THE PROTO-ELAMITES AND THEIR EXPANSIONIn the early years of the twentieth century more than 1 , 600 tablets with distinctive signs
were recovered from Susa. These Proto-Elamite texts were initially thought to be related
to the later Elamite language. Today their linguistic affiliation remains uncertain
although its derivation from the earlier cuneiform of the Uruk period is well established
(Damerow and Englund 1989 ). The Proto-Elamite texts, like their Mesopotamian
counterparts, record administrative transactions mirroring the book-keeping techniques
and numerical systems of their Uruk neighbors. Jacob Dahl ( 2009 : 28 ) writes “It is at
present only possible to distinguish very basic semantic categories in the signary, such
as numerical signs, owner signs, object signs, and signs used in a complex way to
describe owners.” Presumably, as in Mesopotamia, the “owners” are those individuals
or institutions involved in recording the production, consumption or redistribution of
the goods, land, or labor being recorded.
The Proto-Elamite tablets, dated between 3400 and 2900 BCare but one, yet, the
most characteristic signifier, of this culture. Specific pottery types, cylinder seals, and
sealings identify their presence while the size of bricks are a common feature of Proto-
Elamite administrative structures. It is assumed that the Proto-Elamite Culture
(hereafter P-E) emerges in southwestern Iran where its presence is recorded on two of
the regions’ largest sites: Susa and Choga Mish. At Susa levels 18 – 22 were settlements
(colonies?) of the Uruk Culture and were succeeded directly by the P-E levels 17 – 14
(LeBrun 1978 ; Canal 1978 ).
One of the most characteristic, and shared, pottery types of the Uruk and P-E
periods are referred to as “bevel-rim bowls” (hereafter BRB). This unattractive, yet
functional, pottery is handmade and/or mold made, chaff tempered, characterized by
a highly porous fabric, and fired at low temperatures. In discussions concerning the
function of the BRBs, two hypotheses dominate. Hans Nissen was first to advance the
hypothesis that the BRBs were used as a standard measure for distributing rations
(grain) to workers. Alternatively, their similarity to Egyptian bread molds suggest a
similar function for the BRB (for an excellent review on all matters and references
pertaining to the BRB see Potts 2000 ). The BRB has been recorded on over 100
different sites on the Iranian Plateau. The expansive distribution and the presence of
P-E tablets, seals, and sealings on numerous sites throughout Iran brings us to a
consideration of the P-E Expansion.
While many trees have been lost to the production of paper for writing on the Uruk
Expansion, the slightly later and even greater geographical expanse of the P-E Expansion
is all but ignored. This is in keeping with the Mesopotamocentric perspective of
Near Eastern archaeology wherein Mesopotamian concerns dominate the literature.
Assuming that archaeologists are correct in their belief that southwestern Iran
(Khuzistan: Susa and Choga Mish) was the origin of the P-E, its characteristic material
culture is subsequently found on sites distributed across the Iranian Plateau (Tepe Sialk,
Malyan, Tal-i Ghazir, Tepe Yahya, Tepe Sofali, Tepe Hissar, Shahr-i Sokhta, Tepe Godin)
with BRBs extending to distant Pakistan Baluchistan (Benseval 1997 ; Lamberg-
Karlovsky 1978 ). The recent excavations at Tepe Sofali on the Tehran plain contains an
Uruk settlement “followed by settlement continuity in the Proto-Elamite period and
then deserted” (Yousefi and Hessari 2008 : n.p.). To date, over 100 Proto-Elamite tablets
have been recovered from Tepe Sofali. The authors write “Certain it is that at Tepe
–– C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky ––