Keywords
Cuneiform, Sumerian, administrative, LA Unified

§1. Introduction
§1.1. The Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) Art and Artifact Collection^[1] is comprised mainly of a large assemblage of Greco-Roman antiquities acquired by Edward W. Clark, an artifact enthusiast and principal of Venice High School in Los Angeles from 1917 to 1938. In addition to Classical antiquities, however, the collection also features a small assortment of 15 cuneiform documents, consisting of 13 Ur III administrative texts, a Gudea cone, and a neo-Babylonian herding account.^[2] The collection is currently housed in downtown Los Angeles in the administrative offices of the LAUSD.

§1.2. Clark majored in Classics and graduated with an A.B. from Oberlin College in 1890. He continued his studies at the University of Chicago and later in Leipzig, earning his A.M. in 1895. When he returned from Germany, Clark accepted a position at Ripon College teaching Greek and Latin as well as archeology. Clark continued to travel abroad, occasionally purchasing Greek and Roman antiquities that he eventually used to form a small collection for the school. This collection at Ripon College now bears his name.^[3] Clark left Ripon College in 1909 and spent much of the next few years in Europe. In 1916, he returned to the United States and moved to California, where he taught at several high schools before becoming principal of Venice High School. In 1932, he started the Venice High School Latin Museum using pieces mainly from his own collection that he had acquired while traveling abroad.

§1.3. Thirteen tablets from Clark’s collection of antiquities are presented below dating to the Ur III period (2112-2004 BC). Six come from the sites of Drehem (ancient Puzriš-Dagān) and Umma respectively, while one tablet likely comes from Girsu. As with most collections of this type, these tablets represent a medley of known Ur III archives. And, as is typical of such administrative miscellany, this potpourri of tablets offers certain insights into the terminology (šu-gid₂, ab₂-rig₅) and practices (bala, abbreviating year names, sealing) of the Ur III state apparatus.

§2. Texts
§2.1. Girsu Tablet
§2.1.1. No. 1 = AA 69
This Girsu tablet is a reckoning of Aba-isege’s debt to a household within the Lagaš province—likely a grain equivalent of labor—from his role as a foreman of weavers. The tablet is dated to Amar-Suen 1 xi.

§2.1.1.1. The provenience of this tablet is based on its prosopography; an Aba-isege occurs in a number of Girsu texts involving female weavers (geme₂ uš-bar) from late in Šulgi’s reign into Amar-Suen’s reign. In several texts (e.g. ASJ 9, 327, 2 [AS 1 i]; HLC 68 [AS 2 iii 1]; UNT 34 [nd]; OTR 258 [AS 1 x]), Aba-isege is listed as a foreman of weavers (ugula uš-bar) and associated with the e₂ uš-bar. He appears in three additional texts concerning female weavers (CT 7, pl. 32 BM 18395 [Š 46]; MVN 22, 18 [...]; SET 240 [Š 45]),^[4] as taking amounts of grain into his administrative control (i₃-dab₅).^[5] Based on the quantity of grain he receives in SET 240 and ASJ 9, 327, 2, he supervised between 24 and 32 weavers during the first year of Amar-Suen’s reign.^[6]

§2.2. Drehem Tablets
§2.2.1. No. 2 = AA 76
This text notes a transfer of animals from Intae’a to Ur-kununa, both important officials within the Drehem livestock administration.^[7] This tablet was recorded in Amar-Suen 6 vi.

§2.2.1.1. The agents recorded in this transaction are well known in the Drehem administration: Intae’a, a member of the shepherd’s office,^[8] Ur-kununa, whose family is associated with the shepherd’s office^[9] and Abī-abiḫ, a cup-bearer (sagi) at Drehem who was often involved in cult transactions.<^[10] The presence of Abī-abiḫ in conjunction with an abrig official, Ur-niĝar, suggests that this tablet is recording a transfer of animals for cultic purposes.

