Cuneiform Digital Library Notes

CDLN 2003:001
Wolfgang Heimpel: The Akkadian Personal Name DI-NI-NI

M. Hilgert, Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit, IMGULA 5 (Münster 2002) 76, understands this name as Dīn-Ilī “Judge, oh my god!” or Dīnni-Ilī “Judge me, oh my god!” In note 96, he refers to the Old Akkadian name DI.KU₅-i₃-li as alternative interpretation. Following W. Sommerfeld, he understands the latter spelling as Dīn-ilē “Judgment of the gods.”

The alternation between DI and di-ku₅ in the spelling of the name DI-NI-NI is also found in the text of PDT 2, 1353 and the legend of the seal that is impressed on this tablet. I cannot resolve the inherent difficulties: on the one hand, the equation di-ku₅ = dīnu is suspect because di = dīnu, and di-ku₅-ra₂, but not di-ku₅, could qualify as synonym of di. On the other hand, DI does not seem to be scribal abbreviation for di-ku₅ = dayyānum “judge,” because TI.NI.NI is found in Ur III texts as a variant spelling of DI-NI-NI.

CDLN 2003:002
Niek Veldhuis: The Sumerian word na-IZI

The Sumerian word na-IZI (qutrēnu = incense) is to be read na-de₃. The verb that is usually used with this noun is si(g), “to pile up,” in the phrase na-de₃ si-ga. This collocation appears in two Ur III tablets; in the ritual text PBS 13, 35 obv. 5 and in the recently published Umma text SANTAG 6, 100 obv. 3. Gudea Cylinder B iv 4-5 reads ^dnin-dub išib-mah eridu^ki-ka-ke₄ na-de₃ ba-ni-si: “Nindub (...) piled up incense.” The expression further appears in a few Old Babylonian literary texts (Iddin-Dagan A 147 and 196 and Home of the Fish 4); in Old Babylonian incantations (e.g. YOS 11, 56 obv. 6-7); and in later bilingual compositions (see CAD s.v. qutrīnu).

The reading na-de₃ rather than na-izi is demonstrated by the Old Babylonian Kusu Hymn l. 22: [x im]-mi-in-si na-RI si-ga (YBC 9860; see P. Michalowski in Fs. Hallo p. 153). Here, the same collocation is found with the spelling na-RI, to be read na-de₅. A second attestation of this spelling is lu₂ = ša II iii 22': na-de₅-˹ga˺ igi-bar-ra = min (=barû) ša qutrinni (MSL 12, 120, and cp. MSL 16, 344, 52'; for the reading of lu₂ = ša II iii 22' see CAD s.v. qutrīnu).

The alternative spelling na-de₅ was used alongside the traditional na-de₃, and may have been introduced to suggest an association with the expression na-de₅, to purify (elēlu).

CDLN 2003:003
Wolfgang Heimpel: gu-nigin₂, “bale”

Reed and twigs were bundled into bundles (sa) and bound into bales (gu-nigin₂) of various numbers of bundles for transport. I adopt the translation “bale” from A. Sallaberger (“Zum Schilfrohr als Rohstoff in Babylonien,” in B. Scholz, ed., Der orientalische Mensch und seine Beziehungen zur Umwelt: Beiträge zum 2. Grazer morgenländischen Symposion [Graz 1989] 326, note 63). It is current convention to posit two words for bale, gu-nigin₂ and gu-kilib. E. Sollberger, in his glossary to Business and Administrative Correspondence under the Kings of Ur (=TCS 1; Locust Valley, New York, 1966) 122, sub voce “gu” states: “These two words are not only synonyms but homographs and it is only when they are followed by a suffix that the actual reading can be ascertained: the context does not help.” This view has been generally accepted. H. Waetzoldt, “Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen,” BSA 6 (1992) 126, observed “Den Ausdruck gu-kilib(-ba) benutzte man in Umma, während in den anderen Provinzen eher gu-nigin₂(-na) üblich war.”

