Читать книгу A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set - Группа авторов - Страница 52

Adriano V. Rossi

The Achaemenid royal inscriptions together with the Elamite administrative tablets from Persepolis are the most important direct sources to reconstruct Achaemenid history. Even if they provide less insight into the Achaemenid state organization than is commonly thought (political and administrative events are generally not recorded in them), they have the advantage of being contemporary to the events. Most of them have been found in Persis (Persepolis, Naqsh‐e Rostam, Pasargadae), Elam (Susa), and Media (Bisotun, Hamadan). From outside the central regions of the state, barring the few inscriptions on objects and clay tablets, we know of three inscriptions by Darius from the Suez Canal, a rock inscription by Xerxes from lake Van in Armenia, and fragments of inscriptions from Babylonia.

While the Teispids basically produced monolingual inscriptions (Rollinger 2015: p. 117; see below for Kyros' name at Pasargadae), most of the inscriptions of Darius I and his successors were trilingual (OP, AE, LB). They are mostly engraved on rock walls, architectural elements, reliefs, and sculpture from royal residences or smaller portable objects connected to the activity of the court; an exception are the inscriptions on the statue of Darius I found at Susa, on which, besides the usual trilingual, hieroglyphic texts are carved (like other inscriptions from Egypt, cf. Briant 1999: pp. 99–113). Partial Aramaic translations of DB (late Achaemenid, end of the fifth century BCE) were found among the Elephantine papyri; this proves the circulation of the text in the didactic practice (the inclusion on the papyrus scroll bearing the Aramaic version of DB of various passages originating from different inscriptions points to “a school‐like milieu in which texts from the reign of Darius were not only studied but also used to create something new,” Rollinger [2015: pp. 125–126]) but not necessarily as an official act of the royal chancellery.

The sequence of the texts (OP>AE>LB) on the inscriptional supports and/or their spatial arrangement generally emphasizes the priority of OP on the other languages, of Elamite on Babylonian, though surely “written language was not part of the inherited sense of identity for Persian speakers” (Tuplin 2011: p. 158; about language and ethnicity, Stolper and Tavernier 2007: p. 22).

The bulk of the Achaemenid inscriptions, written on behalf of Darius, Xerxes, and the three Artaxerxes (especially the first), have possibly been planned in OP (see Chapter 3 Peoples and Languages), probably the (majority) language of the ethnic élite ruling over Fārs in the first millennium BCE. Although the basis for OP must lie in a southwestern Iranian dialect, ancestor to the Iranian dialects spoken in Fārs, the language attested in the inscriptions is likely to correspond to a literary, artificial form of it (Stolper 2005: p. 19; Jacobs 2012: p. 97); OP as we know it was probably a language “restricted to royal usage” (Schmitt 2004: p. 717).

The motivation underlying the choice of the three Achaemenid languages is not clear (Briant 1999: p. 94 suggests Darius' intention to appear as “héritier des vieux empires ‘cunéiformes’ assyrien, babylonien et élamite,” cf. also Jacobs 2012: p. 105 fn. 57), and it is probably not by chance that “Elamite was the first language used by the Achaemenids for formal inscriptions” (Stolper 2004: p. 63; also Henkelman 2011: p. 585); perhaps “[t]he unbroken Elamite language tradition of Susa and Elam was continued with the inclusion of Elamite cuneiform in the […] Achaemenid royal inscriptions” (Schmitt 1993: p. 457), even if it is difficult to determine the exact linguistic relationships between OP and AE (on Gershevitch's [1979] hypothesis of an “alloglottography” of OP, never effectively proved and at odds with much AE evidence, cf. Stolper 2004: p. 64; Rossi 2006: pp. 78–84; Henkelman 2011: pp. 614–622; on AE and its contacts with OP cf. particularly Henkelman 2008: pp. 86–88, 2011: pp. 586–595, 614–622).

According to Jacobs (2012: pp. 103–104), the mere existence of DPd,e (OP), DPf (AE), DPg (LB) on the southern wall of the Persepolis Terrace, a four‐column inscriptional complex attesting not different translations of a same original but a unitary discourse, points to a multilingual (and multicultural) ability to interpret the relevant metatext (on DPd,e,f,g cf. also Filippone 2012); Jacobs (2012: pp. 111–114) suggests an “ideal model of the ‘polyglot’ king,” as elaborated by Lanfranchi (2009: pp. 130–131) for the Neo‐Hittite cultural area (in which “mastering foreign scripts and languages was clearly considered a point of honor for kings and rulers”). Most probably, anyhow, the Achaemenid usage of a quantity of languages has the same function as displaying a quantity of different peoples in iconography (=OP vispazana‐ “having all kind of people”; cf. Stolper 2005: p. 18 “trilingual inscriptions […] emblems of the Achaemenid Empire's immensity and complexity”).

