Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE

by Matt Waters

  The Bisitun Inscription of Darius I

  Mt. Bisitun (or Behistun, English spelling varies) lies about halfway between modern Kermanshah and Hamadan (Ecbatana) on the main east-west road through Media and across northwestern Iran. The Greek name Bagistanon probably comes from an Old Persian word bagastna, “place of the gods,” which imparts the sacredness of the site. Roughly 200 feet above the road, Darius carved a relief showing himself triumphant over rebel kings, accompanied by two unidentified retainers behind him, and acknowledging the figure in the winged disc that hovers above the scene. This symbol is usually identified with the Zoroastrian god Ahuramazda, whom Darius invokes dozens of times in the accompanying inscription. Flanking and below the relief is the inscription itself chronicling Darius’ legitimacy, right to rule, and a narrative of his victories at the beginning of his reign. The inscription is recorded in three languages: Elamite, Akkadian, and Old Persian. The Elamite version is in two copies, the first to the right of the relief and the second to the lower left: reinscribed after the addition of the last rebel king to the relief necessitated the defacement of part of the first version. The Akkadian version is to the left of the relief, and the Old Persian version underneath the relief. Captions in all three languages identify the rebel kings, but not the retainers behind Darius or the winged symbol (see Figures 4.2–4.3). The relief would have been visible from the road, but not the inscription. Copies of the inscription were disseminated throughout the Empire.

  Figure 4.2 Darius, Bisitun Relief and Inscriptions, Mt. Bisitun, Iran. Courtesy of the Cameron Archive, Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan.

  Figure 4.3 Drawing of Bisitun Relief, L. W. King and R. Campbell Thompson, Sculptures and Inscription of Darius the Great, on the Rock of Behistûn in Persia, London, 1907, Plate XIII. The capital letters indicate separate inscriptions, and the abbreviations Per., Sus., and Bab. stand for Old Persian, Susian (rather: Elamite), and Babylonian (Akkadian), respectively.

  The Bisitun Inscription’s significance goes far beyond its place in understanding this critical historical period. It also served as the fundamental document in the foundation of the modern discipline of Assyriology. Bisitun provided the key to the decipherment of the Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian cuneiform scripts. The formulaic nature of Achaemenid royal titles allowed patterns in the scripts to be discerned straightaway. The Old Persian script has only a few dozen signs, formally a syllabic system but one not far removed from an alphabet. Old Persian was cracked first thanks to parallels with Avestan and Sanskrit, closely related Indo-Iranian languages. Akkadian and Elamite scripts were more complex, with many more signs. Akkadian was realized to have known linguistic relatives in other Semitic languages such as Aramaic and Hebrew. The Elamite version was eventually translated from the other two versions and based on comparisons with earlier Akkadian-Elamite bilingual texts. In a short overview it is impossible to do justice to the painstaking work, and enormous ingenuity and erudition of the various scholars in the nineteenth century who deciphered these languages.7 Suffice it to note that the translation of the Bisitun Inscription opened the door to a vast catalog of lost Near Eastern literature, including the Epic of Gilgamesh and many others.

  Darius I’s trilingual inscription at Bisitun is the only narrative Persian royal inscription extant, and it was the blueprint for subsequent Persian royal ideology. The organization of inscriptions around the relief figures suggests that the Elamite version was inscribed first, then the Akkadian version, and the Old Persian added subsequently. The three inscriptions are meant to be copies of each other, but occasional differences between them – along with the fragmentary Aramaic copy from Elephantine in Egypt – provide much fodder for specialist discussions. The Old Persian (OP) version is considered the primary one, mainly because it is assumed to have been the language of the Persians themselves and because the OP version contains two extra sections, added after the original was complete, that were not added to the other two versions. In the discussion that follows, the parenthetical references to Darius’ inscription follow standard scholarly practice: DB (standing for “Darius, Bisitun”) followed by the paragraph (§) number, which follows the division into sections of the OP version of the inscription.

