ARTA Christopher Tuplin University of Liverpool. Fratama

Transcription

1 Christopher Tuplin University of Liverpool Fratama FratamaisrepeatedlyusedinDB(alongwithanu iya)torefer tothesupportersofgaumataandthelie-kings,buthasalso been identified as a title in an Elamite form (pirratama) in four bureaucratic texts from Persepolis (PT 36, 44, 44a, PT ,asre-interpretedbyEilers1955). In DB the natural translation of the relevant phrase is his principal supporters (fratama being in fact cognate with Greekprotos 1 )andthereisnocogentreasontotreattheword asatitle. 2 CertainlythefactthatDBAkkad.replacesthewhole phrase by marbane, citizens/free men,isaweakargument. Immediately beforehand the Akkadian composer uses the same term in reference to Darius co-conspirators, where OP 1 InElamitewealsohavepirratammiya =offinestquality:pf1978:9f(mule,cow); NN2355:12(ofafemaleslave);NN477:8f(ofacow);NN704:1(ofahorse). 2 Pacee.g.Gnoli1981:279. 1

2 andelamitehavejust withafewmen,andmarbaneisthe Akkadian response in other contexts in DB and elsewhere containingnomorethanrathergeneralideasofsuperiority. 3 InDBElam.thesupportersofGaumataandtheLie-Kingsare described as hatarrimanu dami-hupap-e. The Elamite dictionary suggests that this means principal adherents (see ElW277,646,698),whereasGrillot-Susinietal.1993:44n.119 propose les hommes en condition d alliance qui l avaient fidèlement suivi. The conflicting etymological speculations involved are beyond my competence to judge independently (it is disconcerting to the philological outsider that the root hupaisvariouslyseenas precede and follow ); butneither version suggests that the Elamite composer thought he was dealingwithatitle. Thebureaucratictextspresentatrickierproblem.Ineachcase the word immediately precedes a personal name, on three occasionstheauthorofaletter(bakadadda=megadates),and onthe fourth anindividual, Mirampa(OP*viramfa-), whois apportionerforaworker-group.eilers1955: suggestsit labels a member of the class known in Sassanian times as azatan( noble ). But questions arise. PT 36, 44, 44a are the only letters from Persepolis in which anamed writerhas anysort oftitle. The letterformulais: ToPN 1 speak,pn 2 says,andpn 2 neverhasa 3 Cf.DB3[OPamata],DNb/XPl2a[OPtunuva]. 2

3 title.theonlyhalf-exceptionispf1860,wheretheanonymous writerisdescribedastheansara-official(thisis,effectively,an exception that proves the rule). 4 Apportioners, by contrast, canhave titles,butoneexpectsthem tocome afterthename -whichis,indeed, aproblemfor Eilers sreadingoftheletter textsaswell. 5 WhydoonlyBakaddaandMirampaamongalltheindividuals in the Persepolis archives get this description? Eilers s suggestion that the title depended on a special grant by the Kingsortsillwiththeallegedanalogywithazataanddoesnot addresstheproblem.primafacieeither 1 fratamarepresentsanextremelyrarehonour(sorarethateven the likes of Parnaka do not have it) - which hardly coheres withdb sapplicationofittodarius enemies,or 4 Forthereversephenomenon cf. PFa27,wheretherecipients are an anonymous groupofaccountants.there aresome36 texts inwhich a namedrecipienthasa functional title and another 15 or so in which some other sort of description or qualificationisattachedtoanamedrecipient. 5 WouterHenkelmansuggeststhatinPT36,44,44apirratammamightbemeantto qualify the recipient (Vahush), but even if the placing of turu (= speak ) betweenthenameanditsputativedescriptiveadjective/titleweretolerable(andi have found no example in the 61 texts where the possibility might arise), this wouldnotaccountforpt1957-2(thoughseebelow,ad5). 3

4 2 fratama designates an extremely commonplace status (hence almostnevermentionedinpersepolistexts),or 3 theinclusionofanon-functionalstatustitleinthesetextsisso arbitrary (no other such titles have been identified in the Persepolisarchive,andcomparablethingsareextremelyrarein other documentary contexts 6 ) that nothing can properly be inferredatall. Noneoftheaboveisanattractivepossibility. Twoothersmay bementioned: 6 Marbitiandbrbyt'areonlyusedintermittently.Ar amandotherpersonsaremr' in various Aramaic documents: hardly a distinctive title or quasi-title, and certainlynotconfined toiranians. Isupposethemuch-debatedsaris in Egyptian documents(and srs in Bowman 269?) might come into the equation. I don not knowwhattomakeoftheking skpp Ptah-hotepinPosener1986:91-6(Louvre SIM1244).(NothingcomparableappearsinBrooklyn37.353,forwhichseeJansen- Winckeln 1999).Thetitleparastamu amatparsu,whereparastamucorresponds to OP *frastavan = foreman (Eilers 1940: 15 n.6; Zadok 1977: 98), appears in several Babylonian documents (cf. Dandamaev 1992: 114 [Piridatu: 426 BC], 118 [Ru unpatu:458bc],145[no.349:458bc];stolper1994:623[vat15610:7(name lost)&r.3f(hur enu,mazdaisna):nodategiven]),andstolper1994:623wonders whetheritispartofcourt-protocol,paralleltoherodotus talkofprotoitonperson (3.68, 70, 77, etc.). But the Herodotean phrase ought not to be assigned quasititularstatus(cf.n.11). 4

