The following notes intend to improve the edition of the 65 archaic tablets from Ur published in Nisaba 25 and to present an overview on the terms used for goats and sheep in the ED I-II tablets.
The terminology relating to goats in the archaic texts from Ur, which shows slight differences from the Uruk period (Green 1980: 3-6; Englund 1998: 149), also presents some affinities with the Neo-Sumerian documentation and the Drehem sources (see for instance Steinkeller 1995b: 54). The sign MAŠ, in particular, does not seem to be attested in archaic Ur as a “male kid,” whereas the term maš2 nita2 (UET 2, 298. O0101), refers to a buck/billy goat. In comparison to the terminology known from the Uruk, ED IIIb and Ur III periods, the goats enumerated in UET 2 and ATFU can be more precisely determined as follows (Table 1):
(1) It must also be noted that in Pre-Sargonic tablets from Lagaš, maš designates a (junger) Ziegenbock, “billy goat,” according to the translation of Bauer 1972: 625; see Selz 1993: 82 = AWAS 4: “Ziegenbock, auch Ziege allgemein.”
(2) In UET 2, 298, two kinds of goat are registered: maš2 nita2 and maš2, which may therefore respectively refer to billy goat and male kid.
For aš2-gar3 represented in the archaic texts from Uruk by the sign EŠGAR, see Green 1980: 4 and Englund 1998: 149. The sign GAR3 in the ED I-II texts may indeed be a later variant of EŠGAR, rather than a form of DU8.gunû, as suggested in ATFU. At least three other contemporary documents mention “female kids”: UET 2, 223. O0102: 1N14 aš2-⌜gar3⌝; UET 2, 237. O0101. 3N1 [aš2] ⌜gar3⌝; W 17887 (ZA 72 = Green 1982, Text 6). O0101. 2N1 ⌜aš2 -gar3?⌝ ud5, which probably refers to a female kid still with a nanny goat (see in Pre-Sargonic Lagaš, BIN 8, 366 = AWAS 93, Obv. I. 3. 1 kuš maš ud5, translated by Selz 1993: 594: “1 Haut von einem Ziegenbock (noch bei der Mutter)zicke”). Also note that the sign S. 276 in UET 2 was considered to be identical with EŠGAR by the authors of ATU 2 (ZATU149, Green and Nissen 1987: 201, see also Green 1980: 4). Whereas the second variant of the aforementioned sign (S. 276b in the list of E. Burrows) is different and may be assigned another value, the first form (S. 276a) is attested in only two texts:
Therefore, the assignment of the value EŠGAR to this sign in the archaic texts from Ur seems unlikely. In the lexical lists from Fāra, it can be compared with LAK779, apparently only attested in the list Lu2 B: SF 70. Obv. IV. 2. SAL LAK779 DIM2 (MSL 12: 13).
The second variant of the aforementioned sign (S. 276b in the list of E. Burrows) is different and might be assigned another value:
The translation of ATFU 2 (for which the generic terms “kid” and “goat” were chosen, according to Burrows 1935: 6-7) should therefore be: “[x] female kid: Me-en-[x(?)], [x] nanny goats: Zurzur, [...] 2 billy goats: En-kul-aba4-si, 1 female kid: Nannax-mud, 1 female kid: Igi-gi-gi, 2 billy goats [...].”
According to the data from ED I-II texts from Ur, the terminology for sheep is as follows (Table 2):
(1) Although Selz 1997: 193, fn. 119 considers Bauer’s suggestion (1972: 295, AWL 97, I. 4) to be uncertain, it has to be noticed that the term kir11 is seemingly not attested in the Pre-Sargonic texts from Girsu/Lagaš.
(2) See UET 2, 16. R0101-0102 for kir11 and sila4 nita2.
Other terms attested are:
gukkal = fat-tailed sheep; udu niga = grain fed sheep; udu gu7= fed sheep; udu ur4: “sheepshearing”. Uncertain: ḪI udu (Burrows 1935: 6); TAK4 udu A (Burrows 1935: 6). Note that in ATFU 18. O0203, the signs udu and ud5 follow each other, which could demonstrate that the former was also used as a generic designation.