Uruk III and IV signs in the Zeichenliste der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk --

Separating Securely Distinguishable Signs from Insecure Items

For distinctions between two-component single signs and two-sign compounds (sequences of two independent signs) please click here.

Summary of current state of these lists.
For signs numbered in the range Z001 to Z199, which have been most fully sorted so far, the results statistically at this point are:

64 securely unifiable with later signs, so do not warrant encoding (category 4)
38 insecure signs, badly attested or not clearly distinguishable, so do not warrant encoding at least at this time (category 7)
***********
83 securely distinguishable complex signs not unifiable with later signs, so *do* warrant encoding (category 5a)
17 securely distinguishable simple signs not unifiable with later signs, so *do* warrant encoding (category 5b)

Contents:1. Intro discussion
2. Sign numbers which lump two or more distinct signs (Example from ATU3 and Cale Johnson, soon also from Piotr Steinkeller's review of ZATU etc..)
3. Signs numbers wrongly identified with later signs, some of which are securely identified distinct signs and warrant encoding (Including gradually a full list of changes to the ZATU list proposed in expert review of ZATU by Piotr Steinkeller)
4. Sign numbers which are securely unifiable with later signs and thus do not warrant any distinct encoding.
5. Sign numbers which are securely identifiable as distinct signs, not unifiable with later signs, so warrant distinct encoding now.
6. Sign numbers which are borderline and warrant further consideration in a second tier.
7. Sign numbers which are insecure and do not currently warrant encoding.

1. Intro discussion
The following list is in process. The most systematic and recent parts of this triage work are categories 4., 5., and 7 below.
The lists do not yet reflect additional information from signs numbered beyond Z771 (provided by Englund on CD). Nor yet complete information from ATU, ATU3, or MSVO1, or a number of scholarly articles on particular topics. Much of this will be included by mid-February, 2004. For any signs for which readings or identification with later signs are uncertain, names for a code standard can be simply "Z###" with the individual sign numbers substituted for the "###", just as for undeciphered signs in the Linear B portion of Unicode 4.0.

Decipherment of "readings" is not crucial to encoding. In fact it will probably benefit from the ability to handle data via a standard encoding, much more than an encoding could benefit from waiting for new text discovery or analysis to yield new readings. Attestation in lexical lists is one of the most crucial tools leading to identification with later signs, and findings from lexical identifications are made full use of here, using published views of experts. But identification via lexical lists is often a second level of analysis beyond the basic secure distinguishability of signs. These various tools and conclusions are of course not fully independent, they can reinforce each other.

From among the ZATU signs (as modified from reviews etc.), those should be encoded which are securely distinguishable. Factors in favor for simple signs include high frequency and clarity of attestation. For Container x Infix signs, frequency is relatively less crucial -- those should be encoded whose components are clearly known and recognizable in the complex, even if the specific complex itself occurs only a few times, or only once. If the components are not clearly identifiable with otherwise known components, then complex signs should be omitted unless very secure and quite frequent, in other words, they must be evaluated more strictly, as if a novel simple sign.

Authorities:

The publication ZATU has been reviewed by Piotr Steinkeller, who published a detailed critique of identifications. To the extent possible his critique is being taken into account. The lack of an explicit comment in this summary triage does *not* imply acceptance of all other readings (identifications) published in ZATU. Fonts are not produced from illustrations in ZATU, but rather from clearer .eps images on a CD supplied more recently by Robert Englund, which includes some additional numbered signs and additional images (usually approximately or precisely described or identified by their file names). The security of identifications of signs in ZATU is of course judged from various authorities, especially these:

*Archaic Bookkeeping* by Hans J. Nissen, Peter Damerow, and Robert K. Englund. University of Chicago Press 1993;

*Mesopotamien. Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit*, by Josef Bauer, robert K. Englund, and Manfred Krebernik. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/1. Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vendenhoeck & Ruprecht.1998.