5 4 Perhaps pirratama is actually the PN Fratama (attested in Akkadian form, Partammu, in Dar. 379, 410). That gives us two authors in PT 36, 44, 44a and two worker-group apportioners in PT , both of which are possible circumstances. 7 The only problem is that and would be missing betweenthetwoauthor-namesintheletters.(bycontrastitis present in PT but Cameron, influenced by Eilers, decided it had been partially erased by the scribe. Hallock presumablydiscountedthis,since hethoughtthe wordcould be a PN in PT , 8 and was surely right to do so.) Omissionof and is,aseilersconceded,notimpossible. 5 In PT 36, 44, 44a pirratamma simply means first and it pertains to the addressee,notthe addressor: thetranslationis tovahushspeak,asthefirstone,pn 2 speaksthus...,andthe meaning that Vahush will receive the letter-order first and thenpassiton.nosuchexplanationworksforpt1957-2but, as we have just seen, in that text pirratamma should on the face of it be interpreted as a PN. This would mean that the samewordisexplainedintwodifferentwaysinpt36,44,44a, andinpt1957-2,butthatisnotimpossible(oneshouldkeep inmindthatgreekprotoscanbebothanameandanordinary 7 Letterswithmorethanonewriterexist,andna-anKI+MINispossiblefor spoke in such a circumstance. Double apportioners appear in PF 559, NN 1422 ( aramap), NN 1762( arama; ak missing!), NN 1712( arama), NN 1479, NN 1872, NN2165( aramana),nn0161( aramanna). 8 Cf.Hallock1969:745. 5

6 adjective),andthehypothesisinvolvedisarguablynolessneat than the supposition that and has been omitted between pairsofpnsinpt36,44,44a. 6 We should, after all, see pirratamma as a title, but not the designationofanhonorificor noble status.rather,itmight mean something like director, a banal function-title that does not happen to appear often in the surviving Persepolis archives,perhaps becauseitonlycameintouseat arelatively latedate.theproblemthatthewordeitherappearsbeforethe PN it qualifies or after it but separated by turu would, of course,remain. 7 In a similar way one could also (finally) speculate that what had been an ordinary adjective at the time of DB and the Fortification Archive had become an honorific court-title by the 460s BC. 9 That would reduce one s surprise at its rare appearance, though it would not entirely eliminate it(ptt is quite a large corpus, after all). The problem of the word s positioninrelationtothepnitqualifieswould,however,still apply. 10 Infavourofthisonecould,Isuppose,citetheclaim sometimesadvancedthattheexistenceofthetitleatsomedate is indirectly detectable in Hebrew partamim (Esther 1.3, 6.9, Daniel 1.3). On the other hand, even if partamim reflects 9 TheBakaddadatextsrelatetomonths9and11-12ofyear19(467/6),PT1957-2to month2ofyear20(466/5). 10 Notethatduk i (royalwoman)isalwaysplacedaftertherelevantpn. 6

7 fratama, it is no more a guarantee that fratama was a formal title than are references in Herodotus and other authors to protoiamongthepersians. 11 Classics&AncientHistory SchoolofArchaeology,Classics&Egyptology UniversityofLiverpool 12AbercrombySquare LiverpoolL697WZ c.j.tuplin@liv.ac.uk 11 Hdt , 3.35,68,70,77, 8.119, Arr.An , Plut. Artox. 25, ps.-arist. de mund.398a. ThisavowedlyaporeticnotearoseasaparergontoTuplinf/c.Iam verygratefultowouterhenkelmanforelevatingitfromthestatusofan ed pleaforhelptoacontributiontoarta,andforhiscontributionstoitsargument, forthefinalstateofwhichhebears,ofcourse,noguiltyresponsibility. 7

8 Bibliography DANDAMAEV, M. 1992, Iranians in Achaemenid Babylonia (Costa Mesa & New York). EILERS, W. 1940, Iranische Beamtennamen in der keilschriftlicher Überlieferung (Vienna). EILERS,W.1955,AltpersischeMiszellen,ZA51: GNOLI, G. 1981, Antico-persiano anu iya e gli Immortali di Erodoto, in: MonumentumMorgenstierne,vol.I(Leiden): GRILLOT-SUSINI, F., HERRENSCHMIDT, C. & MALBRAN-LABAT, F. 1993, La versionélamitedelatrilinguedebehistun:unenouvellelecture,ja281: HALLOCK,R.T.1969,PersepolisFortificationTablets(Chicago). JANSEN-WINCKELN,K.1999,DreiDenkmälermitarchaisierenderOrthographie, Orientalia67: POSENER,G.1986,DunouveausurKombabos,Rev.Eg.37: STOLPER,M.W.1994,IraniansinBabylonia,JAOS114: TUPLIN, C.J. [forthcoming], All the King's men, in: J.E.Curtis et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 British Museum Achaemenid Empire Conference (London). ZADOK,R.1977,IraniansandindividualsbearingIraniannamesinAchaemenian Babylonia,IOS7: