Relief on the cliff at Behistun and some of its accompanying inscriptions 

Image from Pierre Briant (referenced below,  2021, figure 5, at p. 276)

The positions of the Elamite, Babylonian and Old Persian versions of the major trilingual inscriptions

Image from Rüdiger Schmitt (referenced below, 2000, Figure 21) 

This monumental relief and its inscriptions , which were carved high up on the cliff at Behistun (near Ecbatana, the capital of Media, in what is now western Iran) soon after Darius’ accession, represented his first proclamation to the citizens of the empire of :

1. ✴the new era of order and justice that was about to unfold through the grace of his patron deity, Ahuramazda; and
   

2. ✴his legitimate right to preside over it, as evidenced by his rapid string of victories over the forces of disorder that had previously disrupted their lives.
   

The relief itself summarised the victory that had brought Darius to the throne in 522 BC and those that had followed it during the first year of his reign: it depicts:

1. ✴Ahuramazda (in the upper register);
   

2. ✴Darius himself (towards the left);
   

3. ✴two courtiers (one carrying his spear and the other his bow) behind him;
   

4. ✴the putative usurper Gaumâta (beneath Darius’ left foot), with an inscription below explaining that:
   

5. “This is Gaumâta, the magus.  He lied, saying: ‘I am Bardiya, the son of Cyrus; I am king”, (DBb); and
   

6. ✴8 fettered rebels (approaching Darius from the right)whom he had subsequently defeated, each identified as yet another ‘liar king’ (DBc-j).  
   

The fettered figure at the extreme right, which was a later addition (see below), is identified by an inscription (DBk) that reads:

1. ‘iyam Skuxa hya Saka’ (this is Skunkha the Sacan).
   

The surrounding inscriptions (DB: 1-69), which are given in three of the most important cuneiform languages of the empire (Elamite, Babylonian/Akkadian and Old Persian), describe these events as part of an extraordinarily detailed first-person account of Darius’ rise to power.  As Rüdiger Schmitt (referenced below, 2000, search on ‘Elamite original’) observed:

1. “Soon after the Elamite original was inscribed (presumably at the beginning of 519 BC), the Babylonian version was added on a projecting slope [to the right - see the illustration above]. ... Later in the same year, the Old Persian text was added [below the relief].  Though a translation of the Elamite text, it probably represents what the king regarded as the definitive version.  It ... received an additional paragraph [DB: 70 - see below)]
   

Schmitt also noted (search on ‘Atamaita’) that:

1. “The Elamite text later had to be moved: after the defeat of the Elamites under Atamaita (not portrayed on the relief) and the [Sacans] under Skunkha in Darius’s second and third regnal years, the figure of Skunkha ... [was] cut into the first Elamite text, which  ... was meticulously copied and placed to the left of the Old Persian version. ... In the final stage, six more paragraphs (DB 71-6) recording the recent events were added to the Old Persian text in a separate (fifth) column.”
   

Unless otherwise stated, the English passages below are taken from the translation of the Old Persian version that is given on this page of the website Livius, with some changes made on the basis of other translations (primarily those by Amélie Kuhrt, referenced below, 2007a, at pp. 142-50 and Rüdiger Schmitt, referenced below, 1991).

As Rüdiger Schmitt (referenced below, 2000, search on ‘thankful’) pointed out: 

1. “We must be thankful for the fact that, after the monument had been completed, [Darius apparently] ordered the stairway removed and the path and part of the cliff sheared off, eliminating all means of access to the relief and inscriptions (which, until recently, have thus been accessible only by means of a steep and difficult climb up the rock face).”
   

This has largely preserved them from obliteration, although it also had the effect of rendering the inscriptions illegible from below.  However, the difficult passage (DB: 70) that was added to the Old Persian version seems to indicate how Darius overcame this problem:

1. “King Darius says: By the grace of Ahuramazda, this is the inscription that I have made.  Also, it was [rendered] in Aryan [= Old Persian] script, and it was placed [?] on clay tablets and on parchment. ... And it was inscribed and was read out before me.  After that, I sent [it] everywhere into the lands.”
   

Amélia Kuhrt (referenced below, 2007a, at pp. 156-7, notes 115-6) suggested that Darius had sponsored the creation of a new script for the writing of Aryan/Old Persian and that the texts were also circulated (for example) in Akkadian/ Babylonian cuneiform on clay tablets and in Aramaic on parchment.

Darius’ Dynastic Claim to the Throne 

The inscriptions begin with Darius’ assertion of his place in what he called the Achaemenid dynasty:

“I am Darius, the great king, king of kings, king in Parsa (Persia), king of peoples/countries,

the son of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, an Achaemenid.

King Darius says: My father is Hystaspes; the father of Hystaspes was Arsames;

the father of Arsames was Ariaramnes; the father of Ariaramnes was Teispes;

the father of Teispes was Achaemenes.

King Darius says: That is why we are called Achaemenids;

from antiquity, we have been noble; from antiquity, our family have been kings.

King Darius says: there were eight from my family who were previously kings; I am the ninth:

nine (of us) duvitāparanam [see below], we are kings”, (DB: i: 1-4).  

As Amir Ahmadi (referenced below, at p. 4) observed, the Old Persian adverb duvitāparanam, which which probably specified the manner in which the Achaemenid kingship was transmitted from one generation to the next, is a hapax legomenon (i.e., this is the only known example of its use), which means that its precise meaning had to be established on the basis of this one passage.  Amélie Kuhrt (referenced below, 2007a, at p. 144) translated it as:

1. “... nine kings we are, in succession”;
   

but observed (at note 4, p. 155) that it can also be translated as:

1. “... nine are we, in two lines of kings”.
   

However, we can probably rule out the first of these translations: as Amir Ahmadi (referenced below, at p. 6) pointed out, when Darius took the throne, both his father and his grandfather were still alive:

1. ✴in a later passage of the Behistun inscriptions (DB: II: 35-6), Darius recorded that Hystaspes was present in Parthia (possibly as satrap) when that province joined the revolt  and that he defeated the rebels there on 11th July 521 BC; and
   

2. ✴in a slightly later inscription at Darius’ new palace at Susa, he recorded that:
   

3. “By the grace of Ahuramazda, my father Hystaspes and my grandfather Arsames were both still living when Ahuramazda made me king in this earth” (DSf: 12-15).
   

As we shall see, in a later passage of the inscription, he claimed that the King of Kings who had preceded him had been Cambyses II.  Ahmadi therefore reasonably argued that Darius:

1. “... could not have envisaged that the eight [Achaemenid kings who had apparently preceded him had ruled] in a linear succession.” 
   

In other words, whatever the precise meaning of duvitāparanam, Darius’ nine Achaemenid kings must have come from at least two branches of the ruling family. 

Later in the inscription (in a passage that deals with the alleged circumstances that surrounded Darius' accession - see below), we read that:

1. “King Darius says: ...  A son of Cyrus, named Cambyses, one of our dynasty, was king here before me.  This Cambyses had a brother, Bardiya, who had the same mother and the same father as Cambyses.  Afterwards, Cambyses killed [Bardiya, but kept the the crime secret].  Thereupon, Cambyses went to Egypt”, (DB: i: 10).    
   