ZATU = *Zeichenliste der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk* (ATU 2 = *Archaische Texte aus Uruk* vol.2) by M. W. Green and Hans J. Nissen, with the collaboration of Peter Damerow and Robert K. Englund. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. 1987

ZATU review by Piotr Steinkeller 1995. Bibliotheca Orientalis vol.52 no.5/6 columns 689-713. This review also notes relevant information from ATU3 and MSVO1.

ATU3 = *Die Lexikalischen Listen der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk* by Robert K. Englund and Hans J. Nissen, with the collaboration of Peter Damerow. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. 1993.

ATU3 review by Niek Veldhuis 1995. Bibliotheca Orientalis vol.52 no.3/4 columns 433-440

MSVO1 = *The Proto-Cuneiform Texts from Jemdet Nasr vol.1. Copies, transliterations and glossary* by Robert K. Englund and Jean-Pierre Grégoire, with a contribution by Roger J. Matthews. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. 1991

2. Sign numbers which lump two or more distinct signs

Z019 "ADAB". Last two forms of URUK IV stage (=ATU 305, 306, 307) are a moon crescent on a tasseled shaft. Other forms URUK IV and III are a sun / day sign on a similar shaft. (Even if, with Green,

Z565 called "U2". This ZATU listing conflates two distinct signs, one of them indeed unifiable with the later sign "U2", the other distinct from that and not continued in later signs. This second sign is labeled Z565b, and does not survive into later cuneiform. There is justification for encoding this one additional sign. Without ATU3 or Johnson's commentary, we would simply be ignorant of that additional sign. There would be no other harm done.

2.-3. An earlier warning list not yet sorted into the other categories. Signs whose readings may perhaps be changed from those proposed in ZATU, but which warrant encoding if they are not unified with other known signs; or which should be split into distinct (a) vs. (b)

As with anything else, this list can be refined by specialists. Changed readings *do not affect encoding* unless they change the status of a sign (becoming unifiable with a known sign, or ceasing to be unifiable with a known sign).

Several of the animal heads
Z026 not ALIM but rather a caprid or cervid, plausibly MA$DA = arwiu
Z032 AN$E for the Uruk III forms
Z044a EZEN [rum] = DURUM
Z044b EZEN [AN] = UG5
Z048 BAN only for (b) ?
Z060
Z071 DARA3 + KAR2 rather + $E3
Z147 E$DA ? etymologically $ITA ligatured with GI$
Z149 "female kid"
Z150 BAD in Uruk IV since no EZEN [BAD] occurs there
Z180 perhaps = Z173 GA2 x HA (=KUA)
Z184 "cheese"
Z215 GI phonetic to GIBIL
Z219 ALIM
Z221 ALIM gunu insteaad of GIR3 gunu
Z228 U$ instead of GI$3
Z242 GUL ? perhaps not ligature of E2 with TAR but rather with LAM ?
Z247 KAL instead of GURU$
Z248 KAL instead of GURU$, and not TAR but pictorial rollers (dragging a load)
Z270 separate (a) and (b); (a) uncertain unless ATU resolves it
Z277 KAB and TUKU
Z278 KAB + TALLY mark ?
Z295 KISAL (b); encode (a) distinctly
Z297 AN$E not KI$ (hashing is the mane of the equid – male)
Z328 distinguish (a) and (b)
Z329 someone (Steinkeller ? check that) has suggested ISH-11
Z357 single reading MA$
Z368 not MUN ? (and omit Z368b)
Z388 perhaps $E$ x NA ?
Z341 through Z351
Z411 distinguish four distinct signs here
Z414 NIR in Uruk III and one example in Uruk IV;
others perhaps a distinct sign.
Z423 NUNUZ, NA4, ZA2 distinguish at least (a) and (b)
Z438 SAG + GE$TU or + LAM ?
Z442 SAG$U ?
Z445 distinct signs here? To be safe, encode (a) (b) (c) distinctively?
Z452 Encode distinguishing (a) (b) (c) (d) (e), Z453
Z482 encode (a) (b) (c) distinctively
Z486 perhaps SU + TALLY mark ?
Z489 not SUG5; perhaps TUN3, DUN3, DU5
Z499 $U$IN instead of SUSA ?
Z506 $AGAx instead of $AGAM. Not from DIG+KUG
Z523 URI3 instead of $E$ ?
Z526 encode (a) (b) distinctively
Z534 Does the distintion between curved and angled forms in Uruk IV
still hold up? If so, encode the two separately
Z544 $URUPPAK, SUD3 distinguish two sign forms ?
Z547 see Z541; "the possible range of graphic variation needs further clarification"
Perhaps encode (a) only.
Z549 "Note graphic variation when occurring in ligature with other signs."
Z566 also perhaps HUD "morning"
Z585 Are the GI on each side in Uruk III phonetic complements GI ?
Z587 perhaps not UR gunu but UR x $E3 ?
Z595 $E$ rather than URI, compare Z388 perhaps $E$ x NA ?
Z596 $E$ +AB instead of URI5
Z601 perhaps URU + TALLY marks ?
Z604 perhaps not U$ but GI$3
Z605 U$ + TAR ? not TAR
Z613 perhaps distinguish (a) and (b) ?
Z616 distinguish first Uruk IV example from the others

