CYRUS i. The Name

Cyrus (Latin form of Gr. Kûros, later also Kóros < OPers. Kuruš [spelled k^u-u-r^u-u-š], reflected in Elam. Ku-raš, Bab. Ku(r)-raš/-ra-áš, Aram. kwrš, Heb. Kōreš, and Eg. kwrš; see Iranisches Personennamenbuch I/2, pp. 23-24 no. 39; cf. NPers. Kūreš) is a Persian name, most notably of the founder of the Achaemenid empire, Cyrus the Great (see iii, below) and of the second son of Darius II (see vi, below). The etymology of the name, which may be connected with OInd. Kúru-, mentioned in the Indian national epic, remains in dispute. Although sometimes given as “young, child, adolescent,” it is more likely to be understood as “humiliator of the enemy in verbal contest” (proposed by Karl Hoffmann). The interpretation of the name by classical authors as identical with the Persian word for “sun” (Ctesias, in Jacoby, Fragmente III/C, p. 470 fr. 15.51; Plutarch, Artoxerxes 1.3) is certainly incorrect.

CYRUS ii. Cyrus I

The evidence on the early Achaemenid king Cyrus I is as follows. Herodotus (1.111) attested that Cyrus the Great (see iii, below) was the son of Cambyses and grandson of Cyrus. Cyrus the Great himself claimed that he was “the son of Cambyses, the great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, the great king, king of Anshan, great-grandson of Teispes, the great king, king of Anshan” (see iv, below; l 20; Berger, p. 197). From Darius (DB I 3-6; Kent, Old Persian, pp. 116-17, rectifying Herodotus, 7.11) it is known that this Teispes was an Achaemenid king, son of Achaemenes and the father of two later kings: Cyrus I and Ariaramnes , great-grandfather of Darius I. A recent demonstration from the cuneiform texts that Anshan is to be identified with at least a part of Persis has led some scholars to reject the traditional view of the ancestry of Darius I as given here and to assert that Cyrus I could not have been the grandfather of Cyrus the Great or a brother of Ariaramnes and that the latter could not have been a king in Persis (de Miroschedji, pp. 265-304, with references; see ariyāramna), but none of these claims accords with the sources and what is known of the longevity of the Achaemenids. As Cyrus the Great was born in 600 b.c.e., lived seventy years (Dinon, Jacoby, Fragmente II p. 90 fr. 8), and died in 530 b.c.e., the dates of his forebears may be tentatively fixed (assuming thirty years to a generation) as follows: Cambyses I, born ca. 630 b.c.e.; Cyrus I, born ca. 660 b.c.e.; Teispes, born ca. 690 b.c.e.; Achaemenes, born ca. 720 b.c.e.

There is no need to assume that Ariaramnes was a contemporary of Cyrus I; Teispes could have begotten him at age fifty years (in 640 b.c.e.), which would place the births of Arsames in 610 b.c.e., of Hystaspes in 580 b.c.e., and of Darius in 550 b.c.e. This last date is indeed confirmed by the report that when Cyrus the Great marched against the Massagetae in 530 b.c.e. Darius was “nearly twenty” (Herodotus 1.209). Further support for this conclusion can be found in a cuneiform text, the prism of Assurbanipal, on which two versions of his invasion and conquest of Elam in 639 b.c.e. are recorded. The Assyrian king claimed that many princes “of distant lands” had heard of his victories and had decided to acknowledge his overlordship; one of them was “Cyrus, King of (the land) of Parsumash,” who had sent his son Arukku to Nineveh with tribute (Weidner, p. 4; Thompson, pp. 86, 95). As Anshan was the Elamite province located in the plain of Bayżā in Fārs, it appears that Cyrus I was a Persian prince ruling over some localities that included Anshan (D’yakonov, p. 349). His dates may thus be fixed between 650 and 610 b.c.e. Finally, a few seal impressions from the Persepolis Fortification tablets include representations of a hunting scene and a combat scene accompanied by an Elamite inscription: “Cyrus the Anshanite, son of Teispes” (Hallock, 1977, p. 127; Hinz, pp. 53-54; de Miroschedji, pp. 285-87). There seems no reason to doubt that they are relics of Cyrus I, king of Anshan (the omission of the royal title has parallels in Achaemenid royal inscriptions; e.g., Kent, Old Persian, p. 154: “Says Darius [II] the King: This palace Artaxerxes, who was my father, previously built”; p. 157: “I am Darius” on a seal from Susa; cf. the mention of Cyrus the Great and his son in DB I 28).

CYRUS iii. Cyrus II The Great

Cyrus II the Great (also known to the Greeks as Cyrus the Elder; b. ca. 600 B.C.E., d. 530 B.C.E.) was the founder of the Achaemenid empire.

Birth and early life. That Cyrus’s ancestors had ruled the Persian tribes for several generations is clear from both his inscriptions and contemporary historical reports. In his inscriptions from Pasargadae Cyrus declared “I am Kūruš the king, an Achaemenid,” “Kūruš, the great king, an Achaemenid,” or “Kūruš”, the great king, son of Kambūjiya the king, an Achaemenid” (Kent, Old Persian, p. 116; cf. Nylander). An inscription from the Babylonian city of Ur begins “Kuraš, king of all the world, king of the land of Anshan, son of Kambuziya, king of the land of Anshan” (Gadd et al., no. 194 ll. 1-3), and on the Cyrus cylinder (see iv, below) from Babylon Cyrus called himself “son of Cambyses, the great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, the great king, king of Anshaṇ … of a family (that) always (exercised) kingship” (Bergen pp. 197-98, ll. 20-22).

