Third Annual Meeting of
The Intellectual Heritage of Assyria and Babylonia in East and West
Schools of Oriental Studies and the Development of Modern Historiography
Ravenna, October 13-17, 2001
This is the text of the paper presented on October 15th, 2001. Footnotes, complete text and references will appear only in the proceedings.
«Mais ce que l'esprit humain a créé, l'esprit humain peut le déterrer, le retirer de l'oubli de la tombe, quand même son œuvre aurait été ensevelie pendant des milliers d'années»
Saith Darius the King:
tuvam : kā : hya : aparam : imām : dipim : patiparsāhy : tya : manā : kartam : varnavatām : θuvām : mātya : draugam : maniyāhay
Thou who shalt hereafter read this inscription, let that which has been done by me convince thee; do not thou think it a lie.
Are modern historians convinced by Darius' words? What do you think about Gaumāta and Bardiya? However we are neither ancient Persians nor subjected to them, neither friends nor enemies. Darius' message and royal propaganda do not interest us directly. We can not read the Bīsotūn inscription as ancient scribes did, because we simply could not understand it. First, we have to study it, trying to reconstruct ancient language, ideology and society. Did Darius foresee that? Well, I think he was so aware of the greatness and freshness of his empire that he knew that its memory would have survived its fall. However, modern historiography is something unexpected to ancient peoples.
Orientalism was born in the Middle Ages from the study of the holy scriptures. It was the Bible which preserved the name of the ancient Eastern civilizations from complete oblivion. Then the 17th and 18th centuries came and it was the age of the long journeys in the East which brought back accounts about fabulous ruins and mysterious scripts. Later, in 19th century, the first pioneer archaeological excavations began. The trilingual Achaemenid inscriptions from Persepolis and Bīsotūn gained the attention of the Orientalists. The three languages were sorted out according to the top-bottom order in which they appear on the walls of Persepolis.
Saith again Darius the King:
Pārsahyā : martiyahyā : dūraiy : arštiš : parāgmāta : adataiy : azdā : bavātiy :
Then shall it become known to thee: the spear of a Persian man has gone forth far.
When Darius ordered to write that, surely he did not imagine that not only his spear, but also the stylus of his scribes would have gone forth far, so far in space and time that by writing the Babylonian version of his inscriptions, he had put a seed which would give birth to our Assyriology at the beginning of the 19th century AD. Not satisfied, having ordered to write the inscriptions in Old Persian too, 2500 years ago he contributed to the birth of Iranian studies.
What about the remaining version? Which academic subject did originate from it?
At the very beginning of the deciphering adventure, when Grotefend, Rawlinson, Westergaard and de Saulcy wrote about the language of the so-called second kind, they did not know they were dealing with Elamite. They named it Median. Why was Elamite called Median? Which is the link between a written language and his name, and the people who spoke it? How did Median become today Elamite?
As soon as the first kind was connected to the language of Avesta, which was known since the second half of the 18th century and supposed to be located in Bactria, it was named Old Persian and therefore located in Persia. Then the languages of the second and third kind could be related to «the neighbouring countries of ancient Media and Susiana». As to the language of the second kind, the name 'Median' was preferred, even if Westergaard was aware that doing so, he disregarded the testimony of Strabo «who plainly tells us –I am quoting Westergaard- that the Medes and Persians spoke nearly one and the same language». It was in 1844 and Westergaard referred to Rawlinson as 'oriental scholar'.
In 1846 Rawlinson, although not worried by Strabo, emphasized the Scythic character of this language. According to Rawlinson the name 'Median' had been assigned to this language on a ground which was «irrespective of all internal evidences». In fact, «in many of the essential characteristics of language, the so-called Median organization is of the Scythic type». However, he conceded that «the Scythic or quasi-Scythic character should be recognised as a secondary development» because only the Median, i.e. the language of a people «admitted to a certain degree of participation in the political rights of the Persians», could precede the ancient and revered Babylonian language on the inscriptions. The great number of Old Persian loan words attested in Elamite misled Rawlinson. However, he was perfectly right when he tried to express in detail the opposite hypothesis. Moreover his continuous effort to arrange each hypothesis on the background of a plausible historical scenery is noteworthy.
In 1855, Edwin Norris, publishing the text of the second kind of the Bīsotūn inscription, referred to it as the 'Scythic version', dropping the name Median. The Scythians were supposed to be a Turanian, i.e. neither Indo-European nor Semitic, people scattered on wide lands but very influential in Media. In fact we have to recollect «that Media was constantly exposed to irruptions from the northward, that for twenty-eight years during the reign of Cyaxares it was under a Scythic yoke». Its language should have been «of that class which has been denominated Tartar, Scythic, Tschudish or Mongolian». Oppert explains to us what had happened: in 1852 he suggested to employ the name 'Scythic' because of Strabo and because Median proper names (like Deiokes or Ecbatana) are Aryan and thus it was not possible that the language of the second kind, which is non-Aryan, would be Median. Afterwards Oppert changed his opinion and clearly analyzed his error. In 1879 he knew that language is only one element in the ethnographic composition of a people and that previously he was affected by the idea that the language was the criterion of the race. Here he was right but he was always late! In 1883 Delattre was fully aware that Scythians are Indo-Europeans. However, do not forget that Norris in 1855 and then Caldwell in his Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian (1856) noticed that 'Scythic' resembles Tamil since «there is no distinction made between surd and sonant consonants at the beginning of a word, and in the middle of a word the same consonant must have been pronounced as a sonant when single and a surd when double». Both Rawlinson and Norris thought that this Scythic writing was not used before the time of Cyrus the Great.
