing entries (<…>), the total number of animals is 1776+ (1583 sheep and 193 goats).
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 5(u) 4(diš) udu | 54 sheep |
| 2. | 1(u) 5(diš) maš2 | 15 goats |
| 3. | udu u-ša-lum dumu-gi7 | sheep of Ušalum, the ‘citizen’ |
| 4. | 1(geš2) 3(u) 1(diš) udu | 91 sheep |
| 5. | [...] 5(diš) maš2 | 5+ goats |
| 6. | udu šu-ni-a dumu-gi7 | sheep of Šunia, the ‘citizen’ |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 3(u) la2 3(diš) udu | 27 sheep |
| 2. | 2(diš) maš2 | 2 goats |
| 3. | udu ur-sa6-ga dumu-gi7 | sheep of Ur-saga, the ‘citizen’ |
| 4. | 1(geš2) 3(u) la2 2(diš) udu 4(u) 1(diš) maš2 | 88 sheep 41 goats |
| 5. | udu ur-digi-zi-bar-ra dumu-gi7 | sheep of Ur-Igizibara, the ‘citizen’ |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 3(u) la2 2(diš) udu | 28 sheep |
| 2. | 5(diš) maš2 | 5 goats |
| 3. | udu nig2-du10-ga dumu-gi7 | sheep of Niĝduga, the ‘citizen’ |
| ca. 3 broken lines | ... | |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | udu ur-dnanše dub-sar lugal | sheep of Ur-Nanše, the royal scribe |
| 2. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 3. | a-ša3 bad3-[...] | field of Bad[...] |
| 4. | mu [...]ki[...] | year: .... |
§5.1.17.1.1. The tablet report the number of sheep assigned to at least 5 dumudaba, here defined as ‘citizens’ (see § 2.2.6), and 1 royal scribe. As already noted,[152] an interpretation as dumu-<dab5-ba> ḫug-<ga2>, “hired dumudaba” seems also plausible.
§5.1.17.1.2. The presence of the same royal scribe attested in Text 3 (TLB 3, 88) (AS 5//IS 4/-), likely as beneficiary of a subsistence plot located in the field mentioned there ([a]-ša3 [A.KU ]-[si-ga gu2] i7), would suggest that both Text 3 and Text 17 concern the same field. Were this the case, discrepancies in the field names can be due to the fact that Text 3 originally quoted two fields (as for example Text 2 does), one of them being lost with the breaks affecting the reverse, or that Text 17 used a contextual description to refer to the field. Indeed, hypothetically a further connection between a-ša3 bad3-[...] and the field of bad3-da-ri2 attested in Text 25 (MVN 5, 176) (ŠS 1/-) can be supposed.
§5.1.17.1.3. In this case, the text does not begins by recording the highest number of sheep. The total number of animals recorded in this text is 356+ (288 sheep and 68 goats).
§5.1.18. Text 18: TCTI 2, 4177 [...]
Lafont-Yildiz 1996
Transliteration
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | [...] 1(u) 5(diš) / udu gukkal | 15+ fat-tailed sheep |
| 2. | [...] maš2 | ... goats |
| 3. | ur-mes sipa | Ur-mes, the shepherd |
| 4. | [1(geš2)?] 3(u) 2(diš) udu | 92? sheep |
| 5. | [...] maš2 | ... goats |
| 6. | [...]-diškur sipa | [...]-Iškur, the shepherd |
| 7. | [udu ur-dba]-u2 / [ugula] šidim | [sheep of Ur-Ba]U, the [supervisor] of builders |
| 8. | [...] udu | ... sheep |
| 9. | [...] ⸢maš2⸣ | ... g[oats] |
| 10. | [PN sipa] | ... [PN, the shepherd] |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | [udu] ur-dig-alim / ugula šidim | [sheep] of Ur-Igalim, the supervisor of builders |
| 2. | 4(geš2) 3(u) 1(diš) udu 1(u) 5(diš) maš2 | 271 sheep 15 goats |
| 3. | ki-lu5-la sipa | Kilula, the shepherd |
| 4. | 1(geš2) 3(u) 1(diš) udu 1(u) 1(diš) maš2 | 91 sheep 11 goats |
| 5. | ḫa-laḫ5 sipa | Ḫalaḫ, the shepherd |
| 6. | udu lu2-<d>kal-kal-la / šabra | sheep of Lukalkala, the chief administrator |
| 7. | 3(u) 1(diš) udu 5(diš) maš2 | 31 sheep 5 goats |
| 8. | [...] šidim | ... builder |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 1(geš2) 3(u) la2 2(diš) udu | 88 sheep |
| 2. | 5(diš) maš2 | 5 goats |
| 3. | [udu] ba-zi KU | [sheep] ‘entrusted’ to Bazi |
| 4. | 2(u) 1(diš) <udu> lu2-<d>igi-ma-<še3> KU | 21 (sheep) ‘entrusted’ to Lu-Igimaše |
| 5. | 3(u) la2 2(diš) <udu> ur-dlamma KU | 28 (sheep) ‘entrusted’ to Ur-Lamma |
| 6. | 5(u) la2 2(diš) udu ur-dba-u2 KU | 48 sheep ‘entrusted’ to Ur-BaU |
| 7. | [...] ⸢udu⸣ 2(diš) maš2 | ... s[heep] 2 goats |
| 8. | [... udu...-d]ba-u2 KU | [sheep] ‘entrusted’ to [...]-BaU |
| 9. | [... udu] 1(u) 1(diš) maš2 | ... [sheep] 11 goats |
| 10. | [...-dba]-u2 / [...]-ba | ... [...]-BaU... |
| column ii | ||
| rest broken | ... |
§5.1.18.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to at least 3 shepherds (regardless of the administrative level) tied to the sheep of 2 supervisors of builders, 2 shepherds (regardless of the administrative level) tied to a provincial sheep-pen, 1 builder, 5 individuals somehow responsible for state-held sheep (KU).
§5.1.18.1.2. The occurrence of the same supervisors of builders attested in Text 26 (MVN 6, 544) (ŠS 1/-) would suggest that the field where the sheep counted here have grazed was that of Dalugal, likely located in the Niĝin area, once attested as a-ša3 da-lugal šidim-e-ne, ‘field of Dalugal (of the) builders’ (see § 2.3.2.5). Due to the condition of the tablet, it is not possible to find a possible decreasing order in the succession of the sections.
§5.1.18.1.3. The detectable total number reports 734+ animals (685 sheep and 49 goats).
| Obverse | ||
| 1. | 5(geš2) 4(u) 2(diš) udu 3(u) maš2 | 342 sheep 30 goats |
| 2. | udu ur-dnin-pirig | sheep of Ur-Nin-pirig |
| 3. | 7(diš) <udu> dutu-kam | 7 (sheep) Utukam |
| 4. | 4(diš) <udu> ba-ge-ne2 | 4 (sheep) Bagene |
| 5. | ki ur-dnin-pirig | (in) the plot (under charge of) Ur-Ninpirig |
| 6. | 1(geš2) 1(u) 2(diš) udu | 72 sheep |
| 7. | udu a-tu | sheep of Atu |
| Reverse | ||
| 1. | 5(diš) <udu> <lu2?>-dmes-lam-ta-e3 | 5 (sheep) Lu?-Meslamta’e |
| 2. | 5(diš) <udu> dba-u2-IGI.DU | 5 (sheep) BaU-IGI.DU |
| 3. | 1(geš2) la2 1(diš) udu ur-mes | 59 Ur-mes |
| 4. | ki a-tu | (in) the plot (under charge of) Atu |
| 5. | 2(diš) im-bi | the relevant tablets are 2 |
| 6. | nig2-ka9 aka aša5 ur-sag-pa-e3 | accomplished account (of the) field of Ur-saĝpa’e |
| 7. | mu us2-sa an-ša-anki ba-ḫul | year following (the year when) Anšan was destroyed |
§5.2.19.1.1 This tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 2 untitled individuals and the individuals connected to the plots under their charge (see § 2.4). The text specifies that the information was obtained from 2 different documents, very likely corresponding to the 2 recognizable sections (obv. 1-5 and obv 6-rev. 4). This text begins by recording the section with the largest number of sheep, listing first the individual, whom the largest number of sheep is assigned and who was also responsible for the plot.
§5.2.19.1.2. This field is also attested in Text 23 (MVN 6, 545) (AS 1/-), drawn up 13 years later. However, none of the individuals attested here in Text 19 occurs in Text 23. PPAC 5, 601 (AS 5/-) assigned to the field the presence of 10 sheep and 21 goats to be compared with the 524 animals (494 sheep and 30 goats) recorded here in Š 35 and the 840+ recorded in AS 1 (Text 23). The field is named after a small rural settlement outside of Ĝirsu.
| Obverse | ||
| 1. | <...> da-da <sipa> gab2-KU | ... Dada, (the shepherd of) gab2-KU (sheep) |
| 2. | 1(aš) ba-a ša3 geš-kin-ti | 1 (sheep) Ba’a in the workshop |
| 3. | 1(diš) u2-šim-e ki-geš-i3 | 1 (goat) Ušim’e (in) the sesame-plot |
| 4. | ki ba-a | (in) the plot (under charge of) Ba’a |
| 5. | <...> dba-u2-IGI.DU sipa | ... BaU-IGI.DU, the shepherd |
| 6. | <...> i7-a-bi-du10 sipa | ... Iabidu, the shepherd |
| 7. | 1(diš) ba-ga sipa | 1 (goat) Baga, the shepherd |
| 8. | udu ereš-dingir dba-u2 | sheep of the priestess of BaU |
| 9. | 1(aš) 1(diš) ur-dda-mu dub-sar | 1 (sheep) 1 (goat) Ur-Damu, the scribe |
| 10. | [x x x x] | ... |
| Reverse | ||
| 1. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 2. | aša5 e2-duru5 lu2-dšara2 | field of the village of Lu-Šara |
| 3. | mu dnanna kar-zi-da e2-a ba-ku4 | year: (when) Nanna of Karzida entered the temple |
§5.2.20.1.1. This text shows the peculiar system of counting a few units of sheep and goats, thus it is subject to the issues discussed in § 3.3. Here, the number of sheep and goats (as well as the missing information <...>) is assigned to: 1 shepherd (regardless of the administrative level) of gab2-KU sheep, 4 shepherds (regardless of the administrative level) tied to the sheep of the high priestess of BaU, one of them occurring in connection to a workshop and as responsible for the plot where the sheep entrusted to another individual have grazed, 1 scribe tied as well to the household of the priestess. At the time this text was drawn up, the high priestess was Geme-Lamma, wife of the provincial governor (see § 1.2.6).
§5.2.20.1.2. This is the only attestation of this village and the field named after it. As noted in § 1.2.6, one can wonder whether the village of Lu-Šara is to be identified with the village that in later documents was named after Ur-gigir and where the sheep of the high priestess have grazed in ŠS 8 (Text 8 (MVN 5, 203)), IS 1 (TÉL 262) and IS 3 (Text 28 (TÉL 250)). Thus, a location in Gu’aba may be inferred. The total number of counted animals is 2 sheep and 3 goats.
As noted in § 2.3.1, one may wonder whether he was beneficiary of a plot belonging to the household he served or subject to labor duties within that very household.
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 1(u) udu [...] | 10 sheep ... |
| 2. | 1(geš2) 3(u) ⸢4(diš)⸣ [...] | 94 ... |
| 3. | 3(diš) maš2 | 3 goats |
| 4. | udu ur-dḫendur-sag na-gada | sheep of Ur-Ḫendursaĝ, the herdsman |
| 5. | 1(geš2) 2(u) la2 1(diš) udu 2(geš2) 1(u) 2 (diš) maš2 | 79 sheep 132 goats |
| 6. | udu ur-dḫendur-sag kurušda | sheep of Ur-Ḫendursaĝ, the fattener |
| 7. | 1(u) <udu> bi2-de5 nu-KU | 10 (sheep) gathered there (while) not ‘entrusted’ |
| 8. | ki ur-dḫendur-sag[154] | (in) the plot (under charge of) Ur-Ḫendursaĝ |
| 9. | 4(u) 2(diš) udu | 42 sheep |
| 10. | 2(diš) maš2 | 2 goats |
| column ii | ||
| beginning broken | ||
| 1’. | 2(diš) [...] | 2 ... |
| 2’. | 4(u) 5(diš) udu 1(u) [maš2] | 45 sheep 10 [goats] |
| 3’. | udu ur-e2-an-na šeš ur-dḫendur-sag | sheep of Ur-Eanna, brother of Ur-Ḫendursaĝ |
| 4’. | 6(diš) <udu> ur-d[...] | 6 (sheep) Ur-[...] |
| 5‘. | 2(u) la2 1(diš) udu gub-ba | 19 sheep ‘present’ |
| 6’. | 7(diš) maš2 mu la2-ia3-še3 | 7 goats for the shortfall |
| 7’. | udu gub-ba-a | among the sheep ‘present’ |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 1(diš) <udu> nigir-ša3-kuš2[...] | 1 (sheep) Niĝir-šakuš ... |
| 2. | 7(diš) <udu> nigir-ša3-kuš2[...][155] | 7 (sheep) Niĝir-šakuš ... |
| 3. | 1(geš2) la2 3(diš) udu 2(u) maš2 | 57 sheep 20 goats |
| 4. | udu ab-ba-gu10 KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Abbaĝu |
| 5. | ki ur-e2-an-na | (in) the plot (under charge of) Ur-Eanna |
| 6. | n udu![156][...] 3(u) maš2 | ... sheep 30+ goats |
| 7. | [...] | ... |
| ca. 4 broken lines | ... | |
| 8’. | [...] | ... |
| 9’. | 1(u) [...] | 10+ ... |
| rest broken | ||
| column ii | ||
| 1. | ur-kisal na-gada | Ur-kisal, the herdsman |
| 2. | 4(u) udu 5(diš) maš2 | 40 sheep 5 goats |
| 3. | udu a-ab-ba-[...] KU | sheep of A’abba[...], the (dumu)daba(<dumu>-dab5?) |
| 4. | 1(u) 4(diš) <udu> ⸢ka-ka⸣ | 14 (sheep), Kaka |
| 5. | 1(u) <udu> ur-mes KU | 10 (sheep), Ur-mes, the (dumu)daba(<dumu>-dab5?) |
| 6. | 6(diš) <udu> lugal-sukkal eren2 | 6 (sheep), Lugal-sukkal, the state dependent |
| 7. | 6(diš) udu 3(u) 3(diš) maš2 | 6 sheep 33 goats |
| 8. | udu ur-dšul-pa-e3 eren2 | sheep of Ur-Šulpa’e, the state dependent |
| 9. | 5(diš) <udu> al-ba-ni-du11 KU | 5 (sheep) Albanidu, the (dumu)daba(<dumu>-dab5?) |
| 10. | ki ur-kisal | (in) the plot (under charge of) Ur-kisal |
| 11. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 12. | aša5 kun-zi-da gu2-ab-baki | field by the weir of Gu’aba |
| Left edge | ||
| 1. | mu ḫa-ar-šiki ba-ḫul | year: (when) Ḫarši was destroyed |
| 2. | 2(diš) im-bi? | the relevant tablets are 2 |
§5.2.21.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 2 institutional herdsmen, 1 fattener, 1 untitled individual with administrative relevance, 1 or 3 ([...]) individuals quoted by name, 2 state dependent workers, 4 individuals somehow responsible for state-held sheep (KU), unclear whether (at least some of them) to be interpreted as dumudaba (see below). The text begins by recording the largest number of animals assigned to a herdsman, since that assigned to the fattener is larger by a few units. The text specifies that the information was obtained from 2 different documents, hypothetically corresponding to the sheep assigned to skilled personnel and untitled individuals, on the one side (obv. I, 1-rev. I, 5 ca.), and the sheep assigned to additional personnel, on the other one (ca. rev. II, 1-10).
§5.2.21.1.2. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only attestation of this field. The readable total number of animals which have grazed there is 693+ (451 sheep and 242 goats).
| Obverse | ||
| 1. | [...] lu2-ddumu-zi na-<gada> | ... Lu-Dumuzi, the herdsman |
| 2. | <...> nam-ḫa-ni na-gada | Namḫani, the herdsman |
| 3. | 1(aš) sukkal-ka-ka-gen7 | 1 (sheep) Sukkalkakagen |
| 4. | 1(aš) lu2-nigir na-gada | 1 (sheep) Lu-niĝir, the herdsman |
| 5. | ki lu2-ddumu-zi | (in) the plot (under charge of) Lu-Dumuzi |
| 6. | <...> na-ba-sa6 na-gada | ... Nabasa, the herdsman |
| 7. | <...> ur-mes na-gada | ... Ur-mes, the herdsman |
| 8. | <...> igi-sa6-sa6 na-gada sukkal-maḫ | ... Igi-sasa, the herdsman of the grand vizier |
| 9. | <...> <udu> bi2-de5 didli | (sheep) gathered there (while entrusted to) various (individuals) |
| 10. | ki ur-mes | (in) the plot (under charge of) Ur-mes |
| 11. | <...> ur-dli9-si4 na-gada | ... Ur-Lisi, the herdsman |
| 12. | <...> ur-ki-gu-la na-gada dnanna | ... Ur-kigula, the herdsman of Nanna |
| Reverse | ||
| 1. | <...>dinanna-ka sipa!(PA) | ... Inannaka, the shepherd |
| 2. | <udu> ur-dba-u2 muḫaldim lugal | (sheep of) Ur-BaU, the royal cook |
| 3. | [... a]-a-zi-gu10 na-gada sanga | ... A’a-ziĝu, the herdsman of the temple administrator |
| 4. | <...> a-tu na-gada kur | ... Atu, the herdsman of mountain (sheep) |
| 5. | <...> ur-ddumu-zi na-gada kur | ... Ur-Dumuzi, the herdsman of mountain (sheep) |
| blank space | ||
| 6. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 7. | a-ša3 gibil | new field |
| 8. | mu amar-dsuen lugal | year: (when) Amar-Suen (became) king |
§5.2.22.1.1. This text uses the peculiar system for counting few units of sheep and goats, thus it is subject to the issues discussed in § 3.3. However, except for two cases (obv. 3-4), information on the number or sheep counted for each individual is lacking, also in the case of the dead sheep gathered in the plot under the charge of the herdsman Ur-mes (obv. 9).
§5.2.22.1.2. In any case, in this text the number of sheep (as well as the missing information <...>) is assigned to: 6 institutional herdsmen, 2 herdsmen of mountain sheep, 1 herdsman of the grand vizier, 1 herdsman of the temple administrator, 1 herdsman of the god Nanna, 1 shepherd (regardless of the administrative level) tied to the sheep assigned to a royal cook, 1 individual quoted by name.
§5.2.22.1.3. The label “new field” refers to at least two different fields of the province, one located in Kinunir,[160] the other one in Gu’aba.[161] PPAC 5, 601 (AS 5/-) ascribes (rev. II, 7-8) to a no further specified “new field” 7 sheep and 6 goats, to be compared with the 2 sheep counted in this text.
