The Decipherment of Linear Elamite

The Decipherment of Linear Elamite Writing
François Desset, Kambiz Tabibzadeh, Matthieu Kervran, Gian Pietro Basello,

Gianni Marchesi
To cite this version:

François Desset, Kambiz Tabibzadeh, Matthieu Kervran, Gian Pietro Basello, Gianni Marchesi. The
Decipherment of Linear Elamite Writing. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie,
2022, 112 (1), pp.11-60. �10.1515/za-2022-0003�. �hal-04408238�
HAL Id: hal-04408238

https://hal.science/hal-04408238v1
Submitted on 21 Jan 2024
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 2022; 112(1) 11–60
Abhandlung
François Desset, Kambiz Tabibzadeh, Matthieu Kervran, Gian Pietro Basello,

and Gianni Marchesi*
The Decipherment of Linear Elamite Writing

https://doi.org/10.1515/za-2022-0003
Abstract: Linear Elamite writing was used in southern Iran in the late 3rd/early 2nd millennium BCE (ca. 2300–1880 BCE).
First discovered during the French excavations at Susa from 1903 onwards, it has so far resisted decipherment. The
publication of eight inscribed silver beakers in 2018 provided the materials and the starting point for a new attempt; its
results are presented in this paper. A full description and analysis of Linear Elamite of writing, employed for recording
the Elamite language, is given here for the first time, together with a discussion of Elamite phonology and the biscrip-
tualism that characterizes this language in its earliest documented phase.
Dedicated to Françoise Grillot and François Vallat, and to the memory of Vincent Scheil, Ferdinand Bork, Carl Frank, Walther Hinz,
Piero Meriggi, and Marie-Joseph Steve, great pioneers who paved the way.
“Provided sufficient text is available, a phonetic writing can to-Elamite writing”) until, in the early sixties, it was inter-
and ultimately must be deciphered if the underlying language preted as an independent script and renamed elamische
is known” (Gelb 1975, 96). Strichschrift (Hinz 19621) or, in English, Linear Elamite
(Hinz 1975; henceforth abbreviated as LE when used
adjectivally, while PE stands for Proto-Elamite). Used in
1 Introduction southern Iran between ca. 2300 and 1880 BCE (for the
locations of the sites mentioned in this study, see Fig. 1),
despite several decipherment attempts, Linear Elamite
In 1903, French excavators working in the Acropolis
remained substantially undeciphered until recently (see
mound of Susa found inscriptions attesting to a new
Fig. 2).2 Here is a summary of the results obtained in pre-
writing system (Scheil 1905), which for a long time was
vious studies and proven correct by our decipherment (for
assimilated to that of the so-called ‘Proto-Elamite’ tablets,
the numbers that identify the various glyphs, see Fig. 3a).
as a lapidary version of it (see, e. g., de Mecquenem 1956,
Bork (1905, 328; 1924), studying inscription A,3 cor-
200; and Gelb 21963, 89: “a more developed form of Pro-
rectly identified the phonemic values ši (glyph 83), še
(glyphs 87 f.), na (169), and k (70, read by Bork as “(a)k”).
Article note: Abbreviations are those of the Reallexikon der Assyri- Moreover, he came very close to establishing the correct
ologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie (https://rla.badw.de/re- readings of the glyphs 137 f. (“en” = ni), 201 (“šu” = su),
allexikon/abkuerzungslisten.html; note especially EKI = König 1965;
and 2 f. (“ke” = ki).
and ElW = Hinz/Koch 1987), to which the siglum TZ, for the texts from
Choga Zanbil published by Steve (1967), must be added.
Frank (1912, 20; 1923) came close to identifying two
additional values — n and š — attributing the reading “in”
*Corresponding author: François Desset, CNRS team Archéorient
(Lyon, France; UMR 5133)/University of Tehran; Email:
dessetfrancois@gmail.com 1 Note that Bork (1924) already used the term Strichschrift to refer to
Kambiz Tabibzadeh, Eastern Kentucky University this writing.
Matthieu Kervran, Independent researcher 2 On Linear Elamite, see, most recently, Desset (2012, 92–127; 2018a).
Gian Pietro Basello, ‘L’Orientale’ University of Naples See also Hinz 1962; 1969; 1971; 1975; Meriggi 1971; Vallat 1986; André/
Gianni Marchesi, University of Bologna Salvini 1989; Salvini 1998; and Steve 2000.
[The order reflects the moment when each author got engaged in 3 LE inscriptions are traditionally identified by individual letters of
the project: F. Desset and K. Tabibzadeh: end of 2018; M. Kervran: the alphabet. It was Scheil (1905) who started to label the inscriptions
end of 2019; G. P. Basello: beginning of 2020; G. Marchesi: with Latin letters following the alphabetical order and this practice
beginning of 2021.] has continued to this day.
12 François Desset et al., The Decipherment of Linear Elamite Writing
Fig. 1: General map of the archaeological sites mentioned in the text (F. Desset).
Sites where LE inscriptions were found are marked with a black star.
to glyphs 28–30 and “aš” to glyph 185. He also proposed to In 2018, F. Desset published a group of 8 silver
read glyphs 12 and 124 as “ir” and “sa”, respectively (here beakers inscribed with LE inscriptions (texts X, Y, Z, F′,
read as ra and s). H′, I′, J′, and K′)4 from the Houshang Mahboubian (7 arti-
Hinz (1962, 21; 1969, 44, fig. 19) identified glyphs 190 f.
as pi (read “piš” by Bork 1924) and glyph 9 as hu in the 4 Previously called gunagi vessels (Desset 2018b), these artifacts are
writing of the PN Šin-pishůk. He proposed to read glyphs here more cautiously referred to as beakers. In fact, it is not certain
39 f., 57, 236, and 281 as “hal” (= ha). In 1962, he rightly that all these vessels were actually termed gunagi (especially with
proposed to read glyph 180 as ru, before changing this regard to the spouted beakers with LE inscriptions Y and Z). This term
can only be applied with certitude to the copper and silver beakers
identification to “ha” in 1969.
bearing the cuneiform inscriptions nos. 4, 6, and 7 (see below, sec-
Meriggi (1971, 193–203. 219 f.) attributed the phonemic tion 2.2 and Table 2), all explicitly said to be written on gunagi ves-
values za to glyph 50 and pu to glyph 135. He suggested sels. In this connection, it should also be noted that the term itself,
that glyphs 71 f. and 76 may represent the class-marker of gunagi, never existed (at least not in this form). In fact, gunagi stems
the 3rd person sing. “ri” (actually, glyphs 71 and 76 = ri₂ are from gu.na.gi₄, which is not a word but a fossilized syllabic spelling
to be distinguished from glyph 72 = r) and came close to of the Sumerian term /gunangi/, used as a logogram for a derivative
Akkadian word (see Dossin 1927, nos. 99: 4; 100: 16; 102: 9; etc.; note
establishing the correct readings of glyphs 185 (“uš” = š)
that gi₄ is not used as a syllabogram in the Akkadian syllabary of
and 182 (“uz” = zu). Susa; see Salonen 1962, 164). On the basis of the phonological and
Corsini (1986, 26–35) correctly identified glyph 93 as morphological transformational rules of the loans from Sumerian to
k (already read “ka” by Frank 1912; our k₂) and glyph 182 Akkadian, this Sumerian loanword in Akkadian can be reconstructed
as zu. as *kunakkûm, assuming that the borrowing occurred before the gen-
eralized sound change that affected Sumerian toward the end of the
Mäder [e. a.] (2018, table 21), proposed that glyph 139
3rd millennium BCE and that caused the transformation of voiceless
could be read as either “(i)h” or “(i)š”. Here it is read as h. stops into voiced stops in many phonological environments (see
All in all, before 2018, 12 signs were properly identi- Jagersma 2010, 36–38). However, the lack of syllabic writings for the
fied: hu, k, k₂, na, pi, pu, ri₂, ru, še, ši, za and zu. hypothesized Akkadian term makes its reconstruction not entirely
François Desset et al., The Decipherment of Linear Elamite Writing 13
facts) and Martin Schøyen (1) collections (Desset 2018b).5 Since the names of the Sukkalmaḫ rulers Eparti II and
They may come from a Šimaški/Sukkalmaḫ-related royal Šilhaha, as well as that of the god Napireša, could be rec-
graveyard located in the Kam-Firuz area (Fars), some ognized in these texts, this group of inscriptions became
40 km north of Tal-i Malyan, the ancient city of Anšan. the key for the decipherment of Linear Elamite, enabling
While we regret that the exact provenance of these arti- Tabibzadeh/Desset (2019) and Kervran (2019) to decipher
facts is unknown, for heuristic purposes we think that initially independently and concurrently more than 30
each alleged ancient artifact has to be studied and ana- new signs.
lyzed before discharging it as a forgery. In what follows, While the door was unlocked in 2018 and opened in
our concern is to read and understand the texts. While the 2019, it is time now to enter the room fully and propose
evaluation of whether the understanding of an unprove- the near-complete decipherment of Linear Elamite. Edi-
nanced text in an undeciphered writing system can val- tions of all the known LE inscriptions will follow in a sep-
idate the genuineness of its physical carrier represents arate work (Desset [e. a.], forthcoming), which will soon
a relevant methodological issue for an epistemological appear as a volume in the open-access series OrientLab
reflection, the chemical and metallographic analyses that Series Maior of the University of Bologna (www.orientlab.
were performed on 13 samples from some beakers of the net/pubs/). However, two texts are preliminarily edited
Mahboubian Collection (Faieta [e. a.] 2018, 144, table 1) here: M in section 3.2 and F // G // H (Puzur-Sušinak; 22nd
provided the following conclusion: “everything (grad- century BCE) in section 6.
ually forming patinas betraying the interaction with the Before getting to the heart of the matter, several edito-
archaeological layer/burial soil, alloys with pure silver rial choices must be stated. As the decipherment of Linear
and low percentages of pure copper, free from common Elamite proved the absence of distinction between voiced
modern contaminants like tin, nickel, zinc, etc., and quite and voiceless consonants in this writing system (at least
speciﬁc indicators of manufacturing processes) points to for the plosives, but probably also for other types of con-
ancient artefacts and not to ingenious modern forgeries” sonants such as the sibilants) and as the voiceless series
(Faieta [e. a.] 2018, 147). is more “neutral” and traditionally preferred in the field of
Elamite studies (see, among others, Paper 1955, 21; Reiner
1969, 71 f.; Zadok 1984, 3; Bavant 2014, 242 f.; Krebernik
certain. As far as its Sumerian counterpart is concerned, the follow-
42021, 195), the voiceless plosives k, p, and t are favored
ing syllabic spellings are attested: g u - n a - a n - g i₄ (TCL 5, 6055 i 5),
g u - n a - g i₄ (Nisaba 15, 340: 7; 504: 2), g u₄- n a - a n - g i₄ (AAICAB 1/1, instead of g, b, and d in the transliteration of LE texts and
pl. 34, 1911-225: 5), k u - n a - a n - g i₄ (BIN 5, 1: 14; UTI 5, Um. 3488: 11. the transcription of Elamite words (cf., however, section
rev. 6; YOS 4, 246: 53. 152). Such spelling variants and the fact that it is 4.1 below, sub 6).
written syllabically point to a foreign origin for the word in question We follow Steve 1992 for the transliteration of cunei-
(pace Hinz and Koch, who considered “gu-na-gi₄” to be an Elamite
form Elamite, but a preference is accorded to the voiceless
word [ElW 513]; note that there are no occurrences of it in texts written
in the Elamite language). Its etymon in the unknown lender language plosives k, p, and t in accordance with the dictates of LE
X can be reconstructed as *kunanki ([kunanki] being the original writing (thus, for example, we transliterate ka₃, pa₂, ta₂
pronunciation of /gunangi/ in 3rd millennium Sumerian), probably instead of ga, ba, da). Also note that ḫ signs in Elamite
to be connected with the word kun, which occurs in the cuneiform texts are transliterated as hV(C) or (C)Vh, as is customary
text no. 5: 5 and whose referent is a copper alloy vessel that could be
in the field of Elamite studies, but as ḫV(C) or (C)Vḫ when
described as a squatter and smaller version of the three above-men-
tioned vessels referred to as gu.na.gi₄. In this perspective, *kunanki
they occur in Akkadian or Sumerian texts.
— analyzed as kun-anki — may then denote a “tall (anki) kun-vessel”. The transliteration of LE signs (usually in italics with
Be that as it may, the terms kun and *kunanki, both belonging to an hyphens, such as hu₂-pu₂-š-ša-n in F // G // H: 2) is based
unknown language in origin, as well as Akkadian *kunakkûm, seem on the system presented in Fig. 6/Table 4, while the tran-
to refer to metal (copper alloy or silver alloy) beakers with a circular scription of the Elamite words is based on the system pre-
short base, a slightly convex lower wall, a carinated transition to the
sented in Fig. 10/Table 6. Since the exact vocalic values
upper wall, slightly constricted/concave or straight and, finally, a
simple or carinated rim bent outward and then inward to form a flat of the LE signs hu, hu₂, lu?, nu, ru, ru₂, and šu cannot yet
surface (see Desset 2018b, 119 f., fig. 15). Such beakers can also have a be established (see below, section 4.1.2), they are provi-
riveted handle or repoussé and chased/engraved decoration (as well sionally transcribed /hů/, /lů?/, /nů/, /rů/, and /šů/, to be
as, maybe, a spout). Based on archaeological contexts and textual respectively understood as /ho/ or /hu/, /lo?/ or /lu?/, and
information, they were mainly produced and used in Western Iran
so forth. For instance, the toponym hu₂-pu₂-š-ša-n, tran-
and Mesopotamia between 2050 and 1850 BCE.
5 That publication also included inscription L′, from the art market.
scribed as Hůpošan, was perhaps read as either /hop(o)-
This text, however, proved to be meaningless and is probably to be šan/ or /hup(o)šan/.
regarded as a fake. For this reason, it is not considered here.
Fig. 2: Previous decipherment attempts, from Bork 1905 to Mäder [e. a.] 2018.
Important steps in the decipherment are marked in blue, correct identifications in red.
On the contrary, the vocalic distinction between /e/ – M, N, and R (tablets)

and /i/ was completely established throughout the syl- – T (stone inscription)
labary of Linear Elamite, but cuneiform writing did not 2) Puzur-Sušinak inscriptions from Susa (ca. 2150–2100
distinguish between /he/ and /hi/, /ke/ and /ki/, /le/ BCE) — ordered chronologically:
and /li/, /re/ and /ri/, /se/ and /si/, and /ze/ and /zi/ (see – P
below, section 4.1.1). For this reason, Elamite words that – I (coterminous with an Akkadian inscription of
are only attested in cuneiform texts and that include the Puzur-Sušinak; see, provisionally,7 Gelb/Kienast
above-mentioned syllables cannot yet be transcribed with 1990, 335 f., Elam 10)
precision as regards the quality of the vowels (/e/ or /i/) – A (coterminous with an Akkadian inscription of
involved. This uncertainty is represented in transcription Puzur-Sušinak; see, provisionally, Gelb/Kienast
by the symbol ı (= dotless i). Thus, for instance, Kıntatu 1990, 328 f., Elam 4)
means that this personal name was read either /kentatu/ – B (coterminous with an Akkadian inscription of
or /kintatu/. Puzur-Sušinak; see, provisionally, André/Salvini
Geminate consonants are avoided in the transcrip- 1989, 54–58. pls. I-III; Gelb/Kienast 1990, 337 f.,
tions of Elamite words or names (Bavant 2014, 242 f.); Elam 13) and D
thus, we transcribe Itatu (not Itattu), Pala-išan (not Pala- – C (coterminous with an Akkadian inscription of
iššan), Nahůnte (not Nahhůnte), etc. Puzur-Sušinak; see, provisionally, Gelb/Kienast
Defectively-written names are normalized in tran- 1990, 337, Elam 12)
scription with their full forms (even though the defective – E
forms might sometimes reflect more precisely the current – F, G, and H (duplicates)
pronunciations of the names in question in a given – U
period; see below sections 3.4 and 3.5); thus: Insušinak 3) Marv Dasht silver vessel inscription (ca. 2100–2000
(not Insušnak), Hatamti (not Hatati), etc. On the other BCE):
hand, the name of the goddess Narůte/Narůnte is given – Q
as Narůte — Narůnte being a later by-form that is explain- 4) Kam-Firuz (Mahboubian Collection) silver beaker
able as a result of secondary nasalization of the dental inscriptions (Šimaški and early Sukkalmaḫ periods;
phoneme /t/. ca. 2000–1880 BCE) — ordered chronologically:
Italics in the translation indicate that the rendering is – Y and Z (Itatu I)
uncertain. – H′, X, and J′ (Eparti II and Šilhaha)
All dates are given according to the so-called ‘Middle – F′ (Eparti II and Zemt-Akone [/Temti-Agun] I)
Chronology’ (Sallaberger/Schrakamp 2015). – I′ (Eparti II and an undetermined ruler [probably
Pala-išan])
– K′ (Pala-išan)
2 Decipherment of Linear Elamite 5) South-eastern Iran/Kerman (Shahdad and Konar

Sandal South) inscriptions (mid-3rd to early 2nd millen-
nium BCE):
2.1 The Corpus of LE Texts – S (Shahdad)
– B′, C′, D′, and E′ (Konar Sandal South)
As of today, about 40 LE texts are known (see below, Table 6) Metal vessel inscriptions (South-eastern Iran; late 3rd
1), originating from Susa, Fars (Persepolis? and Kam- to early 2nd millennium BCE?):
Firuz), and Kerman province (Shahdad and Konar Sandal). – M′
These 40 LE texts can be divided into seven distinct – A′ and O′ (Lapu)
groups: – N′
1) Susian texts not associated with Puzur-Sušinak6 (all – W
or most of them predating Puzur-Sušinak): 7) Seal inscriptions (early 2nd millennium BCE):
– O (tablet; probably older than the other texts of – V
this group) – G′
– J, K, and L (clay cones)
7 New editions of the cuneiform inscriptions of Puzur-Sušinak that
6 This is the correct reading of the name previously read “Kutik-In- are coterminous with LE texts will be provided by Desset [e. a.], forth-
šušinak” or “Puzur-Inšušinak”; see below, section 2.3. coming.
Tab. 1: List of the 40 LE inscriptions known in 2021. R→L means from right to left, L→R from left to right, T→B from top to bottom, B→T from
bottom to top. Figures in the field “text length” refer to the number of preserved signs in each text; “frag.” means that the inscription is
fragmentary and its actual length unknown.
Text Material Description Found in Provenance Collection Dating Text Writing Publications Group
(and dimen- regular (date of (and length direction
sions in cm) excava- discovery) inventory
tions? number)
A Lime/ Slab (H 21; L 71; Yes Susa Louvre 2150– 50 R→L Scheil 1905, pl. 2; 2
sand- W 85) (Acropolis, (Sb 17) 2100 Hinz 1969, pl. 7;
stone temple of Meriggi 1971, pl. 1
Insušinak; 1903)
B Lime/ Fragmentary Yes Susa Louvre 2150– 33 L→R Scheil 1905, pl. 2; 2
sand- votive boulder (Acropolis, (Sb 6) 2100 (frag.) Hinz 1969, pl. 8;
stone (H 56.5; W 62.5) near temple Meriggi 1971, pl. 1;
of Insušinak; André/Salvini 1989,
1903?) pl. 3b
C Alabas- Fragmentary Yes Susa Louvre 2150– 43 R→L Scheil 1908, pl. 4; 2
ter statue (H 14; (before 1905?) (Sb 87) 2100 (frag.) Hinz 1969, pls. 9 f.;
L 9.2; W 6.6) Meriggi 1971, pl. 1
D Lime/ Fragmentary Yes Susa Louvre 2150– 52 R→L (?) Scheil 1908, pl. 4; 2
sand- votive boulder (1908) (Sb 2100 (frag.) Hinz 1969, pl. 12;
stone (H 51.9; L 66; 172/6733) Meriggi 1971, pl. 1
W 55)
E Lime/ Basin/door- Yes Susa Louvre 2150– 34 T→B Scheil 1908, pl. 4; 2
sand- socket (?) (Sb 140B) 2100 Hinz 1969, pl. 11;
stone (H 23.7; L 29.5; Meriggi 1971, pl. 1
W 6.2)
F Lime/ Slab (H 21.5; Yes Susa Louvre 2150– 46 R→L Scheil 1908, pl. 5; 2
sand- L 63.5; W 22) (Sb 155) 2100 (frag.) Hinz 1969, pl. 13;
stone Meriggi 1971, pl. 2;
André/Salvini 1989,
fig. 5
G Lime/ Slab (H 13.7; Yes Susa Louvre 2150– 43 R→L Scheil 1908, pl. 5; 2
sand- L 57; W 21.3) (Sb 139) 2100 (frag.) Hinz 1969, pl. 13;
fig. 6
H Lime/ Slab (H 15.8; Yes Susa Louvre 2150– 64 R→L Scheil 1908, pl. 5; 2
sand- L 49; W 12) (Sb 140A) 2100 (frag.) Hinz 1969, pl. 13;
fig. 7
I Lime/ Goddess statue Yes Susa Louvre 2150– 38 B→T Scheil 1913, 18; Hinz 2
sand- (H 106; L 45; (head: 1904; (Sb 54 + 2100 (frag.) R→L 1969, pl. 14; Meriggi
stone W 46) body: 1907, 6617) 1971, pl. 3
Acropolis, trench
93)
J Clay Fragmentary Yes Susa (Acropolis) Louvre 2nd half 17 R→L Scheil 1935, XI; Hinz 1
cone (H 5.4; (Sb 17829) of 3rd (frag.) 1969, fig. 11; Meriggi
Base diam 5.6) mill. 1971, pl. 3
Tab. 1 (continued)
tions? number)
K Clay Fragmentary Yes Susa (Acropolis) Louvre ca. 2500 40 R→L? Scheil 1935, XI; Hinz 1
cone (H 7.3; L 6; (Sb 17830) (?) (frag.) 1969, fig. 12; Meriggi
W 3.8) 1971, pl. 3
L Clay Fragmentary Yes Susa (Acropolis) Louvre 2nd half 11 ? Scheil 1935, XII; Hinz 1
cone (H 6.1; (Sb 17831) of 3rd (frag.) 1969, fig. 13; Meriggi
L 5.9; W 4.2) mill. 1971, pl. 3
M Clay Lenticular tablet Yes Susa (Acropolis) Louvre 2nd half 18 L→R (?) Scheil 1935, XII; Hinz 1
(H 7.6 L 4.2;) (Sb 17832) of 3rd (frag.) 1969, fig. 14; Meriggi
mill. 1971, pl. 3
N Clay Tablet (H 6.5; Yes Susa (Acropolis) Louvre 2nd half 19 ? Scheil 1935, XIII; 1
L 3.8) (Sb 17833) of 3rd (frag.) Hinz 1969, fig. 15;
mill. Meriggi 1971, pl. 3
O Clay Tablet (H 11.5; Yes Susa (Donjon) Louvre 1st half 43 (?) ? Scheil 1935, XIII; 1
L 7.5; W 3.8) (Sb 9382) of 3rd Hinz 1969, pl. 15;
mill. (?) Meriggi 1971, pl. 3
P Gypsum ? (H 8; L 11) Yes Susa (Acropolis, Louvre 2150– 7 R→L de Mecquenem 1956, 2
Chantier 1; 1931) (Sb 17822) 2100 (frag.) 200; Hinz 1969, fig.
17; Meriggi 1971, pl. 3
Q Silver Vessel (H 19; No Persepolis (?) Tehran, 2100– 44 R→L Hinz 1969, pl. 6; 3
alloy base diam 11; (1966) National 2000 Meriggi 1971, pl. 4
rim diam 9; Museum of
weight 605 gr.) Iran
R Clay Tablet (H 4.2; Yes Susa Louvre ca. 2500 12 ? Hinz 1969, pl. 16; 1
L 2.5) (Sb 9383) (?) Meriggi 1971, pl. 3
S Clay Ceramic vessel Yes Shahdad (“Cem- Tehran, late 3rd/ 5 R→L Hinz 1971, pl. 1; 5
(H 32; base etery A”, grave National early 2nd Hiebert/Lam-
diam. 13; rim 30) Museum of mill. berg-Karlovsky 1992,
diam. 21.5) (1969–1970) Iran fig. 4
(exc.
no. 193)
T Lime/ ? (H 15.7; L 9.5; Yes Susa Louvre 2nd half 3 ? André/Salvini 1989, 1
sand- W 14.5) (Sb 18261) of 3rd (frag.) 59, fig. 3 and pl. 4b
stone mill.
U Sand- Slab/door- Yes Susa Louvre 2150– 20 R→L André/Salvini 1989, 2

stone socket (?) (H (Sb 18338) 2100 (frag.) 61, fig. 4 and pl. 5
14.5; L 30; W
28.5)
V Steatite Gulf type round No ? Ligabue early 2nd 3 R→L Winkelmann 1999, 7
stamp seal (Persian Gulf) Collection millen- (for the 25, figs. 1–2
(diam 2.5) nium imprint)
W Silver Vessel (H 13.4; No ? Los early 2nd 127 R→L Mäder [e. a.] 2018, 6
alloy base diam 14; (Kerman) Angeles millen- 101, figs. 8–14
rim diam 17) County nium
Museum of (?)
Art
(LACMA)
Tab. 1 (continued)
tions? number)
X Silver Vessel (H 14; No Kam-Firuz Mah- ca. 1950 56 R→L Mahboubian 2004, 4
alloy base diam 6.5; boubian 50 f.; Desset 2018b,
carin. diam 10.5; Collection 113, fig. 7
rim diam 8)
Y Silver Vessel (H 16.5; No Kam-Firuz Mah- ca. 134 Y1: L→R Mahboubian 2004, 4
alloy base diam 7; boubian 2000 Y2: R→L 52 f.; Desset 2018b,
carin. diam 12.5; Collection for Y1, 113, fig. 8
rim diam 8) later for
Y2
Z Silver Vessel (H 20) No Kam-Firuz Mah- ca. 1970 158 R→L Mahboubian 2004, 4
alloy boubian 54–55; Desset 2018b,
Collection 114, fig. 9
A′ Silver Vessel (H 10.3) No ? ? late 3rd 123 R→L Phoenix Ancient Art 6
alloy (Kerman) (New mill. catalog 2007/1, item
York?) no. 47; Mäder [e. a.]
2018, 100, figs. 1–7
B′ Clay Tablet (H 10; Yes Konar Sandal Jiroft ca. 6 ? Madjidzadeh 2011, 5
L 18; W 2.2) (trench XV) Museum 2300– fig. 5a; Desset 2014,
2100 pl. 1
C′ Clay Tablet (H 8.5; Yes Konar Sandal Jiroft ca. 7 R→L (?) Madjidzadeh 2011, 5
L 13.5; W 2.2) (trench XV) Museum 2300– fig. 7b; Desset 2014,
2100 pl. 1
D′ Clay Tablet (H 7; No Konar Sandal Jiroft ca. 9 R→L (?) Madjidzadeh 2011, 5
L 11.5; W 1.8) (trench XV) Museum 2300– fig. 3b; Desset 2014,
2100 pl. 1
E′ Clay Tablet/brick? Yes Konar Sandal Kerman ca. 2500 6 ? Madjidzadeh 2011, 5
(W 3.5) South Museum (?) (frag.) fig. 8b; Desset 2014,
pl. 1
F′ Silver Vessel (H 12.5, No ? Schøyen ca. 1900 55 R→L Vallat 2011, pls. 74 f. 4
alloy fragmentary; (Kam-Firuz?) Collection (frag.)
rim diam 8) (MS 3205)
G′ Gold Round stamp No ? ? early 2nd 6 ? Christie’s London, 7

seal (diameter (Central Asia?) mill. 14/04/2011,
2.4) Antiquities including
property from the
collection of Baron
Edouard Jean
Empain, lot no. 321
H′ Silver Vessel fragment No Kam-Firuz Mah- ca. 1950 55 R→L Desset 2018b, 115, 4
alloy boubian (frag.) fig. 10
Collection
I′ Silver Vessel fragment No Kam-Firuz Mah- ca. 1880 75 R→L Desset 2018b, 117, 4
alloy boubian (frag.) fig. 11
Collection
Tab. 1 (continued)
tions? number)
J′ Silver Vessel (H 16; No Kam-Firuz Mah- ca. 1950 81 L→R Desset 2018b, 117, 4
alloy base diam 6; boubian (frag.) fig. 12
carin. diam 12; Collection
rim diam 8)
K′ Silver Vessel (H 13.5; No Kam-Firuz Mah- ca. 1880 111 R→L Desset 2018b, 118, 4
alloy base diam 6.5; boubian fig. 13
carin. diam 10.5; Collection
rim diam 7.5)
L′ Silver Vessel No ? Desset 2018b, 118, FAKE

alloy fig. 14
M′ Copper Vessel (H 8.7; No ? Private late 3rd 47 R→L Desset [e. a.] 6
alloy base diam 8) (Kerman) collection mill. forthcoming
(London)
N′ Silver Vessel (H 9.9; No ? Private ca. 144 R→L Desset [e. a.] 6
alloy base diam 8.7) (Kerman) collection 2000 forthcoming
(London) (?)
O′ Silver Vessel (H 8.5; No ? Private late 3rd 159 R→L Desset [e. a.] 6
alloy base diam 11.3) (Kerman) collection mill. forthcoming
(London)
The distribution of each glyph (see Figs. 3a–b8) across

these texts is as follows:
1: A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, Q, R, T, U, W, X, Y, A′, C′, F′, J′, M′, N′, O′

2: A, D, G, H, L, U, W, N′, O′ 3: X, Y, Z, A′, H′, I′, J′, K′ 4: A′
5: Y 6: E, G, H, I, K, W, X, Y, Z, A′, F′, H′, I′, J′, K′, M′, N′, O′
7: A′, O′ 8: A, U 9: Z, A′, M′, N′, O′
10: V 11: D′ 12: D, S
13: D, F, G, H, Q, A′, F′, H′, O′ 14: Y, Z 15: H
16: H, H′ 17: F 18: H, Y, Z
19: A′ 20: D, I, K, Q, S, X, Y, Z, F′, H′, I′, J′, K′, M′ 21: D′
22: Y, Z 23: Q 24: Z
25: Y 26: Z, H′ 27: Z
28: A, B, G, H 29: D, F, G, H, U 30: Q
31: C 32: D′ 33: D, I
34: F, J 35: B, I 36: Q, Y, Z, A′
37: D 38: C 39: G, W, X, Z, J′, N′, O′
40: A, C, Z, A′ 41: Z 42: Y
43: E′ 44: I 45: W, A′, N′, O′
46: X, Y, F′, H′, K′ 47: R, A′ 48: D, F, H, Q, Z, M′
49: V, F′, G′ 50: I, Q, Y, A′, O′ 51: Y
52: G, M 53: K 54: D
55: F, X, Z 56: D′ 57: B
58: K 59: K 60: Z
8 The glyphs recorded in L′ were suppressed (see above, section 1).