The breakthrough was the discovery of other Elamite -now we know it- texts not related to Achaemenid dynasty far away from Persia. In 1859 William Kennett Loftus published the facsimiles of the inscriptions by Middle Elamite kings (Šutrukids dynasty, ca. 1210-1100 ) excavated in the acropolis of Susa from 1851 onwards. In 1862 Mordtmann preferred the name susisch 'Susian' because Rawlinson had said that some inscriptions written in a language like that of the second kind were found in Susiana. I think that Mordtmann referred to the Mālamīr inscriptions mentioned by Rawlinson as inscriptions of Elymais, even if to Rawlinson this 'Elymæan group' was a development of the third kind of writing of the Achaemenid inscriptions. In fact it had been already noticed by de Saulcy that the second kind of writing derives from the Babylonian cuneiform script. However, Mordtmann distinguished rightly between writing and language.
Well, all pointed to Elam but these clever scholars did not know Elam yet. Perhaps they were not good Christians: they did not read the Bible! ...since in a vision, the prophet Daniel saw himself in Susa «which is in the district of Elam». In 1874 the young Archibald Henry Sayce (1845-1933) finally suggested 'Elamite', even if this designation gained general consent later. Elam was identified with Susiana through Elymais but it involved a wider geographical perspective. However, in those days Elam was slightly different from ours: in fact Oppert rejected this hypothesis because the name 'Elam' implied a Semitic colouring which was alien to what he called Median, indirectly remembering us that Elam is probably a name given by Semitic peoples of Mesopotamia. Moreover «the exiguous plight of Susiana could not justify for its language the honour to precede the language of Ninive among Persian kings». It was still an issue of glory!
Surely Anšan was more glorious: it precedes Susa in the Middle Elamite (Šutrukid) titulary 'King of Anšan and of Susa' while Cyrus the Great called himself 'king of Anšan'. Rejecting the name 'Susian' with the same considerations by Oppert, Delattre ascribed the language of the second kind to the inhabitants of Anšan, related to Susians and their language, i.e. middle and neo-Elamite, but inspired by Persian thoughts and attitudes. Considering another ethnic dualism in Elam, Scheil splitted written documentation in textes élamites-sémitiques and élamites-anzanites, the first group represented by Old Babylonian texts, the second being related to the other, non-Semitic and prominent, element of Elamite kingdom. Moreover, regarding Anzanian as imported to Susa, he prefigured the relevant discoveries of Persepolis and Tall-i Malyān archives. By that time, it was only a name issue: the content, the meaning which that label pointed to, was rightly identified. In the meantime Assyriology was not only born, but also well grown, since Delattre referred naturally to Rawlinson as an Assyriologist.
Let me take a step backward. Sayce, suggesting Elamite, referred also to Amardian, a name derived from the classical authors. This is interesting because, since before we spoke about a foreign designation, it was an endeavour to catch the self-designation of the people who spoke this language. The list of countries in paragraph 6 of Darius Bīsotūn inscription was well-known to scholars because, being a list of proper names, it was very useful in order to decipher the script. It was already noticed by Norris in 1855 that «the only peculiar name found attached to any place or province of Persia is the one attributed to Susiana; every other name is rendered by a Persian word, often corrupted, but still Persian; while Susiana is called neither by its Greek name -Elymais, I think-, nor by the Semitic term Elam, nor the Arian Uwaja». In addition to this peculiarity, since the first and third country correspond to the languages of the first and third kind, it could be also that the second country in the list was that which the language of the second kind was spoken in. And this is still right! But the name of the second country was wrongly read Afarti or Habirdi rather than Hatamtip. Therefore Norris connected, but only as a guess, this Afarti to the Amardi, a people which, according to Strabo, bordered with Persians. [This association was supported comparing the Old Persian name Bardiya with the corresponding Greek name Smerdis.] Working on this odd hypothesis, Sayce recognized as Amardian also the Mālamīr inscriptions and the so-called letters from Ninive, both of which are really Elamite. This discussion came to an end in 1905 when Scheil showed the correct reading of the second country. Therefore in 1911 Weissbach transliterated Ha-tam-tup and translated Elam, being aware that Elam was a Semitic designation. With regard to names as labels, Georg Hüsing, while preferring the reading Halpirti, employed 'Elamisches' as the name for the language.
* * *
Between 1890 and 1892, these are the titles of some essays dealing with Elamite: 'Amardian or Protomedic Tablets in the British Museum' by Sayce, at first a neutral Weissbach with 'Die Achämenideninschriften zweiter Art' followed by 'Anzanische Inschriften und Vorarbeiten zu ihrer Entzifferung'; Hugo Winkler wrote 'Zu den altsusischen Inshriften' while 'Elamitische Eigennamen. Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung der elamischen Inschriften' is by Jensen, which was evidently uncertain between 'Elamitisch' and 'Elamisch', I think!
In the first years of the last century Elam was attracting a growing interest. A lot of scholars were involved in Elamite studies while people could see beautiful Elamite artefacts in the Louvre exhibitions.
So we are not astonished by that Italian scholar who called Hüsing dotto e geniale Elamista 'skilled and ingenious Elamologist' ! Yes, someone in Italy was dealing with Elam... and he was not an Assyriologist but an eclectic Linguist. Alfredo Trombetti, of humble birth, learned French, German, Greek, Hebrew and Latin by himself. He spoke these languages when he was 14 years old. When he was an adult, I think he knew all the languages of the world, Elamite included! In fact, in 1913 he wrote an essay (22 pages) entitled La posizione linguistica dell'Elamitico 'The linguistic position of Elamite'. He upheld the theory of the monogenesis of the languages and to him Elamite was the «connecting link» between Nilotic (today Nilo-Saharan family, Chari-Nile sub-group ) and Dravidian languages through Brahui, while being a collateral branch of Caucasian languages. His main references were the German scholars, first of all Hüsing, then Winkler, Weissbach and Bork. He also referred to Caldwell for Dravidian and Bray for Brahui.
