ATOSSA RE-ENTERS:

CYRUS’S OTHER DAUGHTER IN PERSEPOLIS FORTIFICATION TEXTS1

Matthew W. Stolper
Oriental Institute, University of Chicago

In: S. Gondet and E. Haerinck (eds.), L’Orient est son Jardin (hommages à
Rémy Boucharlat), Acta Iranica (Leuven: Peeters), forthcoming.

Of the Achaemenid royal women mentioned in the Persepolis Fortification Archive, two
names predominate: Irtaštuna, Greek Artystone, the daughter of Cyrus whom
Herodotus (vii.69.2) called Darius’s “favorite wife,” and Irdabama, unknown to
Herodotus and other Classical writers. As David Lewis observed (1984:599) “it has
proved distressingly difficult to find Atossa.”

Among more than 4,800 published and unpublished Elamite texts (references in
Henkelman 2010:669 n.8; add Arfaee 2008b), about 30 name Irtaštuna (representing
Iranian *Ṛtastūnā-, Tavernier 2007:301). They refer to her estates in several locales, to
her administrative agents and dependent workers, to her son Iršama (Greek Arsames,
Iranian *Ạršāma-, Tavernier 2007:44), to authorizations for disbursals written in her
name, and to commodities expended “before her”—that is, to support her entourage, in
terms parallel to those that describe provisioning the King’s Table (Brosius 1996:125ff.;
Henkelman & Kleber 2007:167ff.; Henkelman 2010:698ff.; Llewelyn-Jones 2013:113).

About 75 more of these documents refer in similar terms and contexts to Irdabama
(representing Iranian *Ṛtabāma-, Tavernier 2007:292), calling her by name or else by an
epithet unique to her, Elamite abbamuš (perhaps representing Iranian *apama-, “later,
youngest,” Tavernier 2007:474). Because of the range of her possessions, the size of her
workforce, the extent of her travel, the reach of her authority and the contexts in
which she is named, her attested presence not only near Persepolis but also in Susa and
her probable interests in Babylonia,2 she is understood to be a royal woman, certainly
the best documented and plausibly the most influential of her time, either the queen
mother or one of Darius’s wives (Brosius 1996:125, 129ff., 139ff.; Henkelman 2010:693ff.;
Llewelyn-Jones 2013:112f.; cf. Cook 1983:74, Kuhrt 2007: 173 n.1).

About 15 more similar mentions of Irtaštuna and Irdabama appear in about 1,500 more
Elamite Fortification texts and fragments documented by the Persepolis Fortification
Archive Project at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago since 2006 (e.g.
references in comment to No. 1:01, below).

1
An earlier version of these remarks was presented at the 223rd meeting of the American Oriental
Society (Portland, Oregon, 2013). Images of some of the cited unpublished documents are available on
line through the applications InscriptiFact (http://www.inscriptifact.com/) and OCHRE
(http://ochre.lib.uchicago.edu/); preliminary draft editions of some are also available through OCHRE.
The Persepolis Fortification Archive Project at the Oriental Institute, from which these observations
arise, has received timely support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Farhang Foundation, the
Getty Foundation, the Iran Heritage Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the
National Geographic Society Committee for Research and Exploration, the PARSA Community
Foundation, the Roshan Cultural Heritage Institute, the University of Chicago Women’s Board, and other
donors and organizations. Thanks are due to Mark Garrison, Wouter Henkelman, and Jan Tavernier, for
comments, information, references, corrections and suggestions. Responsibility for errors of substance
and judgment remains with the author.
2
As “appamū of the royal palace” (fappamū ša ekalli ša šarri) in texts from the Ezida temple at Borsippa,
Zadok 2002, 2003, 2009:178f. No. 75, 266 No. 47; Henkelman 2010: 697).

1
A few Elamite Fortification texts name other wives of Darius without mention of such
assets: Parmys (Elamite Uparmiya, recipient of grain on an order from Iršama/Arsames
PF 0309; Lewis 1984:599; Brosius 1996:145; Henkelman 2003:147; Tavernier 2007:209) and
Phaidym(i)e (Elamite Upanduš, deceased, PF-NN 2174 and Fort. 2512 [Arfaee 2008:253],
collated by Henkelman [personal communication]; Henkelman 2003:110f., 147f.; Kuhrt
2007:574; Tavernier 2007:203).

Absent, or nearly so, has been Atossa, whom Herodotus and other Classical sources
identify as a daughter of Cyrus the Great, sister of Artystone, half-sister and spouse of
Cambyses, spouse of Smerdis and Darius, and mother of Xerxes; who is traditionally
identified as the unnamed widow of Darius and mother of Xerxes who plays a central
role in the Persians of Aeschylus; and whose name was known in the generation
between Aeschylus and Herodotus to Hellanicus of Lesbos as the name of a fabulously
masculine woman, the first Persian ruler to wear tiara and trousers, to be served by
eunuchs, and to issue judgments in writing (FGrH 4 F 178a [= 687a F 7]; Harrison
2011:63, 141 n. 24).

Atossa is conspicuous at two places in the account of Herodotus. In connection with

the story of the Crotonian physician Democedes, it is said that Atossa incited Darius to
prove his manliness by making war on Greece (iii.134).3 In connection with the advice
of the Spartan king Demaratus on the Persian royal succession, it is said that her son
Xerxes would have prevailed in the contest for the succession to the throne no matter
what arguments were made from the order of birth of Darius’s sons, because Atossa
“held all the power” (εἶχε τὸ πᾶν κράτος, vii.3).4

At a time when readers schooled in the Classical accounts of Achaemenid history saw
the Fortification texts as “add[ing] a little flesh to the picked-over bones of early
Achaemenid history” (Hallock 1985 (1971):588), the discrepancy between the all-
powerful Atossa of Herodotus and the almost invisible Atossa of the Fortification
Archive was a cause for surprise.5 As scholarship on the Archive developed, the
discrepancy has been often observed and interpreted, sometimes in comparison to the
converse discrepancy between the prominence of Irdabama and Irtaštuna in the
Fortification Archive and the absence of the former and merely romantic role of the
latter in Herodotus (e.g., Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1983:22; Brosius 1996:48ff.; Henkelman &
Kleber 2007:169; Henkelman 2011a:29, 33; 2011b:596 n.61). If Atossa had little or no
economic or administrative status within the purview of the Fortification Archive from
the middle reign of Darius, it is suggested, whatever political power she had—if she had
any at all—came to her only as the queen mother, after the accession of Xerxes, and not
as the kingmaker, before the accession (e.g., Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1983:25, Brosius
1996:50; Henkelman 2011a:33; Llewelyn-Jones 2013:17).

Until now, only two available Elamite Fortification texts offered likely mentions of the
name of Atossa in Elamite transcription (PF 0162 and 0163). They record deposits of
quantities of two varieties or qualities of a cereal (perhaps emmer: Henkelman
3
On the literary and didactic tropes in this account, see, e.g., Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1983:25; Griffiths
1987; Brosius 1996:51; Boedeker 2011:216f.; Harrison 2011:66.
4
On the non-historical character of the supposed Spartan custom adduced before this remark, see, e.g.,
Brosius 1996:49.
5
This early approach to the Archive surely motivated Hinz’s ill-advised attempt to see the person of
Atossa behind the Elamite epithet banuka (representing Iranian *bānūkā-, “lady, queen”): Henkelman
2010:697f. n. 109.

2
2010:750ff.) to accounts of individuals whose names are otherwise rare in the archive.
Each is dated in the 22nd regnal year of Darius (500/499 BC). Each gives the name
SAL
Udusa-na (or: SALUdusana-na), “of (or: for) the woman U.,” without syntactic
connection, in PF 0162 before the date, in PF 0163 after the date, at the end of the text.
The fact that the royal women Irtaštuna and Irdabama are attested in identical
documents of the same time supports the inference that this Udusa (or: Udusana) was
another royal woman, but the laconic context affords no sign of the estates, agents,
workers, travels, or administrative authority that other texts associate with Irtaštuna
and Irdabama. Some commentators doubted that the woman named was indeed Atossa
(Koch 1990:144 n. 631, Brosius 1996:49).

