WF 019

• AK-NE-li — Likely a personal name; exact reading and etymology uncertain in the early Dynastic Fara onomasticon.
• KA-ki-bi-sze3 — Possibly a destination phrase ('to its KA-ki-bi') or a personal/institutional name; the postposition -sze3 suggests directionality (allative), but the referent is unclear.
• uru18 — Sign reading uncertain; may denote a commodity, animal type, or place-name element in this context.
• nig2-hu-bu7 — Literally something like 'thing of hu-bu7'; exact commodity or transaction type unknown; possibly a type of grain processing or animal product.
• lum-ma — Possibly a commodity (dates? a plant product?); attested in Fara texts but referent debated.
• ki-ni — Uncertain; could be a place name, a personal name, or a commodity designation.
• kun-du6 — Uncertain; 'kun' can mean 'tail' or be a name element; 'du6' can mean 'mound/tell' or be phonetic; combination unclear in this context.
• szu-ku6 — Literally ŠU + KU6 (fish); standardly read as 'fisherman's allotment' or simply 'fisherman' in early Dynastic administrative texts, but the precise administrative category is debated.
• UR-UR — Reduplicated UR sign; likely a personal name in the Fara onomasticon; UR alone can mean 'dog,' 'hero,' or be a name element.
• an-sze3-gu2 — Possibly 'neck-load' or a tallying term ('up to the sky/total'); interpretation as a summation or load-bearing unit is uncertain.
• ansze-apin — 'Plow-donkey' — donkey used for plowing; the fractional notation 2/4(asz@c) may indicate half-units or a specific ration fraction, exact value uncertain.
• 4(asz@c) 2/4(asz@c) — The fractional asz@c notation (4 and 2/4, i.e. 4.5?) is consistent with early Dynastic capacity/number notations but the precise value of the fraction needs context from the broader Fara metrological system.

The photograph shows five views of the same small, well-preserved lenticular/cushion tablet with reddish-brown clay (VAT 9071 is clearly stamped on the lower reverse). The obverse (large central view) displays several rows of cuneiform signs separated by horizontal ruling lines; the wedge impressions are moderately clear but small, and the photo resolution limits confident sign-by-sign confirmation. On the obverse I can make out numeric notation groups (multiple vertical wedges consistent with the asz@c notation for 'units'), animal signs, and what appear to be personal name or title signs — broadly consistent with the transliteration. The reverse (lower large view) carries fewer lines, also consistent with the shorter lines at the end of the transliteration (ansze-apin, UR-UR). The edge views confirm writing wraps around all faces. Agreement with the transliteration is good at the level of structure and numeric groupings; individual sign readings cannot be verified at this resolution. The sign readings 'nu-kiri6' (gardener), 'szu-ku6' (fisherman ration/allotment), 'ansze-apin' (plow-donkey), and 'an-sze3-gu2' (neck-load/total) follow standard early Dynastic administrative vocabulary from the Fara corpus. AK-NE-li and UR-UR appear to be personal names; KA-ki-bi-sze3 is a destination or beneficiary formula. The tablet belongs to the well-studied Fara administrative archive (Deimel, Wirtschaftsurkunden aus Fara). Key uncertainties are the referents of nig2-hu-bu7, ki-ni, kun-du6, lum-ma, and the precise administrative function of an-sze3-gu2 in this context.