T he very first words o f a Persian king written down and preserved for posterity can be found on the Cyrus-cylinder. It is quite characteristic that not only the language used is Babylonian, but also that the whole of the text closely follows M esopotam ian exam ples: it is “com posed in accordance with traditional M esopotam ian royal building texts ... and no foreign/or new literary elem ents appear in it” (K u h rt 1 9 8 3 : 92). The docu
m ent should not be taken as an indication of a policy of tolerance, as has been done so often. It has frequently been argued that the A chaem enids inaugurated a new and rad
ically different policy of tolerance towards conquered nations. If this were the case, one m ight suspect this new direction in political behaviour to have been based on som e kind of political philosophy. U nfortunately this does not seem to be the case:
Cyrus and his successors m erely adapted to local custom s, followed local rules and be
haved like local kings. It is only gradually that in their behaviour outside Persia proper m ore Iranian elem ents beco m e visible.
T h e Cyrus cylinder then is not the result of borrowing from one culture into an
other. The d ocum ent stays within the circle where it originated and is not transposed into another culture. Its use is strictly circum scribed. W ritten docum ents from Persia for the period of Cyrus do n o t exist, except for two one-line inscriptions at Pasargadae that only tell us that this is Cyrus the king, the A chaem enid. It is not impossible that the inscriptions were only carved at a m uch later date, quite likely on the order of Darius.
The reign of Cam byses is equally characterised by lack of docum entation from Iran.
T h e only trace he seem s to have left on Iranian soil is probably the platform of an unfinished tom b near Persepolis (Takht-i Rustam , cf. Stronach 197 8 : 302). His main accom plishm ent, the con quest of Egypt, is characterised by features sim ilar to Cyru>
conquest of Babylonia. D espite H erodotus’ negative reports on Cam byses’ behaviour, Egyptian sources make it clear that Cam byses at least attem pted to follow Egyptian traditions (Lloyd 1 9 8 8 : 64) and that the only evidence for inconsiderate behaviour towards Egyptian custom s and traditions may have been a curtailing of priestly teve
P o litic a l C o n c e p ts in O ld -P e r s ia n R o y a l In s c r ip tio n s 1 5 7
nues. T his, however, would have been m ore than sufficient reason for a negative repu
tation of Cam byses in Egyptian priestly circles which in turn would have its influence on G reek historiography (Lloyd 198 8 : 65). T o put it bluntly, had we n o t known from Greek sources that Cam byses acted like a tyrant, we would have had no reason to as
sume that he behaved differently in any way from his father.
T o sum up: until 522, when Darius cam e to the throne, we see the A chaem enids behaving as local rulers in conquered territories and in the heartland we can see the gradual developm ent of the form ulation of a political creed, w hich is shaped by the use of specific M esopotam ian elem ents, deliberately chosen and inserted into a coh er
ent mould, w hich we may suppose was based on Iranian traditions. A lthough for all practical purposes the reign of Darius may have represented a less clear break with the past than H erodotus’ rem arks on D arius’ reform (III 89) may lead us to believe, in the development of political thinking it is an im portant turning point. R igh t at the begin
ning of Darius’ reign the large inscription of Behistun was made. It tells in the three languages of the em pire the deeds perform ed by Darius in his first regnal year. As such, it is a unique d ocu m ent: it is the only old-Persian d ocu m ent which gives co n crete data, places, events, tim es etc. It is rem arkably close to the M esopotam ian tradi
tion and elem ents stem m ing from that tradition can be found in the first four colum ns of the inscription (e.g. B ickerm an & T ad m or 197 8 : 244).
The Behistun inscription consists, however, of five colum ns. T h e fifth colum n is to
tally different from the first four and n o t only because it exists in an old-Persian ver
sion alone. As in the first four colum ns, Darius reports on rebellions in his em pire in the second and third year of his reign. Revolts of Elam ites and Scythians were crushed, the first one by the king’s general Gobryas, the second one, a Scythian ‘upris
ing’, by himself. T h e new elem en t is the conclusion of the statem ent on the crushing of the revolt: “Saith Darius the K in g : T hose Elam ites were faithless and by them A hu- ramazda was not w orshipped. I worshipped Ahuramazda; by the favour of A huram az- da, as was m y desire, thus I did unto them ” (D B 5, 1 4 -1 7 ). T h e statem ent is repeated in 5 3 0 -3 with the Scythians as the wrongdoers. T h e m ain difference w ith the preced
ing mentionings of uprisings is that the rebels are characterised as ‘non-Ahuram azda- : worshippers’. In the first four colum ns they were labelled as ‘Lie-follow ers’. Elsewhere I have argued that there is no need to see in this (or in later sim ilar statem ents) proof for an enforced cult of Ahuramazda (Sancisi-W eerdenburg 1 9 8 0 : 15 f., cf. Briant 1986:
429). In Fars and throughout the em pire there is ample evidence that worship of in
digenous gods continued as before, enjoyed royal support in som e cases and was not
| replaced by cults of Iranian gods.
