Wife_of_Xerxes_and_mother_of_Artaxerxes

Wife of Xerxes and mother
of Artaxerxes I: Queen Esther
Gérard GERTOUX
PhD candidate in Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, Université Lyon2
Member of the International Association for Assyriology
2
Front page: Head of Queen Esther in lapis lazuli (H 6.6 cm) from Persepolis.
National Museum of Iran, Tehran (ref 1274-7719). Seal with Queen Esther (H 3.2
cm) in front of Atossa (Darius' wife and Xerxes' mother) seated on a throne (likely
when she married Xerxes in 489 BCE). Musée du Louvre (AO 22359). Gold finger-
ring (H 2 cm). British Museum (ANE 124005). In the bronze “bathtub” coffin
found in the Acropolis of Susa, which is exactly oriented toward Jerusalem (azimuth
264° west from north), according to the biblical text (1Ki 8:44; Dn 6:10), Queen
Esther (510-426) had a size of around 1.60 m and the gold crown (Louvre Sb 2760)
around her head had a diameter of 20.2 cm (below). This prestigious crown was also
worn by King Darius III at the Battle of Issus (right image).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of contents:
Investigating the Book of Esther ......................................................................................... 5
Identifying Queen Esther /Amestris .................................................................................. 29
Herodotus versus Bible account ......................................................................................... 37
Archaeological checking of the Book of Esther ..................................................................... 60
Esther’s tomb in Susa .................................................................................................... 61
The historicity of Esther is denied, why? ............................................................................. 70
Biography ..................................................................................................................... 75
Wife of Xerxes and mother of Artaxerxes I: Queen Esther
Abstract: The vast majority of renowned modern scholars consider Esther's story to have no historical foundation and have
come to the conclusion that the book is pure fiction. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, their conclusion is based on a few
arguments that would demonstrate the impossibility of Esther's story. However, Amestris (510-426), wife of Xerxes and
mother of Artaxerxes I was the mother of Darius A (488-475), who was Crown prince in 475 BCE, Artaxerxes (485-
425) who became king of Persia (475-424) and Hystaspes II (486-425?) who became satrap of Bactria (475-425?). She
was queen consort at the side of Artaxerxes, her son (Ne 2:6; Life of Themistocles 29:6). Ctesias depicted her as a sensitive
and peaceful queen (Persica F13§34,42,44) and Plato as a wise sovereign (First Alcibiades 123b-124b). She is the only
queen to have received a royal tomb in the acropolis of Susa (a unique case in history). The head of Queen Amestris in lapis-
lazuli found in Persepolis (dated 5th century BCE) can be seen in the National Museum of Iran (ref 1274-7719). On a seal
dated 5th century BCE (AO 22359), Queen Amestris stands in front of Atossa (Darius’ wife and Xerxes’ mother), who
sits on a throne, when she married Xerxes in 489 BCE, the exact date of Esther's marriage, according to the Bible (Est 2:1-
18). Before the reign of Xerxes there were no Jewish officials in the Persian administration, but after his reign there were
hundreds of them. Conclusion: Amestris was an authentic Jewish queen (Esther).
All historians know, since Herodotus the Father of History, that chronology is the backbone of history.
Indeed, fiction is always anachronistic: “once upon a time in a faraway land”, whereas history is precisely
situated in time and space, as: “Xerxes reigned 21 years over Persia from 496 to 475 BCE”. Despite this
test of truth, no historian has questioned the chronology of Xerxes' reign calculated from the Babylonian
royal lists, which nevertheless eliminated all coregencies and “usurpers”, yet mentioned by Greek historians
and confirmed by numerous dated contracts. It wasn't until the article entitled: Dating the reigns of Xerxes and
Artaxerxes (Gertoux: 2018, 179-206) that a very old controversy about Xerxes’ reign (496-475) was brought
to an end. This controversy began more than 2350 years ago when the two greatest historians of all time,
Herodotus (484-425) and Thucydides (c.460-c.400), were challenged over their account of Xerxes’ death in
475 BCE, until the present day (Lenfant: 2009, 160-165). This challenge is extremely paradoxical because
Thucydides was always known for the accuracy and reliability of his chronology and Herodotus was called
the Father of History because he was the first historian to understand that chronology was the backbone of
History. The absolute chronology initiated by Herodotus was authoritative among Greek historians until
the conquest of Mesopotamia by Alexander the Great, because the discovery of the Babylonian royal lists
and astronomical tablets allowed these historians to improve their chronology. Paradoxically, the
confrontation between these two chronological systems did not produce an improvement in the Greek
chronology but its questioning, particularly concerning the death of Xerxes dated 465 BCE in the
Babylonian chronology but in 475 BCE according to the accounts of Herodotus (c. 430 BCE) and
Thucydides (c. 410 BCE). Ephorus of Cyme was thus the first Greek historian to contradict Thucydides by
affirming (c. 333 BCE) that in 475/474 Themistocles had met Xerxes instead of Artaxerxes. However, this
choice led to inconsistencies in the Greek chronology over the period 475–465. For example, Diodorus
(Historical Library XI:54-60) mentions (c. 30 BCE) the death of Themistocles when Praxigerus was archon
[471/470]. If Artaxerxes began his reign in 465 BCE, Themistocles (536-471), who died in 471 BCE, could
not have met him. This paradox is not new, as already evoked by Cornelius Nepos (c. 35 BCE):
I know most historians have related that Themistocles went over into Asia in the reign of Xerxes, but I
give credence to Thucydides in preference to others, because he, of all who have left records of that
period, was nearest in point of time to Themistocles, and was of the same city (Life of Themistocles IX).
Plutarch wrote (c. 100 CE): Thucydides (c.410 BCE) and Charon of Lampsacus (c.450 BCE) relate that Xerxes
was dead, and that it was his son Artaxerxes with whom Themistocles had his interview; but Ephorus and
Dinon and Clitarchus and Heracleides and yet more besides have it that it was Xerxes to whom he came.
With the chronological data Thucydides seems to me more in accord (Life of Themistocles 27:1-2).
The chronological debate among Greek historians as to whether Xerxes had died in 475 BCE, according to
Herodotus and Thucydides, or in 465 BCE, according to the Babylonian lists of kings, was settled by the
famous Greek astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, who published (c. 150 CE) a Babylonian (and Achaemenid)
chronology, dated after the Nabonassar era, beginning in 748 BCE. As a result of Ptolemy’s reliance on
verifiably-dated eclipses, all historians after 150 CE, without exception, adopted his Babylonian chronology
and modified the Greek chronology to bring it into line with this new absolute chronology of the
Achaemenid period1. Accordingly, checking the chronology of the Book of Esther is very difficult for the
following reason: all the Persian archives were destroyed by fire and the main (indirect) witness of that
period comes mainly from the Greek histories of Herodotus.
1 The Babylonian chronology established by Ptolemy was confirmed by the BM 34576 tablet, a King List dated 99 BCE.
4
Susa became part of the Persian Empire under Cyrus II in 539 BCE. During the Achaemenian period, Susa
functioned as one of the rotating capitals (a winter capital) of the Achaemenian Kings. Darius I built an
extensive palace complex around 520 BCE (Steve/ Vallat: 2003, 359-511), and Herodotus mentions Susa
as being the capital of Darius' empire (Herodotus does not make any mention of Persepolis being a Persian
capital). The palace complex —whose building continued under Darius' son Xerxes— was destroyed by a
fire during the reign of Artaxerxes I and then restored 50 years later by his grandson, Artaxerxes II.
According to Strabo, Alexander burnt up the palace at Persepolis (May 330 BCE), to avenge the Greeks,
because the Persians had destroyed both temples and cities of the Greeks by fire and sword (Geography
XV:3:6). According to the Book of Esther, annals of the kings of Media and Persia were written on books
(scrolls) —not clay tablets— recorded in Susa (Est 2:23; 6:1; 10:2) and Ecbatana (Ezr 6:1-2). Thus, the
main sources for the history of the Jews during the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the Persian Empire are
the biblical books, supplemented by important cuneiform texts (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, the
Yaukin Tablets), Old Persian inscriptions, the Cyrus Cylinder, the Murashu archive, and archaeological
excavations in Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia. Some ostraca, seals, and bullae also offer specific
corroborative evidence. Later Greek sources such as Herodotus, Ctesias, Berossus, and Josephus provide
some further information. Nevertheless, the biblical texts remain the most important narrative sources
(Yamauchi: 2003, 356-377). The historian's first step is to compare the biblical documents mentioning
King Xerxes with those of secular history (PF: Persepolis Fortification; BM: British Museum).
BCE Achaemenid King reference
500 22 Atossa (Darius I’s wife) is mentioned) PF 0162, PF 0163
499 23 Hystaspes I (father of Darius I) governor of Parthia (15/V/23) PF-NN 1700, PF 1596
498 24 Xerxes governor of Parthia (III/24) PF-NN 1657
497 25
496 26 0 Accession of Xerxes, building of his New Palace in Persepolis BM 30589, BM 42567
495 27 1 BM 75396
494 28 2 Battle of Lade. Fall of Miletus Herodotus VI:17-18,25
493 29 3 End of the Ionian revolt. Queen Vashti is repudiated Esther 1:3
492 30 4
491 31 5
490 32 6 Battle of Marathon (August 490 BCE)
489 33 7 Xerxes’ wedding with Esther (December 489 BCE) Esther 2:16-17
488 34 8
487 35 9
486 36 10 Death of Darius I (8 December 486 BCE) BM 72574
485 11 1 Plot against Xerxes (Babylonian revolts) Esther 2:21-23, 3:7
484 12 2 Forced labour upon the land and the isles of the sea Esther 10:1
483 13 3 Mordecai died Esther 10:2
482 14 4
481 15 5 Five years of war preparations from 485 to 481 BCE Herodotus VII:1-4
480 16 Battle of Salamis (September 480 BCE)
479 17 Battle of Plataea (August 479 BCE)
478 18
477 19
476 20 Siege of Eion, fall of Skyros, battle of Naxos (Last Xerxes' wars) Life of Theseus §§35,36
475 21 Death of Xerxes and Darius A (24 August 475 BCE) BM 32234
474 1 Artaxerxes I met by Themistocles Thucydides I:98,137
The oldest document mentioning Xerxes is tablet NN 1657 from the Persopolis Fortification archive:
7 litres of flour, allocation from Mirizza, a Parthian named Tamšakama, spear bearer, sent/assigned by
Xerxes, together with his three companions, sent from the King to Parthia: they received (it as) ration (for)
one day. Third month, 24th year (498 BCE). Their ration (was) 1.5 litre, one servant received 1 litre. He
(T.) carried a sealed document from the King (Henkelman: 2010, 27-33).
For a long time, the lack of the title “Crown prince (mar šarri)” for Xerxes was an argument used to deny
his coregency with Darius I, but the publication of the Elamite tablet PF-NN 1657 dated to Darius’ “3rd
month, 24th year” (May/June 498 BCE), provides the earliest dated reference to a ‘Xerxes (HALše-ir-šá)’
who can hardly be a person other than the future Achaemenid King (Rossi: 2012, 445-458). In this Elamite
letter Xerxes is not designated as co-regent, or Crown prince, but as king of Parthia since it is written: “sent
by Xerxes (...) sent by the king of Parthia”. The province of Parthia being a satrapy of the Persian empire,
the Elamite term “king (HALEŠŠANA a word read: sunki)” meant “governor” in that context. Xerxes, as the
WIFE OF XERXES AND MOTHER OF ARTAXERXES I: QUEEN ESTHER 5
son of King Darius, was appointed King of Parthia in the year 24 of Darius to replace Hystaspes, who had
just died and was still King of Parthia in the year 23 of Darius (499 BCE). Hystaspes I (578-499 BCE) was
Darius' father (Henkelman: 2003, 101-172). The appointment of Xerxes as King of Parthia implies that he
had a position of favour with Darius (in 498 BCE) and that he was married so that he could have an heir
and potential successor. According to the biblical text, this wife's name was Vashti (Est 1:3).
INVESTIGATING THE BOOK OF ESTHER
Is the Book of Esther an Oriental fairy tale or a precise record of numerous Persian events accurately dated
(Soubigou: 1949, 593-600), which are supposed to have taken place (as seen by an eyewitness) in the court
of an Achaemenian king called in the Hebrew text Aḥašweroš (Ahasuerus), a name which has been
plausibly interpreted as a transcription of the name Xšayārša (Xerxes)? We can see easily that the first event
mentioned in the Book of Esther is extremely well defined:
This is what happened during the time of Xerxes, the Xerxes who ruled over 127 provinces stretching
from India to Cush: At that time King Xerxes reigned from his royal throne in the citadel of Susa, and in
the 3rd year of his reign he gave a banquet for all his nobles and officials. The military leaders of Persia
and Media, the princes, and the nobles of the provinces were present. For a full 180 days he displayed the
vast wealth of his kingdom and the splendour and glory of his majesty. When these days were over, the
king gave a banquet, lasting 7 days, in the enclosed garden of the king’s palace, for all the people from the
least to the greatest who were in the citadel of Susa (Est 1:1-4; New International Version).
The reason for this huge banquet, dated in the spring 493 BCE, is not directly mentioned but it had to have
been given in order to celebrate a victory as shown by the fact that the first guests mentioned among the
nobles and officials were the military leaders of Persia and Media. According to Greek historians, we know
that there was the Ionian Revolt from 499 to early 493 BCE (Kuhrt: 2010, 210-230).
Herodotus wrote: After wintering [end 494 BCE] around Miletus, the Persian fleet sailed forth next year
[spring 493 BCE] and captured the islands off the mainland with ease: Chios, Lesbos and Tenedos (...)
They captured the Ionian cities on the mainland similarly, although they did not net the people, as it could
not be done there (...) From Ionia the fleet departed and captured all the places on the left of the entrance
of the Hellespont (The Histories VI:18,31-33).
A chronological analysis based on absolute dates therefore confirms the historical accuracy of the biblical
text of Esther. Indeed, according to the chronology from the Babylonian king lists, the 3rd year of the
reign of Xerxes is dated 483 BCE instead of 493 BCE, which corresponds to the 3rd year of war
preparations (Herodotus VII:1-4). Accordingly, it was illogical and unlikely that the military leaders of
Persia and Media should have been present at a huge banquet to celebrate a victory (Est 1:3) that would
never have existed! Important events mentioned in the book of Esther (Xerxes' wedding, the plot against
the king, the attempted genocide against the Jews in the Persian empire) took place over a relatively short
period of time, from the years 3 to 12 of Xerxes (493-484). Regarding Xerxes' marriage, the first point of
agreement between the Book of Esther and Greek historians is that this king was always monogamous:
After these things, when the rage of King Ahasuerus had subsided, he remembered Vashti and what she
had done and what had been decided against her. Then the king’s attendants, his ministers, said: “Let them
seek young women, virgins, beautiful in appearance, for the king, and let the king appoint commissioners
in all the jurisdictional districts of his realm, and let them collect together all the young women, virgins,
beautiful in appearance, at Susa the castle, at the house of the women in charge of Hege’ (Hegai) the
king’s eunuch, the guardian of the women; and let there be a giving of their massages. And that young
woman who seems pleasing in the king’s eyes will be queen instead of Vashti.” And the thing was
pleasing in the king’s eyes, and he proceeded to do that way. A certain man, a Jew, happened to be in Susa
the castle, and his name was Mordecai the son of Jair the son of Shimei the son of Kish a Benjaminite,
who had been taken into exile from Jerusalem with the deported people who were taken into exile with
Jeconiah the king of Judah whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon took into exile [in October 597
BCE]. And he came to be the caretaker of Hadassah, that is, Esther, the daughter of his father’s brother,
for she had neither father nor mother; and the young woman was pretty in form and beautiful in
appearance, and at the death of her father and her mother Mordecai took her as his daughter. And it came
about that, when the king’s word and his law were heard, and when many young women were collected
together at Susa the castle in charge of Hegai, then Esther was taken to the king’s house in charge of
Hegai the guardian of the women. Now the young woman was pleasing in his eyes, so that she gained
loving-kindness before him and he made haste to give her massages and her appropriate food, and to give
her seven selected young women from the king’s house, and he proceeded to transfer her and her young
women to the best place of the house of the women. Esther had not told about her people or about her
relatives, for Mordecai himself had laid the command upon her that she should not tell. And day after day
Mordecai was walking before the courtyard of the house of the women to know of Esther’s welfare and
6
what was being done with her. And when the turn of each young woman arrived to go in to King
Ahasuerus after it had happened to her according to the women’s regulation for 12 months, for that was
the way the days of their massage procedure were gradually fulfilled, 6 months with oil of myrrh and 6
months with balsam oil and with the massages of the women; then on these conditions the young woman
herself came in to the king. Everything that she would mention would be given her, to come with her from
the house of the women to the king’s house. In the evening she herself came in, and in the morning she
herself returned to the second house of the women in charge of Shaashgaz the king’s eunuch, the guardian
of the concubines. She would not come in anymore to the king unless the king had taken delight in her and
she had been called by name. And when the turn of Esther the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai,
whom he had taken as his daughter, arrived to come in to the king, she did not request anything except
what Hegai the king’s eunuch, the guardian of the women, proceeded to mention (all the while Esther was
continually gaining favour in the eyes of everyone seeing her). Then Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus
at his royal house in the 10th month, that is, the month Tebeth, in the 7th year of his reign [December 489
BCE]. And the king came to love Esther more than all the other women, so that she gained more favour
and loving-kindness before him than all the other virgins. And he proceeded to put the royal headdress
upon her head and make her queen instead of Vashti. And the king went on to hold a great banquet for all
his princes and his servants, the banquet of Esther; and an amnesty for the jurisdictional districts he
granted, and he kept giving presents according to the means of the king. Now when virgins were collected
together a second time, Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate (Est 2:1-20).
The chronology of the conspiracy against Xerxes in 485 BCE (as well as the attempted genocide against the
Jews) can be checked. Mordecai was a high official, but he became Prime Minister2, instead of Haman, only
from the 23/III/12 of Xerxes (June 484 BCE):
On that day King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) gave to Esther the queen the house of Haman, the one showing
hostility to the Jews; and Mordecai himself came in before the king, because Esther had told what he was
to her. Then the king removed his signet ring that he had taken away from Haman and gave it to
Mordecai; and Esther went on to place Mordecai over the house of Haman (...) Accordingly the secretaries
of the king were called at that time in the 3rd month, that is, the month of Sivan, on the 23 [day] of it; and
writing went on according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews and to the satraps and the
governors and the princes of the jurisdictional districts that were from India to Ethiopia, a 127
jurisdictional districts, [to] each jurisdictional district in its own style of writing and [to] each people in its
own tongue, and to the Jews in their own style of writing and in their own tongue. And he proceeded to
write in the name of King Ahasuerus and do the sealing with the king’s signet ring and send written
documents by the hand of the couriers on horses, riding post horses used in the royal service, sons of
speedy mares, that the king granted to the Jews that were in all the different cities (Est 8:1-2,9-10).
The remark on the speed of postal couriers indicates a very strong knowledge of the Persian
administration3 as well as its Persian vocabulary4. Is there a trace of Mordecai as Prime Minister among the
Persepolis tablets? The answer is no for two reasons: the tablets of Persepolis stop after the year 29 of
Darius in 493 BCE (Joannès: 1990, 173-189) and Mordecai, who became Prime Minister from 23/III/12 of
Xerxes, died soon after Year 12 (Est 3:7) as suggested by his epitaph:
King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) proceeded to lay forced labour upon the land and the isles of the sea. As for all
his energetic work and his mightiness and the exact statement of Mordecai’s greatness with which the king
magnified him, are they not written in the Book of the affairs of the times of the kings of Media and Persia
(Ezr 4:15)? For Mordecai the Jew was second to King Ahasuerus and was great among the Jews and
approved by the multitude of his brothers, working for the good of his people and speaking peace to all
their offspring (Est 10:1-3).
According to this text, Xerxes makes a corvée5 (see 1Ki 5:14) or “forced labour upon the land and the isles
of the Sea”, which refers to the islands of the Eastern Mediterranean and the maritime regions of the
empire. As we have seen, Xerxes prepared his expedition against Greece for four whole years and these
2 The Prime Minister was the highest official at the king's court; Greek historians have translated this function as chiliarch
“commander of a thousand” or “grand vizier”, but these translations are approximate because the Prime Minister had no official
title but was known as such because he had the personal seal of the King (Charles: 2015, 279-303).
3 According to Herodotus: While Xerxes did thus, he sent a messenger to Persia with news of his present misfortune. Now there is nothing mortal
that accomplishes a course more swiftly than do these messengers, by the Persians’ skilful contrivance. It is said that as many days as there are in the
whole journey, so many are the men and horses that stand along the road, each horse and man at the interval of a day’s journey (around 30 km). These
are stopped neither by snow nor rain nor heat nor darkness from accomplishing their appointed course with all speed. The first rider delivers his charge
to the second, the second to the third, and thence it passes on from hand to hand, even as in the Greek torch-bearers’ race in honour of Hephaestus. This
riding-post is called in Persia, angareion (The Histories III:98).
4 As: prtmym, “nobles” (1:3); bytn, “kiosk” (1:5); krps, “cotton” (1:6); dt, “law” (1:8); ktr, “crown” (1:11); ptšgn, “decree” (1:20);
gnzym, “treasury” (3:9); š‘šgz “servant of the beautiful (?)” (2:14) ptsgn, “copy” (3:14); and ḥštrnym, “royal horses” (8:10).
5 The Hebrew word mas can be translated as “tribute” or “forced labour”, but since the regions in question were already paying
tribute, the translation “forced labour” is more appropriate.

preparations6 are to be linked with the passage from the Book of Esther and the two Babylonian revolts.
Consequently, Xerxes’s war preparations are dated from spring 485 BCE to 481. Preparations for war
against Greece, from the spring of 485 BCE, must have resulted in heavy taxes on the satrapies of the
Persian empire, which drove the Babylonian aristocracy to dissent and regain economic independence.
BCE month regnal year King

486 6 III 36 10 Darius I / Xerxes I
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX Death of Darius (8 December 486), revolt of Psamtik III in Egypt
485 1 X [0] Xerxes I / [Xerxes as new king]
2 XI
3 XII Preparation of the war against Greece (Herodotus VII:1-4,20)
4 I 11 1 Plot against Xerxes (Est 2:21-23). Bad omen (JCS 1:350 n°2)
5 II
6 III Haman is Prime Minister (Est 3:1-3)
7 IV Zopyrus, the ruler of Babylon, is murdered (Persica F13§§25-26)
8 V 0 [Xerxes I] / Bel-šimânni (Megabyzus is appointed general in chief)
9 VI 0 [Xerxes I] / Šamaš-erîba
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX Xerxes I
484 1 X
2 XI
3 XII
4 I 12 Someone cast Pur (Est 3:7) in the real beginning of Xerxes’ reign (Ezr 4:6)
5 II
6 III Mordecai is established Prime Minister in place of Haman (Est 8:7-10)
7 IV
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX
483 1 X
2 XI
3 XII Festival of Purim established (Est 9:1-32)
XIIb
4 I 13 Mordecai is dead (Est 10:2)
5 II Artabanu is established Prime Minister (Life of Themistocles 27:2)
6 III
Herodotus explains the origin of the revolts by describing the context that followed the defeat of Marathon
that King Darius wanted to avenge. As these war preparations were requiring huge resources in men (more
troops) and money (more tax), this created a climate of insurrection especially from the Babylonian
aristocracy which preferred to do business with the Greeks, not war. Although Xerxes was enthroned by
King Darius (in 496 BCE), he was also challenged on the same grounds as his father because he was
approving the increase of the war effort. The legitimacy of Xerxes was challenged versus Artobarzanes, his
eldest brother, not because of his parentage as Herodotus explained (The Histories VII:2), but because of
his warrior choices that were not accepted by all. Herodotus explains that there was a climate of
insurrection in the Persian Empire from the Battle of Marathon (The Histories VII:1-5):
When the message concerning the fight at Marathon (in 490 BCE) came to Darius (...) Asia was in
commotion with these messages for 3 years, as the best men were enrolled for service against Hellas and
made preparations. In the 4th year (486 BCE) the Egyptians, whom Cambyses had enslaved, revolted from
the Persians; thereupon Darius was even more eager to send expeditions against both. But while Darius
was making preparations against Egypt and Athens, a great quarrel arose among his sons concerning the
chief power in the land (...) Learning of the contention between the sons of Darius, this man, as the story
goes, came and advised Xerxes (...) After declaring Xerxes king (βασιλεῦσαι)7, Darius was intent on his
expedition. But in the year after this and the revolt of Egypt, death came upon him in the midst of his
preparations, after a reign of 36 years in all, and it was not granted to him to punish either the revolted
Egyptians or the Athenians. After Darius' death, the royal power descended to his son Xerxes.
6 According to Herodotus: From the date of submission of Egypt, Xerxes took four whole years to assemble his army and supplies needed and he
took the field at the end of the 5th year [spring 480 BCE], with immense forces (The Histories VII:20).
7 A similar term βασιληίην “appointed king” is used by Herodotus to describe the coregency between Cyrus and Cambyses (The
Histories I:208).
8
According to Ctesias, after the death of Darius:
Xerxes decided to make war upon Greece, because the Chalcedonians had attempted to break down the
bridge as already stated and had destroyed the altar which Darius had set up, and because the Athenians
had slain Datis and refused to give up his body. But first he visited Babylon, being desirous of seeing the
tomb of Belitanes, which Mardonius showed him. But he was unable to fill the vessel of oil, as had been
written. Thence he proceeded to Ecbatana, where he heard of the revolt of the Babylonians and the murder
of Zopyrus their satrap (Persica F13§§25-26).
