Читать книгу A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set - Группа авторов - Страница 58

Elamite versions of about 75 Achaemenid royal inscriptions include rupestral inscriptions, architectural inscriptions displayed on building elements, commemorative inscriptions on stone, clay, gold, or silver tablets associated with royal buildings, and inscriptions on portable objects such as ornamental knobs of Egyptian blue, stone vessels, tableware, weights, cylinder seals, and statues. Almost all are versions of texts that were also presented in Old Persian, Akkadian, and occasionally Egyptian, on the same objects or structures as the Elamite versions, or on companion objects.

Most of the inscriptions with Elamite versions were displayed or deposited at sites in the core provinces of the Achaemenid Empire, in Persia, Elam, or Media. A few were displayed elsewhere, including the Suez inscriptions set up by Darius I in Egypt (DZb, DZc; Lloyd 2007: pp. 99–107) and the rock inscription of Xerxes at the citadel of Van in eastern Anatolia (XV). Inscriptions on the statue of Darius I that was made in Egypt and displayed at Susa included Elamite versions (DSab; Yoyotte apud Perrot 2010: pp. 256–299; Vallat apud Perrot 2010: pp. 312–313), as did multilingual inscriptions on stone vessels made in Egypt and carried to many other sites (e.g. DVsc [Westenholz and Stolper 2002], XVa–d).

The evolution of the multilingual Achaemenid inscription that is discernible in the texts on the monument of Darius I at Bisutun (DB, DBa‐l) began with the Elamite versions, as the spatial arrangement of the monument reveals (Schmitt 1991: pp. 18–19 with references). The first text added to the relief was a monolingual Elamite inscription giving Darius' name, ancestry, and claim to royal descent (DBa), placed in the field of the relief, centered above the image of Darius. The second text was a first edition of the fully developed apologia, including the narrative of Darius' rise to power and suppression of his opponents, and his admonitions and exhortations to future rulers and readers, presented in Elamite (DB El. §§1–54), positioned immediately to the right of the relief panel. The agents of Darius first chose Elamite to commemorate his reconquest and restoration of the core territories of the empire. The concept of the Achaemenid royal inscription evolved during the expansion and revision of the Bisutun monument to envision a document displayed in an innovative multilingual form and propagated (as the fragmentary versions of DB from Babylon and Egypt reveal) in many monolingual versions.

The nexus between the Elamite and Persian versions is close. When the versions show differences in contents or word order, the Elamite most often agrees with the Old Persian against the Akkadian. In most cases where the Elamite and Old Persian disagree in the Bisutun texts, the Elamite appears to reflect an original wording, altered in the final edition represented by the Old Persian text. In a few cases, however, the Elamite diverges in ways that are not reflected in either of the other versions.

The several versions of most other, later, multilingual inscriptions were ordinarily composed and carved simultaneously, as is again clear from their spatial arrangement on single architectural elements or foundation documents, in symmetrical panels of architectural ornament, on stone plates and vessels, or on cylinder seals. When the versions appear on the same surface, they are normally in a ranked array. At Persepolis, when three versions of an architectural inscription are displayed side by side, the Old Persian is commonly central, the other versions on either side (e.g. DPc, XPcb, XPdb, but not DPa, DPb, XPe). When three versions are displayed in vertical array, the Old Persian is normally uppermost, the Elamite below it, and the Babylonian below that (e.g. DPh, XPda, XPcb). The same order is normal in trilingual royal inscriptions in vertical array on stone weights (e.g. Wa–Wf) and on cylinder seals (e.g. SDa–SDe, SXd); it is also found in quadrilingual inscriptions on stone vessels (adding an Egyptian hieroglyphic version below the Babylonian, e.g. DVsc, XVs, AVs) and on one face of the quadrilingual Suez stele of Darius I (DZb‐c), where the Egyptian hieroglyphic counterpart is on the opposite face.

The same ranking of versions also appears in the unique suite of four distinct but interrelated foundation inscriptions of Darius I (DPd–DPg) that were laid out in non‐symmetrical array and carved all at one time in side‐by‐side panels on a single stone block, 7.2 m wide, on the south face of the terrace at Persepolis. The two Old Persian inscriptions (DPd, DPe) are at the viewer's left, the Elamite inscription (DPf) to the right of them, and the Babylonian inscription (DPg) on the far right, that is, with the left‐to‐right sequence corresponding to the common vertical arrangement (and also found in the mirrored horizontal arrays of DPa and DPb). Each is a distinct text, but they are rhetorically connected as a series to be read from left to right, the language of each adding nuance to its specific contents. While the two Old Persian texts, in an archaizing version of the language of the empire's rulers, focus on royal and divine protection of the Persian land and people, and the Akkadian text, in a venerable language of the larger empire, asserts the geographical scope of the realm, the Elamite inscription (DPf), in the ancient indigenous language of the region, focuses on the construction of the “fortress” at Persepolis itself (see Lincoln 2008: pp. 223 and 231–233). The arrangement of the versions reflects a social and political nuance as well as a decorative choice.

Royal inscriptions on cylinder seals begin with the pronoun “I” and state the king's name and short title as appositions. Hence, unlike inscriptions on non‐royal seals, they are self‐predications rather than statements of ownership. Multilingual examples, with Elamite versions, come from the reigns of Darius I and Xerxes I. Only one actual seal of this kind is extant, said to have come from lower Egypt (Schmitt 1981: p. 19 SDa; Merrillees 2005: p. 52 and pl. vii, no. 16); eight others are attested indirectly by impressions on clay tablets, bullae, and sealings from Persepolis (Schmitt 1981; Garrison 2014; seals with royal name inscriptions impressed on sealings from Daskyleion, in western Anatolia, do not have Elamite versions: Schmitt 2002).