Sumerian·Book

Position in chronology

MS 3009

~3300 BCE·Uruk Period·P006263

About this tablet

One of the earliest written documents in human history, this small clay tablet dates to the Uruk period in Mesopotamia, roughly 3200–3000 BCE, before writing was fully developed into the cuneiform script familiar from later millennia. It is an administrative record — a tally of commodities and personnel (plants or rations, people classed as workers, and other goods) associated with institutional offices such as a chief administrator and an EN (lord or high priest). The round impressions are archaic numerical notation, not yet the wedge-shaped numbers of later cuneiform. Such tablets are the very birth certificate of writing: bureaucrats in the world's first cities invented marks on clay simply to keep track of things.

Plain-language summary by the engine — meant as a doorway into the literal translation below.

Translation · reference

Low confidence
2 units, herb/plant — DIN 3 units 4 sub-units, [commodity ZATU842] — EN 2 units, Uruk [blank / ruling] 2 units, head (person?) — IB 3 units 2 sub-units, troops/workers (ERIN) 3 units, eggs / round objects (NUNUZ) 2 large units 3 units 6 sub-units, city(-quarter?) — chief administrator (SANGA) — EN [...]

Source: engine:claude-sonnet-4-6 (2026-05-12/v4-interpretation)

Translation · AI engine

read from photo
Low confidence
2 units, herb/plant — DIN 3 units 4 sub-units, [commodity ZATU842] — EN 2 units, Uruk [blank / ruling] 2 units, head (person?) — IB 3 units 2 sub-units, troops/workers (ERIN) 3 units, eggs / round objects (NUNUZ) 2 large units 3 units 6 sub-units, city(-quarter?) — chief administrator (SANGA) — EN [...]
9 uncertain terms
  • ZATU842A rare or unidentified archaic pictograph catalogued in the ZATU sign list; its commodity referent is unknown or disputed. Cannot verify from photo.
  • EN~aThe archaic sign for EN, conventionally interpreted as a high-status office-holder, lord, or high priest of an institution; exact semantic force in this administrative context debated.
  • UNUG~aThe archaic sign for Uruk (the city); here possibly denoting origin of goods, institutional affiliation, or a toponym used as category label.
  • DINArchaic sign often associated with plant/herbal products or a specific commodity class; exact referent uncertain.
  • IB~aSign whose precise commodity or personnel referent in the archaic corpus is not securely established; associated with SAG ('head') here, possibly indicating a category of person.
  • ERINConventionally read as 'troops' or 'workers/labor force'; in archaic texts the precise institutional meaning is debated.
  • NUNUZ~a2Literally depicts a round object or egg; may refer to eggs, seed, or a specific commodity class. The exact referent is uncertain.
  • KISZ GAL~a SANGA~a EN~aThis line on the reverse is heavily damaged and mineral-encrusted in the photo; SANGA is conventionally rendered 'chief administrator' or 'temple administrator'; readings marked # and ? in the transliteration indicate the excavator's own uncertainty. Cannot verify from photo.
  • N14, N01, N34Archaic numerical signs: N14 is a large circular impression (value ~10 in certain commodity contexts), N01 is a small circular impression (value 1), N34 is a large impressed circle of different type. Values vary by commodity context in the archaic sexagesimal/bisexagesimal systems.
Reasoning ↓

Visual examination of the obverse (upper central image) shows a well-preserved small lenticular clay tablet divided into ruled cells by incised lines. The obverse displays clearly legible circular/semi-circular impressed numerals (the archaic N14 and N01 notation) in the left columns of each cell, alongside pictographic signs in the right columns. I can confirm numerals in multiple cells — groups of large circular impressions (N14 = ~10 units) and smaller ones (N01 = 1 unit) — consistent with the transliteration's numerical notations. The pictographic signs are harder to resolve at this resolution: I can see what appears to be a plant/herb sign (U2~b), a head sign (SAG), and signs consistent with ERIN and NUNUZ in their archaic pictographic forms. The sign ZATU842 is not independently verifiable from the photo at this resolution. The reverse (lower image) is heavily encrusted with mineral deposits (calcite crystallisation) and the signs there are almost entirely obscured — the transliteration's final line with KISZ, GAL, SANGA, EN cannot be verified from the photo. The edge views show the typical lenticular profile of an archaic Uruk tablet. Overall the photo broadly supports the transliteration's structure of numerical + commodity entries, but precise sign identification for the rarer signs (ZATU842, KISZ, SANGA) cannot be confirmed. The sign readings follow the CDLI/ZATU sign list conventions for the archaic Uruk corpus; N14 = large circular impression (~10), N01 = small circular impression (1), N34 = large impressed quantity marker.

Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · prompt 2026-05-12/v4-interpretation · May 12, 2026 · 3462 in / 1217 out tokens

Why it matters

Transliteration

2(N14) , U2~b DIN
3(N14) 4(N01) , ZATU842 EN~a
2(N14) , UNUG~a
,
2(N14) , SAG IB~a
3(N14) 2(N01) , ERIN
3(N14) , NUNUZ~a2
2(N34) 3(N14) 6(N01) , KISZ GAL~a# SANGA~a# EN~a#? [...]

Scholarly note

Catalogue entry from CDLI (Uruk IV (ca. 3350-3200 BC) ?) — MS 3009. No scholarly translation has been published; the transliteration is from the ATF (CDLI's Atf-Friendly format).

Attribution

Image: Schøyen Collection, Oslo, Norway (P006263) — Photo via Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. source
Translation excerpted from engine:claude-sonnet-4-6 (2026-05-12/v4-interpretation).

Related tablets

Related sources