§2.2.1.2. The most striking feature of this text is the phrase ab₂-rig₅-e, which only occurs in one other text (CST 320 [AS 5 vi 20]), also qualifying the personal name Ur-niĝar. An alternative orthography ab₂-ri₂-ig eš₃ occurs in Amorites 18, pl. 7-8 (AS 5 xii 1, 29) and its related account MVN 15, 192 (AS 5 xii, 29), both in conjunction with the personal name Ur-niĝar at Drehem. Syntactically and contextually, the term indicates the office or position held by Ur-niĝar at Drehem, interpreted here as abrig.^[11]

§2.2.2. No. 3 = AA 79
This small tablet is an account of nine weaver garments (tug₂ uš-bar) given from Nūr-Suen into the administrative control of Lu-gina, the chief household administrator (šabra) during the 46^th regnal year of Šulgi’s reign. The provenience is provisional, based on Nūr-Suen appearing in other Drehem texts from this time period.<^[12]

§2.2.2.1. Nūr-Suen often conducts various transactions with the other Drehem offices, including the dead animals’ office; beginning in Amar-Suen’s reign, Nūr-Suen appears as a main official in the sub-division of this bureau that deals with the raw materials—hides and wool—and also the finished goods—leather and textiles.^[13]

§2.2.2.2. It is unclear whether Lu-gina is the chief household administrator of a local cult near Drehem, or if he is in fact operating out of Numušda’s cult center of Kazallu.^[14] There are, however, three seals from Drehem that bear the title ARAD₂ ^dnumušda (Turām-ilī [ŠS 9 iii-viii]; Šu-iškur [ŠS 9 vii-x]; Ḫalala [ŠS 9 v]), suggesting, at a minimum, that cultic activity related to Numušda’s temple was not uncommon at Drehem, at least in the latter Ur III period.

§2.2.2.3. The short forms of year names can be ambiguous and problematic.^[15] M. Sigrist discussed most recently difficulties in differentiating Šulgi 48 and Šulgi 46,^[16] which in their long form, both mention the destruction of Ḫurti, a toponym situated in the western Kermanshah province of Iran:^[17]

Šulgi 48 (long form)
mu ḫa-ar-ši^ki ki-maš^ki ḫu-ur₅-ti^ki u₃ ma-da-bi u₄ 1-bi ba-ḫul (e.g. AUCT 1, 149; MVN 2, 157; etc.)

Šulgi 46 (long form)
mu ki-maš^ki ḫu-ur₅-ti u₃ ma-da-bi u₄ 1-še₃^[18] ba-ḫul (e.g. Aleppo 185; BPOA 1, 1181; etc.)

§2.2.2.3.1. Judging from tablets that span multiple years—particularly the years immediately preceding or proceeding Šulgi 46 and 48 (e.g. MVN 14, 4)—it appears that scribes tended to abbreviate Šulgi 48 with a reference to the destruction of Ḫarši, an event not referenced in Šulgi 46 (e.g. Princeton 2, 349). Since AA 79 does not reference the destruction of Ḫarši, but only Ḫurti, a date of Šulgi 46 seems preferable.

§2.2.3. No. 4 = AA 73
This tablet records modest amounts of various cattle transferred between the Ur III administration and the merchant (dam-gar₃) Gudea, Adda-kala, a foreman of weavers (ugula uš-bar), and Ṣelluš-Dagān. The text was recorded in Šulgi 46 ii.^[19]

§2.2.3.1. Despite the fragmentary state of this tablet, the preservation of the personal names helps situate it in its original context. Both Adda-kala and Ṣelluš-Dagān appear individually in a number of texts where they are delivering lambs for deities (Inanna and Nanna respectively) in Drehem. These two personal names appear together in at least two other texts where each is recorded giving a lamb into the possession of Nasa, the fattener of the king,^[20] at Drehem for cultic purposes (PDT 2, 1019 [Š 47 ii 4]; PDT 2, 1243 [Š 48 xi 13]).

§2.2.4. No. 5 = AA 136
This text records expenditures of animals from Abba-saga,^[21] one of the chief officials, to Šulgi-ayamu, a member of the disbursal office in Drehem dating to Amar-Suen 2 iii 10.^[22]

§2.2.4.1. Curiously, a virtual duplicate of this text is BPOA 6, 703 (AS 2 iii 10), attributed to Drehem, which reads as follows:

§2.2.4.2. M. Hilgert compiled duplicates from Drehem during the reign of Amar-Suen.^[23] His list includes several texts involving Abba-saga and Šulgi-ayamu all dating from Amar-Suen 4-5. The pair presented here should be added to this list of Drehem duplicates.

