Foundation of an Empire

Persian Empire (ca. 500 BC) 

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

The 23 territories named in the Behistun dahyava list (see below) are underlined

Matt Waters (referenced below, 2022, at p. 3) in his important book on Cyrus the Great, observed that, although he:

1. “... is one of the most pivotal ... figures in history, ... [he] remains an enigma ...”
   

The most important thing that we know about him is that, by the time that he died (towards the end of 530 BC), he was the master of an empire that stretched from the Mediterranean coast in the west to the Hindu Kush in the east.  Thus, when Darius the Great seized the this empire in 522 BC, he published the following proclamation in the important Behistun inscription (in Akkadian, Elamite and Old Persian):

1. “King Darius says: These are the peoples/countries that are subject to me: by the grace of [the god] Ahuramazda I became their king:
   

2. 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”, (‘Inscription of Darius the Great at Behistun’, (Dbi: 6). 
   

This is the earliest-known Persian ‘dahyāva list’ and (with the exception of Egypt and Arabia (which were conquered by Cyrus’ son, Cambyses), all of the underlined territories on the map above had been conquered by Cyrus himself.

Epigraphic Evidence from Babylon

So-called Sippar Cylinder of Nabonidus

Inscribed clay cylinder from the Ebabbar of Sippur

Image from the site of the British Museum, where the tablet is now housed (BM 91109)

Cyrus is mentioned in an inscription of Nabonidus, the last independent king of Babylon, who ruled in 556-539 BC: as Frauke Weiershäuser and Jamie Novotny (referenced below, entry 28, at pp. 140-6) observed, this text is known from:

1. “...numerous clay cylinders and cylinder fragments discovered at Sippar, ... [commemorates] the rebuilding of:
   

2. ✴Ehulhul (‘House which Gives Joy’);
   

3. ✴the temple of the god Sîn at Harran;
   

4. ✴Ebabbar (‘Shining House’);
   

5. ✴the temple of the god Shamash at Sippar; and
   

6. ✴Eulmash, the temple of the goddess Ishtar-Anunitu at Sippar-Anunitu.
   

Weiershäuser and Novotny listed 51 known fragments of this text (at pp. 141-4): the most complete examples are:

1. ✴example 1, which came from the Ebabbar of Sippur and is now in the British Museum (BM 91109, illustrated above); and
   

2. ✴example 11, which probably came from the same location and is now in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin ( VA 2536).
   

They noted (at pp. 140-1) that this text probably dates to the period 543-540 BC (Nabonidus’ regnal years 13-16).

The text recorded that, in Nabonidus’ accession year, Marduk had appeared to him in a dream and ordered him to rebuild the temple of the moon god Sin at the Syrian city of Harran, which had been destroyed by the Medes (recorded in the text as the barbarian horde, umman-manda):

1. “I spoke reverently to the Enlil of the gods, the god Marduk:
   

2. ‘(As for) that temple whose (re)building you have commanded, a barbarian horde (the Medes) is all around it and its forces are powerful.’
   

3. The god Marduk spoke with me, (saying):
   

4. ‘(As for) the barbarian horde (Marduk and Sin) that you spoke of, it, its land and the kings who march at its side will [soon cease to] exist.’
   

5. When (my) third year arrived, they (Marduk and Sin) had Cyrus (II), king of the land Anshan, a young servant of his (Astyages), rise up against him (Astyages), and he (Cyrus) scattered the extensive barbarian horde (the Medes) with his small body of troops.  He seized Astyages (Ishtumegu), king of the barbarian horde, and took him to his land as a captive”, (RIMB 2, Nabonidus 28: i: 21-9: see Frauke Weiershäuser and Jamie Novotny, referenced below, at p. 147 for this recent translation).
   

Note that, in the translation above, Cyrus is described as Astyages’ young servant.  However, as Matt Waters (referenced below: 2018, at pp. 32-3) pointed out, some scholars:

1. ✴identify Cyrus here as a servant of Marduk (rather than of Astyages); and/or
   

2. ✴translate ‘sahri’ (the adjective applied to the servant) as ‘small/ insignificant’ (rather than ‘young’).
   

The precise translation is still debated: for example:

1. ✴Waters himself argued that Cyrus was described as a young servant of Marduk, in which case, the relationship between Cyrus and Astyages was unspecified; while
   

2. ✴Michael Jursa (referenced below, at p. 128) argued that Cyrus was described as the humble servant of Astyages, and that Nabonidus here proclaimed the ‘momentous news’ that Marduk had chosen Cyrus, the young king of Anshan to rise up against his Median overlord.
   

For the moment, we should merely note that, in this inscription, Nabonidus looked back on the events of   533 BC, when Cyrus’ successful attack on Astyages had allegedly caused Astyages to withdraw from Harran, thereby allowing Nabonidus himself to begin  the reconstruction of the temple of Sin there.

So-called Nabonidus Chronicle 

Clay cuneiform tablet inscribed with the so-called  Nabonidus Chronicle

Image from the site of the British Museum, where the tablet is now housed  (as BM 35382)

As Amélie Kuhrt (referenced below, at p. 46) observed that:

1. “Much of the chronology of the events  and developments [that culminated in the foundation of Cyrus’ empire] is uncertain.  [Indeed, a surviving] Babylonian chronicle is the sole reliable (indeed crucial) document [at our disposal].” 
   

The text of this ‘crucial document’ is known from a single (apparently late) copy from Babylon on the now-fragmentary clay tablet illustrated above.  Although the text is generally known as the Nabonidus Chronicle, it records events in Babylon both during and after his reign: the surviving lines cover the period:

1. ✴from the accession of Nabonidus in 556 BC; to
   

2. ✴at least 15th March 538 BC, when the god Nabu ritually presented Cambyses, the son and heir of Cyrus, with the ‘Sceptre of the Land’ of the newly-conquered Babylonia (see below). 
   

