Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2026
On June 26, 1935, the expedition of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago found at Persepolis a number of inscribed stone tablets, made in the shape and fashion of clay tablets, and bearing an important document of King Xerxes. Two tablets bore the Old Persian text, one the Akkadian version, and one the Elamite. A translation with a certain amount of historical commentary was given out by the Oriental Institute as a newspaper release, appearing in The New York Times for Feb. 9, 1936, and also in The University of Chicago Magazine 28.4.23–5 (Feb. 1936). This formed the basis for my own remarks on the inscription, in JAOS 56.211–5 (June 1936). A photographic view of the tablets at the place of discovery, with some explanatory remarks by Eric F. Schmidt, of the Expedition, was given in the Illustrated London News for Feb. 22, 1936, page 328; an abstract of this was presented in Archiv für Orientforschung 11.91 (first semester 1936). The actual text in the original languages was not accessible until it was published by Ernst Herzfeld in Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 8.56–77 (Nov. 1936); he had previously published in the Revue de l'Histoire des Religions 113.21–41 (Jan.–Feb. 1936) an address on Die Religion der Achaemeniden, originally delivered as an address at the Sixth Congress of the History of Religions at Brussels, Sept. 18, 1935, in which he drew upon the new material contained in these tablets. The latest bibliographic item which has come to my attention is a study by Hans Hartmann in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 40.145–60 (March 1937).
1 I should prefer to take a-sa-ta-i-ya as a substantive, astiya, meaning ‘population’ or the like, a derivative of root ah- ‘be’ or of āh- ‘sit’, or perhaps of ā + stā-‘stand’. It would then be the subject of ayauda in 31, and the sentence would mean ‘the population was in turmoil within these provinces which are written above.’ Can it be that ibaš in the Akk version is a miswriting of na-aš ‘men’ (collectively), or that the scribe was operating with a vocabulary in which he failed to distinguish between OP homographs?
2 There is one other possibility, which I do not regard as very probable : the original text may have lost a word in the drafting, and have been daivā : mā : yadiyaiš : yadāyā : (yadātya :) paruvam etc., ‘thou shalt not worship the daivas with worship; where before … ‘ This is suggested by hacā yadāyā Bh. 3.26, ‘from loyalty'. For haplographic loss in the OP inscriptions, cf. JAOS 35.342.