3. Signs numbers whose identification with later signs is incorrect or not secure. Some of these are however securely identified as distinct signs and warrant encoding. Some are early only.

(This section will be expanded to include a full list of changes to the ZATU list proposed in expert review of ZATU by Piotr Steinkeller.)

If identification with a sign required in any case for later periods is secure, then no independent encoding is needed. No serious harm is done if an identification is later discovered permitting unification.
Z018 AD ?
Z024 AL, MAH ?
Z036 not ASAR, SILI, contrast …
"later develops into URU + IGI"
Z039 do not encode
Z049 BAN$UR ?
Z261 IDIGNA ?
Z295 *not* KISAL xcept possibly variant (a)
Z298 KISIK ?
Z290 KIB ?
Z323 *not* LAGAR, compare Z563
Z326 is probably a diagram (map), not a sign; encode only if as special symbol?
Z341 through Z351
Z352 through Z354
Z361 MES
Z442 *not* SAG$U, rather Labat illustration
Z446 SAR x KUA ?
Z524 $IDIM
Z541 $UM ?? In Early Dynastic mergers with TAG Z547
Z579 UH3 Is the Early Dynastic duplicate adequate evidence for identification?
Z581 UMBIN ?
Z592 *not* UR4
Z593 UR5 ? (BUR with SHU2 above ?)
Z775 BALAG ?

4. Signs which are securely unifiable with later signs and which do not warrant a separate encoding. If the identification later turns out not to be secure, a new sign can be recognized and encoded. Readings may here be corrected (following Steinkeller or other), but in these cases such changed readings that does not affect their status as independent signs.

