Talk:Proto-Elamite (period)

Standards

This page does not live up to the standards of Wikipedia nor those of any other respectable on-line encyclopedia. I urge the board to take down all pages concerning the early history of Iran for careful editing. I just removed the link to proto-Elamite tablets from Jiroft (under corpus). JLD 20070718

I will delete most of the content of this page later this week, and write a very short paragraph with a current bibliography, if no one objects, or will do it themselves. There are simply too many factual errors here. Jacob Dahl 20060531

See also http://www.cdli.ucla.edu:16080/wiki/index.php/Proto-Elamite which is a work in progress by the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI). There may be some problems viewing this on PC, especially using IE.

The image on the right has nothing to do with proto-Elamite, the inscription appears to be linear-Elamite (ca. 2300 - 2100 BC), although it is perhaps a fake. Jacob Dahl

The item is an actual articfact at the National Museum of Iran. It also appears in their catalog publications.--Zereshk 19:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter where the item is on display, the inscription is not proto-Elamite, but linear-Elamite, a writing system most likely not related to proto-Elamite. It is even likely to be a modern fake, especially the inscription. Jacob Dahl, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin.

I didnt write the text. maybe just the last paragraph was mine. But I can check on the cup and give you more info on it.--Zereshk 04:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, what I am saying is only that the object (silver vessel) is not dating to the proto-Elamite period. If someone says it does, or if there is a sign in the National Museum of Iran that says it does, is really irrelevant, it remains certain that it is not a proto-Elamite object. Even with the terrible situation at Susa (lack of stratigraphy) we are able to reconstruct some facts, and one of these is that proto-Elamite date to around 3000 BCE, and linear-Elamite to around 2300-2100 BCE. Now when an unprovenienced object (your cup) shows up with a linear-Elamite inscription on it, it will be dated to that period (i.e. 2300-2100 BCE). There are a lot of scholars who think like me, that this object may be a fake; further, it may be wise to put here on wikipedia an image of one of the Susa objects, rather than unprovenienced objects. If no one objects I will re-write the proto-Elamite and linear-Elamite articles on wikipedia, following our on-line education pages at the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative CDLI. Jacob Dahl, 02.06.2006.

Please do go ahead with the re-write. And if you keep the paragraph I added, all the better. Regarding the cup, I will contact the National Museum of Iran in the next few days. I'd like to see what they explain about your objection. Their catalog says it is a depiction of a Goddess and they even provide a deciphered translation of the text on the cup.--Zereshk 03:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. Who is your contact at the museum, if I may ask? I have begun reformatting the article, and found that there is already a stub article on proto-Elamite script, I will merge it with this. I will also write a brief article on linear-Elamite. However, my contributions will always be cooked down versions of the educational pages that I edit on-line for the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI). I hope someone will add to the article. Jacob Dahl, 20060604

For the record, the Vase discussed here (and now removed from this page) was first published by Walter Hinz in his book Altiranische Funde und Forschungen, Berlin 1969, p. 11 ff. It is commonly known as Inscription Q from the corpus of Linear-Elamite inscriptions. Hinz describes the circumstances of its discovery on pages 11-12. Jacob Dahl, 20060608

I havent yet contacted anybody there yet. Im too busy on other fronts and with real life problems (and Im sure you were too, with all the World Cup going on there). But this info you just added helps once I do get the chance to have a chat with the curator and director (riyasat and mo'avenat) of the Museum. It would be great if you could email me your email JD. That way I can refer them to you, should there be the need.--Zereshk 01:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sialk merge?

This article has to be merged with the teppe Sialk because they are both about the proto-elamite civilization. I also suggest the title to be changed to proto-elamite civilization (which is the name in the column of the iranian history.

Thats like saying Persepolis has to be merged with the Achaemenid dynasty article. Doesnt make sense now, does it?--Zereshk 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. But I'm only doing this out of respect to the person who wrote the article "teppe sialk". The thing is that whoever wrote the article (or maybe someone else?) connected that article to the history of iran column in the "iranian history" article. When you click on proto-elamite civilization you come to the teppe sialk article. Naturally the proto-elamite article should come up when you click on that, but because I didn't want to neglect the guy who wrote the teppe sialk article I suggested the articles to be merged so that when you click on proto-elamite civilization you can both read about the proto-elamites and teppe sialk. If you are the person then you can decide: 1. should the articles be merged? 2. or should the articles be seperate but then teppe sialk cannot be connected to proto-elamite civilization in the column.

