Elamite cuneiform
Elamite cuneiform | |
---|---|
Shutruk-Nahhunte in Elamite cuneiform on the Victory Stele of Naram-Sin. | |
Script type | |
Time period | 3000 BCE to 400 BCE |
Languages | Elamite language |
Related scripts | |
Parent systems | Sumerian cuneiform
|
Sister systems | Old Persian cuneiform |
Elamite cuneiform was a
History and decipherment
The
Elamite cuneiform comes in two variants, the first, derived from Akkadian, was used during the 3rd to 2nd millennia BCE, and a simplified form used during the 1st millennium BCE.[1] The main difference between the two variants is the reduction of glyphs used in the simplified version.[3] At any one time, there would only be around 130 cuneiform signs in use. Throughout the script's history, only 206 different signs were used in total.
Archaeological sources
First document in Elamite cuneiform (2250 BCE)
The
The enemy of Naram-Sin is my enemy, the friend of Naram-Sin is my friend
— Akkadian-Elamite Treaty of 2250 BCE[5]
However, some believe that Elamite cuneiform might have been in use since 2500 BCE.[3] The tablets are poorly preserved, so only limited parts can be read, but it is understood that the text is a treaty between the Akkad king Nāramsîn and Elamite ruler Hita, as indicated by frequent references like "Nāramsîn's friend is my friend, Nāramsîn's enemy is my enemy".[1]
Persepolis Administrative Archives
In 1933–34, 33,000 Elamite cuneiform tablets were found as part of the Persepolis Administrative Archives.[6] The Archives are the most important primary source for an understanding of the internal workings of the Achaemenid Empire.
Other Achaemenid inscriptions
The most famous Elamite scriptures and the ones that ultimately led to its decipherment are the ones found in the trilingual inscriptions of monuments commissioned by the Achaemenid Persian kings; the
Inventory
Elamite radically reduced the number of cuneiform glyphs. From the entire history of the script, only 206 glyphs are used; at any one time, the number was fairly constant at about 130. In the earliest tablets the script is almost entirely syllabic, with almost all common Old Akkadian syllabic glyphs with CV and VC values being adopted. Over time the number of syllabic glyphs is reduced while the number of logograms increases. About 40 CVC glyphs are also occasionally used, but they appear to have been used for the consonants and ignored the vocalic value. Several determinatives are also used.[3]
Ca | Ce | Ci | Cu | aC | eC | iC | uC | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
p b |
𒉺 pa 𒁀 ba |
𒁁 be |
𒉿 pe ~ pi | 𒁍 pu | 𒀊 ap | 𒅁 ip (𒌈 íp) | 𒌒 up | ||
k g |
𒋡 ka4 | 𒆠 ke ~ ki 𒄀 ge ~ gi |
𒆪 ku | 𒀝 ak | 𒅅 ik | 𒊌 uk | |||
t d |
𒆪 da |
𒋼 te | 𒋾 ti | 𒌅 tu, 𒌈 tu4 𒁺 du |
𒀜 at | 𒌓 ut | |||
š | 𒐼 šá (𒊮 šà) | 𒊺 še | 𒅆 ši | 𒋗 šu | 𒀾 aš | 𒆜 iš ~ uš | |||
s z (č) |
𒊓 sa 𒍝 ca |
𒋛 se ~ si 𒍢 ce ~ ci |
𒋢 su | 𒊍 as/ac | 𒄑 is/ic | ||||
y | 𒅀 ya | ||||||||
l | 𒆷 la | 𒇷 le ~ li | 𒇻 lu | 𒌌 ul | |||||
m | 𒈠 ma | 𒈨 me | 𒈪 mi | 𒈬 mu | 𒄠 am | 𒌝 um | |||
n | 𒈾 na | 𒉌 ne ~ ni | 𒉡 nu | 𒀭 an | 𒂗 en | 𒅔 in | 𒌦 un | ||
r | 𒊏 ra | 𒊑 re ~ ri | 𒊒 ru | 𒅕 ir | 𒌨 ur | ||||
h 0 |
𒄩 ha 𒀀 a |
𒂊 e |
𒄭 hi 𒄿 i |
𒄷 hu 𒌋 u, 𒌑 ú |
𒄴 ah |
Glyphs in parentheses in the table are not common.
The script distinguished the four vowels of Akkadian and 15 consonants, /p/, /b/, /k/, /g/, /t/, /d/, /š/, /s/, /z/, /y/, /l/, /m/, /n/, /r/, and /h/. The Akkadian voiced pairs /p, b/, /k, g/, and /t, d/ may not have been distinct in Elamite. The series transcribed z may have been an
Much of the conflation of Ce and Ci, and also eC and iC, is inherited from Akkadian (pe-pi-bi, ke-ki, ge-gi, se-si, ze-zi, le-li, re-ri, and ḫe-ḫi—that is, only ne-ni are distinguished in Akkadian but not Elamite; of the VC syllables, only eš-iš-uš). In addition, 𒄴 is aḫ, eḫ, iḫ, uḫ in Akkadian, and so effectively is a coda consonant even there.
Syntax
Elamite cuneiform is similar to that of Akkadian cuneiform except for a few unusual features. For example, the primary function of CVC glyphs was to indicate the two consonants rather than the syllable.[3] Thus certain words used the glyphs for "tir" and "tar" interchangeably and the vowel was ignored. Occasionally, the vowel is acknowledged such that "tir" will be used in the context "ti-rV". Thus "ti-ra" might be written with the glyphs for "tir" and "a" or "ti" and "ra".
Elamite cuneiform allows for a lot of freedom when constructing syllables. For example, CVC syllables are sometimes represented by using a CV and VC glyph. The vowel in the second glyph is irrelevant so "sa-ad" and "sa-ud" are equivalent. Additionally, "VCV" syllables are represented by combining "V" and "CV" glyphs or "VC" and "CV" glyphs that have a common consonant. Thus "ap-pa" and "a-pa" are equivalent.
See also
- Proto-Elamite
- Linear Elamite
Notes
- ^ a b c d e f Khačikjan (1998)
- ^ Starostin, George (2002)
- ^ a b c d e Peter Daniels and William Bright (1996)
- ISBN 978-1-57506-055-2.
- ^ a b c "Site officiel du musée du Louvre". cartelfr.louvre.fr.
- ^ Vollmers, Gloria L. “ACCOUNTING AND CONTROL IN THE PERSEPOLIS FORTIFICATION TABLETS.” The Accounting Historians Journal, vol. 36, no. 2, 2009, pp. 93–111
- ^ Reiner, Erica (2005)
References
- Reiner, Erica. 2005. "Elamite" International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Ed. William J. Frawley. Oxford University Press. Oxford Reference Online (accessed 5 November 2008)
- Khačikjan, Margaret. 1998. "The Elamite Language". Documenta Asiana IV, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici. ISBN 88-87345-01-5
- Peter T. Daniels and William Bright. 1996. "The World's Writing Systems". Published by Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-507993-0
- George S. Starostin. On the Genetic Affiliation of the Elamite Language. // Originally in: Mother Tongue, v. VII. 2002, pp. 147–170