Dahl, J.

English

MPG.PuRe

A note on Ur III text duplicates

Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2003:5<http://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlb/2003/cdlb2003_005.html>© Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative ISSN 1540-8760Version: 30 June 2003A Note on Ur III Text DuplicatesJacob L. DahlUniversity of California, Los AngelesCuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2003:5 page 1 of 2§1. Among the tens of thousands of sealed and un-sealed Ur III documents that have been published to date a couple of hundred un-sealed documents have the subscript gaba-ri kiÒib-ba, “copy of a sealed document” (see G. Selz, ASJ 17 [1995] 251-274, for a philological discussion of gaba-ri, which following him [esp. p. 270] and others I translate conventionally “copy”). So far, the search for an expected administrative pair of a sealed document and its corresponding copy has been futile. §2. There do exist, however, a small number of docu-ments that are (almost) exact copies of each other (see for example M. Yoshikawa, “A New duplicate of YOS IV, No. 67 // V. Scheil, RA 24/1, No. 8c,” ASJ 7 [1985] 191-192). Some of these copies have been proven to be modern “fakes” made from a mold, presumably fabri-cated by using an original “clay envelope” to produce the copy (see M. Hilgert, “Notes and Observations on the Ur III Tablets from the Oriental Institute,” JCS 49 [1997]  45-50). §3. For a list of Drehem duplicate records see M. Hil-gert, OIP 121, pp. 40-42 (table 4.2). Whereas the two texts presented here are the fi rst pair of a sealed tablet and its copy to have been recognized in the Umma corpus, Drehem has yielded numerous such examples. Hilgert describes pp. 31-42 the Drehem duplicates that can be distinguished semantically from Umma ex-amples: the term gaba-ri kiÒib-ba is never used in Dre-hem duplicates (OIP 121, p. 31 with n. 100). Whereas Umma texts using the term gaba-ri kiÒib-ba were for the most part copies of receipts, all Drehem tablet copies documented transfers rather than receipts (OIP 121, pp. 38-39). Most Umma duplicates relate to the administration of the “estate” of the governor, and there is evidence to suggest that Umma duplicates were those documents the governor kept while posting the originals to Ur for inspection (for example, AAICAB 1,1: Ashm. 1912-1143 [∑ulgi 28], rev. 8: gaba-ri kiÒib e2-gal gal2-am3, “copy of a sealed tablet which is in the palace”). A few tablet containers (pisan dub-ba) contained copies of sealed tablets (for example, UTI 3, 2098, dating to Amar-Suen 9), most of which documented the affairs of the governor’s offi ce; the person about whom the most duplicates were written, Lukala, fulfi lled an essential function in the household of the governor, perhaps as chief household administrator (Òabra (e2); see MVN 16, 1294, dated to ∑u-Suen 3 x).§4. All duplicate documents qualifi ed by gaba-ri kiÒib-ba are unsealed. Although it is now in most cases possible to reconstruct the original document from its copy, it may be opportune to record some further observations here. The copy of a document that con-tained the statement ki PN1-ta kiÒib PN2, “from PN1, sealed document of PN2,” was recorded as ki PN1-ta gaba-ri kiÒib(-ba) PN2, “from PN1, copy of the sealed document”. The copy of a document that contained the statement ki PN1-ta PN2 Òu ba-ti, “from PN1, PN2 received,” was recorded as ki PN1-ta PN2 Òu ba-ti gaba-ri kiÒib-ba, “from PN1, PN2 received, copy of the sealed document” only when the receiving and the the sealing party were identical (see, for example, TCNU 460). When the sealing party and the receiving party were different persons (for example, in UCP 9/2/2, 1, dating to Amar-Suen 2 ix), the duplicate indicated that it was a “copy of the sealed document of PN3” (gaba-ri kiÒib PN3; for example, TLB 3, 68).§5. In addition, gaba-ri is used a number of times as a “note” on the edge of a document, apparently with the simple meaning “copy”. A good example of this bookkeeping device is YOS 4, 79. This account, record-ing four distinct transactions, contained the following information on its edge: gaba-ri 3(diÒ)-kam, “it is the copy of three sealed tablets” (where we would expect the page 2 of 2 Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2003:5number “four”, three is possible, since two transactions may have been recorded on one and the same sealed document).§6. In all likelihood, a renewed study of the entire body of Ur III administrative texts, with the goal of reconstructing their ancient archives, will provide us with numerous examples of such Umma sealed docu-ments and their copies as the pair transliterated below, both of which are housed in the British Museum. The sealed document was published by T. Fish as MCS 8, 97 (= BM 113102, collation Orient 17, 43). A translitera-tion of its unsealed copy (BM 108081, unpublished) is included here, with the kind permission of its editors, M. Molina and M. Such-Gutierrez (to appear in the Nisaba series). Both texts are dated to the 3rd month of the 9th year of Amar-Suen.§7. A: MCS 8, 97, BM 113102: B: BM 108081 (unp.): Translation:Obv.1. 1(aÒ) gu2 2(u) 3(diÒ) ma-na  1(aÒ) gu2 2(u) 3(diÒ) ma-na  1 talent 23 mana of girgul wool,      siki gir2-gul      siki gir2-gul 2. udu-bi 4(u) 5(diÒ) udu-bi 4(u) 6(diÒ)? its sheep are 45?,3. udu ba-ur4  (A: sheared sheep).4. ki an-na-Ìi-li-bi-ta ki an-na-Ìi-li-bi-ta From AnaÌilibi.Rev.1. kiÒib ensi2 gaba-ri kiÒib ensi2 (B: Copy of ) the governor’s sealed tablet. (blank space) (blank space)2. iti Òe-kar-ra-gal2-la* iti Òe-kar-ra-gal2-la Month: “barley arrived at the harbor”,3. mu en dnanna* kar*-zi*-da mu en dnanna kar-zi-da Year: “the en(-priestess) of Nanna of          Karzida (was installed)”.SealCol. 11. damar-dsuen  Amar-Suen,2. lugal kal-ga  strong king,3. lugal uri5ki-ma  king of Ur,4. lugal an-ub-da limmu2-ba  king of the four corners.Col. 21. a-kal-la  Akala,2. ensi2  the governor3. ummaki  of Umma,4. ARAD2-zu  is your slave.

A note on Ur III text duplicates

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

MPG.PuRe

MPG.PuRe