This situation is altered by four more fragmentary Fortification texts with at least
seventeen more mentions of the name Udusa.

Three of them (Nos. 1-3, below) belong to Richard Hallock’s documentary Category V,
“journals,” that is, serial registers of transactions in a single commodity (wine in Nos. 1-
2, probably grain in No. 3), during a specified administrative period (regnal years 20-21,
502-500 BC), in a district overseen from particular administrative center (Antarrantiš,
in the vicinity of Persepolis [Koch 1990:33f.; Arfaee 2008a:54f.]), under the authority of
district administrative officials (Kinnadadda and others, in No. 1 explicitly “for
Atossa”). These three fragments are very similar in dimensions, fabric, ductus, and
layout, but no join among them is possible; they come from three distinct original
documents. The individual entries correspond in contents and form to memoranda
recording individual transactions, interim documents from which the journals were
compiled; hence the nine mentions of the name Udusa in the entries of these
documents represent at least as many underlying records that had been collated,
digested, and discarded.

The fourth document (No. 4, below) belongs to Hallock’s Category W, “accounts,” that
is, tabular digests of income, outlays and balances of a single commodity (here grain),
during a specified accounting period (regnal years 19-21, 503-500 BC), at an
administrative center (Antarrantiš), under the authority of district officials
(Kinnadadda and others, again “for Udusa”).

In addition to the overlapping contents, names, and dates among the four texts, three
of the fragments (Nos. 1, 2, and 4) have impressions of PFS 0120, one of the seals specific
to journals and accounts compiled at Persepolis.

How do these fragments affect our view of Atossa at Persepolis?

In the first place, they clarify the Elamite form of the name, Udusa, as a plain
transcription of the Iranian name behind Greek Atossa.
Hallock’s glossary (1969:766) entered the name as Udusana, evidently because of the spelling
SAL
ú-du-sa-na-na in PF 0163:05f. (vs. SALú-tam5-sa-na PF 0162:06) and the analogy of SALir-taš-du-
na-na in PF 0165-0168 (vs. SALir-taš-du-na PF 0164). His penciled notes in the margin of his
working copy of Hallock 1969 cite Gershevitch 1969:244: “*hu-tauθānā-, -ānā- metronymic to Av.
hutaosā-, Parth. xwdws, … Gr. Ἄτοσσα,” adding “Atossa d. Cyrus; m. Camb., Bardia, Darius, with
Darius mother of Xerxes, Hystaspes, Masistes.”

Following Hallock, Tavernier analyzed the name as Iranian *(H)utōθānā- (2007:212 with
literature). Koch (1990:144 n. 631) interpreted the metronymic ending literally, surmising that

3
 the name refers not to Atossa herself, but to her daughter, and for Brosius (1996:49) absence of
any other mentions of the name weighed against seeing Atossa in these passages.

Most occurrences of the name in the documents presented here are spelled with final –na, none
with final –na-na. Three passages imply that the Elamite form of the name is Udusa,
corresponding exactly to Greek Atossa, hence that final –na is the Elamite genitive-attributive
morpheme, not part of the name:
SAL
⸢ú-du-sa⸣ tibba kitka “(wine) expended for Atossa,” No. 1:01
SAL
ú-du-sa dama “(workers whom) Atossa assigns” No. 2:09′
halmi SALú-du-sa-na “a sealed (document) of Atossa” No. 1:17

Among the other passages that add –na to the name, most frequent is the sequence AŠantarrantiš
SAL
ú-du-sa-na (No. 1:05′, No. 2:05′, No. 3:04, 07, 10, 13, 16). It is inviting to see this as a phrasal
geographical name, “(at) Antarrantiš-of-Atossa,” but this understanding is ill-suited to the
counterpart phrase naming Persepolis (AŠbaršaš SALú-du-sa-na No. 3:06′, extended context broken,
but surely not intending a “Persepolis-of-Atossa”). It is therefore preferable to understand
SAL
udusa-na in these phrases not as possessive, depending grammatically on the preceding word,
but as grammatically independent, with the broader Elamite usage of –na corresponding easily
to Old Iranian genitive-dative in dative sense, “for (in various administrative senses) Udusa.”

Hallock already suggested this translation (with query) for occurrences of the name in PF 0162
and PF 0163 (1969:117). It is required equally for the occurrence at the end of No. 4:24f.′, in the
phrase HALkinnadadda šarama SALú-du-sa-na, “Kinadadda being in charge (of workers and rations),
(barley accounted for being) for Udusa,” echoing the occurrence at the end of the tabulation in
the same document, No. 4:09f.′, and corresponding to the same phrase in inverse order
(SALudusana Kinadadda šarama(na) in No. 1:19 and No. 3:04, 13.6

If the name is Udusa, then the spelling SALú-du-sa-na-<na> in PF 0163:05f. is an error, though all
the signs are perfectly clear. Hallock noted that the first –na-, at the end of line 05, is written
over traces of another erased sign. The trace might be the remains of an erased –na-, that is, of a
correction followed by an erroneous dittography.

In the second place, the first entry of No. 1 records more than 11,300 quarts of wine
expended “in the presence of Atossa” (Elam. SALudusa tibba kitka). It transcribes a
document of Hallock’s Category J, “royal provisions,” expounded in detail by
Henkelman (2010), who concludes, cogently (and among other things):

--that the only people (until now) “in whose presence” commodities are said to
be expended in such texts are the King, the royal women Irdabama and
Artystone, and—in a single text—a man called Karkiš (Ir. *Karkiš), probably the
satrap of Carmania of that name, whose kinship with the King, if any, is
unknown.

--that these documents record provisioning by the Persepolis administrative

institution of the court or entourage of commensals that surrounded the king
(or Artystone, Irdabama, etc.), working through distinct redistributive entities
that served these elites, institutions handily called the King’s (or Artystone’s,
Irdabama’s etc.) Table, and also alluded to by Classical authors.

--that records of the Tables of the King and the royal women are to be
associated with a wider range of documentary evidence for royal and elite
households whose assets, infrastructure and staffs were not elements of the

6
Likewise, e.g., in entries recording grain issued as rations for workers AŠkaramiš SALirdabamana HALrašda
šaramana “(at) GN, (workers) for Irdabama, (whom) Rašda oversees,” Fort. 1269-101:04f., 25f.

4
 Persepolis institution as such, but which were autonomous units that interacted
variously and irregularly with the Persepolis institution.

Adding the woman Udusa to this very small elite, No. 1:01 promotes her identification
as Atossa, the wife of Darius, from plausible to probable. Furthermore, the amount
entered, 11,368 quarts, implies that Atossa’s Table supported a very substantial
entourage. Only one comparable issue of wine for Irdabama’s Table (29,550 quarts, Fort.
0276-101:11, more than ten times a much as the largest previously known such
expenditure, 2,360 quarts [at Susa], PF 737, see Henkelman 2010:695) and one
comparable issue of wine for the King’s Table (12,350 quarts, PF 0728 see Henkelman
2010:681) exceed it; no known expenditure for Artystone’s table matches it (largest: 170
quarts PF 0732, see Henkelman 2010:701). The drastic changes that passages in newly
available Fort. documents can bring to such comparisons7 warn against treating the
comparisons in any but the most general way, but even with this caveat Atossa’s Table
was very thirsty. The large balance of grain carried forward “for Udusa” according to
the account No. 4:23', more than 10,000 (artabe), that is, more than 300,000 quarts,
points to a similarly large establishment.

