Proto-cuneiform
The proto-cuneiform script was a system of proto-writing that emerged in Mesopotamia, eventually developing into the early cuneiform script used in the region's Early Dynastic I period. It arose from the token-based system that had already been in use across the region in preceding millennia. While it is known definitively that later cuneiform was used to write the Sumerian language, it is still uncertain what the underlying language of proto-cuneiform texts were. History

During the 9th millennium BC, a token-based system came into use in various parts of the ancient Near East. These evolved into marked tokens, and then into marked envelopes now known as clay bullae. It is usually assumed that these were the basis for the development of proto-cuneiform, as well as of the contemporaneous Proto-Elamite writing system: as many as two-thirds of the tokens discovered have been excavated in Susa, the most important city in what would become Elam. These tokens continued to be used, even after the development of proto-cuneiform and Proto-Elamite. The earliest tablets found are of a 'numerical' character—they consist only of lists of numbers. They have been found not only in Susa and Uruk, but in a variety of sites, including some that lack later Proto-Elamite and proto-cuneiform tablets, like Tell Brak, Habuba Kabira, Tepe Hissar, Godin Tepe and Jebel Aruda. Proto-cuneiform emerged in the what is now labeled the Uruk IV period (), and its use through the later Uruk III period. The script slowly evolved over time, with signs changing and merging. It was used for the first time in Uruk, later spreading to additional sites such as Jemdet Nasr. With the advent of the Early Dynastic period , the standard cuneiform script used to write the Sumerian language emerged, though only about 400 tablets have been recovered from this period; these are mainly from Ur, with a few from Uruk. Language

There is a longstanding debate in the academic community regarding when the Sumerian people arrived in Mesopotamia. Partly spurred by linguistic arguments and evidence, overall it is generally clear that a number of fundamental changes occurred in Mesopotamia—such as the use of the plano-convex brick—at the same time the first definitive evidence of the Sumerian language appeared during the Early Dynastic I period. Proto-cuneiform offers no clear clues as to what spoken language it encoded, leading to much speculation, though Sumerian is often assumed. Corpus

About 170 similar tablets from Uruk V (), Susa, and other Iranian sites like Tepe Sialk, are considered to be pre-Proto-Elamite, though bearing similarities to proto-cuneiform. Sign lists and transliterations are less clear for this category. Like Proto-Elamite, the system's propagation was relatively limited. The vast majority of the proto-cuneiform texts found, about 4000, have been located in archaic Uruk, though also in secondary contexts within the Eanna district. The tablets fall primarily into two styles: the earlier (building level IV) set featuring more naturalistic figures, written with a pointed stylus, and the later set (building level III) with a more abstract style, made using a blunt stylus. These correspond to the Late Uruk  and Jemdet Nasr  periods respectively. Many of the tablets were themselves later used as foundation filler during the construction of the Uruk III Eanna temple complex. It appears that the records were considered to be of transient utility or interest, and were quickly disposed of. The difficult stratigraphy has brought about a change from referring to tablets based on excavation layer to one of calling them script phase IV and III. Similarly to the tablets, clay seals previously used to secure vessels and doors ended up in the fill after being removed. The sites and analysis of sealing has led to suggestions that the tablets originated elsewhere and ended up at Uruk, where they were discarded. A smaller number of tablets were found in Jemdet Nasr, Khafajah and Tell Uqair. They tend to be less fragmentary and are sometimes found in stratified contexts. Some have made their way into various private and public collections: the provenance for some can be determined from internal clues, but for some the origin city is unknown. For example, in 1988 82 complete well-preserved tablets from the Swiss Erlenmeyer Collection in Basel were auctioned off with most ending up in public collections. A notable exemplar was found by Langdon during his excavation in the 1920s, often called the "Kish tablet". A plaster-cast of the artifact is presently held in the collection of the Ashmolean Museum, with the original at the Baghdad Museum. Its date of origin is unclear. Some tablets were sealed using a cylindrical seal. State of decipherment