Herodotus (7.11) also knew that Cyrus was of royal descent. According to him (1.107-8) and to Xenophon (Cyropaedia 1.2.1), both of whom drew on Persian traditions, the king was born of the union between the Persian Cambyses I and Mandane, a daughter of the powerful Median king Astyages, whose capital was at Ecbatana. Most modern scholars regard this version as reliable (e.g., Cameron, p. 224; but cf. Pauly-Wissowa, Suppl. XII, col. 1025). Cicero (De Divinatione 1.23.46), following the Greek historian Dinon, reported that Cyrus became king when he was forty years old and then ruled for thirty years. As Cyrus died in 530 b.c.e., he must have been born around 600 b.c.e. and must have succeeded his father as king of Persia in 559 b.c.e. (cf. Stronach, p. 286).

A number of contradictory stories have been transmitted about Cyrus’ birth and early years. Xenophon (Cyropaedia 1.2.1; cf. 1.4.25) reported one that was in circulation among the Persians themselves. The stories related by Dinon, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, and Justin can all be traced back to reports by Herodotus andCtesias in the 5th-4th centuries b.c.e. (D’yakonov, pp. 417-24). Herodotus (1.95) knew four stories about Cyrus’ origin, though he related only the one he considered most reliable; it, too, contains elements of folklore. In this version Astyages is said to have had a dream that was interpreted by the Magians at his court as a prediction that his grandson Cyrus would take his place as king. Astyages therefore summoned his pregnant daughter Mandane from Persia and, after Cyrus was born, ordered that he be killed. The task was given to the Mede Harpagus, who turned the infant over to Mithradates, one of Astyages’ shepherds. Mithradates and his wife decided, however, to raise Cyrus in place of their own stillborn son. When the boy was ten years old Astyages discovered the truth, recognized him as his grandson, and sent him back to his parents in Persia (Herodotus, 1.107-21). Cyrus married Cassandane, herself an Achaemenid princess, and they had two sons, Cambyses II and Bardiya, as well as three daughters, of whom the names of two, Atossa and Artystone, are known (Herodotus, 2.1, 3.2, 3.88.2). Roxane seems to have been a third (König, p. 7 par. 12).

In Ctesias’ version, which was transmitted with many added details by Nicolaus Damascenus, Cyrus was neither the grandson of Astyages nor even an Achaemenid but rather a man from the nomad tribe of Mardi. His father, Atradates, was forced by poverty to become a bandit, and his mother, Argoste, herded goats. When she became pregnant with Cyrus she saw in a dream that her son would be master of Asia. As a young man Cyrus became a servant at the court of Astyages and then royal cupbearer. The king sent him to suppress a revolt by the Cadusians (q.v.), but instead Cyrus himself rebelled and seized the Median throne (Jacoby, Fragmente IIA, pp. 361-64 no. 66). This story contradicts not only that of Herodotus but also the cuneiform inscriptions; it is clearly derived from a Median tradition devised to discredit Cyrus (Schubert, p. 58). It was a precursor of the versions that appeared in Greek romantic literature and is reliable in only a few isolated details (Bauer, pp. 32-35).

Victory over Media. Cyrus succeeded his father as king of the Persian tribes and established his residence at Pasargadae, the center of the Pasargadae tribe, to which the Achaemenid clan belonged. Like his father, he owed allegiance to Astyages, but in 553 b.c.e. he rebelled. According to Herodotus (1.123-28), Astyages’ kinsman Harpagus organized a secret conspiracy among the Median nobility and urged the revolt upon Cyrus. When Astyages heard that Cyrus was preparing for war, he sent a courier to summon him to court. Cyrus’ refusal to obey led to two major battles. In the first Harpagus, in command of the Median army, deserted to Cyrus, together with most of his troops. Astyages then took the field himself, but the Medes were defeated, and he was captured.

Nicolaus Damascenus also transmitted a lengthy account of these events, drawn primarily from Ctesias’ text. In his version a certain groom called Oibaras is supposed to have urged Cyrus to lead the Persians in revolt. The first battle lasted two days and resulted in a complete victory for Astyages. The second, which took place near Pasargadae, also lasted two days, but this time Cyrus’ army routed the Medes and captured their camp. Astyages fled to Ecbatana but surrendered soon afterward. Cyrus then ordered the transfer of the treasury from the palace at Ecbatana to Pasargadae (Jacoby, Fragmente IIA, pp. 365-70 no. 66). According to Ctesias, Cyrus executed Spitamas, husband of Astyages’ daughter Amytis, then married her himself, thus becoming the legitimate heir to the Median throne (König, p. 2 no. 2; cf. Justin, 6.16; Strabo, 15.3.8).

Two versions of the circumstances surrounding Cyrus’ revolt were transmitted by Xenophon. In the Cyropaedia (8.5.17-19) he reported that the reigning Median king was not Astyages but his son Cyaxares, whose daughter Cyrus married, thus receiving the Median kingdom as a dowry (cf. Hirsch, pp. 81-82). A decade earlier, however, he had noted in Anabasis (3.4.11) that the Persians had conquered Ecbatana by force. It is probable that Cyrus had then adopted the titles of the Median rulers, for example, “great king, king of kings, king of the lands,” and patterned his court after that of the Medes.

The information from Babylonian sources supports in general outline Herodotus’ version of these events. According to the Sippar cylinder of the third regnal year (553 b.c.e.) of Nabonidus, the god Marduk caused “Kuraš, king of the country Anšan” to rise against the Medes; “with a small army he defeated decisively the large troops of the Ummanmanda [the Medes]. He captured Ištumegu [Astyages], king of Ummanmanda and brought him in chains to his land” (Langdon, p. 220, col. 1 ll. 26-32). In the Babylonian chronicle it is recorded that Astyages advanced against Cyrus, “King of Anšan, for conquesṭ … . The troops of Ištumegu revolted against him and he was taken prisoner. They [delivered him] to Kuraš [ … ]. Kuraš (advanced) against the capital Agamtanu [Ecbatana].” Then Kuraš transferred booty from Ecbatana to Anšan (Grayson, 1975a, p. 106, col. 2 ll. 1-4).

