Evidence · Proto-cuneiform: the archaic texts of Uruk

The archaic names form a real naming system that is not Sumerian

The archaic name entries reuse a small, concentrated sign vocabulary as real names do (top-10 coverage 31.7% against 19–24% for the same corpus's labels), yet carry the Sumerian name elements at an odds ratio of 1.35 against 4.5–5.8 for Sumerian names: a naming system, but not a Sumerian one.

Suggestive0

What it means

Key questionWhat language, if any, do the proto-cuneiform texts record?

5 answers, none ahead yet

Openunchanged

Answer this evidence bears onThe language is unknown (Englund's agnosticism)

Supports4 for, 1 against

Still possibleunchanged

What it implies

The names evidence now favours an unidentified non-Sumerian naming tradition in Uruk III administration; the question becomes which, and whether it is the scribes' own.For the key question: What language, if any, do the proto-cuneiform texts record?

Next steps 14

Labels or names: element reuse against Early Dynastic

Could shiftGood odds~4 h

On: What language, if any, do the proto-cuneiform texts record?

40score

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.

Test the numeral-order argument on Sumerian accounts

Could shiftGood odds~6 h

On: What language, if any, do the proto-cuneiform texts record?

34score

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.

Officials' names in Uruk III

Could decideFair odds~10 h

On: What language, if any, do the proto-cuneiform texts record?

28score

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.

Officials' names

Could decideFair odds~10 h

On: What language, if any, do the proto-cuneiform texts record?

28score

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 takesAll 14 on the question

How it was found 1 run

Labels or names: element-reuse profile of the archaic names

Method Name-element enrichment against a corpus baseline · Session 6

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

Archaic personal names in proto-cuneiform (editor-marked, CDLI)Early Dynastic Sumerian personal names, lemmatized (Oracc ePSD2 admin corpora ED I–II, IIIa, IIIb)Nino-cunei/uruk: the Uruk IV-III corpus in Text-Fabric reuse_test.py names_test.py 1 output

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 Early Development of the Cuneiform Writing System, and Its Regional Adaptation

Dahl 2025

SRC

The Smell of the Cage

Englund 2009

SRC

Cite it

Mysteries Department. (2026). The archaic names form a real naming system that is not Sumerian [Evidence EVD0DG2M9KTA1H6]. https://mysteriesdept.com/r/EVD0DG2M9KTA1H6

@misc{mysteriesdept_evd0dg2m9kta1h6,
  title     = {The archaic names form a real naming system that is not Sumerian},
  author    = {{Mysteries Department}},
  year      = {2026},
  note      = {Evidence, catalog key EVD0DG2M9KTA1H6},
  url       = {https://mysteriesdept.com/r/EVD0DG2M9KTA1H6}
}