Iranian Studies

ISSN: 0021-0862 (Print) 1475-4819 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cist20

DPg: Ahuramazdā and the Creation of Water, with

a New Text Edition

Soheil Delshad

To cite this article: Soheil Delshad (2019): DPg: Ahuramazdā and the Creation of Water, with a
New Text Edition, Iranian Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00210862.2019.1611372

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00210862.2019.1611372

Published online: 27 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cist20
 Iranian Studies, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1080/00210862.2019.1611372

Soheil Delshad

DPg: Ahuramazdā and the Creation of Water, with a New Text Edition

Among the Achaemenid inscriptions, DPg has been the topic of several studies since the very
beginning of cuneiform studies. The photographs prepared by the DARIOSH (Digital
Achaemenid Royal Inscription Open Schema Hypertext) project at L’Orientale University
of Naples shed light on some ambiguities of this specific inscription and led to the proposal
of a new text edition of DPg. The purpose of this article is to follow the whole history of
studies on DPg until today and then propose a new reading of the inscription and a
discussion of related issues, including its unique creation formula and orthography.

Keywords: DPg; DARIOSH; Achaemenid Babylonian; Water

Introduction

On the southern wall of the terrace of Persepolis (close to its southwestern corner),
there are four Achaemenid inscriptions—DPd, e, f, and g—on a stone slab (length
ca. 7.20 m and height 2.05 m) at the top of the wall. They are “foundation inscrip-
tions” of Darius I written during his reign (522‒486 BC). The stone-cutter(s) used
almost all of the stone block’s surface for the inscriptions. Although they have been
carved in the usual order (from left to right Old Persian, Achaemenid Elamite, and
Achaemenid Babylonian), they do not compose an awaited unified trilingual Achae-
menid inscription, with—more or less—the same text repeated in each language.
There is no reason to deny that they were written at the same time, to give the

Soheil Delshad is a PhD candidate at the Institut für Iranistik, Freie Universität Berlin.

Photographs used in this paper were taken by Gian Pietro Basello (“L’Orientale” University of Naples)
in the framework of the DARIOSH Project directed by Adriano V. Rossi. Thanks are due to the Parseh-
Pasargadae (now Parseh) Research Foundation which gave permission to take photographs and provided
help in the process (a particular thank you to Hassan Rahsaz).

Special thanks are also due for the assistance of G. P. Basello and A. Rossi, who generously provided
the author with the images of DPg kept in the DARIOSH data bank and gave valuable comments on the
present paper. The author would like to add that without the help of C. W. Hess, the research assistant at
the Institut für Altorientalistik (Freie Universität Berlin), he would not have been able to prepare the text
edition. Finally, the author would like to thank Parsa Daneshmand, who gave him helpful suggestions
regarding the text edition and commentaries, and Jahan Khalili who read the text carefully and made
many corrections in both syntactical and technical aspects.
© 2019 Association For Iranian Studies, Inc
2 Delshad

same impression and to deliver the same message. Moreover, with some differences,
“the total volume of the two Old Persian inscriptions is equal to the sum of the
non-Persian texts so that we can speak of equipollence.”1
Based on paleographical, phraseological and functional elements, it is generally
accepted that DPd-g are the oldest Achaemenid inscriptions at Persepolis.2 Moreover,
those inscriptions are very peculiar in the history of Achaemenid studies. Several
western travelers visiting Persepolis between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries
wrote remarkable notes about those inscriptions.3

Figure 1. Right bottom corner of DPg: oblique cut of the stone slab and triangular
piece of stone bearing the rest of the ending parts of lines 22, 23, and 24
(© G. P. Basello).

1
Schmitt, Old Persian Inscriptions, 56. For the unity of the inscriptions DPd-g, see also Filippone,
“DPd/DPe,” 101‒3.
2
Schmitt, Old Persian Inscriptions, 27.
3
During his visit in 1685, Engelbert Kaempfer believed that he had found traces of gold, i.e., evidence
of gilding, in some of the cuneiform signs in the inscriptions (Wiesehöfer, “Engelbert Kaempfer,” 85). As
Wiesehöfer indicates, from Kaempfer’s description of the location and the form of the inscription, he
must have been describing DPg together with DPd-e and DPf: “Aus Lage- und Formbeschreibung
geht deutlich hervor, daß Kaempfer die akkadische Monolingue DPg abgezeichnet hat, die nach einer
neueren Untersuchung zusammen mit ihren Pendants DPd (ap.), DPe (ap.) und DPf (elam.) den dar-
eioszeitlichen Besucher der Palastterrasse empfangen haben soll.”
 DPg: Ahuramazdā and the Creation of Water 3

On the bottom right corner of the stone block, there is an oblique cut and a triangular
piece of stone inserted to fill the gap and allow enough space for the rest of the Baby-
lonian inscription (see Figure 1). It is not clear when the stone-cutters decided to
add this piece into the slab.4

Text

Transliteration.

