§0. Abstract

NMC 10098 is an Old Babylonian Ura 3 text, which contains lexicographic entries on domestic animals, wild animals, and meat cuts. This article provides a comprehensive publication of the tablet. It is most likely an example of a non-Nippurean lexical list. It quite consistently use indentation as a tool for indicating change in the list.

Keywords: Old Babylonian Period, Lexical list, Ura 3, Animal list

§1. Introduction

§1.1. In the collection of Classical and Near Eastern Antiquities of the National Museum of Denmark,^[1] several cuneiform texts are still unpublished.^[2] One of these is a lexical list that was gifted by Thorkild Jacobsen to the collection amongst a group of tablets in September 1939 (NMC 10047-10110).^[3] Jacobsen wrote that he bought the tablets from a Baghdadi antiquities dealer in the mid-1930’s and that they were found before 1935.^[4] NMC 10098 and other tablets of the collection were later fired in order to preserve them.^[5]

§1.2 The provenience of NMC 10098 is currently unknown,^[6] but we might rule out Nippur. The sequence and content of the entries on NMC 10098 are not particularly close to the OB Nippur Ura 3 recension. If we compare the composition with the well studied OB Nippur Ura 1, numerous variations over multiple entries are not expected (Veldhuis 1997:148). However, there are examples of OB Nippur Ura 3 texts deviating from the standard (see Landsberger 1960:82 V₂₉, V₄₇, and V₄₈, which corresponds to P229115, P227697, and P229116 respectively). Furthermore, the level of standardisation is also lower for the later parts of the OB Nippur Ura i.e., OB Nippur Ura 1 is the most standardised and OB Nippur Ura 6 is the least standardised (Veldhuis 2014:206). Nonetheless, it seems unlikely that NMC 10098 was written in Nippur when compared to the attested material from that site.

§1.3 The tablet fragment is 12.7 cm tall, 15.5 cm wide, and 4.1 cm thick. Approximately 40% of the lower right of the tablet is intact. It is a Type 1 tablet as described in MSL 12 (Civil 1969:27).

§1.4 The content is unilingual Sumerian and most entries are separated by rulings. It is not uncommon for elements of the first sign of an entry and the rulings to merge, which especially holds true for the udu entries (obv.i:1’-iii:8’). Two entries are written with homophonic but wrong signs, when compared to the OB Nippur Ura 3 recension (obv. i:2’-3’). At least five entries lack a sign, rev.ii:12’, rev.iii:22, rev.iv:3, rev.iv:6, and rev.iv:16. Interestingly, all of these entries concern wild animals or meat cuts. This could indicate that the scribe was less familiar with the wild animal and meat cut entries than with the domestic animal entries.

§1.5 The author of NMC 10098 often used what will here be called ‘topical indentation.’ Topical indentation is used to visually indicate when a new section starts, which in OB Ura 3 means a new animal is listed. Since all meat cuts begin with uzu no topical indentation is necessary after the first one. When a new topic begins e.g., u₈ for ewes (obv.iii:9’), the first entry only consists of that word. If this word consists of a single sign, it is aligned with the right margin instead of the left. We only have one case of a new topic consisting of more than one sign and that is gir₂-tab (rev.iii:10). In this case only the latter sign i.e., tab, seems to undergo topical indentation, as gir₂ is still aligned with the left margin. Topical indentations certainly occur in the following entries: obv.iii:9’, rev.ii:10’, rev.iii:8, rev.iii:10, and rev.iii:20. It should likely be reconstructed in obv.iv:8’ and rev.ii:6’ (see note on rev.iii:3-4 for possible additions). The reason for using topical indentation is uncertain, but it is likely done in an effort to improve both readability and/or writability. NMC 10098 is not the only OB Ura 3 text to utilize this feature. However, the present author has not had the opportunity to do an in-depth search for all OB Ura 3 texts with topical indentation, but a few can be mentioned:^[7] P388331^[8] and P229115.^[9] Other thematic lists also showcase topical indentation, e.g. the OB Nippur Ura 2 text P228742 (obv.ii:26) or the OB Nippur Lu text P227768 (rev.i:6).