  Darius’ Bisitun Inscription was the official version, and it of course becomes the main source for these events. Darius provides only a brief narration of the circumstances surrounding the first few critical months of 522 (DB §10–14). A summary follows. Darius tersely noted that Cambyses had a full brother named Bardiya, whom Cambyses slew in secret sometime before the Egyptian campaign. Darius described Cambyses’ end obliquely, literally “he died his own death” (DB §10). In some modern works, Darius’ phrasing is erroneously translated to the effect that Cambyses committed suicide. The wording in all three versions – Elamite, Akkadian, and Old Persian – is straightforward, and suicide is not meant. The ambiguity lies in what the statement “he died his own death” really means, whether Darius was concealing something with such drab wording. No other details are offered.

  In March of 522 a man named Bardiya rebelled, and in July he claimed the kingship. This Bardiya was Cambyses’ full brother, but Darius claimed otherwise: in the Bisitun Inscription that man who claimed the kingship was Gaumata, an impostor who pretended to be the real Bardiya. The impostor threw the Empire into chaos. The people became disloyal and “the Lie” became great. Darius’ antipathy against the Lie – the word is usually capitalized in English translations – reflects a Mazdaean worldview so fundamental to the king’s ideology.8 It is introduced for the first time in the Bisitun Inscription and recurs throughout to describe the reasons for the Empire’s descent into chaos under the false kings. Darius as the agent of truth, supported by his god Ahuramazda, is the proper king who overcame the forces of chaos and returned the Empire to its proper order. This is all properly cast in the terms of the victorious king’s justification of his right to rule.

  According to Darius, the Lie impelled Gaumata to rebel, and this Gaumata represented himself as Bardiya, the son of Cyrus. Subsequent rebels whom Darius defeated were also cast as impelled by the Lie, and most of them claimed descent from prominent figures among their predecessors; for example, two Babylonian rebels claimed to be descended from the famous Nebuchadnezzar II, King of Babylonia in the early sixth century. Darius claimed that the people were terrified of Gaumata, because in order to cover his tracks he slew many who knew the real Bardiya (§13). Nevertheless, Darius, with the help of a few men – at least six of whom are specifically mentioned late in the inscription as his prominent supporters (§68) - was able to kill this Gaumata and his entourage in Media (see Map 4.1, pp. 70–72).

  After his vague accounting of the opening gambit, Darius then returned to exact dates in his account, starting with September 29, 522 BCE, for Gaumata’s death. How and why Gaumata moved from the place of his initial rebellion in Parsa to a fortress in Media is not explained. In the Bisitun relief, Gaumata is supine, extending his arms imploringly while Darius rests his foot on him in triumph. Darius concluded the section on Gaumata’s usurpation with a laundry list of Gaumata’s misdeeds and outrages against cult-centers and personal property. This passage is difficult to interpret in its particulars, even if in general it follows the tradition of a new conqueror vilifying the previous regime: one that lacked order. Darius emphasized that he reestablished order by restoring that which had been taken away or destroyed, “in accordance with what had been done previously” (§14). Darius further emphasized that Gaumata had stolen the kingship from Darius’ family, which specifically included Cambyses (§10), and that Darius thus restored his family’s long established right to rule. His emphasis on descent from Achaemenes forms a central component in Achaemenid royal ideology.

  The bulk of the Bisitun Inscription relates the victories of Darius and his lieutenants over the numerous rebel kings who challenged him, primarily in Persia (Parsa) itself, Elam, Babylonia, Media, and other points in northern and eas
tern Iran. The elimination of Cyrus’ sons left an open field for the succession, if there was to be a succession at all – in 522 there was a real threat that the Empire would splinter irrevocably. Armies ranged across the Iranian plateau, the Zagros regions, and Mesopotamia. Darius was relentless, and he recorded his exploits on the model of the Assyrian kings’ annals, with a repetitive precision that highlighted his inexorable victory. Each of the rebel armies was defeated, and the rebel kings hunted down and impaled, as in this example with Fravartish (Greek Phraortes):

  Darius the King proclaims: I went forth from Babylon and went to Media. When I arrived in Media, at a place named Kunduru, a town in Media, there that Fravartish, who called himself king in Media, came with an army against me to give battle. Then we gave battle. Ahuramazda bore me aid. With the support of Ahuramazda, I completely defeated the army of Fravartish … Afterward that Fravartish with a few horsemen fled. He went to a place named Raga in Media. Then I sent an army after him. Fravartish was seized and was led to me. I cut off his nose and ears and tongue, and put out one of his eyes. At my gate, bound, he was held. All the people saw him. Later I impaled him at Ecbatana.