1. d
ú-ru-ma-az-˹da˺ ra-bi šá ra-bu-ú ina muḫ-ḫi DINGIRmeš gab-bi
2. šá AN-e u KI-tì ib-nu-ú u Ameš ib-nu-ú šá dum-qí
3. gab-bi id-din-nu-ma ÙGmeš ina lìb-bi bal-ṭu-ʾ šá a-n[a]
4. m
da-a-ri-i̭a-muš LUGAL ib-nu-ú u ˹a-na˺ mda-a-ri-i̭a-˹muš˺
5. LUGAL LUGAL-ú-tu id-din-nu ina qaq-qar a-ga-a rap-šá-a-˹tu4˺
6. šá KUR.KURmeš ma-de-e-tu4 ina lìb-bi-šú KUR par-su
7. KUR ma-da-a-a u KUR.KURmeš šá-né-ti-ma li-šá-nu
8. šá-né-tu4 šá KURmeš u ma-a-tu4 šá a-ḫa-na-a-a
9. a-ga-a šá ídmar-ra-tu4 u a-ḫu-ul-lu-a-a
10. ul-li-i šá ídmar-ra-tu4 šá a-ḫa-na-a-a
11. a-ga-a šá qaq-qar ṣu-ma-ma-i-tu4 u a-ḫu-ul-lu-a-a ˹ul-li-i˺
12. šá qaq-qar ṣu-ma-ma-i-tu4 mda-a-ri-i̭a-muš LUGAL
13. i-qab-bi ina gišGI6 šá dú-ru-ma-az-da a-ga-a[n]-˹né˺-tu4
14. KUR.KURmeš šá a-ga-a i-pu-šá-ʾ šá a-kan-na ep-˹ši˺
15. KUR par-su KUR ma-da-a-a u KUR.KURmeš šá-né-˹ti˺-ma
16. li-šá-nu šá-né-tu4 šá KURmeš u ma-a-tu4 šá a-ḫa-˹na˺-a-a
17. a-ga-a šá ídmar-ra-tu4 u a-ḫu-ul-lu-a-a ul-˹li˺-˹i˺
18. šá ídmar-ra-tu4 u a-ḫa-na-a-a a-ga-a šá qaq-qar
19. ṣu-ma-ma-i-tu4 u a-ḫu-ul-lu-a-a ul-li-i
20. šá qaq-qar ṣu-ma-ma-i-tu4 lìb-bu-ú šá a-na-ku
21. ṭè-e-mì áš-ku-un-nu-uš-šú-nu [šá] ˹a˺-na-ku
22. e-pu-uš gab-bi ina gišGI6 šá d˹ú˺-[ru-m]a-˹az-da˺
23. e-te-pu-uš a-na-ku d˹ú˺-ru-ma-˹az˺-[da li-iṣ-ṣu]r-˹an˺-n[i]
24. it-ti DINGIRmeš gab-bi a-na ana-ku u a-na šá ana-[ku] a-˹ra-mu˺

Translation. (1)Ahuramazdā (is) great, who (is) great over all gods, (2)who created the
heaven and the earth and created water. Who (3)gave all (2)prosperity (3)and people to
live on, who (4)made Darius the king, and to Darius (5)the king (he) gave the kingship
in this wide earth (6)of many lands, among (them) Persia, (7)Media and other lands of
(8)
another (7)tongue, (8)of mountains and plain, of (9)this (8)near side (9)of the sea and
(10)
that (9)far side (10)of the sea, of (11)this (10)near side (11)of the waterless desert and
4
It seems that in the engraving process, the bottom right corner was somehow damaged and since the
stone-cutters had already started engraving the inscriptions, they could not choose another stone block.
As a result, they inserted another piece to complete the text.
4 Delshad

Figure 2. Right end of lines 12-15 (© G. P. Basello)

that far side (12)of the waterless desert. Darius the king (13)says: in the protection of
Ahuramazdā these (are) (14)the lands which did this which was done here:
(15)
Persia, Media, and other lands (16)of another tongue, of mountains and plain,
(17)
of this (16)near side (17)of the sea and that far side (18)of the sea, and this near
side of the (19)waterless (18)desert (19)and that far side (20)of the waterless desert, as I
(21)
had ordered them. [What] I (22)did, all in the protection of Ahuramazdā (23)I
have done. Me Ahuramazdā [may pro]tect, (24)with all the gods, me and what I love.