Stefan Zawadzki (referenced below, at p. 151) reasonably argued that:

1. “The Nabonidus Chronicle ... is known is to us, not in its original version, but in a new edition, composed in the new political situation after the fall of Babylon in 539 BC.” 
   

Cyrus is named twice in the surviving parts of the chronicles that record events that occurred before Nabonidus’ demise:

1. ✴In the 6th year of Nabondinus’ reign (550/549 BC): 
   

2. “... [King Astyages of Media] mustered (his army) and marched against Cyrus, king of Anshan, for conquest [...]  The army rebelled against Astyages and he was taken prisoner.  [The army] handed him over to Cyrus. [...].  Cyrus <marched> to Ecbatana, the royal city [of the Medians].  The silver, gold, goods, property, [...] that he carried off as booty (from) Ecbatana, he took to the land (KUR) of Anshan”, (‘Nabonidus Chronicle’, ii, 1-4, translated by Amélie Kuhrt, referenced below, at p. 50). 
   

3. Paul-Alain Beaulieu (referenced below, at p. 109) argued that Cyrus revolt against the Medes had:
   

4. •started in Nabonidus’ 3rd year (= 553 BC - see the Sippar cylinder above)’ and
   

5. •ended three years later with his defeat of Astyages, his sack of Ecbatana and his conquest of Media.
   

6. ✴In April of the 9th year (547 BC): 
   

7. “... Cyrus, king of the land of Parsu, called up his army and crossed the Tigris below the town of Arbela. In [the following month], he marched against the country [damaged], killed its king, took his possessions, [and] put there a garrison of his own.  Afterwards, his garrison as well as the king [himself] remained there”, (‘Nabonidus Chronicle’, ii, 15-8, translated by Amélie Kuhrt, referenced below, at pp. 50-1).
   

8. This passage is generally assumed to record Cyrus’ victory over King Croesus of Lydia  (see, for example, Stefan Zawadzki, referenced below, at p. 151).  Furthermore, as Matt Waters (referenced below, 2022, at p. 75) observed: 
   

9. ”Even the scholars who prefer to read ‘Urartu’ [instead of Lydia here] ... still date [Cyrus’] Lydian conquest to [some time before] the mid 540s BC.”
   

Interestingly, Cyrus is given two different titles in this text:

1. ✴Cyrus, king of Anshan, in Nabonidus’ 6th year; and
   

2. ✴Cyrus, king of the land of Parsu, in Nabonidus’ 9th year. 
   

According to Leonard King and Campbell Thompson (referenced below, in their index of proper nouns in the Behistun Inscription at p. lxx), ‘Parsu’ was the Babylonian name given to ‘Parsa’ in Old Persian, and it should be translated into English as ‘Persia’.  It is therefore at least possible that:

1. ✴the entry for Nabonidus’ 9th year was taken from the original version; but
   

2. ✴the entry for Nabonidus’ 6th year was taken from the putative ‘edited’ version of 539 BC.
   

Furthermore, as Antigoni Zournatzi (referenced below, 2019, at p. pointed out, this use of the two toponyms (Anshan and Parsu) here implies that:

1. “... [they] served, at least near the middle of the 6th century BC, as viable alternate designations for the same territory.”
   

In other words, we should certainly locate Anshan in Parsu/Parsa, which should probably be understood as indicating the modern Iranian province of Fars.

The chronicle then recorded Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon in September/October of the 17th year (539 BC): 

1. “When Cyrus did battle at Opis on the [bank of] the Tigris against the army of Akkad [i.e., Babylonia], the people of Akkad retreated.  He carried off the plunder (and) slaughtered the people.  On [10th October], Sippar was captured without a battle.  Nabonidus fled.  On [12th October], Ug/Gbaru, governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus, without battle, they entered Babylon.  Afterwards, after Nabonidus retreated, he was captured in Babylon”, (‘Nabonidus Chronicle’, iii, 12-6, translated by Amélie Kuhrt, referenced below, at p. 50).
   

Another surviving fragment recorded that, on 28th March 538 BC, at the time of the New Year festival:

1. “... Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, went to Eniggidar-kalamma-sumu, the official of the Sceptre House of Nabû [and gave him] the sceptre of the [land].  When [someone, probably Cyrus] came, in Elamite attire, he [took] the hands of Nabû [...]  lances and quivers he picked [up, and], with the crown-prince, [Cambyses], he came down] into the courtyard”, (‘Nabondinus Chronicle’, iii: 25-26, based on the important translation by Andrew George, referenced below, at p. 380). 
   

George set out (at pp. 380-1) his reasons for identifying the ‘man in Elamite attire’ as Cyrus.  If this identification is accepted, then Cyrus, the self-proclaimed king of Anshan, had taken a conscious decision to participate in this important Babylonian festival in what his new Babylonian subjects would recognise as ‘Elamite’ attire (see, for example, Javier Álvarez Mon, referenced below, at p. 3 and p. 11).

Cyrus Cylinder 

Inscribed clay cylinder known as the Cyrus Cylinder from the foundations of the wall of Babylon 

Image from the site of the British Museum, where the tablet is now housed (BM 90920)

The only known proclamation in Cyrus’ own ‘voice’ was inscribed in Babylonian (Akkadian) cuneiform on a clay cylinder (illustrated above) from Babylon that related to his capture of the city in 539 BC,  In the inscription, he described how Nabonidus, the erstwhile king of Babylon, had offended Marduk the most important of the Babylonian gods, with the result that Marduk had:

1. “... inspected (and) examined all of the lands [of the world], everyone of them, and constantly sought out a righteous king, the desire of his heart.  He took Cyrus (Kurash), lugal uru Anshan (king of the city of Anshan) by the hand, called (him) by his name (and) proclaimed him to be the ruler of the entirety of everything”, (RIMB, Cyrus II, 1: i, 11-12). 
   

