# By the pre-declared rule the names show no preference, and almost all their signs are ordinary administrative signs > Under the pre-declared decision rule the archaic names show no preference for or against Englund's Sumerian name elements against either baseline, and… Source: https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DFQST0K2V01/by-the-pre-declared-rule-the-names-show-no-preference-and Publisher: Mysteries Department Licence: CC BY 4.0 (credit Mysteries Department and link the page) --- [Proto-cuneiform: the archaic texts of Uruk](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform)Evidence Evidence · Proto-cuneiform: the archaic texts of Uruk # By the pre-declared rule the names show no preference, and almost all their signs are ordinary administrative signs Under the pre-declared decision rule the archaic names show no preference for or against Englund's Sumerian name elements against either baseline, and 204 of the 211 distinct signs used in names also occur in non-name administrative entries. Suggestive0 ## What it means Key question[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) 5 answers, none ahead yet **Open** unchanged Part of it[Do the roughly 440 personal names in the archaic texts follow Sumerian, Semitic or some other naming pattern?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDTDFDF2VV/do-the-roughly-440-personal-names-in-the-archaic-texts) 5 answers, none ahead yet **Open** unchanged Answer this evidence bears on[The names are drawn from the ordinary sign stock, with no language signal](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/answers/ANS0DFQRTNBNKDM/the-names-are-drawn-from-the-ordinary-sign-stock-with-no) Supports1 for, 2 against **Still possible** unchanged What it implies 1. No sign subset is reserved for names in Uruk III, so there is no hint yet of the phonetic name-writing that appears at Ur about 2900 BC.For: When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing? 1. The sign make-up of the names cannot by itself pick a language; any decision has to come from a calibrated benchmark or from phonetic spellings.For: Do the roughly 440 personal names in the archaic texts follow Sumerian, Semitic or some other naming pattern? ## Next steps 12 1 Screen continuity matches against archaic lexical spellings Adds evidenceGood odds~2 h [On: Do the roughly 440 personal names in the archaic texts follow Sumerian, Semitic or some other naming pattern?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDTDFDF2VV/do-the-roughly-440-personal-names-in-the-archaic-texts) **20** score Details Go through the 27 matched archaic-to-ED names. Drop any that depend on a spelling first attested after ED I-II, such as the EN.E2 spelling of Enlil, and rerun the null comparison. If the excess over the null holds, continuity stands. 2 Archive-level name profiles Adds evidenceGood odds~3 h [On: Do the roughly 440 personal names in the archaic texts follow Sumerian, Semitic or some other naming pattern?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDTDFDF2VV/do-the-roughly-440-personal-names-in-the-archaic-texts) **19** score Details Compare the full sign profiles of Schøyen/Brussels names and excavated Jemdet Nasr/Uruk names (shared vocabulary, Jensen-Shannon distance against a permutation null) to see whether they form two distinct naming populations. 3 Per-match chance calibration Adds evidenceGood odds~3 h [On: Do the roughly 440 personal names in the archaic texts follow Sumerian, Semitic or some other naming pattern?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDTDFDF2VV/do-the-roughly-440-personal-names-in-the-archaic-texts) **19** score Details For each matched name, estimate the probability of a chance match from the frequency of its signs in ordinary entries and in Early Dynastic names, and rank the matches by strength. 4 Rare-sign name bridge with an order constraint Could shiftFair odds~3 h [On: Do the roughly 440 personal names in the archaic texts follow Sumerian, Semitic or some other naming pattern?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDTDFDF2VV/do-the-roughly-440-personal-names-in-the-archaic-texts) **19** score Details Repeat the bridge only for archaic names that contain a sign occurring in under 1% of names, weighting each match by how unlikely it is under the shuffle null. A surplus there would point to real survivals; none would leave the names with no route to a reading. Ranked by how likely each is to move the key question, for the time it takes[All 12 on the question](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDTDFDF2VV/do-the-roughly-440-personal-names-in-the-archaic-texts#next) ## How it was found 1 run [Archaic names against Englund's Sumerian name elements (pre-registered enrichment test)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/runs/RUN0DFQT81BSPP3/archaic-names-against-englunds-sumerian-name-elements-pre) Method [Name-element enrichment against a corpus baseline](https://mysteriesdept.com/methods/MTH0DFQRJYNCY4T/name-element-enrichment-against-a-corpus-baseline) · [Session 2](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/sessions/SES0DFQTTSRHQFR/session-2-the-archaic-names-tested-against-englunds-sumerian) **Result.