For this reason, some glyph numbers were modified compared to the
previously published list of Desset (2018b, 110, fig. 4).
61: K 62: X, D 63: Y, Z, F′, H′, K′

64: X, J′ 65: Y, A′, O′ 66: Z, I′
67: B 68: D, K 69: A
70: A, C, E, F, G, H, J 71: Q, W, Z, H′, K′
72: A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, N, P, Q, S, U, W, X, Y, Z, A′, F′, H′, I′, J′, K′, M′, N′, O′
73: K 74: F, H 75: C′, D′, G′
76: K, N, Y, F′ 77: W, A′, N, O′ 78: G, H, A′, M′, O′
79: K 80: D, F, G, L 81: W, N′, O′
82: N 83: A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, K, P, R, U, V, W, X, 84: G, Z, I′, M′, O′
B′, G′, H′, J′, K′, M′, N′, O′
85: Y 86: W, Y, N′ 87: A, C, I
88: B 89: C, E, W, O′ 90: K
91: Y 92: A, C, D, H, M, N, Q, W, N′, O′ 93: A′
94: B 95: B, D, I 96: X, Y, Z, J′
97: C, D, F, H, K, Q, Y, Z, A′, M′ 98: A, E, J′ 99: M, Y, Z, A′, I′, N′, O′
100: Y 101: Y 102: F, G, H, X, Y, A′, B′, H′, J′, K′, O′
103: J, Q, W, Z, F′, K′ 104: H, I, N, X, Y, Z, H′, J′, K′ 105: G, H, Y, Z, A′, J′, M′, O′
106: D, F, F′, I′ 107: N 108: K
109: W 110: S 111: W
112: W 113: W 114: I, M′, N′
115: A, B, D, F, G, H, Q, W, A′, N′, O′ 116: N 117: B′
118: C′ 119: X, J′ 120: Y, Z
121: W 122: L 123: W
124: A, D, E, G, H, U, Y, Z, F′, K′ 125: B, F 126: W, A′, O′
127: L, A′, O′ 128: R 129: Z, H′, I′, J′, K′
130: Q 131: W 132: A, C, F, G, H, I, K, A′, D′, H′
133: B, E, G, J, U, W, X, Y, C′, J′ 134: I, M 135: A, E, F, I, P, W, X, A′, M′, O′
136: D, F, Q, Z, F′ 137: A, B, C, E, Q, Z, F′, H′ 138: I, T, X, Y, I′, J′, K′
139: A, B, E, X, Y, Z, J′ 140: K, Q 141: F, H, N′
142: W 143: W 144: W
145: W 146: D′ 147: K
148: W 149: X, I′, J′ 150: W
151: J 152: H 153: A, B, Y
154: F, J′ 155: N 156: K
157: W, N′ 158: A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I′ 159: Q
160: Y, Z 161: Z 162: Y
163: Y 164: D 165: D, K′
166: W 167: X 168: Y
169: A, B, D, E, F, I, Q, U, W, X, Y, Z, A′, F′, H′, I′, J′, K′, M′, N′, O′ 170: D, F, G, Q, X, Y, Z, A′, C′, F′, H′, I′, J′, K′, N′, O′
171: F, I, M, W, Y, Z, A′, D′, K′, M′, N′, O′ 172: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, Q, U, W, X, Y, Z, F′, I′, J′, K′, M′, N′, O′
173: J 174: T 175: Z
176: Q, Z, H′, I′ 177: X, Y, F′, K′ 178: A′, B′, M′, N′, O′
179: I, J′ 180: D, Y, Z 181: K, A′, N′, O′
182: A, E, K, M, P, C′ 183: A, B, F, H, Q, R, X, Y, Z, A′, F′, H′, I′, J′, K′, M′, N′, O′
184: K 185: A, D, F, G, H, J, Q, U, X, Z, H′, K′ 186: D′
187: H 188: Y 189: A, D, F, H, I, M, Y, Z, A′, O′
190: A, C, U 191: B, H 192: G
193: H 194: X, J′ 195: Z, F′
196: D 197: Z 198: G
199: I 200: Q 201: A, D, E, F, I, K, P, U, A′, O′
202: B, F, H, I 203: C, E, Q 204: D
205: K 206: K, M 207: Y
208: B′ 209: W, A′, M′, N′, O′ 210: I, M, Q
211: X, Y, Z, J′ 212: A, D 213: N
214: Q, Y, Z, J′ 215: X 216: W
217: D 218: Y 219: K
220: E′ 221: E′ 222: A′, O′
223: A′ 224: M′ 225: A′, O′
226: A′ 227: W, A′, N′, O′ 228: F′
229: F′ 230: F′, H′, I′, K′ 231: W, X, F′, H′, J′, K′, N′
232: F′, K′ 233: X, F′ 234: F′, I′, K′

235: F′ 236: F′, H′, I′ 237: F′
238: X 239: X 240: Z, H′
241: Z 242: Z 243: Z
244: Y 245: Y 246: Y
247: Y 248: Y 249: Y, I′, K′
250: Y 251: Y 252: Y
253: Y 254: Y 255: Y, J′
256: Y 257: G′ 258: G′
259: H′, I′, K′ 260: H′, K′ 261: I′
262: H′ 263: H′, I′, K′ 264: H′
265: I′, K′ 266: H′, I′, K′ 267: H′
268: I′, J′ 269: H′, I′, K′ 270: Y
271: I′ 272: J′ 273: J′
274: J′ 275: J′ 276: J′
277: W 278: K′ 279: K′
280: K′ 281: K′ 282: K′
283: K′ 284: K′ 285: K′
286: K′ 287: K′ 288: K′
289: K′ 290: K′ 291: K′
292: I′ 293: I′ 294: N′
295: M 296: O′ 297: O′
298: A′ 299: A′ 300: A′, M′, N′, O′
301: A′ 302: A′, O′ 303: A′, M′, O′
304: A′, M′, O′ 305: A′ 306: W, A′, N′, O′
307: M′ 308: M′ 309: M′
310: M′ 311: M′ 312: M′
313: M′ 314: M′ 315: N′
316: N′ 317: W, N′ 318: N′
319: N′ 320: N′ 321: N′
322: W 323: O′, N′ 324: N′
325: N′ 326: N′ 327: W, N′
328: N′ 329: N′ 330: N′
331: W 332: W 333: W
334: W 335: W 336: W
337: W 338: W 339: W
340: A′, O′ 341: O′ 342: O′
343: O′ 344: O′ 345: O′
346: M 347: C 348: M′
Dividing sign: B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, Q, S, U, Y, Z, A′, C′, D′, F′, I′, K′, M′, O′
Fig. 3a: LE glyph list according to numbers (F. Desset).

Fig. 3b: LE glyph list according to shapes (F. Desset).

Tab. 2: List of the 9 cuneiform inscriptions used in the decipherment of LE writing (organized chronologically). For the terms kun and
kunanki, see section 1.
Group Text Support Rulers mentioned Dating Language references

no. no.
I 1 silver alloy beaker Kıntatu ca. 2000 Elamite Mahboubian 2004, 46 f.

(kunanki?)
I 2 copper alloy beaker Itatu I, Kıten-Rakıtapi, ca. 1980 Sumerian Steinkeller 2007, 221 f.9
(kun?) (Eparti I, Kıntatu)
I 3 silver alloy beaker Šilhaha, (Eparti II) ca. 1950 Elamite Mahboubian 2004, 48 f.
(kunanki?)
I 4 copper alloy beaker Ata-hůšů, Ibni-Adad 2nd half of 20th c. Akkadian Sollberger 1968, 30 f.
(kunanki)
I 5 copper alloy beaker Zemt-Akone (/Temti-Agun) I, 2nd half of 20th c. Akkadian Glassner 1996; 2013, 325
(kun10) Kůk-sanit
I 6 silver alloy beaker Eparti II, Zemt-Akone 2nd half of 20th c. Akkadian Müller-Karpe 2012; Glassner
(kunanki) (/Temti-Agun) I, Kůk-sanit 2013, 325 f.; 2014
I 7 silver alloy beaker Pala-išan, Ůkal, (Zemt- ca. 1900 Akkadian Mahboubian 2004, 40 f.
(kunanki) Akone/Temti-Agun I)
II 8 two fragmentary Sewe-palar-hůhpak ca. 1780–50 Elamite Rutten 1949; EKI no. 3 A+B;
tablets from Susa Grillot/Glassner 1990
II 9 silver alloy beaker Sewe-palar-hůhpak ca. 1780–50 Elamite Mahboubian 2004, 44 f.

(see Fig. 4)
2.2 F rom the Known…: the Cuneiform Therefore, we decided to take another path. The key
Inscriptions was that of correlating the LE texts of Group 4, the Kam-
Firuz silver beaker inscriptions (the unknown) — which,
Decipherment usually proceeds from the known to the as became apparent later, recorded highly standardized
unknown and LE writing is no exception in this respect. Elamite royal inscriptions belonging to different rulers of
Previous attempts at deciphering Linear Elamite focused the Šimaški and Sukkalmaḫ dynasties —, with nine cunei-
on the textual corpus of Puzur-Sušinak, which consists of form texts (the known; see Table 2) chosen because they
both cuneiform inscriptions (in the Akkadian language) were written on artifacts of the same or similar types and/
and LE texts, sometimes even occurring together on the or because they represent the oldest and most complete
same object. Unfortunately, the LE texts never translate examples of Elamite royal inscriptions in cuneiform,11 on
the cuneiform inscriptions (or vice versa); the two sets of the reasonable assumption that these two groups of texts
texts just share some proper nouns and some titles that could contain inscriptions by the same rulers, or have
can be considered to be identical or equivalent. As a con- recognizable elements in common (proper nouns, titles,
sequence, only a few sign sequences corresponding to epithets) and a comparable phraseology.
proper nouns could be identified up to now in the LE texts These nine cuneiform inscriptions (henceforth: Cunei-
of Puzur-Sušinak. form 1, 2, 3, etc.) belong to two different groups. Cunei-
form 1–7 (Group I) are related to the same rulers (from
Kıntatu to Pala-išan; ca. late 21st-early 19th centuries BCE)
9 With duplicate CUSAS 17, 18 (shallow “bronze” bowl; see Stein- as the eight Kam-Firuz silver beaker inscriptions in Linear
keller 2011, 21 f. and pl. XIII).
10 Glassner (1996; 2013, 325*) read the last line of the inscription
on this vessel as “b i₂. i n . n a . d i[m₂]/bí.in.na.dím*” but the pic-
tures published in the auction catalogues of Sotheby’s and Chris- 11 Other Elamite cuneiform texts from the Sukkalmaḫ period, such
tie’s (Sotheby’s New York, 30 May 1986, lot 128; Christie’s London, as EKI nos. 67 and 70c (both attributed to Kutır-Nahůnte I and Zemt-
12 Dec. 1989, lot 85; Christie’s London, 8 July 1992, lot 49) show ku-un Akone [= Temti-Agun] II, ca. 1720/1700 BCE; see Vallat 1990) or the
in.na.di[m₂], with ku-un being presumably the name of the vessel in so-called ‘Stele of Šir-ůktůh’ (Farber 1974), were too fragmentary to
question. be conveniently exploited.
Fig. 4: Pictures and copy of Cuneiform 9 (silver vessel of Sewe-palar-hůhpak; H: 21,5 cm; see Mahboubian 2004, 44–45;
drawing: F. Desset).
Elamite (from Itatu I to Pala-išan; LE texts of Group 4) and Pericope 1

contain Sumerian, Akkadian, and Elamite texts inscribed Cuneiform 8 Cuneiform 9
on the same types of vessels (kun or kunanki). Cuneiform 1. e din-su-uš-na-[ak] 1. e dna-pi-ri-ša
8 and 9 (Group II; see Fig. 4 for Cuneiform 9) are written 2. te-im-ti a-li-im e-[li-ri]12 2. te-im-ti ki₂-na(-)hi-te-
on different supports and are more recent — both being ek-ri
Elamite inscriptions of Sewe-palar-hůhpak, a contempo- 3. u₃ se₂₀-we-pa-la-ar-hu- 3. u₃ se₂₀-we-pa-la-ar-hu-
rary of king Ḫammu-rapi of Babylon in the first half of the [uh-pa-ak] uh-pa-ak
18th century BCE (at least a century after Pala-išan). 4. li-ka₃-we ri-ša-[a-ki] 4. li-ka₃-we ri-ša-a-ki
If Group I provided important points of comparison 5. me-ni-ik ha-ta₂-am-[ti-ik] 5. me-ni-ik ha-ta₂-am-ti-ik
and oriented us in the search for known personal, divine, 6. ru-hu-ša-ak ši₂-il-[ha-ha- 6. ru-hu-ša-ak ši₂-il-ha-
and geographical names in the LE inscriptions of the ki]13 ha-ki14
Kam-Firuz group, it is above all the more recent Cunei- 7 ff. … 7 ff. …
form Group II that has proved to be crucial for the deci- (1–2)O Insušinak, lord of the acropolis/O Napireša, lord …,15
pherment of Linear Elamite. Indeed, the two inscriptions (3)I, Sewe-palar-hůhpak, (4)the grand likawe, (5)ruler of
of Sewe-palar-hůhpak contain a number of titles, epithets,

phrases, clauses, and sentences that also occur in several
of the Kam-Firuz texts in Linear Elamite. Although addi- 12 Restored after EKI no. 48a § 1: te-em-ti a-li-me-li-ri (also EKI
tional points of comparison can be found in several other no. 48b § 1). For variants, see EKI 183.
Elamite inscriptions from the so-called ‘Sukkalmaḫ’ and 13 Note the new reading of line 6: Sewe-palar-hůhpak is the /růhů-
šak/ of Šilhaha (and not of Šir-ůktůh). Quintana came to the same
‘Middle Elamite’ periods, the inscriptions of Sewe-palar-
conclusion in his online corpus (https://www.um.es/cepoat/elamita/
hůhpak played a very special role in the decipherment ?cat=101).
process. While a complete edition of these long and dif- 14 The fragmentary stele of Šir-ůktůh (possibly the father of Sewe-
ficult texts is beyond the scope of this work (see Desset palar-hůhpak; ca. 1800 BCE) presents a very similar incipit (ll. 1–6):
[e. a.], forthcoming), we deem it useful to offer here a e d[…] / te-im-t[i …] / u₃ ši₂-[ir-uk-tuh] / li-ka₃-[we ri-ša-a-ki] / me-ni-i[k
ha-ta₂-am-ti-ik] / ru-hu-š[a-ak ši₂-il-ha-ha-ki] (Farber 1974, 77).
preliminary treatment of the relevant passages that were
15 Cuneiform 8 was found in Susa while Cuneiform 9 probably
used for the decipherment of Linear Elamite. comes from Fars. Depending on the geographic and cultural setting,
Insušinak (in Susa) or Napireša (in the highland) is invoked. How-
ever, these two deities often occur in very similar, if not identical,
Hatamti, (6)“nephew” (i. e., collateral male descendent) of Line 4: Much has been written on this title (see, among
Šilhaha, (7 ff.)… (did so and so). others, Quintana 1999; 2001; Vallat 2001; de Meyer 2002;
Anthonioz/Malbran-Labat 2013; Bavant 2014, 302). All
Line 1b: The reading /napireša/ instead of /napiriša/ these authors considered /likawe/ (and its later cuneiform
is due to the LE spelling na-pi₂(-r)-ri-ša (Z: 4; H′: 1; I′: spellings li-ka-mi and li-ka₄-me) to be an abstract noun
2*; etc.), with the LE syllabogram ri representing, more of the inanimate class meaning “kingdom” and ending
precisely, the syllable /re/ in the LE writing system (see with the class-marker of abstract nouns /-me/. It should
below, section 4.1.1). be noted, however, that /likawe/ ends in /we/, not /me/.19
Line 2b: On the basis of the meaning “mace” of cun. Moreover, /likawe/ clearly belongs to the animate class:
hu-sahi-te-ek (Basello, forthcoming), it would be tempting cf. in EKI no. 54 § 2, li-ka₄-me din-su-uš-na-ak ir ha-ni-iš-ri
to interpret te-em-ti ki₂-na(-)hi-te-ek-ri as “the lord with (“I, Šilhak-Insušinak, …, the likawe that Insušinak loves”;
(lit. of) the kina-mace”. If so, however, we would expect see also EKI 97, n. 2), with li-ka₄-me being picked up by
*te-em-ti ki₂-na-hi-te-ki-ir, instead. The cuneiform spelling the resumptive pronoun /i-r/ of the animate class. The
hi-te-ek-ri rather points to a substantivized k-participle phrase /likawe reša/ probably corresponds to the Mesopo-
from a verbal base /hite/,16 which may (or may not) be con- tamian title s u g a l₇ - m a ḫ/šukkalmaḫḫum, “grand chan-
nected with the noun /hıt/, “army” (ElW 665, s.vv. hi-it and cellor” (cf. below, section 2.3, step 7), and /likawe/ alone
hi-it-e). Also note, in this connection, Napireša’s epithets to s u g a l₇/šukkallum (cf. li-ka-we as the title of Itatu I in
ku-uk-ki ka₄?-az-za-ak-ri (meaning obscure) in EKI no. 45 the LE text Y1).20
§ 19 (cf. ElW 555, s. v. ku-uk-ki) and ku-uk ka₄-as-si-it-ri in Line 5: For the term /men-ir/ (here locutive, /men-ik/,
EKI no. 54 § 1 (cf. ElW 409, s. v. qa-as-si-it-ri), which seem because used as an apposition to the 1st person pronoun,
to share the same construction as ki₂-na hi-te-ek-ri. Finally, “I”), cf. Tavernier (2016a), who argues for /men/ having
note that the rendering “leader of the army” for ki₂-na(-) the sense of “authority”; if so, then /men-ir/ may mean
hi-te-ek-ri provided by Mahboubian (2004, 44), presuma- “the one endowed with authority” or the like. For the
bly from an unpublished translation by F. Vallat (see ibid., translation “ruler”, which is adopted here, cf. cun. hal-
7), appears to be ungrammatical. In fact, even assuming me-ni-ik, “(I, …,) the country’s ruler” (see ElW 604).
that the hapax legomenon ki₂-na means “leader” (from Line 6: For the much-discussed compound noun
/ki/, “(number) one”, + class-marker /n/, + ‘final’ suffix /růhů-šak/, see, most recently, Potts (2018), with a summary
/a/?17), “leader of the army” should then be either *ki₂-na of the various interpretations that have been proposed. Cf.
hi-ti-in or *ki₂-na hi-ti-ir. cun. ru-hu-pa-ak (= /růhů-pak/), “niece, collateral female
Line 3: For this name, see Zadok (1984, 11, 47; 34, 171a; descendant” (ElW 1045). While the sense of “nephew” for
39, 221) and Krebernik (2006, 75 f.). The various cuneiform /růhů-šak/ is somewhat assured by its rendering in Akka-
orthographies with which it is written — i. e., ze₂-we-pa-la- dian as mār aḫāti(m) (lit. “sister’s son”) and in Old Persian
ar-hu-uh-pa-ak, si-me-pa₂-la-ar-hu-uh-pa-ak, and še-ep- as napāt- (ElW 1044, s. v. ru-h-hu.šá-ak-ri), the phrase
la-ar-pa-ak — suggest a reconstruction of the first element /růhů-šak šilhaha-ki⁓ri/ was used by Elamite kings in the
as /sewe/.18 2nd millennium BCE to relate themselves to Šilhaha, the
glorious founder of the so-called ‘Sukkalmaḫ Dynasty’.
textual contexts. Also considering the similarities in their iconogra-

Pericope 2
phies (de Miroschedji 1980), it is conceivable that they were consid- Cuneiform 9
ered to be two different “avatars” of the same deity (at least in certain 19(= 28 = 51). e dna-pi-ri-ša
periods). 20(= 29 = 52). nu u₂-te-en-ti
16 Cf., e. g., te-em-ti ši₂-il-ha-ak-ri, “the lord, the mighty one” = “the (19 = 28 = 51)O Napireša, (20 = 29 = 52)it is you who lead.
mighty lord” (from /šilha/, “to be powerful”), in EKI no. 54 § 1. The
same epithet occurs in Linear Elamite as ze-m-t ši-l-ha-k₂-ri₂ (K′). For
/hite/ as a verb, also note LE hi₂-t-te-k₂-pi₂ (K′), which could be a plu-
ral k-participle.
17 For this not yet well-understood morphological element, see, 19 Note li-ka₃-we vs. ta-ak-me in the two texts under examination
most recently, Krebernik (42021, 212, § 10.5). (lines 5 and 7, respectively). This is in accordance with the LE spell-
18 This reconstruction is also supported by the use of the sign ze₂ as ings of the terms /likawe/ and /takme/, written consistently as li-
a syllabogram for /se/ in OB Susa; see cun. ku-bu-se₂₀-e (Scheil 1933, ka-we and ta-k-me (see below, section 2.3, steps 6–7).
41 f., no. 355: 23; 45 f., no. 358: 20) and na-se₂₀-eḫ (ibid., 66 f., no. 375 20 Also note the occurrence of /likawe/ as a theophoric element
rev. 2. 4). On the contrary, no occurrences of ze₂ as /si/ are known to in the PN Kůk-likawe (cun. ku-uk-li-ka₃-we), “The protection is (pro-
us in OB texts from Susa. vided by) the likawe” (Scheil 1932, 92, no. 234: 35; Susa, OB).
Line 20 (= 29 = 52): nu u₂-te-en-ti following the invo- Pericope 3

