Talk:Linear Elamite

quality

This page should be deleted or redone in its entirety as it does not live up to the standards in the field of Ancient Near Eastern Studies. It has too many contested and unproven claims, and links to unrelated items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLDahl (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@JLDahl: Can you give specific examples? "Does not live up to the standards in the field of Ancient Near Eastern Studies" is just as bold as wishy-washy. Desset's readings are flagged as such. So there's no neutrality issue. If they are contested, I would be good have sources about it. If not, then we can present these readings as a major potential (with necessary caveat, cf. Epi-Olmec) step forward by a mainstream scholar, based on already published sources. –Austronesier (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I too don't see the problem. Wiki editors have recently done a fine job of improving this article. I just reread it and see no problems. True it doesn't have the usual religious, ethnic, and nationalist slants that many ANE articles do but I consider that a plus. As for Dessets work, I watched the video and while it may not turn out to be correct, being research, it is scholarly and hangs coherently together.Ploversegg (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@JLDahl: Improvements to the article are of course very welcome, as long as they are referenced from Reliable Sources. There is probably much more to say on the subject of Linear Elamite, and the more knowledgeable contributors the better. It is generally not a very good idea to "delete everything" and try to impose one's own version, and usually better to try to improve content in a manner respectful of the contributions of others (as long as they are also Reliably Sourced...), in a collaborative spirit. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Decipherment

• @पाटलिपुत्र: I added the tag because the information does not reflect the reported decipherment of Linear Elamite, and still makes references to the script being undeciphered as opposed to deciphered or at least partially so. It mentions the news, but even those describe 2021 as the future. A topic like this needs some academic familiarity with the subject. This is too far outside my field for me to feel confident thoroughly updating the article. Someone more familiar with the ancient history side of Wikipedia would be better suited, preferably someone also fluent in French (to read French-language sources regarding Desset's work). I wouldn't know where to begin looking for anything more substantial than English news reports. Hence the tag. -- Scyrme (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, I tweaked a bit to update. This is all we have at this point. Desset made the announcement and many articles have been published about his completed decipherment, but as far as I know, the official peer-reviewed publication of his discovery is not yet published. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• The news has been reported on confidently, so I assumed there'd be more to go on. Looking around, it seems I was wrong to expect French sources would be help; according to this, Desset intended to publish in a German journal, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie. As far as I can tell, you're right, he has not yet done so.

I think for now the most accurate description is "partially deciphered" since, even when disregarding Desset's work, bigraphic/bilingual texts have allowed some readings to be made. -- Scyrme (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र and Ploversegg: Desset et al. have published an English-language paper in the latest July issue of Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie. I've already added a citation for the paper to "Further reading" with its doi, so it's easy to find and can be easily referenced with {{sfnp}}. – Scyrme (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Scyrme!! Seems to be available at De Gryuter, for a price... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: @Pat, try this this link instead :) –Austronesier (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic!! Thank you so much Austronesier!! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Cool! I admit I've been a bit doubtful after he took his work on a press tour and speaking thing without having published, which reminded me of the old days the people kept popping up with "decipherments" of hieroglyphics. And he also was trying to extend it to some uber framework for elamite languages, which was not a good sign. [1] Still, his other work has been excellent and I'll read the paper and if it holds up all will be forgiven! I certainly hope this is the case :-)Ploversegg (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I gave the article a quick read. A long thorough paper which fortunately Desset had already covered a lot of in his earlier papers. I would say

• I am confused by his sign tables having 348 glyph elements. This doesn't match his phonographic placing of Linear Elamite. Maybe I missed something.
• He seems, to me, to treat the Elamite Language as a single thing which I would say that we really don't know much about the Old Elamite that LE apparently encoded.
• He had me until the conclusion where he dropped this whole Proto Elamite as "Early Proto-Iranian" etc thing. I wasn't sold. It was like the conclusion from a different paper was tacked on. I'm not saying he isn't right, just that I didn't get that from the paper.

Anyway, I was going to say that LE is now "partially deciphered" but that was probably true in 2019 so how about "largely deciphered"? Given how few exemplars Desset has to work with that is pretty impressive.Ploversegg (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

For relatively recent research on the relationship between Proto-Elamite and Linear-Elamite the following sources can be useful:

Mäder, M.(2021), 2021, Linear Elamite, Encyclopedia of Ancient History / Wiley Publishers.

