J. Andrew McLaughlin
© 2000

What is the significance of the association between Darius I ("The Great") of Persia and the inscription on the rock of Bisutun? Of what importance is this association to the reconstruction of Persian history? This inscription, carved 300 feet above the ground near Bisutun (a.k.a. Bisitun, Behistun, and Bahistun) in modern Iran, exhibits a relief depicting Darius’ ascension to the throne of Persia, his triumph over his enemies, and his endorsement by the chief god Ahuramazda. This carving is supplemented by a large amount of accompanying text in three languages important at the time of the Persian empire: Babylonian, Old Persian, and Elamite. R. Campbell Thompson describes the Persian columns alone as consisting of "more than fifteen thousand characters" ¹. Obviously, the narrative provided by the inscribed text is a valuable resource for the reconstruction the history of Darius’ reign. The text provides some insight into Darius’ claim to the throne, and his supposed place in Persia’s line of Achaemenid kings – although determining its historical accuracy is a difficult question. However, probably the most important effect of this monumental carving is its usage in deciphering the languages contained therein. Darius’ Bisutun inscription has proven to be the ‘Rosetta Stone’ of the ancient near eastern languages, but with the distinction that, of the three languages inscribed therein, none had previously been deciphered by modern scholars.

The carving consists of an image in relief and three columns of text. The image depicts Darius, the tallest in stature of all humans present, with his foot upon the vanquished ‘False Smerdis’ or Gaumata from whom he took the crown. Gaumata lies helpless underneath Darius’ feet (presumably, about to be slain). Behind Darius are shown two of his supporters, slightly smaller in stature than Darius and carrying the implements which symbolize his power to rule. These figures might represent two of the other six conspirators (Intaphernes, Otanes, Gobryas, Hydarnes, Megabyzus, and Ardumanish) who helped to topple Gaumata and bring Darius to the throne. According to Jona Lendering, these are "his bow carrier Intaphernes and his lance carrier Gobryas."². Before Darius are nine figures (originally eight; the ninth, a Scythian named Skunkha with a tall, pointed hat, was added later) representing the leaders of those peoples that had resisted Darius’ authority and rebelled. In stature, these persons are the smallest shown, and they are depicted as being roped together about the neck. Floating above the scene, and to whom Darius’ eyes and hand are raised, floats the symbolic representation of the god Ahuramazda – lending his divine power and authority to the proceedings.

The text of the Bisutun inscription, in each of the three languages, names each of Darius’ pictured enemies as having been ‘liars’ who proclaimed their sovereignty in various provinces of the empire following Darius’ ascension. Each is described as having been humiliated and killed appropriately. Each description of rebellion is basically formulaic. As a typical example, the story of Phraortes begins:

"Saith Darius the King: One man, by name Phraortes, a Median – he rose up in Media. To the people thus he said, "I am Khshathrita, of the family of Cyaxares." Thereafter the Median army which (was) in the palace, became rebellious from me, (and) went over to that Phraortes. He became king in Media." ³

Thus, Darius sent forth an army. In this as in each instance, Darius claims that he "smote exceedingly" the army of the rebellious would-be king. Phraortes, whose story is representative of that of Darius’ other enemies, meets his end as follows:

" … Phraortes, seized, was led to me. I cut off his nose and ears and tongue, and put out one eye; he was kept bound at my palace entrance, all the people saw him. Afterward I impaled him at Ecbatana; and the men who were his foremost followers, those at Ecbatana within the fortress I (flayed and) hung out (their hides, stuffed with straw)" ⁴

Another important piece of historical information is recorded on the rock face at Bisutun: namely, the story of Darius’ ascension to the great throne of Persia. The story is one of intrigue, deception and murder. Despite his claim that as a result of his lineage, he is the rightful ruler of the empire, neither Darius’ true father nor grandfather was ever king in Persia. Indeed, both were still living when Darius became ruler. Thus, it has been speculated that Darius was in fact an usurper. Darius begins by explaining that the king Cambyses had a brother named Smerdis, and that Cambyses killed this brother (without the knowledge of the people of Persia). Darius continues with the story of how the supposed impostor, Gaumata, seized the throne:

