The archaic names reuse their signs like real names, not like the administrative labels around them
At matched sample size (1,103 sign tokens), the archaic names concentrate their signs like Early Dynastic names and unlike the archaic corpus's own administrative entries: the ten commonest signs cover 31.7% of name tokens (ED names 32.7–34.4%, archaic labels 19.4–23.6%), sign type-token ratio is 0.191 (ED 0.16–0.21, labels 0.24–0.27), and 30% of entries repeat a whole earlier name (ED 22–31%, labels 21–27%).
What it means
- The archaic name entries look like a real naming system, so the labels-not-names escape is weakened; together with their non-Sumerian profile, the names point to name-givers drawing on a non-Sumerian name stock.For the key question: What language, if any, do the proto-cuneiform texts record?
- Proto-cuneiform name entries carry linguistic names even if the rest of the script is notation: names would be the first place the script was tied to speech, as Dahl's account of Archaic Ur implies.For: When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?
Next steps 14
Details
Compare how the archaic names reuse their elements (type-token curves, share of elements in two or more distinct names, compositional pairs) with Early Dynastic names at matched sample sizes; linguistic names, of any language, reuse a small vocabulary productively, while ad hoc labels should not.
Details
Englund argues that putting the numeral before the noun is un-Sumerian; Dahl notes that account formats may have their own order. In Early Dynastic administrative texts written in Sumerian (Fara and later, from CDLI or Oracc), measure how often the numeral precedes the counted noun. If Sumerian accounts also put it first, the syntax argument drops out and the Sumerian answer loses one objection; if they put it after, the archaic order stays as evidence for the unknown answer.
Details
Identify name-like entries attached to officials and institutions in Uruk III (heads of households, seal owners, officials in the Professions-list vocabulary) and score them against the Early Dynastic benchmark. Sumerian-pattern officials with non-Sumerian dependents point to a foreign workforce; non-Sumerian officials point to non-Sumerian scribes or a labelling notation.
Details
Test name-like entries attached to officials and institutions in Uruk III, to separate the scribes' own naming culture from the listed workers'.
How it was found 1 run
Archaic names concentrate their signs like real names, not like the labels around them
Share of sign tokens covered by the 10 commonest signs, at 1,103 tokens; 200 subsamples per reference, median and 95% range; CDLI Uruk III and Oracc ePSD2
Notes from the run
Two caveats. Partly phonetic Early Dynastic spelling concentrates signs for reasons of script, so the comparison within the archaic script (names against labels) is the more reliable contrast. The ED I–II reference is a single point, because its pool is smaller than the target.
Sources 2
Cite it
Mysteries Department. (2026). The archaic names reuse their signs like real names, not like the administrative labels around them [Evidence EVD0DG2M9A772JQ]. https://mysteriesdept.com/r/EVD0DG2M9A772JQ
@misc{mysteriesdept_evd0dg2m9a772jq,
title = {The archaic names reuse their signs like real names, not like the administrative labels around them},
author = {{Mysteries Department}},
year = {2026},
note = {Evidence, catalog key EVD0DG2M9A772JQ},
url = {https://mysteriesdept.com/r/EVD0DG2M9A772JQ}
}