This requires us to include both Cyrus II and Cambyses II in Darius’ list, although (as discussed further below) we should probably exclude Bardiya, since, according to Darius, Cambyses had killed him.   Thus, the inscription itself allows us to securely identify the line of Cyrus II as a second branch of the family of Darius’ Achaemenid kings.

Cyrus II (559 - 530 BC)  

Map of Southwestern Iran

Adapted from David Stronach (referenced below, Figure 2, at p. 57)

Cyrus II set out his dynastic lineage in a surviving Babylonian/Akkadian inscription (CB) on the so-called ‘Cyrus Cylinder’, a clay cylinder from Babylon that is now in the British Museum.  This text, which commemorates Cyrus’ allegedly bloodless conquest of Babylon in 539 BC, records that:

1. ✴records that Marduk, the most important god of the Babylonian pantheon, had taken:
   

2. “... a righteous king ... by the hand, called out his name, Cyrus, king of the uru (city) of Anshan, ... [and] pronounced [him] to be king all over the world”, (CB: 12); and 
   

3. ✴identified Marduk’s ‘chosen one’ as:
   

4. “... Cyrus, king of the world, great king, powerful king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters of the world:
   

5. •son of Cambyses [I], great king, king of the city of Anshan;
   

6. •grandson of Cyrus [I], great king, of the city of Anshan; and
   

7. •liblibbu (descendant or great grandson - see Matt Waters, referenced below, 2022, at note 23, p. 208) of Teispes, great king, of the city of Anshan..
   

8. •(I am Cyrus), the eternal seed of kingship, whose rule Bêl and Nabu love, whose kingship they desire for their hearts' pleasure”, (CB: 20-1).
   

This genealogy for Cyrus II is reflected in the family tree above. 

Matt Waters (referenced below, at pp. 26-7) pointed to an inscription in which the Assyrian King Ashurbanipal (669-631 BC) recorded that, at some time after Ashurbanipal had defeated the Elamites in 646 BC, Cyrus, king of Parsumash had sent his eldest son Arukku to Nineveh with tribute and his offer of submission:

1. ✴he had already argued (at p. 12) that Parsumash was the Assyrian name for Elamite Anshan (and Old Persian Parsa); and
   

2. ✴he further argued (at p. 31) that this king of Parsumash could be identified as Cyrus I, King of Anshan, albeit that this required the assumption of an average length for the reigns of Cyrus I and Cambyses I of 40 years:
   

3. •Cyrus I (ca. 640-600 BC);
   

4. •Cambyses I (ca. 600-560 BC); and
   

5. •Cyrus II (559 - 530 BC), since:
   

6. -dated Babylonian inscriptions suggest that he died in August 530  BC; and
   

7. -according to Herodotus (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 214: 3), he had reigned for 29 years).
   

8. -On this
   

However, Jan Tavernier (referenced below, 2018, at p. 170), following Pierre de Miroschedji (referenced below, at p. 284), preferred the following dating (which assumes an average length for the reigns of Teispes, Cyrus I and Cambyses I of 25 years):

1. ✴Teispes (ca. 635 - 610 BC);
   

2. ✴Cyrus I (ca. 610-585 BC);
   

3. ✴Cambyses I (ca. 585-560 BC); and
   

4. ✴Cyrus II (559 - 530 BC).
   

On this model, Cyrus, king of Parsumash, who had submitted to King Ashurbanipal of Assyria after 646 BC, had been unrelated to Teispes, king of the city on Anshan.

The most striking thing about the genealogy set out in the Cyrus Cylinder is the assertion that Cyrus II was the fourth member of a dynastic line of kings ‘of the city of Anshan’.  As Antigoni Zournatzi (referenced below, 2019, at p. 151) observed:

1. “By the early 1970s, various epigraphic and archaeological clues had begun to indicate that the lost [originally Elamite] city of Anshan could be identified with the important ancient urban centre whose remains survive at Tall-i Malyan, in close proximity to Pasargadae and Persepolis (see the map above).” 
   

Matt Waters (referenced below, 2023, at p. 387) pointed out, the ancient Elamite city here had apparently been abandoned by 1000 BC, although it should be noted that the excavation of the site is incomplete.  Other broadly contemporary references to the Anshanite title of Cyrus II do not specifically mention the city:

1. a brick stamp from Ur designates both Cambyses I and Cyrus II as king of the kur (land/country/ territory) of Anshan;
   

2. ✴the so-called Sippar Cylinder of Nabonidus (the last independent King of Babylon, whom Cyrus II deposed in 539 BC) similarly referred to the defeat of Astyages, King of the Medians by Cyrus [II], the king of the land of Anshan (although kur in the original is omitted in this translation); and
   

3. ✴the Chronicle of Nabonidus refers to Cyrus II as both King of Anshan (ii: 1) and King of Parsu (ii: 15).
   

This suggests that:

1. ✴‘Anshan’ was the name of both a city and its surrounding territory; and
   

2. ✴both ‘Anshan’ and ‘Parsu’ referred to Fars, the region of southwestern Iran in which Tall-i Malyan is located.
   

By the time that Cyrus II conquered Babylon, he was already:

1. ✴King of the Medes, by virtue of his defeat of King Astyages of Media in 550 BC; and
   

2. ✴King of the Lydians, by virtue of his defeat of King Croesus of Lydia in ca. 547-6 BC. 
   

We might therefore reasonably wonder why, in the Cyrus Cylinder, the man whom Marduk had chosen to be king ‘all over the world’ was named as ‘Cyrus, king of the city of Anshan’.  The fundamental reason must have been that this title had a particular resonance for Cyrus’ Babylonian audience, not least because, as Daniel Potts (referenced below, at p. 8) pointed out, Anshan was originally:

1. “... the name of an Elamite city and region that, from the 3rd millennium BC, formed one of the core areas of highland Elam.”
   

He also noted (at p. 9) that

1. ✴an Elamite calling himself ‘king of Anshan’ seems to have been recorded early in the 2nd millennium BC;
   

2. ✴several generations later, the inscriptions of the Elamite king Ebarti II attest to the title ‘king of Anshan and Susa’ and ‘priest of Anshan and Susa’;
   

3. ✴in ca. 1400 BC, Elamite kings from two successive dynasties  began calling themselves ‘king of Susa and Anshan; and
   

4. ✴Untash-Napirisha (ca. 1340–1300 BC) returned to the title of ‘king of Anshan and Susa’.
   

Yasmin Wicks (referenced below, at p. 6) pointed out, in this period, Anshan was:

1. “... a traditional Elamite seat of power, named together with lowland Susa in the royal titles ‘king of [Anshan] and Susa’,”
   

She also pointed out (at pp. 6-7) that, thereafter, this region experienced a poorly-understood process of increasing pastoral nomadism associated with a migrant Iranian populations, during which:

“... the continued employment of [this] royal title ... attests to [Anshan’s] importance in the Elamite psyche over the longue durée, as both a place and a concept.”