In the third place, the reference in No. 1:17 to a document from Atossa that authorized
travelers en route to Persepolis to draw rations adds her to the much larger number of
people who could issue such authorizations, a group that included, in addition to the
king, individuals of high social rank (including Artystone and Irdabama), high political
rank (notably provincial governors like Karkiš of Carmania), high administrative rank
(notably the chief of the Persepolis institution and his deputy), but also administrators
with regional competence (including Kinadadda of Antarrantiš, acting “for Atossa”).

In the fourth place, the reference in No. 2:09' to Atossa as “assigning” (Elam. dama)
personnel adds her to the still larger number of people who controlled the movements,
work and provisioning of workers supported by the Persepolis institution, a population
that includes many mid-level administrators, but only rarely members of the social and
political elite, including a man named Xerxes (Elam. Šerša, PF-NN 1657, year 24),
probably the prince of that name, Atossa’s son (Henkelman 2011a), but not (yet)
Artystone or Irdabama. Nevertheless, the numbers of Atossa’s workers for whom
rations are recorded in the journals are unimpressive, the largest group numbering 50-
52 (No. 3:04ff.).

In the fifth place, if it is correct to interpret Udusana in No. 1:05' not as a qualification of
the place-name Antarrantiš, but as an indication that the entire journal (including
entries that do not explicitly name Udusa) and the balance carried forward are “for
Atossa,” and if the same is true of the other two journal fragments that are so similar to
No. 1, then these three journals reflect at least twenty-five underlying documents of at
least eight formal categories referring to assets or personnel of Atossa.

Furthermore, some of the other texts that associate Kinnadadda with intake or outlays
of grain or wine at Antarrantiš and or associate Kinnadadda with persons named in
Nos. 1-4 may also refer implicitly to assets and/or personnel of Atossa.
PF-NN 2353: Category W, account of grain at Antarrantiš, year 19, in the same tabular format as
No. 4, and naming the same personnel in the closing summary (15-19): kurman Mardukka

7
Similarly, the issue of 291,770 quarts of grain for the King’s Table in Fort. 1974-101:01, more than fifteen
times as much as the largest previously known such issue (PF-NN 2356:04, see Henkelman 2010:680).

5
 tumarana Ramatiš ullirana (sic) Kinnadadda šaramana (also naming Ramatiš in the first entry (01f.)
and Kinnadadda šaramana at the subtotal (06f.)

PF 0489: Category F, year 17 (PFS 0085b* and PFS 0717); grain, kurman Mardukkana, received by
Rematiš, on authorization (halmi) from Kinnadadda, stored as seed in a storehouse (balum)

PF 1581 Category R, year 17 (PFS 0085a* alone), grain kurman Mardukkana, received by
Kinadadda, who brought it as rations for artisans (marribbe) at Persepolis, Abbateya šaramana

No. 5 (below): Category K2?, year 19 (PFS 0085b* alone), grain kurman Mardukka-na, received by
transporter of treasure, on authorization (halmi) from Kinadadda

PF 1157: Category M, year 24 (PFS 0085a* alone), wine kurman Šaturmana (cf. No. 1:04-06) as
supplementary rations (kamakaš) for workers at Antarrantiš, Kinnadadda šaramana

PF 0547: Category G, year 19 (PFS 0085a* and PFS 0268): grain received as revenue (haduš) at
Antarrantiš, Kinnadadda šaramana.

PF 1746: Category S1, year 19 (PFS 0085b* and PFS 0268): grain received as fodder for poultry, on
authorization (halmi) from Kinnadadda

Fort. 2075-102, Category M, no date (PFS 0080 and another seal), beer that Kinnadadda acquired
(humaša) he gave as supplementary rations (zizal) to workers at Dašer

PF 0315, Category D, no date (PFS 0048, PFS 0560s), Kinnadadda acquired grain from Šumira

PFS 0085a* and PFS 0085b* (Garrison n.d. fig. 64) are near-duplicate seals used in the same years
(Garrison & Root 1998:9). PFS 0085a*, on the left edges of memoranda recording allocations at
Antarrantiš, is probably the seal of Kinnadadda as šaramana. PFS 0085b*, on memoranda citing
authorizing documents (halmi) from Kinnadadda is probably a seal used by Kinnadadda’s bureau
or staff to verify acts authorized by him.8

If Atossa’s establishment lies behind some or all of these documents, Kinnadadda may
be thought of not only as a district agricultural overseer in the Persepolitan
administrative service (Koch 1990:34, 256) but also as a steward of Atossa’s assets, that
is, as standing in relation to Atossa approximately as Rašda stood to Irdabama
(Henkelman 2010:694) or as Šalamana or Datukka stood to Irtaštuna (Henkelman
2010:698).

In sum, the new fragments presented here make the shadowy Atossa visible in
circumstances broadly comparable to those of the royal women Artystone and
Irdabama: she controlled property and workers near Persepolis, she drew on the
Persepolis institution to support them and to provision a Table of her own, perhaps a
very large one.

On the other hand, she evidently did not do so very often or over a very long span. In a
sample of about 6,300 documents, the sharp difference between the six that name her
and the hundred or more that involve Irdabama and Artystone is striking. Indeed, it is
evident that what these texts tell of Atossa can be interpreted only by comparison with
the more numerous and varied texts that name Artystone and Irdabama. Conversely,
much that is known from the dossiers of Artystone and Irdabama is missing from the
documents that name Atossa. No seal can be attributed to Atossa because memoranda
that would bear impressions of her seal are not extant. There are no references to her
household (Elam. ulhi) because the letter-orders in which such references commonly

8
I am indebted to Mark Garrison for these observations.

6
appear are not extant. There is no evidence of travel among estates or with the court
because Category J memoranda recording support of an itinerant Table are not extant.

What limits the view of Atossa is not only the number but also the kinds of documents
that name her. Four of the six are registers—three journals and an account—lacking
the seals and eliding some of the information expected from memoranda; the other two
are memoranda of the most laconic kind. All six come from regnal years 19-22, 503-499
BC, the middle years of the preserved form of the Fortification Archive, the years to
which the majority of datable journals and accounts belong and before the years to
which the majority of datable memoranda belong (Henkelman 2008:174).

That is, we know less about Atossa than about Irdabama and Irtaštuna in part, at least
because of the nature of the sample that the Persepolis Fortification Archive preserves.
This invites speculation: what we know of Atossa comes to us because the Persepolis
institution supported her before about 499 BC or so9 and we do not know more because
it did not support her much after that10—because she lost stature and resources?
Because her partially autonomous establishment did not need to interact with the
Persepolis institution? Because she was no longer alive?

These are, of course, fragile speculations that could be toppled by a single new
fragment from a large but still incomplete sample whose boundaries and structure are
only partly established. The Fortification texts now available establish Atossa as but a
fully historical figure in the middle reign of Darius and so add range and texture to the
aspects of the Achaemenid royal family that the Fortification Archive divulges. This
historical Atossa is not incompatible but rather incommensurate with the literary
Atossa of Herodotus—“nothing but a name” (Henkelman 2011a:33), the all-powerful
mother of the heir who did not actually exercise her power at Xerxes’ accession
(Boedeker 2011:218) or during Xerxes’ reign (Sancisi-Weerdenburg 2002[1985]):586).11

9
Or 497 BC, if PF 0489 and PF 1581 record transactions on Atossa’s behalf.
10
Perhaps as late as 497 BC, if PF 1157 records a transaction on Atossa’s behalf.
11
In my amateur reading, Herodotus’s statement that Atossa “held all the power” need not be
understood as more than a literary device, bracketing the didactic fiction about Xerxes and the Spartan
king with a trope about harem power that harks back to the portrayal of Atossa’s bedroom exhortation of
Darius in connection with the picaresque Democedes story (Boedeker 2011:218). If Atossa gained power
as queen mother, the evidence is no more in Herodotus than in Fortification texts.

