The House of David

Sunday, August 04, 2002

The Proto-Elamite Script

The Iranians invented writing.

It wasn't in Persian, admittedly. No-one spoke an Indo-European language in Iran until 1500 BCE or so, based on linguistic reconstructions of Avestan and Old Persian. But Iran is not and never was a Persian-only nation. Even now it is only about 50% Farsi-speaking, much the way India is 45% Hindi-speaking. Today's Iranians of every language are genetic, geographical, and cultural heirs to Iranians then - much the way the Cornish and the Sioux remain Kernewek and Lakota, whether or not they currently speak English.

The Persian language was preceded in the southwest borderland of Iran by the Elamite language. That tongue was first recorded by hostile witnesses in neighbouring Sumer, and associated in Elamite archaeology with the "Susa IVB" layer circa 2000 BCE (Archaeology of Elam, DT Potts, p. 112). Soon enough the Elamites devised a script, called "Linear Elamite", decipherable as such. They eventually dumped that in favour of tried-and-true cuneiform, as seen in the Behistun inscription. The language died out in the Middle Ages. Currently the Australians are working on reconstructing it.

But even Elamite was a latecomer to Iran. There is a third script that predates even Linear Elamite, and unlike Linear Elamite does not represent any form of the Elamite language. This has been called "proto-Elamite" by scholars, before they understood that it could not be understood. Now, "Susa III Script" is deemed more proper. Interestingly, the numeric system can be understood, marking the earliest record in the history of mathematics.

The point of the above is just this: in Iran the Jahiliya, the "Age of Ignorance", does not date from before the Prophet. Iran's legacy runs past Islam, past Persia, past even Elam. Iran is one of the most ancient cultures in world history, on par with India, Egypt, and Sumer. And those brave souls who support us despite the dictates of their corrupt and brutal hizb-ullah - "Party of God" - are the true heirs of Cyrus.

In Iran, the Age of Ignorance has rather been two decades running. Inshallah it will not last much longer.

(Started 8/4, not posted for a month, and polished off and posted 9/11.)

posted by Zimri on 18:07 | link |

Shostakovich sucks

Lately I've been trying to improve myself with classical music and fine literature. I'm already somewhat conversant with the music and literature of previous centuries, particularly the nineteenth. I've been known to deliver lectures on Tchaikovsky, or Wilde, or Poe at a minute's notice (which probably explains why I'm still single at 28).

I chose to concentrate on the twentieth century this past week or so. I was introduced to Shostakovich by one lady of my acquaintance, and soon after that another one introduced me to Vonnegut.

I have no complaints about Vonnegut. I've read two of his books already and I'm ready for more.

Dmitri Shostakovich is another story. He just sucks. He has to be the second most overrated of all twentieth century composers, after the "atonal", posturing Arnold Schoenberg. But at least Schoenberg realised his mistake and returned to real music. As far as I know Shostakovich didn't pretend to be above tonal composition; he was just bad at it.

The particular composition which I ran across is the "Symphonie No.10" conducted by Herbert von Karajan, 1982. I was assured by UseNet that #10 was the best Shostakovich, and that Karajan was the best conductor of that piece. So I've given this piece three listens so far and am now listening for the fourth and probably last time. It starts out okay... but collapses after eight minutes.

First off, it's repetitive. There's a sequence of notes that repeats itself, over and over: the liner notes tell me they are D, E-flat, C, and something called "B-natural". Okay, I get that they are supposed to symbolise his name (this site explains it better than the liner notes). For all I care they could be the strains of Tchaik's "Sleeping Beauty Waltz" - it's still going to be deadly dull repeated through 51:43 minutes.

Second, it gets discordant - for example around the ninth minute. I like moody music; I also like loud fanfares. What I don't appreciate is mixing the two without a bridge. Especially if the fanfare is nothing but noise, which brings us to -

Third, how am I supposed to sing along to this? How am I, as a listener, supposed to relate to it at all?

With the over-use of personalised musical themes, it reminds me mostly of John Williams's five Star Wars scores. The four-minute second movement in particular sounds like it could represent a duel between rival AT-AT's on an ice planet somewhere. The difference is that John Williams didn't restrict himself to "D, E-flat, C, and B-natural". He had a main theme, an Imperial March, a Yoda theme, a Leia theme, an Anakin theme and so on. Plus you can sing along to most of it in the shower. It sticks with you.

No doubt I'll be told I'm a barbarian who doesn't appreciate "good" music.

All I can say is that there is probably a reason most of you have heard of Mozart and not Shostakovich. Amadeus will be with us for centuries more, and Shosty will be lucky to sell CD's fifty years from now. He's a museum piece, to set alongside Josef Stalin in the (extensive) exhibition devoted to "Great Mistakes of Twentieth Century Russia".

(This is, by the way, aside from Shosty's loyal support of the Soviets during his lifetime, including his signature to the denunciation of physicist and dissident Andrei Sakharov. Let someone else deal with his crimes against humanity. I deal here with his crimes against music.)

posted by Zimri on 00:02 | link |

Sunday, August 04, 2002

The Proto-Elamite Script

Shostakovich sucks

On this site

Afield

Friends

Table 9