It is commonly assumed – with no sure linguistic evidence – that the specific cuneiform writing created (at an unknown time) for the OP language, the “OP script” (its “name,” if any, is unknown, pace Hinz 1952: p. 30 and followers), has not been used before Darius: the scribes of Cyrus seem to have used Babylonian only, even if the extent of the documentation attributable to Cyrus is much reduced. Anyway, a few trilingual inscriptions are attested at palaces presumably built by Cyrus at Pasargadae, although many scholars claim that they were probably added later. Nylander (1967) questions that all OP inscriptions bearing Cyrus' name were forgeries by order of Darius (Schmitt 2007: pp. 28–31): in his opinion Cyrus wrote the original texts in Elamite and Babylonian, Darius added their OP versions in a recently invented script. Vallat (2011: pp. 277–279) and the present author have supported the possible authenticity for all versions (mostly for paleographic reasons), even if one should admit in this case that the usage of OP script would have remained highly limited before Darius. Arguments in favor of Darius' invention of it are critically examined by Huyse (1999: pp. 51–55, cf. Rossi [2020]); in favor of a greater antiquity have also been – for different reasons – Hallock, Mayrhofer, Diakonoff, Gershevitch.

As to the “oldest” OP documents, the two gold laminae bearing monolingual OP inscriptions of Darius' great‐grandfather Ariaramnes and his grandfather Arsames are hardly authentic; besides their linguistic “corruption” (Schmitt 1999: pp. 105–111, 2007: pp. 25–28), their appearing and disappearing from the international scene renders their contribution invalid.

The problem of the introduction of the OP script is closely connected to the interpretation of a Bisotun passage (DB/OP Section 70 = DB/AE L), where possibly the word for the whole epigraphic complex is OP dipi[dāna‐?]/AE tuppime “the political message conveyed by the whole complex,” “Memorial,” cf. Rossi (2020: fn 75); Schmitt (2014: p. 169) reconstructs it as OP dipi[ciça‐ “[a]ls Bezeichnung der von Dareios “hinzugesetzten” (DB 4.89) altpersischen Version von DB”. In the interpretation of the political message of DB/OP Section 70 = DB/AE L, I fully agree with Tuplin's (2005: p. 226) sharp differentiation between “public display of a text with an iconographic component” (as for example the monumental reduced replica of the Bisotun Monument from Babylon) and “the more extravagant scenario of 70 in which the text alone will be sent ‘to the lands’ (i.e. throughout the empire).”

The scholars who assume that Darius wants to inform us that he had ordered the creation of a special script for his own language point to DP/OP §70 as a statement on this invention, irrespective of the fact that no royal inscription would mention such a detail – which is in itself extraneous to the “royal discourse” – in the literacy conditions prevailing in any ancient Near Eastern country (cf. Rossi 2020).

The Bisotun complex (DB), carved high on the rockface dominating the main road leading from the Mesopotamian plain to Ecbatana, is an exceptional document (Schmitt 1990). It contains by far the longest Achaemenid royal inscription, strictly integrated with the accompanying relief (note: “inscription” OP dipi‐/AE tuppi/LB narû, “relief” OP patikara‐/AE patikara/LB ṣalmānu); most scholars believe that this is the oldest Achaemenid epigraphic complex. DB occupies a particular place among the Achaemenid inscriptions also with regard to its content. The first four columns relate how Darius took the power and coped with the uprisings that followed. A fifth column, added later, relates what happened in Darius' second and third years; of this supplement, only an OP version was produced (for lack of space perhaps).

Careful investigation by German scholars (1963–1964) has revealed that the Elamite text was the first carved (not necessarily produced), followed by a Babylonian version, both of them flanking the relief. Only later was an OP copy inscribed below the relief. Part of the AE text had to be removed when the ninth rebel was added to the others, and the AE text was inscribed anew to the left of the OP text.

The relation between the texts attested in DB is still open to debate, however. At least two of them are translations, and it seems reasonable to assume that although the OP version was demonstrably (e.g. from some details of the minor inscriptions) inscribed later, it could have been the “original source text,” and not only as an oral text in the form of the king's dictation (against the orality‐only thesis also Henkelman 2011: pp. 614–622); Sancisi‐Weerdenburg's last stand (1999: p. 108), based on Borger's (1982: pp. 106, 113, 130), seems to come back to the idea of an Aramaic original; Huyse (1999: pp. 57–58 and n. 66) hypothesizes an original ‘dictation’ in OP with a contemporary writing down in both Elamite and Aramaic (cf. Schmitt 1991: p. 20: “it may be (and indeed it has been) supposed that the text was originally written down (on the King's Old Persian dictation) in the royal chancellery in both Aramaic and Elamite”; Schmitt [1998: p. 161] remains convinced that DB/OP is a retranslation from Elamite). The usage of Aramaic at some intermediate phase in the editing process has been hypothesized also by Sims‐Williams (1981: p. 2) on the basis of two OP words “phonetically” transcribed in a fragmentary passage from an Aramaic DNb version. The present writer is convinced that all the texts of the Achaemenid royal documentation, including DB, are the product of the great activity of the efficient and influential royal chancellery to which the verbal expression of Persian kingship was assigned. Though acting on behalf of the king and with his (or his experts') final approval, the scribal staff were responsible for the multilingual text production, the way of organizing the information flow and selecting the lexicon with which the royal ideology was diffused and reinforced, and marking a set of countersigns aimed at the dissemination (cf. Filippone 2020; also Jacobs 2010, 2012). Particular attention to the audience of the royal discourse has recently been given by Jacobs (2012: pp. 110–114) and Rollinger (2014: pp. 203–204).

