83

THE CYRUS CYLINDER AND ACHAEMENID IMPERIAL

POLICY

Amélie Kuhrt
Department of History, University College
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT

Cyrus the Great of Persia who founded one of the most extensive and
powerful empires of the ancient world has traditionally enjoyed a very
good press. He is presented as plucky, honourable and lacking in
vicious traits by Herodotus who also provides the interesting information
that the Persians themselves regarded him as a ‘father’1-a term
suggestive of benevolence and wisdom as well as underlining his
achievements as the founder of the Persian state and first extender of
its realm. Xenophon (c.430-c.354 BC) chose Cyrus as the subject of
his novel, the Kyropaideia, and presented him as the ideal ruler and a
paragon of every conceivable moral virtue. Nor does this impression of
the character of Cyrus rest only on Greek literary evidence; Cyrus
received similar favourable treatment in the Jewish tradition as well:
he is the ruler chosen by Yahweh to deliver Israel from the Babylonian
exile and bring about the restoration according to the prophecies of
Deutero-Isaiah, prophecies which are confirmed by the Book of Ezra
where a proclamation of Cyrus is quoted positively ordering the
rebuilding of the temple and reinstitution of its cult. If one doubts the
genuineness of the proclamation, which is given in Hebrew at this
point (Ezra 1.2-4), the decree of Cyrus quoted in Aramaic later (Ezra
6.2-5) which differs in respect of details of rebuilding and so forth
tends, nevertheless, to confirm the tradition that Cyrus certainly
ordered some kind of restoration to be undertaken. The chronological
problems and confusions of the early post-exilic period have made it
difficult to see what exactly was done at Jerusalem before the reign of
Darius 1,2 and there has been no lack of scholars who have doubted the
authenticity of even the Aramaic document attributed to Cyrus.33
Their numbers are, however, balanced by others presenting strong
arguments in favour of the genuineness of the decree on the basis of

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015

84

linguistic analysis.4 In order to provide a historical setting for Cyrus’

definite personal interest in Jerusalem and its cult they have found
support in the famous Cylinder of Cyrus found in 1879 by Rassam at
Babylon and now in the British Museum.5 The text, of course, relates
Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon with the help of the god Marduk, but the
most significant passage of the inscription, which has been taken to
bear out the favourable picture of Cyrus and his Achaemenid
successors as presented in the Old Testament, is a passage (11.30-32) in
which Cyrus refers to the fact that he restored cults and returned
exiled peoples to their homes. This section would provide a setting for
the Biblical tradition and it has been even further argued by some
scholars6 that the specific interest shown by Cyrus in the Jerusalem
cult could be attributable to the fact that, as the Persians practised an
ethical monotheism, the Old Persian rulers would recognise the
Jerusalem cult as one more in line with their own religion.
As a result of the Cyrus Cylinder, the Old Testament traditions and
his virtuous monotheism, Cyrus has been hailed as one of the world’ss
greatest liberators and humanitarians; the eulogies heaped upon him
at the 2500th commemorative celebrations in Iran in 1971 (inaugurated
by the late Shah and held at Shiraz 7) reflect this very clearly: note, for
example, the lavish praise showered upon Cyrus by David Ben-
Guriong or Maurice Leroy of Brussels9 who described the Cyrus
Cylinder as introducing a new and humanitarian tone in a world, at
that time, too often ’ruled by the most implacable cruelt~; Leroy also
provides the interesting information that the regime of the late Shah
styled the document, ’the first declaration of Human Rights.’lo The
impression gained by perusing this and similar effusions in the volume
is that, with the advent of Cyrus, the world moved forward to a new
stage of enlightened and benevolent rule. While some of these
statements may perhaps have been inspired by consideration (not to
say flattery) for the host of
the occasion, they do also reflect a general
and widely held view of Achaemenid imperialism which compares it
favourably with that of the earlier Assyrians; a good expresssion of this
view is that of Arnold Toynbee in the same volume:ll ’roads and
seaways would not have availed to keep the Empire in being if its rulers
had not won the goodwill of a majority of their subjects. They won this
by a policy of political liberality and religious toleration which was
appreciated for its contrast with the destructiveness and oppressiveness
of the Achaemenid Iranian Emperors’ Assyrian predecessors. The
Iranian imperial regime was lighthanded ... ’ One should note that a