The historian Arrian also situated the Babylonian revolt at the time of his campaign against the Greeks
(Anabasis of Alexander III:16:4; VII:17:2), which began in the spring of year 485 BCE, according to
Herodotus (The Histories VII:20). Strabo says that Xerxes razed the temple of Bel Marduk (Geography
XVI:1:5), probably in retaliation for these brief Babylonian revolts. Herodotus wrote “one year after Darius
death [in 485 BCE], Xerxes attacked the [Babylonian?] rebels” (The Histories VII:7) when he robbed the
temple of Marduk and killed the priest who tried to prevent the robbery (The Histories I:183). These two
brief rebellions at the beginning of the reign of Xerxes confirm the coregency because during his accession
and his 1st year of reign, Xerxes was welcomed by the Babylonians and the two Babylonian revolts, just
after the death of Darius, implying that the Xerxes' accession could not have taken place at that time.
Plutarch, who confirms the story of Ctesias, who states that it is Megabyzus (Baga-buxša) who suppressed
the revolt and took Babylon, said that after the death of Darius the kingdom of Xerxes was challenged in a
climate of insurrection (very different from the period of accession 10 years earlier). According to Plutarch:
Arimenes (Ariamenes: eldest brother of Xerxes) came out of Bactria as a rival for the kingdom with his
brother Xerxes, the son of Darius. Xerxes sent presents to him, commanding those that brought them to
say: With these your brother Xerxes now honours you; and if he chances to be proclaimed king, you shall
be the next person to himself in the kingdom. When Xerxes was declared king (in 485 BCE), Arimenes
immediately did him homage and placed the crown upon his head; and Xerxes gave him the next place to
himself. Being offended with the Babylonians, who rebelled, and having overcome them, he forbade them
weapons (Sayings of Kings and Commanders 173c Xerxes).
If Ariamenes challenged the kingdom of Xerxes, that means he (Xerxes) was already king. In addition, the
Babylonian revolt early in his reign had visibly worried the Babylonians, since we read of a trilingual
inscription at Persepolis “King Xerxes says: When I became king, among the nations that are written
above, it is one that rebelled, then Ahuramazda gave me his support and thanks to Ahuramazda I beat
these people and I put it back in its place” (Lecoq: 1997, 257). Xerxes does not name the Babylonians
probably because this old people constituted a prestigious historical foundation of Achaemenid power,
thus it was embarrassing to admit such an insurrection. The translation of the Babylonian inscription is also
indicative of the awkwardness as it replaces the offending people by “these countries have rebelled”,
combining the revolt that had taken place at the time of Darius with the rebels, who were the two
Babylonians: Nebuchadnezzar III and IV. Cameron notes that the first year and the accession of Xerxes
are well documented in Babylon, accordingly Xerxes had been welcomed and the Babylonian revolt could
not have occurred during this 2-year period (Cameron: 1941, 314-325).
• If the first Babylonian revolt occurred in 484 BCE, this year would have been the second regnal year of
Xerxes (486–465) according to the Babylonian King List, however two tablets of Šamaš-erîba are clearly
dated year 1 of Xerxes (Waerzeggers: 2003/2004, 150-172).
• Greek historians describing the succession Darius/ Xerxes all indicate that some Babylonian revolts
occurred just after Darius’s death, not two years later.
• An astronomical fragment (JCS 1:350 n°2) enables us to date these Babylonian revolts. Although the
data is fragmentary it describes a revolt, clearly dated 05/IV/[?] during Xerxes’ reign (line 3 of the
tablet), which stands in perfect agreement with Bel-šimânni’s tablet (BM 87357). The astronomical
fragment (see Horowitz: 1995, 61-67) reads:
1) [...] the month of Tammuz (IV), the 5th day [...]
2) [...] to Babylon went [...]
3) [...] the troops of Elam [...]
4) [... the reg]ion of Mars which to [...]
5) [... M]ars into Cancer ente[red ...]
6) [... fle]d and into the river jumped and [...]
7) [... to] Borsippa went, destroyed the city [...]
The historical notices appear to be related to a conflict between Babylon and Elam (Media and Persia).
Line 4 indicates that the troops, and/or others, went to Babylon. Line 5 mentions the troops of Elam, and
line 8 apparently refers to a military defeat. In line 9 a group of people go to Borsippa. Lines 6–7 date these
events to a year when the planet Mars was in the vicinity of Cancer during the month of Tammuz (IV).
Observations of Mars in this context may be more than coincidental since the planet Mars is not only the
planet of Nergal, the Babylonian god of war, but is also often associated with Elam in astrology (see
Horowitz 1995). The fragment must refer to an astronomical omen rather than belonging to an
astronomical diary for two reasons: most information comes from a chronicle rather than an astronomical
record (in which historical events are rare); given that the constellation of Cancer covers 20° of the sky
(Levy: 1995, 144) it needs 20 days to be crossed by a planet, which makes it impossible to date an
observation to a specific day. For Babylonian observers, Mars was entering visually in a constellation when
it was crossing its centre. An astronomical simulation indicates that Mars was in the centre of the
constellation of Cancer around 9 April 485 BCE (= -484* in astronomy), i.e. during the 1st month of the
Babylonian year (Nisan) and again on 6 March 468 BCE. Given that after the death of Darius
dissatisfaction with Babylon appeared, this omen (in April 485 BCE), at the beginning of Xerxes' effective
reign (year 11), foresaw a war with Babylon that took place soon afterwards in July (month IV). The dated
contracts of the two Babylonian kings make it possible to reconstruct the chronology of this revolt:
King Tablet Date Year of Xerxes Title of the king
Xerxes BSCAS 32 no. 2 02/I/11 11 ?
JCS 1, 350 no. 2 05/IV/[11] 485 BCE ? (outbreak of dissent)8
Bel-šimânni AfO 19 no. 23 14+/V/00 - King of Babylon and of lands
VS 6 331 01/VI/00 1 King of Babylon
BM 87357 11/VI/00 1 King of Babylon
Šamaš-erîba LB 1718 04/V/00 - King of Babylon and of lands
BM 25897 22/VI/00 - King
BM 96414 24/VI/00 1 King of Babylon, king of lands
BM 96414 24/VI/00 - King of Babylon, king of lands
VS 3 178 25/VI/00 - King of Babylon
BM 67297 25/VI/00 - King of Babylon and of lands
BM 94878 09/VII/00 - King of Babylon, king of lands
VS 5 116 21/VII/00 - King of Babylon
ZA 3, 157f. 22/VII/00 - King of Babylon and of lands
VS 6 173 23/VII/00 - King of Babylon, king of lands
BM 22072 24/VII/00 - King of Babylon
VS 6 174 29/VII/00 - King of Babylon
MMA 86.11.178 11/VIII/00 - King of Babylon and of lands
Xerxes OECT 10, 176 05/IX/11 11 King of lands
JCS 28 no. 38 24/XI/11 11 -
These two Babylonian revolts are a puzzle for today's historians (Kuhrt: 2014, 163-169), because they
effectively confirm the account of Greek historians, with the notable exception of Herodotus, who does
not mention them clearly (The Histories VII:7), although he was chronologically the best placed to talk
about them. Even more surprisingly, Xerxes himself makes no clear mention of the Babylonian revolts,
which therefore played an insignificant role. Archaeological excavations have not revealed any traces of war
or destruction in Babylon. The chronological reconstruction helps to solve this enigma. In April 485 BCE
Xerxes was informed that there was going to be a Babylonian revolt and ordered Megabyzus, his army
general, to go to Babylon to prevent it. In July 485 BCE the troop of Persian soldiers arrived in Babylon,
Zopyrus, its provincial governor, was murdered, Bel-šimânni was enthroned “King of Babylon and of
lands”. The rapid intervention of the Persian army from Elam and the very short reign of Bel-šimânni (c. 1
month), who had to have been killed by Megabyzus, shows that Xerxes had foiled this Babylonian plot.
The many dated contracts prove that there was no war with the Babylonians because otherwise they could
not have been registered. On the other hand, the reign of a few months of Šamaš-erîba (“Šamaš gave me a
substitute”) implies that the Babylonians must have changed their strategy since this king was not killed
immediately. The apparently chaotic variation in the titles of the Babylonian kings suggests that the original
plan was to kill Xerxes and replace him with Bel-šimânni “King of Babylon and of lands”, but this plan
having failed it was replaced by a more modest plan, Bel-šimânni being only “King of Babylon”. The two
contracts dated to the year 1 of Xerxes with the title “King of Babylon” show that Bel-šimânni considered
himself as vassal of Xerxes, not as dissident king. The contract dated to the year 1 of Xerxes with the title
“King of Babylon, king of lands” show that Šamaš-erîba considered himself as coregent of Xerxes, not as
vassal king, in the same way that when Cyrus succeeded Nabonidus he began his Babylonian reign again as
“King of lands”, Year 1, and then named Cambyses co-regent with the title “King of Babylon, king of
8 The appearance of dissent is mentioned in month IV, which corresponds exactly to the beginning of the Babylonian revolts.
10
lands”. This prestigious situation allowed Shamash to be exempted from the taxes imposed on the other
satrapies of the Achaemenid Empire. Given the number of contracts (13) in the name of Šamaš-erîba, this
Babylonian king collaborated for several months with Megabyzus. It is likely that Xerxes, after being
informed of this new situation, had to ask his army general to eliminate this self-proclaimed co-regent.
The Book of Esther places the conspiracy against Xerxes in 485 BCE and the attempted genocide against
the Jews, followed by the appointment of Mordecai as Prime minister in 484 BCE, in the early reign of
Xerxes as king (Ezr 4:6) and not at the start of his coregency with Darius I from 496 BCE. In contrast,
historians are incapable of dating the two Babylonian revolts, either 484/482? or 480/479? (Kuhrt: 2010,
249 note 4), which took place early in the effective reign of Xerxes (Year 11), after Darius’ death, and could
not have occurred when he was co-regent (Year 1). Therefore, the conspiracy against Xerxes, which is
dated in 485 BCE in the Book of Esther, is remarkably accurate. Unfortunately, historians who did not
conduct chronological investigations, preferring to rely on scholarly speculations, infer from slight
discrepancies between the Hebrew text and its translation in the Septuagint that « The historical backdrop
to Esther is most probably from Egypt at the beginning of the first century BCE, when the extent of
Jewish involvement within the Ptolemaic court and military was considerable » (Hacham: 2012, 318-356).
Did Mordecai, who was appointed as prime minister, and Esther, who became Xerxes’ wife and was
appointed as Queen, leave traces in Neo-Babylonian documents? The name Mordecai (Mar-duk-ka) is rare;
it is sometimes found during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus (Dougherty: 1923, 22,46),
unlike the name Marduk9 which was widely used10. Among the cuneiform sources dating to the period of
the Neo-Babylonian empire, of which 16,000 have been published, there are only two individuals bearing
the name Marduka: an entrepreneur (Jursa: 2007, 84) who did business under Nabonidus until the year 5 of
Cyrus (534 BCE), and an administrative superintendent (Hallock: 1969, 102, 138, 165, 178, 233, 248, 286,
340, 353, 441, 489, 511, 725) who worked under Darius I from his years 17 to 32, exactly at the same
period (505-490) as when Mordecai worked (Cameron: 1948, 83), such a coincidence leads us to identify
Marduka with Mordecai (Yamauchi: 1992, 272-275; Shea, Van Wyk: 2008, 1-11):
BCE reign Marduka’s role according to the years of Darius’ reign Reference
505 17 Supplied by Marduka PF 489; PF 1581
504 18 From the Marduka PF 273
503 19 Whose apportionments are set by Marduka PF 991
502 20 Supplied by Marduka; Whose apportionments are set by Marduka PF 941; PF 1794
501 21 Whose apportionments are set by Marduka PF 1183
500 22 Marduka delivered; Supplied by Marduka PF 81; PF 863
499 23 Supplied by Marduka PF 790; PF 1236
498 24 Supplied by Marduka (Xerxes was governor of Parthia according to PF 412;
497 25 PF-NN 1657 and was likely married to princess Vashti)
496 26- 0 Accession of Xerxes and building of his New Palace in Persepolis BM 30589, 42567
495 27- 1
494 28- 2
493 29- 3 Queen Vashti is repudiated Est 1:3
492 30- 4 Marduka is royal scribe of Uštanu [Governor of Babylon and Amherst 258
491 31- 5 Beyond the River]
490 32- 6 Hirirukka wrote (the tablet), the receipt from Mardukka he received PT 1
489 33- 7 Xerxes’ wedding with Esther Est 2:16-17
488 34- 8
487 35- 9
486 36-10 Death of Darius I (8 December 486 BCE) BM 72574
485 11 Plot against Xerxes (Babylonian revolts) Est 2:21-23, 3:7
484 12 Forced labour upon the land and the isles of the sea Est 10:1
483 13 Mordecai died Est 10:2
The name Mordecai (Marduka) does not mean anything but can be understood in Aramaic as “the
Mardukean (mar-duk-a-a-a)” in the sense of “the Babylonian”. Marduka was a high official who performed
some works as an accountant: “Mardukka the accountant [marriš] has received” (R140); “Hirirukka wrote
9 Marduk was typically Babylonian (always written dAMAR.UTU “calf-sun”, originally pronounced amarutuk). Many etymologies
of ancient names, even those well known, are conjectural like Cyrus (Kuruš in Old Persian, Kuraš in Elamite), Cambyses
(Kambujiya in Old Persian, Kambuziya in Elamite), etc.
10 For example, a contract dated 16/XI/8 of Nebuchadnezzar (February 596 BCE) reads: Adi’ilu, son of Nabu-zer-iddina, and Ḫuliti,
his wife (the divine Ḫulitum) have sold Marduka, their son, for the price agreed upon, to Šula, son of Zer-ukin. The liability to defeasor and pre-
emptor, which is upon Marduka, Adi’ilu and Addaku respond for (Pinches: 2004, 435-436, 471).
(the tablet), the receipt from Mardukka he received” (PT 1), and royal scribe (Charles/ Stolper: 2006, 14-
15). Two tablets prove that Marduka was an important administrative superintendent and not a mere
official of Darius' Palace. For example, a high official wrote: “Tell Marduka, Mirinza spoke as follow” (PF
1858) and in another tablet (Amherst 258) Marduka is described as a translator and royal scribe (sepīru)
attached to Uštanu’s retenue, the governor of Babylon and Beyond the River (Briant: 2002, 260,509). The
Persian word sepīru means literally “interpreter-scribe”, like the Hebrew word sopher, different from the
tupšarru term which means “tablet scribe” but given that it is used only with scribes who worked for the
king the best translation is “royal scribe” rather than “scribe” (MacGinnis: 1995, 122-124,131).
The Babylonian tablet Amherst 258 is dated Year 30 of Darius I by Theophilus Pinches who wrote: “The
text bears the date of the 30th year” (Pinches: 1904, 267-270), but as this date had become illegible in
Ungnad's time, this scholar estimated, without giving any arguments, that this tablet should be dated
around 485 BCE (Ungnad: 1959-1960, 80-81). Accordingly, many scholars prefer today to estimate the date
at the beginning of the 5th century instead of 490 BCE. However, the dating of Ungnad (c. 485 BCE) is
contradicted by a prosopographic analysis of the names of the many high-ranking officials contained in the
Amherst 258 tablet. For example, Uštanu, the governor of Babylon and Beyond the River, had a career that
is easy to date. As the last dated texts mentioning this high-ranking official are those dated Year 3 of
Xerxes (Alstola: 2018, 128 n. 814), in 493 BCE, and Year 30 of Darius (Amherst 258), in 492 BCE, and
since he had a parallel career to that of Tattannu (522-489) he must have been in his early 30’s at the
beginning of his governorate in 522 BCE. If he died around the age of 60, his death must have occurred
around 491-490 BCE. Therefore, the Amherst 258 tablet must be dated before 490 BCE. Another high-
ranking official named Bagazuštu who appears in the tablet also appears in a Zabada-šar-uṣur’s contract
dated 18/VIII/26 of Darius I, in 496 BCE (Tavernier: 2014, 299 note 19). In addition, we know that the
renewal of Zabada-šar-uṣur’s contracts, which were renewed every four years, are dated 5/IX/22, in 500
BCE, then 18/VIII/26 of Darius I, in 496 BCE, then four years later 10/XI/04 of Xerxes (in 492 BCE),
instead of 10/XI/26 of Darius I (Joannès/Lemaire: 1996, 41-60). Assyriologists who examined the tablets
with Uštanu's name and Bagazuštu's name on them ignored those that mentioned the name Xerxes (496-
475) because they contradicted the conventional dating of Xerxes' reign (486-465) without the 10-year
coregency with Darius I (522-486). With the 10-year coregency the Year 30 documents of Darius I and the
Year 4 documents of Xerxes are both dated 496 BCE.
These documents show that Marduka began his career around 505 BCE as an administrative
superintendent of the palaces of Darius and then held a position at the court until at least 490 BCE, since
he collaborated with Uštanu (522-491?) an imperial governor of the satrapy of Babylon and Beyond the
River. This high official had the same name as the Mordecai of the Bible, in the same period (505-490), in
the same place (Susa) and had the same career. Mordecai was also a high official, because one reads:
In those days, while Mordecai was sitting in the king's gate, two of the king's chamberlains, Bigthan and
Teresh, of those that kept the threshold, were wroth, and sought to lay hands on the king Ahasuerus (...) And
it was found written, that Mordecai had told of Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king's chamberlains, of
those that kept the threshold, who had sought to lay hands on the king Ahasuerus. And the king said: What
honour and dignity hath been bestowed on Mordecai for this? Then said the king's servants that ministered
unto him: There is nothing done for him (Est 2:21, 6:2-3; American Standard Version).
The word saris, coming from the Babylonian ša-reši “the head”, means “chamberlain/ minister of the court”
but also “eunuch” depending on the context. Here the first meaning is appropriate because all these
servants were ministering [šarṭ] unto the king. In addition, the mention “Mordecai was sitting in the king's
gate” involves his being close to the king because according to Herodotus:
They showed themselves to the king and told him why they had been treated so. Darius, fearing that the six
had done this by common consent, sent for each and asked his opinion, whether they approved what had
been done; and being assured that they had no part in it, he seized Intaphrenes [in 521 BCE] with his sons
and all his household —for he strongly suspected that the man was plotting a rebellion with his kinsmen—
and imprisoned them with the intention of putting them to death. Then Intaphrenes’ wife began coming to
the king’s gate, weeping and lamenting; and by continuing to do this same thing she persuaded Darius to
pity her; and he sent a messenger to tell her: Woman, King Darius will allow one of your imprisoned
relatives to survive, whomever you prefer of them all (The Histories III:119).
We know that once it was created, Babylonia remained a kingdom for 4 years (539-535) then it became a
satrapy with a governor named Gubaru (535-525), which was connected by Darius I (c. 520 BCE) with
another satrapy called “those [lands] of the sea (including Phoenicia, Palestine, Cyprus)” or “[lands] beyond
the River (Euphrates)”. During this time we know the names of a few governors: Zerubbabel (538-525?)
then Hananiah (525-510?) for the province of Judaea (Ezr 1:8,3:8; 1Ch 3:19), Nabonidus, the former king
12
of Babylon, for the satrapy of Carmania (Jewish Antiquities X:247-249) and Mahlaï (525-500?), an ally of
Persia (The Histories III:91), for the kingdom of Arabia (Lemaire: 1994, 11-53). The former kingdom of
Babylon became a Persian province only after Darius' death and it is worthwhile noting that during his
reign, Babylon was a satrapy of two big provinces (Babylonia and [lands] Beyond the River) and its ruler
has been called “Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River” (Stolper: 1989, 283-305; Joannès: 2002, 144-
147). Consequently, the governor of the land of Judaea was under the authority of Tattannu, the governor
of [the lands] Beyond the River. According to the Bible, Rehum, a resident of Samaria, ruled (538?-522) the
province Beyond the River as “royal prefect” (Ezr 4:7-21), before Tattenai (Tattannu) who was “governor
of the province Beyond the River” (522-489). Consequently, the description of the administrative
organization of the Persian Empire in the Bible is accurate especially Babylonia, its main satrapy:
The copy of the letter which Tattenai (Tattannu) the governor of the province Beyond the River and
Shethar-boznai (čithra-ḅrdana “that raises the brightness”) and his associates the governors who were in the
province Beyond the River sent to Darius the king (Ezr 5:6).
Ruler of Babylon Period Babylonia as: Title

Ugbaru 539-538 Kingdom [King] of Babylon
Cambyses II 538-535 Kingdom King of Babylon
Gubaru 535-525 Satrapy Governor of Babylon
Uštanu 522-491? Satrapy and Province Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River
Ḫuta-[an-na]-’ 491?-486 Satrapy and Province Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River
Zopyrus 486-485 Province Provincial Governor of Babylon
Bel-šimânni 485-485 (Kingdom) King of Babylon,
Šamaš-erîba 485-485 (Kingdom) King of Babylon, king of lands
Xerxes I 485-475 Province King of Lands
Ruler Period Title Area
Darius I 522-486 King of Babylon and of lands Empire
Uštanu 522-491? Governor of Babylon and [lands] Beyond the River Satrapy
Tattannu 522-489 (City Governor) Governor of [lands] Beyond the River Province
Hananiah? 525?-510? Governor of Judaea Land
The fact that Hananiah (1Ch 3:19), Elnathan, Jehoezer and Ahzai were governors of the land of Judah
(called yehud paḥô’ in Aramaic or peḥah yehûdah in Hebrew) is deduced from stamps with personal names and
the title governor11 (Grabbe: 2004, 61-62). Tattannu, also called Nabû-tattannu-uṣur, is well attested (Jursa/
Stolper: 2007, 243-281). He had to collaborate with Uštanu the governor of Babylon and Beyond the River
(satrapy). Names in bold characters are those mentioned in the Bible and confirmed by archaeology.
Governor Province of [lands] Beyond the River
Yehud (Palestine) Arabia Phoenicia
Rehum 538-522 Zerubbabel 538-525? ? (Byblos)
Tattannu 522 - Hananiah? 525?-510? Mahlaï 525? - Rikis-
Elnathan? 510?-495? -500? kalâmu-Bēl
-489 Jehoezer? 495?-480? Iyâs 500? - Urimilk II
Ahzai? 480?-468? -475? Yeharba‘al
(Nehemiah) Samaria 468-455 Sahru 475?-450? Yehawmilk
Nehemiah 455-443 Sin’uballit 450? - Gashmu 450?-425? Elpaal
Bagohi 410-400 -407 Qaïnu 425?-400? ‘Ozbaal
Historical information about the area “Beyond the river” given by Herodotus and the Bible during Darius
I’s reign, as names and titles of rulers, as well as chronological data is extremely reliable (Petit: 1990, 174-
221). During the reign of Artaxerxes I, the governor of Judah at that time, the following event happened:
Then I came to the governors beyond the River, and gave them the king's letters. Now the king had sent
with me captains of the army and horsemen. And when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah12 the servant, the
Ammonite (...) But when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the
Arabian, heard it, they laughed us to scorn, and despised us (Ne 2:9-10,19).
11 There were four governors (paḥôth) between Zerubbabel and Nehemiah (Ne 5:14-15), but their dating is a scholarly conjecture.
Hananiah (525?-510?) was the son of Zerubbabel (1Ch 3:19) and Bagohi is mentioned in Ezra 10:15-16 as head of the people.
12 The role and title of Tobiah is unclear. Since the nobles of Judah referred to him to make decisions against Nehemiah (Ne
6:17-19) and the high priest Eliashib was a relative of Tobiah “Good is Yah” (Ne 13:4), this Ammonite high official was to be
governor of Yehud when Nehemiah (“Yah comforts”) came as procurator of Artaxerxes (468-455). Similarly, the title of Rehum
(“have mercy”), a nobleman from Samaria, is b‘êl t‘êm (Ezr 4:8), which means in Aramaic “master of royal edict”.
Evidence for the existences of Sanballat (Sin’uballit “Sin gives life” in Babylonian), governor of Samaria,
and Geshem (Gashmu “rain” in Hebrew), governor of Arabia (and king of Qedar), has been discovered by
archaeologists (Lemaire: 1994, 26-27,42-43). It is interesting to note that Iddin-Nergal had the Persian title
vardana-pāti “Chief of the town” (Briant: 2002, 485), but others had the Babylonian title šakin ṭemi “City-
Governor” of Babylon13, not Governor (piḥatu). During the reign of Darius I, the hierarchical structure of
power in the Persian Empire between the satrapy of Babylon, her two provinces: Babylon and Beyond the
River (Phoenicia, Palestine called Yehud, and Cyprus), was as follows:
RULER AND TITLE Period
Darius I King of Babylon and Lands (Kingdom) 522-486
Uštanu Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River (Satrapy) 522-491?
(Marduka royal scribe of Uštanu) (505-492)
Bēl-apla-iddin (522?-517?) Tattannu (Province) 522-489
City-Governor of Babylon Provincial Governor of Beyond the River
(Land) Mahlaï King of Arabia Hananiah Governor of Judah 525?-510?
It should be acknowledged that archaeological findings are difficult for archaeologists to interpret because
available sources are essentially the biblical texts (Carter: 1999, 50-60), but the comparison of biblical
information on Persian administration: the names of the rulers as well as their function and title, the exact
period of the exercise of their function, with the information coming from historical and archaeological
documents is in perfect agreement. Mordecai (Marduka)'s existence is thus confirmed, and his
administrative career can even be reconstructed.
13Bēl-apla-iddin (522?-517?), Nabû-šuma-ukīn (517?-510?), Iddin-Nergal (510?-505?), Baga-pana (505?-500), Ina-Esagil-lilbur

(500-497), Guzanu (497-493).
