Journal: Bulletin for Biblical Research
Volume: BBR 01:1 (NA 1991)
Article: Ezra And Nehemiah In The Light Of The Texts From Persepolis
Author: H. G. M. Williamson

BBR 1:1 (1991) p. 41

Ezra And Nehemiah In The Light Of The Texts From Persepolis

H. G. M. Williamson

The University Of Cambridge

Between the years of 1931 and 1939 a major excavation of Persepolis, one of the capitals of the Achaemenid empire, was undertaken by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.1 During the course of these excavations, many discoveries of texts were made, of which three are of particular concern to us here. The first and largest group to be unearthed was found initially by accident during the third season (1933), when E. E. Herzfeld was still leader of the excavation. “When leveling debris for the construction of a road, Herzfeld discovered great numbers of cuneiform tablets in the northeastern remnants of the Terrace fortification.”2 These “remnants” proved to have been a bastion on the northern edge of the terrace, the tablets being located in its southeastern portion.3

BBR 1:1 (1991) p. 42

In 1935, when E. F. Schmidt had succeeded Herzfeld as director, work was begun on the Treasury, and here in 1936 a further, though much smaller, group of tablets was found in Room 33.4 Finally, principally in Hall 38 of the Treasury, a number of (probably) ritual objects, such as pestles, mortars and plates, were discovered. Made of a hard green stone known as (impure) chert, and usually highly polished, many of these objects were found to have Aramaic inscriptions written on them.5

Although the three groups of texts, and especially the fortification and treasury tablets, share a number of points in common, it is important to distinguish carefully their individual characteristics.

Most obviously distinctive is the small group of about 200 texts in Aramaic (not all legible). Cameron was the first to study these texts, and he came to the conclusion that they referred to the delivery of the objects on which they were written at Persepolis.6 Bowman, however, to whom was entrusted the publication of the material, rejected this conclusion in favor of the view that they described the objects’ use in the religious haoma ceremony. Subsequent study has vindicated Cameron’s basic approach,7 so that although several differences of opinion, to say nothing of a number of obscurities, remain in the realm of

BBR 1:1 (1991) p. 43

detail, t...