Truth and Lies at Behistun: Darius and Ahura-Mazda
Immediately after his victories of 522-521, Darius decided to engrave the story of his rise and his military exploits o n rock. He chose for this the cliff at Behistun, which dominates the plain of Kermanshah, a short distance from the highway that leads from Babylon to Ecbatana (Diodorus XVII.110.5) on a plateau with an elevation of more than 1,000 meters. The cliff must have been a holy place for a long time, doubtless reused by the Persians to their advantage, since the ancient authors stress that the Persians worshiped their gods in open air in high places. It is probably for this reason that the mountain was named Bagistana, Iranian Bagastana, the 'abode of the gods'. According to Ctesias (cited by Diodorus II.13.2-o-), the mountain was dedicated to Zeus, by which he surely meant Ahura-Mazda and/or other Persian and Iranian gods. Ctesias, who describes the journey of Semiramis from Babylon to Ecbatana, adds the following details:
And when she had arrived at the mountain known as Bagistanus, she encamped near it and laid out a park, which had a circumference of twelve stades [2 km] and, being situated in the plain, contained a great spring by means of which her plantings could be irrigated. The Bagistanus mountain is sacred to Zeus and on the side facing the park has sheer cliffs which rise to a height of seventeen stades [3000 in]. The lowest part of these she smoothed off and engraved thereon a likeness of herself with a hundred spearmen at her side. And she also put this inscription on the cliff in Syrian letters...."
It is clear that Darius lurks behind this description of Semiramis; Diodorus alludes very clearly (though imaginatively) to the relief and inscription of Behistun. When Alexander made a special trip to visit the place, he and his companions were struck by the fruitfulness of the plain located at the foot of the cliff: "A magnificent country covered with fruit trees or rich in everything which makes for good living," comments Diodorus (XVII. 110,5-0-). Inasmuch as Cyrus had already created a paradise at Pasargadae, we are strongly inclined to think that the paradise at Behistun was a creation or a reconstruction by Darius himself, who wanted to give the monument erected to his glory the surroundings he thought it merited. We know in any case that early in 521 Darius was on the plain and that there he met up with the army of Hydarnes (DB §25). It seems quite likely that it was in the course of his long stay in Media (January-June 521) that Darius and his advisers worked out the plans for a monument where he might exalt the total triumph, both dynastic and military, that was at hand. Inscriptions and relief were meant to represent the act of founding a new kingdom, a reborn empire. To this end, whatever models might have inspired the king and his advisers, it is clear that to their way of thinking it was not to be dependent on any existing monument; rather, it was to be an entirely new creation in which the borrowings were melted down and recast into a new work of art in service of a power for which no comparable precedent could be named. The monument takes on even greater importance as the sole narrative composition in all of Achaemenid art and as the first act ordered by Darius after his victory.
Carved on a smooth surface 3 x 5.5 meters, the relief pictures Darius, facing right, dressed in a Persian robe, with a crenellated diadem on his head. In his left hand he holds a bow, which rests on his left foot. His right hand is raised to the level of his face, palm outward. Above his head, in a rectangular panel, is inscribed his titulature: "I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King in Persia, king of countries (dahydva), son of Hystaspes, grandson of Arsames, an Achaemenian" (DBct). In front of him, joined by ropes around their necks, hands tied behind their backs, eight liar-kings are depicted.
They are differentiated tied by their clothing and, more clearly, by short inscriptions naming them, repeating the phraseology adopted by Darius in his recapitulation (DB §52): "This is Acina, an Elamite who lied" (DBb-k). From left to right we can spot Acina, Nidintu-Bel, Fravartis, Martiya, Cicantakhma, Vahyazdata, Arkha, and Frada. The inferior status of these persons is expressed not only by their posture but also by their height: 1.17 m, versus 1.72 m for Darius. But one of the liar-kings is in a position far more humiliating, namely Gaumata, who is lying on his back, hands raised in supplication to Darius, who stands over him in all his dignity and places his foot on his chest.