What we see here is the developm ent of the royal ideology: the king’s god p a r excel
lence is Ahuramazda. W orship of Ahuramazda is a m etaphor for being loyal to the king- It has no practical im plications as is attested by docum ents from the Persepolis archive where Elam ite gods receive rations from the royal treasuries - those same
^amites who were accused in D B 5 of not worshipping Ahuramazda. As seen before, e articulation of Ahuram azda as the K in g ’s god was probably stim ulated by M esopo- tamian examples. But the precise phrasings are gradually developing in an Iranian c°ntext.
1 5 8 H e le e n S a n c is i-W e e r d e n b u r g
A t som e later time, during the reign of X erxes, we can see the developm ent going one step further. N ot only do we find loyalty to the king cast in the m etaphor ‘worship of Ahuramazda’, the term for rebellion has also becom e a religious one: ‘those who worship Daivas’. The docu m ent in question is the famous inscription of Xerxes, known as the Daiva inscription. T h e text is usually understood as proof for a new pol
icy introduced by X erxes and marked by zealous intolerance. R ecen t research (Bos- worth 198 0 : 3 1 4 ; K u h rt & Sherw in-W hite 1 9 8 7 : 7 6 f.) has shaken this familiar inter
pretation. In all other respects, X erxes can be seen as going on along the path indi
cated by his father and building on his foundations. This is very clear in the building program m e of Persepolis where the m ost conspicuous buildings were finished during X erxes’ reign. T he m ost spectacular iconographic representation of the Persian em pire, the ensem ble on the Apadana stairs, m ust be dated to X erx es’ reign. In terms of a political program m e, X erx es further developed the imperial ideology and steered it even farther away from M esopotam ian exam ples than his father had already started doing in the fifth colum n of the Behistun inscription.
Characteristic of this is the word daiva, which X erxes uses for rebellious behaviour.
Rebels are those who worship daivas. They should be punished. T hey should not wor
ship the false gods. This passage (X P h 35) is im m ediately followed by the statem ent:
“W here previously false gods were worshipped, there I worshipped Ahuramazda.”
T h at is not the rebels who have to worship Ahuramazda, but the king himself.
T h e o th er even m ore prom inent feature which shows a further developm ent of an Iranian ideology is that all the texts after Behistun are in a certain sense ahistorical.
They do not refer to specific events or persons. T h ey seem to suggest that time is an unim portant elem ent. This is how it is, has been and will be. In this respect the texts are entirely congruent with the reliefs where it often is very hard (or totally impossible) to define which king is portrayed13.
T o sum up: concrete elem ents were borrowed from surrounding traditions with which the Persians cam e into contact. Later developm ents testify to a political philos
ophy and political ideology with primarily Iranian characteristics. It seem s to me that this developm ent could not have taken place w ithout reflections on the nature of gov
ernm ent. But who partook in such a discussion, what were the m ain issues and the various positions, will rem ain a puzzle. T he only slight evidence we have is probably form ed by the m ention in G reek sources of the oral tradition and of the ta basdika elem ent in that oral tradition. In that con nection the Magi are also m entioned (cf.
above) but that seem s to take us rather far from the usual interpretation of what the Magi were and what religious office they fulfilled.
u Unless the different crowns are indicative of the identity of the king wearing it (von cr
rail
[1974]).
P o litic a l C o n c e p ts in O ld -P e r s ia n R o y a l In s c r ip tio n s 1 5 9
VIII. Conclusion
The main question in this sem inar has been the discussion of political thinking at var
ious stages of history in G reece and the Near East. W as there anything like a develop
ing political philosophy in the A chaem enid em pire in the second half of the sixth c en tury and in the early fifth century? Philosophy is a weighty term in this context. It indicates a system atic way of thinking and of abstract reasoning and as such it seems to presuppose the potential of written com m unication. Modes of thinking as ex
pressed in oral traditions usually are m ore speculative and allusive.
