Читать книгу A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set - Группа авторов - Страница 61

Elamite transcriptions of Old Iranian words make Achaemenid Elamite texts the largest single source of Old Iranian lexicon in indirect transmission. Spelling variations, especially in administrative documents, reflect phonological and dialect variation in the forms of Old Iranian spoken around the Achaemenid courts and its differences from the archaic Old Persian of the royal inscriptions (Henkelman 2011a: p. 614f. n. 105). Similar variations in royal inscriptions also reflect editorial or stylistic choices (e.g. miššadanaš [DNa] and mišbadanaš [DSe], mišbazana [DPa], representing Persian dialect *visadana, half‐Persian *vispadana, and non‐Persian vispazana, “of all kinds”; Tavernier 2007: pp. 34 and 78).

Transcriptions or translations in administrative texts sometimes provide common‐register nuances of words or phrases otherwise attested only in the high rhetorical register of royal inscriptions: e.g. miššadanaš, etc., “of all kinds,” in royal inscriptions indicating the universal scale and scope of the Achaemenid Empire, but in Fortification texts referring to varieties of poultry, grain, or flour (Henkelman 2010: p. 746f.); pirrašam, transcribing Old Persian fraša‐, “wonderful,” in royal inscriptions describing the palace at Susa (DSf, DSj, DSz) and all visible creation (DNa), but in Fortification texts, naming a kind of poultry, perhaps peacock (Stolper 2015: pp. 14–21); halpi duhema halpik, corresponding to Old Persian uvamaršiyuš amariyatā, “he died in his own death” in Bisutun describing the demise of Cambyses the king, but in a Fortification text, the passing of an ordinary administrative functionary (Stolper 2015).

Transcriptions in administrative texts represent Old Iranian social, administrative, and technical vocabulary that is often not attested directly in Old Iranian scriptures or royal inscriptions but that sometimes appears transcribed in Akkadian, Aramaic, Greek, or other languages, in texts from the Achaemenid Empire's provinces and sphere of influence: for example, Elamite kurtaš, Aramaic grd, Akkadian gardu, all representing Iranian *gṛda‐, “worker, domestic” (Tavernier 2007: p. 423f.); Elamite partetaš, Akkadian pardēsu, Greek παράδεισος, etc., representing Old Iranian *pardēda, *pardēsa, cognate with the Old Persian hapax legomenon paradaidā‐, “enclosure” (Tavernier 2007: pp. 446–447; Boucharlat 2016: pp. 62–65, with references). The dense attestations in Elamite administrative texts provide an essential term of comparison for interpreting the sparser evidence and distinct social contexts of Achaemenid presence elsewhere.

Writers of administrative texts could sometimes choose between transcribed Iranian terms and translation with Elamite synonyms (e.g. kandabara and kanzabara, Elamite transcriptions of Persian and non‐Persian dialect forms *gandabara‐ and *ganzabara, respectively, all synonymous with Elamite kapnuški‐, “treasurer”; Tavernier 2007: p. 422) or transcriptions of Iranian compound nouns and counterpart Elamite noun phrases (e.g. noun phrases with Elamite kutira corresponding to compounds with Iranian –bara, “bearer” or with Elamite huttira corresponding to Iranian –kara; Henkelman 2011a: p. 592). Elamite morphemes attached to some words of Iranian origin mark their adoption as actual loanwords (e.g. kurtašbe, “workers,” representing Iranian *gṛda‐, with an inappropriate Iranian nominal ending ‐š generalized to mark words of Iranian origin, and an Elamite plural marker –p, and, in the form kurzap, contracted on the model of Elamite verbs; Henkelman 2011a: p. 592). The writers of these documents, whether their first spoken language was Iranian or Elamite, based analogical coinages on spoken forms in both languages.