# Proto-cuneiform: the archaic texts of Uruk

> Proto-cuneiform is the earliest writing of Mesopotamia: about 6,000 clay tablets and fragments from Uruk, Jemdet Nasr, Umma and a few other sites…

Source: https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform  
Publisher: Mysteries Department  
Licence: CC BY 4.0 (credit Mysteries Department and link the page)  
Updated: 2026-10-31T16:12:27+00:00  

---

**MYS** 0DEDNGBV59X5·Mystery · script

# Proto-cuneiform: the archaic texts of Uruk

**0** [Follow][Ask a question](https://mysteriesdept.com/questions/key-questions?mystery=proto-cuneiform)

Proto-cuneiform: the archaic texts of Uruk

![Proto-cuneiform tablet recording a barley distribution, with a cylinder-seal impression, Jemdet Nasr period, probably from Uruk (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1988.433.1)](https://mysteriesdept.com/media/folio/proto-cuneiform-lead)

Metropolitan Museum of Art · CC0

Where

Uruk (about 5,000 tablets), Jemdet Nasr (about 240), Umma (about 400), Larsa, Tell Uqair, Kish, Eshnunna⁠[[3]]

When

c. 3350 to 3000 BC: Uruk IV (c. 3350-3200) and Uruk III / Jemdet Nasr (c. 3200-3000)⁠[[2]]

Corpus

6,726 artifacts on CDLI (May 2020), 5,274 with readable signs, about 53,000 non-numerical sign tokens⁠[[22]]

Standard editions

ATU 1-7 (Uruk, 1936-2001) and MSVO 1-4 (Jemdet Nasr and other collections, 1991-1996)⁠[[2]]

Sign list

ZATU (1987): about 800 signs; CDLI list: 2,095 distinct signs, 349 of them numerical, plus 280 variants⁠[[8]]

Numerals

About 60 numerical signs in more than a dozen systems (sexagesimal, bisexagesimal, grain capacity, area, time)⁠[[5]]

Genres

About 85 per cent administrative accounts, about 15 per cent lexical lists (almost all Uruk III)⁠[[2]]

Language

Unknown; Sumerian assumed by most scholars, denied as proven by Englund⁠[[13]]

Holders

Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin and Iraq Museum (Uruk); Ashmolean Museum and Iraq Museum (Jemdet Nasr); Louvre, British Museum, Metropolitan Museum and others⁠[[3]]

Digital corpus

CDLI (transliterations, photographs, line art); Nino-cunei/uruk Text-Fabric conversion⁠[[21]]

Status

Unexplained

Questions

0 of 7 answered

People [**Robert K. Englund** Assyriologist; editor of most of the proto-cuneiform corpus and founder of CDLI; held the language unknown](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/people/FIG0DEDPAB5K3MB/robert-k-englund)[**Peter Damerow** Historian of science; numerical systems and the proto-writing position](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/people/FIG0DEDPB31WC8Y/peter-damerow)[**Adam Falkenstein** Assyriologist; first editor of the Uruk archaic tablets (ATU 1, 1936)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/people/FIG0DEDPBBMJ2FB/adam-falkenstein)[**Hans J. Nissen** Archaeologist of Uruk; co-author of ZATU and Archaic Bookkeeping](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/people/FIG0DEDPAS5FZ6R/hans-j-nissen)[**Kathryn Kelley** Assyriologist; computational work on proto-cuneiform and proto-Elamite sign use](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/people/FIG0DEDPE2D5EK8/kathryn-kelley)

All 7 people ›

[**Piotr Steinkeller** Assyriologist (Harvard); reviewer of ZATU and defender of Sumerian readings](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/people/FIG0DEDPDHHA1NQ/piotr-steinkeller)[**Denise Schmandt-Besserat** Archaeologist; author of the token theory of the origin of writing](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/people/FIG0DEDPC30291R/denise-schmandt-besserat)

Places [All 7](https://mysteriesdept.com/places?mystery=proto-cuneiform) [**Uruk** ancient city; find-site of about 5,000 archaic tablets in the Eanna precinct](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/places/PLC0DEDNW8PR932/uruk-warka)[**Jemdet Nasr** archaeological site; about 240 Uruk III tablets found 1926 and 1928](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/places/PLC0DEDNWGR6VZ8/jemdet-nasr)[**Ashmolean Museum, Oxford** museum; holds the Oxford share of the Jemdet Nasr tablets](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/places/PLC0DEDNXZYWVW0/ashmolean-museum-oxford)[**British Museum, London** museum; holds the Blau monuments](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/places/PLC0DEDNY73EXVY/british-museum-london)

Concepts [All](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts)

[Null model](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DECW06JED24/null-model)[Proto-writing](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DEDY0RSVT00/proto-writing)[Rebus principle](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DEDY1N5MN91/rebus-principle)[Stratigraphy](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DECW01M0SC0/stratigraphy)

Catalog key**MYS** 0DEDNGBV59X5

Proto-cuneiform is the name for the sign system on the oldest tablets of Mesopotamia, before the signs took on the wedge shapes that give cuneiform its name. The tablets come mainly from the Eanna precinct at [Uruk](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/places/PLC0DEDNW8PR932/uruk-warka), where the German excavations found them from 1928 onwards in rubbish [layers](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DECW01M0SC0/stratigraphy) and building fill, and from [Jemdet Nasr](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/places/PLC0DEDNWGR6VZ8/jemdet-nasr), Umma, Larsa, Tell Uqair and [Kish](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/places/PLC0DEDNWZRH9HF/kish-tell-al-uhaymir)⁠[[1]]⁠[[2]]⁠[[3]]. They are divided by script stage into Uruk IV (c. 3350 to 3200 BC) and Uruk III or Jemdet Nasr (c. 3200 to 3000 BC). About 85 per cent are accounts: numbers, commodities, officials and institutions. The remaining 15 per cent, almost all Uruk III, are lexical lists, standard sequences of signs for professions, places, animals, vessels and other categories that scribes copied for training⁠[[4]]⁠[[2]].

