Evidence · Proto-cuneiform: the archaic texts of Uruk

Archaic names match ordinary entries less than attested Sumerian names do, but no more than shuffled names (superseded)

27 of 311 archaic multi-sign name types (8.7%) have exactly the sign make-up of a lemmatized Early Dynastic personal name, against 4.2% (95% 2.3–6.8%) for archaic administrative entries of the same lengths (p = 0.0002); matches include e2-zi (78 Early Dynastic attestations), giri3-ni (30), šu-me, gi-na, ma-ma and en-ki.

Speculative0

What it means

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

5 answers, none ahead yet

Openunchanged

Answer this evidence bears onProto-cuneiform records Sumerian

Supports3 for, 6 against

Still possibleunchanged

What it implies

The Uruk III onomasticon is mixed: mostly non-Sumerian in profile, with a minority layer of names that recur as Sumerian names. That fits a population in which Sumerian names were present but not dominant, or a naming stock that was later Sumerianised.For the key question: What language, if any, do the proto-cuneiform texts record?
The matched names give candidate Sumerian readings for specific archaic names, the first route to reading archaic entries aloud.For: Do the roughly 440 personal names in the archaic texts follow Sumerian, Semitic or some other naming pattern?

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

Reading bridge: archaic names matched to attested Early Dynastic names

Method Name-element enrichment against a corpus baseline · Session 8

Result. Both pre-declared tests are positive. Archaic names recur as Early Dynastic names at twice the chance rate, and name-specific signs are shared across the break. The archaic onomasticon is mixed, with a continuous Sumerian layer. Two specific readings are raised as questions: GIR3 NI = giri3-ni, and EN AN E2 = Enlil..

R1 share of archaic multi-sign name types whose sign multiset equals an Early Dynastic name type, against length-matched archaic administrative entries; R2 Spearman correlation of per-sign name preference across periods, against a permutation null{'R1': {'p': 0.0002, 'rate': 0.087, 'matched': 27, 'name_types': 311, 'ED_name_types': 7162, 'label_null_95': [0.023, 0.068], 'label_null_median': 0.042}, 'R2': {'p': 0.0015, 'signs': 140, 'null_95': [-0.174, 0.159], 'spearman': 0.249}}Both pre-declared tests are positive. Archaic names recur as Early Dynastic names at twice the chance rate, and name-specific signs are shared across the break. The archaic onomasticon is mixed, with a continuous Sumerian layer. Two specific readings are raised as questions: GIR3 NI = giri3-ni, and EN AN E2 = Enlil.

Figure 1

Archaic names recur as attested Sumerian names twice as often as ordinary entries do

Share of archaic multi-sign entry types whose sign set equals an Early Dynastic personal name; CDLI Uruk III and Oracc ePSD2 (7,162 name types)

match rate

Matches include e2-zi, giri3-ni, šu-me, gi-na, ma-ma, en-ki and {d}en-lil2. Single matches can be coincidental; the rate is the evidence.

Drawn by the site with Reading bridge

Archaic personal names in proto-cuneiform (editor-marked, CDLI)Early Dynastic Sumerian personal names, lemmatized (Oracc ePSD2 admin corpora ED I–II, IIIa, IIIb)reading_bridge.py names_test.py 1 output

Sources 2

Kingship in the Early Mesopotamian Onomasticon 2800–2200 BCE

Andersson 2012

SRC

The Smell of the Cage

Englund 2009

SRC

Cite it

Mysteries Department. (2026). Archaic names match ordinary entries less than attested Sumerian names do, but no more than shuffled names (superseded) [Evidence EVD0DG2T40VTXKB]. https://mysteriesdept.com/r/EVD0DG2T40VTXKB

@misc{mysteriesdept_evd0dg2t40vtxkb,
  title     = {Archaic names match ordinary entries less than attested Sumerian names do, but no more than shuffled names (superseded)},
  author    = {{Mysteries Department}},
  year      = {2026},
  note      = {Evidence, catalog key EVD0DG2T40VTXKB},
  url       = {https://mysteriesdept.com/r/EVD0DG2T40VTXKB}
}