I did write the Teppe Sialk article. They should be separate indeed. But I think we should fix that link youre talking about. The "proto-elamite" link should go to the "proto-elamite" article, not anywhere else. Links sometimes do get jumbled incorrectly. I think this is a technical error. I'll look to see if I can fix the problem.--Zereshk 20:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that you already corrected the linking error. Good. I dont know how that happened in the first place.--Zereshk 20:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then I take the tag away from the text.

scope?

this article needs some cleanup, in particular it needs to decide whether its scope is the Proto-Elamite script, or the early period of Elam as a whole. Also, we need a Category:Elam to group these articles. dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Scope must be to build a scholarly article on Proto-Elamtie.

Proto-Elamite is the conventional name in the field for the writing system. This article was a compressed version of the article I am editing on the closed wiki pages of the cdli project [1] [ [2] ]. If this page gets too messed up I can not help here any more.

Re latest edits: Proto-Elamite was not used for writing Elamite.

If you like, the main page should be Iran, then History of Iran, then divided into archaeological and historical periods. Proto-Elamite could then be placed under either Iranian Bronze Age civilizations, or something like that, or under Iranian pre-history. Elam is, as has been discussed in length, the Mesopotamian name for the Iranian highlands.

Jacob L. Dahl, Berlin, 20060811 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobLDahl (talk • contribs)

yes? I don't understand the reason for your complaint on my talkpage, or why you think the page is being 'messed up'. I did some straightforward cleanup per WP:MoS. The article currently addresses two separate topics, the civilization and the script: I haven't introduced this dichotomy. You seem to be arguing that this article should be about the script, not about the period in general. That's fine, I don't mind this. You should then go and fix {{History of Iran}} not to link here. Alternatively, we could make this a disambiguation page between Proto-Elamite script and Proto-Elamite period. I realize that the script being undeciphered there can be no definite statement regarding the underlying language. dab (ᛏ) 12:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

in fact, I now realize that you have messed up the article: You added important information, but you deleted much of what had been here before [3]. What's going on? It may be arguable to merge the material of the script into the article on the period, but you cannot just remove material on the period because you think the script article belongs here. I suggest we cleanly split it again, dealing with the script at Proto-Elamite script. dab (ᛏ) 12:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is not really a proto-Elamite period strictly speaking. Actually I don't care how this is done. But as soon as I see stuff like proto-Elamite was used to write Elamite, etc. (and I checked around earlier on the entire Wiki, finding a lot of this stuff, Including an image of the famous silver Vase which was also on this page earlier, still with the title telling us that the inscription is proto-elammite), then my red-flag goes up. Please edit, change, do all you like, but keep it correct. Again, make this page proto-Elamite writing system (do avoid script) if you care, and make proto-elamite a page about the supposed civilization. Dahl 20060811 Ps. I have only removed incorrect data, or changed anything after making known for a long time on discussion page that I intended to do so. I am no experienced wiki-user, and will never be (too much work). If my help with these pages is not wanted then ok I will stop keeping an eye on them. I tried today to clean up links across the wiki since I think all these links should go to this article, alas I have changed some five links and erased an insignificant stub concerning proto-elamite (which can be re-inserted if need be). Pps. we should be able to solve this on amicable terms, I have no interest vested in this, apart from helping out with this article. I believed the best would be to simply copy my article from CDLI wiki, and cook it down. I have since learned that Wiki is a fighting ground for all kinds of ism's and ideologies, when it comes to Iran, the aim of many seems primarily to be to try and prove the superiority of Iran's cultural heritage. Ppps. sory if my complaints on your talk page irritated you, that was unintentional. I found (in the middlle of a lot of work) that the initiative I had made to clean uup the proto-elamite page was being edited withhout any prior notice, I was a bit surprised.

proto-Elamite ?

The silver vase which is once again to be found on this page is a possible fake with a linear-Elamite inscription on it. Not proto-Elamite.

J. Dahl, Berlin 20060812

Dahl's assertion is accurate. While carbon dating leans towards authentication of the two silver sets, it is not considered conclusive. Of more paramount importance; the second observation is also correct. Desset's proposed translation is correlating 72 of 96 Linear-Elamite symbols to phonetic sounds which many, including Desset, believe will allow serious strides in deciphering those texts. He has indicated an interest in possibly delving into Proto-Elamite should those transcriptions prove successful but nothing more.

Desset, François, Tabibzadeh, Kambiz, Kervran, Matthieu, Basello, Gian Pietro and Marchesi, and Gianni. "The Decipherment of Linear Elamite Writing" Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie, vol. 112, no. 1, 2022, pp. 11-60. https://doi.org/10.1515/za-2022-0003 WellRead88 (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Email

Jacob,

I finally sent an email to the National Museum of Iran regarding the authenticity of the vase and the inscription.

I CC'd you the email. Your mpiwg-berli.mpg.de email address rejected it.