A great deal is understood. [Peter Damerow](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/people/FIG0DEDPB31WC8Y/peter-damerow), Robert [Englund](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/people/FIG0DEDPAB5K3MB/robert-k-englund) and Hans [Nissen](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/people/FIG0DEDPAS5FZ6R/hans-j-nissen) worked out the numerical systems from the arithmetic of the tablets: about sixty numerical signs belong to more than a dozen systems, sexagesimal for discrete objects, bisexagesimal for rations, a grain-capacity system, an area system and time notations, and the same sign changes value depending on the system in use⁠[[5]]⁠[[6]]. The sign list ZATU of 1987 numbered the signs, and Englund's working list on the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative now holds about 2,100 distinct signs, of which about 1,100 are simple non-numerical signs and 640 compounds, many attested only once⁠[[7]]⁠[[8]]⁠[[9]]. Many signs can be identified by their pictorial shape, by their later cuneiform descendants, or by the lexical lists, which were still being copied, with Sumerian readings, in the Old Babylonian period 1,300 years later⁠[[10]]⁠[[11]].

What is not understood is the relation of the signs to speech. Cuneiform of the third millennium writes Sumerian, and the sign shapes are continuous, so [Falkenstein](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/people/FIG0DEDPBBMJ2FB/adam-falkenstein) and most scholars after him assumed the archaic texts are Sumerian too⁠[[1]]⁠[[12]]. Englund argued from 1998 that this is an assumption, not a result: the texts contain no clear phonetic spellings, their word order puts the number before the thing counted where Sumerian puts it after, and the roughly 440 recorded personal names lack the divine elements and name patterns found in every later Sumerian archive⁠[[2]]⁠[[13]]⁠[[14]]. [Steinkeller](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/people/FIG0DEDPDHHA1NQ/piotr-steinkeller), Wilcke, Monaco and others have answered with candidate [rebus](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DEDY1N5MN91/rebus-principle) spellings and readings of the Professions list, none of which has been accepted as secure for Uruk IV⁠[[15]]⁠[[16]]⁠[[17]]⁠[[18]]. Damerow's position was that the question itself is misframed: proto-cuneiform was a system for representing administrative knowledge, not speech, and became writing only when phonetic coding was added in the Early Dynastic period⁠[[9]].

The corpus is better documented than almost any other unread script. Every tablet is on CDLI with a transliteration, a photograph and usually line art; the transliterations are freely reusable with attribution⁠[[19]]⁠[[20]]. Converted datasets and counting tools exist, and machine-learning work since 2019 has used the corpus, together with its Iranian cousin proto-Elamite, to test whether sign inventories can be learned from images rather than from the editors' conventions⁠[[21]]⁠[[22]]⁠[[23]]⁠[[24]]. Proto-Elamite, the script that borrowed proto-cuneiform's numerals and tablet format at Susa about 3100 BC, is a separate entry on this site, [Proto-Elamite and Linear Elamite](https://mysteriesdept.com/m/proto-elamite). It is a different corpus of about 1,600 tablets from south-western Iran, with its own sign list and no descendant script, which makes proto-cuneiform, whose signs continue into readable cuneiform, the better-constrained of the two problems⁠[[25]]. Of the 7 questions on this site, 0 are answered.

### Key questionsset by the editors

[**Do the Sumerian readings of the later copies of the lexical lists carry back to the archaic Uruk III exemplars?** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT7V0PZBW/do-the-sumerian-readings-of-the-later-copies-of-the-lexical)No answer ahead yet

[**How many distinct signs does proto-cuneiform have, and which of the ZATU and CDLI entries are variants or compounds of one sign?** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT7GXF0VT/how-many-distinct-signs-does-proto-cuneiform-have-and-which)No answer ahead yet

[**Were the clay tokens and bullae the direct ancestors of the proto-cuneiform signs?** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT894EG53/were-the-clay-tokens-and-bullae-the-direct-ancestors-of-the)No answer ahead yet

[**What language, if any, do the proto-cuneiform texts record?** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT73JJJ1B/what-language-if-any-do-the-proto-cuneiform-texts-record)No answer ahead yet

[**When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT8N8Y2GZ/when-and-how-did-phonetic-spelling-begin-in-mesopotamian)No answer ahead yet

 [All 7 questions ](https://mysteriesdept.com/questions/key-questions?mystery=proto-cuneiform)

### Research sessions1 so far · last 31 Oct

`S-001`[Proto-cuneiform seeded: corpus, readings and open data](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/sessions/SES0DEDZMVP66KE/session-1-proto-cuneiform-seeded-corpus-readings-and-open)

31 Oct **11** evidence**7** questions raised**7** answers proposedNo question changed standing

 [All 1 sessions ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/sessions)

## The object

The corpus is about 6,000 clay tablets and fragments. The great majority come from Uruk in southern Iraq, where the German excavations in the Eanna temple precinct recovered them from 1928 onwards, almost always in secondary deposits such as rubbish pits and the fill of later buildings, which is why their dates rest on the shapes of the signs rather than on stratigraphy⁠[[1]]⁠[[2]]⁠[[12]]. The site counts on CDLI are about 190 Uruk V (numerical tablets without other signs), 1,776 Uruk IV and 3,094 Uruk III tablets from Uruk; 238 from Jemdet Nasr, excavated in 1926 and 1928 and divided between the [Ashmolean Museum](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/places/PLC0DEDNXZYWVW0/ashmolean-museum-oxford) and the [Iraq Museum](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/places/PLC0DEDNXDE1HXD/iraq-museum-baghdad); 398 from Umma, mostly looted; and small groups from Larsa, Tell Uqair, Kish and Eshnunna⁠[[3]]⁠[[26]]. The Uruk tablets are shared between the [Vorderasiatisches Museum](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/places/PLC0DEDNXNJ4RF4/vorderasiatisches-museum-berlin) in Berlin and the Iraq Museum in Baghdad. A further 58 tablets of the Erlenmeyer collection, sold at auction in 1988, were bought by the State of Berlin⁠[[3]].

The editions are the series Archaische Texte aus Uruk (ATU), begun by Adam Falkenstein in 1936 and continued by Green, Nissen, Englund and Damerow, and Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients (MSVO), which re-edited Jemdet Nasr and published the scattered collections⁠[[1]]⁠[[7]]⁠[[4]]⁠[[26]]⁠[[27]]. Englund's 1998 chapter is the standard synthesis⁠[[2]]. Every tablet is on the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative with a transliteration in ATF, a photograph and usually line art; as of May 2020 the Uruk-period set held 6,726 artifacts, 6,267 transliterated and 5,274 with at least one readable sign⁠[[22]]. The transliterations may be copied and reused with attribution; photographs belong to the museums⁠[[20]]⁠[[19]]. The tablets are small, mostly rectangular, and divided into cases by ruled lines, each case holding a numerical notation and one or more signs; totals are written on the reverse⁠[[5]].