[Trombetti died untimely in 1929. Till 1966, the date of the first published work about Elamite by Piero Meriggi, Elamite studies were conducted in Italy by Assyriologist Giuseppe Furlani (1885-1962) whose main interest was Mesopotamian religion and mythological texts. In 1936 he published an essay entitled Divinità gemelle nel Pantheon Elamico 'Twin Divinities in Elamite Pantheon'. In Italy too, there was not an agreement about the adjective derived from Elam: Elamitico or Elamico? He compiled also the clear and exhaustive entry 'Elam' in the famous Italian encyclopaedia Treccani. Like Trombetti, he cited the German scholars; moreover he knew the recent essays by König and the catalogue of the famous Susa exhibition in the Louvre Museum in 1913.
Next came Piero Meriggi (1899-1982). Born in 1899, he was, like Trombetti, a Linguist, but later in his life dealt with Elam, especially with Proto-Elamite. Its main work is La scrittura proto-elamica 'Proto-Elamite writing'.
Now I would like to bring you shortly through another long path: the path travelled by the name Elam to come up to us. While Persians and Babylonians are mentioned also by Greek authors, the name Elam is attested uninterruptedly only by the never forgotten source of the Bible. Otherwise, the only trace of Elam is Elymais, mentioned for example by Strabo. As I told you last year in Chicago, perhaps the Bible does not concern only ancient and Achaemenid Elam, if some Elamite Jews were in the crowd attending to the apostles' speech on the Pentecost day, more than five centuries after the fall of Elam as political organization.
'The Archaeology of Elam' by Daniel Potts is, don't be surprised, a deep and comprehensive historiographic work on Elam. In 450 pages over 4500 years of history, the author shows us many Elams, from the Elammatum (or Elamtu) attested in Akkadian texts of the 3rd millennium bc to the Nestorian ecclesiastical province of Elam in 14th century AD. Between these two ends, what was named Elam underwent continuous transformations, even if both the name Elam and a core of identity and perhaps ethnicity were maintained through the ages.
Moreover, Elamite civilization was often seen and judged from a foreign point of view, from ancient times onwards. The name 'Elam' itself originated likely in Mesopotamia among Akkadians, rather than deriving from Elamite Hallatamti. In any case, the form which the Bible conveyed to us and which we employ today is Semitic.
As written evidence marks the watershed between prehistory and history, at the beginning of the 19th century a language was useful in defining geographical and ethnic boundaries of an ancient civilization. The language of a text was that of the country where the bulk of texts in the same language were found. The catchword was one country, one nation, one race, one language. The royal propaganda of the Achaemenid dynasty, putting three languages together in each inscription, started wavering this argument.
Since in Elam different languages were spoken, it was more difficult focusing on the Elamite language. Moreover, its uncertain linguistic kin delayed the acknowledgement of Elamite studies as an academic subject.
In fact, as Orientalism was born studying the Bible, i.e. a written text, only the deciphering of a script and the identification of the related language could originate a new academic subject. In order to develop Assyriology and Iranian studies as distinct branches of Orientalism, the quick identification of the languages of the first and third kind in the Achaemenid inscriptions with those spoken by ancient Persians and Babylonians was important.
Still in 1981 McAlpin wrote that «Elamite has always been the stepchild of cuneiform scholarship».
While even today the languages play a basic role in our schematization and teaching of the past, this stepchild shows us how frail the boundaries of our academic subjects are. While ancient Elamites fought against Assyrians and rebelled against Persians, Elamite studies are strictly bound to Assyriology and Iranian studies. As ancient Elam stood and represented a meeting place between Mesopotamian lowland and Iranian highland, so Elamite studies need to grab and grasp data both from Assyriology and Iranian studies and through many fields of work.
Unfortunately, missing an independent academic subject, we have little specific teaching of Elamite studies. As we employ a foreign designation in referring to ancient Anšan and Susiana, Elamite scholars are often Assyriologists, Iranists or Linguists in their academic background, i.e. they have approached Elam later and from an external point of view.
Today, thanks to these scholars, it is much clearer what Elam was. However, the Elam revisited by modern historiography is only the last transformation in the meaning of this name. As digging means unavoidably removal and mouldering, studying means reinventing and recreating the object of our study. Our Elam can not be ancient Elam. Our Elam is a name, a mere label which we try to stick on again to a thing which does not exist anymore and which we need to reconstruct according to our data and our speculations.
* * *
While the history of the name 'Elam' shows us that names are labels, the quest for a name to be assigned to Elam teaches us how much important is the act of giving a name to an object or a concept, a name which identifies it univocally in our minds. I hope that reviewing both, we can better understand what Elam represents today and what should be its place in modern historiography. I am quite confident that this stepchild can still grow.
Thank you for your attention.
+ not listed in Hinz/Koch 1987; German notes in square brackets from Hinz/Koch 1987.
--, Bio-Bibliographies de 134 savants (Acta Iranica Quatrième Série I), Leiden 1979 [DiSLO Per 447 or]
ANDRÉ-SALVINI Béatrice 1997, «Ici commence l'histoire de l'Elam», L'œuvre du père Jean-Vincent Scheil in CHEVALIER 1997 pp. 110-125
*ASSIRELLI Odone 1953, La posizione linguistica del Nilotico, Faenza (pro manuscripto)
BALLINI Ambrogio (ed. [+??+]) 1938, Scritti in onore di Alfredo Trombetti, Milano 1938 [DiSLO Misc 30 and 64]
BASSI Domenico 1899, Mitologia babilonese-assira, Milano [reprint Cisalpino-Goliardica, Milano 1986]
BENOIT Agnès 1997, Les antiquités de Suse au musée du Louvre in CHEVALIER 1997 pp. 140-149
*BOOTH A.J. 1902, The discovery and decipherment of the trilingual cuneiform inscriptions, London [ROMA Dip.StudiOr.]
