Catalogue

The inscription is situated in the heart of the Zagros Mountain range, at an elevation of 1,603 m above sea level. It is carved, facing southwest, near the summit of a rocky promontory of Tang-e Lili overlooking a bend of the Mārbara River, which flows through the gorge before its confluence with the Sezar River some 12 km further north. The site, accessible through a challenging climb up a steep rocky wall, lies approximately 12 km, as the crow flies, southeast of the city of Dorūd, in the northeastern part of Lorestān Province, between the villages of Lāsūr-e Oliyā and Chamnar.

The exact date of discovery is unknown. In a correspondence to Seyed Abazar Shobairi, dated November 8, 2015, Gholam Reza Karamian (Azad University, Tehran) included three photographs of the inscription and noted that the only available information about it was its location in Lorestān’. In 2017, rumors about ‘an inscription in an unknown language’ in the city of Dorūd, close to Tang-e Lili, led Saeed Rahimi to try to locate it with the aid of a local guide, Ahmad Koliaei. He communicated his findings and photographs of the inscription to Esmail Hemati Azandaryani and, subsequently, to Ali Hozhabri. A detailed study of the text was published by Hemati Azandaryani, Leonardo Gregoratti, Stefano Magnani, Zeynab Khosravi and Saeed Rahimi (2023). The most recent commentary draws attention especially to archaeological evidence and topographical considerations that could support an interpretation of the akra mentioned in this text as a reference to a potentially contemporary stone construction, whose remains are located near the summit of the same, strategically situated rocky outcrop — a possible observation post (Shobairi et al. 2025).

The text is arranged in six lines within an irregularly traced rectangle at a height of 1.60 m above a narrow, flat patch of rock and earth on the cliffside, once part, perhaps, of a natural or man-made pathway (Figs. 1 and 2). The physical aspects of the inscription (irregularities of letter size, letter spacing, and margins) betray an inexperienced carver. The letter forms (square omicron and sigma) are compatible with a date in the Parthian period (cf. Rougemont 2012: no. 30, p. 76, between 100 BC and AD 45; Hemati Azandaryani et al. 2023: 199 and 201, ‘50 BC-AD 100’).

The first, rounded character of line 1 may be a hedera ‘ivy leaf’, as suggested by the first editors. The remainder of the text records an activity or accomplishment of an individual, whose name has been read as Ογγειος in line 1. The editors proposed that this might be compared with the onomastic element (Kai) Ōgī/Ōkī/Ōjī, which is attested by al-Ṭabarī among the Kayanid Persian kings; or that it might be, alternatively, a Greek transcription of the Semitic name ʿgʾ/ʿOgâ/ʿOggâ (Hemati Azandaryani et al. 2023: 201). The patronymic, Βαγαίου in line 2, is a well-attested hypocoristic of Iranian baga-  ‘god’ (e.g., Zimmer 1988).

The nature of the recorded activity or accomplishment of Oggeios is expressed in lines 3-5 through the verb τετελέωκεν (LSJ⁹ s.v. τελειόω ‘make perfect, complete, execute’) and τὴν ἄκραν ταύτην ‘this akra’ (LSJ⁹ s.v. ἄκρα ‘highest or farthest point’, but also, say, ‘hill-top’ or ‘citadel built on a steep rock overhanging a town’).

To judge by the available photograps, at least(?) two characters are obliterated by weathering of the rock and human action in lines 5-6. This creates uncertainty, for instance, about the reading Ιραδηνης (l. 6) that was proposed in the initial edition of the inscription, and which was interpreted therein as the toponym, expressed in masculine singular nominative form, of the (feminine) akra (Hemati Azandaryani et al. 2023: 197, τὴν ἄκραν / ταύτην, ᾧ ὄνο- / μα Ιραδηνης ‘this promontory/hilltop called Iradenes’, and 203, 205). However, might one read instead, say, ᾧ ὀνό- / ματι? Or, we know that the ending -ηνη (gen. -ηνης) is attested in Greek renderings of Iranian district names, always encountered in feminine form. Although there is no exact correspondence, the legible characters of line 6 recall a district named Μαρδυηνή that Ptolemy (6.4.3) mentions in this area. If the latter is the case, then, line 5 ends with a word [1 or 2 letters]ΟΝΟ.

Greek, the official medium of expression under Alexander and the Seleucids, is known to have been used in the successor Arsacid state on coinage but also in official addresses to Greek cities (e.g., the Letter of Artabanus II found at Susa, Rougemont 2012: no. 3), as well as a bureaucratic language (see the Owrāmān documents, Rougemont 2012: nos. 73-74). In the case of the present text, the familiarity of Oγγειος with Greek has been taken to imply, perhaps, that he was a native of ‘one of the Greek cities of Mesopotamia, as his Semitic or Iranic name may suggest, or … Western Iran’, rather than a local person; and/or that he was ‘somehow connected with local or central administrative authority, which perhaps put him in charge of some activity in the area’ (Hemati Azandaryani et al. 2023: 201-205, assuming that the inscription was drafted by Oggeios himself).

