Cuneiform Digital Library Notes
2014:021        «              »
Suggestions and corrections to ATFU
2. Addenda and errata*

Camille Lecompte
CNRS, Nanterre

1. Introduction 7.3.3. p. 28: musubx (ATFU 52) is also attested here for the first time in ED I-II texts; DIM3 may be identical with sign S. 238 and is similar to S. 277 in UET 2.

2. ATFU 5, p. 39. The term šandana (GAL-NI) is clearly separated from GAL SILA4 in the ED manuscripts of the Lu2 A list and therefore is represented as follows:

  • ATU 3. Lu2 A 23. GALa NIMa
  • UET 2, 264, O0101. GAL NI (= Lu2 A 22)
  • MSL XII, ED Lu2 A 22. GAL NI // MEE 3. Lu2 A. 22 GAL NI
  • As observed by Steinkeller 1995a: 706, the variation in the script only concerns the signs NIMa and NI. O0204 might also be transliterated as: AK NI! GI4.

    3. ATFU 13. R0203. Read: 2N1 KAL (S. 326).

    4. ATFU 17. O0202. The traces may correspond to one of the isolated clauses to be regularly found in the archaic texts from Ur, DUMU?

    5. ATFU 18. O0201’. The interpretation of this personal name as Nannax-gen7-du10 was also suggested by Marchesi 2006: 70.

    6. ATFU 19, O0302’. The personal name must be interpreted as SAG̃-NE-ME-LU!, which can be compared to PN 523, ME LU SAG̃ GAL.

    7. ATFU 31. O0101’. Before the sign KU, is probably NIG̃2. O0102’. [...] UḪ3? ZA3.

    8. ATFU 32. O0104’. According to M. Krebernik, two personal names are written in different squares, although the separation line is not visible:

    O0104’. [1N1 x] Ur

    O0105’. [1N1] DA KA [...]

    O0106’. [1N1 x] Nannax-sul?

    The sign considered to be PAD must therefore be replaced by KA, which might belong to the personal name Inim-zi-da, so far unattested in Ur.

    9. The sign to be transliterated in ATFU 33, O0201. din/g̃eštin?, instead of G̃EŠTIN, is not well drawn in the copy: faint traces of two strokes belonging to a possible but uncertain g̃eš are missing. See also O0103. lugal in the new copy. ATFU 41, O0101’. The sign is not G̃EŠTIN, but DIN.

    10. ATFU 46. Commentary. O0102’. Lugal-gu2-g̃u10 is, as indicated in note 212, attested in UET 2, PN 473, although its interpretation is uncertain: see Andersson 2012: 178, fn. 1064, and 330. Last phrase of the commentary on p. 99 should be: “which is until now only attested in the texts from Ur”.

    11. ATFU 52. The container identified with the sign S. 358, UNKENxDUG, can, as suggested in the commentary, be distinguished from it and construed as ŠENxDUG, although it also shows slight differences with ŠEN.

    12. ATFU 55, p. 120. R0101. Instead of [x] A KA2 NA DIM3 DIM3 A A(?) KA2 SAL KA2, read: [x] A KA2 GIR! DIM3 DIM3 A A(?) KA2 SAL KA2 The sign NA must be replaced by the sign GIR, which was not well drawn by the scribe. Since GIR is the name of a fish, its presence on this tablet may tally with the hypothesis of Burrows 1935: 11 regarding the meaning of GI, written here in the first line, as an object used for fishing. This is the only attestation of the sign GIR in ATFU, which should be added to the final sign index.

    13. ATFU 56. O0201. Instead of IŠ ZU(?), this case could be tentatively read IŠ ŠUBUR!, which might refer to: šubur, sušx/kuš7, although this interpretation is highly speculative.

    14. ATFU 57. O0302. The personal name generally interpreted as Mes-lu2-nu-še3 (see for instance Pomponio 1987: 173-174) should be read correctly as Mes-lu2-nu-ḫug̃, according to the template given by the name of the ruler from Lagaš, Lugal-AN-da-nu-ḫug̃-g̃a2.

    15. ATFU 60, p. 140, note 292. In the sign list edited by Green and Nissen (1987: 259), the sign nesag̃ is registered as NISAG, ZATU416, whereas it was transliterated as NESAG2(a) in ATU 3, 270-271 as well as in other publications of archaic texts.

    16. ATFU 62. O0403’. The sign can also be read BAḪAR4 (BAḪAR2+BAR); in the archaic texts from Ur, this profession is only written BAḪAR2 BAR (BAḪAR4), whereas in the ED IIIa tablets, BAḪAR2 and BAḪAR4 are both attested.

    17. ATFU 63. Two lines, which were drawn to my attention by M. Krebernik, refer to the official designated as ensix(PA.SI) of Ur and must be corrected accordingly. O0101’. 2N1 PA.SI(ensix)-uri5. The sign interpreted as NUN has indeed two oblique strokes and must be replaced in the transliteration by ŠEŠ. The alleged ensix3-nun, see Introduction, p. 26, is therefore identical with the ensix uri5. Accordingly, the same offical called ensix can be assumed in: O0203’. 1N14 2N1 PA.SI-uri5.

    18. Typos:

    Introduction: 4.7. p. 13: “As observed by M. Krebernik, -mud seems to be constructed with an ablative that is generally omette”, replace with “omitted”.

    Introduction. 5. p. 19: in the phrase beginning with “Another distinctive element”, cancel “in the System Š” at the end.

    Introduction. 6. p. 22, note 72, replace: “during the texts from the time of the First Dynasty of Lagaš” by: “in the texts from the time of the First Dynasty of Lagaš”.

    ATFU 13. Commentary, p. 49: O0202’ and O0203’ instead of R0202’ and R0203’. In O0203’: “This PN could be” instead of “This PN line could be”.

    ATFU 29, “O0203’. 2N1 [...]” to be cancelled.

    ATFU 26, p. 73. Correct the commentary to: “Account. 30 fat-tailed sheep”.

    ATFU 57. O0308’. du10 instead of dug0.

    Appendix: New copies

    ATFU 33
    ATFU 55, Reverse
    ATFU 63, Obverse
    ATFU 32


    SQLSTATE[42S02]: Base table or view not found: 1146 Table 'cdlndb.abbr' doesn't exist
    ISSN 1546-6566    © Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative | Archival: 2014-07-15