"… Afterwards, there was one man, a Magian, Gaumata by name; he rose up from Paishiyauvada. … He lied to the people thus: "I am Smerdis, the son of Cyrus, brother of Cambyses." After that, all the people became rebellious from Cambyses, (and) went over to him, both Persia and Media and the other provinces. He seized the kingdom … After that, Cambyses died by his own hand." ⁵

However Darius, knowing that Gaumata’s claimed identity is a lie, comes to the rescue. Darius completes the story thusly:

"The people feared him greatly, (thinking that) he would slay in numbers the people who previously had known Smerdis; for this reason he would slay the people, "lest they know me, that I am not Smerdis the son of Cyrus." Not anyone dared say anything about Gaumata the Magian, until I came. After that I besought help of Ahuramazda; Ahuramazda bore me aid … then I with a few men slew that Gaumata the Magian, and those who were his foremost followers … I took the kingdom from him. By the favor of Ahuramazda, I became king; Ahuramazda bestowed the kingdom upon me." ⁶

These brief examples of the text of the Bisutun inscription (and the various copies that were distributed throughout the empire) demonstrate how the work assists in the reconstruction of the history of ancient Persia. That said, we must keep in mind that these represent the ‘official’ version of each story contained therein. Though we might suspect that we cannot accept as fact the entirety of the inscription, we can nevertheless work to verify or refute – in a more directed manner – those events of Darius’ reign which he himself most wanted us to remember.

In terms of the inscription’s historical influence in more ancient times, the story of Darius’ ascension to the Persian throne is a tale told in detail by Herodotus in book III of his Histories. Herodotus, we can assume, takes great liberties with this story, describing the conspirators’ conversations in detail. He includes the substance of a debate between them following their victory over Gaumata with is highly suspect: in this, we listen as the seven debate the merits of various forms of government – democracy, monarchy, and oligarchy. It is probably safe to assume that this passage was included more for the benefit of Greek audiences than scholars of history. Although many of the details of Herodotus’ version are wildly speculative, he is largely consistent with the tale engraved in stone at Bisutun. For example, Herodotus lists the other six conspirators as Otanes, Aspathines, Gobryas, Intaphrenes, Megabyzus, and Hydarnes. All but one of these names match those inscribed at Bisutun: Herodotus substitutes Aspathines for Darius’ Ardumanish⁷. In all, there is little in the inscription which contradicts anything told to us by Herodotus. There is, however, no indication that Herodotus ever saw the monumental carving, and would not have been able to read it even if he had visited Bisutun. Since Herodotus is mostly correct in his factual details, it is nearly certain that he was influenced by the common legends of Darius’ conquests. In turn, these legends must have at least partly descended from Darius’ propagandist inscriptions such as that at Bisitun, or one of its copies.

However, the contribution of the monumental carving to our understanding of Persian history attains an even greater degree of importance when we examine its modern history.

In 1617, Italian explorer Pietro della Valle (1586–1652), reached Persia in the course of a religious pilgrimage which ultimately took him as far as India. In 1921 he noted Darius’ inscriptions on the rock face at Bisutun, and made copies and descriptions of the monumental carving. These he published as part of two volumes of detailed letters, but did no further work to decipher the writing he found.

Later, circa 1764, German surveyor Carsten Niebuhr (1733–1815) visited Bisutun as a member of the scientific expedition dispatched by Frederick V of Denmark for the exploration of Arabia and other middle- and near-eastern counties. The sole survivor of the expedition, in 1777 Niebuhr published a complete copy of Darius’ monolithic inscription. Niebuhr’s transcriptions were later used by scholars in attempts to decipher the cuneiform (Lat. cuneus, "wedge") scripts, including German archaeologist and philologist Georg Grotefend (1775–1853). As of 1802, Grotefend had deciphered ten of the thirty-seven ‘alphabetic’ characters of the Old Persian script based on Niebuhr’s reproductions.