She identified (at pp, 13-4) two stele from the Acropole of Susa in which this title was used:

1. ✴EKI 73c, in which Shutruk-Nahhunte II (traditionally 716-699 BC) designates himself as son of Huban-mena and king of Anshan and Susa and makes a number of religious references, including one Ishushinak; and
   

2. ✴EKI 86-9, on a relief image of the seated king Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak, who similarly designates himself king of Ansan and Susa
   

3. “... proclaims his love for Susa and its people, mentions activities he and his predecessors carried out at various Elamite locales, and invokes the god of Susa (Inšušinak) and other gods associated with Elamite territories in eastern Khuzestan.  As Matthew W. Stolper [referenced below, at p. 199]  notes, this king’s comments about Susa imply that he lived elsewhere, probably in the mountainous fringes of Khuzestan along the route to [Anshan] that were the preferred seats of power at this time.”
   

The dating of the reign of Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak is much-debated.  However, Elynn Gorris (referenced below, 2023, still in press, at p. [7]) reasonably argued that:

1. “Since the title [‘king of Anshan and Susa’ used by Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak] is so similar to the royal inscriptions of Shutruk-Nahhunte II, he must have known these inscriptions ...”
   

She also noted that the statues on which they were inscribed had been captured during the Assyrian sack of Susa and only returned (from Uruk) by the Babylonian King Nabopolassar in 626 BC.  She argued (at pp. [7-8]) that the topographical references in the Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak stele, indicate his territorial claims on a number of cities that had (or probably had) highland locations in southeastern Khuzestan and Fars (which also included Anshan), which sled to the conclusion that:

1. “... the reign of Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak must have predated the emergence of the Teispid dynasty in the Elamite highlands.”
   

This would allow us to assume an average length for the reigns of Teispes, Cyrus I and Cambyses I of 20 years):

1. ✴Teispes (ca. 620-600 BC);
   

2. ✴Cyrus I (ca. 600-580 BC);
   

3. ✴Cambyses I (ca. 580-560 BC); and
   

4. ✴Cyrus II (559 - 530 BC).
   

Elynn Gorris (referenced below, 2023, still in press, at p. [3]) addressed the fact that a number of scholars (most recently, Wouter Henkelman, referenced below,  at p. 363) have suggested a hypothetical identification of Athamaita (the Elamite who, according to the Behistun inscription, rebelled against Darius in 522 BC - see below) as Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak (the man recorded as King of Anshan in EKI 86-9).  However, as she pointed out (at pp. [8-9]), this wis ruled out if one accepts her hypothesis that the reign of the Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak of EKI 86-9 must have ended before Teispes became King of Anshan: more specifically, Elynn Gorris and Yasmina Wicks (referenced below, at p. 256) suggested that the Elamite Athamaita of the Behistun inscription (at DB v:  1-14, see below):

1. “... probably assumed [this] royal name  ... to enforce his claim on the Elamite crown ... Upon his defeat, Elam was incorporated into [Darius’] Achaemenid  Empire.”
   

I discuss this further below.

In construction from here

The Line of Achaemenes

As we have seen, Darius traced his descent back to the otherwise unknown Achaemenes, adding that this explained:

1. “... why we are called Achaemenids; from antiquity, we have been noble; from antiquity, our family/ line/ clan (taumâ - see Matt Waters, 2022, referenced below, at note 7, p. 199) have been kings (DB: i: 3).
   

As Matt Waters (referenced below, 2022, at p. 201) pointed out, this implies that, according to Darius, at least some of the ancestors that he listed in direct succession back tho Achaemenes, presumably including Achaemenes himself, had been kings.  Herodotus was probably reflecting this passage (perhaps indirectly) when he recorded that:

1. “The Pasargadae, which was the most important [Persian] tribe, included the clan of the Achaemenids, the royal house of Persia”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 125: 3). 
   

Teispes, son of Achaemenes

If Teispes, the great-great-grandfather of Darius and Teispes, the ancestor (probably the great-grandfather) of Cyrus II were one and the same man, then Cyrus II would also have been directly descended from Achaemenes.  However, as we have seen, he had made no mention of Achaemenes in the king-list described above; indeed, he referred to Teispes as the ‘eternal seed of kingship’ (which presumably means that, in his view, Teispes had been the first king of Anshan/Parsa.  

Three inscriptions (CMa, CMb and CMc) in from the palaces that Cyrus founded at Pasargadae identified him as  an Achaemenid king, but these are usually attributed to the restoration carried out by Darius (see, for example. Amélie Kuhrt, referenced below, 2007a, at p. 88 and p. 177), not least because the in Old Persian cuneiform script used in the trilingual inscriptions CMa and CMb was probably first used on his monument at Behistun (see below).  Thus, while it is entirely possible that both Cyrus II and Darius belonged to a clan known as that of the Achaemenids, it was probably Darius who first named Achaemenes as the father of Teispes and the founder of what Herodotus designated as:

1. “... the clan of the Achaemenids, the royal house of Persia.”
   

In short, while it is unlikely that Darius’ Achaemenes was a historical figure, it seems extremely likely that Darius claimed him as the first of his nine Achaemenid kings.

Ariaramnes

Ariaramnes, the great-grandfather of Darius, appears again as the great-great-grandfather of Xerxes (the son of Darius and grandson of Cyrus II) in a passage by Herodotus (‘Persian Wars’ 7: 11), although in this passage, as in the Behistun inscriptions, he is not described as a king.  However, an inscription (AmH), which was found in 1930 on a gold tablet from the site of Ecbatana, describes him as:

1. “Ariaramnes, the great king, king of kings, king in Persia, son of king Teispes, grandson of Achaemenes. King Ariaramnes says: This country Persia that I hold, which is possessed of good horses, of good men, the great god Ahuramazda bestowed it upon me.  By the favour of Ahuramazda, I am king in this country. King Ariaramnes says: May Ahuramazda bear me aid.”
   

Unfortunately, the status of this inscription is unclear: as Alireza Shapour Shahbazi (referenced below, search on ‘Darius’) observed:

1. “... the surprising title of Ariaramnes (at best a provincial lord in Persis and a vassal of the Median king of kings) as ‘Great King, King of Kings’ and the fact that the short text contains as many as seven grammatical inaccuracies of the type encountered in the latest Old Persian texts, proved the inauthenticity of this text  ... Even if not a modern fake, the inscription was probably ordered by one of the late Achaemenid kings in order to honour a famed ancestor.”
   

Having said that, we cannot rule out the possibility that the ‘late Achaemenid king’ was none other than Darius, and that he included Ariaramnes in his list of nine Achaemenid kings. 

Darius’ Nine Achaemenid Kings 

If we accept that both Achaemenes and Ariaramnes probably belonged to Darius’ list of  nine Achaemenid kings, we now have the names of eight of them:

1. ✴Achaemenes
   

2. ✴Teispes;
   

3. ✴Cyrus I; 
   

4. ✴Ariaramnes;
   

5. ✴Cambyses I; 
   

6. ✴Cyrus II;
   

7. ✴Cambyses II; and
   

8. ✴Darius himself. 
   

