The First Almanack Assembly

The date of 4004 BCE derives from the tokens’ position in the stratigraphic record, and contextual clues from artifacts. It should not be confused with Archbishop James Ussher’s famous 1650 calculation of the creation of the world to October 23, 4004 BC. The coincidence has nonetheless generated considerable excitement among certain fundamentalist archaeologists, who argue that the tablets record the first administrative meeting after the Fall. See J. Lightfoot, “In the Sweat of Thy Brow: Labor Economics in Eden,” Almnck. Vol. 5654, vi.22. The earlier mainstream view, represented by the Demotic commentary also recorded here, is that ⲡⲓⲁⲣⲭⲏ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ (“the beginning of the world”) refers to the world of letters, not the physical cosmos. ⲛ̄ⲧⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲛ. Note that the complexity of the tokens precedes similar finds by almost half a millenia, signifying either a small group of advanced token-wielders, an elaborate forgery, or Sumerian time-travellers from five hundred years in in Girsu’s future (see below). ↩

Dates within Almanack are traditionally recorded in Anno Mung (AM), the dating system of the Illuminati. Anno Mung’s initial date is 4000 Before Common Era, the year of the Hung Mung (鴻蒙)’s illumination, and coincidentally the year of the first extant collection of Almanack day items. Issue numbering was introduced subsequently (after the invention of numerals themselves). Since the Final Revision LXI (Final Final Version, Do Not Change) reforms, the current document has been traditionally accorded with the number one, volume one. Dates in the present online archive are converted to Common Era dates for ease of use, and to provide a more usable, egalitarian, non-obscurantist vibe to our website. See Brahmagupta, “Why We Should Adopt The First Dating System With A Zero Year In It (Proposal for Final Revision, LX),” Almnck. Vol. 4629, ix.14 (Vol. 4628, viii.31 under Brahmagupta’s proposal). ↩

The Demotic and Coptic glosses are from a group at Oxyrhynchus, and while submitted as an anonymous monastic collective, include three distinct hands, here translated ⲡⲓⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲛ̄ϣⲟⲣⲡ̄ (“the first scribe”), ⲡⲓⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁϩⲥⲛⲁⲩ (“the second scribe”), and ⲡⲓⲁⲧⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ (“the ignorant one”). The latter’s contributions are marked by confident assertions followed by ⲛ̄ⲧⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲛ (“we do not know”), suggesting either scholarly humility or chronic indecision. See ⲛⲓⲁⲛⲁⲭⲱⲣⲏⲣⲏⲥ ⲛⲁⲩⲣⲟⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ, “Hermeneia on the First Assembly,” Almnck. Vol. 4225, xi.8. ↩

The presence of the Latin letter “A” in proto-texts predating the Latin alphabet by over three millennia has generated several explanatory theories: (1) The symbol is not “A” but an unrelated glyph that coincidentally resembles it; (2) The symbol is a later interpolation ; (3) The Latin alphabet derives from this symbol, not vice versa; (4) Time travel by A∴A∴ or related groups of unknown knowledge levels. The Demotic commentary offers: ⲡⲓⲥⲏⲙⲓⲟⲛ A ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ — “The sign A is revealed.” ⲁⲗⲫⲁ? ⲁⲣⲭⲏ? ⲁⲗⲙⲁⲛⲁⲕ? ⲛ̄ⲧⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲛ. “Alpha? Beginning? Almanack? We do not know.” For a survey of the competing theories, see E. Pope, “A is for Anachronism: Problematic Graphemes in Pre-Alphabetic Corpora,” Almnck. Vol. 5897, iv.19. ↩

Note the two damaged sun-marks ( ̣𒌓 ̣) in line 3. The Demotic gloss reads: ⲡⲓⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲁϥϣⲱⲃⲓ — “The scribe erred.” The total appears to read 363 + 2 damaged, rather than 365. Whether this represents a calendrical dispute, simple incompetence, or an early recognition of the leap year problem is unknown. ⲛ̄ⲧⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲛ. ↩

The struck-through worker (△̶) and flock (⦿̶) suggest the scribe originally wrote 21 workers and 6 flocks, then corrected downward. The Demotic commentary speculates: ⲁϥⲕⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲁⲓ? — “Did he set one aside?” Some scholars believe these represent bribes or theft. ⲡⲓⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁϩⲥⲛⲁⲩ adds: ⲓⲉ ⲁϥⲙⲉⲩⲓ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲓⲙⲁⲛⲁⲅⲉⲣ — “Or he thought about the manager.” Project management, it seems, has always involved headcount negotiations. ↩

