Talk:Proto-Elamite (period)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Sialk merge?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)
thread_title: scope?

message: 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)
thread_title: proto-Elamite ?

message: 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)
thread_title: Email

message: 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:
#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)
#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)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  'Proto-Elamite' misnomer  

message: 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: . – Scyrme (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article split