GLOTTOLOGIA MAGISTRALE - uniroma1.it · P r o f. M a r co Mancini Programma d’esame C....

A N N O A C C A DE M IC O 2018-2019

C DL : Filologia,letterature e storia del mondo antico ( LM ) - 29955 ( L M - 15)

GLOTTOLOGIA

MAGISTRALE

P r o f. M a r co Mancini

Programma d’esame

C. Ciancaglini-A. Keidan, Linguistica generale e storica per studenti di lingue orientali

e classiche, vol. II, Firenze, Le Monnier, 2018

N. Sims Williams, Le lingue iraniche, in A. Giacalone-Ramat-P. Ramat (a cura di), Le

lingue indoeuropee, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1993, pp. 151-179.

Le dispense sono costituite dai seguenti saggi:

– Huyse, Philip (1999) Some Further Thoughts on the Bisitun Monument and the Genesis of the Old Persian Cuneiform Script. In: Bulletin of the Asia Institute 13:45-66.

– Schmitt, Rüdiger (2004) Old Persian. In: Roger D. Woodard ed.., The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge: 717-741

– Testo di DB

– Fotocopie distibuite a lezione

Bulletin of the Asia Institute, a Non-Profit Corporation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Asia Institute.

http://www.jstor.org

Bulletin of the Asia Institute, a Non-Profit Corporation

Some Further Thoughts on the Bisitun Monument and the Genesis of the Old Persian Cuneiform Script Author(s): PHILIP HUYSE Source: Bulletin of the Asia Institute, New Series, Vol. 13 (1999), pp. 45-66Published by: Bulletin of the Asia Institute, a Non-Profit CorporationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24048957Accessed: 14-12-2015 03:38 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 03:38:31 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bai

http://www.jstor.org/stable/24048957

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



Some Further Thoughts on the Bisitun Monument and the

Genesis of the Old Persian Cuneiform Script1

PHILIP H U Y S Ε

While many studies dealing with the origins of no Babylonian translation; nor do we have an the Old Persian cuneiform script have appeared Aramaic version of it, or a translation in any in the past few decades,2 a new edition by other language employed in the Achaemenid

Schmitt, published in 1991, calls for more work empire. Another reason is that the Old Persian on the subject. Now based on a thorough verifi- text is seriously damaged at some crucial points, cation of a series of good photos taken in the which—until Schmitt 1991—prevented a more

early sixties, the text of the Old Persian version accurate restoration of the text, while the corre of the Bisitun inscription is at last on a firm ba- sponding Elamite text, though completely pre sis.3 In addition, many facts closely connected to served, contains several key words which are the matter which seemed in doubt some thirty or either hapax legomena or of which the exact

forty years ago have become certainties. meaning is contested. There is presumably no other passage in an Following are the texts of both versions in full

Old Persian inscription that has been debated length according to the current standard edi about so intensely as the last lines of the fourth tions, accompanied by the translations given by column of the great Bisitun inscription (DB IV their respective editors:

88-92 = par. 70), also known as the "Schrifter

findungsparagraph." While some scholars would Old Persian (DB IV 88-92): [88]. . . θ-α-t-i-y : d-a-i-y like to see in it proof that Darius I (522-486 b.c.) v-u-s ; x-s-a-y-0-i-y : v-s-n-a : a-u- [89] r-m-z-d-a-h :

introduced the Old Persian cuneiform script by 1"m ·' d'-i-p-i-'c^-i-'ç-m ,·1 t-y : a-d-m : a-k"-u-n-v-m :

means of that very inscription,4 others think P-t-i-S-m : a-i-i-y-a : u-t-a : p-v-s-t- [90]a-y-[a] : u-t-a :

that the script already existed in the time of c™ ; i"m] ; ; ti-tU-s-m-lc-i-y :[n-a-m

Γνrus the Treat (ca 558-580 β c I 5 and still n-a]-f-m : a-k"-u-n-v-m : p-[t]-i-s-[m · u]-v-a-d-a- [91] Oyrus tne Treat (ca. 558 58U b.c.] ana stili

[t.m) . [a_ku.u.n].v.[m] : u.t.a : n-i-y-p-i-W]-i-[y : u}-t-a

others claim that its origins reach as far back as . . p+s-i-y-a

. . p.s.a.[v] . pm . Median times. Much depends on a correct un- [92] i-p-i-'c-i-ç]-m : f-[r]-a-s-t-a-y-m : v'-i-\s]-p-d-ci : derstanding of this par. 70 in DB (part l).7 In fact, a.t.T ■ d-h-y-a-[v\ : k-a-r : h-m-a-[t]-x-S-t-a it plays a central role in the question of the gen esis of the Old Persian cuneiform script (part 2), /0âti Dàrayavaus xsàyaOiya: vasnà Auramazdâha ima

and it also has consequences for the reconstruc- dipiciçam, taya adam akunavam, patisam ariyâ, utà

tion of the consecutive stages in the creation of pavastâyà8 utà carmà grftam âha, patisamci nâma

the Bisitun monument (part 3). nàfam akunavam, patisam uvàdàtam akunavam, utà

niyapaiOiya utà patiyafraOiya paisyà mâm, pasava

ima dipiciçam frâstàyam vispadâ antar dahyàva, kâra

1. DB, Paragraph 70 hamâtaxsatâ/

"Proclaims Darius, the king: By the favour of Aura The reasons for the continuing controversy re- mazdâ this (is) the form of writing, which I have garding the interpretation of par. 70 of the Bi- made, besides, in Aryan.11 Both on clay tablets and situn inscription are manifold. One problem is on parchment it has been placed. Besides, I also that there exists only an Elamite parallel ver- made the signature; besides, I made the lineage. And

sion of that passage in the Old Persian text, but it was written down and was read aloud before me.

45



and

η υ y s ε: The Bisitun Monument and the Genesis of the Old Persian Cuneiform Script

Afterwards I have sent this form of writing every- adverb /patisam/ followed by the enclitic em where into the countries. The people strove12 (to use phatic particle /ci/; Kent 1953, 130, and others it)." (Quoted after Schmitt 1991, 45 [transliteration] ha(j them erroneously understood as [p-t]-i-s-m and 73f. [transcription and translation]) i-y /patisa(m)-mai/, that is, as the adverb /pati

sam/ followed by the enclitic pronoun of the 1st

pers. sg. /mai/.

Elamite [DBl]13: [1] <da-ri-ia-ma-u-is HUNK1 na-an-ri Bef°re

^ translati°n and

^5" [2] za-u-lmi-in *u-ra-mazx-da-na [3] hi Hup-pi-me / Potation of the Old Persian text, I would like

da-a-e-ik-ki hu-ut-tâ [4] har-ri-ia-ma / ap-pa sâ-is-sâ t0 turn t° Elamite text, as it is of genuine

in-ni sà-ri [5] ku-ut-tâ hha-la-/at-uk-ku ku-ut-tâ assistance regarding a better understanding of

KUSme's-uk-ku [6] ku-ut-tâ / hhi-is ku-ut-tâ e-ip-pi its Old Persian counterpart. Unlike the Old Per

hu-ut-tâ [7] ku-/ut-tâ tal-li-ik ku-ut-tâ ιύ ti-Hp-pa pè- sian text, the reading of the Elamite version

ip-ra-ka4 [8] me-ni Hup-pi-me am-/min-nu lda-a-ia- causes no problem, but the interpretation has u-is mar-ri-da ha-ti-/ma hi tin-gi-ia [9] ltas-su-ip-pè So far been rather troublesome, to judge from sa-pi-is older translations (see n. 7), which at times dif

fer substantially. "Et Darius, le roi, déclare: Par le fait d'Uramazda j'ai

Apart from some minor divergences, the Elam fait autrement/un autre texte en aryen, ce qu il n'y . ^ j.rr £ -, Λ,ι ^

^ r ·, · r / ite text differs from the Old Persian text m one avait pas auparavant, sur argile et sur peau, et y ai fait . n , . ,/ T nom (et) généalogie et cela a été écrit et lu devant significant point that was long neglected.

6 In

moi; ensuite, j'ai envoyé ce texte-là dans tous les both instances of the Old Persian text in which

pays; les gens (l')ont répété." (Quoted after Grillot- the word /dipiciçam/ occurs (DB IV 89 and 91f.),

Susini, Herrenschmidt, and Malbran-Labat 1993, 38 it is preceded by the demonstrative pronoun [transliteration]14 and 58f. [translation]) /ima/ (ntr.) "this here," commonly used for some

thing that is near the speaker. Despite this uni To begin with the Old Persian text as recon- formity in the Old Persian text, the translation

structed by Schmitt 1991, his readings and sup- of the Elamite text is twice slightly divergent: on

plements contain some major improvements in the first occurrence, OP /ima/ is not rendered by comparison to former editions.15 A first change Elam. hi "this here," which would be its usual of capital importance is Schmitt's observation equivalent (cf. DB [Elam.] Ill 66f., 70, 84, 85, 88), (1990, 59 n. 50) that the verbal form a-h /âha/ but by Elam. da-a-e-ik-ki "otherwise";17 in the

following a-r-i-y-a, as "read" by everyone since second case, it is rendered by Elam. am-min-nu Kent 1953, 130, must be deleted, since not the "this (very), (the) same," which corresponds in

slightest trace of it can be seen on the rock, or is DB I 45 to OP aita-, that is, to the demonstrative there any space for it. pronoun used for something that has already

The most important step towards a com- been mentioned before. This divergence makes

plete restoration of the Old Persian text may be it plain that par. 70 concerns the OP /dipiciçam/ Schmitt's brilliant proposal (Schmitt 1990, 57- ~ Elam. htup-pi-me of the Old Persian text only, 59) regarding the word beginning with d'-i-p-i- not of the inscription as a whole (see—rightly and attested nowhere else but in this par. 70, so—Lazard 1976, 182, and Schmitt 1990, 60).18 where it is found twice in lines 89 and 9IfRegarding the meaning of Elam. htup-pi-me, Schmitt's detailed description of the remaining it is now obvious that the word cannot mean traces after d^i-p-i- in both instances makes it al- "script" in the sense of "writing system,"19 as the most mandatory that they be read as -c-i-ç-m. A other Elamite attestations of the word definitely compound OP /dipi-ciçam/ is perfectly conceiv- exclude such a meaning.20 While the meaning of able from the point of view of word formation, achaem. Elam. htup-pi as "inscription" or "clay but its meaning remains unclear (see below); at tablet" is beyond doubt, the suffix -me is quite any rate, all prior speculations about a possible troublesome, since it can have different func

reading /dipiv(a)idam/ (whatever that would have tions. In the present case it is generally taken as meant) have thus come to an end. a suffix forming abstracts, and the word Elam.

A last emendation of some relevance is btup-pi-me as a whole is either interpreted as Schmitt's reading of the words [p-t]-i-s-m-[c]-i-y "script, writing system"—notwithstanding the /patisam-ci/ (Schmitt 1990, 60f.), that is, of the above remark—or as "text, inscription" (not as a

46




material object, but rather as referring to the something like "in front of," when used as an "contents" of the text). As long as the exact form adverb, and "opposite, facing," when used as an of the Old Persian equivalent was not deter- adjective. And since he thought that /patisam/ mined, it seemed the best course to find an as an isolated adverb did not really make sense

acceptable translation for Elam. htup-pi-me. But in the context of DB IV 89ff., he tried to associ now that Schmitt 1990, 57-59, has firmly estab- ate it with the verb /akunavam/, which indeed lished the Old Persian form, a solution seems occurs three times in the neighborhood of /pa nearer. tisam/, once (DB IV 89) immediately before it,

Whatever the precise function of Elam. -me twice (DB IV 90f.) following it and separated by in btup-pi-me may be, the suffix clearly corre- at least one other word. An expression OP /pati sponds to OP /-ciça-/ in /dipi-ciçam/, so that sam (adv.) kr-/ thus seems quite within the one may assume that it is the "kind, sort, type" bounds of probability. Taken literally, in Lazard's or "form, shape, appearance" (OP */ciça-/, cf. MP view it would mean "mettre devant," that is, /cihr/ with the same meaning) of the "inscrip- "mettre en regard (des autres)," "graver en face tion" (Elam. htup-pi ~ OP /dipi/) that is discussed ou à côté," as in DB IV 89, or "mettre devant" in here. But Schmitt's assumption that "Darius the sense of "mettre en tête, apposer dessus," as first speaks ... of the 'outer form' of his 'new in DB IV 90f.

writing' [i.e., /dipi-ciçam/ in DB IV 89, my addi- This ingenious analysis is attractive,21 but

tion] and adds then a remark on its 'inner form' some details remain problematic. On the one in that thus it became possible to write a text hand, Lazard is forced to accept a (slight) change 'in Aryan' [i.e., /patisam Ariyâ/ in DB IV 89, my in meaning of /patisam kr-/ between DB IV 89

addition]" is perhaps just a little too subtle to and 90f., and his translation results in a rather be true. trivial statement. In Lazard's interpretation, what

I am inclined to think that the solution Darius would have wanted to say in par. 70 is

adopted by Harmatta 1966, 262, was somewhat that he has engraved the inscription DB in such nearer when he took Elam. -me to be a collec- a way that it now faces the reader, and that he tive suffix and suggested that Elam. htup-pi-me has put his name and genealogy at the begin "means such an inscription or document, which ning of the inscription. On the other hand, all has several specimens, versions, or eventually the examples given by Lazard to prove the like

parts, but forms a unity." But in the light of lihood of a locution /patisam kr-/ are composed what I just said, I would change Harmatta's pro- with a substantive in the accusative, like OP

posai to the effect that Elam. btup-pi-me does /zura kr-/ "to deceive" (lit. "to make evil") or

not apply to such an "inscription" (coll.) as a Avest. /skandam kar-/ "to destroy" (lit. "to make

whole, but on the contrary to a "version, copy, destruction"), not with an adverb or an adjec

part" of it (that is, one particular "form" of the tive. Still, the association of /patisam/ to /kr-/ is

"inscription"). Such an interpretation not only an excellent solution, though one single mean

fits best in all other instances where the word ing for the word would seem to be sufficient for

occurs but would also offer an obvious explana- all three attestations; it could then either be— tion of why the complex form OP /dipiciçam/ ~ preferably—interpreted as an adverb with loca

Elam. htup-pi-me was needed in DB IV 89 and tive function ("to put opposite") or alternatively 91 f. instead of the simple Elam. htup-pi ~ OP explained as an adjective ("to make (as) opposite,

/dipi/. But for that point, see below, after com- facing") in the accusative singular neuter, used

ments on the next difficulty in the Old Persian predicatively and in congruence with the neuter

text contained in the term /patisam/. substantive /dipiciçam/ (but the phrase can of

Previously, most scholars have taken that word course still be translated adverbially).22 to be an adverb standing on its own and mean- I conclude the first part of my study with my

ing "moreover, besides." Unfortunately, it is not own translations and some final comments:

attested elsewhere in the Old Persian inscrip

tions, but the meaning of its Avestan counter- old Persian (DB IV 88-92): "Proclaims Darius, the

part paitisa(-) (AiW 836) has been reexamined by king: By the favor of Auramazdâ this version, which I Lazard 1976, 182-84. He came to the conclusion put opposite in Aryan, has been placed both on clay that the basic signification of the word must be tablets and on parchment. I also put opposite (my)

47




signature (and) I put opposite (my) lineage. And it concern the entire inscription instead of the Old was written down and was read aloud before me. Persian text only) and not enough (it would

Afterwards I have sent this version everywhere into concern exclusively the inner form, but not the the countries; the people strove (to use it)." outer appearance)

I have made one long sentence from /vasnâ a

Auramazdàha/ through /grftam àha/ instead of

, , , dividing it up into two phrases as is the case Elamite DBl]: Darius the king, proclaims: By the

in Schmitt,g translation fand in all the others be_ will ol Uramazda, I made this version otherwise, m f . . . . f , , , , ,

Aryan, which did not exist before, both on clay and fore>' f

JOUI of the two phrases has the advan

on parchment.23 And I made (my) name and (my) lin- taSe that we do not need to fal1 back on an

eage, and it was written and read aloud before me. ellipsis of the verb 'to be (even though an el

Afterwards I sent (that) same version into all coun- lipsis of that kind is nothing unusual of itself ). tries,· the people strove (to use it)." As an immediate consequence of that change,

it was the new Old Persian version which was To understand the full implications of this copied on clay tablets and on parchment to be

"new" translation of the two versions, see figs. 1 sent out to all countries of the Empire.26 Unfor and 2. What Darius is trying to tell us in the Old tunately, only few fragments in Babylonian and Persian version, is—I think—that he had that Aramaic of such copies have survived. The Ara text added on the opposite side of (which here maic translation27 (dated around 420 b.c.) found means: beneath) the relief and the Babylonian on papyrus fragments at the Jewish military col and the (original) Elamite versions. Darius also ony in Elephantine resembles the Babylonian had his "signature" and "lineage" added sepa- version more closely28 and would thus contra

rately in the inscription DBa over the relief, diet my above assumption. But the larger of two which thus faces on its part the Old Persian fragments of the Babylonian inscription29 found version of the inscription DB.24 That the new in the city palace of Babylon seems altogether interpretation disturbs the usual parallelism be- closer to the Old Persian and the Elamite texts, tween the Elamite and the Old Persian texts albeit that it contains casualty figures like the should not concern us: probably for the reasons Babylonian version preserved on the rock at evoked by Trumpelmann, the scribe of the Elam- Bisitun. ite text found it necessary to add a short addi- As far as I can see, the only problem—though tional remark (absent in the Old Persian version) of major concern—regarding my attempt at a and to stress that the Old Persian text had not "new" interpretation is the position of OP /pati existed at first.25 In the Elamite version he did sam/ at its first occurrence in DB IV 89. If /pati not translate the word OP /patisam/ "opposite" sam/ should be connected as an adverb or a in any of the three instances in which it oc- predicate adjective to the verb /akunavam/ pre curred, because it was applicable neither to the ceding it as I suggested above, the word order

position on the monument of the first Elamite is contradictory to the expected normal Old Per version of DB nor to the position of DBl (Elam.). sian word order of subject-predicate adjective Finally, the new interpretation would also clar- verb (on which see Kent 1953, 95 §307). On the

ify why the usual term OP /imam dipim/ (DB IV other hand, for reasons of expressiveness the

43, 48, 70, 73, 77) ~ Elam. btup-pi hi (DB III 66f., word order in Old Persian was quite free, and 70, 84, 85, 88) was inappropriate in the context the fact of being able to write in his own of par. 70: In all those cases, OP dipi- ~ Elam. "Aryan" language was certainly of sufficient

htup-pi relates to the inscription as a whole, importance for Darius to deserve special em

irrespective of its single versions. In par. 70, phasis as an adjunct at the end of the sentence, however, all that matters is the concrete reali- after the verb (see some other examples in Kent zation of the inscription in the Old Persian re- 1953, 96 §310 VII). daction only, but with its inner (i.e., contents) While my interpretation, like all previous in and outer forms (i.e., layout) alike. Therefore, a terpretations, remains a hypothesis, it gives a translation "text" or "contents"—as proposed by better explanation for the divergence between Harmatta and others—is not pertinent either, the Old Persian and the Elamite texts, and it un since it is at the same time too much (it would questionably has the advantage that Schmitt's

48




49

Fig.

1.

The

position

of

the

Old

Persian

text,

the

two

Elamite

versions,

and

the

Babylonian

versions

of

the

major

trilingual

inscription

DB

on

the

rock

at

Mt.

Bisitun,

based

on

Schmitt

1991,

pi.

4.




50

Fig.

2.

The

position

of

the

minor

Old

Persian

("OP"],

Elamite

("Elam."),

and

Babylonian

("Bab.")

inscriptions

DBa

1 (here

labelled

"a-1")

on

the

Bisitun

relief,

based

on

Schmitt

1991,

pi.

5.




essential improvements in the readings of the that the k"-sign is the only one composed of Old Persian text have been fully taken into ac- merely two elements, but if the ru-sign was also count. If the way in which I understand the text among the "first" signs created, why was it not is correct, there would be no question of the equally composed of two instead of three ele "invention" of the Old Persian cuneiform script ments? And for what reason would signs like

by Darius I in par. 70. To all those who would ka, ja, ba, da, etc., have been composed of three consider the word order in DB IV 89-91 an insur- elements only, whereas the repeatedly needed mountable obstacle to my interpretation, how- sign a was composed of four elements and the

ever, the translation suggested by Schmitt 1991, useful sign va even of five?33 On the other hand, 73f., and quoted above still appears to be prefer- if the Old Persian cuneiform script had already able by far to all others.30 A translation "besides" existed as a coherent and complete writing sys for OP /patisam/ cannot be excluded (though it tem at the time of Cyrus, what would have pre needs confirmation), and Schmitt's translation is vented him from using it more extensively, and in perfect accordance with the "rules" of Old why would Darius not have planned an Old Per Persian syntax, but it does not explain why OP sian version of DB from the very start of his un

/patisam/ was left untranslated three times in dertaking in Bisitun?34 the Elamite text. Apart from Hallock's note on the simplicity of

the signs ku and iu, three further external argu ments have been advanced in favor of the ex

2. The Introduction of the istence of the Old Persian script by the time of

Old Persian Cuneiform Script Cyrus: (1) the alleged Old Persian inscription on the tomb of Cyrus in Pasargadae; (2) the (trilin

The result of my examination so far may appear gual) inscriptions CMa-c in Pasargadae, tradi

rather disappointing to all those who support tionally attributed to Cyrus; (3) the Old Persian the view that Darius I was the one who intro- inscriptions of Darius' great-grandfather Aria

duced the new Old Persian script. But does the ramnes (AmH) and of his grandfather Arsames

new interpretation of the preceding pages mean (AsH), which turned up in Hamadân on gold tab

that we finally have to return to the old thesis lets. In contrast to this, only one argument ap that it was, after all, Cyrus the Great who "in- pears to support the introduction of the new

vented" the cuneiform signs or at least initiated writing system by Darius; it is embedded in the

the use of them? I believe not. 21st (apocryphal) letter of Themistocles. Initially, The observation by Hallock 1970 that the the balance seems to favor Cyrus, but there has

signs for ku and ru are among the simplest in the been considerable progress in research since the

Old Persian cuneiform syllabary, even though important studies by Nylander 1967 and Lecoq

they are not among the most frequently used, has 19 74.

been misleading. Since both of these signs occur In Greek literature, we find five references to

in the name of the founder of the Empire (OP ku- the presence of inscriptions on the tomb of

u-ru-u-s /Kurus/), it seemed so obvious that Cyrus II, but since the other three reports are

Cyrus II could have drafted a small number of based on either Aristoboulos (FGiHist 139 F

signs in order to be able to write his name—sup- 51a), who must have seen the tomb at least

plemented at a later time with the signs needed twice, or Onesikritos (FGiHist 134 F 34), the

to write some simple words like "I," "king," number of sources can actually be reduced to

"empire," etc.—and that Darius I could have these two historians who had accompanied Al

commissioned a few people to finish the job.31 exander on his campaign in the East. Both claim

This theory of a gradual creation of the Old Per- to have seen an inscription, in Persian but en

sian cuneiform script over a period of at least one graved with Greek letters according to Onesikri

to almost four decades and sign by sign whenever tos, in Persian and with Persian signs according the need was felt cannot claim to be overly con- to Aristoboulos. Reservations regarding the trust

vincing, however.32 Moreover, the alleged sim- worthiness of these accounts from an archaeolog

plicity of the two signs ku and iu is entirely ical point of view have been made by Stronach

relative and its relevance questionable. It is true 1978, 26, who emphasized that "it was certainly

51




never a standard Achaemenian practice to place distic reasons, since Darius was badly in need

inscriptions on tombs." A thorough examina- of integrating Cyrus into his own Achaemenid tion of the language and style as well as of the family. And, being an eloquent writer, where contents of the "inscription(s)" finally confirms else if not in Pasargadae, "the hub of Cyrus' these doubts entirely; Schmitt 1988, 18-25, has former rule" (Stronach 1990, 201), could Darius

convincingly shown (pace Lecoq 1974, 98f. and have attempted this fusion of the two houses

1997, 78-80), that we cannot have the slightest with a better chance of success?38 doubt about the inauthentic character of the The Old Persian inscriptions of Ariaramnes

inscriptions quoted, which, on the contrary, ap- (AmH) and Arsames (AsH), which came to light pear to have been concocted by the Alexander in Hamadân in 1930 and 1945 respectively, also historians. have been adduced as proof that the Old Per

The most serious debate no doubt concerns sian cuneiform script must have existed before the three short inscriptions CMa-c in Pasar- Darius.39 Because of the numerous grammatical gadae,· surely, no serious scholar will still chal- faults, serious doubts were cast on their authen

lenge the idea that the inscription CMb should ticity from the beginning, however, and even a

actually be attributed to Darius (hence later modern falsification has been taken into consid called: CMb-DMa),35 since his name occurs in eration. The faults mostly concern the incorrect

it, and most will also agree that Darius may well use of cases (esp. of hybrid forms of the genitive have been the author of CMc (it reads: "Cyrus, case) and other barbarisms of the same kind as the great king, an Achaemenid"). For the other occur in the late Achaemenid inscriptions of the

inscription CMa, which reads "I, Cyrus, the fourth century b.c. For this reason, they cannot

king, an Achaemenid," the situation is different: have been fakes from the time of Darius,40 since At the issue of a long discussion, Nylander 1967 all inscriptions of that time, including Darius' would not go beyond attributing at best the Old duplicate inscription DH from Hamadân on a gold Persian version of this brief trilingual inscrip- and a silver plate from Hamadân, are grammati tion to Darius, while he assigned the Babylonian cally correct. According to Schmitt 1999, 105-11, and the Elamite versions to Cyrus. Yet, I think who has systematically restudied both inscrip that Stronach 1990 has proved conclusively tions and their faults, the fourth century b.c., (pace Lecoq 1974, 52-56, and 1997, 80-82) that and in particular the time of Artaxerxes III (359/ CMa with all its three versions should be as- 358-338/337 b.c.), is the most likely time for cribed to Darius. I cannot repeat all of the argu- their fabrication, since Artaxerxes III is the only ments here,36 but apart from the fact that no Achaemenid king who traced his lineage back to

stylistic differences in the engraving of the Old Arsames in the inscription A3Pa (ibid., p. 105). Persian version versus the other two can be dis- In the 21st letter of Themistocles (ed. Hercher, covered (see Stronach 1990, 197), the most un- p. 752), the Greek politician requests his Argive equivocal element that betrays Darius as the friend Temenidas to send him some silver era author of CMa is the use of the term "Achae- ters, iron armor plates, and golden censers, "in menid" in the three parallel versions (ibid., 200). which the Old Assyrian signs are carved and

If the brilliant thesis of Rollinger 1998 is cor- not those which Darius, the father of Xerxes, rect—as I am convinced it is—that there were as had recently ordained." A fresh investigation of a matter of fact two families, the Teispids, to all attestations for the expression "(As)syrian," which Cyrus and the first "Achaemenid" kings "Persian," and "Chaldaic letters" by Schmitt

belonged, and the Achaemenids, the house of 1992b leaves no doubt as to the interpretation Darius, who was consequently not in line of of the passage: even if we accept that the let succession, then Darius had everything to gain ter itself was not written by Themistocles and by faking a couple of inscriptions in which he may instead have been a product of Roman had Cyrus present himself as an Achaemenid.37 Imperial times, it contains reliable information There can be no question of a posthumous sa- and real knowledge concerning the Old Persian lute by Darius in honor of the founder of the cuneiform script, which must be meant here.41 empire Cyrus as a last token of piety; his motive In the end, a close examination of the ex is far less noble and dictated by mere propagan- ternal criteria possibly in favor of the existence

52




of the Old Persian cuneiform script at the time largely dominate those of four and five elements of Cyrus turns out to be quite devastating: an as far as frequency of use is concerned, and the

inscription on Cyrus' tomb in Pasargadae never same holds good for C°-signs versus C2- and Cu

existed; the author of the inscriptions CMa-c signs; he therefore suggested that some basic

(better: DMa-c) was no doubt—the usurper— text—which contained the name of Cyrus (see Darius; and the inscriptions of Ariaramnes and above)—might have served as a model for the Arsames were certainly fabricated at a later creator(s) of the Old Persian script. As long as it time. Thus, everything seems to point to Da- was believed that Cyrus was the inventor of the

rius, and now even the Bisitun inscription it- cuneiform script, it seemed a hopeless task, self may give us a hint of this. however, to try to reconstruct such a basic text,

