CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9Ancient Near East HistoryBiblical Studies and InterpretationAncient Egypt and Archaeology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 24 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

An Achaemenid Royal Inscription: The Text of Paragraph 13 of the Aramaic Version of the Bisitun Inscription

Open access
Tavernier, Jan·2001·Journal of Near Eastern Studies
DOI 10.1086/468914
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

THE longest and most studied text in the corpus of Achaemenid royal inscriptions is the Bisitun inscription (DB), in which king Darius 1 gives an account of the tumultuous first year of his reign.As is the case with most Achaemenid royal inscriptions, the text is recorded in Old Persian, Babylonian, and Elamite.When in 1911 Sachau published his text edition of Aramaic papyri in Egypt,l however, it became clear that there was also an Aramaic version of this inscription (DB Aram.). This is hitherto the only preserved Aramaic version of an Achaemenid royal inscription.This Aramaic version was written on a papyrus, the verso of which contains several columns of accounts.As can be deduced from the dates mentioned in these accounts, it seems certain that the Aramaic text was written on the papyrus in the early years of the reign of Darius II (around 421 B.C.),2 i.e., approximately a century after DB was carved on the rocks.There are several possible reasons for this.The copy could be an exercise of a master scribe.Yet it is more probable that the new copy was intended to commemorate the onehundredth anniversary of the accession of Darius 1 to the throne and of his suppression of * Many thanks go to A. Schoors of the University of Leuven and S. Creason of the University of Chicago for their critical and helpful remarks. 1 would also like to thank the staff of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD) for its hospitality and access to its resources.1 am currently a Research Assistant for the Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This article re-examines paragraph 13 of the Aramaic version of the Bisitun inscription (DB Aram. lines 64–73), the only part of that text still not completely understood. It argues that the middle section (66b–70a) is based on the Old Persian text of Darius’s tomb inscription DNb rather than on the Babylonian version, and proposes restorations for several damaged lines.

Key findings

  • Paragraph 13 divides into three parts: a warning against lies (64–66a), an Aramaic rendering of the last paragraph of DNb (66b–70a), and advice not to conceal the truth (70b–73).
  • DB Aram. 66b–70a is more likely based on Old Persian DNb than on Babylonian DNb: the Old Persian words *paratar* and *ayaumainis* appear in transcription as *prtr* and *ʾymnš*, and the subordinate-clause order matches Old Persian, Elamite, and Aramaic rather than Babylonian.
  • For lines 64–66a the article proposes restorations including *[dryhws mlkʾ kn ʾmr mn ʾn]t mlk zy ʾḥry thwh ʾys zy ykdb*; *[wʾys zy(?) ʾl trḥ]m mn kdbn sgyʾn ʾzhr ʿ[lym(?)] zy ykdb*; and *[ʾl tsblhy ḥsn sʾlhy]*.
  • For 70b–73, it accepts restorations based on the Babylonian text, including line 72 *yb[rk wyrḥmnk wzrck y]sgʾ* and line 73 *ʾhwrmzd yq[llnk wzrʿ yhwh lk]*.

Methods

  • Philological and textual-critical study of DB Aram. paragraph 13 (lines 64–73), comparing the Aramaic papyrus with the Babylonian version of DB and the Old Persian text of DNb 50–60.
  • The article uses earlier editions and photographs to reconstruct lacunae, divides the paragraph into three sections, and provides a synoptic table of Aramaic, Babylonian, and Old Persian equivalents.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the papyrus is partly destroyed, only the second half is preserved, lines 69–70 are badly damaged, and the Old Persian text itself is damaged; several restorations remain hypothetical.
  • The paper states that no plausible explanation for *[]d/rklyk* has been found, that an Iranian-loanword explanation faces the difficulty of the phoneme /l/, and that proposed semantic connections for *ylXn* remain hypothetical.
  • Evident from the text: conclusions depend on damaged photographs and prior editions, with some readings still uncertain (e.g., *tqynʾ*, *sprnʾ*).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/468914

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 24 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 31 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 27
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 34
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
50 of 50

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The Aramaic version of DB was written down at the royal court shortly after the accession of Darius II to the throne.

    “Presumably, the Aramaic version of DB, which was written down at the royal court shortly after the accession of Darius II to the throne, already contained these two differences.14”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The Aramaic form []dlrklyk is an Iranian loanword.