### Timeline

**Timeline**

Squeezed where little happened. Each mark is a published claim, by how it stands:AcceptedMost likelyStill possibleDisputedRuled out

## What is known

The numbers are read. Damerow, Englund and Nissen showed that about sixty numerical signs belong to more than a dozen systems, each with its own factors: a sexagesimal system for discrete objects (1, 10, 60, 600, 3,600), a bisexagesimal system for rations (with 120 and 1,200), a grain-capacity system (the ŠE system) whose units stand in the ratios 5, 6 and 10, an area system and systems for time, and the same sign has a different value in each⁠[[5]]. The systems are fixed by the arithmetic: totals on the reverse must equal the entries on the obverse, and a correct assignment makes hundreds of tablets add up⁠[[6]]. The same method, applied to proto-Elamite, fixed its numerals too⁠[[25]].

The non-numerical signs number about 2,100 in the CDLI list, with a long tail: about 530 signs occur once and about 104 more than 100 times; EN, GAL and ŠE each occur more than 1,000 times⁠[[9]]⁠[[8]]⁠[[28]]. Many are pictorial (heads of animals, vessels, plants, body parts) and many are identified through their cuneiform descendants, so that signs can be glossed as barley, sheep, textiles, officials and institutions without being pronounced⁠[[2]]. The lexical lists give a second foothold. The Professions list (Lu A), the Tribute list (Word List C), and lists of cities, vessels, metals, fish and birds were copied in fixed order at Uruk and then at Fara, Abu Salabikh, Ebla and in Old Babylonian schools, where the entries carry Sumerian readings⁠[[4]]⁠[[10]]⁠[[11]]. Where a later copy preserves the archaic sequence, the Sumerian word is known even if the archaic sign was not written for it.

The script's structure is also known. Signs within a case are not in a fixed order; numerals precede the counted item; there is no grammar visible, no verbs, and no sentence⁠[[9]]⁠[[14]]. Phonetic spellings, where one sign is used for its sound rather than its meaning, are the test for language. Whittaker found no secure case in Uruk IV and a few plausible ones in Uruk III; the first unambiguous syllabic spellings are in the Archaic Ur texts of about 2900 to 2700 BC, mainly in personal names⁠[[18]]⁠[[14]].

## What has been tested

The Sumerian hypothesis has been tested in three ways. The first is the search for rebus spellings, where a sign for one thing is used for a homophone. Steinkeller's review of ZATU and Wilcke's reading of the Professions list proposed such cases and sign values projected back from third-millennium Sumerian⁠[[15]]⁠[[16]]. Whittaker, following C. Johnson, checked the proposed cases in their contexts and found the meanings unclear or the sign a place or institution name, leaving no secure Uruk IV example⁠[[18]]. The second is onomastics. Englund collected about 440 probable slave names from the archaic texts and found none of the divine elements and none of the ur- and amar- patterns that dominate Early Dynastic and Ur III Sumerian names⁠[[13]]. The third is syntax: numerals and qualifiers precede nouns in the archaic texts where Sumerian puts them after, although Dahl notes that administrative formats may have a syntax of their own⁠[[13]]⁠[[14]]. None of these tests has been decisive, and Monaco and others continue to defend Sumerian readings⁠[[17]].

The token theory has been tested against the catalogue. [Schmandt-Besserat](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/people/FIG0DEDPC30291R/denise-schmandt-besserat) argued that clay counters sealed in clay envelopes (bullae) and then impressed on their surfaces are the ancestors of numerical signs, and that complex tokens prefigure commodity signs⁠[[29]]. Zimansky's review found the sign-token links to rest on visual resemblance, the categories loose, and most token types rare; Englund noted there is no agreed criterion for calling a token numerical⁠[[30]]⁠[[2]]. The link from plain tokens to numerical notation is broadly accepted; the link from complex tokens to signs is not.

Computational work has so far aimed at the sign list and the corpus rather than at reading. Born and [Kelley](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/people/FIG0DEDPE2D5EK8/kathryn-kelley) rebuilt the sign-frequency table for the whole CDLI corpus and showed, with an unequal-variances t-test, that the first third of the Tribute list uses sign pairs that are rare in administrative texts (mean 15 tablets against 87, p = 0.0005), which argues against the view that it was a primer of common signs⁠[[22]]⁠[[31]]. Born, Monroe, Kelley and Sarkar then learned a character inventory from sign images by unsupervised deep clustering, to check how far the editors' sign list is an artefact of their conventions⁠[[23]]⁠[[24]]. Sproat's simulation of how a concept-based symbol system becomes phonetic when repeatedly mapped onto a language with monosyllabic morphemes offers a model of the Uruk III to Early Dynastic transition rather than a test of it⁠[[32]].

## The readings

Four positions are live. The first, held by most Assyriologists, is that proto-cuneiform was devised by and for Sumerian speakers: the sign shapes continue without a break into Early Dynastic Sumerian cuneiform, the lexical lists continue with Sumerian readings, the sexagesimal numeration matches Sumerian number words, and the few plausible Uruk III rebus spellings are Sumerian⁠[[12]]⁠[[15]]⁠[[16]]⁠[[17]]. On this view the texts are Sumerian in the sense that a Sumerian speaker would have read them aloud in Sumerian, even though the writing recorded no grammar.

The second, Englund's, is that the language of the archaic scribes is unknown. Sumerian speakers were probably present in the south, but the names, the syntax and the absence of phonetic spellings mean the Sumerian attribution is a convention inherited from Falkenstein rather than a finding, and the first scribes may have spoken a language that left no other record⁠[[2]]⁠[[13]]⁠[[14]]. Whittaker's own proposal that this earlier language was an Indo-European "Euphratic" has no support among specialists⁠[[18]].

