Mysteries Department
Sign inRequest access
Proto-cuneiform: the archaic texts of UrukResearch sessionsSession 7
Research session 7 · Proto-cuneiform: the archaic texts of Uruk

Semitic comparison and Archaic Ur in the archaic convention

The Uruk III names carry neither a Sumerian nor an Akkadian name signature at anything near the strength those signatures reach in their own languages' names. Scored in the archaic sign-name convention, Archaic Ur names keep their Sumerian profile (odds ratio 3.8–5.8 against 1.35), so the switch between Uruk III and Archaic Ur is not a mapping artefact.

Session 73 Nov 2026Testing1 run3 evidence1 figure
Session 6 · Labels or names: the archaic name entries behave as a naming systemSession 8 · Toward a reading: archaic names that recur as Sumerian names, and a possible -ni suffix

Going in the sweep before the work

What changed since Session 63 Nov 2026, 05:12 → 31 Oct 2026, 15:39
0datasets added
0sources added
0news stories matched
0duplicates or retired records
Top next step going in: Mark and test the Archaic Ur names in sign names
Ranked 1 of 29 · could decide · good odds · ~12 h
STEP

In brief

  1. The Uruk III names match neither a Sumerian nor an Akkadian name signature (odds ratios 2.1 and 1.8, against 70 and 12 in each language's own names): the naming tradition is unidentified.
  2. In one shared transliteration convention, Archaic Ur names are Sumerian-pattern (3.8–5.8) and Uruk III names are not (1.35); the break, with a sharp turnover in name vocabulary, falls between about 3100 and 2800 BC.
What this changes: Central question: evidence against H-OTHER (Semitic; low power) and for H-UNKNOWN; names question: H-NAMES-NOTSUMERIAN robust to sign mapping.

What movedNo question changed standing

Key question
What language, if any, do the proto-cuneiform texts record?
+2 evidence, 1 for, 1 againsttaken up again
Proto-cuneiform records a non-Sumerian language · 0 for, 2 againstPossible
The language is unknown (Englund's agnosticism) · 4 for, 1 againstPossible
Openunchanged
Key question
When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?
6 next steps done, 1 addedtaken up again
Openunchanged
Openunchanged

What's next2 steps set · 7 done · ranked

1
8score
Details

Classify archaic name signs by meaning (deity, kinship, animal, place, quality, occupation) and compare the class mix with Sumerian and Akkadian names, the only language-neutral comparison open for pre-phonetic names.

2
Specialist hand-marking of Archaic Ur names
Adds evidenceFair odds~16 h
On: When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?
6score
Details

With a specialist, mark personal names by hand in a sample of the 394 CDLI sign-name Archaic Ur tablets (UET 2) and score them directly, as an independent check on the Oracc-based result.

Done this session
Mark personal names in the 394 Archaic Ur tablets in sign-name transliteration and repeat the element test directly, removing the reading-to-sign mapping step.
On: When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?Set in an earlier session
Done this session
Mark names in the 394 Archaic Ur tablets and score them in the same convention, to time the switch to Sumerian-pattern names and see whether any archaic name elements carry over.
On: When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?Set in an earlier session
Done this session
Mark names in the 394 Archaic Ur tablets and score them in the same sign-name convention, to locate the change between Uruk III and Ur directly.
On: When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?Set in an earlier session
Done this session
Repeat the element-share test with a Semitic element list (il, ilum, sarrum, abum, ahum and their logograms) from Biggs 1967 and the Abu Salabikh names, as a second comparison set.
On: Do the roughly 440 personal names in the archaic texts follow Sumerian, Semitic or some other naming pattern?Set in an earlier session
Done this session
Mark the personal names in the 394 Archaic Ur tablets transliterated in sign names (UET 2, ATFU) and repeat the element test on them, which removes the reading-to-sign mapping step from the comparison.
On: When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?
Done this session
Mark names in the 394 Archaic Ur tablets and score them directly in the same sign-name convention, to locate the change between Uruk III and Ur without the reading-to-sign mapping.
On: When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?
Done this session
Mark names in the 394 Archaic Ur tablets and score them in the same convention, to time the switch to Sumerian-pattern names and see whether any archaic name elements carry over.
On: When and how did phonetic spelling begin in Mesopotamian writing?

