R. (1988). Achaimenideninschriften in griechischer literarischer Überlieferung. In W. Sundermann, J. Duchesne‐Guillemin, and F. Vahman (eds.), A Green Leaf: Papers in Honour of Professor Jes P. Asmussen, Acta Iranica 28. Leiden: Brill, pp. 17–38.34 Schmitt, R. (1990). Bisotun. iii: Darius' inscriptions. Encyclopaedia Iranica, 4 (4), pp. 299–305.
35 Schmitt, R. (1991). The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Old Persian Text, Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Part I, Vol. I, Texts I. London: Published on behalf of Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum by School of Oriental and African Studies.
36 Schmitt, R. (1993). Cuneiform Script. Encyclopaedia Iranica, 6 (5), pp. 456–462.
37 Schmitt, R. (1998). Übersetzung im Dienst der Politik: Die mehrsprachigen Königsinschriften im Achämenidenreich. In P. Anreiter, H.M. Ölberg (eds.), Wort – Text – Sprache und Kultur – Festschrift für Hans Schmeja zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, pp. 157–165.
38 Schmitt, R. (1999). Beiträge zu altpersischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert.
39 Schmitt, R. (2004). Old Persian. In R. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 717–741.
40 Schmitt, R. (2007). Pseudo‐altpersische Inschriften. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
41 Schmitt, R. (2009). Die altpersischen Inschriften der Achaimeniden. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert.
42 Schmitt, R. (2014). Wörterbuch der altpersischen Königsinschriften. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert.
43 Schweiger, G. (1998). Kritische Neuedition der achaemenidischen Keilinschriften, 2. Taimering: Schweiger.
44 Sims‐Williams, N. (1981). The final paragraph of the tomb‐inscription of Darius I (DNb, 50‐60): the Old Persian text in the light of an Aramaic version. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 44, pp. 1–7.
45 Skjærvø, P.O. (1999). Avestan quotations in Old Persian? Literary sources of the Old Persian inscriptions. In S. Shaked, A. Netzer (eds.), Irano‐Judaica IV: Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture throughout the Ages. Jerusalem: Ben‐Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, pp. 1–64.
46 Steve, M.‐J. (1974). Inscriptions des Achéménides à Suse (suite). Studia Iranica, 3, pp. 135–169.
47 Stolper, M.W. (2004). Elamite. In R. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 60–94.
48 Stolper, M.W. (2005). Achaemenid languages and inscriptions. In J. Curtis, N. Tallis (eds.), Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia. London: The British Museum Press, pp. 24–28.
49 Stolper, M.W., Tavernier, J. (2007). An Old Persian administrative tablet from the Persepolis fortification. ARTA 2007.001, pp. 1–28.
50 Tuplin, C. (2005). Darius' accession in (the) media. In P. Bienkowski, C. Mee, and E. Slater (eds.), Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society: Papers in Honour of Alan R. Millard. New York/London: T&T Clark, pp. 217–244.
51 Tuplin, C. (2011). The limits of Persianization: some reflection on cultural links in the Persian empire. In E.S. Gruen (ed.), Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, pp. 150–182.
52 Vallat, F. (2011). Darius, l’héritier légitime, et les premières Achéménides. In J. Álvarez‐Mon, M.B. Garrison (eds.), Elam and Persia. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, pp. 263–284.
FURTHER READING
1 Grillot‐Susini, F., Herrenschmidt, C., and Malbran‐Labat, F. (1993). La version élamite de la trilingue de Behistun: une nouvelle lecture. Journal Asiatique, 281, pp. 19–59. The most recent translation of the Elamite version of Bisotun inscription (DB/AE).
2 Kent, R.G. (1953). Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. Remains the only reference handbook for English readers (needs updating).
3 Lecoq, P. (1974). Le problème de l’écriture cunéiforme vieux‐perse. Commémoration Cyrus, 3, pp. 25–107. A careful outline of the problems connected to the interpretation of DB/OP §70 = AE L and the introduction of OP script.
4 Malbran‐Labat, F. (1994). La version akkadienne de l’inscription trilingue de Darius à Behistun. Roma: Gruppo editoriale internazionale. The most recent overall analysis of the Babylonian version of Bisotun inscriptions (DB/LB).
5 Rossi, A.V. (2000). L’iscrizione originaria di Bisotun: DB elam. A+L. In S. Graziani (ed.), Miscellanea di studi in memoria di Luigi Cagni. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, pp. 2084–2125. A detailed analysis of §70/OP of DB.
6 Rossi, A.V. (2008). Antico‐iranico ed elamico achemenide – 1979–2009. AIΩN‐Ling., 30, pp. 95–160. Bibliographical report on 30 years of scholarship on OP and AE.
7 Schmitt, R. (1990). Epigraphisch‐exegetische Noten zu Dareios' Bīsutūn‐Inschriften. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Epigraphical foundations for Schmitt's edition of DB/OP in the CII.
8 Weissbach, F.H. (1911). Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich. Though published more than one century ago (much epigraphical material was unknown to the author), remains the only collection giving the original texts, a German translation, and a textual and philological commentary.
All published volumes of Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, London, Part I: Inscription of Ancient Iran.
All relevant articles in the Encyclopaedia Iranica.
CHAPTER 7 Elamite Sources
Matthew W. Stolper
Introduction
Almost all of the Elamite royal inscriptions are versions of texts that were also displayed in Old Persian and in Akkadian. In the nineteenth century, when these trilingual inscriptions provided the basis for the modern decipherment of the cuneiform writing systems, the consequent study of Elamite, like the study of Akkadian, led to a wider and deeper corpus of pre‐Achaemenid records that documents centuries of previously unknown history. The Elamite corpus, however, proved to be much smaller, less diverse, less dense, and less continuous than the Akkadian corpus. It was also much less tractable. While the early study of Old Persian and Akkadian benefited from flourishing comparative and historical research on related Indo‐Iranian and Semitic languages, early attempts to identify and exploit known languages connected to Elamite were vain or misleading. Evidence from the other versions of the multilingual inscriptions was fundamental to the interpretation of Elamite lexicon and grammar.
Almost all Achaemenid Elamite administrative documents come from two groups excavated at Persepolis in 1933–1934 and 1936–1939. This large corpus differs from the royal inscriptions in contents, in rhetorical register and purpose, in syntactic and stylistic complexity, and in grammatical and orthographic variation. From the late twentieth century on, these practical texts have provided a rich context both for internal analysis of Achaemenid Elamite language and for