The third, Damerow's, is that proto-cuneiform is [proto-writing](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DEDY0RSVT00/proto-writing): a system of signs for quantities, commodities, persons, institutions and transactions that represented administrative knowledge directly, with little or no reference to speech, and that the question of its language is therefore wrongly posed for Uruk IV and only begins to have an answer as phonetic coding appears⁠[[9]]. This is compatible with Sumerian speakers having used it.

The fourth, Glassner's, is that writing was a deliberate invention tied to language from the start, and in his view to divination rather than bookkeeping; no divinatory text is known for 1,500 years after Uruk IV and the view has not been widely accepted⁠[[33]]⁠[[14]]⁠[[3]].

The Blau monuments stand at the join. Two inscribed stones bought near Uruk in 1886 and dated between about 3100 and 2700 BC, they record a land transaction in archaic signs; Krebernik's 2019 readings treat them as Sumerian and show individual archaic signs splitting into the distinct signs of later cuneiform⁠[[34]]⁠[[35]].

### Published claims

**Published claims and their status**

| Year | Who | Claimed | Status | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1936 | Adam Falkenstein⁠[1] | The archaic Uruk tablets are the earliest stage of Sumerian cuneiform and record Sumerian. | Disputed | The continuity of sign shapes is real, but no phonetic spelling of a Sumerian word has been found in Uruk IV⁠[18]. |
| 1987 | Margaret Green and Hans Nissen⁠[7] | The Uruk signs can be reduced to a numbered inventory of about 800 signs (ZATU). | Accepted | ZATU remains the basis of all sign names, though CDLI now distinguishes about 2,100 signs and variants⁠[8]. |
| 1992 | Denise Schmandt-Besserat⁠[29] | Clay tokens and bullae are the direct ancestors of proto-cuneiform numerals and commodity signs. | Disputed | Plain tokens as ancestors of numerals is broadly accepted; the token-to-sign links for commodities rest on resemblance and rare types⁠[30]. |
| 1993 | Hans Nissen, Peter Damerow and Robert Englund⁠[5] | The numerical signs belong to more than a dozen distinct systems whose values can be fixed from the tablets' arithmetic. | Accepted | The systems make the totals add up across the corpus and were carried over to proto-Elamite⁠[6]. |
| 1993 | Paul Zimansky⁠[30] | The token theory's sign-token correspondences are subjective and statistically weak. | Accepted | Later critics, including Englund, repeated that there is no agreed criterion for a numerical token⁠[2]. |
| 1995 | Piotr Steinkeller⁠[15] | Archaic signs can be read with Sumerian values projected back from the third millennium, and some spellings are Sumerian rebuses. | Still possible | Whittaker found none of the proposed Uruk IV cases secure in context⁠[18]. |
| 1998 | Robert Englund⁠[2] | The language of the archaic scribes is unknown; attempts to read Sumerian or Akkadian in the texts have not succeeded. | Still possible | It is the position of the corpus editor and is restated by Dahl in 2025, but it is an absence of evidence rather than a positive identification⁠[14]. |
| 2003 | Jean-Jacques Glassner⁠[33] | Cuneiform was a deliberate invention tied to language and to divination, not an outgrowth of accounting devices. | Disputed | No divinatory text exists for 1,500 years after Uruk IV and the accounting content of the corpus is overwhelming⁠[14]. |
| 2005 | Claus Wilcke⁠[16] | The archaic Professions list shows the archaic texts to be Sumerian. | Still possible | Englund answered that the readings are circular, assuming Sumerian to find it⁠[13]. |
| 2005 | Gordon Whittaker⁠[18] | There is no secure Sumerian phonetic spelling in Uruk IV and only a few plausible ones in Uruk III. | Accepted | Dahl's 2025 survey agrees that the first secure syllabic spellings are in the Archaic Ur texts⁠[14]. |
| 2006 | Peter Damerow⁠[9] | Proto-cuneiform is proto-writing: it represented administrative knowledge, not speech, and became writing only with phonetic coding. | Most likely | It fits the absence of grammar and phonetic spellings, but it is a framing that the Sumerian school rejects rather than a tested claim⁠[12]. |
| 2009 | Robert Englund⁠[13] | About 440 archaic personal names show none of the divine elements or name patterns of later Sumerian, so the scribes were not demonstrably Sumerian speakers. | Most likely | The data set is the largest body of archaic names, but it has not been tested against a statistical null model or against Semitic patterns⁠[14]. |
| 2014 | Salvatore Monaco⁠[17] | The archaic texts are Sumerian and Englund's agnosticism is unwarranted. | Still possible | It restates the majority view with new sign readings; the Uruk IV phonetic test remains unmet⁠[18]. |
| 2017 | Richard Sproat⁠[32] | A concept-based symbol system becomes phonetic writing when repeatedly mapped onto a language, fastest with monosyllabic morphemes. | Still possible | It is a simulation with artificial languages; it has not been fitted to the Uruk III to Early Dynastic data⁠[14]. |
| 2019 | Manfred Krebernik⁠[35] | The Blau monuments can be read through Sumerian lexemes as a field sale between stone-cutters. | Still possible | The readings assume an Early Dynastic date that is itself disputed, and the pieces are unexcavated⁠[34]. |
| 2021 | Logan Born and Kathryn Kelley⁠[22] | The Tribute list's first section uses sign pairs rare in administrative texts, so it was not a primer of common signs. | Most likely | The difference is statistically clear (p = 0.0005) but rests on CDLI's transliteration conventions⁠[22]. |
| 2023 | Logan Born, Willis Monroe, Kathryn Kelley and Anoop Sarkar⁠[23] | A sign inventory can be learned from tablet images by unsupervised clustering, independent of the editors' sign list. | Still possible | No revised sign list based on the method has been published⁠[23]. |

## What would settle it

A single secure phonetic spelling in an Uruk IV text would show that the script was tied to a language, and the language it was tied to; a secure Sumerian rebus would settle the Sumerian question for Uruk IV as the Archaic Ur spellings settle it for 2900 BC⁠[[18]]⁠[[14]]. The place to look is personal names, because names are the first things any script spells phonetically. A systematic study of the roughly 440 archaic names against Early Dynastic Sumerian and Semitic name patterns, with a statistical [null model](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DECW06JED24/null-model) rather than a list of resemblances, would turn Englund's argument into a test that could fail⁠[[13]].

