Sumerian cuneiform is one of the earliest known forms of written expression. First appearing in the 4th millennium BC in what is now Iraq, it was dubbed cuneiform (‘wedge-shaped’) because of the distinctive wedge form of the letters, created by pressing a reed stylus into wet clay. Early Sumerian writings were essentially pictograms, which became simplified in the early and mid 3rd millennium BC to a series of strokes, along with a commensurate reduction in the number of discrete signs used (from c.1500 to 600). The script system had a very long life and was used by the Sumerians as well as numerous later groups – notably the Assyrians, Elamites, Akkadians and Hittites – for around three thousand years. Certain signs and phonetic standards live on in modern languages of the Middle and Far East, but the writing system is essentially extinct. It was therefore cause for great excitement when the ‘code’ of ancient cuneiform was cracked by a group of English, French and German Assyriologists and philologists in the mid 19th century AD. This opened up a vital source of information about these ancient groups that could not have been obtained in any other way.
Cuneiform was used on monuments dedicated to heroic – and usually royal – individuals, but perhaps its most important function was that of record keeping. The palace-based society at Ur and other large urban centres was accompanied by a remarkably complex and multifaceted bureaucracy, which was run by professional administrators and a priestly class, all of whom were answerable to central court control. Most of what we know about the way the culture was run and administered comes from cuneiform tablets, which record the everyday running of the temple and palace complexes in minute detail, as in the present case. The Barakat Gallery has secured the services of Professor Lambert (University of Birmingham), a renowned expert in the decipherment and translation of cuneiform, to examine and process the information on these tablets. His scanned analysis is presented here. This document is a list of domestic animals in groups, followed by the name of their shepherd.
Professor Lambert’s translation is provided below:

Clay tablet, 123x52mm., with 50 lines of Sumerian cuneiform on obverse and reverse. There is a big chip from the upper left-hand corner, which has removed the beginnings of some 10 lines, and a little is missing on the lower reverse for the same reason. This is an administrative document from the period of the Third Dynasty of Ur, dated to the second year of Ibbi-Sin last king of the dynasty, c.2027 B.C. It is a list of domestic animals in groups, with their shepherd named after each count of animals. The numbering is complicated because of the use of the same symbol for different numbers. Thus an uprights wedge can mean “1” or “60” according to context. The problem in this tablet is that one line often has the same animal type mentioned twice, with a different number each time. No doubt this was clear to the original scribe, but ut is confusing to us, and the problem is not solved here.

Translatio
[…] 60 he-goats: […] shepher
[…] sheep […]ges
[…] 60 sheep: .[…]. Shepher
70 [sheep], 120 sheep: .[…]. Shepher
70 sheep, 120 sheep:: Shu-Tirum, shepher
150 goats, 60 goats: Apillatum, shepherd: sheep og Ur-Suen
200 ewes, 60 ewes: Ilam-nad
300 sheep, 60 sheep: Kuku, son of Hull
90 sheep, 60 lambs: Puzur-Ashta
510 sheep, 120 sheep: Ur-Shulpa’e, pries
600 sheep, 60 sheep: Ashki-tukult
780 sheep: 180 sheep: Shunu’a, scribe of . . . cattl
210 sheep. 60 sheep: Shu-Nissab
120 sheep, 60 lambs: Babb
240 sheep, 60 sheep: Puzur-Shakkan, son of Mat-il
180 male and female goats, 60 goats: Ur-Nin-isina, shepher
780 sheep, 160 sheep, 60 he goats: Ur-Ninga
600 sheep, 120 sheep: Anne-babd
660 sheep, 60 sheep, 60 he-goats, 1 he goat at milk: Shu-Mammetu
240 sheep, 60 sheep: Baqqu
180 goats, 60 he goats: Ashk
120 sheep, 60 lambs: Shu-Mammetum, the watchma
Total: 60 ewe
Total: 1320 shee
Total: 180 lamb
[Total]: 120 (?) goat
[Total: . . . ] male goat
[Total: . . . ] he goat at mil
[Total: . . . ] +34: […]. Took. [..] son of Beli-da
[Year: the high priestess of Uruk] was chosen by divinatio
No doubt there is some simple explanation of the two sets of figured for the same kind of animal.