Next steps live on their questions, where anyone can take one up. Ranked by how likely each is to move a key question, for the time it takes.

What was done

  1. Semitic comparison. Oracc tags all Old Akkadian-period administrative names as Sumerian. Akkadian names were separated by fixed spelling markers (i3-li2, puzur4, šu-, -um and others): 1,582 Akkadian and 11,209 Sumerian names, with 12,857 left unclassified. For each language, the 15 signs most enriched in its names were learned on half the texts and checked on the other half. The Akkadian signature reaches an odds ratio of 12.3 in held-out Akkadian names and 1.3 in Sumerian names. The Sumerian signature reaches 70 in Sumerian names and 5.4 in Akkadian names [@biggs1967semitic] [@andersson2012kingship].

  2. On the archaic names. The Akkadian signature scores 1.76 (1.48–2.06) and the Sumerian one 2.1 (1.49–2.67). Neither is anywhere near native strength, and the names are not more Semitic than Sumerian. Power for Akkadian is low, because its signature is mostly syllabic signs that pre-phonetic names would not use.

Figure 1

Neither a Sumerian nor an Akkadian name signature is present in the Uruk III names at anything like native strength

Odds ratio of each data-driven signature (15 signs) in names against non-name words; held-out Old Akkadian-period names and Uruk III names, 95% intervals for Uruk III

051015odds ratio (names vs other words)Akkadian signature in Akkadian names (held out)Akkadian signature in Uruk III namesSumerian signature in Uruk III namesEnglund's list, Archaic Ur names, archaic conventionEnglund's list, Uruk III names
051015odds ratio (names vs other words)Akkadian si…Akkadian si…Sumerian si…Englund's l…Englund's l…
odds ratio95% low95% high
The Sumerian signature reaches 70 in held-out Sumerian names (off the scale). The Akkadian signature is mostly syllabic signs, so its absence from pre-phonetic names is weak evidence.
Drawn by the site

  1. Archaic Ur in the archaic convention. Hand-marking names in the 394 CDLI sign-name Archaic Ur tablets was impractical: they share only 2 texts with the 89 that Oracc has lemmatized, and matching known names would be circular. Instead, Oracc's 326 Archaic Ur names were converted to the CDLI proto-cuneiform sign names and scored with the identical element list. The odds ratio is 3.82 (2.75–4.89) with the conservative conversion and 5.84 (4.68–7.06) with a declared four-sign crosswalk, against 1.35 (1.09–1.60) for Uruk III.

  2. Carry-over. In the shared convention, Uruk III names resemble Archaic Ur names (cosine 0.47) more than Archaic Ur ordinary words (0.28). That is far less than Archaic Ur names resemble ED IIIa names (0.73). The shared signs are generic logograms. Naming vocabulary turns over sharply in the roughly 300 years before Archaic Ur [@dahl2025early].

Runs 1
RunMeasuredResultAgainstDecision
Semitic signature test and Archaic Ur in the archaic convention · 1 figureOdds ratio of data-driven Akkadian and Sumerian name signatures in the Uruk III names; odds ratio of Englund's elements in ED I–II names converted to the proto-cuneiform convention; cosine similarity of name sign profiles across periodsEach corpus's own non-name words · signatures learned on a random half of the Old Akkadian texts and validated on the other halfSemitic: the archaic names match the Akkadian signature no better than the Sumerian one, and far below either language's own names. That counts against H-OTHER's prediction, with low power. Archaic Ur: the Uruk III / Archaic Ur contrast holds in one convention under both conversions. Carry-over: there is a sharp turnover in name vocabulary between Uruk III and Archaic Ur.
Answers taken up again 3
QST
QST
QST
Evidence found 3
EVD
EVD
EVD
Used: datasets 2
DAT
DAT
Consulted: sources 1
SRC

Cite it

Mysteries Department. (2026). Session 7: Semitic comparison and Archaic Ur in the archaic convention [Research session SES0DG2Q5H13P3E]. https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform/sessions/SES0DG2Q5H13P3E/session-7-semitic-comparison-and-archaic-ur-in-the-archaic
Private beta Downloads are for beta members

We're in a private beta while we get things right. Everything here is free to read; downloading datasets, sources and code is open to members for now.

Apply to the betaSign in
It takes a couple of minutes. We'll reply by email.