7
 Fig. 1. Fort. 0328-101 (Persepolis Fortification Archive Project, Oriental Institute)

No. 1. Fort. 0328-101

Obverse
(01)
1 ˹ŠI˺ 1 ME 30+6 8 QA | SAL˹ú-du-sa˺ ti-ib-ba ki-ut-ka₄ AŠbe-[ul] 20+1-na [
]
(02)
˹6˺ 3 QA | ˹hal-mi˺ HALkin-na-da-da-<na> li-ka₄ 30+1 ˹HALkur-taš⸣ AŠiš-
ku-ud-ra-⸢ip⸣ [ ]
(03)
| šá-˹ra˺-man-na gal du-iš AN˹ITIMEŠ ANsa˺-a-kur-zí-iš AŠbe-ul
20+1-na x [ ]
(04)
3 | ˹hal-mi˺ HAL˹kin˺-na-da-da-na ˹li-ka₄˺ HALzí-ba?-˹na?˺ hi-še
AŠ SAL
ha-tar-ma-bat-ti-˹iš˺[ SAL]
(05) MEŠ HAL
| ra-ti-ip pu-⸢hu ku-ši⸣-iš gal ma-ki-ip hu-pi-be-na
ka4-ma-[kaš ]
(06)
| AŠbe? [ ] ˹x x˺ du-iš-da
[ ]
(07)
2 | ˹hal-mi HALkin-na-da˺-da-na li-ka₄ HALzir₀-ma-zí-ia hi-še
AŠ
kán-da-bar-[-ra ]
(08)
| ANITIMEŠ 2-na ANha-ši-ia-ti-iš ANha-na-ma-kaš AŠbe-ul 20+1-
⸢na⸣ [ ]
(09)
˹2˺ | hal-mi HAL˹kin-na-da˺-da-na li-ka₄ HALzir₀-ma-zí-ia hi-še a-
ak HAL[ ]
(10)
| šá-na ú-˹du-sa˺-na hu-pi-be gal-ma du-iš ANITIMEŠ [
? SAL

]
(11)
2 | hal-mi HAL˹kin-na˺-da-da-na li-ka₄ HALma-pír-ri-ia hi-še [
]
(12)
| ˹iš˺ ANITIMEŠ 2-˹na˺ ANha-ši-ia-ti-iš ANha-˹na˺-ma-˹kaš˺ [
]
(13)
2 | AŠsa-u-ur hal-mi HAL˹kin˺-na-da-<da>-na li-ka₄ HALzir-maz₀-
zí-[ia hi-še ]

8
(14)
| iš ANITIMEŠ 10+2-na ˹ANha-ši-ia-ti-iš-mar ku-iš˺ [
]
(15)
3 | HALzir₀!-ma-zí-ia hi-še a-ak HALma-pír-ri-ia hi-še PAP 2-[be-
ud-da ]
(16)
[ ] | AŠba-ir-šá-iš tin-gi-iš ˹gal du˺-iš ANITIMEŠ 1-na x [
]
(17)
[ ] | da hal-mi SALú-du-sa-na ku-ti-iš-da [
]
(18)
[ ] | HALkar-ki-iš hi-še AŠha-tar-ma-bat-ti-iš du-[
]
(19)
[ ] | ú-du-sa-na HALkin-na-da-da šá-ra-˹man˺-[na
]
(20)
[ | tur]-˹na˺-ba-zí-iš-na AŠbe-ul 20+1-[na
]
(21)
[ bat-ti]-⸢šá-a⸣-ka₄-še hu-ut-tuk AŠbe-ul 20+1 [
]
(22)
[ ] ˹x 4 AŠ˺muz₀-zí 40-na [
]

Reverse
(01')
[ am-ma ni]-˹ma-ak˺ hi ŠÀ-ma [ ]
(02')
[ ki]-⸢ut⸣-ka₄ [ ]
(03')
[ ] KI+MIN maz₀-zí-ka₄ [ ]
(04')
[ ]⸢ ⸣GEŠTIN⸢ ⸣ šu-tur da-ka₄ kur-mín ˹šá-a-tar-ma˺-[na
GIŠ MEŠ HAL
]
(05')
[ ] AŠan-da-ra-ti-iš SALú-du-sa-na HALkin-[na-da-da šá-ra-man-na ]

Synopsis
(01)
11,368 quarts (of wine) expended for Atossa (Category J).
(02-03)
63 quarts (of wine), a letter-order from Kinnadadda having been delivered,
received as monthly rations for 31 Skudrian workers who are under the authority of
[Kinnadadda?], month III, year 21 (Category L).
(04-06)
30 quarts (of wine), a letter-order from Kinnadadda having been delivered,
received by a man named Zibana?, entitled haturmabattiš, and given as supplementary
payments to post-partum women who consume rations, who bore (male) children,
[month MN, year 21?] (Category N).
(07-08)
20 quarts (of wine), a letter-order from Kinnadadda having been delivered,
received by a man named Zirmaziya, entitled “treasurer,” [as rations?] for months IX
and X, year 21 (Category L?).
(09-10)
20 quarts (of wine), a letter-order from Kinnadadda having been delivered, a man
named Zirmaziya and [a man named Mapirriya?] received as rations for month [MN],
[at Antarrantiš?], for Atossa (Category L).

9
(11-12)
20 quarts (of wine), a letter-order from Kinnadadda having been delivered, a man
named Mapirriya [received as rations?] for two months, months IX and X, [year 21]
(Category L).
(13-14)
20 quarts of šawur wine (vinegar?), a letter-order from Kinnadadda having been
delivered, a man named Zirmazziya [received?], for 12 months, from IX [year 21
through VIII, year 22? … ] (Category ?)
(15-17)
20 quarts (of wine), a man named Zirmazziya and a man named Mapirriya,
altogether two [of them who? ] took [ … ] to Persepolis received (as) rations for one
month; they presented a letter-order from Atossa. (Category L3?)
(18-20)
[x quarts (of wine)], a man named Karkiš, entitled haturmabattiš, received [as
supplementary rations for workers at Antarrantiš?, (workers)], of Atossa, under the
authority of Kinnadadda, [ … ] month VIII, year 21 (Category M?).

[x quarts (of wine),] its patišekaš (payment) was made, year 21 [ … ] 4 vats? of 400
(21-22)

quarts (capacity) [ … ] (Category C3).

Reverse
(01'-04')
(Summary:) [ … (wine)] on hand, including: [ x ditto] expended; [x ] ditto,
withdrawn; [x ] wine, balance carried forward.
(04'-05')
(Epitome:) Allocated by Šatarma, at Antarrantiš, for Atossa, Kinnadadda [being
responsible].

Comments

Category V
[11.0] × [11.1] × 2.5 cm
PFS 0120, reverse.
(01)
Royal women are rare in entries in texts of Category V (journals): Fort. 1206-102:04'
(Category Q entry, citing authorizing document issued by Irtašduna); Fort. 1912-103:40'
(Category Q entry, citing travel from Irtašduna to Persepolis); Fort. 1269-101:03ff., 24ff.
(both Category L entries, grain rations for workers of Irdabama); and especially Fort. 0276-
101:11 (Category J entry, 29,550 quarts of wine expended for Irdabama).

(02, etc.)
Following Mayrhofer’s question (1973:181), whether the similarity of the name Kinnadadda
to the Shimashkian royal name Kindattu is coincidental (which suggests that he
contemplated but did not find an Iranian etymology with –dadda for Iranian –dāta), Hinz &
Koch (1987:477) consider an Iranian source “nicht ausgeschlossen.” Zadok (1984:20 and 42)
analyzed the name as Elamite with reduplicated ending as in Elamite Hutradada, Šimut-
dada, etc.
(04-06)
Cf. PF 1157, wine as supplementary rations (kamakaš) for workers at Antarrantiš kurman
Šaturma-na (below 04'), Kinnadadda šaramana (PFS 0085b*).
(04)
Cf. SALZibena PF-NN 0865 (N).