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 1(geš2) 5(u) 6(diš) udu | 116 sheep |
| 2. | udu ir3-ib-ri dumu-dab5-ba | sheep of Iribri, the dumudaba |
| 3. | [...] du-du dumu-dab5-ba | ... Dudu, the dumudaba |
| 4. | [ki?] ir3-ib-ri | [(in) the plot (under charge of)]? Iribri |
| 5. | 1(geš2) [...] 3(diš) udu | 63+ sheep |
| 6. | udu ⸢eb⸣-na-da-ad ⸢dumu⸣-dab5-ba | sheep of Ebnadad, the dumudaba |
| 7. | [... ma]-an-sum dumu-dab5-ba | ... Mansum, the dumudaba |
| 8. | [...] udu | ... sheep |
| 9. | [...]-AN dumu-dab5-ba | [...]-AN, the dumudaba |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | ki ir3-ib-ri | (in) the plot (under charge of) Iribri |
| 2. | 1(geš2) 4(u) la2 2(diš) [udu] | 98 [sheep] |
| 3. | udu gaba-[ba-am3] (sic?) | sheep ‘pres[ent]’ |
| 4. | 1(u) 2(diš) ⸢udu⸣ zi-[ga] | 12 sheep ‘expe[nded]’ |
| 5. | la2-ia3 1(geš2) 4(u) 3(diš) udu | shortfall: 103 sheep |
| 6. | ur-dšul-pa-e3 na-gada | Ur-Šulpa’e, the herdsman |
| 7. | 2(u) maš2 | 20 goats |
| 8. | ur-dšul-pa-e3 | Ur-Šulpa’e |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 2(u) 6(diš) udu 2(geš2) maš2 | 26 sheep 120 goats |
| 2. | amar-šuba3 dumu-dab5-ba | Amar-šuba, the dumudaba |
| 3. | ki ur-dšul-pa-e3 | (in) the plot (under charge of) Ur-Šulpa’e |
| 4. | 3(geš2) 3(u) udu 1(u) maš2 | 210 sheep 10 goats |
| 5. | udu ḫe2-sa6 engar | sheep of Hesa, the farmer |
| 6. | 1(geš2) udu 2(diš) maš2 | 60 sheep 2 goats |
| 7. | udu ur-dḫendur-sag engar | sheep of Ur-Ḫendursaĝ, the farmer |
| 8. | engar UD.IM.MU-me | (they) are farmers of UD.IM.MU |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 2(diš) im-bi-am3?[166] | the relevant tablets are 2 |
| 2. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 3. | a-ša3 ur-sag-pa-e3 | field of Ur-saĝpa’e |
| 4. | mu damar-dsuen lugal | year: (when) Amar-Suen (became) king |
§5.2.23.1.1. The tablets reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 5 dumudaba (one of them also responsible for the plot), 1 institutional herdsman and 1 dumudaba in the plot under his charge, 2 farmers characterized by an unclear notation. The text begins by recording the sheep of the group of dumudaba, likely starting with the largest number of sheep assigned to a single person in that group, as it does in connection to the sheep assigned to the 2 farmers. In addition, the text specifies that the reported information was obtained from 2 different documents. It is unclear, whether this bipartition might have concerned the work categories (skilled personnel, additional personnel, professionals) or some kind of specific information: on the plot(s) under charge of a dumudaba (obv. I, 4 and II, 1), or on the sheep and goats reported as distinct entries in the section concerning the herdsman (obv. II 2-5 and obv. II, 6-8).
§5.2.23.1.2. Although it can be accidental, we can note that in Text 19 (MVN 7, 583), also recording an account of the field of Ur-saĝpa’e, the information has been obtained from 2 documents. The field of Ur-saĝpa’e was located in Ĝirsu. As seen in Text 19 (MVN 7, 583), 540 animals have grazed there in Š 35, to be compared with the 840+ animals (688 sheep and 152 goats) counted 19 years later.
| Obverse | ||
| 1. | 1(aš) 1(diš) bur-ma-ma dumu gu2-a | 1 (sheep) 1 (goat) Bur-Mama, son of Gua |
| 2. | 1(aš) 1(diš) e-zu | 1 (sheep) 1 (goat) Ezu |
| 3. | <...> a2-da-⸢BA?⸣ aga3-us2 lugal | ... AdaBA, the royal soldier |
| 4. | <...> a-za-ba-⸢ni⸣ aga3-us2 lugal | ... Azabani, the royal soldier |
| 5. | ki bur-ma-ma | (in) the plot (under charge of) Bur-Mama |
| 6. | <...> lam-lam-ma | ... Lamlama |
| 7. | <...> ur-sa6-ga KU | ... ‘entrusted’ to Ur-saga |
| 8. | <...> lugal-ku3-ga-ni KU | ... ‘entrusted’ to Lugal-kugani |
| 9. | 1(aš) BU.KU ur-eš3-lil2-la2 KU | 1 (sheep) BU.KU ‘entrusted’ to Ur-ešlila |
| 10. | <...> lu2-me-lam2 KU | ... ‘entrusted’ to Lu-melam |
| 11. | <...> ur-dba-u2 KU | ... ‘entrusted’ to Ur-BaU |
| 12. | ki ur-eš3-lil2-la2 | (in) the plot (under charge of) Ur-ešlila |
| 13. | <...> ur-sa6-ga KU | ... ‘entrusted’ to Ur-saga |
| 14. | <...>dutu-gu10 na-gada | ... Utu-ĝu, the herdsman |
| 15. | <...> me-an-ta KU | ... ‘entrusted’ to Me-anta |
| Reverse | ||
| 1. | <...> ur-sukkal KU | ... ‘entrusted’ to Ur-sukkal |
| 2. | <...> ur-dba-u2 | ... Ur-BaU |
| 3. | ki dutu-gu10 | (in) the plot (under charge of) Utu-ĝu |
| 4. | <...> inim-dinanna | ... Inim-Inanna |
| 5. | <...> eš3-sa6 nu-<geš>kiri6 | ... Ešsa, the gardener |
| 6. | ki inim-dinanna | (in) the plot (under charge of) Inim-Inanna |
| 7. | <...> ur-dnanše unu3dnanna | ... Ur-Nanše, the cattle herdsman of Nanna |
| 8. | <...> amar-šuba3 santana dnanna | ... Amar-šuba, the garden administrator of Nanna |
| 9. | <...> ša3-bi unu3dnanna | ... Šabi, the cattle herdsman of Nanna |
| 10. | <...> urdu2 muḫaldim dnanna | .... Urdu, the cook of Nanna |
| 11. | ki ur-dnanše | (in) the plot (under charge of) Ur-Nanše |
| 12. | 1(aš) ur-tur KU | 1 (sheep) ‘under control’ of ur-tur |
| blank line | ||
| 13. | nig2-ka9 aka aša5 gir2-nun | accomplished account field Ĝirnun |
| 14. | mu us2-sa en eriduki ba-a-ḫug | year following (the year when) the en-priest of Eridu was appointed |
§5.2.24.1.1. This text uses the peculiar system for counting few units of sheep and goats, thus it is subject to the issues discussed in § 3.3. Most of the entries do not provide indication about the number or sheep counted for each listed individual. Except for five ‘loose’ individuals (obv. 6-8; 13; rev. 12), the other ones are grouped in 5 sections: 1 concerning royal soldiers, 1 concerning untitled individuals with a certain degree of responsibility for the sheep (KU), 1 concerning a herdsman and the individuals in the plot under his responsibility, 1 concerning an untitled individual and a gardener in the plot under his responsibility, and 1 concerning the personnel of the god Nanna. Each section begins by quoting a kind of foreman who occurs again at the end of the section as responsible for the plot where the sheep assigned to the listed individuals have grazed, suggesting that the professionals and the officials listed here can be understood as being subject to labor duties (see § 2.4.5). The presence of royal soldiers, and likely of the personnel of Nanna,[167] would suggest that at least part of the pasture area was located in plots of royal pertinence within an institutional household.
§5.2.24.1.2. The field of Ĝirnun lay in the household of Ninĝirsu in the Ĝirsu district.[168] This text ascribes to it 4 sheep and 2 goat.
| Obverse | ||
| 1. | <...> šu-ni-a dumu-dab5-ba | ... Šunia, the dumudaba |
| 2. | <...> a-kal-la dumu-dab5-<ba> | ... Akala, the dumudaba |
| 3. | ki šu-ni-a | (in) the plot (under charge of) Šunia |
| 4. | 1(aš) ur-sa6-sa6[...] dumu-dab5-<ba> | 1 (sheep) Ur-sasa, the dumudaba |
| 5. | <...> A.NE.KI | .... A.NE.KI |
| 6. | <...> puzur4-ZA dumu-dab5-<ba> | ... PuzurZA, the dumudaba |
| 7. | ki a-eš4-tar2 | (in) the plot (under charge of) A-Eštar |
| 8. | 1(diš) u-ša-lum dumu-[dab5-ba] | 1 (goat) Ušalum, the dumu[daba] |
| 9. | <...> lu2-gu-la [...] | ... Lu-gula |
| 10. | <...> ur-dba-u2[...] | ... Ur-BaU |
| 11. | <...> lugal-ezem [...] | ... Lugal-ezem |
| rest lost | ||
| Reverse | ||
| beginning broken | ||
| 1’. | <...> ur-[...] | ... Ur-[...] |
| 2’. | <...> NE.NI [...] | ... NE.NI ... |
| 3’. | 1(diš) a-ga-igi-zu-ma dumu-[dab5-ba] | 1 (sheep) Aga-igizuma, the dumu[daba] |
| 4’. | u3 ze2-ki dumu-dab5-<ba> | and Zeki the dumudaba |
| 5’. | <...> a-tu eren2 | ... Atu, the state dependent |
| 6’. | <...> ur-dba-u2 dumu-dab5-ba | ... Ur-BaU, the dumudaba |
| 7’. | ki ša-gu-ze2 | (in) the plot (under charge of) Šaguze |
| 8’. | 1(diš) a-gu-a dumu-dab5-ba | 1 (goat) Agua, the dumudaba |
| 9’. | <...> a-pu3-gi4 eren2 | ... Apugi, the state dependent |
| 10’. | 1(diš) ḫu-wa-wa dumu-dab5-ba | 1 (goat)Ḫuwawa, the dumudaba |
| 11’. | ki a-gu-a | (in) the plot (under charge of) Agua |
| 12’. | 1(diš) nam-maḫ-šu | 1 (goat) Nammaḫšu |
| 13’. | nig2-ka9 aka a-ša3?(A.A) bad3-da-⸢ri2?⸣ u3 ar-la-AN | accomplished account, field? of Badari and ArlaAN |
| 14’. | mu dšu-dsuen lugal | year: (when) Šu-Suen (became) king |
§5.2.25.1.1. This text shows the peculiar system for counting few units of sheep and goats, thus it is subject to the issues discussed in § 3.3. Most of the entries do not provide information on the number of sheep counted for each listed individual. The structure of the text does not allow us to clearly recognize distinct groups and ‘loose’ individuals: the individuals occurring at the beginning of what we can understand as a section not necessarily are the same individuals occurring at the end of that section (see § 2.4). The 2 recognizable sections concern a dumudaba, also responsible for the plot where another dumudaba has been employed (obv. 1-3), and a dumudaba, also responsible for the plot where another dumudaba and a state-dependent worker have been employed (rev. 8’-11’). Except for the untitled individuals, for whom nothing can be said, all the others are additional workers employed in herding (state dependent workers (at least 2) and dumudaba (at least 9); see § 2.2).