Amir Ahmadi (referenced below, at p. 30) argued that:

1. “...there is no reason to dismiss Darius’s claim that he is the ‘ninth king from his family’.  Of course, one must allow that the actual reference of the Old Persian word xšāyaϑiya (king) changed following Cyrus’s creation of the Persian Empire. ... From the [Behistun] account, we can name three [of the nine] with certainty, since these are designated as king: Cyrus [II]; Cambyses [II]; and Darius.”
   

However, the facts remain that:

1. ✴we know almost nothing of the five potential candidates named above for the period before the creation of the Persian Empire;
   

2. ✴we cannot be completely sure that Teispes, the great-great-grandfather of Darius and Teispes, the ancestor (probably the great-grandfather) of Cyrus II were one and the same man; and
   

3. ✴there was at least one other Achaemenid ‘king’ in Darius’ list whom we cannot even identify.
   

Darius’ Dynastic Claim to the Throne: Conclusions

Notwithstanding the uncertainties discussed above, Amélie Kuhrt (referenced below, 2007a, at note 4, pp. 151-2) argued that, in presenting this genealogy at the start of what was probably his earliest assertion of his regal status, it is clear:

“... that Darius is tying his forebears into the family of Cyrus [II] through the figure of Teispes ... and then continuing to the link back to ‘Achaemenes’, who is not named by Cyrus.  The resulting awkwardness suggests that Darius genealogy has been manipulated to underpin his claim to have an indisputable family-right to the throne.  ... Darius was almost certainly a member of the extended clan from which the Persian kings came, but his relationship to Cyrus’ family was probably not particularly close.  What he appears to to do here is to provide the Achaemenids with an eponymous founder, Achaemenes, through whom he could link himself more closely to the founders of the empire.”

Accession of Darius

Cambyses probably began his successful conquest of Egypt in ca. 525 BC, at which point, according to the inscriptions:

1. “... the people became hostile, and the lie multiplied [i.e., revolt broke out] in the land, even in Persia and Media, [as well as] in the other provinces”, (DB: i: 10).  
   

In the following paragraph, they recorded that:

1. ✴these revolts began on 11th March 522 BC when a magus named Gaumâta assumed the identity of  the secretly murdered Bardiya and launched a rebellion against the still-absent Cambyses;
   

2. ✴Gaumâta was able to ‘seize the kingdom‘ on 1st July 522 BC; and
   

3. ✴Cambyses himself died shortly thereafter. 
   

The inscription then summarised the new situation: 

1. “King Darius says: The kingdom of which Gaumâta ... dispossessed Cambyses had always belonged to our dynasty.  After [he] had ... [taken] Persia, Media and the other provinces [from Cambyses], he made them his own: he [illegitimately] became king”, (DB: i: 12).
   

Clearly, something had to be done: 

1. “King Darius says: There was no-one (neither Persian nor Mede nor anyone of our own dynasty) who took the kingdom from the magus Gaumâta. ... There was none who dared to act against  [him] until I came.  Then I prayed to Ahuramazda; Ahuramazda brought me help. On [29 September 522 BC, with a few men (six of whom are named at DB: iv: 68), I killed Gaumâta] along with the chief men who were his followers.  At the stronghold called Sikayauvatiš, in the district called Nisaia in Media, I killed him; I dispossessed him of the kingdom.  By the grace of Ahuramazda I became king; Ahuramazda granted me the kingdom”, (DB: i: 13). 
   

Gaumâta

The alleged usurper Gaumâta is known only from the Behistun inscriptions: as Pierre Bryant (referenced below, 2000, search on ‘Media’) observed:

1. “While, in the Old Persian and Elamite texts, Gaumāta is simply described as a Magian (maguš, makuš in Elamite), in the Babylonian version he is referred to as a “man from Media.”
   

As we have seen, according to these inscriptions, having assumed the identity of the recently-murdered Bardiya in 522 BC, he:

1. ✴began a revolt against Cambyses II in March of that year;
   

2. ✴assumed the throne of Camyses in July; and
   

3. ✴was killed by Darius in September.
   

As Yigal Bloch (referenced below, Table 1, at pp. 11-3) recorded:

1. ✴the latest of the surviving Babylonian tablets with a complete date formula mentioning Cambyses was written on day 23 of Nisannu (March/April) in his 8th regnal year (522 BC), just a few weeks after Gaumâta began his revolt;
   

2. ✴the Babylonians recognised Bardiya as Cambyses’ successor from the 10th day Ayāru (April/May)  until the first day of Tašrītu (September/ October), just eleven days before Gaumâta’s death.
   

This suggests that the Babylonians (rightly or wrongly) accepted the usurper Gaumāta of the Behistun inscriptions as Bardiya, the brother of the recently-deceased Cambyses.  Interestingly, they then recognised Nidintu-Bēl son of Kīn-zēr,  who asserted that he was Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabonidus (the last king of Babylonia before the conquest of Cyrus in 539 BC): Darius killed te putative Nebuchadnezzar II on 18th December 522 BC and the earliest surviving Babylonian tablets dated by reference to Darius was dated four days later. In other words, the Babylonians recongnised the kingship of:

1. ✴Cambyses, until April 522 BC;
   

2. ✴Bardiya/Gaumâta until his defeat and death in September;
   

3. ✴Nebuchadnezzar III/ Nidintu-Bēl  from this point until his defeat and death  in December; and
   

4. ✴Darius thereafter.
   

Herodotus gave a somewhat different account of these events.  He agreed that Cambyses had murdered Bardiya (whom he called Smerdis), and that, after Cambyses’ death:

1. “... the [unnamed] magus, pretending to be the Smerdis ... , reigned without fear for ... seven months ...”, (‘Persian Wars’, 3: 67) 
   

However, he recorded that:

1. “In this time, [the false Smerdis] greatly benefited all his subjects, to the extent that, after his death, everyone in Asia except for the Persians mourned his passing”, (‘Persian Wars’, 3: 67).
   

Interestingly, he did not name Darius (who would by then have been about 28) among the men who initiated the subsequent plot to depose the magus: indeed, in a later anecdote, he noted that Darius had recently served as:

1. “... one of Cambyses' bodyguards, and was, at that time, a man of no great account”, (‘Persian Wars’, 3: 139: 2).
   

It was a Persian noble called Otanes who discovered that the new ‘king’ was an impostor and who therefore mounted a conspiracy with five other nobles to depose him: as Amélie Kuhrt , referenced below, 2007a, at p. 156, note 114) observed, five of Herodotus’ six initial conspirators, including Otanes, were also named by Darius at  DB: iv: 68 (see above),  These men were still at the planning stage when: 

1. “... Darius, son of Hystaspes, whose father was a satrap of the Persians, arrived in Susa.  On his arrival, the six [conspirators] resolved to include Darius in their plot”, (‘Persian Wars’, 3: 70: 3). 
   

From this point, Herodotus gave Darius the leading role in forming the plan to attack the magus in his palace (which he seems to have placed at Susa rather than at Nisaia) without waiting for further additions to their number.  The plan succeeded: the impostor and his supporters were killed and the previously credulous Persians acclaimed their liberators.  Herodotus then recorded that:

1. “This day (presumably 29 September ) is the greatest holy day that all Persians alike keep; they celebrate a great festival on it, which they call the Massacre of the Magi; while the festival lasts , ... [the magi] must remain in their houses”, (‘Persian Wars’, 3: 79: 3). 
   