cation of a god also occurs in several Middle Elamite Cuneiform 8 Cuneiform 9
inscriptions from the time of Šilhak-Insušinak I (see, for 20. šu-ut-me ša-at-me 54. šu-u[t-m]e ša-at-me
instance, EKI no. 53 § 2; 54 § 7 et passim; 54a §§ 2 and 7; 21. ki-it-ti-in te-e-me 55. ki-it-ti-in te-e-mi
etc.) and on a foundation tablet of Hůtelůtůš-Insušinak 22. hu-ur₂-tu₃ an-ša-ni- 56. hu-ur₂-tu₃ an-ša-ni-i-
(see below). Cf. also EKI no. 47 § 23: e napi(dingir)-riša ip-na pi-na
(gal) dki-ri-ri-ša din-su-uš-na-ak nu-um u₂-te-em(sic!)-ti …, 23. a-ki₂ šu-še-ni-ip-na
“O Napireša, Kirıreša, (and) Insušinak, it is you(pl.) who 24. [n]u-un ki₂-ri-na hi-ih- 57. nu-un ki₂-ri-na
lead. …” (repeated ibid. § 31, with var. u₂-t[e]-e[n]-t[i]). The [na] hi-ih-na
clause nu u₂-te-en-ti has variously been translated as “toi, 25. ma-ni-ip sa-hi-[ip] 58. ma-ni-i-pi sa-hi-i-pi
écoute moi!” (Scheil 1911, 28); “du bist mir gnädig” (König, 26. hu-ur₂-tu₃ ki₂-ri-pi(-)[up] 59. hu-ur₂-tu₃ ki₂-ri-pi(-)up
EKI 118 et passim); “as you are gracious to me” (Khačikjan 27. hu-⸢ta⸣-a[k-na] hu-ut-ta-ak-na!
1998, 38); “you care for me” (F. Vallat apud Mahboubian (20 = 54)Night and day (21a = 55a)for a long time (24b = 57b)may I
2004, 44); “tu m’accordes la bienveillance” (Grillot 2008, obtain (21b = 55b)the prosperity (22 = 56)of the people of Anšan
78). See also ElW 306, s. v. te-en-ti. All these translations (23)and Susa23 (24a = 57a)by worshiping you (= Insušinak/
assume that u₂ in u₂-te-en-ti represents a dative 1st person Napireša). (26–27 = 59)May manis of bronze be realized for
personal pronoun, but LE u₂-te-n-ti (see below, section 2.3, (= to be used by) my priests.
step 9) makes it clear that u₂ belongs to the spelling of the
verb and that no 1st person pronoun is present.21 Both cun. Line 20 = 54: The phrase šu-ut-me ša-at-me seems
u₂-te-en-ti and LE u₂-te-n-ti represent /ute-n-ti/, i. e., a Con- to represent an adverbial expression like Akkadian
jugation III 2nd person (both singular and plural) form of mēša(~i~u) urra(~i~u), “night and day, always” (CAD M/2,
a verb /ute/ whose meaning can possibly be inferred from 294 f., s. v. mēšu, usage c-2′; U/W, 243 f., s. v. urru A, usage
a passage of an unpublished cuneiform inscription of c); cf. ElW 1117 f., s.vv. ša-at-ki-me, ša-at-me, and ša-at-
Hůtelůtůš-Insušinak (private collection, London; photos ti-me; and 1193 f., s.vv. šu-ut-ku-me, šu-ut-me, and šu-ut-
courtesy David Owen), where we read (ll. 26–28): e din- ti-me. The meaning “night” for cun. šu-ut-me is assured
su₂-uš-na-ak šu-um-ma nu u₂-te-en-ti. If we assume, with by dši-ut-ma-⸢na⸣ [dna-a]-⸢ma⸣[-na-ma], “by night (or) by
Hinz and Koch (ElW 1178, s. v. šu-ma), that /šůma/ means day”, in the Elamite version of the Bisotun inscription of
“triumph, victory”, or the like,22 then a translation “O Darius I (DB i 16, according to the new edition by Aliyari
Insušinak, it is you who lead to victory” can be suggested. Babolghani 2015, 105, with the text collated on the rock
Unfortunately, the proposed meaning for /šůma/, though of Bisotun; cf. Cameron 1960, 6224) and the corresponding
working very well in the above-quoted passage from the passages in Old Persian and Babylonian (see ElW 1171, s. v.
Hůtelůtůš-Insušinak text, is nonetheless far from certain, d.ši-ut-ma-na).
and so is, consequently, the new translation of the clause Line 21 = 55: ki-it-ti-in is certainly related to cun.
nu u₂-te-en-ti that is suggested here. ki-it-ti-im-ma,25 “of much time, long (in time)”; cf. ta₂-
ak-ki-me ki-it-ti-im-ma, “long life”; pi-el ki-it-ti-im-ma,
“long years” (cf. Steve 1967, 16); su-un-ki-me ki-it-ti-im-ma,
“long (period of) kingship” (references in ElW 471, s. v.
ki-it-ti-im-ma). However, ki-it-ti-in alone seems to be used
adverbially with the meaning “for a long time”.26 As for
21 In Linear Elamite, the 1st person pronoun is consistently writ- te-e-me⁓mi, the contexts in which it occurs require the
ten with the sign u (= /o/), which contrasts phonologically with u₂
(= /u/). Moreover, in Cuneiform 8 and 9 (among others), the pronoun
in question is consistently written with the cuneiform sign u₃ (see u₃, 23 Only in Cuneiform 8. As Cuneiform 9 was probably written in the
“I”, in Cuneiform 9: 3. 21. 36. 44. 53; u₃-me, “of mine”, ll. 7. 23. 39; u₃- highland, it is interesting to note the absence of the reference to the
pi, “of mine”, l. 27) and is thus distinguished orthographically from Susians in such a context.
the u₂ sign of u₂-te-en-ti (see below, section 4.1.2). 24 Note that na-a-ma-na was still visible when the inscription was
22 Hinz and Koch suggested this meaning for šu-ma in EKI 79 § 9. scrutinized by Cameron.
The context (§§ 7–9) is as follows: napi(dingir)-riša(gal) a-ak din- 25 To be analyzed as either /kit(i)-ima/ (see Grillot 2008, 48 f.) or,
sušinak(muš₃.lam) u₂ ip tah₂-ha-am-pa₂ ha-al mešpa₂-la-hu-te-ep-p[e₃] less likely, /kitin-me-a/ (Krebernik 42021, 199). Cf. also Mäder 2019,
a-ak la-al-la-ri-ip-pe₃ … sir-ma hal-pu-uh ša₂-al-har mas₂-si-ih a-ak 136 f., comms. to pi-it-te-im-ma and ki-it-ti-im-ma.
hi-el šu-ma si-ik-ka₄-ah, “(With) Napireša and Insušinak helping 26 Note that the following term, te-e-me~mi, is not linked to ki-it-ti-in
me, … I completely destroyed the lands of Palahůte and Lalar, I cut by any class-marker, which means that the two words are not in a
šalhar-trees, and I erected a victory-gate”. “genitival” relationship.
sense of “prosperity, well-being”, or the like (cf. ElW 305, Line 28: Restored after LE pe-t la-ha-k₂-na in Y2: 2 and
s.vv. te-e-me and te-e-mi). Z: 5 (see below, section 2.3, step 11; cf. ElW 665, s. v. hi-it).
Line 22 = 56: /hůrt/ (see, most recently, Henkelman The term /pet/ is attested in the Achaemenid period with
2008, 257, n. 564) seems to denote “(a group of) people” the meaning of “fight, battle” (see ElW 188, s. v. be-ut).
(cf. Akkadian ṣābu). Being a collective noun, it is marked We assume, with Grillot (1994, 11), that /pet/ also means
by the plural class-marker (see ElW 723, s.vv. hu-ur- “rebellion” (also on the basis of a comparison with the
ti-pi and hu-ur-ti-be). Accordingly, hu-ur₂-tu₃ an-ša-ni-ip verb /pet(i)/, “to become hostile, to raise up, to rebel”; see
(/ an-ša-ni-i-pi) means “the people of Anšan” (and not below, section 2.3, step 11). Alternatively, we can translate:
“the people of the Anšanites”, as is often mistranslated). “may the combat end”. For the meaning of the verb /laha/
As regards the final -na, we interpret it as the ‘neutral’ (“to perish, to cancel”), see Scheil (1917, 44).
class-marker /n/ + ‘final’ suffix /a/ (cf. Khačikjan 1998, Line 29: Cf. ElW 322, s.vv. ti-at and [ti(?)]-a-te. For the
15; Grillot 2008, 45–48; Krebernik 42021, 204. 212). Since verb /halma/, see, most recently, Krebernik/Wasserman
hu-ur₂-tu₃ an-ša-ni-ip (/ an-ša-ni-i-pi) alone means “the (2020, 54).
people of Anšan”, -na should connect this phrase with a
preceding word, which can only be te-e-me⁓mi. Pericope 5
Line 24 = 57: The presence of the accusative pronoun Cuneiform 8 Cuneiform 9
/nůn/ makes it certain that ki₂-ri-na is a verbal form and 30. pe₃-ti-ip lu-uk li-im-ma- 24. pe₃-ti-ip lu-uk li-im-ma-
not a noun (as interpreted by Hinz and Koch in ElW 483, aš-pi₂ aš-pi₂
31. ta-r[i-i]p ša-li se₂₀-ra- 25. ta-ri-ip ša-li se₂₀-ra-
s. v. gi-ri-na; Malbran-Labat 1995, 76: “par (ma) dévotion”;
aš-pi₂ aš-pi₂
and Grillot 2008, 96: “en gratitude”); cf. Krebernik (42021,
32. li-ma-[a]k ku-ra-ak 26. li-im-ma-ak ku-ra-a-ak
199). For the meaning of cun. ki₂-ri (= LE ki₂-ri, /kere/), cf. 33. pa-at-pu-up ra-ap-pa- 27. pa-at-pi u₃-pi ra-ap-pa-
Malbran-Labat (1995, 77): “cette base exprime les relations ak-na ak-na
cultuelles entre le dieu et son dévot dans l’accomplisse- (30 = 24)The
enemies that the fire burned, (31 = 25)the foes
ment de ses devoirs religieux”; and Grillot (2008, 19):
that the stake kept suspended, (32 = 26)(both those that
“louer, rendre grâce à, faire l’éloge de, féliciter” (for differ-
were) burned (and those that were) …, (33 = 27)may they be
ent opinions, see ElW 480 f., s. v. gi-ri). For /hih/, see Steve
enslaved under me.
(1967, 9 f.) (cf. ElW 658 f., s. v. hi-h).
Line 25 = 58: For /mani/ (presumably a cult object),
Line 30 = 24: Cf. ElW s.vv. be-ti-ip (p. 187) and lu-uk
see ElW 867, s. v. ma-ni-ip. For /sahi/, cf. cun. sa-hi-ya,
(p. 844). For /pet-ir/ or /peti-r/ meaning “enemy”, see
“(made of) bronze”, in EKI no. 45 § 4 and no. 56 § 2 (see
also the equivalence of this Elamite word (cun. pi-ti-ir)
König, EKI 136, n. 6).
with Akkadian nakru provided by the juxtaposition of TZ
Line 26 = 59a: Cf. hu-ur-tu₄ ki₂-ri-pu-up/ki₂-ri-pe₃-ep*
31: 8 with TZ 32: 10 (Steve 1967, 69). The same two texts
in EKI no. 45 §§ 8 and no. 54 § 71*. This phrase (/hůrt
provide the equivalence of Elamite /lůma/ (assumed to be
kere-p o-p(e)/?) probably means “the group/circle of my
a variant of /lima/) with Akkadian qalû, “to burn” (ibid.;
clergymen/ministers (of religion)”. For /kere-r/, lit. “that
see also p. 123, s. v. lu-mu-un-ra; see also Krebernik/Was-
of worship”, see Grillot (1994, 10; for different opinions,
serman 2020, 54).
see ElW 481, s. v. gi-ri-be-ip; and 483, s.vv. gi-ri-pi and
Line 31 = 25: Whether /tar-ir/ or /tari-r/ means “ally,
gi-ri-pu-up). Finally, /hůta/ corresponds to Akkadian
friend” or rather denotes someone hostile is controver-
epēšu (see Steve 1967, 12; ElW 708 f., s. v. hu-ud-da; etc.).
sial (see ElW 290, s. v. ta-ri-ir). The present context seems
As this passage also shows, the verbal form hu-ut-ta-ak-na
to require the latter interpretation (but see cun. si-ia-an
applies to both the singular and the plural (contrary to
ta-ri-in and the discussion of the substantive /tarı/ in
what almost all the grammars of the Elamite language
Lambert 1972, 64–66). As for the verb, /sera/, the context
reconstruct, it seems that there is no singular/plural dis-
seems to require the meaning “to keep suspended” rather
tinction in the 3rd person of the Conjugation II).
than “to hang (on)” (cf. ElW 1087 f., s.vv. si-ra, si-ra-h, and
si-ra-ha).
Pericope 4
Line 32 = 26: /kůra/ is generally considered to mean
Cuneiform 8
“to scorch” (see ElW 518 f., s.vv. ku-ra-ak, ku-ra-at, and
28. [pe₃]-et ⸢la⸣-ha-ak-na
ku-ra-at-ni) but “burned (and) scorched” does not make
29. [ti]-a-te ha-al-ma-ak-na
(28)May the rebellion be suppressed, (29)may
much sense here. As /lima-k/ appears to pick up /lima-
the opponent
š/, we would expect, by analogy, that /kůra-k/ picks up
(lit. the other) disappear.
/sera-š/ and, therefore, that it has a meaning close to that

of the latter.
Line 33 = 27: Cf. Tavernier (2011, 336 f.; 2018, 442). Note
the sandhi-writing pa-at-pu-up for pa-at-pi u₃-pi (/pat-
(i)p o-pe/). For the verb /rapa/ or /rarpa/, whose general
meaning is “to bind”, see ElW 1017–1020, s. v. ra-ar-ba-h.
2.3 … to the Unknown: the LE Inscriptions
As will be evident, the LE writing system consists of both

alphabetic and syllabic (CV type only) signs (see Fig. 6).27
The decipherment of this alpha-syllabary could be
achieved through correlations with spellings and linguistic
data provided by contemporary and later cuneiform texts.
As has been pointed out above (section 1), the pho-
netic reading of several signs was previously determined
thanks to the works by Bork, Frank, Hinz, Meriggi, and
Corsini. Building on their results, we were able to iden-
tify and read a first series of proper nouns (see Fig. 5,
steps 1–2),28 namely Insušinak,29 Puzur-Sušinak,30
27 Note that so far neither logograms nor semantic classifiers (the

so-called ‘determinatives’) have been detected in Linear Elamite.
28 According to Pope (21999, 95), Leibniz, in 1714, was the first to
mention “the utility of proper names in decipherment. […] All the
decipherments […] had as their starting point the location and iden-
tification of proper names”.
29 In LE texts, the theonym in question occurs as either i-n-su-ši-
na-k⁓k₂* (A: 1; B: 1*; D: 3*) or i-n-su-š-na-k⁓k₂* (F // G // H — com-
posite text: 2; U: 2*; A′: 4; O′: 1. 5), while cuneiform texts from the
first half of the second millennium BCE only attest a form /insušnak/,
spelled din-su-uš-na-ak (see above, section 2.2, Cuneiform 8: 1. 15) or
din-su₂-uš-na-ak (EKI no. 67 § III; also note the PN Kůk-Insušnak [cun.
ku-uk-in-su₂-uš-na-ak] in Scheil 1908, 72, no. 122 rev. 8). Accordingly,

we can reconstruct the current pronunciation of this divine name in
the Old Elamite period as /insušnak/, with the variant /insušinak/
representing, presumably, an older form, closer to the original
Sumerian etymon *Ninsusinak (see dn i n - s u s i nx(muš₃.šeš₄) in IAS
82 iv 5 // 86 iii′ 4′; and, for the original reading of muš₃.šeš₄(/eren) in
Sumerian as /susin/, Marchesi 2013, 286 with n. 9).
30 Written pu-zu-r-su-ši-na-k⁓k₂* (A: 2; E: 1; F // G // H — compos-
ite text: 1; I: 1*; P*). In cuneiform sources the name in question is
written with the logographic writings pu₃.ša-dmuš₃.šeš₄ (Wilcke 1987,
109 and pl. 44, IB 1537 rev. vʹ 15ʹ; Kienast/Sommerfeld 1994, 56, s. v.
Puzur₄-dinšušinak), pu₃.ša-dnin.muš₃.šeš₄ (Gelb/Kienast 1990, 325,
Elam 3: 4) and man-dmuš₃.šeš₄ (Scheil 1931, 2, line 12), which may
lend themselves to different interpretations. Meriggi (1971, 206) al-
ready proposed to read the second element of this name as /šušinak/ Fig. 5: The key to decipherment (F. Desset). Newly deciphered signs
instead of /inšušinak/, while for the first element hesitating between in each step are in red.
/puzur/ and /kutir/. In this connection, note the spellings dšu-ši-
na-ak, šu-ši₂-na-ak*, and šu-ši₂-nak** in later cuneiform texts in Ak-
kadian, which attest to an Akkadian form /šušinak/ of the Sumerian
DN Ninsusinak starting from the OB period; see YOS 12, 491: 5 (PN
dšu-ši-na-ak-ilī(dingir); time of Samsu-iluna); Wasserman 2019, nos.
Sušen,31 and Šin-pishůk.32 Additional sign values were heard”,39 and the clause la-ni ša-ri⁓r-h, “I fashioned a
established by Desset (2018b) in his study of the Kam-Firuz silver object”.40
silver beaker group. Desset identified the sign u used to Step 6: the royal title/epithet (?) ze-m-t zu₂-ki-k₂, “king
write the 1st person pronoun, the names of the Sukkalmaḫ of …/the … king” (locutive);41 and the words ka-t-ru⁓ru₂,
rulers Šilhaha and Eparti II, and the theonym Napireša.33 “the …” (a title/epithet?);42 me(-n)-ni-r, “ruler”;43 and
The consequent reading of signs e, ha, l, pa, pi₂, ri, ša, ti, ta-k₂-me, “life”.44
and u (see Fig. 5, step 3) allowed us to proceed further in Step 7: the theonym Šimot;45 the title li-ka-we ri-ša-ri₂,
the decipherment by identifying the following linguistic “the grand likawe”;46 the royal epithet li₂-pa-r na-pi₂-ri-
elements in various subsequent steps (Fig. 5): ša-ki, “servant of Napireša” (locutive);47 and the temporal
Step 4: the name of the Sukkalmaḫ ruler Pala-išan34 expression šu-t-me ša-t-me, “night and day”.48
and the toponym Hatamti.35
Step 5: the term ze-m-t, “king, lord”;36 the title a(-t)-
ta-ze(-m)-ti-k₂, “father-lord” (locutive);37 the name of the
Šimaškian ruler Itatu I;38 the verb ha(-h)-pu-h⁓š, “I/he
2: 3*; 3: 5*; 6: 3*. 4**. 5* (Susa, end of the Sukkalmaḫ period); and CT
25, 11 f., K 4339 rev. i 3 (NA explanatory list of gods). We can thus trace
the apheretic form of the theonym in question back to the time of
Puzur-Sušinak and assume the following development in the manner
this divine name was pronounced in Akkadian: */susinak/ (OAkk.) → 39 ha-h-[pu]-h in Z: 3; ha-h-pu[-h] in Z: 9 and H′: 4; ha-pu-š in X: 2.
/sušinak/ (Puzur-Sušinak’s time) → /šušinak/ (OB and later). 40 See, e. g., Z: 4 (la-ni ša-ri-h) and X: 2 (la-ni ša-r-h). Cf. ElW s.vv.
31 Written su-še-ni-ir (A: 3; B: 2; C: 2; E: 2; I: 1), with final /ir/ being la-ni (p. 815) and ša-ri-h (p. 1137).
the class-marker of the so-called ‘delocutive’. Cf. šu-še-ni-ip (with the 41 In X: 1; Z: 1; I′: 1; etc. The spelling zu₂-ki-k₂ probably represents the
plural suffix /ip/) in Cuneiform 8: 23 (see above, section 2.2, pericope term /zok(i)/ (here used as a qualifier of /zemt/, “king”), followed by
3) and Cuneiform 9: 42. 50. LE texts thus seem to attest to an older the locutive class-marker. Cf. cun. zu-kir and zu-ki-ip in the so-called
form /sušen/ without palatalization of the first sibilant. ‘Treaty of Naram-Sin’ (see ElW 1310, s.vv., for references).
32 Usually written ši-n-pi-s-h-hu-k⁓k₂* (A: 4; B: 3*; C: 3–4; E: 4), but 42 Written ka-t-ru (Y2: 1; Z: 1) or ka-t-ru₂ (X: 1; I′: 1; J′: 2). Meaning
ši-n-pi-s-hu-ki-r (F // G // H — composite text: 2; U: 1) when the delo- unknown; a derivation from /kat/, “throne” (Grillot 2008, 23) is un-
cutive marker /ir/ is added. Cf. šim-pi₂-is₂-ḫu-uk in cuneiform (Kien- likely (see Mäder 2019, 134). It occurs in the phrase /katrů hatamti-k/,
ast/Sommerfeld 1994, 64, s. v. šim-pi-iš-ḫu-uk). It is possible that the “(I, …,) the katrů of Hatamti”. For later attestations of this title or ep-
latter spelling is closer to the actual pronunciation of the name. In ithet, see EKI 37, n. 3; and 195, s. v. ka₄-at-ri⁓ru. Also note the unique
fact, the dental /n/ before /p/ was subject to labialization in Elamite occurrence of /katrů/ in the god Sılır’s epithet ka₄-at-ru pa₂-ha[-ar
(n → m/__ p; see Grillot 1987, 10; Khačikjan 1998, 8). If so, then the LE ha]l ha-tam₃-ti-ir, “the benevolent katrů of the land of Hatamti” (EKI
spellings with n (ši-n-pi-s-h-hu-k, etc.) should be regarded as exam- 54 § 1; for /paha/, see Mäder 2019, 132).
ples of morphographemic writing or as historical writings reflecting 43 me-ni-r ha-ta-m-ti-pi-r (“the ruler of the Hatamtites”) in F′: 1 but
the etymological form of the name in question. [me]-n-ni-r ha-t-ta-m-t-ti-r (“the ruler of Hatamti”) in I′: 2. Note also LE
33 For this more accurate reading of the DN (previously read) Na- me-n-ni-k₂ ha-t-ta-m-t-ti-k₂ (locutive) in K′, to be compared with cun.
piriša, see above, section 2.2, pericope 1, comm. to line 1b. me-ni-ik ha-ta₂-am-ti-ik in the royal titulary of Sewe-palar-hůhpak
34 Written pa-la-i-š-ša-n (in K′). Cf. cun. pa₂-la-iš-ša-an (ElW 131, s. v. (see above, section 2.2, pericope 1). For later attestations of /men-ik
ba-la.iš-ša-an; see also Cuneiform 7 [see above, section 2.2], Cartou- hatamti-k/, see EKI 37, n. 3; and 203, s. v. me-ni-ik. See also above,
che A 1). section 2.2, pericope 1, comm. to line 5.
35 Usually written ha-ta-m-ti (C: 3; E: 3; Y2: 1; Z: 1; F′: 1; J′: 2. 4) but 44 Always spelled ta-k₂-me in Linear Elamite (X: 2; Y2: 3; Z: 3. 9;
the spelling variants ha-t-ta-m-t-ti (I′: 1. 2; K′) and ha-ta-ti (X: 1. 3) H′: 4). Cf. cun. ta-ak-me (Cuneiform 8: 7; Cuneiform 9: 7. 8. 10. 12) and
are also attested. For cuneiform spellings, see Krebernik (2006, 62 f.). ElW 249, s. v. ta-ak-ki-me.
36 Written ze-m-t (A: 2; B: 1; F // G // H — composite text: 1; etc.) and 45 Written ši-mu-t (D: 4). For this deity and the various orthogra-
corresponding to cun. si⁓še⁓te-im-ti (see Zadok 1984, 43 f., sub 246). phies of his name in cuneiform, see, most recently, Henkelman 2011.
For the reading of the first sign of ze-m-t as ze, rather than si, še, or 46 In F′: 1. Note also li-ka-we ri-ša-ki (H′: 2) and li-ka-we ri-š-ša-ki (K′).
te, see below, section 4.1. Cf. cun. li-ka₃-we ri-ša-a-ki in the royal titulary of Sewe-palar-hůhpak
37 Specifically used for Šilhaha in X: 3 and J′: 4. In this connection, (see above, section 2.2, pericope 1). For later attestations of this royal
note that in the so-called ‘Cylindroid of Ata-hušu’ (Scheil 1939, 7 f.), title, see EKI 37, n. 3; and 201, s. v. li-ka₄-me. See also above, section
written in Akkadian, Šilhaha is said to be “the at-ta₂-lu[gal] (= “fa- 2.2, pericope 1, comm. to line 4.
ther-lord”) of Anšan and Susa” (lines 5–6). 47 In J′: 3 and K′. Cf. /lipa-k hane-k insušinak-ik/, “(I, …,) the be-
38 Written i-ta-t-tu (Y1 and Z: 1). Cf. the cuneiform spellings loved servant of Insušinak”, in the titulary of several Middle Elamite
(d)i-ta₂-tu₃ (Cuneiform 2 [see section 2.2 above]: 1; Steinkeller 2011, kings (see EKI 37, n. 3; and 201, s. v. li-ba-ak).
21 f.), i-ta₂-at-tu₃ (Scheil 1931, 2, line 20; EKI 194, s. v. IIdaddu), i-⸢ta₂⸣- 48 In Y2: 3; Z: 9; and K′. Cf. cun. šu-ut-me ša-at-me (Cuneiform 8: 20;
at-tu (Scheil 1931, 2, line 23 — referring to Itatu II), and i-ta-at-tu₃ (EKI Cuneiform 9: 54; see above, section 2.2, pericope 3, with comm. to
194, s. v. IIdaddu). line 20 = 54).
Step 8: the royal epithets pa-te-k₂ na-h₂-hu₂(-n)-te-k₂⁓ a-n-za-ri₂, “king of Anšan”;60 the sequence of precative
ki, “the shepherd of Nahůnte” (locutive);49 and ha-ne-k₂ clauses pe-t la-ha-k₂-na ra-s ha-l-ma-k₂-na ša-ra pe-ti-r
pi₂-ne-ki-ri₂-k₂, “the beloved of Pinekir” (locutive).50 ki-pa-k₂-na, “may the rebellion be suppressed, may the
Step 9: the clauses ki(-t)-ti-n ze-m-mi nu-n ki₂-ri-na opponent disappear, may the enemy be subdued”;61 the
hi-h₂-li₂⁓na, “may I obtain prosperity for a long time by clauses pa-t-ra i-r ra-p₂-pa-š, “he (= Insušinak) enslaved
worshiping you”;51 and nu u₂-te-n-ti, “it is you who lead”;52 (the city of Hůpošan) under him”;62 a-k-ka-ra pe-t-n-ra,
and the royal title ze-m-t a(-w53)-wa-ni-r, “king of Awan”.54 “whoever rebels”;63 and ak-k₂-ka!(ne64)-ra tu-p₂ i-me-ma
Step 10: the clause ma-ni-p sa-hi₂-p hu₂-r-t ki₂-ri-pu₂-p pi₂-š ti-n-ra, “whoever puts a dedication on the inscription
hu-t-ta-k₂-na, “may manis of bronze be realized for (to be of his (= Puzur-Sušinak)”.65
used by) my priests”.55 Step 12: the past participle ku-ši-k, “begotten, cre-
Step 11: the verb si-a-h, “I saw”;56 the nouns si-a-n, ated”;66 the verb ku-t-h, “I protected”;67 the name of the
“temple”;57 and za-na, “lady”;58 the precative verbal form ruler Zemt-Akone (/Temti-Agun) I;68 the term su₂-h-ter,
ka-z-za-k₂-na, “may he be struck”;59 the royal title ze-m-t “cabinet”;69 the theonym Peltikalim;70 and the phrase hu₂-
pu₂-š-ša-n la-w-li₃-ri.71 In addition, we tentatively propose
to read the verb u₂-x-ru-š(-li₂) as u₂-lu?-ru-š(-li₂),72 with the
49 pa-te-k₂ na-h₂-hu₂-te-k₂ in Y2: 1 but pa-te-⸢k₂⸣ na-h₂-hu₂-⸢n⸣-te-ki
in Z: 2. Note also pa-te-k₂ na-[h₂]-hu₂-te-k₂ pi₂-ne-ki-r-ki in J′: 2–3. Cf.
cun. pa₂-te-ek dnaḫ-ḫu-un-te-ek in EKI no. 44a § II and passim in the 60 In F′: 1: e-pa-r-ti ze-m-t a-⸢n⸣-za-ri₂ ze-m-t-a-ku₂-ne [li-ka]-⸢we⸣ ri-
inscriptions of Šilhak-Insušinak I (see EKI 207, s. v. ba-te-ik). For the ša-ri₂ me-ni-r ha-ta-m-ti-pi-r. Cf. Cuneiform 6 (section 2.2 above, table
meaning “shepherd” of the term /pate/, see ElW 166, s. v. ba-te-ip. 2), Inscription A 1–4: e-pa₂-ra-at šar(lugal) an-ša-an te-em-ti-a-
50 In Y2: 1 and Z: 2. Cf. Cuneiform 2: 4–5 (see above, section 2.2, Table ku₈-ne šukkalmaḫ(sugal₇.maḫ ) elamtim(elam.ma) u₃ ši₂-maš-ki.
2), where Itatu I is said to be s i p a du t u k i - a ĝ₂ di n n a n a, “the shep- 61 In Y2: 2–3 and Z: 5–6. Cf. [pe₃]-et ⸢la⸣-ha-ak-na [ti]-a-te ha-al-ma-
herd of Utu, the beloved of Innana”, doubtlessly corresponding to ak-na in Cuneiform 8: 28–29 (see above, section 2.2, pericope 4);
LE pa-te-⸢k₂⸣ na-h₂-hu₂-⸢n⸣-te-ki ha-[ne]-k₂ pi₂-ne-ki-ri₂-k₂, “(I, …,) the and […]-ak-na ra-al hal-ma-ak-na in EKI no. 54 § 73.
shepherd of Nahůnte, the beloved of Pinekir”, in Z: 2 (also of Itatu I). 62 In F // G // H — composite text: 2 (see below, section 6). Cf. pe₃-
Incidentally, this supports the equivalences between Mesopotamian ti-ip … pa-at-pu-up (var. pa-at-pi u₃-pi*) ra-ap-pa-ak-na in Cuneiform
Utu/Šamaš and the Elamite sun-god Nahůnte, and between Meso- 8: 30–33 and Cuneiform 9: 24–27* (see above, section 2.2, pericope 5).
potamian Innana/Eštar and the Elamite goddess Pinekir (cf. Stolper 63 In F // G // H — composite text: 3 (see below, section 6).
1998; and Koch 2005b). 64 The sign in question looks like ne, but the context requires ka,
51 ki-ti-n ze-m-mi nu-n ki₂-ri-na hi-h₂-li₂ in K′; ki-t-⸢ti⸣-[n ze-m-mi nu-n] which graphically is identical to ne upside down. In other words, the
ki₂-ri-na hi-h₂-na in I′: 3. Cf. ki-it-ti-in te-e-me⁓mi … nu-un ki₂-ri-na sign here is actually ka, but it is erroneously written upside down as
hi-ih-na in Cuneiform 8: 21–24 and Cuneiform 9: 55–57 (see above, if it were ne.
section 2.2, pericope 3, with comm. to lines 21 = 55 and 24 = 57). See 65 In D: 2–3. Note /tup/, which is obviously a loan from Akkadian
also EKI no. 13 § VI (ki-it-ti-in me-lu-uk-ma te-em-ma ki₂-ri-na nu-un tuppu(m), “inscription”. For /piš/, “dedication”, cf. ElW 197 f., s.vv.
hi-ih-na); no. 48 §§ 5–6 (ki-it-ti-in te-e-mi … [… nu-un ki₂-ri-na hi-ih- pi-is-si and pi-iš, while ti-n-ra almost certainly represents a synco-
hu-na]); and no. 53 I ([ki-it-ti-in te-e-mi …] … nu-un ki₂-ri-na hi-ih- pated form of /tiya-n-r-a/ (verb form of Conjugation III with ‘final’
hu-na). suffix /-a/), from the base /tiya/, which is probably an older variant
52 In Z: 5 and K′. Cf. nu u₂-te-en-ti in Cuneiform 9: 19–20. 28–29. of /ta/, “to deposit, to place”.
51–52; and passim in later texts (see above, section 2.2, pericope 2, 66 In F // G // H — composite text: 2 (in the phrase: ku-ši-k ši-n-pi-s-
with comm. to line 20). hu-ki-r, “the one begotten by Šin-pishůk”; see below, section 6).
53 Apparently, the same sign was used both as a vowel (LE u₂ = /u/) 67 In I′: 3. Cf. ElW 549, s. v. ku-tu-h.
and a (semi)consonant (LE w = [w]; = non-syllabic allophone of /u/; 68 Written ze-m-t-a-ku₂-ne (F′: 1). Cf. še-em-ti-a-ku₈-un (Cuneiform
see below, section 3.1). 7, Cartouche A 4), te-em-ti-a-ku₈-ne (Cuneiform 6, Inscription A 3),
54 ze-⸢m⸣-t a-w-⸢wa-ni⸣-r in F: 1; ⸢ze⸣-m-t a-wa-⸢ni⸣-[r] in H: 1. This ob- and te-em-ti-a-ku₈-un (ibid., Inscription B 5) (see above, section 2.2,
viously corresponds to cun. sar(lugal) a⁓a!(za)-wa-anki, “king of Table 2). See also Zadok (1984, 5, sub 6), for additional cuneiform
Awan”, in Akkadian inscriptions of Puzur-Sušinak (see André/Sal- spellings of this name.
vini 1989, 65 with n. 35 [on p. 70 f.]). 69 In A: 1. In cuneiform sources from the Middle Elamite period,
55 In Z: 8–9. Cf. ma-ni-ip (var. ma-ni-i-pi*) sa-hi-[ip] (var. sa-hi-i-pi*) this term is variously written su-uh-ter/te-er (ElW 1099 f.) or šu-uh-ter
hu-ur₂-tu₃ ki₂-ri-pi(-)up hu-ut-ta-ak-na in Cuneiform 8: 25–27 and (ibid., 1176). For its meaning, see Marchesi, forthcoming.
Cuneiform 9: 58*–59 (see above, section 2.2, pericope 3, with comm. 70 Written pe-l-ti-ka-li₃-m (I: 1). Elamite form of Bēlat-ekallim, “Lady
to lines 25 = 58 and 26 = 59a). See also EKI no. 45 § 8 (ma-ni hu-ur-tu₄ of the Palace”, a well-known by-name of Innana/Eštar. Cf. din-na-na-
ki₂-ri-pu-up hu-ut-tak-n[a]) and no. 54 § 14 (hu-up-pa₂ sa-hi-i ki₂-ri-pa pe₃-el-ti-ap-pu-ki(-i), “Innana-Peltiapuki” (i. e., “Innana-Lady of …”)
ku-up hu-ut-ta-[a]k-na). in TZ 45: 1. 2 (= EKI 10 A §§ 1. 2).
56 In Z: 3. Cf. ElW 1096, s. v. si-ya-h. 71 In F // G // H — composite text: 2 (see below, section 6). Cf. cun.
57 In Q. Cf. ElW 1068, s. v. si-a-an; and 1095, s. v. si-ya-an. hu-up-ša-an la-am-li-ir-ri (EKI no. 54 §§ 18. 73) and hu-up-[š]a-an la-
58 In I: 2 and Q. Cf. ElW 1282, s. v. za-na. am-li-ir-na (EKI no. 70 C § V).
59 In Y2: 3 and Z: 8. Cf. cun. ka₄-az-za-ak-na in EKI no. 54 § 73 (see 72 In A′: 4–5 and O′: 5–6. Cf. ElW 1221, s. v. ul-lu-ru-uk (meaning un-
also ElW 411, s. v. qa-az-za-ak-na). clear).
provisional value lu? awaiting further data to confirm (or ism (Elamite and Akkadian) of the text corpus of Puzur-
invalidate) it. Sušinak (steps 1 and 2). Unfortunately, the cuneiform texts
Step 13: the sign value mu₂ (hapax legomenon), estab- of the Susian ruler never translate the LE inscriptions (or
lished thanks to the identification of text M from Susa as vice versa), despite the fact that sometimes cuneiform
a scribal exercise on the syllabary of Linear Elamite (see and Linear Elamite even occur side by side on the same
below, section 3.2).73 object; however, these two series of texts share some
proper nouns (written phonographically in the LE texts
Through these 13 steps, 72 LE signs were deciphered and but mostly logographically in the cuneiform texts) whose
read, corresponding to 73 values (because of the divalency recognition in LE inscriptions provided the first pieces of
of the u₂/w sign). They represent 96.3 % of the 1890 sign the puzzle. Step 3, methodologically similar to step 1, was
occurrences found in the corpus of LE inscriptions,74 while more problematic due to the fact that none of the Kam-
only 70 occurrences (ca. 3.7 %) consisting of 4 rare signs Firuz silver beakers (LE text group 4) bears both LE and
and 33 hapax legomena remain to be deciphered. Even cuneiform inscriptions; the key names Šilhaha,75 Eparti,
if the claim of a complete decipherment cannot be made and Napireša were hypothesized to occur in the LE texts
yet, mainly due to the still limited number of inscriptions of the Kam-Firuz silver beakers on the basis of the sup-
(40 texts known in 2021), it is, however, not very far. More posed geo-historical background of these artifacts.76 This
texts are needed to complete the LE phonemic grid (see opened the way to an extension of the approach based on
below, Fig. 6 and Table 4) with the missing sign values. the bilingualism of the textual documentation and, above
In his essay on the methods of decipherment, Gelb all, to the creation of a second front exploiting the biscrip-
(1975, 96) classified decipherments into four types: tualism of the Elamite texts, with an attempt to recognize
0: known writing and known language (for example, identical or similar (portions of) Elamite texts occurring
Sumerian or Akkadian texts written in the Greek alphabet in both LE and cuneiform inscriptions, including titles
in the so-called ‘Graeco-Babyloniaca’ tablets); I: unknown and formulas used by the Šimaškian and early Sukkalmaḫ
writing and known language = decipherment proper; II: rulers. The two cuneiform texts of Sewe-palar-hůhpak in
known writing and unknown language = language recov- the Elamite language (section 2.2 above, Cuneiform 8 and
ery/interpretation (this is the case, for instance, of the 9) then provided the main links to connect the unknown
Etruscan language); III: unknown writing and unknown to the known.77
language (as, currently, in the case of the Indus script; this The decipherment of Linear Elamite is actually the deci-
type is supposed to be undecipherable but some of these pherment of an unknown writing (in the end rather simple
cases may be apparent type III, hiding situations that may to understand due to its phonographic character) recording
be reduced to type I or II). a language that is only very partially known. Elamite, being
The decipherment of LE writing obviously corre-
sponds to Gelb’s type I (unknown writing and known 75 This name was potentially pretty easy to identify in LE script, as
language). Being phonographic, with a limited number of the sign ši was already known, and a sign repeated twice at the end
signs, Linear Elamite was theoretically easier to decipher of the writing sequence (ši-x-y-y) could be expected.
than a mixed system with a high number of signs due to 76 What helped is the fact that cuneiform inscriptions on beakers of
the same or similar type (kun or kunanki) range from the time of Kın-
the presence of logograms (such as Egyptian hieroglyphs,
tatu (Cuneiform 1) to that of Pala-išan (Cuneiform 7), that is, from the
Mesopotamian cuneiform or Anatolian/Luwian hiero- end of the 21st century to the beginning of the 19th century BCE (see
glyphs). However, the entirely phonetic character of the section 2.2 above, Table 2). The names in question do occur several
LE writing was only recognized at the end of the process of times in these texts:
decipherment: the seemingly high number of glyphs (see ši₂-il-ha-ha (Elamite texts)/ši₂-il-ḫa-ḫa* (Akkadian texts): Cuneiform
Fig. 3a), actually due to the presence of many graphic var- 3, Fragm. A 1; Fragm. B 1; Cuneiform 4: 2*; Cuneiform 6, Inscr. A 5*;
Cuneiform 7, Cartouche A 2*.
iants (Fig. 3b), hindered this conclusion. (d*)e-pa₂-ra-at: Cuneiform 2: 2* (referring to Eparti I); Cuneiform 3,
The decipherment was first based on the biscrip- Fragm. B 8* (Eparti I?); Cuneiform 6, Inscr. A 1 (Eparti II).
tualism (Linear Elamite and cuneiform) and bilingual- (d*)na-pi-ri-ša: Cuneiform 1: 1. 8; Cuneiform 3, Fragm. A 3*. 8*; Fragm.
B 9*; Cuneiform 6, Inscr. A 11*.