(07 etc.)
Zirmaz(z)iya (or Širmaziya): Reading Tak!-ma-zi-ia (after PF 1806, 1807, 1810, etc.) seems
excluded. Tavernier (personal communication) suggests a hypocoristic of a name
containing the Iranian element *Zṛva-.

10
(11-12)
Cf. HALma-pár-ri-ia PF-NN 1887:02 (L1, wine).

(13-14)
sawur (Iranian *ϑavar-, Tavernier 2007:457) figures in other Category V texts ordinarily in
Category C5 entries (records of exchanges, e.g., PF-NN 2268:06; PF-NN 2362:08), or in final
computations, in lines recording exchanges for other commodities (e.g., PF 1957:29, PF-NN
0762:28).

(18)
Karkiš haturmabattiš (Iranian *āϑravapatiš, Tavernier 2007:417): PF-NN 2486 (V, fruit, year
14): 21', 22', 40'f. 42'f. (all Category M entries [special rations], mostly at Rakkan).

(21)
For this spelling of Iran. *patisēka (usually Elam. battišeka(š), Tavernier 2007:444), see PFa
30:17 (= PF-NN 2255, Category V, wine, PFS 0120) and No. 2:17'.

(04')
Cf. kurman Šaturma-na PF 1157 (Category M, wine, Antarrantiš, Kinnadadda šaramana, year 24,
PFS 0085b*); Šatarma PF-NN 0739 (Category Q, spear bearer, traveling from Susa with 55
servants).
Reverse
Here as elsewhere, the user of PFS 0120 impressed it upside down with respect to the
cuneiform text, immediately beneath the final line of text, cf. Nos. 2 and 4 below, Fort. 0013-
101 (Stolper 2015:16 Fig. 2b), PF 1943, PF 2001, PF 2075; see Garrison & Root 2001:123).

11
 Fig. 2. Fort. 0290-101 (Persepolis Fortification Archive Project, Oriental Institute)

No 2. Fort. 0290-101

Obverse
(01')
[ ] ˹x x˺ [ ]
(02')
[ ] šá-ra-ma hu-⸢pi⸣-[be ]
(03') ?
[ ][ ]-kán -na be-ul [ ]
(04')
[ ] | AŠhal-[mi HAL]˹kin˺-na-da-ad-da-na ˹li˺-[ka₄ ]
(05')
[ ] | ip AŠan-tur-ra-an-ti-iš SALú-˹du˺-[sa-na ]
(06') AN
[ ] | šá-ra-ma hu-pi-be gal-ma du-ma-šá [ ITIMEŠ ANtu-ir]-
(07')
[ ] | ma-ráš be-ul 20-um-me-man-na un-ra [x] ⸢du⸣-[ma-iš-da ]
(08')
[ ]+2 | AŠhal-mi HALkin-na-da-ad-da-na li-ka₄ 2 [ ]
(09')
[ ] | -še?-e?-ik-ka₄!? SALú-du-sa da-ma hu-[pi-be ]
(10')
[ ] | ANITIMEŠ 2-na ANha-˹du˺-kán-na-iš a-˹ak˺ [ANtu-ir-ma-ráš be-ul 20-um]-
(11')
[ ] | -me-man-na un-ra ½ du-ma-iš-da [ ]
(12')
[ ] 1 | AŠhal-mi HALkin-na-da-ad-da-na HALzí-[ ]
(13')
[ ] | -ti-iš ˹du˺-ma-iš-da 10 HALkur-taš si-ut-[ma-ip ]
(14')
[ ] SALú-du-sa-na HALkin-na-˹da˺-[ad-da ]
(15')
[ ka₄]-˹ma˺-kaš ap du-nu-iš-da ANITIMEŠ 1-˹na˺ [ ]
(16')
[ be-ul] ˹20˺-um-me-man-na un-ra 1 QA du-˹iš˺ [ ]
(17')
[ bat-ti-šá-a]-ka₄-še hu-ut-tuk AŠbe-ul 20-na hi ŠÀ-ri-ma 2 [ ]
(18')
[ ] ˹3 AŠmuz₀-zí˺ 50-na 1 AŠmuz₀-zí 40-˹na˺ [ ]
(19')
[ ] ˹x x x x x x˺ [ ]

Reverse
(01'')
[ ] |˹x x˺[ ]
(02'')
[ ]x | GIŠKI+MIN ki-ut-ka₄ [ ]
(03'')
[ ] | GIŠKI+MIN šu-tur da-ka₄ AŠ˹be-ul 20˺-[ ]
(04'')
[ ] | HALra-a-ma-ti-iš AŠul-li-ri-ri x [ ]
(05'')
[ ] | HALkin-na-da-da šá-ra-man-na [ ]

12
Left Edge
(01''')
[ ] AŠan-da-⸢ra⸣-[an-ti-iš ]
(02''')
[ ] -na [ ]

Synopsis
(04'-07')
[ … (wine)], a letter-order from Kinnadadda having been delivered, [workers
consuming rations?] at Antarrantiš, (workers) for Atossa, under the authority of
[Kinnadadda?], received as rations, [months I? and] II?, year 20, each [received … ]
(Category L?).
08'-11'
[ … x+] 20 quarts (of wine)], a letter-order from Kinnadadda having been delivered,
2 [ … ], whom Atossa assigns, [received] for two months, months I [and II, year 20?], each
receiving ½ quart (per day) (Category L?)
12'-16'
10 quarts (of wine), a letter-order from Kinnadadda (having been delivered), PN
[entitled haturmabat]tiš received and gave as supplementary rations to 10 sitma-workers
[at? … ] (workers) for Atossa, [under the authority of] Kinnadadda, for one month,
[month … ], year 20, each receiving 1 quart (Category M).
17'-18'
[ x quarts (of wine)], its patišekaš (payment) was made, year 20, including 2 [ … ], 3
vats of 500 quarts, 1 vat of 400 quarts [ … ] (Category C3).

Reverse
01''-03''
(Summary:) [ … ] ditto (= wine) expended, [ … ] ditto (= wine), balance carried
forward.
03''-05'', Left Edge 01'''-02'''
(Epitome:) year 20 [allocated by … ], Ramatiš its delivery-man, [ … ],
under the authority of Kinnadadda, at Antarrantiš, [for Atossa?].

Comments

Category V
[9.3] × [8.5] × 2.3 cm.
PFS 0120, reverse.
(12'-13') HAL
zí-[ba?-na? HALha-tar-ma-bat]-ti-iš? (above, No. 1:04).
(17')
hi ŠÀ-ri-ma: cf. PFa 30 (PF-NN 2255):28 and No. 4:15'.
(04"-05") AŠ
(sic)ulliriri. Cf. PF-NN 2353:16-18 (year 19) and No. 3:24'f. (year 21) (both Category W,
grain, Antarrantiš, year 19, kurman Marduka tumara-na, Ramatiš ulliriri, Kinnadadda
šaramana); PF 0489 (Category F, grain kurman Marduka, halmi Kinnadadda, received by
Rematiš, for seed, PFS 0085b*).

