The strongest verified ancient-script connection in this pass is the repeated Babylonian-style numeral inscription on LP2 pages 33 and 39. Its two rows read as 1033 and 3301 under conventional integer place values. No verified new plaintext or encryption key was found.
Direct visual reading
Inspected original archived images 50.jpg and 56.jpg, corresponding to LP2 pages 33 and 39. The archive's combined page index is LP2 index +17. The inscription appears at the bottom of page 33 and at the top of page 39. These are existing puzzle features; this pass does not claim first discovery of the cuneiform or its numerical reading.
Compared the visible wedges against the chart in the University of St Andrews MacTutor article by the project's historians of mathematics: https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_numerals/ Chart: https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Diagrams/Babylonian_symbols.gif
| Row | Left group | Right group | Base-60 calculation | Decimal reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper | One tens wedge plus seven units: 17 | One tens wedge plus three units: 13 | 17×60+13 | 1033 |
| Lower | Five tens wedges plus five units: 55 | One unit: 1 | 55×60+1 | 3301 |
1033 reverses the decimal digits of 3301. Historical sexagesimal notation can be ambiguous about scale without context; this reading uses the natural two-place whole-number interpretation in the Cicada setting. It does not establish that a hidden Sumerian or Akkadian sentence is present.
cuneiform_detail.png is a crop of the page-33 inscription, with no redrawing or enhancement. Babylonian_symbols.png is a format conversion of the cited chart for inspection. The archived chart is credited to MacTutor, University of St Andrews; it is included as a research reference, not newly authored artwork.
Which ancient traditions have an actual connection?
| Tradition | Evidence in the reviewed material | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Mesopotamian/Babylonian numeral tradition | Repeated wedge-shaped numeral inscription; the groups support a consistent base-60 reading | Strong, direct connection to number notation |
| Ancient Maya numerals | Documented in the 2012 puzzle's subreddit header | Real historical puzzle connection; does not establish a Liber Primus key |
| Anglo-Saxon futhorc | Main runic alphabet, audited in session 8 | Strong script connection; early medieval rather than very ancient |
| Old Italic/Etruscan alphabet traditions | Possible ancestry/influence in the historical development of runes | Background connection, without a unique decoding rule |
| Egyptian hieroglyphs | No specific Egyptian sign sequence identified in the illustrations inspected in this pass | Unsubstantiated in this bounded audit |
| Ugaritic or Old Persian cuneiform | Wedge-shaped scripts, but distinct systems from Sumero-Akkadian | Appearance alone does not justify importing their sound values |
| Minoan Linear A | An ancient script whose language remains undeciphered | No specific puzzle match established; cannot serve as a reliable translation table |
The ancient Maya numeral reference is documented at: https://www.cicadasolvers.com/wiki/walkthroughs/2012-walkthrough/2012-subreddit-stage/subreddit/mayan-numerals/ Archived header: https://www.cicadasolvers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/subredditheader.png This is community archival documentation, not independently PGP-authenticated here. Maya peoples and languages still exist; the reference concerns ancient notation, not an extinct people.
The cuneiform page grouping is independently documented by the solving community: https://www.cicadasolvers.com/wiki/liber-primus/lp2/cuneiform-section/
For script distinctions, consulted Unicode's historical-script documentation: https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode16.0.0/core-spec/chapter-11/ https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode16.0.0/core-spec/chapter-8/
Cuneiform is a writing tradition used for several languages. Its presence by itself does not identify a particular spoken language. Likewise, a modern drawing resembling an ancient sign is not sufficient evidence that it carries that sign's sound or meaning.
Illustration audit
Downloaded and inspected LP2 pages 23,26–33,39,54: the eleven originals are combined-archive 40,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,56,71.jpg. The contact sheet covers pages26–31; the other images were viewed separately. Subjects include insect imagery, an insect wing, a blurred branching/tree form, and decorative branches. No reproducible Egyptian, Ugaritic, or other ancient phonetic sign sequence emerged from this limited visual inspection. No claim is made to have surveyed every image or every historical variant. Botanical species and original publication sources of the natural-history illustrations were not established here.
The wing, tree and branch drawings could still be instructions or clues. Assigning them rune names, deities, or hieroglyphic readings remains a hypothesis until a specific mapping predicts additional text. The public marginalia entry likewise leaves their function unresolved: https://www.cicadasolvers.com/wiki/liber-primus/marginalia/
Bounded numerical-key experiment
Tested five numerical representations: [17,13,55,1], [17,13], [55,1], [1033,3301], and the decimal digits [1,0,3,3,3,3,0,1]. Each is reduced modulo29 as a hypothetical repeating key. Tested forward/reversed keys, all cyclic phases, numeric offsets0 and-1, four additive sign combinations, and section/page/paragraph/word resets.
Used two target definitions separately: the community's page block33–39 (1680 runes) and delimiter-defined marked section7 (1589 runes). The page block includes91 runes from the preceding marked section; page grouping and exact text boundaries should not be conflated. Each target has1152 candidate settings, including duplicate equivalents.
Selected candidates using the first60% of complete words, then scored their continuation unchanged. Ranking uses the existing LP1 modern-English model. This is a test for English plaintext under this small key family, not a test of Sumerian or Akkadian plaintext.
| Target | Best training score | Unchanged continuation score |
|---|---|---|
| Page block33–39 | -5.07064 | -5.51278 |
| Marked section7 | -5.09366 | -5.31033 |
Both leaders remain unreadable. A constructed control, consisting of two copies of solved LP2 page57 with page-reset encryption under the four sexagesimal digits, recovered all190 runes exactly at the best rank. Its simplicity limits what that control validates.
No candidate is promoted to a decryption. The digits may be a signature, a section marker, a clue to base60, or an input to another operation; none of those roles has been established. The large base60 byte block on later pages was already independently checked in session2. These two facts should not be conflated into a demonstrated key relationship.
Reproduce with cuneiform_pass.py. Full candidates and parameters: cuneiform_results.json. No background computation remains running.