Cyrus also introduced himself to his new Babylonian subjects as:

1. “... king of the world, great king, strong king, king of Babylon, king of the land of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters (of the world), the:
   

2. ✴son of Cambyses (Kambuzia), great king, king of Anshan;
   

3. ✴grandson of Cyrus (I), great king, kin[g of] Anshan; and
   

4. ✴descendant or great grandson (liblibbu) of Teispes (Shipshish), great king, king of Anshan;
   

5. the eternal seed of kingship, whose reign the gods Bel (Marduk) and Nabu love ,and whose k[ingshi]p they desired to their heart’s content”, (RIMB, Cyrus II, 1: i, 20-22).
   

The cylinder was discovered during the excavations that were undertaken at Babylon on behalf of the British Museum from February 1879.  Jonathan Taylor (referenced below) who presented all of the surviving (and often conflicting) evidence relating to the original discovery of the cylinder, concluded (at p. 89) that it was discovered (in tact) in March 1879.  He also looked at the conflicting evidence for the location in which the discovery was made, concluding (at p. 84) that: 

1. ✴the cylinder was probably found in a niche in a wall on the so-called Amron mound, having been deposited there during a restoration; and
   

2. ✴this wall might have belonged to the Esagil (temple of Marduk), but it was more probably part of the Imgur-Enlil, the inner wall of Babylon, since:
   

3. •Cyrus’ restoration of this wall  was recorded in the inscription  (at lines 38-42); and
   

4. •we also read that (presumably during this restoration) Cyrus saw:
   

5. “... an inscription with the name of Ashurbanipal, a king who had preceded [me]”, (line 43).
   

This former king was none other than the all-powerful Assyrian King Ashurbanipal (669 - ca. 630 BC), who had (like Cyrus) restored the wall in his capacity as the ‘foreign’ over-lord of Babylon. 

As we have seen, Jonathan Taylor (referenced below, at p. 89) established that the cylinder was in tact at the time of its discovery in March 1879.   However, he also established that it had been broken soon after, and that:

1. ✴only part of it (in his words, the ‘main fragment’) originally reached the the British Museum (in the following August); while
   

2. ✴a smaller fragment had found its way to Yale University  by 1920. 
   

Irving Finkel (referenced below, at p. 27) recorded that it was only in 1971 that scholars discovered that this ‘Yale fragment’:

1. “... was part of the British Museum [cylinder] and, what is more, that it actually joined it [as illustrated in Figure 6, at p. 28 and Figure 8, at p. 29]”.
   

He also noted that, in 2009/10, it had been recognised that two much smaller fragments that had arrived in the British Museum in 1881:

1. “... come from one large cuneiform tablet that once carried the same text as [that] inscribed on the [cylinder].” 
   

He published (at pp. 16-20) a composite translation of the texts from all of these sources, followed by his translation of the one-line colophon from the tablet: this colophon records the name of the scribe who ‘inscribed the text on the tablet: Qishti Marduk (which was followed by the now-lost name of his father).   

Finkel pointed out (at p. 39) that this composite text falls naturally into three distinct consecutive sections:

1. ✴Section 1 (CB: 1-19, written in the third person) describes the circumstances in which Marduk had mandated that Cyrus, king of the land of Anshan, should depose king Nabonidus from the throne of Babylon (see above);
   

2. ✴Section 2 (CB: 20-36, written in the first person), in which Cyrus used the more extravagant titles discussed above, constitutes Cyrus’ proclamation to his new subjects; and 
   

3. ✴Section 3 (CB: 37-45, written in the third person), largely concerned with Cyrus’ rebuilding/restoration of the urban fabric of Babylon.
   

He reasonably observed (at p. 33) that this text:

1. “... conveys a multipurpose message [that] is so well-tailored to a Babylonian readership that it must have seen a wider distribution [than that afforded by its use on] one invisible [foundation deposit].” 
   

He argued (at p. 38) that:

1. ✴the composite text had first been inscribed on a tablet, since:
   

2. “... no-one ever composed [as opposed to copied] a cuneiform text of a curvaceous cylinder”;
   

3. ✴Qishti Marduk copy represented an official copy (rather than a scribal exercise):
   

4. “... stemming from a chancery ... where multiple copies of official documents in diverse formats [e.g., tablets, cylinders] were produced”; and 
   

5. ✴the Cyrus cylinder was probably one of:
   

6. “... [many] such cylinders [that were] prepared for burial at suitable points in the city’s reconstruction: in each case, the cylinder inscription would be copied from a flat master copy ...”
   

Finally, he suggested (at p. 40) that the text had been taken from three separate sources:

1. ✴Section 1 came from:
   

2. “... a court chronicle or other appraisal of Cyrus’ early reign”;
   

3. ✴Section 2:
   

4. “... represents the words of  Cyrus himself, and perhaps ultimately reflects a Persian original”; and
   

5. ✴Section 3:
   

6. “... is a straightforward account [of Cyrus’ urban restoration of Babylon] that derives (at least in some measure) from the earlier text of Ashurbanipal [that was] found in the digging”
   

In short, Finkel reasonably suggested that important texts from three separate sources were first inscribed on an official tablet that was subsequently copied on:

1. ✴objects such as Qishti Marduk’s tablet, which facilitated the wide public transmission of royal propaganda; and
   

2. ✴objects such as the Cyrus Cylinder, which were buried as foundation deposits, for the benefit of future generations.
   