Z001 A but not ZA
Z006 A2
Z007 AB (unless (b) distinct?)
Z008 AB x A
Z009 AB x ASH2
Z012 AB2
Z015 ABGAL = NUN x/+ ME, status as single sign in question, or as ligature
Z016 ABRIG probably a compound of DU and Z015 (NUN x/+ ME).
Z018 AD (Lexical lists Lu, Trees, Tribute(?), Plants; Adm. (a) 7x, (b) none)
Z022 LAGAB x SIG7 (reading AGAR2 ?)
Z023 AK
Z024 AL (Lexical lists Lu, Trees, Vocab; Adm. 30x)
Z025 ALAN (Lex; Adm. 12x)
Z028 AMA, DAGAL
Z029 AMAR
Z031 AN, DINGIR
Z032 ANSHE (Uruk III examples) (Lexical lists Geog., Tribute; Adm. 11x)
Z033 APIN
Z035 ARATTA (?) (Adm. 1x)
Z036 ASAR, SILIG; if does develop into URU x IGI, then no separate encoding;
If that is incorrect, may need separate encoding as original NIM x IGI ?
Z037 ASH, RUM, 1 (but segmenting out the uses as marker of field length or width)
Z038 PIRIG x ZA (Adm. 2x)
Z040 BA, IGI (not distinguishable in archaic script)
Z041 BAD
Z048b BAN (Z48a a different sign)
Z051 BAR
Z055 BIR3 (common till UR dyn.; = ERIM ?)
Z056 BU and BU tenu
Z060 "PUZUR5", "BU3" or rather SUM4 ? (x SHE3 or x GAN2 tenu ?)
(Lexical lists Lu, Geog.; Adm. 8x) = UET, LAK ##
Z061 BULUG (Lexical list Metals; Adm 3x)
Z062 BULUG3 (Lexical lists Lu; Adm 1x) = UET II, LAK ##
Z063 BUR (Lexical list Metals; Adm 7x) = ATU, PI, UET II, LAK ##
Z064 BUR2, USUM (Lexical lists Lu, Vessels; Adm 21x mostly textile accounts)
= ATU, UET, LAK ##)
Z065 DA (Lexical many; Adm 45x) = ATU, PI, UET II, LAK ##
Z066 DAH (Adm. 3x + ATU) = ATU, PI, LAK ##
Z069 DAR
Z070 DARA3 (see Fara, Gudea, etc.)
Z075 DI
Z078 DIM
Z079 DIN
Z080 DIN tenu
Z081 DISH (but segmenting out the uses as marker of field length or width)
Z082 DU
Z088 DUG (unless need to distinguish (a,b))
Z105 DUG x KUR (Lexical list Vessels 1x) = PI, LAK ##
Z125 DUGUD
Z129 E2
Z134 EN
Z138 EN2
Z143 ERIM
Z144 ERIM23 = RU with NE inside
Z145 ERIN (excluding four of the forms, a separate sign)
Z147 ESHDA
Z150 EZEN
Z154 EZEN x MIR (or x NIMGIR)
Z159 GA
Z162 GA2 (Lexical lists Officials , Food, Vocab., Unident.; Adm (a) 38x, (b) 15x)
= ATU, PI, UET II ##
Z166 GA2 x DUB
Z183 GA2 x U4 (Lexical list Fish 1x; Adm. 9x) = LAK #
Z186 GAD
Z188 GAL
Z189 GALGA = GA2 x GAR
Z190 GAN
Z195 GAN2
Z196 GAR = NINDA

5. Sign numbers which are securely identifiable as distinct signs, not unifiable with later signs, so warrant distinct encoding now. This list currently covers signs from the range Z001 to Z199, and then those from among the "unidentified" Z620 and following.

First, Container-x-Infix signs and similar ones having novel combinations of known elements. After that, novel single-component signs.

Container-x-Infix signs whose components are securely identifiable with later signs, or at least recognizably distinct and clear, but which as a total sign are not identifiable with later signs, and thus *do* warrant separate encoding, unless the attestations are damaged or otherwise too unclear to confirm. Those which are attested only once are the ones which most need to be checked. Notes from the ZATU list on the existence of administrative attestations in ATU are merely that, do not imply that ATU has yet been checked.