14
The sentence “Xerxes ruled 127 provinces (medinah) stretching from India to Cush (Est 1:1)” is considered
an exaggeration because the inscriptions of Darius (DNa§6) or Xerxes (XPh§3) mention at best 31
satrapies. Once more the accusation is unfounded, because it is stipulated a little further:
Then the king's secretaries were summoned on the 13th day of the 1st month, and an edict, according to all
that Haman commanded, was written to the king's satraps (aḥašdarpenim) and to the governors (paḥôṭ) over
all the provinces and to the princes (śarey) of all the peoples, to every province (medinah) in its own script
and every people in its own language (Est 3:12, 8:9).
Herodotus (The Histories III:89) explains how the Persian administration was working:
Having done these things in Persia, he [Darius I] divided his empire into 20 dominions [arke], which they
call satrapies; and having divided his dominions into provinces he appointed governors, then he instructed
each people to pay him tribute, consolidating neighbouring peoples and distributing outlying peoples among
different provinces, passing over those adjoining (Barguet: 2002, 318-319).
Herodotus gives a list of 20 satrapies comprising 65 provinces but given that his numbering of satrapies is
too low (30 is more likely) and the description of some of them is obviously partial (explanations of the
discrepancies are controversial, see Barguet: 1997, 77-90), there were more likely to be around 120
provinces (30 satrapies multiplied by 4 provinces in each satrapy).
DNa§6 Herodotus (The Histories III:89-92)
n° (c. 520 BCE) = (c. 450 BCE)
1 Persia 9 The Ionians, Magnesians of Asia, Aeolians, Carians, Lycians, Milyans, Pamphylians
2 Elam 8 The Mysians, Lydians, Lasonians, Cabalians, and Hytennians
3 Babylon The Hellespontians on the right of the entrance of the straits, the Phrygians,
Thracians of Asia, Paphlagonians, Mariandynians, and Syrians (of Cappadocia)
4 Assyria Cilicia
5 Arabia 7 The country between Posideion (Ras al-Bassit) and Egypt; in this province was all
Phoenicia, and the part of Syria called Palestine, and Cyprus.
6 Egypt 6 Egypt and the neighbouring parts of Libya, and Cyrene and Barca.
7 Those of the Sea The Sattagydae, Gandarii, Dadicae, and Aparytae.
8 Lydia 2 Susa (Elamites) and the rest of the Cissian country.
9 Ionia 3 Babylon and the rest of Assyria.
10 Media 10 Ecbatana and the rest of Media, with the Paricanians and Orthocorybantians.
Another disputed point is the role of the satrap ruling the satrapy called “Those of the sea (Phoenicia,
Palestine and Cyprus)” with the governor of one of his provinces, like the governor of Palestine (Judaea,
Samaria and Arabia). No Babylonian or Persian document indicates the number of provinces. The only
data come from Herodotus. However, most of the 65 “provinces” mentioned by him are actually peoples
rather than provinces. All the data on the number of provinces and satrapies are the following:
King BCE Satrapies Provinces Document Reference
Darius (the Mede) 538 (3) 120 Nabonidus Chronicle Daniel 6:1-2
Darius I 520 23 (127?) Inscription DB§6
Xerxes 484 31 127 Inscription XPh§3 Esther 1:1
Artaxerxes I 450 20 (?) 65 (?) Herodotus III:89-92
According to the Nabonidus Chronicle: “He [Cyrus] appointed Ug/Gubaru, his governor, over the local
governors of Babylon” (Kuhrt: 2010, 51), but this report is very misleading because Ug/Gubaru was
actually co-regent of Cyrus and the new (effective) king of Babylon who established governors over his
kingdom. Given that Herodotus wrote his book around 430 BCE he had to have referred to the Persian
data of his time. While initially we had in 538 BCE 1 satrapy for 1 province, quickly (from 520 BCE)
Darius made associations of 3 to 8 provinces in each satrapy. The term “governor” means merely “ruler/
chief”; it was used as the typical title for province governor. The presence of small and large provinces
inside a satrapy induced a hierarchical relationship between chief-governors (bel piḫati) and under-governors
(šakin ṭemi). The word “satrap”, from the Old Persian kšathrapan, was translated piḫatu “governor” into
Babylonian and hegemon into Greek but also transcripted satrapes (’aḥašdarpan into Aramaic). The title
“under-governor” was translated hyparchos “subordinate governor”. However, even in official documents
the use of all these hierarchical titles was not always consistent (Petit: 1990, 15-21). Another problem of
transcription concerns names of kings, since the biblical text uses only official names, which are throne
names14, not birth names (Dandamaev: 1989, 103-113). Obviously when a king had been considered later
14 For example, Darius II’s birth name was Vahuka in Old Persian or Umakush in Babylonian.
as a usurper* (asterisked name), no official inscriptions used his throne name. What further complicates
things the Persian rulers used Persian names, which were changed into cuneiform by Babylonian scribes,
then translated into Aramaic and copied in Hebrew in the Bible by Jewish scribes15 and finally transcribed
into Greek. Thus, “Xerxes” is closer to “Xshayarsha” in Old Persian than the Greek “Ahasuerus”.
Throne name Reign Birth-name Nickname reference
Evil-Merodach 562-560 Nabû-šuma-ukîn Jr 52:31
Darius* (the Mede) 539-538 Ubaruš? King of the diviner (UG-baru) Dn 5:31
Artaxerxes* (0) 523-522 Bardiya Gaumata, the magus Ezr 4:7
Darius (I) 522-486 Darius? King of kings Ezr 4:5
Xerxes 496-475 Xerxes? King Ezr 4:6
[Vashti] [498-493] Vashti? ? Est 1:9
[Esther°] [489-475] Hadassa Vigourous wife (Amestris) Est 2:7
Artaxerxes (I) 475-425 Cyrus Long-Hand Ezr 7:1
Darius (II the Persian) 424-403 Vahuka Bastard (Nothos) Ne 12:22
Biblical name Old Persian Babylonian Greek Egyptian
Evil-merodach Amel-Marduk Oulaimadakhar
Darius* (the Mede) Ubarush Ug-baru Oibaras/Harpagus
Artaxerxes* (0) Bardiya “Magus” Smerdis
Zerubabbel Sheshbazzar Zer-babili Zorobabel
Daniel Balat-shar-utsur Baltasar
Hananyah Tshithraka Shadrach Hananias
Mishael Mitshaka Mishach Misael
Azaryah Abed-nabu Azarias
Darius (I) Darayavahush Dariamush Dareios Antaruyuasha
Xerxes Xshayarsha Khishiarshu Ahasuerus Khashayarusha
Mordecai Marduka (Mardukaya) Mardochaios
Esther Stara Ishtar Esther
Artaxerxes (I) Artaxshatsa Artakshatsu Artoxerxes
Darius (II) Vahuka Umakush Ochos
It is noteworthy that the Greek transcriptions of Persian names are often puzzling, for example Bardiya is
called Mardus by Aeschylus (in 472 BCE), Smerdis by Herodotus (c. 430 BCE), Tanyoxarkes by Ctesias (c.
400 BCE), etc. On the other hand, Darius I called him Gaumata and Ezra called him Artaxerxes. It is
noted that the Hebrew transcriptions of Persian and Babylonian names are generally faithful to the original
(Millard: 1977, 481-488), which enables one to find genuine names (Zadok: 2004, 109-120) and their
meaning16. For example, Zerubabbel (1Ch 3:19) comes from zer-babili “Offspring of Babel”, this name was
changed into “Sheshbazzar” (Ezr 1:8-11). In fact, Jewish names were changed into Babylonian (or Persian)
genuine names, for example: Belteshazzar, balaṭ-ša[r]-uṣur “protect king’s life”, and Abednego ‘ebed-nabu
“servant of Nabu”, but these names were slightly modified to stand out from Babylonian gods.
Among those who were chosen were some from Judah (in 598 BCE): Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and
Azariah. The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach;
to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego (Dn 1:6-7).
This information confirms the total absence of Jewish names in the archives of the Babylonian
administration, as the few Jewish nobles who were taken hostage had their names systematically replaced
by Babylonian names. It also indirectly confirms that Xerxes had been informed of the plot against him by
Mordecai (Marduka). Indeed, whereas there are no Jewish names in Persian documents before the reign of
Xerxes (496-475 BCE), there are hundreds after. It has been seen that Xerxes was informed of the
assassination plot around April 485 BCE; it is likely that when he learned that his informant was Jewish
(Est 3:4), Marduka being a typically Babylonian name, he chose to integrate many Jewish officials into his
administration to replace the disloyal Babylonian officials. The fact that Mordecai chose to inform Xerxes
through the queen is logical (Est 2:21-22), for only princes or members of the royal family could request an
audience with the king (Est 4:11). Mordecai's action thus had great consequences for his Jewish
compatriots, for those who were hated by the Babylonian officials when the kingdom of Babylon was
15 The name Mehuman (Est 1:10), which is written Mi-hi-ma-na (PF 455), comes from the Old Persian name Vahumanah
“intelligent”; Hamedatha (Est 3:1), written Ha-ma-da-da (PF 1060 dated XII/22, PF 1459), from the Old Persian name Amadāta
“strongly made”. The names Karkas (Est 1:10) appears as Karkiš “vulture(?)”in the tablet PF 1793 dated VII/20.
16 Darius “Who maintains the good”; Ubaruš “Who has well-formed shoulders”; Xerxes “Who heads the heroes”; Artaxerxes
“Whose reign is right”; Vashti “Excellent”; Esther “Star”; Hadassa “Myrtle”; Amestris “Strong wife”; Vahuka “The good one”.
16
attached to the Persian empire, became allies of the Persians from Xerxes onwards. The precise chronology
of the fall of Babylon is given by the Nabonidus Chronicle:
Year 17 of Nabonidus [539 BCE] the feast of the New year (Akitu) was celebrated (...) month VII when
Cyrus attacked Akkad’s army, Sippar was taken on 14/VII, Nabonidus ran away. 16/VII Ugbaru, governor
of Gutium and the troops of Cyrus entered Babylonia without fight. 3/VIII Cyrus entered Babylon. Ugbaru,
its governor, installed some governors. From month IX to month XII the gods of Akkad came back to their
sanctuaries (...) [538 BCE] 11/VIII [king] Ugbaru died. Month [XII] king’s wife died. From 27/XII to 3/I
[537 BCE] there was a mourning in Akkad. 4/I Cambyses, son of Cyrus, came in the temple of Nabu
according the ritual of enthronement [in order to be officially King of Babylon] (Kuhrt: 2010, 50-53).
The biblical text also describes the fall of Babylon and gives similar information, however Ugbaru (Oibaras
/Harpagus in Greek) is called Darius (Dārayavauš in Persian) the Mede:
That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed (14/VII/17). And Darius the Mede received the
kingdom; he was about 62 years old. It seemed good to Darius to appoint 120 satraps over the whole
kingdom. Over them were three high officials, one of whom was Daniel; and the satraps would report to
them, so that the king would not suffer loss (Dn 5:30-6:1).
The name, title and role of Ugbaru are particularly confusing17. In fact, the Babylonian chronicle is biased
regarding this powerful character, as it calls him governor of Gutium18 while he assumed the function of
king. Indeed, the appointment of governors (or satraps) was only the doing of the king. The scribe of the
Chronicle also stipulates that the death of Ugbaru19 was quickly followed by the death of the king's wife,
indirectly confirming his title of King. Finally, the scribe is wrong in the spelling of Ugbaru which he also
wrote Gubaru. When the city of Babylon was taken, Cyrus appointed him as king and gave him the Persian
name of Darius “who owns the property”. After his death, the Babylonian scribes nicknamed him: Ugbaru
“King of the diviner”, and much later: Harpagus “looting” in Greek, because they had a poor opinion of
this king for the following reasons: 1) as the Medes were associated with the Babylonians to overthrow
Assyria (in 612 BCE) and were then combined with the Persians to overthrow Babylon, they were
considered traitors; 2) the status of the king of Babylon was awarded following a religious ceremony
(Joannès: 2000, 131), which was not the case for Ugbaru; and 3) this king was not to be appreciated by the
satraps because, according to the text of Daniel 6:24-27, he had thrown some of them to the lions and
displayed an openly pro-Jewish policy (one can suppose that Daniel was considered by the Babylonians as a
17 A transcript UG-ba-ru could be read in Akkadian uggu-bārû "anger of the diviner" or šarru-bārû "King of the diviner" (Malbran-
Labat: 1999, 97). The name Ugbaru does not mean anything, but Gubaru means “neck” in Akkadian. This is clearly more a
nickname than a given name. Similarly, the name Harpagus (haspargos in Greek) must also be a nickname, because it is close to
the Greek word “looting (hasparges)”. The name Oibaras, quoted by Ctesias, is more likely —it could be a transcription of the
Elamite name Ubaruš “who has well-formed shoulders” (Lenfant: 2004, 97). Median and Persian names are often very distorted.
The deformations of Persian names were caused by the transcripts in Babylonian, and then Greek. Astyages for Ištumegu,
Teipes for Čišpiš, Xerxes or Ahasuerus for Xšayaršâ. Phraortes for Xšaθrita. Smerdis or Gaumata for Bardiya who is called
Mardus by Aeschylus (in 472 BCE), Smerdis by Herodotus (c. 445 BCE), Tanyoxarkes by Ctesias (c. 400 BCE), Tanaoxares by
Xenophon (c. 380 BCE), Mergis by Justin (c. 300 BCE), etc.
18 The Median origin of Ugbaru is disputed by some historians. However, although the Babylonian texts do not clearly indicate
it, the name Gutium is an indirect confirmation. Indeed, this archaic term (referring to the ancient Guti kings who had
overthrown the kings of Akkad) had become a cliché to refer to the Zagros mountain people and was associated with the Medes
(Joannès: 2001, 356), since we read in an inscription: “He pronounced the name of Cyrus, king of Anshan, declared to become
the ruler of all the world. He [Cyrus] made the Guti country [in 550 BCE by his victory over Astyages] and all the hordes Medes
under his feet (...) Marduk, the great lord, protector of his worshipers, beheld with pleasure his (Cyrus’) good deeds and his
upright heart and [therefore] he ordered him to march against his city Babylon” (Pritchard: 1969, 315).
19 Ugbaru as vassal king of Cyrus was the actual king of Babylon, but from a legal standpoint he was not authorized to use this
title because he had not been formally enthroned. Indeed, the presence of the (official) king of Babylon was necessary for the
ceremony of Akitu (feast of New Year's Day). This celebration was observed for the year 17 because Nabonidus was present on
this occasion (which had not been the case in previous years), and Belshazzar, although a co-regent, was not the official king
necessary for that ceremony. However, the fact that 2 years later Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, went to the temple to celebrate it
[as mentioned in the Chronicle of Nabonidus], proves that he was officially the new king of Babylon. It is interesting to notice
that according to the biblical text, King Darius the Mede is never called King of Babylon: “Darius the Mede himself received the
kingdom (Dn 5:28), In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the
kingdom of the Chaldeans” (Dn 9:1). Moreover, the biblical text suggests that Darius the Mede reigned just one year because
only a year 1 is mentioned, followed not by a year 2, but by a year 3 of Cyrus (Dn 5:30-6:1,8; 9:1; 10:1). How old was Ugbaru at
the time of the fall of Babylon? We can suppose that Harpagus (Ugbaru) was at least 20 years old at the birth of Cyrus (The
Histories I:108) who began to reign in 559 BCE, when he was around 20 years old. Under this assumption, Harpagus was born
in 599 BCE (= 559 + 20 + 20) and was around 60 years old at the time of the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, which agrees with the
biblical text: “Darius the Mede himself received the kingdom, being about 62 years old” (Dn 5:31). For chronological reasons,
Darius the Mede cannot be mistaken with the king Darius (I) of Persia (Ezr 4:5) and king Darius (II) the Persian (Ne 12:22). In
addition, the book of Daniel (Dn 5:2-18) states that Belshazzar was “king” the night that Babylon fell and says that his
“[grand]father” (Jr 27:7) was Nebuchadnezzar.
harmful diviner). Some years later, the Babylonian version of Bisitun qualifies maguš (a magus was a cleric
from a Median tribe) the brother of Cambyses II, the “usurper” Bardiya (Gaumata). Strabo, at the
beginning of our era, still placed the Medes and their tribes to the north of Babylon (Geography XVI:1:8).
When Cyrus conquered Babylon, Babylonian scribes gave him the title “King of Lands”, but although
Ugbaru (Darius the Mede) was appointed “King of Babylon” by Cyrus (Dn 5:30) he was only considered as
“Governor of Babylon” because he had not attended the festival of New Year (Akitu). However, Cyrus
recognized Marduk as his protecting god and attended that festival in order to be officially enthroned
according to Babylonian procedure. Consequently, when Ugbaru died, Cyrus appointed his son Cambyses
as “King of Babylon” and Babylonian scribes gave him the title “King of Babylon, King of Lands20”.
Similarly, when Cambyses appointed his brother Bardiya as coregent Persian scribes gave him the title
“King of Lands”, but Babylonian scribes considered him only as “Governor of Babylon” because he had
not attended the Akitu festival. These protocol aspects of the royal titles have consequences on the
Babylonian chronology, because the 1st year of Cambyses as “King of Babylon” and co-regent of Cyrus
was in 537 BCE, not in 538 BCE. The coregency between Cyrus and Cambyses began informally from
month IX, Year 1 of Cyrus, as confirmed by a doubly dated document: 25/XI/01 of Cyrus and accession
(00) of Cambyses (Krückmann: 1933, no 92):
11) Nippur
12) Month XI, day 25, year 1 [of Cyrus]
13) Year of accession of kingship! of
14) Ganzyse! King of Babylon and lands
BCE month [A] [B] King according to the Nabonidus Chronicle

539 7 IV 17 [14] [A] Nabonidus King of Babylon
8 V [B] Belšaruṣur Coregent of Babylon (Dn 5:30)
9 VI
10 VII 0 [0] [A] Cyrus King of Lands
11 VIII
12 IX [B] Ugbaru (Darius the Mede) Governor (King) of Babylon (Dn 5:31-6:1)
538 1 X
2 XI
3 XII
4 I 1 [1] Year 1 of Cyrus/ Ugbaru (Ezr 1:1; Dn 9:1)
5 II
6 III Order to rebuild the Temple by Cyrus (Ezr 1:1-2)
7 IV All the people gathered in Jerusalem (Ezr 3:1)
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII Ugbaru, King of Babylon, died on 11/VIII/01
12 IX 0 [A] Cyrus King of Babylon, King of Lands
537 1 X
[B] Cambyses King of Babylon, King of Lands
2 XI *** ***
3 XII
4 I 2 1
5 II Beginning of the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezr 3:8-10)
Today's historians are unable to reconstruct the Achaemenid chronology precisely: 1) because they rely
mainly on the Babylonian royal lists, which are ideological (they ignore all the coregencies as well as the
kings later considered illegitimate) and 2) because they do not take into account the influence of religion in
the political choices of the kings of the past (today the religion of the rulers no longer plays any role in their
political choices). Cyrus succeeded in founding the first empire in the world, a multicultural and multi-
religious “federal state”, which can be called the United States of Mesopotamia. Unlike all the idolatrous
kings of his time who worshipped their national gods, Cyrus did not worship any known gods (Herodotus
I:131-132), except for a “Lord Wisdom (Ahura Mazda)” who will only be explicitly named after Darius I.
This secular conception of religion allowed Harpagus (550-539), a Mede king, to become the co-regent of
Cyrus (559-539), a Persian king. The chronology of Median kings comes exclusively from Herodotus21
(Histories I:101-108) who mentions a total solar eclipse (28 May 585 BCE) at the end of Cyaxares' reign:
20Some contracts have the title “King of Babylon, son of King of Lands” (CT 56, CT 149, Camb. 36).
21According to Herodotus, King Astyages, after a 35-year reign, was defeated by Cyrus who thus became the ruler of Persia and
the Medes, Harpagus becoming a co-regent (Histories I:127-130, 162, 175-178) called “Lieutenant of Cyrus” by Strabo
(Geography VI:1) or “Commander of Cyrus” by Diodorus (History Library IX:31:1). Harpagus is called Oibaras by Ctesias
(Persica §13,36,45). According to Josephus, Cyrus took Babylon with the help of Darius the Mede, a “son of Astyages”, in the
year 17 of Nabonidus (Jewish Antiquities X:247-249).
18
BABYLONIAN KING reign PERSIAN KING reign MEDIAN KING reign
Nabopolassar 626-605 21 Teispes 635-610 25? Cyaxares 625 - 40
Nebuchadnezzar 605 - 43 Cyrus I 610-585 25? -585
-562 Cambyses I 585 - 26 Astyages 585 - 35
Amel-Marduk 562-560 2 -559
Neriglissar 560-556 4 Cyrus II 559 - 20 -550
Nabonidus 556-539 17 -539 Harpagus 550-539 11
Cyrus II 539-530 9 Ugbaru (Ubaruš) 539-538 1
When Cyrus conquered Babylon with the help of the Median army, he very skilfully recognized the cult of
the god Marduk, which allowed him to gain the support of the Babylonian priests, especially to benefit
from their powerful administration. Cyrus thus put the kingdom of Babylon at the centre of his empire and
began a new reign as “King of lands” and then as “King of Babylon, King of lands”. To flatter the
Babylonians Cyrus first appointed Ugbaru as “King of Babylon”, but since he was not enthroned by the
Babylonians, he asked the Babylonian priests to enthrone his son Cambyses as a co-regent with the same
prestigious title of “King of Babylon, King of lands”. The few Jewish officials who belonged to the
Babylonian administration were used by Cyrus presumably because of the closeness of their religious
conceptions (absence of idolatry and a single god) which aroused the jealousy of the Babylonian officials,
then their hatred when Ugbaru threw some of them to the lions for religious motives.
Then it was that this Daniel was steadily distinguishing himself over the high officials and the satraps,
forasmuch as an extraordinary spirit was in him; and the king was intending to elevate him over all the
kingdom. At that time [in 538 BCE] the high officials and the satraps themselves were constantly seeking to
find some pretext against Daniel respecting the kingdom; but there was no pretext or corrupt thing at all that
they were able to find, forasmuch as he was trustworthy and no negligence or corrupt thing at all was found
in him. Consequently, these able-bodied men were saying: We shall find in this Daniel no pretext at all,
except we have to find [it] against him in the law of his God. Accordingly, these high officials and satraps
themselves entered as a throng to the king, and this is what they were saying to him: O Darius the king, live
on even for times indefinite. All the high officials of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the high
royal officers and the governors, have taken counsel together to establish a royal statute and to enforce an
interdict, that whoever makes a petition to any god or man for 30 days except to you, O king, should be
thrown to the lions’ pit (Dn 6:3-7).
The animosity of the Babylonian officials against the Jews was fuelled by the fact that Cyrus had authorized
their return to Jerusalem to rebuild their city and temple:
This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said (April 538 BCE): All the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah the
God of the heavens has given me, and he himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem,
which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all his people, may his God prove to be with him. So let
him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel —he is the
God— which was in Jerusalem. As for anyone that is left from all the places where he is residing as an
alien, let the men of his place assist him with silver and with gold and with goods and with domestic
animals along with the voluntary offering for the house of the God, which was in Jerusalem (Ezr 1:1-4).
What must have annoyed the Babylonians is that during the period 539-525 BCE their initial prestigious
position granted by Cyrus had been drastically reduced since their kingdom associated with the empire had
been transformed into a mere satrapy, in 535 BCE, and then into a province, in 525 BCE:
Ruler of Babylon Period Babylonia as: Title
Cambyses II 538-535 Kingdom King of Babylon (co-regent)
Gubaru 535-525 Satrapy Governor of Babylon
Cambyses II 525-522 Province King of Babylon, king of lands
Uštanu 522-491? Satrapy and Province Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River
Ruler of Jerusalem Period Judaea as: Title High priest
Zerubbabel 538-525? Land Governor of Judaea Jeshua
Hananiah? 525?-510? Land Governor of Judaea Joiaqim
Cambyses II (530-522) continued to have a favourable attitude towards the Jews, like his father Cyrus, but
on his death (in 522 BCE) his successor would instead stop the reconstruction of Jerusalem. Ezra's text
indicates the origin of the opposition for the reconstruction of Jerusalem:
When the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the sons of the Exile were building a temple to
Jehovah the God of Israel, they immediately approached Zerubbabel and the heads of the paternal houses
and said to them: Let us build along with you; for, just like you, we search for your God and to him we are
sacrificing since the days of Esarhaddon the king of Assyria, who brought us up here. However, Zerubbabel
and Jeshua and the rest of the heads of the paternal houses of Israel said to them: you have nothing to do
with us in building a house to our God, for we ourselves shall together build to Jehovah the God of Israel,
just as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us. At that the people of the land were continually
weakening the hands of the people of Judah and disheartening them from building and hiring counsellors
against them to frustrate their counsel all the days of Cyrus the king of Persia (539-530) down till the reign
of Darius (I) the king of Persia (522-486). And in the reign of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), at the start of his reign
(in 485 BCE), they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. Also, in the days of
Artaxerxes (0), Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his colleagues wrote to Artaxerxes (0) the king
of Persia (in 522 BCE), and the writing of the letter was written in Aramaic characters and translated into
the Aramaic language. Rehum the chief government official (538-522) and Shimshai the scribe wrote a
letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes (0) the king, as follows: Then Rehum the chief government official
and Shimshai the scribe and the rest of their colleagues, the judges and the lesser governors across the
River, the secretaries, the people of Erech (Uruk), the Babylonians, the inhabitants of Susa, that is, the
Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the great and honourable Asenappar (Ashurbanipal) took into
exile and settled in the cities of Samaria, and the rest beyond the River; and now this is a copy of the letter
that they sent concerning it: To Artaxerxes (0) the king your servants, the men beyond the River (...) Now
after the copy of the official document of Artaxerxes (0) the king had been read before Rehum and
Shimshai the scribe and their colleagues, they went in a hurry to Jerusalem to the Jews and stopped them by
force of arms. It was then that the work on the house of God, which was in Jerusalem, stopped; and it
continued stopped until the 2nd year of the reign of Darius (I) the king of Persia (Ezr 4:1-11, 23-24).