§5.2.25.1.2. The field(s) of Badari and ArlAN is(are) not attested elsewhere. In the first place, one may wonder whether the initial sequence of signs (A.A) was misinterpreted due to the tablet condition, therefore whether a field (a-ša3) or the related village (e2-duru5) was meant.
§5.2.25.1.3. In any case, it seems plausible that the field name was a contextual description referring to two captains responsible for the employment of dumudaba and state dependents: “field (where the captains) Badari and ArlaAN (have employed the abovementioned workers)”.[171] Were this the case, then we should assume that also the name of the field reported in Text 17 (TCTI 1, 771) (a-ša3 bad3-[...]) was as well a contextual description and, consequently, that the actual name of that field is that reported in Text 3 (TLB 3, 88) (or lost in its broken lines), since both Text 3 and 17 concern plots tied to the royal scribe Ur-Nanše.
§5.25.1.4. The total number of animals counted is 1 sheep and 5 goats.
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 1(geš2) 3(u) maš2 | 90 goats |
| 2. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 3. | lu2-dnin-šubur na-gada | Lu-Ninšubur, the herdsman |
| 4. | 2(geš2) 2(u) maš2 | 140 goats |
| 5. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 6. | ur-mes na-gada | Ur-mes, the herdsman |
| 7. | 1(geš2) 5(u) udu | 110 sheep |
| 8. | udu lu2-dnin-šubur KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Lu-Ninšubur |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 5(u) la2 3(diš) udu | 47 sheep |
| 2. | udu ur-sa6-ga | sheep of Ur-saga |
| 3. | 1(u) udu | 10 sheep |
| 4. | udu ur-dba-u2 KU | sheep ‘entrusted’ to Ur-BaU |
| 5. | 1(geš2) 2(u) 4(diš) udu | 84 sheep |
| 6. | udu lugal-igi-huš | sheep of Lugal-igihuš |
| 7. | 4(geš2) 3(u) udu 2(geš2) maš2 | 270 sheep 120 goats |
| 8. | udu za-na-a nu-banda3 šidim | sheep of Zana’a, the captain of builders |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 4(geš2) 4(u) udu | 280 sheep |
| 2. | 2(geš2) maš2 | 120 goats |
| 3. | udu ur-dig-alim ugula šidim | sheep of Ur-Igalim, the supervisor of builders |
| 4. | 5(u) udu 2(geš2) maš2 | 50 sheep 120 goats |
| 5. | udu ur-dba-u2 ugula šidim | sheep of Ur-BaU, the supervisor of builders |
| 6. | 1(geš2) udu | 60 sheep |
| 7. | udu lu2-giri17-zal šidim | sheep of Lu-girizal, the builder |
| 8. | u3 ur-zikum-ma šidim | and Ur-zikuma, the builder |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | u3!(IGI) ur-ku3-nun[173] šidim | and Ur-kunun, the builder |
| 2. | 5(geš2) la2 2(diš) maš2 | 298 goats |
| 3. | 4(u) 3(diš) udu | 43 sheep |
| 4. | ur-zikum-ma na-gada en | Ur-zikuma, the herdsman of the priest |
| 5. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 6. | a-ša3 e2-anše | field of E-anše |
| 7. | <a>-ša3 da-lugal | (and) field of Dalugal |
| 8. | mu dšu-dsuen lugal | year: (when) Šu-Suen (became) king |
§5.2.26.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned to 2 institutional herdsmen, 1 herdsman of the en-priest, 2 individuals with some responsibility for state-held sheep (KU), 2 untitled individuals, 1 captain of builders, 2 supervisors of builders, and 3 builders. The information in this text clearly do not follow a decreasing order, although we can assume that it begins by listing the sheep which have grazed in the first mentioned field. The comparison between this text and Text 18 (TCTI 2, 4177) [...] shows that at least the sheep assigned to the supervisors of builders were actually entrusted to shepherds (sipa). It seems indeed plausible that in the field of da-lugal there were subsistence plots allotted to builders (see § 2.3.2).
§5.2.26.1.2. Probably due to a spatial proximity, these two fields are quoted together also in PPAC 5, 601 (obv. II 23-24: a-ša3 e2-anše u3 da-lugal), which ascribes to them 2 sheep and 5 goats. The total number of animals counted in both fields is 1842 (954 sheep and 888 goats). Their location was in the Gu-Iniĝinšedu area.
| Obverse | ||
| 1. | <...> lu2-nigir na-gada | ... Lu-niĝir, the herdsman |
| 2. | <...> ki-tuš-lu2 KU | ... ‘entrusted’ to Kitušlu |
| 3. | <...> lugal-me-lam2 KU | ... ‘entrusted’ to Lugal-melam |
| 4. | <...> igi-lu5-lu5 KU | ... ‘entrusted’ to Igilulu |
| 5. | <...> lu2-niginki ša3 geš-kin-ti | ... Lu-Niĝin in the workshop |
| Reverse | ||
| 1. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 2. | a-ša3 lagaški | field of Lagaš |
| 3. | mu ma2-gur8 maḫ / ba-dim2 | year: when the great barge was fashioned |
§5.2.27.1.1. In this text, the information on the number of sheep and goats assigned to the listed individuals is completely missing; this was probably still unavailable to the compiler of the text, differently from the information on the individuals entitled to let sheep graze in the mentioned field (see § 3.3). These are: 1 institutional herdsman, 3 individuals with some responsibility for state-held sheep (KU), 1 individual quoted by name in connection to a workshop.
§5.2.27.1.2. As the name itself indicates, the field of Lagaš was located in the area of the homonymous urban centre, which in Ur III time fell in the Gu-Iniĝinšedu district. PPAC 5, 601 (AS 5/-) ascribes (rev. III, 2) to this field 13 goats.
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| two lines lost | ... | |
| 1’. | 1(u) 1(diš) maš2 | 11 goats |
| 2’. | ba-za na-gada | Baza, the herdsman |
| 3’. | 2(geš2) 4(u) 3(diš) udu | 163 sheep |
| 4’. | udu [...] | sheep ... |
| 5’. | 5(geš2) maš2 | 300 sheep |
| 6’. | ur-dnanše na-gada | Ur-Nanše, the herdsman |
| 7’. | 2(geš2) 4(u) 4(diš) maš2 | 164 goats |
| 8’. | ba-za-ga na-gada | Bazaga, the herdsman |
| 9’. | udu ereš-dingir dba-u2 | sheep of the priestess of BaU |
| rest lost | ... | |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | [...] 4(u) 1(diš) udu | 41+ sheep |
| 2. | 1(u) 5(diš) maš2 | 15 goats |
| 3. | udu im-ti-dam šabra | sheep of Imtidam, the chief administrator |
| 4. | 3(geš2) 2(diš) [udu] | 182 [sheep] |
| 5. | 2(geš2) maš2 | 125 goats |
| 6. | udu en-i3-na-kal-la | sheep of En-inakala |
| 7. | 1(geš2) 7(diš) maš2 | 67 goats |
| 8. | udu da-[...] | sheep of Da-[...] |
| two lines lost | ... | |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | [...] | ... |
| 2. | [... udu] zi-[ga?] | ...[sheep] ‘expen[ded?]’ |
| 3. | a2-u2?-mu na-gada | A’umu, the herdsman |
| 4. | 6(geš2) 5(diš) udu gukkal | 365 fat-tailed sheep |
| 5. | en-i3-na-kal-[la] na-gada sukkal-maḫ | En-inaka[la], the herdsman of the grand vizier |
| 6. | 5(geš2) 1(u) 5(diš) udu gukkal 1(u) maš2 | 315 fat-tailed sheep 10 goats |
| 7. | a2-pi5-li2 na-gada | Apili, the herdsman |
| 8. | 5(geš2) 4(u) 1(diš) udu gukkal | 341 sheep |
| 9. | 9(diš) maš2 | 9 goats |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | il-ki-ri2 na-gada | Ilkiri, the herdsman |
| blank space | ||
| 2. | nig2-ka9 aka | accomplished account |
| 3. | a-ša3! e2-duru5! ur-gešgigir | field of the village of Ur-gigir |
| 4. | mu si-mu-ru-umki | year: (when) Simurum |
| 5. | ba-ḫul | was destroyed |
§5.2.28.1.1. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned at least to 3 herdsmen tied to the sheep of the high priestess of BaU, the chief administrator of her household, a further herdsman who can also be tied to the household of the priestess, a herdsman of the grand vizier, and 2 institutional herdsmen.
§5.2.28.1.2. The interpretation of the field name is based on a possible reading of the signs reported in the transliteration[174] and a comparison with Text 8 (MVN 5, 203) (ŠS 8/-) and TÉL 262 (IS 1/-), both concerning sheep of the high priestess of BaU and of the grand vizier. The total number of animals which have grazed there in IS 3 is 2108+ (1407 sheep and 701 goats) to be compared to the 2033+ counted in ŠS 8.