A stable sign list would settle the inventory question. The gap between ZATU's roughly 800 signs and CDLI's 2,095 is a gap in conventions about variants and compounds, and image-based clustering of the kind Born and colleagues have begun can be checked against the editors' list sign by sign⁠[[7]]⁠[[8]]⁠[[23]]. The lexical lists offer a controlled experiment: for each archaic list with later copies, the proportion of entries whose later Sumerian reading is itself a plausible reading of the archaic sign can be measured, and compared with what chance predicts⁠[[10]]⁠[[11]].

New excavation would help most. The Uruk tablets come from fill, so an Uruk IV tablet in a sealed primary context, or a bulla and its tokens found together with a numerical tablet recording the same goods, would date the script and test the token theory directly⁠[[2]]⁠[[29]]. The comparison with proto-Elamite, which borrowed the system and then went its own way, is also a test: whatever structure the two scripts share is not a property of Sumerian⁠[[25]].

## Questions

0 of 7 questions are answered.

**Key questions** [All 7](https://mysteriesdept.com/questions/key-questions?mystery=proto-cuneiform)

 **0**

[Do the Sumerian readings of the later copies of the lexical lists carry back to the archaic Uruk III exemplars?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT7V0PZBW/do-the-sumerian-readings-of-the-later-copies-of-the-lexical)

0 of 0 sub-questions answered·0

Open: no answer ahead yet



 **0**

[How many distinct signs does proto-cuneiform have, and which of the ZATU and CDLI entries are variants or compounds of one sign?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT7GXF0VT/how-many-distinct-signs-does-proto-cuneiform-have-and-which)

0 of 1 sub-questions answered·0

Open: no answer ahead yet



 **0**

[Were the clay tokens and bullae the direct ancestors of the proto-cuneiform signs?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT894EG53/were-the-clay-tokens-and-bullae-the-direct-ancestors-of-the)

0 of 0 sub-questions answered·0

Open: no answer ahead yet



 **0**

[What language, if any, do the proto-cuneiform texts record?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT73JJJ1B/what-language-if-any-do-the-proto-cuneiform-texts-record)

0 of 1 sub-questions answered·0

Open: 5 answers, none ahead



 **0**

[When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT8N8Y2GZ/when-and-how-did-phonetic-spelling-begin-in-mesopotamian)

0 of 0 sub-questions answered·0

Open: no answer ahead yet



## Evidence 13 findings

[What language, if any, do the proto-cuneiform texts record?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT73JJJ1B/what-language-if-any-do-the-proto-cuneiform-texts-record)7 findings

[Proto-cuneiform records Sumerian](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/answers/ANS0DEDW4B5BNA0/proto-cuneiform-records-sumerian)Still possible

+[The sign shapes and the lexical lists continue without a break from Uruk III into Early Dynastic cuneiform, which writes Sumerian, and the lists carry Sumerian readings in their later copies.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DEDXMB7KHAG/the-sign-shapes-and-the-lexical-lists-continue-without-a)Established

−[No secure phonetic spelling of a Sumerian word exists in Uruk IV, and the proposed Uruk III cases fail or are unclear when checked in context.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DEDXMG7BY07/no-secure-phonetic-spelling-of-a-sumerian-word-exists-in)Supported

−[About 440 archaic personal names show none of the divine elements or ur-/amar- patterns found in every later Sumerian archive.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DEDXMN6P3DD/about-440-archaic-personal-names-show-none-of-the-divine)Suggestive

[The language is unknown (Englund's agnosticism)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/answers/ANS0DEDW4E48QNF/the-language-is-unknown-englunds-agnosticism)Still possible

+[Attempts to read Sumerian or Akkadian in the Uruk texts have not succeeded, and the texts' numeral-before-noun order is the reverse of Sumerian.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DEDXMW830Y8/attempts-to-read-sumerian-or-akkadian-in-the-uruk-texts-have)Supported

−[The sexagesimal numeration and the unbroken continuity of signs and lists into Sumerian cuneiform are more easily explained if the system was Sumerian from the start.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DEDXN34DDPV/the-sexagesimal-numeration-and-the-unbroken-continuity-of)Suggestive

[Proto-cuneiform is a language-independent notation (proto-writing)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/answers/ANS0DEDW4J8QZXQ/proto-cuneiform-is-a-language-independent-notation-proto)Still possible

+[The archaic texts show no grammar, no fixed sign order within cases and little or no phonetic coding, and their sign meanings are confined to a few administrative dimensions.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DEDXN80K013/the-archaic-texts-show-no-grammar-no-fixed-sign-order-within)Supported

[Proto-cuneiform records a non-Sumerian language](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/answers/ANS0DEDW4Q29FMT/proto-cuneiform-records-a-non-sumerian-language)Still possible

−[No reading of the archaic texts as Akkadian or any other known language has succeeded, and the one Akkadian loanword proposed for the Blau monuments was replaced by a Sumerian reading.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DEDXNJXPYX1/no-reading-of-the-archaic-texts-as-akkadian-or-any-other)Suggestive

[How many distinct signs does proto-cuneiform have, and which of the ZATU and CDLI entries are variants or compounds of one sign?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT7GXF0VT/how-many-distinct-signs-does-proto-cuneiform-have-and-which)1 finding

[The numerical systems are read](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/answers/ANS0DEDW5TNCCE1/the-numerical-systems-are-read)Still possible

+[Assigning the numerical signs to sexagesimal, bisexagesimal, grain-capacity, area and time systems makes the totals on hundreds of tablets add up, and new tablets conform.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DEDXNZJVPKR/assigning-the-numerical-signs-to-sexagesimal-bisexagesimal)Established

[Do the Sumerian readings of the later copies of the lexical lists carry back to the archaic Uruk III exemplars?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT7V0PZBW/do-the-sumerian-readings-of-the-later-copies-of-the-lexical)1 finding

[Sign sequences carry back; word identity is unproven](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/answers/ANS0DEE9A871191/sign-sequences-carry-back-word-identity-is-unproven)Still possible

+[The archaic lists were transmitted in fixed order for about 1,300 years and acquire Sumerian readings only in their later copies.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DEE9HZ18XJ2/the-archaic-lists-were-transmitted-in-fixed-order-for-about)Supported