The date of this revolt is somewhat problematic. As in the next line in the chronicle events of Nabonidus’ seventh year are related, Cyrus’ victory over Astyages may thus have occurred in Nabonidus’ sixth year, 550 B.C.E. Some scholars have argued, however, that, as the numbers for the first six years of Nabonidus’ reign have been broken off the tablet, it is not possible to determine the exact date; Robert Drews, for instance, dates Astyages’ defeat in the general six-year period 554-50 B.C.E., with a preference for 554-53 B.C.E., on the basis of the Sippar cylinder (p. 2-4). There may have been a long series of hostilities before Cyrus’ final victory, which would explain the apparent disparity in the dates derived from the two Babylonian documents.

Cyrus’ later conquests. The Persians probably occupied Parthia and Hyrcania and possibly Armenia, all former components of the Median kingdom, in 549-48 B.C.E. According to Xenophon (Cyropaedia 1.1.4), the Hyrcanians voluntarily accepted Cyrus’ sovereignty. As for Elam, Walther Hinz (Pauly-Wissowa, Suppl. XII, col. 1026) and Ran Zadok (pp. 61-62) have argued that it was taken by the Persians only after the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E. Nevertheless, according to one Babylonian divination text, “a king of Elam will attack and dislodge from the throne” the Babylonian king who “established the dynasty of Harran” (Grayson, 1975b, p. 32, col. 2 ll. 17-21). This king of Elam has been identified as Cyrus II and the Babylonian king as Nabonidus (Grayson, 1975b, pp. 24-25). Elam must thus have been conquered before Cyrus’ attack on Babylonia (cf. de Miroschedji, p. 305 n. 161).

The main source of information on the Persian conquest of Lydia is the work of Herodotus (1.69-91), according to which Lydian troops originally invaded Cappadocia, which had belonged to the Medes. After a fierce battle by the river Halys, Croesus, the Lydian king, withdrew to his capital at Sardis, which was then besieged and taken by the Persians. The fall of Sardis appears to have taken place between October and December, but Herodotus did not give the exact year. According to the fragmentary text of the Babylonian chronicle, in the month Nisan (March-April) of the ninth year of Nabonidus (547 B.C.E.) Cyrus, king of Persia, crossed the Tigris below Arbela. In the month Iyyar (April-May) he marched to Lydia. “He defeated its king, took its possessions, (and) stationed his garrison” (Grayson, 1975a, p. 107, col. 2 ll. 15-17). If the restoration of “Lydia” is correct, Cyrus’ campaign there took place in 547 B.C.E., but Jack Cargill, for one, believes that the chronicle does not refer to Lydia at all (pp. 109-10, with previous literature).

Cyrus entrusted the conquest of Ionian cities on the Aegean coast and the rest of Asia Minor to his generals, including Harpagus, and returned to Ecbatana in order to prepare for further campaigns. It appears from Herodotus’ report (1.177-78) that, while Harpagus ravaged the cities of western Asia, Cyrus turned his attention to the east and north. In the Bīsotūn inscription (see bīsotūn iii) Darius mentioned among the countries of the Persian empire Drangiana, Areia, Choresmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandhara, Sattagydia, and Arachosia (DB I 16-17; Kent, Old Persian, p. 117). As Darius’ predecessor, Cambyses II, had fought no wars in the east, Persian rule must already have been extended to Central Asia and the northwestern limits of India in the time of Cyrus. The fortified settlement of Cyreschata (“city of Cyrus”), or Cyropolis, in Sogdiana is further evidence of Cyrus’ activity in the region (for a different view, see cyropolis). Pliny (Naturalis Historia 6.92) reported that Cyrus destroyed Capisa, in northern Afghanistan, and Arrian mentioned both his attack “on the land of the Indians” (apparently Gandhara) and his subjugation of the people of the Ariaspai along the southern borders of Drangiana (Anabasis 6.24.3, 3.27.4; cf. Diodorus Siculus, 17.81.1). According to both Herodotus (1.177-78) and Berossus (Burstein, p. 28), this conquest of the Central Asian territories took place after the defeat of Lydia in 547 B.C.E. but before the Persian advance on “Assyria” (i.e., Babylonia) in 539 B.C.E.

In the spring of the latter year the Persian army entered the valley of the Diyala (Dīāla) river, and at the beginning of the following October it defeated the Babylonians at the city of Opis and laid siege to Sippar, which fell on 10 October. Two days later the Persians took Babylon, which surrendered without a struggle, according to the Babylonian chronicle. On 29 October Cyrus entered the city in triumph (Grayson, 1975a, pp. 109-10, col. 3 ll. 12-16). In other sources, however, the account of the fall of Babylon is completely different. Berossus described Cyrus’s attitude toward Babylon as hostile (Burstein, p. 28), and both Herodotus (1.188-91) and Xenophon (Cyropaedia 7.5.7-32.58) reported that the Babylonians put up a determined resistance and lost their capital only after bitter fighting. In later Jewish tradition the story is somewhat garbled: After its conquest Babylon was ruled first by the “Mede” Darius, son of Xerxes, and then by the Persian Cyrus (Daniel 5:30-31, 6:28).

It was probably about the same time that the Persians extended their control as far as the Arabian peninsula. On Cyrus’s cylinder there is a reference among his tributaries to “kings in tents,” apparently the chiefs of Arabian tribes, whereas the “kings in palaces” were Phoenician and Syrian rulers. Sidney Smith (pp. 82, 102) and P. R. Dougherty (pp. 161-66) have assumed that the Persians took Arabia and Syria from Nabonidus, attacking them from Asia Minor in about 540 b.c.e., before marching against Babylonia, but the only support for this opinion is a reference in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (7.4.16) to Cyrus’ defeat of the Phrygians, Cappadocians, and Arabians before his conquest of Babylon. On the other hand, most scholars believe that Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine submitted to the Persians in 539 B.C.E., immediately after the fall of Babylon, though Kurt Galling has suggested a date as late as 526 B.C.E., just before Cambyses II’s campaign against Egypt. This hypothesis is based partly on Babylonian texts from Neirab in Syria, among which there are no documents dated to the period 540-28 B.C.E.; Galling has therefore concluded that relations between Babylonia and the lands west of the Euphrates were broken off in 539 B.C.E. and reestablished only ten years later (pp. 39-41). On the other hand, Israel Epḥʿal has shown that the cuneiform documents from Neirab were not written there but were brought there by people from Babylonia (pp. 84-87). Furthermore, Cyrus declared on his cylinder that “all the kings … from the Upper to the Lower Sea,” that is, from the Phoenician coast to the head of the Persian Gulf, brought tribute to him in Babylon (Berger, p. 198 l. 29). Finally, in 535 b.c.e. Cyrus created a united province consisting of Babylonia and Across-the-River, that is, the lands west of the Euphrates. By 535 at the latest, then, all the lands up to the borders of Egypt had recognized the authority of Cyrus.