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015

 85

central role in this type of characterization of Old Persian imperialism

is played by the Cyrus Cylinder taken in conjunction with the Old
Testament tradition and the question I would like to pose is: How
correct is it to interpret and use the Cyrus Cylinder in this manner,
and what may one really deduce from it about Achaemenid imperial
policy?
The first task, before proceeding any further, must be to take a brief
look at the text itself. It is inscribed on a clay-cylinder and was not
found during regular excavations; its precise find-spot is therefore
unknown.&dquo; Recently, P.-R BergerI3 published a new fragment of the
text in the Yale collection (BIN II, 32),1‘~ which provides the content
(though broken) of the last nine lines of the text (the total number of
lines is 45). The beginning of the cylinder, although very fragmentary
in the first four lines, contains enough to indicate the stylistic pattern
of the text, 15 possible that further fragments may yet be
and it is
found.11 At present might summarise the contents of the text as
one
follows (the numbers refer to the lines):
1-3: fragmentary, but probably containing a reference to Cyrus’
predecessor (Nabonidus) as a person unfit to rule Babylonia.
4-8: A narrative of the wicked deeds of Nabonidus particularly
in relation to Esagila (and perhaps other cult centres), his
blasphemous offerings, his interruption of regular offerings,
his lack of awe for Marduk. In addition he caused the people
to perish by imposing heavy labour-duties.
9-10: Marduk raged as he heard the laments of his people; (cult
centres were abandoned?), their shape (was forgotten?) and
the gods who dwelt therein abandoned them. He (sc. the
wicked ruler = Nabonidus) brought the gods into Babylon.
10-14: Marduk’s anger turns to mercy in the face of his people’ss
suffering, he examines all the countries to find a just and
suitable ruler. He takes hold of Cyrus, king of Anshan (mod.
Fars), calls him to his position and appoints him to rule the
totality. Marduk causes Cyrus to triumph over Gutium and
the Ummanmanda (i.e. Medes) and looks upon Cyrus’ deeds
with pleasure.
15-19: Marduk now orders Cyrus to go to Babylon and
accompanies him and his troops like a friend; he causes him to
enter Babylon without a battle and hands Nabonidus over to
him. All the inhabitants of Babylon are delighted, welcome
Cyrus as king and praise Marduk for their deliverance.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015

86

[The text now continues in the first person.]

20-22: 1, Cyrus’; followed by royal titles and genealogy back to
great-grandfather [each given their titles)-‘eternal seed of
royalty, whose kingship is loved by Marduk and Nabu, who
desired his kingship in order to please their hearts.’
[The text now enumerates Cyrus’ benevolent activities in
Babylon on his arrival-still in the first person.]
22-24: Cyrus’ peaceful and joyful arrival in Babylon and his
daily honouring of Marduk.
24-26: Cyrus guarantees the peace of the country and protects
the welfare of Babylon and its cult centres; he releases them
from their burden (which was not in accordance with the will
of the gods).
26-30: Marduk is pleased and blesses Cyrus, his son, Cambyses,
and all his troops. At Marduk’s command all enthroned kings
of all regions bring tribute and kiss Cyrus’ feet in Babylon.
30-34: All the gods whose dwelling-places have been abandoned
’long ago’ are returned to their places and allowed to settle in
an eternal dwelling (the cult-centres listed in this section are:

(Nineveh~), Assur, Susa, Akkad, Ešnunna, Zamban, Meturnu,

Der as far as Gutium, cult-centres on the other side (lie. east)
of the Tigris). All the people associated with these returned
deities are gathered together and brought back to their (ine.
the restored gods’) dwelling-places. All the gods ofBabylonia
that had been gathered by Nabonidus together in Babylon
were also joyfully returned to their homes at the command of
Marduk.
34-36: A prayer asking that all the restored gods may daily
speak to Marduk and Nabu on behalfofCyrus and Cambyses,
his son.
36-45 [= new Yale fragment]:
36: All lands are at peace.
37-8: (Probably) a reference to increased cult-offerings.
38-43: Improvements and completion of building in Babylon
(walls, quay-wall, elaborate doors).
43-45: Cyrus finds an inscription of Assurbanipal, ’a king
who preceded me’ [the last line has only the final word
preserved but it is probable that it would have referred to the
reverent replacing of the text and perhaps a mention of the
fact that Cyrus placed his own inscription next to it].

