MS 4542

~3100 BCE·Uruk Period·P006322

Translation · reference

Experimental

Source: CDLI raw catalogue, no published translation. P-number P006322.

Translation · AI engine

read from photo

Low confidence

[...] 2(N34) 2(N14) [...] X X [...] 2(N34) [...] X X [...] female, well(?), lord/EN X [...] 1(N14) 5(N01) , 3(N57) BAN-measure 1(N14) 3(N01) , storehouse(?) X 6(N34) 2(N14) 3(N01) , ibex(?) | fat-tailed sheep |, temple administrator, prince/lord, great, [object/implement]

9 uncertain terms ↓

PU2#? — Reading uncertain even in the transliteration (marked with ?). PU2 is the sign for 'well/pit'; could be a determinative, place name element, or damaged sign of another identity.
EN~a — Conventionally 'lord' or 'high priest/administrator'; exact institutional role in this proto-cuneiform context is debated. Could be a title or name element.
DARA4~c2 — Usually read as 'ibex' or a wild ungulate in proto-cuneiform livestock contexts; the ~c2 variant form is attested but less common than ~a.
|DU8~cxUDU~a| — A compound sign; DU8 with UDU inside, conventionally interpreted as a specific category of sheep (possibly 'fat-tailed sheep' or a penned/fattened animal). Exact meaning debated.
NUN~a — In later Sumerian 'prince/lord', but in proto-cuneiform livestock lists may be a breed or quality designation rather than a title.
SZITA~a1 — An archaic sign whose later reading is 'šita' (a type of weapon or cultic implement); in this livestock/administrative context its exact function is unclear — may be a quality marker or personal identifier.
3(N57) BAN~b — N57 is a capacity measure sign; BAN~b is a vessel/measure. The combination records a specific quantity in the capacity system, but the exact volume equivalent is debated for the Uruk period.
E2~a#? — The house/storehouse sign; the reading is uncertain in the transliteration itself (marked #?). Could be a building designation or the beginning of a compound.
GAL~a — 'Great' as an epithet modifying the preceding title(s); whether it modifies SANGA, NUN, or forms a compound title is syntactically ambiguous in proto-cuneiform.

Reasoning ↓

LAYER 1 — VISUAL READING: The photo shows a small, roughly rectangular clay tablet photographed from multiple angles (obverse, reverse, and edges). The surface is heavily worn and crossed by a diagonal crack on the obverse. On the obverse, I can make out groups of impressed circular and wedge signs that are consistent with proto-cuneiform numerals (large and small circular impressions typical of N14 and N01) and several pictographic signs, though individual sign identification is difficult due to erosion and the crack. The lower portion of the obverse shows what appears to be a more densely inscribed line with several distinct sign groups; one elongated cluster in the lower register is consistent with compound signs. The reverse shows clearer impressions: in the upper portion a rounded sign group, and in the lower register what appears to be a series of horizontal wedges possibly representing a quantity or sign cluster. The left edge bears a modern museum accession number in ink (legible as approximately '3 55 52?' in modern numerals). LAYER 2 — CROSS-CHECK: The transliteration's numerical signs (N34, N14, N01, N57) are consistent with the circular impressed marks I can see, though I cannot verify exact counts of the smaller signs from the photo. The compound sign |DU8~cxUDU~a| in line 6 corresponds to what appears to be a complex sign cluster on the lower obverse, but resolution is insufficient to confirm internal elements. The signs SANGA~a, NUN~a, GAL~a, and SZITA~a1 in line 6 form a sequence that I can partially see as a dense group of impressions but cannot individually distinguish. LAYER 3 — SAL and PU2/EN in line 3 cannot be securely verified from the photo; those portions of the surface are eroded. Overall the photo and transliteration are broadly compatible but individual sign readings in damaged areas cannot be confirmed visually.

Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · prompt 2026-05-12/v4-interpretation · May 14, 2026 · 2285 in / 1369 out tokens

Why it matters

Transliteration

[...] 2(N34)# 2(N14)# [...] , X X [...]
2(N34)# [...] , X X
, SAL PU2#? EN~a# X [...]
1(N14)# 5(N01)# , 3(N57)# BAN~b
1(N14)# 3(N01)# , E2~a#? X
6(N34) 2(N14) 3(N01) , DARA4~c2 |DU8~cxUDU~a|# SANGA~a NUN~a GAL~a SZITA~a1

Scholarly note

Catalogue entry from CDLI (Uruk III (ca. 3200-3000 BC)) — MS 4542. No scholarly translation has been published; the transliteration is from the ATF (CDLI's Atf-Friendly format).

Attribution

Image: Schøyen Collection, Oslo, Norway (P006322) — Photo via Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. source
Translation excerpted from CDLI raw catalogue, no published translation. P-number P006322..

Related tablets

Related sources

~3200 BCE

Proto-Cuneiform Account Tablet

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.

~3500 BCE

Kish Tablet

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.

~2450 BCE

Stele of the Vultures

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.