| Obverse | ||
| column i | ||
| beginning broken | ... | |
| 1’. | [udu] gub-ba-am3 | [sheep] ‘present’ |
| 2’. | 3(u) la2 3(diš) udu 1(u) maš2 | 27 sheep 10 goats |
| 3’. | [...]-NE-KA | [...]-NE-KA[176] |
| 4’. | [udu gub]-ba-am3 | [sheep ‘pr]esent’ |
| 5’. | [la2]-ia3 1(geš2) 4(u) la2 2(diš) udu | [short]fall: 98 sheep |
| 6’. | [...] 2(diš) maš2 egir udu <ba-ur4> | 2+ goats (counted) after sheep (have been plucked) |
| 7’. | ⸢ur⸣-bara2 dumu kum-dur2 na-gada | Ur-Bara son of Kumdur, the herdsman |
| 8’. | ⸢6(geš2) 5(u)⸣ udu 6(geš2) maš2 kur | 410 mountain sheep 360 goats[177] |
| 9’. | ⸢udu gub⸣-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 10’. | la2-ia3 5(diš) udu | shortfall: 5 sheep |
| 11’. | [...] ⸢5(diš) maš2⸣ egir udu <ba-ur4> | 5+ goats (counted) after sheep (have been plucked) |
| 12’. | ⸢mu⸣-ni-šu-ta-⸢a-lu⸣ na-gada | Munišutalu, the herdsman |
| 13’. | [...] maš2 | ... goats |
| 14’. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| column ii | ||
| beginning broken | ... | |
| 1’. | 4(diš) <udu> bi2-de5[...] | 4 (sheep) gathered there ... |
| 2’. | ki lu2-kal-⸢la⸣ | (in) the plot (under charge of) Lu-kal[a] |
| 3’. | 2(geš2) 2(u) la2 1(diš) maš2 e2-duru5 du-du-dna-ru2-a | 139 goats of the village of Dudu-Narua |
| 4’. | lu2-kal-la na-gada | Lu-kala, the herdsman |
| 5’. | 1(u) 3(diš) udu 7(diš) maš2 | 13 sheep 7 goats |
| 6’. | udu lu2-bala-sa6-ga | sheep of Lu-balasaga |
| 7’. | 2(u) 4(diš) maš2 gub-ba-am3 | 24 sheep ‘present’ |
| 8’. | nig2-ka9 NE[178] nu-aka | this account is unaccomplished |
| 9’. | ur-dlamma na-gada | Ur Lamma, the herdsman |
| 10’. | 1(u) <udu> bi2-de5[...] | 10 sheep gathered there ... |
| 11’. | ki ur-dlamma [...] | (in) the plot (under charge of) Ur-Lamma |
| 12’. | 1(geš2) 6(diš) udu 7(diš) maš2 | 66 sheep 7 goats |
| 13’. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 14’. | 4(u) la2 2(diš) udu egir udu <ba-ur4> | 38 sheep (counted) after sheep (have been plucked) |
| 15’. | lu2-kisal na-gada | Lu-kisal, the herdsman |
| column iii | ||
| beginning broken | ... | |
| 1’. | ⸢6(diš)⸣[179] maš2 egir udu <ba-ur4> | 6? goats (counted) after sheep (have been plucked) |
| 2’. | nig2-gu10 na-gada | Niĝĝu, the herdsman |
| 3’. | 1(u) 1(diš) udu 2(diš) maš2 | 11 sheep 2 goats |
| 4’. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 5’. | ab-[...] ⸢dumu⸣ Lugal-sukkal | ab-[...] son of Lugal-sukkal |
| 6’. | ⸢3(u) 1(diš)⸣ [udu] 1(u) 1(diš) maš2 | 31 [sheep] 11 goats |
| ca. 6 broken lines | ... | |
| 7’. | [...] udu 5(diš) maš2 | ... sheep 5 goats |
| 8’. | udu gub-ba-am3 | sheep ‘present’ |
| 9’. | lam-lam-ma na-<gada> | Lamlama, the herdsman |
| Reverse | ||
| column i | ||
| 1. | 7(diš) <udu> bi2-de5 iri | 7 (sheep) gathered there in town |
| 2. | 4(diš) <udu> bu3-ki-⸢ka⸣-ka [...] | 4 (sheep) Bukikaka ... |
| 3. | 4(u) la2 3(diš) udu [...] maš2 | 37 sheep ... goats |
| blank line? | ||
| 4. | [...] | ... |
| 5. | 4(u) udu 2(diš) maš2 | 40 sheep 2 goats |
| 6. | udu ur-zikum-ma | sheep of Ur-zikuma |
| 7. | ki lam-lam-ma | (in) the plot (under charge of) Lamlama |
| 8. | 5(u) 6(diš) udu 2(u) 6(diš) maš2 | 56 sheep 26 goats |
| 9. | udu lugal-dku3-sig17 <na-gada> | sheep of Lugal-Kusig, (the herdsman) |
| 10. | 2(u) <udu> ur-dba-u2 | 20 (sheep) Ur-BaU |
| 11. | 1(u) udu gub-ba-am3 | 10 sheep ‘present’ |
| 12. | a-ru-a ur-dba-u2 | ex-voto of Ur-BaU |
| 13. | ki lugal-dku3-sig17 | (in) the plot (under charge of) Lugal-Kusig |
| 14. | 4(u) 2(diš) udu 5(diš) maš2 libir![-am3]? | 42 sheep 5 goats (of the) ‘old’ (herd)? |
| column ii | ||
| 1. | 2(u) udu 2(diš) maš2 gub-ba | 20 sheep 2 goats ‘present’ |
| 2. | la2-ia3 4(diš) udu | shortfall: 4 sheep |
| 3. | ku5-da na-gada | Kuda, the herdsman |
| 4. | 1(u) 1(diš) udu gub-ba-am3 | 11 sheep ‘present’ |
| 5. | la2-ia3 6(diš) udu | shortfall: 6 sheep |
| 6. | ur-bara2-si-ga na-gada | Ur-barasiga, the herdsman |
| 7. | 5(u) 1(diš) udu 2(u) la2 3(diš) maš2 | 51 sheep 17 goats |
| 8. | udu ḫu-ru simug | sheep of Ḫu-ru, the smith |
| 9. | ki ur-ddumu-zi | (in) the plot (under charge of) Ur-Dumuzi |
| 10. | 1(geš2) 2(u) 4(diš) udu 5(diš) maš2 | 84 sheep 5 goats |
| 11. | udu ereš-dingir pa5-sir2<ki> | sheep of the priestess in Pasir |
| 12. | 3(u) udu 1(u) 2(diš) maš2 | 30 sheep 12 goats |
| 13. | lu2-dba-u2 eren2 | Lu-BaU, the state dependent |
| 14. | ki ereš-dingir | (in) the plot (under charge of) the priestess |
| 15. | 1(geš2) 3(u) 3(diš) udu 1(u) 1(diš) maš2 | 93 sheep 11 goats |
| 16. | udu inim-du10-ga-ni | sheep of Inim-dugani |
| 17. | [...] 3(u) 1(diš) udu 6(diš) maš2 | 31+ sheep 6 goats |
| 18. | [udu gub-ba?]-am3 | ... |
| 19. | [...]-⸢šubur⸣ eren2 | ... [...]-Šubur, the state dependent |
| column iii | ||
| 1. | udu a-tu šabra kas4 | sheep of Atu, the ‘chief administrator of the couriers?’ |
| 2. | 7(diš) udu 1(u) maš2 | 7 sheep 10 goats |
| 3. | ⸢lu2⸣-nam2-maḫ | Lu-nammaḫ |
| 4. | 3(u) udu 2(u) la2 2(diš) maš2 | 30 sheep 18 goats |
| 5. | [udu] ⸢bi2⸣-de5 didli iri | [sheep] gathered there in the town (while being entrusted to) various (individuals?)[180] |
| 6. | [...]-ga-KI/NA.BI | ... |
| 7. | [... udu] 5 maš2 gub-ba | ... [sheep] 5 goats ‘present’ |
| 8. | [...] udu | ... sheep |
| 9. | [...] dumu ur-[...]-zu | ... son of Ur-[...]-zu |
| 10. | [...]-am3 | ... |
| 11. | [...] udu | ... sheep |
| rest broken |
§5.2.29.1.1. This text is the most eloquent in our group, as it provides types of information lacking in other texts: information about the goats managed by the herdsman Lu-kala (obv. II, 3’) or about those managed by Lugal-kusig (rev. I, 12), information about the document from which the number of sheep managed by the herdsman Ur-Lamma was supposed to be obtained (obv. II, 8’), and probably other features lost in the many breaks of the tablet. Differently from other texts, where the information about the number of dead sheep refers to the sheep that had died while grazing in the field (and were therefore gathered there), Text 29 specifies that the sheep had died (lit. were gathered) while being still in town, likely referring to a rural settlement, whose name may have been lost in the reference to the field likely named after it. The tablet reports the number of sheep and goats assigned at least to 11 institutional herdsmen (2 of them without title), 2 state dependents, 7 untitled individuals, 1 smith, 1 chief administrator of couriers(?), and to a high priestess. Moreover, the text specifies that part of the sheep assigned to 4 institutional herdsmen (Ur-bara, Munišutalu, Lu-kisal, Niĝĝu) have been counted after the plucking (see § 3.2.5).
§5.2.29.1.2. The name of the involved herdsmen would suggest a location of the concerned field(s) in Gu’aba. The total readable number of animals which have grazed there is 1993+ (1296 sheep and 697 goats).