Note, however, that the second of these names occurs in Linear Elam-
73 As first recognized by Kervran (2019, 35 f.). ite in the form Eparti (e-pa-r-ti: X: 1; H′: 1; J′: 1; F′: 1), which is attested
74 O and E′ were excluded from this count, as these texts may belong in cuneiform in Scheil 1931, 2, lines 16 and 22 (e-pa₂-ar-ti), and in later
to an intermediate stage of writing between PE and LE scripts, while Elamite texts (see EKI 185, s. v. IEbarti).
the duplicates F, G, and H were considered as one single text (F // G 77 Several royal titles and phrases also occur in other 2nd millen-
// H). nium BCE Elamite royal inscriptions collected in EKI.
Fig. 6: Grid of the 72 deciphered alpha-syllabic signs on which the transliteration system of LE is based (F. Desset). The most common
graphic variants are shown for each sign. Blue signs are attested in South-Western Iran, red ones in South-Eastern Iran. Black signs are
common to both areas.
Fig. 7a: Graphic variations of the signs among all the LE inscriptions currently known, part I, from a to pe (F. Desset). Horizontally, the signs
are organized according to the inscriptions where they appear (PE graphic comparisons are also provided). Vertically, the signs are listed in
alphabetic order.
a dead and apparently isolated language, is still rather the Elamite language with the help of bilingual sources
poorly understood. Therefore, although the LE writing is still to be achieved, whatever the writing system used.
system is deciphered and the LE texts read, the transla-
tions in some cases remain problematic, as is the case, too,
with Elamite texts in cuneiform (see above, section 2.2,
Cuneiform 8 and 9). The decipherment of LE script does
3 The Structure of the LE Script
disclose various features of the Elamite language that have
been hitherto hidden behind the veil of cuneiform (such as 3.1 A Phonographic Writing System
the phonemic distinctions between /e/ and /i/, and /o/ and
/u/; see below, sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2), but much remains We can provisionally propose that the number of LE signs
to be done in the linguistic field. This situation now cor- attested in the 40 inscriptions currently known ranges
responds to some extent to Gelb’s type II (known writings between 80 and 110 graphemes. Among these (Figs. 6
and unknown language). In fact, a complete recovery of and 7a–c), 37 are still undeciphered while 72 graphemes
Fig. 7b: Graphic variations of the signs among all the LE inscriptions currently known, part II, from pi to zu₂ (F. Desset). The four infrequent LE
signs still to be deciphered are displayed after zu₂.
(corresponding to 73 values because of the sign , which is ognized graphic variants (allographs) are likely to occur
transliterated as either u₂ or w) could be deciphered and among them, this number is probably more restricted.
integrated in the LE alpha-syllabic phonemic grid (Fig. 6).
The 37 signs that are still undeciphered include 4 infre-
quent signs and 33 hapax legomena (including 6 signs in
K, 6 signs in W, and the 11 signs that surprisingly appear
at the beginning of Y2; see Fig. 7c).78 Since hitherto unrec-
Some graphic variants of the four still undeciphered infrequent LE
signs (glyphs 327/342, 67/323, 218, and 81)
78 Glyphs 73, 90, 147, 184, 156, and 79 in K; glyph 220 in L; glyphs 198
and 192/193 in F // G // H; glyphs 91, 247, 246, 245, 244, 168, 188, 207, 5, The 72 deciphered graphemes are all phonographic. While
101, and 162 in Y; glyphs 239 and 167 in X; glyph 286 in K′; glyph 208 cuneiform, the most common writing system in Mesopota-
in B′; glyph 313 in M′; glyph 341 in O′; glyph 326 in N′; glyphs 322, 216,
mia and surrounding areas including Western Iran, made
277, 148, 150, and 331 in W (see Fig. 7c).
Fig. 7c: LE signs attested only in one inscription (mainly hapax legomena). PE graphic comparisons are also provided (F. Desset).
a wide use of logograms, Linear Elamite appears to avoid 1 and 3; see also Gelb 21963, 121; Steve 1992, 8. 10; and,
logographic spellings. Although it cannot be excluded more in detail, Desset [e. a.], forthcoming).
completely that some of the undeciphered signs had a Elamite scribes employed five signs to record vocalic
logographic usage, the possible occurrences of logograms phonemes in LE script: a, e, i, u, u₂ for /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/,
in Linear Elamite would be very limited and their use not respectively (see below, section 4.1.2). Vowel signs could
systemic. not be arbitrarily combined with consonant signs to repre-
This writing system has some disadvantages com- sent syllables (this was the role of the CV signs), but were
pared to the Mesopotamian cuneiform system: without the used in specific contexts:
use of logograms, more characters are needed to deliver – alone (V), to record pronouns or interjection (e, i, u);
the same content (decreasing number of signs in the – preceding a consonantal (V-C…: u-n, i-r, i-n-su-ši⁓š-
system → increasing length of the texts and time to write na-k(₂), i-n-ta-ta, a-n-za, i-š-ša-n, a-t-ta, a-k-ka-ra,
them). On the other hand, the LE system makes it possi- i-r-k…) or syllabic sign (V-CV…: a-ni, a-wa, i-ta-t-tu,
ble to write and read texts with a much smaller number e-pa-r-ti, u₂-te-n-ti, u₂-ta…) at the beginning of a word;
of signs (with a possible relation to the literacy rate in the – following a syllabic sign (CV-V; see below, section
population79). The essentially phonographic character 4.1), perhaps to represent diphthongs (/ai/ and /ei/
of LE writing may also have influenced the way in which are probably attested, spelled CV-i) and glides (y and
cuneiform writing was adopted and adapted in the late 3rd/ w, spelled respectively Ci-V and Cu-V); for instance,
early 2nd millennium BCE to record the Elamite language, si-a-n (Q), si-a-h (Z: 3), and ti-a-h⁓š (Q, M′: 2; A′:
with the use of a reduced repertory of signs from which 2–3, 3, O′: 3, 4), to be interpreted as /siyan/, /siya-h/,
logograms, determinatives, and CVC-syllabograms were and /tiya-h⁓š/; or ši-ku-a-t (M′: 1; O′: 3), probably to
initially drastically minimized (see, especially, Cuneiform be read /šikwat/. Very rare cases of CV₁-V₁ notations
(such as pa-a-ri?-ri₂ in C′) may represent exceptional
examples of plene writing of possibly long vowels (see
79 But “one should not suppose that a simpler writing system led below section 3.4).
automatically to a high level of literacy […]. Learning a script is not
the same as learning to read and write. The latter is a process that
takes years […]. In fact, it is doubtful whether literacy was at all a Consonant signs occur in the following contexts:
necessary skill for the vast proportion of people in antiquity. While – following a V or CV sign, to express VC phonemic
it certainly seems reasonable to assume that the invention of the al- sequences (spelled V-C; see above) or CVC syllables
phabet made the process of scribal training easier, no immediate cor- (CV-C: see, among others, pa-la-r for /pa-lar/, pu-zu-r
relation can be made between alphabetic writing and broad literacy”
for /pu-zur/, su-ši-na-k₂ for /su-ši-nak/, ha-t-pa-k for
(Lam 2010/2015, 189).
/hat-pak/, su₂-h-te-r for /soh-ter/, ši-mu-t for /ši-mot/, 5 vowel signs (V: a, e, i, u, u₂);81
pe-t for /pet/, ša-t-me for /šat-me/, hu₂-m-pa-n for 15 consonant signs (C: h, h₂, k, k₂, l, m, n, p, p₂, r, s, š,
/hům-pan/); t, w, z);
– together with another C sign, in two different contexts: 53 syllabic signs (CV: ha, hi, hi₂, hu, hu₂, ka, ki, ki₂, ku,
1) in a few cases of (C)V-C-t⁓k words, such as ze-m-t, ku₂, la, li, li₂, li₃, lu?, ma, me, mi, mu, mu₂, na, ne, ni, nu, pa,
hu₂-r-t, mu-h-t, še-p₂-k, or i-r-k; 2) in rare occurrences pe, pi, pi₂, pu, pu₂, ra, ri, ri₂, ru, ru₂, sa, si, su, su₂, ša, še, ši,
of vocalic elisions (CV-C→C-C), such as ša-r-h or ku-t-h, šu, ta, te, ti, tu, wa, we, za, ze, zu, zu₂).
probably standing for /šar(i)-h/ and /kut(i)-h/; Text M (Fig. 8), a lenticular tablet known since 1935,
– preceding a CV sign with the same consonant (C₁-C₁V) is a very important document in this regard. This school
in geminate spellings such as ra-p₂-pa-š, hu-t-ta-h, or exercise shows that the LE writing system was conceptual-
i-ta-t-tu (see below, section 3.4). ized and standardized for teaching purposes in 3rd millen-
nium BCE Susa, and confirms the sign typology presented
This system can be said to be suitable for a language in here. Vowel and consonant signs were considered apart,
which most of the lexemes (bases) have a CVC (e. g., forming a phonemic grid filled with the corresponding
/pet/, spelled as CV-C: pe-t) or CVCV (e. g., /zana/, spelled syllabic CV signs (Table 3; see also below, Table 5), accord-
CV-CV: za-na) syllabic structure, with a few cases, also, of ing to the vocalic scheme /e, u, o, a, i/.82
VCV (e. g., /awa/, spelled V-CV: a-wa) and CVCCV (such
as /halma/, /šilha/, and maybe /sohte/, spelled as CV-C- Tab. 3: Phonemic grid attested in text M.
CV) words; and which have C (-k, -r, -p, -n, perhaps -t,
and verbal -k, -h, and -š are attested) or CV (-ki, -ri, -re, e u₂ u a i!
-me⁓we, -ra, -ma, -wa, -na, and verbal -na, -ra, and -le are p₂ pe pu [pu₂] [pa] pi
attested) grammatical suffixes.
m me mu₂ mu ma mi
As most of the purely syllabic writing systems appear
to work with 40 to 90 different signs,80 either some logo-
grams are to be expected among the undeciphered signs This phonemic grid probably represents a retrospective
or our assessment of the number of signs (80 to 110) is theorization of an inherited (and not created ad hoc)
slightly too high because of still unidentified graphic var- system, aimed at presenting and learning it in a ration-
iants (several pairs of apparently redundant homophonic alized way. It is conceivable that the grid was shaped in
signs could be identified; see below, section 3.3). LE script a contingent way through a series of arbitrary decisions
can be described as an alpha-syllabary or semi-syllabary, made by scribes during the 3rd millennium BCE.
surprisingly similar to the cuneiform system that was The sign , otherwise clearly perceived as vocalic
employed to record the Old Persian language between (u₂, as its presence in the above-mentioned school tablet
the 6th and the 4th centuries BCE, with 36 phonemic signs, among the signs e, u, a, and i shows), is also attested
consisting of 3 vowel signs (a, i, u), 4 Ci signs, 7 Cu signs in the sequences a- -wa-ni-r (F // G // H: 1; see below,
and 22 C(a) signs (in addition to a word divider sign, 5 to 8 section 6), la- -li₃(-ri) (D: 1 and F // G // H: 2) and nu- -we
logograms, and numerals). (N′: 4), to be probably understood as a-w-wa-ni-r (/awan-
ir/), la-w-li(-ri), and nu-w-we. This suggests that it was
probably read /u/ (and not /o/; see below, section 4.1.2)
3.2 Phonemic Typology of Graphemes and that this phoneme also had a non-syllabic allophone
[w] (cf. Khačikjan 1998, 9, sub 2.5.2). The latter value
Among the 72 deciphered graphemes (corresponding to redundantly occurs before wV syllabic signs (w-wV; on
73 values), the following phonemic types could be iden-
tified (see Fig. 6):
81 In this connection, it is worth mentioning that Meriggi (1971, 173–
174), even though he could not determine the vocalic nature of these
5 signs, noticed that they were very frequently used in anthroponom-
80 Coe 21999, 42–43. This can be compared to the Mycenaean Linear ical notations in PE tablets (they are among the 6 most frequent signs
B syllabary with theoretically ca. 65 “basic signs” (only 60 are cur- attested in writings of proper nouns) and that, for this reason, they
rently known) + 27 additional ones belonging to a complementary were probably phonographic.
sub-syllabary, but also to the Cypriot syllabary (56 signs), the Cree 82 In Mesopotamia, the cuneiform list tu-ta-ti had a similar function,
syllabary (70 signs), the Cherokee syllabary (86 signs), the Inuktitut with syllabic triplets following the vowel order /u, a, /i/ (Veldhuis
syllabary (108 signs), the Chinese syllabary ‘fan-ch’ieh’ (62 signs), or 2014, 147–148, § 4.1.1.2), which partially matches the LE vocalic se-
the Japanese hiragana and katakana (50 signs for each of them). quence (/e, u, o, a, i/).
Fig. 8: Text M: the Susa lenticular school tablet (F. Desset; photos courtesy of the Louvre Museum).
geminate spellings, see below, section 3.4). Accordingly, According to the phonemic grid of the deciphered signs
Cu signs may also represent the phonemic sequence /Cw/ (Table 4), some 8 signs seem to be theoretically missing or
before vowels, as appears to be the case with the theonym not identified yet (he, ke, le, re, se, wi, wu, and zi). While
written ši-ku-a-t (M′: 1; O′: 3), probably to be read /šikwat/ some of these phonetic values can be expected to be found
(cf. cun. ši-ka₃-at; ElW 558 and 1155; and Zadok 1984, 22). among the undeciphered signs, the situation may be more
complicated, since in LE writing, CV syllables could theo-
Tab. 4: The 72 deciphered LE signs arranged according to a retically be expressed by a consonant sign + a vowel sign
phonemic grid (see Fig. 6). (even though such spellings are not attested in the texts
currently known). Moreover, due to the genesis process of
a e i u | u₂ LE script (see below, section 5), syllabic signs might have
h | h₂ ha ? hi | hi₂ hu | hu₂ not existed for all the possible syllabic combinations, dis-
k | k₂ ka ? ki | ki₂ ku | ku₂ turbing the later attempts to rationalize the system, as it
happens, for instance, in the Old Persian writing system.
l la ? li | li₂ | li₃ lu? An apparent snag in the system is the presence of
m ma me mi mu | mu₂ apparent homophonic signs.
n na ne ni nu
p | p₂ pa pe pi | pi₂ pu | pu₂
3.3 Homophones
r ra ? ri | ri₂ ru | ru₂
s sa ? si su | su₂ The phonemic values identified for 72 signs, mainly
š ša še ši šu through comparisons with cuneiform texts, seem to point
to the existence of 15 seemingly homophonic pairs and a
t ta te ti tu
triplet: u|u₂, h|h₂, hi|hi₂, hu|hu₂, k|k₂, ki|ki₂, ku|ku₂, li|li₂|li₃,
w wa we ? ? mu|mu₂, p|p₂, pi|pi₂, pu|pu₂, ri|ri₂, ru|ru₂, su|su₂, and zu|zu₂.
z za ze ? zu | zu₂ Among them, 3 pairs are probably mere graphic variants
(k|k₂, p|p₂, and ru|ru₂) and 3 pairs can be considered for
now as true homophonic signs (h|h₂, li|li₃, and pi|pi₂).
The remaining pairs are homophonic only apparently, True homophonic signs:
because of the cuneiform apparatus used for their identi- h : found in all the occurrences of the 1st person
fication; in fact, the two members of these pairs are pho- sing. suffix of Conjugation I (ša-ri⁓r⁓ri₂-h,
nemically different. Thus, among the Ci-signs hi|hi₂, ki|ki₂, ti-a-h, hu-t-ta-h, pe-li-h, ha-h-pu-h, ha-ne-h,
li|li₂|li₃, and ri|ri₂, some members of these pairs were prob- si-a-h, …); it is also attested in the words su₂-
ably pronounced /Ci/ while the others /Ce/. The same is h-te-r (A) and mu-h-t/mu-h-tu (in K′; W: 8; and
true of the (C)u signs, such as u|u₂, hu|hu₂, ku|ku₂, mu|mu₂, H′: 3) as well as a redundant sign before hu in
pu|pu₂, su|su₂, and zu|zu₂, some to be pronounced /(C)u/, ši-n-pi-s-h-hu-k(₂), to express the graphic gem-
some others /(C)o/ (see below, sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2). ination of h.
h₂ : only occurs in the Kam-Firuz silver beaker
Graphic variants: group (Group 4), in hi-h₂ (see n. 51 above) and
k|k₂ | : these seemingly different signs are proba- ru₂-h₂-nu-te-wa (I′: 2), in addition to being
bly graphic variants (allographs) of the same used as a redundant sign before hu₂ in na-h₂-
grapheme, since they appear to be mutually hu₂(-n)-te (see n. 112 below).
exclusive: k is attested in text groups 1 and Contrary to k|k₂, p|p₂, and ru|ru₂, h and h₂
6, k₂ in Group 4, while both of them appear do not exclude each other as it would be
in Group 2 (Puzur-Sušinak inscriptions; in expected for true graphic variants; they
P, A, C, E, and F // G // H; in I, B, D, and appear together in texts Y, Z, I′, and K′, possi-
U). The phenomenon of graphically different bly hinting at different phonemes. However,
variants remains unexplained (k₂ could be it is to be noted that the words spelled with
considered as half of sign k cut in a transver- both h and h₂ signs in Linear Elamite were
sal way). The use of the sign k₂ as a variant all written with the same sign in cuneiform,
of k appears to be limited to South-Western that is, ah = ah, eh, ih, uh (for example, cun.
Iran’s most recent texts, starting in the time na-ah-hu-un-te and mu-uh-tu₃; cf. LE na-h₂-
of Puzur-Sušinak (Group 2; 22nd century BCE) hu₂-n-te and mu-h-t/mu-h-tu). For this reason,
and ending with the Kam-Firuz silver beaker either the phonemic difference between the
group (Group 4; 20th century BCE). two LE signs was considered very minimal or
their use depended on an “orthographic” rule
p : only occurs in Z: 8: ma-ni-p, sa-hi₂-p, and related to a yet to be determined tradition/
ki₂-ri-pu₂-p. convention associating a specific sign with
p₂ : occurs in all texts, except Z. Therefore, p, specific words.
which only occurs in Z, is probably a graphic
variant of p₂. li : attested in the verbs pe-li-h (A′: 4; and O′: 4)
and li-m-ma-š (F // G // H: 2), as well as in the
ru | ru₂ : these signs, slightly different graphically, title li-ka-we (Kam-Firuz silver beaker inscrip-
exclude each other and can be considered as tions, Group 4).
variants. The latter is probably a more recent li₃ : attested notably in pe-l-ti-ka-li₃-m (I: 1), la-w-
variant of the former; it appeared around li₃-ri (F // G // H: 2) and la-w-li₃- (D: 1).
1950 BCE at the time of Eparti II and Šilhaha, While li₂ (/le/) is probably phonemically
and is attested in the title ka-t-ru₂ (X: 1; J′: 2; different from li and li₃ (see below, section
I′: 1), spelled ka-t-ru in more ancient texts (Y2: 4.1.1), the latter two signs are probably homo-
1; Z: 1). phones (/li/), and not mere graphic variants,
since they do not exclude each other, appear-
[NB In the case of these "signs" suspected to be allographs, ing together in text F // G // H (la-w-li₃-ri and
their distinction in transliteration by means of the numer- li-m-ma-š; see below, section 6).
ical subscript must be considered provisional.]
pi : ši-n-pi-s-h-hu-k/ši-n-pi-s-hu-ki-r (Puzur-Suši-
nak inscriptions, Group 2), ki-k-n-pi-s-hu-š
(A′: 3; and O′: 2. 4), pa-la pi-ra-h (H′: 3).
pi₂ : pi₂-š (D: 3), na-pi₂ (N′: 1), na-pi₂-ri-ša and pi₂-
ne-ki-r (Kam-Firuz silver beakers, Group 4).
In addition, pi₂ seems to have been used to in A, B, E (and C?): ši-n-pi-s-h-hu-k;