The relief clearly illustrates the inscriptions that are arranged all around it. It is not at all realistic in the full sense. Gaumata is portrayed as if Darius had already won the title of king before he killed him. The presence of all the liar-kings in front of Darius is intended to represent the king as the personal conqueror of each of them. This does not correspond to the reality expressed in the inscriptions: Martiya was executed by the Elamites themselves, Frada by the satrap Vivana, and Arkha by Vidarna/Hydarnes (on the order of the king, to be sure). But, above all, the relief makes no reference to the ways in which the liar-kings were tortured. The primary intent is to represent the king in his capacity as "conqueror," in the form of a message that is simultaneously both metaphorical and realistic
All of these men are condemned as "liars." By "lying," they violated the law of kings as defined by Darius when speaking of the 23 subject countries, which he had just enumerated (§6):
These are the countries which came unto me; by the favor of Ahuramazda they were my subjects (handaka). The y bore tribute (baji) to me; what was said unto them by me either by night or by day, that was done. Saith Darius the King: Within these countries, the man who was loyal, him I rewarded well; (him) who was evil, him I punished well. By the favor of Ahuramazda, these countries showed respect toward my law (data); as was said to them by me , thus was it done. (§§7-8o )
In contrast, all of these false kings "lied to the people" by claiming to be sons of Cyrus or Nabonidus or descendants of Cyaxares. In the concept of power expressed for the first time at Behistun, the 'lie' (drauga) is directly connected with the revolt against established, legitimate power. Thus, "when Cambyses had gone off to Egypt, after that the people became evil. After that, the Lie waxed great in the country, both in Persia and in Media and in the other provinces" (§10). And, further on, in column IV, Darius repeats: "These are the provinces which became rebellious. The Lie made them rebellious, so that these (men) deceived the people" (§54o), and he warns: "Thou who shalt be king hereafter, .. . the man who shall be a Lie-follower, him do thou punish well" (§55-0-.cf.§64). Darius presents himself as a man who does not lie and who has never lied, and he guarantees it by invoking Ahura-Mazda (§§56-58). The lie (drauga) is implicitly opposed to the truth (arta), and both terms belong equally to the political and the religious domain—if indeed Darius and his people could ever have distinguished and separated the political from the religious.
There is a figure, placed above the scene, who plays a primordial role. This bearded individual emerges from a winged disk, is clothed in the Persian style, and wears a tall cylindrical headdress, itself topped with a six-pointed star. He holds a ring in his left hand, apparently offering it to Darius. It is currently understood to be a representation of Ahura-Mazda, the god who guarantees the kingdom to Darius by his power and protection and to whom he owes all his victories—this is what Darius incessantly affirms. He is the only individual with whom Darius establishes a dialogue. It is in fact toward the god that Darius raises his hand, as if to receive the ring Ahura-Mazda holds in his left hand. This is a motif well known earlier in Near Eastern royal art: what we see at Behistun is an investiture scene. Darius rightly could exclaim: "It is thanks to Ahura-Mazda that I am king. .. . It is Ahura-Mazda who has granted me the kingdom [or: conferred power on me]." The illustration thus strongly expresses the fact that, without being a god himself, the king is invested with royal power by the god and is Ahura-Mazda's proxy on earth, as the result of a genuine pact they had concluded. Ahura-Mazda is literally the king's god. This is a reality that Darius himself expresses perfectly in his inscription. Ahura-Mazda's name occurs 63 times, but the "other gods that exist" are mentioned only once, in a subordinate form: "This which I did, in one and the same year by the favor of Ahuramazda I did; Ahuramazda bore me aid, and the other gods who are" (§62-0-). It is to Ahura-Mazda that royal prayers are always raised in Darius's inscriptions. Though we fully reject the temptation to speak of evolution toward monotheism, we must recognize that in the official religion established by Darius, Ahura-Mazda had a supreme position. He is designated as the sovereign deity of the pantheon, and the other deities are invoked only nominally. This privileged alliance conferred absolute power on the king, and no one could question that power, except at the risk of divine displeasure. This is in fact the reason that the lie (drauga) and the truth (arta) represent political and religious concepts simultaneously. The king rules over the lands and peoples (dahyava) thanks to the protection of Ahura-Mazda, and he must make truth reign and hunt down the lie among them in the name of the same precepts that govern relations between men and gods.
But what is most novel about this monument is quite simply the fact that the Persian language (arya) was being written for the first time. Despite the continuing debate over the precise meaning of §70 and the actual act of transcribing a text already inscribed in Elamite, the inclination today is to recognize that Persian writing constituted a major innovation by Darius (who did not hesitate to use it at Pasargadae in order to tap into the prestige of Cyrus to his own advantage). Until this event, the king's deeds were transmitted in Persian exclusively through recitation and song and through the intermediary of masters of memory. To be sure, oral transmission remained a constant throughout the long history of the Persian people, as shown by the notable role of the magi in general. But this observation lends still more import to the first indubitable attestation of royal writing, inscribed in the presence of the king (and written on clay and parchment), a model that was followed by all of Darius's successors. By this very action the Great King could claim that he himself was first of all a master of truth. He intended to control the tradition he wished to be transmitted to future generations: the royal word, inscribed for all posterity on the rock, was placed under the aegis of Ahura-Mazda as protection against all those who might want to destroy it (DB §§65-67). This is how the king transmitted not only the memory of his unique exploits but also his genealogy. In this way he took appropriate measures to have his word disseminated throughout the lands of his realm (DB §70), after having it authenticated—the text had previously been read to him. At the same time, the memory of his royalty was fixed. No one, not even his successors (DB §64), would have the right to question it: on the cliff at Behistun, the history of historians is forestalled for all time.
- Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2002. pp. 125-127