| a-ab-ba-[...] | Text 21. rev. II 3 (KU) |
| a-a-zi-gu10 | Text 22. rev. 3 (na-gada saĝĝa) |
| ab-[...] | Text 29. obv. III 5’ (dumu Lugal-sukkal) |
| ab-ba-ge-na | Text 2. rev. I 1 (ku); Text 5. rev. I 11 (na-gada); rev. I 13 (ki); Text 6. rev. I 1 (KU) |
| ab-ba-gu10 | Text 21. rev. I 4 (KU) |
| ab-ba-sa6-ga | Text 15. rev. I 3 (na-gada) |
| a2-da-⸢ba?⸣ | Text 24. obv. 3 (aga3-us2 lugal) |
| a-eš4-tar2 | Text 25. obv. 7 (ki) |
| a-ga-igi-zu-ma | Text 25. rev. 3’ (dumu-[dab5-ba]) |
| a-gu-a | Text 25. rev. 8’ ( dumu-dab5-ba); rev. 11’ (ki) |
| a-ḫu-ni | Text 9. rev. III 1 (muḫaldim sukkal-maḫ) |
| al-ba-ni-du11 | Text 21. rev. II 9 (KU) |
| a-kal-la | Text 4. rev. II 1 (sipa); Text 15. rev. I 11 (na-gada); Text 24. obv. 2 (dumu-dab5) |
| a-lu5-a | Text 16. obv. I 5 |
| a2-lu5-lu5 | Text 3. obv. II 4 ([...] zi-gum2) |
| a2-lu5-mu | Text 2. obv. II 5 (na-gada e2-maḫ) |
| a2-pi5-li2 | Text 28. rev. I 7 (na-gada) |
| amar-ku3 | Text 10. rev. I 4 |
| amar-šuba3 | Text 23. rev. I 2 (dumu-dab5-ba); Text 24. rev. 8 (santana dnanna) |
| A.NE.KI | Text 25. obv. 5 |
| a-pu3-gi4 | Text 25. rev. 9’ |
| a-tu | Text 16. obv. III 4 (na-gada); Text 19. obv 7; rev. 4 (ki); Text 22. rev. 4 (na-gada kur); Text 25. rev. 5’ (eren2); Text 29. rev. III 1 (šabra kas4) |
| a2-u2-mu | see § 2.1.1; Text 28. rev. I 3 (na-gada) |
| a2-u2-u2 | see § 2.1.1; Text 8. obv. I 5 (na-gada); obv. I 7 (ku) (udu ereš-dingir dba-u2); Text 14. obv. I 3 (sipa) |
| a-za-ba-ni | Text 24. obv. 4 (aga3-us2 lugal) |
| ba-a | Text 20. obv. 2 (ša3 geš-kin-ti); 4 (ki) (udu ereš-dingir dba-u2) |
| ba-a-a | Text 7. obv. II 5 (dumu-dab5) |
| ba-a-ga | see § 2.1.1; Text 8. obv. I 9 (na-gada) (udu ereš-dingir dba-u2) |
| ba-ga | see § 2.1.1; Text 20. obv. 7 (sipa) (udu ereš-dingir dba-u2) |
| ba-ge-ne2 | Text 19. obv. 4 |
| dba-u2-IGI.DU | Text 19. rev. 2; Text 20. obv. 4 (sipa) (udu ereš-dingir dba-u2) |
| ba-za | see § 2.1.1; Text 28. obv. 2’ (na-gada) (udu ereš-dingir dba-u2) |
| ba-za-ga | see § 2.1.1; Text 28. obv. 8’ (na-gada) (udu ereš-dingir dba-u2) |
| ba-zi | Text 16. rev. II 1; Text 18. rev. I 3 (KU) |
| bur-ma-ma | Text 24. obv. 1 (dumu gu2-a); 5 (ki) |
| bi2-du11-i3-sa6 | Text 5. obv. II 4 |
| bu3-ki-ka-ka | Text 29. rev. I 2 |
| da-[...] | Text 28. obv. II 8 |
| da-da | Text 5. obv. I 5 (na-gada); obv. I 12 (KU); obv. II 11 (ki); Text 20. obv. 1 (<sipa> gab2-KU) |
| dingir-bu3-ka | Text 12. obv. I 3 (ša3 geš-kin-<ti>) |
| dingir-sa6-ga | Text 9. rev. I 9 (sipa) |
| du-du | Text 23. obv. I 3 (dumu-dab5-ba) |
| eb-na-da-ad | Text 23. obv. 6 (dumu-dab5-ba) |
| e3-lugal | Text 9. obv. III 4 |
| en-i3-na-kal-(la) | Text 8. rev. I 3 (na-gada); I 5; Text 28. obv. II 6; rev. I 5 (na-gada sukkal-maḫ) |
| en-ša3-ku3-ge-en | Text 4. obv. II 7 |
| eš3-sa6 | Text 24. rev. 5 (nu-<geš>kiri6) |
| e-zu | Text 24. obv. 2 |
| gu3-de2-a | Text 4. rev. II 4 (mar-tu); Text 11. obv. 5 (KU) |
| gu2-u3-mu | see § 2.2; Text 15. obv. I 4 (dumu-dab5); II 4 (gu2-u3-[mu na-gada]) |
| gu4-KU | Text 7. obv. I 5 (dumu-dab5) |
| gu-za-ni | Text 16. obv. II 6 (na-gada) |
| ḫa-ba-lu5-ge2 | Text 15. rev. II 3 (na-gada) |
| ḫa-laḫ5 | Text 18. obv. II 5 (sipa) |
| ḫe2-sa6 | Text 23. rev. I 5 (engar) |
| ḫu-[...] | Text 12. obv. II 3 (ša3 geš-[kin-ti]) |
| ḫu-ba | Text 7. obv. II 3 (dumu-dab5) |
| ḫu-ru | Text 29. rev. II 8 (simug) |
| ḫu-wa-wa | Text 25. rev. 10’ (dumu-dab5-ba) |
| i7-a-bi-du10 | Text 20. obv. 6 (sipa) (udu ereš-dingir dba-u2) |
| igi-sa6-sa6 | Text 22. obv. 8 (na-gada sukkal-maḫ) |
| igi-lu5-lu5 | Text 27. obv. 4 (KU) |
| il-ki-ri2 | Text 28. obv. II 1 (na-gada) |
| im-ti-dam | see § 2.3.1 (šabra) |
| dinanna-ka | Text 5. rev. I 12; Text 9. rev. II 13 (sipa); Text 22. rev. 1 (sipa) |
| in-da-a | Text 7. rev. I 4 |
| inim-du10-ga-ni | Text 29. rev. II 16 |
| inim-dinanna | Text 24. rev. 4; 6 (ki) |
| in-u9-u9 | Text 5. obv. II 2 |
| ir3-ib-ri | Text 23. obv. I 1 (dumu-dab5-ba); 4 ([ki?]); II 1 (ki) |
| diškur-an-dul3 | Text 3. I 9 (na-gada lugal) |
| i3-tur-ra | Text 10. obv. II 8 (KU) |
| ka-ge-na | Text 2. obv. I 3 (sipa) |
| ka-ka | Text 21. rev. II 4 |
| ki-lu5-la | Text 18. obv. II 3 (sipa) |
| ki-tuš-lu2 | Text 10. obv. II 1 (na-gada); II 4 (ki); Text 13. obv. I 6 (na-gada); II 1 (ki); Text 26. obv. 2 (KU) |
| ku5-da | Text 29. rev. II 3 (na-gada) |
| ku-gu-za-na | Text 15. obv. I 6’ (KU) |
| ku-li | Text 16. rev. I 13 (KU) |
| ku3-dnanna | Text 2. rev. I 10 (na-gada) |
| la-a-a | Text 7. rev. I 2 |
| la-la-mu | Text 5. obv. II 5 (ma2-gal) |
| lam-lam-ma | Text 24. obv. 6; Text 29. obv. III 9’ (na-gada); rev. I 7 (ki) |
| la-gu2 | Text 10. rev. II 11’ (sipa) |
| lu2-[...] | Text 13. obv. II 7; Text 14. obv. II 3 |
| lu2-bala-sa6-ga | Text 16. rev. II 4’ (dumu-dab5); Text 29. obv. II 6’ |
| lu2-dba-u2 | Text 4. rev. I 3; Text 5. obv. II 7; Text 29. rev. II 13 (eren2) |
| lu2-du10-ga | Text 7. rev. II 3 (eren2) |
| lu2-ddumu-zi | Text 22. obv. 1 (na-<gada>); 5 (ki) |
| lu2-den-ki | Text 10. rev. II 3’ (šeš ga-eš8); Text 13. rev. II 3 (lu2-[...]-ki?šeš ga-eš8) |
| lugal-[...] | Text 8. rev. I 10 (KU) |
| lugal-ezem | Text 23. obv. 11 ([...]) |
| lugal-igi-huš | Text 26. obv. II 6 |
| lugal-ka-ge-na | Text 16. obv. III 7; III 9 |
| lugal-ku3-ga-ni | Text 24. obv. 8 (KU) |
| lugal-dku3-sig17 | Text 29. rev. I 9 (<na-gada>); 13 (ki) |
| Lugal-me-lam2 | Text 27. obv. 3 (KU) |
| lugal-si-gar | Text 3. obv. I 2 (dumu-dab5) |
| lugal-sukkal | Text 21. rev. II 6 (eren2) |
| lugal-sukkal-du8 | Text 5. obv. II 6 |
| lugal-ur-sag | Text 15. obv. 1’ (KU) |
| lugal-u2-šim-e | Text 9. rev. II 8 (na-gada den-ki) |
| lu2-ge-na | Text 16. obv. I 10 (na-gada) |
| lu2-giri17-zal | Text 5. obv. 10 (na-gada); obv. II 10 (dam l. KU); Text 8. rev. I 1 (KU); Text 10. rev. II 12 (nu-banda3 ki-[...]); Text 26. rev. I 7 (šidim) |
| lu2-gu-la | Text 4. obv. II 9 (mar-tu); Text 25. obv. 9 ([...]) |
| lu2-digi-ma-še3 | Text 18. rev. I 4 (KU) |
| lu2-dkal-kal-la | see § 2.1.5 (šabra) |
| lu2-kal-la | Text 15. obv. I 8’ (na-gada); Text 29. obv. II 2’ (ki); 4 (na-gada) |
| lu2-kisal | Text 29. obv. II 15’ (na-gada) |
| lu2-me-lam2 | Text 4. rev. II 2 (na-gada nin); Text 10. rev. II 7’ (sipa udu sukkal-maḫ); Text 24. obv. 10 (KU) |
| lu2?-dmes-lam-ta-e3 | Text 19. rev. 1 |
| lu2-nam2-maḫ | Text 29. rev. III 3 |
| lu2-nam-tar-ra | Text 15. rev. I 7 (na-gada) |
| lu2-dna-ru2-a | Text 1. obv. II 4 (eren2) |
| lu2-niginki | Text 27. obv. 5 (ša3 geš-kin-ti) |
| lu2-nigir | Text 22. obv. 4; Text 27. obv. 1 (na-gada) |
| lu2-dnin-[...] | Text 13. obv. II 10 (na-gada) |
