Introduction to the Language and Its Background
Elamite was the main language of south-western Iran between approximately the twenty-third and fourth century BCE and developed more or less contemporaneously with neighbouring Sumerian and later with Akkadian. Elamite remains, to our current knowledge, an isolated language that is not fully understood (Reference Tavernier, Álvarez-Mon, Basello and WicksTavernier 2018; Reference Stolper and WoodardStolper 2004). Since we are dealing in this chapter with a language that has no linguistic ties with the Mesopotamian languages, one should highlight the fact that Elamite onomastic conversions into Babylonian texts are actually transcriptions of Elamite personal names into Akkadian. Even though this chapter will treat mainly Elamite names deriving from Neo-Babylonian sources, the general outlines for the conversion of Elamite names into Akkadian do not only apply to Neo-Babylonian texts, but also to Neo-Assyrian texts.
Due to the limited amount of Elamite textual sources, we are not always able to fully reconstruct the Elamite anthroponyms attested in Neo-Babylonian texts. Even if we can identify an Elamite variant, there are still numerous lacunas in our understanding of Elamite phonology and grammar. Jan Reference Tavernier and KoganTavernier (2010, 1059–60) has given four main reasons for this lack of knowledge:
(1) First, Elamite was written in a Sumero–Akkadian cuneiform script that was not designed for the Elamite language. This means that the script lacks characters to express specific Elamite phonemes. The Elamites either simplified the orthography of their words or used a combination of cuneiform characters to write down their language as correctly as possible.
(2) Second, due to the isolated status of the Elamite language, comparative linguistic material for the study of Elamite is nearly absent. This restricted text corpus, including the lack of bilinguals (Elamite–Akkadian) for the early to mid-first millennium BCE, is partly the result of limited archaeological exploration in the Iranian provinces Khuzestan and Fars.
(3) Third, there might have existed several Elamite dialects of which we are not aware. The territory of the Elamite kingdom was a long strip divided into the lowlands of Susiana, the highlands of Fars, and some more isolated mountainous Zagros regions, such as Izeh, which bordered areas that were inhabited by other language groups (e.g., Indo-Iranians, Arameans, etc.). These other languages doubtlessly had an influence on Elamite phonology.
(4) Fourth, there is a diachronic development in the phonological system. The transcriptions of Elamite proper names and words in non-Elamite texts, mostly Akkadian texts, can therefore be quite useful to get a better understanding of Elamite phonology.
The Elamite Name Material in the Babylonian Sources
Text Corpora
Neo-Elamite personal names that occur in the Neo- and Late Babylonian text corpus (c. 750–100 BCE) are extremely limited and dispersed over several text genres:Footnote 1
1. Literary texts: Since the Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 1) informs us on the Elamite dynastic succession from 743 to 664 BCE, this text contains a significant amount of Elamite royal names. A Babylonian scribe copied this historical document in 499 BCE.
2. Official correspondence: Bēl-ibni, a Babylonian official in service of the Neo-Assyrian king Assurbanipal as the governor of the Sealand, reported on Elamite political and military activities in the Babylonian–Elamite border region between 650 and 645 BCE (Reference de Vaande Vaan 1995). Due to the geographical proximity and the content of the letters, the Bēl-ibni correspondence contains transcriptions of the names of several Elamite officials.
3. Private archives: During the Neo-Babylonian and early Achaemenid period, several business men trading with the Susiana region encountered individuals with Elamite names who occasionally appear in their written documents.
Typology of Elamite Names Rendered in Neo-Babylonian
Ran Zadok already stated in his Elamite Onomasticon (Reference Zadok1984, 49–50) that, since the Elamite language is not yet fully known, a typology of Elamite personal names will remain preliminary as well. With our current knowledge of Elamite onomastics, the composition of Elamite names seems very similar to Babylonian names, or more generally Akkadian names.
Typically, Elamite names are compound names consisting of two elements (Reference ZadokZadok 1984, 49–59; Reference Zadok1991, 231). The most common typologies of Neo-Babylonian renderings of Elamite names are:
1, Substantive + substantive: Imba-daraˀ ‘Helper of Huban(?)’ (Iim-ba-da-ra-ˀ, YOS 7 30:11); Ištar-ḫundu ∼ Neo-Elamite Šutur-Nahhunte ‘The justifier Nahhunte’ (iš-tar-ḫu-un-du, ABC 1 ii 32)
2, Substantive + adjective: Šutar-šarḫu ‘The proud righteous one’ (Išu-tar-šar-ḫu, BRM 1 82:17)
3, Substantive + pres. active participle: Adda-ten ‘Father being favourable’ (bead-da-te-na, MDP 9 110 r. 4, MDP 9 167:4, MDP 9 172 r. 11, MDP 9 181:3; bead-da-te-en, MDP 9 73:2–3)Footnote 2
4, Substantive + verb: Atta-luš ‘Father […]’ (at-ta-lu-uš; -š: first conj. 3.sg.; Reference ZadokZadok 1984, 26 nr. 132)
Elamite names consisting of three elements are, like in Semitic onomastics, also attested but they occur more rarely. As for the Neo-Babylonian renderings, one has, for instance, the Elamite name Huban-haltaš ‘Huban received the land’ (ḫum-ba-ḫal-da-šu, ABC 1 iii 27, 33), consisting of a divine name + substantive + verb. The first element is the god Huban, the second element is the noun hal ‘land’, and the third element taš is a verbal form ta+š ‘he installed’ in the first conjugation 3.sg. (-š), meaning ‘Huban installed the land’. Or taš could be read tuš ‘he received’ with the system of vowel changes, and then the name translates ‘Huban received the land’. The final -u is an Akkadian nominative marker.
Neo-Babylonian renderings of Elamite names consisting of one element, other than hypocoristica, are to our knowledge not attested.
Hypocoristica
If we look at the examples attested in the Neo-Babylonian sources, the most common renderings are hypocoristica with a reduplication of the final syllable (Reference ZadokZadok 1983). The Elamite origin of these names is not always certain.
Of all Elamite personal names in the Neo-Babylonian corpus, hypocoristica are by far the largest group. In fact, almost a third of the Elamite anthroponyms (33 per cent) in the Neo-Babylonian renderings belong to the hypocoristic type with a reduplication of the final syllable. In the Susa Acropole Archive, a large Elamite administrative archive of the Susa region from the late seventh century BCE, only about 15 per cent of the Elamite names are hypocoristica.Footnote 3 Adding the other types of hypocoristica (Reference ZadokZadok 1983, 107–20), Elamite hypocoristica rendered in Babylonian are at least twice as numerous as the hypocoristica in Elamite archives of the same period. Moreover, to our knowledge, all the Elamite names with a single compound rendering in Babylonian are in general presented as hypocoristica. An explication for this phenomenon could be that the Babylonian scribes used the hypocoristicon as a method for abbreviating Elamite compound anthroponyms.
Hybrid Names
Several persons attested in the Neo-Babylonian sources have hybrid names. The typology of these names is first, Elamite deity/substantive + Akkadian verb or, second, Elamite substantive + Akkadian adjective.
An example of the first category is the name Šadi-redû (Išá-di-re-e-du), which consists of an Elamite deity, Šadi respectively Šati, and an Akkadian stative of the verb redû ‘Šadi is accompanying’. Ran Reference ZadokZadok (1984, 36, n. 199), on the contrary, classifies this name as an Elamite name and translates the cuneiform combination ri/e-e-du as the Elamite component riti ‘spouse’ based on the onomastic conversion rule in which the voiced consonant /d/ is shifting to a voiceless consonant /t/. However, the vowel sign /e/ clearly indicates that the preceding sign /ri/ has the value /re/, meaning that the word is actually the Akkadian redû and not the Elamite riti. Šadi-redû is subsequently a hybrid name. On the other hand, an Elamite personal name that looks at first glance very similar to Šadi-redû is the personal name te-em-ti-ri-di. In this case, ri-di is a Neo-Babylonian rendering of the Neo-Elamite riti (Neo-Babylonian d ∼ Neo-Elamite t) which is a linguistic evolution of the word rutu (see section on ‘Vowel Changes’).