13
Fig. 3. Fort. 2173-101 (Persepolis Fortification Archive Project, Oriental Institute)

14
No. 3. Fort. 2173-101

Obverse
(01)
[ | ] ˹be-ul˺ 20+1-na
(02)
[ | ]⸢x x x x˺ hu-pír-ri ˹du?˺-iš-da SALú-
du-˹sa-na˺
(03)
[ | ] (blank)
(04) HAL
[ | kur-taš gal ma-ki]-ip AŠ˹an-tar˺-ra-an-˹ti-iš˺ SALú-du-sa-na
HAL
kin-na-
(05)
[ |da-ad-da šá-ra-ma ] ˹x be-ul˺ 20+1-na 5! HALLÚMEŠ 3-[na] 1 HALpu-hu
HAL
1½-na 1 pu-hu 1-na
(06)
[ | ] x ½-na PAP 50+2 HALkur-˹taš˺
(07) HAL
[ | ]˹kur-taš gal˺ [ma]-ki-ip AŠ˹an˺-tar-ra-an-ti-iš
SAL
ú-du-sa-⸢na˺ [ ]
(08)
[ | ]˹ANITI˺[MEŠ] ˹sa˺-a-kur-ri-zí-iš ANkar-ma-˹ba-taš˺
be-[ul] ˹20+1-na˺
(09)
[ | ]˹ 1½-na 2 SAL˺pu-hu 1-na 1 ˹SALpu-hu ½-na PAP 50
HAL
kur-taš
(10)
[ | ]˹HALkur˺-taš ⸢gal⸣ ma-˹ki⸣-ip AŠan-tar-ra-an-ti-iš SALú-
⸢du-sa⸣-na
(11) AN
[ | ITIMEŠ ANtur-na-ba]-˹zí-iš˺ be-˹ul 20+1-na 5 HALLÚ˺MEŠ 3-na 1 HALpu-hu 1½-
HAL
na 1 pu-hu 1-na
(12) HAL
[ | ]˹kur-taš ˹AŠ˺KI+MIN ⸢HAL⸣pír-˹ra˺-sa-˹na˺-iš
(13) HAL
[ | kur-taš]˹gal ma˺-ki-ip ˹AŠan-tar-ra˺-an-ti-iš SALú-
du-sa-na HALkin-na-
(14)
[ | da-ad-da šá-ra-ma ANITIMEŠ ANkar-ba-ši-ia]-iš be-ul 20+1-na 5 ˹HAL˺LÚMEŠ 3-na 1
HAL
pu-hu 1½-na 1 ˹HAL˺pu-˹hu 1-na˺
(15)
[ | ] PAP 50+1 HALkur-taš
(16) HAL
[ | kur-taš gal ma]-˹ki˺-ip AŠan-tar-ra-an-ti-iš SALú-
du-˹sa˺-[na ]
(17)
[ | ]-⸢na⸣ 5 HALLÚMEŠ 3-na 1 HALpu-hu 1½-na 1 HAL[pu-hu
]
(18)
[ | PAP x] HALkur-taš
(19)
[ ] x ˹AŠan˺-tar-ra-an-ti-iš [ ]

Reverse
(01')
[ | ] ˹3-na 2 HAL?˺[ ]
(02')
[ | ] ⸢x x⸣ (blank) [ ]
(03')
[ | ]˹SALú-du˺-sa-na hu-pír-ri gal-ma ˹du⸣-[ ]
(04')
[ | ] ⸢5⸣-na 1 HALLÚMEŠ 4-na 2 HALLÚMEŠ 3-na 1 HALpu-
˹hu˺ 2-˹na˺ [ ]
(05')
[ | ] ⸢SAL?⸣li-ba-ip 1½-na PAP 10+4 HALkur-taš
(06')
[ | ]-x-ra AŠba-ir-šá-iš SALú-du-sa-na hu-pír-ri ˹x x
ka₄?˺
(07')
[ | ]-ti-iš-da du-e-ma ANITIMEŠ ANha-na-ma-kaš be-˹ul
20˺+[1]-⸢ na˺
(08')
[ | ]⸢ka₄⸣-ap-nu-iš-ki AŠmar-ka₄-na-iš-mar tin-gi-iš-da
AŠ
˹an˺-tar-[ra-an-ti-iš]
(09') AN
[ | ITI]MEŠ ANsa-mi-man-taš be-ul 20+1-na 2 HALLÚMEŠ un-ra 1
QA du-šá [ ]

15
(10')
[ | ] SALšá?-da-pi-tur-ri-iš hi-še PAP 2!-be-ud-da SAL⸢pa⸣-
ak-ri SALši?-⸢ia?⸣-[ ]
(11')
[ | ]-iš-da ANITIMEŠ 4-na ANha-ši-ia-ti-iš-mar ku-˹iš˺
AN
mi-kán-˹na˺-[iš]
(12')
[ | ] (blank)
(13')
[ | ] x-ir?-ki-ka₄ HALmar-ka₄ ˹x x x x HALx x x
AŠ
an-tar-ra-an-ti-˺
(14')
[ | ]-˹ti-iš-na? be-ul 20+1-na x˺ [ ]˹x x
ma-iš-da˺
(15')
[ | ak]-˹ ka₄˺-ia-še HALmar-ka₄ x˹x x x HAL x˺-
áš?-šu AŠan-tar-
(16') AN
[ | ha-ši-ia]-ti-iš a-ak AN˹ha-na-ma˺-kaš ANmi-
kán-na-iš
(17')
[ | ] (blank)
(18')
[ | ] x du-˹ma? x x x x x x ˺ AŠan-tar-
ra-an-
(19')
[ | ] ⸢du?⸣-šá
(20')
[ ]-ti-iš HALkin-na-da-ad-da
(21')
[ ] AŠtam₅-ka₄-an-mar ši-nu-ka₄

Upper Edge
(22')
[ ] (blank)
(23') HAL
[ kin-na-da-ad]-da šá-˹ra˺-ma

Synopsis
(01-03)
[Uncertain.]
(04-06), (07-09), (10-12), (13-15), 16-18)
[Amounts] expended for a group of 50-52 workers consuming
rations, at Antarrantiš, (workers) for Atossa, received as rations for months III-
IV, V, VI, and [VII?], year 21, at rates from 3 quarts to ½ quart (per day) (Category
L1).
(01'-02')
[Amount expended for rations for workers (Category L1)]
(03'-05')
[Amount] received by an [agent?] of Atossa, expended for rations for a group of
14 workers at rates from 5 quarts to 1½ quarts (per day) (Category L).
(06'-09')
[Unclear. Amounts for 2 men who] brought treasure from Hyrcania? to?
Antarrantiš (Category D? Category Q? Perhaps two entries, one for month X and
another for month XI of year 21.)
(10'-12')
[Unclear. Amount expended during months IX-XII, for] 2 women, his/her
daughter(s).
(13'-17')
[Unclear. Amount expended at] Antarrantiš during month VII?, year 21, and
months IX, X, XII. (Perhaps two entries.)
(18'-19')
[Unclear. Amount received at] Antarrantiš.
(20'-22')
[Amount expended for someone] coming from Taoce (to?) Kinnadadda (at?)
Antarrantiš? (Category P?).

16
(23')
(Epitome:) Kinaddadda being responsible.

Comments

Category V
[11.3] × [10.9] × 2.7 cm.
No preserved seal.
(09)
Erasure follows 50.

(08')
Markanaš, perhaps “Hyrcania” (*vṛkāna-, otherwise written mi-ir-ka₄-an PF-NN 2512:06,
mi-ir-ka₄-nu-ia-ip DB ii 68)? Cf. No. 5:03-07. “Treasure,” lit. “treasury:” cf. especially
“boys (puhu)” of the Abbamuš (Irdabama) and of Irtaštuna who kapnuški Kurmanan-humar
kuzza “carried treasure from Carmania (going to Susa)” PFa 14:09ff., and see passages
cited by Briant 1996:959, also a AŠkán-taš (Persian *ganda-) GN-mar GN₂ lakaš/tingiš/kuzza
Fort. 1901A-101:12', 14', 28'f., and AŠkán-taš GN PN-ikkamar GN₂ tingiš Fort. 1912-103:36',
44', 48', 50', 52'. Such administrative contexts conceal what items are actually meant by
the ancient terms translated with the connotative English term “treasure,” but cf. PN
ka(n)zabarra KÙ.BABBARMEŠ GN-mar kuzza “PN, a treasurer, carried silver from Susa (to
Matezziš)” PF 1342:02ff..
(09')
Explicit QA (rather than implicit marriš) indicates that the commodity recorded is grain.

