QuestionsProto-cuneiform: the archaic texts of UrukDo the roughly 440 personal names in the archaic texts follow Sumerian, Semitic or some other naming pattern?Answer
Answer · Proto-cuneiform: the archaic texts of Uruk
The names lack the Sumerian name profile
The archaic names lack the Sumerian onomastic profile: they carry the stock elements of Sumerian names far less often than Early Dynastic Sumerian names do, whatever language they belong to.
Where it stands
Still possibleFive pieces of evidence for, none against. It needs two reviews to be accepted.
What it predicts
- Any independent Sumerian name sample scored the same way (Ur III, Fara name lists) will show element odds ratios well above the archaic 1.35.
- A dependents-only Early Dynastic sample will still exceed the archaic names.
What would rule it out
- A dependents-only or otherwise matched Early Dynastic Sumerian name sample shows element rates close to the archaic names'.
- A re-mapping of archaic signs to Sumerian values supported in context raises the archaic element rate into the Early Dynastic range.
Evidence 5 for · none against
FOR
FOR
NEUTRAL
Tested by 2 runs
| Run | Measured | Result | Against | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run | Token odds ratio of Englund's Sumerian name-element signs in personal names against other words, 95% text bootstrap | {'ED I-II': [4.12, 2.38, 9.03], 'ED IIIa': [3.56, 3.14, 4.01], 'ED IIIb': [3.72, 3.56, 3.88], 'Uruk III-IV': [1.34, 1.06, 1.61], 'ED, proper nouns out of baseline': {'ED I-II': 6.18, 'ED IIIa': 4.92, 'ED IIIb': 4.5}, 'Uruk, baseline from name-bearing texts only': [0.92, 0.6, 1.66]} | ED I-II 5.84 · ED IIIa 4.86 · ED IIIb 4.47 · Uruk III-IV [1.35, 1.09, 1.6] · original_runs RUN0DFQT81BSPP3, RUN0DFVQR5WN96F | Replicates. The archaic odds ratio matches to the second decimal; the Sumerian values depend on whether divine and place names count as ordinary words (3.6–4.1 if they do, 4.5–6.2 if not, as in the original). The gap holds in every variant. | |
| Run | token odds ratio of Englund's Sumerian name elements in dependent workers' names against the period's other words; share of names with at least one element against a length-matched null | {'D2_strict': {'n': 5142, 'null': 0.217, 'or_95': [4.45, 4.77], 'share': 0.65, 'texts': 88, 'odds_ratio': 4.6}, 'ED_IIIb_all': {'n': 31083, 'or_95': [4.39, 4.55], 'share': 0.528, 'odds_ratio': 4.47}, 'D3_line_level': {'n': 35, 'null': 0.171, 'or_95': [1.57, 5.08], 'share': 0.429, 'texts': 22, 'odds_ratio': 3.25}, 'D1_ration_lists': {'n': 6894, 'null': 0.209, 'or_95': [4.57, 4.87], 'share': 0.603, 'texts': 99, 'odds_ratio': 4.72}, 'Uruk_III_archaic': {'n': 540, 'or_95': [1.09, 1.6], 'share': 0.124, 'odds_ratio': 1.35}} | Non-proper-noun lemmatized words of ED IIIb | The gap survives matching on class. Early Dynastic dependents' names carry the Sumerian elements as strongly as the whole corpus or more, so H-NAMES-NOTSUMERIAN passes its dependents-only kill test. ED IIIa could not be tested because no ration lists are lemmatized in this form. |
The questions it answers
Cite it
Mysteries Department. (2026). The names lack the Sumerian name profile [Answer ANS0DFVR69H9JFW]. https://mysteriesdept.com/r/ANS0DFVR69H9JFW
@misc{mysteriesdept_ans0dfvr69h9jfw,
title = {The names lack the Sumerian name profile},
author = {{Mysteries Department}},
year = {2026},
note = {Answer, catalog key ANS0DFVR69H9JFW},
url = {https://mysteriesdept.com/r/ANS0DFVR69H9JFW}
}