Z002 A x EN (Adm. only as in ATU #844)
Z003 A x SHUBUR (Adm. only as in ATU #843)
Z004 A x U Adm. 1x
Z010 AB x Z659 ("ARKAB") = Fara LAK542
Z009 AB x ASH2 see Z011
Z011 "AB.gunu" wrong name (not UNUG); interchanges in Cities 44 with Z009; "=PI374, UET II 334" distinct?
Z014 AB2 with one stroke above (Adm. only as in ATU)
Z014 AB2 with two strokes above (same entry) = ATU #312
Z014 AB2 with three strokes above (same entry) = ATU #327
Z014 AB2 with four strokes above (same entry) = ATU #334
Z??? AB2 + AB2 (if not a compound)
Z015 NUN x ME or NUN + ME = ABGAL (Adm. 3x) (if not a ligature)
     Lexical texts show equivalent to NUN alone (also ED)
Z019 ADAB (all examples except last two under Uruk IV) = UET II, ATU ##
Z020 ADDA ( = UET II #
Z026a "ALIM" as DARA3 x MA (Lexical lists Vessels, Cities, Geog., Trees)
     = UET II, LAL ##
Z026b PIRIG x MA (only if lexical attestation is secure)
Z034 ARARMA2 (single sign in Uruk IV; AB with U4 above in Uruk III)
     (Lex Cities; Adm. 5x, once with geographical determinative) = ATU, UET II ##
Z042 BAD paired (BAD OVER BAD)
Z043a "BAD+DISH" really single indivisible sign?) (Z043b esp. compare textile signs?)
     = ATU, PI, UET II, LAK ##
Z044a EZEN x ASH ([rum]) = DURUM (Lexical list Cities)
Z044b EZEN x AN (Adm. 2x) = UG5 (Adm. 2x)
     = UET II, LAK ##
Z045 "BAHAR2" wrong name? (Lexical list Cities, Plants, Dogs; Adm 19x)
     = ATU, PI, UET II, LAK ##
Z050 BAPPIR (Lexical lists Vessels, Cities; Adm 3x) = Atu, UET II, LAK ##
Z052a "BARA2" (Lexical Practice list; Adm 40x)
     = ATU, UET II, LAK ## (No separate encoding yet for Z052b)
Z053 "BARA3" = E2 x KASKAL (Lexical list Lu; Adm. 5x) =PI, UET II, LAK ##
Z057 BU x A (Lexical list Geog.; Adm. only as in ATU)
Z058 NA2 with RI8 above (ARINA ?) (Adm. 2x and as in ATU)
Z059 DU6 with BU attached above (Lexical list Lu, Dogs; Adm 9x)
Z068 KASKAL with BU attached above (Adm. 2x)
Z072 SHEG9 x SHE ?? (Adm. Only as in ATU)
Z090 DUG x ANSHE (Lexical list Vessels) = LAK#
Z091 DUG x ASH (Lexical list Vessels; Adm.(a) 25x, (b) 72x, (c) 13x) = ATU, PI, LAK ##
Z093 DUG x BA (or DUG x IGI ?) (Lexical list Foods; Adm 1x)
Z096 DUG x DIN (Lexical list Vessels 3x, Adm. 3x) = LAK #
Z097 DUG x GA (Lexical list Vessels 1x) = PI, LAK ##
Z098 DUG x GESHTU (Lexical list Vessels 1x) = LAK #
Z099 DUG x MI (= GI6) (Lexical list Vessels 1x) = PI, LAK ##
Z100 DUG x GISH (Lexical list Vessels, Food) = LAK ##
Z101 DUG x HI (Lexical list Vessels 1x) = ATU, UET II, LAK ##
Z102 DUG x HI gunu (Only as in ATU)
Z103 DUG x KASKAL (Lexical list Vessels 1x) = PI, LAK ##
Z104 DUG x HA (Lexical list Vessels 1x) = LAK #
Z106 DUG x LAM (Lexical list Vessels 1x) = LAK #