§2.2.4.3. There are some small differences between these two texts, such as the line divisions and the use of |U₈+ḪUL₂| in AA 136 compared to u₈ gukkal in BPOA 6, 703. Moreover, our text appears to use in one instance (obv. 1) babbar₂ (U₄.U₄) instead of babbar (U₄), for describing the white color of the small cattle, whereas only babbar is seen in BPOA 6, 703. The practice of using babbar₂ to qualify small cattle at Drehem, predominantly the fat-tailed (gukkal) variety, is seen only until ca. Amar-Suen 6. In the other provinces, babbar₂ continues to be used in similar contexts regularly throughout the Ur III period with no such temporal restriction observed. The use of both babbar and babbar₂ in the same text is attested in several tablets (e.g. Nik 2, 465 [Š 46 v 21] and MVN 5, 107 [Š 48 i 2]), but the distinction between their use and the significance of the variant orthographies remains unclear. In AA 136, Nik 2, 465 and MVN 5, 107, the choice appears to be one of aesthetic, where babbar₂ is used to fill out a short line and babbar is used in a crowded line.

§2.2.5. No. 6 = AA 77
This text records the expenditure from the Drehem administration of two lambs to the cult of the moon god, Nanna, and five ewes to the kitchen (e₂-muḫaldim) in Šulgi 46 v 29. These animals were delivered on the same day that they were booked out, as recorded in OIP 115, 205. The delivery of two lambs ultimately destined for Nanna’s temple in Nippur agrees with Wu Y.’s and Li X.’s reconstruction of regular deliveries from Drehem to major cultic centers in Nippur during Šulgi’s reign and suggests that Enšakuge and Lu-Ninšubur were associated with the en of Inanna in Nippur.^[24]

§2.2.5.1. This was one of at least two expenditures made to the kitchen on this day. The other, recorded in MVN 20, 185, notes that the kitchen received one barley-fed ox (gu₄ niga), four barley-fed sheep (udu niga) and one barley-fed billy goat (maš₂ gal niga) “on account of the runners” (mu kas₄-e-ne-še₃). Together, these texts represent a fraction of the likely dozens of tablets drawn up on this day to document the movement of animals within and without the Drehem administration.

§2.2.5.2. The exact meaning of the term šu-gid₂ remains elusive. Proposed translations include “general dues,”^[26] “tax,”^[27] “Ausschuss,”^[28] or as a designation of animals suitable to be eaten,^[29] among others. Based on literary contexts, Karahashi suggested “to accept” or, in the context of extispicy,^[30] “to examine” adopted by Englund.^[31]

§2.2.5.2.1. In general, the term šu-gid₂ in the Drehem texts is used for animals expended to the kitchen.^[32] In a number of texts, they are distinguished from animals qualified as “slaughtered” (ba-uš₂/ug₇) (e.g. BIN 3, 490 [Š 43 vi 17], AUCT 1, 679 [AS 4 vi 27], etc.). However, not all animals are qualified as either “slaughtered” or šu-gid₂, and in many texts they appear with no designation at all (e.g. MVN 5, 103 [Š 46 ix 13]; BIN 3, 63 [AS 3 xi 2]).

§2.2.5.2.2. An examination of same-day Drehem kitchen texts demonstrates another curious aspect of the use of the term šu-gid₂. The text ASJ 3, 189 1 is a summary account of large cattle expenditures by the fattener Enlila made during the second month of Šulgi 43. Included are expenditures of oxen to the kitchen on the 3^rd (7 oxen), 10^th (1), 11^th (2), 12^th (1), and 19^th (1) of the month. These animals are not qualified as šu-gid₂. However, in NYPL 18, dated to the 12^th day of the second month of Šulgi 43, there is an expenditure of some 20 small cattle of various types as well as one ox to the kitchen, all qualified as šu-gid₂.

§2.2.5.2.2.1. The expenditure of an ox in NYPL 18, listed as šu-gid₂, is unequivocally the same one listed in ASJ 3, 189 1 without any such designation. That there are other instances of this phenomenon (e.g. MVN 13, 805 and Nisaba 30, 8 [Š 43 x 15]; AUCT 1, 876 and OIP 115, 314 [Š 47 viii 11]; AUCT 2, 72 and AUCT 1, 327 [AS 3 i 5], etc.) indicate that this was not simply a scribal error or some other administrative aberration.^[33] Instead, the use of the term šu-gid₂ depended upon whose tablet the transaction was being recorded: in general, šu-gid₂ was used when the transaction came from the account of the main Drehem officials, e.g. Abba-saga and Intae’a. When that same transaction appeared in the records of fatteners such as Enlila, the designation šu-gid₂ was not used.

§2.2.5.2.2.2. Often, administrative records are abbreviated and, thus, omit non-compulsory information in the interest of time and/or space. Perhaps personal receipts, given to non-state employees, did not include supplementary information about the animals or transaction, especially if that information was informative only for internal record keeping. For additional discussion on this phenomenon, see §2.3.1.2. below.

