DOCSLIB.ORG

And ´/Z-Series in Elamite*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
And ´/Z-Series in Elamite* On the Sounds Rendered by the s-, š- and ´/z-Series in Elamite* Jan Tavernier Louvain-la-Neuve 1. Introduction The study of Elamite phonology is a difficult task. Four reasons make it extremely hard to get a hold on how the Elamites pronounced their language (Reiner 1969:71; Grillot-Susini–Roche 1987:10; Khačikyan 1995:105; Krebernik 2005:161). Firstly, Elamite is written by means of the Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform writing system, a script which was not devised for expressing Elamite. As a result of this, the Sumero-Akkadi- an cuneiform signs cannot render in a clear way all Elamite phonemes, and as a consequence of this, some signs had to render more than one phoneme. Secondly, given the isolated status of Elamite, there is no comparative linguistic material for the study of Elamite phonology. Al- though McAlpin (1981) reconstructed a Proto-Elamo-Dravidian sub- strate language and thus proposed a connection between Elamite and the Dravidian languages, the link between them is still too weak to allow far-going conclusions on Elamite phonology. Thirdly, one should keep in mind the possibility of Elamite dialects, which may touch on phono- logical issues. Finally the phonological system also had its own dia- chronic development.1 * Abbreviations follow the system used in Northern Akkad Project Reports 8 (1993):49–77. Other abbreviations are: AE = Achaemenid Elamite; AE (AHam) = Achaemenid Elamite—texts dated to Atta-¶amiti-Inšušinak; MBHT = Middle Babylonian texts from Haft Tepe; MBSu = Middle Babylonian texts from Susa; ME = Middle Elamite; ME TTM = Middle Elamite texts from Tal-i Malyān; NA = Neo-Assyrian; NB = Neo-Babylonian; NE = Neo-Elamite; OAkk. = Old Akkadian; OBMa = Old Babylonian texts from Mari; OBSu = Old Babylonian texts from Susa; OBTM = Old Babylonian texts from Tal-i Malyān; OE = Old Elamite. 1 Basically there are five diachronic stages in the development of the Elamite language. The first one is Old Elamite (ca. 2300–1500 BC), followed by Middle Elamite (ca. 1500–1000 BC), Early Neo-Elamite (NE I; ca. 1000–650 BC), Late Neo-Elamite (NE II; ca. 650–550 BC) and Achaemenid Elamite (ca. 550–330 BC). This framework is relevant not only for Elamite phonology, but also for mor- 1060 Limited-corpus Languages of the Ancient Near East Possibly because of these reasons, the recently published Elamite grammars (Grillot-Susini–Roche 1987; Khačikyan 1998; Stolper 2004; Krebernik 2005) devote relatively little attention to Elamite phonology. Nevertheless, these difficulties should not deter the scholar from try- ing to solve the mysteries of Elamite phonology given that there are three types of sources which enable him / her to conduct such a study. (1) Transcriptions of non-Elamite words in Elamite texts (Iranian, Akkadian and West-Semitic proper names and loanwords). (2) Transcriptions of Elamite proper names and words in non-Elamite texts. (3) Spelling variants within Elamite texts themselves. These sources can easily be divided into two groups: internal data have no connection whatsoever with a non-Elamite language (No. 3), whereas external data (nos. 1–2) do have a connection with text attesta- tions in languages other than Elamite. This article focuses on a particular phonological issue, the sounds rendered by the s-, š- and ´/z-series in Elamite. It is not certain how many sibilants and/or affricates Elamite possessed (Foy 1898:129; Reiner 1969:72–73) and therefore several scholars have published vari- ous ideas on this topic. With Old Persian phonology in mind, Wester- gaard (1845:343, 348–349, 355–356) believed in the existence of El. /č/, /s/, /š/ and /z/. Holtzmann (1851:147, 154, 168–169; also Weissbach 1890:47 and Grillot-Susini–Roche 1987:10) accepted the existence of /s/, /š/ and /z/. Four years later Norris (1855:39, 44 and 50) mentioned /č/, /ç/, /s/ and /θ/, whereas according to Mordtmann (1862:31) Elamite pos- sessed /ç/, /s/, /θ/ and /z/. Other scholars assume the existence of only /s/, /š/ and /č/ (Hüsing 1898:15; Bork 1910:569–571 and 1925:74; Weidner 1917:32; Paper 1955:25–29; Reiner 1969:72; McAlpin 1981:65, 90–91). In his study on Proto-Elamo-Dravidian (PED) McAlpin includes a his- torical phonology of these three phonemes. PED /*š/ remained /š/ in Elamite (whereas it disappeared in Dravidian). PED /*c/ became Proto- Elamite /*c/, but subsequently had a more complicated development, as the following table shows: phology and syntax. Only with regard to the writing system it should be slightly modified, in the sense that the Middle Elamite period is divided into two subdivi- sions: Classical Middle Elamite (the royal inscriptions) and Late Middle Elamite (the administrative tablets from Tall-i Malyān). J. Tavernier, On the Sounds Rendered by the s-, š-, ´/z-Series… 1061 Table 1: Development of PED and Proto-Elamite /*c/ (McAlpin 1981) Phonetic context Middle Elamite Achaemenid Elamite Before /a/ /*c / > s /*c / > s /*c / > z (= /č /) (rarely) Before /e/, /i/ /*c / > s /*c / > z (= /č /) /*c / > z (= /č /) (rarely) 2 Before /u/ /*c / > z (= /č /) Not mentioned /*c / > s (rarely) In reality, however, these rules do not withstand critical research. For example, many times /č / precedes /a/ and this /č/ cannot have other ori- gins than from PED /*c / in McAlpin’s view. Khačikyan (1995:105–107; 1998:7–8) has two alveolar fricatives (/s/ and /š/) and two affricates (/c / and /č /). Stolper (2004:71) postulates at least three fricatives, transcribed as s, š and z, and an affricate /č /. Labat (1951:28) de- nies the existence of /θ/ and has doubts on /č /, whereas Steve (1992:14) cau- tiously mentions /ž/ and /ğ/. Recently Krebernik (2005:162) has mentioned /s/, /š/, /z/ with their respectively geminated variants. Finally Henkelman (2008:278, n. 635) assumes the existence of an affricated dental /ts/. All to- gether eight fricatives (/ç /, /s/, /ss/, /š/, /šš/, /θ/, /z/ and /zz/) and five affricates s (/c /, /č /, /ğ/ and /t / and /ž/) have been mentioned in previous publications. Some phonemes are accepted by almost all scholars: /č/, /s/, /š/ and, to s a lesser extent, /z/, whereas others (/c / /ç /, /ğ/, /t /, /θ/ and /ž/) are only mentioned in the works of one or two authors. Three types of signs may render sibilants or affricates: the s-signs, the š-signs and the ´/z-signs. A problem that emerges when studying the sibilants is that the VC-signs (e. g. ÁŠ) may render various sibilants (áš = ás; is = iz, etc.). Also CV-signs, which generally have a clearer distinction, may be confusing, e. g. zu may be read as sú. Another problem is that the cuneiform writing system is not apt to express af- fricates. Finally it should be noted that CVC-signs will not be used in this discussion because of their ambiguity as to the precise character of the consonants they express. 2. Non-Elamite expressions in Elamite texts The first step in the study of Elamite sibilants and affricates is an analysis of Elamite renderings of non-Elamite expressions, especially of Akkadian 2 As the sign ZU had disappeared by the Achaemenid period, a clear distinc- tion between /cu/ and su cannot be made. 1062 Limited-corpus Languages of the Ancient Near East and Old Iranian ones (cf. Foy 1898:128–129; Cameron 1948:40–45 and 1954–1959:471; Paper 1955:29–30;3 Khačikyan 1995:106–107 and 1998: 7–8). There are not many Akkadian expressions rendered in Elamite, in