It can safely be considered an established fact and only sheer luck could have brought it to that the Old Persian cuneiform script is indeed light if it really existed. But since all external the result of an invention at one precise mo- evidence points to Darius as the creator of the ment and not of a process of creation that took Old Persian script and to the Bisitun inscrip many years. Even if one would not wish to go tions as the first texts in which the new writing as far as Windfuhr 1970, 124, as to accept four system was ever used, it is rather strange that basic principles of sign composition,42 it never- no one has investigated those inscriptions in theless remains true that the Old Persian cunei- this respect. form script is clearly not derived from any of the As was stated above, the Old Persian script existing cuneiform models (see Lecoq 1974, 38- was most likely a new creation sui generis, and

48, and 1997, 59-72).43 This independence from the theory forwarded by Mayrhofer 1979, passim, other contemporary systems in use and the es- and 1989, 180f., 182f., to explain the strange and thetic "Stilprinzip"44 formulated by Hoffmann seemingly illogical selection of the signs of the

1976, 621, are almost sure indications of a de- types C2 and Cu versus the "complete" series of

liberate invention. The final result is probably signs of the type Ca is in my view extremely not as perfect as a modern linguist would have helpful and would seem to stop only one step been able to realize, but, notwithstanding a short of the final solution. Reduced to its es

number of structural flaws, it was fairly well sence, Mayrhofer's assumption is that, in order

adapted to rendering the Old Persian language not to break the stylistic principle, only those

(ibid., 645). signs were created that were absolutely indis

If the Old Persian cuneiform writing system pensable. Apart from the vowels a, i, u and the

were entirely consistent, one would expect the Ca-series, they include such C2- and Cu-signs,

corresponding consonantal sign (Ca, C\ Cu) to which were needed in the names of prominent each vowel [a, i, u). One probable reason why persons or in unusual geographic names. That

not every theoretically possible sign was actu- would explain why a sign like tu was needed so

ally invented is that 24 more signs would have that a name such as k-t-p-tu-u-k /Katpatuka-/ been necessary in addition to the existing 36, "Cappadocia" could be written in an unam

and in that case, more complex signs going biguous way; otherwise, *k-t-p-t-u-k might have

against the stylistic principle would have be- been read as */Katpatauka-/. Similarly m1 and

come unavoidable. Another explanation is that mu were invented to render /Armina/ "Armenia"

not all signs were needed; phonemic combina- and /Mudrâya/ "Egypt" unequivocally,· but the

tions like */cu/, */ju/, */yi/, and */vu/ are not to signs *bJ and *0U were not needed, as there was

be expected in Old Persian. But these cannot no danger that well-known geographic names

have been the only reasons; at any rate, no com- like b-a-b-i-ru-u-s /Bâbirus/ and α-θ-u-r-a /AGura/

pelling phonemic rationale can have been at the could have been misunderstood as */Babairus/

origin, since a sign like t2 is lacking, although and */A0aura/ respectively. For the same reason, there was an urgent morphological need for it signs like *pi or *zu were never created, since no

to distinguish between the active verbal ending native speaker of Persian would misread words

/-tiy/ (*<t2-i-y>) and the medial ending /-taiy/ like p-i-t-a /pita/ "father" or z-u-r /zura/ "evil,

\*<ta-i-y>). According to Hallock 1970 the "sim- wrongness" as */paita/ or */zaura'hl/. That the

pier" signs, composed of only three elements, sign t2 was not created is due—still according to

53




Mayrhofer 1989, 180—to the fact that it occurs form of the third person singular being θ-α-t-i-y only "in muttersprachlichen Phonepiketten." I /Gati/ (DBa 4, 9, 13f.|. Thus, the explanation that think that Mayrhofer's theory is not only accept- the need for a distinctive sign t1 in the active

able, but conclusive, although—to his great dis- ending *<t'-i-y> /-tiy/ as opposed to ta in the me

appointment—it has either been neglected or dial ending *<ta-i-y> /-taiy/ had not (yet) been felt, rejected so far (see Mayrhofer 1989, 180 n. 22). is perhaps too naive.49 But the fact that t' did not He correctly states (ibid., 180) that all of the occur in any of the foreign names in DBa-k or

proper names that use C'- and Cu-signs occur in in the country list of DB would seem to be an the Bisitun inscription. This assessment is of important argument for explaining its absence tremendous importance, and is the point where from the list of Old Persian signs. Mayrhofer could have gone one step further. In the short time elapsed since the creation

Since the sixties, it has been generally ac- of the new script not all scribes and stone

cepted that the Bisitun monument was not ere- masons had had the opportunity to acquaint ated from the beginning as a harmonious unity, themselves with its subtleties, or had all ortho but that it came into being after several stages graphic rules already been firmly established,

(see below, part 3). It is important to know that An example for the latter case can be seen when the Old Persian version of the brief inscription comparing such duplicates as v1-s-t-a-s-p /Vistâ DBa and the legends DBb-k were apparently en- spa/ (DB I 4, II 93, II 94, II 97, III 4, III 7, DBa 5), graved before the main inscription DB. At this vi-s-t-a-s-p-m /Vistàspam/ (DB III 2, III 3), and

stage of my argument, it may be useful to re- v^s-t-a-s-p-h-y-a /Vistâspahya/ (DB I 2f., I 4; DBa mind the reader of the full list of C*- and Cu- 3, 5f.) versus v'-i-s-t-a-s-p (and other declined

signs. They are: d', νi, mj', and gu, du, ku, mu, forms) in later inscriptions, written throughout nu, ru, tu. Now, all of the C'-signs and most of with <vi-i>; similarly νίθ- is always written <ν'-θ"> the C"-signs with the exception of mu, nu, and tu in DB, but <ν'-ί-θ°> in later inscriptions. Exam occur in the short inscriptions DBa-k, either in pies for the former case are the duplicates a-r names or in other words, of which part at least mJ-n /Armina/ versus a-r-m^i-n, and n-b-u-ku-d might have been misread.45 And if we supple- r-c-r /Nabukudracara/ versus n-b-u-ku-u-d-r-c-r, ment this first list with the names of foreign both found next to one another within DB.50 countries in the list at the beginning of the first Once the new script had been approved by the column of the Bisitun inscription after the pre- king and was put into use for the first time in sentation and the lineage (DB I 14-17),46 the re- the inscriptions DBa-k and DB, with all its im maining signs except nu are also represented.47 perfections, the creation process ended, and the

Since all of the C1-/ Cu-signs (minus one) are scribes had to make do with the existing signs, found in the early inscriptions DBa-k and in This is why the sign *ti, although more than de the list of countries in the beginning lines of DB, sirable, could not be added to the standing list; the often repeated hypothesis48 that the Old Per- likewise, a sign like *pu, which would have been sian script originated under the pressure of time useful for the name of the Libyans /Putâyâ/ and that the creation process was interrupted (which is not yet found in DB), could no longer at the command of the king, before the inven- be added, and the name had to be written p-u tors had had the chance to test it for eventual t-a-y-a in DNa 29a (see Mayrhofer 1979, 296, shortcomings, suddenly becomes much more and 1989, 180f. n. 24). After Bisitun, only minor probable. If we take it that the usurper Darius, improvements were allowed, like a simplified impatient to justify his seizure of power in his form of the word divider and a more elegant own language, interrupted the procedure of the shape of the sign for ya (see Hinz 1973, 23f.). "invention committee" prematurely, that might One substantial modification— the use of logo explain many things that have been difficult to grams—admittedly came into use after Bisitun, understand. Here, we may have found at last the but it had no direct bearing with the Old Persian "basic text" of which Hallock had been think- syllabary. ing. It may well be mere coincidence that neither How much time would have been needed for in the inscriptions DBa-k nor in the list of coun- the creation of the Old Persian cuneiform script? tries in DB I 14-17 any medial verbal form of the On the one hand, Ghirshman (1965) maintained third person singular occurs, the only active that Darius I could not have invented the script

54




Stage Relief Major Inscription Minor Inscriptions

I the whole relief without Skunkha no inscription DBa-j (Elam.) II pars. 1-69 (Elam., 1st copy)

III pars. 1-69 (Bab.) DBb-j (Bab.) IV pars. 1-70 (OP) DBa-j (OP)

DBl (Elam. [= OP, par. 70)) V addition of Skunkha "erasure" (?) of 1st Elam. copy;

engraving of 2d Elam. copy

pars. 71-76 [= col. V] (OP)

DBk (Elam. and OP)

Fig. 3. The five construction phases on the Bisitun monument according to Hinz 1968.

because he would not have had enough time to portant discoveries made by Heinz Luschey develop it. This statement may be somewhat (1968) concerning the composition of the relief, exaggerated, but—as shown above—haste clearly and particularly the conclusions reached by Leo

played a negative role in the creation process. Triimpelmann (1967) and Walther Hinz (1968) On the other hand, this was not accepted by on the arrangement of the inscriptions and the

Lecoq 1983, 37, who states that "on pourrait tout genesis of the complete Bisitun monument.52 aussi bien dire que la création d'une vingtaine As far as I know, since Luschey's discovery de signes cunéiformes aussi simples que ceux that the last rebel Skunkha (at the right) must de l'écriture v[ieux] p[erse] ne demandait pas un have been engraved later, only Nagel 1983 has effort ni un temps considérables."51 But two dif- proposed a modification with regard to the re ferent issues appear to have been confused here. lief. However, this discussion is only of mar While it is certainly true that the actual creation ginal relevance in the present context.53 Of more of the signs could have been realized within only direct concern is the criticism by Lecoq 1997, a few days, once that the stylistic principle had 86, that the theory of a genesis in numerous been specified, the "test phase" of the new script phases with scribes and artists constantly chang may well have taken several weeks or even ing their minds is in sharp contrast to the care months. If the creation procedure were to be re- fully planned Achaemenid monuments of later

constructed, the following scenario might per- times.54 Even if it was Darius himself (most

haps claim some degree of probability: First, the likely) and not the scribes and the stonemasons

vocalic signs a, i, u were created—is it mere on their own authority who decided to alter the

chance that they are all three composed of four composition of the monument, the critique is

elements?—together with the "complete" series important enough to deserve a serious reply, of consonantal/syllabic signs of the type Ca. This According to Hinz 1968 five construction first series of signs was then complemented with phases can be discerned (fig. 3). Triimpelmann

Ci-/Cu-signs according to the principle "as many 1967 recognized six phases (fig. 4), which largely as necessary, but as few as possible." While the coincide with the ones discovered by Hinz

result is reasonable, the final touch is lacking be- (divergences are marked in italics). Considering cause the inventors had not been accorded suffi- that Achaemenid art shows a predilection for

cient time to try out the script. symmetry, it is certain that the original plans for the Bisitun monument must have been more

^ harmonious than the final result. I can agree to 3. The Genesis of the a large extent with the stages reconstructed by

Bisitun Monument Triimpelmann and—even more—by Hinz, but a

few precisions are required in the light of the

The pioneering research on the genesis of the conclusions reached above.

Bisitun monument carried out in the sixties has If Darius had really changed his mind as often

been almost completely accepted; note the im- as was assumed by Hinz and Triimpelmann,

55




Stage Relief Major Inscription Minor Inscriptions

I the whole relief without Skunkha no inscription DBa (Elam.)

II pars. 1-69 (Elam., 1st copy) DBb-j (Elam.)

III pars. 1-69 (Bab.) DBb-j (Bab.)

IV pars. 1-70 (OP) DBb-i (OP) DB1 (Elam. [= OP, par. 70])

V addition of Skunkha "erasure" (?) of 1st Elam. copy;


DBk (Elam. and OP)

VI pars. 71-76 [= col. V] (OP) DBa (OP)

Fig. 4. The six construction phases on the Bisitun monument according to Trtimpelmann 1967.

that would imply that the workers would have sions, and the first four columns of the Old Per

needed to prepare a larger surface every few sian version of DB, are concerned with that first

months to carry out his orders. To "blast" the year. It would have lasted well into Darius' sec

rocks, I presume that the stonecutters used tech- ond regnal year of 520/19 b.c., until the Baby

niques similar to those employed by other peo- Ionian texts were all engraved. After that, we

pies in antiquity, in which wooden wedges were must assume a break of several months, during driven into small holes in the rock surface and which the Old Persian cuneiform script was in

then moistened until they swelled so much that vented. Work may have resumed by the end of

they made the rock burst. This technique could 519 b.c., after the creation of the new writing

hardly have been so perfect that one could have system was completed. While the Old Persian

determined in advance the precise spot where version of DB was being engraved, news of the

the rock would crack; in other words, would successful repression of Skunkha and his fol

Darius have given orders to enlarge the surface lowers must have reached Darius, who insisted

for the monument at regular intervals if there on having the events of his third regnal year was a risk that these actions might destroy a (519/518 b.c.) documented on the Bisitun mon

part of the relief or of one of the inscriptions? ument. Activities in Bisitun presumably came

Instead, the surface must somehow have been to an end during the course of 518 b.c.

prepared from the very beginning. Each of those two major stages can be subdi

To return to Lecoq's critique, the number of vided into two further phases (I 1-2 and II 1-2), work processes can indeed be reduced to two, each of which took place within the same cam even if the chronological order of the stages paign of construction works, but should clearly worked out in the two tables above is correct for be distinguished chronologically (indicated by a the most part. Everyone appears to have over- full line in the table of fig. 5). Every one was the looked an important remark by Luschey 1968, result of a new decision on the part of Darius

92f., who had discovered three different layers after a change of mind: in stage I, the break be of debris at the foot of the inscription, of which tween phases 1 and 2 was brought about by Da the upper and the middle layers only are directly rius' resolution to add Babylonian versions of related to works on the Bisitun monument.55 the existing inscriptions,· in stage II, the break

Thus, we must indeed distinguish between two between phases 1 and 2 was occasioned by Da

major coherent stages between which works rius' intention to have the image of the rebel were interrupted (see stages I and II in fig. 5, Skunkha added. Lastly, a further partition of marked by a double line). The first major stage some of these chronologically distinct phases in

may have started soon after the defeat of the a, b, and c seems possible. But, in contrast to the

Margian rebel Frâda on 28 December 521 b.c.,56 categories I—II and 1-2, this last type of subdivi or shortly after the end of Darius' first full reg- sion does not so much indicate different periods nal year on 3 March 520 b.c., since the events of time since a-b-c must have taken place al described in the Elamite and the Babylonian ver- most simultaneously as parts of only one in

56




Stage Date Relief Major Inscription Minor Inscriptions

la

"lb"

lc

~2~

the whole relief without Sku.

ca.

520/19 B.C.

DBa-j (Elam.)

pars. 1-69 (Elam., 1st copy)

pars. 1-69 (Bab.) DBb-j (Bab.)

II

la

lb"

lc

ca. 519

B.C.

DB1 (Elam. [= OP, par. 70])

DBa-j "(OP)

pars. 1-70 (OP) 2a

2b

2c'

ca. 518

B.C.

addition of Skunkha "erasure" (?) of 1st Elam. copy


pars.~71-~76 [= col.~vj (OPf

DBk (Elam. and OP)

Fig. 5. The two construction phases (with subdivisions) on the Bisitun monument according to Huyse.

struction on the part of the king. Rather, they the Median highlands near Ekbatana/Hamadân. would suggest the precise order in which the First preparations for the Bisitun monument different elements of one single sequence were may have begun soon after the defeat of the executed one after the other (since a, b, and c Margian rebel Frâda on 28 December 521 b.c., belong together each time, the distinction is or—at the latest—shortly after the end of Da marked by a broken line only in the table of fig. rius' first full regnal year on 3 March 520 b.c.

5). In other words, my proposal is more or less Since the place was a sacred site for the Elam a refined model of the one elaborated by Hinz ites (see Luschey 1968, 66), Darius chose to have

(see fig. 3), and it differs to a larger extent from his inscription engraved in the Elamite language

Trtimpelmann's model (especially the position- (which had also been the official Achaemenid

ing of DBa [OP] in his last phase VI is unaccept- court language until then), while the relief was

able). Some final explanations in the conclusion obviously inspired by the model of the local will clarify this. Elamite ruler Anubanini at Sar-e Pol-e Zohâb.58

That the relief was conceived as a harmonious

unity with all Elamite texts becomes evident

4. Conclusion when we have a look at the surface prepared for both.59 A spot some 66 m over the lake appeared

It is time to attempt a reconstruction of the to fit best because some 20 m underneath it,

genesis of the Bisitun monument. After his there was a natural platform which was broad

wrongful seizure of power, rebellions broke out enough (ca. 10 m) to have a scaffolding put up on

everywhere in the empire, and the Achaemenid it.60 A surface large enough for the relief and

usurper Darius was anxious to show his fellow the Elamite text was dressed as well as the ir

countrymen as quickly as possible that he really regular shape of the rock allowed it,61 and the

was the next legitimate king. As soon as he had surface just below presumably was superficially

regained control over the situation, he decided smoothed out as well,62 in order to prevent will

to make his position clear in words and images. ful vandalizing.63 While the stonemasons were

A good place had to be found57 in the neighbor- working on the relief,64 the legends accompany hood of the fortress Sikayuvati, where Gaumàta, ing the images of the rebels (DBb-j) and the short

Darius' most dangerous opponent, had been slain but self-confident inscription of Darius himself

on 29 September 522 b.c., and the steep east (DBa), the text of DB was being prepared. The

face of Mt. Bisitun seemed ideal. At the foot of king "dictated" the text ("Proclaims Darius, the

the mountain there was a lake with spring wa- king") in his Persian mother tongue,65 and two

ter, where caravans and the army used to rest on bilingual scribes wrote it down simultaneously their route from the Mesopotamian lowlands to in Elamite (on clay tablets) and in Aramaic66 (on

57




parchment). Then, both texts were worked out67 first, the stonemasons and engravers seem to

and refined in the royal chancellery to meet the have been willing to use the same "niching" standards of official administrative language. technique as was used for the relief and the

Thus, the personal tone of DBa (Elam.) was re- original Elamite version (see n. 59), but then

placed by a more matter-of-fact style in DB had to abandon that idea, as it turned out to

(Elam.), pars. 1-4 (see Hinz 1968, 96); and the be impossible to cut away the projecting rock

Aramaic scribes added precise numbers of the on which the inscription now stands.70 Another

casualties. point which the Babylonian and the Elamite

This work done, the final text was read aloud texts have in common is the division of DB into

in front of Darius and submitted for approval, 55 (respectively 54) exactly corresponding sec

and, immediately thereafter, the stonemasons tions,71 whereas the—original—Old Persian text

started engraving the text on the rock. Mean- has 69 paragraphs.

while, the king had come to the conclusion that After this first stage, a break of a few months

an Elamite text alone would not be sufficient; was necessary to give the scribes enough time

he now also wanted a translation in the lan- to invent the Old Persian cuneiform script. But

guage of his Babylonian predecessors and—last the continuation of the rebellions taking place but not least—in his own language. The Babylo- in the empire caused Darius to become impa nian translation was prepared from the Aramaic tient, and he asked the committee of inventors

text immediately (see η 66), but for the Old to break off their work and write the text with

Persian version there was no ready solution. A the script as it stood. This he explained in the

new script had to be invented, and Darius com- last paragraph of the fourth column (par. 70), missioned a committee to carry out this order of which an Elamite—but no Babylonian72— as soon as possible, since his second regnal year version was also made. The Elamite text DBl

(520/19 b.c.) was already well advanced. At the was engraved over DBa (Elamite), and then the

same time, in Bisitun, the stonemasons added Old Persian versions of the legends DBb-j were

the Babylonian legends DBb-j beneath the im- added.73 In the meantime, the Old Persian re

ages of the rebels, and, since there was not much translation of the main inscription DB from

space available, the legends for Gaumâta (DBb) the Elamite text,74 but with some updates,75 and Àçina (DBc) had to be squeezed in under was finished and could also be engrave.d, It was

the Elamite legend DBb. No Babylonian version puf on the dressed surface beneath the relief, of DBa was joined, since the free space under- although this face was not really suited for that neath and over the king had to be foreseen for purpose, since water regularly poured down from the—as yet unwritten—inscriptions DBb (OP) several gaps in the rock (see n. 62). Since the and DBa (OP) respectively,· as to the Babylonian Bisitun monument, however impressive, was version of DB, it was added to the left of the barely visible from below, at the foot of the relief on the prominent slope, where it seems mountain (but see Voigtlander 1978, 1), Darius awkward.68 ordained that copies of (both? the relief76 and)

Although the Babylonian texts apparently the inscription DB be made and that they be were not part of the original plan, they cannot sent out everywhere in the empire, have been engraved that much later and must As work was being done on the Old Persian have been executed during the first major stage text, news arrived that the followers of Darius of works on the Bisitun monument. As was had gained the upper hand over the Scythian noted by Cameron 1960, 60, the style in which rebel Skunkha. This required a last modification the Babylonian version was carved is very simi- to the monument, which Darius, by some ca lar to the style employed in the first Elamite price, wanted to see realized: Skunkha's image version and clearly differs from the style em- was finally added at the right of the relief,77 ployed not only in the Old Persian text but also which partially disturbed the Elamite text78 so in the second Elamite version: in both the orig- that an—almost exact—copy had to be engraved inal Elamite version and the Babylonian version again under the Babylonian version, to the left the cuneiform signs were "less skilfully and of the Old Persian text.79 As a final change, a less deeply incised" than in the other two.69 At fifth column, relating the events of Darius' sec

58




ond and third regnal years was added at the right of the Old Persian text before construction closed after well over two years of work. A few months later, Darius paid a visit to the long awaited monument (see n. 55).

Notes

1. This article is a revised and expanded version of

a paper presented in German at a conference on "Ori

ent und Okzident im Kontext althistorischer Quellen

forschung," held at Innsbruck University (6-9 July 2000). I would like to thank Prof. Rtidiger Schmitt

(Saarbrucken) and Prof. Nicholas Sims-Williams (Lon don) for giving me some useful comments on a first

draft of the article, but the responsibility for the views

expressed here remains entirely my own.

2. For the oldest literature, see the comprehensive

survey by Lecoq 1974; papers published up to 1989

have been summarized by Mayrhofer 1989. Among more recent studies, see Herrenschmidt 1989; Stronach

1990; and Malbran-Labat 1992. 3. In various respects this text edition means enor

mous progress as compared to the previous standard

edition by Kent 1953, 116-34 (see the "Addenda to Kent's 'Lexicon'" and the "Corrigenda and delenda to

Kent's 'Lexicon'" in Schmitt 1991, 8If.); Kent's edi

tion was based largely on the observations made by

George G. Cameron in the forties and fifties, which at

that time had enabled considerable improvements in

the edition of the text (on this point see Schmitt 1991,

25f.). The new readings and corrections by Schmitt are

explained and argued for in greater detail in Schmitt

1990. Still, even Schmitt 1991, 74, stresses that "I my self regard neither the restoration nor the translation

given here for this last paragraph as final."

4. Thus for example Schmitt 1990, 56-60, and

Schmitt 1991, 73f. The idea had already been put forth earlier on several occasions by Walther Hinz (see be

low n. 19). 5. Such is the final conclusion of Lecoq 1974, 103,

and others.

6. Among the most prominent supporters of this

theory are Igor M. D'jakonov and Ilya Gershevitch;

for further details see the summary in Mayrhofer

1989, 178f. 7. Since many difficulties of both the Elamite and

the Old Persian versions of par. 70 have already been

adequately dealt with, there is no need for a detailed

study of every element of those passages here. For the

Old Persian text, see Harmatta 1966, 272-83; Schmitt

1991, 73f.; and esp. idem, 1990, 56-60; for the Elamite version of the passage, Harmatta 1966, 258-72; Lecoq

1974, 66-77; Herrenschmidt 1989; Malbran-Labat

1992; Grillot-Susini, Herrenschmidt, and Malbran

Labat 1993, 38, 58f. 8. As has been shown by Benveniste 1951, 42-47,

this word means the thin clay envelope used to pro tect unbaked clay tablets (see also Harmatta 1966,

275-77 and Lecoq 1974, 8If.). 9. This restoration of the word was proposed by

Harmatta 1966, 280 (see also Schmitt 1991, 74). 10. The incorrect transliterated form */niyapin

0iya/ of Schmitt 1991, 45, has here been tacitly re

placed by the rectified transliteration /niyapai0ya/; Schmitt 1992a, 153 n. 50, himself had already noticed and remedied the mistake.

11. "Aryan" simply stands for "(an) Iranian (lan

guage)," as is shown in line 3 of the Rabatak inscrip tion (see Sims-Williams 1998, 81), where Bactr. αριαο "(in) Aryan" actually means "(in) Bactrian."

12. The meaning of this word has been much dis

puted, but the significations "to learn" (viz. the writ

ing) or "to copy/to study" (viz. the inscription) seem

rather improbable, as was correctly put by Harmatta

1966, 270f. (Elam.), 8If. (OP); differently Lecoq 1974, 75-77. On this matter see also Schmitt 1991, 74.

13. Due to lack of space, the Elamite text was not

added at the end of the main text but engraved as a

separate text (DBl) over the Elamite version of the

short inscription DBa and to the left of the Old Per

sian version of DBa (for more details see part 3). 14. While Grillot-Susini, Herrenschmidt, and Mal

bran-Labat 1993 give the text as one block (par. 55), I—like others before me—have divided the text into

meaningful entities (indicated by bold numbers), whereas the actual length of the lines as engraved into the rock is indicated by slashes.

15. Although admittedly they are not completely

satisfying, I adopt the supplements DB IV 90

m\ and [n-a-m-n-a\-f-m from Schmitt 1991, 74; I share his reservations on the correctness of the recon

structed forms but have nothing better to propose. The problem with these two words differs from the

other difficulties in the text, however; whereas it is

true that the exact forms of the original cannot (yet)

be reconstructed, there can be absolutely no doubt

about the rough meaning of those words, and at any

rate their precise meaning is not necessary for a gen

eral understanding of the phrase. 16. It was Lazard 1976, 182, who correctly drew the

attention of his colleagues to this point, which was

then further elaborated by Schmitt 1990, 59f. 17. Although this word has often been translated

as "an other one," the adverbial interpretation as

"otherwise" seems preferable, as has been argued by

Harmatta 1966, 263-65, and Herrenschmidt 1989,

198-201. Still another solution has been adopted by

59




Malbran-Labat 1992, 67: "sur un autre (matériau) . . .

(à savoir) sur argile et sur peau." 18. As an immediate consequence of this and no

matter how OP /dipiciçam/ ~ Elam. htup-pi-me should be translated, it can be safely excluded that Darius

wanted to stress the simple existence of such a long

royal inscription in itself as something quite new (for

more details see Nylander 1967, 143 n. 20).

19. This interpretation, which was probably put forth for the first time by Willy Foy (in ZDMG 52

[1898], 564), has been supported many times by Walther Hinz,· see, for example, Hinz 1942, 343-49;

and, much later, e.g., Hinz and Koch 1987, vol. 2, 365.

20. Suffice it here to refer to Harmatta 1966, 255

63; Nylander 1967, 143 n. 19; and Lecoq 1974, 67-73, who carefully studied all other instances where the

word occurs in Old, New, and achaemenid Elamite.

21. Herrenschmidt, 197f., has also taken up this

idea of Lazard's, but her attempt to connect /patisam

kr-/ (which she understands as "reproduire") with OP

/patikara-/ "image" (litt. "counter-feit") does not con

vince me.

22. For similar Middle Persian and Parthian verb

phrases of an adjective in predicative function + kar

dan/kirdan functioning as a denominative verb see

Brunner 1977, 22-24. It should be mentioned here

that the Elamite version differs in another point from

the Old Persian text. After hai-ii-ia-ma, the Elamite

text inserts a short phrase beginning with ap-pa, which is absent from the Old Persian text. Since the

detailed explanations of Harmatta 1966, 265-69, no

serious scholar will challenge his statement that the

subordinate clause introduced by Elam. ap-pa in DBl

4 relates to the phrase preceding it, that is, DBl 3f. 'ύ

htup-pi-me da-a-e-ik-ki hu-ut-tà hai-ii-ia-ma. Accord

ingly, the phrase used to be translated for a long time

as ". . ., which formerly [sâ-is-sà] was not (in-ni)." Herrenschmidt 1989, 201-4, was the first to contest

this translation; unlike all others before her, she

joined the two words sà-is-sà and in-ni into one and

considered in-ni to be a suffix forming adjectives

(". . ., which existed before"). Malbran-Labat 1992,

67, and also in Grillot-Susini, Herrenschmidt, and

Malbran-Labat 1993, 59, with n. 162—obviously in

disagreement with her two colleagues—goes even fur

ther in that she accords a locative ("supérieur," "du

dessus") value instead of a temporal ("antérieur") to

sà-is-sà (". . ., which is above"). A weak point of her hypothesis is that this kind of "forme à valeur ad

jective" as it is called appears to be quite frequent in

Medio-Elamite, but more or less exceptional in achae

menid Elamite,· and even if a suffix in-ni were still in use in Darius' time, the main difficulty remains that

this interpretation does not make sense in the present

context, since the Old Persian |= Aryan) version of DB

is not engraved over DBl but far below it (it is of

course to DBl that the phrase refers, and not to DB

[OP], par. 70). Strangely enough, this detail must have

escaped Malbran-Labat's notice.