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015

 87

This provides some notion of the content of the text; the literary
pattern might be analysed thus:
A (= 1-19):historical preamble and Marduk’s role in it (in the
third person)
B (= 20-22): royal protocol and genealogy (in the first person)
C (= 22-34): Cyrus’ correct behaviour in returning everything to
normal
D (= 34-35): prayer by Cyrus for himself and his son
E (= 36-37): statement that everything in the empire is in order
F (= 38-45): Cyrus’ building works in Babylon.
There are a number of points which should be noted with reference to
the content and style of the text. First, the text is related specifically to
Marduk: it is Marduk, the god of Babylon, who becomes angry with
Nabonidus’ cultic misdeeds in connection to Marduk’s temple and
other Babylonian sanctuaries whose gods were subject to Marduk as
head of the pantheon. Marduk chooses Cyrus, gives him success and
causes Babylonia to accept his rule joyfully; it is Marduk whom Cyrus
honours daily; the gods are returned to their sanctuaries at Marduk’s
command and all the gods are asked to represent Cyrus and Cambyses
to Marduk (and his close associate, occasionally son, Nabu) for their
well-being.
Secondly, the text concerns almost exclusively the well-being of the
city of Babylon and its inhabitants: it is the citizens of Babylon who
perish as a result of the maltreatment of the gods by Nabonidus and
who lament their fate; it is the actual city of Babylon to which Cyrus is
guided and where he receives the acclaim of the people of the country;
it is the cult-centres of Babylon and their welfare that Cyrus protects
and of the inhabitants ofBabylon whom he releases from their burdens
(probably forced labour); it is the walls and so forth of Babylon that
Cyrus rebuilds, repairs or embellishes.
Thirdly, nowhere in the text are there any remarks concerning a
general return or releasing of deportees or exiled communities; the
passage that has frequently been taken to indicate this (with such
important consequences) is in lines 30-32; but in fact what is stated
there is that the ’gods’ (presumably statues) ofspecified places together
with their people are returned to their (sc. the gods’) original dwelling-
places. The places listed are interesting as the majority relate to
locations which are very close to, or even in, Babylonia, and whose
deities in most cases would actually have held a place in the

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015

88

Babylonian pantheon- this must certainly be true of places such as

Nineveh, Akkad, Esnunna, Meturnu, and Der even if it is less clear for
the others. With the re-establishment of these cults in their home-
cities the passage connects the returning of Babylonian deities to their
own cities from Babylon; that is to say, the emphasis in lines 30-34 is
on previous long neglect and the re-establishing of the norm in terms of
cultic correctness.
The fourth point to note is the fact that the physical shape and
literary genre of the Cyrus Cylinder is that of a typical Mesopotamian
building text, a type of royal inscription already about two thousand
years old at the time of Cyrus’ conquest. There is nothing in the text
that links it particularly to Old Persian inscriptions, 17 and, indeed, it is
unlikely that a tradition of royal inscriptions already existed in the
Persian homeland. 18 On the other hand an enormous number of
building-texts are known from the area of Mesopotamian; they often
provide the only important historical information concerning a
reign-a good example of this genre are the Assyrian Royal Annals
which represent a particular Assyrian development of a basically
Sumero-Babylonian genre of building- text. 19 One important fact
concerning such inscriptions is that they were generally placed as
foundation deposits underneath or in the walls of buildings the
construction or restoration of which they served to commemorate. 20
So in such texts the ruler is always represented as acting particularly
piously in relation to the god whose building is being restored and a
number of elements, such as the categories of activities listed and their
stylistic form, become very standardised.
The final point I would draw attention to is the new fragment
describing the finding of an inscription of Assurbanipal, the Assyrian
king (669-c.630 BC); this was probably a foundation-text of similar
type to that represented by the Cyrus Cylinder. A fact that should be
especially noted is that Assurbanipal is called ’a king who preceded me’
and it is fair to assume that the concluding line of the Cyrus Cylinder
referred to the replacing of Assurbanipal’s text where it had been
found and the placing of Cyrus’ inscription next to it.21 This actually
provides a clue to the ultimate purpose of the Cyrus Cylinder it was
composed to commemorate his restoration of Babylon like that of his
predecessor Assurbanipal, recount his accession and pious acts and
demonstrate to subsequent generations his legitimacy as ruler of
Babylon. The main elements used to demonstrate all these facets are
the facts that (a) Cyrus was chosen by Babylon’s god, (b) that he

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015

 89

carried out all the cultically correct activities of a Babylonian ruler,

and (c) that he was part of a long tradition of rulers of Babylonia
including such kings as Assurbanipal of Assyria. What conclusions
might one draw from these elements? I would like to make some
suggestions working through the points in the order in which I have
listed them:
1. The fact that the Cyrus Cylinder is related so exclusively to
Marduk is connected with the place where Cyrus was building (i.e.
Babylon) and the type of building he was engaged on (it must have
included the Marduk sanctuary), which is what one expects in a
foundation deposit of this type. It in no way sheds light on Cyrus’
personal religious convictions. To make this clearer one may point to
another fragmentary cylinder ( almcst certainly attributable to Cyrus)
from Ur22 and relating to the rebuilding of the Moon-temple there:
‘Sin23 Nannar (another name for Sin) [lord?] of heaven and earth, with
his favourable omen delivered into my hands the four quarters of the
world. I returned the gods to their shrines...’ In other words,
whatever the particular patron deity of any sanctuary/city being
repaired or rebuilt by Cyrus, that activity and Cyrus’ rise to power
would be related to that specific god; one may assume that rebuilding
by Cyrus in the Eanna precinct at Uruk (two inscribed brickS,24 but no
cylinder, have been found there) would have been related to Ishtar.
This was correct and standard Babylonian procedure for anyone
claiming to be a legitimate ruler. Quite apart from the fact that there is
no hint whatever during the reign of Cyrus and Cambyses of