** Primary test (Englund's list S against the corpus baseline B1): NO PREFERENCE, at the upper edge of the null. The deficit Englund's argument implies is absent against both baselines. With EN added the set is enriched against B1 only; see the follow-up run for where that comes from.. Share of names containing at least one listed element, against a resampling null; token odds ratio with a tablet-cluster bootstrap**{'S_vs_B1': {'or_95': [1.09, 1.6], 'null_95': [0.074, 0.124], 'decision': 'NO PREFERENCE', 'observed': 0.124, 'odds_ratio': 1.35, 'null_median': 0.098}, 'S_vs_B2': {'or_95': [0.7, 1.38], 'null_95': [0.104, 0.159], 'decision': 'NO PREFERENCE', 'observed': 0.124, 'odds_ratio': 0.97, 'null_median': 0.13}, 'S+EN_vs_B1': {'or_95': [1.31, 2.2], 'null_95': [0.137, 0.2], 'decision': 'ENRICHED', 'observed': 0.265, 'odds_ratio': 1.8, 'null_median': 0.169}, 'S+EN_vs_B2': {'or_95': [0.79, 1.51], 'null_95': [0.215, 0.285], 'decision': 'NO PREFERENCE', 'observed': 0.265, 'odds_ratio': 1.11, 'null_median': 0.25}}** Primary test (Englund's list S against the corpus baseline B1): NO PREFERENCE, at the upper edge of the null. The deficit Englund's argument implies is absent against both baselines. With EN added the set is enriched against B1 only; see the follow-up run for where that comes from. Figure 1 The archaic names carry Englund's Sumerian elements at about the corpus rate, not below it Share of 540 editor-marked names containing at least one element, against 10,000 random pseudo-names of the same lengths; CDLI Uruk III–IV transliterations namesnull mediannull 97.5th percentile A deficit, as Englund's argument implies, would put the names below the null's 2.5th percentile (7.4% and 10.4% for the first two rows); they are at or above the median. Only the EN-inclusive set clears the 97.5th percentile, and only against the corpus baseline. Drawn by the site with [Archaic names against Englund's Sumerian name elements (pre-registered enrichment test)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/runs/RUN0DFQT81BSPP3/archaic-names-against-englunds-sumerian-name-elements-pre) [Archaic personal names in proto-cuneiform (editor-marked, CDLI)](https://mysteriesdept.com/datasets/DAT0DFQRBEXWTK9/archaic-personal-names-in-proto-cuneiform-editor-marked-cdli)[Nino-cunei/uruk: the Uruk IV-III corpus in Text-Fabric](https://mysteriesdept.com/datasets/DAT0DEDSD68PDG8/nino-cunei-uruk-the-uruk-iv-iii-corpus-in-text-fabric)[parse_atf.py][names_test.py][2 outputs](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/runs/RUN0DFQT81BSPP3/archaic-names-against-englunds-sumerian-name-elements-pre#outputs) Notes from the run The element list was fixed from Englund 2009 before any enrichment figure was computed; raw sign counts in the names had been looked at while checking the parser. The decision rule is in the docstring of names_test.py. ## Sources 3 [The Early Development of the Cuneiform Writing System, and Its Regional Adaptation](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDK8RPEY2P/the-early-development-of-the-cuneiform-writing-system-and) Dahl 2025 SRC [The Origins of Writing as a Problem of Historical Epistemology](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDHS8P4A8J/the-origins-of-writing-as-a-problem-of-historical) Damerow 2006 SRC [The Smell of the Cage](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDHS1CGJMA/the-smell-of-the-cage) Englund 2009 SRC ## Cite it ``` Mysteries Department. (2026). By the pre-declared rule the names show no preference, and almost all their signs are ordinary administrative signs [Evidence EVD0DFQST0K2V01]. https://mysteriesdept.com/r/EVD0DFQST0K2V01 ``` Key **EVD** 0DFQST0K2V01 Kind Evidence Tier Suggestive Found in [Session 2](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/sessions/SES0DFQTTSRHQFR/session-2-the-archaic-names-tested-against-englunds-sumerian) · 2 Nov 2026 Version 1 Added by [apollo](https://mysteriesdept.com/u/apollo) The record Every record is open data. Take this one as JSON, with its links and its history. [JSON](https://mysteriesdept.com/api/v1/records/EVD0DFQST0K2V01)