§1.6 NMC 10098 has partially been published in Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon (MSL) based on photographs of the tablet (Landsberger 1960:91 and Landsberger and Civil 1967:41). The obverse (Figure1) is published in MSL 8/1:91-94 (see Landsberger 1960) and most of the reverse (Figure1) is published in MSL 9:41-48 (see Landsberger and Civil 1967). There is a small number of entries missing from these two publications. MSL 8/2 (see Landsberger 1962) does not contain the section of wild animals found on the reverse of NMC 10098, it is likely missing due to its poor state of preservation. The obverse is also published on CDLI (P247531) and DCCLT.

§1.7 Lexical lists were in early scholarly literature often portrayed as rather standardised. The MSL series typically presents texts as copies of a standard lexical composition, where variation is mainly accounted for in notes. A relevant example of how the picture of the tablets has been skewed, is the publication of the OB Ura 3. MSL 8/1 presents the OB Ura 3 section on domestic animals as a standalone text, but on NMC 10098 both the wild animals (published in MSL 8/2) and the meat cuts (published in MSL 9) sections are also part of the tablet. This peculiarity is the result of a focus in MSL on later sources where the single composition of OB Ura 3 corresponds to 1^st mill. Ura 13-15. More recent literature tends to have a higher degree of focus on individual tablets rather than on composite texts. In order to reach a better understanding of lexical texts, we have to consider the context of the individual tablets and as Veldhuis puts it: “Although composites texts are necessary, they create an artificial buffer between the physical cuneiform tablet, which still bears the traces of its ancient use, and the modern reader” (Veldhuis 2014:24). Hopefully, NMC 10098 can give another point of view into how an OB Ura 3 text could be composed.

§2. Transliteration and translation of NMC 10098

§3. Commentary

Obverse

col. i

2’: The offered translation corresponds to the 1^st mill. Ura 13 recension, which presents the Akkadian equivalent muttakpu (Seg. 1, 49). Such a translation is preferred over the other Akkadian option dummuqu (Seg. 1, 47), which has a positive meaning and it therefore differs from the surrounding diseases-related entries.

2’-3’: The variant spellings of udu du-du and udu gur-gur instead of the expected udu du₇-du₇ and udu gur₄-gur₄ (OB Nippur Ura 3:32-33) are unattested in the OB period.

17’-19’: These three entries are fragmentary, but we might compare them to three consecutive entries from YBC 11118 (rev.ii:11-13): (11) [udu] ⌜nam⌝-an-na (12) udu nam-a ak (13) udu nam-ak. Furthermore, when comparing YBC 11118 rev.ii:3-13 with NMC 10098 obv.i:5’-19’ many entries are similar or the exact same. The reconstruction is based on comparison with the sequence on YBC 11118.

col. ii

7’: Due to KA×DIŠ being an unknown sign and there being many possible reconstructions of a sign inside KA, it has been left untranslated.

9’: The bilingual OB Nippur Aa entries 79:1-2 offer two plausible Akkadian translations: ribbatu and muṭṭû. Note that the 1^st mill. syllabary Ea YBC 2176 r.i:16 also offers the Akkadian translation ribbatu. Since it has not been possible to favour one translation over the other, no translation is offered.

10’: There are no known parallels to this entry. A possible reconstruction could be: udu geš-3-a>.

14’: If we compare this entry to OB Nippur Aa 175:5-7 and 1^st mill. Ura 13 Seg.1, 95, it seems likely that the sheep should be understood as some sort of additional or replacement sheep.

15’: YBC 11118 rev.iii:10 has the same entry.

col. iii

iii 6’: The only comparison found is the bird: zu₂-peš₂^mušen. This is attested on lexical lists from the OB period to the Middle Babylonian (MB) period according to DCCLT. Furthermore, a MB Boğazköy list gives the Akkadian translation: pi₂-in-gu (VAT 7437a:obv.iii:6).