The different uses of Greek akra create ambiguity about the nature of Oggeios’ endeavor recorded in the inscription (ll. 4-5: τετελέωκεν τὴν ἄκραν ταύτην). Being unaware of any other traces of ancient activity nearby, the first editors inclined to discount a probability that that endeavor was connected with ‘some larger-scale works on the hilltop and the surrounding area’, despite the fact that the latter interpretation would render more easily understandable the use of the verb τελειόω in this instance. They opted instead for an interpretation of akra as a reference to ‘a more or less significant portion of the geographical feature where the inscription has been found, possibly the whole rock formation constituting the promontory surrounded by the bend of the river’. To account for the carving of the inscription in that particular locality, they concluded that Oggeios would have more likely reached the peak while searching ‘for a way to move along the valley or a passage to cross the mountain slope … or more probably to open a shortcut across the river bend’, eventually leaving his message at ‘the highest or most visible spot’ (Hemati Azandaryani et al. 2023: 203 and 205). The possibility, however, that the inscription was connected with some work of construction at Tang-e Lili cannot be easily dismissed.

Approximately 400 m west of the Greek inscription, Rahimi had also located and photographed during his visit remains of stone construction, spanning an area of roughly 5 m x 2 m, and surface pottery datable to the Seleucid and/or Parthian periods (S. Rahimi, personal communication; see also Shobairi et al. 2025). This ‘Stone site’ (Fig. 3) is as yet unexcavated, and the surface remains offer no indications about its character. Owing to its position, however, atop a prominent rocky outcrop overlooking a bend of the Mārbara River and the landscape around Tang-e Lili, the ‘Stone site’ would fit a designation as akra. It would also be suitable as an observation post, given its clear lines of sight onto the surrounding ancient settlements and access routes that are gradually being identified by Iranian archaeologists.

Within the nearly 1,800 km long Zagros fold zone, the fertile expanse of the Silakhor Plain, extending to Dorūd County and along the banks of the Mārbara and the Sezar, forms a natural corridor that links the Nehāvand and Kangāvar plains, Mesopotamia to the west, and the central Iranian Plateau to the east. It has been historically a key crossroads of north–south and east–west communications that shaped settlement patterns and regional interactions (cf. Young 1966: 228; Shobairi et al. 2025).

Insights into the local context of the inscription of Oggeios and the adjacent ‘Stone site’ are provided by previously little known evidence for extensive Hellenistic and/or Parthian period occupation around Tang-e Lili, obtained through field surveys of the the Silakhor Plain and the Dorūd city area over the past two decades (Parviz 2006; Nouri and Sanaei-Moghadam 2019: 495-556; Shobairi et al. 2025: Table 1). These surveys have identified a number of Seleucid-Parthian period sites on either side of the Mārbara River. Surface ceramics collected from the area around Tang-e Lili correspond broadly to the pottery horizon of the territory of ancient Media (Haerinck 1983: 88-120). They are comparable to Seleucid-Parthian period pottery samples that were excavated at the site of Tappa-ye Hegmatāna in Hamadān (anc. Ecbatana; Azarnoush 2007) and in Nehāvand (anc. Laodicea in Media, Rahbar and Alibaigi 2011: 141, figs. 12-14).

Especially indicative of the importance of settlement in the surroundings of the Greek inscription are the findings around the village of Dare Espar, some 5 km to the west. These suggest an occupation area of approximately 10 ha, with a uniform cultural profile associated with the Seleucid and/or Parthian periods. Ahmad Parviz characterized that site an urban settlement, partly on the basis of his discovery of a structure he designated a ‘stone temple’ (according to his report, only the lower course of the stone architecture of the ‘temple’ is extant, Parviz 2006: 47).

Archaeological surveys have further identified a number of fortress sites, such as Dej-e Kohzād, Jarqala, Lāsūr-e Sofla Castle, and Qal'a-ye Gār-Torshab, positioned along a possible ancient route in this region. Among these, Lāsūr Castle is of particular significance, given its less than 1 km distance from, and direct visual alignment with, the Tang-e Lili inscription, as well as its uninterrupted occupation sequence from at least the Parthian through the Islamic period. The picture that emerges from the spatial distribution of these sites on highland areas and adjacent to natural passages is one of a network of fortified installations for monitoring and controlling movement along an ancient route. (For more extensive presentation of the archaeological evidence, see Shobairi et al. 2025.)

Historians from the Islamic period confirm that the Dorūd region, positioned on ancient routes connecting Nahāvand, Hamadān and Khūzestān, held significant strategic importance (Izadpanah 1350/1971: 53-59). The possibility that the ‘Stone site’ at the top of the promontory of Tang-e Lili served as an observation post, coupled with the nearby presence of the Lāsūr-e Sofla Castle, suggests that the inscription was not merely intended to commemorate Oggeios’ passage through the area. The akra whose construction or completion by this individual (a military man?) is mentioned in the text could have formed part of the regional defensive system.