BOSON Giustino 1918, Assiriologia, Milano [reprint Cisalpino-Goliardica, Milano 1979]
*BRAY Denys [de S.], [+The ??+] Brahui Language, Introduction and Grammar, Calcutta 1909 [New Delhi 1986: DiSLO IND 1685]
*CASTELLINO G. 1971, ++ in +Cinquant’anni di studi sul Vicino Oriente in Italia+, Roma (IPO)
CATFORD J.C. 1994, Caucasian Languages in ASHER R.E. / SIMPSON J.M.+. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics II pp. 486-489, Oxford/New york/Seoul/Tokyo [DiSLO LG 2684 (sala C)]
CHEVALIER Nicole (ed.) 1997, Une mission en Perse 1897-1912 (Les dossiers du musée du Louvre), Paris [DipArch Cat ms 321 (armadio 54 o 56??)]
CURTIS John 1997 (translated by TALLON Françoise), Les fouilles de W.K.Loftus à Suse in CHEVALIER 1997 pp. 36-45 [*1993, William Kennett Loftus and his excavations at Susa in Iranica Antiqua XXVIII pp. 1-55]
DE MECQUENEM Roland 1980, Les fouilleurs de Suse in Iranica Antiqua XV pp.1-48
GIGNOUX Philippe 1999, France, xii(b). Iranian Studies in France: Pre-Islamic Period in Encyclopædia Iranica X pp. 167-173, New York
GUIDI Michelangelo 1935, Orientalismo and Orientalismo, Semitistica in Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti (Treccani) vol. XXV pp. 537-541 [DipArch (reprint 1949)]
HACHARD Vincent / HOURCADE Bernard 1999, France, xii(a). Iranian Studies in France: Overview in Encyclopædia Iranica X pp. 162-167, New York
*JÉQUIER G. 1968, En Perse, 1897-1902. Journal et Lettres de Gustave Jéquier, publiés et annotés par Michel Jéquier, La Baconniére [Chevalier 1997 p. 214] Neuchâtel [idem p. 131] [épuisé]
NICOLAI Roberto / TRAINA Giusto (ed.) 2000, Strabone, Geografia, Caucaso, Asia Centrale e Anatolia, libri XI-XII, Milano
PAGLIARO Antonino 1935, Orientalismo, India e Iran in Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti (Treccani) vol. XXV pp. 541-543 [DipArch (reprint 1949)]
*RAWLINSON G. ++3 (1812-1902) assisted by RAWLINSON Henry and WILKINSON J.G. [Delattre 1883 p. 1 footnote 1], History of Herodotus
RUHLEN Merritt 1975-76, A Guide to the Languages of the World, ++ [DiSLO LG 1706]
SALVINI Mirjo 2000, La civiltà dei Hurriti, popolo dell'Asia anteriore antica. Introduzione alla storia degli studi e alla documentazione testuale in La parola del passato – Rivista di studi antichi vol. LV fasc. I-VI (310-315 della serie) pp. 7-24, Napoli [DipArch Per 94B]
SCHMITT Rüdiger 1999, Germany, iii. Iranian Studies in German: Pre-Islamic Period in Encyclopædia Iranica X pp. 530-543, New York
SIM R.J. 1994, Nilo-Saharan Languages in ASHER R.E. / SIMPSON J.M.+. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics V pp. 2804-2808, Oxford/New york/Seoul/Tokyo [DiSLO LG 2684 (sala C)]
TELONI Bruto [Libero Docente di Assiriologia nel R. Istituto di Studii Superiori] 1887, Crestomazia Assira, Firenze [DISLO As 66]
*TELONI Bruto? 1903, Letteratura assira, Milano
TELONI Giulio Cesare (ma si faceva chiamare Bruto) 1930, Assiriologia in Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti (Treccani) vol. V pp. 36-38 [DipArch (reprint 1949)]
TISSOT Francine 1996, Délégations Archéologiques Françaises, i. Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran in Encyclopædia Iranica VII pp. 238-240, Costa Mesa
TROMBETTI Alfredo 1902, Notizie autobiografiche premesse dal Trombetti all'opera «Nessi genealogici fra le lingue del mondo antico», presentata, manoscrittta, al concorso per il premio Reale di Filologia e Linguistica del 1902 in BALLINI 1938 pp. XXXVIII-XLVIII [the year of birth is 1866, not 1886 as wrongly written at p. XXXVIII]
*WALLIS BUDGE E.A. 1925, The rise and progress of Assyriology, London
ZVELEBIL K.V. 1994, Dravidian Languages in ASHER R.E. / SIMPSON J.M.+. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics II pp. 1063-1065, Oxford/New york/Seoul/Tokyo [DiSLO LG 2684 (sala C)]
*+LENORMANT ++, Lettres assyr. [cited in Delattre 1883 pp. 24-25 and 43, Oppert +++ pp. 236, 255, 261, 264, 266, 269
*NIEBUHR Carsten 1778, Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und anderen umliegenden Ländern, Band II mit Tafelband, Kopenhagen [Elamische Inschriften: Tafel XXIV D F XXXI K]
*GROTEFEND Georg Friedrich 1815, Über die Erklärung der Keilinschriften, und besonders der Inschriften von Persepolis in HEEREN A.H.L. [+è l'autore?+], Ideen über die Politik, den Verkehr und den Handel der vornehmsten Völker der alten Welt, I. Teil, I. Abteilung, Beilage I, Göttingen
*BERR E.F.F. 1838, Über die neuesten Forschungen zur Entzifferung der Keilschrift in Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, I. Band, pp. 1-47
*+LAYARD A.H. 1841, ++ [cited in Scheil 1910 p. 569]
WESTERGAARD Niels Ludvig [nome da Schmitt Enc.Ir. p. 541] 1844, On the Deciphering of the second Achaemenian or Median Species of arrow-headed Writing in Mémoires de la Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord (1840-1844) pp. 271-439, Kopenhagen [DipArch Per 88]
*WESTERGAARD N.L. 1845, Zur Entzifferung der Achämenidischen Keilschrift zweiter Gattung in Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Band 6, Heft 2, pp. 337-466, Bonn [hält sie für medisch]
*+LAYARD A.H. 1846, A Description of the Province of Khúzistán in JRGS 16 pp. 75-79