There is no obvious basis for deciding between Herodotus and Darius on the matters of whether:

1. ✴Darius or Otanes initiated the plan the depose the magus; and/or
   

2. ✴the deed was done at Sikayauvatiš or Susa.
   

However, the important point is that both accounts credit Darius with the effective leadership of the successful attack.  Of more importance is the difference between these two sources in relation to the process that then led to Darius’ accession:

1. ✴According to Herodotus, five days after the successful attack, the seven conspirators: 
   

2. “... resolved that they would ride out of [Susa] together at sunrise and that the one whose horse made the first sound would have the kingship”, (‘Persian Wars’, 3: 84: 3). 
   

3. In the event, Darius’ horse was the first to make a sound, and:
   

4. “... as it did so, lightning and thunder came out of a clear sky.  These signs ...  [confirmed the choice of Darius as the new king]; his companions leapt from their horses to do obeisance to him”, (‘Persian Wars’, 3: 86: 2).
   

5. ✴In the inscriptions, the matter is decided by Ahuramazda, who recognised Darius’ dynastic claim: 
   

6. •“King Darius says: ... By the grace of Ahuramazda I became king; Ahuramazda granted me the kingdom”, (DB: i: 13).
   

7. •King Darius says: The kingdom that had been wrested from our family, I re-established it on its foundation.  ...  This did I by the grace of Ahuramazda: I laboured until I had established our dynasty in its [rightful] place, as in the days of old; I laboured, by the grace of Ahuramazda, so that the magus Gaumâta did not dispossess our house”, (DB: i: 14).
   

Accession of Cambyses II

The surviving evidence suggests that Cyrus II had designated his eldest son Cambyses as his heir apparent by at least 538 BC:

1. ✴The Babylonian ‘Nabonidus Chronicle’ records that, on 28th March 538 BC:
   

2. “Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, went to E-ningidar-kalamma-summu, [where] the official of the sceptre-house of Nabu [gave him ?] the sceptre of the land”, (line s 24-5, translation from Amélie Kuhrt (referenced below, 2007a, at p. 51).
   

3. Muhammad Dandamayev (referenced below, search on ‘Babylon’) noted that:
   

4. “Only in documents dated between the second and eleventh months of Cyrus’s first regnal year (that is, between April and December, 538 BC) is Cambyses called ‘king of Babylon’; his father bears the title ‘king of the lands; ( that is, of the Persian Empire).  Cambyses was thus king of Babylon for only about nine months before Cyrus removed him from office, for reasons unknown. Furthermore, he was king only of the city of Babylon and the northern part of the country, while central and southern Babylonia remained under the direct control of Cyrus and his officials.”
   

5. ✴The ‘Prayer of Cyrus’ in the inscription ‘Cyrus Cylinder’ (above) contains the following request:
   

6. “May all the gods whom I settled in their sacred centres [at Babylon] ask daily of Bêl and Nâbu that my days be long and may they intercede for my welfare.  May they say to Marduk, my lord:
   

7. ‘For Cyrus, the king who honours you, and Cambyses, his son, [...] the kingship’”, (lines 34-5, translation from Amélie Kuhrt (referenced below, 2007a, at p. 72).
   

8. ✴According to Herodotus, after his conquest of Babylon, Cyrus: 
   

9. “... desired to subdue the Massagetae, who are said to be a great and mighty people dwelling towards the east and the sunrise, beyond the [river] Araxes  ... , (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 201). 
   

10. It seems that the prospect of this campaign in unknown territory was the cause of particular trepidation for Cyrus, who (at least according to Herodotus):
    

11. “... placed his own son Cambyses, to whom he purposed to leave his sovereignty, in the care of Croesus, [the ex-king of Lydia], charging Cambyses to honour Croesus and to treat him well, should the crossing of the river against the Massagetae not prosper.  With this, and having sent Cambyses and Croesus back to Persia, he crossed the river with his army”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 208).
    

12. Then, during his first night on the other side, he had a dream in which:
    

13. “... he saw the eldest of the sons of Hystaspes wearing wings on his shoulders, the one wing overshadowing Asia and the other Europe: Hystaspes son of Arsames was an Achaemenid, and his  eldest son, Darius  had been left behind in Persia, since he was only 20 and thus too young to follow the army ...”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 209: 1).
    

14. He therefore ordered Hystaspes to return to Persia and to detain Darius so that he (Cyrus) could interview him on his  return.  However, it turned out that Cyrus’ trepidations had been well-founded:
    

15. “... most of Cyrus’ men were killed in [the battle with the Massagetae], with Cyrus himself among them, having reigned for 29 years”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 214: 3).
    

16. Herodotus then began his Book II by stating without comment that:
    

17. “After the death of Cyrus [in 530 BC], Cambyses inherited his throne”, (‘Persian Wars’, 2: 1).
    

Cambyses II, Bardiya and Darius’ Nine Achaemenid Kings

The Behistun inscriptions begin their narrative accounts by recording that:

1. “King Darius says:  ... A son of Cyrus, named Cambyses, one of our dynasty, was king here before me. That Cambyses had a brother, Bardiya by name, of the same mother and the same father as Cambyses. Afterwards, Cambyses [secretly] killed this Bardiya. ...  Thereupon, Cambyses went to Egypt”, (DB: i: 10). 
   

In this passage, Darius explicitly identifies Cambyses II and (by inference) Bardiya as members of his dynasty.  However, since he has Cambyses murder Bardiya, it is not certain that Bardiya was one of his nine Achaemenid kings.  If we discount him for the moment, then Darius list includes:

1. ✴Achaemenes (whom Darius seems to have ‘discovered’ - see below);
   

2. ✴Teispes; Cyrus I; Cambyses I; Cyrus II and Cambyses II; and
   

3. ✴Darius himself.
   

As Amélie Kuhrt (referenced below, at p. 73, 2007a, note 15) observed, he:

“... does not mention Achaemenes as a predecessor: Achaemenes appears as a founder of the Persian dynasty only from the reign of Darius I, whose genealogical statement [at DB: i: 1-4] is highly problematical.”

She concentrated (at p. 152, note 4) on the problematic meaning of the word duvitāparanam in line 4 of the Old Persian version.  However, it seems to me that the problems here do not revolve around the question of whether Darius’ nine Achaemenid kings:

ruled ‘in succession’ (see her p. 144); or

came from two separate lines of descent that derived from Achaemenes and Teipses (the alternative translation that she discussed at note 4).

The problems are that:

Darius seems to have introduced Achaemenes as the founder of the dynasty; and

even with;

the inclusion of Achaemenes; and

the help of the information in the ‘Cyrus Cylinder’;

we can only identify seven of Darius’ nine Achaemenid kings; Achaemenes; Teispes; Cyrus I; Cambyses I; Cyrus II; Cambyses II (who succeed to the throne on the death of Cyrus II in ca. 530 BC); and Darius himself.