This very detailed account poses a problem because King Artaxerxes who opposed the construction of the
temple is located between Cyrus and Darius I, which is apparently impossible since the two Persian kings
of this short period (530-522) are Cambyses II and Bardiya (Smerdis/Merdus in Greek). Some have
proposed to identify this king with Artaxerxes I, but this is impossible since this king reigned after Xerxes,
in addition, he opposed the construction while Artaxerxes I favoured it. Aware of this difficulty and
knowing the account of Herodotus, Flavius Josephus replaced the name Artaxerxes (0) by that of
Cambyses (Jewish Antiquities XI:20-32). If we place chronologically all the contracts dated in this period as
well as the dates appearing in Darius' account (Kuhrt: 2010, 141-157) of his taking of power (highlighted
dates), we obtain the following chronology:
BCE month [A] [B] King
12 IX 7 [A] Cambyses II King of Babylon, King of Lands
522 1 X (Lunar eclipse dated 10 January 522 BCE)
2 XI
3 XII 0 [B] Bardiya King of Lands (revolt of Petubastis IV in Egypt)
4 I 1 8 1 [B] Bardiya King of Babylon, King of Lands
5 II 2 1 0 [A] as Persian king (“Smerdis”); [B] as Babylonian king (“Gaumata”)
6 III 3 (called King Artaxerxes (0) in Ezra 4:1-13)
7 IV 4
8 V 5 Uštanu Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River
9 VI 6 Tattannu Governor of Beyond the River (called Tattenai in Ezra 5:6)
10 VII 7 0 [A] Bardiya /[B] Nebuchadnezzar III King of Babylon
11 VIII 8
12 IX 9 0 [A] Darius I King of Babylon, King of Lands
521 1 X 10
2 XI 11 0 [A] Darius I /[B] Nebuchadnezzar IV King of Babylon
3 XII 12
4 I 13 1 1
5 II 14
6 III 15
7 IV 16
8 V 17
9 VI 18
10 VII 19
11 VIII 20 The revolt lasted 20 months (Herodotus III:153)
12 IX
520 1 X
2 XI
3 XII
4 I 2 (called King Darius of Persia in Ezra 4:24)
The coincidence between the dates of the contracts and those from Darius' account, including those from
Herodotus' account, is excellent, which eliminates Flavius Josephus' explanation that places the opposition
to construction in the 1st year of Cambyses (in 529 BCE):
20
When this letter was read by them, Rathymos (Rehum) and Semelios (Shimshai), the scribe, and their
colleagues immediately leaped on their horses and, accompanied by a large number of people, hastened to
Jerusalem and prevented the Jews from building the city and the temple. And so these works were stopped
for 9 years more until the 2nd year of Darius’s reign over Persia (520 BCE). For Cambyses after a reign of 6
years, during which he conquered Egypt, returned from there and died in Damascus. After the killing of the
Magi who held power in Persia for the year following the death of Cambyses (in 522 BCE), the so-called
“seven houses” of the Persians appointed Darius, the son of Hystaspes, king (Jewish Antiquities XI:29-31).
The explanation of Flavius Josephus is contradicted by the following two elements: 1) since Cyrus was
favourable to the reconstruction of the temple of Jerusalem, if Cambyses became unfavourable after his
seizure of power, why would the death of the usurper magus would have made Darius I again favourable
to this reconstruction; 2) the biblical writer correctly rendered the names of Cyrus and Darius, why would
he transform the name of Cambyses into that of Artaxerxes, which was also correctly transcribed in the
Bible. Consequently, the only solution to explain the presence of a legitimate king Artaxerxes (throne
name) is to admit that this king was King Bardiya (birth name). Although this identification is surprising, it
is confirmed by the biblical text on two points: 1) the satrapy of “Babylon and Beyond the River” did not
appear until 522 BCE and 2) this king Artaxerxes (0) was under the influence of the officials of Uruk and
Elam (Ezr 4:9-10) while from 525 BCE Cambyses had reduced the satrapy of Babylon to a mere province
without influence. However, the Bible presents Artaxerxes (Bardiya) as a legitimate king, whereas Darius'
account states that he was a usurping magus. In fact, if the chronological reconstruction of the facts in
Darius' account is globally accurate, his interpretation is contradicted by the different titles of King Bardiya
as well as by several anachronisms. For example, according to the account of Darius:
§11) A magus of Mede origin, named Gaumata, and perfect look-alike of Bardiya, son of Cyrus (Cambyses’
brother), would have come to power on 14/XII/00. However, this date corresponds to the end of the
7th year of Cambyses who therefore legitimately established his brother Bardiya as co-regent with the
title “King of Lands”, then the following month, Cambyses having died (at the beginning of his 8th
year) during his campaign in Egypt against Petubastis IV22, according to Herodotus (The Histories
III:64), Bardiya became king with the title “King of Babylon, King of Lands”.
§13) Darius would have kill Gaumata the magus and his followers on 10/VII/01. After that a man called
Acina, son of Upadarma, became rebellious in Elam and was killed by Darius. In the meantime, a man,
Nidintu-Bel, rebelled in Babylon and became king under the name of throne Nebuchadnezzar (III).
According to Darius' account, there would have been a real and a fake Bardiya who would have
reigned simultaneously in Babylon for 5 months before Darius killed the fake Bardiya (Gaumata), then
a substitute, Nebuchadnezzar III, would have reigned for several more months before Darius finally
took power, which is obviously impossible. Since the chronology of events and the names of the
protagonists are accurate, Darius did not lie but falsified certain facts. The only explanation for the
anomalies in Bardiya's reign is this: when Cambyses II was declared dead (in April 522 BCE), the
Babylonian aristocracy, who had been humiliated by this king when he transformed the ancient
kingdom of Babylon into a mere province of the Persian empire (in 525 BCE), convinced Bardiya to
restore Babylon to its prestigious title of Kingdom by dissociating his role as “King of Babylon, King
of lands” into “King of Babylon” and “King of lands” over the rest of the empire. This double role of
king being complicated to manage23 (Zawadzki: 1994, 127-145), Nidintu-Bel, a son of Nabonidus, was
legitimately enthroned “King of Babylon” by Bardiya (“Gaumata”) on 10/VII/01.
It is obvious that Bardiya's choice to grant autonomy to Babylonia endangered the unity and durability of
the Persian empire, first by depriving it of vital sources of income and then by promoting the risk of
splitting this vassal kingdom. The Persian aristocracy therefore decided to stop this dangerous choice, as
Darius relates in one of his inscriptions (DB 68), by enthroning Darius as king, without the endorsement of
the Babylonians, and by secretly eliminating Bardiya. To reconcile the Babylonian aristocracy Darius
appointed Uštanu to the prestigious position of “Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River”, Babylon
becoming again a satrapy instead of a province. This offer did not satisfy the Babylonian aristocracy who
preferred their king Nebuchadnezzar III. Darius relates in his account (§§ 18-21) that he then defeated the
Babylonian army on 26/IX and had Nebuchadnezzar III put to death on 2/X (February 521 BCE).
However, as the Median army, led by Fravarstish (§24), remained loyal to the Babylonians, Darius had to
fight it. During these battles in Elam, the Babylonian aristocracy replaced Nebuchadnezzar III with an
Armenian named Arakha, son of Haldita, who was enthroned as Nebuchadnezzar IV. After defeating the
rebel troops in Elam, Darius returned to Babylon, defeated her army and impaled her king on 22/VIII
22 The revolts of Petubastis IV (522-520) & Psamtik III (486-485) have been confirmed by archaeology (Kaper: 2015, 125-149).
23 The last tablet dated on Bardiya's accession (25/IV/00) is May 522 BCE.
(November 521 BCE). Darius' account is therefore not false but contains half-truths. Indeed, the Persian
aristocracy considered that Bardiya's choices to grant independence to Babylon showed that he had gone
mad, presumably bewitched by a Median priest (whose name Gaumata means “distinguished by his
cattle”). So, Darius did not kill the real Bardiya (whose name means “great”), who was a legitimate king
(whose throne name Artaxerxes means “whose reign is right”), but the false Bardiya, the one who had gone
mad because of Gaumata. Artaxerxes (0), the Persian throne name of Bardiya, was not used by the
Babylonian scribes because they prioritized the Babylonian enthronement, it was only preserved by the text
of Ezra and by the historians Ctesias and Xenophon in the approximate form: Tanyoxarkes/Tanaoxares.
The situation of the Jews in the Persian Empire before Artaxerxes I (475-425), except those who lived in
Egypt (Elephantine), was not known by archaeologists before 1999. If they agreed that there were Israelites
in Nippur (3% of the population) as well as a few of them in Babylon from the time of Artaxerxes I, they
rejected the narrative of the Bible which says that the Israelites were exiled in the region of Babylon (Jr
29:4; Ps 137:1) from years 7, 18 and 23 of Nebuchadnezzar (Jr 52:28-30) because archaeological
excavations in that region did not reveal anything, furthermore the three towns mentioned in the Bible:
Tel-abib, Tel-melah and Tel-harshah, are still completely unknown (Ezk 3:15, Ezr 2:59). However, around
200 clay tablets written in cuneiform script were found by chance in a place (in 1999) called Āl-Yāhūdu24
“Town of Judah”, around 30 km southeast of Babylon, also known as Ālu-ša-Yāhūdāya “Town of the
Judeans”. These tablets are now a major source of information concerning Judaism in the exilic and early
post-exilic periods (Abraham: 2011, 261-264). They enable us to get some idea of what happened to the
Judaean exiles and their descendants upon their arrival in Babylon. The tablets date from Year 33 of
Nebuchadnezzar (572 BCE) to Year 9 of Xerxes (487 BCE). They depict the daily life of a rural
community of Judaean exiles and their descendants in ancient Babylonia, beginning soon after their
captivity, just as the Bible said so. The detailed analysis of all these tablets confirmed several biblical points:
• After the three deportations ordered by Nebuchadnezzar in 598, 587 and 582 BCE, the Judaean
deportees in Babylon were given plots of land to cultivate, and in exchange they were obliged to pay
taxes and perform work and military service. The Palace Archive of Nebuchadnezzar II bears witness
to the presence of foreign officials, soldiers and craftsmen in Babylon. Courtiers from Egypt,
Ashkelon, Judah, and Elam worked in the palace, and numerous soldiers of foreign origin received
rations from the royal storehouses. Some Judean professionals were brought to Babylon as well, which
matches the information on selective deportation from Jerusalem in 2 Kings 24. In addition to King
Jehoiachin and his sons, a number of Judean people (with theophoric names)25 are referred to on the
ration lists. A certain Qanā-yahû delivered oil rations to Jehoiachin’s sons, which suggests that he was
a servant or overseer of the Judean princes. Three other Judeans are mentioned by name: Samak-yahû,
Šalam-yahû the gardener, and a certain Ūru-Milki is explicitly described as Judean. Some Judaeans were
able to profit from the system by working as middlemen between the royal administration and their
fellow landholders, while other Judaeans worked as minor officials in local administration. The Palace
Archive is notable for its few attestations of King Jehoiachin and his sons as the recipients of oil
rations. Their presence in Babylon confirms the biblical account of Jehoiachin’s exile at the foreign
24 The archival reconstruction proposed by Wunsch is based on grouping together 103 texts that cluster around one of three
villages: Āl-Yāhūdu [54 texts], Bīt-Našar [47 texts], and Bīt-Abīrâm [2 texts]. According to Tablet 42, written in Āl-Yāhūdu in the
13th year of the rule of Darius (509 BCE), the men and women who came from Judea were able to write in their mother tongue
(Aramaic or Hebrew) in alphabetic script, and they must have learned to speak Akkadian once they settled down in Babylonia,
but they did not learn to write in the local cuneiform script, a skill that required a long process of training. Indeed, it took Daniel
and his friends three years to learn “the script and language of the Chaldeans” (Dn 1:4-5). The Judaeans in Āl-Yāhūdu thus asked
Babylonian scribes to write their legal documents, at least in those cases in which the other party to the agreement or one of the
witnesses were native Babylonians, and the document needed to be in Akkadian. To these documents in cuneiform Akkadian
script they sometimes added a short note in the familiar Aramaic alphabet, so as to make their content more readily accessible.
According to tablet 45, written in Babylon, on the 7th day of the month of Tishri, in the 18th year of the rule of Darius (502
BCE), we learn that Ahīqām lived in Āl-Yāhūdu and all his family was Jewish. He had 5 sons: Nēri-yah, Yahu-izrī (Yeho’ezer),
Yahu-azza (Yeho’azza), Yahu-shū (Yehoshûa) & Haggay. He left them a female slave, her son, a male slave named Šaḫīd-yahu,
and some household utensils. Although the division of the estate among the brothers concerned movable property of no great
worth, the brothers travelled to Babylon to have a Babylonian scribe write the document in Akkadian. Among the nine witnesses
we find three with Babylonian names and three who were definitely of Judaean descent judging from their names and the names
of their fathers: Barīkyah, son of [...]yah, Hananyah, son of Yahu-zēra-iqīša, and Zakaryah, son of Šillemyah.
25 In personal names, abbreviated forms of the name YHWH were used. The form -yw appears to be Israelite (northern area),
whereas -yhw and later -yh were predominantly used in Judah (southern area). The Neo- Assyrian spelling in initial position is
usually Ia-u- and in final position similarly -ia-(a-)u, both with minor variations. The spellings are different in Babylonian
cuneiform: the beginning of theophoric names is predominantly written as Ia-hu-ú- in initial position and as -ia-a-ma (-yāma) in
final position, both with orthographical variation. The final element -yāma (-yahû in Hebrew) has numerous different spellings.
The peculiar spelling ia-a-ma results from the Neo-Babylonian orthography, in which m represents also w (Alstola: 2018, 35-36).
22
court and finally his release by Amēl-Marduk in 561 BCE (2Ki 25:27-30). Nevertheless, the majority of
small farmers lived at a subsistence level. According to Ezra’s text, King Artaxerxes (Bardiya) was
hostile to Jews because of the influence of Babylonian officials, as evidenced by the huge tax increase
on those living in Babylon during the period 522-520 BCE (Alstola: 2018, III, 58-59,68, 101-103).
• No visible changes took place for Judeans in the beginning of the Persian period, but texts from the
reign of Darius I (522-486 BCE) show clear terminological differences under his reign (Ezr 4:24).
Judeans now hold bow lands and their dependent status is emphasised by the title šušānu (from Susa).
Šušānus belonged to the class of the semi-free population in Babylonia: they were not chattel slaves,
but the state and its representatives could control them and exploit their labour quite extensively
(Alstola: 2018, 224). Although Persian kings were relatively benevolent towards the Jews, but since
their empire was based on the powerful Babylonian administration, which was hostile to them for
religious reasons, it was impossible for the Jews to rise to senior positions in Babylonia. The situation
was completely different in Egypt because the Judaeans who lived in Elephantine inhabited a key
strategic position for the Achaemenid empire. They were “foreign” soldiers serving the emperor at the
southwestern edge of the empire. An efficient Aramaic chancellery operated across the empire, from
Egypt to Bactria. Several Judaeans are attested within the imperial apparatus in Egypt, at various places
along the hierarchy: from low-level scribes to emissaries to governors of Yehud (Palestine). They were
well integrated into the imperial system and were exposed to the various layers of administrative and
cultural impacts that went along with it (Silverman: 2020, 6-9).
Darius I profoundly reshuffled the Babylonian administration, since Gubaru (535-525), who had been the
Babylonian governor of the satrapy of Babylon, was replaced by Uštanu, a Persian governor of the satrapy
and province of Babylon and Beyond the River, assisted by two deputies: a governor of the city of Babylon
and Tattannu, a Persian governor of the province of Beyond the River. Several historically attested
characters such as: King Artaxerxes (0)/Bardiya (523-522); King Darius I (522-486); King Xerxes (496-
475); Governor of Beyond the River; Tattannu (522-489); Royal scribe Marduka (505-492); Governor of
Yehud, Hananiah (525?-510?), are mentioned in the Bible (Ezr 5:3-6, 6:6-13; Ne 9:38; 10:1,14,23; 1Ch
3:19), as well as on inscriptions or seals (Lemaire: 1994, 11-53; Edelman: 2014, 23-38). Their names, titles,
and dates of reign or government have been marked in bold letters (Mordecai/Marduka's period of activity
has been highlighted in grey):
Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River (Satrapy)

King Darius I (522-486) City-Governor of Babylon Governor of Beyond the River (province)
Uštanu 522 - Bêl-apla-iddin 522?-517? Tattannu 522 - Governor of Yehud
Nabû-šuma-ukîn 517?-510? Hananiah 525?-510?
Iddin-Nergal 510?-505? Elnathan 510? -
(Marduka) Baga-pana 505?-500
Ina-Esagil-lilbur 500-497 -495?
Guzanu 497-493 Jehoezer 495? -
-491? ? 493-489 -489
Ḫuta[-an-na-]’ 491?-486
(revolts) Zopyrus 486-485
(Prime minister) 484-483 King Xerxes 485 - -480?
-475 Ahzai? 480?-468?
Mordecai (Marduka), even though he was Judean, was able to work without problem with the Babylonian
officials because as a scribe of the Persian imperial administration he did not depend directly on the
Babylonian administration. Before the reign of Darius I, it was almost impossible for a Judean to occupy a
position of high-ranking official in Babylon because of her priestly administration26. A Judean could hold a
senior position in the Babylonian administration only if he agreed to replace his Judean name with a
Babylonian name, for this reason Daniel and his three companions refused the promotion of
Nebuchadnezzar II (Dn 1:1-8). However, some Judeans agreed to change their names in order to be able
26 Cuneiform texts or archaeological sources do not attest to a temple of Isis, Baal, or Yāhû in Babylonia. The absence of any
traces of Egyptian shrines is especially noteworthy, because many Egyptians had a high social status in Babylonia and
presumably the economic means to build places of worship in Babylonian cities. An interesting – although somewhat different –
point of comparison is the temple of Assur in Uruk in the sixth century. A community of Assyrian origin ran the temple, and it
is possible that they had arrived and established the shrine in Uruk only after the fall of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 609 BCE.
Observance of the Sabbath or religious festivals described in the Hebrew Bible is not mentioned in any surviving documents
from Babylonia. This is quite contrary to the Elephantine texts, which refer both to the Sabbath and Passover.
to take up senior positions such as Bēl-šar-uṣur (c. 550 BCE), a creditor of Ṣidqī-yahû, and Šamaš-šar-uṣur
(c. 540 BCE), father of Yehoyishma27, but this situation remained exceptional. In fact, very few Judeans
were integrated into urban communities to the extent that their social networks also included people from
Babylonian families. The royal merchants in Sippar were a rare example of such people, as they were
members of the local mercantile community and even gave their daughter in marriage to a Babylonian man
with a family name. The community of traders in Sippar was multicultural, and Judeans and other people
of foreign origin from Syria and Levant worked there together with indigenous Babylonians. Nevertheless,
this community was distinct from the priestly community of Sippar, and although the Judeans met temple
personnel when they traded with the temple, their personal networks did not reach the priestly circles. No
deportees are attested among the cuneiform scribes who bore Babylonian names and belonged to an
exclusive group of urban families, but at the same time, some Aramaic scribes (sēpirus) of foreign origin are
attested, and many deportees came from regions where Aramaic had been spoken and written for
centuries. The preserved Akkadian texts primarily originate from temple archives and archives of urban
families. Judeans hardly ever appear in temple archives, nor are they attested in most private archives, the
protagonists of which belonged to the urban upper class.
With the attachment, in 522 BCE, of the province of Beyond the River to that of Babylon, the situation of
the inhabitants of the Levant changed radically, because the Persian imperial administration now needed
many officials capable of understanding Persian, but above all of reading and writing in both Aramaic and
Akkadian. During the reign of Darius many high-ranking officials with western Semitic names, while
serving Persian governors, are attested in the Babylonian archives. However, it is difficult to distinguish the
origin of these officials: Judean, Phoenician or Syrian, since they spoke the same language and may have
had the same names. The only possible distinction comes from theophoric names: names with Baal for the
Phoenicians and names with Yahû for the Judeans. Among all these documents are two Judean secretaries
(sēpiru), an anonymous secretary, in 507 BCE, whose father's name was Zakar-yahû “Yahû remembered”,
and Gadal-yahû28 “Yahû is Great”, in 486 BCE, a master secretary in the service of Ḫu-ta-[an-na]-‘ (Utāna
“having good descendants”), a governor of Babylon and Beyond the River (Alstola: 2018, 40, 197-198):
Ḫu-ta-[an-na]-‘, son of Pagakanna (Persian name), the governor (of Babylon and Beyond-the-River), Libluṭ,
brother of Adad-ibni (Babylonian name), master scribe (sēpiru bēl ṭēmi) and Gadal-yahû (Ga-da-la-a-ma),
son of Banna-yah (Ba-an-na-a), master scribe (sēpiru bēl ṭēmi), authorised Ṣihā, son of Ahulap, the chief of
the prison of a brickworks, to collect a tax payment of 14 kurru (14x220 litres) of barley.
It is interesting to note that the master scribes Marduka and Gadal-yahû were both in the service of Persian
governors supervising the satrapy of “Babylon and Beyond-the-River”. According to the Babylonian tablet
Amherst 258, Marduka was the master scribe of Uštanu (522-491?), the governor of the satrapy of Babylon
and Beyond the River, who was the immediate superior of Tattannu (522-489), the governor of the
province of Beyond the River (Phoenicia, Palestine and Cyprus). Tattannu, whose full name was Nabû-
Tattannu-uṣur (“Nabû protect Tattannu”), is well attested from VI/01 of Bardiya to VI/33 of Darius I
(Jursa/ Stolper: 2007, 249). Marduka therefore had a high position in the Persian imperial administration
and knew what was happening in Palestine through Tattannu. Looking at his career, it can be assumed that
he became qualified during the construction of the Palace of Darius I at Susa, from 520 BCE, and was used
afterwards, from 505 BCE, as superintendent for the construction of the other palace of Darius I at
Persepolis (which had to have started around 509 BCE). The name Marduka, which has a Babylonian
appearance, actually refers to a Judean. This rare name, borne by only two individuals in all the Babylonian
27 Bēl-šar-uṣur, a son of Nubâ, is always attested as a creditor of Ṣidqī-yahû (“My justice is Yahû” in Hebrew) in promissory
notes written in Yāhūdu in the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus. It remains unclear why he changed his name from
Bēl-šar-uṣur to Yāhû-šar-uṣur around the 5th or 6th year of Nabonidus (550 BCE). The decision to change his name may have
been somehow motivated by his status, because the šarru element of the name betrays its bearer’s connection to the royal
administration. It appears that naming practices remained more traditional among Judean farmers than their countrymen who
lived in bigger cities or were members of the royal administration. Finally, it should be noted that the theophoric element Bēl
allows one to play with words and meanings. As a divine name, Bēl usually denoted Marduk in the Neo-Babylonian period, but,
in general usage, the word simply meant ‘lord’. It is not inconceivable that some Judeans found it tempting to equate Bēl to
Yāhû, who undoubtedly held the central position in their pantheon (Alstola: 2018, 144). The high-ranking official Šamaš-šar-
uṣur, whose Babylonian name means “Šamaš protect the king” in Babylonian, appears on the seal (dated c. 540 BCE) written in
Aramaic, of Yehôyishma (“Yehow[ah] will listen” in Hebrew), his daughter (Marsman: 2001, 651).
28 A document from Babylon, dated 3/X/14 of Darius (January 507 BCE), records that Nabû-zēr-ušebši, son of Nabû-ēṭir-
napšāti, a member of the important Borsippean prebendary family of Ilia, and a certain Ṭābia, son of Nabû-ēṭir, son of Rēš-
ummāni, made a tax payment of 15 kurru of barley to a Judean sēpiru. The sēpiru’s name is broken off, but his father bore the
name Zakar-yahû. If the broken text is understood correctly, this Judean was a sēpiru of the troops or workmen (ummānu) and a
subordinate of the rab kaṣīri, a high official in charge of the royal treasury. Gadal-yahû, son of Banna-ya “Yah has built up”, is
attested in Babylon in the contract BM 74554 dated 24/VI/36 of Darius (October 486 BCE).
24
records, is a diminutive of the Aramaic name Mardukaya (Mar-duk-ka-a-a) designating a “Mardukean” (a
man from Babylon), just as the Aramaic name Yehudaya (Ia-u-da-a-a) designates a Judean (a man from
Judaea). If Marduka had been a Babylonian name it would have been written dAMAR.UTU-ka, instead of
Mar-duk-ka. The name Marduka appears in a text written in Sippar (dated 18/II/10 of Nabonidus, May
546 BCE). It is a promissory note for half a mina of silver, owed by the royal merchant Basia son of Arih,
to Marduka son of Bēl-īpuš. Basia is not known from other sources, but his creditor Marduka was a well-
known tithe farmer of the Ebabbar temple in Sippar. From other texts we know that Ahu-yahû, son of
Arih, was a brother of Basia, Marduka, and Amušê. Arih is a rarely attested non-Babylonian name, but it
appears four times as a patronymic of professional merchants in Sippar within a period of 12 years.