23. I am not sure whether the short phrase [5] in the

Elamite version DBl relates to the preceding sentence

or, on the contrary, to the following. Both answers

seem grammatically possible, but in my translation I

have opted for the former solution, which would bet

ter preserve the parallelism with the Old Persian text.

24. The extra mention of this point looks more log ical and less trivial, if Darius is now talking about an

other inscription (DBa), rather than the one of which

he was just speaking (DB). 25. According to Triimpelmann 1967, 298, this fact

can be explained thus, that the innovation of the Old

Persian script was obvious to the Iranians, but not to

the Elamites, who were familiar with their own script

only.

26. When Darius says "afterwards I sent out this

(OP)/(that) same (Elam.) version," that can only mean "after the Old Persian text was redacted," but before it was engraved on the rock. This interpretation is the

only logical one, for why would Darius have spoken of copies of the Old Persian text that had already been

sent out into the empire, if he had not yet written the

text?

27. On this Aramaic text, which must be an

abridged version of an older Aramaic copy, see

Greenfield and Porten 1982.

28. As is well known, the Elamite and the Old Per

sian texts are closely connected, while the Aramaic

and the Babylonian versions agree. The divergence between the two pairs mainly concerns the use of

Semitic month names and of "Median" forms of

names, and the including of precise numbers of the

enemies killed or captured in the latter pair (see,

among others, Schmitt 1998, 162). 29. These fragments were given the inventory

numbers BE 3627 (later renumbered Berlin VA Bab.

1502) and Bab. 41446 (now lost?),· for further details

see Voigtlander 1978, 63-66.

30. I have not yet seen the article by P. Lecoq, "Le chapitre 70 de l'inscription de Bisotun: Nouvel

essai d'interprétation," which the author announced

as "à paraître" in Lecoq 1997, 286, but I presume that

his new interpretation will be the same as the one

proposed ibid, on pp. 212f. (where it was presented without any detailed commentary to justify his trans

lation; for this reason, I refrain from commenting on

it in a detailed manner here). Lecoq's translation of

the Old Persian text runs thus: "Le roi Darius déclare:

'Grâce à Ahuramazdâ, voici le texte que j'ai traduit

[this apparently renders /patisam kr-/, my remark] en aryen; et sur tablette et sur cuir, il avait été traduit

aussi; j'ai traduit ma généalogie; je l'ai approuvée

[sic]; et cela a été écrit et lu devant moi; ensuite, j'ai

60




envoyé ce texte partout parmi les peuples [sic]; l'armée [sic] y a collaboré/

"

31. This idea was proposed by Hallock 1970 and

supported by Mayrhofer 1979, who still adhered to it

in 1989, 181. 32. The same objection was made by Lecoq 1983,38.

33. The sign ν" would have been required for exam

ple in x-s-a-y-d-i-y v-z-r-k /xsàyaOiya vazrka/ "great

King," a title of which the Babylonian equivalent was

employed by Cyrus in the foundation cylinder.

34. I shall return to this point in the final part of my

paper. Suffice it here to say that this sort of criticism

was already advanced by Windfuhr 1970, 125 ("Ele mentary estimates of probability exclude the possibil

ity that such a system is naturally or historically

developed") and elaborated by Stronach 1990, 197.

35. On this badly damaged inscription see Nylander

1967,170-73, or—for a quick orientation—Lecoq 1974,

57f. For a hypothetical reconstruction of the fragmen

tary text see Borger and Hinz 1959.

36. Stronach has summarized his arguments in

Stronach 1997, 351-54. Against the objection that

Cyrus must have felt it necessary to place prominent labels on his constructions, Stronach 1990, 198, re

plies that "on the basis of the extant monuments at

Pasargadae it can in fact be argued that Cyrus' main

concern was to find and combine certain traditional

symbols of all-encompassing kingship which would suffice to underline the newly secured, imperial di

mensions of Persian rule." The use of the simple title

of "king" in CMa is also in sharp contrast with the

complex royal titles of the Babylonian foundation cyl

inder; this equally points towards the authorship of

Darius (1990, 199f.). 37. On this point see also Rollinger 1998, 195 with

n. 202.

38. For the same reason, Darius finished construc

tion begun by Cyrus at the site of Pasargadae sev

eral years after completion of the Bisitun inscription

(Waters 1996, 16). 39. For a detailed survey of research on these in

scriptions until 1974 see Lecoq 1974, 48-52.

40. This thesis recently has been put forth by

Lecoq 1997, 124-26. 41. The "Old Assyrian signs" must then refer to

the Aramaic script, since the Greeks apparently were

not able to distinguish between the different forms of

cuneiform script. The alternative solution, that the

"new" Old Persian cuneiform script is here opposed

to the "old" Babylonian and Elamite scripts, can thus

be safely excluded (see Schmitt 1992b, 28-31). 42. These four basic principles of sign composition

are: derivation of four basic components; addition of

1, 2, or 3 wedges; threefold rotation; and mirroring. A

number of justified critical remarks have been united

by Lecoq 1974, 86.

43. The only exception appears to be the sign for

/la/, which was taken over from the corresponding

Neo-Babylonian or Elamite signs, as first suggested by

Paper 1956 and now generally accepted. 44. No oblique wedges were used, with the excep

tion of the word divider; angle-shaped wedges have

their openings exclusively to the right. 45. The complete list of words and names in

which C: and Cu-signs are used is as follows: v'-s-t

a-s-p /Visptàspa/ and declined forms (DBa 3, 5, 5f.); a-'v'-h-y-r-a-d'-i-y /avahyaràdï/ "for that reason" (DBa 9f.); p-ru-vi-i-y-t /paruviyata/ "from [hacâ] ancient times" (DBa 11); du-u-\i-i-t-a-p-r-n-m /duvitàparanam/

"now as ever" (DBa 17); m-gu-u-s /magus/ "magus"

(DBb 2); <3-d"-u-ru-u-j'-i-y /adurujiya/ "lied"(DBb 2f.; DBc 2f.; DBd 2; DBe 3f.; DBf lf.; DBg 2f.; DBh 2f.; DBi 2f.; DBj 2f.); b-r-ti-i-y /Brdiya/ (DBb 4f.; DBh 5); a-m'-i-y /ami/ "(I) am" (DBb 5, 7; DBc 8f.; DBd 4f.; DBe 6, 9; DBf 4f.; DBg 7f.; DBh 5f., 9; DBi 6, 10; DBj 5); ku-u-r-u-s /Kuraus/ (DBb 5f.; DBh 6f.); n-i-d'-i-t-b-i-r

/Nidintabaira/ "Nidintu-Bël" (DBd 1); n-b-u-ka-u-d-r c-t /Nabukudracara/ "Nebuchadnezzar" (DBd 3f.; DBi

5f.); s-ku-u-x /Skunxa/ (DBk If.). 46. These countries are [b]-a-b-i-tu-u-s /Bâbirus/

"Babylon" (DB 14), ma-u-d-r-a-y /Mudràya/ "Egypt" (DB 15), a-i-n^-i-n /Armina/ "Armenia" (DB 15), k-t

p-ta-u-k /Katpatuka/ "Cappadocia" (DB 15f.), u-v-a-r

z-m'-i-y /Uvârazmî/ "Chorasmia" (DB 16), [s-u-gu]-u-d /Suguda/ "Sogdiana" (DB 16), and 0-t-ga-u-s /Datagus/ "Sattagydia" (DB 17).

47. There seems to be no urgent reason for the

sign nu; was it created through inadvertence? Or

was it needed to avoid confusion between *a-n-u-s

*/anausa-/ "immortal" and a-n"-u-s-i-y /anusiya/ "fol lower" (DB II 95, etc.), as was suggested by Mayrhofer

1979, 295f. and 1989, 182 n. 30? This hypothesis seems more plausible than the one suggested by

Werba 1982, 206, according to whom nu could have

been used in deleted inscriptions of Brdiya-, whose

full name would have been *brdi-9anuvan-. But such

a reconstructed full name is "pura fantasia" (Schmitt

1992c, 131); the only other name that ever existed for

Bardiya/Smerdis was his nickname *Tanu-vazrka

(Gr. Τανυοξάρκης [Ctesias], Ταναοξάρης [Xenophon]) "having a giant's body" (= physique). And apart from

the fact that all external evidence seems to exclude

the existence of Old Persian cuneiform inscriptions

before Darius, only throne names—no "real" names,

let alone nicknames—appear to have been used in

official royal inscriptions. 48. See Mayrhofer 1989, 181 nn. 25f. for further

details. 49. As Nicholas Sims-Williams points out to me,

if this explanation were true, one would expect a—

lacking—sign like p1 in order to distinguish between

a nominative form c-i-s-p-i-s /Cispis/ and a genitive

61




form c-i-s-p-i-s /Cispais/ (as in DBa 8); on the other

hand, the inventors of the script had soon clearly rec

ognized the problem themselves, since in the—later

(see above and part 3)—main inscription DB I 5f., the

genitive form is henceforth written c-i-s-p-a-i-s /Cis

pais/ and was thus clearly distinguished from the

nominative form!

50. Schmitt 1990, 25-28, ascribes this inconsis

tency within the same inscription to the fact that

different stonemasons had been at work. Since the

stonemasons were presumably illiterate (see Schmeja

1992, 190f.), it is more likely that these discrepancies go back to the scribes.

51. Less than a decade before, the reasoning of

Lecoq 1974, 66, sounded quite different; while criti

cizing Hinz's theory that the inventors of the Old Per

sian script were pressed by time, he objected that

"même si Darius en est l'inventeur, on ne peut nier

que cette écriture suppose un long tiavail de réflexion

[my italics, Ph. H.) et de comparaison entre les autres

systèmes graphiques." 52. Luschey and Triimpelmann had both studied

the relief from a scaffolding during the winter 1963/ 1964. For a first short survey of the results, see

"Bïsotûn" in Eh, vol. 4 (1990), 289-305 (esp. 300b 302b and the synoptic table on p. 301 [after Triimpel mann 1967]); for a quick orientation, see Lecoq 1974,

64f. (after Hinz 1968). 53. Nagel, seeking an explanation for the diverg

ing order of the rebels in the inscription and on the re

lief, suggested that the second from the last figure in

the row of rebels may also have been a later addition

(between phases IV and V of Trtimpelmann's recon

struction,· see the table in fig. 4). Nagel's paper is not

convincing: according to the description of Skunkha

and others by Luschey 1968, 79f., there is clearly a

stylistic difference between the—flatter—image of the

Scythian with the pointed cap and the—bareheaded—

other rebels. If the image of Frâda (= AGamaita accord

ing to Nagel) had been created at the same time as

that of Skunkha, one should expect a similar stylistic difference between his image and the preceding fig

ures, but I cannot see this, whereas the difference be

tween Skunkha and the others is quite obvious.

Fràda's strange outfit remains a problem, but the so

lution offered by Nagel is probably not the right one

(regarding Frâda see also the pertinent remarks by

Borger 1982, 120-22, and esp. n. 24). That AGamaita

is not portrayed also remains a riddle, but since the

number nine plays an important "magic" role—Da

rius claims to have been the ninth king in a row of

his family—one might imagine that Darius did not want to have more than nine rebels portrayed, and

preferred to include the image of the last rebel

Skunkha. Gaumâta is a case apart at any rate, since

his defeat does not belong to the "one" year of Darius

(on which see also below n. 56), as was demon

strated by Borger 1982, 123f. And since in DB (OP), par. 52 [= IV 5], Darius adds the meaningful sentence

/pasâva ya0â xsâya0iya abavam/ "after that I became

king," Triimpelmann 1967, 296, rightly points out

that Gaumàta remained the ruler in power as long as

he lived, and it was only after his death that Darius

could make a claim to the throne; to the reader of the

inscription it is thus obvious that the events within

one year after he came to power to which Darius

refers can only have happened after the murder of

Gaumâta.

54. Instead of the traditional five or six phases,

Lecoq 1997, 85-87, proposed to reduce their number

to two or three, but some of the details of his recon

struction are incompatible with the archaeological data: the original conception would include the relief

and the Old Persian and Elamite texts, while the

Babylonian version would have been realized either

more or less at the same time or shortly thereafter,·

the second (or: third) phase is constituted by the ad

dition of the Scythian rebel to the relief and of the

minor inscriptions. 55. According to Luschey 1968, 94, the lower layer

may coincide with a visit of the monument by Darius

at a later time when the monument was completely finished.

56. Since Darius pretends to have realized all of his

exploits within "one" year (first in DB [OP], par. 52, and then four more times in pars. 56, 57, 59, 62), it

suffices when he gives the days and the months when

dating the end of the revolts; depending on whether

one takes this one year to be his year of accession to

the throne (522/521 b.c.) or his first full regnal year

(521/520 b.c.), two conversion dates are possible for

the 23d day of the IX month, on which Frâda was

beaten, namely 10 December 522 and 28 December

521, of which the last is far more likely (see Borger

1982, 119f. Otherwise, the repression of Frâda would

have followed soon after the slaying of Gaumâta, and

as Borger correctly states (ibid., 119), at that time

what was happening in far-off Bactria and Margiana could hardly have been a major concern to Darius,

and, conversely, Dâdarsi, the then Bactrian satrap, could hardly have been interested in a war against

Margiana, as long as it remained uncertain as to

whether Darius' doubtful claims to the throne would

be accepted.

57. On the choice of the place see Luschey 1968, 66f.

58. This was already recognized by Herzfeld; for

further details see Luschey 1968, 68 (with n. 19) and 84f. On the (artistic) provenance of the sculptor of the

relief see Luschey, 87-89.

59. See Luschey 1968, 91 ("eine klare Komposi tion"), and Triimpelmann 1967, 286 ("unmittelbar zusammengehôrig"). The "niching" technique used

by the sculptors is described by Cameron 1960, 60

62




η. 4; at some points, the surface was in such poor

shape that bad portions had to be cut out and replaced

by new insets (see Cameron, ibid. , and the technical

remarks in Luschey 1968, 83). 60. Large blocks, blasted from the rock above,

could still be seen below on the platform in modern

times (see Trtimpelmann 1967, 284); and holes to

blast or break up the rock were also discovered on the

platform (see the drawing in Luschey 1968, 65 fig. 2). According to Trtimpelmann (ibid.) the stonemasons

did not work from this lower platform, as Luschey

says, but from another natural platform which must

have been at the same level of the horizontal fissure

under the relief and which was broken away once

the construction works were done. Luschey's theory

seems far more credible.

61. The transition between relief and text is very

smooth, and the Elamite legend engraved over Fràda

is slightly bent downwards (the curve is clearly visi ble in Schmitt 1991, pi. 34). This means—as was

rightly noticed by Borger 1982, 121 n. 24, in another context—that the legend DBj (Elam.) can only have

been carved into the rock after the preparation of the

surface for the inscription DB (Elam.) was finished.

Finally, the upper margins of both the relief and the

first column of the DB (Elam.) coincide (see Triimpel mann 1967, 287). Trtimpelmann 1967, 287, 294f., and Hinz 1968, 97, argued that the surface on top of the

relief was enlarged at a later stage, in order to make

place for the inscriptions DBl (Elam.) and DBa (OP), but Luschey 1968, 67f., assumed—more plausibly to

me—that this space was smoothed from the begin

ning and that it was on the contrary the irregular

form of the rock over the figure of Ahura Mazda

which was accepted as such by the stonemasons.

62. That the surface was smoothed out over the

whole length can be guessed from a close look at

Schmitt 1991, pi. 2, but, to be certain, an investiga

tion on the spot would be required. That the surface

below was originally not intended to be inscribed at

all, since it was totally unsuited for it, can be de

duced from the detailed description in Schmitt 1991,

22 (see also Voigtlander 1978, 4). From the natural

horizontal fissure—"actually the exit of a kind of un

derground river which flows in the spaces between

the transverse geological layers of the whole rock

massif" (Schmitt 1991, 22b)—underneath the relief and the Elamite text of DB streams of water gushed

out after every rain shower, which in winter froze to

ice. It must have been obvious to the workers that

serious damage was to be expected if the surface un

der the fissure was ever inscribed.

63. From DB (OP), pars. 65-67 it is clear that Darius was worried about eventual acts of vandalism.

64. The rebels are arranged in chronological order

on the relief, while the order in the inscription is

clearly geographical first and then chronological (see

Trùmpelmann 1967, 287, and esp. Borger 1982, 115). What determines the chronology on the relief is the

date at which each of the rebels was defeated, not the

time of their death (ibid., 128). According to Borger 1982, 127, a plausible explanation for this divergence between relief and inscription might be that the chro

nological overlapping of so many events within a short

period in many parts of the empire made an account

according to geographical order look more advisable.

65. Both the Elamite and the Babylonian versions

show strong influences from Old Persian in their syn

tax and lexicon (see Schmitt 1991, 19b, with further

literature). 66. In DB, par. 52 (OP IV 5f.), there is talk of 19 bat

tles that Darius claims to have fought, but the Ara

maic version is the only one in which precisely 19

battles are summed up. According to Borger 1982,

130, this may be an indication that the Aramaic ver

sion was indeed one of the first to be written down.

And even the very fact of including battlefield statis

tics is an unusual feature in neo-Babylonian inscrip tions and chronicle texts (see Voigtlander 1978, 8), so

that this too may be a further sign that the Babylo nian text is based on an "older" Aramaic version (and

not vice-versa), as are the frequent Aramaisms in the

Babylonian text (see Voigtlander 1978, 7, who alterna

tively ascribes the Aramaisms to the idiom of the dic

tating Darius, who might have acquired a working

knowledge of Aramaic while he was a young army

officer in Egypt [cf. Hdt. 3.139]). 67. Some minor adaptations to local circumstances

can be seen, for example, in the Elamite version,

where Ahura Mazda is characterized in addition as

"God of the Aryans," for this and further examples

see Schmitt 1980, 120, and 1998, 162f. 68. The stonemasons somewhat miscalculated the

space needed for the Babylonian text, so that they had

to dress a larger surface; they continued to write in

one column, but from line 36 to the end in line 112,

the lines are much longer (over 4 m).

69. The signs were also smaller in the first Elamite

version (2 cm) than in the second Elamite and the

Old Persian versions (2.8 cm) (see Cameron 1960, 60); in the Babylonian version, the line height is "two

fingers," that is, varying between 3 and 4 cm (see

Voigtlander 1978, 3). 70. According to Voigtlander 1978, 2f., the original

intention to cut away the buttress-like rock can still

be seen in photographs, but that idea was soon aban

doned because of the unstable nature of the rock, and

because of the discovery of a deep cavity behind it. 71. The Elamite version of DB has one paragraph

less, as DB (Babyl.) section 55 is part of DB (Elam.) section 54 (see Voigtlander 1978, 62 n. 2).

72. Unlike what one occasionally reads in litera

ture (see, e.g., Herrenschmidt 1989, 195; Lecoq 1974,

65, and 1997, 86; Hinz 1968, 97; etc.), lack of space

63




was probably not the reason why there is no Babylo

nian version of par. 70 (see Voigtlander 1978, 1 and 3

[cf. Schmitt 1980, 112 n. 21]). It is true that the Baby lonian engravers had spaced out the letters of the last

line 112, so as to fill out the whole line, but there still

was enough space underneath it for a few more lines.

73. That this Elamite text DB1 was inscribed before

the Old Persian versions of DBa (and the legends DBb

j) can be deduced from the fact that it was nicely

aligned with the left side of DBa (Elam.); the stonecut

ter of the Old Persian text DBa could not possibly have known how much space was to be provided for

the Elamite text, if this text had been engraved first.

From the "squeezed-in" positions of especially DBd-f

it is evident that the Old Persian legends were in

scribed still later than the Babylonian ones (see Lu

schey 1968, 91, and Hinz 1968, 96), but that DBa and

DBb-j were engraved before the main inscription DB

becomes clear when one recalls that the invention of

the cuneiform script was presumably based on DBa

and the legends and that the orthographic conven

tions were not yet entirely matured.

74. From the fact that the stereotype introductory formula OP /9àti Dàrayavaus xsâyaBiya/ is used less

often in the Elamite and Babylonian versions, Voigt lander 1978, 6f. (cf. Schmitt 1980, 107), concludes that the Old Persian text may have been retranslated

from one of these two or from a third unknown (Ara

maic?). A strong indication that the Old Persian text

was indeed a retranslation of the Elamite text may be

seen in DB (OP) IV 33, where the unusual word order

in the Old Persian text is quite normal in Elamite (see Schmitt 1991, 19a and 69 [and 1998, 161]).

75. For further details see, for example, Hinz 1968,

97f.; Trumpelmann 1967, 291; and Schmitt 1991, 19a

and 69 [and 1998, 161] on DB (OP) IV 39f., where the

"original" imperative form */astu/ (which can be deduced from the Elamite text) was replaced by the

subjunctive /ahati/. 76. Seidl 1976 attempted to identify some blocks

found in Babylon as fragments of a copy of the Bisitun

relief; a fragment of a colored brick which was at

some time thought of as belonging to another such

copy turned out to be something else, as was shown

by Jacobs 1997. 77. The most detailed description of the technique

("a sharp inward slant") used for sculpting Skunkha

(not of the figure itself, for which see Luschey 1968, 75 and 79f.; and Nagel 1983, 185f.) is provided by Cameron 1960, 60 n. 5.

78. While Cameron 1960, 60 n. 4, says that the

original Elamite text was simply abandoned, Luschey

1968, 91 ("getilgt"), and Trumpelmann 1967, 294, are affirmative that it was really erased (except for the

three Elamite lines under the figure of Skunkha, which were apparently overlooked).

79. See the description by Luschey 1968, 91, who

notes that the new Elamite text looks like a huge clay

tablet put against the rock. It is possible, though less

likely, that stages II 2a and II 2b (see the table in fig. 5) must be inverted as suggested by Triimpelmann

1967, 294; if there existed no copy at all of the original

Elamite text on clay tablets—which I find hard to

imagine—then the second version had to be copied by

the first one, and that could of course only have hap

pened before the first column was destroyed by the

sculptors of Skunkha's figure.

References

AiW C. Bartholomae, Altiranisches

Worterbuch. Strassburg, 1904.

Benveniste 1951 E. Benveniste. "Etudes sur le

vieux-perse." Bulletin de la

Société de Linguistique de Paris 47:21-51.

Borger 1982 R. Borger. Die Chronologie des

Darius-Denkmals am Behis

tun-Felsen. Gôttingen.

Borger and

Hinz 1959 R. Borger and W. Hinz.

"Eine Dareios-Inschrift aus

Pasargadae." ZDMG

109:117-27. Brunner 1977 C. J. Brunner. A Syntax of

Western Middle Iranian.

Delmar, New York.

Cameron 1960 G. G. Cameron. "The Elamite

Version of the Bisitun Inscrip tions." Journal of Cuneiform

Studies 14:59-68. Ghirshman 1965 R. Ghirshman. "A propos de

l'écriture cunéiforme vieux

perse." JNES 24:244-50.

Greenfield and

Porten 1982 ). v.. ureenneia ana ts. 1'orten.

The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Aramaic

Version. Cllr, pt. 1, vol. 5, Texts 1. London.

Grillot-Susini, Herrenschmidt, and

Malbran-Labat 1993

F. Grillot-Susini, C. Herren

schmidt, and F. Malbran-Labat.

"La version élamite de la

trilingue de Béhistun: Une

nouvelle lecture." JA

281:19-59. Hallock 1970 R. T. Hallock. "On the Old

Persian Signs." JNES 29:52-55. Harmatta 1966 J. Harmatta. "The Bisitun

Inscription and the Intro

duction of the Old Persian

Cuneiform Script." AAnASH

14:255-83.

64




Herrenschmidt 1979 C. Herrenschmidt. "La Perse

rien que la Perse: Essai sur

la royauté d'Ariaramnès et

d'Arsamès." In Pad nâm i

yazdân: Etudes d'épigiaphie, de numismatique et d'histoire

de l'Iran Ancien, 5-21. Paris. Herrenschmidt 1989 . "Le paragraphe 70 de

l'inscription de Bisotun." In Etudes irano-aryennes offertes à Gilbert Lazard, ed. C.-H. de Fouchécour and Ph. Gignoux, 193-208. Stir, cahier 7. Paris.

Hinz 1942 W. Hinz. "Zur Behistun Inschrift des Dareios." ZDMG

96:326-49. Hinz 1968 . "Die Entstehung der

altpersischen Keilschrift."

AMI, N.F. 1:95-98. Hinz 1973 . Neue Wege im Altper

sischen. Wiesbaden.

Hinz and Koch 1987 W. Hinz and H. Koch. Elam isches Wôrterbuch. Vol. 2. Berlin.

Hoffmann 1976 K. Hoffmann. "Zur altpersi schen Schrift." In Aufsàtze zur

Indoiranistik, vol. 2, 620-45. Wiesbaden.

Jacobs 1997 Β. Jacobs. "Eine weitere Kopie des Brsutun-Reliefs? Zu einem

Reliefziegel aus Susa."

Archàologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 29:303-8.

Kent 1953 R. G. Kent. Old Persian:

Grammar. Texts. Lexicon.

AOS 33. 2d ed. New Haven. Lazard 1976 G. Lazard. "Notes de vieux

perse." Bulletin de la Société

de Linguistique de Paris 71:175-92.

Lecoq 1974 P. Lecoq. "Le problème de

l'écriture cunéiforme vieux

perse." In Actlr 3, 25-107.

Téhéran and Liège.

Lecoq 1983 . "Observations sur

l'écriture vieux perse." In

Iranian Studies, ed. G. Gnoli.

Orientalia Romana, vol. 5,

31-39. SOR 52. Rome.

Lecoq 1997 . Les inscriptions de la

Perse achéménide. Paris.

Luschey 1968 H. Luschey. "Studien zu dem

Darius-Relief von Bisutun."

AMI, N.F. 1:63-94. Malbran-Labat 1992 F. Malbran-Labat. "Note sur le

§70 de Behistoun." Nouvelles

Assyriologiques Brèves et

Utilitaires, notice 86, 66f. Mayrhofer 1979 M. Mayrhofer. "Uberlegungen

zur Entstehung der altpersi schen Keilschrift." BSOAS

42:290-96. Mayrhofer 1989 . "ËJber die Verschrif

tung des Altpersischen."

Historische Sprachforschung 102:174-86 (repr. in Ausge wàhlte Kleine Schriften, vol. 2, Festgabe fur Manfred Mayrho

fer zum 70. Geburtstag, 387

99 [Wiesbaden, 1996]). Nagel 1979 W. Nagel. "Pasargadae: Ein

Lagebericht zum Problem des

Beginns Achâmenidischer Kunst und altpersischer Schrift." Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft

111:75-88.

Nagel 1983 . "Frada, Skuncha und

der Saken-Feldzug des Darius

I." In Kunst, Kultur und

Geschichte der Achàmeni

denzeit und ihr Fortleben, ed.

H. Koch and D. N. MacKenzie,

169-89. Berlin.

Nylander 1967 C. Nylander. "Who Wrote

the Inscriptions at Pasar

gadae?" Orientalia Suecana

16:135-80.

Paper 1956 H. H. Paper. "The Old-Persian

/l/-Phoneme." JAOS 76:24-26.

Rollinger 1998 R. Rollinger. "Der Stamm

baum des achaimenidischen

Kônigshauses oder die Frage der Legitimitât der Herrschaft

des Dareios." Archâologische

Mitteilungen aus Iran und

Turan 30:155-209. Schmeja 1992 H. Schmeja. Review of Schmitt

1990. Kratylos 37:190-91.

Schmitt 1980 R. Schmitt. "Zur babyloni schen Version der Blsutun

Inschrift." AfO 27:106-26. Schmitt 1988 . "Achaimenidenin

schriften in griechischer lite

rarischer Uberlieferung." In

Actlr 28,17-38. Téhéran and

Liège. Schmitt 1990 . Epigraphisch

exegetische Noten zu

Dareios' Bîsutun Inschriften.

Sitzungsberichte der Ôster

reichischen Akademie der

65




Wïssenschaften, Phil.-Hist.

Kl., 561. Vienna.

Schmitt 1991 . The Bisitun Inscrip

tions of Darius the Great: Old

Persian Text. Cllr, pt. 1, vol. 1,

Texts 1. London.

Schmitt 1992a . "Zum Schluss von

Dareios' Inschrift 'Susa e.' "

AMI, N.F. 25, 1992 [1993], 147-54.

