Replies

Claude is sometimes good at finding patterns in images of ancient writing, so I submitted the article and the two images above to Claude. Here's the conversation [Claude is sometimes very good at analyzing images but still makes mistakes, so keep that in mind]:

Me:

Here are the images from the article. What can you tell me about these writings from your familiarity with other writings from that era and area?

Claude:

These are fascinating to look at closely. Let me share observations on both:
Image 1 (the stone wall inscription) appears to be a bilingual or dual-format inscription — you can see a clear vertical dividing line separating two distinct sections. The left side has longer, more flowing linear strokes arranged in horizontal rows, while the right side is organized into a more rigid grid pattern with individual cells — almost like a table or ledger format. That structural difference within the same artifact is itself significant, possibly indicating Linear Elamite alongside cuneiform, which would be exactly the kind of bilingual key Desset needed.
Image 2 (the clay tablet on a stand) is heavily cracked but shows the characteristic Linear Elamite symbols clearly — you can pick out what look like geometric forms: X shapes, cross/plus symbols, semicircles, triangles, and what appear to be stylized human or animal figures in the lower registers. The dots punched into the surface may be numerical notation.
What's recognizable across both: The symbols have a surprisingly consistent visual vocabulary — angular geometric forms, repeated motifs, clear horizontal line organization. Nothing that maps to any alphabet you'd recognize, but the structural logic — consistent symbol size, clear directionality, organized rows — signals a mature, developed writing system rather than proto-writing or pictographs.
The tablet in Image 2 particularly shows what looks like narrative or accounting content in its lower rows — the figures seem more pictographic there, which might represent an earlier or more formal register of the script.

Me:

Elaborate on any patterns, themes, or potential uses intended by the writings (i.e., story narrative or personal letter or an accounting record)?

Claude

Let me look carefully at both artifacts with fresh eyes.
Image 2 (the clay tablet) — strongest read:
This one gives the most structural clues. The organization strongly suggests administrative or accounting use rather than narrative:
The content appears to be arranged in discrete rows with clear separations — classic ledger formatting
The repeated geometric symbols (the X's, crosses, semicircles) appear to function as category markers or unit designators — the kind of thing you'd use to denote "grain," "cattle," "silver" in Sumerian accounting tablets of the same era
The dots punched into the surface are almost certainly numerical notation — this is extremely common in Bronze Age administrative texts
The lower registers with what look like small figural elements may be commodity pictograms — identifying what is being counted
This reads most like a temple or palace inventory/receipt — exactly the kind of document Bronze Age administrative centers produced by the thousands.
Image 1 (the wall inscription) — different category entirely:
This feels like something more monumental and declarative:
It's carved in stone, not pressed in clay — that alone signals permanence and importance
The dual-column structure suggests either a bilingual royal decree or a formal administrative record meant for display
The more flowing, elaborate strokes on the left side have a quality associated with royal proclamations or dedicatory inscriptions — kings announcing building projects, military victories, divine favor
The broader pattern:
What's striking is that both artifacts fit perfectly into what we know from contemporary Mesopotamian civilization next door — the Sumerians and Akkadians were producing exactly these two document types simultaneously: clay tablets for daily administration, stone inscriptions for royal monuments. The Elamites appear to have mirrored that institutional structure with their own indigenous script.
So the honest synthesis is: accounting and royal proclamation — the two things every Bronze Age state needed to record. Not literature, not personal correspondence. Governance and inventory.
That actually raises the tantalizing question of whether, once fully translated, Linear Elamite might reveal trade records connecting Elam to the Indus Valley civilization — a commercial relationship archaeologists know existed but have very limited textual evidence for.

Me:

What do the recursive elements or patterns in the writings tell us (if anything)?

Claude

Yes — looking carefully at both images, several patterns emerge that are analytically interesting:
Recurring Symbol Units
Across both artifacts you can identify what appear to be the same symbols appearing repeatedly in different combinations — suggesting a syllabic or consonantal system rather than pure pictography. Specifically:
The X or cross form appears multiple times across both artifacts in what seem like structurally similar positions — possibly a determinative (a symbol that signals the category of what follows, like "person" or "deity" in cuneiform)
Vertical stroke clusters (like tally marks) appear regularly and almost certainly represent numbers
Triangle-based forms recur in varying orientations — upright, inverted, combined — suggesting a family of related signs built on a common base shape
Compositional Logic
Symbols appear to combine in groups of 2-4 consistently, rarely alone and rarely in longer runs — this is characteristic of a syllabic system where signs cluster into word units
There's a detectable left-to-right, top-to-bottom directionality — the rows are disciplined and consistent
In Image 1 particularly, the right column grid looks like it imposes a strict one-sign-per-cell structure while the left side allows more flowing multi-sign sequences — possibly distinguishing numerical entries from descriptive text
Symbol Complexity Gradient
This is perhaps the most intriguing pattern:
The upper rows of both artifacts tend to have simpler, more geometric symbols
The lower rows trend toward more complex or compound forms
In administrative documents this could indicate a header → detail structure — broad category at top, specific entries below
Alternatively it could reflect hierarchical importance — most significant information first
Bilateral Symmetry as a Design Principle
Several individual symbols appear to be mirror constructions — a form and its reflection combined into one sign. This is unusual and distinctive. It could indicate:
Determinative class markers — symmetrical symbols flagging a special category
Scribal aesthetic convention specific to Elamite culture
Possibly divine or royal name markers — many ancient scripts reserved visually distinctive forms for sacred or royal referents
What's Notably Absent
As important as what's there is what isn't:
No obviously figurative or narrative imagery — no battle scenes, no human figures in action, no animals in context — which would appear in commemorative or mythological texts
No sign of dialogue formatting — the kind of structural markers you see in literary texts like Gilgamesh
The symbols are remarkably uniform in size — personal letters and literary texts typically show more size variation reflecting emotional or emphatic content
Bottom Line Assessment
The patterns collectively reinforce the administrative/accounting interpretation, but with one refinement worth noting. The recurring symmetrical symbols and the monumental stone context of Image 1 suggest that artifact at minimum has a dedicatory or formulaic religious header — a standardized invocation to a deity before the administrative content. That was nearly universal in Bronze Age Near Eastern documents of any importance.
It would not surprise me at all if Image 1 reads something like: "By the grace of [deity name], [king's name] caused this to be recorded — [inventory or decree follows]."
That formula appears in virtually every contemporary culture across the ancient Near East. The Elamites almost certainly had their own version.