Amušê’s name points to his non-Babylonian origin. A-mu-še-e is the Babylonian spelling of Hwš‘ (‘Hosea’
or ‘Hoshea’), a name which is attested several times in the Hebrew Bible (Alstola: 2018, 40, 72-76). This
Judean named Marduka (Mordecai) could be the same as the one mentioned in Nehemiah 7:6-7:
These are the sons of the jurisdictional district who came up out of the captivity of the exiled people whom
Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had taken into exile (from 598 to 582 BCE) and who later returned to
Jerusalem and to Judah, each to his own city; those who came in with Zerubbabel (in 538 BCE), Jeshua,
Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahamani, Mordecai (I), Bilshan, Mispereth, Bigvai, Nehum, Baanah.
The biblical text provides the genealogy of Mordecai (II) son of Jair, which makes it possible to compare
his career with that of Marduka, master scribe of Uštanu:
Now there was a Jew in the citadel of Susa whose name was Mordecai (Mardukaya) son of Jair son of
Shimei son of Kish, a Benjaminite. Kish had been carried away from Jerusalem among the captives carried
away with King Jeconiah of Judah, whom King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had carried away [in October
597 BCE]. Mordecai had brought up Hadassah (“myrtle” in Hebrew), that is Esther, his cousin, for she had
neither father nor mother; the girl was fair and beautiful, and when her father and her mother died,
Mordecai adopted her as his own daughter (...) Esther did not reveal her people or kindred, for Mordecai
had charged her not to tell (...) When the turn came for Esther daughter of Abihail (“my father is strength”)
the uncle of Mordecai, who had adopted her as his own daughter, to go in to the king, she asked for nothing
except what Hegai the king's eunuch, who had charge of the women, advised (Est 2:5-15).
By combining the information from the Bible with all the archaeological data, it is possible to reconstruct
Mordecai's entire career. He was probably born in Babylon and came to settle in Susa to work on the
construction of the magnificent temple of Darius I, which started around 520 BCE. He must have been at
least 20 years old at the time because according to Herodotus29 it was at that age that a Persian entered in
active life. Consequently, Mordecai must have been born around 540 BCE. His genealogy can be roughly
dated, assuming that Jews became fathers when they were 25 years old on average30. Having lived 20 years
in Babylon he had to be aware of the intrigues of this prestigious city31 (Est 2:21-22). His career as Prime
minister was very short, barely one year (484-483). Genealogy of Esther’s family according to their lifetime:
BCE City King BCE

Kish 615-[?] Jerusalem Nebuchadnezzar 634-562
⬇
Shimei 590-[?] Babylon Darius the Mede 601-538
⬇ (town of Yahūdu) Hystaspes (I) 578-499
Jair 565-[?] ⬇ ⬇
⬇ Abihail 555-500 Darius I 558-486
Mordecai 540 - Babylon ⬇ ⬇
520 Susa Esther 510 - Xerxes I 521-475
-483 ⬇
Artaxerxes I 485-424
-426 ⬇ Darius B 460-426
Darius II 454-405
29
After valour in battle it is accounted noble to father the greatest number of sons: the king sends gifts yearly to him who gets
most. Strength, they believe, is in numbers. They educate their boys from 5 to 20 years old and teach them only three things:
riding and archery and honesty. A boy is not seen by his father before he is 5 years old, but lives with the women: the point of
this is that, if the boy should die in the interval of his rearing, the father would suffer no grief (...) Hystaspes son of Arsames was
an Achaemenid, and Darius was the eldest of his sons, then about 20 years old; this Darius had been left behind in Persia, not
yet being of an age to go on campaign (The Histories I:136,209).
30 Joas: 22 y. (2Ch 24:1); Amasiah: 38 y. (2Ch 25:1); Uziah: 52 y. (2Ch 26:1); Jotham: 21 y. (2Ch 27:1); Achaz: 11 y. (2Ch 28:1);
Hezekiah: 42 y. (2Ch 29:1); Manasseh: 45 y. (2Ch 33:1); Amon: 16 y. (2Ki 21:19); Josias: 13 y. (2Ch 34:1).
31 The name Bigthana (Est 6:2) is probably Persian because baga-tanu means “from divine body” and Teresh could be
Babylonian: Tirishu “a saddle(?)”. The name Shaashgaz (2:14) is likely Persian and means “servant of the beautiful (?)” but Hegai,
or Hege’ (Est 2:3), could be Babylonian. Moreover, the two revolts after Darius’ death were of Babylonian origin.
This chronological reconstruction confirms the identification of Marduka, master scribe of Uštanu, with
the Mordecai of the Bible. Only the biblical account reveals that it is due to Mordecai that Xerxes was able
to thwart the coup fomented by the Babylonian aristocracy. It is interesting to note that the two
Babylonian revolts that occurred at the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, after the death of Darius, in 486
BCE, have long intrigued historians (Kuhrt: 2014, 163-169) because, although attested by Greek historians
as well as by numerous dated contracts in the name of rebellious Babylonian kings, archaeologists have not
found the slightest trace of any destruction of the temples in Babylon. A heavy taxation load could have
been a contributing factor to the Babylonian revolts but is has to be admitted that the pertinent data
coming from the archives do not have to be read in this way (Jursa/ Schmidl: 2014, 1-15). In fact, a
thorough analysis of all the documents of the Achaemenid period (Tolini: 2014, 162-171) showed that after
the two brief Babylonian revolts, Xerxes carried out a profound overhaul of his administration according
to religious criteria! Indeed, it can be seen that before the revolts of 485 BCE, the administrators of the
temples all had names dedicated to the gods Bêl/Marduk and Nabû (typically Babylonian names), but after
the revolts they were replaced by administrators with names dedicated solely to the great local deity, Anu
(“God” in Sumerian). Why are these texts so important? Until now, the fate and experiences of Judaean
exiles in Babylonia were poorly documented32 outside of the literary comments found in biblical texts. But
now there can be no doubt that the new texts from Judah-town presented will have a tremendous impact
in all fields engaging in the study of the Babylonian exile (Waerzeggers: 2015, 179-194).
Many historians deny the historicity of the book of Esther on the pretext that it is a fictional novel about
the marriage of a young Jewish orphan girl to Xerxes, the king of the world at the time, which would be
unbelievable. As a result, these historians claim that the setting and the names of the Persian officials in this
story were invented to give it an aspect of truth, but that they never actually existed. A study of Persian
names in the Book of Esther and cuneiform texts from Persepolis has shown the inanity of this accusation
(Shea, Van Wyk: 2008, 1-11). This study had to overcome several obstacles to identify Persian names: 1)
the transcriptions of these names are fluctuating and approximate, 2) the characters mentioned in the
Persepolis tablets are only those who had supply needs assigned by the royal administration of the palaces
of Susa and Persepolis, for example, Tattannu the governor of Beyond the River (Ezr 5:6) never appears in
the Persepolis tablets because he resided in Damascus, 3) the names of members of the royal family,
including the Prime Minister, do not appear because the royal family depended solely on the king; 4) the
names of senior officials are difficult to identify because their titles and functions are rarely mentioned. The
main difficulty concerns the identification of Persian names because the Babylonian scribes transcribed
them in cuneiform or Aramaic alphabet, two writing systems that were unsuitable for rendering the Persian
language, resulting in a significant fluctuation in the writing of these names. For example, there are
frequent inversions in the consonants: d <=> t; g <=> k; b <=> p; m <=> w; š <=> s <=> z. Even
well-known names have significant variations in spelling33:
Name Old Persian Meaning Babylonian Hebrew Greek
Darius (I) Dārayavahuš Who maintains the good Dariamuš Daryaweš Dareios
Xerxes Xšayārša Who heads the heroes Khišiaršu ‘AḤašwerôš Ahasuerus/Xerxes
Mordecai Marduka The Mardukean Mardukaya Mardokhay Mardochaios
Artaxerxes (I) Artaxšaṣā Whose reign is right Artakšaṣu Artaḥšaste’ Artoxerxes
Darius (II) Vahauka The good one Umakuš Daryaweš Ochos
There is a second difficulty in identifying the Persian names in the Book of Esther with those in the
Fortification texts from Persepolis, the periods covered by these two documents are different. The senior
officials mentioned in the Book of Esther, who stayed in Susa, are dated between the years 3 and 12 of
Xerxes (Est 1:3-3:7) while the Fortification texts from Persepolis (PF), in which many of the senior officials
mentioned have stayed in Susa, are dated between the years 11 and 28 of Darius I. The Treasury's texts
(PT) provide little usable information because they are few in number34 and consist mainly of accounting
receipts prepared by the treasurers at Parsa (Persepolis). However, because of the coregency of Xerxes with
32 The preserved Akkadian texts primarily originate from temple archives and archives of urban families. Judeans hardly ever
appear in temple archives, nor are they attested in most private archives, the protagonists of which belonged to the urban upper
class. For the purpose of a historical study, the most decisive difference between Akkadian and Aramaic is the medium of
writing. Akkadian was written on clay tablets, while Aramaic was written on perishable materials, and all that is left of Aramaic
texts from Babylonia are short captions on a relatively small number of cuneiform tablets.
33 For example, the Babylonian scribes transcribed Darius II's birth name Vahuka into Umakuš (Ochos in Greek), rather than
Dārayavahuš, his throne name, which would have been transcribed Dariamuš.
34 There are 10 texts by Darius I, 3 of which are dated to the year 32 [of Darius], and 70 texts by Xerxes which are dated from
the year 2 to the year 20 [of Xerxes].

26
Darius I from Year 26 (496 BCE) the senior officials cited in Year 3 of Xerxes (493 BCE) may have begun
their careers before Year 28 of Darius I (494 BCE). In addition, the careers of the ministers of the court
had a career of about 5 years, like that of the City-Governors of Babylon, while the satraps had a career of
about 17 years, like that of the satraps of Egypt.
Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), that in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on
the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan (Susa) the palace, in the 3rd year of his reign (493 BCE),
he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes
of the provinces, being before him (...) On the 7th day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he
commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Karkas, the 7 chamberlains that
ministered in the presence of Ahasuerus the king (...) In those days (485 BCE), while Mordecai was sitting
in the king's gate, two of the king's chamberlains, Bigthan and Teresh, of those that kept the threshold, were
wroth, and sought to lay hands on the king Ahasuerus (...) And it was found written, that Mordecai had told
of Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king's chamberlains, of those that kept the threshold, who had sought to
lay hands on the king Ahasuerus (Est 1:1-3,10; 2:21; 6:2-3; American Standard Version).
Among the chamberlains cited in Year 3 of Xerxes we find that Bigthan35 spent his entire career under
Xerxes (493-485), therefore he does not appear in the tablets of Persepolis. Chamberlain Mehuman has
been identified with the Mihimana from the texts of Persepolis (PF 455) but there is no evidence that it is
the same character. On the other hand, Chamberlain Karkas (Karkiš) may have been identified through a
careful study of his career as the satrap of Carmania (Henkelman: 2010a, 667-775). The career of Karkiš,
who held various positions in addition to his function as a satrap, took place from the year 16 to the year
30 of Darius I (i.e. 506-492 BCE), according to the dated tablets of Persepolis (which never mention his
titles). Haman's name does not appear in the texts of Persepolis (as well as the names of his 10 sons), on
the other hand the name of his father: Hammedatha (Est 3:1), who held an important position at least 15
years earlier, is well identified as Ammadadda in the texts of Persepolis, the name presumably coming from
the Iranian *humādāta (Stolper: 1996, 517-521), meaning “created by Haoma” (Dandamaev: 1992, 136-137).
The name Hammedatha appears in a text (Dar. 435:15) written in Susa and dated 10/XIIb/16 Darius I (27
March 505 BCE) in the form Am-ma-da-a-tú and on a seal (TCL 13 193:25) with the same date, in the form
Um-ma-da-a-tú in cuneiform and hwmdt in Aramaic (form close to the Hebrew hmdt’).
PF 1308 — Hammedatha (Ammadaudda) received an 'authorization' from Parnaka in Susa and a ration of
flour and went to Persepolis in the 21st year of Darius I (500 BCE).
PF 1060 — Hammedatha (Ammadada) rationed out beer to 14 foreign workmen from the 1st to the 12th
months of the 22nd year of Darius I (499-498 BCE).
PF 1459 — Hammedatha (Ammadada) received a ration of flour and returned to Susa with a sealed
document in the 1st month of an unspecified year of Darius I.
Fort 7249 —is as yet unpublished but Hallock lists the variant spelling for his name there as Hama[!]dada.
The identification of this senior official named Ammadadda (505-498) with Haman’s father Hammedatha
in the Book of Esther (493-485) seems to be assured36. Although the texts of Persepolis do not mention
the titles, functions or even missions of the senior officials mentioned in the contracts, a meticulous
chronological reconstitution makes it possible to trace the development of their careers as well as the
purpose of some of their missions. This chronological reconstruction is particularly enlightening
concerning Mordecai (Marduka), the master scribe of Uštanu, the powerful satrap of Babylon and Eber-
Nāri “Beyond the River” (522-491?). It is also interesting to shed light on the relations that Marduka
(Mordecai) and Uštānu (Hystanes) had with Karkiš (Karkas), the satrap of Carmania (506-492), and
Parnaka (Pharnaces Ι)37, the Mayor of the Palace of Susa (506-497).
In some ways the administration of the Achaemenid Empire was very similar to that of the Roman
Empire: the emperor directly appointed the governors of the provinces with a consular power (imperium)
that allowed him to be an imperial legate both as a financial procurator and as a police prefect with a local
army. Some governors could oversee a set of provinces with proconsulary power, these proconsuls being
35 The name Bigthana comes from the Persian word baga-tanu which means “from divine body”. The fluent spelling of this
proper name can be explained by the nasalization of its final part, Bigthan/Bigthana being read Bigthã.
36 In this case the authorization that Ama-dãta carried from Susa to Persepolis, presumably towards the end of the 21st year,
would probably have been related to the works project he was involved with the workmen to whom he issued rations through
Year 22. Having completed his assignment, he then returned to Susa in the first month of the next year, Year 23 (498 BCE)
presumably. Could this be Hammedatha, the father of Haman? The text would locate him at Susa (he does not appear in any
other of the 2200 published Persepolis texts) and it would make him approximately the right age in relation of Haman in Esther
since he carried out this commission approximately 13 years before Haman came to prominence. Especially since Haman's
name, *humā-na in Iranian “Haoma is great”, is directly linked to his father's name: *humā-dāta “created by Haoma”.
37 Pharnaces Ι was a son of Arsames. He was a younger brother of Hystaspes, and therefore an uncle of Darius I, son of
Hystaspes. Pharnaces was the chief economic official to Darius I between 506 and 497 BCE. He was a Mayor of the Palace, his
statutory attribute being a short stick, probably made of a precious metal.
considered colleagues of the emperor. For example, the king of Babylon as co-regent of Cyrus had
appointed 120 provincial governors, called satraps, as well as 3 senior officials or “proconsuls” (Dan 6:1-3).
Similarly, Emperor Bardiya, called Artaxerxes (0) in Ezra 4:1-13, appointed, in 522 BCE, Tattannu as
governor of the province of “Beyond the River” (Phoenicia, Palestine and Cyprus); Bēl-apla-iddin as City-
governor of Babylon and Uštanu as satrap (proconsul) of Babylon and “Beyond the River”. Tattannu and
his three colleagues, the lesser governors of Phoenicia, Palestine and Cyprus were mainly concerned with
the financial interests of Darius I (Ezr 5:6,17). Uštanu, as a colleague of the emperor (“proconsul”), could
appoint the governors of Babylon and also conscript the armies of the governors of his satrapy, so he was
a powerful character38. As a colleague of Darius I, Uštanu was not involved in the financial management of
his missions nor in the supply to his administration, a role that was assigned to Parnaka, the Mayor of the
Palace of Susa from 506 to 497 BCE. For example, a mission order reads the following message (PF 1544):
QA (of) beer Uštana (Ú-iš-tan-na) together with his 1 companion received. He carried a sealed document of
Parnaka, and they went to Egypt. 23rd year, ninth (Elamite month).
The sealed document given by Parnaka to Uštanu (dated end 499 BCE) was issued by Darius I, it is a
diplomatic document intended for the satrap of Egypt: Aryantes (522-496). This mission must have been
important since this administrative document specifies the imperial origin, without giving the reason, but as
this mission is dated towards the end of the year 499 BCE, it is logical to link it to the beginning of the
Ionian revolt39 (499-493). The imperial administration headed by Panarka (506-497) was concerned only
with the procurement and financial management of senior Persian officials, with the exception of those
directly under the authority of the emperor, such as members of the royal family and the prime minister,
who were managed directly by the “House of the king”, which implied a system of dual management
(Briant: 2002, 464-465). Persia being an imperial province it did not have a satrap at its head but was
directly ruled by the emperor and therefore had its own administration (like the city of Rome in the Roman
Empire). When we place the contracts dated from Marduka, the superintendent of the Palace of Susa from
505 to 498 BCE, with those of Uštanu (Ú-iš-tan-na), the governor of Babylon and Beyond the River (522-
491?), we see that they disappear simultaneously between VI/24 and VI/28 (part highlighted in orange):
BCE reign Uštanu (dated text) Persepolis Fortification text Marduka
505 17 X/17 PF 1812 -; VII/17 PF 489; PF 1581
504 18 -; I-IV; X-XI/18 PF 1019; PF 1953; PF 397 IV/18 PF 273
503 19 -; I-II/19 PF 507; PF 398; PF 1668; PF 1041 X-XI/19 PF 991
502 20 -; II-IV; VII-XII/20 PF 1994; PF 433; PF 1944; PF 1223 X-XI/20 PF 941; PF 1794
501 21 I-XII/21 PF 719; PF 720; PF 726; PF 1021 V-VIII/21 PF 1183
500 22 I-XII/22 PF 1113; PF 476; PF 967 -; III/22 PF 81; PF 863
499 23 I; VI-IX/23 PF 1470; PF 1099; PF 1167; PF 602 I; III-V/23 PF 1236; PF 790
498 24 -; IV/24 PF 325; PF 2030; PF 385 VI/24 PF 412
497 25
496 26-0
495 27-1
494 28-2 VI-XII/28 PF 937; PF 867; PF 969; PF 970
493 29-3 (ended Ionian revolt) -/3 Esther 1:3
492 30-4 -/30 Amherst 258 -/30 Amherst 258
491 31-5 (death of Uštanu?)
490 32-6 (Battle of Marathon) XII/32 PT 1
489 33-7 (Xerxes’ wedding with Esther) XII/7 Esther 2:16-17
38 When Herodotus describes the preparations for the invasion of Greece (c. 480 BCE) he states that the Milyan army was under
the leadership of Badres, the son of Hystanes (The Histories VII:77). This former senior official (died around 491 BCE) had
supervised the 5th and 9th governments (The Histories III:90-92).
39 The Ionian Revolt, and associated revolts in Aeolis, Doris, Cyprus and Caria, were military rebellions by several Greek regions
of Asia Minor against Persian rule. At the heart of the rebellion was the dissatisfaction of the Greek cities of Asia Minor with the
tyrants appointed by Persia to rule them, along with the individual actions of two Milesian tyrants, Histiaeus and Aristagoras.
The cities of Ionia had been conquered by Persia around 540 BCE, and thereafter were ruled by native tyrants, nominated by the
Persian satrap in Sardis. The Siege of Naxos (499 BCE), a failed attempt by the Milesian tyrant Aristagoras, to conquer the island
of Naxos in the name of the Persian Empire, was supported by Artaphernes who assisted in the assembly of a force of 200
triremes under the command of Megabates. Soon after this, the Ionian Revolt began, at the instigation of Aristagoras who thus
tried to escape punishment for his failure at the Siege of Naxos. Athens and Eretria responded to the Ionian Greeks’ plea for
help against Persia and sent troops. Athenian and Eretrian ships transported the Athenian troops to the Ionian city of Ephesus.
There they were joined by a force of Ionians and they marched upon Sardis, leading to its Siege (498 BCE). Artaphernes, who
had sent most of his troops to besiege Miletus, was taken by surprise. However, he was able to retreat to the citadel and hold it.
Although the Greeks were unable to take the citadel, they pillaged the town and set fires that burnt Sardis to the ground.
Returning to the coast, the Greek forces were met by the Persians, led by Artaphernes, who overpowered the Greeks.
28
The absence of accounting receipts in Susa for the year 28 of Darius (493 BCE), which corresponds to the
year 3 of Xerxes, is due to the celebration in Persepolis of the victory of the Persians over the Ionians. An
accountant's receipt dated to the year 3 of Xerxes mentions Egyptian and Ionian workers who came to
work in the Palace of Persepolis (PT 15). This celebration is mentioned in the Book of Esther:
At that time King Xerxes reigned from his royal throne in the citadel of Susa, and in the 3rd year of his
reign he gave a banquet for all his nobles and officials. The military leaders of Persia and Media, the
princes, and the nobles of the provinces were present (Est 1:1-4; New International Version).
The reason for this huge banquet is not mentioned but it had to have been given in order to celebrate a
victory as shown by the fact that the first guests mentioned among the nobles and officials were the
military leaders of Persia and Media. According to Herodotus this victory over the Greeks took place in the
spring of 493 BCE through the intervention of the Persian fleet40. This information is crucial for
reconstructing the chain of events. At the beginning of the revolt (winter 499 BCE), Artaphernes, the
satrap of Sardis, had lost his fleet of 200 ships, which led Darius I to bring him naval support coming from
Aryandes (522-496) the Egyptian satrap who was allied to several pro-Persian Greek cities. The diplomatic
trip of Uštanu towards the end of 499 BCE was probably intended to take stock with the Egyptian satrap.
His travel companion was to be Marduka, because this high official was polyglot (Persian, Babylonian,
Aramaic, Hebrew), which was a precious advantage because in Egypt the working language was Aramaic
(not Persian) and many Egyptian officials were Jews (there was even a large garrison at Elephantine) and
therefore bilingual (Aramaic and Egyptian). However, this initial plan had to be modified because in the
spring of 498 BCE the Ionians succeeded in laying siege to the city of Sardis, the capital of Lydia, and in
rallying the island of Cyprus in their revolt against Persia (The Histories V:105-109). As the revolt grew,
Uštanu asked Parnaka in late Year 23 (early 498 BCE) to provide him with a colossal supply of daily rations
for 48,000 people41 (PF 602). He then came back to Susa in Year 24 because the main part of the Persian
fleet consisted of hundreds of Phoenician ships (The Histories V:112). Phoenicia was under the authority
of Tattannu for financial management but under the authority of Uštanu for diplomatic management. The
Persian land army and the Phoenician fleet were coordinated by Artaphernes (513-492) in agreement with
Uštanu, who coordinated the action of the Phoenician kings42 (The Histories VI:6-18). This coordination,
which lasted 4 years from VI/24 to VI/28 (498-494 BCE)43, explains the absence of Uštanu44 and Marduka
in Susa. According to this chronological reconstruction, Uštanu, the governor of Babylon and Beyond the
River, for his mission in Egypt (499 BCE) thus took Marduka, the superintendent of the Palace of Susa,
into his service as a personal secretary (master scribe), as confirmed by the Amherst 258 text (Shea, Van
Wyk: 2008, 8-9) dated Year 30 of Darius (492 BCE). Mordecai therefore had a high position in the imperial
administration which allowed him to be aware of the secrets of the imperial palace.
40 After wintering [end 494 BCE] around Miletus, the Persian fleet sailed forth next year [spring 493 BCE] and captured the
islands off the mainland with ease: Chios, Lesbos and Tenedos (...) They captured the Ionian cities on the mainland similarly,
although they did not net the people, as it could not be done there (...) From Ionia the fleet departed and captured all the places
on the left of the entrance of the Hellespont (The Histories VI:14-18,31-33).
41 PF 602 says that Uštanu received 8,100 BAR grain as provisions (for travel). The amount of grain specified is immense. For
example, Karkiš supplied the royal party with 1,783 BAR on an occasion and according to Hallock's calculations this would have
supplied a day's rations for 11,866 persons at 1 1⁄2 qâ each, a standard supply (Hallock: 1969, 24). Yet Uštanu's ration was 4
times as large, something that can only be connected with an extended trip such as that to Egypt mentioned in PF 1544.
42 During 500-485 BCE the kings were: Anysos (Sidon), Hiram IV (Tyre), Agbalos (Arwad), Rikiskalâmu-Bēl (Byblos).
43 In 498 BCE, supported by troops from Athens and Eretria, the Ionians marched on, captured, and burnt Sardis. However, on
their return journey to Ionia, they were followed by Persian troops, and decisively beaten at the Battle of Ephesus. This
campaign was the only offensive action by the Ionians, who subsequently went on the defensive. The Persians responded in 497
BCE with a three pronged attack aimed at recapturing the outlying areas of the rebellion, but the spread of the revolt to Caria
meant that the largest army, under Daurises, relocated there. While initially campaigning successfully in Caria, this army was
annihilated in an ambush at the Battle of Pedasus. This resulted in a stalemate for the rest of 496 BCE and 495 BCE. By 494
BCE the Persian army and navy had regrouped, and they made straight for the epicentre of the rebellion at Miletus. The Ionian
fleet sought to defend Miletus by sea, but was decisively beaten at the Battle of Lade, after the defection of the Samians. Miletus
was then besieged, captured, and its population was brought under Persian rule. This double defeat effectively ended the revolt,
and the Carians surrendered to the Persians as a result. The Persians spent 493 BCE subduing the cities along the west coast that
still held out against them, before finally imposing a peace settlement on Ionia.