In the second category of Elamite hybrid names, Šutar-šarḫu (Išu-tar-šar-ḫu) is a combination of an Elamite noun šutur with an Akkadian adjective šarḫu. The Neo-Babylonian rendering of šutu+r (delocutive) has undergone a vowel modification (Neo-Babylonian a ∼ Neo-Elamite u), while the adjective šarḫu ‘proud’ is attested with the Akkadian nominative case ending -u.
Babylonian Orthography of Elamite Names
The Theophoric Element
Since most Elamite names have a compound composition with two or three elements, one of these elements is often the name of a deity (Reference ZadokZadok 1991, 231). However, since the names of the Elamite gods were not similar to those of the Babylonian gods, the theophoric element was not perceived as highly relevant by the Babylonian scribes. When Elamite personal names were transcribed into Babylonian, the theophoric element was either omitted or converted in Akkadian.
Omission of the Theophoric Element
Most Neo-Elamite royal names are known through Mesopotamian or Akkadian sources in which their regnal name is modified to a Babylonian or Assyrian dialect. A typical phenomenon is the omission of the theophoric element. As a matter of fact, the deity Inšušinak as second element of the Elamite name is never written in Babylonian sources (e.g., Ḫallušu-<Inšušinak> (reigned 699–693 BCE) ‘Inšušinak made the country rich’, ABC 1 iii 7). The deities Huban and Nahhunte are mostly attested in a variety of writings; Huban is often written as first particle and Nahhunte as last particle of a compound name. However, these deities could occasionally be absent as well (e.g., <Huban>-menanu (692–688 BCE) ‘Huban is authority’, ABC 1 iii 26; Kutur-<Nahhunte> (693–692 BCE) ‘The lord Nahhunte’, RINAP 3/1 22 v 14–16; Reference GraysonGrayson 1963, 90 l. 19).
The Elamite royal name Urtak, witten ur-ta-gu (675–664 BCE; ABC 1 iv 13) in Babylonian, is a special case. The name Urtak/Urtagu only occurs in Akkadian sources and has no corresponding Neo-Elamite attestation yet. Urtak consists of two parts, ur.ta+k, in the Babylonian sources: ur is a sandhi writing of u+ir (personal pronoun 1.sg. ‘I, me’) and ta+k is a verbal form (passive participle ‘is placed, installed’), meaning ‘I, who is installed (by x)’. Based on the typology of Elamite names, one can assume that Urtak was followed by a noun, most likely a theophoric element. Within the group of theophoric elements, Nahhunte or Inšušinak are the most plausible candidates, because these divine names are generally positioned as the last element in a compound construction and are almost always omitted in Babylonian renderings. However, since no Elamite inscription is known that mentions this king, the reconstruction of Urtak’s full name remains hypothetical.
Conversion of the Theophoric Element
If one takes into consideration that the Elamite pronunciation may have sounded foreign to Babylonian and Assyrian ears, one must accept that Elamite names may have been written similarly to, but not necessarily identically with, a Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian anthroponym. An example of such a Babylonian confusion is the conversion of the Elamite royal name Šutur-Nahhunte/Šutruk-Nahhunte ‘The justifier, Nahhunte’ into Ištar-ḫundu (717–699 BCE; ABC 1 ii 32). At first glance, one would expect that the Babylonians changed an Elamite theophoric element into the equivalent deity of the Babylonian pantheon – that is, from šutur to Ištar. However, šutur/šutruk is not an Elamite god, but a noun (-r delocutive), meaning ‘the justifier, the righteous’. The Babylonian scribe probably used the Babylonian deity Ištar for the rendering of šutur because of the Semitic principle: as the three consonants š-t-r of šutur and Ištar are identical, šutur sounded like Ištar for the Babylonians.
The conversion of the other theophoric particles, namely Huban, Tepti, Nahhunte, and Šati, can be clustered in a number of Elamite–Babylonian onomastic conversion rules.
Sumerograms
Although rarely attested, Elamite names can be transferred in Neo-Babylonian renderings by the use of Sumerograms. One example is the Elamite royal name Kutur-Nahhunte. As we have seen, the Babylonians omitted the theophoric element Nahhunte. Kutur, the Elamite word for ‘lord’, is rendered as kuduru in Neo-Babylonian according to the onomastic conversion rules explained in ‘Elamite–Babylonian Onomastic Conversion Rules’ (t ∼ d; Akk. case ending -u). This conversion subsequently sounded like the Babylonian word kudurru ‘son’ (CAD K 497), a meaning quite different from the Elamite ‘lord’. Subsequently, for Akkadian kudurru the Sumerogram NÍG.DU was used by the Babylonians to express the Elamite royal name Kutur-Nahhunte (693–692 BCE; ABC 1 iii 14´).