| lu2-dnin-gir2-su | Text 11. obv. 3 (KU) |
| lu2-dnin-šubur | Text 26. obv. I 3 (na-gada); 8 (KU) |
| lu2-sukkal | Text 9. obv. III 12 (sipa) |
| lu2-sukkal-an-ka | Text 11. obv. 7 (KU) |
| lu2-sa6-ga | Text. 10. rev. I 8 (KU) |
| lu2-dšul-gi | Text 10. rev. I 2 (KU) |
| lu2-urubx(URU×KAR2)ki | Text 1. obv. I 6 (na-gada); Text 6. obv. II 6 (KU) |
| lu2-dutu | Text 1. obv. I 9 (na-gada); Text 8. rev. I 8 (KU) |
| ma-an-sa6 | Text 5. obv. II 3 |
| ma-an-sum | Text 23. obv. I 7 (dumu-dab5-ba) |
| me-an-ta | Text 24. obv. 15 (KU) |
| mu-ni-šu-ta-a-lu | Text 29. obv. I 12’ (na-gada) |
| na-a-na | Text 2. rev. I 4 (na-gada) |
| na-ba-sa6 | Text 2. obv. II 3 (ša3 geš-<kin-ti>); Text 22. 6 (na-gada) |
| nam-ḫa-ni | Text 22. obv. 2 (na-gada) |
| nam-maḫ | Text 4. obv. I 3 (KU); Text 9. obv. II 13 (na-gada) |
| nam-maḫ-šu | Text 25. rev. 12’ |
| nam-sipa-da-ni-du10 | Text 5. rev. II 7 (na-gada) |
| na-ni | Text 5. obv. II 9 (KU) |
| dnanše-kam | Text 2. rev. II 3 (na-gada) |
| NE.NI | Text 25. rev. 2’ ([...]) |
| NE-[...] | Text 12. rev. I 5 |
| nig2-d[...] | Text 9. obv. III 8 (na-gada lugal) |
| nig2-gu10 | Text 29. obv. III 2’ (na-gada) |
| nig2-dba-u2 | Text 2. obv. I 8 (ša3 geš-<kin-ti>); Text 9. obv. III 2 (<na-gada>) |
| nig2-du10-ga | Text 17. rev. I 3 (dumu-gi7) |
| nig2-gur11 | Text 4. obv. I 5 (dam-gar3) |
| nigir-ša3-kuš2 | Text 21. rev. I 1; I 2 |
| nig2-lagar-di-e | Text 10. rev. I 10 |
| nig2-sa6-ga | Text 13. rev. II 7 (na-gada) |
| puzur4-za | Text 25. obv. 6 (dumu-dab5) |
| sipa-du10 | Text 6 obv. I 7 (ki) |
| sukkal-ka-ka-gen7 | Text 22. obv. 3 |
| ša3-bi | Text 24. rev. 9 (unu3dnanna) |
| ša-gu-ze2 | Text 25. rev. 7’ (ki) |
| šeš-kal-la | Text 1. obv. I 7 (šuš3); rev. I 1 (ki) |
| dšul-gi-nin-e-ki-ag2 | Text 9. rev. I 6 (lu2 sukkal-maḫ) |
| šu-ni-a | see § 2.2; Text 17. obv. I 6 (dumu-gi7); Text 25. obv. 1 (dumu-dab5-ba); 3 (ki) |
| TAR-[...] | Text 14. obv. II 6 |
| u4-de3-nig2-sa6-ga | Text 9. obv. I 5 (na-gada); I 7 (ki) |
| UN-ga6 | Text 9. obv. III 6 |
| ur-an-ki | Text 10. obv. III 6; Text 13. rev. I 6 (KU) |
| ur-[...] | Text 25. rev. 1’ |
| ur-d[...] | Text 3. obv. II 7; Text 4. obv. II 3; Text 21. obv. II 4’ |
| ur-bara2 | Text 29. obv. I 7’ (dumu kum-dur2 na-gada) |
| ur-bara2-si-ga | Text 29. rev. II 6 (na-gada) |
| ur-dba-u2 | Text 4. obv. I 9 (dam-gar3); Text 5. rev. I 4 (na-gada); I 7 (ki); rev. II 9 (na-gada nin); Text 10. obv. III 1 (šabra); Text 10. rev. I 6 (ugula kikken?); Text 13. obv. I 10; Text 18. obv. I 7 ([ugula] šidim;see § 2.3.2); Text 18. rev. I 6 (KU); Text 22. rev. 2 (muḫaldim lugal); Text 24. obv. 11 (KU); rev. 2; Text 25. obv. 10 ([...]); Text 25. rev. 6’ (dumu-dab5-ba); Text 26. II obv. 4 (KU); rev. I 5 (ugula šidim); Text 29. rev. I 10; 12 |
| ur-dda-mu | Text 12. obv. I 6 (ša3 geš-[kin-ti]); Text 20. obv. 9 (dub-sar) |
| ur-dingir-ra | Text 3. obv. II 2 ([...]); |
| ur-du6 | Text 10. rev. II 5’ (sipa udu sukkal-maḫ); Text 13. rev. I 3 (sipa udu sukkal-maḫ) |
| urdu2 | Text 24. rev. 10 (muḫaldim dnanna) |
| urdu2-dam | Text 5. obv. II 8 |
| urdu2-da-ni | Text 1. obv. II 3 (na-gada ereš-dingir); obv. II 5 (ki) |
| ur-ddumu-zi | Text 22. rev. 5 (na-gada kur); Text 29. rev. II 9 (ki) |
| ur-e2-an-na | Text 21. obv. II 3’ (šeš ur-dḫendur-sag); rev. I 5 (ki) |
| ur-eš2-da | Text 7. obv. I 9 (dumu-dab5) |
| ur-eš3-lil2-la2 | Text 24. obv. 9 (KU); 12 (ki) |
| ur-gu-la | Text 5. rev. II 3 (na-gada); Text 8. obv. II 2 (na-gada) (udu ereš-dingir dba-u2) |
| ur-dḫendur-sag | Text 21. obv. I 4 (na-gada); I 6 (kurušda); I 8 (ki); Text 23. rev. 7 (engar) |
| ur-dig-alim | see § 2.3.2; Text 18. obv. II 1 (ugula šidim); Text 26. rev. I 3 (ugula šidim) |
| ur-digi-zi-bar-ra | Text 17. obv. II 5 (dumu-<dab5>ḫug ) |
| uri5ki-ki-du10 | Text 9. rev. II 1 (muḫaldim lugal) |
| ur-diškur | Text 10. obv. II 6 (KU) |
| ur-ki-gu-la | Text 22. obv. 12 (na-gada dnanna) |
| ur-kisal | Text 21. rev. II 1 (na-gada); II 10 (ki) |
| ur-ku3-nun | Text 26. rev. II 1 (šidim) |
| ur-dlamma | Text 3. obv. I 6 (KU); Text 7. obv. I 3 (dumu-dab5-ba); Text 9. obv. II 9 (na-gada); Text 10. obv. III 4 (sa12-du5); Text 18. rev. I 5 (KU); Text 29. obv. II 9’ (na-gada); 11’ (ki) |
| ur-dli9-si4 | Text 22. obv. 11 (na-gada) |
| ur-ma-ma | Text 9. obv. III 10 (na-gada nin) |
| ur-mes | Text 1. obv. II 1 (na-gada); Text 2. obv. II 7 (KU); Text 7. obv. I 7 (dumu-dab5); rev. I 7 (eren2); Text. 9 rev. II 11 ( ur-mes-«mes» na-gada); Text 13. rev. I 11 (na-gada); Text 15. obv. II 8 (na-gada); Text 18. obv. I 3 (sipa); Text 19. rev. 3; Text 21. rev. II 5 (KU); Text 22. obv. 7 (na-gada); 10 (ki); Text 26. obv. I 6 (na-gada) |
| ur-mete-na | Text 2. obv. I 5 (sipa) |
| ur-dnanše | Text 2. rev. I 7 (na-gada); Text 3. I 4 (dub-sar lugal); Text 17. rev. II 1 (dub-sar lugal); Text 24. rev. 7 (unu3dnanna); 11 (ki); Text 28. obv. I 6’ (na-gada) (udu ereš-dingir dba-u2) |
| ur-dnin-pirig | Text 19. obv. 2; 5 (ki) |
| ur-dnin-šubur | Text 16. obv. II 10 (na-gada) |
| ur-sa6-ga | see § 2.2; Text 17. obv. II 3 (dumu-gi7); Text 24. obv. 7 (KU); obv . 13 (KU); Text 26. obv. II 2 |
| ur-sa6-sa6 | see § 2.2; Text 25. obv. 4 |
| ur-dsuen | Text 4. rev. I 2 (KU) |
| ur-sukkal | Text 3. rev. I 2’ (⸢na⸣-[gada nin?]); Text 13. rev. I 8 (KU); Text 24. rev. 1 (KU) |
| ur-dšul-pa-e3 | Text 7. rev. I 9 (šu-i lugal); Text 9. obv. II 2 (ur-<d>šul-<pa-e3> na-gada); Text 12. obv. II 5 (dumu-dab5-ba); Text 21. rev. II 8 (eren2); Text 23. obv. II 8 (na-gada); rev. I 3 (ki) |
| ur-tur | Text 24. rev. 12 (KU) |
| ur-duš-gid2-da | Text 4. obv. I 7 (dam-gar3) |
| ur-zi-kum-ma | Text 6 rev. I 3 (KU); Text 26. rev. I 8 (šidim); Text 26. rev. II 4 (na-gada en); Text 29. rev. I 6 |
| u-ša-lum | see § 2.2; Text 17. obv. I 3 (dumu-gi7); Text 25. obv. 8 (dumu-[dab5-ba]) |
| uš-ge-na | Text 6. obv. II 1 (na-gada); II 4 (ki) |
| u2-šim-e | Text 20. obv. 3 (ki-geš-i3) |
| dutu-[...] | Text 12. rev. I 3 |
| dutu-gu10 | Text 24. obv. 14 (na-gada); rev. 3 (ki) |
| dutu-kalam-/e | Text 9. obv. II 5 (na-gada) |
| dutu-kam | Text 19. obv. 3 |
| za-na-a | Text 26. obv. II 8 (nu-banda3 šidim) |
| ze2-ki | Text 25. rev. 4’ (dumu-dab5) |
| [...]-an | Text 23. obv. I 9 (dumu-dab5-ba) |
| [...]-dba-u2 | Text 18. rev. I 8 (KU); I 10 |
| [...]-ga | Text 16. rev. I 5 |
| [...]-diškur | Text 18. obv. I 6 (sipa) |
| [...]-sizkur2 | Text 16. rev. I 3 |
| [...]-⸢šubur⸣ | Text 29. rev. II 19 (eren2) |
| a-ša3 a.ku-si-ga gu2 i7 | § 4; Text 3. rev. II 4’ |
| a-ša3 bad3-[...] | § 4; Text 17. rev. II 3 |
| a-ša3?(A.A) bad3-da-⸢ri2?⸣ u3 ar-la-AN | § 4; Text 25. rev. 12’ |
