Mendeley  

Zotero  

Yousefi Zoshk R, Yazdani S. (2019). A New Edition and Transliteration of Two Proto Elamitd Tablets (MDP 31, 33 and MDP 31, 27) Held in Louvre Museum. Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud.. 2(6), 41-52. doi:10.30699/PJAS.2.6.41
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-122-en.html

Abstract
Proto-Elamite writing system known as phase 2 in proto-writing system in the Iranian plateau. Unfortunately, in decipherment and interpretation of the Proto-Elamite texts, they are always Under the influence of their contemporaneous writing system, proto-cuneiform. With further study at this system, albeit they have a common ancestor, but we have to consider to its specific and unique properties like Ecological geography, subsistence system, social hierarchy and etc., that make this culture. 
Keywords: Proto-Elamite, Susa, Proto-Cuneiform, Tablet.

Introduction
During the early French excavations of Susa, more than 1600 texts and fragments were found and were recognized to be a very early writing system (Dyson, 1968), and called the Proto-Elamite writing system (Scheil, 1900). After a while, Proto-Elamite texts have been found at sites across Iran. Due to the nature of the available radiocarbon data, the Proto-Elamite tablets can only to be dated with confidence to around 3300-3000 BC (Dahl, 2014:24). Current archaeological research suggests that many important sites across Iran were abandoned around 2800 BC. However, there is no consensus of how we understand the data, and we can here only note that there exist no samples of writing from Iran between the disappearance of Proto-Elamite writing system around 2900 BC and the introduction of cuneiform around 2300-2200 BC (Ibid:26).
Since Proto-Elamite texts record administrative transactions within a cultural and economic setting which is not entirely unknown to us, and since the scribes who wrote the texts had inherited certain bookkeeping techniques the content-specific numerical system, from their western neighbours in Mesopotamia, we can decipher the content of many texts. In 1978-79, Joran Friberg proposed a partial decipherment of a group of texts based on the number of cereal products found in these texts, the use of specific numerical systems, and the resemblance to text from Mesopotamia. Building on the results of him Peter Damerow and Robert K. Englund, a few years later proposed several sign identifications. Years after them, Jacob Dhal, also proposed a partial decipherment of sheep and goat terminology in Proto-Elamite texts(Ibid).
Though all these decipherments are true for part of these texts, but they consist of the relationship with Mesopotamian writing systems. Following this article, we can find at least two texts that could not verify all their signs and numerical systems match with that decipherment, and they could suggest that we need to review the decipherments manner with more Accuracy and independent from Mesopotamian texts.

MDP31, 33 and MDP31, 27
Both are administrative Proto-Elamite clay tablets and first published by Roland De Mecquenem in 1949 and keep in Louvre Museum.
In the seventh entry of MDP31, 33 texts, there is a string of signs: M024+M004+M218+M263~b+M038~a, that shows the owner(s) name of products M263~a which count with 2 N01. Because of the fading, it also might be two strings of names, but the important thing is the sign M263~b appeared in the string of the names and its very common in other texts that one sign which represents as products or workers, used as a syllable of the names. The other important thing like MDP31, 27 is behind the tablet, where we had an entry that normally should be the total account, but the entry contains sign M243~g which does not appear in the rest of the text and counting with numerical signs: N39b+1N24+1N30C and this number is not equal with this tablet’s front text. So, we can offer that, this tablet is not about the accounting of few products and their final total, but it represented several products that they had been donated to the warehouse (maybe the elite warehouse) and the sign M243~g is an introduction for the module and its size which, each product counts with this. The other suggestion for this Inequality can be: the products accounting with another numerical system that could not be recognised for us by now. 
In MDP31,27, also, the above result could be true, but the other impressive difference in this text is the absences of the signs of owner(s) before product signs, which shows that all these products (grain and dairy which usually did not account together) belongs to the household or institute that came at header entry sign and that’s why the scriber didn’t need to separate them.

Conclusion
As a conclusion to sum up, the texts that were reviewed shows that hypothesis based on proto-cuneiform texts contemporary Proto-Elamite period which considered for the decipherment of these texts couldn’t be true and need more investigating.
In addition, the lake of material evidence from Proto-Elamite sites that showing their subsistence system and management system, hasty look and compare this period with its neighbors in Mesopotamia, Leads to more problems to its decipherment.
So, it’s worthy to consider in additional of Semantic structure, notice to the subsistence system, the economic and social hierarchy of the Proto-Elamite period.
So far, the assumption in the interpretation of Proto-Elamite texts has been revealed that everything on the tablet count should be accounted as their final total on the reverse the tablet exactly. But these two tablets presented that this rule might be a break and we might search on the new numerical system or consider them as text that contains products that offer to a warehouse, and this entrance wasn’t important as export from the warehouse or to have final total.