RAWLINSON Henry 1846 [secondo la copertina della monografia The Persian Cuneiform Inscription at Behistun, decyphered and translated; with a Memoir on Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions in general, and on that of Behistun in Particular; il periodico invece è datato 1847 conformemente a Delattre 1883 p. 8, vedi anche la prefazione alla monografia], Memoir on Cuneiform Inscriptions in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Band 10, pp. 1-52, London [hielt damals auf S. 32-39 das Elamische noch für skythisches Medisch] [BibLettereFI RIV.STR. 417]
*HINCKS Edward 1848, On the first and second kinds of Persepolis Writing in The Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, Band 21, Polite Literature, pp. 114-131, Dublin [deutsch 1850 von R. Delius] [Biblioteca dell'Accademia delle scienze - Torino TO017 1787-1906/07]
*HINCKS Edward 1848, On the three Kinds of Persepolitan Writing, and on the Babylonian Lapidary Characters in The Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, Band 21, Polite Literature, pp. 233-248, Dublin [Biblioteca dell'Accademia delle scienze - Torino TO017 1787-1906/07]
SAULCY Fr. de 1849, Recherches analytiques sur les Inscriptions cunéiformes du système médique in Journal Asiatique, IVe série, Band 14, pp. 93-213, Paris [consultato BibNazFI VI Ri 14]
*LOWENSTERN Isidore 1850, Lettre à M. de Saulcy sur la deuxième Écriture de Persépolis in Revue Archéologique, VIe année, seconde partie, pp. 490-496, Paris [Archiginnasio 18CI]
*LOWENSTERN Isidore 1850, Remarques sur la deuxième Écriture cunéiforme de Persépolis in Revue Archéologique, VIe année, seconde partie, pp. 687-728, Paris [Archiginnasio 18CI p.za Galvani 1]
SAULCY Fr. de 1850, Recherches analytiques sur les Inscriptions cunéiformes du système médique. Deuxième Mémoire in Journal Asiatique, IVe série, Band 15, pp. 397-528, Paris [consultato BibNazFI VI Ri 14; BibLettereFI RIV.STR. 1728 1855?-]
*LAYARD A.H. 1851, Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Character from Assyrian Monuments discovered by A.H. Layard, London [Zeichnungen der Inschriften Hanne 75 und 76]
OPPERT Jules 1851, Etudes sur les Inscriptions des Achéménides, conçues dans l'Idiome des anciens Perses in Journal Asiatique IV. série, Band 17 pp. 255-296, 378-430, 534-567; Band 18 pp. 56-83, 322-366, 553-584 [consultato BibNazFI VI Ri 14]
OPPERT Jules 1852, Etudes sur les Inscriptions des Achéménides, conçues dans l'Idiome des anciens Perses in Journal Asiatique IV. série, Band 19, 1982 [??] pp. 140-213 [consultato BibNazFI VI Ri 14]
HOLTZMANN Adolf 1854, Ueber die zweite Art der achämenidischen Keilschrif. IV in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Band 8 pp. 329-345, Leipzig [BibUn 1847-1942; 1966; DiSLO Per 12 or 1846-1906; 1908-1909; 1945-]
NORRIS Edwin 1855, Memoir on the Scythic Version of the Behistun Inscription in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 15 pp. 1-213, London [BibLettereFI RIV.STR. 417]
NORRIS Edwin 1855, Addenda to the Paper at the Beginning of the Volume in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 15 pp. 431-433, London [BibLettereFI RIV.STR. 417]
*+CALDWELL Robert 1856, A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages, London [con varie revisioni successive] [DiSLO ??]
*WESTERGAARD N.L. 1856, Om den anden eller den sakiske Art af Akhaemenidernes Kileskrift in Det kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter, Femte Raekke, Historiks og philosophisk Afdeling; Andet Binds, forste Hefte pp. 39-178, Kopenhagen
*LOFTUS William Kennett 1859 [+secondo Une mission en Perse p. 40; Hinz/Koch e König 1965 datano 1852+], Lithographic Facsimiles of Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Character from the Ruins of Susa, London [sia Hinz/Koch che König 1965 mettono incertezza sul luogo di edizione, credo che Hinz copi da König] [con iscrizioni medio-elamiche di Šutruk-Nahhunte, Kutir-Nahhunte, Šilak-Inšušinak]
MORDTMANN A.D. 1862, Erklärung der Keilinschriften zweiter Gattung in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 16 pp. 1-126, Leipzig [erkannte als erster diese Inschriften als "susisch"]
MORDTMANN A.D. 1870, Ueber die Keilinschriften zweiter Gattung in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 24 pp. 1-84, Leipzig
*SAYCE H.A. 1874, The Languages of the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Elam and Media in Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaelogy, Band 3, pp. 465-485, London [erwägt erstmals die Bezeichnung "elamitisch", gibt sie aber für "amardisch"] [catalogato nell'indice SBN, ROMA DipStudiOr RM0994 06-49913424 fax 06-4451209 ma dicono di avere dal 1878?; Torino Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria TO0265 011-8128984 fax 011-8178778?]
OPPERT J. 1879, Le peuple et la langue des Mèdes, Paris [DiSLO Ir 45]
*SPIEGEL F. 18812 (18621), Die altpersischen Keilinschriften, Leipzig [cited in Oppert 1879 p. 11? and Delattre 1883 pp. 11 and 34 footnote 1 and Andreas 1894 column 1731?]
DELATTRE P. 1883, Le Peuple et l'Empire des Mèdes in Mémoires couronnés et Mémoires [+Hinz/Koch omette couronnés et Mémoires+] des Savants étrangers publiés par l'Académie des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Band 45, Brüssel [nennt das achE "anzanisch"] [BibUnivBO via Zamboni 35 A.A. BELG. 9 uff. periodici d.ssa Parrini 051-243420]
*HALÉVY Joseph 1883, Mélanges de Critique et d'Histoire relatifs aux Peuples sémitiques, Paris [pp. 7ff pp 116ff, hält das achE für einen susischen Dialekt]
*+DELITZSCH F. 1884, Die Sprache der Kossäer, Leipzig [ROMA BibUniv ??]