In M. Sigrist, SAT 2, 506 and 586, is found the form gu-NIGIN₂-bi. The suffix -bi must be the possessive suffix. This shows that the suffix -ba in gu-NIGIN₂-ba could be a locative added to the possessive suffix. The contrast between gu-NIGIN₂-na and gu-NIGIN₂-ba could accordingly consist of a form with and a form without the possessive suffix. That would allow positing a single word, gu-nigin₂, “bale.”

This solution is confirmed by the fact that the reading kilib of the sign LAGAB is not attested. It is missing among the entries 27-33 in Proto-Ea (MSL 14, 31) and makes only a half-hearted appearance in the form of ke-el = LAGAB = napharu in Ea I, 42 (MSL 14, 178) and ki-li = [LAGAB] = napharu in Aa 2 (MSL 14, 211).

The formula n sa gi gu-nigin₂-na n sa-ta (i₃-gal₂) means “n bundles reed. (Contained) in a bale (are) n bundles each” and the formula n sa gi gu-nigin₂-ba a sa-ta (i₃-gal₂) “n bundles reed. (Contained) in its bale (are) n bundles each.”

CDLN 2005:001
Stefania Altavilla: An Account of Vegetable Oil from Girsu

The tablet BM 15956 (96, 6-12-176)¹ belongs to a group of texts from Girsu characterized by the technical term nig₂-ka₉-aka, “(balanced) account,” of PN. There is another term that is peculiar to this category of texts: ša₃-bi-ta that divides the former section of the balanced accounts, dedicated to the incomes, from the latter one that records the withdrawals. As a matter of fact, ša₃-bi-ta does not appear in our tablet, but it is likely that it was mentioned in the initial break of the text, preceded by the amount of oil to be delivered. On the basis of this hypothesis and the comparison with the other texts of the group that will be published by F. D’Agostino and F. Pomponio, The Texts ša₃-bi-ta from Girsu in the British Museum (=Nisaba 7; Messina 2005)², we present the following transliteration of the tablet, including a reconstruction of the first two lines:

If our interpretation is correct, this text records an amount of vegetable oil with two withdrawals, each with a different conveyor. The total, as well as perhaps the former issue, is defined “delivery” (mu-DU), a term that in the balanced accounts of Girsu seems to characterize a type of “withdrawals,” used in parallel, but distinct from the term zi-ga, “expenditure.” After the total of the two deliveries, the “remainder,” indicated as si-i₃-tum, instead of the normal la₂-NI, is calculated. The name that follows, Mutum-ilum, should be that of the official to whom this remainder is due. The term “(balanced) account of Baba-zimu” defines our tablet and it mentions the author of its compilation. A conveyor, who is the same conveyor of the latter amount of the issued oil, is cited before the date (month and year), in reference to the oil of the entire operation.

rev. 2. This personal name is unusual: it belongs to a conveyor of an amount of barley, together with i-ri-ib-bu-um (MVN 3, 376 obv. 3, from Adab, without date) and to a “fugitive” mentioned in a long roster from Girsu (CST 263 obv. i 11; AS 3).

¹ The tablet is of a reddish grey colour and its dimensions are 48×58×23 mm. It is published with the kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. The text was transliterated during a mission in London as part of the research PRIN 2004-2006 with the title of “Catalogazione, pubblicazione e studio delle tavolette neo-sumeriche inedite appartenenti alle Collezioni del British Museum,” coordinated by F. Pomponio.

² Fourteen texts from Girsu that register, in the section of the document following the term ša₃-bi-ta, expenditures characterized by the term mu-DU, are discussed in D’Agostino and Pomponio, Nisaba 7, pp. 9-10.