Commentary. 1. The first line corresponds to the beginning part of DPd (1f.): Aur-
amazdā vazṛka haya maθišta bagānām.5
2. u Ameš (mē): The reading is based on the photographs prepared in the framework of
the DARIOSH project. For the history of reading and translation of this word see below.
5. The form qaq-qar is only attested to in DPg: 5, 11, 12, 18, 20 and DNa: 5.
rap-šá-a-˹tu4˺ is attested to in this form only in DPg.
6. The orthography of ma-de-e-tu4 is attested to only in DPg.
8. KURmeš: šadû “mountain, mountain region; open country, steppes” (for attesta-
tions from Old Babylonian period onward see The Assyrian Dictionary of the Univer-
sity of Chicago (CAD 17, pp. 49‒59).
a-ḫa-na-a-a: aḫannā: “this side, the nearer shore or bank” (CAD 1, p. 169). There
are no attestations of this or similar words in other Achaemenid royal inscriptions.
13. a-ga-a[n]-˹né˺-tu4 (see Figure 2): Weissbach distinguished the following
elements: a-ga-˹né˺-e-tum.6
14. ep-˹ši˺ (3. sg. m. stative, G-stem of epēšu ending with “-i”):
5
Schmitt, Die altpersische, 115.
6
Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften, 85.
 DPg: Ahuramazdā and the Creation of Water 5

Weissbach: ip-˹ḫu˺-[rum];7 Stolper: ep-šú.8 One could expect ep-šú (3. sg. m. stative,
G-Stem of epēšu), as Stolper suggested, as being stative of the same stem. There is no
parallel of this form of the word in the whole corpus of Achaemenid inscriptions
except for two attestations, i.e. ep-šu in DSe (23, 34), and ep-šú in A3Sa (6). The photo-
graphs of the DARIOSH project clearly show three anticipated elements of “ši,” i.e.
(from left to right) a Winkelhaken, the upper part of a vertical wedge and a
damaged horizontal wedge on the right side of the vertical wedge (see Figure 2).
According to Kuhrt, “the reference [in lines 13-14] is to the participation of the
imperial subjects in the building of Persepolis.”9
20. lìb-bu-ú šá: “as”. “als ob”,10 “just as, because, until” (CAD 9, p. 173-174),
“comme”.11 A similar form occurs in DB 97. “lìb-bu-u šá” is also attested to in DB
28 and DNa 24.
21f. [šá] ˹a˺-na-ku e-pu-uš: “what I did.” It corresponds to OP. taya manā kṛtam.
24. a-˹ra-mu˺: “I love” from râmu “to love” (CAD 14, p. 137). According to the
photograph, the presence of those three signs, i.e. a-ra-mu, is certain. The first sign
“a” is obvious. The second sign “ra” is slightly damaged, and all elements of the
third sign “mu”—despite damage—are recognizable (see Figure 1).
The reading of Weissbach is correct.12 Stolper also has the same translation,13 with a
slightly different transliteration, i.e. ara[mmu]. Cameron on the other hand, proposes “I
construct(?).”14 Because of our lack of access to the Cameron transliteration, it is not
clear what he distinguished in this part which brought him to such a conclusion.

Peculiarities in DPg

Peculiarities of the text can be divided into four categories: (1) the orthography of the
words; (2) peculiar formulae; (3) geographical terms; and (4) water in the creation formula.
The orthography of the words: the case of Ahuramazdā. One can see in the previous
part (i.e. commentary) that there are peculiarities regarding the orthography of several
words. Some, such as rap-šá-a-tu4 (l. 5) and ma-de-e-tu4 (l. 6), do not have any similar
orthographies in other inscriptions. On the other hand, for some of the other words,
one can find similar orthographies, such as qaq-qar (DPg 5, 11, 12, 18, 20 and DNa 5)
and lìb-bu-ú šá (DPg 20 and DB 97).
One of the peculiarities in the orthography of the words is “Ahuramazdā” (Bab. dú-
ru-ma-az-da). In the whole corpus of the Achaemenid royal inscriptions, there are not
as many similar orthographies as one can see in DPg, i.e. beginning with “ú” instead “a-
ḫu.” There are three other inscriptions which have the same beginning for Ahura-
7
Ibid.
8
Stolper, “Achaemenid.”
9
Kuhrt, Persian Empire, 483, note 1.
10
Rössler, Untersuchungen, 29.
11
Malbran-Labat, La Version, 143.
12
Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften, 87.
13
Stolper, “Achaemenid.”
14
Apud Schmidt, Persepolis I, 63.
6 Delshad

Table 1. Attestations of Ahuramazdā beginning with the sign “ú.”

Ahuramazdā Attestations
d
ú-ru-ma-az-da DPg 1, 13, 22 ˹ú˺-[ru-ma-az]-˹da˺, 23 d˹ú˺-ru-ma-˹az˺-[da]
d
d
ú-ru-ma-az-da-ʾ DSv 3 dú-[ru-ma-az-da-ʾ] , 7[dú-ru-ma-az-da-ʾ]
d
ú-ri-mi-iz-da-ʾ DB 4(2), 5, 7, 9, 10(2)
d
ú-ri-mi-iz-da DB 11(2), 22(2), 24(2), 28, 35, 37, 39(2), 46(2)
d
ú-ra-mi-iz-da DB 50(2), 51(2), 52(2), 55(2), 56(2), 58(2), 62(2), 65(2), 81
d
ú-ra-ma-az-da DB 67(2), 70(2), 74(2), 76(2), 80(2), 81, 87(2), 90(2), 96, 98, 99(2),
101, 102, 103(3), 104, 107(2), 108(2), 109, DSaa 4, 33, 38, 39