contrast to the numerous Iranian proper names and loanwords appear- ing in Achaemenid Elamite texts. Nevertheless the Akkadian expressions are important, since they are, contrary to the Iranian proper names and loanwords, not limited to the Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid period. Al- though CVC-signs are not valuable for this study, one example of an Ak- kadian sibilant (ziqquratu) rendered by CVC-signs, is here included, since it is the only attestation of Akkadian /z/ in Elamite. Table 2: Akkadian and Aramaic names and words in Elamite Akkadian Period Elamite Attar-sūrī- (Aramaic), PN AE ÚALAt-tur-r[u-i]š-šu-ri-iš Bēlšunu, PN AE ÚALBe-ul-šu-un ešertu ‘chapel, shrine’ ME AŠi-ši-ir-tu kiššu ‘bundle’ (pl. kišati) ME ki-ša-a-ti d Išme-karāb, a theonym ME Iš-ni-ka4-ra-ab Man-ištūšu, a royal name4 ME Ma-an-iš-du-uz-zu misarru ‘(metal) band’ ME mi-za-ru-um mīšaru ‘justice’ ME mi-ša-ri nikassu ‘account’ AE nu-ik-kás-su-um-me nisannu month name AE nu-šá-an paspasu ‘duck’ ME ba-as/z-ba-as/z AE ba-is/z.KIMIN pašīšu anointing priest NE I–II ba-ši-šu qištu ‘wood, forest’ ME ki-iš-tu4-um ÚAL Sîn-qatēni, PN AE Ši-in-ka4-tan-na ´almu ‘statue’ ME sa-al-mu-um (1 time) ME za-al-mu (14 times) NE I za-al-mi (1 time) NE I za-al-mu (11 times) NE II za-al-mi (2 times) NE II za-al-mu (14 times) AE (AHam)5 za-al-mu (3 times) 3 Paper made the mistake of including Babylonian renderings of Old Persian names and loanwords in his table of sibilant correspondence-sets. These names and loanwords, however, do not yield reliable information on Elamite phonology, but rather on Old Iranian phonology. 4 The later spelling of this name is Ma-ni-iš-ti-iš-šu (Steinkeller 1987–1990:334). 5 The inscription on a stela of Atta-¶amiti-Inšušinak (EKI 86–89) was formerly dated to the second half of the 7th century BC (Vallat 1996:391) but recently the idea was expressed that this king could very well be identical with the rebel J.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Iranian Languages in the Persian Achamenid
    ANALYZING INTER-VOLATILITY STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE OPTIMUM HEDGING RATIO FOR THE JET PJAEE, 18 (4) (2021) FUEL The Function of Non- Iranian Languages in the Persian Achamenid Empire Hassan Kohansal Vajargah Assistant professor of the University of Guilan-Rasht -Iran Email: hkohansal7 @ yahoo.com Hassan Kohansal Vajargah: The Function of Non- Iranian Languages in the Persian Achamenid Empire -- Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology 18(4). ISSN 1567-214x Keywords: The Achamenid Empire, Non-Iranian languages, Aramaic language, Elamite language, Akkedi language, Egyptian language. ABSTRACT In the Achaemenid Empire( 331-559 B.C.)there were different tribes with various cultures. Each of these tribes spoke their own language(s). They mainly included Iranian and non- Iranian languages. The process of changes in the Persian language can be divided into three periods, namely , Ancient , Middle, and Modern Persian. The Iranian languages in ancient times ( from the beginning of of the Achaemenids to the end of the Empire) included :Median,Sekaee,Avestan,and Ancient Persian. At the time of the Achaemenids ,Ancient Persian was the language spoken in Pars state and the South Western part of Iran.Documents show that this language was not used in political and state affairs. The only remnants of this language are the slates and inscriptions of the Achaemenid Kings. These works are carved on stone, mud,silver and golden slates. They can also be found on coins,seals,rings,weights and plates.The written form of this language is exclusively found in inscriptions. In fact ,this language was used to record the great and glorious achivements of the Achaemenid kings.