44 Five texts fill the gap of Uštanu's absence. Two texts dated in the 25th year (PF 138, PF 139) refer to delivering grain to
Uštanu's escort of 100 men, but not to Uštanu himself. Another such text from the 28th year (PF 143) mentions delivering grain
to Uštanu's escort of 100 men again. Another text refers to balancing the account for beer that Uštanu was to distribute (in the
future). Finally, there is an interesting letter (PF 2071) about straightening out affairs on Uštanu's estate. While undated it
certainly seems to belong to the period when Uštanu was away. The dated texts from the 28th year (PF 937, PF 867, PFT 969,
PF 970) begin with the 6th month and end with the 12th month. One routine ration text without a month date should be
located in the latter half of this year, and the text about the delivery of grain to Uštanu's escort of 100 men (PF 143) should be
applied to the first half of this year, when he was still away.
18 2⁄3 minas, 6 shekels of silver: (to) Bêl-asûa. 6 minas: (to) Uš-ta-nu. 52 1⁄2 shekels for 7 pithoi of wine
(distributed as follows): Uštanu - 1, Artabanu45 - 1, Bagazuštu - 1, Huruzuštu - 1, Hurzuštu - 1, Aspamiššu -
1, the master scribe 1⁄3 mina, 2 1⁄8 shekels of silver for 6 sheep (distributed as follows): Uštanu - 3, Šatabari -
2, Liblut - 1. 1⁄2 mina: (to) Mar-duk-a the master scribe of Uštanu. 2 minas, 1 1⁄2 shekels: (to) Šatabari the
servant of Uštanu, in 2 instalments. 5 shekels: (to) Bêl-êṭer-Nabû the servant of Uštanu. 5 shekels: (to) Nabû-
illa-gabbi the servant of Bagazuštu. 1 shekel: (to) the leader of the guards. 1 shekel: (to) X? of the master
scribe Mardukâ. 1⁄2 shekel: (to) the gatekeeper of Uštanu. Total: 28 5/6 minas of silver as expenditures.
1⁄2 mina, 21⁄2 shekels for 2 pithoi containing 3 qâ of wine: (to) Bêl-asûa. 1⁄4 mina: (to) Nidintu 'the blind'. 3⁄4
shekel for jam cakes, 1⁄4 shekel for vegetables, 1⁄4 shekel of fish, 1⁄4 shekel for strong beer. 3⁄4 shekel for
footwear - (to) Aišardari. 1 shekel for the family of Šullumâ, son of Šellibi, on 2 Tammuz. 4 shekels for the
family of Šatabari. 10 shekels: (to) Bel-ittanu, the master scribe of Artapati. Total: 50 shekels of silver in the
2nd instalment of expenditures. Grand Total: 29 1⁄2 minas (Amherst 258).
Another detail makes it possible to verify the great accuracy of the Book of Esther in Hebrew (because the
Greek text of the Septuagint made the names of Persian officials unrecognizable). For example, among the
seven chamberlains who were present at the banquet in Year 3 of Xerxes (493 BCE), one of them is named
Karkas (Est 1:10), called Karkiš in the texts of Persepolis. He was a powerful high-ranking official since he
was the satrap of Carmania. The texts of Persepolis show that he was in charge of managing Uštanu's real
estate during his absence. It seems that Uštanu was unhappy with his management because a text from
Persepolis (PF 1860) indicates that he dismissed Karkiš.
Tell Zinini, the inspector spoke as follows: May god and Darius the king become your desire! Let me
remove the obstacle, ... Formerly you ...ed libakenke, and presently he ...s to you. Now thus(?) Uštana the
provider of the midwives —now he took the supply away from Karkiš —now on your(?) behalf(?) Uštana
ordered: "... my representative has ...ed, has come; send him help! Together with(?) Uštana do you send
help to libakenke (libba-kuki? “service to protect” in Elamite)! He said(?).
The text (written c. 494-493 BCE) is not clear, but nevertheless shows that the authority of Uštanu was
superior to that of Karkiš. In any case, only an eyewitness like Mordecai could know so precisely, among
the hundreds of these high Persian officials46 (Dandamaev: 1992, 23-145), their names and positions.
IDENTIFYING QUEEN ESTHER /AMESTRIS
The element most contested in the Book of Esther by historians, as well as archaeologists, is obviously its
main character: Queen Esther. Although Herodotus is almost our only source of historical information
about the Achaemenid period, he mentions only one queen (Amestris) who had an important role in
politics47 and who was the sole wife of Xerxes (Darius got married to six) as indicated by the book of
Esther, mainstream historians refuse to identify Esther with Amestris (The Histories VII:61) for the
following reasons: 1) the name is not the same; 2) it does not appear in the tablets of Persepolis; 3) the
description is different since Amestris was a cruel queen while Esther is presented as a queen loved by
Xerxes who protected her people from a genocide; 4) the attempted genocide (commemorated by the
festival of Purim) is mentioned neither by Herodotus nor Ctesias; 5) archaeological excavations have
revealed no evidence proving the existence of Esther. This is how these objections can be refuted:
1) In Old Persian Esther (Stara) means “Star” and Amestris (Amā-strī) means “Vigorous wife”:
Name (Royal female) Greek Old Persian Elamite Meaning Babylonian
Esther Esther Stara (Ištar) “(goddess)Star” Ištar
Amestris Amestris Amāstrī - “Vigorous wife” -
Vashti Astin Vahišta - “Excellent” -
Atossa Atossa Utauθa Adusana “Well granting” (Hutaosā)
As the name of Queen Amestris means “Vigorous wife/ Strong woman” it had to be a nickname
(weird as a birth name)48. Moreover, the transcription as well as the etymology of many Old Iranian
names are disputed (Tavernier: 2007, 11-32). Her name was neither a throne name because the Persian
queens did not reign, but were merely wives of kings, excepted Esther who received half of Xerxes'
45 This high-ranking official (c.500-474) was the prime minister of Xerxes after Mordecai's death from 483 to 474 BCE.
46 According to Herodotus, the province of Babylon was to provide 500 young eunuchs each year to the Persian administration
(The Histories III:92). However, there is no evidence that these eunuchs were all castrated (Joannès: 2002, 322-323).
47 According to Herodotus, Atossa was influential because she was the daughter of Cyrus and wife of Darius but she was only a
counsellor of Darius and did no political actions: Atossa addressed Darius in their chamber as she had been instructed by Democedes: O King,
although you have so much power you are idle, acquiring no additional people or power for the Persians (...) She said this as instructed, but he replied
with this: Woman, what you have said is exactly what I had in mind to do (The Histories III:133-134).
48 As birth name for a baby it could have been “vigorous/ strong” without the word “woman”.
30
kingdom (Est 5:3-5). For example, the name of Atossa (The Histories III:133-134), Adusana in
Elamite (PF 162), means “Well granting”, which is a birth name. The Persepolis Fortification Tablets
attest to the fact that the Elamite title dukšiš (translated as “queen” into Greek) was used collectively
for Achaemenid royal women. It certainly was not a word that formally had to be added to the names
of certain royal women (Henkelman: 2000, 497-504). This is clearly shown by the case of Artystone,
one of Darius’ wives, who is named on quite a number of tablets, but only twice as dukšiš. Their
individual status was determined by their relation to the king, and accordingly the women were
referred to as “the king’s mother” (Elamite *sunki ammari), “the king’s wife” (*sunki irtiri), and “the
king’s daughter” (sunki pakri). These terms of reference follow Assyrian and Babylonian usages,
attested in the terms ummi šarri, aššat šarri, and mārat šarri. Babylonian sources dated to the Achaemenid
period also referred to a woman belonging to the royal household as “woman of the palace”
(Babylonian ša ekalli), but never gave their names.
2) The name of Esther (Stara in Old Persian) does not appear in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets
neither the name Amestris, nor any name of any queen. People who appear on these tablets depended
on senior officials themselves to royal orders mainly from the king, that's why these royal members are
never named, except on seals (like Darius or Xerxes). For example, Artobarzanes, Darius’ firstborn
(The Histories VII:2), appears on a Persepolis seal (PTS 26) or only his title visa-puthra “son of the
house” on an unpublished tablet (Q 931). Similarly, two anonymous high officials in Persia at the time
of Darius (505-498) used seals engraved with Humban-aḫpi (an unknown Elamite name) and six
tablets are engraved with the famous name Kuraš (Cyrus) of Anšan (Briant: 2002, 427,880,958).
3) Herodotus’ story about Amestris, which obviously comes from an Achaemenid informant, is highly
negative and hostile. There are at least two details concerning Amestris that are obviously false49: the
fact that Amestris made human sacrifices as well as the fact that King Xerxes was afraid of her (The
Histories VII:114; IX:109). We can conclude that the Achaemenid informant did not like Amestris and
consequently had portrayed her in a very negative way. This is not surprising because Esther asked
Xerxes for the execution of the Prime minister and his whole household (Est 8:7-10). Moreover, she
asked Xerxes to authorize the Jews to kill the Persian warriors who had been appointed to execute
them, which caused the deaths of 75,000 in Persia (Est 9:16). Consequently, many Persians felt that
Esther was responsible for these massacres. Esther, Ištar “(goddess)star” in Babylonian or Amā-stara
“woman-star” in Old Persian, became Amā-strī “woman-vigourous”. The Persian name Amastri was
transcribed Amestris into Greek. Similarly, although Amestris is sometimes also portrayed in a cruel
way by Ctesias (c. 400 BCE), some details show on the contrary that she was sensitive and peaceful:
The three sons of Artapanus (=Artabanu?) were killed and Megabyzus severely wounded (in 475 BCE).
Artaxerxes, Amytis, and Rhodogyne, and their mother Amestris were deeply grieved (...) When his answer
was reported to the king, the Paphlagonian eunuch Artoxares and Amestris urged him to make peace
without delay (...) On the intercession of Amestris and Amytis, the king became reconciled to him
(Megabyzus) and admitted him to his table as before (...) After his death, his wife Amytis, like her mother
Amestris before her, showed great fondness for the society of men (Persica F13§34,42,44).
Unlike his contemporaries, Plato (c. 390 BCE) describes queen Amestris as an influential and wise woman:
Why, I have been informed by a credible person who went up to the king (at Susa), that he passed through a
large tract of excellent land, extending for nearly a day's journey, which the people of the country called the
queen's girdle, and another, which they called her veil; and several other fair and fertile districts, which
were reserved for the adornment of the queen, and are named after her several habiliments. Now, I cannot
help thinking to myself; If someone were to say to the wife of Xerxes, to Amestris, mother of the present
king; There is a man in Athens who is meditating on making war on Artaxerxes (...) she would say to
herself: upon his training and wisdom —these are the things which Hellenes value. And if she heard that
this Alcibiades (450-404) who is making the attempt is not as yet 20 years old (in 431 BCE), and is wholly
uneducated (...) And if we replied: He relies on his beauty, and stature, and birth, and mental endowments,
she would think that we were mad (...) But how disgraceful, that we should not have as high a notion of
what is required in us as our enemies' wives and mothers have of the qualities which are required in their
assailants (First Alcibiades 123b-124b).
4) The missed genocide of the Jews was ignored by Persian historians. However, gods and heroes belong
to mythology, but massacres belong to human reality and this genocide was already commemorated in
160 BCE (2Mac 15:36). How can one explain that the Jews were able to celebrate an imaginary
genocide? For a long time, official historians have argued that the explanation of the word pur was
pure fantasy (Est 3:7), but it is a rare word of Assyrian origin and actually means “lot”, like in the Neo-
Babylonian expression (Black/ George/ Postgate: 2000, 279) “to cast a lot (pūru ṣalā’u)” (Ne 11:1).
49 These two remarks are contradicted by all that we know about Xerxes, including from Herodotus himself.
Some argue that Xerxes might not have allowed the massacre of 75,000 of his countrymen, but Darius
did not hesitate to abandon 80,000 of his soldiers to the enemy in one day, out of a total of 800,000,
according to Herodotus (The Histories IV:135-136) and Ctesias (Persica F13§21). The best proof of
the existence of this ancient event is the total absence of Jewish names in Persian documents before
the reign of Xerxes then the emergence of hundreds of Jewish names just after his reign (Murashu
archives), it proves their full reinstatement in the Persian society.
5) Archaeologists have not found Queen Esther simply because the seals and statues representing Queen
Esther are all anonymous (as was the custom at the time for royalty with the exception of the king).
In Herodotus’ writings there is only one queen, Amestris, who
was associated strongly with royalty, consequently it is logical to
identify Amestris with the unique statue of a Persian queen
unearthed at Persepolis (opposite figure). However, historians are
unable to identify it (Briant: 1992, 97,164). This inability to
identify the queen is not due to a problem of archaeological
interpretation but, if I dare say, to an “academic blindness”. For
example, although Achaemenid royal tombs50 are without
inscriptions, historians have no difficulty identifying all of them.
For example, one of the tombs is explicitly identified by an
accompanying inscription as the tomb of Darius I but the other
three tombs are believed to be those of Xerxes I, Artaxerxes I and
Darius II respectively. The order of the tombs in Naqsh-e
Rustam (northwest of Persepolis) follows (from left to right):
Darius II, Artaxerxes I, Darius I, Xerxes I. A fifth unfinished one
might be that of Artaxerxes III but is more likely that of Darius III. Why did the Achaemenid sculptors
forget to put inscriptions alongside the statues? The answer is simple: because everybody in Persia at that
time knew those kings, consequently, for the same reason, the “mysterious queen” was well-known.
Paradoxically current specialists are not capable of recognizing that the head of the statue is that of a
woman. The anonymous head is exposed at the Tehran
Museum without any explanation other than that of the
website (no longer accessible) indicating the following:
“Crowns (sic) head of Achaemenid Prince; 550-330 BC”. This
explanation is obviously absurd for the following reasons: the
lack of a beard, the shape of the eyebrows and the very thin
mouth indicate that it was a woman; the royal crown and the
beautiful blue enamel indicate that this was a queen; those who
assume the statue was the one of a young Crown prince
contradict the conventional representations of kings and
princes who are always bearded without exception. For example, the Persian prince (left) wears a pleated
toque on his head, not a crown, and holds a lotus (royal symbol) in the right hand. Prince Median (right)
wears a big cap on his head and sends to the king a royal salutation (kiss of his right hand). Some eunuchs
of the imperial administration were depicted without beards, but they could not be princes since they could
not found a dynasty. Consequently, the head of the statue in Tehran Museum is that of a Persian queen.
According to The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies51 the queen was Atossa (550?-475?), one of the six
wives of Darius. This choice is illogical for at least three reasons:
• Atossa was indeed a royal woman but her only memorable political activity was to advise her husband
(Herodotus III:134), including during the Greek war initially recommended by her, consequently she
never reigned as queen52 contrary to the anonymous queen who wears a spiky crown (symbol of power).
• Atossa (550?-475?) was around 55 years old when Xerxes (496-475) became coregent (Herodotus VII:3)
but the anonymous queen looks rather young.
• According to Herodotus: “Darius had made a statue of gold of his favourite wife: Artystone” (The
Histories VII:69), but not of Atossa though she was her sister.
Representations of women are rare during the Achaemenid period and none occurs in official or in
monumental art, except Amestris’ statue. Those that are known are primarily small scale (seals, ivories,
metalwork) and come mainly from western and north-western parts of the empire —Babylonia, Syro-
50 No private tomb found, the tomb of Mausolus, a Persian satrap of Caria (377-353), is now destroyed.
51 http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Women/women_in_pre-islmaic_iran.htm
52 Atossa is called queen twice in Aeschylus's play but its subtitle is: “Atossa, widow of Darius, mother of Xerxes”.
32
Palestine, Egypt, Asia Minor and Armenia. Examples from the empire’s heartland are extremely rare. One
of the most intriguing issues revealed in the archaeological sources is the fact that royal women are
depicted holding audiences which are reminiscent of the king’s audience scene from the Apadana reliefs.
As is known from the Book of Nehemiah (Ne 2:6), the king’s wife could be present at royal audiences, but
the archaeological evidence reveals that they also held their own council. This may be a custom adopted
from the Elamite court, as is suggested in a seal impression on some Persepolis Fortification Texts. The
seal PFS 77* (below) is carved in Neo-Elamite style and shows a woman enthroned (without crown),
accompanied by a female servant standing behind her and receiving a female visitor, who is separated from
women receiving
the enthroned woman other
by anwomen and(Brosius:
incense burner holding audience
2010, 141-152). similar to the Persepolis reliefs.
They may depict the queen or queen mother receiving requests for intervention with the
King on certain matters or regarding their own personal affairs. Achaemenid women
owned and managed their own properties and villages. Perhaps the audience scenes
Composite drawing of PFS 77*
reflect how they dealt with their own estates or personal issues. They show women in a
A similar scene is depicted on a cylinder seal carved in Achaemenid court style and on a cylinder seal
(C16496). The representation of women in audience scenes could only have found artistic expression if
position of power
royal women indeedand
held ability
audiencestothemselves.
engage in public
Women matters. Ivoryglyptic,
in Achaemenid-period reliefmetalwork
plaquesand of Persia
sculpture are either bareheaded with a long braid falling down the back or wear a low cylindrical or beret-
like cap, which is sometimes covered by a veil. Several elements are typical of a royal audience: throne with
in council or feasts
the footboard, incensefound in cylindrical
burner and northernberetGreece
on theirshow
head. Persian women present and dressed
beautiful garments either standing before the aristocrat or sharing his couch. 29
Another cylinder seal shows a woman of nobility sitting on a chair with her hair
down to her lower back. She is looking into a mirror and applying makeup.
Cylinder seal C16496 Cylinder seal AO 22359

Buffalo Museum, New York Musée du Louvre
Cylinder seal Abb. 165 Scaraboid gem Gold finger-ring

Musée du Louvre Ashmolean Museum Oxford, n° 1921.2. B.M. ANE 124005
Representations of a Persian queen are very rare, there are only three known copies: the gold finger-ring in
the British Museum (ANE 124005), dated 5th century BCE (Curtis/ Tallis: 2005, 160), the(cylinder seal inH., pl. 165
Fig. 3) Koch,
the Louvre Museum (AO 22359), dated around 500 BCE and the lapis-lazuli statue head in the Tehran
Museum (1294-7719), dated 5th century BCE (Shepherd: 1961, 19-25). The most intriguing seal is the one
A servant stands
of the Louvre behind
(AO 22359) her holding
because a fan
it depicts twowhile
queens another approaches
(Lerner: 2010, 153-164): aher
queenfrom the front
mother
welcoming a young queen. Once more, archaeologists are unable to identify these two royal women. For
with what appear to be a sponge and a wig. 30 The woman is clearly concerned with her
hairstyle may have distinguished nobility from commoners and court pro
affairs.
example, the seal exposed at the Louvre Museum has the following caption: “Harem scene or scene of
worship for Queen or goddess Anahita (dated ca. 500 B.C.)”,seal
Another most historians
depicts opting
a seated for wearing
woman Anahita a(Briant:
crown and a long
1996, 264-265). This explanation is obviously false for the following reasons:
• This is not the goddess Anahita “immaculate” wearing jewelry and her feet are resting on a stool. A young girl with br
whose earliest representation is with a radiant
halo53 (opposite figure). In addition, the worship
traditional Persian dress is facing her. The woman holds a lotus flower a
of Anahita in Persia (Lecoq: 1997, 158-159) was
introduced by Artaxerxes II54 (405-359), girl so
is giving the woman a bird. Behind the young girl is an incense burn
around one century after the period of the
Louvre's seal (dated around 500 BCE). woman with a four-tiered crown and a veil stands on the other side of th
• The two women (AO 22359) are queens: the
one seated on the throne wears a wearing small traditional Persian dress and is holding something that is difficu
cylindrical crown on her head and holds a lotus
flower (symbol of royalty) in her right hand. The
woman in front of her has a serrated crown.
Cylinder seal PTS 91 British Museum
The first historical study of this unique seal
was only carried out in 2008 (Vasseghi: 2008,
11-15). The seal depicts a seated woman
wearing a crown like a torque and a long veil.
She is wearing jewellery and her feet are
resting on a stool. A young girl with braided
hair and traditional Persian dress is facing
her. The woman holds a lotus flower and the
young girl is giving the woman a bird.
Behind the young girl is an incense burner.
Another woman with a four-spike crown and
a veil stands on the other side of the burner. She is wearing traditional Persian dress and is holding
something that is difficult to identify. The seated woman is a mother-queen shown with other members of (Fig. 4) Ko
the royal family. The incense burner shows that women may have had religious duties and perhaps as a
The seated
royal audience, the seated woman is being approached forwoman may
a favour. be lotus
The a queen
wasshown with
a sacred othersymbolic
flower members of the roy
of nobility, fertility, peace, and prosperity. Persian mythology has famous birds, which usually represent
incense burner shows that women may have had religious duties and per
good omens. The woman with the crown has her feet on a stool and there is clearly a form of gift-
exchange between the woman and the young girl. This image depicts women in a position of power and
audience, the seated woman is being approached for a favor. The lotus w
high status with the ability to grant wishes or address concerns. How can one to identify these two queens
who lived around 500 BCE? Two simple clues enable one to answer that question: 1) the four-spike crown
flower symbolic of nobility, fertility, peace, and prosperity. Persian myt
worn by the young queen is identical to the statue of Queen Amestris; 2) the only two Persian queens
known by historians are Amestris and Atossa (550?-475?) who both lived in the time of Xerxes (496-475).
famous birds which usually represent good omens. The woman with the
The shape of the crown gives an additional clue because Persian kings usually wore a cylindrical crown for
their royal audiences (left below), but when they came
feet on to power
a stool or made
and there a heroic
is clearly a formaction (Curtis/ Tallis:
of gift-exchange between the w
2005, 92-99), such as the capture of a lion (right below), they wore a serrated crown for the occasion.
14
53 Her representation is identical to that of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar (“Esther” in Persian), standing on a lion, on an
Assyrian cylinder seal dated 8th century BCE (Louvre AO 1510).
54 According to Berossus, quoted by Clemens of Alexandria in his Protrepticus (V, 65.2-3). This statement is confirmed by the fact
that before Artaxerxes II the goddess Anahita is never mentioned in the Achaemenid inscriptions.
34
On the bas-reliefs, King Darius is always represented with a cylindrical crown (below left) except on the
monument of Bisitun where he wears a serrated crown (right below). The famous Bisitun inscription was
engraved on a cliff about 100 meters off the ground. In the text Darius describes how the god Ahuramazda
chose him to dethrone the usurper Gaumâta, called King Bardiya (523-522) in tablets. After this event, king
Darius set out to quell several revolts. This is also depicted above the text, where we see Ahuramazda and
King Darius I (right below), the slain usurper, and seven men representing seven rebellious people.
(tiara) (crown)
Accordingly, the serrated crown was associated with the arrival of the king in power. Wearing a crown
meant therefore sharing royal power, an exceptional privilege rarely granted as noted in Esther 8:15. Hence
the exceptional Louvre's seal with the two queens must represent the coronation of Queen Amestris, the
wife of Xerxes, in front of Atossa (550?-475?), the mother of Xerxes as well as the wife of Darius, who as
mother-queen gave her approval to Amestris. Accordingly, Queen Amestris was Queen Esther, who lived
in Susa (510-426), but the ultimate proof is chronology. According to Plutarch, a Greek historian: He
[Artaxerxes] proclaimed Darius, then 50 years of age, his successor to the throne, and gave him permission
to wear the upright kitaris, as the tiara was called (Life of Artaxerxes 26:1-30:5). Several commentators have
corrected the number 50 into 30, because Plutarch says a little later that Darius (B) was a young man at his
enthronement, less than 25 according to Cyropaedia I:2:13, which is confirmed by Justinus (Epitome of the
Philippic History X:1-3). In fact, the number 50 refers to Artaxerxes’s age, not to Darius’s age.
Consequently, given that Artaxerxes enthroned his son Darius B during his 41st year (Murashu tablets) in
434 BCE, he was born in 485 BCE (= 435 + 50). According to Ctesias:
Xerxes married the daughter of Onophas, Amestris. He was born a son Darius A [in 488 BCE], a second,
two years later [in 486 BCE], Hystaspes, then Artaxerxes [in 485 BCE] and two daughters Amytis, who
took the name of his grandmother, and Rhodogune (Persica F13§24).
Consequently, Artaxerxes was 10 years old when Xerxes died in 475 BCE, 50 in 435 BCE when Darius B
was enthroned, and nearly 62 when he died in 424 BCE (Plutarch says Artaxerxes reigned 62 years!).
According to Justinius (History III:1), Artaxerxes was barely out of childhood (10 years old) and Darius (A)
was already in adolescence (13 years old) when Xerxes was murdered. If Amestris had her first child in 488
BCE her wedding occurred in 489 BCE. According to Esther 2:16-18, king Xerxes married Esther in his
7th year of reign (489 BCE). As a result, Queen Amestris, the sole known wife of Xerxes (The Histories
VII:61), got married in 489 BCE, at the same moment as Queen Esther got married, consequently
Amestris (510-426) is Esther and when she was chosen in the 3rd year of Xerxes (493 BCE) she was a
beautiful young girl, 17 years old (Est 1:3; 2:2-4), thus 21 when she got married. Royal women owned land
and estates in Persia as well as outside the Persian heartland, as in Egypt, according to Herodotus (The
Histories II:98). Indeed, they employed their own workforce and it also appears that certain administrative
officials were assigned to them. Most notable is Irdabama, a royal woman of the court of Darius I and
unknown to Greek sources. She possessed her own workforces55, mainly centred on Tirrazziš (Shiraz),
which could include up to 480 labourers (PF 1028; PF-NN 1068, 1146). Estates are attested as belonging
to Irtašduna, identified as Artystone, wife of Darius I. She also used her own seal (PFS 38) to authorize
transactions and ration payments for her workforce.