mazdā, i.e. DB, DSv,15 and DSaa. Moreover, Ahuramazdā in Babylonian version of
DB is written in four different forms; all of them begin with “ú.” “dú-ra-ma-az-da”
is the fourth form (DB l. 67‒109) which is also attested to in DSaa.16 Table 1
shows those attestations beginning with the sign “ú.”
In the Elamite versions of Achaemenid royal inscriptions as well as PFA (Persepolis
Fortification Archive) tablets, the word Ahuramazdā begins with “u.” As a result, some
Babylonian attestations of Ahuramazdā correspond to its Elamite version regarding
the use of /u/ instead of /ahu/ or /a.u/. However, those are different from each
other regarding the use of “ú” (in Babylonian) and “u” (in Elamite texts) for /u/.17
Gott-Formel.18 In Babylonian versions of Achaemenid royal inscriptions, there are
seven types of beginning formula regarding Ahuramazdā and his greatness. The only
formula which does not have any equivalent occurs in DPg.19 Remarkably, on the same
slab there is more or less the same formula but in Old Persian, i.e. DPd20 (see commentary).
Geographical terms in Reich-Formel. DPg is a peculiar inscription not only for its
orthographies and formulae but also for the geographical terms used to describe the
whole empire under the command of the Great King. What is called “Reich-
Formel” in other major inscriptions refers to the list of lands and peoples.21 In
DPh and DHa, there are some selected lands which are the most distant in the
empire. Those outermost lands mentioned in DPh and DHa can denote the
common title of “the king of four quarters” of the world (šar kibrāti erbetti) as we
15
In the case of DSv, it is not certain what the complete form of Ahuramazdā looks like. What remains
is just determinative and the beginning part of sign “ú” in the third line (Scheil, Inscriptions, 69, no. 18).
The other attestation in the seventh line is in the broken part.
16
For attestations see Vallat, “Table Accadienne,” 277‒8.
17
For attestations of Ahuramazda in PFA see Henkelman (The Other Gods, 527‒9). On the usage of
<u> /au/ and <ú> /u/ in Elamite, see also Basello, “Of Gods and Men,” 369‒71.
18
“Gott-Formel” has been used by Hauri (Das pentathematische, 20‒23) to refer to the beginning
formula of Achaemenid royal inscriptions which mentions Ahuramazdā and his greatness.
19
Note that in the Babylonian version of DSf (6) the third paragraph begins with “da-ḫu-ur-ma-az-da-ʾ ra-bi
šá ra-bu-ú al-la DINGIRmeš,” which shares some similarities with DPg (1).
20
Schmitt (Stilistik, 96) has classified the stylistic of “Gott-Formel” in DPd (1f.) as the style no. 35
(Prolepsis).
21
Hauri, Das pentathematische, 37.
 DPg: Ahuramazdā and the Creation of Water 7

Table 2. Gott-Formeln of Babylonian version of Achaemenid royal inscriptions.

Gott-Formeln Attestations
d
ú-ru-ma-az-da ra-bi šá ra-bu-ú ina muḫ-ḫi DPg 1
DINGIRmeš gab-bi
DINGIRmeš GAL-u da-ḫu-ur-ma-az-da-ʾ DNa 1
DINGIRmeš GAL-ú da-ḫu-ur-ma-az-da-ʾ DSf 1
d
a-ḫu-ur-ma-az-da-ʾ ra-bi šá ra-bu-ú al-la DINGIRmeš DSf 6
DINGIR GAL-ú da-ḫu-ru-ma-az-da DE 1
DINGIR GAL-ú da-ḫu-ru-ma-az-da-ʾ XPa 1, XPb 1, XPd 1,
XPf 1, XPh 1
DINGIR ra-bu-ú da-ḫu-ur-ma-az-da-ʾ XPc 1
DINGIR GAL-ú da-ḫu-ur-ma-az-da-ʾ ra-bu-ú šá XV 1-2, XE 1-2
DINGIRmeš
Note: According to Hauri (1973, p. 22): “Der Titel haya mθišta bagānām an der der G-Formel [D. Gott-Formel] fol-
genden Stelle XE 2 haya mθišta bagānām ‘der größte der Götter’ wurde für die X[erxes]-Periode gewonnen, wo ihn
sonst nur die Stelle XV 1-2 haya mθišta bagānām ‘der größte der Götter’ aufweist.”