    [Show full text]
  • The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars Number 2
    oi.uchicago.edu i THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ORIENTAL INSTITUTE SEMINARS NUMBER 2 Series Editors Leslie Schramer and Thomas G. Urban oi.uchicago.edu ii oi.uchicago.edu iii MARGINS OF WRITING, ORIGINS OF CULTURES edited by SETH L. SANDERS with contributions by Seth L. Sanders, John Kelly, Gonzalo Rubio, Jacco Dieleman, Jerrold Cooper, Christopher Woods, Annick Payne, William Schniedewind, Michael Silverstein, Piotr Michalowski, Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Theo van den Hout, Paul Zimansky, Sheldon Pollock, and Peter Machinist THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ORIENTAL INSTITUTE SEMINARS • NUMBER 2 CHICAGO • ILLINOIS oi.uchicago.edu iv Library of Congress Control Number: 2005938897 ISBN: 1-885923-39-2 ©2006 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. Published 2006. Printed in the United States of America. The Oriental Institute, Chicago Co-managing Editors Thomas A. Holland and Thomas G. Urban Series Editors’ Acknowledgments The assistance of Katie L. Johnson is acknowledged in the production of this volume. Front Cover Illustration A teacher holding class in a village on the Island of Argo, Sudan. January 1907. Photograph by James Henry Breasted. Oriental Institute photograph P B924 Printed by McNaughton & Gunn, Saline, Michigan The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Infor- mation Services — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. oi.uchicago.edu v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Word Order in Subordinate Clauses: Innovative Or Conservative? a Typology of Word Order Change
    WORD ORDER IN SUBORDINATE CLAUSES: INNOVATIVE OR CONSERVATIVE? A TYPOLOGY OF WORD ORDER CHANGE Iker Salaberri Izko Grado en Filología (Alemán) 2016/17 Iván Igartua Ugarte Departamento de Estudios Clásicos 0 WORD ORDER IN SUBORDINATE CLAUSES: INNOVATIVE OR CONSERVATIVE? A TYPOLOGY OF WORD ORDER CHANGE Abstract A recurrent claim in the literature on word order change is that subordinate clauses tend to preserve older patterns. However, even though individual cases of unrelated and typologically distinct languages have been discussed, no quantitative data has been used to support this claim. In addition, arguments have been presented that contradict the view that subordinate clauses are conservative. This work is meant to contribute to the discussion by providing a far-reaching typology of word order change. The results suggest that subordinate clauses are indeed conservative, but with nuances. Index 1. Introduction 1.1. State of the art: two contrary positions in the literature 1.1.1. Subordinate clauses are conservative 1.1.2. Subordinate clauses are innovative 1.2. Theoretical concepts 1.2.1. Word order 1.2.2. Clause 1.2.3. Subordination 1.3. Data and methodology 2. Discussion: a typology of word order change 2.1. Discussion of the individual cases 2.1.1. Africa 2.1.2. Eurasia 2.2. Results 3. Conclusions and future research References 1 1. INTRODUCTION1 1.1. State of the art: two contrary positions in the literature 1.1.1. Subordinate clauses are conservative In a considerable part of the literature on language change it has been pointed out that subordinate clauses are conservative, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ancient Languages of Asia and the Americas
    chapter 5 Old Persian rudiger¨ schmitt 1. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS Old Persian is one of two Old Iranian languages which are attested in the Achaemenid royal inscriptions (see below), members of that branch of the Indo-European language family called Indo-Iranian, or Aryan (the Persians designate themselves and their language by the term ariya-). The Iranian languages began to take shape when the ancestors of the Indo- Aryans left the common homeland in the steppes of Central Asia in the first half of the second millennium BC. The Western Iranian peoples, the Medes who settled in Media and the Persians in Fars¯ (speaking a Northwestern and Southwestern Iraniandialect respectively), step into the light of history in the ninth century BC, when Median names are first attested in Assyrian documents. While “Old Persian” was certainly the language of Fars,¯ the variety which is attested in the Achaemenid inscriptions appears to be a rather artificial idiom, peppered with dialectal and archaic words, unlike any dialect actually spoken (characteristics of a distinct spoken Old Persian may be discerned from certain spontaneous phonetic developments, and from Old Persian words and names as rendered in other languages). The language called Old Persian was thus restricted to royal usage (as was the cuneiform script in which Old Persian was recorded). Even so, Old Persian was neither the lingua franca nor the administrative language of the Achaemenid Empire, roles fulfilled by Aramaic and, to a limited extent, various regional languages spoken within the empire. As a consequence, the linguistic situation of the empire was a quite complex one; and epigraphical Old Persian was itself influenced by theseotherlanguages,particularlyinitsvocabularyandevensyntax(e.g.,intheoccurrenceof a postpositive genitive, as in xˇsaya¯ ϑiya xˇs¯ayaϑiyan¯ am¯ “king of kings” or vaˇsn¯a Auramazd¯aha “by the favor of Auramazda”).¯ The language of the Old Persian inscriptions is dialectologically homogeneous in princi- ple.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sigla of the Dialects Follow Those of the Languages Either Directly (Lp L = Lule Lappish) Or After a Colon (If Several Dialects Are Mentioned), E.G