(10') SAL
šá(less likely: a)-da-pi-tur-ri-iš: if correctly read, apparently Iranian. Tavernier
(personal communication) suggests *šāda-piθr-i-. pakri, “his/her daughter”’ (rather
than pakbe, as the preceding PAP 2-bedda, “both of them” suggests) perhaps in
apposition with the following. Elamite pak, “daughter,” otherwise vanishingly rare in
Fortification texts, suggests that this passage refers to a woman of high social status,
perhaps a member or affine of the royal family. Might the Elamite word calque dukšiš
(Iranian *duxçīš, “princess (lit. daughter [of the royal family]”)?

(21'-23')
Small, shallow script.

17
 Fig. 4. Fort. 0590-101 (Persepolis Fortification Archive Project, Oriental Institute); above right: detail of
Aramaic epigraph, obverse (with polarized light and red filter)

4. Fort. 0590-101
(01')
[ ] 4 ME 20 | ˹4 ŠI˺ [ ]
(02')
[ ]⸢x⸣ ME 20 | 3 ŠI ⸢x ME x ˺ [ ]
(03')
[PAP x] ME 40 | PAP 8 [ŠI] 3[ ] [ ]x[ ]
(04')
[ ] 1 ME 70+x | ⸢x x x⸣ 3 | [ ]| ]x x x x x x x x
(05')
[ ]⸢x ME 70+x⸣ | [ ] 3 | ⸢x+x⸣ | ] ma? na? x x x HAL⸢x x x⸣

18
(06’)
[ ]⸢x x x x⸣ [ ] 50 | | 3 ME 30 [ ]˹KI+MIN KI+MIN˺
HAL
EŠŠANA-na HAL x x ra x x
(07')
[ | PAP x] ⸢ŠI⸣ 50+3 | | PAP 1 ME 30+8 [ ] ⸢KI+MIN? ha?-du-iš?⸣
[ ]x x x x x
(08')
[ ] ˹KI+MIN? KI+MIN ha?⸣ du-ka₄ AŠ
ma-x-x˺-na-ma
(09') HAL
[ ] ma-˹x?˺-x ha-tu-ma
HAL
˹kin˺-na-da-˹da˺
(10')
[ ] šá-ra-ma SALú-du-sa-na
(11')
[ ]
(12')
[ ]
(13')
[ ]˹x˺ ME 80+3 2 QA ˹20-kur˺ [ ] ŠE.BAR[MEŠ] ˹x x mi˺-ši-na AŠbe-ul
10+9-na
(14')
[ ŠE.BARMEŠ ha-du]-iš be-ul 20-na
(15')
[ ŠE.BARMEŠ am]-ma ni-ma-ak hi ŠÀ-ri-
ma
(16')
[ ma-ak]-ka₄
Lower Edge
(17')
[ ] be-ul 20-na
(18')
[ ] (erasure)
Reverse
(19')
[ šu-tur] ˹da-ka₄˺ be-ul 20-na
(20')
[ ] ˹KI+MIN˺ ha-du-iš be-ul 20+1-na 40+4
HAL
kin-na-da-da su-˹ut⸣ [hu]-⸢ut⸣-taš maz₀-zí ˹be-ul˺ 10+9!-na be-ul 20+1 ba? ka₄?
⸢x x⸣ [ ]
(21')
[ ] ˹ME 70+ x 5˺ QA 20-kur ˹KI+MIN˺ am-ma ni-ma-ak hi ŠÀ-ma
(22')
[ ] ˹x˺ ME 70 KI+MIN ma-ak-ka₄
(23')
[ ] ˹1 PI x ŠI x ME x˺+9 2 QA 20-kur KI+MIN šu-tur da-ka₄ AŠanin-da-ra-an-
ti-iš kur-mín HALmar-⸢du⸣-uk-
(24')
ka₄-na HALra-a-ma-⸢ti⸣-iš HALul-li-ri-ri
-«na» HALkin-na-
(25')
da-da šá-ra-ma SALú-du-sa-na

Obverse n⸢sy⸣ḥ

Synopsis
(01'-07')
Tabular account of grain stored, received (as regular allocation), received in
addition, and expended, Kinnadadda being responsible, for Atossa.
(13'-17')
(First summary): amount entered on account for year 19 plus revenue for year 20
equals disposable subtotal; less amount expended equals amount entered on account
for year 20.
(19'-23')
(Second summary): balance carried forward from year 20 plus revenue for year 21
less? amounts exchanged, withdrawn in years 19 and 21 … equals disposable subtotal;
less amount expended equals balance on hand at Antarrantiš.
(24'-25')
(Concerning the whole account): allocation by Mardukka; Ramatiš his delivery-
man; Kinnadadda responsible; for Atossa.

19
Obverse
(This document) copied (and digested? in another format, in Aramaic).

Comments

Category W
[11.8] × [7.4] × 2.3 cm.
PFS 0120, reverse
Left edge destroyed
Cf. PF-NN 2353 (Category W, grain, year 19: kurman Mardukka tumara-na, Ramatiš ullira, Antarantiš,
Kinadadda šaramana, similar 5-column format, on a smaller tablet (7.1 × 4.8 cm) with a different
seal [PFS 2053s]).

Obverse
Column headings presumably (as in PF-NN 2353) (i) nutika (ii) ha duka (iii) pir ha duka
(iv) mazzika.

(15')
hi ŠÀ-ri-ma: cf. PFa 30:28 and No. 2:17'.
(20')
[hu]-⸢ut⸣-taš to end written on right edge.

(24') AŠ
Cf. ul-li-⸢ra-na⸣ PF-NN 2353:17.
Obverse
See Azzoni & Stolper 2015.

20
 Fig. 5. Fort. 0895-101 (Persepolis Fortification Archive Project, Oriental Institute)

No. 5. Fort. 0895-101

Obverse
(01)
⸢20? ŠE.BARMEŠ kur⸣-[mín HAL]
(02)
⸢mar⸣-du-uk-ka₄-⸢na⸣ hal-me
(03) HAL
kin-na-⸢da-ad⸣-da-na-ma
(04) HAL
ba-ku?-ra?-⸢da?⸣ hi-še
(05) AŠ
mar-ka₄-na-mar AŠka₄-ap-
(06)
nu-iš-ki AŠan-tar-ra-
(07)
ti-iš tin-⸢gi⸣-iš
(08)
3 ANITIMEŠ ha-
Lower Edge
(09)
⸢tu⸣-ma 10 na-an
(10) AŠ
be-ul 10+9-um-
Reverse
(11)
me-ma na-áš

Translation
(01-04)
20? (BAR) of grain allocated by Mardukka, according to a sealed document of
Kinnadadda (for a person) named Bakurada?. (05-07) He brought treasure from Hyrcania?
(to) Antarrantiš (08-11) during 3 months (and?) 10 days, 19th year. (11) Conveyed orally (lit:
he said).

Comments

21
Category K2?
4.3 × 3.7 × 1.7 cm
PFS 0085b* left edge, reverse
(01)
⸢20?⸣: less likely ⸢50!?⸣, in either case a low payment for 100 days. In PF 1357 (Q) and Fort.
1901A-101:12’ and 14’ (Q entries in V) travelers escorting “treasure” receive the usual 1.5 and 1
QA/day. Restoration of [1 ME] ⸢50!⸣ (i.e., 1.5 QA/day) is excluded.

(01-02)
Cf. grain kurman Mardukkana halmi Kinnadad<da>na lika, PF 0489 (Category F, year 17) and
grain kurman Mardukka tumara-na, at Antarrantiš PF-NN 2353 (year 19).

(05)
Cf. No. 3:08'.