Anyway, here's the email I sent them:

Dear National Museum of Iran,

Salam,

I am Nima Kasraie of the University of Texas Health Science Center. I sometimes write articles on the cultural heritage of Iran, mostly for American audiences.

There is a question regarding the authenticity of a particular vase, the picture of which I have attached with this email. The picture comes from one of your recent catalogs.

Jacob Dahl, of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, also associated with CDLI ( http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/ ) believes that there are 2 problems with the vase. He says you are incorrect about the information written in the catalog:

1. You claim that the vase is proto-elamite. However this is questionable since the inscription on it is "linear-Elamite" which dates it to roughly 2300-2100 BCE. And Linear-Elamite, is a writing system most likely not related to proto-Elamite. The Vase discussed here was first published by Walter Hinz in his book Altiranische Funde und Forschungen, Berlin 1969, p. 11 ff. It is commonly known as Inscription Q from the corpus of Linear-Elamite inscriptions. Hinz describes the circumstances of its discovery on pages 11-12.

2. The vase is possibly a fake, especially the inscription, according to Jacob Dahl. Is this true? If not, please explain.

You may respond directly to Dr. Dahl here: http://cdli.ucla.edu/Staff/dahl.html

Or, respond to me (in English or Farsi), and I will forward your response to him, and clear this matter up.

Thank You.

Baa ehteraam,

Nima Kasraie

I dont know if and when I'll get a response. But if I do, I'll put you in the loop.--Zereshk 10:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice

Thanks for publishing my e-mail address!! I disengage myself from this wiki-page, there is now more incorrect than correct information. Please in the future do not write e-mails on my behalf or publish my address on the web. Thank you, J. Dahl

Jacob,

Nobody has your email. Not even me. My email to you was rejected. However, I do reserve the right to let people know who and where you are associated with. And you were the one who made the claim of the vase being fake. If you do not wish to stand up to your claim, then simply dont make it.

Anyway, I received a fax last week from The National Museum of Iran. I can upload or send you a scan of the response. But it is in Persian. Summary:

1. They do not claim responsibility for the catalog that claims the inscription is proto-Elamite. (I think they are agreeing with you about the inscription)
2. They claim that the article in question is not fake, and have asked you, or anybody else, to present evidence of it being fake. However, in light of your claim of it being fake, they will run some xrf tests to further determine the authenticity of the vase. They will fax me the results, and publish them as well. I will upload it here as well for everyone to peruse.--Zereshk 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The silver vase in question is not a fake. Doubts about its authenticity are largely disproved now through the discovery of a very similar silver vase during legitimate archeological excavations. For additional information please consult the following:

Kohl, P. L. (2007), The making of Bronze Age Eurasia, Cambridge, Figure 5.12c.

Potts, D. T. (2008), "Puzur-Inshushinak and the Oxus Civilization (BMAC): Reflections on Shimashki and the geo-political landscape of Iran and Central Asia in the Ur III period", Zeirschrift fur assyriologie, Bd. 98, S. 165-194.

Sarianidi, V. I. (2005), Gonurdepe, city of kings and gods, pp. 250-252, and Figs. 95-97, Ashgabat, Turkmanistan

Khersak, 3 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khersak (talk • contribs) 03:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

'Proto-Elamite' misnomer

I love the way the article includes the relevant fact that the assignment of 'proto-elamite' is purely a scholarly assumption (and probably a bad one). Considering the script ('proto-elamite') is most likely the first syllabic language, it is clear why there is no relation to it, and linear-elamite : because Linear Elamite, which we know the Elamites used, is characterized by a completely different tongue. A more accurate term which should emerge is 'Susanian'. If anyone has more information regarding the misnomer, please add a section.

Furthermore, given the nearly parallel emergence of susanian and sumerian, the fact that early representations of Susanian are ideographic and such a rapid shift is made towards syllabic (if indeed, it becomes syllabic), may be taken to suggest that the origin of written language is Susa.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.88.228 (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC) 

That does sound like a reasonable argument, and I'm sure you mean well. But really all we can do here is find what the experts say and then cite them, so if you have any source making any of these claims, then maybe we could add them into the article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's valid, as that inclusion appears to be from Jacob Dahl, who has suggested Proto-Elamite is quite possibly the first syllabic script. 2601:882:100:D7B0:6D85:5BE5:AD6E:428D (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide some reliable source citations on this matter? Such are the basis of editing on Wikipedia. Bondegezou (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dating

