Position in chronology
MS 3160
About this tablet
One of the earliest administrative records in human history, this small clay tablet from the Uruk period (roughly 3300–3000 BCE) records quantities of goods or personnel against a series of ideographic signs — among them what appear to be a supervisor, a servant, a festival, barley rations, and troops or workers. The numerals are impressed with a round stylus, a counting method older than the wedge-script we usually call cuneiform. At this early stage, writing was invented precisely to keep track of such institutional transactions — who received what, in what amounts — and this tablet is a direct witness to that invention. Its reverse face retains pictographic signs still close to their original drawn forms, including what looks like a crescent and a plant or grain stalk.
Plain-language summary by the engine — meant as a doorway into the literal translation below.
Translation · reference
Low confidence5 [units]: supervisor/elder, goat 1 [unit, large measure]: tooth/horn, natron, house[?] 4 [units]: servant/subordinate 3 [units]: festival 7 [units]: branch/ration-bearer 4 [large units] 2 [units]: dais/throne-platform 6 [large units]: barley, ration, troops/people
Source: engine:claude-sonnet-4-6 (2026-05-12/v4-interpretation)
Translation · AI engine
read from photo5 [units]: supervisor/elder, goat 1 [unit, large measure]: tooth/horn, natron, house[?] 4 [units]: servant/subordinate 3 [units]: festival 7 [units]: branch/ration-bearer 4 [large units] 2 [units]: dais/throne-platform 6 [large units]: barley, ration, troops/people
10 uncertain terms ↓
- PAP~a — Proto-cuneiform sign; often interpreted as 'elder', 'supervisor', or a kinship term; precise reading disputed in archaic period
- UZ — Typically 'goat' or a related bovid term in proto-cuneiform; sign form is pictographic
- NAGA — Often read as a type of plant or natron/alkali substance; context here unclear
- E2~b#? — The editor's '#?' signals uncertain reading; 'house' or an enclosure sign, but damage makes confirmation impossible
- SZUBUR — Often glossed as 'servant', 'slave', or a region/ethnic designation (Subir); meaning in this administrative context ambiguous
- EZEM~c — 'Festival' is the standard reading of EZEM variants, but which festival or administrative context is unspecified
- PA~a — Can mean 'branch', 'wing', or function as a determinative/classifier; in ration lists sometimes associated with ration-bearers or overseers
- BARA2~a — 'Dais', 'throne-platform', or 'shrine'; in administrative texts may designate an institutional space or official title
- ERIN — Conventionally 'troops', 'workers', 'people'; exact social/institutional category debated for this early period
- N14 — The large round numerical sign in the sexagesimal system, representing a higher-order unit (conventionally 10× N01 in most Uruk period contexts, though system varies by commodity)
Reasoning ↓
Photo examination: The obverse (upper central image) shows a small, rounded, lens-shaped clay tablet with five to seven horizontal ruled lines. Individual impressed numerical signs (round depressions for N01 units, larger circular impressions for N14 units) are clearly visible and broadly match the transliteration's numerical sequence. Several complex ideographic signs are present but the resolution and surface abrasion make precise sign-by-sign confirmation difficult. The reverse (lower large image) is strikingly pictographic: a clear crescent/moon-like sign at the bottom left, a dotted cluster (possibly the N01 numerals in a different arrangement or a sign group), a branch/plant sign at top, and what appears to be a bird or composite sign at right — consistent with the proto-cuneiform repertoire of the Uruk III–IV period. The left edge (labeled MS 3160) shows additional impressed marks. The transliteration's signs PAP~a, UZ, SI, NAGA, E2~b, SZUBUR, EZEM~c, PA~a, BARA2~a, SZE~a, BA, ERIN are plausible for this period and archival genre but cannot be individually verified at this photo resolution. The numerical values (5, 1, 4, 3, 7, 4+2, 6) are consistent with what is visible. Confidence is low because proto-cuneiform sign identification is inherently difficult at this resolution, sign variants are numerous, and several readings (especially E2~b#? with the doubt marker) are already flagged uncertain by the original editor. This tablet belongs to the Uruk/Jemdet Nasr administrative corpus; compare similar texts in the CDLI archaic texts corpus.
Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · prompt 2026-05-12/v4-interpretation · May 12, 2026 · 3345 in / 1152 out tokens
Why it matters
Transliteration
5(N01) , PAP~a UZ 1(N14) , SI NAGA E2~b#? 4(N01) , SZUBUR 3(N01) , EZEM~c 7(N01) , PA~a 4(N14) 2(N01) , BARA2~a 6(N14) , SZE~a BA ERIN
Scholarly note
Catalogue entry from CDLI (Uruk IV (ca. 3350-3200 BC) ?) — MS 3160. No scholarly translation has been published; the transliteration is from the ATF (CDLI's Atf-Friendly format).
Attribution
Image: Schøyen Collection, Oslo, Norway (P252171) — Photo via Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. source
Translation excerpted from engine:claude-sonnet-4-6 (2026-05-12/v4-interpretation).
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.