Cyrus’s religious policies. After the conquest of Mesopotamia Cyrus treated his kingship as a union with the Babylonians, adopting the official title “king of Babylon, king of the lands.” He also attempted to restore the normal economic life of the country. He preserved traditional methods of administration throughout his domains and in particular is said to have made almost no alteration in the local political structures of the Phoenicians, the Greek cities in Asia Minor, and some other nations as well. According to the Cyrus cylinder, he permitted foreigners who had been forcibly settled in Babylonia to return to their own lands, including the Jews of the Babylonian captivity, who were also permitted to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. Two versions of his edict on the latter point have been preserved in the Book of Ezra, one in Hebrew, the other in Aramaic (Bickerman, pp. 72-108).

Cyrus himself may have been a worshiper of Ahura Mazdā, but almost nothing is known about his personal beliefs. According to Xenophon (Cyropaedia 4.5.14), in religious matters Cyrus followed the instruction of the Magians at his court. Although many scholars do not believe that Cyrus was a Zoroastrian (e.g., Widengren, pp. 142-45), Mary Boyce (1988, p. 30) has argued strongly both that he was a Zoroastrian himself and that he thus followed in the footsteps of his Persian forebears back to the 7th century b.c.e., when they were still petty kings of Anshan. She has pointed out that the fire altars and tombs at Pasargadae bespeak Zoroastrian practice and has cited Greek texts as evidence that “Zoroastrian magi” held positions of authority at Cyrus’ court (Zoroastrianism II, pp. 56-66).

The emperor nevertheless appears to have initiated a general policy of permitting religious freedom throughout his domains. According to Babylonian texts, he relaxed the harsh rule of Nabonidus. For example, in the so-called “Verse Account of Nabonidus” it is said that Cyrus liberated those who had been oppressed and restored the statues of the Babylonian gods to their sanctuaries (Landsberger and Bauer, pp. 88-94). According to the Babylonian chronicle, Cyrus brought peace to the people of Babylon and kept the army from the temples (Grayson, 1975a, p. 110, col. 3 ll. 16-20). In one inscription from the temple of Eanna in Uruk, the emperor called himself “caretaker of the temples of Esagila and Ezida,” respectively the sanctuaries of Marduk in Babylon and Nabû in Borsippa (Schott, p. 63 no. 31; Walker, p. 94 no. 115). In another inscription, from Ur, he boasted that “the great gods have delivered all the lands into my hands … . I restored a peaceful habitation to the land” (Gadd et al., no. 194; Walker, p. 94 no. 116). On the Cyrus cylinder he claimed that the god Marduk had ordered him to become ruler of the whole world and to treat the Babylonians with justice; Marduk, satisfied with Cyrus’s “good deeds and his honest mind, ordered him to advance against his city Babyloṇ … and went with him as a frienḍ … . He made him enter his city Babylon without any battle, without inflicting any damage to the city … . All the people of Babyloṇ … greeted him with joy … with his help they had returned from death to life.” Finally, according to the same text, the idols that Nabonidus had brought to Babylon from various other Babylonian cities were reinstalled in their former sanctuaries, as were the statues of alien gods from Susa and the cities of northern Mesopotamia. The ruined temples of Babylonia, Elam, and what had been Assyria were reconstructed. On one fragment of the cylinder Cyrus’ institution of new offerings in the temple of Marduk and the reconstruction of the fortifications at Babylon are mentioned (Berger, pp. 196-201). It must be emphasized, however, that in some Babylonian literary texts Cyrus was condemned and Nabonidus glorified (von Soden, pp. 62-68). In one Babylonian prophetic text in particular a “bad” reign that is mentioned was probably that of Cyrus (Grayson, 19756, p. 25, col. 2, ll. 22-24).

Nevertheless, the generally tolerant character of Cyrus’ reign is borne out by Jewish sources. Chapters 40-55 of the Book of Isaiah were probably written by a witness to the fall of Babylon, and some extended passages are similar in both spirit and context to contemporary Babylonian texts praising Cyrus and condemning Nabonidus. Cyrus is mentioned twice by name and designated as the anointed one (messiah) of Yahweh: “Thus says the Lord to Kōreš his anointed, Kōreš whom he has taken by his right hand to subdue nations before him … . I will go before you” (Isaiah 45:1-2). Yahweh also says to Cyrus: “You shall be My shepherd to carry out all My purpose” (Isaiah 44:28). In the Hebrew tradition embodied in 2 Chronicles 36:23 and Ezra 1:1-2 Cyrus is regarded with favor, and he has figured prominently in Jewish thought through the ages (Netzer, p. 35; cf. Jenni, pp. 242-43, 255-56; see BIBLE i, ii).

Cyrus thus seems generally to have respected the customs and religions of conquered lands. The Persians themselves called him their father (Herodotus, 3.89). The priests of Babylon recognized him as the appointed of Marduk and the Jews as a messiah sent by Yahweh. Even the Greeks considered him a great conqueror and a wise statesman (e.g., Plato, Laws 3.694A-D); Xenophon, in his Cyropaedia, portrayed him as an ideal ruler (Avery, pp. 529-31; Hirsch, pp. 84-86).