Schmitt 1992b . "Assyria grammata und âhnliche: Was wufiten die Griechen von Keilschrift und

Keilinschriften?" In Zum

Umgang mit fremden

Sprachen in der griechisch

rômischen Antike, ed. C. W.

Muller, K. Sier, and J. Werner, 21-35. Stuttgart.

Schmitt 1992c . "Note sul soprannome di Smerdis ΤΑΝΥΟΞΑΡΚΗΣ." Archivio glottologico italiano

67:122-32. Schmitt 1998 . "Ubersetzung im

Dienst der Politik: Die mehr

sprachigen Kônigsinschriften im Achaimenidenreich." In

Wort, Text, Sprache und

Kultur: Festschrift far Hans

Schmeja zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. P. Anreiter and H. M.

Olberg, 157-65. Innsbrucker

Beitrage zur Kulturwissen

schaft, Sonderheft 103.

Innsbruck.

Schmitt 1999 . Beitrage zu altpersi schen Inschriften. Wiesbaden,

1999. Seidl 1976 U. Seidl. "Ein Relief Dareios' I.

in Babylon." AMI, N.F. 9:125 30.

Sims-Williams 1998 N. Sims-Williams. "Further Notes on the Bactrian In

scription of Rabatak, with an

Appendix on the Names of

Kujula Kadphises and Vima

Taktu in Chinese." In Pro

ceedings of the Third European

Conference of Iranian Studies.

Pt. 1, Old and Middle Iranian

Studies, 79-92. Wiesbaden. Stronach 1978 D. Stronach. Pasargadae: A

Report on the Excavations

Conducted hy the British Institute of Persian Studies

from 1961 to 1963. Oxford. Stronach 1990 . "On the Genesis of

the Old Persian Cuneiform

Script." In Contribution à

l'histoire de l'Iran. Mélanges

offerts à Jean Perrot, 195-211.

Paris. Stronach 1997 . "Darius at Pasargadae:

A Neglected Source for the

History of Early Persia." Topoi,

suppl. 1, Recherches récentes

sur l'empire achéménide,

351-63. Lyon. Trùmpelmann 1967 L. Triimpelmann. "Zur Entste

hungsgeschichte des Monu

mentes Dareios' I. von Bisutun

und zur Datierung der Ein

fiihrung der altpersischen Schrift." AA 82:281-98.

Voigtlander 1978 E. N. von Voigtlander. The

Bisitun Inscription of Darius

the Great: Babylonian Version.

Cllr, pt. 1, vol. 2, Texts 1.

London.

Waters 1996 M. W. Waters. "Darius and the

Achaemenid Line." Ancient

History Bulletin 10:11-18. Werba 1982 C. Werba. "Die arischen

Personennamen und ihre

Trâger bei den Alexanderhis

torikern (Studien zur irani

schen Anthroponomastik)."

Vienna, unpub. diss.

Windfuhr 1970 G. L. Windfuhr. "Notes on the Old Persian Signs." Indo

Iranian Journal 12:121-25.

66



c h a p t e r 5

Old Persianr u diger schmitt

1. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS

Old Persian is one of two Old Iranian languages which are attested in the Achaemenid royalinscriptions (see below), members of that branch of the Indo-European language familycalled Indo-Iranian, or Aryan (the Persians designate themselves and their language by theterm ariya-). The Iranian languages began to take shape when the ancestors of the Indo-Aryans left the common homeland in the steppes of Central Asia in the first half of thesecond millennium BC. The Western Iranian peoples, the Medes who settled in Media andthe Persians in Fars (speaking a Northwestern and Southwestern Iranian dialect respectively),step into the light of history in the ninth century BC, when Median names are first attestedin Assyrian documents.

While “Old Persian” was certainly the language of Fars, the variety which is attested in theAchaemenid inscriptions appears to be a rather artificial idiom, peppered with dialectal andarchaic words, unlike any dialect actually spoken (characteristics of a distinct spoken OldPersian may be discerned from certain spontaneous phonetic developments, and from OldPersian words and names as rendered in other languages). The language called Old Persianwas thus restricted to royal usage (as was the cuneiform script in which Old Persian wasrecorded). Even so, Old Persian was neither the lingua franca nor the administrative languageof the Achaemenid Empire, roles fulfilled by Aramaic and, to a limited extent, variousregional languages spoken within the empire. As a consequence, the linguistic situation ofthe empire was a quite complex one; and epigraphical Old Persian was itself influenced bythese other languages, particularly in its vocabulary and even syntax (e.g., in the occurrence ofa postpositive genitive, as in xsayaϑiya xsayaϑiyanam “king of kings” or vasna Auramazdaha“by the favor of Auramazda”).

The language of the Old Persian inscriptions is dialectologically homogeneous in princi-ple. Only some lexical items (technical terms, etc.) prove to be borrowed from other Iranianlanguages, mainly the Northwestern Iranian dialect of the Medes (see §6), the politicalpredecessors of the Persian Achaemenids.

The only direct and authentic sources available for the Old Persian language are thecuneiform inscriptions on durable objects (rock, stone, metal, rarely clay tablets) rangingover the period from Darius I (522–486 BC) to Artaxerxes III (359/8–338/7 BC), but datingin the main from the reigns of Darius I and Xerxes I (486–465 BC). In this short periodthe inscriptions, for the most part, are trilingual (in Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian),but even the oldest text, the one of the Bısutun monument of Darius I (see below), hassections which are only in Old Persian, or in Old Persian and Elamite. With Artaxerxes I

76

old persian 77

(465–425/4 BC) the number, size, and significance of the texts begin to decrease rapidly, andthey consist almost exclusively of stereotyped formulae, which, in part, seem to have beenpoorly understood at the time of composition. On the other hand, however, apart from theirtrilingualism, it is just this monotonous stereotyped style of the texts, along with the greatnumber of parallel texts with their often-repeated invocations of the supreme god and withthe regularly quoted royal titles, that has facilitated an understanding of the language andtexts and which has allowed reconstruction of fragmentary texts. The abbreviatory systemof citing texts is presented at the end of the chapter.

The decreasing number of Old Persian texts after the reign of Xerxes I may be attributedto a loss of fluency with the royal language. By that period, spoken Persian had evolved intoa somewhat different form, so discrepancies between everyday speech and the traditionallanguage of inscriptions had arisen. Only upon that basis can the serious grammatical faultswhich appear in the texts of later Achaemenid kings (mainly of Artaxerxes II and III) beunderstood.

Most of those “corrupt” forms (incorrect endings, hybrid genitive forms, etc.) can befound in the monolingual inscription A3Pa of Artaxerxes III; but they also occur in most ofthe inscriptions of Artaxerxes II and in the monolingual texts claiming to have been com-posed by Ariaramnes and Arsames in the sixth century BC (that these texts were producedunder Artaxerxes III instead, is suggested by the fact that among the later Achaemenids itis only this king who derives his lineage from Arsames, and not only from Darius’ fatherHystaspes). The use of a form like bumam in lieu of the expected accusative singular femininebumım “earth” can best be explained by positing an actually spoken monosyllabic [bu:m](like Middle Persian bum) and a scribal attempt to “transform” the spoken form into anOld Persian one (an attempt which was rendered detectable by its lack of success, as it usedthe a-stems as the normal class of feminine nouns). A similar archaizing process is seenin the pseudo-Old Persian accusative singular sayatam for expected siyatim “happiness,”where the later form sat has been changed into sayat- by reversing the regular sound changeof Old Persian aya to Middle Persian a (though being inappropriate here) and adding againthe ending -am of the feminine a-stems.

2. WRITING SYSTEM

2.1 Graphemic shape and inventory

Old Persian texts are recorded only in a cuneiform script. This script does not, however,directly continue the Mesopotamian cuneiform tradition (see WAL Ch. 8, §2), being similarto the other cuneiform systems only in the employment of “wedge-shaped” characters. Inother words, the Old Persian script is not the result of an evolution of the Mesopotamiansystem, but a deliberate creation of the sixth century BC. It remains unclear why the Persiansdid not take over the Mesopotamian system in earlier times, as the Elamites and other peoplesof the Near East had, and, for that matter, why the Persians did not adopt the Aramaicconsonantal script (Aramaic being the lingua franca of the Persian Empire; see §1).

Old Persian cuneiform was used only by the Achaemenid kings for two centuries andonly for their own language – that is, the rather artificial literary language of their royalinscriptions. The use of this script was thus in effect a royal privilege. It was a splendid andimposing script best suited for hard surfaces, and apparently used neither for poetic textsnor for administrative nor historical writings.

78 The Ancient Languages of Asia and the Americas

Table 5.1 The Old Persian cuneiform script

Syllabic symbolsa i ua i u

b c C d f g h j k l m

b(a) c(a) c(a) d(a) f(a) g(a) h(a) j(a) k(a) l(a) m(a)

n p r s S t ˇ v x y z

n(a) p(a) r(a) s(a) s(a) t(a) (a) v(a) x(a) y(a) z(a)

Î J μ V

di ji mi vi

D G N M 0 R T

du gu ku mu nu ru tu

Logograms

8 6 7 4 5

XS DH1 DH2 BG BU

xsayaqiya- dahyu- dahyu- baga- bum˘ı-

“king” “land” “land” “god” “earth”

1 2 3

AM1 AM2 AMha

Auramazda Auramazda Auramazdaha

(genitive singular)

The total number of phonetic characters (which consist of two to five single elements) isthirty-six. These are naturally divided into four groups:

(1) A. Three pure vowel (V) characters: a, i, uB. Twenty-two syllabic characters whose vowel component is a (Ca), but which can

also be used to represent a consonant occurring before another consonant orin word-final position (C): b(a), c(a), c (a), d(a), f (a), g(a), h(a), j (a), k(a), l(a), m(a),n(a), p(a), r(a), s(a), s (a), t(a), ϑ(a), v(a), x(a), y(a), z(a)

C. Four syllabic characters with inherent i vowel (Ci): di , j i , mi , vi

D. Seven syllabic characters with inherent u vowel (Cu): du, gu, ku, mu, nu, ru, tu

In addition, there are eight logograms for commonly used words such as “king,” “god” or“land”; these are not obligatory and are not used consistently. The logograms are of a morecomplex shape, contain up to twelve elements and even show angles placed above angles(as is the case with the numerals). Further, a word-divider is used as well as number symbols(vertical wedges for the units, angles for the tens, and a special symbol for 100 (found in asingle inscription).

One of the remarkable stylistic features of Old Persian cuneiform is that the wedges andangles which make up the cuneiform symbols never cross. The attested characters (excludingthe numerals and the word-divider) are presented in Table 5.1.

Within the relatively short period of its use this writing system shows a few changes incharacter shapes – an attempted standardization of the height of those wedges which at first

old persian 79

(i.e., in the Bısutun text) took up only half the height of the line. However, the mechanicsof the writing system (see below), with all its “imperfections,” remain unchanged.

2.2 Orthographic conventions

As the set of CV characters with inherent i or u vowel shows, the inventory as a wholeis inconsistent and asymmetric in its structure, for no ascertained reason (phonetic orotherwise):

(2) da ga ja ka ma na ra ta va

di ji mi vi

du gu ku mu nu ru tu

Beyond this, there are no Ci and Cu characters of the form bi/u, ci/u, c i/u, f i/u, hi/u, li/u, pi/u,si/u, s i/u, ϑ i/u, xi/u, yi/u, zi/u. Even if the writing system were not plagued by such omissions,the ambiguity of many spellings would not be eliminated; the entire group of Ca graphemeshas its own affiliated spelling difficulties, which reveal that this writing system is neitherphonemic nor phonetic.

As a consequence of the preceding graphemic problems, a number of orthographic con-ventions had to be employed when particular phonemic sequences are written. The mostimportant of these “rules” (to the extent that they can be identified with certainty) are thefollowing:

1. Long vowels are not distinguished from short ones except for a in medial position.2. Proto-Iranian final ∗-a is written with an additional <a> (i.e., as <-Ca-a>), though

in all probability this indicates an actual lengthening of the vowel.3. The vowels ˘ı and ˘u are written with the vocalic characters <i> and<u>, and medially

with an additional preceding <Ci> or <Cu> sign (when available, otherwise <Ca>

is used).4. Final -˘ı and -˘u are written with an additional semivowel as <-i-y> and <-u-v>

respectively.5. The “short” diphthongs ai and au are written <-Ca-i->, <-Ca-u-> (in final position

extended by <-y>, <-v>) and therefore can be only partially distinguished fromsimple vowels (namely, <da-i> = dai, but <di-i> = di or dı, whereas <ta-i> = taiand ti or tı).

6. The so-called “long” diphthongs ai and au are written <-Ca-a-i->, <-Ca-a-u-> andare thus unambiguous (except in initial position according to 1).

7. Syllabic �r, which in all probability was pronounced as [ər], is written with consonantal<r> as <Ca-r-Cx> (= C�rC) in medial position, and as <a-r-> (= �r-) word-initially(where it cannot be distinguished from ar- and ar-).

8. The nasal consonants m and n are written before consonants only in special cases, likemn in <ka-m-na-> = kamna- “few”; otherwise they are not written, so that <ba-ra-t-i-y> spells baranti “they bear” as well as barati “(s)he bears.”

9. In word-final position the only consonants which appear are -m, -r, and -s. Thus,while final -m is commonly written, as in <a-ba-ra-m> = abaram “I brought,” final-n (from Proto-Iranian ∗-n and ultimately from ∗-nt) is omitted: <a-ba-ra> = abaran“they brought.”

10. The postconsonantal glides y and w are usually written <-i-y-> and <-u-v-> (with<-Ci/a-i-y-> spelling [Ciy]).


11. Early Iranian ∗h (from Indo-Iranian ∗s) is omitted in writing before Old Persian ˘u, m,and r (cf. <a-u-r-> = Aura-, equivalent to Avestan ahura- “lord”), apparently reflect-ing its phonetic status in the particular Old Persian dialect, on which the inscriptionallanguage is based.

12. The Early Iranian cluster ∗hw is likewise spelled as Old Persian <u-v> (by 10 and 11).13. The vowel ˘ı is commonly omitted after the h sign, though not without exception, as

in <h-i-du-u-s> = Hindus “Indus.”

Given the cumbersome nature of the writing system, clear, one-to-one correspondencesbetween graphs and phonemes do not exist. Some of the above spelling rules result in criticalmorphology being hidden, particularly rule 5 (e.g., the absence of a distinction between taiand ti means that third singular, indicative present endings, active -ti and mediopassive -taicannot be distinguished) and rule 8 (the omission of preconsonantal n blurs, for exam-ple, the distinction between the third-person singular and plural endings -ti, -tu and -nti,-ntu).

The ambiguous nature of Old Persian spelling means that there is normally some set ofpossible interpretations of a word. In any particular case then a correct reading is dependentupon careful philological and linguistic (in particular, etymological) analysis – chiefly bycomparison with cognate languages (Avestan, Vedic, etc.) or with later Persian developments.In the case of names and technical terms, the forms which they take in Elamite and Babylonianversions of an Old Persian inscription plays a decisive role. For example, the Old Persianspelling <a-s(a)-t(a)-i-y(a)> “is” has, according to the above rules, seventy-two possiblereadings. Only from Avestan asti, Vedic asti, Middle and Modern Persian ast, and so forth,does it become clear that the correct interpretation of this sequence is a-s-t-i-y, that is, asti.That the geographical name spelled <k(a)-p(a)-d(a)> is to be read Kampanda (with two nasalsomitted in the spelling by rule 8 above) can be ascertained by the Elamite rendering Ka-um-pan-tas. Things are not, however, always so simple; a great number of uncertain readingsremain unresolved, among them, for example, the second syllable of King Cambyses’ Persianname.

It is important to distinguish sharply between graphic and phonemic (and eventuallyphonetic) units in the publication of Old Persian inscriptions and discussion of lexical orgrammatical problems. Most of the existing manuals (text editions, grammars, etc.) use a“normalizing” interpretation – a kind of blend of the graphic and the phonemic which oftenis determined by the views about Old Persian held by the particular scholar, her/his scholarlytradition, or her/his time.

2.3 Origin of the script

The problems of the origin of the Old Persian cuneiform script, of the date and process ofits introduction, have been treated again and again without general agreement having yetbeen reached concerning the controversial issues. There are several factors that one musttake into account:

1. The passage DB IV 88–92, in which a new “form of writing” (Old Persian dipicicam)is mentioned that Darius has made and is said to be ariya “in Aryan.”

2. A number of archeological and stylistic observations regarding the Bısutun monu-ment, by which several subsequent stages in its genesis may be established.

3. Those Old Persian inscriptions that are supposed or claimed to predate Darius I.4. The structural analysis of the script itself.

old persian 81

Though the oldest attested inscriptions in Old Persian language are the Bısutun texts (firstthe minor captions, then the major inscription), the creation of a new type of writingfor recording the king’s mother tongue seems to have begun already under Cyrus II. Thisassumption is based not least on the observation that the characters ku and ru needed forwriting the royal name Kurus must belong to some initial set of characters, for their shapeshave a quite simple pattern, even though the phonemic sequences expressed by them are notvery common. A similar observation reveals that this writing system was created for the OldPersian language and not for some other Iranian dialect like Median: the fricative c, whichis the Old Persian reflex of Proto-Iranian ∗ϑr and which was foreign to Median, likewise isrepresented by one of the simplest characters, which must have been among the earliest ofsigns created.

A number of striking features appear to suggest that the invention of the script indeedbegan under Cyrus, but that Darius was the first to employ it. An original strategy seems tohave aimed at a consistent and unambiguous system of marking short and long vowels anddiphthongs by means of a complete set of three CV characters – for each consonant – usedin conjunction with three V signs; for example:

(3) ∗<ba> =ba ∗<bi> = bi ∗<bu> = bu∗<ba-a> = ba ∗<bi-i> = bı ∗<bu-u> = bu∗<ba-i> = bai∗<ba-a-i> =bai∗<ba-u> = bau∗<ba-a-u> = bau

But this concept (which would have required a total of sixty-nine symbols) must have beenabandoned at some point in favor of the attested system with its many ambiguities. As canbe seen from the system’s inconsistent structure (see [2]), the reorganization of the originalsystem must have been regulated by extralinguistic (formal and stylistic) considerations –for example, the tendency to avoid complex signs with crossed wedges or with more thanfive elements. In any event, the principle of “Occam’s razor” was not employed in devisingthe Old Persian spelling practices to the extent that many spellings are quite uneconomical(e.g., that of final -i, -u, etc.).

It is the history and genesis of the Bısutun monument itself which strongly suggeststhat the Old Persian script was introduced in connection with these texts. The Old Persiancaptions of the figures represented in the relief and likewise the Old Persian text of the majorinscription do not belong to the original design of the monument, but were added only laterto the Elamite and Babylonian versions. That the mother tongue of the kings had been atfirst neglected on this monument certainly suggests that the Old Persian language had notbeen previously set to writing.

2.4 Decipherment

Because Old Persian cuneiform fell into disuse with the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, andthus knowledge of that script and of the values of its individual characters was lost alreadyin antiquity, this writing system had to be deciphered in the modern era. Old Persian textsfirst came to the attention of the West during the seventeenth century. A solid basis forthe decipherment was laid by C. Niebuhr, who in 1778 published the first precise copiesof Achaemenid trilingual texts and who recognized that the first and most simple systemwas written from left to right. Following the identification of the word-divider and theattribution of the texts to the Achaemenids, G. F. Grotefend, in 1802, began the process


of decipherment. By assuming that the inscriptions were records of the ancient Persiansand might therefore contain the names, titles, and genealogies of some of their kings, hesucceeded in determining the approximate phonetic values of about ten signs.

From this starting point, other scholars, progressing step by step, brought the decipher-ment to its conclusion. In 1826 R. Rask identified the n(a) and m(a) signs in the genitive pluralending -anam (corresponding to Avestan-ana �m) and thus produced the first evidence for aclose relationship with the Avestan language. In 1836 E. Burnouf and C. Lassen undertooka more systematic comparison with Avestan. Lassen, in 1845, made the very important dis-covery that the consonant characters of the Old Persian script could have an inherent vowel,as in the ancient Indian scripts. The work was completed in 1846/1847 by H. C. Rawlinsonwith his publication, translation, and interpretation of the entire DB text. A final touch wasadded in 1851 by J. Oppert, who established the value of the last (and most rarely used)of the phonetic signs, l(a), which even now is attested only in four foreign names for themarginal phoneme /l/ (not belonging to Old Persian proper).

3. PHONOLOGY

3.1 Phonemic inventory

Identifying the complete system of Old Persian phonemes is a rather difficult task, sinceonly a minimal set of phonemes is revealed by the attested graphemes. In order to advancebeyond that set, the data must be analyzed and evaluated on a language-internal basis andby methods of historical-comparative linguistic analysis.

3.1.1 Consonants

The following consonantal phonemes can be confidently identified for Old Persian:

(4) Bilabial Labiodental Interdental Dental Velar

StopVoiceless p t kVoiced b d g

Fricative f q xNasal m n

(the velar nasal [ŋ] is only a positional variant with allophonic status). In addition, OldPersian possesses two so-called “palatal” affricates c and j, which in all probability werepalato-alveolar /c/ and /�/. There also occur six fricatives – /s/, /z/, /c/, /s/, /z/, and /h/, theliquids /r/ and /l/, and the glides /y/ and /w/.

The actual pronunciation of those phonemes is not as secure as is suggested by the con-ventional representation. Thus, regarding the voiced stops /b, d, g/, it has been hypothesizedthat they were – at least in intervocalic position (if not more generally) – voiced fricatives[β, ð, γ]. The sibilant /z/, which is not represented graphically by a separate character, butis written with the j sign, must be postulated for reasons of historical phonology: DB II 64n-i-j-a-y-m = [niz-ayam] “I departed, went off” presents evidence for the Proto-Aryanverbal root ∗ay + prefix ∗nis-/niz- (with a j sign denoting the reflex not of Proto-Aryan ∗�,but of ∗z, the voiced counterpart of ∗ s in the position before a voiced sound). For the time be-ing, however, the question of whether z and � are two distinct phonemes or only allophonesof one and the same archiphoneme remains unresolved.

old persian 83

The fricative phoneme identified as the palatal /c/ is the Old Persian reflex of the Proto-Iranian cluster ∗ϑr (which is preserved in [nearly] all other Old Iranian dialects). Its pho-netic realization remains unclear, however. It can be said with certainty only that thesound was pronounced as a voiceless sibilant (certainly not as a palato-alveolar sibilant[s] and not as an affricate [c]); in Middle Persian its reflex has merged with that of OldPersian /s/.

Old Persian has a syllabic [�r], which is only a contextually conditioned allophone of theliquid /r/ (between stops), however, and not an independent phoneme. The lateral /l/ has amarginal position in the phonemic inventory of Old Persian, since it is attested only in fourforeign names.

3.1.2 Vowels

Old Persian possesses three short and three long vowel phonemes, presented in Figure 5.1:

FRONT CENTRAL BACK

HIGH / i / u

LOW a / a

u1

Figure 5.1 Old Persianvowels

Whether the long vowels are somewhat lower than the short ones cannot be established. Inaddition, there are two “short” and two “long” diphthongs, which are not phonemes, butonly biphonematic combinations of the short or long low-central vowel with a subsequentshort high-front or back vowel; since the first is the syllable nucleus, those diphthongsresult in

(5) Short diphthongs Long diphthongs

ai aiau au

Those four diphthongs, inherited from Proto-Iranian, are preserved in Old Persian assuch at the time of the origin of the Old Persian cuneiform script and during the reign ofDarius I and Xerxes I, as can be deduced from their regular orthographic representation(see §2). From a later period, there is evidence of a monophthongization of ai and au to eand o respectively – seen in the development from Old to Middle Persian and revealed bytranscriptions of Persian words in other languages (the “collateral” tradition; see §6). Theonly transcription evidence of any linguistic weight for Old Persian proper is provided bythe Elamite language, which has no diphthongs itself (see WAL Ch. 3, §3.2). The Elamitescript therefore lacks a regular means of spelling such sounds and so offers little possibilityof documenting an early (pre-460 BC) monophthongization. Even so there are, in fact,unmistakable Elamite attempts to render Old Persian diphthongs: for example, ti-ig-ra-ka-u-da for Old Persian tigra-xauda- “with pointed caps.”

It should be noted that not every graphic sequence seemingly pointing to ai and au actuallyrecords a diphthong. Spellings like a-i-s-t-t-a “he stood” (from Proto-Iranian ∗a-histao), thetheonym a-u-r-m-z-d-a (from Proto-Iranian ∗Ahura Mazda) or the country name h-r-u-v-t-i-s (from Eastern Iranian ∗Harahwatı- “Arachosia”) record sequences of two syllables,[-a$i-] and [-a$u-] (i.e., A-uramazda, not Au-ramazda, etc.).


3.2 Phonotaxis

Vowels and diphthongs are not subject to any phonotactic restrictions, and likewise all singleconsonants appear in initial and intervocalic position. For the final position, however, onlysingle consonants (neither geminate consonants nor any other consonant clusters) are found,and only -m, -r, and -s are written. Those final consonants which are omitted in writingwere perhaps still pronounced but in some manner phonetically reduced. Note that originalProto-Iranian ∗-a is written as Old Persian <-a> (i.e., [-a:]), but original ∗-an or ∗-ad iswritten as -<Ca > (i.e., [-a]).

Even if Old Persian shows a certain preference for open syllables (see §3.3; suggestedalso by historical developments like that of the Proto-Iranian clusters ∗Cy, ∗Cw to Ciy,Cuw), consonant clusters appear in great number, especially biconsonantal clusters, andparticularly in word-internal position. More complex clusters with three (xsn-, -xsn-, -xtr-,-rsn-, -nst-) or even four elements (only non-native -xstr-) are rare. Because of the verylimited corpus of Old Persian texts, only a small subset of all clusters possible is actuallyattested. The most commonly occurring of the attested clusters are (i) those of the formCr and rC; (ii) those having an initial sibilant (sk, st, zd, zb, zm, sk, st, etc.); and (iii) thosehaving an initial nasal (though not written; nk, ng, nt, nd, mp, mb, etc.).

3.3 Syllable structure

It is difficult to make specific observations about the syllable structure of Old Persian. Mostsyllables appear to be open: [$(C)V]; more rarely [$C1C2V$] (e.g., xsa-ca- “kingdom”) oreven [$C1C2C3V$] (e.g., xsna-sa-ti “he may know”). In the case of consonant clusters thesyllable boundary may fall within the cluster or before it; the position of the boundary maydepend on various criteria: the relative sonority of the particular elements of the cluster;the presence and position of a morpheme boundary; whether or not the cluster concernedis permissible in word-initial position; and so forth. Syllables also occur with the structure[$VC$], [$CVC$], and [$C1C2VC$] (e.g., u-fras-ta- “well punished”), and perhaps alsothose with two consonants following the syllabic nucleus (e.g., ϑans-ta-nai “to say”).

3.4 Accent

Accent is not marked in the Old Persian writing system; consequently both the nature and theposition of the accent are quite uncertain. In the development from Old to Middle Persian,final syllables disappear, suggesting that the accent was fixed in the manner of ClassicalLatin or later Old Indo-Aryan. There may be (indirect) evidence for the hypothesis that theinherited free accent (perhaps a pitch or tonal accent), of which there are traces in Avestanand in modern Iranian languages (especially Pashto), survived until the reign of Darius I.

3.5 Diachronic developments

In this section, only the most interesting and significant diachronic phonological develop-ments will be presented (and only vis-a-vis Proto-Iranian).

3.5.1 Consonants

Among consonantal developments, the most distinctive concerns the Old Persian reflexesof the Proto-Iranian continuants (presumably affricates ∗t s and ∗dz), which are themselves

old persian 85

reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European palatals ∗�k, ∗�

g, ∗�gh : in contrast to the other Iranian

languages Old Persian shows ϑ in, for example, viϑ- “house, royal house” = Avestan vıs- =Vedic vıs- from Proto-Aryan ∗wıc-, and d (if not [ð]; see §3.1.1) both in, for example, yad-“to worship” = Avestan yaz- = Vedic yaj- from Proto-Aryan ∗ya �-, and in adam “I” =Avestan azəm = Vedic aham from Proto-Aryan ∗a �ham.

There are also certain distinctive Old Persian consonantal changes of a conditioned orsyntagmatic type. These changes show an Old Persian development which has progressedbeyond that seen in the other Old Iranian languages. Thus, the Proto-Iranian cluster ∗ϑrdevelops into Old Persian c in, for example, puca- “son” = Avestan puϑra- = Vedic putra-.That this change is of a rather late date is suggested by the fact that Proto-Persian ∗ϑr, where ϑ

is a reflex of Proto-Indo-European ∗�k, Proto-Iranian ∗t s , has also undergone the change:

thus, one finds Old Persian ni-caraya- “to restore” = Avestan ni-sraraiia- from Proto-Aryan∗crai- and Proto-Indo-European ∗�

klei-.Before ∗n or ∗y Proto-Iranian ∗ϑ became Old Persian s: for example, a-r-s-n-i- ([arasni-])

“cubit” from Proto-Iranian ∗araϑni- = Vedic aratnı-; h-s-i-y- ([hasiya-]) “true” = Avestanhaiϑiia- from Proto-Iranian ∗haϑya- = Vedic satya-.