Zoroastrianism being practised by or influencing the Persian kings (it

may, indeed, have been entirely unknown until the reign of Darius I25
and even that is debatable26), this adoption of local traditions and
procedure formed a standard part of both Cyrus’ and Cambyses’
conquest policy.
2. The restoring of the rights and privileges of the Babylonians
against which Nabonidus had transgressed by imposing what should
probably be interpreted in this context as forced labour is a further
standard act of Mesopotamian rulers and in fact best attested in the
royal inscriptions of some of the Assyrian kings who dominated
Babylonia. 21 The political concepts involved are not well understood
and Cyrus himself does not refer specifically to any one of them by
their technical term. 28 A number of cities in Mesopotamia but
especially in Babylonia (including Babylon itself), seem to have
enjoyed the so-called kidinnfitu-status which appears to have provided

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015

90

the inhabitants with an actual claim (by virtue of their membership of

a particular community under divine protection and thus related to a

major sanctuary) to freedom from certain taxes and dues, very

probably including such royal demands as forced labour.29 In this
connection it is interesting to note in the Verse Account of Nabonidus3°
that he is stated to have built at Tema in Arabia a city and palace like
that of Babylon. This kind of accusation against a king is found also in
some chronicles relating to early periods of Mesopotamian history3l
where it is interpreted as a cultic sin committed by Sargon and
punished by Marduk (with a general revolt and insomnia). If one
combines this charge against Nabonidus with his extensive rebuilding
of the moon-god’s shrine (t.huLhul) at Harran32 which must have
entailed the supplying of an enormous temple-staff as well as making
adequate material provision for it and the cult, one may suggest that
the inhabitants ofBabylon were seeing their cherished privileges being
eroded as a result of the new building at Tema and the refurbishing of
Harran; Cyrus, by reversing the process through his reestablishment
of the citizen’s rights of Babylon, gained the valuable support of this
and other powerful Babylonian communities-a policy similarly
employed earlier by Sargon, Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal of Assyria-
all of whom had exercised very close political control over Babylonia.
3. What precisely the meaning of the re-establishment of the cultic
communities was must remain somewhat unclear. Given the geographi-
cal range of the centres mentioned one might be tempted to interpret it
as an attempt to repopulate regions that had suffered as the result of
the Neo-Babylonian and Median wars which brought the Assyrian
empire to an end. It is interesting to note that possibly Nineveh, closely
followed by Assur, actually heads the list of restored cults. The next
two lines (33-34), referring to the return of the gods of Babylonian
cities from Babylon to their homes, must be conceptually connected
with Nabonidus’ sinful activities. Both the Cyrus Cylinder and the
Nabonidus Chronicle33 refer to this act of the last Neo-Babylonian
ruler and one is tempted to assume that this may have been in some
way linked to his cultic reforms and the restoration of Harran which,
Tadmor34 argued, was not completed until 543 (i.e. only four years
before Cyrus’ conquest). The nature of these reforms remains
completely unclear in spite of the detailed (though fragmentary)
descriptions of cult and statue in the Verse Account,35 an echo of
which may perhaps be found in the account of the statue of
Nebuchadrezzar in Daniel 3.1 ff. Perhaps some restimulating of the

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015

 91

economy through reestablishment of traditional urban centres focused

on their shrines was, in this case, too, the basis of Cyrus’ policy.
4. I have already emphasised how standardised the composition of
royal building inscriptions and foundation texts (of which the Cyrus
Cylinder is an example) was in Mesopotamia. Already G. Widengren36
pointed out that the titles such as ‘gatherer of the dispersed people’ had
appeared in Hammurabi texts and in some Esarhaddon inscriptions.37
With such a long tradition of genre composition of this type the actual
compilers of a text such as the Cyrus Cylinder would have drawn on a
variety of earlier models and it can be quite instructive to compare the
structure of the Cyrus Cylinder with earlier texts in order to determine
its literary models. This has been interestingly done by J. Harmatta3g
who demonstrated the general lack of similarity between the Cyrus
Cylinder and Neo-Babylonian building inscriptions, except some of
those of Nabonidus. It is clear in turn from studies ofNabonidus’ texts
by W. Moran and H. Tadmor4° that in particular the texts related to
the rebuilding of Harran4I have a similar literary style to a text of
Assurbanipal relating to his own restoration ofE.hul.hul.42 Moreover,
Nabonidus occasionally relates himself in these texts to Assumasirpal
II and Assurbanipal, and calls them his ’fathers,’ in the sense of
predecessors. This is remarkable for the ruler of an empire that came
into existence only as the result of prolonged war against Assyria and it
can only be explained by Nabonidus’ peculiarly close interest in