*SAYCE A.H. 1885, The Inscriptions of Mal-Amir and the Language of the second Column of the Akhaemenian Inscriptions in Actes du VIième Congrès international des Orientalistes, tenu en 1883 à Leide, 2ième Partie, Section I: Sémitique, pp. 637-756, Leiden
*BERTIN G. 1888, Abridged Grammar of the Languages of the Cuneiform Inscriptions, London [pp. 81-94 neue kurze Grammatik des "Medischen"]
SAYCE A.-H. 1890, Amardian or 'Protomedic' Tablets in the British Museum in Recueil de Travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes pour servir de Bulletin à la Mission Française du Caire 13 pp. 126-131, Paris [erster Versuch der Umschreibung einiger der nE Ninive-Täfelchen] [consultato microfiches StAnt Micr or]
*WEISBACH [non aveva ancora mutato cognome] Franz Heinrich 1890, Die Achämenideninschriften zweiter Art. Herausgegeben und bearbeitet von F.H. Weissbach (Assyriologische Bibliothek, Band 9), Leipzig [entält auf S. 3 f. eine Bibliographie des früheren Schrifttums] [+provare a cercare sotto Assyriologische Bibliothek+]
*QUENTIN Aurèle 1891, Textes susiens in Journal Asiatique 8. Serie, Band 17, Paris [BibNazFI e BibLettereFI]
*WEISSBACH F.H. 1891, Anzanische Inschriften und Vorarbeiten zu ihrer Entzifferung (Abhandlungen der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften XXVII/Phil.-hist. Klasse XII, 2), Leipzig [Erstveröffentlichung von ShuN 19; ShI 57, 58, 59; mE Zeichenliste]
*WINCKLER H[ugo] 1891, Zu den altsusischen Inschriften in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 6 pp. 317-326, Berlin
*JENSEN Peter 1892, Elamitische Eigennamen. Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung der elamischen Inschriften in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 6 pp. 47-70 and 209-226, Wien
+ANDREAS ++ 1894, Amardoi in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft [+??+] vol. II columns 1729-1733, ++ [StAnt sala Roma; BibLettereFI 2° piano FIL.CLASS. II 131]
*WEISSBACH F.H. 1894, Neue Beiträge zur Kunde der susischen Inschriften (Abhandlungen der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften XXIV/Phil.-hist. Klasse XIV/7), Leipzig
WEISSBACH F.H. 1895, Anzanisches in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 49 pp. 692-694 [in Hinz/Koch pp. 592-604 sono sbagliate le pagine!]
*WINKLER Heinrich 1896, Die Sprache der zweiten Columne der dreisprachigen Inschriften und das Altaische (Programm des städt. Johannes-Gymnasiums zu Breslau), Breslau
FOY Willy 1898, Beiträge zur Erklärung der susischen Achämenideninschriften in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 52 pp. 119-131 and 564-605
*HÜSING G. 1898 (1869-1930 [da Schmitt Enc.Ir. p. 539]), Neu-Elamisches in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1 columns 301-304 [StAntOrFI 2° piano corridoio 1932-; IFSCIREBO ??]
*FOY Willy 1900, Die neuelamische Inschrift Art.Sus.a. in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 14 pp. 277-300, Wien [StAntOrFI 2° piano corridoio RIV.STR. 703 da ??]
FOY Willy 1900, Altpersisches und Neuelamisches in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 54 pp. 341-377
*WEISSBACH F.H. 1900, Susische Thontäfelchen in Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft IV pp. 168-202, Leipzig [Die sog. Ninive-Briefe]
JENSEN P. 1901, Alt- und Neuelamitisches in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 55 pp. 223-240
*SCHEIL Vincent 1901, Textes élamites-anzanites, première série (MDP III), Paris
HÜSING G. 1902, Elamisches in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 56 pp. 790-795
*BORK Ferdinand 1905, Elamisches in Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft Band 4 pp. 431-433
*HÜSING G. 1905, Hadamdum in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 8 columns 248-250
*SCHEIL Vincent 1905, Miscellen V. Ḥapirti ou Ḥatamti? in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 8 columns 203-204
*BORK Ferdinand 1906, Zur Erklärung der elamischen Briefe in Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft Band 5 pp. 401-404, Leipzig
*HÜSING G. 1906, Semitische Lehnwörter im Elamischen in Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft Band 5 pp. 405-412, Leipzig
*HÜSING G. 1906, Zu Mal-Amir in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 9 columns 605-606
*HÜSING G. 1906, Halpirti in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 9 columns 601-604 [irrig, ist Haltamti zu lesen]
*WINKLER Heinrich 1907, Elamisch und Kaukasisch in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 10 columns 565-573
HÜSING G. 1910, Die elamische Sprachforschung in Memnon 4 pp. 5-40 [StAnt 6.41]
SCHEIL V. 1910, L'extension de la langue anzanite in Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Comptes Rendus des Séances de l'Année 1910 pp. 564-575, Paris [BibUnivBO A.A.FR. 19 (1909-)] [ottima panoramica delle fonti elamiche suddivise per periodi storici, luoghi di ritrovamento e generi letterari]
*WEISSBACH F.H. 1911, Die Keilinschriften am Grabe des Darius Hystaspis (Abhandlungen der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften XXIX/Phil.-hist. Klasse I), Leipzig
WEISSBACH F.H. 1911, Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden, Leipzig [noch immer grundlegend]
*FRANK Carl 1912, Zur Entzifferung der altelamischen Inschriften (Anhang zu den Abhandlungen der Königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften vom Jahre 1912), Berlin
*+PÉZARD Maurice / POTTIER Edmond 1913, Catalogue des Antiquités de la Susiane (mission J. de Morgan), Paris (Musées du Louvre) [Benoit 1997 p. 148: reprinted with a new appendix in 1926]
WEISSBACH F.H. 1913, Zur Kritik der Achämenideninschriften in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 67 pp. 271-341
*GUSTAVS Arnold 1915, Verbindungs-Linien zwischen dem Mitannischen, dem Elamischen und dem Lykischen in Memnon 7 pp. 228-232
*HÜSING Georg 1916, Die einheimischen Quellen zur Geschichte Elams. I. Teil: Altelamische Texte in Umschrift mit Bemerkungen, einer Einleitung und einem Anhang, Leipzig [II. Teil nicht erschienen]
--- break after 1916 ---
BORK Ferdinand 1925, Elam B. Sprache in EBERT Max (hrsg.), Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte Band III, pp. 70-83, Berlin [DipStAntOrFI (2° piano, corridoio)]
+WEISSBACH F.H. 1931, Μάρδοι in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft [+??+] vol. XXVIII columns 1648-1651, ++ [StAnt sala Roma; BibLettereFI FIL.CLASS. II 131]
*POEBEL Arno 1932, The Name of Elam in Sumerian, Akkadian and Hebrew in The American Journal of semitic Languages and Literatures 48 (1931-1932) pp. 20-26 [Milano Sacro Cuore 02-8856231 1920-41; Napoli fac.teol.It.mer. 1919-31 e ROMA DipStudiOr 1908-27 lac.]