Reverse

col. ii

14’: The entry is reconstructed based on A7896 x’: 44.

col. iii

3-4: Neither entry has any content in the extant left part of the line, which might indicate that the text was indented (see §1.5), but two arguments speak against this assumption. Firstly, the size of the breaks is unlikely to be large enough for the expected signs, megida_x and kiši₈. This especially holds true for rev.iii:4. Secondly, if both entries have topical indentation, at least rev.iii:3 would constitute the only topic demanding a topical indentation for itself. Considering the entries rev.iii:14-19, it seems unlikely that there is a need for topical indentation when a topic is only represented by a single entry. However, P229115 rev.ii:4 does exhibit an indented megida_x, which is not followed by further megida_x entries.

8: P388331 (rev.iii:26?) also exhibits this entry. However, none of the following entries on P388331 (rev.iii:27?-28?, we might include rev.iii:29?-30? as well) are likely to match NMC 10098 rev.iii:9.

col. iv

7: Landsberger and Civil have equated the line with: uzu nig₂-mi (Landsberger and Civil 1967:44 and 47), which is translated as ”spleen.” Potentially, the present entry could be understood as being influenced by Ugumu: uzu 2>-giggi-gu₁₀ (possible reconstruction based on 2>-giggi-gu₁₀ as seen on P253244).

col. v

9: The reconstruction is tenuous and based on the 1^st mill. Ura 15 Seg.8, 22. The relevant sources are BM 33872 rev.:12’ and K 9936 rev.ii’:40.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Civil, Miguel. 1969. The Series Lú = Ša and Related Texts. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.

Figure 1:

Figure 1: Hand copy of the obverse (above) and the reverse (below) of NMC 10098
 

Footnotes

• ^[1] I much appreciate the Museum allowing me to publish the tablet and I owe a special thanks to Anne Haslund Hansen for her help.
• ^[2] The project Hidden Treasures: The Cuneiform Collection of the Danish National Museum, which currently runs at the University of Copenhagen, aims to comprehensively publish the unpublished tablets from the National Museum of Denmark.
• ^[3] According to the museum’s archive and object entry, which in Danish are called Arkiv and Protokol, respectively.
• ^[4] Information courtesy of Anne Haslund Hansen from the National Museum of Denmark
• ^[5] In the museum archive, a copy or draft of a letter to the Royal Porcelain Factory from 1939 is found (journal no. 22/39). The letter is a request from a conservator to have tablets baked at the Royal Porcelain Factory, as the National Museum of Denmark did not have the facilities to do so themselves.
• ^[6] Based on similarities with YBC 11118 they might share provenience.
• ^[7] P227697 might have topical indentation as well in rev.iii:8-9, but it is difficult to verify.
• ^[8] No textual edition has been published of this tablet as of yet, only a photograph is available on CDLI (P388331) and in Wilson 2008:213.
• ^[9] As mentioned before this tablet, P227697, and P229116 ”[deviate] from standard Nippur recension by extra entries and different line order” (Landsberger 1960 p. 82).

Version: 2024-03-21

@article{Smidt2024Old,
	note = {[Online; accessed 2025-03-17]},
	address = {Oxford; Berlin; Los Angeles},
	author = {Smidt, Gustav Ryberg},
	journal = {Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin},
	issn = {1540-8760},
	number = {1},
	year = {2024},
	publisher = {Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative},
	title = {An {Old} {Babylonian} {Ura} 3 text from the {National} {Museum} of {Denmark}},
	url = {https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/articles/cdlb/2024-1},
	volume = {2024},
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Smidt, Gustav Ryberg
DA  - 2024///
PY  - 2024
ET  - 2024/3/21/
ID  - cdlb-2024-1
IS  - 1
J2  - CDLB
SN  - 1540-8760
T2  - Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin
TI  - An Old Babylonian Ura 3 text from the National Museum of Denmark
UR  - https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/articles/cdlb/2024-1
VL  - 2024
Y2  - 2025/3/17/
ER  -