  (condensed from DB §31–32)

  The Akkadian version of DB, along with a fragmentary Aramaic copy found in Elephantine in southern Egypt, gives casualty and prisoner figures for many of these battles. We have no independent check on the veracity of these numbers, which run from the hundreds to the thousands and, in two instances – in battles fought in Media (§31) and in Margiana (§38) – perhaps the tens of thousands.9 Beyond his undeniable military success against imposing odds, Darius’ right to rule was sketchy. His blood links to Cyrus’ family are stretched, at best, if not entirely fabricated. Darius supplies a Teispes, son of Achaemenes, in his line (DB §2) that links him to Cyrus’ ancestor Teispes listed in the Cyrus Cylinder (line 21). Both Darius’ father Hystaspes (OP Vishtaspa) and grandfather Arsames (OP Arshama) were yet living when Darius took the throne. Hystaspes, commanding a military force in Parthia in north central Iran, is specifically mentioned in the Bisitun Inscription (§35) as aiding his son. Herodotus called Hystaspes a governor (Greek hyparch – a term loosely applied to ruling officials of varying rank) in Persia itself, but that is different from Darius’ account.

  Herodotus’ Version of Darius’ Accession (3.61–88)

  Herodotus called Cambyses’ brother Bardiya “Smerdis.” Smerdis had initially accompanied Cambyses on the Egyptian expedition. The Ethiopians had sent Cambyses a bow with the message that, when he could draw it, it would be safe to attack them (3.21). Not one of the Persians was able to do so, but Smerdis could bend it, just slightly. Cambyses sent Smerdis home out of jealousy and subsequently had a dream in which he saw Smerdis sitting on the royal throne. Cambyses interpreted this as a threat and dispatched a trusted advisor, Prexaspes, to kill Smerdis in secret (3.30).

  Sometime later Cambyses received word of a revolt by Smerdis. By the chronology discussed above (Herodotus himself is not specific), this would be the Spring of 522 BCE. After Cambyses’ initial assumption that Prexaspes had betrayed him and that his brother Smerdis yet lived, he soon learned that two Magi brothers had instead rebelled. Herodotus called the first brother Patizeithes and the second brother Smerdis. The second brother had the same name, Smerdis, as Cambyses’ brother and, further, they looked exactly alike (3.61). Patizeithes proclaimed that his brother Smerdis was the real Smerdis, installed his brother as king, and sent out heralds demanding allegiance to this false-Smerdis instead of Cambyses, who was at that point en route back to Persia. When Cambyses uncovered the truth of the matter – that it was two Magi brothers revolting against him and that he had killed his brother Smerdis for nothing – in rage and despair he sprang into action. The cap of his scabbard fell off as he leaped onto his horse, and he was stabbed in the thigh with his own sword. Gangrene set in the wound, and Cambyses died within a few weeks. The wound was in the exact spot where Cambyses had stabbed the Apis bull, which provided Herodotus another opportunity for a moral lesson (3.64), a fitting end for the “mad Cambyses.”