@Ploversegg: If you're going to change the range to 3200-2700 in the sidebar, you should probably also amend the article text to make them consistent, although you should also confirm that the range agrees with the article's sources. I only have access to the Louvre's book and can't verify the others; the note I added is relevant: The book gives 3100-2700 for Susa III (p. 47), but 3100-2900 for this artefact (p. 71).. – Scyrme (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Scyrme: Some random ip editor keeps changing the dates in cuneiform, proto-cuneiform, and akkadian empire article. I only reverted them. If that screwed up something let me know and I will fix it. :-) PS "The Proto-Elamite Settlement at Tepe Yaḥyā" is in WikiLibrary which you should be able to access. They gave it to me and I don't edit that much. Anyway, that paper dates proto-elamite to 3400 BC to 2500 BC, which is a bit of a stretch. Ploversegg (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Dahl article

This is a pointer to remind me to read this article when it comes out.[4] The abstract says "In this study I address the previously abandoned, but recently resurrected assumption that the protoElamite writing system did not disappear but was continuously in use in Iran until the late Third Millennium BC when the so-called linear Elamite texts were written in, supposedly, a developed version of proto-Elamite. I suggest, as a simple explanation for the similarity of some signs between these two systems, separated by more than 500 years, that late 3rd Millennium scribes created a new script, as an act of schismogenesis, using recovered proto-Elamite tablets as part of their inspiration, as well as their extensive knowledge of Old Akkadian cuneiform."~~ Ploversegg (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I added the online ref to the article.

• [5]Dahl, J., "Proto-Elamite and linear elamite, a misunderstood relationship?", Akkadica, 2023

On my queue to read.Ploversegg (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

After you get around to reading it, I'd appreciate if you would take a look at my addition to Linear Elamite to amend any misunderstandings or issues. – Scyrme (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Will do.Ploversegg (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! – Scyrme (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Spliting the article

I fixed up the Proto-Elamite writing system part of the article. It still needs some work but at least it is not awful now. There really should be separate PE and Proto-Elamite Period articles. PE, while interesting, was a short term and local thing (probably about a century of use at most and only 4 or 5 locations, really almost all the use was at Susa). The PE Period lasted for several hundred years and covered a pretty wide range of sites in the region. It should have its own article ala Uruk Period which I grant was a bigger thing but they are of a kind. I also updated the site articles where PE tablets were found (except Susa, which is a hairball). A site article needs to be created for Tape Sofalin. I tucked some starter info for that in the PE article temporarily. PS Yes, I read all the Dessett stuff and no I don't think it requires a change to the PE article at this time, other than mention it.Ploversegg (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the splitting into two articles (Proto-Elamite and Proto-Elamite Period). पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the section, Ploversegg!

A split seems like a good idea to me. I had thought about suggesting a split myself when I first saw that the script was only covered in a section of a history article rather than at its own article, which is unusual, but I was concerned about how much of the article it would remove. However, as you're prepared to add content, making space could be a good thing.

Regarding the title, Proto-Elamite period would be more in-line with Wikipedia's guidelines than Proto-Elamite Period. This is the capitalisation used by other articles that include "period". (eg. Edo period, Early modern period, Hellenistic period, Vedic period). Unfortunately, there's already a redirect at that title so it would require a technical move to effectively swap Proto-Elamite and Proto-Elamite period (or to swap Proto-Elamite period and Proto-Elamite Period if we split first and fix the capitalisation afterwards).

An alternative to a technical move would be to copy out all the non-script material to that redirect and overwrite it, although it would leave the article history behind at the article for the script (ie. here at Proto-Elamite) which might be weird and suprising to future editors who would probably expect the opposite. – Scyrme (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

A third option would be to just keep the period-related material here (along with its article history), and split the script section to Proto-Elamite script by pasting over that redirect. – Scyrme (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me ponder this while I take a break from things Elamite (or whoever they were). One problem is that, and I mean no offense by this, a lot of the proto-elamite period articles need Lots of work, if they exist at all, so you would inevitably be dragged down rabbit holes fixing those site article while you tried to build the PEp article up. Just the few PE script sites dragged me off course for a while and there are many more PEp sites. PS Yes, I agree that the best way would be to just transfer the PE stuff over top the redirect and then just do a simple rename of what is left to PEp and start from there. Obviously a number of refs from PE would end up being use in PEp too.Ploversegg (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done I created Proto-Elamite script per the above. Could someone now move Proto-Elamite to Proto-Elamite period over the redirect? (for some reason it seems I can't...) पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: As I mentioned, it requires a technical move. A request has to be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, assuming no-one here has the relevant permissions to do it.

If the plan to use both Proto-Elamite script and Proto-Elamite period, then which should the title Proto-Elamite redirect to? Or should it become a disambiguation page? – Scyrme (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Article split

I moved some epigraphic type further reading entries to the proto-elamite script article and copied over some possibly dual-use ones as well. If you seen any more further reading that should be removed (or any I missed transferring to the script article), feel free.Ploversegg (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)