Violence in the Behistun Monument: Construction and Cohesion of Achaemenid Imperial Rule under Darius I (522-519 BCE) Melissa Benson UCL Thesis submitted for Ph.D. in the Department of History I, Melissa Benson confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Abstract What are the challenges of studying violence in the ancient world? How should we define violence for historical studies? How do appeals to violent ability aid the establishment and maintenance of regimes of power? I explore these questions in my thesis through an analysis of the Behistun Monument, Darius I’s memorial to his victories between 522-519 BCE. I investigate the king’s use of psychological and figurative violence in the foundation of the Achaemenid regime of power, after violently suppressing the rebellions against him. In the first part of the thesis I outline the methodological principles of the study and examine the source basis. In Chapter One, I examine how definitions of violence arising from the social scientific debate can be applied to different ancient source material and studies. My methodological approach is based on a ‘wide’ concept of violence, which accounts for its non-physical aspects. In Chapter Two, I contextualise the Behistun Monument within the extant corpus of Teispid (550-522 BCE) and Achaemenid (522-331 BCE) artefacts. In the second part of the thesis, I conduct a case study of violence in the Behistun Monument. In Chapter Three I consider the monument’s figurative aspects: the relief image and inscriptions on the mountainside. In Chapters Four, Five and Six, I consider the inscriptional content. This analysis relates primarily to the ‘violent rhetoric’: descriptions of the battles fought and punishments inflicted in the course of the crisis and what these reveal about Achaemenid imperial ideology. In the conclusion, I outline the benefits of using a ‘wide’ definition to examine historical violence revealed by the case study and propose further directions for study. 2 Impact Statement This thesis examines the application of social scientific concepts to the study of ancient history and specifically the study of violence in the ancient world and the Achaemenid Persian Empire, established in the 6th century BCE. Violence is one of the most pervasive aspects of human social relations, as the study of all periods of history demonstrates. Despite its prevalence, understanding of violence is rudimentary, and methods for examining it are concomitantly under-developed. Stark demonstration of this comes from examination of the social scientific debate in which there is still no concrete understanding of exactly what violence ‘is’. My thesis questions the ways that violence has been studied through the lens of ancient historical sources which show considerable typological variation and emanate from a range of cultural contexts. I suggest a shift in focus away from examinations of physical violence, for which our ancient historical sources, and indeed those emanating from more recent periods, may not be sufficiently reliable. Instead, I examine how violence is implemented with the broader aim of controlling societies and maintaining political structures. This is ‘wide’ violence, a definition of the term which takes into accounts its figurative and psychological aspects. Through the study of objects and inscriptions, I demonstrate that this type of violence was fundamental in the construction and maintenance of the Achaemenid Empire throughout its lifetime. This conclusion is drawn from concerted interaction with sources for Achaemenid history emanating from the Persians themselves. The limitations of ‘classical’, that is, Greek and Roman, sources for Persian history are well-known. However, understandings of this have not impacted on the way that Achaemenid violence, a most sensitive area of imperial governance, is studied. I draw attention to the benefits of engagement with the Persians themselves through their own writings and images. Beyond this thesis, I aim to expand my contribution to scholarly debates around violence in history through publications in journals and with a monograph based on this thesis. The latter would provide a much needed intervention in the debate about Achaemenid imperialism as viewed through the lens of the Behistun Monument, our most important document of imperial ideology and practice from the period. Until now, conversations have revolved primarily around the monument as a source for historical events. I aim to publish my methodological chapter, Chapter 1, as a journal article. This, I hope, would 3 catalyse a debate around the possible contribution of social scientific approaches to ancient and other historical violence. I also wish to expand on some of the analyses I have presented here in separate articles on the use of Greek sources for the study of Achaemenid violence and imperial ideology. The research I have carried out here will also inform my future teaching of undergraduate and postgraduate students, particularly in addressing questions of how the range of sources, texts and objects, used in the study of ancient history can be used to understand different societies. 