Abbreviations

DB inscriptions of Darius I at Bisotun

Elam. Elamite
Fort. unpublished Persepolis Fortification tablets and Elamite texts recorded
by the Persepolis Fortification Archive Project12 and texts published in
Arfaee 2008b
PF Elamite Persepolis Fortification texts published in Hallock 1969
PFa Elamite Persepolis Fortification texts published in Hallock 1978
PF-NN Elamite Persepolis Fortification texts cited from draft editions by
Richard T. Hallock, collated and corrected by Wouter F. M. Henkelman13
PFS Persepolis Fortification Seal, cited according to Garrison and Root 1998,
with updates by Mark B. Garrison

References

ARFAEE, A.M. 2008a. The Geographical Background of the Persepolis Tablets, (PhD
dissertation), Chicago.

ARFAEE, A.M. 2008b. Persepolis Fortification Tablets: Fort. and Teh. Texts, Tehran.

AZZONI, A. & STOLPER, M.W. 2015. From the Persepolis Fortification Archive Project, 5:
the Aramaic Epigraph ns(y)ḥ on Elamite Persepolis Fortification Documents, ARTA
2015.004.

BOEDEKER, D. 2011. Persian Gender Relations as Historical Motives in Herodotus, in:

Rollinger R., Truschnegg B. & Bichler R. (eds.), Herodot und das persische
Weltreich/Herodotus and the Persian Empire, Wiesbaden: 211-235.

BRIANT P. 1996. Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris and Leiden.
12
Cited in the form Fort. 0000-000, where the first four digits indicate the box from which the tablet came
(see Hallock 1969:1, Jones and Stolper 2008:37ff.) and the last three digits are an arbitrary identification
number reflecting the order in which the tablets were cataloged or read. Tablets without preserved
records of the boxes from which they came are assigned to box 0000. Tablets from boxes whose original
numbers are lost are assigned to boxes 00X1-0X13 and boxes 00Z1-00Z6.
13
Cited according to the numbers Hallock assigned, reflecting the order in which he read the texts. Texts
and tablets with PF-NN numbers above 2,595 were originally selected, read, and numbered by Charles E.
Jones.

22
BROSIUS, M. 1996. Women in Ancient Persia (559-331 B.C.), Oxford.

COOK, J.M. 1983. The Persian Empire. New York.

GARRISON, M.B. n.d. Visual Representation of the Divine and the Numinous in Early
Achaemenid Iran: Old Problems, New Directions, in: Uehlinger C. & Graf F. (eds.),
Iconography of Ancient Near Eastern Religions, I: Pre-Hellenistic Periods, Introductory
Essays, Leiden (in press; prepublication version at
http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/prepublications/e_idd_iran.pdf)

GARRISON, M.B. & ROOT, M.C. 1998. Persepolis Seal Studies, Leiden.

GARRISON, M.B. & ROOT, M.C. 2001. Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets,
Volume 1: Images of Heroic Encounter, Chicago.

GERSHEVITCH, I. 1969. Amber at Persepolis, in: Abaev V.I. et al. (eds.), Studia Classica et
Orientalia Antonino Pagliaro Oblata, Rome: ii, 167-251.

GRIFFITHS, A. 1987. Democedes of Croton: a Greek Doctor at the Court of Darius, in:
Sancisi-Weerdenburg H. & Kuhrt A. (eds.), Achaemenid History II: the Greek Sources,
Leiden: 37-51.

HALLOCK, R.T. 1969. Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Chicago.

HALLOCK, R.T. 1978. Selected Fortification Texts, Cahiers de la Délégation

Archéologique Française en Iran 8: 109-136.

HALLOCK, R. 1985 (1971). The Evidence of the Persepolis Tablets, in: Gershevitch I. (ed.),
The Cambridge History of Iran, 2: The Median and Achaemenian Periods, Cambridge: 588-609
(published separately, with a preface by Gershevitch, Cambridge, 1971).

HARRISON, T. 2011. Writing Ancient Persia. Leiden.

HENKELMAN, W.F.M. 2003. An Elamite Memorial: the Šumar of Cambyses and

Hystaspes, in: Henkelman W. & Kuhrt A. (eds.), A Persian Perspective: Essays in Memory of
Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Leiden: 101-172.

HENKELMAN, W.F.M. 2008. The Other Gods Who Are: Studies in Elamite-Iranian
Acculturation based on the Persepolis Fortification Texts, Leiden.

HENKELMAN, W.F.M. 2010. “Consumed Before the King”: The Table of Darius, that of
Irdabama and Irtaštuna, and that of his Satrap, Karkiš, in: Jacobs B. & Rollnger R. (eds.),
Der Achämenidenhof/The Achaemenid Court, Wiesbaden: 667-775.

HENKELMAN, W.F.M. 2011a. Xerxes, Atossa and the Persepolis Fortification Archive, in:
Annual Report 2010: The Netherlands Institute on the Near East and The Netherlands Institute in
Turkey, Leiden: 26-33.

HENKELMAN, W.F.M. 2011b. Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Elamite: a Case of
Mistaken Identity, in: Rollinger R., Truschnegg B. & Bichler R. (eds.), Herodot und das
persische Weltreich/Herodotus and the Persian Empire, Wiesbaden: 577-634.

23
HENKELMAN, W.F.M. & KLEBER, K. 2007. Babylonian Workers in the Persian Heartland:
Palace Building at Matannan during the Reign of Cambyses, in: Tuplin C. (ed.), Persian
Responses: Political and Cultural Interaction with(in) the Achaemenid Empire, Swansea: 163-
176.

HINZ, W. & KOCH, H. 1987. Elamisches Wörterbuch, Berlin.

JONES, C.E. & STOLPER, M.W. 2008. How Many Persepolis Fortification Tablets Are
There?, in: Briant P., Henkelman W.F.M. & Stolper M.W. (eds.), L’archive des Fortifications
de Persépolis, État des questions et perspectives de recherches, Paris: 27-50.

KOCH, H. 1990. Verwaltung und Wirtschaft im persischen Kernland zur Zeit der
Achämeniden, Wiesbaden.

KUHRT, A. 2007. The Persian Empire: a Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period,
London and New York.

LEWIS, D.M. 1984. “Postscript, 1984” in: Burn A., Persia and the Greeks, 2nd edition,
London: 587-612.

LLEWELYN-JONES, L. 2013. King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to331 BCE, Edinburgh.

MAYRHOFER, M. 1973. Onomastica Persepolitana: das altiranische Namengut der

Persepolis-Täfelchen, Vienna.

SANCISI-WEERDENBURG, H. 1983. Exit Atossa: Images of Women in Greek

Historiography on Persia, in: Cameron A. & Kuhrt A. (eds.), Images of Women in Antiquity,
Detroit: 20-33.

SANCISI-WEERDENBURG, H. 2002 (1989). The Personality of Xerxes, King of Kings, in

Bakker E.J., De Jong I.J.F. & Van Wees H. (eds): Brill’s Companion to Herodotus, Leiden,
Boston, Köln: 579-590. (= De Meyer L. & Haerinck E. (eds.), Archaeologia Iranica et
Orientalis Miscellanea in Honorem Louis Vanden Berghe, Gent: 549-561.)

STOLPER, M.W. 2015. From the Persepolis Fortification Archive Project, 4: ‘His Own
Death’ in Bisotun and Persepolis, ARTA 2015.002.

TAVERNIER, J. 2007. Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.), Leuven, Paris,
Dudley MA.

ZADOK, R. 1984. The Elamite Onomasticon, Naples.

ZADOK, R. 2002. An Achaemenid Queen, NABU 2002/65.

ZADOK, R. 2003. Updating the Apammu Dossier, NABU 2003/33.

ZADOK, R. 2009. Catalogue of Documents from Borsippa or Related to Borsippa in the

British Museum I. Messina.

24