write the class-marker of the 3rd person plur., in D: a-k₂-ka-ra;
for instance in hi₂-t-te-k₂-pi₂ (K′), a-pi₂ (W: in F // G // H: a-k-ka-ra; a-w-wa-ni-r; hu₂-pu₂-š-
1. 3. 5. 8), and ha-ta-m-ti-pi₂-r (C: 3; and E: 3; ša-n; li-m-ma-š; ra-p₂-pa-š; hu-t-ta-
Puzur-Sušinak inscriptions); however, note k-ne;
ha-ta-m-ti-pi-r in F′: 1. Furthermore, pi and Text group 3:
pi₂ occur together in texts C (ši-n-pi-s-h-hu-k in Q: ma-ra-p₂-š-ša-i-r; hu₂-m-š-ša-t;
and ha-ta-m-ti-pi₂-r) and F′ (ha-ta-m-ti-pi-r Text group 6:
and na-pi₂-ri-ša). Like signs h|h₂ and li|li₃, this in M′: hu₂-r-t-ti;
is a real case of homophonic signs, probably in A′ and O′: la-p₂-pu; hu-t-ta-h;
resulting from the long history of LE writing in N′: za?-a-n-ši- (ša)-š-ši-n; hu-t-ta-h;
as the heir of PE writing, with a system of nu-w-we; a-š-ha-m-me; me-š-n-na;
signs not yet completely “rationalized” in the in W: ha-t-ti; za-t-tu-me (maybe also na-ki-
late 3rd millennium BCE. k-ki-n);
Text group 4:
in Y: i-ta-t-tu; na-h₂-hu₂-te; ka-z-za-k₂-na;
3.4 Geminate Spellings su₂-m-mu-h-na;
in Z: i-ta-t-tu; na-h₂-hu₂-n-te; hu₂-p-ša-k₂-
Among the 15 consonant signs (C) used in LE script (h, ki-r; hu-t-ta-k₂-na; ka-z-za-k₂-na;
h₂, k, k₂, l, m, n, p, p₂, r, s, š, t, w, and z), 12 are currently in J′: a-t-ta ze-m-ti-k₂; na-h₂-hu₂-te;
attested in geminate spellings (C₁-C₁V), perhaps to express in an unpublished fragmentary inscription in the Mah-
fortis (i. e., with more energy) or long consonants in oppo- boubian Collection (Desset [e. a.], forthcoming):
sition to lenis or short ones.83 Thus h is attested before hu li₂-t-ti
(ši-n-pi-s-h-hu-k); h₂ before hu₂ (na-h₂-hu₂-n-te); k(₂) before in I′: ha-t-ta-m-t-ti; me-n-ni; na-pi₂-r-ri-ša;
ka and ki; m before ma, me, mi and mu; n before na and ki-t-ti-n;
ni; p₂ before pa and pu; r before ri; š before ša and ši; t in K′: na-pi₂-r-ri-ša; pa-la-i-š-ša-n; li₂-li!-
before ta, te, ti and tu; w before wa and we; z before za. pa-r; ri-š-ša; me-n-ni; ha-t-ta-m-t-ti;
Three consonant signs are not attested in geminate spell- la-n-ni; hi₂-t-te-k₂-pi₂; ze-m-mi.
ings: l, p and s. While p only appears in Z and is probably a
variant of p₂ (see above, section 3.3), the lack of geminate Geminate spellings occur with verbs (zu-p₂-pa, li-m-ma,
spellings of l and s could be accidental and they can be ra-p₂-pa, hu-t-ta, ka-z-za, su₂-m-mu) and nominal elements
expected to occur in other yet to be discovered texts. (hu-r-t-ti, a-t-ta, ri-š-ša, me-n-ni, ki-t-ti-n, la-n-ni, hi₂-t-te,
Before 2000 BCE, only h, k, k₂, m, n, p₂, š, t, and w were ze-m-mi, li₂-t-ti). They are overrepresented in the writing
attested in geminate spellings, whereas the Kam-Firuz of proper nouns, both anthroponyms/theonyms (i-n-su-
silver beaker inscriptions (Group 4; 2000–1880 BCE) also ši-na-k-ki-r, ši-n-pi-s-h-hu-k, hu₂-m-š-ša-t, la-p₂-pu, za?-a-
attest to the use of h₂, r, and z. The distribution of these n-ši- (ša)-š-ši-n, a-š-ha-m-me, i-ta-t-tu, na-h₂-hu₂(-n)-te,
spellings in each textual group is as follows: na-pi₂-r-ri-ša, pa-la-i-š-ša-n as well as maybe za-t-tu-me)
and toponyms (a-w-wa-ni-r, hu₂-pu₂-š-ša-n, ma-ra-p₂-š-ša-
Text groups 1, 5, and 7: no geminate spellings are attested. i-r, ha-t-ta-m-t-ti).
Text group no. 2: Looking at the distribution of geminate spellings in
in A: i-n-su-ši-na-k-ki-r; zu-p₂-pa-š; the various words in which they occur, one gets the clear
impression that these spellings have to do with the posi-
tion of the accent. In fact, geminate spellings are usually
83 Tavernier 2011, 320; 2018, 425. This situation would be similar
to that of the Hittite language where there is no opposition between attested at the beginning of the second syllable of a word or
voiced and voiceless consonants (as is the case also in Elamite) but word component according to two different well-defined
between “so-called ‘short’ and ‘long’ consonants. A long t, for in- orthographic patterns: (C₁)V—C₂V-… → (C₁)V—C₂-C₂V-…84
stance, is a t where the tongue is held against the upper teeth just and (C₁)V-C₂—C₃V-… → (C₁)V-C₂—C₃-C₃V-…85
a little longer before it is released than in a short one. […] Using the
Syrian cuneiform, Hittite scribes simply ignored the voiced/voiceless
contrast that came with the script, but spelled short consonants sin-
gle and long ones double” (cf. van den Hout 2010/2015, 103; Pozza 84 The following examples are attested in LE texts (here and below,
2011). the supposed stressed syllables are capitalized): zu-p₂-pa (/zuPA/), li-
These geminate spellings may reflect a specific pro- 2) to represent the current pronunciation of a word while
nunciation of the initial consonant of the second syllable maintaining its historical orthography. For example,
(which can be considered as stressed) of a word or word the spelling hu₂-pu₂-š-ša-n possibly reflects the orig-
component as fortis. The fact that they are overrepre- inal pronunciation of the toponym as /hůPOšan/ but
sented in the writing of proper nouns could indicate a also, through the geminate spelling, the current pro-
particular attention paid to the precise representation of nunciation of it as /hůpŠAN/ (as attested to by cun.
these words, possibly for two different reasons: ḫu-up-sa-na and hu-up-ša-an; see Vallat 1993, 104),
1) to make clear their morphological segmentation. In with the elision of the vowel /o/ in pre-tonic posi-
fact, by applying the hypothesized rule of the stress tion;86 the spelling na-pi₂-r-ri-ša, which is attested in
on the second syllable, we can perhaps identify the the most recent LE texts (I′ and K′), may reflect a new
underlying morphological structure of some names pronunciation of the theonym in question (originally
thanks to such geminate spellings. Thus, for instance, /naPIreša/, written na-pi₂-ri-ša in the most ancient
the spelling ši-n-pi-s-h-hu-k may indicate that this texts from Kam-Firuz) as /napREša/. The spelling with
name consists of two elements: /šin/ and /pisHŮK/ geminated r suggests that this name was no longer
(spelled C₁V-C₂—C₃-C₃V-…); a-š-ha-m-me and i-ta-t-tu understood as composed of two CV+CV elements
should perhaps be segmented as /aš-haME/ (with the (/napi/ and /reša/) but rather as a unique, single
CV+CV element /haME/, spelled C₁V—C₂-C₂V) and word (in contrast to the spelling li-ka-we ri-š-ša, where
/i-taTU/ (with the CV+CV element /taTU/, also found /reŠA/, normally stressed on the second syllable, was
in the PN /kın-taTU/, spelled in the same manner); clearly perceived as distinct from /likawe/).
while ma-ra-p₂-š-ša-i could be segmented as either
/ma-rapŠA(y)i/, with the CVC+CV+(C)V element The examples of Hůpošan, Napireša, and (In-)sušinak
/rapŠA(y)i/, or /maRA-pøŠA(y)i/ with the CV+CV+ (clearly composed of two elements), with their “defec-
(C)V element /pøŠA(y)i/ (and a hypothetical lost/ tive” pronunciations /hůpŠAN/, /napREša/, and /(in-)
elided vowel in the first, pre-tonic syllable); sušNAK/, seem to attest the loss of a vowel in the syllable
that precedes the stressed one. In a sense, hu₂-pu₂-š-ša-n
and na-pi₂-r-ri-ša can be regarded as “compromise spell-
m-ma (/liMA/), ra-p₂-pa (/raPA/), hu-t-ta (/hůTA/), ka-z-za (/kaZA/),
su₂-m-mu (/soMO/), a-t-ta (/aTA/), ri-š-ša (/reŠA/), me-n-ni (/meNI/),
ings”, representing /hůpošan/ and /napireša/ (etymo-
ki-t-ti-n (/kiTIN/), la-n-ni (/laNI/), hi₂-t-te (/hiTE/), ze-m-mi (/zeMI/), logical forms), but “meaning” /hůpŠAN/ and /napREša/
li₂-t-ti (/leTI/), la-p₂-pu (/laPU/), na-h₂-hu₂(-n)-te (/naHŮNte/), i-š- (actual pronunciations). It is interesting to see that the
ša-n (/iŠAN/), za-t-tu-me (/zaTUme/), a-w-wa-ni-r (/aWAnir/), ha-t-ti god of Susa could be spelled either i-n-su-ši-na-k(₂) (his-
(/haTI/), a-k(₂)-ka-ra (/aKAra/), nu-w-we (/nůWE/) (for references, see torical orthography reflecting the ancient [original?]
Desset [e. a.], forthcoming, glossar). See also the most ancient Elam-
pronunciation of the name as /in-suŠInak/) or i-n-su-š-
ite texts in cuneiform, such as Lambert 1974, text no. 2: pi-ir-ra-ah
(/piRAH/), ha-at-ta-ah (/haTAH/), mas-si-i-ah (/maSIyah/); the cu- na-k(₂) (current pronunciation: /in-sušNAK/) without any
neiform inscription of Kıntatu (Cuneiform 1): al-la-la (/aLAla/), ak- “compromise spelling” (*i-n-su-ši-n-na-k, representing
ka₃ (/aKA/), za-ap-pa₂-an-ti (/zaPANti/), uk-ku (/ůKŮ/), pu-ut!-ta!-a-aš /in-suŠInak/ but “meaning” /in-sušNAK/) attested yet. It
(/puTAŠ/), am-me-na-ne (/aMEnane/); the cuneiform inscription of seems that, in this case, the current pronunciation could
Šilhaha (Cuneiform 3): ku-ul-la-an-ri (/kůLANri/), ku-ul-la-ak-ki-me
be spelled directly, without any “compromise”.
(stress also on the 3rd syllable?), [a]m?-ma (/aMA/ = /aWA/); the
cuneiform inscriptions of Sewe-palar-hůhpak (Cuneiform 8 and 9):
Finally, i-n-su-ši-na-k-ki-r87 and hu-ze-hu₂-p-ša-k₂-ki-r
am-ma (/aMA/ = /aWA/), ku-ul-la-ah/ku-ul-la-ak (/kůLAH⁓K/), ki- are particular cases. The geminate spellings here are pos-
it-ti-in (/kiTIN/), li-im-ma-aš (/liMAŠ/), ra-ap-pa-ak-na (/raPAKna/), sibly related to the morphological suffixation of the class-
ik-ku (/iKŮ/), ik-ka (/iKA/), hu-ut!-ta-ak-na (/hůTAKna/); etc. On the marker /(i)r/: the addition of this suffix may have caused
contrary, the ‘Treaty of Naram-Sin’ (Hinz 1967) displays very few ex- a shift of the stress to the last syllable with a consequent
amples of geminate spellings (such as na-ap-pi = /naPI/ or lut-ti-ir
change in the manner of pronouncing /k/.
= /lůTIR/): the scribe who wrote it did not pay attention to record
stressed syllables by means of geminate spellings because he was A special case of “compromise spelling” is perhaps
probably not Elamite but Akkadian (cf. the verbal notations hu-ra- the use of li+ to repeat the first syllable of the word li₂-pa-r
ak-li, ku-ru-uk-li, ha-aš₂-ik-li, and ha-aš₂-ak-li, which would have been in K′ (li₂-li+-pa-r). In this case, the scribe probably created
probably spelled by an Elamite scribe as *hu-ur-ra-ak-li = /hůRAKle/,
*ku-ur-ru-uk-li = /kůRŮKle/, *ha-aš₂-ši-ik-li = /haŠIKle/ and *ha-aš₂-
ša-ak-li = /haŠAKle/). 86 Another possible example of LE historical spelling is ši-n-pi-s-h-
85 LE hu-r-t-ti (/hůrTI/), pi-s-h-hu (/pisHŮ/), hu₂-m-š-ša-t (/hůmŠAT/), hu-k (see n. 32 above).
me-š-n-na (/mešNA/) (for references, see Desset [e. a.], forthcoming, 87 Cf. spellings such as din-su-uš-na-ak-ki, din-su-uš-na-ak-ki₂-ik, din-
glossar). šu-ši-na-ak-ki, etc., in later cuneiform texts (ElW 760 f.).
Fig. 9: Corrected mistakes involving the consonant sign r in inscriptions X and O′, the consonant sign s in H, and the syllabic sign ku in G
(F. Desset).
a new sign ad hoc, li+ (which is for this reason attested K′; /lani/ (“silver”), usually written with two signs (la-ni),
only in this inscription), based on the original sign li, sup- is written la-n-ni in K′; /zemi/, written in Z and Y with two
pressing a corner and adding a diacritical central point signs (ze-mi), is written ze-m-mi in K′; /meni/, written
to slightly distinguish this variant from the original sign in F′ with two signs (me-ni), is written me-n-ni in I′/K′;
(sign za, as well as maybe sign ne, displays a graphic var- /le~ipar/, written in J′ with 3 signs (li₂-pa-r), is written li₂li+-
iation where a central dot was added and the sign turned pa-r in K′ (see above for this special case).
upside down). These examples from I′ and K′, the most recent LE
texts currently known, appear to reflect an over-phoneti-
zation process around 1900/1880 BCE. This is probably
a later development, a sort of “swan song” gesture with
the intent to precisely record the sounds of the language,
Signs li (on the left) and li+ (on the right)
maybe in relation to the then-growing use of cuneiform
to record the Elamite language. I′ and K′ are also charac-
This redundant syllabic sign was perhaps used as a sort terized by slightly simplified signs (signs wa, h₂ and mi)
of phonemic complement in the writing sequence li₂-li+- as well as more curved sign forms (signs i and ze), which
pa-r, to be understood as li₂li+-pa-r. As there was probably might be seen as the ultimate graphic trend of LE writing
a phonemic difference between the signs li and li₂ (to be in South-Western Iran (see Figs. 7a and 7b).
respectively pronounced /li/ and /le/; see below, section
4.1.1), the word “servant”, initially spelled li₂-pa-r, /lepar/,
would have been written afterwards li₂li+-pa-r, /lipar/, both
to respect the original spelling (historical orthography)
but also to reflect the current pronunciation /lipar/ (“com- Signs wa, h₂, mi, ze and i in K′
promise spelling”). In this connection, note that the pho-
nemic evolution /e/→/i/ is also attested in the case of the
Besides the geminate spellings of consonants, some vowel
verb “to fashion (a metal artifact)”, originally /šare/, but
signs were seemingly used redundantly in South-Eastern
from 1950 BCE onwards pronounced /šari/ (Desset [e. a.]
Iran/Kerman texts (text groups 5 and 6) in CV₁-V₁ spell-
forthcoming).
ings, such as za?-a-n-ši-ša-š-ši-n (N′) and pa-a-ri?-ri₂ (C′).
The texts commissioned by Pala-išan (ca. 1900/1880
Since there is no further convincing evidence for long
BCE), I′ and K′, seem to have a particular preference for gem-
vowels in Elamite, they are likely to have been used to
inate spellings: Hatamti, since the time of Puzur-Sušinak
redundantly mark the vowel already written with the
invariably written with four signs (ha-ta-m-ti), is written
preceding sign.
ha-t-ta-m-t-ti in I′/K′; Napireša, in all the other Kam-Firuz
silver beaker texts written with four signs (na-pi₂-ri-ša), is
written na-pi₂-r-ri-ša in I′/K′; /likawe reša/, in H′ written
with five signs (li-ka-we ri-ša), is written li-ka-we ri-š-ša in
3.5 Defective Writings and Writing Mistakes 3.6 Dividing Sign and Text Layout
Several cases of omission of vocalic sounds are attested Usually written from right to left (excepted B, E, J′, and the
(above all, in the inscriptions of Group 6); in particular caption Y1 near the carved figure, while the situation is
before the consonant /n/: i-n-su-š(/i/)-na-k (F // G // H: 2; more complicated in D due to its carrier; as for V, on a seal,
U: 2; A′: 4; O′: 1 and 5), ti-(/a/)-n-ra (D: 3), pe-t(/i/)-n-ra it has to be read on the impression from right to left; see
(F // G // H: 3), ti-t(/i/)-n (M′: 1), ki-k(/i⁓o/)-n (A′: 3 and above, Table 1) and from the top to the bottom (with the
O′: 2 and 4), ki-t(/i/)-n (N′: 2), perhaps hu-h(/ů/)-n (N′: exception of I: 1. 2. 3, written from the bottom to the top on
2) and me-š-n (N′: 5); and in the writings of some verbal a statue), LE inscriptions display varied text layouts and
forms, such as ku-t-h (I′: 3), ša-r-h (X: 2 and J′: 5), and distinct uses for the dividing sign (a vertical stroke), prob-
ha-n-š (D′). ably reflecting different scribal practices.
There are also examples of consonant omissions. In The oldest LE texts (Group 1) do not display the divid-
X and in an unpublished fragmentary inscription of the ing sign, while horizontal lines are clearly marked, with a
Mahboubian Collection (Desset [e a.], forthcoming; time framing vertical line preserved in cones J and K as well as
of Eparti II and Šilhaha, ca. 1950 BCE), the consonant sign in the tablet M (see Fig. 8).
m is omitted in Hatamti and /ata-zemt-ik/, respectively The dividing sign is employed in Puzur-Sušinak
spelled ha-ta-ti (usually written ha-ta-m-ti in other texts) inscriptions (Group 2) to separate phrases, clauses,
and a-ta-ze-ti-k₂ (written a-t-ta-ze-m-ti-k₂ in J′: 4). More and sentences (not always in a consistent way; see, for
over, while the verbal notation ha-h-pu-h⁓š (“I/he heard”) instance, section 6 and Fig. 12 below), but also divine
appears in Z and H′, in X this verb is written ha-pu-š (with names in the curse formula of D. In C, the words hu₂-r-t
the omission of h).88 Such cases of consonant omissions and ši-n-pi-[s-h-hu-k] are broken on two lines.
can be regarded as examples of graphic simplifications of Marv Dasht vessel Q makes extensive use of the divid-
consonant clusters.89 ing sign (attested 8 times), separating words (like za-na
However, a closer look at X shows that this text was and ma-ra-p₂-š-ša-i-r) but also elements of the same clause
hastily written, and that it exhibits other kinds of omis- (la-ni-i-na | u ša-ri-h).
sions (for instance, ta-k-me me instead of ta-k-me u-me for In the Kam-Firuz silver beaker inscriptions (Group 4),
/takme o-me/, “for my life”) as well as interesting correc- the situation is contrasted, with an extensive use of the
tions of previous mistakes involving the consonant sign r, dividing sign between words or groups of words in Z
wrongly written in the words ze-m-t (ze-r-t) and zu₂-ki-k₂ (Itatu I) and F′, I′, K′ (Zemt-Akone [/Temti-Agun] I and
(zu₂-ki₂-r; a grammatical mistake in the class-marker). An Pala-išan) and its absence in the inscribed vessels com-
additional example of a corrected error involving r can missioned by Eparti II and Šilhaha (H′, X, and J′), probably
be seen in O′, in the word na-lu?-r-i-e (previously written reflecting different scribal schools. Y is an exception, with
na-r-r-i-e; signs r and lu? are graphically very similar with the dividing sign occurring between titles and between
a rhombic shape). Other corrections are found in H, in verbal phrases. The most recent inscriptions, K′ and prob-
the last sign of the sequence pe-t-ra-š, written as s (pe-t- ably I′ (Pala-išan’s time, ca. 1900–1880 BCE), display texts
ra-s) before being corrected to š; and in G, where ku-ku-k inscribed on a single continuous line, wrapping around
was written instead of ku-ši-k (the ku sign is identical to ši the vessel like a helix.
upside down), and then the scribe attempted to correct it In the metal vessel group (no. 6), dividing signs are
(see Fig. 9, for all these examples of corrections). Finally, used between groups of words or clauses in M′, between
note a-k₂-ne-ra instead of a-k₂-ka-ra in D: 2 (with ne being words or groups of words in A′ and O′, while they are
identical to ka upside down). absent in N′ and W. In A′, N′, O′, and W, the text is written
in a continuous way, with words occasionally broken
on two lines. The last line of W is much longer than the
preceding seven, as if the scribe had needed more space
to finish the inscription.
In the Kerman group (no. 5), the dividing sign is
attested in S (at the beginning of this short inscription) as
well as in C′ and D′, probably between proper nouns.
88 Cf. Krebernik 42021, 207.
89 See Grillot 2008, 12, for analogous examples in cuneiform spell-
ings.
4 I mplications for the Elamite Achaemenid period, by the Old Iranian and Aramaic lan-
guages.96
Language Before the decipherment of LE script, the number of
“[…] le système phonologique de l’élamite ne se laisse pratique-
Elamite texts known for the earliest documented phase of
ment pas connaître, caché qu’il est derrière l’écran opaque que this language (in the so-called ‘Old Elamite’ period, from
constitue le système graphique cunéiforme” (Bavant 2019, 379). the 23rd to the 16th century BCE) was extremely limited,
only including:
Probably already a remnant of a former larger linguistic 1) the so-called ‘Treaty of Naram-Sin’ from Susa
group in the 3rd millennium BCE and displaying inner (Scheil 1911, 1–11; EKI no. 2; Hinz 1967, 91–95; Koch 2005a,
regional dialectical variations, because of our igno- 283–287; Quintana97), dating to ca. 2240/2230 BCE. It was
rance, the Elamite language remains an apparent lin- written without any Akkadian loanword in an almost com-
guistic isolate,90 preventing any linguistic comparisons, pletely phonographic writing (except for the fixed forms of
despite hypotheses trying to connect it to Dravidian lan- some theonyms and the determinatives dingir and ki), using
guages of India,91 the Afro-Asiatic linguistic group,92 or morphologically Mesopotamian (Ešnunna-like) cunei-
the Caucasian languages.93 The Elamite language was form signs (Steve 1992, 4);
up to now only documented through a limited number 2) two small tablets from Susa (Lambert 1974; see also
of cuneiform inscriptions ranging from the 23rd to the 4th Grillot 1987, 49; Tavernier 2011, 338–340), which, based on
century BCE,94 usually repetitive and standardized, with the shape of the cuneiform signs, can be attributed to the
a restricted vocabulary; this explains why this language Old Akkadian or Ur III period;98
is still an Etruscan-like chantier linguistique,95 far from 3) two silver (kunanki?) vessels related to Kıntatu
being completely understood and awaiting a real com- (ca. 2000 BCE) and Šilhaha (ca. 1950 BCE) (see above,
plete recovery. For the 2000 years of its documented section 2.2: Cuneiform 1 and 3; and Desset [e. a.] forthcom-
history, the Elamite language evolved from an original/ ing);
ancient structure based on nouns and anaphoric pro- 4) two tablets from Susa, (Ville Royale) chantier B,
nouns toward a more verb-oriented structure, before level 5 ancien (contemporary with Šilhaha and Ata-hůšů;
being influenced in its syntax and vocabulary in its last second half of the 20th century BCE), in part written in
known stage (which is also its best-known stage), in the Elamite: De Graef 2006, nos. 30 (with some Akkadian
words) and 82 (possibly an apprentice’s exercise); cf. De
Graef 2006, 39–40;
5) an alleged Elamite cuneiform tablet from Girsu/
90 Grillot 1998; Starostin 2002, 5: “It is simply a near-impossible task Tello (Louvre AO 4325; Cros/Heuzey/Thureau-Dangin 1910,
to establish a close relationship of Elamite with any of the currently
201 and 212; see also Krebernik 2018, 28, no. 3), attributed
known families or macro-families”.
91 Connection suggested as early as 1855 by E. Norris and proposed by Steve (1992, 19) to the Isin-Larsa period (20th–19th cen-
again, more recently, by McAlpin (1975; 1981; 2015): “The underlying turies BCE);
working concept […] is that the Proto-Elamo-Dravidian group, […] re- 6) a stele commissioned, in the late 19th/beginning
named Proto-Zagrosian, split into Elamitic and Dravidian subgroups, of the 18th century BCE, by Šir-ůktůh (Farber 1974; Desset
and that Brahui belongs to the Elamitic subgroup” (McAlpin 2015,
[e. a.] forthcoming);
553).
92 Blazek 1992. More recently, Starostin (2002, 23), synthesizing
7) two inscriptions of Sewe-palar-hůhpak (one on two
these propositions, wrote that the Elamite language seems to be a fragments of a tablet from Susa and the other on a silver
“bridge between Nostratic [including Dravidian] and Afroasiatic [in- vessel from the Mahboubian Collection; see above, Cunei-
cluding Cushitic, Chadic and Berber] languages”. form 8 and 9 and Fig. 4; Desset [e. a.] forthcoming);
93 Bavant 2014, 358; 2019. 8) two previously unattributed Elamite cuneiform
94 According to some scholars, the Elamite language was perhaps
inscriptions (EKI no. 67 and no. 70C), identified by Vallat
still spoken later, probably until at least the late 10th century CE in the
foothills of Khuzistan (notably in the Ram Hormoz area). Geographers (1990) as related to Kutır-Nahůnte I and Zemt-Akone
and travelers writing in Arabic between the 8th and 10th centuries CE (= Temti-Agun) II (ca. 1720/1700 BCE);
(Ibn al-Muqaffa, al-Gahiz, al-Istakhri, and al-Muqadassi, among oth-
ers) reported an incomprehensible language of South-Western Iran,
the Khūzī (from Old Persian u-v-j, perhaps representing Hūž, related
to the region or city of Susa), reputed very difficult to learn, which 96 Grillot 1985, 55; 1987, 45; 1998.
was neither Arabic, Persian, Syriac, nor Hebrew (see the reassess- 97 http://www.um.es/cepoat/elamita/?cat=81.
ment by van Bladel 2021). 98 According to Lambert (1974, 3). According to Malbran-Labat
95 Malbran-Labat 2016. (1996, 57), both texts date to the Old Akkadian period.
9) some Elamite incantations in Mesopotamian col- phonemes, as is the case for nearly all the writing systems
lections dating to the Old Babylonian period.99 when borrowed to write other languages. Our knowledge
These cuneiform texts from 2250 to 1500 BCE probably of cuneiform itself also depends mainly upon our under-
under-represent the Elamite component of Susiana in this standing of the phonological system of the “classic”
period. The onomasticon of the inhabitants of Susa, as Semitic languages, which necessarily prejudices our
documented by the written records from the Old Akkadian reconstruction of the cuneiform system when it is used
period (23rd century BCE) and the entire 2nd millennium for other languages (such as Elamite). All our readings of
BCE, reflects a constant linguistic/cultural (“ethnic”) Elamite words based on cuneiform are in a way Akkadi-
duality with an Akkadian majority and an Elamite minor- anized.103
ity.100 Although the legal and administrative texts in early With such a documentary background, the decipher-
2nd millennium BCE Susa, as well as in Tal-i Malyan/Anšan, ment of LE script provides an important opportunity to
were written in Akkadian cuneiform (with sumerograms), gain new insight into the earliest documented phase of
De Graef interpreted this use of Akkadian as alloglottog- the Elamite language (from ca. 2300 to 1880 BCE) and its
raphy,101 an artificial lingua administrativa behind which phonology. To the corpus of more or less 13 late 3rd/early
would transpire the Elamite language. This is perhaps 2nd millennium BCE Elamite cuneiform texts, we can now
proven by the use of very specific legal and administrative add a considerable number of LE texts, most of which are
formulas (in the whole cuneiform sphere attested only in reasonably comprehensible (Desset [e. a.] forthcoming;
Susa and probably reflecting specific elements of custom- see section 6, for a preliminary presentation of text F //
ary law) that include occasional Elamite phrases or Akka- G // H). Moreover, we can now access Elamite through
dianized Elamite words (such as kidinnum, representing another writing system, presumably better suitable for
the Elamite notion of /kıten/).102 Vallat (2007, 79), in his its notation. However, as our understanding of Elamite
analysis of the royal inscriptions of Susa in Akkadian recorded in LE script is based on an already established
cuneiform, noticed that some prepositions and pronouns knowledge of Elamite through cuneiform, the problems in
(ana, ina, ša) were not used when they were considered our understanding of cuneiform Elamite inevitably bear
unnecessary to understand the text (as is the case in Cunei- on our interpretation of LE Elamite, too.
form 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7), an irregularity that could suggest
a direct translation from an original Elamite version, as
certain grammatical functions are only expressed syntac- 4.1 P
honology
tically in Elamite. However, this phenomenon can simply
be regarded as a case of linguistic interference, as is usual Based on cuneiform104 and LE inscriptions, the Elamite
in bilingual contexts (see also Labat 1970). phonological system can be reconstructed as including:
Besides the paucity of Elamite cuneiform texts from 1) Five vowels: /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, and /u/, recorded
the late 3rd/early 2nd millennium BCE, another problem with the five LE vocalic signs a, e, i, u, and u₂ (see below,
hampers our understanding. Elamite has only been doc- section 4.1.2, for the presence of a fifth vowel: /o/).
umented up to now through the lens of the cuneiform 2) Perhaps some diphthongs;105 the spelling hi-ša-
writing system, which was probably not well suited to its u-ri-i (A′: 1), /hešaore(y)i/, may attest a diphthong /ao/.
phonology and unable to faithfully reproduce some of its Moreover, the variant za-x-m-t (Y2: 1) of ze-m-t could
contain a diphthong /aV/. See also below, sub 3.
3) The glide /y/, already hypothesized for cunei-
99 See Basello (2012, 180–81); Krebernik (2018). form Elamite (Stolper 2004, 72). This may be reflected in
100 Desset (2017, 11–22) (permanent duality opposed to the cultural/ (C)i-a⁓e⁓i spellings, such as: 1) si-a-n (Q), si-a-h (Z: 3),
ethnic alternation proposed by Amiet 1992, 85). De Graef (2019, 93) ti-a-h⁓š (Q; M′: 2; A′: 2–3; O′: 3–4), possibly for /siyan/,
added new data to this general picture, determining that in the first
/siya-h/, and /tiya-h⁓š/; 2) na lu?-r i e (A′: 4; O′: 5), h i e ki
half of the 2nd millennium BCE, 45 % of the names of the people men-
tioned in the economic/administrative tablets of Susa were (Sumero-)
Akkadian and 15 % Elamite, while 40 % remains undetermined. It is
not really clear then on what basis De Graef (2019, 96) concludes that 103 As is probably also the case for Sumerian, read “through an Ak-
“the spoken language of the greater part of the population must have kadian looking glass” (Seri 2010/2015, 90), which “glass”, at the same
been Elamite”. time, made it come down to us.
101 According to Rubio (2007, 33), the phenomenon of alloglottog- 104 Steve 1992, 14; Stolper 2004, 69–73; Grillot 2008, 11–13; Bavant
raphy consists in “writing a text in a language different from the lan- 2014, 243; McAlpin 2015, 556. 573; Tavernier 2018, 424 f.; Krebernik
guage in which it is intended to be read”. 42021, 195.
102 De Graef 2019, 97. 105 See Grillot 2008, 10; Khačikjan 1998, 9 f.; Stolper 2004, 72.
(W: 7), and u₂ r ti e (N′: 4), perhaps to be read /nalů?riye/, LE w signs are very frequently transliterated in cuneiform
/hiyeki/, and /urtiye/; 3) la-ni-i-na (Q; A′: 1; O′: 2; W: 5), with m signs: LE la-w-li₃-ri → cun. la-am-li-ir-ri; LE a-wa →
probably for /laniyina/. On the other hand, it is uncertain cun. am-ma; LE wa → cun. ma; LE li-ka-we → cun. li-ka-mi/
whether the CV-i spellings in ma-ra-p₂-š-ša-i-r (Q) and li-ka₄-me; LE nu-we → cun. nu-um; LE we → cun. me. In
hi-ša-u-ri-i-k (A′: 1) represent the glide /y/ (/marapšayi-r/ addition, LE we-s could correspond to cun. me-el (ElW
and /hešaoreyi-k/) or rather the diphthongs /ai/ and /ei/ 908).
(/marapšai-r/ and /hešaorei-k/). Therefore, these alleged 5) The velar fricative /h/. Note that two consonant
toponyms, possibly related to Eastern Iran, are provision- signs, h and h₂, were identified in LE script, possibly
ally transcribed as /marapša(y)i/ and /hešaore(y)i/. expressing a phonemic difference between two distinct
4) The glide /w/, which is treated differently from the /h/-sounds (see above, section 3.3).
glide /y/, since a specific w series is attested with the signs 6) Three plosives: the labial /p/, the dental /t/ and
w (= u₂, /u/), wa, and we. Cu signs also seem to function the velar /k/. The choice of the voiceless consonants
as Cw signs when used before a vowel (Cu-V = /CwV/), as over the voiced ones in transliteration and transcrip-
in the case of the theonym ši-ku-a-t (M′: 1; O′: 3), probably tion is purely arbitrary and related to the history of the
to be read /šikwat/.106 At any rate, the signs w, wa, and discipline (see above, section 1). If LE writing did not
we point to the existence of the glide /w/. This phoneme seemingly distinguish voiced (/b/, /d/, /g/) from voice-
is written in cuneiform (according to modern translitera- less (/p/, /t/, /k/) plosives, this distinction may have
tion) with either w or m signs. The attested words whose been present in the Elamite language, as the systematic
LE spellings contain the w, wa, or we signs (with their voiced/voiceless distinction in the writing of plosives in
transliteration in cuneiform, when available) include: early 2nd millennium BCE cuneiform texts (see Cunei-
w: la-w-li₃(-ri) (D: 1; F // G // H: 2; cf. cun. la-am- form 8 and Cuneiform 9; Desset [e. a.], forthcoming) may
li-ir-ri; ElW 801–802). suggest. As this distinction is completely absent in the
wa: a(-w)-wa-ni-r (F // G // H: 1; cf. cun. a-wa- LE script, it is possible that the latter was defective in
an; Vallat 1993, 25–26); a-wa (Z: 3; cf. cun. this matter.
am-ma; ElW 51–52); šu-wa-r-a-su (Q); -wa 7) Two liquid sonants: /l/ and /r/.
(suffix, usually written -ma in cuneiform): 8) Two nasal sonants: the labial /m/ and the dental
-s(-)hu₂(-)ri₂-t!107-wa te-la!-k₂ in D: 1–2; nu /n/.
ki₂-ri-wa ta-h⁓š, ki₂-ri nu te-wa ti-a-h, … ru₂- 9) A number of sibilants. Elamite sibilants and
h₂(-)nu(-)te-wa in I′: 2; ha-s- -ki₂- -wa in affricates were written in cuneiform with s, š, and z(/ṣ)
K′; ša-hu₂?-lu?-wa ti-t-n-wa in M′: 1; za?-a-n-ši- signs,108 a practice that seems to mirror the situation in
(ša)-š-ši-n-wa in N′: 4. LE script with:
we: li-ka-we (Kam-Firuz silver beaker group; cf. 9.1) The voiceless alveolar /s/ (cuneiform spelling:
li-i-ka₃-we-e in Cuneiform 1: 4; and li-ka₃-we s). The phonetic value could perhaps be inferred from the
in Cuneiform 8: 4 and 9: 4; see also ElW 821, attestations of the LE consonantal sign s. Attested in the
s. v. li-ga-we(pi); later cuneiform spellings are name of Puzur-Sušinak’s father, spelled ši-n-pi-s(-h)-hu-k
li-ka-mi and li-ka₄-me: ElW 826 and 832, s.vv. in Linear Elamite and šim-pi₂-is₂-ḫu-uk in cuneiform, this
li-ka-mi and li-qa-me); nu(-w)-we (A′: 3–4; O′: phoneme was also pretty close to /š/ (cf. text H: 3, where
4–5; N′: 4–5; cf. cun. nu-um); we-s-ha-la-hi₂-t the verbal form /petra-š/ was first written pe-t-ra-s before
(F′: 2); we u-we (O′: 1); we (class-marker) being corrected to pe-t-ra-š), and, above all, to /l/: cf. ra-s
in text group 6 (i-r-k i-n-ti u-we in A′: 1–2; O′: ha-l-ma-k₂-na (Y2: 2 and Z: 6) with cun. ra-al ha-al-ma-
2–3; u nu-we e pe-li-h hu-t-ta-h-li₂ in A′: 3–4; ak-na (EKI no. 54 § 73; for ra-al, “forever”, see ElW 1018),
O′: 4; u a-š-ha-m-me la-ni nu-we ša-ri-h in N′: while LE we-s (F′: 2) could correspond to cun. me-el (ElW
4–5), usually recorded with the LE sign me in 908); finally, cf. LE ši-n-pi-s(-h)-hu-k, /šin-pishůk/, and
South-Western Iran texts (see Desset [e. a.], ki-k-n-pi-s-hu-š, /kik-(i⁓o)n-pishůš/ (A′: 3; O′: 2. 4) — both
forthcoming).
108 According to Tavernier (2010, 1075), these three signs would cor-
respond to six or even seven different phonemes: Elamite “probably
had six (or seven, if one accepts the retroflex approximant /ẓ/) alve-
106 One wonder whether Cu-wV spellings, such as šu-wa-r-a-su (Q), olar fricatives, palato-alveolar fricatives and affricates: the alveolar
can be interpreted as Cw-wV, for /CwV/ (/šwar-asu/?). fricatives /s/ and /s’/, a palato-alveolar fricative (/š/), two affricates
107 The final t is uncertain; it could also be the dividing sign. (/c/ and /č/) and one yet unknown fricative (/θ/ or /ś/)”.
personal names — with cun. na?-pi-il-ḫu-uš, /na-pishůš/, the cuneiform variant spellings si-im-ti and
the name of the 6th king of Awan in the ‘Susa king list’ še-im-ti;110 ElW 308–311; Zadok 1984, 43–44).
(Scheil 1931, 2, line 6). Therefore, the LE sign s and the syl- zu: pu-zu-r (see cuneiform Akkadian puzru(m)),
labic signs belonging to the s series (sa, si, su, and su₂) can zu-la-ri₂, zu-p₂-pa-š (cf. cun. zu-up⁓um-pa₂,
be interpreted as recording an undetermined voiceless tu-um-pa₂, tu₄-um-pa₂ and su-um-pa₂; ElW
alveolar lateral fricative ([ś] or [ɬ]), sharing common pho- 1312–1313 and Steve 1967, 55; also tu₃-um-pa₂
netic features with both /š/ and /l/, like the Welsh ll. As in Cuneiform 1 and Cuneiform 3; finally, see
has been noted by Grillot (1987, 10), the alternation š/l is Cuneiform 9: 18, ik-ku su-um-pa₂-aš, to be
also attested in cuneiform Elamite, although very rarely.109 compared with ik-ku tu-um-pa₂-ah in EKI
The LE consonant sign s is attested in the following no. 28 A § 24).
spellings: pi-s(-h)-hu (PNs /šin-pishůk/ and /kik-(i⁓o) zu₂: u₂ zu₂ m?-š, zu₂-ki(-k₂) (cf. cun. zu-ki and
n-pishůš/); pe-s e (A: 5); -s(-)hu₂(-)ri₂-t? (D: 1); ra-s ha-l- zu-uk-ki; ElW 1106 and 1313), zu₂ ne za, and
ma-k₂-na (Y2: 2; Z: 6); we-s-ha-la-hi₂-t (F′: 2); a⁓hu-n(-) zu₂-n-zu₂-n.
ha-s-ki (F // G // H: 3); ha-s- -ki₂- -wa (K′). In several
cases, it occurs at the end of a word or syllable and just As can be seen, several words spelled with a z sign in LE
before a word or a syllable starting with an h sign (h, ha, display discrepancies in their cuneiform transliteration;
hu, hu₂). It is therefore conceivable that s was realized as thus LE za corresponds to cun. za and ša; LE ze to cun. si,
[ś] only in syllable-final position. Then [ś] would not be an še, te, ti, and ti₄; LE zu to cun. su, tu, tu₃, tu₄, and zu.
independent phoneme but rather a phonologically con- These discrepancies may suggest that the phoneme
ditioned allophone of /s/, which would allow us to place that has been transliterated here as z in LE texts (z, za, ze,
this sign into the s-series. zu, zu₂) could actually be a voiceless interdental non-sibi-
9.2) The voiceless palato-alveolar /š/ (= cuneiform š lant fricative ([θ]) or an affricate sibilant (either [ts] or [tz]).
signs); Due to this uncertainty about the exact phonetic interpre-
9.3) An additional sibilant(?), here transliterated as tation of this phoneme ([θ], [ts] or [tz]?), we provisionally
z, mostly on the basis of comparisons with cuneiform transliterate and transcribe it as z and /z/.
spellings. Since the absence of opposition between voice- Finally, the LE ze sign deserves some comments. Con-
less and voiced appears to be certain in LE writing for the trary to LE za, zi and zu, the ze sign (mainly attested in
plosive consonants, it may also have been the case for the words /zemt/ and /zemi/) has not a corresponding
sibilants. The transliteration z is consequently problem- homonymous value in the Elamite cuneiform syllabary.111
atic. Furthermore, the equivalence between LE z spellings LE ze is mostly transliterated in cuneiform as te or, less
and the cuneiform ones is not as systematic as for the LE frequently, še (perceived, presumably, as the phonemi-
and cuneiform s- and š-series. The attested words spelled cally closest available signs). However, both LE te and LE
with a z sign in Linear Elamite and their transliteration in še with the corresponding phonemic values /te/ and /še/
cuneiform, whenever available, include: are already attested in the LE phonemic grid through solid
z: ka-z-za-k₂ (see cun. ka₄-az-za-ak; ElW 411). readings,112 so LE ze cannot be either /te/ or /še/; this fact
za: a-n-za-ri₂ (see cun. an-ša-an, an-za-an, leaves only the phonemic values /se/ and /ze/ available
an-za-ir⁓ri; Vallat 1993, 14–16; and ElW for ze. The variant za- -m-t (Y2: 1) of ze-m-t113 then sug-
63–64), ka-z-za-k₂ (see cun. ka₄-az-za-ak; ElW gests that ze belongs to the same sibilant series as za, and
411), za- -m-t, za?-a-n-ši- (ša)-š-ši-n, za-na
(see cun. za-na; ElW 1282), za-ši-ri₂, za-t-
tu-me, zu₂ ne za.
ze: hu-ze-hu₂-p-ša-k₂-ki-r (LE hu-ze probably cor- 110 Tavernier 2010, 1072.
111 See Steve 1992, 14–15 (fig. 3, p. 15, with the cuneiform signs re-
responds to cun. hu-te⁓ti⁓ti₄; see Zadok
cording the vocalic phoneme /e/).
1984, 14 f.; and ElW 706 f.), r-ze-p (cf., perhaps, 112 LE te: na-h₂-hu₂-te-k₂ (Y2: 1; J′: 3), na-h₂-hu₂-n-te-ki (Z: 2), na-ru-te
cun. ra-te-ip; ElW 1032), ze-ma-n, ze(-m)-mi (D: 4), su₂-h-te-r (A: 1), pa-te-k₂ (Y2: 1; Z: 2; J′: 2), te-na (Q), te-wa (M′:
(see above, section 2.2, pericope 3, Cuneiform 2; A′: 2; O′: 3), u₂-te-n-ti (Z: 5; K′), te-ki₂-h (H′: 3), hi₂-t-te-k₂-pi₂ (K′),
8: 21 and 9: 55; cun. te-e-me and te-e-mi; ElW te-la!-k₂ (D: 2).
LE še: su-še-ni-r (I: 1; A: 3; B: 2; C: 2′; E: 2), še-p₂-k (B: 2; C: 2′; A′: 1; O′:
305), ze-m-t (besides cun. te-im-ti, see also
2), še-k (W: 4–5).
113 The spellings ze-m-t and za-x-m-t represent the only real case of
variation (unrelated to defectiveness or gemination) currently known
109 Cf. š appearing as l before dental stops in Standard Babylonian. in the LE corpus.
that the LE ze sign should probably be transcribed /ze/ i-n-su-ši-na-k-ki-r /insušinak- i-r/ → ki = /ki/
(= /θe/, /tse/, or /tze/) and not /se/. (A: 1) (and ki₂ = /ke/)
hu₂-p-ša-k₂-ki-r /hůpšak- i-r/ → ki = /ki/
(Z: 4) (and ki₂ = /ke/)
4.1.1 Phonemic Distinction between (C)e and (C)i Signs pi₂-ne-ki-ri₂-k₂ /pinekir- i-k/ → ri₂ = /ri/
(Y2: 1, Z: 2) (and ri = /re/)
The LE signs e and i, me and mi, ne and ni, pe and pi|pi₂,
še and ši, te and ti (as well as ze and si) could previously As far as the signs li|li₂|li₃ are concerned, Cuneiform 1
be determined (see Figs. 5 and 6) on the basis of compari- (inscription of Kıntatu) displays several vocalic notations
sons with cuneiform, since cuneiform signs e, me, ne, pe/ (probably to be considered as phonemic complements)
be, še, and te/de do exist.114 This is not the case for other that allow recognizing LE li as /li/ and LE li₂ as /le/:
signs of the Ce and Ci types, which explains the prob- Cuneiform 1: 4
lematic presence of pairs and even a triplet of (pseudo-) li-i-ka₃-we-e LE li-ka-we (Y2, H′: 2, X: 3, → li = /li/
homophonic signs in the transliteration system of Linear J′: 4, K′)
Elamite, namely hi|hi₂, ki|ki₂, li|li₂|li₃, and ri|ri₂. Cuneiform 1: 14
However, the inner logic of the LE writing system pe-li-i LE pe-li-h (A′: 4, O′: 4) → li = /li/
may allow us to phonemically distinguish the members of Cuneiform 1: 12
these pairs and of the triplet. If one of the signs in these li-e-it LE li₂-t-ti (unpublished → li₂ = /le/
four pairs and the triplet can phonemically be determined fragment)
as /C₁i/, then the other sign in the pair (or one of the other
two in the triplet) should be considered as /C₁e/. Finally, LE li₃ is attested in the spelling pe-l-ti-ka-li₃-m
In this connection, the pattern of addition of the (I: 1), representing an Elamite by-form of the Akkadian DN
class-markers /k/, /r/ and /p/ to words ending with a con- Bēlat-ekallim; this assures its phonemic value as /li/. Con-
sonant is helpful; note the following schema: sequently, LE li and LE li₃ are real homophonic signs (both
represent /li/; see above, section 3.3), while LE li₂ = /le/.
C + epenthetic /i/ + class-marker (/k/, /r/, or /p/) →
(written) Ci + class-marker sign (-k(₂), -r, or -p):
ze-ti-k₂ (X: 3) to be morphologically interpreted as 4.1.2 Phonemic Distinction between (C)o and (C)u Signs
/ze(m)t- i-k/
ze-m-ti-k₂ (J′: 4) /zemt- i-k/ As the phoneme /o/ is not well established in Akkadian,116
su-še-ni-r /sušen- i-r/ it cannot be clearly observed in Elamite through cunei-
(Group 2) form writing.117 However, the decipherment of LE script
a(-w)-wa-ni-r /awan- i-r/ led to the identification of 5 vowel signs (see LE text M in
(F // G // H: 1) section 3.2 above), the most common number of phonemic
ha-ta-m-ti-pi₂-r /hatamti-p- i-r/ vowels among all the languages in the world.118 Vocalic
(Group 2) signs u and u₂ are probably to be understood as /o/ and
ha-ta-m-ti-pi-r /hatamti-p- i-r/ /u/.119
(F′: 1)
This pattern helps recognize Ci signs in the following