Mäder, M.(2021), Proto- und Linear-Elamisch: Formaler Vergleich, Berechnung des Jaccard-Index und Identifikation einer Übergangsphase, Unpublished Manuscript.

Kervran, M.(2019), Etude du syllabaire Proto-élamite (2019), SocArXiv Papers.

All three can be easily accessed on www.academia.edu Awanir (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Linear Elamite alpha-syllabary (complete), after Desset et al., by पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk)

LINEAR ELAMITE TABLE

Just so that everybody knows, and in order not to duplicate efforts, I am working on a Public Domain "Linear Elamite alpha-syllabary" table (attached), referenced from Desset et al. (2022) of course. It will take some time to complete with my own typography, maybe a week or two. Any comment welcome (the sooner the better), especially regarding the adequacy of the table structure. I will update regularly as I move forward. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Nice work being done! I was thinking maybe some input from the Desset paper could help the Elamite languages article. Has anyone else wondered about the fact that in a sea of people speaking semitic, anatolian etc family languages we had an island of isolates (Kassite, Elamite, Sumerian, and Hurrian - despite what the broken Hurro-Urartian languages article says). Odd.Ploversegg (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ploversegg: I have always been under the impression that the "Black-Headed" Sumerians formed an ancestral substrate upon which Semitic-speaking people (Akkadians) only encroached later, hence the huge cultural and linguistic differences, and the fact that Sumerian and other geographically close languages appear to us as "isolates", i.e. ever-shrinking linguistic islands against the major languages which are known and related to us today. But I'm no expert on the question... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

For the sign table:  Done पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"It is often claimed"

The article currently reads:

It is often claimed that Linear Elamite is a syllabic writing system derived from the older Proto-Elamite writing system, although this has not been proven.

For this it cites Desset (2018a), but looking over it (it's linked in the article), I don't see where Desset says this or anything close to this. IIRC, Desset does describe it as a syllabic writing system now that he's (apparently) deciphered it, and it's plausible that others have speculated that it was a syllabic writing system based on the analysis bilingual and bigraphical texts, so perhaps it has often been said, idk. However, I didn't see any of this being described in the source provided. In-fact, Desset says that it was "probably" a mixed system in his 2018a contribution to The Elamite World (although Desset cites someone else when saying so). Unless I was careless and missed the relevant part of the paper, this line probably needs to be deleted. If I did miss it, whatever the paper says may need to be re-evaluated in light Desset's evolving views since 2018 (which he has commented on in interviews, iirc). -- Scyrme (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Scyrme: This is a claim clearly made in Desset (2022,) p.52: "Here we put forward the hypothesis that Proto-Elamite and Linear Elamite scripts were probably not two different writing systems, but the same system at two different chronological stages of evolution. (As has previously been proposed by Gelb (21963, 89: Linear Elamite as a “developed form” of Proto-Elamite), Reiner (1969, 56: “a more developed form of this writing”), Meriggi (1971, 184: “derivate da quella delle tavolette di contabilità”), Steve (2000, 75–78), and Grillot (2008, 9). For an opposite view, see Englund (2004, 143–44, n. 9).)". पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

??? I wasn't disputing that Desset argues for a link between Proto-Elamite and Linear Elamite. I was questioning the vague wording and that statement that it's a syllabic writing system. Desset's earlier work assumed it was a mixed system, as I said above, and even if Desset had himself argued that it's a syllabic writing system that still wouldn't have supported that "often claimed", which would require broader evidence, so the citation was dubious regardless. More recently Desset identifies Linear Elamite as an alpha-syallabary (ie. a semisyllabary), so describing it as "syllabic" is a bit reductive; better to be precise to avoid confusion or unintended conflation. If the point is to state the relationship between Linear Elamite and Proto-Elamite, better to stick to the point and not mix in discussion of classification and characteristics.