Old Persian siy develops from Proto-Iranian ∗cy (i.e., from a Proto-Indo-European ∗kw

that was palatalized before ∗y): for example, s-i-y-a-t-i- ([siya:ti-]) “happiness” = Avestans ai ti- from Proto-Aryan ∗cyati- = Latin quieti-, nominative quies.

A completely independent development of Old Persian, setting it apart from all the otherIranian languages (and thus one of its chief innovative characteristics), is the simplificationof the Proto-Iranian clusters ∗tsv and ∗dzv, producing Old Persian s and z (not sp and zb):for example, a-s- ([asa-]) “horse” = Avestan aspa- = Vedic asva-; v i-i-s- ([visa-]) “all” =Avestan vıspa- = Vedic vısva-; h-z-a-n-m (acc. sg. [hiza:nam]) “tongue” (for the spellingh-z- see §2.2, 13), evolving from Proto-Iranian ∗hidzvao as do Avestan hizuua- or Parthian�zb �n ([izβa:n]) from earlier ∗hizbano .

3.5.2 Vowels

The vowels and diphthongs of Proto-Iranian remained unchanged in Old Persian at leastuntil the period of Darius I and Xerxes I (on the later monophthongization of the shortdiphthongs see §3.1.2). The reflex of Proto-Iranian word-final short ∗-a is usually writtenas <-Ca-a> = -a, as in u-t-a ([uta:]) “and” (Avestan uta, Vedic uta); it appears probablethat this lengthening was a linguistic reality and not only a graphic phenomenon. Vowelcontraction seems to play a minor role in Old Persian. The most obvious example is that of∗-iya- producing -ı-, as in n-i-s-a-d-y-m ([ni:sa:dayam]) from uncontracted ∗ni-a-sadayam“I have put down” (cf. the alternative form n-i-y-s-a-d-y-m), and in m-r-i-k- ([mari:ka-])“young man” from ∗mariyaka- (with a secondary -Ciya- from∗-Cya-, from Proto-Aryan∗maryaka- (= Vedic maryaka-).

Proto-Iranian sonorants, ∗m, ∗n, ∗y, ∗w, and ∗r (including Proto-Iranian ∗ar from Proto-Aryan ∗�rH as in darga- “long” = Old Avestan dar�ga- = Vedic dırgha-, etc.), remain un-changed in Old Persian. Proto-Aryan ∗Cy and ∗Cw developed into Old Persian Ciy andCuw respectively, regularly written as <Ci/a-i-y> and <Cu/a-u-v>: for example, a-n-i-y-([aniya-]) “other” = Avestan ainiia- = Vedic anya-; h-ru-u-v- ([haruva-]) “all” = Avestanhauruua- = Vedic sarva-.

Syllabic ∗�r as an allophone of consonantal ∗r occurring between consonants (C C) andword-initially before a consonant (# C) likewise is preserved in Old Persian and probably


was pronounced as [ər]. Since in Old Persian orthography this [ər] can be rendered only ina makeshift fashion (like the sequence [ar]) by <(C)a-r-C>, other unambiguous evidenceis required to confirm the value [ər] – either morphological (e.g., k-r-t- “made, done” =[kərta-] with the zero-grade of the root like Avestan kər�ta- and Vedic k�rta-), or etymological(e.g., a-r-s-t-i- “spear” = [ərsti-], revealed by Vedic �rs.t.ı-). A special case is the developmentof Proto-Iranian ∗�r to Old Persian u in the present and aorist stems of the root kar “to do”(e.g., ku-u-n-u-t-i-y [kunauti] “he does” = Avestan kər�naoiti = Vedic k�rn. oti); these areusually explained as allegro forms originating in (and spreading from) the imperative.

Two phonetic phenomena, which have given such a strange appearance to many Avestanwords (see Ch. 6, §§3.3; 3.4.2; 3.4.10), are without significance for Old Persian. Epenthesis(i.e., the insertion of i or u into an existing syllable) is completely foreign to Old Persian, andanaptyxis (i.e., the development of a vowel between two consonants) is nearly unknown.The Avestan epenthesis, which is triggered by an ensuing i/y or u/w (as in Avestan haiϑiia-“true” from ∗haϑya-, see §3.5.1), is not attested in Old Persian inscriptions (transcription ofOld Persian words in other languages may reveal that a late process of this sort characterizedcolloquial Old Persian). Anaptyxis is found only in the case of the clusters dr and gd whenfollowed by u: for example, one finds du-u-ru-u-v- ([duruva-]) “firm” = Avestan druua-([druwa-]) = Vedic dhruva-; present tense stem du-u-ru-u-ji -i-y- ([duru�iya-]) “to lie” =Vedic druhya-; s-u-gu-u-d- ([Suguda-]), as well as s-u-g-d- ([Sugda-]), “Sogdiana.”

4. MORPHOLOGY

4.1 Morphological type

Typical of ancient Indo-European, Old Persian is an inflectional language with syntheticmorphological patterns. Owing to lack of evidence, both the nominal and pronominal and,still more, the verbal paradigms are known only partially in most instances. Therefore itis not possible to give a fully formed account of the formation, function, and actual useof nominal, pronominal, and verbal forms. The same is true, by and large, with regard tonominal and verbal stem formation.

4.2 Nominal morphology

The grammatical categories marked on the Old Persian noun are case (seven), gender(three), and number (three). Whereas the three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter)and the three numbers (singular, dual, and plural) inherited from Proto-Indo-European havepreserved their usual significance and function, the case system has been reduced by one inOld Persian. Likewise gender and number show the expected and customary grammaticalagreement (see §5.6), though there are some instances in which two singular subjects occurnot (as would be expected) with a dual, but with a plural form of the verb.

The seven attested nominal cases are the following: (i) nominative (for subject); (ii)vocative (for direct address); (iii) accusative (for direct object and direction); (iv) genitive(used as possessive, subjective, objective, and partitive genitive); (v) locative (for indicationof place or goal); (vi) instrumental (for indication of means, cause, and extension); and(vii) ablative (only combined with prepositions). The functions of the Proto-Indo-Europeandative (as the case of the indirect object) have been absorbed by the Old Persian genitive(e.g., haya siyatim ada martiyahya “who created happiness for man”). Moreover, the case

old persian 87

system has also been reduced and simplified by abandoning formal distinctions; thus, forexample, there are only three separate forms in the singular of the a-stems: nom., voc. -a;acc. -am; gen.(-dat.), abl., loc., instr. -aya.

4.2.1 Stem formation

Old Persian has inherited from Proto-Indo-European its two chief means of nominal stemformation: (i) derivation (by means of primary or secondary suffixes attached to the un-derlying [verbal] root itself or to an already derived nominal stem), and (ii) composition oftwo word stems (with or without a particular [compositional] suffix). Also playing a role instem formation are ablaut (see WAL Ch. 17, §3.2) and, for derivation, the vowel-lengtheningprocess known as v�rddhi. Only some subset of the numerous inherited nominal suffixes ofOld Persian can be treated here, since the scanty evidence available does not allow one tojudge whether some particular formation is only a traditional relic within Old Persian oractually remains a living and productive process.

One of the productive suffixes is undoubtedly the “locatival” suffix -iya-, formingadjectives, especially ethnics such as Armin-iya- “Armenian” (from Armina-),

–Uj-iya-

“Elamite” (from–Uja-), Mac-iya- “inhabitant of Makran” (from Maka-), and so forth.

The Proto-Iranian suffix ∗-hwa-/∗-swa- forming fractions (see §4.6) seems to be similarlyproductive.

A distinctive phenomenon of derivation which Old Persian has inherited and which, asseveral indisputable examples show, is still productive in this language, is the lengthening ofthe first vowel of a word, a process traditionally called v�rddhi (a term coined by the ancientIndian grammarians). The clearest examples attested are the ethnic Margava- “inhabitant ofMargiana,” derived from Margu- “Marv, Margiana”; and the month name Bagayadi-, basedon ∗baga-yada- “worship of the gods.” Other apparent cases are not without problems: forexample, the month name �aigraci-; a form which – could v�rddhi be confirmed – wouldbe essential for settling the question of whether Old Persian derivatives of words with i or uvowels have the v�rddhi form ai and au like Old Indo-Aryan or the short diphthong ai, andau, as it is found in Avestan.

4.2.2 Nominal declension

Old Persian nouns have been traditionally grouped into declensional classes, though withregard to the origin of the nominal system at an earlier stage of the Indo-European parentlanguage, a number of other criteria are of relevance, chiefly accent placement and ablautvariation and their distribution over the root, the (optional) suffix, and the ending (see WALCh. 24, §4.1.1.3). Old Persian evidence is available for stems ending in -a-, -a-, -i-, -ı-, -ı/ya-,-u-, -u-, -h- or -s-, -r-, -n- and in several stops and fricatives. The only productive stems,however, are those ending in vowels, and in particular those of the a-class, as those lexemessuggest which show forms of different declensions side by side: most clearly tunuvant-“strong” (in nom. sg. tunuva) versus tunuvanta- (in gen. sg. tunuvantahya); compare the“bridge” accusative singular tunuvantam.

The only paradigms which are known somewhat extensively are those of the stems in a-and a-; their singular and plural forms may be given in (6) and (7) (for the dual see below);all other case forms and declensional patterns are presented only in the larger summary of(8) and (9):


(6) The Old Persian a-stems

Singular Plural

Example Ending Example Ending

AnimateNom. martiya “man” -ø < ∗-s martiya -a < ∗-as

bagaha “god” -aha < ∗-asasVoc. martiya ∗-ø —Acc. martiyam -m martiya -a < ∗-ansGen. martiyahya -hya martiyanam -anamAbl. Parsa -a < ∗-at Sakaibis =instr.Instr. kara “army” -a martiyaibis -aibisLoc. Parsai -i Madaisuva -aisu + -a

dastay-a “hand” -i + -aNeuter

Nom.-acc. xsacam “kingdom” -m ayadana -a < ∗-a“place of worship”

(7) The Old Persian a-stems

Singular Plural

Example Ending Example Ending

AnimateNom. tauma “family” -ø stuna “column” -a < ∗-asVoc. — —Acc. taumam -m [hamici]ya “rebellious” -a < ∗-ansGen. taumaya -ya < ∗-yas ◦zananam “with . . . races” -anamAbl. Same as genitive —Instr. framanaya “order” -ya —Loc. A uraya -i + a maskauva “skin” -u < ∗-su + -a

The set of case endings attested in Old Persian may be summarized in (8) and (9) withoutdifferentiating them by declensional class and without a detailed historical-comparativeinterpretation:

(8) Summary of Old Persian singular case endings

AnimateNom. -ø, -s from ∗-s; -ø from ∗-øVoc. -ø from ∗-øAcc. -m, -am from ∗-m, -m�Gen. -a from ∗-as; -ø, -s from ∗-s; -hya from ∗-sya; -ya from ∗-yasAbl. -a from ∗-at; -ø from ∗-t; or identical to the genitiveInstr. -a from ∗-a; -ya from ∗-yaLoc. -i from ∗-i; -ø from ∗-ø, both with or without postpositive -a

NeuterNom.-acc. -m from ∗-m; -ø from ∗-ø

old persian 89

(9) Summary of Old Persian plural case endings

AnimateNom. -a from ∗-as; -a from ∗-as; -aha from ∗-asasVoc. Identical to the nominative, but not attestedAcc. -a from ∗-ans; -ø, -s from ∗-nsGen. -anam, -unam from ∗-

–Vnam

Abl. Identical to the instrumentalInstr. -bis, -aibis from ∗-bisLoc. -aisuva, -suva from ∗-sw-a; -uva from ∗-sw-a, attested only with

postpositive -aNeuter

Nom.-acc. -a from ∗-a

Several dual forms are securely attested in Old Persian texts, such as nom. u-b-a ([uba:])“both”; acc. g-u- s-a ([gausa:]) “both ears”; gen. g-u- s-a-y-a ([gausa:ya:]); instr. d-s-t-i-b-i-y-a ([dastaibiya:]) “with both hands,” all belonging to stems in -a-. In addition, the followingoccur: nom. u-s-i-y ([usi:]), as well as u-s-i-y-a ([usiya:]), three times each, and instr.u-s-i-b-i-y-a ([usi:biya:]), from neuter usi- “intelligence” (literally “ear” and therefore indual number).

Adjectives behave like the nouns with regard to stem formation and declension. Thecomparative is formed by means of the Proto-Indo-European suffix ∗-yes-/-yos- and thesuperlative by ∗-is-to-. As examples, consider Old Persian nom. masc. sg. t-u-vi -i-y-a([taviya:]), from ∗tau-yah- “stronger,” and m-ϑ-i-s-t ([ma�ista]) “greatest.”

4.3 Pronominal morphology

A variety of pronouns is attested in Old Persian: (i) personal pronouns (including theso-called anaphoric pronoun); (ii) several demonstrative pronouns; (iii) relative; and(iv) interrogative-indefinite pronouns.

4.3.1 Personal pronouns

The personal pronouns are characterized (i) by an absence of grammatical gender; (ii) bya remarkable heteroclisis between the nominative and oblique cases; and (iii) by the exis-tence of frequently used enclitic forms. All these characteristics have Proto-Indo-Europeanancestry. The following personal pronouns are attested in Old Persian:

(10) Accented forms

First Second First Plural

Nominative adam tuvam vayamAccusative mam quvam —Genitive mana — amaxamAblative -ma — —

Enclitic forms

Accusative -ma — —Genitive -mai -tai —


The dual forms are not attested at all; the genitive has taken over the function of the dative.Ablative -ma, though being attested only in combination with the preposition “by,” h-c-a-m([haca-ma]) “by me,” is not enclitic (demonstrated by accented Vedic mat).

The anaphoric pronouns “he, she, it” share the characteristic features of the personalpronouns, though there are no nominative forms and no heteroclisis. Old Persian exhibitsenclitic forms built from the stems -sa-/-si- and -di-: acc. sg.-sim “him,” gen. -sai “his,” acc.pl. -sis “them,” gen. -sam “their”; acc. sg. -dim “him” and acc. pl. -dis “them.”

4.3.2 Demonstrative pronouns

Other pronominal stems exhibit grammatical gender distinctions and, in part, are charac-terized by a declension differing from that of nominal stems in -a- and -a-. Included inthis group are three demonstrative pronouns. The pronoun iyam (nom. sg. masc./fem.)“this” combines forms of the stems i-, ima-, and a-: for example, ima (nom.-acc. sg. neut.),ana (instr. sg. masc.), ahyaya (loc. sg. fem.). The remaining two are aita- “this here” (moreemphatic), and hau- (nom. sg. masc./fem.) “that”; the paradigm of the latter is supplementedin the oblique cases by the stem ava-: for example, ava (nom.-acc. sg. neut.), avai (nom.-acc.pl. masc.), avaisam (gen. pl. masc.), av[a] (nom. dual masc.).

4.3.3 Relative and interrogative pronouns

The relative pronoun, which has also acquired the function of an article (see §5.5), is anOld Persian innovation. Its stems haya- (nom. sg. masc./fem.) and taya- (elsewhere) “who,which” emerged from the fusion of the Proto-Aryan correlating demonstrative and relativepronouns ∗sa-/∗ta- + ∗ya- “the one, who.” The interrogative pronoun is not attested in OldPersian texts and can be recovered only from the indefinite pronouns kas-ci (nom. sg. masc.)“somebody,” cis-ci (neut.) “something,” which are derived by means of the generalizingparticle -ci, as in ya-ci (nom.-acc. sg. neut.) “whatever.”

4.3.4 Pronominal adjectives

The declension of certain adjectives, which are semantically close to the pronouns, sharesalso the special declensional forms of pronouns. Old Persian attests only aniya- “other”(e.g., nom.-acc. sg. neut. aniya, abl. sg. masc. aniyana); haruva- “all” (e.g., loc. sg. fem.haruvahyaya); and hama- “the same” (in gen. sg. fem. hamahyaya).

4.4 Verbal morphology

The grammatical categories of the Old Persian verbal system were inherited from Proto-Aryan, the consequent and consistent structure of which can still plainly be observed in theearliest Vedic texts. But with regard to both function and form, a great number of funda-mental innovations and reorganizations have occurred which leave the distinct impressionthat Old Persian, like Young Avestan (see Ch. 6, §1), has begun to part company with theProto-Aryan system and already represents a kind of transitional stage from Old to MiddleIranian. This is revealed by phonetic developments and innovations in nominal morphology,but especially by changes in the system of verbal morphology: (i) the aspectual oppositionof aorist versus imperfect has been lost; (ii) aorist and perfect tense forms are attested onlyrarely; (iii) a periphrastic “neo-perfect” has emerged (see §4.4.6); and (iv) present stems in-aya- begin to gain prominence.

Old Persian verbal forms are marked for tense (originally aspect), voice, mood, andthe usual three persons and three numbers. The Old Persian evidence is, however, rather

old persian 91

unbalanced, owing to the nature of the contents of the inscriptions: thus, for example, theonly dual form found in the texts is the third plural imperfect active ajıvatam “they both(still) lived.” Together with the three persons and numbers, two of the three voices (i.e.,active and middle) find expression in two sets of personal endings: the so-called primaryendings in the present indicative (which alone denotes a real present time) and subjunctive(which may do the same, at least in the speaker’s view), and the secondary endings otherwise,apart from the imperative, which has distinctive endings.

4.4.1 Voice

The voices usually have their customary functions (inherited from the Indo-European parentlanguage). A particularly striking exception is provided by certain third plural middle formswhich lack middle function and are to be interpreted as having arisen only to avoid ambiguity.Passive morphology is more innovative, with the following attested: (i) forms built fromthe passive stem in -ya- (e.g., imperfect a-ϑanh-ya “it has been said”), common to Indo-Iranian for the present stem; (ii) middle forms like a-naya-ta “he was led”; and (iii) phrasesconsisting of a verbal adjective in -ta- plus the copula (which usually is omitted, however,in the third person: see §4.4.6).

4.4.2 Mood

The five moods attested in Old Persian are indicative, subjunctive, optative, imperative, and,as an Indo-European relic, injunctive (see below). Typical of Iranian is both the use of theperfect optative for the irrealis of the past, and (even more so) the use of the present optativewith the temporal augment a- (thus looking like an imperfect optative) to express a repeatedaction of the past (e.g., avajaniya from ∗ava-a-jan-ya-t “he used to slay”).

The Old Persian moods exhibit the same functions as their counterparts in Young Avestan.The indicative is used to express factual statements – present indicative (formed with theprimary endings) for those in present time, and imperfect indicative (the augment a- andsecondary endings being added to the present stem) for those in past time. The subjunctiveexpresses the eventual or potential realization of actions in the present or future; the presentsubjunctive is formed with primary endings, which are added to the present stem enlargedby -a- (e.g., ah-a-ti “it may be”). The optative is used for wishes and prayers and is formedwith a stem in -iya- (in the athematic singular) or -ı- (otherwise) – suffixes descended fromProto-Indo-European ∗-yeh1-/∗-ih1-; the optative takes secondary endings (e.g., 2nd sg. mid.yadaisa “you may worship”). The imperative is the mood of command and prayer and makesuse of distinctive imperative endings which are added to the present or aorist stem.

The injunctive (with secondary endings) is found in Old Persian only in prohibitiveconstructions introduced by the particle ma “not!” but even in preventive clauses nevercombined with forms of the aorist tense stem. Together with the loss of the aorist (see§4.4.3) Old Persian obviously has lost the inherited distinction between the inhibitive presentinjunctive and the preventive aorist injunctive. Moreover, if combined with the optativepresent, the prohibitive particle ma denotes a corrective notion with regard to a presentaction: for example, daiva ma yadiyaisa “the Daivas shall not be worshiped any longer!”

4.4.3 Tense

The tenses find expression in stem formations which had originally been used to distinguishaspect (imperfective vs. perfective) and still did so in Proto-Aryan and Proto-Iranian. Severaldoublets of such forms make it clear, however, that the imperfect (which is built on the presentstem and thus expressed the imperfective aspect of a past action) and the aorist (being thecounterpart in the perfective aspect) are used in Old Persian without any obvious difference


in function, suggesting that aspectual distinctions were no longer being productively made.The “sigmatic” aorist adarsi “I took possession of” (1st sg. indic. aor. middle of the rootdar-) alone seems to point to a living use of the aorist indicative (i.e., for conveying theperfective aspect of an action). The one perfect form attested is an optative expressing pastirrealis, caxriya “he might have done.” Regarding perfect morphology, therefore, all that canbe said is that Old Persian inherited stem reduplication (ca-xr- from Proto-Aryan ∗ca-kr-and Proto-Indo-European ∗kw e-kw r-), but nothing can be discerned about the particularendings of the perfect indicative active.

4.4.4 Verbal stems

The stem formations occurring in Old Persian are essentially those inherited fromProto-Aryan and in the end often from Proto-Indo-European. This includes the inheri-ted distinction between the thematic and the athematic stems marked by the presence orabsence of the thematic vowel -a- (from Proto-Indo-European ∗-e/o-; see WAL Ch. 17,§3.4) preceding the personal endings (e.g., athematic as-ti “he is,” but thematic bav-a-ti “hebecomes”). The present and aorist stems (and likewise the only perfect stem attested; see§4.4.3) are formed either from the verbal root to which one of a set of suffixes is attached,or from the unsuffixed root itself (root presents and root aorists). Most numerous and to acertain degree productive are the present stems in -aya- like tavaya- “to be able,” manaya-“to wait, expect,” and so forth. Ancestral formations of Proto-Indo-European origin are thestems in -sa- (= Avestan -sa-) like p�rsa- “to ask, interrogate” (= Avestan pər�sa-), t�rsa- “tobe afraid” (= Avestan tər �sa-), xsnasa- “to know.”

4.4.5 Verbal endings

The various sets of verbal endings are only partially attested in Old Persian; these are pre-sented in (11)–(16) together with their Proto-Aryan preforms:

(11) The Old Persian primary endings: active

SingularFirst -mi from ∗-mi (also in the thematic verbs); -ni from ∗-ni (subjunctive)Second -hi from ∗-si (attested only in subjunctive)Third -ti from ∗-ti

PluralFirst -mahi from ∗-masiSecond —Third -nti from ∗-nti

(12) The Old Persian primary endings: middle

SingularFirst -ai from ∗-ai; -nai from Proto-Iranian ∗-nai (subjunctive)Second -hai from ∗-saiThird -tai from ∗-tai

PluralNot attested

old persian 93

(13) The Old Persian secondary endings: active

SingularFirst -m from ∗-m; -am (athematic) from Proto-Aryan ∗-am replacing Proto-

Indo-European ∗- �mSecond -ø from ∗-sThird -ø from ∗-t; -s after ai, au (in imperfect and optative forms like akunaus

“he did” = Avestan akər �naot˜

)

DualThird -tam = Avestan -təm (see §4.4)

PluralFirst -ma from ∗-maSecond —Third -ø from ∗-nt; -h after a and -s after ai (in imperfect and optative forms

like abaraha “they brought” or yadiyaisa “they shall not beworshiped”) from ∗-s

(14) The Old Persian secondary endings: middle

SingularFirst -i from ∗-iSecond -sa from ∗-saThird -ta from ∗-ta

PluralFirst —Second —Third -nta from ∗-nta

(15) The Old Persian imperative endings: active

SingularSecond -a from ∗-a (thematic) and -di from ∗-dhi (athematic)Third -tu from ∗-tu

PluralSecond -ta from ∗-taThird -ntu from ∗-ntu

(16) The Old Persian imperative endings: middle

SingularSecond -uva and -suva from ∗-swaThird -tam from ∗- tam

PluralNot attested

4.4.6 Nonfinite verbal forms

Old Persian exhibits only one type of infinitive: a construction with the formant -t-n-i-y([-tanai] or [-tani]?), being an oblique case, dative (or locative) singular, of an action noun in-tan-, and built on the full-grade verb root: for example, cartanai “to do”; bartanai “to bear;”


ϑanstanai “to say.” In the case of kantanai “to dig” and nipaistanai “to engrave, write,” thepassive interpretation “to be dug,” “to be engraved” cannot be ruled out.

The only reliably attested active participles are tunuvant- “strong” (literally “being able”;nom. sg. masc. tunuva, from ∗-want-s) and yaudant- “being in turmoil” (only acc. sg. fem.y-u-d-[t-i]-m ([yaudant-i(:)m]). Present middle participles are formed by means of thesuffix -mna- = Avestan -mna-, as in xsaya-mna- “being in control of.”

The commonly occurring verbal adjective or perfect passive participle in -ta- is inheritedfrom the Proto-Indo-European formation in ∗-to-, which usually is added to the zero-gradeverbal root: for example, k�rta- “done, made”; jata- “slain”; pata- “protected”; but also basta-“bound” like Young Avestan basta- (in contrast to Vedic baddha-) and the like. In addition,there are also some formations in -ata- (like ϑak-ata- “passed” or han-gm-ata- “assembled”;cf. Avestan gmata-) which go back to Proto-Indo-European ∗-eto-.

The verbal adjective in-ta- is used in Old Persian particularly for creating the new pe-riphrastic perfect of the type mana k�rtam “(it was) done by me” (cf. Middle Persian mankard) replacing the inherited Proto-Aryan active perfect for expressing an accomplishedaction and/or a situation achieved by it. In origin this “neo-perfect” was formed by com-bining the copula “to be” with the -ta-adjective, though the third singular asti “she/he/it is”normally has been deleted. Moreover, the agent of transitive verbs is expressed in the gen-itive case (though the sense of the construction is not a possessive). Examples include thefollowing: ima, taya mana k�rtam “this [is], what [has been] done by me”; taya B�rdiya avajata“that Smerdis [had been] slain”; yadi kara Parsa pata ahati “if the Persian people shall beprotected.”

4.5 Compounds

In principle, Old Persian exhibits all the types of compounds known from the other ancientAryan languages (see Ch. 2, §4.4.2) and inherited from Proto-Indo-European (see WALCh. 17, §3.5.1). Compounds contain two elements, the last of which is inflected. Attested aredeterminative and possessive compounds (including those which have an inseparable prefixlike a(n)- “without, un-”; u- “well-”; or dus- “mis-, dis-” as first element), but no copulativecompounds are attested as yet. Especially remarkable are the compounds having a verbal stemas the first element; Old Persian exhibits a number of such formations in anthroponomastics:for example, the throne names of Darius and Xerxes, Daraya-vaus “holding the good” andXsaya-�rsan- “having command of heroes.” These forms reveal that Old Persian does notshare in the Aryan recasting of the first element as a participial form in-at-, as one finds inAvestan and Old Indo-Aryan (cf. Avestan Daraiiat

˜.raϑa- “holding the chariot,” xsaiiat

˜.vac-

“having (a good) command of speech”; Vedic dharayat-ks. iti- “sustaining the creatures,”ks.ayad-vıra- “having command of heroes”).

4.6 Numerals

Since the cardinals are normally indicated by numeral signs and not written phonetically,hardly anything can be said about them. The number 1 is aiwa-, which like Avestan aeuua-goes back to Proto-Indo-European ∗oi-wo- “one, alone” (= Greek oı(w)os (��( )��)). Onehundred must have been ∗ϑata- (= Avestan satəm = Vedic satam) and in all probability isattested in the name of the province Sattagydia, Θata-gu-. Other cardinals are reflected in the“collateral” linguistic traditions (see §6), especially in Elamite garb, in compounded titleslike ∗daϑa-pati- (Elamite da-sa-bat-ti-is) “chief of ten, decurion” or ∗ϑata-pati- (Elamitesa-ad-da-bat-ti-is) “chief of hundred, centurion.”

old persian 95

Of the ordinals there are attested in the Old Persian inscriptions: fratama- “first” =Avestan fratəma-; duvit˘ıya- “second” = Old Avestan daibitiia-, Young Avestan bitiia-(= Vedic dvit´ıya-); cit˘ıya- “third” = Avestan ϑritiia-; navama- “ninth” = Avestan naoma-(from ∗nawəma-).

