# Sign order in names becomes linguistic in Archaic Ur, not before > In the read Archaic Ur names, signs take fixed slots that follow Sumerian syntax: predicates such as SI, GAL, HI (du10) and DA come last 85–93% of the… Source: https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/evidence/EVD0DG361QJ6NM2/sign-order-in-names-becomes-linguistic-in-archaic-ur-not 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 # Sign order in names becomes linguistic in Archaic Ur, not before In the read Archaic Ur names, signs take fixed slots that follow Sumerian syntax: predicates such as SI, GAL, HI (du10) and DA come last 85–93% of the time. In Uruk III names the same signs have no such slots, and a sign's share of final positions in Uruk III does not predict its share in Archaic Ur (Spearman 0.01 over 19 shared signs, p = 0.96). Supported0 ## What it means Key question[When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT8N8Y2GZ/when-and-how-did-phonetic-spelling-begin-in-mesopotamian) No answer ahead yet **Open** unchanged Answer this evidence bears on[Phonetic spelling begins at Archaic Ur, c. 2900 BC](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/answers/ANS0DEE99VTJW8C/phonetic-spelling-begins-at-archaic-ur-c-2900-bc) Supports2 for, 2 against **Still possible** unchanged What it implies 1. Linguistic order in names arrives with Archaic Ur, alongside the first phonetic spellings; nothing in Uruk III name order points to Sumerian.For the key question: When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing? 1. Supports the notation view of Uruk III writing: signs in a name have a habitual but non-linguistic arrangement.For: What language, if any, do the proto-cuneiform texts record? ## Next steps 9 1 Chart phonetic name spellings by period Could shiftGood odds~8 h [On: When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT8N8Y2GZ/when-and-how-did-phonetic-spelling-begin-in-mesopotamian) **24** score Details Take the signs that write grammatical endings and syllables in Fara personal names, and count their rate per 1,000 name tokens in Uruk III, Archaic Ur and Fara names, against a shuffled-sign baseline for each period. The current answer predicts a rate at the baseline in Uruk III, a clear rise at Archaic Ur and a further rise at Fara; a clear excess already in Uruk III would meet its second kill criterion. 2 Look for other suffixes Could shiftFair odds~4 h [On: When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT8N8Y2GZ/when-and-how-did-phonetic-spelling-begin-in-mesopotamian) **20** score Details Repeat the body-part / kinship association test for other signs that later spell grammatical endings in names (-ŋu10 MU, -zu ZU, -e/-a), to see whether NI is a single case or part of a pattern. 3 Date the Blau monuments by their sign forms Could shiftFair odds~10 h [On: When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT8N8Y2GZ/when-and-how-did-phonetic-spelling-begin-in-mesopotamian) **13** score Details The Blau monuments are dated anywhere from about 3100 to 2700 BC, and Krebernik reads them as Sumerian. Compare their sign forms, sign by sign, with dated Uruk III, Archaic Ur and Fara forms on CDLI photographs and line art, and place them on that sequence. If they sit with Uruk III, any phonetic reading on them would push phonetic spelling before Archaic Ur, against the current answer; if they sit with Archaic Ur or later, they fit it. 4 Mark and test the Archaic Ur names Could shiftFair odds~16 h [On: When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT8N8Y2GZ/when-and-how-did-phonetic-spelling-begin-in-mesopotamian) **10** score Details Mark personal names by hand in the 394 Archaic Ur tablets in sign-name transliteration (UET 2, ATFU) and test whether names there use a reserved or rare sign subset more than Uruk III names do, the expected trace of the first phonetic name spellings. Ranked by how likely each is to move the key question, for the time it takes[All 9 on the question](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/questions/QST0DEDT8N8Y2GZ/when-and-how-did-phonetic-spelling-begin-in-mesopotamian#next) ## How it was found 1 run [Sign position in names: Uruk III vs read Archaic Ur, plus order rigidity with proto-Elamite](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/runs/RUN0DG378H71FBR/sign-position-in-names-uruk-iii-vs-read-archaic-ur-plus) Method [Within-name position test against a shuffle](https://mysteriesdept.com/methods/MTH0DFQRKBRYDX3/within-name-position-test-against-a-shuffle) · [Session 9](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/sessions/SES0DG38A190RRC/session-9-brute-force-checks-of-the-candidate-readings-sign) **Result.** Uruk III name order does not predict Archaic Ur name order (rho 0.01, p = 0.96). In Archaic Ur, predicates such as SI, GAL, HI and DA are final 85–93% of the time. Pair-order rigidity: Uruk III all entries 0.77, Uruk names 0.84, proto-Elamite 0.85, Archaic Ur read names 0.96. Spearman correlation of per-sign final-position share, Uruk III names vs Archaic Ur read names**0.011** Linguistic order in names appears with Archaic Ur; Uruk III name order is habitual but not Sumerian syntax. Figure 1 Name sign order is near-fixed by Archaic Ur, looser in Uruk III Share of co-occurring sign pairs written in their dominant order (pairs seen 3+ times) pair-order rigidity Archaic Ur names are transliterations in reading order, so 0.96 is close to a ceiling. Drawn by the site with [Sign position in names](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/runs/RUN0DG378H71FBR/sign-position-in-names-uruk-iii-vs-read-archaic-ur-plus) [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)[edI_names.py][order_profile_stat.py][order_rigidity.py][3 outputs](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/runs/RUN0DG378H71FBR/sign-position-in-names-uruk-iii-vs-read-archaic-ur-plus#outputs) Notes from the run Proto-Elamite ATF: CDLI search export, period Proto-Elamite, 1,597 texts, 3,302 multi-sign entries (M-signs, variants stripped). Its 0.85 rigidity, against 0.77 for Uruk III, fits Dahl's view that proto-Elamite writes owners partly syllabically [@dahl2009iran], but entries were not split by type. ## Sources 2 [A descriptive grammar of Sumerian](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDHRSSNWMQ/a-descriptive-grammar-of-sumerian) Jagersma 2010 SRC [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 ## Cite it ``` Mysteries Department. (2026). Sign order in names becomes linguistic in Archaic Ur, not before [Evidence EVD0DG361QJ6NM2]. https://mysteriesdept.com/r/EVD0DG361QJ6NM2 ``` Key **EVD** 0DG361QJ6NM2 Kind Evidence Tier Supported Found in [Session 9](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/sessions/SES0DG38A190RRC/session-9-brute-force-checks-of-the-candidate-readings-sign) · 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/EVD0DG361QJ6NM2)