The ‘Personenkeil’
In Neo-Babylonian texts, male anthroponyms are indicated with the determinative DIŠ (the ‘Personenkeil’; see Chapters 1 and 2), while male names in Neo-Elamite texts are preceded by the determinative be (BAD). Due to this discrepancy in traditions, the personal determinative before an Elamite name is often missing in a Babylonian text, while in that same text the Akkadian names are accompanied by a determinative (e.g., in ABC 1). The addition of a personal determinative to Elamite names probably depended on the onomastic knowledge of the scribe writing or copying the tablet. If the scribe or copyist did not recognise the foreign word as an Elamite personal name, then he was incapable of adding the correct determinatives as well. Perhaps this is the reason why the Akkadian determinative DIŠ for Elamite anthroponyms is correctly applied in the Bēl-ibni archive and is lacking in the Babylonian Chronicle.
Elamite–Babylonian Onomastic Conversion Rules
When looking for Elamite personal names in the Mesopotamian textual records, three features of Neo-Elamite phonology and orthography that may influence the Akkadian rendering of Elamite words should be kept in mind: the reduction of consonants, consonant shifts, and vowel alterations.
Reduction of Consonants
When Elamite personal names occur in Babylonian texts (or more widely in Akkadian texts) several consonants tend to be omitted. In the Neo-Babylonian renderings of the theophoric element ‘Hu(m)ban’ (Reference GorrisGorris 2020b, 164–77), for instance, the consonants /h/, /n/, and /m/ are altered.
The Consonant /h/
In the theophoric element the initial consonant /h/ is predominantly omitted. In this case, the Babylonian spellings adopt an evolution known from Elamite. During the Neo-Elamite period /h/ gradually disappeared in Elamite words, a development that continued in Achaemenid Elamite (Reference Stolper and WoodardStolper 2004, 71; Reference Tavernier, Álvarez-Mon, Basello and WicksTavernier 2018, 425). Although the god Huban continued to be written with an /h/ in Neo-Elamite spellings, the /h/ was probably not pronounced anymore. Therefore, the Mesopotamian spelling reflects the common pronunciation of Huban in the first millennium BCE.
In the Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 1), one can find the only Neo-Babylonian attestation of the theophoric element ‘Huban’ written with an initial /h/ in the royal name Huban-haltašFootnote 4 ‘Huban received the land’ (ḫum-ba-ḫal-da-šu). The Babylonian Chronicle is, however, not consistent in the use of the initial /h/ since the royal name Huban-nikašFootnote 5 ‘Huban has blessed’ is attested in the more common Neo-Babylonian orthography um-ma-ni-gaš. Based on the Babylonian attestations (e.g., Ium-man-ši-bar, Ium-ma-ḫal-da-šú, Ium-man-al-da-šú, and Iim-ba-da-ra-ˀ) the rendering um-ma(n) for the theophoric element is indeed most frequently used.
The Consonant /m/
The Neo-Babylonian attestations of Huban and Tepti are consistently written with a medial /m/ (hum-ba, um-ma(n), i/am-ba, im-ma, and te-im-ti), whereas the Neo-Elamite renderings hu-ban and te-ip-ti omit the middle /m/.Footnote 6 The /m/ in the Babylonian attestations is an indication of the Elamite nasalised vowels (Reference Tavernier, Álvarez-Mon, Basello and WicksTavernier 2018, 424). In the Huban element, the reduplication of the /m/ is the result of the assimilation of /m/ with the consonant /b/ or /p/, which is also the case for the Babylonian attestation of the Elamite god Tepti (te-im-ti).
