0

Achaemenid Religion:
Kingly Sincerity and Political Manipulation

Adam Renner

In many empires of the ancient world, a common practice was to inscribe deeds,

conquests, and honourable propaganda concerning the ruler around the empire. In these

inscriptions, one may find references to a deity, or deities, utilized in a fairly standard way.

These inscriptions commonly involve language which is fairly uniform, mostly invoking the
 1

protection of the god(s) for the ruler and his kingdom and requesting that enemies be smote

into ruin. However, there may be more than just political prose and systematic religious

speech in these appeals to the divine. It may be possible to ascertain the particular religious

ideology of a ruler through these inscriptions, and in turn decipher whether or not such

spiritual devoutness influenced their rule. In this study, the question concerning the nature of

Achaemenid religion is brought into question, as well as the influence such beliefs possibly

exerted over the rulers. In particular, the rule of Cyrus the Great and Darius I shall be

examined. Typically Achaemenid monarchs are labelled as Zoroastrians that utilized religion

solely for political practice. However, based on evidence from various inscriptions, as well as

a more concentrated look at Zoroastrian ideology, it seems to be the case that the rulers were

not Zoroastrians. Furthermore, these rulers may have inscribed various monuments not

simply for political propaganda, but also due to sincere devotion and belief. While it is

impossible to ascertain the exact nature of their religious piety, it seems that one can examine

whether or not they were pious at all. Based on examining the religious history and the royal

inscriptions, one can state the Persian kings were not Zoroastrian but actually Mazdaean or

Zarathustrian. Furthermore, the sincerity of religious belief for Cyrus the Great and Darius I

can be examined, and possibly understood, through their respective royal inscriptions.
It is typically assumed that the religious structure for Persians at the time of the

Achaemenid Empire was Zoroastrianism. This, however, is a misunderstanding of the term.

What is commonly referred to as Zoroastrianism is a modern form of the religion; in

Achaemenid Persia, the faith had not developed and changed to its modern counterpart.1 Both

Zarathustrianism and Zoroastrianism had the same founder, as the former evolved into the

latter. Scholars conflict on when Zarathustra (Zoroaster in Western tradition), the founder of

this religion, lived; some place him as existing between 1700-1500BCE while others place

him closer to the sixth century BCE.2 The earlier date, based solely on the grammatical
1 Frye (1984), p. 120
2 Malandra (1983), p. 16. Scholars referred to are M. Boyce and W. B. Henning (respectively)
 2

structure of the religious text by Zarathustra, would have given Zarathustrian ideas plenty of

time to merge into previous Indo-Iranian beliefs. By examining the philology and substance

of the Avesta and the Gathas, some scholars therefore state anytime between 1400-1000BCE

to be the most reasonable.3 The later date, based on the Sasanid tradition, places Zarathustra

at 589BCE, a mere thirty years before Cyrus the Great.4 Though possible, it seems unlikely

that the prophet's ideas would have had time to influence the earlier Indo-Iranian religions

and resound to the royal level, at least in Cyrus's time. However, if Zarathustra did exist

around 589BCE, then it is possible that with the inclusion of the Eastern Indo-Iranian

peoples, the Avesta would have been available for others in the Achaemenid Empire to hear

about.5 Therefore, during the reign of Darius I and Xerxes I, it is possible that Zarathustrian

ideas, and early concepts of Zoroastrianism itself, could have been known and held by the

Persian elite and royalty. If this is indeed the case, it can perhaps explain the focus of Darius I

and Xerxes I on Ahura Mazda, with little mention of other deities. However, it does not

explain the seeming reversion to Mazdaean polytheism or henotheism that is common in

inscriptions post-Artaxerxes I.
The 6th century date for Zarathustra, however, seems to make less sense than Mary

Boyce's suggested date of 1400-1000BCE. This is due to the fact that Zarathustra is

specifically mentioned in Yasna 29 of the Gathas, as well as numerous other passages.6

Though it is possible the name was merely added to the passages along the course of history,

this seems unlikely, for the grammar and structure with his name is maintained in accordance

with the other archaic parts of the text. Therefore, if Zarathustra is placed at this early time,

there is reason to believe his influences on Indo-Iranian ideology and cosmology would have

had time to take root, and therefore the religion of the Achaemenid royalty could be a form of

Zarathustrian thought. Again, this could explain the inscriptions from Cyrus the Great, Darius
3 Boyce (1968), p. 190
4 Ibid., 17.
5 Balcer (1993), p. 11
6 Malandra (1983), p. 38
 3

I, and Xerxes I, but not the transition to broader polytheism demonstrated by later

Achaemenid inscriptions.
In brief, a look at Mazdaean, Zarathustrian, and Zoroastrian belief needs to be

considered. The earliest chronologically is Mazdaean, which is the basic foundation for