There seems to be, however, nothing that pleads against concluding from what we see happening in both A achaem enid texts and iconography that the newly developed situation of governing a large state and ruling a new em pire inspired reflections on what was required and how the task could best be carried out. T h e relation between ruler and ruled was defined in a language consisting of som e of the vocabulary of older political system s as well as of Iranian term s, structured by an Iranian gram m ar and syntax. T h at is what we see on the Persepolis reliefs and that we may suppose - pend
ing further research and a closer scrutiny of the texts - is what lies behind the royal inscriptions. This thinking about political relationships which m ainly focussed on the rights of kingship and the duties of the subjects, but did not leave the duties of m on- archs out of consideration, was at an incipient stage in the first century of the Persian empire. Its state of the art shows it trailing far behind the m ore sophisticated and more fully developed G reek political philosophy. But the beginnings were there. And it veems unjustified to measure it exclusively according to a m ore advanced and appar
ently unique system.
It is remarkable that the sheer fact of the existence of these inscriptions, or rather a selection of them , seem s to prove that an attem pt at com m u nication between rulers and ruled was indeed undertaken. A num ber of inscriptions m erely record facts or deeds of the king. T h e king built, he conquered, he worshipped and Ahuramazda may be thanked for enabling the king to perform in this way. T h eir message is not directed in any precise direction or at a well-defined public. T h eir purpose seem s to be that of merely recording. Som e inscriptions, however, strongly suggest that they are m eant to be an extension of the king’s voice. It is not so m uch the characteristic form ula “Saith X, the king ...”, but rather one or a few clauses at the end of the text directly address
ing the reader, the receiver of the message, which are revealing for this underlying for
mat: in the fourth colum n of D B future kings (par. 64), future readers (par. 65) and future observers of the relief (par. 66) are directly spoken to. In D P e the reader is ad
dressed in person “If thus thou shalt think . .. ” (D P e 20). D N a also closes with a direct message: “O man ... do not leave the right path, do n ot rise in rebellion” (D N a 5 6 -6 0 ).
Similar direct exhortations are to be found in D N b par. 9a and b and X P h par. 4d.
Writing is used here not to fix facts for future use or consultation, but rather as a means for magnifying the voice in an attem pt to overcom e the lim itations of tim e and place. Writing, in other words is used as an extension of oral com m u nication: there do n°ty e t seem to exist “two places apart from the reality of hum an thought and experi
1 6 0 H e le e n S a n c is i-W e e r d e n b u r g
e n ce ” (Lentz 1 9 8 9 : 18). It seem s to be an attem pt to m ake direct con tact between the living experience of both king and reader (ibid.: 28).
New technology is applied to traditional modes of getting messages across. In a very straightforward way the king seeks to marshal the cooperation of his subjects and propagates his rightful rule while recognizing also som e of their rights, not only those of paying taxes and obeying, but their right to reward for good service as well (DN b par. 63).
M ore could be said about the ways the Persian kings pieced together their royal ide
ology. B ut that would require m ore space than allowed in this paper and new research on the A chaem enid inscriptions as ideological constructs and program m atic state
m ents. M y aim was m ore lim ited : ju st to clarify som e of the issues involved and to outline som e future paths for research.
References
E J . Bickerman & H. Tadmor, Darius I, Pseudo-Sm erdis, and the Magi, in: Athenaeum 56 (1978) 2 3 9 -2 6 1 .
A. B. Bosworth, A H istorical C om m entary on A rrian’s H istory of Alexander. Vol. I.
Com m entary on Books I—III (O xford 1980).
M ary Boyce, A H istory of Zoroastrianism I: T h e early period (Leiden 1975).
id., A H istory of Zoroastrianism II: U nder the A chaem enians (Leiden 1982).
Pierre Briant, Rois, T ributs et Paysans (Paris 1982).
id., La Perse avant l’em pire, in: Iranica A ntiqua 19 (1984) 7 1 -1 1 8 .
id,, Polythéism es et em pire unitaire. Rem arques sur la politique religieuse des A chém énides, in: Les grandes figures religieuses. Fo n ctio n n em en t pratique et sym
bolique dans l’A ntiquité (Paris 1986) 4 2 5 -4 4 3 .
id., Institutions perses et histoire com paratiste dans l’historiographie grecque, in:
A chaem enid H istory II: the G reek Sources, eds. Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg à Amélie Kuhrt (Leiden 1987) 1 -1 0 .