§2.2.6. No. 7 = AA 70
This Drehem text records both large and small cattle received by members of the Ur III administration. Intae’a and Ur-mes have been identified as members working in the shepherd’s office by previous Drehem research.^[34] This tablet was recorded in Šu-Suen 2 vi 20-22.

§2.2.6.1. Here, a small number of animals are being transported via Intae’a to Ur-mes; however, the majority of Intae’a’s animal deliveries to the Ur III state are taken (i₃-dab₅) by the individual Duga and only sealed by Ur-mes.^[35] Ur-mes is a curious figure in the Drehem shepherd’s office. Tsouparopoulou speculates that he may have been an administrative link between the office of the shepherds and the shepherds themselves.^[36] His status is somewhat nebulous given that he is never described as a scribe.^[37] This is part of an intricate pattern of exchange between Intae’a, Duga and Ur-mes discussed fully by Tsouparopoulou.^[38]

§2.3. Umma Tablets
§2.3.1. No. 8 = AA 72
This tablet records amounts of reeds (gi) and willow (^ĝešma-nu) given from Šešani to Lugal-ezem, acting on behalf of the Ur III state. This text is marked as being part of the still poorly understood bala account of the administration. The date of this tablet is reconstructed as Šulgi viii based on the presence of Šešani in ša₃ bala accounts received or sealed by Lugal-ezem during the latter part of Šulgi’s reign. This would argue, contextually, for a placement of AA 72 in the second half of Šulgi’s reign.^[39]

§2.3.1.1. Lugal-ezem, son of Lugal-emaḫe, dealt with reeds and related goods at Umma, recorded almost exclusively during the 8^th month and often, but not consistently, denoted as ša₃ bala. For example, OrSP 47-49 176 and Aleppo 112 record a similar bala transaction between these two individuals, but in the seventh month of Šulgi 34.

§2.3.1.2. There are two distinct seals attested for Lugal-ezem, son of Lugal-emaḫe.^[40] The shorter seal inscription tends to appear on a transactions of various goods occurring throughout the year, almost to the exclusion of the 8^th month. Conversely, Lugal-ezem’s longer seal inscription predominantly with transactions for reeds in the 8^th month, often with an explicit bala designation. This pattern suggests that officials may have used distinct seals to denote different types of transactions—in this instance bala and non-bala exchanges.^[41] After all, bala was not consistently recorded on bala transactions (see the undated duplicate SACT 2, 73, of CDLJ 2009:6 §1).^[42] This paradigm permits the suggestion that in addition to administrative terminology, bala transactions could also be denoted by a separate seal.^[43]

§2.3.2. No. 9 = AA 80
This Umma text records a large quantity of reeds (gi) from Lugal-itida listed with his patronymic, in the account of Lukalla, as debits. This transaction was sealed by Ur-Šara, son of Lugal-ušur, during Amar-Suen 3.^[44]

§2.3.2.1. Ur- Šara, an archivist (šadubba), is a prominent official in the Umma administration whose career extended from the middle of Šulgi’s reign through his predecessor Amar-Suen.^[45]

§2.3.2.2. Lugal-itida, son of Ĝirine, also possessed several seals throughout his career.^[46] Lugal-itida’s seals show a variant orthography for his name as Lugal-tida. In Šulgi 37, but possibly as early as Šulgi 34, his seal reads as follows:

Lugal-tida
son of Ĝirine
soldier of the governor

§2.3.2.2.1. Beginning in Šulgi 48 and continuing to Šu-Suen 5, Lugal-itida assumes the office of nu-banda₃ gu₄ and adopts a fuller orthography for his name:

Lugal-itida
overseer of the oxen
son of Ĝirine

§2.3.3. No. 10 = AA 82
Tablet AA 82 records the total fodder consumed by a herd of 30 sheep over the course of one month. These animals are being purposefully fattened in preparation for cultic slaughter by Alulu, a fattener (kurušda) of the deity Šara, at Umma. This tablet dates to Amar-Suen 6 i.

§2.3.3.1. This text is typical for Alulu’s activities as an animal fattener at Umma. He is involved in numerous transactions of fattened animals for the Umma cults (see NYPL 20 [AS v 2] for a similar account to AA 82). The hereditary nature of Alulu’s office has already suggested by Mayr,^[47] Stepien,^[48] and Widell.^[49]

§2.3.4. No. 11 = AA 81
This tablet records quantities of cord bundles (sa gu) transferred in four installments across non-consecutive months at Umma. The goods were delivered by Ur-Nintu and accounted to the Ur III state by Lu-Ninšubur, who is identified with both a profession and patronym on the accompanying sealing. This text is from Amar-Suen 6 with accounting entries for months: iii, iv, viii, xi.