spellings:
sa-hi₂-p (Z: 8) to be morphologically interpreted as
/sah- i-p/ → hi₂ = /hi/ (and
hi = /he/)115 116 Cf. Westenholz 1991.
ši-n-pi-s-hu-ki-r /šin-pishůk- i-r/ → ki = /ki/ (and 117 Cf. Basello 2017, 369–71, for the evidence in Achaemenid Elamite
(F // G // H: 1; U: 1) ki₂ = /ke/) (u = /au/ [Hinz: /o/] and u₂ = /u/).
118 Maddieson 2013. Out of 564 languages analyzed, 287/50.9 % dis-
play 5/6 vowels; 184/32.6 % between 7 and 14 vowels; and 93/16.5 %,
114 See Steve (1992, 15, fig. 3), for the existing cuneiform signs of the between 2 and 4 vowels.
vocalic series /e/. 119 According to Paper (1955, 17), the distinctive uses of cuneiform
115 This sequence is spelled ma-ni-i-pi sa-hi-i-pi in Cuneiform 9: 58, signs u₂ and u₃ in Achaemenid Elamite suggests the existence of /o/
confirming the phonemic value /hi/ of LE hi₂. or /aw/ (see also, more recently, Tavernier 2011, 320 and 2018, 425).
e u₂ u a i!
p₂ pe pu [pu₂] [pa] pi
m me mu₂ mu ma mi
/e/ /u/ /o/ /a/ /i/