Zoroastrian religion. This teaches the basic principles of dualism between the good, Ahura

Mazda, and the evil, Angra Mainyu. This ideology is perpetuated by the ideas of ethics and

truth (haithya) battling the vices of the Lie (drug/drauga/draujana).7 The central deity for this

religion is Ahura Mazda, but there are other deities held in high esteem as well, such as

Mithra and Anahita. There are rituals, like every other polytheistic religion at this time; for

instance, fire altars located at Pasargadae which would have been used for Zarathustrian

ceremonies. Furthermore, alongside an ethical focus, there is also emphasis placed on

cleanliness and purity.8 Following the impact of Eastern Iranian and Indian oral history on

local polytheisms, the Avesta later emerged as a source for cosmological, eschatological, and

ethical understanding. This next step in the religion's evolution is known as Zarathustrianism.

It incorporates the previous understanding of the deities into a more henotheistic structure;

that is to say, Ahura Mazda claims predominance over the other figures and is chief deity, and

no longer a first among equals. A more elaborate cosmology is given, with a focus on ethical

bearing and cosmological order. This order is in opposition with lying and chaos, otherwise

stated as political disobedience and revolt. For reasons later to be explained, this seems to be

the most probably religious understanding that the Achaemenid royalty and elite would have

had (with individual differences concerning the exact predominance of Ahura Mazda).9 These

singular preferences would explain differences in inscription changes from Cyrus to

Artaxerxes III: much like contemporary religions, differences in denominational ideas do not

make a separate faith. The final stage in evolution occurs much later than the Achaemenid

7 Skjrv (2006), p. 27
8 Malandra (1983), p. 162
9 Ibid., p. 55
 4

Empire, around the 5th century CE, which produced the contemporary religion known as

Zoroastrianism.
The first Achaemenid monarch the requires examination is Cyrus the Great. To

examine what kind of religious understanding he may have held, the Cyrus Cylinder and

various inscriptions should be examined. In reference to the Cyrus Cylinder, an image of

religion solely as a means of political manipulation emerges. Consider for instance the

following passages: "He [Marduk] commanded him [Cyrus] to go to Babylon, and let him

take the road to Babylon. Like a friend and companion he went by his side".10 Later on in the

Cylinder the following remark occurs, similar to later inscriptions by Darius I, "Marduk, the

great lord rejoiced at [my] deeds, and he blessed me, Cyrus, the king, who reveres him".11

The difference here is that Cyrus II refers to Marduk while Darius I refers to Ahura Mazda.

At no point in the Cyrus Cylinder is the god Ahura Mazda or Mithra described as giving

benefaction or assistance; the Persian, or Mazdaean, gods are left completely unmentioned.

Instead, there is a blatant attempt to appeal to the Babylonian population by stating that their

god, Marduk, blessed Cyrus and the Persian conquerors. If Cyrus would have been at least

nominally faithful to Zarathustrian ideology, it seems there would have been at least a brief

mention or inclusion of Ahura Mazda. Instead, the deities of the Persians are left completely

absent from the Cylinder. To that extent, it can be claimed that the sole purpose of the

Cylinder was political manipulation of religious ideology over the Babylonians.

However, it would be a leap to suppose this meant Cyrus was not religious, or indeed

believed solely in the Babylonian gods. Rather, the Cylinder simply allows one to say that

Cyrus saw the use of religion in pacifying recently conquered people and exploited that

usage. For example, following the capture of Babylon he subsequently let the Jews return to

their temple in Judea; again the religious "tolerance" Cyrus was noted for emerges, not

because he believed in all of these deities, but because it eased transition to his rule. This

10 Cyrus Cylinder, line 15. (in Kurht [2007], p. 71)

11 Cyrus Cylinder, line 26-27. (in Brosius [2000], p. 11)
 5

conclusion is supported once again on inscriptions on bricks from Uruk: "Cyrus, king of

lands, who loves Esangil and Ezida".12 Again, an appeal to local deities in order to solidify

legitimate rule over the population occurs. From these two inscriptions one can once again

state that Cyrus understood the principle of religious persuasion in politics.

The second ruler to discuss here seems to have had a much more sincere approach to

religion, at least based on the evidence available. Following almost a decade after Cyrus II is

Darius I, an Achaemenid who left numerous inscriptions in which there is deliberate and

repeated appeal to Ahura Mazda over any other deity. The most commonly cited, and helpful,

inscription to discuss is the Bisitun Inscription. This massive testament to Darius I ascension

to the throne and his exploits details continuously the assistance received from Ahura Mazda.