A quite interesting Iranian innovation is found in the fractions formed by addition ofthe Proto-Iranian suffix ∗-swa- (realized as Avestan -huua- or -suua-). The Old Persianreflexes are attested in Elamite renderings only and can be reconstructed as ∗cisuva- “one-third” (Elamite si-is-mas; cf. Avestan ϑrisuua-); ∗cacusuva- and (with haplology) ∗cacuva-“one-quarter” (Elamite za-as-mas, za-is-su-mas, za-is-su-is-mas; cf. Avestan caϑrusuua-);∗pancauva- “one-fifth” (Elamite pan-su-ma-is; cf. Avestan paŋtaŋhuua-); ∗astauva- “one-eighth” (Elamite as-du-mas; cf. Avestan astahuua-); ∗navauva- “one-ninth” (Elamite nu-ma-u-mas); ∗daϑauva- “one-tenth” (Elamite da-sa-mas) and ∗vıstauva- “one-twentieth”(Elamite mi-is-du-ma-kas, with an additional ka-suffix).

5. SYNTAX

5.1 Word order

The word order found in the Old Persian inscriptions is on the whole rather free, as iscommon among the ancient Indo-Iranian languages. The “unmarked” order, however, isSubject–Object–Verb (SOV):

(17) Auramazda-mai upastam abaraAuramazda-me aid he brought“Auramazda brought me aid”

For enclitic -mai, see §5.3. Other complements, especially those indicating place, may followthe verb. There are attested, however, a number of cases showing varying order of the sen-tence constituents: for example, (i) of copula and predicate noun (cf. DNb 42f. ϑanuvaniyauϑanuvaniya ami “as a bowman I am a good bowman” vs. DNb 44 �rstika ami uv�rstika “as aspearman I am a good spearman”); or (ii) of two coordinated constituents (DB IV 72f. yadiimam dipim vainahi imaiva patikara “if you shall look at this inscription or these sculptures”vs. DB IV 77 yadi imam dipim imaiva patikara vainahi).

Nevertheless some peculiarities of word order must be noted, mainly “marked” sentence-initial or sentence-final position of words for reasons of emphasis. Here belong, for example,the initial position of the object (OSV) when expressed by a deictic pronoun

(18) ima hadis adam akunavamthis palace I I have built“I have built this palace”

or the nonfinal (medial) position of verbs expressing an urgent plea. Notable is also theuncommon initial position of the verb in the formulaic expression ϑati NN xsayaϑiya“proclaims NN, the king.”

When two or more coordinated elements form the subject or the object of a sentence, onlythe first element is placed before the verb, and the remaining elements follow, for example:

(19) mam Auramazda patu utamai xsacamme Auramazda may he protect and my kingdom“May Auramazda protect me and my kingdom!”


Within phrases the word order is more fixed. A noun or pronoun (in the genitive case)which is dependent upon a noun precedes that noun: for example, Kuraus puca “son ofCyrus”; mana pita “my father.” Exceptions which are attested in royal titles (cf. xsayaϑiyaxsayaϑiyanam “king of kings” in contrast to Middle Persian sahan sah) or religious formulae(vasna Auramazdaha “by the favor of Auramazda”) are caused by foreign influence.

5.2 Topicalization

A striking feature of Old Persian syntax and stylistics is the frequent use of a sentence-initial (so-called) casus pendens (usually an absolute nominative), which is resumed by ademonstrative pronoun (20A) or adverb (20B):

(20) A. Vistaspa mana pita, hau Parqavai ahaHystaspes my father that one in Parthia he was“Hystaspes my father, he was in Parthia”

B. P�rga nama kaufa, avada . . .P�rga by name mountain there“There is a mountain, P�rga by name, there . . . ”

This phenomenon is often combined with another stylistic peculiarity found in the OldPersian inscriptions, the origin of which must be sought, as Vedic parallels in prose textsshow convincingly, in colloquial Proto-Aryan and not, as has been previously presumed, inAramaic influence. This concerns parenthetical (more exactly, prosthothetical) construc-tions taking the form of nominal (i.e., verbless) clauses which introduce less commonpersonal or geographical names: for example, Dad�rsis nama Arminiya, mana bandaka,avam . . . “[There is] an Armenian, Dad�rsi by name, my vassal, him . . . ”

It should be noted that nominal sentences are very frequently used in Old Persian, mainlybecause the third singular form of the copula is normally omitted; consider DB I 27:

(21) ima, taya mana k�rtamthis what by me done“This [is], what [has been] done by me”

with relevant examples in both the main and relative clauses.

5.3 Clitics

Old Persian attests a number of enclitics (atonic lexemes which in Old Persian form a graphicunity with the preceding word); chiefly the following: (i) the oblique cases of the personalpronouns (including the anaphoric pronoun); (ii) the copulative and disjunctive conjunc-tions (-ca “and,” -va “or”); and (iii) various emphatic particles. According to Wackernagel’sLaw the enclitics are attached to the first accented word of the sentence or clause in OldPersian, as in Proto-Aryan and, still earlier, in Proto-Indo-European. This becomes partic-ularly clear from examples like (17), Auramazda-mai upastam abara “Auramazda broughtme aid,” when contrasted with

(22) pasava-mai Auramazda upastam abaraafterwards-me Auramazda aid he brought“Afterwards Auramazda brought me aid”

Enclitics which are construed with single words only and not with an entire sentence do

old persian 97

not follow Wackernagel’s Law, but are attached to that particular word: for example, yaϑaparuvam-ci “just as [it was] previously.” For a special treatment of enclisis see Schmitt 1995.

5.4 Coordination and subordination

In the Old Persian inscriptions both coordination and subordination are used for expressingcomplex statements. It is not uncommon to find short simple sentences following oneanother, either accompanied by a connector (a coordinating conjunction like uta “and” ora temporal adverb like pasava “afterwards, then”), or without such (asyndeton). In othercases (and, in part, in closely parallel passages), subordinate clauses occur introduced bya relative pronoun or by some appropriate conjunction. Most conjunctions used in OldPersian are derived from the (original) stem of the relative pronoun (as is the case in thecognate languages, too): for example, yaϑa (often correlated with avaϑa “thus”) “when,after, so that” (introducing temporal, modal, and consecutive clauses); yadi “if” (normallywith a subjunctive verb), “when” (with an indicative; introducing temporal and conditionalclauses). While both of these are inherited, yata “until, when, as long as” is a new formation,as is taya “that, so that” (acc. sg. neut. of the relative pronoun) which introduces causal,explicative clauses, indirectly reported speech, and so forth. Relative clauses are commonlyattested, positioned both before and after the main clause.

There are also some passages that show a subordinate infinitive. Typical is that construc-tion after a main clause containing verbs like “to order,” “to be able,” “to dare” (e.g., adamnıstayam imam dipim nipaistanai “I ordered to engrave this inscription”); another likewisetypical use of an infinitive construction is that expressing purpose after verbs like “to go,”“to send” (e.g., paraita patis Dad�rsim hamaranam cartanai “went forth against Dad�rsi tofight a battle”).

5.5 Relative constructions

The relative pronoun haya-/taya- functions as a definite article in expressions indicatingvarious attributive complements to nouns, with case attraction if appropriate; for example:

(23) A. Gaumata haya magus (nominative)Gaumatam tayam magum (accusative)“Gaumata the magus”

B. karam tayam Madam (accusative)“The Median army”

C. vi am tayam amaxam (genitive plural)“Our [royal] house”

D. xsacam taya Babirau (locative)“The kingship in Babylonia”

Those constructions have similar counterparts in Avestan, but have spread considerably inMiddle Persian and are ultimately the source of the Modern Persian iz. afat construction.

5.6 Agreement

Grammatical agreement in Old Persian is of the sort common to the older Indo-Europeanlanguages: (i) appositive and attributive adjectives and nouns agree in gender, number,and case; (ii) predicate nouns and adjectives agree at least in case, but now and then thereare particular conditions for gender and number; (iii) relative, resumptive, and anaphoric


pronouns agree in gender and number, whereas their case is dependent upon their syntacticuse (examples of case attraction not being attested); (iv) verbs agree with their subject inperson and number. The existence in Old Persian of the Proto-Indo-European use of asingular verb with a neuter plural subject cannot be demonstrated, both for lack of evidenceand for orthographic reasons. The only evidence is found in the usual dating formulae(see §6), and there the copula aha (with ϑakata nom. pl. neut.) may be third-person singularas well as plural.

5.7 Stylistics

A comprehensive and systematic study of the stylistic features that may be detected in the OldPersian inscriptions (which show clear traces of stylization), is an urgent desideratum. Thereis found evidence for the stylistic figures of the asyndeton, of chiasmus, parallelism, and soforth; see the discussion in Kent 1953 (pp. 99f. §§ 316–317 in the relevant paragraphs). Someadditional stylistic features can be briefly noted here. Epiphora (repetition of the same wordsat the end of each of a set of sentences) occurs several times: for example, in DPd 22 and24 hada visaibis bagaibis “with all the gods.” Examples of personification are attested: forexample, with dahyu- “land” (which “does not fear anybody else”) or dusiyara- “crop failure”(which “may not come”). But attempts to demonstrate rhyming phrases in Old Persian textsor to detect metrical passages (especially in DB) are not convincing in this author’s view.

6. LEXICON

The Old Persian vocabulary is known only in part owing to the limited corpus of the textsand to their stereotyped character. On the whole it corresponds closely to the vocabulary ofthe other attested ancient Aryan languages, Avestan and Old Indo-Aryan (especially Vedic).A striking characteristic feature of Old Persian is the considerable quantity of foreign wordsand names which it uses. Such foreign influences, however, are only to be expected in such amultinational state as that of the Persian Empire. Among those foreign elements, borrowingsfrom the Median language take a special place, and they can be justified historically withoutdifficulty. The fact that particular terms are of Median origin can sometimes be establishedby phonetic criteria, even if the non-Persian phonetic developments observed are not uniqueto the Median language, but also belong to other Old Iranian dialects. Medisms occur morefrequently among royal titles and among terms of the chancellery, military, and judicialaffairs (vaz�rka- “great,” zura- “evil,” zurakara- “evil-doer,” etc.); they are found not least inthe official characterizations of the empire and its countries (uvaspa- “with good horses,”vispazana- “with all races,” etc.).

From a dialectological perspective, one notes some peculiar developments. Particularlystriking is the case of the verb “to say, speak”; Old Persian continues neither Proto-Iranian∗wac- nor ∗mrau-, both of which are attested in Avestan, but has gaub-. A similar case isfound with “to hear”: Old Persian has lost Proto-Iranian ∗srau- (Avestan srauu-), and hasinstead the root a-xsnau- (literally “to grasp, understand”).

In addition to the shared isogloss of Old Persian gaub- “to say, speak” and Sogdian γwβ-([γ��]) “to praise,” there are a number of remarkable features common to Old Persian(Southwest Iranian) and Sogdian (East Iranian). For example, to both belong ∗kun- “to do”(from Proto-Iranian ∗kar-, pres. ∗k�rnau-) in Old Persian kunau- = Sogdian kwn- ([kun-]).Both share the meaning “to have” for the Iranian root ∗dar- “to hold, keep” (Old Persian dar-,pres. daraya-), and the dating formulae of the type Old Persian NN mahya X raucabis ϑakata

old persian 99

aha “in the month NN X days had passed” and Sogdian pr ’tδrtyk YRH’ pr 10 sγth “in thethird month at/after ten passed [days].”

In other cases, borrowings from some East Iranian language have been assumed: forexample, kasaka- “semiprecious stone.” In addition, the influence of the other languagesspoken by the indigenous peoples of the Ancient Near East can be detected in the OldPersian lexicon. Thus, the Persians seem to have acquired dipi- “inscription” from Elamite,maska- “[raft of] skin” from some Semitic language, and pıru- “ivory” likewise from someNear Eastern source.

A considerable portion of the Old Persian lexicon has simply not survived (becauseof the nature of the texts). However, the possibility exists of reconstructing Old Persianlexemes, provided they are inherited from Proto-Aryan (and from Proto-Indo-European),by comparing the Proto-Aryan vocabulary (which can be reconstructed from the very richrecords available in Old Indo-Aryan) with Middle and Modern Persian words, since suchlater attested lexemes necessarily must have passed through an Old Persian stage.

In addition, a great many Old Persian lexemes, including proper names, are preserved in aborrowed form in non-Persian languages – the so-called “collateral” tradition of Old Persian(within or outside the Achaemenid Empire). The main sources of that tradition are Elamite(especially the Persepolis tablets), Late Babylonian (with numerous administrative texts),Aramaic (as the lingua franca of the official imperial administration), Hebrew, Egyptian,and Greek authors (from Aeschylus and Herodotus) and inscriptions. It must be borne inmind, however, that not every purported Old Iranian form attested in this manner is anactual lexeme of Old Persian. Thus, for example, the title “satrap,” best known in its Greekform �� , in fact mirrors Median ∗xsaϑra-pa-, whereas the first element of the OldPersian form was xsaca- and the form attested epigraphically is xsaca-pa-van-. A collectionof the complete material attested in the various branches of the collateral tradition is notavailable; Hinz 1975 offers the most comprehensive collection, though is far from beingcomplete (e.g., by omitting even Median ∗xsaϑra-pa-) and is often unreliable.

7. READING LIST

The most comprehensive treatment of Old Persian (containing a full descriptive as well ashistorical grammar, the transcribed texts with English translation, and a lexicon with fullreferences) is found in Kent 1953; for a traditional grammar see also Meillet and Benveniste1931. A more structured outline of morphology and an etymological lexicon (including,in part, the collateral tradition) is presented by Mayrhofer in Brandenstein and Mayrhofer1964 (pp. 55–82 and 99–157). Mayrhofer 1979: II (pp. 11–32) provides a special treatment ofthe personal names attested in the inscriptions. A brief account of the Old Persian language(with the most essential bibliography) is also presented in Schmitt 1989.

A complete corpus of all Old Persian Achaemenid inscriptions is not available; thereare only partial collections outdated by later discoveries or limited to certain groups ortypes of texts. The Old Persian texts alone can be found in Kent 1953: 107–157 (with anEnglish translation); this has been supplemented by Mayrhofer 1978, who also provides afull inventory list of the Old Persian texts (pp. 37–47); though even this list is not up to date.

Abbreviations

The most important Old Persian texts are listed below. Texts are usually cited utilizing asystem of abbreviations, in which the king’s name normally appears first (D = Darius I,X = Xerxes I, A1−3 = Artaxerxes I–III, etc.), followed by the place of origin (B = Bısutun,


P = Persepolis, N = Naqs-i Rustam, S = Susa, etc.). Several texts by the same king at thesame place are distinguished by additional small letters:

DB: the major inscription of Darius I at the rock of Mt. Bısutun, the mostextensive and most important trilingual inscription, with five columnsand 414 lines of Old Persian text (newly edited by Schmitt 1991).

DNa, DNb: two major trilingual inscriptions at the tomb of Darius I at Naqs-i Rustam,the lower text DNb being some kind of guide for the ideal ruler (newedition by Schmitt 2000:23–44).

DPd, DPe: two monolingual Old Persian inscriptions which form part of an ensemble oftexts at the southern wall of the Persepolis terrace and in all probability arethe oldest Persepolitan inscriptions (new edition by Schmitt 2000:56–62).

DSab: the trilingual cuneiform text on the Egyptian-made statue of Darius Iexcavated in Susa in 1972.

DSe, DSf: two major trilingual building inscriptions from the palace of Susa, which arepreserved, however, only in a great number of fragments.

DZc: the longest of the cuneiform inscriptions from the Suez Canal.XPf: a bilingual (Old Persian and Babylonian) foundation document of Xerxes

from Persepolis, which is of special historical importance owing to somedetails reported about the king’s succession.

XPh: the trilingual, so-called Daiva-inscription describing a revolt and praisingthe cult of Auramazda (rather than the Daivas).

XPl: an Old Persian text on a stone tablet, which is essentially parallel to DNb, butassociated with the name of Xerxes I.

Bibliography

Brandenstein, W. and M. Mayrhofer. 1964. Handbuch des Altpersischen. Wiesbaden: OttoHarrassowitz.

Hinz, W. 1975. Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenuberlieferungen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Kent, R. G. 1953. Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon (2nd edition). New Haven: American

Oriental Society.Mayrhofer, M. 1978. Supplement zur Sammlung der altpersischen Inschriften. Vienna: Osterreichische

Akademie der Wissenschaften.

———. 1979. Iranisches Personennamenbuch. Vol. I. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie derWissenschaften.

Meillet, A. and E. Benveniste. 1931. Grammaire du vieux-perse (2nd edition). Paris: EdouardChampion.

Schmitt, R. 1989. “Altpersisch.” In R. Schmitt (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, pp. 56–85.Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert.

———. 1991. The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Old Persian Text. London: School ofOriental and African Studies.

———. 1995. “Zur Enklise im Altpersischen.” In H. Hettrich, W. Hock, P. Mumm, et al. (eds.),Verba et Structurae: Festschrift fur Klaus Strunk, pp. 285–301. Innsbruck: Institut furSprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck.

———. 2000. The Old Persian Inscriptions of Naqsh-i Rustam and Persepolis. London: School ofOriental and African Studies.

Prods Oktor Skjærvø

An Introduction to Old Persian

revised and expanded 2nd version

Copyright © 2002 by Prods Oktor Skjærvø Please do not cite in print without the author’s permission. This Introduction may be distributed freely as a service to teachers and students of Old Iranian. In my experience, it can be taught as a one-term full course at 4 hrs/w. My thanks to all of my students, who have actively noted typos, inconsistencies of presentation, etc., and especially to Matthew Stolper, for his 7 pages (so far) of miscellaneous notes and corrections. Please help improve the Introduction by reporting typos and whatever comments you may have to [email protected]

152 July 31, 2005

APPENDIX 2. DARIUS’S INSCRIPTION AT BEHISTUN

DARIUS’S INSCRIPTION AT BEHISTUN. COLUMN 1

DB 1.1-3 adam D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya vazarka x ˝yaƒiya x ˝yaƒiy˝n˝m x ˝yaƒiya P˝rsaiy x ˝yaƒiya dahay¨n˝m Vi t˝spahay˝ puça Ar ˝mahay˝ nap˝ Hax˝mani iya DB 1.3-7 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya man˝ pit˝ Vi t˝spa Vi t˝spahay˝ pit˝ Ar ˝ma Ar ˝mahay˝ pit˝ Ariy˝ramna Ariy˝ramnahay˝ pit˝ Ci pi Ci pai pit˝ Hax˝mani DB 1.7-8 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya avahayar˝diy vayam Hax˝mani iy˝

ƒahay˝mahay hac˝ paruviyata ˝m˝t˝ amahay hac˝ paruviyata hay˝ am˝xam taum˝ x ˝yaƒiy˝ ˝ha

DB 1.8-11 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya VIII man˝ taum˝y˝ tayaiy paruvam x ˝yaƒiy˝ ˝ha

adam navama IX duvit˝paranam vayam x ˝yaƒiy˝ amahay DB 1.11-12 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya va n˝ Auramazd˝ha adam x ˝yaƒiya amiy Auramazd˝ x açam man˝ fr˝bara DB 1.12-17 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya im˝ dahay˝va tay˝ man˝ *patiy˝i a va n˝ Auramazd˝ha adam ˝m x ˝yaƒiya ˝ham P˝rsa UÚvja B˝biru Aƒur˝ Arab˝ya Mudr˝ya tayaiy drayahay˝ Sparda Yauna M˝da Armina Katpatuka Parƒava Zraka Haraiva

Uv˝razm^y B˝xtri Suguda Gad˝ra Saka ÿatagu Harauvati Maka

fraharavam dahay˝va XXIII

DB 1.17-20 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya im˝ dahay˝va tay˝ man˝ *patiy˝i a va n˝

Auramazd˝ha man˝ badak˝ ˝hat˝ man˝ b˝jim abarat˝ *taya ˝m hac˝ma aƒahaya x apav˝ raucapativ˝

ava akunavayat˝ DB 1.20-24 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya atar im˝ dahay˝va martiya haya agriya ˝ha avam

ubartam abaram haya ar^ka ˝ha avam ufrastam aparsam va n˝ Auramazd˝ha im˝ dahay˝va tayan˝ man˝

d˝t˝ apariy˝ya yaƒ˝ ˝m hac˝ma aƒahaya avaƒ˝ akunavayat˝ DB 1.24-26 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya Auramazd˝maiy ima x açam fr˝bara Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara y˝t˝ ima x açam

hamad˝rayaiy va n˝ Auramazd˝ha ima x açam d˝ray˝miy DB 1.26-35 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya ima taya man˝ kartam pas˝va yaƒ˝ x ˝yaƒiya

abavam Kab¨jiya n˝ma Kurau puça am˝xam taum˝y˝

*hauv paruvam id˝ x ˝yaƒiya ˝ha avahay˝ Kab¨jiyahay˝ br˝t˝ *Bardiya n˝ma ˝ha

ham˝t˝ hamapit˝ Kab¨jiyahay˝ pas˝va *Kab¨jiya avam Bardiyam av˝ja yaƒ˝ Kab¨jiya Bardiyam av˝ja k˝rahay˝ [naiy]

azd˝ abava taya Bardiya avajata pas˝va Kab¨jiya Mudr˝yam *a iyava yaƒ˝ Kab¨jiya Mudr˝yam a iyava pas˝va k˝ra

ar^ka abava [ut˝] drauga dahayauv˝ vasiy abava ut˝ P˝rsaiy

ut˝ M˝daiy ut˝ aniy˝uv˝ dahayu uv˝ DB 1.35-40 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya *pas˝va I martiya ˝ha Gaum˝ta n˝ma hauv udapatat˝ hac˝ *Pai iy˝uv˝d˝y˝ Arakadri

n˝ma kaufa hac˝ avada a Viyaxanahay˝ m˝hay˝ XIV raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha yadiy udapatat˝ hauv k˝rahay˝ avaƒ˝ adurujiya adam Bardiya amiy haya Kurau puça

Kab¨jiyahay˝ br˝t˝


153 July 31, 2005

DB 1.40-43 pas˝va k˝ra haruva hamiçiya abava hac˝

Kab¨jiy˝ abiy avam a iyava ut˝ P˝rsa ut˝ M˝da ut˝ aniy˝

dahay˝va x açam hauv agarb˝yat˝ Garmapadahay˝ m˝hy˝ IX raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha avaƒ˝ x açam agarb˝yat˝ pas˝va Kab¨jiya uv˝mar iyu amariyat˝ DB 1.43-48 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya aita x açam taya Gaum˝ta haya magu ad^n˝

Kab¨jiyam aita x açam hac˝ paruviyata am˝xam taum˝y˝ ˝ha

pas˝va Gaum˝ta haya magu ad^n˝ Kab¨jiyam ut˝ P˝rsam ut˝ M˝dam ut˝ aniy˝ dahay˝va

hauv ˝yasat˝ uv˝ipa iyam akut˝ hauv x ˝yaƒiya abava DB 1.48-54 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya naiy ˝ha martiya naiy P˝rsa naiy M˝da naiy

am˝xam taum˝y˝ ka ciy haya avam Gaum˝tam tayam magum x açam d^tam caxriy˝

k˝ra im hac˝ dar am atarsa k˝ram vasiy av˝janiy˝ haya paranam Bardiyam

ad˝n˝ avahayar˝diy k˝ram av˝janiy˝ m˝tayam˝m x n˝s˝tiy taya adam naiy Bardiya

amiy haya Kurau puça ka ciy naiy adar nau ci ciy ƒastanaiy pariy

Gaum˝tam tayam magum y˝t˝ adam arasam DB 1.54-61 pas˝va adam *Auramazd˝m patiy˝vahayaiy Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara B˝gay˝dai m˝hay˝ X raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha avaƒ˝ adam had˝ kamnaibi martiyaibi avam

Gaum˝tam tayam magum av˝janam ut˝ tayai aiy fratam˝ martiy˝ anu iy˝ ˝hat˝ Sikayauvati n˝m˝ did˝ Nis˝ya n˝m˝ dahay˝u

M˝daiy avada im av˝janam x açam im adam ad^nam va n˝ Auramazd˝ha adam x ˝yaƒiya abavam Auramazd˝ x açam man˝ fr˝bara DB 1.61-71 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya x açam taya hac˝ am˝xam taum˝y˝ par˝bartam ˝ha ava adam patipadam akunavam

adam im g˝ƒav˝ av˝st˝yam yaƒ˝ paruvamciy

avaƒ˝ adam akunavam ˝yadan˝ tay˝ Gaum˝ta haya magu viyaka

adam niyaç˝rayam k˝rahay˝ abicar^ gaiƒ˝mc˝ m˝niyamc˝ viƒbi c˝ tay˝di Gaum˝ta haya magu ad^n˝

adam k˝ram g˝ƒav˝ av˝st˝yam P˝rsamc˝ M˝damc˝ ut˝ aniy˝ dahay˝va

yaƒ˝ paruvamciy adam taya par˝bartam patiy˝baram va n˝ Auramazd˝ha ima adam akunavam adam hamatax aiy y˝t˝ viƒam tay˝m am˝xam

g˝ƒav˝ av˝st˝yam yaƒ˝ paruvamciy avaƒ˝ adam hamatax aiy va n˝ Auramazd˝ha yaƒ˝ Gaum˝ta haya magu viƒam tay˝m

am˝xam naiy par˝bara DB 1.71-73 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya ima taya adam akunavam pas˝va yaƒ˝ x ˝yaƒiya

abavam DB 1.73-77 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya yaƒ˝ adam Gaum˝tam tayam magum av˝janam

pas˝va I martiya AÚçina n˝ma Upadarmahay˝ puça hauv udapatat˝ UÚvjaiy

k˝rahay˝ avaƒ˝ aƒaha adam UÚvjaiy x ˝yaƒiya amiy pas˝va UÚvjiy˝ hamiçiy˝ abava abiy avam AÚçinam a iyava hauv x ˝yaƒiya abava UÚvjaiy DB 1.77-81 ut˝ I martiya B˝biruviya Naditabaira n˝ma

*Ainairahay˝ puça hauv udapatat˝ B˝birauv k˝ram avaƒ˝ adurujiya adam Nabukudaracara amiy haya Nabunaitahay˝

puça pas˝va k˝ra haya B˝biruviya haruva abiy avam

Naditabairam a iyava B˝biru hamiçiya abava x açam taya B˝birauv hauv agarb˝yat˝ DB 1.81-83 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va adam fr˝i ayam UÚvjam hauv AÚçina basta ˝nayat˝ abiy m˝m adam im av˝janam DB 1.83-86 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va adam B˝birum a iyavam abiy avam

Naditabairam haya Nabukudaracara agaubat˝ k˝ra haya Naditabairahay˝ Tigr˝m ad˝raya avad˝ ai tat˝


154 July 31, 2005

ut˝ abi n˝viy˝ ˝ha DB 1.86-90 pas˝va adam k˝ram ma k˝uv˝ av˝kanam aniyam u ab˝rim akunavam aniyahay˝ asam

fr˝nayam Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara va n˝ Auramazd˝ha Tigr˝m viyataray˝ma avad˝ avam k˝ram tayam Naditabairahay˝ adam

ajanam vasiy AÚçiy˝diyahaya m˝hay˝ XXVI raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha

avaƒ˝ hamaranam akum˝ DB 1.90-96 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va adam B˝birum a iyavam aƒaiya B˝birum [yaƒ˝ naiy] *up˝yam Z˝z˝na

n˝ma vardanam anuv Ufr˝tuv˝ avad˝ [hauv] Naditabaira haya Nabukudaracara

agaubat˝ ˝i had˝ k˝r˝ pati [m˝m] *hamaranam cartanaiy

pas˝va hamaranam akum˝ Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara [va n˝] Auramazd˝ha k˝ram tayam

Naditabairahay˝ adam ajanam vasiy aniya apiy˝ *˝hayat˝ ˝p^ im par˝bara AÚn˝makahay˝ m˝hay˝ II raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha avaƒ˝ hamaranam akum˝


DB 2.1-5 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va Naditabaira had˝ kamnaibi asab˝raibi

amuƒa B˝birum a iyava pas˝va adam B˝birum a iyavam [va n˝] Auramazd˝ha ut˝ B˝birum agarb˝yam

ut˝ avam Naditabairam agarb˝yam pas˝va avam Naditabairam adam B˝birauv

av˝janam DB 2.5-8 [ƒ˝tiy] D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya y˝t˝ adam B˝birauv ˝ham [im˝ dahay˝va] tay˝

hac˝ma hamiçiy˝ abava P˝rsa UÚvja M˝da *Aƒur˝ [Mudr˝ya] *Parƒava

Margu ÿatagu Saka DB 2.8-11 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya [I] *martiya Martiya n˝ma Cicaxrai puça