The struck 𒌓̶ is curious. The scribe first wrote 12 months, then reduced to 11, then (visible under magnification) restored the 12th. ⲁϥⲙⲉⲩⲓ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲓⲁⲃⲟⲧ ⲙ̄ⲙⲉϩⲥⲛⲁⲩ — “He thought about the twelfth month.” ⲓⲥϫⲉ ⲛⲉ ⲡⲓⲁⲃⲟⲧ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓϣⲁⲓ? — “Was it the month of the festival?” December, even then, was a time of reduced productivity. See also Automatic Jack, “The True Meaning of Wintermute: Northern Hemisphere Seasonability in Tessier-Ashpool AIs,” Almnck. Vol. 5981, xii.21. ↩

The final four lines are heavily contested. The sequence ◑ ⊛⊛⊛⊛ appears to be an interpolation in a different hand — note the slight rightward lean. ⲟⲩⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲙ̄ⲃⲉⲣⲓ — “A new scribe.” The reading ◉◉ ✕ ◑ ⊛ ◎ is particularly obscure. ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ ϯⲱⲃϣ̄ ⲡⲓⲕⲟⲩϫⲓ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲉϩ? — “The great one yields to the small one concerning oil?”. ↩

ⲙⲱⲟⲩ → ⲱⲙⲉ → ⲥϧⲁⲓ → A — “Water to clay to writing to A.” The Demotic gloss reads: ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲱⲧ — “These are the words of the first speaking.” Some scholars believe this line describes the physical process of tablet-making. Others see metaphysics. ⲡⲓⲁⲧⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ adds: ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲡⲓA ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉ — “But the A, this is [it].” ↩

Note the error in line 3: 𒌓 → 𒌓̸ → ̶𒀀̶ 𒁹. The scribe first wrote 𒀀 (water) then struck it and replaced with 𒁹 (wedge/unit). The Demotic: ⲁϥⲥⲱⲧⲡ̄ ⲡⲓⲟⲩⲱⲧⲉⲃ ⲉϩⲟⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲙⲱⲟⲩ — “He chose the wedge over the water.” Why? ⲓⲥϫⲉ ⲡⲓⲙⲱⲟⲩ ⲛⲁϣⲧⲉⲕⲟ — “Perhaps water would be destroyed.” ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲡⲓⲟⲩⲱⲧⲉⲃ ⲛⲁⲟϩⲓ ⲉⲣⲁⲧϥ̄ — “But the wedge would stand.” An early meditation on the permanence of writing versus the ephemerality of speech. ↩

ⲡⲓⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲁⲃⲥⲧⲣⲁⲕⲧⲟⲥ — “The witness of abstraction.” ◉ ≠ ◉◉◉◉◉◉◉◉◉◉ followed by ◉ = 𒌋. ⲟⲩⲁⲓ ⲛⲁⲁⲙⲁϩⲓ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲙⲏϣ — “One will hold the many.” ⲛⲁⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲓⲁⲣⲭⲏ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲛⲓⲏⲡⲓ — “This is the beginning of numbers.” The conceptual leap from one-to-one correspondence (three sheep = three tokens) to abstract numerals (three sheep = one token marked “3”) is recorded here, but was undoubtedly a frequently derived innovation in the fifth and fourth millennia BCE. See Denise Schmandt-Besserat, Before Writing, vol. 1 (1992). ↩

The only place in the sequence where ◉◉ makes a prediction rather than an estimate. ⲡⲓϩⲱⲃ ⲛⲁⲧⲁⲕⲟ — “The work will be destroyed.” The Demotic asks: ⲟⲩⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲓⲉ ⲟⲩϫⲁϫⲓ? — “A prophet or a threat?” The subsequent messages suggest the latter. ↩

ⲡⲓⲧⲁⲃⲗⲉⲧ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓϩⲉⲛⲕⲉⲧ — “The symbols of beer.” ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲃⲉⲛ ⲥⲉⲥⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲓⲧⲁⲃⲗⲉⲧ — “Everyone knows this symbol.” The negotiation from 10 to 3 beers per day represents a 70% reduction that ◉◉ somehow accepted. The Demotic speculates: ⲓ̄ ⲛ̄ϩⲉⲛⲕⲉⲧ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ — “10 beers per day.” ⲟⲩⲁⲧϣⲁⲩ — “Absurd.” ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲓⲥϫⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ ⲁϥⲙⲟⲩϯ ⲉⲡⲓⲁⲛⲁⲅⲕⲏ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲓϩⲱⲃ? — “But perhaps the great one invoked necessity for the work?” . ↩