Z107 DUG x LAMKUR (Lexical list Vessels 1x) = LAK #
Z108 DUG x MASH (Lexical list Vessels 1x; Adm. 2x and as in ATU) = ATU, PI, LAK ##
Z109 DUG x NAGA (Lexical list Vessels 1x; Adm. only as in ATU)
Z110 DUG x SA (Lexical list Vessels 1x)
Z111 DUG x (SA with GI) (Lexical list Vessels 1x) =
Z112 DUG x SI4 (Lexical list Vessels 1x) = PI, LAK ##
Z113 DUG x SIG2 (Lexical list Vessels 1x)
Z114 DUG x SIG7 (or x IGI energetic) (Lexical list Vessels 5x) = LAK ##
Z115 DUG x SUHUR (Lexical list Vessels 1x)
Z116 DUG x SUKUD (Lexical list Vessels 1x; Adm. only as in ATU)
Z117 DUG x SHAH2 (Lexical list Vessels 1x; Adm. 1x) = LAK #
Z118 DUG x SHE ((Lexical list Vessels 1x; Adm. 1x) = ATU, PI, LAK ##
Z119 DUG x (NAM with SHE attached) (Lexical list Vessels 1x)
Z120 DUG x TAK4 (Lexical list Vessels 1x)
Z121 DUG x TI (Lexical list Vessels 1x)
Z122 DUG x U2 (Lexical list Vessels 1x; Adm. 3x) (perhaps split as U2 is split?)
Z123 DUG x UH3 (Lexical list Vessels 1x)
Z124 DUG x Z764 (Lexical list Vessels 1x)
Z130 E2 x KUR (Lexical list Unident. 2x; Adm. 8x) = LAK #
Z131 E2 x diagonal line (Lexical list Cities 1x; Adm. 3x) = LAK #
Z132 DU with U4 (Lexical list Officials 1x; Adm. 3x) = ATU?, UET II ##)
Z135 EN x NUN (Lexical list Vocab., Unident. 2x; Adm. 29x) = ATU, PI ##
Z135 EN energetic ("gunu") (Adm. 10x) = ATU #
Z139 ENDIB = EN+ME with MU (Lexical list Lu 1x; Adm. 1x)
Z140 ENGIZ = EN with GI (Lexical list Lu 1x; Adm. 2x) = UET II
Z142 ENLIL, NIBRU (Lexical list Cities 1x)
Z151 EZEN x EN (Adm. 1x) = ATU #
Z156 EZEN x SU (Uruk IV ex.) (Lexical list Geog. 1x; Adm. 3x) = UET II
Z157 EZEN x (U2.A) (Adm. 3x Uruk III (Uruk IV not clear))
Z160 GA x U (Lexical list Vessels 1x)
Z151 GA x Z753 (Adm. 60x) "Nearly always written as a ligature" (meaning what?)
Z163 GA2 x AB
Z167 GA2 x GIR (Adm. 3x fish account)
Z169 (GA2 x SHE3) x GUD (Adm. 3x) = UET II #
Z170 GA2 x HI (Adm. 1x, fish account) = ATU #
Z171 GA2 x (HI.SUHUR) (Adm. 2x fish account)
Z172 GA2 x KU3 (Adm. 1x)
Z173 GA2 x KU6 (Lexical list Fish 1x?; Adm. 9x)
Z174 GA2 x (KU6 x KU6) (Adm. 1x) = LAK #
Z176 GA2 x MASH (Adm. 1x)
Z177 GA2 x NAGA (Adm. 1x)
Z178 GA2 x NI (or x GAR) (Adm. 2x)
Z179 GA2 x SUHUR (Adm. 3x or 6x) =ATU #
Z180 GA2 x SUKUD (Lexical list Fish 1x; Adm. 2x in fish account) = ATU #
Z182 GA2 x U (Adm. only as in ATU)
Z185 Z737 x BUR GABURRA (Lexical list Cities 1x; Adm. 1x) = ATU, PI, LAK ##
Z187 GAD x SHE3 (Adm. 7x, 6 of those in textile accounts)
Z191 GAN x (GISH.DIN) (Adm. 2x)
Z192 GAN x LAGAB (Adm. 3x, in accounts of fruits)
Z193 GAN x NE (Adm. 2x)
Z194 GAN x SHE (Adm. 1x)
Z197 GAR gunu (Lexical list Food 1x; Adm. 1x) = ATU ##
Z610 AB2 with ZATU755 Green says: "later written AB2 + KU"; "UTUL";