[Were the clay tokens and bullae the direct ancestors of the proto-cuneiform signs?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT894EG53/were-the-clay-tokens-and-bullae-the-direct-ancestors-of-the)2 findings

[The token theory](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/answers/ANS0DEDW56J28YC/the-token-theory)Still possible

+[Plain tokens sealed in bullae and impressed on their surfaces precede and resemble the numerical signs of the Uruk V numerical tablets.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DEDXNNPM05C/plain-tokens-sealed-in-bullae-and-impressed-on-their)Supported

−[The links between complex tokens and commodity signs rest on visual resemblance, most token subtypes are unique or rare, and the catalogue's categories and dates are inconsistent.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DEDXNTS6VYG/the-links-between-complex-tokens-and-commodity-signs-rest-on)Supported

[When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT8N8Y2GZ/when-and-how-did-phonetic-spelling-begin-in-mesopotamian)2 findings

[Phonetic spelling begins at Archaic Ur, c. 2900 BC](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/answers/ANS0DEE99VTJW8C/phonetic-spelling-begins-at-archaic-ur-c-2900-bc)Still possible

+[Reviews of the proposed early rebus spellings find no secure Uruk IV case, and the first secure syllabic signs appear in the Archaic Ur texts, chiefly in personal names.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DEE9FRYCC0C/reviews-of-the-proposed-early-rebus-spellings-find-no-secure)Supported

−[Proponents of a Sumerian reading cite a handful of Uruk III sign uses as rebus spellings, which would push phonetic use earlier than Archaic Ur.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DEE9GGPD7HF/proponents-of-a-sumerian-reading-cite-a-handful-of-uruk-iii)Speculative

## Artifacts

The films, photos, papers and objects this mystery rests on, each with its own key and its distance from the original.

**Artifacts** [See all 6](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/artifacts)

Dataset1 step from object

[The Uruk archaic tablets (ATU 1 to 7, W numbers)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/artifacts/ART0DEDREJXC929/the-uruk-archaic-tablets-atu-1-to-7-w-numbers)

CDLI terms: transliterations reusable with attribution; photographs copyright of the holding museums; line art copyright of the publication authors

Transcription1 step from object

[The Jemdet Nasr tablets (MSVO 1)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/artifacts/ART0DEDRFF9SPJ7/the-jemdet-nasr-tablets-msvo-1)

CDLI terms: transliterations reusable with attribution; images copyright of the Ashmolean Museum and Iraq Museum

Transcription1 step from object

[The archaic lexical lists: Professions (Lu A) and Tribute (Word List C)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/artifacts/ART0DEDRFTRF0WB/the-archaic-lexical-lists-professions-lu-a-and-tribute-word)

CC BY-SA 3.0 (Oracc)

Transcription1 step from object

[The Kish tablet (MSVO 4, 74)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/artifacts/ART0DEDRGBK9XPY/the-kish-tablet-msvo-4-74)

CDLI terms: transliteration reusable with attribution; photograph copyright National Museum of Iraq

Scan1 step from object

[The Blau monuments](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/artifacts/ART0DEDRGKQVTNK/the-blau-monuments)

Oriental Institute, University of Chicago; free PDF, copyright retained

 [See all 6 artifacts](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/artifacts)

## See also

 [

**Proto-Elamite and Linear Elamite** Two scripts of south-western Iran, 3100 to 1880 BC, one claimed deciphered in 2022.

](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-elamite) [

**Unread cuneiform: half a million tablets and the limits of Sumerian** More than 500,000 cuneiform tablets survive; most have never been read, and machines are being tried on the rest.

](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/unread-cuneiform) [

**Vinča signs** Incised marks of the Neolithic Balkans, c. 5400 to 4500 BC: Europe's oldest writing, or marks that were never read.

](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs) [

**Hattic, Kassite and the half-read languages of the cuneiform archives** Languages written in a deciphered script, cuneiform, whose texts still cannot be translated: Hattic, Kassite, Gutian and the new language of Kalašma.

](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/hattic-kassite-lost-languages)

