MSVO 1, 066

~3100 BCE·Uruk Period·P005133

Translation · reference

Experimental

Source: CDLI raw catalogue, no published translation. P-number P005133.

Translation · AI engine

read from photo

Low confidence

1 [unit], SZITA-vessel(?), EN-office, AB-institution, KAK-commodity 1 [unit], TAK4-allocation, U2-herbage/plant commodity, SAG-head/principal [...], [...] NIR-commodity/designation [...], [...] SZITA-vessel(?) 1 [unit], APIN-plow/field instrument, AMA-mother/cow(?) 1 [unit], EN-office, EZEN-festival/ration 1 [unit], 1 [large unit], EN-office, [...] 8 [units], URU-settlement/city, [...] 4 [units], hand-of-EN(?), X, [...] [...], [...]

13 uncertain terms ↓

SZITA~a1 — Proto-cuneiform sign; often associated with a vessel or container type, but semantic referent not firmly established in the archaic corpus.
EN~a — Conventionally 'lord' or 'high priest/chief officiant'; exact administrative force in this early period debated — could indicate an institutional role or a personal title.
AB~a — Polyphonous; later readings include 'sea,' 'father,' or an institutional marker. In administrative context may denote a temple or herding establishment.
KAK~a — Proto-cuneiform sign; later Sumerian KAK = 'nail/peg' but also used as a determinative or commodity marker at this period. Referent here unclear.
TAK4~a — Possibly related to later Sumerian TAK4 'to leave behind / allot'; administrative meaning in proto-cuneiform debated.
U2~b — Later Sumerian Ú = 'plant/herbage/grass'; in archaic texts may denote fodder, plant products, or a related commodity.
SAG — Later Sumerian SAG = 'head'; in administrative texts often 'chief,' 'principal,' or used in counting persons. Force here uncertain.
NIR~a — Sign of uncertain reading in proto-cuneiform; possible later equivalents include 'lord/noble' or a commodity designation.
APIN~b — Later Sumerian APIN = 'plow'; in administrative contexts at this period may refer to plow-land, a plow-team, or an agricultural allocation.
AMA~a — Later Sumerian AMA = 'mother'; in herding contexts may denote a female animal (cow/ewe). Exact referent here unclear.
EZEN~b — Later Sumerian EZEN = 'festival' or 'ration'; in archaic administrative texts may denote a festival ration allocation or a specific institutional occasion.
URU~a1 — Later Sumerian URU = 'city/settlement'; here may denote a settlement, a city-institution, or an urban labor pool.
1(N04) — A larger-denomination numeral in the sexagesimal or capacity system; exact value depends on the commodity being counted, which is not preserved.

Reasoning ↓

Visual examination of the photograph (museum no. 1924.1556) shows the tablet in at least four joining or near-joining fragments. The upper central fragment carries clearly visible cuneiform-like wedge impressions arranged in two columns separated by a ruled line, with round and elongated wedge impressions consistent with proto-cuneiform numerals (N01-type round styli impressions) visible at the left of several rows. The surface is eroded but some sign clusters are legible: in the upper rows I can make out sign groups that broadly correspond to the complex signs the transliteration labels EN~a, AB~a, and possibly SAG. The lower large fragment shows only faint, shallow impressions — largely illegible from this photograph — with what appears to be a broad wedge cluster at bottom (possibly a large numeral or sign group). The small side fragments contribute no clearly readable signs at this resolution. The transliteration's structure (numeral + sign cluster per entry) is consistent with what is visible in the photo. The damaged/broken state noted with '#' and '[...]' in the transliteration matches the physical breaks and surface erosion visible in the photograph. Sign-by-sign verification of SZITA~a1, TAK4~a, NIR~a, APIN~b, AMA~a, and EZEN~b cannot be confirmed from the photo at this resolution. No standard published translation of MSVO 1, 066 is available to cross-check beyond the CDLI record. Confidence is low due to the proto-cuneiform period (signs are largely undeciphered logograms), the fragmentary state, and the inability to resolve individual sign identities beyond broad outlines.

Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · prompt 2026-05-12/v4-interpretation · May 14, 2026 · 1793 in / 1440 out tokens

Why it matters

Transliteration

1(N01)# , SZITA~a1 EN~a AB~a KAK~a
1(N01)# , TAK4~a U2~b SAG
[...] , [...] NIR~a#
[...] , [...] SZITA~a1#?
1(N01) , APIN~b AMA~a
1(N01) , EN~a EZEN~b
1(N01) , 1(N04) EN~a [...]
8(N01) , URU~a1 [...]
4(N01) , SZU EN~a# X [...]
[...] , [...]

Scholarly note

Catalogue entry from CDLI (Uruk III (ca. 3200-3000 BC)) — MSVO 1, 066. No scholarly translation has been published; the transliteration is from the ATF (CDLI's Atf-Friendly format).

Attribution

Image: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, UK (P005133) — Photo via Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. source
Translation excerpted from CDLI raw catalogue, no published translation. P-number P005133..

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.