The exceptional length of DB allows focus on the ideological constructs and programmatic statements which we find also in other Achaemenid inscriptions (e.g. DN at Darius' tomb), all planned, together with their iconography, as an ethical and political message to his successors as well as an exhibition of royal power imagery for common people (cf. Jacobs 2010: pp. 108, 111, particularly contrary to the usage of the concept of “propaganda” in Achaemenid contexts).

Among the other inscriptions in the name of Darius and Xerxes, some are outstanding: those at Darius' tomb at Naqsh‐e Rostam (DN) present the king as an ideal sovereign (for latest analysis of the interrelation between texts and iconography see Nimchuk 2001: pp. 68–91); the famous stone table discovered in the 1930s and known as “Daiva Inscription” (XPh) contains Xerxes' proscription of religious practices that were not devoted to the worship of Ahuramazda (Filippone 2010; Henkelman 2011: pp. 620–621; Rollinger 2014: pp. 200–201).

Among the minor trilingual texts there are a certain number of building inscriptions, connected with the palatial complexes at Susa and Persepolis (cf. for general information Stolper 2005: pp. 22–24; Rollinger 2015: pp. 117–121). Some texts (“foundation texts” in a broad sense, cf. Curtis, Razmjou 2005: pp. 56–59; Root 2010) were carved on stone (or precious metal) tables, in repeated exemplars laid in foundations and/or displayed in the buildings (as we know from fragments of display inscriptions in Susa bearing parts of the same inscriptions as those of the foundation tables, Steve 1974: p. 163). A series of short inscriptions (authorship marks) contains the name of the king and the denomination of parts of buildings, such as the inscribed knobs (Basello 2012) or the labels on the doorframes from Persepolis.

Longer texts containing statements by the king are separated into sections by the OP formula: θāti xšāhyaθiya “says the king.” A set of formulaic elements is generally present: an evocation to Ahuramazda, a statement of the king's name, royal epithets and genealogy; and a call for Ahuramazda's blessings on the king's works/land/household. The Achaemenid inscriptions contain Avestan echoes and more or less direct citations according to Skjærvø (1999) and Kellens (2002); on the attitude of the Achaemenids toward Ahuramazda and other religions see Jacobs and Trampedach (2013) and Jacobs (2014b). A list of subject lands/peoples (OP dahyāva/AE dahyauš/LB mātāti) is sometimes appended in different formats, but these variations do not seem to point to actual political events (such as rebellions, changing role of different regions) since the narrative style of the royal discourse is mostly and intentionally timeless (cf. Sancisi‐Weerdenburg 1999; Jacobs 2014a points to historical events that can be guessed in some specific cases). A particular variant of these lists is contained in the inscriptions from the palaces of Darius at Susa (DSf, DSz), which list the subject lands/peoples entrusted with transporting and crafting the building materials. Short texts sometimes accompanying reliefs identify the figures as representatives of subject lands/peoples and are similar to those usually styled “label inscriptions” in Assyriology.

After Xerxes the royal inscriptions diminish in length, no lists of dahyāva are attested, and the only information besides genealogies concerns buildings (Rollinger 2014: pp. 201–202). A progressive change in attitude after Darius as regards the royal legitimation is studied by Jacobs (2014a).

Greek historiography reports about Achaemenid inscriptions that we do not possess. Some of them might have existed (Schmitt 1988), that (on (a) statue(s)?) at the Bosporus, for which Herodotus (4.87.1) mentions two versions (στήλας ἔστησε δύο […] ἐνταμὼν γράμματα ἐς μὲν τὴν Ἀσσύρια ἐς δὲ τὴν Ἑλληνικά), may have been a quadrilingual monument as Darius' statue (cf. recently Jacobs 2012: p. 110; Rollinger 2013: pp. 97–99, emphasizing Assyrian analogies).

An updated catalogue of all royal inscriptions is now available (Schmitt 2009: pp. 7–32); all other reference works (most quoted: Kent 1953, OP, now severely outdated) have only monolingual catalogues. Schmitt's edition (2009: pp. 33–199) contains only OP texts and their German translations. A collection of OP texts (without DB) containing supplementary material data is Schweiger (1998); the only recent collection of all inscriptions in the three languages is Lecoq (1997, original texts not given). The first volume of a new critical edition (all Achaemenid royal inscriptions in all languages), by the DARIOSH editorial board, has appeared recently (Rossi et al. 2012; cf. also Rossi 2017).