Side note: That section you've quoted here may be helpful in elaborating on the Relationship to other scripts/Proto-Elamite section with material from sources other than Desset et al. – Scyrme (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Fine with me... Thanks again for pointing to Desset (2022). Best! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"erroneously identified"

@Awanir: You restored your addition of "erroneously" after Ploversegg removed it; could you explain why? Does the the reference provided state that the identification is false? If so, could you provide the page? If not, do you have another source which does say so? – Scyrme (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry but my intention was not to initiate an "edit war" at all. I just wanted to correct an error that has been perpetuated, particularly in secondary literature, over many years based on Hinz's well-intentioned but mostly incorrect reading of the Linear Elamite inscription on the goddess statue. Hinz's was indeed a valiant effort but the small corpus of the Linear Elamite inscriptions at the time was an insurmountable barrier to success. I would be very happy to provide additional information if needed. Awanir (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

the identification of the goddess statue as Narundi is wrong because the inscription on the statue itself explicitly identifies her as Peltikalim, an Elamite form of Akkadian Belat-ekallim, "Lady of the Palace" a well-known byname of Innana/Ishtar, see Desset et al. (forthcoming). Awanir (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

A few words in the edit comment often forestalls this sort of issue, something I have certainly given short shrift to myself on occasion. I think everyone here was operating in good faith. Given the proposed translation by Desset the statue would indeed be misidentified. I say proposed because it hasn't been reviewed yet. On more than one occasion I remember reading what I thought was a fine paper only to then find that Brinkman had torn the paper COMPLETELY to shreds. :-) So yes its a nice paper and in a reputable journal and supported by Desset's early work but it not quite a done deal yet. I expect soon we will see reviews appear and hopefully that last box will be checked. Maybe some wikipedian will go to one of his talks [2] and ask these questions.Ploversegg (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding acceptance of Desset et al. among other researchers

An unregistered editor has been fighting an edit-war over Desset el al. on the basis that their research has not yet been backed by independent researchers. Regarding this:

Manfred Krebernik, an expert on Near Eastern Studies at Germany’s University of Jena, finds Desset’s case “mostly convincing.” Matthew Stolper, an Assyriologist at the University of Chicago, says, “The argument is clear, coherent and plausible.” Piotr Steinkeller, an Assyriologist at Harvard University, is “quite convinced” by the decipherment, which he hails as “a major achievement.” None were involved in the research.

— www.smithsonianmag.com/history/have-scholars-finally-deciphered-a-mysterious-ancient-script-180980497/

Although this news article is not an academic paper or anything, it does at least provide some indication that Desset et al.'s work has been well-received by (at least some) independent researchers, and not just by journalists. – Scyrme (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious how can you claim that he has deciphered the majority of the script when he hasn't published anything about the grammar and other important in claiming decipherment. "Others, however, remain cautious until Desset and his team publish detailed translations of texts."

Have Scholars Finally Deciphered Linear Elamite, a Mysterious Ancient Script? | History| Smithsonian Magazine

And also, I find this decipherment bizarre why is there a letter W this is a letter that doesn't even occur in Elamite cuneiform. And where is the letter B it's not like these constants didn't exist it's also in Elamite cuneiform. And why are all the transcribed symbols all single except for "Pu" which is two symbols interestingly enough one of the symbols for Pu appear in Indus script by itself. there are a lot of things about this claimed decipherment that don't make any sense 2603:6011:B307:E000:38EF:AE6E:3A96:E807 (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it; Desset et al. and those who have reported on their work have claimed it. Wikipedia is meant to follow what existing sources say, not the opinions of random editors.

Writing is independent of language and grammar belongs to language, not writing (German, French, and English each have their own grammars but are all written with variations on the Latin alphabet). As for everything else, you seem to be judging their work based solely on the material presently in the article, and not on what's written in the sources. The paper is far more detailed than what's in the article, and the questions you raise regarding differences from cuneiform and Elamite phonology are addressed in the paper.

I don't know how you can say symbols for Pu appear in Indus script by itself when the Indus script certainly is undeciphered. The values of some Linear Elamite signs were known long before Desset et al.'s work thanks to bigraphic inscriptions which allowed Linear Elamite to be partially deciphered. No such artefacts are known to exist for the Indus script. – Scyrme (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I came to this Wikipedia article after reading www.dw.com/en/archaeological-mystery-ancient-elamite-script-from-iran-deciphered/a-62849976 on DW. The DW article makes the impression that Desset's claims are far from universally accepted. For example: "'Until clear evidence is provided, the Linear Elamite script is not fully deciphered,' Michael Mäder told DW". I was surprised to see that the Wikipedia article already presents the new claims as established fact. There definitely seems to be some controversy. BarroColorado (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find a wording that notes that many people have accepted Desset et al.'s work but that some other scholars haven't. Bondegezou (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It is a very recent study, and as far as I can see, there is no peer-reviewed publication that has cited it yet. So the jury is still very much out, even if Desset's arguments may appear convincing to us (or to a group of WP editors who are more knowledgeable in this subject than I am, and whose judgement I basically trust). The news reports are nothing I would cite here in the article, but they should really be a reminder to us not to present cutting-edge research results as established facts. This is all very exciting; but so were Justeston and Kaufman's advances in the decipherment of the Epi-Olmec script. –Austronesier (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there is a middle ground to be walked here. LE was already partially deciphered (as of 2019). The issue is whether it is now fully deciphered. Certainly I would say that Desset has pushed the decipherment process further along. Whether or not he got EVERYTHING right awaits the scientific process. And remember that other scripts considered "deciphered", like Mayan, are still not fully deciphered.Ploversegg (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I've made some "bold" changes to the article to hopefully address some of these concerns, including removing the possibly contentious statements about the decipherment status and classification from the lead. I've replaced these statements with a subsection regarding "Classification" under "Writing system". I've also swapped the image in the infobox, as the simple inventory is less contentious than a table giving phonetic values. Please make further amendments as needed.