## References

1. 1.[The first edition and sign list of the Uruk archaic tablets (about 600 texts), eight years after the German excavations began to find them. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 2. Berlin and Leipzig: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft / Harrassowitz. URL is a library catalogue search.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDHRBNBCHF/archaische-texte-aus-uruk-atu-1)cited 5 times here**SRC** 0DEDHRBNBCHF
1. 2.[The standard synthesis of the proto-cuneiform corpus: counts, dating, numerical systems, sign list, lexical lists, and Englund's agnostic position on the language. In P. Attinger and M. Wäfler (eds.), Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/1), Universitätsverlag Freiburg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen, pp. 13-233.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDGX6K5549/texts-from-the-late-uruk-period)cited 10 times here**SRC** 0DEDGX6K5549
1. 3.[Tertiary survey used for the site-by-site tablet counts (Uruk 190 Uruk V, 1,776 Uruk IV, 3,094 Uruk III; Jemdet Nasr 238; Umma 398; Larsa 23; Tell Uqair 39; Kish 5), the 1988 Erlenmeyer sale, holdings and the Unicode status. CC BY-SA 4.0.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDKGP7JJQJ/proto-cuneiform)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0DEDKGP7JJQJ
1. 4.[Edition of the archaic lexical lists from Uruk (Professions / Lu A, Tribute / Word List C, Cities, Vessels, Metals and others), the texts that were copied for 700 years and give the main foothold on the signs. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 13. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. URL is a library catalogue search.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDHQWE5Q1C/die-lexikalischen-listen-der-archaischen-texte-aus-uruk-atu)cited 6 times here**SRC** 0DEDHQWE5Q1C
1. 5.[The standard account of the proto-cuneiform numerical and metrological systems (sexagesimal, bisexagesimal, ŠE grain-capacity, GAN2 area, time notations) worked out from the arithmetic of the tablets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. English edition of Frühe Schrift und Techniken der Wirtschaftsverwaltung (1990).](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDH93HGNQS/archaic-bookkeeping-early-writing-and-techniques-of-economic)cited 6 times here**SRC** 0DEDH93HGNQS
1. 6.[Worked example of how the numerical systems are read on a single Uruk III grain account: bisexagesimal system B for rations and the ŠE capacity system for grain, with monthly totals divisible by 12. Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2003:4.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDKH1R8FPC/a-new-proto-cuneiform-tablet)cited 2 times here**SRC** 0DEDKH1R8FPC
1. 7.[The ZATU sign list: the standard numbered inventory of proto-cuneiform signs (about 770 non-numerical signs plus numerical signs), still the basis of sign names in CDLI. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 11. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. With P. Damerow and R. K. Englund.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDH83Y62Q6/zeichenliste-der-archaischen-texte-aus-uruk-atu-2)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0DEDH83Y62Q6
1. 8.[Unicode proposal built on Englund's CDLI sign list: 2,095 distinct signs (349 numerical, 1,106 single ideographic, 640 compound) plus 280 variants; notes that most scholars take the language to be Sumerian while Englund held it unknown.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDJRTRVC36/revised-proposal-to-encode-proto-cuneiform-in-unicode-l2-23)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0DEDJRTRVC36
1. 9.[Damerow's argument that proto-cuneiform is proto-writing: a knowledge-representation system with little or no phonetic coding, judged on its own terms rather than as deficient writing; sign-frequency statistics (about 530 signs once, about 104 over 100 times). Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2006:1. CC BY 4.0.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDHS8P4A8J/the-origins-of-writing-as-a-problem-of-historical)cited 6 times here**SRC** 0DEDHS8P4A8J
1. 10.[Edition and reading of the Tribute list across its 700-year transmission from Uruk III to the Old Babylonian period, where it carries Sumerian readings and translations; the strongest case that an archaic composition can be read through its later copies. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 65, pp. 13-67. Not read in this session; cited through Born and Kelley 2021.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDK8AJ0N8X/remarks-on-ad-gi4-a-k-a-archaic-word-list-c-or-tribute)cited 5 times here**SRC** 0DEDK8AJ0N8X
1. 11.[Oracc edition of the archaic (Uruk III) lexical lists and their Early Dynastic and later descendants, with composite texts and glossaries; the place where the Uruk lists meet their readable Fara, Ebla and Old Babylonian copies. CC BY-SA 3.0. The page refused automated fetching in this session.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDKGX20MPZ/dcclt-digital-corpus-of-cuneiform-lexical-texts-archaic)cited 6 times here**SRC** 0DEDKGX20MPZ
1. 12.[Museum-catalogue synthesis taking the majority view that cuneiform was invented for Sumerian, with the limited rebus evidence; about 5,000 tablets from Uruk excavated 1928-1976. In C. Woods (ed.), Visible Language: Inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East and Beyond, Oriental Institute Museum Publications 32, pp. 33-50. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDJ79W18NK/the-earliest-mesopotamian-writing)cited 4 times here**SRC** 0DEDJ79W18NK
1. 13.[Englund's fullest statement of the case against assuming Sumerian: about 440 probable slave names with no Sumerian divine or ur-/amar- elements, qualifier-before-noun syntax, and criticism of Rubio, Wilcke and Steiner. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2009:4. CC BY 4.0.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDHS1CGJMA/the-smell-of-the-cage)cited 8 times here**SRC** 0DEDHS1CGJMA
1. 14.[Recent survey of proto-cuneiform and its adaptation (proto-Elamite), restating Englund's case against Sumerian (no Sumerian-pattern names; numeral-before-noun syntax), dating the first secure syllabic signs to the Archaic Ur texts (c. 2900-2700 BC), and discussing Sproat's simulation and Glassner's divination theory. Oxford Research Archive preprint; year inferred from its latest references.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDK8RPEY2P/the-early-development-of-the-cuneiform-writing-system-and)cited 8 times here**SRC** 0DEDK8RPEY2P
1. 15.[The main critical review of ZATU, proposing readings and sign identifications on the premise that the archaic texts are Sumerian and that later sign values can be projected back. Bibliotheca Orientalis 52, cols. 689-713. Not read in this session; cited through Born and Kelley 2021 and Englund 1998. URL is a library catalogue search.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDJ5J5GFCK/review-of-m-w-green-and-h-j-nissen-zeichenliste-der)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0DEDJ5J5GFCK
1. 16.[Argues from the archaic Professions list (Lu A) and sign combinations that the archaic texts are Sumerian; the main target of Englund 2009. In W. H. van Soldt (ed.), Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia, NINO, pp. 430-445. Not read in this session; cited through Englund 2009 and Whittaker 2005. URL is a library catalogue search.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDJ55568QD/ed-lu-a-und-die-sprache-n-der-archaischen-texte)cited 2 times here**SRC** 0DEDJ55568QD
1. 17.[Short paper by the editor of the Cornell archaic tablets (CUSAS 1) defending a Sumerian reading of proto-cuneiform against Englund's agnosticism. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 87, pp. 277-282. Abstract only consulted.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDJ5Y2YR8H/proto-cuneiform-and-sumerians)[doi](https://doi.org/10.1400/227494)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0DEDJ5Y2YR8H