Herodotus had noted (in the context of Cyrus’ appointment as the leader of the Persians) that:

1. “The Pasargadae, which was the most important [Persian] tribe, included the clan of the Achaemenids, the royal house of Persia”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 125: 3).
   

Amélie Kuhrt (referenced below, 2007a, at 137) observed that:

1. “... [although] it is possible that Darius ... belonged to the extended Achaemenid clan to which Cyrus’ dynasty also ultimately belonged, the connection between Darius’ lineage and Cyrus’ family was a remote one.”
   

She argued (at p. 152) that the fact that Darius had continued his family link back from Teispes to the previously unrecorded Achaemenes:

1. “... suggests that Darius’ genealogy has been manipulated to underpin his claim to have an indisputable family-right to the throne.”
   

More recently, Antigoni Zournatzi (referenced below, 2019, at pp. 150-1) observed that the absence of Achaemenes from the list of Cyrus’ antecedents in CB: 20-1:

1. “... provides one of the main grounds for the now generally accepted distinctiveness of Cyrus’ family and Darius’ line.  In the opinion of a number of scholars, the claim advanced in [CB: 20-1] and echoed elsewhere in the Babylonian record - that Cyrus and his forebears were rulers of Anshan (instead of Parsa) - might signal still more crucial differences between Cyrus’ and Darius’ families.”
   

In short, it is possible that:

1. ✴the rule of the Teispid dynasty ended with a series of revolts against the sons of Cyrus II, Cambyses II and Bardiya/ Smerdis, both of whom died (probably violently) in 522 BC; and
   

2. ✴the rule of the Achaemenid dynasty began when Darius seized the throne (perhaps having killed Gaumâta, the allegedly ‘false’ Bardiya/Smerdis , son of Cyrus II).     
   

Behistun Dahyāva List

Achaemenid  Empire (ca. 500 BC):

Adapted from World History Encyclopedia (my additions in white, plus blue Jaxertes)

23 territories named in the Behistun dahyava list underlined

The inscriptions then record the oldest surviving list of the dahyāva (peoples or territories) of the empire:

1. “King Darius says: These are the peoples/countries that are subject to me: by the grace of Ahuramazda I became their king: Persia, Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, tyaiy drayahyât (the peoples/countries of/by the sea), Lydia, Yauna (Ionia), Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdia, Gandara, Saca, Sattagydia, Arachosia and Maka: in all, 23 peoples/countries.”
   

This defined the territories of the vast empire that had been created by the victories of Cyrus II and Cambyses II.  Interestingly, although Darius now claimed these territories, he did not refer directly to Cyrus in this inscription (albeit that, at DB: i: 10-12, he referred to Cambyses, whom he designated as the ‘son of Cyrus’ and painted in a bad light .

Robert Rollinger (referenced below, 2023, at p. 898) observed that:

1. “Although there are no explicit markers pointing to the internal organisation of [this and later Achaemenid dahyāva] lists, they can be subdivided into regional groups [in which] specific border regions become apparent.”
   

I discuss the empire’s eastern border at the time of Darius’ accession below (in the context of his campaign against the Saca): for the moment, we should note that the western border was formed by the eastern shores of the Mediterranean and the southern shores of the Black Sea and, as Antigoni Zournatzi (referenced below, 2018, at para. 3) observed, the corresponding border regions were listed as: 

1. ✴Egypt;
   

2. ✴tyaiy drayahyât (the peoples/countries of/by the sea);
   

3. ✴Lydia; and
   

4. ✴Yauna (Ionia, usually held to have been used for Greeks in general in Achaemenid lists).
   

She argued (at para 4) that the designation ‘people of the sea’:

1. “... would seem particularly suitable for islanders and, in this case, [given] its place on the list between Egypt and Lydia (... which logically implies a south-eastern Mediterranean location), would primarily evoke an association with Cyprus.”
   

This suggestion has been widely accepted: for example:

1. ✴Christian Körner (in his review of the book containing Zournatzi’s paper, referenced below) observed that:
   

2. “Antigoni Zournatzi now convincingly argues ... that the formula ‘(those) who (are) of the sea’ encountered in Achaemenid inscriptions refers to Cyprus and (later on) to other islands as well, and not, as often suggested, to a satrapy or province in Western Asia Minor. ... Formulas like ‘(those) who (are) of the sea’ or even ‘(those) who (are) beyond the sea’ were more effective at evoking the splendour of the Great King’s conquests than prosaic, bluntly geographical terms like ‘Cyprus’.” 
   

3. ✴Silvia Balatti (referenced below, at p. c143, citing Zournatzi) agreed that:
   

4. “The sea mentioned in the vague expression ‘lands [of] the sea’ is likely the Mediterranean (the ‘Upper Sea’ of the ancient Near Eastern tradition)  and the peoples by the sea could be tentatively identified with Eastern Mediterranean sea peoples, such as the Cypriotes and other groups.”
   

As we shall see below, the fact that Cyprus was recognised as a distinct part of the Persian Empire at the time of Darius’ accession is relevant to our understanding of the significance of the foundation deposits  of the Apadana of Persepolis.  

First Year of Darius’ Reign

In the inscriptions:

1. ✴Gaumâta’s coup and his execution by Darius are described at i:10-15; and
   

2. ✴Darius’ suppression of the rebellions of the other eight ‘liar kings’ is described in successive passages in DB i:16 - iv:51). 
   

At the end of this section, the texts recorded that:

1. “King Darius says: As to these provinces that revolted: lies made them revolt, so that they deceived the people.  Then Ahuramazda delivered them into my hand; and I did unto them according to my will”, (DB iv:54).
   

Thereafter, we read that:

1. “ King Darius says: ... Ahuramazda and all the other gods (all that there are) brought me help because I was not wicked, nor was I a liar, nor was I a despot; neither I nor any of my family.  I have ruled according to righteousness.  I wronged neither the weak nor the powerful.  Whosoever helped my house, him I favoured; whosoever was hostile, him I destroyed”, (DB iv: 63).
   

Ahuramazda 

The mysterious prophet Zarathustra (Greek Zoroaster), who seems to have been influential in eastern Iran from an early but unknown date, apparently proclaimed that Ahuramazda, the greatest of the gods, the creator of all Goodness.  The question of whether the early Achaemenids were followers of Zoroaster is much-debated but, as Philip Kreyenbroek (referenced below, at p. 48) observed:

1. “Given the prominence of references to Ahuramazda in the Achaemenid inscriptions, it follows that the Achaemenids, as least from Darius I onwards, did indeed follow a form of Zoroastrianism.”
   

He observed (at p. 52) that:

1. “The first thing that strikes one in the Achaemenid inscriptions is the emphasis that the texts lay on the opposition between Good and Evil: the king is good, and therefore Ahuramazda supports him, [while] his enemies are wicked and therefore (it is implied) doomed to failure.  To some extent, this seems to reflect the central tenet of Zoroastrian teaching, viz the belief in the central opposition between Good and Evil.”
   