Archeological Evidence

Stamped Bricks from Ur and Uruk 

Stamped  brick from Ur, now in the Penn Museum (B 15348, image from museum website)

Stamped  brick from Uruk, now in the British Museum (BM 90731, image from museum website)

The texts stamped on the two bricks illustrated above, which were excavated in the cities of Ur and Uruk respectively, represent the only surviving ‘royal’ inscriptions of Cyrus from sites other that Babylon.  Both of these southern Babylonian cities would have fallen to Cyrus in or shortly after 539 BC. 

1. ✴The text from Ur, which is known from two copies (one in the Penn Museum and the other in the British Museum) on bricks from the Ekishnugal, the main temple of the city, which was dedicated to the moon-god, Nanna (= Sin).  It recorded a restoration carried out by:
   

2. “Cyrus (II), king of the world, king of the land Anshan, the son of Cambyses (I), king of the land Anshan: the great gods placed in my hands all of the lands,  (and) I allowed the land to live undisturbed”, (RIMB Cyrus II, 2).
   

3. (Interestingly, a stamped brick of Nabondinus, which records his building of a shrine dedicated to Ningal, the ‘lady’ of Nanna, inside the Ekishnugal, is now exhibit BM 90149 in the British Museum.)
   

4. ✴The text from Uruk was originally known from four bricks, but only one of them survives (as BM 90731 in the British Museum) 
   

5. “Cyrus (II), [restored - king of the lands], the one who loves Esagil and Ezida [= Marduk and Nabu], the son of Cambyses (I), strong king”, (RIMB Cyrus II, 3).
   

These texts confirm at least part of the family tree in the Cyrus cylinder text, and the Ur brick stamp indicates that Cyrus’ use of his Anshanite dynastic title was not confined to Babylon. 

Pasargadae 

Excavated monuments at at the archeological site at Pasargadae (on the Murghab plain in western Iran),

Image from Ali Bahadori and Negin Miri (referenced below, Figure 1, at p. 4)

David Stronach and Hilary Gopnik (referenced below, in their introductory paragraph) observed that the long-abandoned city of Pasargadae was once:

1. “... the spacious capital and last resting place of Cyrus the Great ... Located in northern Fars, in the fertile and well-watered [Murghab plain], the site stands 1,900 m above sea level ... [and] lies 40 km to the northeast of Persepolis.” 
   

The excavated buildings here represent our only securely-identified secular monuments from Cyrus’ reign.  Ali Bahadori and Negin Miri (referenced below, at p. 3) noted that: 

1. “A number of buildings were built in this area far from each other according to a set plan and according to geographical directions.  They include [the presumed] Cyrus Tomb, Gate R, Palace S, Palace P and the Zendan, all located within gardens irrigated by stone canals and ponds, plus the Sacred Precinct and Tall-i Takht that overlook the whole area.”
   

Two inscriptions that are known from multiple copies from Gate R, Palace S and Palace P commemorate their builder: they are known as:

1. ✴CMa, a trilingual text (in Old Persian, Elamite and Akkadian) from Gate R and Palace S, which reads:
   

2. “I am Cyrus, the King, an Achaemenid”; and
   

3. ✴CMc, a text that is known  only in Elamite and Akkadian and was cut into the robes of the figure of Cyrus in each of the matching doorway reliefs of Palace P, which reads: 
   

4. “Cyrus, the Great King, an Achaemenid”.
   

David Stronach (referenced below, 1997, see particularly p. 353) argued that these inscriptions probably date to ca. 519 BC, at the time of the completion of construction at the site after the accession of Darius (who was the first Persian ruler to claim descent from Achaemenes).  According to Strabo (see below):

1. “Cyrus honoured Pasargadae because it was there that he had conquered Astyages the Mede in his [i.e., Astyages’] last battle and transferred to himself the [putative Median Empire]: he founded the city and constructed a palace [there] as a memorial of his victory, (‘Geography’, 15: 3: 8).
   

Interestingly, Ctesias of Cnidus (who apparently served as  a physician to king Artaxerxes II of Persia before writing his now-lost ‘Persika’ in the early 4th century BC) placed this battle near Pasargadae: the surviving account (as transmitted by Nicholas of Damascus) has been translated by Andrew Nichols (referenced below, Fr. 8d, at pp, 83-8).  It is possible that Strabo took this information from Ctesias, whom he named as a source elsewhere in his work. 

Ali Bahadori and Negin Miri (referenced below, at p. 3, citing David Stronach, referenced below, 2008) observed that, during the excavation of Pasargadae the 1960s:

1. “It soon became clear that there is a close similarity between the [monumental buildings] at Pasargadae (in terms of its decorations and stone masonry) and those of Sardis, the capital of the [Lydia] ...”
   

We should not be surprised if Cyrus:

1. ✴was influenced by the things that he had seen at the court of the famously wealthy King Croesus in 547 BC; and
   

2. ✴used the gold that he seized there to build this impressive monument to his achievements as the conqueror of Media and Lydia. 
   

However, they concluded (at p, 25) from their analysis of the remains found on this site and on the sites of Darius’ royal complexes at Persepolis and Susa, that, although the kings who built and used them would certainly have: 

1. “... visited [them] every now and then for ceremonial and ritual events, ... [they] never resided in them on a permanent basis.” 
   

Presumed Tomb of Cyrus 

Tomb at Pasargadae usually (although not certainly) identified as that of Cyrus II

Image from Wikimedia  

Our earliest evidence for Cyrus’ tomb at Pasargadae comes from the historian Aristobulus of Cassandreia, who seems to have been an officer in the army Alexander III of Macedonia (known to history as Alexander the Great) during his conquest of the Persian Empire and probably wrote his account of this campaign shortly thereafter.  Although Aristobulus’ original account is now lost, he is cited in the two most important surviving sources for Cyrus’ tomb at Pasargadae:

1. ✴Strabo’s ‘Geography’ (the 1st century BC); and
   

2. ✴Arrian’s ‘Campaigns of Alexander’ (2nd century AD). 
   