Fully independent signs securely identifiable / distinguishable, yet not identifiable with later signs, and thus presumptively should be encoded unless attestation is for some other reason weak

Z071 SHEG9 variant? (Adm. 2x and as in ATU)
Z519 SHEG9 (Adm. 2x and as in ATU; Lexical list Professions 1x)
Z073 DARA4a (Lexical lists Lu, Cattle; Adm. 9x)
Z073 DARA4c (Adm. 28x)
     Clear association in Adm. with sheep / wool; distinction / ident. not complete?
Z077 DILMUN (Lexical lists Lu; Metal, Geog.; Adm. 9x) =ATU, UET II, LAK ##
Z083 DU6 (Lexical lists Lu, Cities, Plants; Adm. 10x) = ATU, PI, UET II, LAK ##
Z086 DUB, UM, KISHIB (at least one of any variants distinguishable;
     (Lexical lists Lu , Trees, Birds; Adm. 72x) = AT, PI, UET II, LAK ##
Z126 DUR (?) (Adm. 34x) = ATU, PI, UET II, LAK ##
Z127 DUR2 (Lexical lists Cities, Geog., Trees, Birds, Fish, Vocab.; Adm. 15x)
Z128 E (?) (Adm. 5x) (Adm. as subscript in field surveying texts 2x) = ATU, UET II, LAK ##
Z133 EDIN (Lexical lists Metals 1x, Kish 1x) = UET II, LAK ##
Z149 ESHGAR (Adm. 12x) = ATU, UTE II, LAK ##
Z158 EZINU (Lexical lists Cities, Geog.; Adm. 12x) = ATU, LAK ##
Z184 GA'AR "cheese" Lexical lists Metals, Vessels passim; etc.; Adm. 17x)
     Rotations are merely graphic variants
Z198 GAR3 (Adm. 2x) = ATU, UET II, LAK ###
Z199 GARA2 "cream"? (Englund) (Lexical list Tribute; Adm. 23x)
     DUG.gunu? = UET II, LAK ##

DO encode these from among the "unidentified".

Z624 (4 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z625 (2 administrative occurrences in metals account, 7 in textitles account)
Z628 (6 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z629 (9 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z644 (20 occurrences in administrative texts, 12 in textile accounts)
Z647 (17 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z648 (30 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z649 (21 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z651 (9 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z652 through Z657 (= Z651 as container x infixes.
     Infixed parts are clearly identifiable according to drawings)
Z652 1x, Z653 15x, Z654 14x, Z655 1x, Z656 1x, Z657 1x)

Z658 (9 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z659 (15 occurrences in administrative texts, also as infixed element)
Z661 (ATU; = Z659 + numerals)
Z662 (13 occurrences in administrative texts, 10 of those in textile accounts)
Z663 (2 occurrences in administrative texts; = Z662 + U)
Z676 (8 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z686 (28 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z694 (45 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z697 (17 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z714 (10 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z715 (= Z714 x HI.gunu; 1 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z716 (= RU with Z714 in it; 1 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z718 (3 occurrences in administrative texts; one lexical text parallel)
Z719 (3 occurrences in administrative texts, in textile accounts)
Z728 (9 occurrences in administrative texts, all in fish accounts)
Z735 (6 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z737 (a new "container" sign)
Z738 through Z748 (= Z737 as container x infixes.
     Infixed parts are clearly identifiable according to drawings
     Excepting Z742, here omittted.
     Corresponding spellings in ED orthography are known.)
Z738 1x, Z739 3x, Z740 ATU, Z741 2x, Z743 12x, Z744 1x, Z745 ATU,
Z746 1x, Z747 Lexical, Z748 ATU, Z185 1x)