The Consonant /n/
In Neo-Elamite orthography, the final consonant -n is not consistently written. Reference Grillot-Susini and RocheFrançoise Grillot-Susini and Claude Roche (1987, 11; also Reference Grillot-SusiniGrillot-Susini 1994, 15; Reference KhačikjanKhačikjan 1998, 10; Reference Stolper and WoodardStolper 2004, 73) argue that the neutralisation of some final vowels and the elision of some medial vowels suggests that the stress was not final, but probably initial. This would suggest that the stress was put on the initial syllable of the word and that the pronunciation of the final consonant /n/ was rather weak, which resulted in the omission of the final /n/ in Neo-Babylonian renderings. This omission of the final /n/ is frequently attested in Neo-Babylonian renderings of Elamite toponyms (Reference Gorris, Tavernier, Gorris, Abraham and BoschloosGorris 2018, 324–5), but the same conversion rule counts for Elamite anthroponyms (e.g., Huban ∼ um-ma; im-ba).
The Consonant /t/
Due to a weakening of /t/ in Neo-Elamite, the middle or final /t/ may occasionally disappear in Neo-Babylonian onomastic renderings (Reference TavernierTavernier 2014, 62); for example, Ḫallušu ∼ Ḫallutuš-Inšušinak and Ḫallušu ∼ Ḫallutuš-Inšušinak (ABC 1 iii 7; PTS 2713; VS 4 1; 1 N 297).Footnote 7
Consonant Shifts
Voiced vs. Voiceless
According to Reference Tavernier, Álvarez-Mon, Basello and WicksTavernier (2018, 425), there is no difference in Elamite between voiceless and voiced consonants. In general, Babylonian renderings of Elamite personal names are written with the voiced consonant, while the Elamite version uses the voiceless consonant. Hence, Neo-Elamite /k/ is rendered /g/ in Neo-Babylonian (e.g., ur-ta-ak ∼ ur-ta-gu; šak-ti-ti ∼ šag-di-di) and Neo-Elamite /t/ is rendered /d/ (e.g., ḫu-ban-te-na ∼ im-ba-de-en-na; ḫu-un-du ∼ nah-hu-un-te).
Sibilants
The Elamite language has more sibilants than Akkadian (Reference Tavernier and KoganTavernier 2010, 1067–70) which is the reason why Elamite words converted into Akkadian reveal a variety of orthographies. It is commonly known that the sibilants /s/ and /š/ switched places in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian dialects (GAG § 30d; Reference Hämeen-AnttilaHämeen-Anttila 2000, 9–10) and thus the writers of these dialects opted to express the Elamite sibilants differently. Whereas the Neo-Assyrian variations often use an /s/ sound for rendering an Elamite /š/, the Neo-Babylonian renderings are much closer to the original and also use /š/ (e.g., Neo-Elamite behal-lu-iš = Neo-Assyrian Iḫal-lu-su/i = Neo-Babylonian Iḫal-lu-šú/i). The geographical proximity of the Neo-Babylonian kingdom may have been the reason for a more accurate vocal transition.
Babylonian Consonant Modification
Although rarely attested, Babylonian renderings of Elamite names undergo even further changes when they are submitted to the Neo-Babylonian assimilation rules. One example is the royal name Urtak. Elamite Urtak, with the onomastic conversion rules, become ur-ta-gu in Babylonian, but in the latter dialect the -rt- consonant combination is modified into -št-. Therefore, a common Neo-Babylonian rendering of Urtak is Iuš-ta-gu (Reference ZadokZadok 1984, 42).
Vowel Changes
Vowel changes regularly occur in Babylonian renderings of Elamite names. The Akkadian nominative case ending -u replaces in general the last vowel of the Neo-Elamite name or it is added to a Neo-Elamite name ending on a consonant. Since the vowel in Elamite anthroponyms written with /CvC/ signs is uncertain, the Babylonian renderings of Elamite names may exhibit various orthographies; for example, Neo-Elamite behu-ban-šu-pír ∼ Neo-Babylonian Ium-man-ši-pár or Ium-man-ši-pír ‘Huban, the worshipper’. It is much harder to find a system behind the vowel changes at the beginning and in the middle of the personal name with /Cv/ or /vC/ signs. Sometimes the Neo-Babylonian rendering undergoes a vowel change, sometimes it reflects the conventional Elamite vowel. Therefore, the overview of the vowel changes presented in Table 16.3 is a non-exhaustive list, which may be extended after further research on the topic.
