¹ My sincere thanks go to J. Carré for his permission to publish the text here.

² According to the newly edited sign-list Green, M. and Nissen, H., Zeichenliste der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk ( = Archaische Texte aus Uruk 2; Berlin, 1987)Google Scholar. I have stated there p. 347 and elsewhere reasons for a greater differentiation of sign-forms than that found in ATU 2, here for example GA_a or LA_2a instead of simply GA or LA₂. The cumbersome system of numerical transliterations is explained op.cit., p. 125 by P. Damerow and the author. See most recently Nissen, H., Damerow, P. and Englund, R., Frühe Schrift und Techniken der Wirtschaftsverwaltung im alten Vorderen Orient (Berlin, 1990)Google Scholar, in particular pp. 61–5, 131–46 and 176–80.

³ Cf. the photograph and (defective) copy of the tablet's obverse in ATU 2, pl. 19.

⁴ Cf. the (defective) copy of. the tablet's obverse in Green, M., Visible Language 15 (1981) 358Google Scholar, incorrectly identified as W 20274,5. The first numerical notation is in fact an undisturbed 9N₁/lN₁ KU_3a; obv. ii I reads not NUNUZ_a1 KISIM_a EN_a, ZATU752 but 2N₁₄ KISIM_a, EN_a ZATU752.

³ The tablet contains a large account of the disbursement of textiles to a number of the same persons as are mentioned in the present text.

⁶ Cf. the photograph of the tablet's obverse in Damerow, P., Englund, R. and Nissen, H., Spektrum der Wissenschaft, 02 1988, p. 75Google Scholar.

⁷ Cf. the copy of the text in ATU 2, pl. 54, and Damerow, P., Englund, R. and Nissen, H., Spektrum der Wissenschaft, 02 1988, p. 80Google Scholar. See now Frühe Schrift, 178–80.

⁸ Cf. also Frühe Schrift, 131–7.

⁹ The identification of these milk products was an object of discussion at the 1990 meeting of the Sumerian Agriculture Group on sheep and goats headed by J. N. Postgate and M. Powell and will be discussed more fully at the next meeting on cattle and pigs. Dr. M. Teuber of the Bundesanstalt für Milchforschung, Kiel, has in his very helpful discussions of these problems with us indicated that ï.sè.ga/ì. nun should in all likelihood represent the product clarified (run) butter (“ghee”), as has been previously suggested. Cf. M. Stol, “Dairy products in Babylonia”, Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture (forthcoming).

¹⁰ Cf. ATU 2, 129–30Google Scholar with footnotes and Frühe Schrift, p. 65.

¹¹ Very highly speculative is the occasionally seen translation “assembly” or the like of this sign in the archaic period, since texts cited here define explicitly the function of this sign as one corresponding to its pictographic representation of a vat. This accords well with the later meaning of the sign ŠAKIR (Fara form still UKKIN × NI, developing into URU × GU/GA/GÁRA, with Sum. reading šakir, Akk. namāṣu/ nimēṣu and šakirru), “churn,” first identified by B. Landsberger apud Jacobsen, T., JNES 12 (1953), 166²⁰Google Scholar; cf. OIP 99, 392Google Scholar vi′ 6′–7′ (šakir kù/ga du₁₀ si; Fara period, cp. Enmerkar and Ensuḫkešda'ana 1. 205) and Salonen, A., Die Hausgeräte de alten Mesopotamier… II ( = AASF B 144; Helsinki 1966), 358–60Google Scholar.

¹² The form of the sign in line 5 of the archaic vessels list is in fact in three of the four well preserved witnesses UKKIN_b + NI_a, (W 20266,35 [unpublished], W 24157 and W 24158 [Cavigneau, A., BagM 22 (1991)Google Scholar, and ATU 3, both forthcoming]), in only one text UKKIN_b + NI_b (W 20521,1 [unpublished]; the tablet had however been erased in antiquity). This suggests that a careful rendering of the sign ŠAKIR_C required use of the form NI_a and that the form NI_a ( = vessels list line 1 ) and not NI_b ( = vessels list line 9) is to be understood in all administrative attestations, including the present text. Cf. the copies of the cited texts in ATU 3 and the treatment of these forms in the commentary to the lists in Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients ( = MSV0 (both forthcoming) ).

¹³ ATU 2, 131Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Two usages of the sign support this identification. First, the qualification in W 20274,53 (unpublished) obv. i 1 of the sign DUG_c, with the sign GARA₂, which clearly represents a dairy product, places the former product in a corresponding context. Second, the sign itself seems to assume the same function as DUG_b, in the text W 20511,2 (unpublished) obv, iii 2 with the addition of presumably 10 SILA₃ of GARA₂ and GA_a (first notation damaged) resulting in 1 DUG_c. The use of DUG_c after DUG_b and before textile products in the text Englund, R. and Grégoire, J.-P., MSVO 1 (Berlin, 1991)Google Scholar, no. 109 obv. i 4, moreover, is suggestive of its similar semantic range in the Jemdet Nasr texts. The same text records in a separate section the amount of grain necessary for the production of beer contained in forty five of the jars DUG_a. Thus DUG_c will not have represented a kind of beer or other grain-based drink, as was implied by the precipitate system identification in Frühe Schrift, pp. 63 and 65.

¹⁵ Cf. the photograph and (defective) copy of the tablet in ATU 2, pl. 51. The entry “ŠE₃+ 1” in ATU 2 based on this notation is, incidentally, to be deleted (= N₁ Ku_3a).

¹⁶ Cf. n. 4 above.

¹⁷ Cf. n. 6 above.

¹⁸ Cf. ATU 2, 128–33Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Cf. the copy of the tablet's obverse in ATU 2, pl. 20.

²⁰ Cf. the photograph of the tablet in ATU 2, pl. 31.

²¹ Cf. the copy of the tablet's obverse in ATU 2, pl. 60, middle left.

²² Cf. the copy of the tablet in Cavigneaux, A., BagM 22 (1991, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

²³ It seems unlikely that the sign should represent a rebus writing of the word for a vessel half the size of DUG_c/UKKIN_b since no sign variants occur in its position.

²⁴ Cf. W 20274,53 (unpublished) rev. i 3 with u₄ + 2N₅₇ u₄ PAD PAP BA, together with notations of amounts of DUG_c and SAKIR_c ZATU752.

²⁵ Cf. Englund, R., “Administrative Timekeeping in Ancient Mesopotamia,” JESHO 31 (1988), 121–85Google Scholar.