CDLN 2006:001
Rikke Wulff Krabbenhøft: Accession Numbers of the Royal Ontario Museum

In preparing a paper recently on a topic of neo-Sumerian geography, I discovered some irregularities in the CDLI treatment of relevant texts in the collection of the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). A productive correspondence with Bob Englund at UCLA and with Bill Pratt of the ROM led to the elimination of most questions concerning the museum’s accession system that apparently derived from insertion in the CDLI databank of pre-publication files from M. Sigrist’s two Ur III ROM volumes (Neo-Sumerian Texts from the Royal Ontrario Musuem I: The Administration at Drehem, Betheda 1995; Neo-Sumerian Texts from the Royal Ontario Museum II: Administrative Texts Mainly from Umma, Betheda 2003). It may be helpful to others to make the Ontario numbering system clear in this note.

ROM originally numbered its cuneiform tablet collection in a D series (D denoting Mesopotamian material). In 1949 the D series was replaced with a 900 series denoting the year and other data pertaining to acquisition. The 900 series consists of three groups of numbers: first, the year of acquisition, then the lot the object is part of, and finally the object number itself. An accession number such as 925.62.234 thus describes the 234^th object in lot 62 acquired in 1925. In some cases where the exact year of acquisition of a tablet is uncertain, but the latest year it could have entered the collection is known, the museum uses an “x” to denote that the tablet was acquired no later than a certain year. The 1910 accession series represents all previous cuneiform acquisitionsof ROM, and is thus to be referred to as 910x.

In the past, the object number was often dropped if there was only one object in an acquisition lot. This is the case with the accession number 972.356 (=Ontario 1, 102). Today one would number it 972.356.1 but in general, the Royal Ontario Museum does not revise these numbers.

In the editing of Sigrist’s Ontario 1, two accession numbers were printed erroneously. The accession number 267.287.18 (Ontario 1, 133) should be 967.287.18 and the accession number 295.62.296 (Ontario 1, 147) should be 925.62.296.

Duplication of accession numbers in the volumes appear in three instances; the accession numbers concerned are 925.62.263 (Ontario 1, 26 and Ontario 1, 92); 925.62.270 (Ontario 1, 81 and Ontario 2, 213); 925.62.496 (Ontario 1, 39 and Ontario 2, 94). At present this issue can not be resolved (designations “a” and “b” in CDLI are artificial).

For unclear reasons, Marcel Sigrist included three digits in front of the accession numbers in the catalogue of texts in volume 1. Exactly what these three digits stand for remains uncertain. They are not included in the catalogue in volume 2.

CDLN 2006:002
Robert K. Englund: Three Texts from Uqair

In the course of scanning work performed in March of 1996 in the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin, three proto-cuneiform texts were discovered that should have been included with the 35 tablets published by the author as MSVO 4, 1-35, and reported there, following M. Green, ASJ 8 (1986) 77-83, as possibly from Uqair. VAT 5288-5290 bring to a total of 38 those texts that were, together with a number of other tablets, purchased by the Pergamon Museum in 1903 from the Baghdad dealer Schaûl (Akten-Nr. I 2063/03). To insure that dispersed archaic texts all appeared in a readily available form, these three and one other text had at the time been planned as a short supplement to the Erlenmeyer volume MSVO 3, now being prepared for publication by Peter Damerow and myself. In the meantime, several hundred more proto-cuneiform tablets have become available to research, due primarily to the breakdown in Iraq antiquities department security following the 1991 Kuwait war, and to the disturbing efficiency of the antiquities markets in the Middle East, Europe and the US. These three, and a series of other heretofore unpublished and unprovenienced cuneiform inscriptions will, in cursory form, be edited in the CDLN.