The death of Cyrus. In 530 b.c.e. Cyrus mounted a campaign to Central Asia in order to protect the northeastern borders of his empire from incursions by the Massagetae. During a battle along the lower Oxus (Āmū Daryā) near the Aral Sea the emperor was not only defeated but also killed. His death has been dated to July or August (Parker and Dubberstein, p. 14), but a recently published document from Kish in Babylonia is dated the 19th day of the month Arahsamna in the ninth regnal year of Cyrus, that is, 4 December 530 b.c.e. (McEwan, no. 123). It therefore appears that the battle must have taken place at the very end of 530.

Conflicting legends about Cyrus’ death have been transmitted. The Greek authors reported that he lost 200,000 men in the battle with the Massagetae, an obvious exaggeration. A particularly popular version was recounted at length by Herodotus, who also noted that many other accounts were in circulation (Herodotus, 1.201-14). According to this version, followed with variations by other classical authors, Cyrus attacked one camp of the Massagetae, but their main forces subsequently defeated his forces and killed him. According to Berossus, Cyrus died in a battle with the Daai (Dahae, Burstein, p. 29), whereas Ctesias claimed that Cyrus’ last campaign was fought against the Derbici, a Central Asian tribe, who were assisted by Indian troops. Supposedly it was an Indian spear that wounded Cyrus, who died several days later (König, p. 4 no. 6). According to Xenophon, Cyrus died peacefully in his own capital, having ordered that his corpse be buried in earth, rather than encased in silver or gold (Cyropaedia 8.7.25); some scholars believe that this version is rooted in Persian tradition (e.g., Hirsch, p. 84). Herodotus and other Greek authors also relied on Persian oral tradition, however. Although it is not possible now to discern the precise facts of Cyrus’ death (Sancisi-Weerdenburg, p. 471), it is known that he was buried at Pasargadae (now Mašhad-e Morḡāb). This fact appears to belie the details reported by Herodotus, but it is possible that Cyrus’ body was recovered from the enemy and brought to the capital; Ctesias maintained that Cambyses sent a certain Bagapates to accompany the corpse of Cyrus to the funeral (König, p. 5, no. 9).

The tomb at Pasargadae is a gabled funerary chamber of six stepped courses made of large sandstone blocks (Stronach, pp. 24-43; see v, below). The chamber is entered through a low, narrow doorway. Arrian (Anabasis 6.29.4-11) and Strabo (15.3.7) based their descriptions of this chamber on reports by the companions of Alexander the Great, who had visited it personally. It contained Cyrus’ golden coffin and a couch covered with hides dyed purple, on which the royal garments, bracelets, daggers, and other attributes were placed. They had, however, already been plundered when Alexander made his second visit to Pasargadae. Since the early Islamic period the tomb of Cyrus has been known as Mašhad-e Mādar-e Solaymān (the tomb of the mother of Solomon).

CYRUS iv. The Cyrus cylinder

The Cyrus cylinder (British Museum, no. 90920; Walker, p. 158; Budge, pl. XL; Rawlinson, pl. 35) is a fragmentary clay cylinder with an Akkadian inscription of thirty-five lines discovered in a foundation deposit by A. H. Rassam during his excavations at the site of the Marduk temple in Babylon in 1879 (see Walker, p. 158, citing a letter from Rassam to the British Museum dated 20 November 1879). A second fragment, containing lines 36-45, was identified in the Babylonian collection at Yale University (Nies and Keiser, no. 32) by P.-R. Berger. The total inscription, though incomplete at the end, consists of forty-five lines, the first three almost entirely broken away.

The text contains an account of Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon in 539 B.C.E., beginning with a narrative by the Babylonian god Marduk of the crimes of Nabonidus, the last Chaldean king (lines 4-8). Then follows an account of Marduk’s search for a righteous king, his appointment of Cyrus to rule all the world, and his causing Babylon to fall without a battle (lines 9-19). Cyrus continues in the first person, giving his titles and genealogy (lines 20-22) and declaring that he has guaranteed the peace of the country (lines 22-26), for which he and his son Cambyses have received the blessing of Marduk (lines 26-30). He describes his restoration of the cult, which had been neglected during the reign of Nabonidus, and his permission to the exiled peoples to return to their homeland (lines 30-36). Finally, the king records his restoration of the defenses of Babylon (lines 36-43) and reports that in the course of the work he saw an inscription of Aššurbanipal (lines 43-45; cf. Kuhrt, pp. 85-86).

The text was actually composed by priests of Marduk, in an archaizing form inspired by Neo-Assyrian models, particularly inscriptions of Assurbanipal (668-27 B.C.E.) drafted in Babylon (Harmatta). The cylinder thus contains a typical Mesopotamian building inscription placed as a foundation deposit in the walls of Babylon to commemorate Cyrus’ restorations there (Walker, p. 159).