    2736 ABBREVIATIONS OF NAMES OF LANGUAGES, DIALECTS, LANGUAGE FAMILIES, SUBFAMILIES, AND SCRIPT SYSTEMS A. Names of languages, dilects, and families of languages The sigla of the dialects follow those of the languages either directly (Lp L = Lule Lappish) or after a colon (if several dialects are mentioned), e.g. Lp: N guoros, L kuoro2s 'empty' (= "Norwegian Lappish guoros 'empty', Lule Lappish kuoro2s id."). If related words of several languages & dialects share the same meaning, it may be indicated either once after the enumeration of the languages\dialects (e.g. Hb ≤kElEb3, Ar kalb-, Ak kalbum 'dog') o r after the first of the languages only with the indication "id." after the other language names (e.g. Hb ≤kElEb3 'dog', Ar kalb- id., Ak kalbum id.). If we quote a common word shared by several dialects of the same language or by several languages of the same family and the word has the same phonologic form and the same meaning in all these dialects\languages, their names may be separated by a solidus (slant line), e.g. Os V/Vy/Ty {Ht.} (= Vakh, Vasyugan & Teryugan dialects of Ostyak, as described by L. Honti), Brj/Ged/Hd/Kmb {Hd.} (= Burji, Gede’o, Hadiya, Kambata languages, as described by G. Hudson). In these cases the name of the scholar (who recorded o r registered the forms) refers to all languages connected by a solidus. Abbreviationes: d. = dialect, sd. = subdialect, ssd. = subsubdialect, ds. = dialects, sds. = subdialects, lge. = language. ∀ = attested in different epochs, from the most ancient documents of the lge. (e.g., Eg ∀ = Eg [from the most ancients dicuments on]), f… = from … on (of historical variants of lgs.) (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Abbi, Anvita. 2013. a Grammar of the Great Andamanese Language: an Ethnolinguistic Study
    Abbi, Anvita. 2013. A grammar of the Great Andamanese language: An ethnolinguistic study. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Adelaar, Alexander. 2011. Siraya: Retrieving the phonology, grammar and lexicon of a dormant Formosan language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Aguilera, Oscar E. 2001. Gramática de la lengua kawésqar. Temuco: Corporación de Desarrollo Indígena. Ahland, Michael B. 2012. A grammar of Northern Mao (Màwés Aas’è). Eugene: University of Oregon PhD dissertation. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. A grammar of Tariana, from northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge Univerity Press. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2008. The Manambu language of East Sepik, Papua New Guinea. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alfira, David A., Timothy K. Kafi, Hassan K. kaki, Ali A. Hasan, Anjo K. Anjo, Dayan K. Jas & Sadik K. Sarukh. 2016. Caning grammar book. Khartoum: Trial Edition, Sudan Workshop Program. Alnet, Aimee J. 2009. The clause structure of the Shimaore dialect of Comorian (Bantu). Urbana: University of Illinois PhD dissertation. Anderson, Judi L. 1989. Comaltepec Chinantec syntax. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of Texas at Arlington. Andronov, Mikhail S. 2001. A grammar of the Brahui language in comparative treatment. Munich: Lincom Europa. Årsjö, Britten. 2016. Konai reference grammar. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Austin, Peter K. 1981. A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Austing, John F. & Randolph Upia. 1975. Highlights of Ömie morphology. In Tom E. Dutton (ed.), Studies in languages of central and south-east Papua, 513-598. Canberra: Australian National University. Bader, Christian. 2008. Parlons karimojong: Une langue de l’Afrique orientale. Paris: L’Harmattan. Banks, Jonathan. 2007. The verbal morphology of Santiam Kalapuya.
    [Show full text]
  • The Writing Revolution
    9781405154062_1_pre.qxd 8/8/08 4:42 PM Page iii The Writing Revolution Cuneiform to the Internet Amalia E. Gnanadesikan A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication 9781405154062_1_pre.qxd 8/8/08 4:42 PM Page iv This edition first published 2009 © 2009 Amalia E. Gnanadesikan Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of Amalia E. Gnanadesikan to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks.
