Two Ur III Texts from Umma: Observations on Archival Practices and Household Management: Notes

1  For an abridged biography of Banks, see Wasilewska 2000.

 

2  To my knowledge, the following examples have been published to date (in chronological order): Šulgi 47: ASJ 9, 242, 19 (foreman: Lugal-kuzu), MVN 21, 199 (Ur-mes); Amar-Suen 2: Fs Sigrist 36 (Lugal-kugani); Amar-Suen 3: BIN 5, 272 (Lugal-gu’e), TCL 5, 5674 (Lu-Dani); Amar-Suen 4: TCL 5, 5675 (Lugal-gu’e); Amar-Suen 5: AAS 13 (Lugal-emahe); Amar-Suen 6: AAICAB 1/1, plts. 63-64, Ashm 1924-665 (Lu-sag); Amar-Suen 8: MVN 21, 203 (Lu-kala); Šu-Suen 2: CDLJ 2003/1, 1 (Lu-Šara), MVN 10, 102 (Ur-Iškur), TCL 5, 5676 (Ur-Ninsu). For a detailed analysis of the structure and function of this type of accounts, see Englund 2003.

 

3  Lines obv. 6, 7 and rev. 1-2 in our text replicate lines 9, 6 and 7-8, respectively, in SACT 2, 73.

 

4  Obviously, a proper handwriting analysis or a scientific comparison of the clay used in the two tablets would require direct access to the material.

 

5  Note, however, the animal fattener Alulu receiving (kišib3) grain already in Amar-Suen 6 in UTI 5, 3469, and fresh reed for the “sheep pen” (e2 udu) in Amar-Suen 7 in SAT 2, 1067, rev. 2-5).

 

6  That is, the Database of Neo-Sumerian Texts (BDTNS) at <http://bdts.filol.csic.es/> or the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI) at <http://cdli.ucla.edu/>. The references published to date include (in chronological order): Amar-Suen 8: the text published here; Šu-Suen 4, month 1: SAT 3, 1413; month 2: SAT 3, 1474; Šu-Suen 7, month 9: SNAT 520; Šu-Suen 9, month 11: BPOA 1, 728 and 1177, BPOA 2, 2116, MVN 18, 568 and 704; Ibbi-Suen 1: Ontario 2, 366; month 9: MVN 13, 152, Princeton 2, 473, SAT 3, 1917, 1925 and 1930; month 10: MVN 13, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151 and 153, Ontario 2, 378, Princeton 2, 229 and FLP 1031, SAT 3, 1921, YOS 4, 80; broken date: MVN 18, 254.

 

7  All attestations from Ibbi-Suen 1 are dated to these two months except Ontario 2, 366, which lacks a month designation.

 

8  One text (MVN 18, 254) is broken and cannot be securely dated to any year.

 

9  Note that in UTI 4, 2816 (and possibly also UTI 4, 2654), from Amar-Suen 8, Lugal-azida seems to have been using a seal naming his grandfather Ur-dingira, rather than his father Inim-Šara, as his patronymic (viz, lugal-a2-˹zi-da˺ dumu ˹ur˺-d[...], kurušda dšara2).

 

10  The figure includes the text references to the first and last secure attestation of each individual as the animal fattener of the god Šara. Abbreviations: AS = Amar-Suen; d. = dumu; IS = Ibbi-Suen; kurušda Š. = kurušda dŠara2; Š = Šulgi; ŠS = Šu-Suen.

 

11  Note in this context also J. David Schloen’s now famous patrimonial household model, which, based on the theories of Max Weber, argues that the patriarchal household served as the universal paradigm for all social, economic, political and religious relationships in the ancient Near East (see Schloen 2001).

 

12  Abbreviations: AS = Amar-Suen; IS = Ibbi-Suen; Š = Šulgi; ŠS = Šu-Suen.

 

13  See also Dahl 2004 as well as Kogan and Koslova 2006: 205.