If Xerxes married Amestris in 489 BCE, it means he was single when he was appointed as governor of
Parthia in 498 BCE, which is contrary to the Eastern tradition because a new leader should establish
alliances by marriage with the aristocracy in place to legitimize his power. Darius had married the two
55A small workforce (matištukkašp) also was assigned to her. With her own seal (PFS 51) Irdabama authorized the transactions of
foodstuffs, while officials, such as Uštana and Rašda, using seal PFS 36 and 78 respectively, carried out her orders.
princesses Atossa and Artystone, who were Cyrus’ daughters, when he was proclaimed king (The Histories
III:88). Given that he became king around December 522 BCE, Xerxes must have been born the following
year. Therefore, when Xerxes was appointed governor of Parthia (after Hystaspes I, the father of Darius I
died) he married a princess (called “Vashti” in the Bible) of the Parthian aristocracy56.
As seen, in order to check the accuracy of the Book of Esther, historians (and theologians) usually prefer to
refer to archaeologists, Assyriologists, Egyptologists and radio-carbonists, rather than to an accurate
chronology (Herodotus’ principle) anchored on absolute dates as well as on reliable documents
(Thucydides’ principle) coming from critical editions. This method is absolutely misleading as shown in the
case of Queen Atossa. The most famous bearer of this name was the daughter of Cyrus the Great (Persian
king from 559 to 539 BCE) —probably his eldest; her mother may have been Cassandane. Aeschylus’
Persae indicates that she was still alive when Xerxes invaded Greece (480-479) and she is presented as a
venerable queen (likely aged 70 years old). Atossa was consort to her brother Cambyses II (Diodorus
Siculus 31:19:1) who fell in love with her at the beginning of his reign in 530 BCE because of her great
beauty (she was likely 15-20 years old); and, after his death (522 BCE), she somehow passed into the harem
of Bardiya. Eventually Darius took possession of the harem, married Atossa, and made her his main
consort and queen (Herodotus III:88). A prominent motive may have been Darius’s wish to legitimize the
accession of his own collateral Achaemenid line by joining with a member of Cyrus’ family. Atossa had
four sons by Darius (Herodotus VII:7). Xerxes was the eldest; the others were Hystaspes (Vištāspa), leader
of the Bactrian and Saka troops in Xerxes’ army, Masistes (maθišta “greatest”), one of Xerxes’ commanding
generals, and Achaemenes, admiral of the Egyptian fleet (Herodotus VII:3,64,82,97). Because of her
lineage and by her intelligence, Atossa exercised great influence on her husband and at court generally.
Xerxes was the first son born to Darius after his seizure of the kingship, but not the eldest of all. Darius
had three sons by his first wife, the daughter of Gubaru/Gobryas (Herodotus VII:2). Xerxes’s
appointment as commander-in-chief of the Persian army was made to strengthen his position as
prospective successor (Herodotus VII:2-3). The choice of Darius to appoint Xerxes as co-regent (496
BCE) must have been due in part to Atossa's great authority. During her son’s reign she held the high
status of queen-mother. Her reputation is clearly reflected in Aeschylus’ Persae (in 472 BCE), where her
dignified figure is at the heart of the play’s action. Her personality is impressively represented and drawn
with esteem; Darius, called up from Hades by the chorus, explicitly approves of her influence over her son.
Consequently, Atossa is thought to have lived around 550-475 BCE. Despite her major role in Achaemenid
history, Atossa does not appear among the 2120 Persepolis Fortification tablets, except (assuming it is not
a homonym) twice on tablets dated 22nd year of Darius I (500 BCE): fÙ-tam-sa-na (PF 162); fÙ-du-sa-na-na
(PF 163). Consequently, archaeologists have questioned the existence of this “queen” because a lesser-
known Persian princess —Artystone— daughter of king Cyrus the Great, and sister or half-sister of Atossa
and Cambyses II, appears 27 times in the tablets of Persepolis under the form Ir-taš-du-na/ Ir-da-iš-du-na57.
In addition, Xerxes in his declaration of legitimacy breathes not a word about Atossa, which he would not
have failed to do had she exercised the sort of power sometimes accorded to her on the basis of
Herodotus. On the contrary, he insists on the patrilinear transmission of power (XPf§3).
Dynastic legitimacy was not established by way of the mother (Briant: 2002, 520). It's interesting to note
that an in-depth investigation of thousands of tablets has explained the apparent oddities observed by
archaeologists (Llewellyn-Jones: 2013, 13-14,113):
56 Following Near Eastern practices, female relatives of the king were used in political marriage alliances, such as
Nebuchadnezzar’s marriage to the daughter of the Median king and the marriage between the Median king Astyages and
Aryenis, daughter of the Lydian king Alyattes (Hdt., I:74). Royal daughters were given in marriage to foreign kings in order to
affirm political alliances or to confirm a peace treaty. Astyages is said to have married his daughter Mandane to Cambyses I in an
apparent attempt to prevent the downfall of his realm (Hdt., I:107), while according to Ctesias, the first link between the two
royal houses was established only after Cyrus I conquered Media and subsequently married Astyages’ daughter Amytis (Ctesias
F9§1). Persian kings also established their connections with the Persian nobility through a deliberate marriage policy. Cyrus II
married Cassandane, daughter of the Achaemenid Pharnaspes (Hdt., II:1). Phaidyme, daughter of the noble Otanes was said to
have been the wife, first of Cambyses II, and then of Bardiya. In order to legitimize his accession, but, more importantly, to
prevent rival claims to the throne, Darius I entered a series of marriage alliances which remain unparalleled within Achaemenid
rule. His alliances included the daughters of the previous kings, Atossa, Artystone, and Parmys (Hdt., III:88). In addition, he
created close familial links with his two closest allies who helped him to secure the throne, Gobryas and Otanes. He married
daughters of both nobles (Hdt., VII:2.2, III:88), while they themselves were married to sisters of Darius (Hdt., VII:5,82). Their
respective offspring also intermarried, with Darius’ daughter Artazostre marrying Mardonius son of Gobryas (Hdt., VI:43; PFa
5). Such interfamilial marriages were again concluded by the offspring of Darius II, albeit on a much smaller scale, when
Amestris II was married to Teritouchmes son of Hydarnes and Artaxerxes II to Hydarnes’ daughter Stateira (Ctesias F15§55).
Artaxerxes’ own daughter was to be married to Tissaphernes, satrap of Sardis, who might himself have been a son of the same
Hydarnes (Diodorus XIV:26.4).
57 From Old Persian *Artastūnā “pillar of Arta (the deified true)”.
36
• Paradoxically, the more a character is high-ranking the less he appears among the Persepolis tablets.
Thus, members of the royal court were well-known by scribes (but unfortunately not by us) and they
are just mentioned by their titles like “to King's wife, year 22 (without any names)”. Similarly, given
that titles of members of the royal court were also well known, they are rarely mentioned (Spawforth:
2007, 33-34). For example, the name of Irtaštuna (Artystone) —Darius’s favourite wife— appears in
only 2 texts, out of 27 (i.e. 7 %), with the title durkšiš “royal woman” (PF 1795 and PF-NN 3099).
• The names of high-ranking members appear sometimes on their seals. For example, Irtaštuna
(Artystone) used her own seal (PFS 38) but it could have been used by some subordinates, not by her,
such as the person who was attached to the house of Vištāspa (Hystaspes I) father of Darius (PF1596)
(Briant: 2002, 446). Thus, unless a seal is inscribed with the name of the individual, we don’t have any
way of establishing that the seal used on behalf of that elite person was his/her own personal seal.
• The vast majority of the preserved written documents in the Fortification archive are inscribed in
cuneiform Elamite, which is poorly understood in comparison with other ancient western Asiatic
languages (Garrison/ Cool Root/ Jones: 2001, 3-12). A deeper knowledge regularly improves
transcriptions, pronunciation and even the meaning, which is sometimes completely changed58!
• Archaeology has proved that Artystone (Irtaštuna), one of the six wives of Darius (Dārayavahuš), was
a genuine royal woman (durkšiš), not a mythical character so why not to accept that her famous sister
Atossa (Udusa) was also a genuine queen59 (but without a crown, unlike Esther)?
Although Atossa, who was a queen of the first rank (wife of Darius and mother of Xerxes), almost never
appears in the tablets of Persepolis, she is nevertheless the central character in the theatrical performance
entitled “The Persians” written by Aeschylus in 473 BCE and played the following year. This play is
sympathetic toward the defeated Persians presented as a tragic event for them because of the hubris of
their leader: Xerxes. This is not the story of the Persian disasters at Salamis and Plataea, but a deep
reflection on the tragic end of an empire, because if it was just a national disaster, Aeschylus would have
written his text immediately after the events (c. 478 BCE) like his older contemporary Phrynichus who
wrote “The Sack of Miletus” in 493 BCE, which dealt with the destruction of an Ionian colony of Athens
in Asia Minor by the Persians (his portrayal of this brutal defeat emphasized Athens' abandonment of its
colony). Aeschylus wrote the tragic end of an empire because its main leaders were recently deceased60.
Denying the existence of Queen Esther and Mordecai also involves denying the origin of the Purim
Festival, which consequently would have a mythical origin, but this Day is still celebrated by Jews. How can
one explain that the Jews were able to celebrate an imaginary genocide, but still worse, some facts of
Persian history become totally incomprehensible. For example, the administration of Artaxerxes I (who
was Queen Esther's son) employed numerous Jewish scribes and managers in Persia (Murashu's archives)61
as well as many soldiers in its Egyptian province (Elephantine papyri)62. In addition, the Jewish province of
Judaea became independent under Artaxerxes I’s reign because the title “Governor of Yehud” is not used
anymore and consequently was exempt from paying tribute to the Persian kingdom. If Artaxerxes I was
not the son of Queen Esther, how can one explain this very friendly cooperation between the ancient
Babylonian province of Judaea and King Artaxerxes I who was a peaceful king, unlike Xerxes his father?
58 Scholars now believe that the Elamite form of the Greek name Atossa was U-du-sa, not U-du-sa-na, because the final –na is the
Elamite genitive-attributive morpheme, not part of the name.
59 Now (in 2020), among more than 4,800 published and unpublished Elamite texts about 30 name Irtaštuna (Artystone), but
only 4 name Adusa (Atossa) on tablets dated Year 20 or 21 (Fort. 0328-101; Fort. 0290-101; Fort. 2173-101; Fort. 0590-101).
60 Darius died on 8 December 486 BCE, Atossa around 475 BCE and Xerxes on 24 August 475 BCE. When Themistocles met
King Artaxerxes around January 474 BCE, the warlike risks from the Persian Empire were over. If Xerxes died in 465 BCE, he
would have been living in 472 BCE during the performance of Aeschylus' play, which would have made incomprehensible his
tragic fate, except by admitting that Aeschylus (525-456) was an inspired prophet (unlikely)!
61 The core activity of the family was fief and estate land management, with members primarily active as creditors for workers of
agricultural enterprises, in the lending and provision of equipment, seed, tools, irrigation and animals for this purpose, to
individuals including Jewish persons, these relevant as to the book of Ezekiel. The archive gives information on interaction and
agreement and the like with 100 Jewish families. The family employed more than 60 agents. The house leased plots of land
owned by civil servants (23 high court officials) and warriors (bow-lands, horse-lands and chariot lands) transferring rental
payments and also subsequent taxes to the royal family. The government used the family for the purposes of the collection of
tax on land (the family "farmed out" taxes). The family had dealings with 2500 separate individuals, at least as evidenced by the
archive document. The family had no role in foreign exchange (international trade). Although members did travel to Susa (in
Elam, about 200 kilometres distance) where they remained for months involved in financial businesses.
62 Jews often appear also as contracting parties and witnesses swearing by the god Yahû (YHW). In fact, the Jewish temple at
Elephantine had already been established, before Cambyses conquered Egypt in 525 BCE, and was built by the disobedient Jews
who came to Egypt after the killing of Gedaliah in 587 BCE (Jr 43:2-44:3). Most Jews settled in Pathros (Jr 44:15) an Egyptian
region called p3-t3-rsy “the land of the South” or pa-tu-ri-si in Akkadian.
HERODOTUS VERSUS BIBLE ACCOUNT
The Histories of Herodotus Book of Esther

As time went on, however, the truth came to light, and in So the king and Haman came in to Queen
such manner as I will show. Xerxes’ wife, Amestris, wove Esther’s banquet. The king said to Esther again
and gave to him a great gaily-coloured mantle, marvellous on the second day during the banquet of wine:
to see. Xerxes was pleased with it and went to Artaynte What is your petition, Queen Esther? It will be
wearing it. Being pleased with her too, he asked her what granted you63. And what is your request? Even to
she wanted in return for her favours, for he would deny the half of my kingdom, it will be done! Queen
nothing at her asking. Thereupon —for she and all her Esther answered: If I have found favour with you,
house were doomed to evil— she said to Xerxes: Will you O king, and if it pleases the king, let my life be
give me whatever I ask of you? He promised this, supposing granted as my petition, and my people as my
that she would ask anything but that; when he had sworn, request. For we have been sold, I and my people,
she asked boldly for his mantle. Xerxes tried to refuse her, to be annihilated, killed, and destroyed. If we had
for no reason except that he feared that Amestris might have simply been sold as male and female slaves, I
clear proof of his doing what she already guessed. He would have kept silent. But the distress is not
accordingly offered her cities instead and gold in abundance proper, for it will be damaging to the king. King
and an army for none but herself to command. Armies are Ahasuerus then said to Queen Esther: Who is this,
the most suitable of gifts in Persia. But as he could not and where is the man who has dared to do such a
move her, he gave her the mantle; and she, rejoicing greatly thing? Esther said: The adversary and enemy is
in the gift, went flaunting her finery. She waited therefore this evil Haman. Haman became terrified because
till Xerxes her husband should be giving his royal feast. of the king and the queen. The king rose up in a
This banquet is served once a year, on the king’s birthday; rage from the banquet of wine and went into the
the Persian name for it is “tukta(?),” which is in the Greek palace garden, but Haman stood up to plead with
language “perfect.” On that day (and none other) the king Queen Esther for his life, for he realized that the
anoints his head and makes gifts to the Persians. Waiting for king was determined to punish him. The king
that day, Amestris then asked of Xerxes that Masistes’ wife returned from the palace garden to the house of
should be given to her. Xerxes considered it a terrible and the wine banquet and saw that Haman had thrown
wicked act to give up his brother’s wife, and that too when himself on the couch where Esther was. The king
she was innocent of the deed; for he knew the purpose of exclaimed: Is he also going to rape the queen in
the request. Nevertheless, since Amestris was insistent and my own house? As soon as these words left the
the law compelled him (for at this royal banquet in Persia king’s mouth, they covered Haman’s face.
every request must of necessity be granted), he unwillingly Harbona64, one of the king’s court officials, now
consented, and delivered the woman to Amestris. Then, said: Haman also prepared a stake for Mordecai,
bidding her do what she wanted, he sent for his brother and whose report saved the king. It is standing at
spoke as follows: Masistes, you are Darius’ son and my Haman’s house, 50 cubits high. At that the king
brother, and a good man; hear me then. You must no longer said: Hang him on it. So they hanged Haman on
live with her who is now your wife. I give you my daughter the stake that he had prepared for Mordecai, and
in her place. Take her for your own, but do away with the the king’s rage subsided (Est 7:1-10).
wife that you have, for it is not my will that you should have
her.” At that Masistes was amazed; Sire, he said, what is The king said to Queen Esther: In Susa the citadel
this evil command that you lay upon me, telling me to deal the Jews have killed and destroyed 500 men and
with my wife in this way? I have by her young sons and the ten sons of Haman. What, then, have they
daughters, of whom you have taken a wife for your own done in the rest of the king’s provinces? What is
son, and I am very content with her herself. Yet you are your petition now? It will be granted you. And
asking me to get rid of my wife and wed your daughter? what is your further request? It will be done.
Truly, O king, I consider it a great honour to be accounted Esther replied: If it pleases the king, let the Jews
worthy of your daughter, but I will do neither the one nor who are in Susa be permitted to act tomorrow
the other. No, rather, do not force me to consent to such a also according to today’s law; and let the ten sons
desire (The Histories IX:109-111). of Haman be hanged on the stake. So the king
After using these enchantments and many others besides on gave orders for that to be done. A law was issued
the river, they passed over it at the Nine Ways in Edonian in Susa, and the ten sons of Haman were hanged.
country, by the bridges which they found thrown across the The Jews in Susa gathered together again on the
Strymon. When they learned that Nine Ways was the name 14th day of the month of Adar and killed 300
of the place, they buried alive that number of boys and men in Susa, but they did not seize any plunder.
maidens, children of the local people. To bury people alive The rest of the Jews in the provinces of the king
is a Persian custom, and I have been told, when Xerxes’ also gathered together and defended their lives.
wife Amestris reached old age, she buried twice 7 sons of They got rid of their enemies, killing 75,000 of
notable Persians as an offering on her own behalf to the those who hated them; but they did not seize any
fabled god beneath the earth (The Histories VII:114). plunder (Est 9:12-16)
63 The historian Plutarch confirms this surprising Persian custom (Life of Artaxerxes 26:3-5).
64 This name (which is not attested) is not Iranian but Akkadian: ḫarbānu “desert dweller”.
38
The so-called “Persian custom to bury people alive” was unknown to the ancient historians (not mentioned
by Ctesias or Thucydides), including Herodotus himself (The histories I:131-133)! Amestris who was the
wife of Xerxes was also the mother of king Artaxerxes I. According to Ctesias (Lenfant: 2004, 123,134),
Amestris, who was very old, died just before Artaxerxes I (Persica F14§46). Given that Artaxerxes I died in
February 424 BCE, Amestris had to have died around 425 BCE. The expression “very old” means more
than the age of Darius I, 72 years old (Persica F13§23) and likely around 85 years old65. As Amestris (510-
426) was a famous queen, it is likely that king Artaxerxes buried his mother with royal honours. In
addition, [Arta]xerxes66 (I) held the Jews in the highest esteem, according to Josephus (Jewish Antiquities
XI:120). If we compare the historical data coming from Greek historians, archaeological data and the Book
of Esther, a conclusion must be made: Amestris and Esther were the same person.
Many argue that the marriage of Esther is worthy of a fairy tale because a Persian king would never have
married a foreign woman of low social class. Both objections are unconvincing: the adoptive father of
Esther, Marduka, was at the time of marriage a high official (superintendent) working at the palace of
Darius at Persepolis. In addition, Esther was officially Babylonian, which was a prestigious origin, since her
grandfather, Shimei, was born in Babylon, after Nebuchadnezzar's deportation (in 597 BCE), as she
revealed later to Xerxes (Est 7:4). The cities of Babylon, Susa and Persepolis were highly interconnected:
Principal routes of Achaemenid Empire

If Esther had not existed, it would be impossible to explain the benevolent policy of the Persian Empire
towards the Jews from Xerxes onwards. It is true that part of the explanation comes from the religious
tolerance of the Achaemenid kings because when Cyrus founded his multi-ethnic empire he had preserved
the religious rituals of each subject people, a policy new in its kind, but this explanation leads to a new
enigma, because Cyrus and Cambyses were the first “secular” kings (without religion!), they did not
worship a national god, nor did they build a temple, which is unprecedented (Lecoq: 1997, 154-164). The
Bible is the only historical document that provides an explanation for the surprising behaviour of Cyrus
and his son Cambyses towards the Jews, but also for the persistent hatred of the Babylonians towards
them. According to the biblical text, on the eve of the fall of Babylon (which was unthinkable for the
Babylonians) the prophet Daniel announced to King Belshazzar (the son of King Nabonidus) that the
Babylonian kingdom had been judged by the God Lord of heaven and that it was going to be given to the
Medes and Persians (Dn 5:16-31). When Darius the Mede (Ugbaru in the Babylonian Chronicle) took
65 For example, according to a text from the Sultantepe tablets, dated around 650 BCE: 40 [years mean] prime of life (lalûtum); 50
[years mean] short life (ūmū kurûtu); 60 [years mean] mature age (meṭlūtu); 70 [years mean] long life (ūmū arkūtu); 80 [years mean]
old age (šibūtu); 90 [years mean] extreme old age (littūtu) (Eng: 2011, 36-50).
66 The rest of the account (Jewish Antiquities XI:121-123) shows that Flavius confused Xerxes with Artaxerxes I.
Babylon and entered the city, he had to learn quickly what had happened and had to inform Cyrus of this
divine prophecy which was very favourable to him, which also explains why he brought in Daniel as his
head of administration (Dn 6:1-3). Daniel probably showed Cyrus the Bible prophecy concerning him (in
the Book of Isaiah), which must have impressed him even more:
I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, and I spread out the earth. Who
was with me? I am frustrating the signs of the empty talkers, and I am the One who makes diviners act like
fools; The One confounding the wise men and turning their knowledge into foolishness; The One making
the word of his servant come true and completely fulfilling the predictions of his messengers; The One
saying of Jerusalem: She will be inhabited, and of the cities of Judah: They will be rebuilt, and I will restore
her ruins; The One saying to the deep waters: Be evaporated, and I will dry up all your rivers; The One
saying of Cyrus (Kôreš): He is my shepherd, and he will completely carry out all my will; The One saying
of Jerusalem: She will be rebuilt, and of the temple: Your foundation will be laid. This is what Jehovah says
to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of to subdue nations before him, to disarm
kings, to open before him the double doors, so that the gates will not be shut: Before you I will go, and the
hills I will level. The copper doors I will break in pieces, and the iron bars I will cut down. I will give you
the treasures in the darkness and the hidden treasures in the concealed places, so that you may know that I
am Jehovah, the God of Israel, who is calling you by your name. For the sake of my servant Jacob and of
Israel my chosen one, I am calling you by your name. I am giving you a name of honour, although you did
not know me (Is 44:24-45:4).
The best proof that Cyrus was informed of this Bible prophecy is the text he had written about the taking
of Babylon. This is the only text known to Cyrus (the Cyrus Cylinder), the introduction was written by the
Babylonian scribes who formulated a version favourable to their god Marduk, the “Lord by whose support
all the dead were revived” (Van der Spek: 2014, 233-264):
Marduk, the ex[alted Enlil of the gods] relented. To all the inhabited places, of which the sanctuaries were
in ruin, and (to) the people of the land of Sumer and Akkad who had become (like) corpses he turned his
mind and took pity on them. He examined and checked all of the lands, he searched constantly for a
righteous king, his heart’s desire. He took his hands, he called out his name: Cyrus, king of Anshan; he
proclaimed his name for the rulership over all. The land of Gutium, all of the Umman-manda (i.e., the
Medes) he made (them) bow at his feet. The black-headed people (i.e., the Babylonians), whom he had
subjected into his (Cyrus’) hands, with justice and righteousness he (Cyrus) shepherded them time and
again. Marduk, the great lord, caretaker of his people, looked joyfully upon his good deeds and righteous
heart. He ordered him to go to Babylon his city. He made him take the road to Tintir (= Babylon), and like a
friend and companion, he walked at his side all the way (...) Without a fight or a battle he made him enter
Babylon, his city. Babylon, he turned (away) from hardship. He delivered Nabonidus, the king who did not
revere him, into his hands. All of the people of Tintir (= Babylon), all the land of Sumer and Akkad, nobles
and governors, they bowed to him and kissed his feet. They rejoiced at his kingship and their faces shone.
The lord by whose support all the dead were revived, he spared them all from hardship and distress, they
greeted him friendly and praised his name (Van der Spek: 2014, 261-263)
It is obvious that the Babylonian scribes replaced the god of Daniel, the “Lord by whose support all the
dead were revived” with Marduk because this Babylonian god never revived the dead and Nabonidus was a
religious king who revered Marduk. If we replace Marduk with Jehovah we get back Isaiah's prophecy. The
Babylonian officials' hatred of Daniel increased a notch further, for he had previously announced their
humiliating demotion (in 539 BCE), but King Darius the Mede, co-regent of Cyrus, had just promoted him
above them (in 538 BCE).
It seemed good to Darius (the Mede) to appoint 120 satraps over the whole kingdom. Over them were 3
high officials, one of whom was Daniel; and the satraps would report to them, so that the king would not
suffer loss. Now Daniel was distinguishing himself over the other high officials and the satraps, for there
was an extraordinary spirit in him, and the king intended to elevate him over the entire kingdom. At that
time the high officials and the satraps were seeking to find some grounds for accusation against Daniel
respecting matters of state (...) The king was overjoyed, and he commanded that Daniel be lifted up out of
the pit. When Daniel was lifted up out of the pit, he was completely unharmed, because he had trusted in his
God. The king then gave an order, and the men who had accused Daniel were brought, and they were
thrown into the lions’ pit, along with their sons and their wives. They had not reached the bottom of the pit
before the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones (Dn 6:1-4,23-24).
