Analyze and comment on the historical significance of the Aramaic Behistun inscription

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

The Behistun inscription

Towering over on the Silk Road which connects Ecbatana to the Mesopotamian plain is the Behistun relief. The image, depicts the king triumphing over rebels leaders, his foot degradingly on the head of Gaumata who cowers beneath with outstretched arms (see Fig1). The accompnying inscription, celebrates the rise of Darius as a legitimate ruler chosen by Ahura mazda.

“in Media there I killed him; I removed his kingship with the aid of Ahm, I became king; Ahm gave me the kingship”

The lie drauga is denounced and with all those guilty of it and the truth arta celebrated. The themes of arta and drauga recur in inscriptions of future king and in the Persian ideology. The inscription recounts the accession of Darius and his victory over any who dared rebel. Darius details the armies he has fought with and triumphed over and the liars kings whose lands are now free of their rule. Written in Babylonian, Elamite and Old Persian, the inscription at Behistun was meant to be widely seen and understood. Furthermore, it is unique in containing oldest example of Old Persian to be found and it has even been argued that this is the first official Old Persian document to be created. Whilst Old Persian was the oral language of choice for Persians, there was no written form of it, necessitating the use of Elamite for all official written documents. As no way of writing old Persian existed at the time it is now well established that the first inscription was in Elamite (Trumplemann1967). Darius appears to refer to the fact that Old Persian script was created at his command so as to “consolidate the empires territories and strengthen its Persian character by having a unique form devised for writing its language”.

Therefore, the message of total control of the Persian king over subjugated territories was enforced by making copies of the text and distributing them in these territories:

“Says Darius the king: by the favour of Ahuramazda this is the inscription which I made. Bsides it was in Aryyan and on clay tablts and partchment it was composed. Besides, a sculptured figure of myself I made. Besides, I made my lineage. And it was inscribed and was read off before me. Afterwards this inscription I sent off everywhere among the provinces” (kent 1953 DB IV 88-99)

Two known copies of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Therefore, the message of total control of the Persian king over subjugated territories was enforced by making copies of the text and distributing them in these territories:

Two known copies of the Behistun inscription survive, one in Babylonian and one from the Jewish colony in Elephantine. It is the significance of the latter of these that this essay concerns

5th century

Aramaic copy of Behistun inscription, written on papyrus, was found at the Jewish military colony in elephantine, Egypt. It was published in 1911 by Ed. Sachau. contained 2 papyrus sheets and 36 fragments. Sachau was of the opinion that as the Aramaic text corresponded closely with the akkadian, and therefore suggested that it was an official translation dispatched to elephantine garrisson.At the time, Sachau only maganged a reconstruction of one of the colums. There have been mixed opinions on the frequent use of blanks which are especially apparent in column 5. In 1923 A.E Cowley republished all known Aramaic papyri and attempted a full reconstruction of the preserved text. Cowley arranged King thompsons akkadian version so that its lines corresponded to the Aramaic. Strangely, for most of the blank spaces there he gave a corresponding Akkadian text with subline numbers.More recently effort have been taken to intergrate more of the fragments and currently whilst only Five out of 11 colums have been preserved, column 5 suffered the least damage. A total of 29 out of 36 small fragments have been integrated into the reconstruction of the other columns.

The text from which the Aramaic version had been copies is ether different of defective from old Persian, elamite or akkadian texts.

The last section was shorter and contains material that; as N. Sims-Williams pointed out comes from the final paragraph (papa 9) of the tomb inscription o darius at Naqs-I Rustam. This section is however different to DNb→ the latter addresses the kings servants and advises them on their behaviour whilst the former which contains two ol Persian loan words- to be of firm chrecter and open mind- addresses the future king.

From this it is clear that there were copies made in Aramaic of other inscriptions besides that at Behistun. The translation of P9 of DNb could have been from either old Persian or the Elamite text or as suggested by I Gershevitch, written down in Aramaic straight from Darius’ dictation.

Note that for those lines for which we have evidence from the fragmentary akkadian version found in Babylon the Aramaic text is closer to the text from Babylon then o the behistun inscription.

(data frop16)

Copy: the date of the aramaic copy ?

Written early in Darius 2 reighn. Darius II came to the throne in 423 BC just a century after the accession of Darius I (522/1)the recopying of the inscription celebrating the triumphs of Darius I during the days of Darius II would have been a reaffirmation of loyalty of the elephantine jews to the persian court. However it could well have been that the scroll was transported to elephantine and had been copied at Syene for the Armenians settled there and thus be devoid of patriotic motive.

Discussion:

The importance of the discovery of the Aramaic copy of the Behistun inscription I Elephantine lies in its suggestion that

copies were made or royal inscriptions: we see this from the passage copied from Darius’ tomb at Naqs-I rustam
The similarity of the Babylonian and Aramaic inscriptions (and Akkadian?)

furthermore it points to a drive during the reign of Darius II remind his empire how important his ancestor was, what he had accomplished , and the values he instilled . Circulation of what is essentially propaganda close to the beginning of his reign suggests that the new king was trying to promote his popularity and discourage opposition.

bibliography

kuhrt Amelie , the ancient near east vol II c.3000-300 B.C, routledge, 1995

Van De Mieroop Marc, A history of the ancient near east ca. 3000-323 BC, Blackwell publishing, 2004

Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, ed. Sir Harold Baily F.B.A, 1982, lund Humphries, london

Behistan inscription 13

Amelie Kuhrt class lecture 1/nov/2004

Kuhrt 666 C. Dandamev 1976