Harran, a city which had enjoyed a privileged status in the Assyrian

empire and to which the remnants of the Assyrian government had
retired after the fall of Nineveh, Assur and Kalhu (614-612). This takes
us back to the interesting point that the Cyrus Cylinder is in general
terms more like some of the Nabonidus texts which are modelled on
Assyrian prototypes and generally rather unlike the usual Neo-
Babylonian texts. One should, therefore, perhaps search for Assyrian
literary models; and since the Cyrus Cylinder deals so exclusively with
the restoration of the cult of Marduk, the city of Babylon and its
privileges, one might best look for the literary antecedents ofthe Cyrus
Cylinder to an Assyrian ruler who acted in a similar fashion. The most
immediate candidate for this must be Esarhaddon (681-669) who
composed an enormous number of texts (nine of them published)43
describing his reconstruction of Babylon and the reinstatement of
Marduk and his cult after his father, Sennacherib, had destroyed the
city and removed (or destroyed) the cult statue of Marduk in 689.
There are indeed a number of interesting parallels to the Cyrus

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015

92

Cylinder in Esarhaddon’s Babylon texts:44 for example, a historical

preamble vilifying the Babylonian rulers who had rebelled against
Sennacherib thus causing the destruction of Babylon, the call of
Esarhaddon to kingship by Marduk, the returning of cult-statues to
their proper places, the re-establishment of regular cultic activities
and the restoring of the kidinnatu status of the Babylonians. Neverthe-
less, the literary arrangement and wording is not as close to the Cyrus
Cylinder as might at first be thought This raises a further important
point that while Esarhaddon had these innumerable texts ready for
deposition in the foundations of restored buildings, especially the
Marduk temple, at Babylon and while he repeatedly used among his
titles (in non-Babylonian contexts as well) the epithets ’he who rebuilt
Esagila and Babylon and protected their religious arrangements, who
returned the stolen country-gods from Assur to their place ... ,’45
Landsberger has convincingly argued that Babylon was never actually
rebuilt by him at all nor was the cult of Marduk restored.46 Only the
texts were produced in Esarhaddon’s reign, while it was actually
Assurbanipal who did the full work of restoration.
5. This leads us to the final point: As Harmatta has shown, the
closest stylistic parallels to the Cyrus Cylinder are actually those texts
of Assurbanipal which relate to his rebuilding of Babylon and re-
establishment of the Marduk-cult (the stylistic parallels are very close
and the royal titles as well as arrangement of the genealogy the same).
The acknowledgement of Assurbanipal as a worthy and respected
predecessor of Cyrus4g is now attested by the new Yale fragment,
which confirms Harmatta’s earlier conclusion that for the Marduk-
priesthood (and indeed, in my opinion, for the citizens of Babylon)
Assurbanipal was a revered restorer and protector of traditional
privilege and this is the image that Cyrus, too, adopted so successfully.
For this reason the Cyrus Cylinder was composed, using as models
Assurbanipal’s rebuilding texts; Cyrus could thus be presented not as
a foreign and barbarian invader but as a restorer of what was right in
the tradition of an earlier, venerated predecessor.
To sum up the evidence to this point: (a) The Cyrus Cylinder is a
document composed in accordance with traditional Mesopotamian
royal building texts and apart from the incontrovertible fact that the
main protagonist is a Persian no foreign and/or new literary elements
appear it it. (b) It is thus unsurprising that the text relates itself
exclusively to the fortunes of the city of Babylon and its god Marduk
and only by extension to other deities of the Babylonian pantheon and

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015

 93

the country of which Babylon was the capital. (c) The fact that the text
has a limited local application is confirmed by the geographical
horizons outlined above and the possibility that similar (albeit perhaps
not such elaborate) compositions were produced in relation to the
restoration of other sanctuaries. (d) The main significance of the text
lies in the insight it provides into the mechanism used by Cyrus to
legitimise his conquest ofBabylonia by manipulating local traditions-
an exercise in which he probably received the support of a fairly

