Position in chronology
UET 2, 0123
About this tablet
A small, heavily damaged proto-cuneiform accounting tablet from Ur, dating to the Early Dynastic period (roughly 2900–2350 BCE). It records numerical quantities — probably counted in the standard N14/N01 system, where N14 represents a larger unit — against commodity signs that appear to include linen cloth and possibly wool or a flour/ration item. Tablets like this are the earliest form of bookkeeping: a temple or household administrator tracking goods in and out of a storehouse. Its interest lies partly in its early date and partly in the difficulty of reading proto-cuneiform signs whose Sumerian values are still debated.
Plain-language summary by the engine — meant as a doorway into the literal translation below.
Written in modern English
The tablet records several entries, each pairing a number with a commodity. One entry gives '1×N14 + 4×N01' units of something described as 'processed' or 'made.' A second gives '1×N14 + 5×N01' units of what may be an oil or fat product together with a flour or ration item. A third entry, partially broken, lists a further quantity against an unreadable sign. A fourth line mentions wool (or a wool-quality grade) and linen cloth. The remaining lines are too damaged to read.
A modern paraphrase of the literal translation — same content, contemporary voice.
Translation — our engine
Our engine1(N14@f) 4(N01@f) [...] , processed/made [...] 1(N14@f) 5(N01@f) , NI~b ZI~a 1(N14@f)# 3(N01@f)# [...] , X [...] [...] , wool(?) [RU] linen [...] , [...]
Our translation engine — Sonnet 4.6. Reads the photo, translates the cuneiform, and writes a plain-language interpretation. See methodology for limits.
Engine notes
read from photo6 uncertain terms ↓
- N14@f / N01@f — The @f modifier indicates a 'flat' variant of the impressed numeral; the commodity system governing these counts is uncertain — in some proto-cuneiform systems N14 = 10× N01, but this varies by context.
- AK~a — Proto-cuneiform sign; later AK means 'to do/make' but its precise administrative function here — processed product, action term, or category label — is unresolved.
- NI~b ZI~a — Both signs are attested in proto-cuneiform but their combination and semantic value in this context are unclear; NI can relate to oil or fat, ZI to flour or life-force, but neither reading is secure this early.
- SIG2~a1 — Marked with ? in the transliteration; may indicate 'fine quality' wool or textile grade, but the sign identification is uncertain given surface damage.
- RU — Reading of proto-cuneiform RU is debated: possible meanings include 'gift,' 'delivery,' or an institutional action; its value here is unresolved.
- GADA~a — Broadly accepted as the proto-cuneiform sign for linen cloth, but the precise textile category it denotes in the early dynastic Ur context may differ from the later Sumerian term gada.
Reasoning ↓
The photo shows a small, roughly rounded clay tablet photographed from multiple angles (obverse, reverse, edges, and top). The museum number U12851 / 37-7-28 is legible on the label in the bottom image, consistent with the catalog entry UM 37-07-028. The obverse (center-top image) preserves several columns of impressed and incised signs: on the left side I can make out vertical groupings of wedge/circle impressions consistent with proto-cuneiform numerals (N14 and N01 types — large circular and smaller round impressions), and to the right there are more complex incised signs, though the surface is heavily damaged with a large lacuna/hole through the center of the tablet that destroys a significant portion of the text. The left edge view shows what appears to be additional horizontal impressed signs. The reverse (bottom large image) is nearly blank or heavily eroded with no legible text visible. The top view shows faint signs but at this resolution they cannot be reliably identified. The transliteration's numerical structure (1 N14 + 4 N01, 1 N14 + 5 N01, 1 N14 + 3 N01) is broadly consistent with the grouped impressions visible on the obverse left, though the large central break means that most of the sign columns on the right side — including AK~a, NI~b ZI~a, SIG2, RU, GADA — cannot be verified from the photo. The damage described in the transliteration (brackets, lacunae) matches the visible physical destruction of the tablet surface. Transliteration-photo agreement is partial; much cannot be confirmed due to surface loss.
Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · prompt 2026-05-12/v4-interpretation · May 16, 2026 · 2169 in / 1028 out tokens
Transliteration
1(N14@f) 4(N01@f) [...] , AK~a 1(N14@f) 5(N01@f) , NI~b ZI~a 1(N14@f)# 3(N01@f)# [...] , X [...] , SIG2~a1? RU GADA~a# [...] , [...]
Scholarly note
Catalogue entry from CDLI (ED I-II (ca. 2900-2700 BC)) — UET 2, 0123. 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 (P005703) — Photo via Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. source
Translation excerpted from engine:claude-sonnet-4-6 (2026-05-28/v6-glossary-aware).
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.