“Daiva Inscription” of Xerxes: Historical Account, Ideological Statement, or Propaganda?

 
Title (other)История, идеология и пропаганда в антидэвовской надписи Ксеркса
PIIS032103910021907-0-1
DOI10.31857/S032103910021908-1
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Affiliation: Institute of Oriental Studies, RAS
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameVestnik drevnei istorii
EditionVolume 83 Issue 1
Pages5-26
Abstract

The so-called “Daiva inscription” of Xerxes found in Persepolis addresses the activity of this Achaemenid Persian king in two lands, one of which is said to have been in commotion, while the other is alluded to have been characterized by unacceptable religious practices. Xerxes stresses his involvement in the restoration of order in both countries but does not mention their names. Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Bactria were all adduced as candidates by 20th-century scholars, while the recent mainstream scholarship tends to interpret the same accounts as abstract ideological statements without an anchor in time or space. The new approach advocated in this paper assumes that Xerxes resorted to historical narratives only in order to provide his own apologetic version of embarrassing events. In particular, his self-professed involvement in the destruction of the cults of evil gods is to be interpreted as a twisted account of the destruction of the Acropolis of Athens by the Persian army in 480 BCE. In the wake of the disastrous war against the Greeks, Xerxes strove to present it as a successful special operation against the Greek deities.

Abstract (other)

Текст, найденный в Персеполе и известный как антидэвовская надпись Ксеркса, содержит описание репрессий этого ахеменидского монарха в отношении двух стран, в одной из которых происходили волнения, а другая якобы запятнала себя недопустимыми религиозными культами (почитанием дэвов). Ксеркс подчеркивает свою роль в восстановлении порядка в обеих странах, при этом прямо не называя их. Ученые двадцатого века рассматривали Египет, Вавилонию, Грецию и Бактрию в качестве возможных кандидатов, тогда как большинство современных исследователей склонны рассматривать нарратив Ксеркса как абстрактный идеологический манифест. В настоящей статье предлагается новый подход, согласно которому исторический нарратив в надписях Ксеркса всегда представляет собой апологетическую пропаганду, призванную завуалировать неудобные для царя факты. В частности, рассказ о роли Ксеркса в борьбе с дэвовскими культами следует интерпретировать как пропагандистское описание сожжения афинского акрополя в 480 году до н.э. Иными словами, антидэвовская надпись пытается представить проигранную войну персов с греческими полисами как успешную специальную операцию, направленную против греческих богов.

KeywordsXerxes, Achaemenid, propaganda, Old Persian, Daiva inscription, Greek and Persian Wars
Keywords list (other)Ксеркс, Ахемениды, пропаганда, древнеперсидский язык, антидэвовская надпись, греко-персидские войны
Received09.11.2022
Publication date29.03.2023
Number of characters71243
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 369

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Abaev, V.I. 1963: [Column five of the Bisitun inscription of Darius I and the Daiva inscription of Xerxes]. Vestnik drevney istorii [Journal of Ancient History] 2, 113–118.

2. Abdi, K. 2007: The ‘Daivā’ Inscription Revisited. Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān 6/1-2, 45-74.

3. Baker, A.E., Hengeveld K. (eds). 2012: Linguistics. Oxford.

4. Bianchi, U. 1977: L’inscription «des daivas» et le zoroastrisme des Achéménides. Revue de l'histoire des religions 192/1, 3–30.

5. Boyce, M. 1982: A History of Zoroastrianism: Zoroastrianism under the Achaemenians. Leiden.

6. Briant, P. 2002: From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. P.T. Daniels (transl.). Winona Lake, IN.

7. Bridges, E. 2015: Imagining Xerxes: Ancient Perspectives on a Persian King. London.

8. Dandamaev, M.A. 1976: Persien unter der ersten Achämeniden (6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.). Wiesbaden.

9. Dandamaev, M.A. 1985. Politicheskaya istoriya akhemenidskoy derzhavy [Poltical History of the Achaemenid Empire]. Moscow.

10. David, J. 2017: Achaemenid Propaganda and Oral Tradition: A Reassessment of Herodotus’ Early Persian Logoi. In: B. Halpern, K.S. Sacks (eds), Cultural Contact and Appropriation in the Axial-Age Mediterranean World: A Periplos. Leiden, 60–82.

11. Filippone, E. 2010: Xerxes Persepolis h, §4 in the Light of the Old Persian Information Structure. In: M. Macuch, D. Weber, and D. Durkin-Meisterernst (eds), Ancient and Middle Iranian Studies, Proceedings of the 6th European Conference of Iranian Studies, held in Vienna 18-22 September 2007. Wiesbaden, 61–76.

12. Gnoli, G. 2011: Daivadāna. In: Encyclopedia Iranica. https://iranicaonline.org/articles/ daivadana-lit.

13. Hartmann, H. 1937: Zur neuen Inschrift des Xerxes von Persepolis. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 40/3, 145–160.

14. Henkelman, W.F.M. 2008: The Other Gods Who Are: Studies in Elamite-Iranian acculturation based on the Persepolis Fortification Texts. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

15. Herzfeld, E. 1937: Verbot des Daiva-Cultes. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 8, 56–77.

16. Hintze, A. 2015: Zarathustra’s Time and Homeland: Linguistic Perspectives. In: M. Strausberg, Y.S. Vevaina (eds), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism. Oxford, 31–38.