I've used the news articles as references for the comments made by researchers; feel free to replace them with better references if you know of appropriate publications.

@Austronesier: Is Desset et al. (2022) not a peer reviewed publication? I thought that it was. – Scyrme (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It [i.e. Desset et al. (2022)] is a very recent study, and as far as I can see, there is no peer-reviewed publication that has cited it yet. –Austronesier (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Misread; nevermind then. – Scyrme (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Indus script

Having read the referenced section in Possehl (2002) I believe the Indus comparison section in this article is undue and removed it as such, but this was reversed by an unregistered editor. Possehl (2002) does mention Linear Elamite, but does so in a casual way which appears to conflate Proto-Elamite and Linear Elamite. The actual substance of what he says appears to be about the pictographic Proto-Elamite script, which is the term he uses most. I don't think Possehl (2002) is a sufficient reference for the comparison, given how little he actually says about the relationship. If this section is to be kept, then at least a better source is needed to establish that the topic is worth including here. As a note, the article for Proto-Elamite only briefly mentions the comparisons in a single line, and does not devote a whole (sub)section to it. If it's undue there, then it's definitely undue here. – Scyrme (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Would anyone object to the re-removal of the Indus section? – Scyrme (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free. I actually looked at the ref and was unimpressed.Ploversegg (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Are Possehl's casual speculations mentioned in any other RS about Linear Elamite? If not, we shouldn't be the ones to keep a still-born idea alive. –Austronesier (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cut the section again. I don't know if any reliable sources reference Possehl's comments (I doubt they do), but Possehl himself refers to prior work by others, so, supposedly, it's not just his speculations. To be completely transparent, this is exactly what Possehl says:

The Proto-Elamite, or Linear Elamite, script of the Iranian Plateau is also pictographic and roughly contemporaneous with the Indus script. ... There is even better correspondence between this script and that of the Indus Civilization than there is between Sumerian and Indus. ... The correspondence between the pictographs of Proto-Elamite and Indus script is close enough that G. R. Hunter noted: "... that they are unrelated in origin seems to be contradicted by the number of resemblances that seem to be too close to be explained by coincidence."²⁰ Fairservis once did a transliteration of a Linear Elamite tablet into the Indus writing system, further documenting the close correspondence between the two.²¹

That's it, that's all he says on this topic. I've left the omitted text inside the {{omission}}s so you can check I've not left out anything particularly important.

I've not been able to get ahold of the 1976 publication by Fairservis, Excavations at the Harappan site of Allahdino, so I can't verify that Fairservis actually did what Possehl says he did. Presumably, the "transliteration" just meant lining up signs that look alike, but Linear Elamite doesn't look much like Indus script at all so I'm not sure it's even plausible; he may well have compared it with Proto-Elamite instead, but Possehl's conflation of the two makes that unclear.

I have been able to track down Hunter's work; it's from 1932 and is in response to another researcher, Stephen Langdon, who argues the opposite, but Possehl omits this context. He provides no original evidence for a connection in this 2002 work, and says nothing about the "number of similar symbols [that] have been found". – Scyrme (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok, now it was my turn to read too quickly :) Possehl is technically a secondary source then. But his main concern is not Linear Elamite (otherwise he would have been caerful enough not to conflate it with Proto-Elamite), so mentioning it here (especially in a separate subsection of its own) is a bit like the tail wagging the dog. –Austronesier (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

"Classification" section and Dahl

@Ploversegg: The reference to Dahl (2009) at Linear Elamite § Classification might need to be amended further in light of his more recent views. Actually, his closing statements aren't actually too far off from what's in the 2023 article: It is also possible to speculate that certain signs from the proto-Elamite writing system ... were reused some 800 years later when the so-called linear Elamite texts were written. Such suggestions can serve as possible explanations for the fact that some linear Elamite signs have proto-Elamite parallels ... but we can also be more daring and suggest that the linear Elamite display texts represented a limited-use writing system created from scratch in re-action to the encroaching cultural powers of Mesopotamia...