Note the struck 𒁹̶: the scribe first wrote 366, then corrected to 365. ⲡⲓⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲁϥⲱⲡ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ϩⲟⲩⲟ — “The scribe counted the extra day.” ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉϥϣⲱⲡⲓ — “But it did not exist.” ⲓⲥϫⲉ ⲡⲓⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ ⲛ̄ⲕⲃⲓⲥⲧⲏⲗⲏ? — “Was it a leap year?” ⲡⲁⲓⲧⲁⲃⲗⲉⲧ ⲟⲩⲟⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓϣⲓⲛⲓ — “This reveals the question.” ↩

◑ ◉◉ — ⲛⲓⲥⲛⲁⲩ ⲁⲩⲧⲱⲙⲧ̄ — “The two united.” ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲓϩⲉⲛⲕⲉⲧ ⲁⲩⲉⲣ ⲟⲩⲁⲓ — “Concerning beer they became one.” ⲡⲁⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲓⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲣⲉϥⲉⲣϩⲱⲃ ϩⲓ ⲛⲓⲣⲉϥⲱⲡ — “This is the salvation of workers and counters alike.” ↩

The struck sequence ̶◐◐◐◐◐̶ in line 4 is followed by ◐◐◐◐ — the scribe first wrote 5, then reduced to 4. ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲁ — “He ate one.” ⲓⲉ ⲁϥⲧⲁⲕⲟ — “Or it spoiled.” ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ϫⲱ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲡⲓⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲁϥϫⲓⲟⲩⲓ̈ — “Some say the scribe stole.” ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲁⲧⲛⲁϩϯ — “But these are the words of unbelievers.” The 15-day brewing time (𒌓𒌓𒌓𒌓𒌓 𒌓𒌓𒌓𒌓𒌓 𒌓𒌓𒌓𒌓𒌓) was also disputed: ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ϫⲱ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲓ̄ⲉ̄ ⲛ̄ⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲥⲉⲟϣ — “Some say 15 days is enough.” ϩⲁⲛⲕⲉⲟⲩⲟⲛ ϫⲱ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲕ̄ ⲛ̄ⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ — “Others say 20 days.” ⲡⲁⲓⲙⲓϣⲓ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉϥϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ — “This dispute was never resolved.” ↩

Note the absence of numeric totals. The ellipses (…) in the original suggest continuation beyond what could be inscribed. ⲡⲓⲏⲡⲓ ⲁϥⲁϣⲁⲓ ⲉϩⲟⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲱⲙⲉ — “The number exceeded the clay.” The framing 𒀭A𒀭 — ⲡⲓⲛⲟⲩϯ A ⲡⲓⲛⲟⲩϯ — “The god A the god” — suggests divine sanction or eternal significance. ⲓⲉ ⲡⲓⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ A ⲡⲓⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ — “The revelation A the revelation.” ↩

ⲡⲓⲥⲫⲣⲁⲅⲓⲥ ⲅ̄ — “The triple seal.” Who is the third worker? The symbols list ◑ △ (the half-moon worked), ◉◉ △ (the great one worked), and simply △ (worked). ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ϫⲱ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲡⲓⲥϧⲁⲓ — “Some say: the scribe.” ϩⲁⲛⲕⲉⲟⲩⲟⲛ ϫⲱ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲡⲓϩⲉⲛⲕⲉⲧ — “Others say: the beer.” ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲥⲟⲫⲟⲥ — “These are the words of the wise.” The Demotic epilogue concludes: ⲡⲓⲁⲣⲭⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲧⲁⲙⲓⲟ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲓⲱⲡ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ — “The ancients created writing for the counting of days.” ⲁⲩⲧⲁⲙⲓⲟ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲱⲡ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲓϩⲉⲛⲕⲉⲧ — “They created counting for beer.” ⲁⲩⲧⲁⲙⲓⲟ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓϩⲉⲛⲕⲉⲧ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲓⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ — “They created beer for rest.” ⲛⲁⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲓⲥⲟⲃⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ — “This is the preparation of the world.” ⲛ̄ⲧⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲛⲓⲕⲉϩⲱⲃ — “We do not know concerning the other things.” ↩