4 Acknowledgements The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the extra participation of several people, who have contributed immeasurably to my life and work over the past four years. I thank my supervisor Eleanor Robson for her insightful comments on my research and writing and personal and professional support. I am grateful to my sister Michaela and my brother-in-law Dimitrios for encouraging me to pursue this idea and supporting me from the proposal until completion. I will never be able to repay the debt I owe you for giving me a place to live and supporting me through this journey. Thanks to Eva Miller, for countless hours spent discussing violence and punishment in the ancient world and beyond. My fellow ‘ancient historians’ Effie Dorovitsa, Hélène Maloigne, Sam Sigere and Zofia Guertin, for their friendship and wisdom. Also, thanks to the Ph.D. students of UCL Department of History: Agata, Alessandro, David, Grace, Jack, Joe, Johannes, Matt, and Shane. Finally, to Iris and Jim, for putting up with me through all the various twists and turns and listening to my ramblings whenever I asked them to. 5 Contents List of Illustrations 9 Introduction Introduction 11 1. Description of the Behistun Monument 18 2. A Note of Translations and Transliterations in the Thesis 24 3. Literature Review: Achaemenid Violence from the Decipherment of Cuneiform to the Present 26 4. Structure of the Thesis 43 Summary 46 PART ONE: Methodological Principles and Sources 1: Defining ‘Violence’ for Ancient Historical Studies Introduction: What is ‘Violence’? 49 1. Violence is ‘Narrow’ Physical Harm 52 i. Bioarchaeological Investigation of Narrow Violence 1. Cohen et al. 2015. ‘Assyrian Attitude towards Captive Enemies: A 2,700-year-old Paleoforensic Study’ International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 25: 265-280 56 2. Ghezal et al. 2018. ‘Embalmed Heads of the Celtic Iron Age in the south of France’ Journal of Archaeological Science 58 ii. Interpreting Literary Sources for Narrow Violence 60 1. The ‘Ordeal of the Troughs’ 62 2. Violence can be Defined ‘Widely’ to Include Structural, Psychological, and Metaphorical Types 65 i. Xerxes: ‘Destroyer of Sanctuaries’? 67 ii. Neo-Assyrian Violence Studies 73 3. A Unitary Conception of Violence is not Useful Across a Range of Historical, Social, and Cultural Contexts 75 Conclusion: A Definition of ‘Violence’ for the Behistun Monument 77 2: The Behistun Monument in Context – The Language of Conquest (550-331 BCE) Introduction 81 1. An Overview of Official Persian Representation from Cyrus to Artaxerxes III (550- 338 BCE) 83 2. Teispid Violence (550-525 BCE) i. Cyrus in Babylon 95 ii. Cambyses in Egypt 101 3. Military Ability and Royal Identity in the Achaemenid Period 104 4. Conceptualising Conquest between Darius and Xerxes 6 i. ‘Conquest’ in Darius’ Inscriptions 105 ii. Conquerors and Kings 113 iii. The daiva-inscription: Xerxes’ conquest in XPh 115 iv. Explaining the Conceptualisation of Conquest in Achaemenid Representation Post-Dating Behistun 119 Conclusion 124 PART TWO: Case Study of the Behistun Monument 3: Violence in the Figurative Aspects of the Behistun Monument Introduction: Violence in the Creation of Imperial Space 127 1. The Relief Image 130 2. The Inscriptions i. Achaemenid Elamite 146 ii. Achaemenid Akkadian 149 iii. Old Persian 151 iv. Divergence between Versions of Achaemenid Multilingual Inscriptions 153 v. Divergence between Versions of the Behistun Inscriptions 155 Conclusion 157 4: Violent potential - Representation and Reality in the Behistun Inscriptions Introduction 159 1. Casualty figures 161 2. Chronological details 167 Conclusion 176 5: The Battle Narratives – Darius’ Network of Violence Introduction 178 1. Darius Commands in Person i. The Babylonian Campaign (DB OP §18-20 = DB AA/AE §17-19) 184 ii. Darius vs. Fravartiš (DB OP §31 = DB AA/AE §25) 187 iii. The Scythian Expedition (DB OP §74-75) 190 2. Non-Royal Actors in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions 194 3. Darius’ Delegation Strategy: Violence, Royal Authority and Elite Identity 197 i. Biographical Information about the Subordinates 198 ii. Biographical Information about the Rebel Leaders 200 iii. Omission of Landscape and Geographical Details 202 iv. Speech and Commands 204 v. Subordinate Hierarchy