In 1835, in the course of his duties while stationed nearby, a young British officer named Henry Rawlinson (1810-1895) took a scholarly interest in the Bisutun inscription. Despite the efforts of Grotefend and others, cuneiform script was yet little understood. Rawlinson made painstaking notes, copies and molds of the Old Persian columns at Bisutun. Grotefend had made considerable progress in deciphering a number of the cuneiform characters of the Old Persian script. His technique consisted of locating the names of the kings responsible for inscriptions found at various places such as Persepolis, and translating the characters. Rawlinson, without the aid of access to this prior work (due to his ‘remote’ location), made the same deductions using the same technique and additionally accomplished the decipherment of the names of some of the countries mentioned therein. For example, the names of the kings Hystaspes, Arsames, Ariaramnes, Teispes, all Achaemenes appear in Darius’ enumeration of his lineage, and of course Darius’ own name appears throughout – all of which would have been familiar from the works of Herodotus and other historians. The countries of Persia, Elam, Babylonia, Egypt, and numerous others are listed as territories ruled by Darius. The decipherment of these eventually yielded a more complete understanding of the signs of the Old Persian alphabet and their associated sounds. Rawlinson continued this work to the point of publishing a transliteration of the text, and then proceeded to correlate it with Pahlavi (Zend?), a modern dialect of Persian. By this method he accomplished a complete translation of the inscription, which he published as part of his Memoirs in 1846. Assyriologist R. C. Thompson, who personally studied the inscription on behalf of the British Museum, asserts that "The work showed surprisingly few errors, considering the difficulties of every kind with which he had to contend" ⁸. It was this original translation of the Old Persian –– which subsequently helped to unlock the secrets of the Elamite and Babylonian versions of the text; the Elamite by Edward Hinks (1792-1866), Neils Ludvig Westergaard (1815-1878), Louis Frédérick Joseph Caignart de Saulcy (1807-1880) and Edwin Norris (1795–1872); the Babylonian by Rawlinson and Hinks.

It is as a result of Darius, Rawlinson, and this inscription that we have come to understand cuneiform script and several of the historically significant languages that utilized it. Thus, modern scholars are now free to spend their time translating the myriad of ancient documents (clay tablets, inscriptions, etc.) that have been uncovered, dating back to ancient Mesopotamia and Persia. The importance of this to our modern understanding of these ancient civilizations cannot be understated. This is the single most important contribution of Darius and the Bisutun inscription.

For many centuries, the marvels of ancient Egyptian civilization have inspired awe and wonder in western European scholars and lay visitors alike. This is understandable: there is truly an aura of mystery about the grandiose monuments of that ancient culture. The Egyptian hieroglyphic script painted on the walls of tombs and temples there is visually stimulating, and early on captured the imaginations of the western world and its scholars. The celebrated, trilingual Rosetta stone eventually proved to be the critical key to unlocking the secrets of that cryptic ancient writing; thus the stone’s widespread fame (and prominent place in the British Museum) is clearly warranted. But what of the Bisutun inscription? Its fame spreads little farther than amongst those who take a special interest in the history of the ancient near east (i.e. typically not the general public). But what if this inscription were not located high above the ground, on an isolated cliff in northwestern Iran? What if it, too, could have been packaged and shipped off to some European museum? Would it enjoy the same lofty historical status as the Rosetta stone? Scholars have been known to lament the lack of recognition given the cultures of the ancient near east for their historical importance. It is claimed that much of the credit awarded to other ancient peoples for various innovations rightly belongs with the ancient Mesopotamians and Persians. In that case, maybe the Bisutun inscription serves as an apt metaphor for this state of affairs. Like the Rosetta stone, it has been crucial to our reconstruction of the history of the ancient near east. Unfortunately, the inscription at Bisutun has not yet received the credit it deserves.

 

References

¹ Thompson, R. C.
1937, The Rock of Behistun, Vol. II. p. 766, Ed Sir J. A. Hammerton. New York: Wise

² Lendering, J.
Articles on Ancient History: The Behistun Inscription, http://www.livius.org/be-bm/behistun/behistun01.html

³ Kent, R.
1950, Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, p.123, New Haven:

⁴ Ibid., p. 124

⁵ Ibid., pp. 119-120

⁶ Ibid., p. 120

⁷ Herodotus
1954 The Histories. Book III.70, Revised edition. Ed. J. Marincola, Trans. A. De Selincourt. Canada: Penguin

⁸ Thompson, p. 765