Peter Calmeyer, Fortu na-T yche-K hvarnah, in : Jah rb u ch des deutschen Archäol. Insti
tuts 9 4 (1979) 3 4 7 -3 6 5 .
Dominique Collon, First Im pressions. Cylinder Seals in the A n cien t Near East (London 1987).
J . M Cook, T h e Persian Em pire (London 1983).
M uham m ad A. Dandamaev & Vladimir G. Lukonin, T h e culture and social institu
tions of an cien t Iran (Cam bridge 1989).
P o litic a l C o n c e p ts in O ld -P e r s ia n R o y a l In s c r ip tio n s 1 6 1
/. Ai. Diakonoff T h e origin of the ‘old-Persian’ writing system and the ancient O rien tal epigraphic and annalistic traditions, in: W . B. H enning M em orial V olum e, eds.
Alary Boyce 8c Ilya Gershevitch (London 1970) 9 8 -1 2 4 .
Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, La religion des achém énides, in: Gerold Walser (Hrsg.), Beiträge zur A chaem enidengeschichte (Historia Einzelschr. 18, W iesbaden 1972) 5 9 -8 2 .
id., Le dieu de Cyrus, in: A cta Iranica 3 (1974) 1 1 -2 1 .
Ilya Gershevitch, T h e Avestan H ym n to M ithra (Cam bridge 1959).
id., Zoroaster’s own contribution, in: JN E S 23 (1964) 1 2 -3 8 .
Gherardo Gnoli, Politique religieuse et conception de la royauté sous les A chém énides, in: A cta Iranica 2 (1974) 1 1 7 -1 9 0 .
Jànos Harmatta, T h e Rise of the O ld-Persian Em pire. Cyrus the G reat, in: A A ntH ung 19 (1970) 3 -1 5 .
id., Les modèles littéraires de l’édit babylonien de Cyrus, in: A cta Iranica 1 (1974) 2 9 -4 4 .
Cl. Herrenschmidt, D ésignation de l’em pire et concepts politiques de Darius I d’après ses inscriptions en vieux-perse, in : Studia Iranica 5 (1976) 33-66.
id., La religion des A ch ém énid es: Etat de la question, in: Studia Iranica 9 (1980) 3 2 5 -3 3 9 .
Ernst Herzfeld, D rei Inschriften aus persischem G ebiet, M A O G 4 ( = A ltorientalische Studien B. M eissner gew idm et, 1928) 8 5 -8 6 .
Walter Hinz, Die E ntsteh ung der altpersischen K eilschrift, in: A M I [N.F.] 1 (1968) 9 5 -9 8 .
Steven W. Hirsch, T h e Friendship of the Barbarians. X en o p h on and the Persian empire (Hanover, London, 1985).
Jean Kellens, Q uestions préalables, in : La religion iranienne à l’époque achém énide, ed.
Jean Kellens (IrAnt. suppl. 5) (G en t 1991) 8 1 -8 6 .
Roland G. Kent, Old Persian, Gram m ar, Texts, Lexicon (New Haven 1953).
Heidemarie Koch, D ie religiösen Verhältnisse der D areioszeit: U ntersuchungen an Hand der E lam ischen Persepolistäfelchen (W iesbaden 1977).
‘d, Götter und ihre V erehrung im achäm enidischen Persien, Z A 77 (1987) 2 3 9 -2 7 8 . Amélie Kuhrt, T h e Cyrus cylinder and A chaem enid imperial policy, in: J S O T 25
(1,983) 8 3 -9 7 .
id. & Susan Sherwin-White, X erx es’ destruction of Babylonian tem ples, in: A chae- menid History II: the G reek Sources, eds. Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg & Amélie Kuhrt (Leiden 1987) 6 9 -7 8 .
162 H eleen Sancisi-W eerden burg
id., A lexander and Babylon, in : A ch aem en id H istory V : The Roots of the European
T radition, eds. Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg & J W. Drijvers (Leiden 1990) 121 -13 0 .
F.-B.J. Kuiper, A hura M azda- ‘Lord W isd o m ’ ?, in: IIJ 18 (1976) 2 5 -4 2 .Pierre Lecoq, Un problèm e de religion ach ém én id e: A h ura M azda ou X varnah, in : A cta
Iranica 23 ( = Festschrift D uchesne-G uillem in, Leiden 1984) 3 0 0 -3 2 6 .
Tony M. Lentz, O rality and Literacy in H ellenic Greece (Carbondale 1989).
Heinz Luschey, Studien zu den D arius-R elief in B isutun, in : A M I [N.F.] 1 (1968)
6 3 -9 4 .
