Position in chronology
UET 2, 0026
Translation · reference
ExperimentalSource: CDLI raw catalogue, no published translation. P-number P005599.
Translation · AI engine
read from photo[...] [...] calf(?) ...(sign) IB [...] mother, statue [...] [...] [...] [...] 1 (unit): HI, Nanna, builder/architect mother, |GAN×HI|(?), made/performed [...] An, mother, snake(?)/Muš [...]
8 uncertain terms ↓
- AMAR ME~a? IB~a — AMAR = 'calf' or component of a name/title; ME~a uncertain sign variant; IB~a reading unclear — could be a personal name component or commodity sign
- AMA~b — Standard Sumerian for 'mother'; the ~b variant indicates a specific sign form used at Ur in ED period; could also be a theophoric element (e.g. mother-goddess title)
- ALAN~a# — Typically 'statue' or 'figure' in Sumerian; the # indicates the reading is partially damaged/uncertain in the transliteration
- |GAN~dxHI|? — Complex sign compound; the ? in transliteration signals the editor's uncertainty; GAN×HI compounds are rare and context-dependent
- AK~a# — Sumerian verb 'to do/make/perform'; # indicates damaged sign; reading plausible but not certain
- MUSZ3~a# — Typically 'snake' (Sumerian muš) or could be part of a personal name; damaged, hence # in transliteration; [...] after it indicates following text is broken
- SZIDIM — Sumerian for 'builder' or 'architect'; well-attested in Ur ED administrative texts in connection with temple construction
- HI — Sign value and function here uncertain; could be a commodity, a personal name element, or a qualifier
Reasoning ↓
VISUAL READING (Layer 1): The photograph shows multiple views of a small, heavily fragmented clay tablet (museum number UII695 / UM 37-07-006 visible on label, confirming identity). The main inscribed face (centre-left fragment in the middle row) shows several lines of early cuneiform wedge-impressions. The clay surface is light buff, moderately eroded, with some chipping at edges and one noticeable crack/break running diagonally. Individual sign-groups are visible but the resolution and oblique lighting make it impossible to securely read more than partial sign forms: I can tentatively make out what appear to be AMA (mother) sign clusters, a ALAN-like compound, and possibly a numeral impression (1×N01) consistent with the transliteration, plus what may be NANNA and SZIDIM in one line. The reverse and edge fragments show no legible inscription. CROSS-CHECK (Layer 2): The transliteration is consistent with what little can be seen in the photo—early ED Ur administrative/dedicatory fragment. The line with '1(N01) HI NANNA~a SZIDIM' is the most coherent: one unit of something related to Nanna (the moon-god of Ur) and a builder/architect (SZIDIM). AMA~b ('mother') recurs, possibly referring to a goddess-title or a maternal figure. ALAN~a ('statue/figure') and AK~a ('made') suggest a dedicatory or workshop context. The sign |GAN~dxHI| is a complex compound that is uncertain. MUSZ3~a could be 'snake' or part of a personal name. The tablet's early-dynastic date from Ur is consistent with this sparse, formulaic, possibly administrative or votive register. No established parallel text could be identified to raise confidence above experimental given the heavy lacunae and sign uncertainty.
Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · prompt 2026-05-11/v3-conventions · May 11, 2026 · 3054 in / 968 out tokens
Why it matters
Transliteration
[...] , [...] AMAR ME~a? IB~a [...] , AMA~b ALAN~a# [...] , [...] [...] , [...] 1(N01) , HI NANNA~a SZIDIM , AMA~b |GAN~dxHI|? AK~a# [...] , AN AMA~b MUSZ3~a# [...]
Scholarly note
Catalogue entry from CDLI (ED I-II (ca. 2900-2700 BC)) — UET 2, 0026. No scholarly translation has been published; the transliteration is from the ATF (CDLI's Atf-Friendly format).
Attribution
Image: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA (P005599) — Photo via Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. source
Translation excerpted from CDLI raw catalogue, no published translation. P-number P005599..
Related tablets
Related sources
One of the earliest specimens of human writing. Not literature, not law — accounting. The need to keep track of grain in a temple bureaucracy is what pushed marks-on-clay into a system that could one day carry epics.
Marks the boundary between proto-writing and writing. We can see signs being used systematically — but not yet phonetically. The leap to recording speech itself comes a few centuries later.
The earliest historical document in human history. Before this, we have lists, accounts, and dedications. Here, for the first time, a ruler tells us what happened — with names, places, and consequences.