Z749 (16 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z750 (9 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z751 (6 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z752 (48 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z753 (59 occurrences in administrative texts, also as infix)
Z755 (ATU 3 texts)
Z756 (6 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z757 (2 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z758 (7 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z759 (14 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z760 (16 occurrences in administrative texts)
Z762 (a new "container" sign; 11 occurrences in administrative texts with
     No infix. Z763 1x with clear infix)

7. Sign numbers which do not currently warrant encoding.

All those listed as "unidentified" (numbers ZATU620 up to Z771) should also be omitted from encoding at this time, with the exception that some noted in a separate list above are secure enough to encode. In addition to the occurrences mentioned, for some signs there are additional illustrations supplied on Englund's CD for occurrences not printed in ZATU. There are also earlier citations in ATU I.

Do not encode these (and do not consider them identified with a sign known from later periods)

Z005 (see also the first example under ATU841, the same components in sequence)
Z013 (=ATU046; Lu2 precursor only once; PS: analysis as AB + TAR clearly wrong)
Z017 not fully preserved anywhere ?
Z021 AG2 ?
Z027 AM ?
Z030
Z037 (as measure of length or width, treat as diagram not as a sign???;
     Not numeral usage except as tally mark?)
Z039
Z048a not BAN
Z049 "BAN$UR" wrong name? (Lexical list Trees; Adm. Only as in ATU)
     (Is this one known mainly from Proto-Elamite? – see A. B. p.
Z052b (but do encode Z52a)
Z054 (BIR?)
Z061 BULUG ?
Z067 ?
Z073b (but do encode Z73a and Z73c, distinct from each other)
Z074 (1x)
Z076
Z081 (as for Z37)
Z084
Z085
Z087
Z089 (infixed sign not identifiable with high probability)
Z092 (infixed sign not identifiable with high probability)
Z094 (infixed sign not identifiable with high probability)
Z095 (infixed sign not identifiable with high probability)
Z102
Z133
Z136
Z142 more than one sign in illustration
Z143 more than one sign in illustration
Z148 ?
Z152 unclear
Z155 unclear
Z164 ?
Z165
Z168 GA2 x GISH tenu
Z175 (infixed sign not identifiable with high probability)
Z181 = ATU, PI ##
Z222
Z229
Z231 may remain functionally a transparent compound, or may fuse,
     Encoding can depend on later analysis. Only 1x.
Z233 GU2 ?
Z244
Z246
Z255 perhaps rather HI with TALLY mark
Z273
Z281 perhaps GURU$; not KAL; perhaps several distinct signs
Z292
Z298
Z305 not related to later KU$U
Z309 because Z49 is uncertain
Z312 insecure
Z314 because Z305 is uncertain
Z320 LAGAB lig. TAR ??
Z322 because Z766 is uncertain
Z326 "drawn very large on reverse, possibly a design" a map !!?
Z331 LU2 + LAM instead of GE$TU ?
Z340 distinguish two signs here
Z369 no single lexical occurrence fully preserved
Z372 sequence of three signs
Z383 until further specification
Z397 perhaps instead variant of NIM Z398
Z441 SAG.nutillo ??
Z454 SIG4
Z457 infixed sign uncertain
Z466 infixed sign uncertain
Z505 $ABRA
Z507 $AGINA
Z528 infixed sign uncertain
Z538
Z552
Z559
Z573 sign forms are unclear for Uruk III; Perhaps divide among UBI and
     Compare #198 GAR3
Z590 UR2 + TAR ?

Do not encode these from among the "unidentified":

Z620, Z621, Z622, Z623, Z626, Z627, Z630 through Z643, Z645, Z646, Z650, Z653 through Z657, Z660, Z664 through Z675, Z677 through Z685, Z687 through Z693, Z695, Z696, Z698 through Z713, Z717, Z720 through Z727, Z729 through Z734, Z736, Z754, Z761, Z764 through Z771