Kuganak˝ n˝ma [vardanam P˝rsaiy] avad˝ ad˝raya

hauv udapatat˝ UÚvjaiy k˝rahay˝ avaƒ˝ [aƒaha adam] Imani amiy UÚvjaiy x ˝yaƒiya DB 2.11-13 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau [x ˝yaƒiya] adakaiy adam a naiy ˝ham abiy UÚvjam pas˝va *hac˝ma [atarsa] UÚvjiy˝ avam Martiyam agarb˝ya haya ˝m maƒi ta ˝ha

[uta im] av˝jana DB 2.13-17 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya I martiya *Fravarti [n˝ma M˝da] hauv

udapatat˝ M˝daiy k˝rahay˝ avaƒ˝ aƒaha [adam X aƒrita] amiy Uvax atarahay˝ taum˝y˝ pas˝va k˝ra M˝da haya [viƒ˝patiy hauv] hac˝ma

hamiçiya abava abiy avam Fravartim a iyava hauv [x ˝yaƒiya] abava M˝daiy DB 2.18-30 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya k˝ra P˝rsa ut˝ M˝da haya up˝ m˝m ˝ha hauv

kamnam ˝ha pas˝va adam k˝ram fr˝i ayam Vidarna n˝ma P˝rsa man˝ badaka avam ˝m

maƒi tam akunavam avaƒ˝ ˝m aƒaham parait˝ avam k˝ram tayam M˝dam jat˝ haya

man˝ naiy gaubataiy pas˝va hauv Vidarna had˝ k˝r˝ a iyava yaƒ˝ M˝dam par˝rasa *M˝ru n˝ma vardanam

M˝daiy avad˝ hamaranam akunau had˝ M˝daibi

haya M˝dai uv˝ maƒi ta ˝ha hauv adakaiy naiy avad˝ ˝ha

Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara va n˝ Auramazd˝ha k˝ra [haya] man˝ avam

k˝ram tayam hamiçiyam aja vasiy AÚn˝makahay˝ m˝hay˝ XXVII raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha avaƒ˝ ˝m hamaranam kartam

pas˝va hauv k˝ra haya man˝ Kapada n˝ma dahay˝u M˝daiy avad˝ m˝m am˝naiya y˝t˝ adam arasam M˝dam

DB 2.29-37 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya D˝dar i n˝ma Arminiya man˝ badaka avam

adam fr˝i ayam Arminam avaƒ˝ aiy aƒaham paraidiy k˝ra haya hamiçiya man˝ naiy

gaubataiy avam jadiy


155 July 31, 2005

pas˝va D˝dar i a iyava yaƒ˝ Arminam par˝rasa pas˝va hamiçiy˝

hagmat˝ parait˝ pati D˝dar im hamaranam cartanaiy

Z¨zahaya n˝ma ˝vahanam Arminiyaiy avad˝ hamaranam akunava

Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara va n˝ Auramazd˝ha k˝ra haya man˝ avam k˝ram

tayam hamiçiyam aja vasiy ÿ¨rav˝harahay˝ m˝hay˝ VIII raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha

avaƒ˝ ˝m hamaranam kartam DB 2.37-42 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya patiy duvit^yam hamiçiy˝ hagmat˝ parait˝ pati

D˝dar im hamaranam cartanaiy Tigra n˝m˝ did˝ Arminiyaiy avad˝ hamaranam

akunava Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara va n˝ Auramazd˝ha k˝ra haya man˝ avam k˝ram

tayam hamiçiyam aja vasiy ÿ¨rav˝harahay˝ m˝hay˝ XVIII raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha

avaƒ˝ ˝m hamaranam kartam DB 2.42-49 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya patiy çit^yam hamiçiy˝ hagmat˝ parait˝ pati

D˝dar im hamaranam cartanaiy Uyam˝ n˝m˝ did˝ Arminiyaiy avad˝ hamaranam


tayam hamiçiyam aja vasiy ÿ˝igracai m˝hay˝ IX raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha avaƒ˝ ˝m hamaranam kartam pas˝va D˝dar i cit˝ m˝m am˝naya Arminiyaiy

y˝t˝ adam arasam M˝dam DB 2.49-57 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya Vaumisa n˝ma P˝rsa man˝ badaka avam adam

fr˝i ayam Arminam avaƒ˝ aiy aƒaham paraidiy k˝ra haya hamiçiya man˝ naiy

gaubataiy avam jadiy pas˝va Vaumisa a iyava yaƒ˝ Arminam par˝rasa pas˝va hamiçiy˝

hagmat˝ parait˝ pati Vaumisam hamaranam cartanaiy

Izal˝ n˝m˝ dahay˝u Aƒur˝y˝ avad˝ hamaranam akunava

Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara va n˝ Auramazd˝ha k˝ra haya man˝ avam k˝ram

tayam hamiçiyam aja vasiy

AÚn˝makahay˝ m˝hay˝ XV raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha avaƒ˝ ˝m hamaranam kartam DB 2.57-64 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya patiy duvit^yam hamiçiy˝ hagmat˝ parait˝ pati

Vaumisam hamaranam cartanaiy Autiy˝ra n˝m˝ dahay˝u Arminiyaiy avad˝

hamaranam akunava Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara va n˝ Auramazd˝ha k˝ra haya man˝ avam k˝ram

tayam hamiçiyam aja vasiy ÿ¨rav˝harahay˝ m˝hay˝ jiyamnam patiy avaƒ˝ ˝m hamaranam kartam pas˝va Vaumisa cit˝ m˝m am˝naya Arminiyaiy

y˝t˝ adam arasam M˝dam DB 2.64-70 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va adam nij˝yam hac˝ B˝birau a iyavam M˝dam yaƒ˝ M˝dam par˝rasam Kuduru n˝ma

vardanam M˝daiy avad˝ hauv Fravarti haya M˝daiy x ˝yaƒiya agaubat˝ ˝i had˝ k˝r˝ pati m˝m hamaranam cartanaiy

pas˝va hamaranam akum˝ Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara va n˝ Auramazd˝ha k˝ram tayam Fravartai

adam ajanam vasiy AÚdukanai ahay˝ m˝hay˝ XXV raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha

avaƒ˝ hamaranam akum˝ DB 2.70-78 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va hauv Fravarti had˝ kamnaibi

asab˝raibi amuƒa Rag˝ n˝ma dahay˝u M˝daiy avapar˝ a iyava pas˝va adam k˝ram fr˝i aya nipadiy Fravarti agarbiya ˝nayat˝ abiy m˝m adam aiy ut˝ n˝ham ut˝ gau ˝ ut˝ haz˝nam

fr˝janam ut˝ aiy I ca ma avajam duvaray˝maiy basta ad˝riya haruva im k˝ra avaina pas˝va im Hagmat˝naiy uzmay˝patiy akunavam ut˝ martiy˝ tayai aiy fratam˝ anu iy˝ ˝hat˝ avaiy

Hagmat˝naiy [atar] did˝m fr˝hajam DB 2.78-91 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya I martiya Ciçataxma n˝ma Asagartiya hauvmaiy

hamiçiya abava k˝rahay˝ avaƒ˝ aƒaha adam x ˝yaƒiya amiy Asagartaiy Uvax tarahay˝

taum˝y˝ pas˝va adam k˝ram P˝rsam ut˝ M˝dam


156 July 31, 2005

fr˝i ayam Taxmasp˝da n˝ma M˝da man˝ badaka avam ˝m

maƒi tam akunavam avaƒ˝ ˝m aƒaham parait˝ k˝ram hamiçiyam haya man˝ naiy

gaubataiy avam jat˝ pas˝va Taxmasp˝da had˝ k˝r˝ a iyava hamaranam akunau had˝ Ciçataxm˝ Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara va n˝ Auramazd˝ha k˝ra haya man˝ avam k˝ram

tayam hamiçiyam aja ut˝ Ciçataxmam agarb˝ya ˝naya abiy m˝m pas˝va aiy adam ut˝ n˝ham ut˝ gau ˝ fr˝janam

ut˝ aiy I ca ma avajam duvaray˝maiy basta ad˝riya haruva im k˝ra avaina pas˝va im Arbair˝y˝ uzmay˝patiy akunavam DB 2.91-92 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya ima taya man˝ kartam M˝daiy DB 2.92-98 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya Parƒava ut˝ Vark˝na [hamiçiy˝] *abava *hac˝ma *Fravartai *agaubat˝ Vi t˝spa man˝ pit˝ hauv [Parƒavaiy] ˝ha avam k˝ra *avaharda [hamiçiya] abava pas˝va Vi t˝spa *a iyava [had˝] *k˝r˝ *haya aiy

*anu iya ˝ha *Vi pauz˝ti n˝ma vardanam [Parƒavaiy] avad˝

hamaranam akunau had˝ Parƒavaibi Auramazd˝maiy [upast˝m abara] va n˝ Auramazd˝ha [Vi t˝spa] avam k˝ram

[tayam] hamiçiyam [aja vasiy] Viyaxanahaya m˝hay˝ [XXII raucabi ] ƒakat˝ ˝ha

avaƒ˝ ˝m hamaranam kartam


DB 3.1-9 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va adam k˝ram P˝rsam fr˝i ayam abiy

Vi t˝spam hac˝ Rag˝y˝ yaƒ˝ hauv k˝ra par˝rasa abiy Vi t˝spam pas˝va

Vi t˝spa ˝yasat˝ avam k˝ram a iyava Patigraban˝ n˝ma vardanam Parƒavaiy avad˝ hamaranam akunau had˝ hamiçiyaibi Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara va n˝ Auramazd˝ha Vi t˝spa avam k˝ram tayam

hamiçiyam aja vasiy Garmapadahaya m˝hay˝ I rauca ƒakatam ˝ha

avaƒ˝ ˝m hamaranam kartam DB 3.9-10 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va dahay˝u man˝ abava ima taya man˝ kartam Parƒavaiy DB 3.10-12 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya Margu n˝m˝ dahay˝u hauvmaiy hamiçiy˝

abava I martiya Fr˝da n˝ma M˝rgava avam maƒi tam

akunavat˝ DB 3.12-15 pas˝va adam fr˝i ayam D˝dar i n˝ma P˝rsa

man˝ badaka B˝xtr^y˝ x açap˝v˝ abiy avam avaƒ˝ aiy aƒaham paraidiy avam k˝ram jadiy haya man˝ naiy

gaubataiy DB 3.15-19 pas˝va D˝dar i had˝ k˝r˝ a iyava hamaranam akunau had˝ M˝rgavaibi Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara va n˝ Auramazd˝ha k˝ra haya man˝ avam k˝ram

tayam hamiçiyam aja vasiy AÚçiy˝diyahaya m˝hay˝ XXIII raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha

avaƒ˝ ˝m hamaranam kartam DB 3.19-21 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va dahay˝u man˝ abava ima taya man˝ kartam B˝xtr^y˝ DB 3.21-25 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya I martiya Vahayazd˝ta T˝rav˝ n˝ma vardanam

Yautiy˝ n˝m˝ dahay˝u P˝rsaiy avad˝ ad˝raya hauv duvit^yam udapatat˝ P˝rsaiy k˝rahay˝ avaƒ˝ aƒaha adam Bardiya amiy haya Kurau puça DB 3.25-28 pas˝va k˝ra P˝rsa haya viƒ˝patiy hac˝ Yad˝y˝

frataram hauv hac˝ma hamiçiya abava abiy avam Vahayazd˝tam a iyava hauv x ˝yaƒiya abava P˝rsaiy

DB 3.28-33 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va adam k˝ram P˝rsam ut˝ M˝dam

fr˝i ayam haya up˝ m˝m ˝ha Artavardiya n˝ma P˝rsa man˝ badaka avam ˝m

maƒi tam akunavam


157 July 31, 2005

haya aniya k˝ra P˝rsa pas˝ man˝ a iyava M˝dam

DB 3.33-36 pas˝va Artavardiya had˝ k˝r˝ a iyava P˝rsam yaƒ˝ P˝rsam par˝rasa Rax˝ n˝ma vardanam

P˝rsaiy avad˝ hauv Vahayazd˝ta haya Bardiya agaubat˝ ˝i had˝ k˝r˝ pati Artavardiyam hamaranam cartanaiy

DB 3.36-40 pas˝va hamaranam akunava Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara va n˝ Auramazd˝ha k˝ra haya man˝ avam k˝ram

tayam Vahayazd˝tahaya aja vasiy ÿ¨rav˝harahaya m˝hay˝ XII raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha avaƒ˝ ˝m hamaranam kartam

DB 3.40-49 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va hauv Vahayazd˝ta had˝ kamnaibi

asab˝rabi amuƒa a iyava Pai iy˝uv˝d˝m hac˝ avada k˝ram ˝yasat˝ hay˝param ˝i pati Artavardiyam hamaranam

cartanaiy Parga n˝ma kaufa avad˝ hamaranam akunava Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara va n˝ Auramazd˝ha k˝ra haya man˝ avam k˝ram

tayam Vahayazd˝tahaya aja vasiy Garmapadahaya m˝hay˝ V raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha avaƒ˝ ˝m hamaranam kartam ut˝ avam Vahayazd˝tam agarb˝ya ut˝ martiy˝

taya aiy fratam˝ anu iy˝ ˝hata agarb˝ya

DB 3.49-52 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va adam avam Vahayazd˝tam ut˝ martiy˝

tayai aiy fratam˝ anu iy˝ ˝hata Uv˝daicaya n˝ma vardanam P˝rsaiy avada i uzamay˝patiy akunavam

DB 3.52-53 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya ima taya man˝ kartam P˝rsaiy

DB 3.53-59 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya hauv Vahayazd˝ta haya Bardiya agaubat˝ hauv

k˝ram fr˝i aya Harauvat^m Viv˝na n˝ma P˝rsa man˝ badaka Harauvat^y˝ x açap˝v˝ abiy avam

ut˝ ˝m I martiyam maƒi tam akunau avaƒ˝ ˝m aƒaha parait˝ Viv˝nam jat˝ ut˝ avam k˝ram haya

D˝rayavahau x ˝yaƒiyahay˝ gaubataiy

DB 3.59-64 pas˝va hauv k˝ra a iyava tayam Vahayazd˝ta

fr˝i aya abiy Viv˝nam hamaranam cartanaiy K˝pi ak˝ni n˝m˝ did˝ avad˝ hamaranam


tayam hamiçiyam aja vasiy AÚn˝makahaya m˝hay˝ XIII raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha avaƒ˝ ˝m hamaranam kartam

DB 3.64-69 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya patiy hay˝param hamiçiy˝ hagmat˝ parait˝ pati

Viv˝nam hamaranam cartanaiy Gadutava n˝m˝ dahay˝u avad˝ hamaranam


tayam hamiçiyam aja vasiy Viyaxanahaya m˝hay˝ VII raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha avaƒ˝ ˝m hamaranam kartam DB 3.69-75 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va hauv martiya haya avahay˝ k˝rahay˝

maƒi ta ˝ha tayam Vahayazd˝ta fr˝i aya abiy Viv˝nam hauv amunƒa had˝ kamnaibi asab˝raibi

a iyava Ar ˝d˝ n˝m˝ did˝ Harauvat^y˝ avapar˝ atiy˝i pas˝va Viv˝na had˝ k˝r˝ *nipadi aiy [x x x]

a iyava avad˝ im agarb˝ya ut˝ martiy˝ tayai aiy fratam˝ anu iy˝ ˝hat˝ av˝ja DB 3.75-76 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va dahay˝u man˝ abava ima taya man˝ kartam Harauvat^y˝ DB 3.76-83 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya y˝t˝ adam P˝rsaiy *ut˝ M˝daiy ˝ham patiy

duvit^yam B˝biruviy˝ hamiçiy˝ abava hac˝ma I martiya Araxa n˝ma Arminiya Halditahaya

puça hauv udapatat˝ B˝birauv Dub˝la n˝m˝ dahay˝u hac˝ avada

hauv k˝rahay˝ avaƒ˝ adurujiya adam Nabukudaracara amiy haya Nabunaitahaya

puça pas˝va k˝ra B˝biruviya hac˝ma hamiçiya abava abiy avam Araxam a iyava B˝birum hauv agarb˝yat˝


158 July 31, 2005

hauv x ˝yaƒiya abava B˝birauv DB 3.83-86 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va adam k˝ram fr˝i ayam B˝birum Vidafarn˝ n˝ma P˝rsa man˝ badaka avam ˝m

maƒi tam akunavam avaƒ˝ ˝m aƒaham parait˝ avam k˝ram B˝biruviyam jat˝ haya man˝

naiy gaubataiy DB 3.86-92 pas˝va Vidafarn˝ had˝ k˝r˝ a iyava B˝birum Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara va n˝ Auramazd˝ha Vidafarn˝ B˝biruviy˝ aja ut˝ [bast˝ ˝naya] [Varkazanahaya] m˝hay˝ XXII raucabi ƒakat˝ ˝ha

avaƒ˝ avam Arxam [haya] *Nabukudaracara [duruxta]m agaubat˝ ut˝ martiy˝ tayai aiy fratam˝ anu iy˝ [˝hat˝ agarb˝ya]

*niya t˝yam hauv Arxa ut˝ martiy˝ tayai aiy fratam˝ anu iy˝ ˝hat˝ B˝birauv uzmay˝patiy akariyat˝


DB 4.1-2 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya ima taya man˝ kartam [B˝birauv] DB 4.2-7 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya ima taya adam akunavam va n˝ Auramazd˝ha

hamahay˝y˝ ƒarda pas˝va yaƒ˝ x ˝yaƒiya abavam

XIX hamaran˝ akunavam va n˝ Auramazd˝ha adam i ajanam ut˝ IX x ˝yaƒiy˝ agarb˝yam DB 4.7-10 I Gaum˝ta n˝ma magu [hauv] adurujiya avaƒ˝ aƒaha adam Bardiya amiy [haya] Kurau puça hauv P˝rsam hamiçiyam akunau DB 4.10-12 I AÚçina n˝ma UÚvjiya hauv adurujiya avaƒ˝ [aƒaha adam] x ˝yaƒiya amiy UÚvjaiy hauv UÚvjam hamiçiyam akunau

DB 4.12-15 [I] Niditabaira n˝ma B˝biruviya hauv adurujiya avaƒ˝ aƒaha adam Nabukudracara [amiy] haya

Nabunaitahaya puça hauv B˝birum hamiçiyam akunau DB 4.15-18 I Martiya n˝ma P˝rsa hauv adurujiya avaƒ˝ aƒaha adam Imani amiy UÚvjaiy x ˝yaƒiya hauv UÚvjam hamiçiyam akunau DB 4.18-20 I Fravarti n˝ma M˝da hauv adurujiya avaƒ˝ aƒaha adam X aƒrita amiy Uvax tarahaya taum˝y˝ adam x ˝yaƒiya amiy M˝daiy hauv M˝dam hamiçiyam akunau DB 4.20-23 I Ciçataxma n˝ma Asagartiya hauv adurujiya avaƒ˝ aƒaha adam x ˝yaƒiya amiy Asagartaiy Uvax tarahay˝

taum˝y˝ hauv Asagartam hamiçiyam akunau DB 4.23-26 I Fr˝da n˝ma M˝rgava hauv adurujiya avaƒ˝ aƒaha adam x ˝yaƒiya amiy Margauv hauv Margum hamiçiyam akunau [ DB 4.26-28 [I] *Vahayazd˝ta n˝ma P˝rsa hauv adurujiya avaƒ˝ aƒaha adam Bardiya amiy haya Kurau puça hauv P˝rsam hamiçiyam akunau DB 4.28-31 I Araxa n˝ma Arminiya [hauv] adurujiya avaƒ˝ aƒaha adam Nabukudracara amiy haya Nabunaitahaya

puça hauv B˝birum hamiçiyam akunau DB 4.31-32 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya imaiy IX x ˝yaƒiy˝ tayaiy *adam agarb˝yam


159 July 31, 2005

atar im˝ hamaran˝ DB 4.33-36 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya dahay˝va im˝ tay˝ hamiçiy˝ abava draugadi

*hamiçiy˝ akunau taya imaiy k˝ram adurujiya a pas˝vadi *Auramazd˝ man˝ dastay˝ akunau yaƒ˝ m˝m k˝ma avaƒ˝di [akunavam] DB 4.36-40 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya tuvam k˝ *x ˝yaƒiya haya aparam ˝hay hac˝

draug˝ dar am patipayauv˝ martiya [haya] *draujana ahatiy avam ufra tam

pars˝ yadiy avaƒ˝ *maniy˝hay dahay˝u maiy duruv˝ ahatiy DB 4.41-43 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya ima taya adam akunavam va n˝ Auramazd˝ha

hamahay˝y˝ ƒarda akunavam tuvam k˝ haya aparam im˝m dipim patipars˝hay

taya man˝ kartam varnavat˝m ƒuv˝m m˝taya *druxtam maniy˝hay DB 4.43-45 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya Auramazd˝ha *ragam *vardiyaiy yaƒ˝ ima

ha iyam naiy duruxtam adam *akunavam *hamahay˝y˝ ƒarda

DB 4.45-50 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya va n˝ Auramazd˝ha ut˝maiy aniya ciy vasiy

astiy kartam ava ahay˝y˝ dip^y˝ naiy nipi tam avahayar˝diy naiy nipi tam m˝taya haya aparam im˝m dipim patipars˝tiy

avahay˝ paruv ƒaday˝tiy taya man˝ kartam nai im ima varnav˝taiy duruxtam maniy˝taiy

DB 4.50-52 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya tayaiy paruv˝ x ˝yaƒiy˝ y˝t˝ ˝ha avai ˝m av˝

naiy astiy kartam yaƒ˝ man˝ va n˝ Auramazd˝ha hamahay˝y˝ ƒarda kartam

DB 4.52-57 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya n¨ram ƒuv˝m varnavat˝m taya man˝ kartam avaƒ˝ k˝rahay˝ *r˝diy m˝ apagaudaya yadiy im˝m hadug˝m naiy apagauday˝hay

k˝rahay˝ ƒ˝hay Auramazd˝ ƒuv˝m dau t˝ biy˝ ut˝taiy taum˝

vasiy biy˝ ut˝ dargam j^v˝

DB 4.57-59 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya yadiy im˝m hadug˝m apagauday˝hay naiy ƒ˝hay

*k˝rahay˝ Auramazd˝taiy jat˝ biy˝ ut˝taiy taum˝ m˝ biy˝ DB 4.59-61 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya ima taya adam akunavam hamahay˝y˝ ƒarda

va n˝ Auramazd˝ha akunavam Auramazd˝maiy upast˝m abara ut˝ aniy˝ha

bag˝ha tayaiy hatiy DB 4.61-67 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya avahayar˝dimaiy Auramazd˝ upast˝m abara ut˝

aniy˝ha bag˝ha tayaiy [hatiy] *yaƒ˝ naiy ar^ka ˝ham naiy draujana ˝ham naiy

z¨rakara ˝ham naiy adam naimaiy taum˝ upariy ar t˝m upariy˝yam naiy kauƒim naiy tunuvatam z¨ra akunavam martiya haya hamatax at˝ man˝ viƒiy˝ avam

ubartam abaram haya viyan˝ƒaya avam ufra tam aparsam DB 4.67-69 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya tuvam [k˝] x ˝yaƒiya haya aparam ˝hay martiya

haya draujana ahatiy hayav˝ z¨rakara ahatiy avaiy m˝ dau t˝ biy˝

ufra t˝di pars˝ DB 4.69-72 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya tuvam k˝ haya aparam im˝m dipim vain˝hay

taya adam niyapaiƒam imaiv˝ patikar˝ m˝taya vikanahay

y˝v˝ utava ˝hay avaƒ˝di paribar˝ DB 4.72-76 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya yadiy im˝m dipim vain˝hay imaiv˝ patikar˝

naiydi vikanahay ut˝taiy y˝v˝ taum˝ [ahatiy] paribar˝hadi

Auramazd˝ ƒuv˝m dau t˝ biy˝ ut˝taiy taum˝ vasiy biy˝ ut˝ dargam j^v˝ ut˝ taya kunav˝hay avataiy Auramazd˝ uc˝ram

kunautuv DB 4.76-80 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya yadiy im˝m dipim imaiv˝ patikar˝ vain˝hay

vikanahadi


160 July 31, 2005

ut˝taiy y˝v˝ taum˝ ahatiy naiydi paribar˝hay Auramazd˝taiy jat˝ biy˝

ut˝taiy taum˝ [m˝ biy˝] ut˝ taya kunav˝hay avataiy Auramazd˝ nikatuv DB 4.80-86 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya imaiy martiy˝ tayaiy adakaiy avad˝ *˝hat˝ y˝t˝

adam Gaum˝tam tayam magum av˝janam haya Bardiya agaubat˝

adakaiy imaiy martiy˝ hamatax at˝ anu iy˝ man˝

Vidafarn˝ n˝ma *Vahayasparahay˝ puça P˝rsa *Ut˝na n˝ma ÿuxrahay˝ puça P˝rsa *Gaubaruva n˝ma Marduniyahay˝ puça P˝rsa Vidarna n˝ma Bag˝bignahay˝ puça P˝rsa Bagabux a n˝ma D˝tuvahayahay˝ puça P˝rsa *Ardumani n˝ma Vahaukahay˝ puça P˝rsa DB 4.86-88 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya tuvam k˝ x ˝yaƒiya haya aparam ˝hay tay˝m

imai ˝m martiy˝n˝m taum˝m *ubart˝m paribar˝

DB 4.88-92 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya va n˝ Auramazd˝ha ima *dipiciçam taya adam

akunavam pati am ariy˝ ut˝ pavast˝y˝ ut˝ carm˝ *graftam

[˝ha] *pati amciy *n˝man˝fam akunavam *pati am *uvad˝tam [akunavam] ut˝ *niyapaiƒiya ut˝ patiyafrasiya pai iy˝ m˝m pas˝va ima *dipiciçam fr˝st˝yam vispad˝ atar

dahay˝va k˝ra *ham˝tax at˝


DB 5.1-4 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya ima taya adam akunavam duvit^y˝mca *çit˝mca

ƒardam pas˝va yaƒ˝ x ˝yaƒiya [abavam] DB 5.4-14 UÚvja n˝m˝ dahay˝u hauv hamiçiy˝ abava [I martiya] Atamaita n˝ma UÚvjiya [avam]

maƒi tam akunavat˝ pas˝va adam k˝ram fr˝i ayam [I] *martiya Gaubaruva n˝ma P˝rsa man˝ badaka

avam ˝m maƒi tam akunavam pas˝va Gaubaruva [had˝] k˝r˝ a iyava UÚvjam

[hamaranam] akunau had˝ UÚvjiyaibi pas˝va Gaubaruva UÚvjiy˝ aja ut˝ viyamarda ut˝

tay˝m ˝m maƒi tam agarb˝ya ˝naya abiy m˝m ut˝ im adam av˝janam pas˝va dahay˝u man˝ [abava] DB 5.14-18 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya avaiy UÚvjiy˝ [ar^k˝ ˝ha] ut˝ ˝m Auramazd˝ naiy

*ayadiya Auramazd˝m ayadaiy va n˝ Auramazd˝ha [yaƒ˝] m˝m [k˝ma]

*avaƒ˝di akunavam DB 5.18-20 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya haya Auramazd˝m yad˝taiy *y˝nam [avahay˝]

ahatiy ut˝ j^vahay˝ ut˝ martahay˝ DB 5.20-30 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya pas˝va had˝ k˝r˝ adam a iyavam abiy Sak˝m *pas˝ Sak˝ tayaiy xaud˝m tigr˝m baratiy *imaiy

[pati m˝m] *˝i a *yadiy abiy draya *av˝rasam *draxt˝ [ava]

*had˝ *k˝r˝ vis˝ viyatarayam [pas˝va] avaiy Sak˝ [adam] ajanam aniyam agarb˝yam [aniya] *basta [˝nayat˝] abiy m˝m *ut˝ ˝m [haya] *maƒi ta Skuxa n˝ma avam

agarb˝ya *bastam ˝naya [abiy m˝m] avad˝ aniyam maƒi tam akunavam *yaƒ˝ m˝m

k˝ma pas˝va dahay˝u man˝ abava DB 5.30-33 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya [avaiy] Sak˝ ar^k˝ ˝ha ut˝ naiy Auramazd˝[ ˝m]

*ayadiya Auramazd˝m ayadaiy va n˝ Auramazd˝ha yaƒ˝ m˝m k˝ma avaƒ˝di

akunavam DB 5.33 ƒ˝tiy D˝rayavau x ˝yaƒiya [haya] Auramazd˝m yad˝taiy [avahay˝] *y˝nam