can find in the Cyrus Cylinder (l. 20) and the other Mesopotamian royal inscriptions.
What the composer of the text is presenting in DPg is a mixture of two major lands
“KUR par-su KUR ma-da-a-a” with other lands of another tongue “u KUR.KURmeš
šá-né-ti-ma li-šá-nu šá-né-tu4.” This empire also includes mountains and a plain
“KURmeš u ma-a-tu4” and spreads from this near side of the sea “a-ḫa-na-a-a a-ga-
a šá ídmar-ra-tu4” to that far side of the sea “a-ḫu-ul-lu-a-a ul-li-i šá ídmar-ra-tu4,”
and from this near side of the waterless desert “a-ḫa-na-a-a a-ga-a šá qaq-qar ṣu-
ma-ma-i-tu4” to that far side of the waterless desert “a-ḫu-ul-lu-a-a ul-li-i šá qaq-
qar ṣu-ma-ma-i-tu4.” It is a peculiar combination of lands and geographical terms
which occurs only in DPg and in no other inscription. One may imagine that the com-
poser of the inscription wanted to present the greatness of the empire in a form close
to the Babylonian map of the world. Since there are no clues left to us about the
Achaemenid scribal curriculum, it would be nearly impossible to guess whether the
scribe was familiar with a similar format of the known world’s depiction in
the Late Babylonian period. A possible interpretation of this part of DPg is that
the scribe imagined the center of the empire as Persia and Media, surrounded by
the other lands with other tongues. This territory has some geographical features:
mountains, plains, seas, and desert. The seas bordered the empire at least on two
corners (most probably in northwestern and southeastern parts where the Indian
Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea are located), and the deserts surround the other
corners of the empire (probably the Amon desert and the Central Asian desert).
This description may also correspond to the traditional term “the king of four quar-
ters.” Ahuramazdā, the Great God, bestowed upon the Great King what is between
those natural barriers. The familiarity of the scribe with geographical terms such as
šadû (KURmeš), aḫannā, aḫullā, and qaq-qar ṣu-ma-ma-i-tu4 attested to in various
8 Delshad

periods in Mesopotamia would probably be connected to his point of view, which is

known to us via the Babylonian map of the world.22
“Water” in Gott-Formel. The main difference between this current work and the pre-
vious studies on DPg is in distinguishing the word “water” instead of “people” in the cre-
ation formula of the inscription. Looking through the long history of studies on DPg
would help familiarize us with the different readings of this part and the ideas behind
those readings. The history of textual analysis of the inscription starts with the work of
de Saulcy in 1850.23 Table 3 shows which inscriptions with similar “creation formulae”
were investigated by de Saulcy. The transliterations are updated and edited by the author.
From Table 3, one can see to what extent the creation formulae are similar and how
often the term “people/men” comes after “heaven and earth.” Since de Saulcy used the
drawings by Westergaard,24 he could distinguish three clear elements of “u,” “A”
and “meš” in the second line. However, given the constraints imposed by the underdeve-
loped state of cuneiform studies in the 1840s, and because he was working with a more
limited number of known “creation formulae” in already deciphered Old Persian inscrip-
tions, de Saulcy concluded that the third element must be “people.” In fact, the creation
formulae that were available to de Saulcy at the time of his attempt at deciphering the
inscriptions would naturally lead anyone to expect that “u Ameš” is just another form
of the “u ÙGmeš” attested to in DNa (l. 2) and XV (l. 3).
The idea of interpreting “u Ameš” as “people” was echoed by Oppert and Schrader
despite drawings made by other authors.25 Despite some errors in the drawings, all of
them could show all three elements (u Ameš) in the second line. Looking at the
works of de Saulcy and Oppert cannot reveal much information about what they
thought of the peculiar form of this word. Oppert noticed that the sign “Ameš” is not
normal, but he interpreted “A” as a sign which has other meanings including a son
(Akk. aplu)—already known to them in the Achaemenid royal inscriptions—which
can be interpreted as “people” in plural form too.26