However, he noted that:

1. ✴in Zoroastrianism, the good did not  expect to be rewarded and the wicked did not expect to be punished in:
   

2. “... this earthly existence until the battle between Good and Evil is concluded’; while
   

3. ✴particularly in the Behistun inscriptions, the good (meaning Darius) and  the evil (meaning his enemies) received their just deserts in the ‘here and now’.
   

He also pointed out that:

1. ✴in Zoroastrianism, any type of behaviour that was not ‘Good’ was evil; while
   

2. ✴at least in the Behistun inscriptions, the act of lying was frequently represented as ‘the hallmark of evil’.
   

He therefore argued that the early Achaemenid inscriptions were aimed at an ‘audience’ that had partly assimilated mainstream Zoroastrian teaching, and reasonably concluded (at pp. 52-3) that the Behistun inscriptions presented:

1. “... a version of [recent] events that would leave no doubt that Darius was the only virtuous (and therefore legitimate) king.  This, in turn, suggests that [the inscriptions sought] to represent him as a paragon of Zoroastrian virtue as it was [understood] in Western Iran at this time.”
   

We cannot tell from the inscriptions whether Darius was in the vanguard of the development of the local cult of Ahuramazda, or whether he was making use of a form of Zoroastrianism that was already taking hold among at least some of the peoples that he now ruled.  However, we can be clear that, given his shaky (or possibly invented) dynastic credentials, Darius justified his rule on his claim on his possession of ‘the grace of Ahuramazda’, which was evident in his suppression of the liar kings, ‘proved’ the righteousness of his cause.

Postscript

The Old Persian version of the Behistun inscription is the only one of the three that contains an appendix: the fifth column of this version starts as follows:

1. ✴“King Darius says: The following is what I did in the second and third year of my rule.  The province called Elam revolted from me.  An Elamite named Athamaita they made their leader.  Then I sent an army unto Elam. A  Persian named Gobryas, my servant, I made their leader.  Then Gobryas set forth with the army; he delivered battle against the Elamites.  Then Gobryas destroyed many of the host and that Athamaita, their leader, he captured, and he brought him unto me, and I killed him.  Then the province became mine”, (DB v:  1-14)
   

2. ✴“King Darius says: Those Elamites were faithless and Ahuramazda was not worshipped by them. I worshipped Ahuramazda; by the grace of Ahuramazda I did unto them according to my will”, (DB v: 14-17)
   

Interestingly, Athamaita was not depicted on the relief.  Furthermore, he was not described as a ‘liar king’, and the Elamites owed their defeat to the fact that they were ‘faithless’ in that they did not worship Ahuramazda.

Darius’ Campaign Against the Saka (ca. 520 BC) 

Detail of image from Wikipedia, edited to correct for perspective

In the most important passage in the Old Persian inscription in column v, we read that, still in the second and/or third year(s) of his reign:

1. “King Darius says:
   

2. ✴After [I had dealt with Athamaita of Elam], I went with an army against Saca; after that, the Saka who wear the pointed hat, these came against me, when I had come down to the sea.  By means of a tree-trunk [?],  with the whole army, I crossed it.  Afterwards, I  defeated those Saka. 
   

3. ✴Another (part of them), they [Darius’ army ?] captured; that [part ?] was led to me in fetters.  And (the man) who was their chief, who was called Skunkha, him they captured and led to me in fetters.  There, I made another (their) chief, as was my desire.  After that, the country became mine”, (DB v. 74, translated by Rüdiger Schmidt, referenced below, 1991, at p. 76).
   

The unfortunate Skunkha was subsequently depicted on the Behstun relief (at the extreme right, as illustrated above):  the identifying inscription (DBk) reads:

‘iyam Skuxa hya Saka’ (this is Skunkha the Sacan) 

The final part of this account in column v reads:

1. “King Darius says: Those Saka were faithless and Ahuramazda was not worshipped by them.  I worshipped Ahuramazda; by the grace of Ahuramazda, I dealt with them according to my will”, (v. 75, translated by Rüdiger Schmidt, referenced below, 1991, at p. 76).
   

Skunkha (like Athamaita of Elam - see above) was not described as a ‘liar king’: rather, the Saka (like the Elamites) owed their defeat to the fact that they were ‘faithless’ in that they did not worship Ahuramazda.  This is odd, since Cyrus had been conspicuously tolerant and respectful of the religions of the peoples who submitted to him, and there is no reason to believe that Darius departed from this policy.

Saka and Saka who Wear the Pointed Hat

Northeastern region of the Achaemenid Empire, from Michele Minardi (referenced below, at Figure 62.2, p. 786)

The ‘Saka’ were among the 23 peoples of the Behistun dahyāva list discussed above.  More specifically, the part of the list that dealt with the subject peoples of Central Asia reads: Bactria; Sogdiana; Gandara; Saka.  This suggests that the Saka in this list were among the Central Asian peoples who had submitted to Cyrus.   They appeared in two slightly later inscriptions in Darius’ palace at Persepolis:

1. ✴in a slightly longer dahyāva list (DPe) on the terrace wall (again towards the end of the list, suggesting an eastern location); and
   

2. ✴in four identical inscriptions (DPh) from the foundation deposits of the Apadana (Audience Chamber - see below), where they are referred to as] the Saka ‘who are beyond Sogdia’, a location that is meant to represent the northeastern extreme of Darius’ empire at that time.
   

Interestingly, the Saka appeared again in a later passage of the Behistun inscription (at DB ii, 21), among the peoples who had revolted against Darius soon after his accession: this list  ended with: the Margianans; the Sattagydians; and the Saka.  Taking these in turn: 

1. ✴Frâda of Margiana was:
   

2. •the seventh of the nine ‘liar kings’ of DB iv, 52; and
   

3. •the last of the ‘liar kings’ depicted on the relief, where he stands in front of Skunkha (see below) and is identified as the ‘liar king’ of Margiana (DBj);
   

4. ✴the Sattagydians were not mentioned again in the inscription; and
   

5. ✴the Saka were not mentioned again until the new text under discussion here.
   

This suggests that:

1. ✴the revolts of neither the Sattagydians nor the Saka had been punished at the time of the completion of the Behistun monument; but
   

2. ✴the revolt of the Saka had been resolved shortly thereafter, so that it was recorded in the new Old Persian inscription (at DB v, 74). 
   

We should now look again at the detail of the account at DB v. 74 (above) of Darius suppression of this revolt, which seem to have involved three separate engagements:

1. ✴After Darius had dealt with Athamaita of Elam, he engaged with the Saca; these were presumably the Saka who had submitted to Cyrus but subsequently rebelled agains Darius.
   

2. ✴After that, he marched ‘down to the sea’, a stretch of water that had presumably marked the boundary of Cyrus’ empire.  He was confronted there by the ‘Saka who wear the pointed hat’.  Having crossed this stretch of water with the whole of his army:
   

3. •Darius himself defeated the ‘Saka who wear the pointed hat’: and
   

4. •an unspecified ‘they’ (presumably a group of Darius’ commanders) defeated another part of the enemy army that was commanded by Skunkha the Sacan.
   

Skunkha is the only Sacan commander identified in the inscription:

1. ✴‘they’ brought Skunkha to Darius in fetters;
   

2. ✴Darius replaced Skunkha with a man of his own choosing; and
   

3. ✴the country that Skunkha had ruled became his own.
   