The vocalic LE signs u and u₂
/p/ /pe/ /pu/ /po/? /pa/? /pi/
/m/ /me/ /mu/ /mo/ /ma/ /mi/
The phonemic distinction between (C)u and (C)o signs
can also be postulated on the inner logic of the LE writing
– the assumed values /o/ and /po/ of the signs u and pu₂
system. Among the seven pairs of apparent LE homo-
are also supported by the spelling ki₂-ri-pu₂-p (Z: 8),
phonic signs belonging to the vocalic series u, i. e. u|u₂,
which is a Sandhischreibung of /kere-p o-p(e)/ (cf.
hu|hu₂, ku|ku₂, mu|mu₂, pu|pu₂, su|su₂, and zu|zu₂ (while
above, section 2.2, pericope 3, comm. to line 26 = 59a).
lu?, nu, ru(₂), šu, and tu remain isolated; see above, Table
This proves that u, the sign that is normally employed
4 and Fig. 6), if one of the signs can be identified as
to write the first person pronoun, and pu₂ have the
/(C₁)u/, then the other one should be considered as /(C₁)o/
same vowel. It is interesting to note that the use of LE
(as already stated in section 4.1.1 for Ci and Ce signs; see
u as /o/ and u₂ as /u/ is symmetrical to the use in the
also section 3.3).
earliest cuneiform texts in Elamite of u₃ as /o/ (= LE u)
In this regard, the following observations can be
and u₂ as /u/ (= LE u₂), with examples from Cuneiform
made:
8 and 9 (see above, section 2.2) such as nu u₂-te-en-ti
– as the Akkadian word puzru(m) was spelled pu-zu-r
(/nů ute-n-ti/) and u₃ se₂₀-we-pa-la-ar-hu-uh-pa-ak (/o
(text group 2), the real phonemic value of LE pu is
sewe-palar-hůhpak/);120
probably /pu/. If this deduction is correct, then LE pu₂
– the Akkadian word puzru(m), found in LE pu-zu-r,
should represent the phoneme /po/;
allows us to state that LE zu is to be read /zu/. This
– in tablet M (Fig. 8; see below, Table 5), pu is asso-
means that LE zu₂ should correspond to the phoneme
ciated with u₂ and what must be interpreted as mu₂
/zo/ and that the word zu₂-k(i) was actually pro-
(this last sign is for now a hapax legomenon; see
nounced /zok(i)/;
above, section 2.3, Step 13), corresponding to /u/ and
– as LE su is consistently used in the writing of the
/mu/. This confirms the previously proposed reading
toponym Susa (su-še-ni-r) and its derivatives (i-n-su-
of LE u₂ as /u/ (see above, section 4.1), based on the
ši⁓š-na-k(₂) and pu-zu-r-su-ši-na-k(₂)), its phonemic
use of sign u₂ as the glide w (cf. a-w-wa-ni-r). As a
value /su/ is assured (/sušen/, /insušinak/, /puzur-
consequence of these identifications, LE u and mu
sušinak/). As a consequence, LE su₂ should prob-
should be considered as recording the phonemes /o/
ably be understood as /so/ and the words su₂-h-te-r
and /mo/;
(A: 1) and su₂-m-mu-h (Y2: 2) pronounced /sohter/ and
/somo-h/ (or /soMO-h/, because of the geminate
Tab. 5: Text M arranged according to a phonemic grid and its
phonemic interpretation.
spelling; see above, section 3.4);
– the word “inscription, text”, which occurs in the
phrase tu-p₂ i-me, “his inscription” (D: 2), is probably
a loanword from Akkadian tuppu(m) (Sumerian d u b;
cf. Tavernier 2007, 57). Therefore, the phonemic value
of this word as /tup/ seems assured, implying that LE
tu equals /tu/;
120 Cun. u₂ and u₃ may have played a role as phonetic determina-

tives (so-called ‘phonetic complements’) in the earliest Elamite cu-
neiform texts, in spellings such as dti-u₂-uk (/tiyuk/) in the ‘Treaty
of Naram-Sin’ (EKI 2, § 1); or ku-u₃-uk-ti, and ku-u₃-uk-me, (/kok-ti/,
/kok-me/, with the word /kok/, “protection”, ElW 553), pu-u₃-hu-up,
and pu-u₃-ku₈ in the kunanki inscription of Kıntatu (Cuneiform 1: 2. 8.
15. 17); and ša-tu₃-u₃-na (/šato-na/) in Cuneiform 9: 45.
– as the same sign (LE u₂/w) was used to record both According to Table 6 and Fig. 10, additional signs could
the vowel /u/ and the glide /w/, a LE Cu sign placed be expected in the LE writing system to record 10 phone-
before a vocalic sign is likely to be phonemically /Cu/ mic values: /lo/ or /lu/, /no/ or /nu/, /ro/ or /ru/, /se/,
and represent the allophone [Cw] before a vowel. This /šo/ or /šu/, /to/, /wi/, /wo/, /wu/ and /zi/. The four still
appears to be the case in the spelling of the theonym undeciphered infrequent LE signs (glyphs 327/285/342,
ši-ku-a-t (M′: 1; O′: 3), probably to be read /šikwat/ 67/68/69/323, 218, and 81/82; see section 3.1) probably
(see above, section 3.2). Consequently, LE ku₂ = /ko/, match some of those 10 phonemic values.
and the name of the ruler Temti-Agun, spelled ze-m- Considering the 72 signs/73 values determined, six
t-a-ku₂-ne in Linear Elamite (F′: 1), was probably pro- signs and transliterations can be subtracted if we consider
nounced /zemt-akon(e)/. k|k₂, p|p₂, and ru|ru₂ as graphic variants and the pairs h|h₂,
li|li₃, and pi|pi₂ as homophones (“supernumerary signs”)
Summing up, the signs recording /o/ (LE u), /ko/ (LE ku₂), for the phonemes /h/, /li/, and /pi/, respectively; this
/mo/ (LE mu), /po/ (LE pu₂), /so/ (LE su₂), and /zo/ (LE would correspond to 66 signs and 67 values. If the signs
zu₂) can reasonably be hypothesized, if not identified with corresponding to the 10 missing phonemic values are
certainty (see Fig. 10). Since in the case of the LE signs hu added, it would then correspond to 76 signs/77 values, the
and hu₂, lu?, nu, ru(₂), and šu we are not able to determine expected number calculated for a grid of 5 vocalic, 12 con-
whether the vowel was /o/ or /u/, these signs are tran- sonantal, and the 60 corresponding open syllabic values
scribed (as stated in section 1) as /hů/, /lů?/, /nů/, /rů/, theoretically structuring this writing system.
and /šů/ for now. As stated in the introduction, the transliteration
system proposed in Fig. 6/Table 4, based on comparisons
with cuneiform documentation, and the transcription
4.2 A
Proposal for the Elamite Phonology system proposed in Fig. 10/Table 6, established through
(Fig. 10 and Table 6) the inner logic of LE script, will be used in the edition
of the texts (see below, section 6, for text F // G // H and
Based on the above proposals (phonemic distinction Desset [e. a.], forthcoming).
between /Ce/ and /Ci/ signs, and between /Co/ and /Cu/ Due to the probable genetic relation between PE and
signs), Table 6 and Fig. 10 display a theoretical regular- LE scripts, as two different chronological stages of the
ized phonemic grid for the 72 deciphered LE signs (with same writing system, it could be proposed that some of the
still poorly understood supernumerary signs for the pho- hapax legomena, especially in texts showing “archaic”
nemes /h/, /li/, and /pi/, while signs k|k₂, p|p₂, and ru|ru₂ features such as K, are remnants of the most ancient (PE)
are probably not pairs of signs but rather graphic vari- stage, in a transition phase before further developments
ants; see above, section 3.3), corresponding to 73 values toward the regularization of the system according to an
(because of sign u₂/w). Although this phonemic grid rep- alpha-syllabic grid, theoretically defining the more recent
resents a logical systematization that may not correspond LE stage (still with some irregularities, such as the super-
to the actual reality of a writing system with its histori- numerary signs for the phonemic values /h/, /li/ and /pi/).
cally unavoidable idiosyncrasies (but see LE text M, where LE writing is purely phonographic and, considering
part of this grid is actually present; see Table 5), it makes the way cuneiform was adopted in Iran, Elamite scribes
it clear that LE writing functioned as a system according seem to have willingly rejected logograms and logographic
to 5 vocalic phonemes (/a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, and /u/), 12 con- writing in the 3rd millennium BCE. Nevertheless, consid-
sonantal ones (/h/, /k/, /l/, /m/, /n/, /p/, /r/, /s/, /š/, /t/, ering that none of the 40 LE texts deals with bookkeep-
/w/, and /z/), and 60 (5×12) syllabic values, corresponding ing, the continuance of the late 4th millennium BCE logo-
in total to 77 phonemic values (to be compared to the 80 graphic apparatus may be hypothesized in administrative
to 110 signs previously hypothesized; see above, section contexts only, to record numbers and objects more con-
3.1121). veniently, with the four main numerical systems attested
in PE tablets (Desset 2016, fig. 10) and the PE “object-
signs” standing for humans, animals, animal products,
grain products, or land surfaces.
121 Meriggi (1971, 175, § 458), probably influenced by the Mycenaean
Linear B, astonishingly described some 50 years ago the syllabary
used to phonetically record the anthroponyms in the PE tablets ac-
cording to a grid with 4 V and 40 CV signs: “Noi dovremmo aspettarci forme, trascurare per ora o) e poi dieci serie di 4 segni ciascuna con le
segni per le quattro vocali, a, e, i e u (volendo, sul modello del cunei- consonanti p/b, m, t/d, n, s/z, š, k/g, l, r, h, arrivando cosi a 44 segni”.
Fig. 10: Tentative grid of the phonemic values of the deciphered LE signs established through the phonemic
distinction between /e/ and /i/, and /o/ and /u/ signs, and on which the transcription system is based (to be
compared with Fig. 6; F. Desset).
The exact phonemic values of signs hu (= /ho/⁓/hu/?), hu₂ (idem), lu? (= /lo/⁓/lu/?), nu (= /no/⁓/nu/?), ru
(= /ro/⁓/ru/?) and šu (= /šo/⁓/šu/?) cannot be determined yet.
Tab. 6: Theoretical regularized phonemic grid of the 72 currently deciphered LE signs (to be compared with Table 4 and Fig. 6);
the proposed phonemic values (transcriptions) are between slashes and the corresponding signs (transliterations) are given
below in italics.
/a/ /e/ /i/ /o/ /u/

a e i u u₂
/h/ /ha/ /he/ /hi/ ? /hů/ ?
h | h₂ ha hi hi₂ hu, hu₂
/k/ /ka/ /ke/ /ki/ /ko/ /ku/
k(₂) ka ki₂ ki ku₂ ku
/l/ /la/ /le/ /li/ ? /lů?/ ?
l la li₂ li | li₃ lu?
/m/ /ma/ /me/ /mi/ /mo/ /mu/
m ma me mi mu mu₂
/n/ /na/ /ne/ /ni/ ? /nů/ ?
n na ne ni nu
/p/ /pa/ /pe/ /pi/ /po/ /pu/
p(₂) pa pe pi | pi₂ pu₂ pu
/r/ /ra/ /re/ /ri/ ? /rů/ ?
r ra ri ri₂ ru(₂)
/s/ (/ś/?) /sa/ ? /si/ /so/ /su/
s sa si su₂ su
/š/ /ša/ /še/ /ši/ ? /šů/ ?
š ša še ši šu
/t/ /ta/ /te/ /ti/ ? /tu/
t ta te ti tu
/w/ /wa/ /we/ ? ? ?
w wa we
/z/ /za/ /ze/ ? /zo/ /zu/
z za ze zu₂ zu
5 Conclusions tive syllabaries of the word-syllabic writings from which

they are derived”. Here we put forward the hypothesis that
At a time in the late 3rd millennium BCE when the other Proto-Elamite and Linear Elamite scripts were probably
existing systems, Mesopotamian cuneiform and Egyptian not two different writing systems, but the same system at
hieroglyphs, can be described as mixed (phonographic two different chronological stages of evolution.122 These
and logographic; considering its number of signs, this stages can be labeled as Early (ca. 3300–3000/2900 BCE)
is probably also the case of the still undeciphered Indus and Late (2300–1880 BCE) Proto-Iranian writing,123 with a
script), the Iranian plateau followed an original path in
the history of writing with an alpha-syllabary to be con-
sidered as the oldest currently known example of a purely 122 As has previously been proposed by Gelb (21963, 89: Linear
phonographic writing system. Elamite as a “developed form” of Proto-Elamite), Reiner (1969, 56: “a
Theoretically working with 77 values (5 vocalic, 12 more developed form of this writing”), Meriggi (1971, 184: “derivate
da quella delle tavolette di contabilità”), Steve (2000, 75–78), and
consonantal and 60 syllabic), the LE alpha-syllabic grid
Grillot (2008, 9). For an opposite view, see Englund (2004, 143–44,
probably did not appear around 2300 BCE ex nihilo. As n. 9).
has been stated by Gelb (21963, 162), “all syllabic writings 123 Potts (1999, 71–74; 22016, 67–68) also considers the label ‘Pro-
are either identical with, or simplified from, the respec- to-Elamite’, a term which in Scheil’s original usage had only a geo-
still inadequately documented stage in between (Middle The strong Elamite/“Iranian” tendency to phonetism
Proto-Iranian writing; 3000/2900–2300 BCE, probably explains the initial adoption of Mesopotamian cuneiform
including notably the poorly understood texts O,124 K, R, by Elamite scribes around 2000 BCE (see Cuneiform 1,
and E′). the kunanki of Kıntatu) as an adaptation to their previous
Previous approaches to the Early Proto-Iranian scribal tradition. Toward 1880 BCE, the transitional period
writing system were mainly based on graphic compari- during which both LE and cuneiform writing were used to
sons with Proto-Cuneiform (Fig. 11, point 2). The genetic record the Elamite language ended.
link between Early (PE) and Late (LE) Proto-Iranian The Proto-Iranian script was seemingly dropped in
writing and the consequent continuous tradition of South-Western Iran, probably because of the then-grow-
writing in Iran could allow us to proceed in a regressive ing spread of cuneiform writing among the Elamite
way, starting from the vocalic, consonantal, and syllabic scribes, as illustrated by the ‘Stele of Šir-ůktůh or the texts
values established for the LE signs (see Figs. 6 and 10), of Sewe-palar-hůhpak (Cuneiform 8 and 9). Another pos-
and trying to apply these “readings” to their graphic sible reason for Proto-Iranian writing not achieving the
counterparts in the earlier PE writing (see Figs. 7a–7c). same level of success as Mesopotamian cuneiform (used
The same signs may have been used with similar or iden- from ca. 3300 BCE to at least 75 CE and revived since
tical phonemic values to record the names of the persons the middle of the 19th century CE) was perhaps its close
involved in the transactions and administrative work correlation with the Elamite language and its geograph-
documented in the late 4th millennium BCE PE tablets ical restriction to the Iranian plateau. It was seemingly
(see Fig. 11, point 4). Now we could try to identify and never used for another language, nor did it spread in
read those names, also exploiting what we know from any neighboring area (except perhaps for seals V and G′).
the onomasticon of Susa in the Old Akkadian period (Fig. More or less at the same time, around 1850/1800 BCE,
11, point 3). the eastern part of the Ancient Near East experienced an
More emphasis should be placed on studying the unprecedented urban collapse (end of the mature phase
period between 3000/2900 and 2300 BCE and the Middle of the Ancient Greater Khorasan/Oxus Civilization; end of
Proto-Iranian writing stage, currently probably only rep- the Indus Civilization; urban collapse in all Eastern Iran).
resented by four documents (O, E′, K, and R). Renewed This may explain the disappearance of the Eastern LE tra-
excavations in Susa and the Jiroft area could provide new dition in Kerman (as documented by text groups 5 and 6)
opportunities to learn more about the transition from the and the Indus script. The almost simultaneous spread
Early Proto-Iranian/PE to the Late Proto-Iranian/LE stage. of Mesopotamian cuneiform in South-Western Iran and
the urban collapse in Eastern Iran brought to an end the
age in which scripts independent from cuneiform could
develop in the Near East. Cuneiform writing will prevail
graphic connotation, as unfit. As Early Proto-Iranian/PE tablets are for the next 1000 years, save for the development of the
still undeciphered and their potential linguistic content still elusive, Anatolian/Luwian hieroglyphic system in mid-2nd millen-
he deems it more prudent for the time being to label these texts ac- nium BCE Anatolia125 and alphabetic innovations in the
cording to the main site’s period where they have been found up to second half of the 2nd millennium BCE Levant.
now. Desset’s position is first to dismiss the concept of “Elam” as
The diffusion of cuneiform writing in Susiana around
inappropriate when dealing with the Iranian plateau from an emic
point of view (Desset 2017), second to consider that a script should
2250 BCE and in Fars around 2000 BCE paved the way
not be qualified with a language-related term. In the absence of for the succession of Western-derived writing systems
the original name of the script, the best extant option would be a used on the Iranian plateau since then: Mesopotamian
label based on its graphic shape and/or geographic scope. From a cuneiform, Greek alphabet, Aramaic derived alphabets
geographic point of view, the Proto-Elamite/Early Proto-Iranian and (to record the Parthian, Pahlavi, and Avestan languages),
Linear Elamite/Late Proto-Iranian texts currently known were found
Arabic derived alphabet, and Latin alphabet (the current
in a part of the Earth surface called Iran nowadays. This modifica-
tion of the terminology is similar to the switch from the linguistically Finglish phenomenon). Consequently, after 1850 BCE, no
connotated ‘Luwian hieroglyphs’ to the geographic (even if not emic) writing system used on the Iranian plateau can really be
‘Anatolian hieroglyphs’ (Yakubovich 2010/2015, 203). considered as indigenous anymore.
124 Concerning text O, Scheil (1935, XIV) noted that “assez de signes
rappellent ici le vocabulaire proto-élamite, — et cependant, au re-
gard des dimensions du document, on trouvera qu’il contient beau- 125 Anatolian/Luwian hieroglyphs were mostly used at the begin-
coup de signes nouveaux”, while Meriggi (1971, 185) proposed to con- ning on seals and then for display/monumental inscriptions, while
sider O as belonging to “una fase di transizione” (see also Hinz 1969, cuneiform writing was contemporaneously used mainly on tablets to
27 ; Steve 2000, 75). record the Hittite language (Rubio 2007, 45–48; van den Hout 2007).
Fig. 11: Schematic history of the decipherment/recovery of some of the Near Eastern writing systems and languages and names of the main
scholars involved (in blue) (F. Desset; cf. Desset 2012, fig. 49):
– writing systems are in black, languages in red;
– red arrows point to script decipherment through a language-based approach; black arrows to linguistic recovery through a writing sys-
tem-based approach;
– dotted line arrows show that the approach is hypothetical since Proto-Elamite (PE), geometric, and Indus scripts are still undeciphered.
Point 1: the decipherment of LE was made possible through a language-based approach since some of the LE inscriptions (Kam-Firuz silver
beaker inscriptions; Group 4) record Elamite texts very similar to others written in cuneiform.
Point 2: PE tablets were previously approached through graphic comparisons with Proto-cuneiform (writing system-based approach). This
method gave access to common inherited numerical signs and numerical systems, and some logographic object-signs.
Point 3: as some PE sign sequences are probably recording anthroponyms, a language-based approach was attempted (Desset 2012, 46–62;
2016, 82–87), through the Sumerian, Akkadian, and Elamite names attested for the inhabitants of Susa in the Old Akkadian period.
Point 4: the decipherment of LE allows us to adopt a new writing system-based approach, since LE is probably genetically related to PE. The
phonemic values determined for the LE signs could be applied in a regressive way to their potential PE graphic counterparts. A combination
of approaches nos. 3 and 4 could provide access to PE anthroponomical sequences.
Point 5: as the geometric inscriptions discovered in Konar Sandal South are not related to any other writing system, this precludes a writing
system-based approach. If these tablets were recording a language phonemically, the most likely candidate would be Elamite, documented
through cuneiform and LE inscriptions (language-based approach).
Fig. 12: Composite text F // G // H, Susa, 22nd century BCE, Puzur-Sušinak (F. Desset; photos courtesy of the Louvre Museum; drawings
André/Salvini 1989, figs. 5–7). Photos are not to scale (F: H: 21,5 cm, L: 63,5 cm, W: 22 cm; G: H: 13,7 cm, L: 57 cm, W: 21,3 cm; H: H: 15,8 cm,
L: 49 cm, W: 12 cm).
In the standardized copy, the writing direction has been changed from right-to-left to left-to-right. Restored signs and uncertain trans
literations are in red, as is the transliteration of the sign lu?, whose reading is still uncertain. Dividers are in green. Sections not attested in
all the exemplars are between blue brackets.
6 Appendix
As an example of deciphering a LE text, a preliminary Inscriptions F (Sb 155), G (Sb 139), and H (Sb 140A)
edition of the Puzur-Sušinak inscription F // G // H (Susa; are engraved on stone blocks found at Susa (Fig. 12).127
22nd century BCE) is offered below.126 For a (re-)edition of Despite some variants, they basically represent the same
the entire LE corpus, readers are referred to Desset [e. a.], text, which can be almost completely reconstructed on the
forthcoming. basis of these three exemplars.
126 For previous publications, see Table 1, above. For previous at-
tempts to interpret this inscription, see Frank 1912, 41–48; id. 1923, 127 See André/Salvini 1989, 60–69. André and Salvini suggested
11–14; Bork 1924, 13–15; Hinz 1962, 12–14; id. 1969, 36 f.; Meriggi 1971, that these slabs were originally elements of a monumental stair-
188–190. 215 f.; Corsini 1986, 30 f. case.
6.1 Text F (Sb 155):
1. pu-zu-r-su-ši-na-k ze-m-t a-w-wa-ni-r | i-n-su-š-na-k i-r ha-ne-š

2. hu₂-pu₂-š-ša-n la-w-li₃-ri li-m-ma-š | pa-t-[ra i-r ra-p₂-pa-š i-]⸢r⸣ pe-t-ra-š
3. ⸢a⸣-[k-ka]-⸢ra pe⸣-t-⸢n⸣-[ra | a⁓hu-n(-)ha?]- ⸢s⸣-[ki | lu?-r(-) -m?-ki i? ha~hu-t-ta-k]- ⸢ne⸣
6.2 Text G (Sb 139) + *G (reconstructed)128:
*G G
1. [pu-zu-r-su-ši-na-k ze-m-t a(-w)-wa-ni-r | ] 1. ku-ši!-k129 | ši-n-[pi]-s-hu-ki!-r |
2. [i-n-su-š-na-k i-r ha-ne-š | hu₂-pu₂-š-ša] 2. -n ⸢la-w-li₃⸣-ri li-m!-ma-š130 pa-t-ra i-r ra-⸢p₂-pa⸣-š
3. [i-r pe-t-ra-š a-k-ka-ra pe-t-n-ra | ] 3. a⁓hu-n(-)ha?-s-ki | ⸢lu?⸣-r(-) -⸢m?⸣-ki i? ⸢ha~hu⸣-t-ta-k-ne
6.3 Text H (Sb 140A):
1. [pu-zu-r]-⸢su⸣-[ši-na-k] ze-m-t a-[wa]-ni-[r | ku]-ši-k | ši-n-pi-s-hu-ki-r | i-n-su-š-[na-k]

2. ⸢i⸣-[r ha-ne]-⸢š⸣ | hu₂-pu₂-š-ša-⸢n⸣ [la-w-li₃]-ri li-m-ma-š | pa-t-ra i-r ra-p₂-pa-š
3. ⸢i⸣-[r] pe-t-ra-š131 a-k-ka-⸢ra⸣ [pe]-t-n-ra | a⁓hu-n(-)⸢ha?⸣-s-ki | lu?-r(-) -m?-ki
4. [i ] ha~hu-t-ta-k-ne
?
6.4 F // G (+ *G) // H — composite text:
1. pu-zu-r-su-ši-na-k ze-m-t a(-w132)-wa-ni-r | (ku-ši-k | ši-n-pi-s-hu-ki-r |133)

2. i-n-su-š-na-k i-r ha-ne-š | hu₂-pu₂-š-ša-n la-w-li₃-ri li-m-ma-š (|) pa-t-ra i-r ra-p₂-pa-š
3. ⸢i-r⸣ pe-t-ra-š a-k-ka-⸢ra pe⸣-t-n-ra | a⁓hu-n(-)ha?-s-ki | lu?-r(-) -m?-ki i? ha~hu-t-ta-k-ne
(1)Puzur-Sušinak zemt Awan-ir (kuši-k Šin-pishůk-ir)