To decipher an unknown, fully functional writing system, several things are usually desirable: knowledge of which underlying language is encoded, the existence of bilingual examples, and a large corpus. As currently understood, proto-cuneiform satisfies none of these qualities. However, it is important that proto-cuneiform is not a full writing system, but was rather a simple notation system used singularly for economic administration. Texts are singular and concrete in nature, such as lists of items. Already in 1928 with the first publication of example texts, a numerical sign list had been developed, based on the assumption the signs corresponded to those from Fara, the earliest cuneiform texts. In addition, it was quickly determined that the sexagesimal numerals and area numbers were also essentially the same as for early Cuneiform. The mathematical system used in proto-cuneiform and Proto-Elamite began to be largely deciphered, beginning in the 1970s. Within a few decades the details had been mostly worked out. Some details remain obscure, and several generally agreed-upon details remain contested. As an example, the (ŠE system E) is thought to be a capacity measuree, but it has been pointed out that this measurement system is only found in the early Uruk IV layers, and not in the later Uruk III layers, and lacks the markers of a capacity measure. Sign Inventory
Currently there are about 2000 known proto-cuneiform signs, of which about 350 are numerical, 1100 are individual ideographic, and 600 are complex—combinations of 2 or more individual signs. The non-numerical signs are attested in about 40,000 occurrences. There was a high degree of heterogeneity in sign usage: about 530 signs are only attested once, about 610 two to ten times, 370 attested 11 to 100 times, and about 104 signs attested more the 100 times. Many signs have been identified including those for barley and emmer wheat. Numbers

The underlying numeric base of the proto-cuneiform, like later cuneiform, is sexagesimal (base 60). Earlier researchers believed that this system rose out of an earlier decimal (base 10) substratum but that idea has now lost currency. Different products used different measurement systems and this can change with the context. In a single tablet the (Bisexagesimal System B) could be used for grain rations, (ŠE system Š) could be used for barley, and (ŠE system Š") be used for emmer wheat. Some of the measurement systems, such as (ŠE system C), which was for capacity, typically of grain. There are thirteen numerical systems in total (Sexagesimal, Sexagesimal S', Bisexagesimal, Bisexagesimal B*, GAN2, EN, U4, ŠE, ŠE', ŠE", ŠE*, DUGb, DUGc) of which the contemporary Proto-Elamite writing system used only seven. Proto-Elamite also only used half of the sixty proto-cuneiform numerical signs. Texts

Administrative
The largest group of proto-cuneiform texts (about 2000 from the Uruk IV period and about 3600 from the Uruk III period) are accounts i.e. "economic records". They involve a variety of items including people, livestock, and grain. Unfortunately there are often multiple ways to do things. For example, people can be listed two different ways 1) By gender and age (adult, minor, baby) or 2) without gender and in one of a number of age groups (0–1, 3–10 etc.). Miscellany
Another large category (with around a dozen examples in Uruk IV, and approximately 750 in Uruk III)) are called "lexical lists", which appearing in Uruk IV but became much more common in Uruk III. These documents are lists of items belonging to a given physical cateogry: metals, cities, tools. Examples persisted into Early Dynastic and Old Babylonian times. Publications
The proto-cuneiform texts from Uruk were published in a series of books (ATU)

ATU 1. Adam Falkenstein, "Archaische Texte aus Uruk", Berlin und Leipzig: Deutsche Forschungsgemein-schaft, Kommissionsverlag Otto Harrassowitz, 1936
ATU 2. M. W. Green und Hans J. Nissen, unter Mitarbeit von Peter Damerow und Robert K. Englund, "Zeichenliste der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk", Berlin, 1987 
ATU 3. Robert K. Englund und Hans J. Nissen unter Mitarbeit von Peter Damerow, "Die Lexikalischen Listen der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk", Berlin, 1993 
ATU 4. Robert K. Englund und Hans J. Nissen, "Katalog der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk"
ATU 5. Robert K. Englund unter Mitarbeit von R. M. Boehmer, "Archaic Administrative Texts from Uruk: The Early Campaigns", Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1994 
ATU 6. Robert K. Englund und Hans J. Nissen unter Mitarbeit von R. M. Boehmer, "Archaische Verwaltungstexte aus Uruk: Vorderasiatisches Museum II", Berlin, 2005 
ATU 7. Robert K. Englund und Hans J. Nissen unter Mitarbeit von R. M. Boehmer, "Archaische Verwaltungstexte aus Uruk: Die Heidelberger Sammlung", Berlin, 2001 

And from other sites (MSVO)

MSVO 1. Robert K. Englund, Jean-Pierre Grégoire, and Roger J. Matthews, "The proto-cuneiform Texts from Jemdet  Nasr I: Copies, Transliterations and Glossary", Materialien zu den  frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients Bd. 1. Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1991 
MSVO 2. Matthews, R. J, "Cities,  Seals  and  Writing:  Archaic  Seal  Impressions  from  Jemdet  Nasr  and  Ur", Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1993 
MSVO 3. Damerow, P. & Englund, R. K. forthcoming. "The proto-cuneiform Texts from the Erlenmeyer Collection" Berlin. MSVO 4. Robert K. Englund and Roger J. Matthews, "proto-cuneiform Texts from Diverse Collections", Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients Bd. 4. Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1996 
CUSAS 1. Salvatore F. Monaco, "The Cornell University Archaic Tablets (CUSAS: Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology)", Eisenbrauns, 2007