22
See Horowitz, Mesopotamian, 20‒42.
23
Louis Félicien Joseph Caignart de Saulcy (1807‒80), was a French numismatist, orientalist, and
archaeologist, born in Lille. He is most famous because of his discoveries in Syria and Palestine. He
made significant progress in Achaemenid studies. While Henry Rawlinson was working on his edition
of the Babylonian version of Bisotun, de Saulcy published a brief hand-written book on Babylonian
royal inscriptions of the Achaemenids (Recherches sur l’écriture cunéiforme assyrienne. Inscriptions des Aché-
ménides). The book includes about thirteen both long and short inscriptions from Persepolis (DPa-c-g;
XPa-c-d-e and A1Pa), Naqsh-e Rostam (DNa), Pasargadae (CMa), Van (XV), Bisotun (DBb), and a seal
inscription of Darius (SDa).
24
Westergaard, “On the Deciphering,” Tab. XVa.
25
Oppert, Expédition scientifique, 252; Schrader, “Die assyrisch-babylonischen,” 362; Niebuhr, Reise-
beschreibung, II, 152, Tab. XXI; Ker Porter, Travels, Pls. LV‒LVI; Texier, Description, Pl. 144; Wester-
gaard, „On the Deciphering,“ Tab. XVa; Coste and Flandin, Voyage, Pl. 72.
26
Oppert, Expédition scientifique, 126: “Une expression rendant la même idée est [Ameš]. [A] a, parmi
d’autres significations, aussi celle de ‘fils’; mais, avec le pluriel, il prend l’acception ‘homme’.” In the time of
Oppert, one could accept his idea, but nowadays with the development of Assyriology and a rich corpus of
cuneiform cultures, we can’t find any single attestation of using “Ameš” for “men” or “people.” However,
one can’t deny the genius of his idea about the interpretation of the signs in his time.
Table 3. Updated transliterations of “creation formulae” of the inscriptions studied by de Saulcy.
XPa: 1-4 XPc: 1-4 XPd: 1-3
DNa: 1-2 (de Saulcey, (de Saulcey, (de Saulcey, XV: 1-4 DPg: 1-3
(de Saulcey, 1850, 1850, pp. 7- 1850, pp. 26- 1850, pp. 20- (de Saulcey, 1850, (de Saulcey, 1850,
Inscriptions pp. 48-54) 20) 31) 25) pp. 43-48) pp. 31-42)
Creation 1.DINGIRmeš 1. DINGIR 1. DINGIR 1. DINGIR 1. DINGIR 1. dú-ru-ma-az-
Formulae d
GAL-u a-ḫu-ur- GAL-ú a- d
ra-bu-[ú d
GAL-ú a-ḫu- d
GAL-ú a-ḫu- ˹da˺ ra-bi šá ra-
ma-az-da-ʾ šá ḫu-ru-ma- d
]a-ḫu-ur- ru-ma-az-da-ʾ ur-ma-az-da-ʾ bu-ú ina muḫ-
AN-˹e˺ u KI-˹tì˺ az-da-ʾ šá ma-az-da-ʾ šá qaq-qa-ru 2. ra-bu-ú šá ḫi DINGIRmeš
[i]b-nu-u qaq-qa-ru 2. šá ˹AN˺- a-ga-a id-din- DINGIR šá meš
gab-bi
2. u ÙGm[eš] ib- 2. a-ga-ʾ id- e ib-nu-ú ù nu AN-e ib-nu-ú 2. šá AN-e u

DPg: Ahuramazdā and the Creation of Water 9

nu-ú šá dum-qí a- din-nu šá er-ṣe-tì 2. šá AN-e an- 3. u KI-tì ib- KI-tì ib-nu-ú u
na ÙGmeš id-din- AN-e an- 3. ˹a˺-[ga]- nu-ti id-din- nu-ú u ÙG meš Ameš ib-nu-ú šá
nu nu-ú-tu id- a-ta ib-nu- nu šá LÚ-lut- ib-nu-ú dum-qí
din-nu ú šá ÙGmeš ti id-din-nu 4. šá dum-qí a- 3. gab-bi id-
3. šá a-me- ib-nu-ú 3. šá dum-qí na ÙG meš id- din-nu-ma
lu-ú-tú id- 4. ˹šá˺ du- a-na lúÙGmeš di-na ÙGmeš ina lìb-
din-nu šá un-qu a-na id-din-nu … bi bal-ṭu-ʾ
dum-qí a-na ÙGmeš id-
a-me-lu-ú- din-nu šá
tú a-na
4. id-din-nu
…
10 Delshad

With the development of Assyriology in the nineteenth century, the problem

of “misinterpretation” of the word “Ameš” in DPg remained.27 Carl Bezold in
1882 repeated the same translation as well. Following de Saulcy, Oppert and Schrader,
he wrote that the written “A” should be read “niši.”28
Years after Bezold, F. H. Weissbach was the first researcher to notice that there
is a problem with the former works regarding this part of the inscription.
Although his hesitation in accepting the former interpretation of “u Ameš” as
“and people” was potentially crucial, his approach to resolving the mystery was
ultimately flawed. With the help of photographs from Stolze and Andreas, he
tried to solve the problem.29 He rejected the existence of “u Ameš” and proposed
instead “niše(= UN)meš.”30 So he read this part as “UN” which simply means
“people” (Akk. nišū).31 The problem might have been that the photograph
made by Stolze and Andreas (Pl. 95) was not sufficiently clear for Weissbach’s
purpose (because of cracks in the negative), especially in the second line (see
Figure 3).
Excavations at Persepolis in the 1930s by the Oriental Institute made it poss-
ible to look at the royal inscriptions again and republish some of them, together
with comprehensive excavation reports. As a result, Cameron prepared an
updated translation of DPg and published it in the first volume of the excavation
reports of the Oriental Institute from Persepolis.32 Because of the lack of any
transliteration of DPg published by Cameron, we do not know if he managed
to distinguish “u Ameš” or “niše(UN)meš” in the inscription’s creation formula
(as Weissbach did). It is highly probable that he did not accept Weissbach’s
suggested reading and instead followed the earlier works since he translated it
as “and men,” which denotes that he managed to observe those three elements
mentioned above.
Stolper was the last researcher who prepared an updated transliteration and trans-
lation of DPg.33 He precisely distinguished “u Ameš,” but repeated the traditional
interpretation of this part, and transliterated it as “u nišē(!)” (“and people”).
However, he could not ignore the fact that those three elements are very peculiar,
and therefore tried to explain this peculiarity from another plausible point of view,
i.e. “stone-cutter’s error.”