In the Old Persian inscription alone, the name of the deity is repeated a total of 76 times, most

generally in the prevailing phrase "by the grace of Ahura Mazda". Even in the Babylonian

and Susian translations of the text Ahura Mazda is referred, and not the local deities of

Babylon or Susa. Furthermore, a focus on religious themes is evident in the inscription,

which implies that Darius I was between one of two points; at the most he was a follower of

the Zarathustrian religion, or at the least he showed that he understood the ideology well

enough to have it inscribed at Bisitun. The first portion of the inscription would seem to be

similar to other royal inscriptions, such as that by Cyrus the Great, in which the god is

referenced solely as a means for political justification: "By the favour of Ahuramazda I am

king; upon me Ahuramazda bestowed the kingship".13 Later in the inscription, however, there

is evidence for religious understanding:

"For that reason Ahuramazda brought me aid and the other gods who are,
because I was not disloyal, I was no follower of Falsehood (draujana), I
was no evil-doer, neither I nor my family, [but] I acted according to
righteousness, neither to the powerless nor to the powerful did I do
wrong".14

12 Kurht (2007), p. 74
13 DB 5.11-12 (in Schmitt [1991], p. 49)
14 DB 63.61-66 (Ibid., p. 71) Italics inserted by author for emphasis.
 6

In this passage there is a clear reference to Zarathustrian cosmology referring to the righteous

and false paths. Darius has made it clear in this inscription that it is not an arbitrary decision

on Ahura Mazda's part to bestow the kingdom to him, but rather it is due to the righteous

nature of Darius I. There is a deliberate reference to the Lie in which Darius avoids, unlike

those who opposed him (described earlier in the inscription). This is strikingly different from

Cyrus, who merely references a deity for political support. Darius, on the other hand, seems

to be genuinely interested in the religion.

Another passage in the Bisitun inscription seems to support this idea: "Just as (they

were) previously, so I made the places of worship, which Gaumata the magus had

destroyed".15 Assuming that this refers to places of fire worship, Mazdaean cults, or indeed

Zarathustrian followers would support the notion that Darius was interested in religious

matters. However, this could also be interpreted as a means of supporting the recently

distressed populous, that is to say, those who had temples and holy sites destroyed due to war

or revolts. For them, a ruler which offers conciliation and rebuilds what one lost is indeed a

favourite with the people. What at first seemed to support the religious nature of Darius turns

instead to be an ambiguous portion of the inscription: the inscription could both support

Darius as a piously concerned monarch and Darius as religious manipulator to gain popular

cooperation from his people.

However, to leave ambiguities and return to support of the religious nature of the

king, one can look at the location of the inscription itself and view it as another indication to

the extent in which Zarathustrian ideas were held by Darius. Bisitun is not simply an area in

which travellers could see the scale of the inscription; more importantly it is a mountain

known as "place of the gods" and holds specific divine significance.16 The location, coupled

with the language of the inscription, both point to the conclusion that Darius I was indeed a

Zarathustrian. The emphasis on Ahura Mazda over any other god (as, indeed, he refers to no

15 DB 14.63-64 (Ibid., p. 53)

16 Wiesehofer (1996), p. 13/Briant (2002) p. 124
 7

other deity by name in the inscription) seem to further attest to Darius being Zarathustrian

instead of Mazdaean.
There are disagreements to this assessment though. In his inscription where he

favours justice and truth (arta) over the Lie, the wording can be reminiscent of Neo-

Babylonian kings. Some argue that the "declarations lose much of their originality" and that

the inscriptions "borrowings and continuities are obvious".17 It seems that is too much of a

simplification though for the religious wording in Darius's inscriptions, especially at Bisitun,

to simply have copied inscription styles from previous rulers. Many rulers in the ancient

world legitimized their rule with divine support, and many emphasized the importance of

following the king's justice with religious undertones: in short, a theocratic system of divine

right. However, to imply that one king simply borrows from another without any personal

involvement in the statement itself seems to cheapen the religious ideology of the monarch.

Therefore, even though the structure or language of the Bisitun and other inscriptions may

echo a Neo-Babylonian inscription, this does not mean Darius simply copied without regard

or consideration of his personal religious belief.

Aside from Bisitun, another important inscription to consider for Darius I is that of

Naq-i Rustam. In this inscription another clear indication of Zarathustrian thought is

present: the dichotomy of chaos (yaudatim) and order (arta)18. Darius clearly states that

"When Ahura Mazda saw this earth in commotion, he thereafter bestowed it upon me, he

made me king".19 This commotion, or chaos, that was present is a facet of the Lie. To strive

against disorder, or rather, to be just, true, and harmonious is what a good Zarathustrian

would have done. Therefore, Darius implies it is not only political motivation, but religious

motivation which legitimizes his rule and perhaps spurs him to be a good Persian king. This

refers to the previous inscription at Bisitun in which "the Lie" is shown to be the cause of