powerful segment of the urban population in Babylonia, whose

traditional privileges were perhaps being threatened by Nabonidus’
policy. (e) Whether Cyrus ever actually ’restored’ any cults is quite
unclear and to some extent the answer to this question depends on an
evaluation of the effect of Nabonidus’ religious reforms on the
Babylonian cities; it is possible that some kind of restoration of normal
cult-practice, disrupted by the fall of the Assyrian empire, was also
envisaged (the implication of this, especially in the light of the new
Yale fragment and Harmatta’s study of the literary pattern of the text,
would be extremely interesting if it could be more clearly established-
one might even ask whether a related notion was not the motivation
behind Nabonidus’ Harran restoration). But such a restoration does
not appear to have been carried out; the emphasis in the relevant
passages of the cylinder is not on any actual restoration of cults but on
the re-establishment of a normal, i.e. correct, state ofaffairs-a literary
device used to underline the piety of Cyrus as opposed to the
blasphemy of Nabonidus.
Interesting as these observations and suggestions for interpretation
might be, does it help one to understand Cyrus’ policy in connection
with the restoration of the Jerusalem community? Not, of course, in
any precise sense-it is in the very nature of the ’Babylo-centricity’ of
the text that it cannot possibly illuminate the question of the Jewish
return. What has emerged, however, rather tentatively is that Cyrus
followed a policy similar to that of some earlier Assyrian rulers,
whereby cities occupying a key-position in troublesome areas or areas
where there was likely to be international conflict had their privileges
and/or exempt status reinstated and guaranteed by the central
government.4’ The benefits of the policy could turn out to be
ambiguous because, if extended too far, it might result in loss of
manpower and other essential resources to the ruler-a situation
actually described, interestingly enough, with reference to Jerusalem
in Ezra 4.13: ’a walled city will not pay tribute, custom or toll and in

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015

94

the end will damage the revenue of the king.’ In spite of this the policy
had advantages-if only to create an identity of interest and establish
definite centres of loyalty, making the control of nomadic peoples and
other less politically stable elements in the countryside easier. With
such a hypothesis in mind, one could envisage the Old Persian rulers
encouraging the rebuilding ofJerusalem as part of a policy to establish
support near a frontier in a politically sensitive zone (ifone thinks ofits
proximity to Egypt)5° and bordering an area inhabited by the Arab
tribes, a population group that had already presented problems of
political control to imperial structures. 51
This is of course the merest speculation and nothing more specific is
deducible from the Cyrus Cylinder. But while Cyrus appears both in
the Old Testament and in his cylinder from Babylon as a kind of
saviour and model of the benign tolerance of Persian policy generally
the following points should not be neglected:
(a) He and his successors were doing no more than following
Assyrian policy in relation to the Babylonian cities-a policy which
could be reversed when necessary; note the destruction ofBabylon and
possible removal/destruction of the Marduk statue by Xerxes after
revolts in Babylonia in the early part of his reign.52
(b) Cambyses ’the tyrant’ also restored cultic order in the temple of
Neith in Sais53 and yet certainly withdrew incomes and privileges from
other temples in Egypt in order to break the power of the priesthoods.54
(c) While Achaemenid rulers appear to have been anxious to
maintain the privileges of cultic communities as evidenced, for
example, by the letter from Darius to Gadates concerning the workers
in the sacred grove ofApo11o,55 yet the temple at Didyma in Asia Minor
was destroyed on the orders of the same king probably because of the
role it had played in the Ionian revolt (Hdt. 6.20).
(d) The Achaemenids certainly practised the deportation of popula-
tions as part of their policy just as Assyrians and Babylonians had
done; thus, the inhabitants ofBarca in Libya were moved to Bactria by
Darius I (Hdt. 4.204), the Paeonians were moved from Thrace to
Phrygia (Hdt. 5.13-16), and the inhabitants ofMiletus were settled on
the Persian Gulf(Hdt. 6.20). A much later reference in a Babylonian
text dating to Artaxerxes III lists deportees, including women, arriving
in Babylon after the revolt of Sidon.56
The assumption that Persian imperial control was somehow more
tolerable than the Assyrian yoke is based, on the one hand, on the
limited experience of one influential group of a very small community

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015

 95

which happened to benefit by Persian policy and, on the other, on a

piece blatant propaganda sucessfully modelled on similar texts
of
devised to extol a representative and practitioner of the earlier and
much condemned Assyrian imperialism.

NOTES

This is the text of a paper I gave on 19.1.1982 at King’s College, London, in a series of
seminars on Israel in the Persian period. All abbreviations follow the conventions listed
in the Chicago Asyrian Dictionary (=CAD).

