Untitled Document

Signs Shared Across Time and Across Lists

Counts of cuneiform signs shared between various source lists appear below. The first table gives raw numbers. Because the significance of the number of shared signs depends on the total number of signs in each list which could potentially be shared, following tables show three different ways of calculating and viewing this. Calculations relative to smaller source lists of course yield higher percentages or other values, but that is only one of the factors, one which we can gradually separate out so that we can better see the factors of change and stability in sign inventories.

At some later time, frequency of usage of individual signs will also be included in this type of overview. Those signs which are known to occur in nearly all lists from archaic through Neo-Assyrian and Hittite will of course be disproportionately those which are very common at most or all periods.

Summary: From the tables below, it is clear that there is substantial overlap between any sources which are close in time or space. The two recent lists included which aim to be comprehensive (the February 2004 UTC list and the Borger 2004 list) show only 72% overlap, even though neither of them purports to cover all of archaic. Overlaps of either of these two with the Ur III list are somewhat greater than their overlap with each other, and overlaps among other closest lists are also greater than the overlap between these two. The three ways of calculating proportion of signs shared yield similar results in terms of closest-relationships, that reflected in the order of the columns and rows below (except that Fara LAK might be placed between UET II and Ur III).

I am not yet sure why the Borger list shows a relatively greater overlap with the Ur III, von Soden, and Hittite Rüster & Neu lists than does the UTC list. I think it is not simply sequences assigned single sign ID numbers. The pre-Sargonic Lagash list (Rosengarten's *Répertoire...*) does not contain full inventories of number signs.

List Sizes and Raw Numbers

Raw number of signs is given for ZATU as 1261 if many number signs are included as in the UTC proposal and other potential signs are included even though they may turn out to be variants. A much more restricted list for ZATU would be 885. The best estimate will be somewhere between these two. Both values are used in the tables below (column vs. row), to show the differential effect.

	ZATU	Fara	UET II	Ur III	pre-Sargon Lagash	von	Rüster & Neu	Borger	UTC
		LAK		KWU	Roseng.	Soden	Hittite	2004	Feb 04
List Sizes	1261	844	401	527	420	383	384	985	969

ZATU 885	*	434	335	294	217	205	233	316	332
Fara 844	434	*	320	415	370	312	311	463	444
UET II 401	335	320	*	261	239	227	223	256	255
Ur III 527	294	415	261	*	326	291	291	413	384
Lagash pre-Sargon. 420	217	370	239	326	*	269	253	337	325
von Soden 383	205	312	227	291	269	*	279	348	295
Rüster & Neu Hittite 384	233	311	223	291	253	279	*	334	302
Borger 2004 985	316	463	256	413	337	348	334	*	700
UTC 969	332	444	255	384	325	295	302	700	*

Number of Common Signs divided by the Size of One Inventory compared, then divided by the Size of the Other Inventory, then multiplied by 1000

	ZATU	Fara	UET II	Ur III	pre-Sargon Lagash	von	Rüster & Neu	Borger	UTC
		LAK		KWU	Roseng.	Soden	Hittite	2004	Feb 04
List Sizes	1261	844	401	527	420	383	384	985	969

ZATU 885	*	.58	.94	.63	.58	.60	.69	.36	.39
Fara 844	.41	*	.95	.93	1.04	.97	.96	.56	.54
UET II 401	.66	.95	*	1.24	1.42	1.48	1.45	.65	.66
Ur III 527	.44	.93	1.24	*	1.47	1.44	1.44	.80	.75
Lagash pre-Sargon. 420	.41	1.04	1.42	1.47	*	1.67	1.57	.81	.80
von Soden 383	.42	.97	1.48	1.44	1.67	*	1.90	.92	.79
Rüster & Neu Hittite 384	.48	.96	1.45	1.44	1.57	1.90	*	.88	.81
2004 Borger 985	.25	.56	.65	.80	.81	.92	.88	*	.73
UTC 969	.27	.54	.66	.75	.80	.79	.81	.73	*

Number of Common Signs Divided by the Size of the Smaller of the Two Inventories Compared

	ZATU	Fara	UET II	Ur III	pre-Sargon Lagash	von	Rüster & Neu	Borger	UTC
		LAK		KWU	Roseng.	Soden	Hittite	2004	Feb 04
List Sizes	1261	844	401	527	420	383	384	985	969

ZATU 885	*	51%	84%	56%	52%	54%	61%	36%	38%
Fara 844	51%	*	80%	79%	88%	81%	81%	55%	53%
UET II 401	84%	80%	*	65%	60%	59%	58%	64%	64%
Ur III 527	56%	79%	65%	*	78%	76%	76%	78%	73%
Lagash pre-Sargon. 420	52%	88%	60%	78%	*	70%	66%	80%	77%
von Soden 383	54%	81%	59%	76%	70%	*	73%	91%	77%
Rüster & Neu Hittite 384	61%	81%	58%	76%	66%	73%	*	87%	79%
2004 Borger 985	32%	55%	64%	78%	80%	91%	87%	*	72%
UTC 969	34%	53%	64%	73%	77%	77%	79%	72%	*

Number of Common Signs Divided by the Size of the Inventory Named at the Head of the Column

	ZATU	Fara	UET II	Ur III	pre-Sargon Lagash	von	Rüster & Neu	Borger	UTC
		LAK		KWU	Roseng.	Soden	Hittite	2004	Feb 04
List Sizes	1261	844	401	527	420	383	384	985	969

ZATU 885	*	51%	84%	56%	52%	54%	61%	32%	34%
Fara 844	34%	*	80%	79%	78%	81%	81%	47%	46%
UET II 401	27%	38%	*	50%	57%	59%	58%	26%	26%
Ur III 527	23%	49%	65%	*	88%	76%	76%	42%	40%
Lagash pre-Sargon. 420	17%	44%	60%	62%	*	70%	66%	34%	34%
von Soden 383	16%	37%	57%	55%	64%	*	73%	35%	30%
Rüster & Neu Hittite 384	18%	37%	56%	55%	60%	73%	*	34%	31%
2004 Borger 985	25%	55%	64%	78%	80%	91%	87%	*	72%
UTC 969	26%	53%	64%	73%	77%	77%	79%	71%	*

Copyright © 2003. All Rights Reserved. Much of the analytical material on this web site will be included in an etymological study and concordance to cuneiform signs, to be published shortly, and may be used to validate the sign list, but should not be cited in any detail until it is published (guaranteed 2004). Permission is granted for others to use the information on these web pages for preparation of a proposal to Unicode for a standard encoding of Cuneiform. The proposed sign list itself is free of any restrictions.

Home

Please choose from the categories below	Cuneiform Signs
	Analysis and reports to support an international standard for computer encoding of the Cuneiform writing system Research on the development of Cuneiform signs