CYRUS v. The Tomb of Cyrus

The tomb of Cyrus is generally identified with a small stone monument approximately 1 km southwest of the palaces of Pasargadae, in the center of the Morḡāb plain. According to Greek sources, the tomb of Cyrus II (see iii, above; 559-29 B.C.E.) was located in the royal park at Pasargadae. The most extensive description, based on a lost account by Aristobulus, who had accompanied Alexander the Great on his eastern campaign in the late 4th century b.c.e., is to be found in the Anabasis of Arrian (6.29), written in the 2nd century c.e.: “the tomb … in the lower parts was built of stones cut square and was rectangular in form. Above, there was a stone chamber with a roof and a door leading into it so narrow that it was hard and caused much distress for a single man of low stature to get through. In the chamber lay a golden sarcophagus, in which Cyrus’ body had been buried; a couch stood by its side with feet of wrought gold; a Babylonian tapestry served as a coverlet and purple rugs as a carpet. There was placed on it a sleeved mantle and other garments of Babylonian workmanship … . Median trousers and robes dyed blue lay there, some dark, some of other varying shades, with necklaces, scimitars, and earrings of stones set in gold, and a table stood there. It was between the table and the couch that the sarcophagus containing Cyrus’ body was placed. Within the enclosure and by the ascent to the tomb itself there was a small building put up for the Magians who used to guard Cyrus’ tomb.” Strabo (15.3.7), who wrote at the end of the 1st century B.C.E., also seems to have drawn on the account of Aristobulus; he described the tomb as “a small toweṛ … solid below, and having a roof and sepulchre above, which latter had an extremely narrow entrance,” and noted that another companion of Alexander, Onesicretus, had described the tomb as “a tower with ten stories,” in the uppermost of which Cyrus lay. According to Arrian, an inscription in Persian characters on the tomb read, “Mortal! I am Cyrus son of Cambyses, who founded the Persian empire, and was King of Asia. Grudge me not then my monument.” This inscription, with minor variations, was also mentioned by Strabo (15.3.7) and Plutarch (Alexander 69.4).

The epitaph mentioned in the texts is not attested on any of the extant structures in the vicinity of Pasargadae. The identification of the stone structure, consisting of a gabled cella on a stepped plinth, on the Morḡāb plain as the tomb of Cyrus is based on its resemblance to the descriptions of Arrian and Strabo (plate liii). The building, which was incorporated into a mosque by the Salghurid Saʿd b. Zangī (601-28/1203-31; Melikian-Chirvani, pp. 3-4), is known locally as Mašhad-e Mādar-e Solaymān (the tomb of the mother of Solomon).

PLATE LIII.View full image in a new tab

The tomb is simple in form (Stronach, 1978, pp. 26-39, pls. 19-39), constructed of large, carefully dressed ashlar blocks set with precision and secured by “dovetail” clamps (see construction materials and techniques). The estimated total height (including the missing capstone of the pitched roof) is ca. 11.10 m. The base of the plinth, which rises in six receding tiers, covers an area 13.35 x 12.30 m. Whereas each of the three upper tiers is 0.57 m high, each of the lower ones is 1.05 m high; at present, however, the lowest seems taller because part of the foundation is exposed. The base of the cella measures 6.40 x 5.35 m. On the northwest side a narrow doorway, 1.39 m high without the sill and 0.78 m wide, leads through a small passage to a chamber ca. 3.17 x 2.11 m, which is enclosed by walls 1.50 m thick. Originally the side walls of the chamber were bare, except for a narrow, rounded corniceat the top of the wall just below the level of the ceiling. A meḥrāb (Islamic prayer niche) on the southwest wall of the chamber and a “compass” carved on the southern corner of the plinth bear witness to the use of the monument as a mosque in medieval times, The gabled stone roof is hollow.

The decoration on the exterior emphasizes the structural elements of the building. A curved molding encircles the wall at the base of the cella. According to current reconstructions, the door was framed by a double fascia (two flat bands), crowned with a cyma reversa (having a profile consisting of two reciprocal curves, the upper one convex, the lower one concave) topped by a molding with upturned finials. A second cyma reversa, capped by a geison, or cornice, marks the transition between the exterior walls and the roof; on the raking cornice, which is only partially preserved, there are traces of a narrow bead and a shallow cavetto (concave) molding. The lower portion of a raised disk or rosette is carved on the pediment above the entrance; the rest was on the missing capstone.

Archeological grounds for dating the construction of the Mašhad-e Mādar-e Solaymān to the Achaemenid period, and more specifically to the reign of Cyrus, involve a combination of factors related to the technical execution and planning of the monument. Ashlar masonry, use of anathyrosis (in which perfect jointing of contiguous blocks is achieved by means of smoothing a band along two or three of the edges of each surface to be jointed and rough-cutting the central portions to a deeper level), and dovetail clamps are also found in the other structures at Pasargadae ascribed to Cyrus. These features are characteristic of Ionian and Lydian building practices of the 6th century B.C.E. and were introduced in Persia during the reign of Cyrus (Nylander, especially pp. 91-102). The application of the cyma reversa and the geison on the cornice of the tomb chamber is thought to represent an early, experimental stage in the evolution of these basic elements of the Ionic entablature in about 540-30 b.c.e., the period when the tomb of Cyrus must have been under construction (Stronach, 1978, p. 42).

Furthermore, parallels to the various component elements of the Morḡāb monument can be found in other 6th-century b.c.e. and earlier buildings in territories ruled by Cyrus. As no precise antecedent for the entire structure has been discovered, however, there are conflicting opinions about its architectural origins. Scholars have variously stressed the contribution of building traditions from Mesopotamia (Herzfeld, p. 215; Parrot, p. 50; Barnett, p. 74; Nylander, pp. 99-102), Elam (Ghirshman, 1964, p. 135), Urartu (Culican, p. 58; Barnett, p. 74), Greece and western Anatolia (von Bissing, pp. 4-6; Krischen, p. 70; Nylander, pp. 91-102), and Persia (Sarre, p. 4; idem and Herzfeld, p. 178; Ghirshman, 1954, p. 83; idem, 1964, p. 135; Stronach, 1964, p. 27; Nylander, p. 102).