FURLANI Giuseppe 1936, Divinità gemelle nel pantheon elamico? in Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni, Band 12, pp. 51-65, Bologna [StAnt 5.27 1925-69; Disc.UmanisticheBO; BibUnivBO]
+FURLANI Giuseppe 1932, Elam in Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti (Treccani) vol. XIII pp. 603-606 [DipArch (reprint 1949)]
*+LUZZATTO Filosseno 1848, Sulla inscrizione cuneiforme persiana di Behistun, Memoria di Filosseno Luzzatto, Milano, 1848 [search in http://catalogue.bnf.fr: 24?? pages; LUZZATO Filossino according to NYPL on-line catalogue; NYPL *OMH+ (Locked cage)] [+si occupa di elamico?? +]
*LUZZATTO Filosseno [+(1829-1854) secondo ??NYPL??; Hinz/Koch 1987: Luzzato Philoxène; Treccani: Samuel David di Padova ma è un altro (???)+] 1850, Etudes sur les Inscriptions assyriennes de Persépolis, Hamadan, Van et Khorsabad, par Philoxène Luzzato, Padoue [ISBN: Paoue; ROMA DipStudiOr]
MERIGGI Piero 1966, L'Elamico in Atti dell'Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Problemi Attuali di Scienza e Cultura, Anno CCCLCIII – 1966, Quaderno N. 76, Atti del Convegno sul tema: La Persia e il Mondo Greco-Romano (Roma 11-14 aprile 1965), pp. 559-567, Roma [Dip. Scienze della Terra e Geologico-Ambientali. Discipline Geologiche e Paleontologiche 1947-91 lac. 1962-91 via Zamboni 67 2° piano]
*MERIGGI Piero 1969, Altsumerische und proto-elamische Bilderschrift in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft suppl. I XVII pp. 156-163 [BibUn 1847-1942; 1966; DiSLO Per 12 1846-1906; 1908-1909; 1945-]
MERIGGI Piero 1969, Zur Lesung und Deutung der proto-elamischen Königsinschriften in Bibliotheca Orientalis 26 pp. 176-177, Leiden [StAnt 4.23 1943-49; 1951-]
MERIGGI Piero 1971, Zu den neuen Inschriften in proto-elamischer Prunkschrift in Bibliotheca Orientalis 28 pp. 171-173, Leiden [zu KutI Silbervase] [StAnt 4.23 1943-49; 1951-]
MERIGGI Piero 1971, Besprechung von Erica Reiner, The Elamite Language im Handbuch der Orientalistik in Bibliotheca Orientalis 28 pp. 72, Leiden [StAnt 4.23 1943-49; 1951-]
MERIGGI Piero 1971, La scrittura proto-elamica, Parte Ia: La scrittura e il contenuto dei testi (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei), Roma
MERIGGI Piero 1974, La scrittura proto-elamica, Parte IIa: Catalogo dei segni (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei), Roma
MERIGGI Piero 1974, La scrittura proto-elamica, Parte IIIa: Testi (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei), Roma
MERIGGI Piero 1977, Iscrizioni proto-elamiche dell'Iran orientale in Kadmos 16 pp. 1-4 [StAnt 5.26 1962-]
*STEFANINI R. 1974, Besprechung von Piero Meriggi, La Scrittura Proto-Elamica, Teil I in Journal of Cuneiform Studies 26 pp. 122-129 [DiSLO 1975-76 Per 340; Milano Sacro Cuore 1942-; Napoli IUO]
TROMBETTI Alfredo 1913, La posizione linguistica dell’Elamitico (Memoria presentata il 26 febbraio 1913) in Memorie della R. Accademia delle Scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna, Classe di Scienze Morali – Sezione storico-filologica serie I tomo VII (1912-13) pp. 117-136, Bologna [DiSLO C.Or. III,14]
+TROMBETTI Alfredo 1923, Elementi di glottologia (Regia Accademia delle Scienze dell'Istituto di Bologna, Classe di Scienze Morali) [Estratta dalla Serie I. Tomo VII. 1912-13 delle Memorie della R. Accademia della Scienze dell'Istituto di Bologna Classe di Scienze Morali – Sezione storico-filologica pp. 117-136], Bologna [a sort of simple index to this book is in BALLINI 1938 pp. ++]
BASELLO Gian Pietro 2000?, Babylonian and Elam: the Evidence of the Calendars, paper presented at the 3rd annual meeting of Melammu, Chicago, november 28th, 2000 [http://digilander.iol.it/elam/elam/chicago_uft.htm]
GRAGG G. 1994, Elamite in ASHER R.E. / SIMPSON J.M.+. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics III pp. 1104, Oxford/New york/Seoul/Tokyo [DiSLO LG 2684 (sala C)]
GRILLOT-SUSINI Françoise / HERRENSCHMIDT Clarisse / MALBRAN-LABAT Florence 1993, La version élamite de la trilingue de Behistun: une nouvelle lecture in Journal Asiatique CCLXXXI pagg. 19-59, Paris [DiSLO Per 321 or]
HINZ Walther 1962 (1906-1992 [da Schmitt Enc.Ir. p. 539, Iranista p. 542], Die elamischen Inschriften des Hanne in A Locust’s Leg, Studies in honour of S. H. Taqizadeh pagg. 105-116, London
HINZ Walther / KOCH Heidemarie 1987, Elamisches Wörterbuch (in 2 Teilen), Berlin 1987 [DiSLO As 143]
KENT Roland G. 1953, Old Persian, Grammar Texts Lexicon, New Haven [DiSLO Ir 58]
KHAČIKJAN Margaret 1998, The Elamite Language (Documenta Asiana IV), Roma (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto per gli studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici) [NYPL *OMH+ 99-5834]
KÖNIG Friedrich Wilhelm 1965, Die elamischen Königsinschriften (Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 16), Graz