[ahatiy] ut˝ j^vahay˝ ut˝ *martahay˝

161 July 31, 2005

OLD PERSIAN - ENGLISH GLOSSARY abayapara (*abiyapara): subsequently

19 abicari-: *pasture 7 abi-j˝vaya- < •jav: to add (to: + abiy

+ acc.) 4 Abir˝du-: place in Elam 14 abiy: to, over to, toward (+ acc.) 4 *abiyapara (abayapara): subsequently

19 ˝Ÿciy: until, as long as 10 ada-: then 15 adakaiy: then, at that time 5 adam: I 1 afuv˝-: fear 5 agriya- (or ˝g(a)riya-): loyal 13 *aguru- (Akk. agurru): baked brick

11 ahaya-* < •ah: to throw 13 ahmatah: from there 9 ahmiy: I am 1 ahm˝xam: our 3 Ahuramazd˝-: Ahuramazd˝ 1 ai-/i-: to go 10 Ainaira-: proper name 7 aita: this (neut.) 4 aitiy < ai-/i- aiva-: one 5 akum˝ < •kar: we did 9 akunaiy: past in nitive? 19 akunau- < •kar: made 4 amatah > ahmatah An˝hat˝-, An˝hit˝-: Anahita 19 aniya-: other; aniya- ... aniya-: one ...

another 4 antar: among, in (+ acc.) 4 anu iya-: a loyal follower 3 anuv: according to (+ gen.-dat.),

along (+ instr.-abl.) 5, 9 ap- fem.: water 7 apa-gaudaya •gaud: to hide 16 apad˝na-: palace, throne hall 11 *apaniy˝ka- (apanay˝ka-): great-

grandfather 19 aparam: henceforth, afterward 15 apataram: further away (from), in

addition to (+ hac˝) 10 apiy: also 15 Arab˝ya-: Arabia 7 Arakadri-: name of a mountain 9 ara ni-: a cubit 4 Araxa-: name of an Armenian rebel,

son of Haldita- 1 Arbair˝-: Arbela (place name) 9 ardast˝na-: window sill 5 ardata- neut.: silver 14 Ardumani-: proper name;

(Herodotus: Aspathines!), son of Vahauka- and one of Darius’s six helpers 13

Ariya-: Aryan 2 Ariya-ciça-: of Aryan stock 2 Ariy˝ramna-: Ariaramnes 2 ar^ka-: disloyal 3 Armina-: Armenia 4 Arminiya-: Armenian 1 Ar ˝da-: place name 12 Ar ˝ma-: Arsames 2 ar t˝-: rectitude, righteousness 13 ar ti- fem.: spear 3 ar tika- (or ˝r tika-?): spearman 2 Artax aç˝- masc.: Artaxerxes 2 Artavardiya-: proper name; one of

Darius’s generals 6 art˝c˝ (< art˝ hac˝): according to the

(universal) Order 5 art˝van-: blessed, belonging to or

acting according to the (universal) Order (after death) 5

aruvasta- neut.: physical ability 7 *asa-, see aspa- asa-b˝ra-: a rider, on horseback 2 Asagarta-: Sagartia 10 Asagarta-: Sagartia 15 Asagartiya-: Sagartian 10 asan-: stone 14 asman-: heaven 8 asman-: sky 10 aspa-: horse 2 Aspacanah-: proper name,

Aspathines 2 a naiy: near(?) 7 ati-ay- < •ay: to *pass (near) by 12 aƒaiya (uncertain reading): *at rst

13 aƒanga-: stone 3 aƒangaina-, fem. aƒangain^- (lesson

7): (made) of stone 3 Aƒuriya-: Assyrian 2 Aƒur˝-: Assyria 2 aur˝: (down) hither 15 ava-jan- < •jan: to kill 6 ava-jata- < ava-jan-: killed 8 ava-kan- < •kan: load onto 7 ava-rasa-: to come down to (+ abiy +

acc.) 8 ava-st˝ya- < •st˝: to place 7 avada : thence 9 avad˝: there 6 avahaya-r˝diy: for this (the

following) reason 4 avapar˝: thither 11 avarda for ava-harda- < •hard(?): to

leave, relinquish 15 avaƒ˝: thus, in that manner 6 av˝ < avant-: so much 14 av˝karam: of such a sort 10 ax aina-: blue-green (turquoise) 14 ax ata-: undisturbed 15 *ayaumaini-: uncoordinated, *not in

control (of: + gen.dat.) azd˝ •bav-: become known (+ taya

“that”) 8 azd˝ •kar-: to make known (+ taya

“that”) 8 *˝-ai-/i- < •ai: to come 6 *˝-bara- < •bar: bring (about),

endeavor, perform; to bring (things to) 9, 11

AÚçina-: proper name 6 AÚçiy˝diya-: month name (Nov.-Dec.)

12 AÚdukanai a-: month name 9 ˝hat, ˝han he was, they were 2 ˝haya- < ahaya- ˝-jamiy˝ (optative) < •gam: to come

(to) 9 AÚkaufa iya-: mountain dwellers,

tribal name 3 ˝m˝ta-: distinguished, noble 3 *˝-naya- < •nay: to bring (people to)

10 AÚn˝maka-: month name (the month

in which the name of God should be invoked?) 12

˝ranjana-: decoration 11 ˝vahana- neut.: settlement 14 ˝-x nau- < •x nu act./mid.: to hear

10 ˝yadana- neut.: place of worship,

temple 4 ˝-yasa- < •yam mid.: to appropriate,

assume command of 6 ˝Ÿciy: until 10 baga-: god 1 Bagabux a-: proper name;

Megabyxus, son of D˝tuvahaya- and one of Darius’s six helpers 13

Bag˝bigna-: proper name; father of Vidarna-, one of Darius’s six helpers 13

*bandaya-, pp. basta- < •band: to bind 10

bandaka-: loyal subject 3 bara-, inf. bartanaiy < •bar: to carry

4 Bardiya-: Smerdis 6 bar n˝ (< *barzan-): in height, depth

4 basta-, pp. of *bandaya-: to bind 10 bava- < •bav: to become 5 barzman-: height, the highest 5 B˝biru- : Babylon, Babylonian 2 B˝biruviya-: Babylonian 6 B˝gay˝di-: month name 10 b˝ji-: tribute; b˝jim bara-: pay tax (to:

gen.-dat.) 10 b˝tugara-: kind of vessel 19 B˝xtr˘- fem.: Bactria 7

OLD PERSIAN - ENGLISH GLOSSARY

162 July 31, 2005

br˝tar-: brother 8 b¨m˘- fem.: earth 10 caxriy˝, opt. perf. of •kar carman-: skin, hide, parchment 17 cartanaiy inf. of •kar: to do 9 ca man- neut.: eye 6 -c˝: and; -c˝ ... -c˝: both ... and 7 Ciça(n)taxma-: proper name 10

Cincaxri-: proper name 7 Ci pi-: proper name; Darius’s great-

grandfather, Teispes 5 cit˝: for as long as, however long (+

y˝t˝: [it takes] to); naiy ... cit˝ “not so long, not any more”(?) 17

-ciy: too, just 6 ciy˝karam: of what sort 8 çit˘yam: a third time 14 Ç¨ ˝: Susa 11 dacara- = tacara- 9 dad˝- < •d˝: to give 5 Daha-: name of a district and its

people; Dahistan, Dahians 18 dahayu- fem.: land, country (Schmitt,

“Zur Bedeutung,” 1999) 3 daiva-: (foreign) god 8 daivad˝na- neut.: place of (worship

of foreign) gods 8 *danau-: to ow 13 daraniya- neut.: gold 11 daraniya-kara-: goldsmith 11 darga-: long 8 dargam adv.: for a long time 8 dar am: strongly, vigorously, very 6 dar nau- < •dar : to dare 13 dasta-: hand; + kar- “place in sb.’s

hands, surrender (sb.) to” 7 dastakarta-: property 17 dau tar- + acc. + •ah: to be pleased

with, friendly to 6 D˝dar i-: proper name 6 d˝n˝-/d˝n- < •x n˝: to know (sb.) 10 d˝raya- , aor. dar - < •dar: to hold,

have; stay near, dwell in/at 4, 7 D˝rayavahu-: Darius 1 d˝riya- < •dar: to be held (passive)

10 d˝ru-: wood (ebony) 11 d˝ta- neut.: law 2 D˝tuvahaya-: proper name 6 -dim: him 9 -di : them (acc.) 9 did˝-: fortress 6 dipi-ciça- neut.: form of writing(?)

17 dip˘- fem.: inscription 13 d^diy imper. of •vain, day/d^: to see,

look at 10 d^n˝- (or din˝-), pp. d^ta- < •d^: to

take away (+ acc. + acc.) 6 drauga-: the Lie 7 draujana-: lying, liar 3 *draxta-: tree (trunk) 27

drayah- neut.: ocean 7 Dub˝la-: place name 22 durujiya-, pp. duruxta- < •draug: to

(tell a) lie, deceive 6 duruva-: healthy, whole 7 duruxta-, pp. of durujiya-: false (lit.

“lied up”) 2 du iy˝ra- neut.: bad year (famine) 9 du karta-: something badly done, evil

deed 8 duvai ta- <du-u-va-i- a-[x]-ma>,

superl. of d¨ra-: longest, most enduring 11

duvara-: (palace) gate, court 13 duvarƒi-: gate, portal 4 duvit˝paranam: (always) before and

still (now), from the beginning till now 3

duvit˘yam: a second time 4 d¨ra-: far, long-lasting 11 d¨rada : from far 11 d¨raiy adv.: far 15 fra-haja-: to hang out for display 11 fraharavam: clockwise(?) 7 fra-i aya- < fra + •ai : to send (+ acc.

of place; + abiy + acc. of persons) 4

fra-jan- < •jan: cut off 10 fra-jan-: to cut off 8 fram˝tam, pp. of fra-m˝ya- fra-m˝ya- mid., pp. fram˝tam < •m˝:

to order 6 fram˝n˝-: intelligence, thought(?) 10 fram˝tar-: commander 5 fra-naya- < •nay: to bring forth 7 *fra-sahaya- (only imperf. <fa-ra-a-

sa-ha-[x]>) < •sah: to be built 11 fra-st˝ya- < •st˝: to send out 17 fra a-: excellent, wonderful 5 fratama-: foremost 7 fratara-, fraƒara-: superior, better 3 frataram, in: hac˝ ... frataram: on this

(that?) side of (?) 9 fraƒiya- < •pars/fraƒ: to be punished

16 Fravarti-: proper name; Median rebel,

Phraortes 7 fravatah: down(ward) 11 fr˝bara < fra + •bar: he gave 4 Fr˝da-: proper name; Margian rebel

7 Gadutava-: place name 22 gaiƒ˝-: herd 7 gam-, aor. ˝-jam-, pp. han-gmata- Gand˝ra-: Gandhara 7 garb˝ya- < •garb/grab: to seize 5 Garmapada-: month name 9 gasta-: evil 8 gauba- < •gaub mid.: to call oneself

6 Gaubaruva-: proper name; Gobryas,

one of Darius’s six helpers 12

Gaum˝ta-: proper name 6 gau a-: ear 10 g˝ƒu-: place, throne 7 *grafta-, pp. of garb˝ya-: seized,

grasped hac˝: from (prep. + inst.-abl.) 3 hac˝ma: from me 6 had˝ + instr.-abl.: together with

(people) 9 hadi - neut.: palace 11 had Ÿg˝-: testimony 10

hagmata- pp., see hangmata- Hagmat˝na-, see Hangmat˝na- hain˝-: (enemy) army 2 hakaram: once 5 Haldita-: an Armenian, father of the

rebel Araxa- 1 ham-d˝raya- mid.: to consolidate(?)

6 ham-tax a- < •tax mid.: to work

hard 6 hama-: one and the same (with

pronominal fem. gen.-dat. hamahay˝y˝) 5

hamapitar-: having the same father (as + gen.-dat.) 8

hamarana- neut.: battle 3 hamarana-kara-: a ghter 2 hamiçiya-: rebellious, inimical 2 ham˝tar-: having the same mother (as

+ gen.-dat.) 8

hangmata- pp. < ham-gam-: to come together 12

Hangmat˝na-: Ecbatana, Hamadan 11

hankarta-: sth. achieved, achievement 9

Harahuvat˘-: Arachosia 7 Haraiva-: Areia, Herat 7 haruva-: entire, whole 5 ha iya-: true 2 hauv: he (nom. sing. masc.) 4 Hax˝mani a-: Achaemenes 5 Hax˝mani iya-: Achaemenid 1 haya-, taya-: relative pronoun 4 hay˝param (patiy hay˝param) adv.:

once again 15 haz˝n-: tongue 2 Hindu-: India 2 Hinduya-: Indian 19 hi ta- < •st˝ (mid.): to stand 6 hu-bartam bara-: to treat well 4 hu-bartam pari-bara-: keep in great

honor 13 huc˝ra-: easy 5 hufrastam = hufra tam parsa-: punish

well 13 hu-martiya-: with good men, having

good men 4 h¨Ÿvnara- neut., h Ÿvnar˝- : talent,

abiliy 14


163 July 31, 2005

hu -hamaranakara-: a good ghter 2 hu ka-: dry 15 hu-ƒandu-: satis ed, happy 13 hu-ƒanuvaniya-: a good archer 2 *huvad˝ta-: *lineage 17 huvaipa iya-: self 18 huv-ar tika- (uv-˝r tika-?): a good

spearman 2 huv-asa- = huv-aspa-: with good

horses, having good horses 4 huv-asab˝ra: a good rider 2 huv-aspa- = uv-asa- 3 hUvax atara-: proper name;

Cyaxares, Median king 2 hUv˝daicaya-: place name 19 huv˝ipa iya-: own 6 huv˝mar iyu-: self-dead, i.e., without

foreign intervention 9 hUv˝razm˘-: Chorasmia 7 hUÚ(v)ja-: Elam, Elamite 2 hUÚvjiya-: an Elamite 6 h¨Ÿvnara- neut., h Ÿvnar˝-: talent,

abiliy 3 i- > ay- id˝: here 8 ima-: this 2 Imani-: proper name; an Elamite 7 isuv˝-: battle-axe 4 i ti- fem.: sun-dried brick 11 iyam: this (nom. masc., fem.) 2 Izal˝-: place name 7 jadiya- < •jad: ask (sb. for sth.: +

acc. + acc.) 4 jan-/ja- < •jan: strike, smite 4 jantar-: crusher, striker (of: + gen.-

dat.) 6 jiyamna-, only in: jiyamnam patiy: on

the last day of the month 13 j^va- < •j^v: live 8 j^va-: alive 5 ka-, rel. pron., only in: tuvam k˝

(tuvaº ka) ... haya: you who 15 Kamb¨jiya-: Cambyses (king of

Persia) 6 kamna-: few 8

Kampanda-: name of land 8 kaniya-, pp. kanta-, inf. kantanaiy <

•kan: be dug 11 kantanay, in n. of kaniya- < •kan: to

dig, be dug 13 kapautaka-: blue 2 Karka-: Carian 10 Karm˝na-: Kerman, Karmania 11 karnuvaka-: artisan, craftsman 11 kar a-: a measure of weight = 83.33

g. karta-, pp. of •kar-: done, made;

work 5 ka ciy: anybody 13 Katpatuka-: Cappadocia 7

kaufa-: mountain 9 kay˝da-: astrologer 8 k˝ma-: to wish, please (+ acc. of

subject) 6 K˝pi ak˝ni-: name of a fortress 6 k˝ra-: the people, army 2 k˝saka-: glass 2 k˝sakaina-: (made) of glass 3

Kunduru-: place name 9 Kuganak˝-: place name 7 kunau-/kun-, perf. caxr-, pp. karta-,

in n. cartanaiy < •kar: to do 4 Kuru-: Cyrus 6 K¨ a-: Ethiopia 9 K¨ iya-: Ethiopian 10 Lab(a)n˝na-: place name 11 Maciya-: Makranian 3 magu-: magian 6 -maiy: me (gen.-dat.) 4 Maka-: Makran 3 manah- neut.: mind, thought 8 manauvi-: angry, vengeful 6 man˝: me, my, mine (gen.-dat.) 4 maniya- < •man mid.: to think 5 Marduniya-: proper name; father of

Gaubaruva-, one of Darius’s six helpers 13

Margu-: Margiana 7 mar^ka-: young man 8 Martiya-: proper name 7 martiya-: man 2 mariya- < •mar (cf. marta-): to die 9 marta-: dead 5 ma k˝-: in ated cow hide (used for

ferrying) 7 maƒi ta-: greatest 4 mayuxa- : nail, doorknob 3 m˝: let not 9 M˝da-: Media, Median, Mede 2 m˝h˘-: month 9 m˝m: me (acc.) 4 m˝naya-, m˝naiya- < •man: to await,

wait for 8 m˝niya-: household(?) 3 M˝rgava-: Margian 8 M˝ru-: name of town 8 miƒah- kunau-: to do sth. wrong to (+

acc.) 4 Miƒra-, Mitra-: Mithra 19 Mudr˝ya-: Egypt, Egyptian 6 munƒa- < •mauƒ: to ee 9 Nabukudracara-: Nebuchadrezzar 6 Nabunaita-: proper name; last (Neo-

)Babylonian king, Nabonides, Nab¨-na÷id 6

Nadintabaira-: proper name; Babylonian rebel, Nidintu-Bˇl 6

naiba-: good, beautiful 2 naiy: not 2 napat-: grandson 5 *nau- (only restored): ship 13 naucaina-: of cedar 11

navama-: ninth 5 nay-, see ˝-nay- nay˝ka- (for *niy˝ka-): grandfather

19 n˝h-: nose 8 n˝man- neut.: name 6 *n˝man˝fa-: *genealogy 17 n˝viya-: deep (so as to require ships,

or similar, to cross; cf. Sogdian n˝yuk “deep”) 7

ni-ç˝raya- < •çay (< sray): put back in place, restore 9

nij-ay- < ni + •ay: to go out 9 ni-kan-: to destroy 8 nipadiy: in pursuit (of: + acc.) 11 ni-pi ta-, pp. of paiƒa-: written 12 ni-rasa- •ras: to come down 15 ni-saya- < •s˝: to bestow (upon: +

upariy + acc.) 4 Nis˝ya-: place name 13 ni- t˝ya- < •st˝: to lay down, order

(+ in nitive) 12 ni- ˝daya- < •had/ ad: to set down

10 niy˝ka-: grandfather 11 n¨ram: now 16 pai iy˝ (+ acc.): before, in the

presence of 4 Pai iy˝(h)uv˝d˝-: place name 9 pai iy˝: before 17 paiƒa- (or pinƒa) < •paiƒ: to paint 11 para-ay-/i- < •ay: go (forth) 8 parah: beyond (+ acc.) 4 paradayad˝-, for *paridaid˝-?:

*garden, pleasure spot 19 para-drayah: beyond the sea 10 paraita- pp. < para-ay-/i-: to go off

12 paranam: previously 16 parataram: farther away, beyond 15 par˝-bara- < •bar: to carry away 7 par˝-gmata- < •ay/gam: gone far

(partic.) 15 par˝-rasa < •ras: to arrive 6 *par˝-y˝taya-: ? 17 Parga-: name of mountain 22 pari-ay-/i- < •ay act./mid.: to behave

9 pari-bara- < •bar: to reward 9 pariy + acc.: about, concerning 4 par^yana-: behavior 3 parsa- < •pars/fraƒ: to ask, punish 9 partana- neut.: ght, con ict 13 Parƒava-: Parthia, Parthian 2 paru-: much, plur. many 2 paruva-: former 14 paruvam: of old, before 5 paruviyatah, in: hac˝ paruviyatah:

from before, from old 3 paru-zana-: of many kinds 3 pas˝: after (+ acc. or gen.-dat.) 4 pas˝va: afterward; pas˝va yaƒ˝


164 July 31, 2005

“after” (in past narrative) 6 pasti-: foot soldier 2 patikara-: representation, statue,

picture 3 pati-bara- < •bar: to bring back 14 pati-fraƒiya- = -frasiya- < •pars/fraƒ:

to be read 17 Patigraban˝-: place name 19 pati-jan- < •jan mid.: to ght 15 patipadam •kar: to reestablish, to put

back where it belongs 14 pati-paya- •p˝ mid.: to guard

(oneself) 16 pati-parsa- < •pars/fraƒ: to read 15 pati-x aya- < •x ˝ mid.: to rule over

(+ gen.-dat.) 5 -patiy: too 7 patiy-avahaya- mid.: to implore

somebody for help, to pray to (+ acc.) 6

patiy-ay- < •ay: to come to 7 pati-zbaya- •zb˝: to proclaim 16 pati : against (+ acc.) 4 pati am: in addition 17 pavast˝-: clay tablet 17 paƒ˘- fem.: path 15 paya- < p˝- p˝-, pres. paya-, pp. p˝ta- < •p˝: to

protect 8 p˝d(a)-: foot 10 P˝rsa-: Persia, Persian 2 Pir˝va-: the Nile 6 piru-: ivory 14 pitar-: father 5 pi ta-, pp. of paiƒa- (pinƒa-): to paint

14 puça-: son 1 Put˝ya-: Libyan 10 ragam *vardiya- mid.: to swear 5 Rag˝-: Rhaga, Ray 11 rasa- < •ras: to arrive 8 raucah-: day 9 rautah (nom.-acc. sing. of rautah-

neut.): river 6 Rax˝-: name of a town in Persia 6 raxƒa-: ? 8 r˝diy: from, by, on account of 15 r˝sta-: right 2 saiyma-: silver 19 Saka-: Scythian, Scythia 3 Sikayauvat˘-: name of a fortress in

Media sinkabru-: carnelian 14 skauƒi- = kauƒi-: weak, poor 16 Skudra-: a people north of Greece

(Thrace, Thracian?) 10 Skunxa-: proper name; Scythian rebel Sparda-: Sardis 7 Spardiya-: Sardian 11 sp˝yantiya-: *army camp 15 stambava- < •stamb: to rebel 11 st˝na-: *niche 13

st¨n˝-: column 7 Sugda- = Suguda-: Sogdiana 9 Suguda- = Sugda-: Sogdiana 7 - aiy: him (gen.-dat.) 9 - aiy: his, her, its (gen.-dat.) 5 - ˝m: them, their (gen.-dat.) 5 ˝y˝ta- for iy˝ti- 20

- im: him 7 iyava- < • iyav: to go 6 iy˝ta-: happy, blissful 3 iy˝ti-: peace, happiness 10

- i : them 6 kauƒi- = skauƒi-: weak 8

tacara-, dacara-: palace 6 takabara-: petasos-bearing 10 tan Ÿ- fem.: body, self 7 tarah: through, via (+ acc.) 4 tarsa- < •tars: to fear (+ hac˝ + inst.-

abl.) 7 tauman- neut.: power, capacity 6 taum˝-: family 3 tauv˘yah-: stronger, mightier 8 *taxma-: brave 2 Taxmasp˝da-: “having a brave army”

proper name 10 taya: that (conjunction) 8 tayaiy: who (nom. plur. masc.) 3 T˝rav˝-: place name 22 t˝vaya- < •tav: be able, endure 4 tigra-: pointed 3 tigra-xauda-: wearing pointed hats 3 Tigr˝-: Tigris 6 tunuvant-: mighty 8 ƒadaya- < •ƒand: to seem (to: + gen.-

dat.) 15 ƒaha-, in n. ƒastanaiy < •ƒah: say,

speak, announce (to: gen.-dat.) 6 ƒahaya- < •ƒah: be said (by: + hac˝,

to: gen.-dat.), be announced (as), be called (+ nom.) 3, 4

ƒakata-: passed 4 ƒanuvaniya-: a marksman (lit. bow-

man) 2 ƒard- (or ƒarad-) fem.: year 5 ƒarmi-: timber 11 ÿatagu-: Sattagydia 7 ƒava- < •ƒav: to burn (intr.) 11 ƒ˝- < ƒaha-- ÿ˝igraci-: month name 12 ƒ˝tiy < *ƒahatiy < •ƒah: he says 4 ƒik˝-: gravel 11 ÿuxra-: proper name; a Persian ,

father of Ut˝na 13 ÿ¨rav˝hara-: month name 14 ub˝: both 10 ud-pata- < •pat: to rise up (in

rebellion) 6 Ufr˝t¨-: Euphrates 9 upa-ay- < •ay: to come close to 13 Upadarma-: proper name 6 upariy-ay- < •ay: to abide (by: +

inst.-abl.) 14

upariy: in, on, above 4 upast˝-: assistance, aid; + bar-: “to

bear aid” 6 up˝ + acc.: under = during the reign

of 4 usta an˝-, ustacan˝-: staircase (with

carved reliefs?) 19 u ^ (nom.-acc. dual): conscience,

intelligence 8 u a-b˝ri-: camel-borne 7 Ut˝na-: proper name; Otanes, son of

ÿuxra-, one of Darius’s six helpers 13

ut˝: and; ut˝ ... ut˝: both ... and 2 Uyam˝-: name of a town 6 uzmay˝patiy kar-: to impale 7 vaçabara-: mace-bearer(?) 2 Vahauka-: proper name; (Ochus)

father of Ardumani-, one of Darius’s six helpers 13

Vahayazd˝ta-: proper name; rebel 6 *Vahayaspara-: proper name; father

of Vidafarnah-, one of Darius’s six helpers 8

vaina- < •vain: to see 4 vaja- < •vaj: to gouge out 10 vaniya-: to be lled (poured) in 11 vardana- neut.: town 6 *vardiya-, see ragam *vardiya- 5 Vark˝na-: Hyrcania, Gurg˝n 7 varnava- < •var mid.: to choose 15;

+ pers. pron. acc.: to believe (see grammar) 6

vasiy: greatly, mightily (only form of this word) 2

va n˝ (instr.-abl. of *vazar): by the greatness of (often translated as: by the favor of, by the grace of; see lesson 9) 1

Vaumisa-: proper name; a Persian vayam: we 3 vazarka-: great 1 v˝: or; v˝ ... v˝ “either ... or” 13 Vidarna-: proper name; Hydarnes,

son of *Vahayaspara-, one of Darius’s six helpers 8

vi-kan- < •kan: to destroy 4 vi-marda- (-marda-) < •mard: to wipe

out, destroy 11 vi-nasta-: offense 9 vi-n˝ƒaya- < •naƒ: to do harm, do

wrong 9 Vindafarnah-: proper name;

Intaphernes, one of Darius’s six helpers 13

visa-: all 9 visa-dahayu-: of all nations 4 vispad˝: everywhere 14 vispa-zana-: of all kinds 5 Vi pauz˝ti-: name of town 21 Vi t˝spa-: proper name; Hystaspes,

Darius’s father 1 vi-taraya- < •tar: to convey across 6


165 July 31, 2005

viƒ- fem.: house 5 Viv˝na-: proper name; Persian satrap

of Arachosia 12 Viyaxana-: month name 9 xaud˝-: hat 3 xraƒu-, xratu-: mind, understanding

12, 13 x aça-:neut.: power, (royal)

command, empire 3 x açap˝van(t)-: satrap 8 x ap- fem.: night 16 x aya- < •x ˝ mid.: to rule, control

(+ gen.-dat.) 13 X ayaar ˝- (X ay˝r ˝-) masc.: proper

name; Xerxes, son of Darius 2 x ayamna- < •x ˝ (see lesson 13):

being in control 9 X aƒrita-: proper name; a Mede 7 x ˝yaƒiya-: king 1 x n˝sa- < •x n˝: to know 15 x nuta-: pleased 9 yaciy: whatever 10 yada- < •yad mid.: to worship 5 Yad˝-: Anshan 9 yad˝y˝: where(ever) 16 yadiv˝: or 9 yadiy: if, when 5 yak˝-: yak tree, sissoo 11 yaniy: where, in which 14 yaƒ˝: as, than, when 5 yaƒ˝: so that 6 yaudant^- (fem.): (being) in turmoil

10 Yauna-: Ionian, Greek 7 Yautiy˝-: place name 22 yauviy˝-: canal 13 y˝na- neut.: boon, favor, gift (d˝-

“grant,” jadiya- “ask”) 4 y˝tu-: sorcerer 8 y˝t˝: until 6 y˝t˝ ˝: up to, until (+ instr.-abl.;

local) 9 y˝umani-: coordinated, being in

control 10 y˝v˝: as long as 14 Z˝z˝na-: place name 13 Zranka-: Drangiana 7 z¨rah- neut.: crooked deed,

wrong(doing) 8

z¨rahkara-: doer of crooked deeds, crook, wrong-doer 13

Z¨za-: place name 21

GLOTTOLOGIA MAGISTRALE - uniroma1.it · P r o f. M a r co Mancini Programma d’esame C....

Documents

Transcript of GLOTTOLOGIA MAGISTRALE - uniroma1.it · P r o f. M a r co Mancini Programma d’esame C....