# 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… Source: https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DG2M9A772JQ/the-archaic-names-reuse-their-signs-like-real-names-not-like 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 # 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%). 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 Answer this evidence bears on[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) Counts against1 for, 1 against **Still possible** unchanged What it implies 1. 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? 1. 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 1 Labels or names: element reuse against Early Dynastic Could shiftGood odds~4 h [On: 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) **40** score 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. 2 Test the numeral-order argument on Sumerian accounts Could shiftGood odds~6 h [On: 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) **34** score 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. 3 Officials' names in Uruk III Could decideFair odds~10 h [On: 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) **28** score 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. 4 Officials' names Could decideFair odds~10 h [On: 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) **28** score Details Test name-like entries attached to officials and institutions in Uruk III, to separate the scribes' own naming culture from the listed workers'. Ranked by how likely each is to move the key question, for the time it takes[All 14 on the question](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT73JJJ1B/what-language-if-any-do-the-proto-cuneiform-texts-record#next) ## How it was found 1 run [Labels or names: element-reuse profile of the archaic names](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/runs/RUN0DG2MEXJ8YZH/labels-or-names-element-reuse-profile-of-the-archaic-names) Method [Name-element enrichment against a corpus baseline](https://mysteriesdept.com/methods/MTH0DFQRJYNCY4T/name-element-enrichment-against-a-corpus-baseline) · [Session 6](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/sessions/SES0DG2MKAN4VC4/session-6-labels-or-names-the-archaic-name-entries-behave-as) **Result.** NAME-LIKE by the pre-declared majority rule: three metrics name-like, two undecided, none label-like. The archaic name entries behave as a naming system, not as ordinary administrative designations.. Five order-free reuse metrics at matched token count (1,103), archaic names against 200 subsamples each of archaic administrative entries and Early Dynastic names**{'m3_ttr': {'ED': [0.149, 0.211], 'names': 0.191, 'labels': [0.242, 0.272], 'verdict': 'NAME-LIKE'}, 'overall': 'NAME-LIKE', 'm1_reuse': {'ED': [0.54, 0.671], 'names': 0.569, 'labels': [0.505, 0.601], 'verdict': 'UNDECIDED'}, 'm2_top10': {'ED': [0.315, 0.373], 'names': 0.317, 'labels': [0.194, 0.236], 'verdict': 'NAME-LIKE'}, 'm4_pairs': {'ED': [0.478, 0.66], 'names': 0.382, 'labels': [0.249, 0.379], 'verdict': 'UNDECIDED'}, 'm5_repeat': {'ED': [0.198, 0.342], 'names': 0.3, 'labels': [0.208, 0.268], 'verdict': 'NAME-LIKE'}}** NAME-LIKE by the pre-declared majority rule: three metrics name-like, two undecided, none label-like. The archaic name entries behave as a naming system, not as ordinary administrative designations. Figure 1 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 median / observed95% low95% high Same script, same archives: the names use a far more concentrated vocabulary than ordinary administrative entries. Two of five pre-declared metrics were undecided; none was label-like. Drawn by the site with [Labels or names](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/runs/RUN0DG2MEXJ8YZH/labels-or-names-element-reuse-profile-of-the-archaic-names) [Archaic personal names in proto-cuneiform (editor-marked, CDLI)](https://mysteriesdept.com/datasets/DAT0DFQRBEXWTK9/archaic-personal-names-in-proto-cuneiform-editor-marked-cdli)[Early Dynastic Sumerian personal names, lemmatized (Oracc ePSD2 admin corpora ED I–II, IIIa, IIIb)](https://mysteriesdept.com/datasets/DAT0DFVPZDQBX11/early-dynastic-sumerian-personal-names-lemmatized-oracc)[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)[reuse_test.py][names_test.py][1 output](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/runs/RUN0DG2MEXJ8YZH/labels-or-names-element-reuse-profile-of-the-archaic-names#outputs) 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 [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). The archaic names reuse their signs like real names, not like the administrative labels around them [Evidence EVD0DG2M9A772JQ]. https://mysteriesdept.com/r/EVD0DG2M9A772JQ ``` Key **EVD** 0DG2M9A772JQ Kind Evidence Tier Suggestive Found in [Session 6](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/sessions/SES0DG2MKAN4VC4/session-6-labels-or-names-the-archaic-name-entries-behave-as) · 3 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/EVD0DG2M9A772JQ)