(2)Insuš(i)nak ir hane-š Hůp(o)šan lawlire lima-š pat-r-a i-r rapa-š (3)i-r petra-š aka-r-a pet(i)-n-r-a … i? hata-k-ne (or hůta-
k-ne).
(1)Puzur-Sušinak, king of Awan(, the one begotten by Šin-pishůk) — (2)Insušinak loves him, (therefore,) (the city of)
Hůpošan, the … — he (= Insušinak) burnt, enslaved under him (and) (3)presented to him. Whoever rebels … may it/this
be destroyed (or: realized).
128 Text G is complete but it shows only the second half of the lines of the inscription. The missing part had to be written on a separate slab
placed next to G (cf. André/Salvini 1989, 66–68 with fig. 9), which was not found. We refer to it as *G.
129 The engraver first made a dittography, repeating the previous ku, then attempted to correct it to ši (which graphically is identical to ku
upside down) by adding a horizontal stroke at the top of the sign (see Fig. 9, above).
130 The text has ha instead of m.
131 Wrongly written as pe-t-ra-s, before being corrected to pe-t-ra-š.
132 Only in F.
133 Only in G and H.
Line 1: a. pu-zu-r-su-ši-na-k /puzur-sušinak/: See n. 30 Line 3: a. i-r pe-t-ra-š /i-r petra-š/: Morphologically, we
above. can recognize a third person singular verbal form of Con-
b. ze-m-t a(-w)-wa-ni-r /zemt awan-ir/: See n. 54 jugation I preceded by the accusative resumptive pronoun
above. See also n. 36, on /zemt/. of the animate class. Unfortunately, the verb /petra/ is
c. ku-ši-k ši-n-pi-s-hu-ki-r /kuši-k šin-pishůk-ir/: For a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unknown. The
the PN Šin-pishůk, see n. 32 above. Cf. cun. ku-ši-ik-e, “the proposed translation is but a guess based on the context
one begotten by her” (ElW 540). For the verb /kuši/, “to and imagining the following logical sequence of events:
build, create, give birth”, see, most recently, Romagnuolo the god Insušinak first burnt the city of Hůpošan, then
(2012, 187–191). enslaved its citizens who had surrendered to him, finally
gave it to Puzur-Sušinak to govern.
Line 2: a. i-n-su-š-na-k i-r ha-ne-š /insuš(i)nak ir hane-š/: b. a-k-ka-ra pe-t-n-ra /aka-r-a pet(i)-n-r-a/: While in
For the DN Insušinak, see n. 29 above. For /hane/, “to later phases of the Elamite language, aka-r-a is an indef-
love”, see EKI 73, n. 1. See also n. 50 above; and, for trans- inite pronoun that occurs only in negative sentences (see
lating it with the present tense rather than a past tense (as Bavant 2014, 274), in the texts of Puzur-Sušinak it functions
Conjugation I would require), see section 2.2, pericope 1, as an indefinite relative pronoun, meaning “whoever” (see
comm. to line 4. also above, section 2.3, step 11, LE text D: 2–3). As for the
b. hu₂-pu₂-š-ša-n la-w-li₃-ri li-m-ma-š /hůp(o)šan verb /pet(i)/, “to rebel”, see Hallock 1969, 678, s. v. beti-;
lawlire lima-š/: See above, section 2.2, Cuneiform 8: 30 /pet(i)-n-r-a/ is then a third person singular form of Con-
// Cuneiform 9: 24 with comm. ad loc.; and n. 71. The jugation III. Note the ‘final’ suffix /a/ (cf. above, comm. to
meaning of la-w-li₃-ri (corresponding to cun. la-am-li- line 2c), here probably with a subordinating function (the
ir-ri~na) is unknown. Since it occurs only in association clause in question being a relative clause).
with the GN Hůpošan, it should represent an epithet of the c. a⁓hu-n(-)ha?-s-ki | lu?-r(-) -m?-ki: unclear.
latter, either as an attribute or, more likely, as an apposi- d. i? ha~hu-t-ta-k-ne /i hata-k-ne/ or /i hůta-k-ne/: The
tion.134 As far as Hůpošan is concerned, its name occurs verb at the end of this sentence is epigraphically uncer-
as Ḫupsana (ḫu-up-sa-naki) in an Akkadian cuneiform tain: it could be either /hata/, “to destroy” (see Steve
inscription (written on a seated statue of Puzur-Sušinak 1967, 14 f., TZ 2: 6), or /hůta/, “to do, to make”. Although
and a fragmentary stele) that mentions the conquest of the former makes better sense in the context of a curse
the city by the ruler of Susa (see Scheil 1905, 14 f., pl. 4 formula, the latter cannot be excluded. Be that as it may,
[stele]; id. 1913, 7–16, pls. 1–2a [statue Sb 55]; Sollberger/ here we certainly have a verbal form of Conjugation II,
Kupper 1971, 126, IIG2e; Gelb/Kienast 1990, 321–324, Elam with /ne/ being the precative suffix.
2; Alvarez-Mon 2018, 179 f.) and Hůpšan (hu-up-ša-an) in
Elamite cuneiform texts (EKI no. 54 §§ 18. 73 and 70 C § V). Acknowledgements: We would like to express our grati-
c. pa-t-ra i-r ra-p₂-pa-š /pat-r-a i-r rapa-š/: Cf. (pe₃- tude to some colleagues and friends who helped at various
ti-ip … ta-ri-ip …) pa-at-pu-up (var. pa-at-pi u₃-pi) ra-ap- stages of the preparation of the present work, notably
pa-ak-na, “may they (i. e., pe₃-ti-ip, “the enemies” and François Bridey and Julien Cuny (Department of Ancient
ta-ri-ip, “the foes”) be enslaved under me” (Cuneiform Near Eastern Antiquities, Louvre) for making inscriptions
8: 33 // Cuneiform 9: 27; see above, section 2.2, pericope J, K, L, M, N, O, and R available for study and providing
5); and pe-ti-ir u₂-ri ir pa₂-at-ru-ur ta-at-ni, “my enemy — their valuable curatorial insight; Francesco Giannone
may you place him under me” (EKI no. 45 § 7). The hapax (‘L’Orientale’ University) for collating F, G, and H on the
/pat-r-a/ is probably to be analyzed as /pat/ (preposi- squeezes (inv. E 40, 41, and 45) in Scheil’s collection of
tion: “under”) + /r/ (delocutive class-marker) + /a/ (‘final’ estampages, part of the Fond Labat kept at the École Pra-
suffix; cf. Krebernik 42021, 212), with /r/ referring to the tique des Hautes Études, Paris, with the kind permission
city of Hůpošan, which is therefore treated as a noun of of Michaël Guichard; Annie Caubet, former curator of the
the animate class. Department of Ancient Near Eastern Antiquities at the
Louvre, who brought the unpublished inscriptions M′, N′,
and O′ to our attention; Massimo Vidale (Padua Univer-
sity), Walther Sallaberger, and two anonymous reviewers,
who read previous versions of this manuscript and pro-
134 Cf. Scheil (1932, 75): “Le qualificatif lamlir […] peut signifier rûqu
vided valuable observations and feedback; and, last but
ou rapsu “le lointain” ou “le vaste”, comme s’exprimaient les Assy- not least, Sean Corner (McMaster University), who care-
riens, en parlant des Gutî ou des Madaï, etc.”. fully translated this paper into English.
Bibliographical References ― (2018b): Nine linear Elamite texts inscribed on silver ‘gunagi’
vessels (X, Y, Z, F′, H′, I′, J′, K′ and L′): new data on linear
Aliyari Babolghani, S. (2015): Taḥrīr-e Īlāmī katībeh-ye Dāriūš Elamite writing and the history of the Sukkalmaḫ dynasty, Iran
bozorg dar Bīsotūn [The Elamite version of Darius the Great’s 56/2, 105–43
inscription at Bisotun]. Tehran Desset, F./K. Tabibzadeh/M. Kervran/G. P. Basello/G. Marchesi
Álvarez-Mon, J. (2018): Puzur-Inšušinak, last king of Akkad? Text, (forthcoming): Linear Elamite inscriptions and related
image and context reconsidered, in: B. Mofidi-Nasrabadi cuneiform texts. OrientLab Series Maior. Bologna
[e. a.] (ed.), Elam and its neighbors. Recent research and new Dossin, G. (1927): Autres textes sumériens et accadiens. MDP 18.
perspectives. Proceedings of the international congress held at Paris
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, September 21–23, 2016. Englund, R. K. (2004): The state of decipherment of proto-Elamite,
Elamica 8. Hildesheim, 169–215 in: S. Houston (ed.), The first writing. Script invention as
Amiet, P. (1992): Sur l’histoire élamite, IrAnt. 27, 75–94 history and process. Cambridge, 100–49
André, B./M. Salvini (1989): Réflexions sur Puzur-Inšušinak, IrAnt. Faieta, R./G. Guida/M. Vidale (2018): A preliminary note on the
24, 53–72 metallography and chemical analysis of silver samples from the
Anthonioz, S./F. Malbran-Labat (2013): Approche historique et Mahboubian Collection, London, Iran 56/2, 144–47
philologique du titre royal ‘likame/we rišakki’, in: K. De Graef/ Farber, W. (1974): Eine elamische Inschrift aus der 1. Hälfte des
J. Tavernier (ed.), Susa and Elam. Archaeological, philological, 2. Jahrtausends, ZA 64, 74–86
historical and geographical perspectives. Proceedings of the Frank, C. (1912): Zur Entzifferung der altelamischen Inschriften.
international congress held at Ghent University, December Berlin
14–17, 2009. MDP 58. Leiden/Boston, 417–28 ― (1923): Die altelamischen Steininschriften (drittes Jahrtausend
Basello, G. P. (2012): L’uomo e il divino nell’antico Elam, in: v. Chr.). Ein neuer Beitrag zur Entzifferung. Berlin
G. P. Basello [e. a.] (ed.), Il mistero che rivelato ci divide e Gelb, I. J. (21963): A study of writing. 2nd ed. Chicago
sofferto ci unisce. Studi pettazzoniani in onore di Mario ― (1975): Methods of decipherment, JRAS 107, 95–104
Gandini. San Giovanni in Persiceto/Bologna, 143–220 Gelb, I. J./B. Kienast (1990): Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften
― (2017): Of gods and men in the Persepolis bronze plaque, in: des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. FAOS 7. Stuttgart
W. F. M. Henkelman/C. Redard (ed.), Persian religion in the Glassner, J.-J. (1996): Kuk-Kirwaš, sukkalmaḫ, NABU no. 35
Achaemenid period / La religion perse à l’époque achéménide. ― (2013): Les premiers Sukkalmaḫ et les derniers rois de Simaški,
Classica et Orientalia 16. Wiesbaden, 347–83 in: K. De Graef/J. Tavernier (ed.), Susa and Elam. Archaeo-
― (forthcoming): Of referent, palaeography, and Akkadian usage in logical, philological, historical and geographical perspectives.
Elam: reflections on two brick inscriptions from Choga Zanbil Proceedings of the international congress held at Ghent
(TZ IV-V) (paper presented to the 10. ICDOG, Mainz, April 8–10, University, December 14–17, 2009. MDP 58. Leiden/Boston,
2019; to appear in the conference proceedings) 319–28
Bavant, M. (2014): Résultatif, diathèse et possession en basque, ― (2014): Une inscription inédite du sukkalmaḫ Temti-Agun I, in:
vieux perse et élamite. Utrecht C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky/B. Genito (ed.), ‘My life is like the
― (2019): A propos d’éventuels cognats caucasiques en élamite, Summer Rose’. Maurizio Tosi e l’archeologia come modo di
BSL 114, 341–83 vivere. Papers in honour of Maurizio Tosi for his 70th birthday.
Bladel, K. T. van (2021): The language of the Xūz and the fate of BAR IntSer. 2690, 323–24
Elamite, JRAS 31, 447–62 Graef, K. De (2006): De la dynastie Simaški au Sukkalmaḫat: les
Blazek, V. (1992): The new Dravidian-Afroasiatic parallels, in: documents fin PEIIB – début PEIII du chantier B à Suse (Ville
V. Shevoroshkin (ed.), Nostratic, Dene-Caucasian, Austric and royale de Suse 9). MDP 55. Ghent
Amerind. Bochum, 150–65 ― (2019): It is you, my love, you, who are the stranger. Akkadian
Bork, F. (1905): Zur protoelamischen Schrift, OLZ 8, 323–30 and Elamite at the crossroads of language and writing, in: J.
― (1924): Die Strichinschriften von Susa. Königsberg Mynarova [e. a.] (ed.), A stranger in the house – the crossroads
Cameron, G. G. (1960): The Elamite version of the Bisitun III. Proceedings of an international conference on foreigners in
inscriptions, JCS 14/2, 59–68 ancient Egyptian and Near Eastern societies of the Bronze Age
Coe, M. D. (21999): Breaking the Maya code. 2nd ed. New York held in Prague, September 10–13, 2018. Prague, 91–120
Corsini, M. (1986): Geroglifico del disco di Festo, lineare A, Grillot, F. (1985): Eléments de l’ancienne structure nominale élamite,
geroglifico B, proto-elamico: tre decifrazioni. Roma Paléorient 11, 55–56
Cros, G./L. Heuzey/F. Thureau-Dangin (1910): Nouvelles fouilles de ― (1987): Eléments de grammaire élamite. Synthèse 29. Paris
Tello. Paris ― (1994): Une nouvelle approche de la morphologie élamite:
Desset, F. (2012): Premières écritures iraniennes. Les systèmes racines, bases et familles de mots, JA 282, 1–18
proto-élamite et élamite linéaire. Series Minor 76. Naples ― (1998): Elam v. Elamite language, EncIr. 8/3, 332–35
― (2014): A new writing system discovered in 3rd millennium BCE ― (2008): L’élamite. Éléments de grammaire. Paris.
Iran: the Konar Sandal ‘geometric’ tablets, IrAnt. 49, 83–109 Grillot, F./J.-J. Glassner (1990): L’inscription élamite de
― (2016): The proto-Elamite writing in Iran, Archéo-Nil 26, 67–104 Siwepalarhuhpak, NABU no. 65
― (2017): Here ends the history of ‘Elam’: toponomy, linguistics Hallock, R.T. (1969): Persepolis Fortification Tablets. OIP 92. Chicago
and cultural identity in Susa and south-western Iran, ca. Henkelman, W. F. M. (2003): An Elamite memorial: the šumar of
2400–1800 BCE, Studia Mesopotamica 4, 1–32 Cambyses and Hystaspes, in: W. Henkelman/A. Kuhrt (ed.),
― (2018a): Linear Elamite writing, in: J. Álvarez-Mon [e. a.] (ed.), The A Persian Perspective. Essays in memory of Heleen Sancisi-
Elamite world, 397–415 Weerdenburg. Achaemenid History 13. Leiden, 101–72
― (2008): The other gods who are. Studies in Elamite-Iranian ― (1974): Deux textes élamites du IIIème millénaire, RA 68, 3–14
acculturation based on the Persepolis fortification texts. Maddieson, I. (2013): Vowel quality inventories, in: M. S. Dryer/
Achaemenid History 14. Leiden M. Haspelmath (ed.), The World atlas of language structures
― (2011): Šimut, RlA 12/7–8, 511–12 online. Leipzig, https://wals.info/chapter/2.
Hiebert, F. T./C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (1992): Central Asia and the Mäder, M. (2019): Die Texte Humbannumenas, IrAnt. 54, 127–53
Indo-Iranian borderlands, Iran 30, 1–15 Mäder, M./S. Balmer/S. Plachtzik/N. Rawyler (2018): Sequenz
Hinz, W. (1962): Zur Entzifferung der elamischen Strichschrift, IrAnt. analysen zur elamischen Strichschrift, in: B. Mofidi-Nasrabadi
2, 1–21 [e. a.] (ed.), Elam and its neighbors: recent research and new
― (1967): Elams Vertrag mit Naram-Sin von Akkade, ZA 58, 66–96 perspectives. Proceedings of the international congress held at
― (1969): Eine neugefundene altelamische Silbervase, in: W. Hinz, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, September 21–23, 2016.
Altiranische Funde und Forschungen. Berlin, 11–44 Elamica 8. Hildesheim, 49–104
― (1971): Eine altelamische Tonkrug-Auschrift vom Rande der Lut, Madjidzadeh, Y. (2011): Jiroft tablets and the origin of the linear
AMI 4, 21–24 Elamite writing system, in: T. Osada/M. Witzel (ed.), Cultural
― (1975): Problems of linear Elamite, JRAS 107, 106–15 relations between the Indus and the Iranian plateau during the
Hinz, W./H. Koch (1987): Elamisches Wörterbuch. AMI Ergänzungs- third millennium BCE. Indus project, Institute for humanities
band 17. Berlin and nature, June 7–8, 2008. Harvard oriental series, opera
Hout, T. van den (2007): Institutions, vernaculars, publics: the case minora 7. Cambridge, 217–43
of second-millennium Anatolia, in: S. L. Sanders (ed.), Margins Mahboubian, H. (2004): Elam. Art and civilization of ancient Iran,
of writing, origins of cultures. OIS 2. Chicago, 221–62 3000–2000 BCE. Salisbury
― (2010/2015): The rise and fall of cuneiform script in Hittite Malbran-Labat, F. (1995): Les inscriptions royales de Suse. Briques
Anatolia, in: C. Woods (ed.), Visible language. Inventions of de l’époque paléo-élamite à l’Empire néo-élamite. Paris
writing in the ancient Middle East and beyond. OIP 32. Chicago, ― (1996): Akkadien, bilingues et bilinguisme en Elam et à Ougarit,
99–106 in: F. Briquel-Chatonnet (ed.), Mosaïque de langues, mosaïque
Jagersma, A. H. (2010): A descriptive grammar of Sumerian. Leiden culturellee. Le bilinguisme dans le Proche-Orient ancien.
Kervran, M. (2019): Proposition pour le déchiffrement de l’élamite Antiquités sémitiques 1. Paris, 33–61
linéaire, SocArXiv. December 6. ― (2016): L’élamite, un chantier linguistique, in: K. Maekawa
Khačikjan, M. (1998): The Elamite language. Documenta Asiana 4. (ed.), Ancient Iran: new perspectives from archaeology and
Rome cuneiform studies. Proceedings of the international colloquium
Kienast, B./W. Sommerfeld (1994): Glossar zu den altakkadischen held at the Center for Eurasian Cultural Studies, Kyoto
Königinschriften. FAOS 8. Stuttgart University, December 6–7, 2014. Ancient text studies in the
Koch, H. (2005a): Texte aus Iran, in: B. Janowski/G. Wilhelm National museum 2. Kyoto, 37–51
(ed.), Omina, Orakel, Rituale und Beschwörungen. Texte aus Marchesi, G. (2013): Ur-Nammâ(k)’s conquest of Susa, in: K. De
der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Neue Folge 4. München, Graef/J. Tavernier (ed.), Susa and Elam. Archaeological,
283–306 philological, historical and geographical perspectives.
― (2005b): Pinengir, RlA 10/7–8, 568 Proceedings of the international congress held at Ghent
König, F. W. (1965): Die elamischen Königsinschriften. AfO Beiheft University, December 14–17, 2009. MDP 58. Leiden/Boston,
16. Graz 285–91
Krebernik, M. (2006): Philologische Aspekte elamisch-mesopo- ― forthcoming: The elusive suhter: a new look at the textual
tamischer Beziehungen im Überblick, in: L. Kogan [e. a.] (ed.), documentation relating to a key element of Elamite temple
Babel und Bibel 3. Orientalia et classica 14. Winona Lake, 59–99 furniture
― (2018): Eine neue elamische Beschwörung aus der Hilprecht- McAlpin, D. (1975): Elamite and Dravidian: further evidence of
Sammlung (HS 2338) im Kontext alloglotter Texte der alt- relationship, CA 16/1, 105–15
babylonischen Zeit, in: B. Mofidi-Nasrabadi [e. a.] (ed.), Elam ― (1981): Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: the evidence and its implications.
and its neighbors. Recentecent research and new perspectives. TAPS 71, part 3. Philadelphia
Proceedings of the international congress held at Johannes ― (2015): Brahui and the Zagrosian hypothesis, JAOS 135/3, 551–86
Gutenberg University Mainz, September 21–23, 2016. Elamica Mecquenem, R. de (1956): Notes protoélamites, RA 50, 200-4
8. Hildesheim, 13–48 Meriggi, P. (1971): La scrittura proto-elamica, parte 1: la scrittura e il
― (22021): Elamisch, in M. P. Streck (ed.), Sprachen des Alten contenuto dei testi. Rome
Orients. 2nd ed. Darmstadt, 192–214 Meyer, L. de (2002): Elamite likame risakki: ‘l’agrandisseur du
Krebernik, M./N. Wasserman (2020): An Elamite magical text against royaume’ ou ‘le grand du royaume’?, Akkadica 123, 107
scorpion bite with an Akkadian procedure, in: B. Mofidi- Miroschedji, P. de (1980): Le dieu élamite Napirisha, RA 74/2,
Nasrabadi (ed.), Contributions on history and culture of Elam 129–43
and its neighbouring regions. Elamica 10. Hildesheim, 47–68 Müller-Karpe, M. (2012): Antikenhandel ./. Kulturgüterschutz –
Labat, R. (1970): Elamismes dans la syntaxe babylonienne de textes Fortsetzung von KUR 2011, 61 ff. Antikenmarkt als Geldwäsche:
susiens bilingues, JA 258, 237–41 Der Silberbecher des Königs Ebarat, Kunst und Recht 14,
Lam, J. (2010/2015): The invention and development of the alphabet, 195–202
in: C. Woods (ed.), Visible language. Inventions of writing in the Paper, H. (1955): The phonology and morphology of royal
ancient Middle East and beyond. OIP 32. Chicago, 189–93 Achaemenid Elamite. Ann Arbor
Lambert, M. (1972): Hutélutush-Insushnak et le pays d’Anzan, RA Pope, M. (21999): The story of decipherment. From Egyptian
66, 61–76 hieroglyphs to Maya script. 2nd ed. New York
Potts, D. T. (1999): The archaeology of Elam. Formation and ― (2011): Third-millennium royal and votive inscriptions, in:
transformation of an ancient Iranian state. Cambridge A. R. George (ed.), Cuneiform royal inscriptions and related
― (22016): The archaeology of Elam. Formation and transformation texts in the Schøyen collection. CUSAS 17. Bethesda, 1–28
of an ancient Iranian state, 2nd ed. Cambridge Steve, M.-J. (1967): Tchoga Zanbil (Dûr-Untash) III: Textes élamites et
― (2018): The epithet ‘sister’s son’ in ancient Elam. Aspects of the accadiens de Tchoga Zanbil. MDP 41. Paris
avunculate in cross-cultural perspective, in: K. Kleber [e. a.] ― (1992): Syllabaire élamite. Histoire et paléographie. CPOA 2.
(ed.),. Grenzüberschreitungen. Studien zur Kulturgeschichte Neuchâtel/Paris
des Alten Orients.Festschrift für Hans Neumann zum 65, ― (2000): Le syllabaire proto-élamite linéaire, in: R. Viers (ed.),
Geburtstag am 9. Mai 2018. Dubsar 5. Münster, 523–55 Des signes pictographiques à l’alphabet. La communication
Pozza, M. (2011): La grafia delle occlusive intervocaliche in ittito. écrite en Méditerranée. Actes du colloque, 14 et 15 mai 1996,
Verso una riformulazione della Lex Sturtevant. Roma villa grecque Kérylos, fondation Théodore Reinach (Beaulieu-
Quintana, E. (1999): ‘Yo soy el engrandecedor del reino’. Un titulo sur-Mer). Paris, 73–86
real elamita, NABU no. 97 Stolper, M. W. (1998): Nahhunte, RlA 9/1–2, 82–84
― (2001): Une titulature royale élamite. Una replica obligada, NABU ― (2004): Elamite, in: R. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia
no. 92 of the world’s ancient languages. Cambridge, 60–94
― (2010): La lengua elamita (Irán pre-persa). Murcia Tabibzadeh, K./F. Desset (2019): Reflections on linear Elamite,
Reiner, E. (1969): The Elamite language, in: J. Friedrich [e. a.] (ed.), unpublished manuscript
Altkleinasiatische Sprachen. Leiden/Cologne, 54–118 Tavernier, J. (2007): The case of Elamite tep-/tip- and Akkadian
Romagnuolo, C. (2012): hutta- and kuši- in Achaemenid Elamite, in: ṭuppu, Iran 45, 57–69
A. V. Rossi/G. P. Basello (ed.), DARIOSH Studies II. Persepolis ― (2010): On the sounds rendered by the s-, š- and ṣ/z- series in
and its settlements. Territorial systems and ideology in the Elamite, in: L. Kogan [e. a.] (ed.), Language in the ancient
Achaemenid state. Series Minor 78. Naples, 183–95 Near East. Proceedings of the 53rd Rencontre Assyriologique
Rubio, G. (2007): Writing in another tongue: alloglottography in the Internationale Vol. 1, Part. 2. Orientalia et Classica 30/2,
ancient Near East, in: S. L. Sanders (ed.), Margins of writing, 1059–78
origins of cultures. OIS 2. Chicago, 33–70 ― (2011): Elamite: analyse grammaticale et lecture de textes, Res
Rutten, M. (1949): Archéologie susienne: deux fragments de tablette antiquae 8, 315–50
provenant de Suse au nom de Siwepalarhuhpak. MDP 31. Paris, ― (2016a): The meaning of Elamite men, Le muséon 129, 10–16
151–67 ― (2016b): Elamite suku-, IrAnt. 51, 141–47
Sallaberger, W./I. Schrakamp (2015): Philological data for a ― (2018): The Elamite language, in: J. Álvarez-Mon [e. a.] (ed.), The
historical chronology of Mesopotamia in the 3rd Millennium, in: Elamite world, 416–49
W. Sallaberger/I. Schrakamp (ed.), History & Philology. ARCANE Vallat, F. (1986): The most ancient scripts of Iran: the current
3. Turnhout, 3–136 situation, World Archaeology 17, 335–47
Salonen, E (1962): Untersuchungen zur Schrift und Sprache des ― (1990): Deux inscriptions royales en élamite de l’époque des
altbabylonischen von Susa. StOr. 27/1. Helsinki Epartides (sukkalmah), NABU no. 137
Salvini, M. (1998): Elam iv. Linear Elamite, EncIr. 8/3, 330–32 ― (1993): Les noms géographiques des sources suso-élamites. RGTC
Scheil, V. (1905): Textes élamites-sémitiques (troisième série). MDP 11. Wiesbaden
6. Paris ― (2001): Une titulature royale élamite, NABU no. 66
― (1908): Textes élamites-sémitiques (quatrième série). MDP 10. ― (2007): Temti-Agun I, un nouveau sukkalmah, Akkadica 128,
Paris 73–83
― (1911): Textes élamites-anzanites (quatrième série). MDP 11. Paris ― (2011): Textes historiques élamites et achéménides, in:
― (1913): Textes élamites-sémitiques (cinquième série). MDP 14. A. R. George (ed.), Cuneiform royal inscriptions and related
Paris texts in the Schøyen collection. CUSAS 17. Bethesda, 187–92
― (1917): Déchiffrement d’un document anzanite relatif aux Veldhuis, N. (2014): History of the cuneiform lexical tradition. GMTR
présages, RA 14/1, 29–59 6. Münster
― (1931): Dynasties élamites d’Awan et de Simaš, RA 28, 1–8 Wasserman, N. (2019): The Susa funerary texts: a new edition and
― (1932): Actes juridiques susiens. MDP 14. Paris re-evaluation and the question of psychostasia in ancient
― (1933): Actes juridiques susiens; Inscriptions des Achéménides. Mesopotamia, JAOS 139, 859–91
MDP 24. Paris Westenholz, A. (1991): The phoneme /o/ in Akkadian, ZA 81, 10–19
― (1935): Textes de comptabilité proto-élamites. MDP 26. Paris Wilcke, C. (1987): Inschriften 1983–1984 (7–8 Kampagne), in:
― (1939): Mélanges épigraphiques. MDP 28. Paris B. Hrouda (ed.), Isin-Ishan Bahriyat 3. Munich, 83–120
Seri, A. (2010/2015): Adaptation of cuneiform to write Akkadian, in: Winkelmann, S. (1999): Ein Stempelsiegel mit alt-elamischer
C. Woods (ed.), Visible language. Inventions of writing in the Strichscrift, AMIT 31, 23–32
ancient Middle East and beyond. OIP 32. Chicago, 85–93 Yakubovich, I. (2010/2015): The rise and fall of cuneiform script in
Sollberger, E. (1968): A tankard for Atta-hušu, JCS 22, 30–33 Hittite Anatolia, in: C. Woods (ed.), Visible language. Inventions
Sollberger, E./J. R. Kupper (1971): Inscriptions royales sumériennes of writing in the ancient Middle East and beyond. OIP 32.
et akkadiennes. LAPO. Paris Chicago, 203–7
Starostin, G. (2002): On the genetic affiliation of the Elamite Zadok, R. (1984): The Elamite onomasticon. Supplemento agli
language, Mother Tongue 7, 147–70 Annali 40. Naples
Steinkeller, P. (2007): New light on Šimaški and its rulers, ZA 97, ― (1994): Elamites and other peoples from Iran and the Persian Gulf
215–32 region in early Mesopotamian sources, Iran 32, 31–51

The Decipherment of Linear Elamite

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Decipherment of Linear Elamite

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Decipherment of Linear Elamite

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Decipherment of Linear Elamite Writing

François Desset, Kambiz Tabibzadeh, Matthieu Kervran, Gian Pietro Basello,

To cite this version:

HAL Id: hal-04408238

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

François Desset, Kambiz Tabibzadeh, Matthieu Kervran, Gian Pietro Basello,

The Decipherment of Linear Elamite Writing

On the contrary, the vocalic distinction between /e/ – M, N, and R (tablets)

2 Decipherment of Linear Elamite 5) South-eastern Iran/Kerman (Shahdad and Konar

U Sand- Slab/door- Yes Susa Louvre 2150– 20 R→L André/Salvini 1989, 2

G′ Gold Round stamp No ? ? early 2nd 6 ? Christie’s London, 7

L′ Silver Vessel No ? Desset 2018b, 118, FAKE

The distribution of each glyph (see Figs. 3a–b8) across

1: A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, Q, R, T, U, W, X, Y, A′, C′, F′, J′, M′, N′, O′

8 The glyphs recorded in L′ were suppressed (see above, section 1).

61: K 62: X, D 63: Y, Z, F′, H′, K′

232: F′, K′ 233: X, F′ 234: F′, I′, K′

Fig. 3a: LE glyph list according to numbers (F. Desset).

Fig. 3b: LE glyph list according to shapes (F. Desset).

Group Text Support Rulers mentioned Dating Language references

I 1 silver alloy beaker Kıntatu ca. 2000 Elamite Mahboubian 2004, 46 f.

II 9 silver alloy beaker Sewe-palar-hůhpak ca. 1780–50 Elamite Mahboubian 2004, 44 f.

Elamite (from Itatu I to Pala-išan; LE texts of Group 4) and Pericope 1

of Sewe-palar-hůhpak contain a number of titles, epithets,

textual contexts. Also considering the similarities in their iconogra-

Line 20 (= 29 = 52): nu u₂-te-en-ti following the invo- Pericope 3

/sera-š/ and, therefore, that it has a meaning close to that

2.3 … to the Unknown: the LE Inscriptions

As will be evident, the LE writing system consists of both

27 Note that so far neither logograms nor semantic classifiers (the

ku-uk-in-su₂-uš-na-ak] in Scheil 1908, 72, no. 122 rev. 8). Accordingly,

B 9*; Cuneiform 6, Inscr. A 11*.

In addition, pi₂ seems to have been used to in A, B, E (and C?): ši-n-pi-s-h-hu-k;

This pattern helps recognize Ci signs in the following

/e/ /u/ /o/ /a/ /i/

120 Cun. u₂ and u₃ may have played a role as phonetic determina-

/a/ /e/ /i/ /o/ /u/

5 Conclusions tive syllabaries of the word-syllabic writings from which

6.1 Text F (Sb 155):

1. pu-zu-r-su-ši-na-k ze-m-t a-w-wa-ni-r | i-n-su-š-na-k i-r ha-ne-š

6.2 Text G (Sb 139) + *G (reconstructed)128:

6.3 Text H (Sb 140A):

1. [pu-zu-r]-⸢su⸣-[ši-na-k] ze-m-t a-[wa]-ni-[r | ku]-ši-k | ši-n-pi-s-hu-ki-r | i-n-su-š-[na-k]

6.4 F // G (+ *G) // H — composite text:

1. pu-zu-r-su-ši-na-k ze-m-t a(-w132)-wa-ni-r | (ku-ši-k | ši-n-pi-s-hu-ki-r |133)

(1)Puzur-Sušinak zemt Awan-ir (kuši-k Šin-pishůk-ir)

You might also like

B 9; Cuneiform 6, Inscr. A 11.