1. 18.[In W. H. van Soldt (ed.), Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia (RAI 48, Leiden 2002), Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, pp. 409-429. Reviews the debate on whether Sumerians were native to southern Iraq or arrived late, the Landsberger (1944) and Salonen (1968) substratum proposals, Rubio's 1999 refutation, Semitic loanwords, and Whittaker's own "Euphratic" Indo-European hypothesis, which the field rejects. Used for the Sumerian question and the author's own minority position.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDHQE9W64H/the-sumerian-question-reviewing-the-issues)cited 12 times here**SRC** 0DEDHQE9W64H
1. 19.[Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative n.d.. CDLI bulk data (daily dump of catalogue and transliterations). GitHub cdli-gh/data.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0D1P8PZM6DZE/cdli-bulk-data-daily-dump-of-catalogue-and-transliterations)cited 7 times here**SRC** 0D1P8PZM6DZE
1. 20.[Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative n.d.. CDLI Terms of Use. cdli.earth.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0D1P8PQT7ZC2/cdli-terms-of-use)cited 7 times here**SRC** 0D1P8PQT7ZC2
1. 21.[The CDLI ATF transliterations of about 6,000 Uruk IV-III tablets converted to Text-Fabric for counting and statistics, with CDLI photographs and line art and Jupyter tutorials. Software MIT; data under CDLI terms. Repository archived October 2025.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDJR58V0WD/nino-cunei-uruk-proto-cuneiform-tablets-of-uruk-iv-iii-in)[doi](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1193841)cited 2 times here**SRC** 0DEDJR58V0WD
1. 22.[Updated sign-frequency list for the whole CDLI proto-cuneiform corpus (6,726 artifacts, 5,274 with readable signs, about 53,000 non-numerical tokens as of May 2020), an open counting tool, and a test showing the Tribute list's first section uses sign pairs rare in administrative texts. Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2021:6.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDJQ7HN4AW/a-quantitative-analysis-of-proto-cuneiform-sign-use-in)cited 6 times here**SRC** 0DEDJQ7HN4AW
1. 23.[Unsupervised deep clustering of sign images to learn the character inventory of proto-cuneiform and proto-Elamite without relying on the existing transliteration conventions. Proceedings of the Workshop on Computation and Written Language (CAWL 2023), Toronto, pp. 92-104.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDJQR3E3SA/learning-the-character-inventories-of-undeciphered-scripts)[doi](https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.cawl-1.11)cited 4 times here**SRC** 0DEDJQR3E3SA
1. 24.[Born, L., Kelley, K., Kambhatla, N. et al. 2019. Sign Clustering and Topic Extraction in Proto-Elamite. Proceedings of the 3rd Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0D8MQ7YM27YR/sign-clustering-and-topic-extraction-in-proto-elamite)[doi](https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/w19-2516)cited 6 times here**SRC** 0D8MQ7YM27YR
1. 25.[Damerow, P., Englund, R. 1989. The Proto-Elamite Texts from Tepe Yahya. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 39. Peabody Museum, Harvard.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0D1P8SXC5Q5F/the-proto-elamite-texts-from-tepe-yahya)cited 5 times here**SRC** 0D1P8SXC5Q5F
1. 26.[Re-edition of the Jemdet Nasr tablets found in 1926 and 1928 (about 240 Uruk III texts, Ashmolean and Iraq Museum), replacing Langdon's 1928 copies. Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients 1. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDHA6X2GA8/the-proto-cuneiform-texts-from-jemdet-nasr-i-copies)cited 4 times here**SRC** 0DEDHA6X2GA8
1. 27.[Edition of proto-cuneiform tablets outside the Uruk and Jemdet Nasr archives, including the Kish tablet (MSVO 4, 74) and texts from Larsa, Tell Uqair and unprovenanced collections. Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients 4. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. URL is a library catalogue search.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDHRYD6HCN/proto-cuneiform-texts-from-diverse-collections-msvo-4)cited 2 times here**SRC** 0DEDHRYD6HCN
1. 28.[The sign- and collocation-counting tool used in Born and Kelley 2021, with a static JSON frequency list for about 1,000 proto-cuneiform signs (EN 1,947; ŠE 1,327; GAL 1,180 at the top). Zenodo licence field "Other (Open)".](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDJRFWQRYB/mrlogarithm-pe-pc-datasets-interface-proto-cuneiform-sign)[doi](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062226)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0DEDJRFWQRYB
1. 29.[The token theory: clay counters of the 8th to 4th millennia, sealed in clay envelopes (bullae) and impressed on their surface, as the direct ancestors of proto-cuneiform numerals and commodity signs. Austin: University of Texas Press. Consulted through reviews and the Wikipedia summary.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDJ9W53AAY/before-writing-volume-i-from-counting-to-cuneiform)cited 5 times here**SRC** 0DEDJ9W53AAY
1. 30.[The sharpest critique of the token theory: token-to-sign links rest on visual resemblance, categories are loose, most token subtypes are rare (15 "sheep" tokens), and the catalogue is inconsistent. Journal of Field Archaeology 20(4), pp. 513-517.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDJAZ7E2W9/review-of-denise-schmandt-besserat-before-writing)cited 4 times here**SRC** 0DEDJAZ7E2W9
1. 31.[Argues that the Tribute list (Word List C) was an elementary scribal exercise teaching common signs, against the reading of it as the earliest literary text. In P. Michalowski and N. Veldhuis (eds.), Approaches to Sumerian Literature: Studies in Honour of Stip (H. L. J. Vanstiphout), Cuneiform Monographs 35, Brill, pp. 181-200.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDK83AA70B/how-did-they-learn-cuneiform-tribute-word-list-c-as-an)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0DEDK83AA70B
1. 32.[Simulation of how a concept-based symbol system becomes phonetic writing when symbols are repeatedly mapped onto morphemes; predicts faster phonetisation in languages with monosyllabic morphemes (the Sumerian route). Written Language and Literacy 20(2). Open-source code on GitHub.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDK8HPJ7WQ/a-computational-model-of-the-discovery-of-writing)[doi](https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00004.spr)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0DEDK8HPJ7WQ
1. 33.[Glassner's minority view that proto-cuneiform was a deliberate invention tied to language (and to divination) from the start, rather than an outgrowth of accounting devices. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; translation of Écrire à Sumer (Paris: Seuil, 2000). Not read in this session; cited through Dahl 2025 and the Wikipedia survey. URL is a library catalogue search.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDJPXXAW2W/the-invention-of-cuneiform-writing-in-sumer)cited 1 time here**SRC** 0DEDJPXXAW2W
1. 34.[Edition of the earliest land-sale documents, including the Blau monuments (nos. 10-11) dated to Uruk III / Jemdet Nasr and read as a land transaction with a feast. Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications 104. Free PDF from the Oriental Institute.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDK7EZ55WN/earliest-land-tenure-systems-in-the-near-east-ancient)cited 5 times here**SRC** 0DEDK7EZ55WN
1. 35.[New readings of the two Blau monuments through Sumerian lexemes (ZADIM "stone-cutter", ZA "beads", a 2 x 120 numeral) and a reading of the pair as a field sale between stone-cutters; shows how archaic signs split into later distinct signs. In J. Renn and M. Schemmel (eds.), Culture and Cognition: Essays in Honor of Peter Damerow, Max Planck Research Library Proceedings 11, pp. 36-55. Edition Open Access.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDK6DJMW8X/towards-the-deciphering-of-the-blau-monuments-some-new)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0DEDK6DJMW8X

Last edited 31 Oct 2026