1 Hdt. 3.90.
2 Cf. P.R. Ackroyd, Israel under Babylon and Persia (1970), 168ff.
3 E.g., W. Baumgartner, ’Das Aramäische im Buche Daniel,’ ZAW 45 (1927), 81-133;
H.H. Rowley, The Aramaic of the Old Testament (1929), 156.
4 E.g., E.J. Bickerman, ’The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra I,’ JBL 65 (1946), 249ff.; F.
Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (1961), 6.
5 BM 90920; main transliteration and translation with commentary and earlier
literature by F.H. Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden (1911), XI and 2ff.;
for more recent literature cf. R. Borger, Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur I (1967) and II
(1975) sub Weissbach. (The most generally accessible translation is that by A.L.
Oppenheim in J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old
Testament [3rd rev. ed., 1969], 315-6.)
6 E.g., R Ghirshman, Iran (1954),132-3; the relationship of Zoroastrianism to post-
exilic Judaism and the possible influence of the former on the latter is an exceedingly
vexed and much discussed question: cf. M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism, II
(1982), 43ff., for the most recent discussion; for a clear assessment of the history and
vagaries of the problem, cf. R.N. Frye, ’Iran and Israel,’ in Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers
(1967).
7 The proceedings are published in
Acta Iranica, lère série, (1974), ’Homage Universel.’
8 Ibid., ’Cyrus king of Persia.’
9 Ibid., ’Eternal Iran.’
10 Ibid., 24.
11 Ibid., ’The First Iranian Empire.’
12 H. Rassam appears to have picked it up in March 1879 at Omran which is the site of
the Marduk temple at Babylon; more precise details of the findspot are apparently not
available.
13 ’Der Kyroszylinder mit dem Zusatzfragment BIN II, 32 und die akkadischen
Personnenamen im Danielbuch,’ ZA 64 (1975).
14 There is a brief note on the indentification of the Yale fragement by Christopher
Walker in Iran 10 (1972), 158f.
15 P.-R. Berger, loc. cit., 202f.
16 Cf. ibid., 193 (n.6), 204.
17 See the discussion of this by J. Harmatta, ’The Literary Pattern of the Babylonian
Edict of Cyrus,’ Act. Ant. Ac. Sc. Hung. 19 (1971), 220ff. (a French translation of the
article was published in ’Homage ... ,’ 29ff.)
18 This is connected with the problem of whether there was a development of the Old

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015

96

Persian script or a conscious invention ofit by Darius I, a view perhaps supported by the
king’s statement in his Behistun Inscription (cf. R.G. Kent, Old Persian Grammar
[1952], DB §70). One of the arguments for ’invention’ by Darius I is the fact that, so far,
not a single inscription in Old Persian can be undisputedly dated to any of his pre-
decessors. Among the extensive literature on this subject the most important are R.
Borger and W. Hinz in ZDMG 109 (1959) and C. Nylander in Op. Ath. 8 (1968). An
excellent detailed discussion of the various views is contained in M. Dandama’ev,
Persien unter den ersten Achämeniden (German transl. 1976).
19 A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, I (1972), XIXff.; cf. also id., ’Assyria and
Babylonia,’ Or. (NS) 49 (1980), 150ff.
20 R.S. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia (1968), 108ff. It is probable,
as Ellis argues, that ’file’ copies of these texts were kept.

21 One of the most striking examples of a king’s finding the foundation inscription ofa
predecessor and replacing it with an account of his own building activity is
Nabopolassar’s (626-605) replacing of Nabu-apla-iddina’s (c. 870) text recording his
restoration of the Šamaš-temple in Sippar (cf. L.W. King, Babylonian Boundary Stones
and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum (1912), 120ff., pl. xcviii-cii).
22 C.J. Gadd, L. Legrain and S. Smith, Royal Inscriptions (UET I, 1928), no. 307.
23 The Akkadian name for the moongod.
24 One was found by N.K. Loftus in 1850 and is now in the British Museum; cf.
Weissbach, Keilinschriften, XI and 8-9, no. Ib; the other was found by the German
excavators at Uruk/Warka in the 1929-30 season and is published in UVB 1, no. 31.
25 See, e.g., I. Gershevitch, The Avestan Hymn to Mithra (1959).
26 The problem of the dating and historicity of Zoroaster and the religion of the
Achaemenids is immense; cf. generally M. Boyce, op. cit. (above, n. 6); M. Danama’ev,
op. cit. (above, n. 18) and R.N. Frye, The Heritage of Persia (1962), 28ff.
ARAB II (1927), §182; Esarhaddon: R. Borger, Die
27 E.g., Sargon II: D. Luckenbill,
Inschriften Asarhaddons König von Assyrien (1956), Bab. Texte, ep. 37; Assurbanipal:
M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige (1916), 2, 226, 227.
28 See CAD A/2 sub andurāru; CAD K sub kidinnūtu; CAD Z, section 3 sub zakûtu.
29 W.F. Leeman, ’Kidinnu, un symbole de droit divin babylonien,’ in Symbolae van
Oven, 36ff.; I.M. Diakonov, ’A Babylonian political pamphlet from about 700 BC,’ in
Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger (1965), 343ff.
30 A Persian political propaganda composition in poetic form, published by S. Smith,
Babylonian Historical Texts (1924), 27ff.; another translation in J.B. Pritchard, op. cit.
(above, n. 5), 312ff.
31 Cf. A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (= ) (1975), no. 19
ABC
(Weidner Chronicle), 11.51-52b and no. 20 (Chronicle of Early Kings), 11.18-21.
32 Extensive inscriptional evidence for this is contained in the Sippar Cylinder, the
Istanbul Stele, the Harran Inscriptions and the Verse Account; for a discussion with
bibliography of these texts and their dating, cf. H. Tadmor, ’The Inscriptions of
Nabuna’id: Historical Arrangement,’ in Festschrift ... Landsberger, 356ff.
33 Cf. ABC, no. 7 iii 11.9-12.
34 Op. cit. (above, n. 32).
35 Pritchard, op. cit. (above, n. 5) 313, v. 5-8.
36 D.J. Wiseman, Peoples of Old Testament Times (1973), 318.
37 See G. Widengren in op. cit. (above, n. 36), n. 19 for some examples.
38 J. Harmatta, op. cit. (above, n. 17).