The following comparisons call for special emphasis (cf. especially, Nylander, pp. 91-102; Stronach, 1978, pp. 39-43). Mesopotamian and Elamite ziggurats could have provided a ready model for the plinth, even though local Persian models for it, and especially for the chamber and the gabled roof, cannot be definitively excluded. Nevertheless, the tendency to a tripartite division, apparent in the articulation of the monument into upper and lower plinth and cella, and the use of moldings to articulate the exterior of the cella seem to indicate a debt to Ionian architecture. Anatolian tumulus burials of the 1st millennium B.C.E. appear to provide much the closest parallels to the cella. A type of tomb chamber with a gabled roof, constructed in timber, is found in a Phrygian tumulus (“the tomb of Midas”) from the late 8th century B.C.E. at Gordion (Young, pp. 85-100). Stone tomb chambers with flat roofs would seem to have become standard for burials in Lydia starting in the 6th century B.C.E.; of Lydian examples that of King Alyattes (ca. 560 B.C.E.) at Sardis is remarkably similar in technical execution and nearly identical in interior form and dimensions, to the Morḡāb monument (Hanfmann, p. 55; idem and Mierse, p. 57). While significant in itself, this striking similarity takes on even greater weight owing to the unquestionable affinity of the Morḡāb monument with western Anatolian traditions of construction and planning. The eclectic synthesis of foreign elements apparent in the Morḡāb monument, in itself a concrete expression of imperial vision, is the signature of royal Achaemenid art as a whole. The prominence of western Anatolian elements in particular is characteristic of Cyrus’ building program.

Comparisons between the Morḡāb monument and the classical descriptions of the tomb of Cyrus must be confined to architectural parallels, for there are no surviving traces of the luxurious furnishings described by Arrian and Strabo; indeed Cyrus’s tomb was said already to have been rifled between Aristobulus’s two visits (Strabo, 15.3.7). The “Morḡāb tomb” conforms to the descriptions of the tomb of Cyrus in that it has two distinct parts, of which the upper one resembles a house with a roof (comparable to the “roof and sepulchre” mentioned by Strabo) and a narrow doorway. Although extant descriptions of the lower part of the tomb are admittedly ambiguous, Onesicretus’ characterization of the tomb as “a tower with ten stories” may reflect the stepped configuration of the plinth, and Arrian’s description of the lower part of the monument as square, or rectangular, may be an approximation of the shape of the plinth, which is only slightly longer than it is wide. The “squared stones” of the lower part of the tomb mentioned by Arrian could certainly be the ashlar masonry.

There is no fully convincing explanation for the complete absence of the epitaph mentioned in the Greek texts. Epitaphs appear not to have been the rule in Achaemenid funerary architecture, however, and it is possible to question the reliability of Greek testimony on this detail. In the case of Aristobulus it is specifically stated that he reported on the inscription “from memory.” As the alleged epitaph has the somewhat modest ring of other inscriptions found at Pasargadae, it may be postulated that it was those inscriptions that supplied the model for what Aristobulus, Onesicretus, and others later “recalled” (Stronach, 1978, p. 26; cf. Schmidt, pp. 17-25; Stronach, 1990, especially p. 198 n. 29).

CYRUS vi. Cyrus the Younger

This prince (ca. 423-401 BCE) was the second of the four sons of Darius II (ca. 424-405) and Parysatis (Plutarch, Artoxerxes 1.2) and a younger brother of Arsaces/Arsicas, later Artaxerxes II (405/4-359/8). The ancient Greeks called him “the Younger” (ho neṓteros or ho deúteros) to distinguish him from Cyrus the Great (see iii, above). According to Ctesias (Jacoby, Fragmente III/C, p. 470 fr. 15.51), his mother was already queen when he was born, which must have been after the winter of 424-423, when Darius ascended the throne (at the latest February 423). Parysatis preferred him to Arsaces, who had been born while Darius was still crown prince (or a “private gentleman”; Plutarch, Artoxerxes 2.4). She sought to win for him the succession and furthered his claims to the throne by repeatedly pointing out that Xerxes I (486-465 BCE) had been not the firstborn son of Darius I (522-486 BCE) but the first born “to the purple,” after his father’s accession to the throne (cf. Boyce, Zoroastrianism II, pp. 200-201). Cyrus was only fifteen or sixteen years old when his mother managed to have him appointed both satrap of Lydia, Greater Phrygia, and Cappadocia (Xenophon, Anabasis 1.9.7) and successor to Tissaphernes (see *ČiΘrafarnah) as commander-in-chief of the troops assembled on the plain of Castolus east of Sardis (Xenophon, Anabasis 1.1.2, 1.9.7; cf. idem, Hellenica 1.4.3, where the appropriate title is given in the Greek form káranos, which is derived from OPers. kāra- “army,” and from which it may be concluded that Cyrus had been given one of the “great army commands” of the empire). He was thus to function as both civilian governor and supreme military commander of Asia Minor. This elevation must have occurred in 408 or 407. From the time of his arrival in the west Cyrus pursued a consistent policy of assisting Sparta in its struggle against Athens (cf. Thucydides, 2.65.12, on his financial support for Spartan naval construction). In particular, the Spartan admiral Lysander became his friend; owing to Cyrus’ influence, Lysander was reappointed to his post (though with a nominal chief) in violation of Spartan law.

When Darius became dangerously ill sometime in 405 he recalled his son to court (Xenophon, Anabasis 1.1.2); Cyrus turned over all his funds to Lysander (Xenophon, Hellenica 1.1.2) and traveled upcountry with Tissaphernes, who had been appointed satrap of Caria, and a guard of 300 hired Greek hoplites (Xenophon, Anabasis 1.1.2). After Darius’ death in the winter of 405-4 (at the latest in March 404) Arsaces ascended the throne as Artaxerxes II; Cyrus undertook to assassinate him during the coronation ceremony at Pasargadae, but Tissaphernes warned Arsaces (Plutarch, Artoxerxes 3.3-5; cf. Xenophon, Anabasis 1.1.3; Ctesias, in Jacoby, Fragmente III/C, p. 472 fr. 16.59). It was Parysatis who, through fervent supplication, induced the new king not only to pardon his brother but also to confirm him in his satrapy and his military command.

Cyrus probably returned to Sardis in the summer of 403 and, while writing submissively to the king, immediately began secret preparations for armed rebellion. As he had personally observed the Greeks’ military superiority, he planned to organize a Greek mercenary force for his purposes. All the Ionian cities except Miletus joined Cyrus against a supposed threat from Tissaphernes, and he was thus able to gather a large army. He revealed his true intentions, however, only to the Spartans, whom he also asked for assistance (Xenophon, Anabasis 1.4.2; idem, Hellenica 3.1.1; Diodorus, 14.19.4); they responded by sending 700 hoplites under Cheirisophus and placing their fleet at Cyrus’ disposal. In all nearly 14,000 Greek mercenaries were recruited and organized in separate contingents, each commanded by its own general, though Clearchus eventually became commander-in-chief of the entire Greek force.