William W. M alandra, A n Introduction to A n cien t Iranian R eligion. R eadings from
the A vesta and the A chaem enid Inscriptions, transi, and ed. by W, M. M alandra (M inneapolis 1983).
M anfred Mayrhofer, A rchaism us und Innovation. Eine gram m atisch e U nterscheidung
in K eilschrift-P arallel-T exten aus achäm enidischer Z eit, in : A rO r 47 (1979) 9 6 -9 9 .
id., Ü berlegungen zur E ntstehung d er altpersischen K eilschrift, in : BSO A S 42 (1979)2 90 -2 9 6.
A lan B. Lloyd, H erodotus on C am byses. Som e thoughts on recent work., in : A chae
m enid H istory III: M ethod and T heory, eds. Amélie K uhn & Heleen Sancisi-Weer
denburg (Leiden 1988) 5 5-66 .
Arnaldo Momigliano, A lien W isdom . The lim its of H ellenization (C am bridge 1975).
id., Persian em pire and G reek freedom , in : The Idea of Freedom . Essays in honour of
Isaiah Berlin, ed. A lan Ryan (Oxford 1979).
Carl Nylander, Ionians in Pasargadae. Studies in Old Persian A rch itectu re (Boreas i,
U ppsala 1970).
/Margaret C. Root, T he K ing and kingship in A chaem enid art (A cta Iranica 19, Leiden
1979).
Edward W. Said, O rientalism (New York 1979).
Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Y aunâ en Persa. G rieken en Perzen in een ander perspec-
tief (Diss. Leiden 1980).
id., The Fifth O riental M onarchy and H ellenocentrism , in : A ch aem en id History II:
the G reek Sources, eds. Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg & Amélie Kuhrt (Leiden 1987) 117-131.
id,, D ecadence in the em pire or decadence in the sources? From source to synthesis:
Ctesias, in : A ch aem en id H istory I: Sources, Structures, Synthesis, ed. Heleen San
cisi-Weerdenburg (Leiden 1987) 3 3 -4 6 .
id., The quest for an elusive em pire, in: A chaem enid H istory IV: C entre and Periph'
ery, eds. Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg & Amélie Kuhrt (Leiden 1990) 2 63-274.
id., The M edian em pire and H erodotus’ Medikas Logos, in: A ch aem en id H istory VIII.
C o n tin u ity and C hange, eds. Heleen Sancisi-Wéerdenburg, Amélie Kuhrt, Margaret C.
Root (Leiden forthcom ing).
id., Did the Persians speak the truth (in preparation).
Rüdiger Schmitt, Forschungsbericht. A itpersisch-F orschung in den Siebzigerjahren, in:
K ratylos 25 (1980) 1 -6 6.
id., Z ur babylonischen V ersion der B ï-sutü-n-Inschrift, in: AfO 27 (1980) 106-126.
A- Sh. Shahbazi, An A ch aem en id Sym bol I: A Farewell to “Fravahr” and “A huram az-
da”, in : AM I 7 (1974) 1 35-144.
id,, The ‘T raditional Date of Zoroaster’ explained, in : BSO AS 40 (1977) 2 5-35 . id., A n A chaem enid Sym bol II: Farnah (God Given) Fortune “Sym b o lised”, in: AM I
13 (1980) 1 19-147.
R. J . van der Spek, C yrus de Pers in A ssyrisch perspectief, in : T ijdschrift voor Ge-
schiedenis 96 (1983) 1-27.
David Stronach, Pasargadae. A report on the excavations conducted by the British
Institute of Persian studies from 1961 to 1963 (Oxford 1978).
James Tatum, X enophon’s Im perial Fiction (Princeton 1989).
Leo Trümpelmann, Das H eiligtum von Pasargadae, in : Studia Iranica 6 (1977) 7 -1 6 . Hubertus von Gall, Die K opfbedeckung des persischen O rnats bei den A chäm eniden,
in: AM I [N.F.] 7 (1974) 1 45 -1 6 1.
Elisabeth N. von Voigtlander, The Bisitun Inscription of D arius the Great. Babylonian
Version. (CII, Pt. 1: Inscriptions of A n cien t Iran 11,1, London 1978).
F. H. Weissbacb, Die K eilinschriften der A chäm eniden (V orderasiatische Bibliothek 3,
F. H. Weissbacb, Die K eilinschriften der A chäm eniden (V orderasiatische Bibliothek 3,