As we shall see, both of these authors described the tomb in detail, and both recorded that it was identified by its inscribed epitaph.  However, as Antigoni Zournatzi (referenced below, 1993, search on ‘epitaph’) pointed out, no extant structure in the vicinity of Pasargadae is attested as having an epitaph, and:

1. “The identification of the stone structure [illustrated above] as the tomb of Cyrus is based on its resemblance to the descriptions of [these two authors].”
   

It seems that Alexander first visited Pasargadae in 330 BC, shortly after he had defeated Darius III (the last king of Persia):: according to Arrian, he immediately marched on:

1. “.... Persepolis, so that he arrived before the guards of the city could pillage the treasury.  He also captured the money that was at [nearby] Pasargadae, in the treasury of the first Cyrus [sic]. ... He burnt down the Persian palace [at Persepolis] ... ”, ‘Campaigns of Alexander’, 6: 3: 18). 
   

In his parallel account, Strabo recorded that, after Alexander had burned Persepolis, he: 

1. “...went to Pasargadae, which was also an ancient royal residence.  He saw the tomb of Cyrus there, in a paradeisos (walled park).  It was a small tower, ... solid below and with a roofed chamber above that had an extremely narrow entrance.  Aristobulus says that:
   

2. ✴at the behest of [Alexander], he [Aristobulus] passed through this entrance [and laid offerings there];
   

3. ✴he saw a golden couch, a table with cups, a golden coffin, and numerous garments and ornaments set with precious stones; and
   

4. ✴he saw all these things on his first visit ... , (‘Geography’, 15: 3: 7).
   

Alexander seems to have spent only a short time at Pasargadae on this occasion because he was keen to continue his eastwards march (much to the chagrin of his soldiers). 

It was only on Alexander’s return from India in 324 BC (and only months before his death) that he spent what we would call ‘quality time’ in Pasargadae.  According to Aristobulus (as cited by Arrian), on his arrival:

1. “... Alexander found that the tomb of Cyrus, son of Cambyses, had been broken into and robbed, and this act of profanation caused him much distress. ... The base of the monument was rectangular, built of stone slabs cut square, and on top was a roofed chamber, also built of stone, with access through [an extremely] narrow door  ...  Alexander had wanted to visit the tomb of Cyrus since the time of his conquest of Persia; but, when he finally did so, he found that everything had been stolen except the coffin and couch.  The thieves had even maltreated the king's body; for they had torn off the lid of the coffin and cast out the corpse. ... Aristobulus says that Alexander ordered him to ... to place the remaining parts of Cyrus’ body back in the coffin ... and to restore the damaged parts of the coffin”, (‘Campaigns of Alexander’, 6: 29: 4-10). 
   

Strabo similarly recorded that, on this second visit, Alexander discovered that:

1. “... the place had been robbed and everything had been carried off except the couch and the coffin, which had only been broken to pieces, and that the robbers had removed the corpse to another place ...”, (‘Geography’, 15: 3: 7).
   

Both Arrian and  Strabo cited Aristobulus for their record of the epitaph that was apparently inscribed on Cyrus’ tomb (according to Arrian, in Persian letters):

1. “O mortal, I am Cyrus [or, according to Arrian, Cyrus son of Cambyses], who founded the empire of the Persians and was king of Asia.  Do not therefore grudge me this monument.” 
   

Strabo additionally recorded the testimony of Onesicritus (who had also travelled with Alexander) who recorded:

1. “... that Cyrus’ tomb had ten stories [sic]; that Cyrus lay in the uppermost story; and that there was:
   

2. ✴one inscription in Greek, carved in Persian letters [sic]:
   

3. ‘Here I lie, Cyrus, king of kings’; and
   

4. ✴another, written in the Persian language, with the same meaning.”
   

Matt Waters (referenced below, 2022, at p. 73) observed that this epitaph: 

1. “... as relayed by Arrian, [and] especially the title ‘King of Asia’, has no Near Eastern parallels: [indeed, the title] reads as a Greek construct.”
   

It is probably no coincidence that, at least according to Plutarch, after Alexander’s victory over Darius III:

1. “... the empire of the Persians was considered to be utterly dissolved, and Alexander [was] proclaimed king of Asia ...”, (‘Life of Alexander’, 34: 1). 
   

Teispid Dynasty 

As we have seen, when Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC, he introduced himself to his new Babylonian subjects (in the text that was transmitted, inter alia, by the Cyrus Cylinder) as the fourth in a dynastic line of kings of Anshan.  We also learn from the surviving Babylonian sources that:

1. ✴he was the son of king Cambyses I of Anshan (Cyrus Cylinder and Ur brick);
   

2. ✴he had apparently succeeded his father by 553 BC (Sippar Cylinder); and
   

3. ✴his son, the future Cambyses II, was probably recognised as the heir apparent by the time of the conquest of Babylon in 539 BC (Cyrus Cylinder). 
   

Fortunately, from this point, Cyrus’  Babylonian regnal years were used for the dating of Babylonian inscriptions, which allows for some useful synchronisations.  Importantly, as Richard Parker and Waldo Dobberstein (referenced below, at pp. 11-12) pointed out, the last of these (as far as we know) dated to August 530 BC, shortly before the earliest-known dated document from the reign of Cambyses II,  who succeeded him.  Since Herodotus (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 214: 3) recorded that he ruled for 29 years, it is usually assumed that he reigned in ca. 559-530 BC.  