    “The best way to explain this assumed Iranian loanword is to divide the Aramaic form into two parts: []dlrk and lyk.”
    “That the Aramaic version uses an Iranian word different from the one used in the Old Persian version does not invalidate this assumption.”
2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 4 references

1 of the 4 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Greenfield and Porten, The Bisitun Inscription. p.47. 23 Ibid., p. 46; Porten and Yardeni, Textbook, vol. 3,~. 7. 4 Sachau, Aramdische Papyrus, p. 196, line 2;
  2. Ungnad, Aramdische Papyrus, p. 90, line 2; Cowley, Aramaic Papy ri, p. 253, line 51; Greenfield and Por- ten, The Bisitun Inscription, p. 46, li ne 65. 25 Porten and Yardeni, Textbook, vol. 3, p. 70.
  3. T. Muraoka and B. Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten, vol. 32 (Leiden, 1998), p. 272.
  4. Kdyb is a qatll-form. This type of form is mostly used for adjectives or passive participles. In Aramaic, a nomen agentis usually is a qattiil-form. See H. Bauer and P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramdischen (Halle a.d. Saale, 1927), pp. 188 and 191. 28 DNWSI, pp. 854-55. 29
  5. Greenfield and Porten, The Bisitun Inscription, p.48. 45 Ibid., p. 49. 46 TAD C l.l :92 and 216. In DB Aram. 48 J:tr" is the equivalent of Bab. miir banÎ (DB Bab. 77). The latter is also attested as the counterpart of muskenu in DNb Bab. 6. 47 Nabataean and Palmyrene br J:trn (DNWSI, pp. 401-2), Late Aramaic br J:twryn (see M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 2 [Ramat Gan, 1990), p. 99), Hebrew br J:twryn (see W. Baumgartner, Hebriiisches und ara- miiisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament [Leiden, 1967), p. 334;
  6. J. Levy, Worterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, 2d ed., vol. 2 [Berlin and Vienna, 1924), p. 239), and Syriac br J:t"ryn (see R. Payne Smith, ed., Thesaurus Syriacus, vol. 1 [Oxford, 1879), p. 53). Cf. also the Ugaritic PN bn J:try (J. C. De Moor and K. Spronk, "Problematic Passages in the Legend of Kirtu l," Ugarit-Forschungen 14 [1982): 168 and n.126).
  7. É. Benveniste, "La racine yat-en indo-iranien," Indo-lranica: Mélanges présentées à Georg Morgen- stierne à l'occasion de son soixante-dixième anniver- saire (Wiesbaden, 1964), pp. 22-23. 51 Porten and Muraoka, Grammar, p. 336, par. 90
  8. and n. 1275. See Sims-Williams, "The Final Para- graph of the Tomb-Inscription of Darius l," p. 6. 52 TAD C 1.1:85. Greenfield and Porten, The Bisi- tun Inscription, p. 49. See Cowley. Aramaic Papy ri, p. 259: "see also before thee." Hoftijzer and Jongeling DNWSI, p. 992 ("In Beh 54 of diff. interpret."), have no 0finion about this problem. 5 Restoration by Hinz, in "Die untere Grabin- schrift des Dareios," pp. 237-38. 54 Restoration, ibid., p. 238.
  9. d/rklyk ";Cl yl"/kn: Porten and Yardeni, Textbook, vol. 3, p. 70. 56 Sachau, Aramdische Papyrus, pl. 56 rev. no. 4. Cf. Porten and Yardeni, Textbook, vol. 3, foldout 27. 57 Muraoka and Porten, Grammar, p. 97 (exam- pies on pp. 104-5 and 107). 58 The verb ylXn almost certainly has to be singu- lar. Most probably it is a jussive (compare the Old 1926], p. 689;

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 9

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tavernier, J.
Affiliations
KU Leuven (BE)
Corresponding author
Tavernier, Jan
ORCID
Tavernier, Jan
Venue
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Published
2001-07
Volume
60
Issue
3
Pages
161-176
ISSN
  • 0022-2968 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-6978
DOI
10.1086/468914
OpenAlex
W1999416136
Semantic Scholar
b30bf4f4bc9dd9572d9ae60578124a58772ac1a3
Cited by
9
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Near Eastern Studies (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Ancient Near East History
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Ancient Egypt and Archaeology
Keywords
Aramaic versions, Darius I, Aramaic papyrus, Old Persian, Elamite, Babylonians, Darius II, Sachau, textual edition, Achaemenid Persian Empire

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review