According to Jan Reference TavernierTavernier (2007, 278–9), signs of the type /Cu/ can be pronounced as /Ci/. In late Elamite sources not only the sound but also the orthography of the vowel /u/ is evolving into /i/ (Reference TavernierTavernier 2007, 278–9; Reference Tavernier, Álvarez-Mon, Basello and Wicks2018, 424). This also has an impact on the Neo-Babylonian renderings of Elamite names such as te-em-ti-ri-di. The element riti ‘wife’ is attested in a Neo-Elamite source (Ururu bronze plaque), but traditionally the word is written rutu in Elamite.
Socio-Onomastics
This brings us to the ethno-sociological context of Elamite names that were written in the Neo-Babylonian texts. Who were the Elamites mentioned in those Neo-Babylonian texts? To which social class did they belong, and what were their professions? Only a few clusters of Neo-Babylonian documents, such as the Babylonian chronicles or the Bēl-ibni archive, contain multiple Elamite personal names and can give us some insight in the ethno-sociological context.
Since the Babylonian chronicles record specifically the regnal years and succession of the Babylonian kings and their royal neighbours, only names of Elamite kings from the reign of Huban-nikaš I (743–717 BCE) to the accession of Urtak (675–664 BCE) are described. The chronicles target a specific group within the Elamite upper class of the population, namely the king as the highest political authority within the Neo-Elamite kingdom.
Since the governor Bēl-ibni was positioned in southern Babylonia to monitor Elamite political activities at the Elamite–Babylonian border (Reference de Vaande Vaan 1995), his archive mentions several Elamite kings: Indabibi (mng. unknown), Huban-nikaš II ‘Huban has blessed’, Tammaritu (mng. unknown), and Huban-ḫaltaš III; additionally, various Elamite royal officials concerned with foreign policies are noted, including the palace herald Ummanšibar ‘Huban, the worshipper’, the chief of the šarnuppu-officials Umḫulumaˀ ‘Huban is connecting(?)’, Huban-nikaš, son of Amedirra (a West Semitic name), and the borderland sheikhs Undadu (hypocorism of (Huban)-untaš ‘(Huban) installed me(?)’) of the zilliru-people and Atmanu (possibly from Atta-menu ‘Father is authority’) of B/Manānu.Footnote 8 So, based on the official governmental character of the Bēl-ibni archive, it seems that the individuals with Elamite names occurring in these Babylonian texts were either highly ranked Elamite officials or specialised professionals, and Babylonian–Elamite borderland sheikhs with a mixed identity (Elamite–Aramean–Babylonian).
Interestingly, three seemingly unrelated Neo-Babylonian documents (an adoption contract and two loans of silver) give a rather exceptional insight in Babylonian–Elamite social relations. This adoption contract of a girl (OIP 122 1), drafted in Sumuntunaš (Western Elam) and found in Nippur, was dated to the 15th regnal year of Ḫallutuš-Inšušinak II. A loan of silver (VS 4 1), drafted in Elam and presumably found in Babylon, is linked to the archive of Iqīša, son of Bēl-nāṣir, of which all contracts are dated to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562 BCE). Another loan of silver (PTS 2713) was drafted during the first regnal year of Ḫallutuš-Inšušinak II at Bīt-Hullumu (i.e., in the vicinity of the Sumuntunaš). What is special about these Neo-Babylonian documents is that the date formula referred to an Elamite place of writing and used the reign of the Elamite king Ḫallutuš-Inšušinak II (c. 598/93–583/78 BCE) as the year reference. Hence, these contracts must have been drawn up by a Babylonian community living (in the case of the adoption contract) or trading extensively in the western border region of the Neo-Elamite kingdom.Footnote 9
As for the ethno-sociological profile of Elamite names in the Neo-Babylonian texts, we can thus roughly distinguish two groups. One group of Elamite kings and high officials active in Elamite–Babylonian bilateral relations was mentioned in official Neo-Babylonian state documentation. Another group are Elamites (including the hybrid and hypocoristic names) occasionally mentioned in dispersed Neo-Babylonian private archives, generally in connection with Babylonian trading activities or communities in the western Elamite Susiana region.
Open access