Jan Tavernier (referenced below, 2018, at p. 170), following Pierre de Miroschedji (referenced below, at p. 284), estimated the regnal dates of the other three kings on the basis of the following assumptions:

1. ✴they reigned, on average, for 25 years; and
   

2. ✴they did so in direct succession (i.e., Teispes had been the great-grandfather, rather just an ancestor, of Cyrus II.
   

On that basis (working backwards from Cyrus II), the regnal dates of the other three kings were:

1. ✴Teispes great grandfather of Cyrus II (ca. 635 - 610 BC);
   

2. ✴Cyrus I, grandfather of Cyrus II (ca. 610-585 BC); and
   

3. ✴Cambyses I, father of Cyrus II (ca. 585-560 BC).
   

This gives us a ‘first guess’ against which we can evaluate the import of other potential evidence.

King Cyrus of Parsumash (Ashurbanipal, Prism H)

The first potential ‘independent’ evidence for the existence of King Cyrus I of Anshan comes in a royal inscription of Ashurbanipal that shortly post-dated his conquest of Elam and sack of Susa in ca. 647 BC, in which he recorded that:

1. “Fear of my royal majesty overwhelmed [a number of presumably neighbouring peoples], and they sent before m[e their] mounted messenger(s with messages) of goodwill and peace, together with thei[r] substantial audience gift(s).  They asked about the well-being of my royal majesty, kissed my feet, (and) made appeals to my lordly majesty.  [For example, when] Kurash (Cyrus), lugal (king) of the land Parsumash, heard about the might[y] victories that ... I had achieved over the land Elam ... , he sent to Nineveh, my capital city, Arukku, his eldest son, with his payment, to do obeisance, and he made an appeal to my lordly majesty:, ‘Ashurbanipal, Prism H’ (at vi: 1-25). 
   

Matt Waters (referenced below, 2022, at p. 18) argued that, in Assyrian documents of this period:

1. “... Anshan and Parsumash essentially  synonymous”.
   

He therefore suggested (p. 27) that this Cyrus of Parsumash might have been Cyrus I.  He acknowledged (at p. 31) that this scenario requires that Cambyses I and Cyrus I reigned for a total of 80 years (which would place  the start of the latter reign to about 640 BC), but he countered that:

1. “... such lengthy reigns are not the norm in antiquity.”
   

However, most scholars argue that this scenario is at the limit of the range of what is possible, which is presumably why, for example, Wouter Henkelman (referenced below, 2018, at p. 807) characterised the ‘Cyrus’ of Ashurbanipal’s inscription as an earlier ‘kinglet of Parsumash’. 

Cyrus, Son of Teispes (PFS 93)

Impression made by a seal (PFS 93*) from the so-called Persepolis Fortification Archive  

Image (slide 9) from this Powerpoint presentation “Cyrus and Beyond’ by Wouter Henkelman 

The impression PFS 93 (illustrated above) appears on about 20 surviving documents in the so-called Persepolis Fortification Archive, the earliest of which dates to Darius’ 19th regnal year (= 503 BC). As Javier Alvarez Mon and his colleagues (referenced below, at p. 12) observed:

1. “This seal, [which was probably] an ‘heirloom’ at the time of its use in the Fortification archive, shows an impressive scene of a horseman spearing an opponent, who turns to hold out his quiver of arrows and his broken bow as an act of submission.  Below the horseman are two fallen foes.  The Elamite inscription seems to read either:
   

2. ✴‘Kurash the Anzanite, Son of Sheshpesh’; or
   

3. ✴‘Kurash of Anzan, Son of Sheshpesh’.” 
   

Wouter Henkelman (referenced below, 2018, at p. 807) argued that:

1. ✴‘Kurash’ (used in the seal inscription) must have been the original Elamite name for Cyrus (and the source of ‘Kurush’ in Darius’ later the Old Persian inscriptions); and
   

2. ✴this assertion is supported by the fact that the Elamite ‘Sheshpesh’ used  in this inscription  represents the earliest attested form of Teispes.
   

Thus, the original owner of the seal, who is presumably:

1. ✴named in its inscription; and
   

2. ✴represented on it as the mounted commander;
   

was probably an Elamite, at least judging by his name.

Mark Garrison (referenced below, at pp. 385-90) identified PFS 93 as one of a group of four ‘antique’ seals in the ‘Persepolis Fortification’ corpus that he dated (at p, 390) to the late 7th century BC and argued that they are all:

1. “... deeply informed/shaped by Assyrian art of [that period]”. 
   

He concluded (at p. 399) that:

1. “... the four seals, while together constituting a brilliant, but small, glyptic assemblage, remain outliers in the glyptic arts of Iran and Assyria in the first half of the first millennium BC. 
   

2. ✴That [they] are contemporary seems beyond question.
   

3. ✴That they originated from the same workshop, almost certain.
   

4. ✴That they employ a sense of space seen only in monumental art of the late Assyrian period, remarkable.
   

5. ... Based on the Assyrian evidence ... presented in this study, the chronological context for this style seems securely Late Assyrian, most likely at the time of Ashurbanipal [= 669 - ca. 630 BC].  This represents an important chronological context and, thus, a priori, a starting point for any discussion of the significance of the imagery and inscription on PFS 93*.
   

In other words, this seal could already have been an heirloom at the time of Cyrus I.

Wouter Henkelman (referenced below, 2018, at p. 809), who accepted Garrison’s ‘high’ dating for the seal,  pointed out that an analysis of the documents at Persepolis that were ‘signed’ with it reveals that it:

1. “... was used by a chief agent of the crown in sealing receipts for animals procured ... for the royal table. ...  [Seals of this kind] were deployed, [quite literally], ‘in the name of the king’ ...”
   