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015

 97

39 W.L. Moran, ’Notes on the new Nabonidus Inscriptions,’ Or. (NS) 28 (1959).
40 Op. cit. (above, n. 32).
41 Cf. n. 32 above.
42 Streck, op. cit. (above, n.27), 2, 170-4.
43 E.A.W. Budge, By Nile and Tigris (1920) I, 273.
44 Cf. R. Borger, op. cit. (above, n. 27), Babil Texte.
45. Ibid., Mnm. A.
46 B. Landsberger, Brief des Bischofs von Esagila an König Asarhaddon (1965), 18ff.
47 Streck, op. cit. (above, n. 27), 2, 234-239.
48 The same feature that occurs, of course, in some of the Nabonidus inscriptions.
49 A relatively clear example of this status is the so-called ’Assur Charter’ ( ARAB II,
§§133-5) of Sargon II of Assyria according to which he reinstated the ancient privileges
of the city of Assur, presumably in return for the support by the inhabitants of his
seizure of the throne and/or to ensure their loyalty through gratitude. Note, however,
the problem involved in precisely defining the nature of the exemptions bestowed, as
pointed out by G. van Driel, ’Land and People in Assyria,’ Bi. Or. 27 (1970), 168ff. For a
recent new edition of the Assur Charter, cf. H.W.F. Saggs, ’Historical Texts and
fragments of Sargon II of Assyria: (1) The "Aššur Charter",’ Iraq 37 (1975) 44ff.
50 The area of Palestine was one of the most fought over between Egypt and Meso-
potamian powers beginning in at least the eighth century and continuing with only
relatively short periods of inactivity throughout the Hellenistic period. The history of
Egypt is poorly known after the New Kingdom until Ptolemaic rule; however, Biblical
references, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions and Babylonian chronicles together provide
information on repeated Egyptian involvements in fomenting or supporting revolts in
the region. The vast literature on Assyrian involvement and imperial policy in the area
is usefully surveyed by B. Otzen, ’Israel under the Assyrians,’ in M.T. Larsen (ed.),
Power and Propaganda (1979), 251ff. Documentation for the Neo-Babylonian period is
less full but a useful guide is provided by D.J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings
(1961).
51 See, e.g., Tiglath-pileser III who made Idibi’ilu, an Arab chief, ’gatekeeper of the
door of the south’ (cf. H. Tadmor, ’Philistia under Assyrian rule,’ BA 29 [1966]); Sargon
II who settled Assyrian deportees in the area in 716 and made various Arab sheikhs
responsible for maintaining frontier control (cf. H. Tadmor, ’The Campaigns of Sargon
JCS 12 [1958]); as well, of course, as Hdt. 3.4 for the story of Cambyses’
II of Assyria,’
reliance on Arab information and guidance for crossing the desert to Egypt and
Herodotus’ remarks generally on the fact that the Persians never integrated the Arabs
into their empire but maintained formal friendly relations with them.
52 Hdt.1.183; Arrian, Anab. III,16; VII,17; the changed status ofBabylon in relation
to the Achaemenids after this is reflected in the fact that no Persian king after Xerxes’
fourth regnal year bears the title ’king of Babylon.’
53 Cf. the naophorous statue of Udjahorresne in the Vatican; translation of text in
M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, II (1980), 38 section Ib.
54 W. Spiegelberg, Die sogenannte demotische Chronik (1914), 32f.
55 Text of letter published, translated and commented upon in W. Brandenstein and
M. Mayrhofer, Handbuch des Altpersischen (1964), 91f.
56 ABC, no. 9.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 14, 2015