Skunkha was also the only Sacan depicted of the Behistun relief and, although he was identified there only as Skunkha the Sacan, the way he is depicted could leave no-one in doubt the he belonged to the ‘Saka who wear the pointed hat’.  Silvia Balatti (referenced below, at p. 146) argued that:

1. “This early campaign outside the borders of the Persian Empire likely confronted [Darius] with the fact that different groups of Sakā lived at the margins of his empire, beyond the sea at the very end of the world of Mesopotamian tradition (see below).  These Sakā now needed to be clearly identified so as to be included in the Achaemenid universe.  As was the case for the representatives of the other peoples of the empire represented on the Achaemenid reliefs, the new annexed Sakā were also identified by their clothing, in this case especially by their pointed [hats].”
   

I suggest that these newly-subjugated Saka were described in the foundation deposits of the Apadana at Persepolis (DPh) as ‘the Saka who are beyond Sogdia’, whose territory now marked the northeastern boundary of Darius’ empire.

Robert Rollinger (referenced below, 2023, at pp. 899-900) observed that: 

1. “The image of Skunkha [on the Behistun relief was] part of a complete reconceptualisation of the whole monument.  Its placement [must have been] supremely important, since it considerably damaged the previously finished Elamite version of the accompanying monumental inscription.  In consequence, [the Elamite] text had to be completely reworked and moved to the opposite side of the relief.”  
   

Had Darius simply wanted to commemorate his first territorial addition the the empire, he would arguably have been better served by a new monument dedicated to this notable achievement.  It therefore seems to me that he instead chose the Behistun relief for this purpose because it further supported his claims of legitimacy.

We should probably identify these ‘Saka’ with the Massagetae: according to Herodotus (as mentioned above), after Cyrus had achieved his bloodless conquest of Babylon in 539 BC: 

1. “... he desired to subdue the Massagetae, who are said to be a great and mighty people dwelling towards the east and the sunrise, beyond the Araxes river and over against the [now unknown] Issedones; and some say that they are a ‘Scythian’ tribe”, (‘Persian Wars’. 1: 201). 
   

It turned out that Cyrus had over reached on this occasion: Herodotus recorded that he crossed the ‘Araxes’ and engaged in a battle in which:

1. “... the Massagetae prevailed: most of Cyrus’ men were killed in this battle, with Cyrus himself among them, having reigned for 29 years”, (‘Persian Wars’. 1: 214: 3).
   

Since ‘the Saka’ formed part of the empire at the time of Darius’ accession, we must assume that some of their territory on the ‘Araxes’ had fallen into Persian hands at this time.

Unfortunately, the location of the ‘Araxes‘ of Herodotus’ account is unknown.  However, Arrian (who was writing in the 2nd century AD) recorded that, when Alexander the Great was campaigning against the ‘Scythians’ on the Tanais river in 329 BC, he sent one of his generals:

1. “... to the city known as Cyropolis, the largest of the seven [cities in which the Scythians had taken refuge] ...”, (‘Anabasis of Alexander’, 4: 2). 
   

Thereafter, Alexander himself:  

1. “... went to Cyropolis, the largest city in the country, which ... had been founded by Cyrus [II]”, (‘Anabasis of Alexander’, 4: 3). 
   

Earlier in his account, Arrian had observed that:

1. “... Aristobulus says the neighbouring barbarians call [the Tanais] by a different name, Jaxartes, (‘Anabasis of Alexander’, 3: 30: 7). 
   

Although there are doubts about the location of Cyropolis, Igor P’yankov(referenced below, search on Kurkath argued that:

1. “... the site of modern Kurkath, ... near the Syr Darya (= Jaxartes) seems more convincing [than the other candidates], both because of the obvious similarity of the name to that of Kuru(š)-kaθa [fortress of Cyrus] and because its precise location conforms more closely to the ancient reports.  So far, however, archeological finds have provided no evidence to settle the question.”
   

James Romm and Pamela Mensch (referenced below, at p. 154, note 4.2.2; and p. 161, map 4.8) located Cyropolis on the Jaxertes, and Tom Holland (referenced below, at p. 17) suggested that Cyrus had established this river as the northwestern boundary of his empire shortly before crossing it engage with the tribes of the territory on the opposite bank:

1. “[Since] the Jaxartes was shallow and island-dotted, affording only the barest of natural frontiers, ... Cyrus, making good the deficiencies of nature, ordered the construction of seven frontier towns, naming the greatest one after himself: Cyropolis.”
   

If this is correct, then:

1. ✴the ‘Saka’ of the Behistun dahyāva list  occupied what would have been a relatively small tract of land between the territory of the Sogdians and the Jaxertes; and
   

2. ✴Cyrus was killed in a battle in which he engaged with the (possibly ‘Scythian’) Massagetae on the opposite bank of the river.
   

We can now return to Darius’ campaign against the Saka who wear the pointed hat in the second and/or third year(s) of his reign and his decision to commemorate it by adding an imposing figure of the defeated king Skunkha to the already completed Behistun relief.  Robert Rollinger (referenced below, 2023, at p. 900) observed that:

1. “... it is probable that Skunkha ... represented precisely the group against whom Cyrus had led [the] disastrous campaign that ended in his death.”
   

In other words, Skunkha and the Saka who wear the pointed hat might have been difficult to distinguish from Herodotus’ Massagetae.  Rüdiger Schmidt (referenced below, 2018, search on ‘Saka’) similarly argued that the Massagetae: 

1. “... seem to have been subjugated by Darius and, from then on, were part of the Achaemenid Empire, but they are not mentioned as such in the various lists of lands or peoples.  They must be included in one of the diverse Saka groups distinguished there, maybe the Sakā tigraxaudā (Saka with the pointed hats).”
   

Whether or not this is correct, it is certainly possible that Darius had defeated the Saka and captured Skunkha in the territory in which Cyrus had been killed.  It has been objected that, in the Behistun text, Darius engaged with Saka who wear the pointed hat: 

1. “... when I had come down to the sea.  By means of a tree-trunk, with the whole army, I crossed it”, (see above).
   

However, Robert Rollinger (referenced below, 2023, at p. 900) argued that the Saka with whom Darius engaged: 

1. “... must have been located on the northeastern borders of the empire.  The fact that Darius pretends to have crossed the sea [in order to engage with them] has less to do with ‘real’ geography than a deeply embedded Near Eastern conceptual map in which the world is surrounded by an ocean marking its limits.”
   

In other words, although it is not certain that Cyrus (in 530 BC) and Darius (in 522 BC) engaged with the same tribe or tribes, it is at least likely that both engagements took place with similarly nomadic tribes in the same frontier region across the Jaxertes.  In this context, Darius’ new image of Skunkha on the Behistun relief would indeed have been worth the damage that it inflicted on the already-completed monument: it would have reminded his audience that, within three years of his accession:

1. ✴he had punished the tribes who had killed Cyrus on the location of his last disastrous battle; and
   

2. ✴in so-doing, he had extended the empire into the hitherto alien territory across the Jaxartes.