  Shortly before his death, Cambyses assembled those noble Persians on campaign with him and gave a tearful confession (3.65) of his murder of the real Smerdis and details of the Magian revolt. But he was not believed; the Persian nobles thought Cambyses had made these admissions and accusations out of malice. Once Cambyses was dead, Prexaspes denied any involvement; the admission of his murder of a son of Cyrus would not have gone over well. The false-Smerdis thus ruled for seven months, during which he was well-regarded by his subjects (3.67) – because he released them from military service and tribute – and they later regretted his passing. The Magi, seeking to ensure their security, ostensibly won over Prexaspes, who knew their secret. In exchange for his compliance, the Magi promised to make him incredibly wealthy. They asked him to make a public proclamation: to allay any doubts that the Persians were being ruled by anyone other than the son of Cyrus. But Prexaspes instead revealed all during his speech, enjoined the Persians to react against the false rule of the Magi, and then he threw himself from the balcony from which he spoke.

  Other Persians had been planning to act. Their leader was named Otanes, whose daughter Phaidymie had been married to Cambyses and then became a wife of the false-Smerdis as well. Herodotus relates a lengthy and entertaining anecdote about Phaidymie’s discovery that it was indeed the magus Smerdis who ruled, not Cambyses’ brother. The story allows Herodotus to include some salacious details about the Persian harem and the royal caprice in punishments, both subjects always popular with a Greek audience. Because of the number of royal wives and concubines, Phaidymie had to wait her turn to lay with him. When that time came, Phaidymie was able to confirm that it was the false-Smerdis by the fact that he had no ears, which had been previously removed as punishment by Cyrus.

  Otanes shared his suspicions with two other noble Persians, Aspathines and Gobryas. These three each brought one additional person into the group: Intaphernes, Megabyxos, and Hydarnes. The names of these six match, with one exception, those helpers mentioned by Darius in his inscription (DB §68).10 The group is then joined by Darius, son of Hystaspes. Although the last to join the conspiracy in Herodotus’ version, Darius quickly took on the most vocal and forceful role. This Persian “Magnificent Seven” moved quickly, especially when news of Prexaspes’ speech and suicide reached them (3.76). Because these seven were among the noblest of Persian families, the palace guards allowed them entry into the inner court. From there they forced their way in and a melee broke out. As Gobryas struggled with the magus he urged Darius to strike, but because it was dark Darius did not wish to hit Gobryas. Gobryas told him to kill both, if necessary, and Darius managed to slay only the imposter.

  Comparisons

  Despite the relative richness of the source material, the circumstances surrounding Cambyses’ death and the forces unleashed by it remain opaque. What was the relationship between Cambyses and the real Bardiya? Did Cambyses die first and Bardiya succeed without incident? Or did Bardiya revolt from Cambyses? Were people really expected to believe that Cambyses’ murder of Bardiya, if even true, could be kept secret? What was the real relationship between Darius’ family and Cyrus’ family? Who was the magus Gaumata? Did Cambyses die of natural causes, or does Darius’ account hide something more sinister?

  Many elements of Herodotus’ account are difficult to reconcile with Darius’ Bisitun Inscription, so the truth remains elusive. For example, Herodotus’ summary statement that the false-Smerdis’ rule was well-received is not easily reconciled with Darius’ assertions of chaos (DB §13–14), though it would hardly be expected that Darius would paint his predecessor’s rule in a favorable light. There are a number of other curious elements here as well beyond the fantastic tale of the impostor’s usurpation. Herodotus’ seven-month reign for the false-Smerdis may be made to fit into Darius’ chronology (counting inclusively) from Gaumata’s revolt in March to his death in September of 522 BCE.
Darius gave few details about the death of the impostor, only that Darius and a few others slew him at a fort in Media.

  As is evident by now, Darius’ account invites a great deal of skepticism. Indeed, many modern scholars believe that Darius killed the real Bardiya – even though the circumstances around Bardiya’s rule and relationship with Cambyses remain unclear – in his seizure of the throne. Darius as the victor was in a position to write the history but his account, despite its primacy, must be read with a careful eye. Even a casual read suggests important details were either glossed or ignored. Careful study reveals a number of questionable components of Darius’ claims to legitimacy, and it throws large parts of his version of his rise into question. Realistically, of course, we should not expect Darius to provide an objective account, at least not by our standards. Darius’ foremost goal was to legitimize his succession.