The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies
LONDON, (CAIS) -- Studies by a team of archaeologists from Bam Archaeological Research Institute led into discovery of a vast city, 42 hectares in area, belonging to the Achaemenid dynastic period (550–330 BCE) at the historic site of Bam, Kerman province, reported CHN on Monday.
Archaeologists assume the city is more likely what referred to in historic texts and Bistun (bagastāna – ‘place of the Gods’) inscription as Nashirmeh which was mistakenly taken as the other name for the historic complex of Pasargadae located in present-day Fars province.
Large numbers of potshards dated to the Achaemenid dynastic era were also found by archaeologists during their recent studies in Bam, situated close to the world famous Bam Citadel.
Archaeologists believe that the discovery of the exact location of Nashirmeh, otherwise referred to as Paishiyauvada, is essential in gaining a greater understanding of the mysterious years of strife and turmoil during the last years of Cambyses’ reign which carried through the years that followed his death.
Cambyses II (reigned 529-522 BCE) was the son and successor of Cyrus the Great, founder of the Achaemenid dynasty, who took over the Persian Empire after the death of his father. There may have been some degree of unrest throughout the Empire at the time of Cyrus’ death, for Cambyses apparently felt it necessary secretly to kill his brother, Smerdis (Bardiya), in order to protect his rear while leading the campaign against Egypt in 525 BCE. He conquered Memphis and the Pharaoh was carried off in captivity to Susa. Cambyses had himself enthroned as Pharaoh of Upper and Lower Egypt, and appeared as a worthy successor of the preceding Saitic dynasty. Egypt remained as a Persian satrapy for the following 200 years.
While in his Egypt campaign in 522 BCE, news reached Cambyses of a revolt back home led by Gaumata the Magian, an impostor claiming to be Smerdis (also known as the false Bardiya), the eldest son of Cyrus the Great and Cambyses’ brother. Several provinces of the Persian Empire accepted the new ruler, who bribed his subjects with a remission of taxes for three years. Hastening home to regain control, Cambyses died, possibly by his own hand, more probably from infection following an accidental sword wound. Later, Darius the Great defeated Gaumata and came to power in 521 BCE.
The new finding could overturn previous conceptions regarding the events that ultimately resulted into transferring of power from the heirs of Cyrus the Great to the dynasty of Darius the Great who was from a noble Persian family. It can also shed light on the baffling story of Bardiya’s assassination as some believe he was killed by his brother Cambyses while others say that the person killed by Darius the Great was the real Bardiya who was murdered due to Darius’ ambition to gain domination of the Persian Empire. The latter theory is now fading for several reasons raised by the new finding of Nashrimeh outside the boundaries of Pasargadae.
One idea that discards the second theory says that if Gaumata was the real Bardiya, why did he refuse to fight Darius the Great in Pasargadae, the centre of Achaemenid power? Moreover, Darius the Great’ inscription in Bistun says that the ‘real’ Bardiya was murdered before Cambyses led his campaign to Egypt. Some believe that Bardiya was killed by the order of his own brother, Cambyses, to prevent any possible claim to the throne while Cambyses was off to Egypt.
Yet relatively fewer archaeologists and historians hold Darius the Great responsible for Bardiya’s death and say that Guamata was Cambyses brother, Bardiya. These experts argue that if Bardiya was killed by Cambyses in 525 BCE, there was no way to keep it secret for three years until Guamata claimed the thrown as Bardiya in 522 BCE. However, the first idea that says Guamata was an impostor holds more truth, since Darius was a devout Mazda worshiper, and a promoter of the truth.
“If the Magian Gaumata is Bardiya, son of Cyrus the Great, why didn’t he stay in Pasargadae? Why did he initiate his uprising somewhere far from the Achaemenid dynastic capital of Pasargadae? Therefore, it is much closer to the reality to say that Gaumata was not in fact Cyrus’ son and for this reason he could not make his way through Pasargadae,” says Mohammad-Taqi Atayi from the team of archaeologists in Bam.
“If the theories raised by the recent discovery are proved, the political history of early Achaemenid period as we know it today could significantly be challenged … Once the only reliable reasoning which suggests Nashrimeh and Pasargadae to be one and the same city is disproved, one may conclude the theory that says Darius rebelled against the Imperial Family and blood relative is fundamentally flawed and can be questioned, added Atayi.
According to this archaeologist, the names of three cities located in Kerman appear on the inscriptions found in Persepolis’ ramparts, one of which is Nashirmeh. He also said that that evidence of Achaemenid dynastic period can still be found in Kerman such as potteries discovered in Sassanid dynastic era fortresses of Dokhtar and Ardeshir.
One of the strong documents used by archaeologists to refute the theory suggesting Nashrimeh and Pasargadae to be the same is the Bistun inscription. A few years after Darius the Great rose to the throne, he arranged for the inscription of a long ode of his accession in the face of the usurper Gaumata to be inscribed into a cliff in the Zagros Mountains of Iran that extend to Kermanshah Plain in a historic site known as Bistun.
The inscription is carved in both the Old-Persian (Aryan), and the Elamite languages. The Old-Persian inscription mentions a place called Paishiyauvada while its twin inscription in Elamite has Nashirmeh in place of this word. This shows that Paishiyauvada and Nashirmeh refer to the same place and that Nashirmeh was the Elamite name for Paishiyauvada. On the other hand, since it was not common for a city to have more than one name in one language and since Paishiyauvada and Pasargadae are both Persian names, it is clear that Paishiyauvada and Pasargadae are not the same. Therefore, Nashirmeh and Paishiyauvada refer to the same city.
Moreover, according to the Bistun inscription, Paishiyauvada is the name of a city on the foothills of a mountain called Arakadri, which today archaeologists believe today known as Mt. Barez south of Bam in Kerman province. This shows that Nashirmeh was indeed in Kerman.
The rule of the entire Kerman region along with a number of other satrapies was bestowed by Cyrus the Great to his eldest son, Bardiya. This is why Gaumata chose this region, Paishiyauvada in particular, as the base of his revolt. Moreover, its population of 8000 people was a great advantage. Even if three-quarter of the population were women, children, and the elderly, this still leaves a population of 2000 young men who could make up a powerful army to help Gaumata reach its goals. However, if Gaumata was the real Bardiya, he could have easily made use of all the powers in his hand and unite the regions under his control to rebel against his brother and seize over Pasargadae, which evidently never happened, once again proving Gaumata as fraud.
Nonetheless, more studies on the recently discovered Achaemenid city of Nashirmeh (Paishiyauvada) will shed more light on the mysterious years that followed Cambyses’ death.
Copyright © 1998-2015 The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS)