Keywords
Banks, Clinton, Sin-kašid, Umma, Ur III 

§1. Introduction
§1.1. The following six tablets belong to the collection of the Clinton Historical Society of Clinton, MA.^[1] A newspaper clipping from the Clinton Daily Item dated to July 2, 1913, says about the acquisition of the tablets that they “were purchased from Dr. Edgar J. Banks of Greenfield who has spent years in archaeological work in the east and who was present when they were uncovered so that their genuineness is undoubted.”^[2] Banks directed a University of Chicago expedition to the site of Adab in the early 1900’s. However, as Foster (2006: 55) noted, “his reputation for acquiring and smuggling antiquities eventually aroused the Ottoman authorities, [and] his project was terminated.” Nevertheless, Banks “deal[t] in tablets and antiquities for the rest of this life, selling small collections of tablets with highly enthusiastic labels to schools, libraries, and seminars.” These tablets here are yet another such example of Banks’ legacy.^[3]

§2. Transliterations and Commentary
§2.1. No. 1
Provenience: Uruk
Size: 80 × 55 × 22mm
Date: no date

§2.1a. This text is identical to Frayne (1990: 444-447) E4.4.1.3.

§2.2. No. 2
Provenience: Umma
Size: 22 × 21 × 13mm
Date: no date

§2.2a. The provenience of this tablet is suggested by the name La’amu, which is not an uncommon name at Umma. A steward (agrig) by that name is attested several times, e.g. SAT 2, 507 (Šulgi 46) and MVN 21, 410 (Amar-Suena 3 xiii).

§2.2b. This type of text is rare, noting only a quantity of animals and a personal name with no verb or action indicated. Likewise, no date or other information is provided. A similar example is Buffalo SNS 11-2 144, 12. It is possible that these were small ‘chits’ serving to remind a scribe of a transaction to be recorded on a larger tablet at some future time.

§2.3. No. 3
Provenience: Umma Size: 48 × 41 × 21mm Date: Šu-Sin 9 v

§2.3a. Obv. 2) Gu’ugu’a appears as an foreman (ugula) in five other texts, all dated between Šu-Sin 2 and Ibbi-Sin 3 vii. In MCS 7, 21 AO 19544 (Šu-Sin 9), he appears as a foreman together with Kas as in this text. In BPOA 1, 84 (Ibbi-Sin 3 vii 22), he is the foremen of a work team involved with hoeing and cutting boxthorn in the Šarrahum field, almost certainly a variant writing for Šarrahuma.

§2.3b. Obv. 4) This name always appears as Kas (written kas₄) in Umma tablets, but, as already noted in Dahl (2007: 87 n. 309), his seal always reads en-kas₄.

§2.3c. Rev. 3) For the reading of this month name as dal, “flight,” see now Englund ( 2004: 38).

§2.4. No. 4
Provenience: Umma
Size: 45 × 40 × 17mm
Date: Amar-Suena 7 iv

§2.4a. Obv. 7 and rev. 4) The term šar₂-ra-ab-du as a type of official occurs not infrequently at Umma and elsewhere in the Ur III corpus, but its exact meaning is unclear. The CAD, s.v. šarrabtû, notes that the function “may be connected with surveying fields and agricultural work.” In the Ur III period, this title seems to have been a function held only on a temporary basis.

§2.5. No. 5
Provenience: Unknown
Size: 85 × 52 × 22mm
Date: no date

§2.5a. This unusual text appears to list earth-work performed by various individuals. Most such documents provide other information such as the place where the work was performed, the wages of the workers, overseers or other officials, a date, and so on (e.g. BPOA 2, 2383 [Amar-Suena 9]).

§2.5b. Obv. 6) KU is clear in the text; one might still suggest a reading tug₂^!, though Lu-tugmah is only sparsely seen, and then only in texts from Girsu.

§2.5c. Obv. 8) Other attestations of this name make it uncertain whether the scribe intended it to be tu-gara₂-aš as is seen here (cf. UTI 5, 3425:6 [Šu-Sin 3], where the copy clearly shows a gara₂) or tu-ga-aš, as is more commonly attested (cf. SANTAG 7, 68 11 [Amar-Suena 3]). Alternatively, these could be two different but similar names.

§2.6. No. 6
Provenience: Umma
Size: 154 × 87 × 27mm
Date: Šu-Sin 7

§2.6a. This text lists newly harvested grain of domain land (še gibil GAN₂-gu₄) from five threshing floors (ki-su₇) located in settlements in the Gu’edena and Mušbiana districts of Umma^[4]: Ušgida (obv. i 1 to i 26), Gu’edena (obv. i 27 to ii 29), I-lugal (obv. ii 30 to rev. i 26), Sagdu (rev. i 27 to i 33), and Šunukuš (rev. ii 1 to ii 8). The entry for each location is similarly structured with subtotals divided into up to three distinct categories, gur zabar, gur še numun, and gur sa₂-du₁₁. The literal translation of gur zabar-ta is “from the bronze gur-measure,” but such a reading in this context makes little sense. For instance, in the sub-totals from the Gu’edena threshing floor, we find for gur zabar-ta (obv. ii 19-20):

• ŠU+NIGIN₂ 2(geš₂) 1(u) 2(aš) 4(barig) 2(ban₂) gur
• ŠU+NIGIN₂ 3(aš) 4(barig) ziz₂ gur

The latter total matches exactly the entry in obv. ii 16-17:

• 3(aš) 4(barig) ziz₂ gur mu-ša
• kišib₃ du₁₁-ga-zi-da

The former total is the sum of obv. i 26 - ii 2:

• 1(geš₂) 5(u) 9(aš) gur
• [ma₂-a si]-˹ga˺ nibru^ki-še₃
• [kišib₃] ˹lu₂˺-dingir-ra
• 1(u) 3(aš) 4(barig) 2(ban₂) še zi₃-da gur
• kišib₃ ab-ba-gi-na

But while the numbers properly add up there is nothing in the qualifications mu-ša, ma₂-a si-ga nibru^ki-še₃, or zi₃-da to suggest any connection to the bronze gur-measure. Similarly, while the totals labeled sa₂-du₁₁ are made up of entries with that qualification, they also include entries with other qualifications, most often “wages for hired workers” (a₂ lu₂ hun-ga₂). Only the summaries labeled še numun are composed entirely from entries qualified as such.

§2.6b. Obv. i 3) I-pa’e also appears in obv. ii 15 and rev. ii 3. According to Vanderroost (forthcoming), he is not among the several chief plot managers (nu-banda₃ gu₄) working in this district under Lu-Šulgira (cf. iv 23). It is unclear if this person is the same as the I-pa’e attested as a plot manager for the Da-Umma district. However, as Studevent-Hickman (2006: 34-35) has already shown, there is often an overlap of activities among the four Umma districts.

§2.6c. Obv. i 7) GuTAR was one of four chief plot managers for the Gu’edena and Mušbiana districts (Vanderroost forthcoming). He appears in this text again in rev. i 11 and ii 5.^[5]

§2.6d. Obv. i 10) Like GuTAR, Ur-Enuna was one of the district’s chief plot managers under Lu-Šulgira. He appears again in rev. i 8 and ii 4.

§2.6e. Obv. i 28) Lu-dingira was another chief plot manager of this district. He appears again in rev. i 1 and rev. i 29. Each of his entries concerns grain loaded on a boat bound for Nippur (ma₂-a si-ga nibru^ki-še₃).

§2.6f. Rev. ii 21) The total here is correct. As noted in Englund (1991: 269 n. 20, with references), wheat (gig) was artificially converted into barley (še) at the rate of 2:1. Thus, the entry in rev. ii 16 counts as 6;1.2 and not 3;0.4 for the purpose of arriving at a total value.

Notes

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Version: 30 December 2007

@article{Allred2007Cuneiform,
	note = {[Online; accessed 2024-11-21]},
	address = {Oxford; Berlin; Los Angeles},
	author = {Allred,  Lance and Gadotti,  Alhena},
	journal = {Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin},
	issn = {1540-8760},
	number = {2},
	year = {2007},
	publisher = {Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative},
	title = {The {Cuneiform} {Collection} of the {Clinton} {Historical} {Society}},
	url = {https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/articles/cdlb/2007-2},
	volume = {2007},
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Allred,  Lance
AU  - Gadotti,  Alhena
DA  - 2007///
PY  - 2007
ET  - 2007/12/30/
ID  - cdlb-2007-2
IS  - 2
J2  - CDLB
SN  - 1540-8760
T2  - Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin
TI  - The Cuneiform Collection of the Clinton Historical Society
UR  - https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/articles/cdlb/2007-2
VL  - 2007
Y2  - 2024/11/21/
ER  -