That said, it may need to be amended even on the basis of just what's in the 2009 publication; "limited-use writing system" isn't "not a writing system". Although, Dahl (2009) also seems to emphasise the difference between "display" and "non-display texts", and he seems most sceptical of the latter which he suggests only mimic the former without necessarily sharing any linguistic relationship.

Unless I've misread, "limited-use writing system" would only cover the very small number of "display texts", the writing of which was constructed rather than arising from a living tradition of writing, while the "non-display" "pseudo-glyphs" are unlikely to be writing in his view (as of 2009). – Scyrme (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Scyrme: Getting there. I've been sneaking the reading in over lunch. Reread a few background papers and today I reread Dahl2009. The later reminded me why I carry lingering doubts about Linear Elamite being an actual writing system. Things like many of the texts being short and near copies of each other and the weirdness of Text O which maybe makes you think it should not even be part of the LE corpus, and the provenance and dating questions about the silver items in the corpus. Tomorrows lunchtime reread will be Desset2022 (maybe he can reel me back in) and the later this week I'll read the new Dahl paper.Ploversegg (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

No rush.

I don't think Dahl (2009) disputes that the Linear Elamite inscriptions of the "display texts" are writing, rather he views them as (effectively) a newly constructed writing system that didn't evolve from a living tradition but may have taken inspiration from the past, and was only ever used to write a few inscriptions that were meant for public display (i.e, on monuments), but subsequently never caught on and likely was never intended to, rather it was intended to project an aesthetic of cultural independence through the monuments on which it was used. Or, at least, that's what I understood of what he wrote; perhaps I'm way off.

It would be somewhat like if the government of Ireland used faux or reconstructed ogham on political ads to make a statement about independence, without the expectation that the general public would actually start writing in ogham.

He did doubt that the "non-display" texts are writing in 2009, and perhaps still does, but I'm not sure he still maintains the view that the two are wholly unrelated. His suggestion in the 2023 article regarding them seems more persuasive: "Elamite texts such as “O” (Sb 9382)28 , “M” (Sb 17832) etc, which may then be examples of late 3rd millennium scribes attempting to copy signs from old tablets". Doesn't require guesswork regarding unknown Elamite religious beliefs/practices, unlike his suggestions in 2009 ("abracadabra texts"). – Scyrme (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess one issue I have is that from the end of proto-elamite (3000 BC) to whenever the akkadian empire installed a governor in susa (say 2300 BC) there was AFAIK zero writing in the region, at least nothing has been found and a lot of holes have been dug. So there was no local scribal tradition to build on. By the time of LE (if I understand the timing) there were two (2) functional and in use writing systems Akkadian Cuneiform and Elamite Cuneiform. Clearly LE didn't crib from them. And there were probably old PE tablets around but clearly LS didn't crib from that either. So the easy answer would be the LE was created in a vacuum. Anyway, I suppose for me the key question would be "is there any information content?". If not then you just have decoration, or at most "potters marks" or heraldic symbols (see - indus valley script). One problem for me is that yes I have poked a lot of site articles in the area but they've been mostly drive bys, I don't have the "feel" for the region the way I do for Mesopotamia, S Anatolia, and N Syria, where I can get inside the head of what the people there were doing. So I don't have a good sense of how LE would happen in the Elamite context. We will see what I think after I finish reading.:-) Ploversegg (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I'll read Desset 2018 first as I haven't previously read it [3]. And I can totally see the Ogham thing.:-)Ploversegg (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Scyrme: Caught up on reading. Desset 2022 as I understand it makes three claims 1) he has mostly figured out the Old Elamite language, 2) he has largely deciphered LE, and 3) that he has figured out a sort of "theory of descendancy" tying all the languages of the region together including LE being an evolutionary form of PE. Dahl 2023 only addressed the latter point and IMHO shredded it completely. And yes Dahl does allow the possibility that when LE was invented in Susa that some PE sign forms were part of that process (people keep heirlooms). Both Sesset and Dahl mention forcoming papers on this which I'm sure will add to the discussion. :-) Ploversegg (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ploversegg: Now that you've caught up, do you see any mistakes/inaccuracies in my additions to Linear Elamite § Relationship to other scripts regarding Dahl?