| a-ša3 da-lugal | § 4; Text 26. rev. II 7 (<a>-ša3) |
| a-ša3 du-a-bi | § 4; Text 14. rev. II |
| a-ša3 du6-eš3 | § 4; Text 11. rev. 2 |
| a-ša3 du6-lugal-u3-a | § 4; Text 7. rev. II 5 |
| a-ša3 e2-duru5[x] | § 4; Text 9. rev. II 4 |
| a-ša3 e2-duru5 ba-zi | § 4; Text 12. rev. II 2 |
| a-ša3 e2-duru5dinanna | § 4; Text 10. rev. III 2’ (e2-<duru5>); Text 13. rev. II 5 |
| aša5 e2-duru5 lu2-dšara2 | § 4; Text 20. rev. 2 |
| a-ša3 e2-duru5 ur-gešgigir | § 4; Text 8. rev. II 2; Text 28. rev. II 3 |
| aša5 e2-duru5 ša3-ku3-ge | § 4; Text 1. rev. II 2 |
| a-ša3 e2-anše | § 4; Text 26. rev. II 6 |
| a-ša3 gibil | § 4; Text 22. rev. 7 |
| aša5 gir2-nun | § 4; Text 24. rev. 13 |
| a-ša3 ḫu-rim3ki | § 4; Text 15. rev. II 9 (<a>-ša3) |
| a-ša3 i-šar-ra | § 4; Text 5. rev. II 11 |
| aša5 kun-zi-da gu2-ab-baki | § 4; Text 21. rev. II 12 |
| a-ša3 lagaški | § 4; Text 27. rev. 2 |
| a-ša3dlugal-a2-zi-da | § 4; Text 2. rev. II 4 |
| a-ša3 nin-a2-zi-da | § 4; Text 6. rev. II 2 |
| a-ša3 ur-dig-alim | § 4; Text 2. rev. II 5 |
| aša5 ur-sag-pa-e3 | § 4; Text 19. rev. 6; Text 23. rev. II 3 |
| e2-duru5 du-du-dna-ru2-a | Text 29. obv. II 3’ |
| pa5-sir2<ki> | Text 29. rev. II 11 |
| aga3-us2 lugal | see § 2.3.2 |
| Text 24. obv. 3; 4 | |
| a-ru-a | see § 3.4 |
| Text 29. rev. I 12 | |
| bi2-de5-(ga) | see § 1.3.3-6 |
| Text 1. obv. II 8; Text 5. rev. I 6 (KU); Text 6. obv. II 3; Text. 9 rev. I 5; Text 10. obv. II 3; Text 13. obv. I 8; Text 21. obv. I 7 (nu-KU); Text 22. obv. 9); Text 29. obv. II 1’; obv. II 10’; rev. 1 | |
| dam | Text 5. obv. II 10 |
| dam-gar3 | see § 2.3.2 |
| Text 4. obv. I 5; obv. I 7; obv. I 9; obv. II 5 (sipa ⸢dam⸣-[gar3?-e]-/⸢ne?⸣) | |
| dub-sar | Text 20. obv. 9 |
| dub-sar lugal | |
| Text 3. obv. I 4; Text 17. rev. II 1 | |
| dumu-dab5-(ba) | see § 2.2 |
| Text 3. obv. I 2; Text 7.passim; Text 12. obv. II 5; Text 15. obv. I 4’; Text 16. rev. I 11; rev. II, 4’; Text 23.passim; Text 25.passim | |
| dumu-gi7 | see § 2.2 |
| Text 17.passim | |
| eren2 | see § 2.2 |
| Text 1. obv. II 4; obv. II 8; Text 7. rev. I 7; rev. II 3; Text 21. rev. II 6; rev. II 8; Text 25. rev. 5’; rev. 9’; Text 29. rev. II 13; rev. II 19 | |
| egir udu <ba-ur4> | see § 3.2.5 |
| Text 1. obv. I 5; Text 29. obv. I 6’; 11’; II 14’; III 1’ | |
| engar | see § 2.3.2 |
| Text 23. rev. I 5; rev. I 7; rev. I 8 (engar UD.IM.MU-me) | |
| ereš-dingir | see § 1.2.6-7; § 2.3.1.2 |
| na-gada ereš-dingir | |
| Text 1. obv. II 3 | |
| udu ereš-dingir dba-u2 | |
| Text 8. obv. II 3; Text 20. obv. 8; Text 28. obv. I 9’ | |
| udu ereš-dingir pa5-sir2 | |
| Text 29. rev. II 11 | |
| geš-kin-ti | ša3 geš-(kin-ti) |
| see § 3.2.2 | |
| Text 2. obv. I 8; II 3; Text 12. obv. I 3; obv. I 6; obv. II 3; Text 20. obv. 2; Text 27. obv. 5 | |
| nim-bi | see § 1.1.6 |
| Text 1. rev. 1; Text 19. rev. 5; Text 21. left edge 2; Text 23. rev. II 1 | |
| iri | see1.3.4 |
| Text 29. rev. I 1; rev. III 5 | |
| ki | see § 2.4 |
| passim | |
| ki-geš-i3 | Text 20. obv. 3 |
| ku | see § 1.3.2; § 2.3.3 |
| passim | |
| kurušda | see § 2.1.4 |
| Text 21. obv. 1.6 | |
| la2-ni | see § 3.2.3 |
| Text 5. rev. II 2; Text 9. obv. II 12; Text 13. obv. I 5; Text 15. rev. II 2; rev. II 6; Text 16. obv. I 9; obv. II 5; obv. II 9; obv. III 3; Text 23. obv. II 5; Text 29. obv. I 10’; obv. II, 2; obv. II 5 | |
| mu la2-ni-še3 | |
| Text 21. obv. II 6’ | |
| libir | see § 3.2.4 |
| Text 6. obv. I 4; Text 10. obv. I 2; Text 16. obv. I 3; Text 29. rev. I 14(?) | |
| lugal | see § 1.2.1-4; § 2.3.1.3 |
| lu2-maḫ | Text 10. obv. III 10; Text 13. obv. II 4 (dinanna) |
| ma2-gal | see § 2.3.1.4 |
| Text 5. obv. II 5 | |
| mar-tu | see § 2.2.10 |
| Text 4. obv. II 9; rev. II 4 | |
| maš2 | passim |
| maš2geštukul dnin-geš-zi-da | |
| see § 3.2.1 | |
| Text 10. obv. I 4 | |
| muḫaldim | see § 1.3.7; § 2.3.1.2-3 |
| muḫaldim lugal | |
| Text 9. rev. II 1; Text 22. rev. 2 | |
| muḫaldim dnanna | |
| Text 24. rev. 10 | |
| muḫaldim sukkal-maḫ | |
| Text 9. rev. III 1-2 | |
| na-gada | see § 2.1.1 |
| passim | |
| na-gada en | |
| Text 26. rev. II 4 | |
| na-gada e2-maḫ | |
| Text 2. obv. II 5 | |
| na-gada den-ki | |
| Text 9. rev. II 8 | |
| na-gada ereš-dingir | |
| Text 1. obv. II 3 | |
| na-gada kur | |
| Text 22. re. 4; 5 | |
| na-gada lugal | |
| see § 1.3 | |
| Text 3. obv. I 9; Text 9. obv. III 10 | |
| na-gada dnanna | |
| Text 22. obv. 11 | |
| na-gada nin | |
| see § 1.3 | |
| Text 3. rev. I 2 ([na]-[gada nin?]); Text 4. rev. II 2; Text 5. rev. II 9; Text 9. obv. III 10 | |
| na-gada sagga | |
| Text 22. rev. 3 | |
| na-gada sukkal-maḫ | |
| Text 22. obv. 8; Text 28. rev. I 5 | |
| nig2-ka9 aka | see1.1.5 |
| passim | |
| nig2-ka9 NE nu-aka | |
| Text 29. obv. II 8’ | |
| nin | see1.2.5; na-gada nin |
| nu-banda3 | Text 10. rev. II 12’ (nu-banda3 ki-[...]) |
| nu-banda3 šidim | |
| Text 26. obv. II 8 | |
| nu-<geš>kiri6 | Text 24. rev. 5 |
| sa12-du5 | Text 10. obv. III 4 |
| santana | santana dnanna |
| Text 24. rev. 8 | |
| sila4 | see § 3.0.2 |
| Text 4. obv. I 3 | |
| simug | Text 29. rev. II 8 |
| sipa | see § 2.1.1;passim |
| (sipa) gab2-KU | |
| Text 20 obv. 1 | |
| sukkal-maḫ | see § 1.2.8; § 2.3.1.2 |
| lu2 sukkal-maḫ | |
| Text 9. rev. I 6 | |
| muḫaldim sukkal-maḫ | |
| Text 9. rev. III 1-2 | |
| na-gada sukkal-maḫ | |
| Text 22. obv. 8; Text 28. rev. I 5 | |
| udu sukkal-maḫ | |
| Text 10. rev. II 8’; Text 13. rev. I 4 | |
| šabra | see § 2.1.5; § 2.3.1.2 |
| Text 2. obv. I 6; Text 8. obv. II 5; Text 10. obv. III 1; Text 14. obv. I 4; Text 18. obv. II 6; Text 28. obv. II 3 | |
| šabra kas4 | |
| Text 29. rev. III 1 | |
| šidim | see § 2.3.2 |
| Text 18. obv. II 8; Text 26. rev. I 7; 8; II 1 | |
| ugula šidim | |
| Text 18. obv. I 7; II 1; Text 26. rev. I 3; 5 | |
| nu-banda3 šidim | |
| Text 26. obv. II 8 | |
| šu-[...]-na | Text 4. rev. I 2 (ša3 šu-[...]-na) |
| šu-i | šu-i lugal |
| Text 7. rev. I 9 | |
| šuš3 | see § 2.1.3 |
| Text 1. obv. II 7 | |
| UD.IM.MU | Text 23. rev. I 5; 7; 8 (engar UD.IM.MU-me) |
| udu | see § 3.0.1 |
| passim | |
| udu BU.KU | |
| Text 24. obv. 9 | |
| udu gub-ba-(am3) | |
| see § 2.1.1;passim | |
| udu gukkal | |
| see § 3 | |
| passim | |
| udu kur | |
| see § 3 | |
| Text 1. obv. I 1; obv. I 7; obv. I, 10 | |
| udu zi-ga | |
| see § 2.1.1; § 3.2 | |
| passim | |
| unu3 | unu3dnanna |
| Text 24. rev. 7; 9 | |
| zi-gum2 | Text 3. obv. II 4 |
| ([...]-amar | Text 9. rev. I 4 |
| [...]-ne-ka | Text 29. obv. I 3’ |
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Footnotes
Version 1.0