Having completed his mobilization, Cyrus gathered most of his troops in Sardis, officially to open a campaign against the rebellious Pisidians (Diodorus, 14.19.6; Xenophon, Anabasis 1.1.11, 1.2.1). The expedition departed sometime in the spring of 401 and was joined on the march by contingents under Menon, Clearchus, and other generals, so that more than 10,000 hoplites and peltasts, as well as a large army of Asians (numbering 100,000 men, according to Xenophon, Anabasis 1.7.10, but 70,000, according to Diodorus, 14.19.7), advanced by way of Colossae, Celaenae, Peltae, Caystru Pedium, Thymbrium, Tyrtaeum, Iconium (modern Konya), and Tarsus to the Euphrates river at Thapsacus. Only at that point did Cyrus disclose to his forces that he was in fact marching against his brother; the Greeks in particular were reluctant to continue, and he was able to overcome their resistance only by promises of great increases in pay. The troops crossed the river and marched south along the east bank of the Euphrates without meeting any opposition until they reached Cunaxa, a village about 90 km west of Babylon (Plutarch, Artoxerxes 8.2), where Artaxerxes’ huge army awaited them. Again it was Tissaphernes who had ridden with 500 horsemen to the royal court to warn the king of his brother’s advance.

Exactly 180 days after the departure from Sardis (84 marching days and 96 days of rest, according to the detailed description in Xenophon’s Anabasis, bk. 1), in autumn 401, the decisive battle was fought at Cunaxa (the often-repeated exact date of 3 September is absolutely unfounded; cf. Weissbach, col. 1171). Cyrus at once attacked the enemy, which was superior in numbers with a considerably longer front line. He ordered Clearchus, whose Greek troops constituted his right wing, to attack the enemy center, but Clearchus refused to leave his position on the riverbank, which offered cover from the right and ensured that he could not be surrounded. The Greeks therefore advanced straight ahead, rushed their opponents, and pursued them for some distance; this quick success nevertheless opened a gap in Cyrus’ line. Cyrus himself had meanwhile plunged into the center of the enemy and, when he saw his brother directly ahead, forgot all caution and rushed him fiercely, striking him in the chest. Nevertheless, he was struck down by an enemy spear and killed, at the age of only twenty-two years. The details of his death are not entirely clear; the best source may be Ctesias, who, as physician to the royal family, was stationed behind the front line and attended the wounded king (Xenophon, Anabasis 1.8.26-27; Diodorus, 14.23.6-7; Plutarch, Artoxerxes 11.1-5, cf. 10.1-3, for Dinon’s account).

The outcome of the battle was thus a resounding victory for the king. The Greek mercenaries, having forced their way so far into hostile country, were in a difficult situation; it became almost entirely hopeless after their commanders were seized and murdered through the treachery of Tissaphernes. Nevertheless, these troops, also known as “the Cyreians” (hoi Kúreioi; Xenophon, Hellenica 3.2.7), succeeded in reaching the Black Sea after suffering a difficult and dangerous retreat, an eyewitness account of which has been offered by Xenophon (see anabasis).

Xenophon, who had participated in Cyrus’ campaign and knew him personally (cf. Xenophon, Oeconomicus 4.16-25), described Cyrus the Younger as ceaselessly active and courageous, generous and grateful, a warmhearted man, an audacious fighter, an able satrap, and an effective politician, all qualities of greatness inspiring him to seek a higher position. His encomium (Anabasis 1.9) begins, however, with praise of “the man who was the most kingly and the most worthy to rule of all the Persians who have been born since Cyrus the Elder” (Anabasis 1.9.1) and corresponds strikingly to the same author’s portrait of Cyrus the Elder in the Cyropaedia (cf. Hirsch, chap. IV; Boyce, Zoroastrianism II, pp. 211-16). Aside from the Anabasis and Hellenica of Xenophon the main sources on the prince’s life are the report of Ctesias, who was living at the Persian court; Plutarch’s Artoxerxes, based on the reports of both Xenophon and Ctesias but also on the Persiká of Dinon, which is only fragmentarily preserved; and the work of Diodorus (14.19.1-14.31.35), whose account is mainly based on that of Ephorus and also incorporates part of a report, now almost entirely lost, by Sophaenetus of Stymphalus, another participant in the campaign (cf. Jacoby, Fragmente II/B, p. 523).

On the other hand, there is not a single mention of Cyrus the Younger in any Old Persian or Achaemenid royal inscription, as the short inscription CMa (cf. Kent, Old Persian, p. 116), which was ascribed to him by F. H. Weissbach and others, belongs to Cyrus the Great. It is likely that Cyrus issued coins, as other satraps did. An unusual type of daric (gold coin) in Greek, rather than Oriental, style with an image of a beardless adolescent royal figure (a running archer with a bow spear) in a richly decorated robe can reasonably be attributed to him (cf. Babelon, cols. 49-52, pl. lxxxvi/16-17; Hill, pp. cxxv-cxxvi and n. 6, p. 156). A. Shapur Shahbazi has suggested that the tomb known as Gūr-e Doḵtar, located on the plain of Bozpār in southwestern Fārs province, a replica of the tomb of Cyrus the Great at Pasargadae (cf. Stronach, pp. 300-302; see v, above), is the tomb of Cyrus the Younger, but such an identification seems extremely questionable (cf. most recently Hirsch, pp. 173-74). Walther Hinz identified a similar rock-cut tomb known as Dā o Doḵtar, situated halfway between Shiraz and Behbahān (cf. Stronach, p. 304) as that of Cyrus the Younger (1979, pp. 38-41) but offered no proof.