17. Huayna Ávila, C.S. 2020: Some Thoughts on Xerxes’s “Daiva” inscription and its interpretation. Antiguo Oriente 18, 119–186.

18. Hutter, M. 2021: Religions in the Empire. In: B. Jacobs, R. Rollinger (eds), A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Hoboken, NJ, Vol. II, 1285–1302.

19. Jacobs, B. 2014: Historische Aussagen in den Achämenideninschriften im Licht sich wandelnder Legitimationsstrategien. In: S. Gaspa et al. (eds), From Source to History: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond Dedicated to Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on June 23, 2014. Münster, 341–352.

20. Kuhrt, A., Sherwin-White S.M. 1987: Xerxes’ Destruction of Babylonian Temples. In: H.W.A.M. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt (eds), Achaemenid History II. The Greek Sources: Proceedings of the Groningen 1984 Achaemenid History Workshop, Leiden, 69–78.

21. Kuhrt, A. 2014: Reassessing the Reign of Xerxes in the Light of New Evidence. In: M. Kozuh et al. (eds), Extraction and Control: Studies in honor of Mattew W. Stolper. Chicago, 163–169.

22. Konijnedijk, R. 2021: Legitimization of War. In: B. Jacobs and R. Rollinger (eds), A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Hoboken, NJ, Vol. II, 1142–1150.

23. Lévy, I. 1939: L’inscription triomphale de Xerxès. Revue historique 185, 105–122.

24. Nyberg, H.S. 1938: Die Religionen des alten Irans. Leipzig.

25. Olmstead, A.T. 1948: History of the Persian Empire. Chicago.

26. Petrovic, I. 2014: Posidippus and Achaemenid royal propaganda. In: R. Hunter, A. Rengakos, E. Sistakou (eds). Hellenistic Studies at a Crossroads: Exploring Texts, Contexts and Metatexts. Berlin, 273–300.

27. Riminucci, Ch. 2006: Les daiva dans l’inscription de Xerxès (XPh): entités étrangères ou anciennes divinités iraniennes? In: A. Panaino and A. Piras, (eds), Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the Societas Iranologica Europæa held in Ravenna, 6-11 October 2003, Vol. I: Ancient & Middle Iranian Studies. Milan, 183–199.

28. Rollinger, R. 2014: Thinking and Writing about History in Achaemenid Persia. In: K.A. Raaflaub (ed.), Thinking, Recording, and Writing History in the Ancient World. Oxford, 187–212.

29. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H.W.A.M. 1980: Yauna en Persai. Grieken en Perzen in een ander perspectief. Leiden University Ph.D. dissertation.

30. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H.W.A.M. 1999: The Persian Kings and History. In: Ch. Shuttleworth Kraus (ed.), The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts. Leiden, 91–112.

31. Scheer, T.S. 2003: Die geraubte Artemis. Griechen, Perser, und die Kultbilder der Götter. In: M. Witte and S. Alkier (eds.), Die Griechen und der Vordere Orient: Beiträge zum Kultur- und Religionskontakt zwischen Griechenland und dem Vorderen Orient im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Goettingen, 59–85.

32. Schmidt, E. 1953: Persepolis I: Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions. Chicago.

33. Schmitt, R. 1991: The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Old Persian Text. London.

34. Schmitt, R. 2009: Die altpersischen Inschriften der Achaimeniden. Wiesbaden.

35. Schmitt, R. 2014: Wörterbuch der altpersischen Königsinschriften. Wiesbaden.

36. Skjærvø, P.O. 2012: The Spirit of Zoroastrianism. New Haven.

37. Stronach, D. 1965: Excavations at Pasargadae: Third Preliminary Report. Iran 3, 9-40.

38. Tavernier, J. 2004: Some Thoughts on Neo-Elamite Chronology. Arta 2004.003.

39. Tucker, E. 2022: Lexical variation in Young Avestan: The Problem of the ‘Ahuric’ and ‘Daevic’ Vocabularies Revisited. In: M. Bianconi et al. (eds.), Ancient Indo-European Languages between Linguistics and Philology: Contact, Variation, and Reconstruction. Leiden, 254–275.

40. Tuplin, Ch. 2017: War and Peace in Achaemenid Imperial Ideology. Electrum 24, 31–54.

41. Valetov, T.Ya. 1998. The Analysis of the Daiva Inscription of Xerxes. In: Materialy Mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii studentov I aspirantov “Lomonosov-98” [Proceedings of the International Student conference “Lomonosov 98”]. Moscow.

42. Waerzeggers, C. 2018: Introduction: Debating Xerxes’ Rule in Babylonia. In: C. Waerzeggers and M. Seire (eds.), Xerxes and Babylonia: The Cuneiform Evidence. Leuven, 1–18.

43. Waters, M. 2014: Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550–330 BCE. Cambridge.

44. Wijnsma, U.S. 2019: “And in the fourth year Egypt rebelled ...” The Chronology of and Sources for Egypt’s Second Revolt (ca. 487–484 BC). Journal of Ancient History 7/1, 32–61.

45. Wiesehöfer, J. 2001: Ancient Persia. London.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up