§2.3.4.1. This particular seal of Lu-Ninšubur appears on Umma texts beginning in Šulgi 34 until Šu-Suen 1. Variations of this seal are also attested at Umma, one as late as Šu-Suen 9 (e.g. PDT 1, 586). Mayr indicates that there may be as many as six distinct seals for Lu-Ninšubur at Umma throughout his lifetime.^[50] This leads to some confusion for seals without a clear patronym (e.g. Tavolette 360 [AS 7 iii]; BPOA 1, 700 [ŠS 3 xiii]), but in cases with patronyms, such as AA 81 here, his identity is more secure.

§2.3.4.2. SET 274 has a similar entry to this text, but dates several years earlier to Amar-Suen 2 iii, iv, viii, xi. This pattern extends to many other texts from Umma involving Ur-Nintu and Lu-Ninšubur (e.g. BPOA 6, 1442 [AS 2 xi]; USC 6612 [AS 3 viii]):

§2.3.4.3. Several texts from Umma that record bundles of cords transactions do not contain month information, so it is difficult to claim any pattern definitively (e.g. BPOA 2, 2652 [Š 44], and Nisaba 9, 220 [Š 44], for Ur-Nintu entries).

§2.3.5. No. 12 = AA 75
This Umma account records 355 liters of “large bread” (ninda gal) given by Gurzan and associated with the šunir. This text was sealed by Ayakala, the governor (ensi₂) of Umma from Amar-Suen 9 until the end of Šu-Suen’s reign. Accordingly, this text was recorded on Šu-Suen 3 xiii.

§2.3.5.1. There are at least three distinct individuals named Gurzan at Umma active in Šu-Suen 3: a cook (muḫaldim) (e.g. MCS 2, 75, BM 113075 [ŠS 3]), a fuller (azlag) (e.g. SAT 3, 1332 [ŠS 3 xi]) and a smith (simug) (e.g. Rochester 158 [ŠS 3 vii]). It is difficult to confidently state which Gurzan is represented in the text here; however, contextually the exchange of baked bread would suggest that this Gurzan was a cook at Umma.^[51]

§2.3.6. No. 13 = AA 78
This text is a brief labor account for the equivalent of 60 labor days for work performed at the threshing floor (ki-su₇) of the Ninurra field. The foreman (ugula) is Šeškala and the sealing agent (kišib₃) is Ur-Šulpa’e, son of Lugal-kugani. This account is dated to Šu-Suen 3.

§2.3.6.1. The place name ki-su₇ a-ša₃-^dnin-ur₄-ra occurs only in Umma texts; moreover, this field features prominently in a list of Umma fields in SAT 2, 1114 (AS 8). There are several other work assignment records for this location, mostly groups of male laborers (guruš) filling and punting or towing^[52] (gid₂) boats (e.g. UTI 4, 2447 [ŠS 4]; SACT 2, 76 [ŠS 1]).

§2.3.6.2. The reconstruction of ugula in obv. 3 is supported by BPOA 1, 10 (iv 10), and BPOA 1, 908 (ŠS 3). Specifically, BPOA 1, 10, lists the foremen responsible for work in the field of Ninurra in Umma:

Version: 24 November 2016  

@article{Brumfield2016Cuneiform,
	note = {[Online; accessed 2024-12-03]},
	address = {Oxford; Berlin; Los Angeles},
	author = {Brumfield,  Sara and Allred,  Lance},
	journal = {Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin},
	issn = {1540-8760},
	number = {1},
	year = {2016},
	publisher = {Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative},
	title = {The {Cuneiform} {Tablet} {Collection} of  the {Los} {Angeles} {Unified} {School} {District}},
	url = {https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/articles/cdlb/2016-1},
	volume = {2016},
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Brumfield,  Sara
AU  - Allred,  Lance
DA  - 2016///
PY  - 2016
ET  - 2016/11/24/
ID  - cdlb-2016-1
IS  - 1
J2  - CDLB
SN  - 1540-8760
T2  - Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin
TI  - The Cuneiform Tablet Collection of  the Los Angeles Unified School Dis
trict
UR  - https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/articles/cdlb/2016-1
VL  - 2016
Y2  - 2024/12/3/
ER  -