LACKENBACHER Sylvie 1998, Elam, vii. Non-Elamite Texts in Elam in Encyclopædia Iranica vol. VIII pagg. 342-344, Costa Mesa [DiSLO Pers 2468]
LECOQ Pierre 1997, Les inscriptions de la Perse achémémide / Traduit du vieux perse, de l'élamite, du babylonien et de l'araméen, présenté et annoté par Pierre Lecoq (L’aube des peuples), Paris [IUO IR III AP 5 N; Dip.Arch. BO EX 205 (armadio W 14); Beni Culturali RA; IsIAO Roma]
MCALPIN D.W. 1981, Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: the Evidence and its Implications (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society vol. 71, part 3), Philadelphia [IG Glott. Ind. 3275]
PAPER Herbert H. 1955, The Phonology and Morphology of Royal Achaemenid Elamite, Ann Arbor [SOAS QEU 410/104077]
POTTS Daniel T. 1999, The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State, NewYork 1999 [SOAS FRP 782650; NYPL *OMB 00-2042; DipArchBO EX 263 (armadio W 15)]
REINER Erica 1969, The Elamite Language in Altkleinasiatische Sprachen, Leiden/Köln, pp. 54-118 [DiSLO Var Or 1 II 1,2 I]
ROSSI Adriano V. 1981, La varietà linguistica nell'Iran achemenide in Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli sezione linguistica vol. 3 pagg. 141-196, Napoli [lacuna in DiSLO!]
ROSSI Adriano V. 1984, Glottonimia ed etnonimia nell'Iran achemenide in Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli sezione linguistica vol. 6 pagg. 39-65, Napoli [DiSLO Per 34b Occ ?]
ROSSI Adriano V. 1985, Competenza multipla nei testi arcaici: le iscrizioni di Bisotun in Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli sezione linguistica vol. 7 pagg. 191-210, Napoli [DiSLO Per 34b Occ ?]
STEVE M.-J. 1992, Syllabaire Elamite, Histoire et Paleographie (Civilisations du Proche-Orient: Serie II, Philologie, Volume 1), Neuchâtel/Paris
VALLAT F. 1993, Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes vol. 11, Les noms géographiques des sources suso-élamites, Wiesbaden 1993 [StAnt Or Cons 6]
VALLAT F. 1998, Le royaume elamite de Zamin et les «Lettres de Ninive» in Iranica Antiqua 33 pp. 95-106 [con bibliografie sulle tavolette di Ninive] [StAnt]
VOGELSANG Willem 1998, Medes, Scythians and Persians: the Rise of Darius in a North-South Perspective in Iranica Antiqua XXXIII (1998) pagg.195-224, Leiden [StAnt]
I would like to thank: Stefano Buscherini for suggesting me to speak about Trombetti; Professor Giorgio Renato Franci for his bibliographical knowledge about Trombetti; Grazia Giovinazzo (Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples) for her support; my uncle Franco Morisi for proofreading; Professor Antonio C.D. Panaino for giving me this opportunity; Federica Sarti for listening my speech; Elena Serra for her German help; Professor Adriano Rossi (Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples) for his suggestions and criticisms; Patrizia Tartari (Dipartimento di Studi Linguistici e Orientali, Bologna) for permission to use the scanner; Graziano Zucchini for persuading me silently not to speak about another subject. I am sincerely grateful to the kind librarians I met in Bologna (Biblioteca Discipline Geologiche e Paleontologiche; Biblioteca Universitaria, especially Miss Parrini; Biblioteca Dipartimento di Archeologia), Firenze (Biblioteca Nazionale), Torino (Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria) and Roma (Biblioteca Dipartimento di Studi Orientali). In the end, many thanks to my jogging shoes!
How is an academic subject born? It was the Bible that preserved the name of Elam from complete oblivion. The 17th and 18th centuries were the age of the journeys in the East, which brought back accounts about the ruins of ancient Eastern civilizations. But it was only the understanding of written sources that gave birth to Assyriology and Iranian studies as distinct branches of Orientalism. While the languages of the so called first and third kind in Bisotun and Persepolis inscriptions were soon identified with those of ancient Persians and Babylonians, the remaining language was called Median, Scythic, Susian, Amardian, Protomedic, Anzanite and then Elamite. Today, while ancient Elamites fought against Assyrians and rebelled against Persians, Elamite studies are strictly bound to Assyriology and Iranian studies. However, the Elam revisited by modern historiography is only the last transformation in the meaning of this name.
But not only Assyriologists and scholars of Iranian studies have been and are concerned with Elam. Also an Italian Linguist, Alfredo Trombetti, compiled a brief Elamite grammar in 1913.
©2001 Copyright by Basello Gian Pietro <email@example.com>
for Elam.net <http://digilander.iol.it/elam>
san Giovanni in Persiceto, 18-19/X/2001 (small corrections 22/X)