    [Show full text]
  • Achaemenid Elamite Administrative Tablets, 3: Fragments from Old
    Arta 2015.001 Michael T. Fisher, Matthew W. Stolper1 University of Chicago Achaemenid Elamite Administrative Tablets, 3 Fragments from Old Kandahar, Afghanistan 1 Discovery and Rediscovery The site of Old Kandahar lies on a ridge about three kilometers west of the center of the modern town that was founded in the eighteenth century AD. The discovery there of Greek and Aramaic edicts of the Mauryan king Ashoka in the middle of the twentieth century drew attention to the site and stimulated an inference of Achaemenid presence there (Benveniste 1958:43f., Briant 1996:774, Shaked 2004:7; cf., e.g., Greenfi eld 1985:705). The Society for Afghan Studies (today, the Society for South Asian Studies) carried out excavations at Old Kandahar between 1974 and 1978, under the successive direction of David Whitehouse and Svend Helms. In 1977, the excavators found two burned fragments of cuneiform tablets in the outworks of the citadel. The fragments were in ash and trash layers of a pit, in deposits that the fi nal report attributes to a loosely bounded time interval, c. 700-300 BC, on the basis of ceramic compari- 1 Thanks are due to Dr. Omara Khan Masoudi, Director of the National Museum of Afghanistan, for permitting and fa- cilitating the publication of these items; to the supporters of the Oriental Institute-National Museum of Afghanistan Partnership, including the Embassy of the United States in Kabul, Afghanistan; and to the supporters of the Persepolis Fortifi cation Archive Project at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, including
    [Show full text]
  • Languages by Date Before 1000 BC
    Languages by Date Before 1000 BC Further information: Bronze Age writing Writing first appeared in the Near East at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. A very limited number of languages are attested in the area from before the Bronze Age collapse and the rise of alphabetic writing: the Sumerian, Hurrian, Hattic and Elamite language isolates, Afro-Asiatic in the form of the Egyptian and Semitic languages and Indo-European (Anatolian languages and Mycenaean Greek). In East Asia towards the end of the second millennium BC, the Sino- Tibetan family was represented by Old Chinese. There are also a number of undeciphered Bronze Age records: Proto-Elamite script and Linear Elamite the Indus script (claimed to record a "Harappan language") Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A (encoding a possible "Minoan language")[3][4] the Cypro-Minoan syllabary[5] Earlier symbols, such as the Jiahu symbols, Vinča symbols and the marks on the Dispilio tablet, are believed to be proto-writing, rather than representations of language. Date Language Attestation Notes "proto-hieroglyphic" Egyptian hieroglyphs inscriptions from in the tomb of Seth- about 3300 BC c. 2690 BC Egyptian Peribsen (2nd (Naqada III; see Dynasty), Umm el- Abydos, Egypt, Qa'ab[6] Narmer Palette) Instructions of "proto-literate" period Shuruppak, the Kesh from about 3500 BC 26th century BC Sumerian temple hymn and (see Kish tablet); other cuneiform texts administrative 1 | P a g e Languages by Date from Shuruppak and records at Uruk and Abu Salabikh (Fara Ur from c. 2900 BC. period)[7][8] Some proper names attested in Sumerian A few dozen pre- texts at Tell Harmal Sargonic texts from from about 2800 c.
    [Show full text]
  • Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State D
    Cambridge University Press 0521563585 - The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State D. T. Potts Excerpt More information 1 ELAM: WHAT, WHEN, WHERE? In order to discuss the origins and development of Elam we must first establish where the name comes from and what it signified. This chapter examines the etymology of the name and intro- duces the reader to the changing nature of its application. It also takes up the fundamental chronological issue which must be tackled before launching into an examination of the material and historical evidence covered here. When do we first find Elam mentioned? How late did Elam exist? Finally, where was Elam? Seeming contradictions between epigraphic, literary and archaeological evidence are investigated which bear on the problem of how ancient observers and modern scholars have located Elam in their treatments of the subject. Finally, the chapter closes with some observations on how and why the meanings of broad geographical and ethnic designa- tions often change in the course of time. For us it is important to realize that the area identified as Elam in one period may not have been the same as that referred to by the same name in another period. These are some of the ambiguities which must be understood before the subject of Elam can be intelligently discussed. What is Elam? Elam (Fig. 1.1) is an artificial construct, a name coined by Mesopotamian scribes, gazing across the alluvium towards the Iranian plateau, who imposed it from without on the disparate regions of highland southwest Iran and its peoples.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
    SURESHKUMAR MUTHUKUMARAN AN ECOLOGY OF TRADE: TROPICAL ASIAN CULTIVARS IN THE ANCIENT MIDDLE EAST AND THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN SURESHKUMAR MUTHUKUMARAN Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History, University College London 2016 SUPERVISORS: K. RADNER D. FULLER 1 SURESHKUMAR MUTHUKUMARAN DECLARATION I, Sureshkumar Muthukumaran, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. __________________________________________________________ 2 SURESHKUMAR MUTHUKUMARAN ABSTRACT This thesis offers an ecological reading of long distance trade in the ancient world by investigating the anthropogenic movement of tropical Asian crops from South Asia to the Middle East and the Mediterranean. The crops under consideration include rice, cotton, citrus species, cucumbers, luffas, melons, lotus, taro and sissoo. ἦhἷΝ ‘ὈὄὁpiἵaliὅaὈiὁὀ’Ν ὁἸΝ εiἶἶlἷΝ EaὅὈἷὄὀΝ aὀἶΝ εἷἶiὈἷὄὄaὀἷaὀΝ aἹὄiἵὉlὈὉre was a sluggish process but one that had a significant impact on the agricultural landscapes, production patterns, dietary habits and cultural identities of peoples across the Middle East and the Mediterranean by the end of the 1st millennium BCE. This process substantially predates the so-called tropical crop-ἶὄivἷὀΝ ‘χἹὄiἵὉlὈὉὄalΝ ἤἷvὁlὉὈiὁὀ’Ν ὁἸΝ ὈhἷΝ ἷaὄlyΝ ἙὅlamiἵΝ pἷὄiὁἶΝ pὁὅiὈἷἶΝ ἴyΝ ὈhἷΝ hiὅὈὁὄiaὀΝ χὀἶὄἷwΝ WaὈὅὁὀΝ (1974-1983). The existing literature has, in fact, largely failed to appreciate the lengthy time-scale of this phenomenon whose origins lie in the Late Bronze Age. In order to contextualise the spread of tropical Asian crops to the Middle East and beyond, the history of crop movements is prefaced by a survey of long distance connectivity across maritime (Indian Ocean) and overland (Iranian plateau) routes from its prehistoric beginnings to the end of the 1st millennium BCE.
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph Halévy, Racial Scholarship and the “Sumerian Problem”
    philological encounters 2 (2017) 321-345 brill.com/phen Joseph Halévy, Racial Scholarship and the “Sumerian Problem” Netanel Anor Freie Universität Berlin [email protected] Abstract This article deals with the different racial approaches that influenced the academic debate known as “The Sumerian problem”. The so-called “problem” under discussion was the racial affiliation of the inventors of the first writing system, the cuneiform script. The notion of ‘race’, which tied religion, language and culture into one essence, played a key role here. Some scholars were eager to prove the “non-Semitic character” of such a major invention. Others were convinced that only “Semites” inhabited an- cient Babylonia and thus were the only possible inventors of writing. The focus of this paper is Joseph Halévy, who was the determined leader of the “anti-Sumerist” camp. This article will show that Halévy shared many essentialist views with his anti-Semitic protagonists. He did this by applying a ‘pro-Semitic’ approach to the ‘Sumerian-problem’. * I owe thanks to Nathan Wasserman of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who first intro- duced me to this topic. Thanks are also due to Steven Aschheim of the Hebrew University and Udi Greenberg, now at Dartmouth College, who gave me important guidelines in this field of fin du siècle intellectual history. Some of the ideas here were published in the Hebrew review Hayo Haya in 2008. Since then, many new sources have become available to me. In this regard, I owe thanks to Markham J. Geller of the Freie Universität Berlin who directed me to some of Halévy’s correspondence kept in the collection of Irving L.
    [Show full text]