Thus, when this high official ‘signed’ receipts using this seal, he was s’signing’ on behalf of Darius, thereby associating Darius very closely with ‘Kurash the Anzanite, son of Teispes.  Importantly, we should note that Darius had, by this time directly associated himself with Teispes: we read in the Behistun inscription (mentioned above) that:

1. “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”, (‘Inscription of Darius the Great at Behistun’, (Dbi: 2).
   

In other words, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Darius claimed that Ariaramnes, his direct ancestor, had been a brother of Kurash the Anzanite.  Henkelman (as above) observed therefore reasonably argued that, for Darius: 

1. “... the heirloom seal that had originally belonged to Kurash of Anzan [carried] an emblematic argument underscoring Darius’s dynastic claims ...  [Furthermore], its central, narrative and legitimising role need not have commenced with Darius: for the Teispids [before him] , the heirloom may have [similarly] suggested a concrete connection to a distant past [and to] a founding hero of whom little was known.  Some would even suspect that the suspiciously clean and straightforward genealogy [that Cyrus I] presents in the Cyrus Cylinder (son of Cambyses I, grandson of Cyrus I, descendant of Teispes) was inspired by the very seal of Kurash of Anzan, son of Sheshpesh”
   

Matt Waters (referenced below, 2011, at p. 290) similarly argued that the fact that this ‘heirloom’ seal:

1. “... persisted in use under Darius is striking in the light of the circumstances surrounding Darius’ rise at the expense of [the sons of Cyrus II].  If the seal was an heirloom in the traditional sense, it presumably was held by someone descended directly from Cyrus.  This is, of course, unless Darius co-opted it (and bequeathed it to another, for example, as a prestige item) for his own purposes, as he co-opted so much else [that had belonged to Cyrus].” 
   

There can be little doubt that Kurash the Anzanite/ Kurash of Anzan was portrayed in the heirloom seal as a triumphant commander.  Indeed, if the ‘high’ dating of the seal is accepted, then he is arguably portrayed (however inaccurately) as ‘a new Ashurbanipal’.  It is thus at least possible that the image on the seal commemorated his success in driving the Assyrians out of his territory at some time after Ashurbanipal’s death in ca. 630 BC.  We therefore have to consider whether this triumphant commander could have been Cyrus I.  It is often objected that, in the seal inscription, neither Teispes nor Cyrus is designated as a king: this is a powerful point, although it is, of course, possible that he was recognised as king of his native Anshan thereafter.  In this scenario:

1. ✴we would have to reject Teispes as a king of Anshan; but
   

2. ✴we could accept his son  as the founder of an Anshanite dynasty (in which he and his son, Cambyses I,  reigned for a total of ca. 55 years). 
   

However, if so, then he would presumably have ‘updated’ his seal to add his new title, in which case, the old seal would not have come down to his successors as the ‘family heirloom’.  There is no certainty to be had in this debate.  However, in my view, PFS 93 was more probably the seal of a ‘kinglet’ of Anshan named Cyrus son of Teispes that was later:

1. ✴‘adopted’ by Cyrus I (or, perhaps, by his son or his grandson) as a family heirloom” and
   

2. ✴used by Cyrus II and then by Darius as one way of underscoring his dynastic claims. 
   

Teispid Dynasty: Conclusions

It seems to me that the surviving evidence suggests that Teispes, whom Cyrus claimed as the founder of his Anshanite dynasty in the Cyrus Cylinder, was almost certainly, a figure of legend, and that the dynasty  was, in fact, founded by his grandfather, Cyrus I, probably at some time in the ‘period of confusion’ that followed:

1. ✴Ashurbanipal’s conquest of Elam in ca. 647 BC; and
   

2. ✴the death of Ashurbanipal in ca. 630 BC; and
   

3. ✴the subsequent demise of the Assyrian Empire.
   

If we assume that the combined reigns of Cyrus I and Cambyses I lasted for between 40 and 60 years, then the reign of the former would have begun in ca. 620-600 BC.  In order to establish the circumstances in which this might have taken place, we need to look back over the history of Anshan in the 7th century BC. 

Kingship of Anshan

Period  to ca. 700 BC 

The recorded history of Anshan goes back to ca. 2300 BC, when it was conquered by King Manistushu of Akkad and incorporated into what was then the Akkadian province of Elam. 

A king of Anshan (Imazu, son of Kindattu) was recorded in ca. 2000 BC, but (as far as we know) for the next millennium or more, it formed part of an Elamite kingdom that was usually known as the Kingdom of Susa and Anshan.

Location of Anshan

Map of Southwestern Iran, showing Anshan and Susa 

Adapted from David Stronach (referenced below, 2013, Figure 2, at p. 57) 

Archeologists discovered  location of Susa (on the eastern edge of Mesopotamia) in the 1850s (or our era) but, as Antigoni Zournatzi (referenced below, 2019, at p. 151) observed, it was only in the the early 1970s that the discovery of: 

1. “... various epigraphic and archaeological clues [began] to indicate that the ‘lost’ city of Anshan could [in fact] be identified with the important ancient urban centre whose remains survive at Tal-i Malyan [see the map above], in close proximity to [the later Persian cities of] Pasargadae and Persepolis.” 
   

John Hansman (referenced below, on-line) summarised the result of the excavations carried out at Tal-i Malyan at this time:

1. “The site is surrounded by a rectangular wall of mud-brick construction, now much eroded, which measures approximately 1 km by 0.8 km.  ... The distribution of later pottery suggests that the major occupation at [the site] (some 130 hectares) occurred during the later centuries of the 3rd millennium and continued into the early centuries of the 2nd millennium BC.” 
   