And do you agree that that information regarding Dahl at Linear Elamite § Classification needs to be amended to more accurately reflect his views (particularly, that he did not argue that the proper Linear Elamite inscriptions of the "display texts" aren't writing even in 2009)? If so, what do you think would be a better way to rewrite it? I'm not really sure how to amend it without adding extraneous detail; I'm particularly unsure whether mentioning his distinction between "display" and "non-display" texts is important in the context of this Wikipedia article, or if it's better to omit that detail as it presently does. – Scyrme (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Lets see. I think the Relationship section is fine. On the classification, I would say that between 2009 and now Dahl has moved from LE is probably not writing to the Susa LE texts of the Puzur-inshushinak are probably writing but the rest of the "corpus" not so much. I agree that the whole display vs non-display thing is just a side show. Dahls position, as I read it, is that a new writing system was probably created in Susa at that time and used for a brief period and that later exemplars (if they are actually later, not a firm thing) were copies/decorative. I mostly agree with this with the caveats 1) Desset claims to have figured out Old Elamite which a skeptic would say is convenient since it Guarantees that his LE solution will work. And he depends on the silver objects which I distrust BUT he mentions a forthcoming paper on the Susa bilingual text is in the pipeline so I am withholding fire until that comes out. To me, he should have led with those, esp the Table of the Lion. If you decide to change the Classification section I'm sure it will be fine but if you want I can double check the changes. PS What does everyone call the Treaty of Naram-Sin "so called"? PPS I saw somewhere a claim that the non-cuneiform text was added to the Table of the Lion LATER then the original text but I don't know that for a fact.Ploversegg (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ploversegg: Thanks for taking a look!

After some thinking, I've attempted to rewrite the material at Linear Elamite § Classification to make it more accurate to the source, and I'd appreciate if you'd look over it. It's a bit longer than it was; perhaps I over-explained. See what you think.

Re the PS: The "Treaty of Naram-Sin" was not named so at the time, so perhaps "so called" is simply intended to indicate that it's an anachronistic name applied retroactively? – Scyrme (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Checked the change. Looks fine to me. Yeah, as I've refreshed my memory while refreshing the PE article I have even less faith in the idea of PE being a full blown writing system vs something to count sheep. Still interesting though.

Thanks for reminding me that I wanted to take a quick look into this Naram-Sin treaty! I see now that CDLI has a short page on it, with pointers even [4]. Excellent.Ploversegg (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record, now that I've looked into the treaty, I have even more doubts about the whole Linear Elamite thing. The treaty is essentially all of the Old Elamite language that we have. If LE actually DOES encode Old Elamite then we would have a few more lines which we can't read (or can partially read if Desset is correct0. And a lot of the treaty is a list of the names of gods which helps not at all. Just an FYIPloversegg (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Corpus

I'm confused about the LE articles "new" way of classifying the corpus (east/west/lowland) vs the usual alphabetic way which every paper I have read, even recent ones use. Even the main online text depository [5]. I see the ref for this is a tertiary source, and an "encyclopedia" even. If this really is the new official way for handling the corpus (and not a single researcher trying to shop a new way) then that is fine but I am just perplexed as for me it comes out of left field.Ploversegg (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that information was added by Y-barton. Perhaps they know more about it. – Scyrme (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Froncois Desset reads "Shuwar-asu", not "Shumar-asu"

Look at his latest articles at Academia, like this one: https://www.academia.edu/76550129

"The title of the dedicatee on the Marv Dasht vessel bearing Late PIW inscription Q suggests that she may come from the East. The beginning of the inscription reads: za-na | ma-ra-p2-š-ša-i-r | šu-wa-r-a-su, “(I?) the lady of Marapša(y)i, Šůwar-Asu”." 5.106.253.44 (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Desset proposed decipherment

Has anything more happened in the way of support for this proposed decipherment? Maybe translating some of the Susa texts for example? I've been clear that I have some concerns about the proposal, starting with how very little we know about Old Elamite, the underlying language that Desset assumes are encoded by LE, but I would be delighted if it turns out to be the real deal. Ploversegg (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)