Unicode
A Unicode block encoding proto-cuneiform was initially proposed in 2020. but has not yet been formally accepted by the consortium, as have character ranges for later forms of cuneiform. Gallery

See also
Proto-Elamite
Blau Monuments
Liste der archaischen Keilschriftzeichen
Kushim (Uruk period)

References

Further reading
Born, Logan, and Kathryn Kelley, "A Quantitative Analysis of proto-cuneiform Sign Use in Archaic Tribute." Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin, 2021
Charvát, Petr, "On  People,  Signs  and  States  –  Spotlights  on  Sumerian  Society,  c.  3500–2500  B.C. ", Prague: The Oriental Institute, Academy of  Sciences of  the Czech Republic, 1998
Charvát, Petr, "Lambs of the Gods. The Beginnings of the Wool Economy in Proto-Cuneiform Texts", Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean, Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 79–91, 2014
 Charvát, Petr, "Cherchez la femme: The SAL Sign in Proto-cuneiform Writing", La famille dans le Proche-Orient ancien: réalités, symbolismes et images: Proceedings of the 55e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris, edited by Lionel Marti, University Park, USA: Penn State University Press, pp. 169–182, 2021
 Dahl, J., "Proto-Elamite and linear Elamite, a misunderstood relationship? ", Akkadica, 2023
 Damerow, Peter, and Robert K. Englund, "Die Zahlzeichensysteme der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk", 1985
Damerow, Peter, "Food production and social status as documented in proto cuneiform texts", Food and the status quest: An interdisciplinary perspective 1, pp. 149–170, 1996
 Diaco, Maddalena, "The Signs For Buildings in the proto-cuneiform." Rivista di Preistoria e Protostoria delle Civiltà Antiche Review of prehistory and protohistory of ancient civilizations 43, pp. 35–52, 2020
  Englund, Robert K., "Late Uruk period cattle and dairy products: Evidence from proto-cuneiform sources." Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture 8.2, pp. 33–48, 1995
 Englund, Robert K., "The Smell of the Cage", in Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2009:4, 2009
Englund, Robert K, "Late Uruk Pigs and Other Herded Animals", in: U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann and H. Hauptmann, eds., Festschrift Boehmer Mainz, pp. 121–133, 1995
Friberg, J, "Numbers and Measures in the Earliest Written Records", Scientific American, vol. 250, no. 2, pp. 110–118, 1984
Gabriel, Gösta Ingvar, "Die archaischen Listen aus Uruk und die proto-keilschriftliche frontier. Überlegungen zu Funktion und Genese des ältesten lexikalischen Corpus", Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2022
 Glassner, J-J. "Proto-cuneiform Texts from Diverse Collections." The Journal of the American Oriental Society 119.3, pp. 547–547, 1999
Green, M. W., "Animal Husbandry at Uruk in the Archaic Period", Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1–35, 1980
 Kelley, Kathryn, "Gender, age, and labour organization in the earliest texts from Mesopotamia and Iran (c. 3300–2900 BC)", Dissertation, University of Oxford, 2018
Klein, Jacob, "Six New Archaic Tablets From Uruk", vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 161–174, 2004
  Nissen, Hans-Jörg. "Uruk: Early Administration Practices and the Development of Proto-Cuneiform Writing" Archéo-Nil 26.1, pp. 33–48, 2016
 Nissen, HansJörg; Damerow, Peter; Englund, Robert K., "Archaic Bookkeeping: Early Writing and Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East", Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993
Szarzyñska, Krystyna, "Records of Garments and Cloths in Archaic Uruk/Warka", Altorientalische Forschungen, vol. 15, no. 1–2, pp. 220–230, 1988
Vaiman, Aizik A., "Protosumerische Maß-und Zählsysteme", Baghdader Mitteilungen 20, pp. 114–120, 1989
Wagensonner, Klaus, "Early Lexical Lists and Their Impact on Economic Records: An Attempt of Correlation Between Two Seemingly Different Kinds of Data-Sets". Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg 20–25 Jul, edited by Gernot Wilhelm, University Park, USA: Penn State University Press, pp. 805–818, 2022
 Christopher Woods, "The earliest Mesopotamian writing", in Visible language. Inventions of writing in the ancient Middle East and beyond, Oriental Institute Museum Publications 32, University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 33–50, 2010

External links
Full list of proto-cuneiform Signs from CDLI
proto-cuneiform article at CDLI
Tablet from the Erlenmeyer Collection purchased by the British Museum
Discussion of proto-cuneiform Lexical Lists at UPenn Museum
Uruk IV tablet – photos and transliterations – CDLI
Uruk III tablets – pictures and transliterations – CDLI

Obsolete writing systems
Cuneiform