Download a vector graphic copy of these tablets

CDLN 2006/2, no. 1 (=VAT 5288, 40×34×17mm) O0101 [     ] ; [     ] O0102 ˹4N14˺ ; ˹SUHUR˺ [     ] X X O0103 ˹1N14˺ ; SUHUR ˹SUKUD+SUKUDb˺ O0201 [     ] ; [     ] R0101 ˹1N1˺ [     ] ; [     ] R0102 ˹2N34˺ [     ] ; [     ] R0201 4N34 3N14 ; BA ˹SUHUR˺ [     ] CDLN 2006/2, no. 2 (=VAT 5289, 37×44×17mm) O0101 [     ] ˹2N14˺ ; ˹ŠEa BA ABa˺ [     ] O0201 ˹7N14˺ ; ˹ŠEa˺ X [   ] O0202 [     ] ; [     ] CDLN 2006/2, no. 3 (=VAT 5290, 42×40×18mm) O0101 [     ] ; [     ] ˹ZATU759˺ O0102 [     ] ; [     ] MUŠEN O0201 [     ] ; [     ] ENa KISALb1 R0101 ; [     ] R0201 ; [     ]

It is not readily apparent why Falkenstein did not include these texts in the original publication of VAM’s 1903 text acquisition (=ATU 1, 621-656), since they entered the VAT inventory with the first three numbers of the lot of 38 texts (originally 39, since VAT 5307 and 5325 join as, currently, MSVO 4, 27) under the museum numbers VAT 5288-5327. It appears that our CDLN 2006/2, no. 1, might join with the fish account MSVO 4, 10 (=VAT 5317).

CDLN 2007:001
Robert K. Englund: New Hits for Erlenmeyer 152

UTI 3, 1630, offered only a partial fit to a credit entry of the large account Erlenmeyer 152, as noted in CDLJ 2003:1 §16. Since there was a difference of 42 workdays between the two records, and since Erlenmeyer 152 indicated that its scribe was looking at two sealed documents for this entry, I stated that “the second [missing] sealed tablet is a copy of this one, exchanging 42 for 2.15 in the first line.” A recent publication of Ur III tablets in the British Museum by Tohru Ozaki and Marcel Sigrist (BPOA 1; Madrid 2006) contains the missing receipt in number 608 (=BM 106886), though in a form slightly more complex than initially suspected:

While the result is as anticipated (6 + (12×3) = 42), the new text separates from a three-day work period of 12 laborers a six-workday period described as a₂ mu iti-da (unclear to me).

A second partial primary document hit for our Erlenmeyer 152 is BPOA 1, 767 (=BM 107053), corresponding to Erl. 152, obv. iv 19 - v 1 (below). Both new texts were dated to the 9th month of the year of Erl. 152 (SS 2; note to CDLJ 2003:1, n. 34 and correct v 1 to kišib ˹2˺^! lu₂-gi-na), as was Princeton 1, 380, that exhibited similar irregularities (CDLJ 2003:1, n. 19).

CDLN 2007:002
Robert K. Englund: A Minnesota Estate

In the late 1990’s, Stephen Osman of Minneapolis, Minnesota, purchased a small cuneiform tablet at a local estate sale. The purchase price was five dollars. Through a generous and informative correspondence with the owner, I am able to offer below the text from Ur III Umma in line art copy, transliteration and translation. It dates to the 6th month of Amar-Suen 4 (thus late fall, ca. 2040 BC), and measures 37 x 37 x 16mm.

		Osman 1	Translation
	obv.	2(barig) še-ba ˹lugal˺	2(barig, ca. 120 liters) of ration barley (according to the) royal (measure)
		˹nin˺?-ur2-˹ra-ni˺	for Nin-urani
		ki na-ba-sa2-ta	from Nabasa,
		kišib a-da-ga	sealed document of Adaga.
		iti šu-numun	Month: “Sowing” (6th month, Umma calendar).
	rev.	˹mu en dnanna maš-e i3-pa3˺	Year: “The en-priestess of Nanna was chosen through extispicy” (Amar-Suen 4).
		(seal impression)
	seal	ur-dli9-si4	Ur-Lisi,
		ensi2	ensi
		ummaki	of Umma:
		a-da-ga	Adaga,
		dub-sar	the scribe,
		ARAD2-zu	is your servant.