17 Sasson (2000), p. 522

18 Note that arta, while implying order, is also the word for truth, cosmic order, and connecting/bonding. (Kent
[1961] p. 170/Malandra [1983] p. 13)
19 DNa 4 (in Brosius [2000], p. 42) Italics added by author for emphasis.
 8

disorder and rebellion, in reference to Cambyses leaving on an Egyptian campaign and the

ensuing revolts in Persia when Darius first ascended to the throne.20

Two inferences may occur when considering this inscription. The first, stated above,

was that Darius I understood political power and solidarity to be a religious necessity, for the

opposite (chaos) was a part of the Lie. Therefore, unification of people, no matter what the

religion, was the primary concern. Thus, the reason for religious tolerance by Darius at this

time was not due to a feeling of religious equality or right, but rather an understanding that

accepting other religions would ease consolidation of the people in the empire. However, in

contrast to this interpretation stands another idea which minimizes the religious nature of

Darius in a way. It is possible that the religious acceptance was not due to a Zarathustrian

strive for order, but rather a Mazdaean openness to other religions and deities.21 If Darius,

based on the inscriptions described above, is to be considered a Zarathustrian, then the first

interpretation makes sense. However, if Darius is assumed to be a Mazdaean instead, then the

latter understanding of the inscriptions hold more weight. Mazdaean religious structure, as

noted above, is much more polytheistic than Zarathustrianism. Therefore, if Darius is

understood to be Mazdaean, his acceptance of other religions during his reign was simply a

political tool to ease pacification of the conquered regions. If Darius is understood to be

Zarathustrian, then acceptance of other religions is a religious was of achieving order and

peace without actually acknowledging the legitimacy, and certainly not the supremacy, of

other deities.
Based on looking solely at royal inscriptions for evidence concerning the religious

beliefs of Cyrus the Great and Darius I, one reaches a generally inconclusive result. While

one can say with fair certainty (based on current evidence) that Cyrus was simply a monarch

who used local religion as a tool to pacify the people, the evidence for Darius is much harder

to explain. Many of his inscriptions indeed seem utterly pro-Ahura Mazda and full of

20 Herrenschmidt (2004), p. 272

21 Boardman (1988), p. 101-103
 9

Zarathustrian rhetoric and cosmology. However, some can also seem to imply a Mazdaean

understanding of the world in which other deities could be incorporated into the henotheistic

structure with ease. It seems that if Darius was indeed Mazdaean there would have been

mentions of Mithra, Anahita, and other deities in his royal inscriptions (similar to how

Artaxerxes III would do later). Since these other deities are absent, it seems more convincing

to state that Darius was a follower of the Zarathustrian religion and did not use it solely for

political means; rather, the religion helped to shape his understanding of kingship and the

order of the empire.

Bibliography

Balcer, Jack Martin. A Prosopographical Study of the Ancient Persian Royal and Noble C.
550-450 B.C. Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1993.
Boardman, John, N.G.L. Hammond, D.M. Lewis, and M. Ostwald, eds. Cambridge Ancient
History, IV. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. 99-105.
Boyce, Mary. "The Pious Foundations of the Zoroastrians." Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 31, No. 2 (1968): 270-289.
. A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. I. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975.

Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander, A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by
Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002.
Brosius, Maria. ed. The Persian Empire from Cyrus II to Artaxerxes I. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Budge, E. A. Wallis, L. W. King, R. C. Thompson, eds. The Inscription of Darius the Great
at Behistn. London: Oxford University Press, 1907.
Frye, Richard N., The History of Ancient Iran. Mnchen: C.H. Beck'sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1984. 87-135.
Herrenschmidt, Clarisse, Bruce Lincoln. "Healing and Salt Waters: The Bifurcated Cosmos
of Mazdaean Religion". History of Religions, University of Chicago Press, Vol. 43,
No. 4 (2004): 269-283.
Kent, Ronald G., Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. 1950. Reprint, New Haven:
American Oriental Society, 1961. 107-163.
 10

Kurht, Amlie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. Vol.
I. London: Routledge, 2007.
Lendering, Jona. "Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions." Livius. Articles on Ancient History. 10
Dec. 2010. http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/inscriptions.html.
Malandra, William W., trans., ed. An Introduction to Ancient Iranian Religion. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1983.
Sasson, Jack M. ed. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. "Social and Legal Institutions in
Achaemenid Iran". Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000.
Schmitt, Rdiger ed. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum. "The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius
the Great: Old Persian Text". London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1991.
Skjrv, Prods Oktor. Introduction to Zoroastrianism. Iranian Studies at Harvard
University, 2006. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/. 24-44.
Wiesehfer, Josef. Ancient Persia : from 550 BC to 650 AD. Translated by Azizeh Azodi.
London: I.B. Tauris, 1996.