27
Note that the first comprehensive Assyrian dictionary (Assyrisches Wörterbuch) was published by
Friedrich Delitzsch between 1887 and 1890 (Streck, Supplement, vii).
28
Bezold, Die Achämenideninschriften, 73, n. 96; “Geschrieben: [A], Sehe: nisi.”
29
Stolze and Andreas, Persepolis, vol. II, Pl. 95.
30
Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften, 85 and n. a on the previous page.
31
“Nach der Phot. anscheinend Un geschrieben (nicht a). Zwischen dem vorhergehenden ú und Un
hat wohl nichts gestanden” (ibid., 84; n. a).
32
Apud Schmidt, Persepolis I, 63. Cameron (“Darius,” 307a) also indicated that “minor corrections to
the texts or the translations of all the Persepolis inscriptions will be published later” in the work of
Schmidt, i.e. Persepolis series.
33
Stolper, “Achaemenid.”
 DPg: Ahuramazdā and the Creation of Water 11

Figure 3. Photograph by Andreas and Stolze (Vol. II, Pl. 95).

12 Delshad

Figure 4. A part of DPg depicting the cuneiform elements of “and water(s)” (u Ameš)
in the second line and “the people” (ÙGmeš) below it in the third line (©
G. P. Basello).

Why Could “u Ameš” Be Correct?

There is no doubt that the creation formulae of the Achaemenid royal inscriptions
always contain all or some of the following elements: “god”; “Ahuramazdā” and his
“greatness”; the creation of “earth”; “heaven”; “people”; and “happiness” (“prosperity”
in Bab.). Peculiarities in the creation formula of DPg come from the fact that all four
inscriptions (DPd-e-f-g) “do not show the common standard formulae which else-
where are constantly repeated and scarcely ever varied. They seem to go back to a
period before the stereotyped character of the inscriptions had developed.”34

34
Schmitt, The Old Persian, 56. Needless to say, Schmitt’s words refer to DPd-e, but who can deny the
fact that the other two inscriptions (DPf-g) have benefited from the same phenomena? He (Schmitt, Beit-
räge, 27) also precisely indicates that:
“Was die beiden altpersischen Inschriften (auf die ich mich im folgenden beschränke) gemein haben
und was sie gegenüber allen anderen Texten auszeichnet, ist der Umstand, daß sie nicht die üblichen,
später ständig wiederholten und kaum variierten Standardformeln aufweisen. Diese isoliert stehenden
Formulierungen oder, wenn man will, Formulierungsversuche machen deutlich, daß zur Entstehungs-
zeit dieser Texte ein festes Formular, wie wir Heutigen es als charakteristisch für die achaimenidischen
Königsinschriften empfinden, noch nicht existierte.”
 DPg: Ahuramazdā and the Creation of Water 13

Regarding the “stone-cutter’s error” explanation for the apparent misspelling which
Stolper suggests,35 since the engraver in the following line (l. 3) clearly depicts the
expected correct form of “ÙGmeš”(see Figure 4), it is my opinion that an error(s)
made by the stone-cutter or engraver is an unlikely explanation for the discrepancy
between the observed elements in the disputed cuneiform character and the previously
suggested readings. In fact, the error of the scribe and the stone-cutter is the last thing
that we expect in such cases. There is no doubt that we can find numerous mistakes
made by the scribes and the individuals who wrote the inscriptions on various material
supports such as stone, metals, and so forth. Still, we should explain each type of error
in its context in comparison with the related copies and related words in the same
inscription.
Here, since we do not have any other copy of DPg, the so-called intertextual com-
parison between the same word would be a great help to discuss whether this
peculiarity is an error or not. As mentioned above, the only example of the same
word is written in the following line (DPg: 3), and its form fits perfectly to what
we expect. However, one cannot entirely leave aside the possibility that the stone-
cutter might have made an error in cutting the correct form of “ÙG.”