Identification of the Site of Ancient Anshan at Tal-i Malyan 

So-called ‘Anshan brick’ published by Maurice Lambert (referenced below) 

Image adapted from his photographs at p. 62 

As Erica Reiner (referenced below, at p. 8) observed, although several inscribed bricks were found during the excavations at Tal-i Malyan:

1. “... none of the inscriptional material found at [the site]  contained a reference to Anshan.  [All that could be said] was that the fragments of inscribed bricks:
   

2. ✴represented inscriptions of Hutelutush-Inshushinak, [who was styled as lord (menir) of Elam and Susa’ in ca. 1120 BC]; and
   

3. ✴duplicated an incomplete inscription on two bricks of unknown provenience in private collections.
   

4. [However], ... with the publication of the ‘Anshan brick’ [illustrated above] by Maurice Lambert, and the comparison of its unique features with those of the Tal-i-Malyan bricks, it has become evident that the Anshan brick and the two incomplete inscriptions in private collections all come from Tal-i Malyan.”
   

According to Maurice Lambert (referenced below, at p. 61), the ‘new’ brick had apparently been found ‘between Shiraz and Persepolis’.  The inscription was written in vertical columns that are read from left to right and top to bottom on two sides of the brick (which was presumably used at a corner, so that the two inscribed faces were visible).  Most of the text was known from other examples, but the last two lines are not found elsewhere: Lambert translated them (at p. 66) as follows:

1. “... and, at Anshan, I, [Hutelutush-Inshushinak], designed and built in baked bricks a siyan tarin (temple of the alliance) of Napirisha, Kiririsha, Inshushinak and Simut”, (my translation of Lambert’s French).
   

Although the provenance of this important inscription is not completely secure, parts of the same text have been found throughout the site at Tal-i Malyan.  Thus, for example, Daniel Potts (referenced below, at p. 240), citing Lambert, asserted that:

1. “Inscribed bricks from Tal-i Malyan, ancient Anshan, proclaim that Hutelutush-Inshushinak built a baked brick temple there to Napirisha, Kiririsha, Inshushinak and Shimut, and it is probable that some of the texts found there relate to that project.” 
   

History of Anshan (ca. 1000 - 700 BC)

Matt Waters (referenced below, 2023, at p. 387) pointed out that, on the basis of the present archeological evidence, the site at Tal-i-Malyan seems to have been abandoned by ca. 1000 BC (although it is important to bear in mind that mush of the site remains un-excavated).  However, there is no evidence that that the political status of Anshan changed at this time: the last securely documented king of Anshan and Susa was Shutruk-Nahhunte II (717-699 BC). 

Anshan, Elam and the Assyrians

Battle at Halule (691 BC)

A record in the annals of the Assyrianking Sennacherib (705-681 BC) recorded that, at that time, the Elamite king Huban-menanu: 

1. “... whose cities I [Sennacherib] had conquered and ruined in my earlier campaign in the land of Elam. ... [On receiving this] bribe, [Huban-menanu] assembled his army ... The [highlanders] of Parsuash, Anzan (Anshan), Pasheru [and] Ellipi, [together with  lowland Chaldeans, Arameans and Babylonians], a large host, formed a confederation with him.  In their multitude, they took the road to Akkad and, as they were advancing towards Babylon, they met up with Shuzubu (Mušshēzib-Marduk), a Chaldean (who is) the king of Babylon, and banded their forces together.... They drew up in battle lines to confront me at the city Halule, which is on the bank of the Tigris ...”, (RINAP 3, 23: v: 29-47). 
   

We later read that, in the battle:

“I [Sennacherib] quickly slaughtered and defeated Huban-undasha (Humban-undasha), nāgiru of the king of Elam, chief commander of the armies of Elam ...”, (RINAP 3, 23: v: 71 - see the translation by Wouter Henkelman, referenced below, 2008, at p. 21, note 35). 

Although the Babylonians claimed victory on this occasion, subsequent accounts indicate that this was a somewhat premature claim (as we shall see).

The Assyrian account of these events is important for our present purposes because of the mention of the Anshanites as allies (rather than subjects) of Elam.  Matt Waters (referenced below, 2000) argued that:

it seems that Huban-menanu himself had formed the anti-Assyrian alliance (see p. 34); and 

the inclusion of Parsuash and Anshan among the allies: 

“... suggests Huban-menanu’s ability to command contingents from that region ..., [which, in turn] demonstrates some levels of Elamite political influence in Fars in the early 7th century” (see p. 35).

Kiumars Alizadeh (referenced below, at p. 28) agreed with these general observations, although he did not accept that Water’s assertion that Parsuash was in Fars: rather, he argued (at p. 29) that: 

“... it would be better to search for Parsuash ... in the central Zagros region and not necessarily in the south and at the border of Anshan.”

The key point for the present discussion is that, while Huban-menanu could call on the Anshanites for men to fight under his field-commander Huban-undasha at Halule, it is entirely possible that the man who sent (and possibly led) the Anshanite contingent was recognised as ‘king of Anshan’.

The territory of Anshan continues to appear in our surviving sources until the time of Darius (who seized control of the ‘Persian Empire’ some eight years after Cyrus’ death). 

text

Conquests of Cyrus II in the Period 553-539 BC

One important result of tof the analysis of epigraphic source above is that we can identify three stages Cyrus’ emergence onto the ‘world stage’:

1. ✴as a young man in 553 BC, he revolted against his presumed overlord, King Astyages of Media, beginning a campaign that culminated three years later with his victory over Astyages, his sack of Ecbatana, and his conquest of Media (Sippar Cylinder and Nabonidus Chronicle);
   

2. ✴in 547 BC, he made another major conquest, probably of Lydia (or, possibly, of Uratu, followed soon after by that of Lydia (Nabonidus Chronicle); and
   

3. ✴in 539 BC, he defeated king Nabinidus and conquered the Babylonian Empire (Nabonidus Chronicle and Cyrus Cylinder).  
   

t