Bibliography

Basello, G.P. “Of Gods and Men in the Persepolis Bronze Plaque.” In Persian Religion in the Achaemenid
Period / La religion perse à l’époque achéménide, ed. W.F.M. Henkelman and C. Redard 347–84. Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2017.
Bezold, C. Die Achämenideninschriften. Transcription des babylonischen Textes, nebst Übersetzung, textk-
ritischen Anmerkungen und einem Wörter- und Eigennamenverzeichnisse. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1882.
Biggs, R. D., Brinkman, J. A., Civil, M., Farber, W., Gelb, I. J., Oppenheim, L. A., … Stolper, M. W.
(Series Ed.) The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago,
IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956 ff.
Cameron, G.G. “Darius, Egypt, and the ‘Lands Beyond the Sea’.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2, no. 4
(Oct. 1943): 307–13.
Coste, P., and E. Flandin. Voyage en Perse de Eugène Flandin et Pascal Coste pendant les années 1840 et
1841. Perse ancienne, Planches. Vol. 2. Paris: Gide et J. Baudry, 1851.
De Saulcy, F. Recherches sur l’écriture cunéiforme de système assyrienn. Inscriptions der Achéménides. 3e
mémoire. Paris: impr. de Koeppelin, 1850.
Filippone, E. DPd/DPe and the Political Discourse of King Darius. In DARIOSH Studies II; Persepolis
and its Settlements: Territorial System and Ideology in the Achaemenid State, ed. G.P. Basello and A.
Rossi, 101–20. Napoli: Università degli studi di Napoli “L’Orientale,” 2012.
Hauri, C. Das pentathematische Schema der altpersischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag,
1973.
Henkelman, W.F.M. The Other Gods Who Are. Studies in Elamite-Iranian Acculturation Based on the
Persepolis Fortification Texts. Leiden: Nederlands Inst. voor het Nabije Oosten, 2008.
Horowitz, W. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998.
Ker Porter, R. Travels into Georgia, Persia, Armenia, Ancient Babylon, &c. &c. during the Years 1817,
1818, 1819, and 1820. Vols. 1–2. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1821.
Kuhrt, A. The Persian Empire. A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. London: Routledge,
2007.

35
Stolper, “Achaemenid.”
14 Delshad

Malbran-Labat, F. La Version Akkadiene de l’Inscription Trilingue de Darius à Behistun. Roma: Gruppo

Editoriale Internazionale, 1994.
Niebuhr, C. Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und den umliegenden Ländern, zweiter Band (Vorwort zum
Nachdruck von Dietmar Henze). Vols. 1–3. Graz-Austria: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt,
[1765] 1968.
Oppert, J. Expédition scientifique en Mésopotamie: Exécutée par ordre du gouvernement de 1851 à 1854 par
MM. Fulgence Fresnel, Félix Thomas, et Jules Oppert (Cambridge Library Collection—Archaeology).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1859] 2014.
Rössler, O. Untersuchungen über die akkadische Fassung der Achämenideninschriften. Berlin: Triltsch &
Huther, 1938.
Scheil, V. Inscriptions des Achéménides a Suse (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse XXI). Paris: Librairie
Ernest Leroux, 1929.
Schmidt, E. F. Persepolis I. Structures. Reliefs. Inscriptions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
Schmitt, R. Beiträge zu altpersischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1999.
Schmitt, R. The Old Persian Inscriptions of Naqsh-i Rustam and Persepolis. London: School of Oriental
and African Studies, 2000.
Schmitt, R. Die altpersische Inschriften der Achaimeniden. Editio minor mit deutscher Übersetzung. Wies-
baden: Reichert, 2009.
Schmitt, R. Stilistik der altpersischen Inschriften: Versuch einer Annährung. Wien: Verlag der österrei-
chischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016.
Schrader, E. “Die assyrisch-babylonischen Keilinschriften. Kritische Untersuchung der Grundlagen ihrer
Entzifferung.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft XXVI, Heft 1‒2 (1872): 1–392.
Stolper, M.W. Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions Project (1998). https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/projects/
achaemenid-royal-inscriptions-project
Stolze, F., and F.C. Andreas. Persepolis. Die achaemenidischen und sasanidischen Denkmäler und Inschrif-
ten von Persepolis, Istakhr, Pasargadae, Shâhpûr. Vol. 2. Berlin: Verlag von A. Asher.
Streck, M.P. Supplement to the Akkadian Dictionaries. Vol. 1: B, P. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018.
Texier, C. Description de l’Arménie, la Perse et la Mésopotamie; géographie, géologie, monuments anciens et
modernes, moeurs & coutumes. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1852.
Vallat, F. Table Accadienne de Darius Ier (DSaa). In Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Mélanges Offerts à
M. J. Steve, ed. L. de Meyer, H. Gasche, and F. Vallat, 277–87. Paris: Ed. Recherche sur les Civilis-
ations, 1986.
Weissbach, F.H. Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1911.
Westergaard, N.L. “On the Deciphering of the Second Achaemenian or Median Species of Arrowheaded
Writing.” In Mémoires de la Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord, 271–439. Copenhague: Au
Secrétariat de la Société. 1840‒44.
Wiesehöfer, J. “Englbert Kaempfer in Naqš-i Rustam und Persepolis.” In Achaemenid History VII:
Through Travellers’ Eyes; European Travellers on the Iranian Monuments [Proceedings of the 1989 Gro-
ningen Achaemenid History Workshop], ed. H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and J.W. Drijvers, 71–85. Leiden:
Nederlands Inst. voor het Nabije Oosten, 1991.