This event is reported in the Nabonidus Chronicle, but in a different way since Darius the Mede who is
appointed king of Babylon by Cyrus is replaced in the Chronicle (written by Babylonian scribes) by
Ugbaru, the former governor of Gutium, who is appointed governor of Babylon by Cyrus (the episode
with Daniel is obviously not mentioned). The Babylonian version is misleading because at the time of
Cyrus the land of Gutium (the ancient name of the land of the Median barbarians) had not existed for
40
more than a millennium and only a king could appoint governors. In fact, the Medes were considered
traitors by the Babylonians who therefore blackened them. The birth name of the Median co-regent of
Cyrus (likely Ubaruš) has been replaced by an Akkadian nickname UG-ba-ru which can be read šar-bārû
“King of the diviner (Daniel)”. His Persian throne name: Darius “Who maintains the good”, was not used
by the Babylonian scribes because they did not recognize his authority over them. After the death of
Ugbaru (Cyrus replaced him by his son Cambyses) the Medes no longer played any political role in the
Persian empire but on the other hand a very important religious role as they introduced a new religion:
Zoroastrianism. In his inscription of Bisitun, Darius I is the first to make explicit the religious beliefs of the
Achaemenid kings. He explains at the beginning of his inscription that the magus Gaumata (a Mede) had
usurped the place of King Bardiya, the brother of Cambyses. To justify his legitimacy, Darius then explains
that he was a descendant of Achaemenes, the first Achaemenid king, and that the supreme god Ahura
Mazda “Lord Wisdom” who had established him on the throne and who had supported all his actions
against the enemies of the empire. In other inscriptions Darius explains (Lecoq: 1997, 217-221):
Ahuramazda (“Lord-Wisdom”) is the great god, the greatest of gods, who created this earth here, who
created this heaven there, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Darius king, the
only king of many, the only sovereign of many (DE and XE).
Darius I is also the first to represent the “Lord Wisdom (Ahura Mazda)” on his inscriptions: a unique God
in heaven with two wings and a human form watching over the earthly king with the same human form.
This resemblance with Daniel's God is disturbing especially his resemblance with his messianic king:
I (Daniel) kept watching until thrones were set in place and the Ancient of Days (the creator of the heavens
and the earth) sat down. His clothing was white like snow, and the hair of his head was like clean wool. His
throne was flames of fire; its wheels were a burning fire. A stream of fire was flowing and going out from
before him. A thousand thousands kept ministering to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood
before him. The Court took its seat, and books were opened (...) I kept watching in the visions of the night,
and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to
the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. And to him there were given rulership,
honour, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. His rulership is
an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed (Dn 7:9-13).
Historians do not believe that the religion of the Achaemenid kings was influenced by the prophet Daniel
(617?-537), but rather by a Mede priest named Zoroaster (Zaratuštra). However, the only (questionable)
historical information on this important figure comes from Būndahišn (“First Creation”), an important text
of Zoroastrianism, which indicates that Zoroaster lived 258 years before Alexander the Great's conquest of
Persia, in 588 BCE, and was therefore a contemporary of Cyrus II (600?-530). In fact, Zoroaster is
probably a mythical character who was invented later by the Median priests to justify their religious
teaching. The most rational explanation would be to admit that Daniel really existed and that his prophetic
role was decisive in the life of Cyrus, the founder of the Persian empire. This would also explain why Cyrus
asked the Jews exiled in Babylon to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple:
In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia (in 538 BCE), in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah
would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his
kingdom, which he also put in writing, saying: This is what King Cyrus of Persia says: Jehovah the God of
the heavens has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has commissioned me to build him a house
in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all his people, may his God be with him,
and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel —he
is the true God— whose house was in Jerusalem. Anyone who is residing as a foreigner, wherever he may
be, let him be helped by his neighbours by their giving him silver and gold, goods and livestock, along with
the voluntary offering for the house of the true God, which was in Jerusalem (Ezr 1:1-4).
Although this biblical text is plausible, since Cyrus maintained the Babylonian temples and Cambyses
honoured the Egyptian temples, historians dispute its veracity, since there is no trace of this event in the
Achaemenid texts. There are two reasons for the silence of the written sources: 1) almost all the archives
we have come from the Babylonian temples whose administration hated the god of Daniel, 2) Palestine had
become an impoverished province after the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar II and also
because of his deportations, which prevented reconstruction for lack of means. The realization of Cyrus'
wish to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem therefore seemed impossible. This impossibility allows us to
understand the crucial role of Esther in the reconstruction of the temple, because by marrying Xerxes she
would become the mother of Artaxerxes I, a powerful and wealthy king who would provide the necessary
resources for the realization of this gigantic project. Therefore, the purpose of Haman's planned genocide
against the Jews was primarily to eliminate Esther, for the Prime minister had probably understood that
this Jewish queen could influence her husband favourably to carry out Cyrus' instructions. Haman's hatred
of the Jews is surprising because he is presented as a genuine Persian dignitary, Haman (Humā-na) the son
of Hammedatha (Humā-dāta), and not as a Babylonian high-ranking official:
After this King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite and exalted him
by putting his throne above all the other princes who were with him. And all the king’s servants who were
in the king’s gate would bow low and prostrate themselves to Haman, for this is what the king had
commanded respecting him. But Mordecai refused to bow low or prostrate himself (Est 3:1-3).
It is possible that Mordecai's gesture, his refusal to worship Haman67, provoked his murderous rage against
Esther, Mordecai's cousin (as well as all the other Jews), but it is also possible that Hammedetha, Haman's
father, was executed by Ugbaru (Darius the Mede) when there was the rebellion against Daniel, which
could explain Haman's resentment against the Jews. Anyway, it is interesting to note that there is no Jewish
name among the hundreds of Persian officials in the Persepolis texts until Xerxes, but the memorable
action of Mordecai (in 485 BCE) completely changed the attitude of Persians on Jews. However, this
favourable prejudice would really benefit to the Jews only after the death of Xerxes and decisive action of
Amestris/Esther. Indeed, Ctesias is the only historian who described the context of the murder of Xerxes.
BCE month Egy. Persian Ruler

475 1 X 21 20 King Xerxes I (Egyptian / Babylonian reckoning)
2 XI
3 XII
4 I 21 0 Xerxes I / Crown prince Darius (A)
5 II
6 III (Total lunar eclipse of 26 June 475 BCE)
7 IV
8 V (Xerxes’ death on 24 August 475 BCE)
9 VI (21) 1 (Xerxes I) / Prime Minister Artabanu
10 VII 2
11 VIII 3 (Partial lunar eclipse of 20 December 475 BCE)
12 IX 4 Hystaspes II appointed satrap of Bactria
474 1 X 1 0 5 King Artaxerxes I / Prime minister Artabanu
2 XI (22) 6 met by Themistocles (Thucydides I:98,137)
3 XII 7
4 I 1 Artaxerxes I / Regent Amestris (Queen-consort)
5 II
6 III (Life of Themistocles 29:6)
7 IV 6-year revolt of Inaros in Egypt (Thucydides I:104,110)
8 V
9 VI Brief revolt of Bactria led by Artapanos (Ctesias F14)
10 VII
Ctesias explains that the defeats of Xerxes in his war against the Greeks had aroused opposition inside the
Achaemenid aristocracy by the prohibitive cost of the war as well as numerous casualties which were also
bad for the economy in Persia. To solve the problem, Artabanu, the Prime minister of Xerxes, murdered
Xerxes and his heir and Crown prince Darius (A) while making believe he had executed Darius (A), who
was 13, because he had cut the throat of his father in his sleep in order to take his place. This official
version can be check from a Babylonian astronomical tablet (BM 32234). This version of the facts was
propagated by Persian officials as an alibi for the murder of Xerxes ordered by the Achaemenid aristocracy
and executed by Artabanu. Artaxerxes was not the instigator of this murder because at the time he was
only 10 years old, moreover, Artabanu' interim for 7 months proves that Artaxerxes was not ready to reign.
Artaxerxes was inducted by the Achaemenid aristocracy and became a peaceful king thanks to his advisers
and also to the influence of his mother Amestris/Esther since he was 10 years old when he was enthroned.
However, when Artaxerxes discovered that his father and his elder brother had been the victims of a
conspiracy, he had the instigator Artabanu (Artabanos) executed. Ctesias wrote (c. 400 BCE):
For after gathering 700,000 troops against Greece, he (Xerxes) left in defeat and after returning died a most
dishonourable death: during the night while he slept his throat was cut by his own son [Darius A].
Artaxerxes became king thanks to the efforts of Artabanos who in turn plotted against him. Artabanos also
took as an accomplice in the plan Megabyzos, who was already distraught because of the suspected adultery
of his wife Amytis. They gave each other the security of an oath, but Megabyzos exposed the entire scheme
and Artabanos was killed in the same fashion he was going to kill Artaxerxes while the plots against both
Xerxes and Darius were revealed. Consequently, Aspamitres, who was an accomplice in the murders of
Xerxes and Darius, died a horrible death, for he was exposed in a tub to die slowly while being eaten by
insects. After the death of Artabanos, there was a battle between his followers and the rest of the Persians in
which his three sons fell and Megabyzos was severely wounded. While Artaxerxes, Amytis, Rhodogyne,
67 For example, Shadrach, Meshach et Abednego refused to worship the image of gold made by Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 3:14).
42
and their mother Amestris wept, with great care he was barely saved by a doctor from Cos named
Apollonides. Bactria revolted from Artaxerxes under the leadership of their satrap, another Artapanos.
There was a stalemate followed by a second battle which Artaxerxes won when the wind blew in the faces
of the Bactrians and subdued all of Bactria. Egypt revolted under the leadership of the Libyan Inaros and
another Egyptian and made all preparations for war. When the revolt began the Athenians, at the request of
Inaros, sent 40 ships. Artaxerxes intended to personally lead the campaign but when his companions
protested this decision, sent his brother Achaemenides at the head of an army of 400,000 infantry and 80
ships. Inaros met Achaemenides in battle and the Egyptians were victorious. Achaemenides was fatally
wounded by Inaros and his body was sent back to Artaxerxes. Inaros was also victorious at sea where
Charitimides distinguished himself as commander of the forty ships from Athens; of 50 Persian ships 20
were captured with their crews while 30 were destroyed. Megabyzos was then dispatched to face Inaros at
the head of another army to be joined with the remaining 200,000 infantry and 300 ships still in Egypt under
the command of Oriskos so that the force totaled 500,000 not counting the fleet. When Achaemenides fell in
battle, 100,000 of the 400,000 men under his command were killed. A more fierce battle took place in
which many men on both sides fell with the Egyptians suffering heavier losses. Megabyzos wounded Inaros
in the thigh and routed his forces winning an overwhelming victory for the Persians. Inaros fled to Byblos, a
very powerful city in Egypt, with all the Greeks who did not die with Charitimides in the battle.
Consequently, all of Egypt, with the exception of Byblos, was returned to Megabyzos. Since the city
seemed impregnable, Megabyzos made peace with Inaros and the Greeks who still numbered 6,000 with the
promise that they would suffer no harm from the king and the Greeks were granted a free pass to return
home whenever they wanted. He appointed Sarsamas satrap of Egypt and taking along Inaros and the
Greeks, returned to Artaxerxes and found him in an angry mood with Inaros for the killing of his brother
Achaemenides. After Megabyzos related all that happened and how he gave pledges of faith to Inaros and
the Greeks before taking Byblos, he solemnly begged the king to spare their lives, secured their salvation,
and finally broke the news to the army that Inaros and the Greeks would not be harmed. However, Amestris
was incensed that there would be no reprisals for Inaros and the Greeks on behalf of her son,
Achaemenides, and begged the king who rebuffed her requests. Then she approached Megabyzos who
likewise dismissed her pleas. By continuously annoying her son, ultimately, she achieved her goal and 5
years later the king delivered Inaros and the Greeks over to her. She impaled Inaros on three stakes and
beheaded the 50 Greeks she was able to get her hands on. Megabyzos was very upset and grieved; then he
requested to be discharged to his territory of Syria (a province “Beyond the River”).
The narrative of Ctesias regarding the Egyptian revolt led by Inaros is very controversial because it differs
on several points from other more reliable historians68 like Herodotus and Thucydides (Nichols: 2008, 93-
97). In addition, there are many chronological contradictions (Kahn: 2008, 424-440). However, the points
of agreement are the following: the Greeks supported in vain the Egyptian revolt against the Persians and
the revolt lasted 6 years, according to Thucydides (The Peloponnesian War I:104,109-110); King
Artaxerxes I made alliances for peace with the Athenians, unlike Xerxes (The Histories VI:98; VII:151) and
the Egyptian revolt occurred soon after Xerxes’ death, according to Plato (Menexenus 241c-e). Finally,
Amestris (Esther) played a major role in this transition process. It is interesting to note that when
Themistocles (536-471) met Artaxerxes I in January 474 BCE to convince him to join him with his Greek
allies to fight the Lacedemonians, Artaxerxes declined his offer. Themistocles remained in Persia and was
considered a traitor by the Athenians. When the Greek army attacked the Persian army near the river
Eurymedon in 470 BCE, the Persian army refused to fight and fled to Persia (Thucydides I:100,135-138).
BCE Main events after Xerxes’ death
478 18 (40) Xerxes I. Foundation of the Delian League by Athens (Thucydides I:97)
477 19 (41)
476 20 (42) Fall of Skyros in 476 BCE, according to Plutarch (Life of Theseus §§35,36)
475 21 0 (43) Artaxerxes I / Artabanu (Prime minister)
474 1 1 (44) Themistocles met Artaxerxes (Thucydides I:98,137)/ Revolt of Inaros (in Egypt)
473 2 2 (45) Mother-queen Amestris (Nehemiah 2:6; Life of Themistocles 29:6)
472 3 3 (46) Aeschylus wrote “The Persians” to illustrate the tragic end of Xerxes
471 4 4 (47) Death of Themistocles (Diodorus XI:58:3-60:1)
470 5 5 (48) Battle of the Eurymedon (Plutarch -Cimon 8;12; Thucydides I:100)
469 6 6 (49) Death of Inaros and escape of Amyrtaeus I (Thucydides I:104,110)
468 7 (50) Nehemiah appointed as procurator (tirshata) of Judaea (Ne 7:70) and Artaxerxes I
467 8 (1) requested Ezra for the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Ezr 7:1-22).
68For example, according to Ctesias, Achaemenides was an Achaemenid general and satrap of Egypt, but he confused him with
Achaemenes (Haxāmaniš “friend of thinking power”) who was a son of king Darius I by his queen Atossa and thus a full brother
of Xerxes I. According to Ctesias, Sarsamas was appointed satrap by General Megabyzus, however Sarsamas was called Arsames
(Aršāma) and was appointed satrap by Artaxerxes I, because only kings could appoint satraps.
The interpretation of the last events in the life of Xerxes (476-475 BCE) as well as the first events in the
life of Artaxerxes (474-469 BCE), which played a major role in Greek history, has become inextricable and
even contradictory because of a chronological error concerning the death of Xerxes69. Furthermore,
Herodotus was misled by his Persian informant who described Amestris as a despotic, cruel and resentful
queen, whereas Herodotus (484-425) himself, on his journey to Egypt around 445 BCE, found that the
Persian kings ruled Egypt peacefully without cruelty or rancor (The Histories III:15). Faced with this
complex period of Greek history, Thucydides is more cautious than Herodotus, since he used only the
Greek chronology, but he gave no information on the crucial meeting between Themistocles and
Artaxerxes/Amestris in 474 BCE70 despite the many details given in his history of the Peloponnesian War:
I:96 —(...) The tribute was first fixed at 460 talents. The common treasury was at Delos, and the congresses
were held in the temple (...) Their supremacy commenced (in 478 BCE) with independent allies who acted
on the resolutions of a common congress (Delian Ligue)71.
I:97 —It was marked by the following undertakings in war and in administration during the interval
between the Median war (Plataea in 479 BCE) and the present war (which had begun in 431 BCE), against
the barbarian, against their own rebel allies, and against the Peloponnesian powers which would come in
contact with them on various occasions; My excuse for relating these events, and for venturing on this
digression, is that this passage of history has been omitted by all my predecessors, who have confined
themselves either to Hellenic history before the Median War, or the Median War itself. Hellanicus, it is true,
did touch on these events in his Athenian history; but he is somewhat concise and not accurate in his dates.
Besides, the history of these events contains an explanation of the growth of the Athenian empire.
I:98 —First the Athenians besieged and captured Eion (in 476 BCE according to Plutarch in his Life of
Theseus §§35,36) on the Strymon from the Medes, and made slaves of the inhabitants, being under the
command of Cimon, son of Miltiades. Next, they enslaved Skyros, the island in the Aegean, containing a
Dolopian population, and colonized it themselves (...) This was followed by a war against Carystus, in
which the rest of Euboea remained neutral, and which was ended by surrender on conditions. After this
Naxos (in 475 BCE) left the confederacy, and a war ensued, and she had to return after a siege (...).
I:136 —(...) But Themistocles got scent of their intentions, and fled from Peloponnese to Corcyra, which
was under obligations towards him. But the Corcyraeans alleged that they could not venture to shelter him
at the cost of offending Athens and Lacedaemon, and they conveyed him over to the continent opposite.
Pursued by the officers who hung on the report of his movements, at a loss where to turn, he was compelled
to stop at the house of Admetus [of Epirus], the Molossian king, though they were not on friendly terms (...)
Besides, his opposition to the king had only affected the success of a request, not the safety of his person; if
the king were to give him up to the pursuers that he mentioned, and the fate which they intended for him, he
would just be consigning him to certain death.
I:137 —The King listened to him and raised him up with his son, as he was sitting with him in his arms
after the most effectual method of supplication, and on the arrival of the Lacedaemonians not long
afterwards, refused to give him up for anything they could say, but sent him off by land to the other sea to
Pydna in Alexander's dominions, as he wished to go to the Persian king (Xerxes). There he met with a
merchantman on the point of starting for Ionia. Going on board, he was carried by a storm to the Athenian
squadron which was blockading Naxos (in 475 BCE). In his alarm— he was luckily unknown to the people
in the vessel— he told the master who he was and what he was flying for, and said that, if he refused to save
him, he would declare that he was taking him for a bribe. Meanwhile their safety consisted in letting no one
leave the ship until a favourable time for sailing should arise. If he complied with his wishes, he promised
him a proper recompense. The master acted as he desired, and, after lying to for a day and a night out of
reach of the squadron, at length arrived at Ephesus. After having rewarded him with a present of money, as
soon as he received some from his friends at Athens and from his secret hoards at Argos, Themistocles
started inland with one of the coast Persians, and sent a letter to King Artaxerxes, Xerxes's son, who had
just come to the throne (in January 474 BCE). Its contents were as follows: "I, Themistocles, am come to
you, who did your house more harm than any of the Hellenes, when I was compelled to defend myself
against your father's invasion— harm, however, far surpassed by the good that I did him during his retreat,
69 According to Herodotus, Xerxes began to reign during the 36th and last year of Darius (in 486 BCE) and at the beginning of
the revolt of Egypt which took place 4 years after the battle of Marathon (The Histories VII:1-4). However, as he situates the
Xerxes / Artaxerxes change shortly after the capture of Eion (in 476 BCE), which was the last important event in the reign of
Xerxes (Thucydides I:98) before that of Artaxerxes (The Histories VII:106-107), this would imply a reign of only 11 years for
Xerxes (486-475) instead of the 21 years from the Babylonian annals. To remedy this chronological inconsistency, Herodotus,
contrary to his custom, did not give the duration of Xerxes' reign (496-475).
70 At this meeting Themistocles (536-471) was 62 years old, but as the young king Artaxerxes (485-425) was only 11 years old he
heeded the advice of his mother, Queen Esther (510-426), who was 36 years old in 474 BCE.
71 The Delian League, founded in 478 BCE, was an association of Greek city-states, with the number of members numbering
between 150 and 330 under the leadership of Athens, whose purpose was to continue fighting the Persian Empire after the
Greek victory in the Battle of Plataea at the end of the Second Persian invasion of Greece. Shortly after its inception, Athens
began to use the League's funds for its own purposes. This led to conflict between Athens and the less powerful members of the
League. By 431 BCE, Athens's heavy-handed control of the Delian League prompted the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War.
44
which brought no danger for me but much for him. For the past, you are a good turn in my debt"— here he
mentioned the warning sent to Xerxes from Salamis72 to retreat (in 480 BCE), as well as his finding the
bridges unbroken, which, as he falsely pretended, was due to him—"for the present, able to do you great
service, I am here, pursued by the Hellenes for my friendship for you. However, I desire a year's grace,
when I shall be able to declare in person the objects of my coming." It is said that the King approved his
intention and told him to do as he said. He employed the interval in making what progress he could in the
study of the Persian tongue, and of the customs of the country. Arrived at court at the end of the year
(December 474 BCE), he attained to very high consideration there, such as no Hellene has ever possessed
before or since; partly from his splendid antecedents, partly from the hopes which he held out of effecting
for him the subjugation of Hellas, but principally by the proof which experience daily gave of his capacity.
For Themistocles was a man who exhibited the most indubitable signs of genius; indeed, in this particular
he has a claim on our admiration quite extraordinary and unparalleled. By his own native capacity, alike
unformed and unsupplemented by study, he was at once the best judge in those sudden crises which admit
of little or of no deliberation, and the best prophet of the future, even to its most distant possibilities. An
able theoretical expositor of all that came within the sphere of his practice, he was not without the power of
passing an adequate judgment in matters in which he had no experience. He could also excellently divine
the good and evil which lay hid in the unseen future. In fine, whether we consider the extent of his natural
powers, or the slightness of his application, this extraordinary man must be allowed to have surpassed all
others in the faculty of intuitively meeting an emergency.
Contrary to the majority of Greek historians who consider Themistocles to be a traitor to the Athenian
cause, Thucydides holds him in very high esteem and even considers him to be an outstanding statesman.
Thucydides explains why Themistocles had chosen a good strategy to achieve a federation of all Greek
cities under the auspices of the Persian Empire, which would have ensured the prosperity of both peoples.
He merely notes that Athens chose the path of confrontation with the Persian empire when the Athenians
besieged and captured Eion (in 476 BCE), later rallying pro-Persian Greek cities, Cyprus and even Egypt to
its cause, which was ultimately the cause of the war between the Greek cities in 431 BCE. Themistocles
had come to cooperate with Xerxes because he knew that the battles of Salamis (in 480 BCE) and Plataea
(in 479 BCE) had been costly defeats in men and money for the Persian empire, and that the Athenian
revolt which had begun in 476 BCE and which would now degenerate into a gigantic open war was going
to generate new losses in men and money, which had to be avoided both for the Persians and the Greeks.
However, Themistocles must have known that part of the Persian aristocracy disapproved of Xerxes'
strategy of war because it was gradually in danger of ruining the empire (for example, hundreds of
Phoenician ships had to be rebuilt regularly). This led this part of the Persian aristocracy to ask secretly
Prime Minister Artabanu (c.500-474), with the support of Megabyzus (485-450), to get rid of Xerxes,
especially when he decided (in April 475 BCE) to enthrone his son Darius A as Crown Prince, which
implied the pursuit of his warrior choices. Artabanu assassinated Xerxes (on 24 August 475 BCE) on the
pretext that his son Darius B, who had just been enthroned as Crown Prince, had murdered his father to
be the only king (!). Plutarch explains what happened during Themistocles' interview with Artaxerxes I:
Now Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus relate that Xerxes was dead, and that it was his son Artaxerxes
with whom Themistocles had his interview; but Ephorus and Dinon and Clitarchus and Heracleides and yet
more besides have it that it was Xerxes to whom he came. With the chronological data Thucydides seems to
me more in accord, although these are by no means securely established. Be that as it may, Themistocles,
thus at the threshold of the dreadful ordeal, had audience (in January 474 BCE) first with Artabanus (Arta-
bānu “the glory of Arta”) the Chiliarch, or Grand Vizier, and said that he was a Hellene, and that he desired
to have an audience with the King (Artaxerxes) on matters which were of the highest importance and for
which the monarch entertained the most lively concern (The Life of Themistocles 27:1-2).
But Themistocles made answer that the speech of man was like embroidered tapestries, since like them this
too had to be extended in order to display its patterns, but when it was rolled up it concealed and distorted
them. Wherefore he had need of time. The King at once showed his pleasure at this comparison by bidding
him take time, and so Themistocles asked for a year (until December 474 BCE), and in that time he learned
the Persian language sufficiently to have interviews with the King by himself without interpreters. Outsiders
thought these conferences concerned Hellenic matters merely; but since about that time many innovations
were introduced by the King at court and among his favourites, the magnates became jealous of
Themistocles, on the ground that he had made bold to use his freedom of speech with the King to their
harm. The honours he enjoyed were not the same as those accorded to other foreigners: he took part in the
royal hunts and in the entertainment of the court, so that he was introduced to the Queen mother (Esther),
with whom he became familiar, and, at the King's invitation (Artaxerxes I), he even listened to the lessons
of the Magi (The Life of Themistocles 29:3-4).
The Battle of Salamis was a naval battle fought between an alliance of Greek city-states under Themistocles, and the Persian
72
Empire under King Xerxes in 480 BCE. It resulted in a decisive victory for the outnumbered Greeks.
This famous interview, which was a turning point in Greek history, has remained an enigma for Greek
historians who do not understand why, despite the support of King Artaxerxes I for his project to federate
all Greek cities, Themistocles never returned to Greece. Several hypotheses were proposed. According to
Diodorus Siculus (c.90-21 BCE), since King Artaxerxes had favourably introduced Themistocles to Queen
Mother (Esther was 36 years old in 474 BCE), who was very beautiful (Est 2:7) and of high birth,
Themistocles would have finally married her and stayed in Magnesia where he died:
Themistocles meanwhile learned the Persian language (in 474 BCE) and using it in his defence he was
acquitted of the charges. And the king (Artaxerxes I) was overjoyed that Themistocles had been saved and
honoured him with great gifts; so, for example, he gave him in marriage (“he was introduced to”) a Persian
woman, who was of outstanding birth and beauty and, besides, praised for her virtue (Esther!), and not only
a multitude of household slaves for their service but also of drinking-cups of every kind and such other
furnishings as comport with a life of pleasure and luxury. Furthermore, the king made him a present also of
three cities which were well suited for his support and enjoyment, Magnesia upon the Maeander River,
which had more grain than any city of Asia, for bread, Myus for meat, since the sea there abounded in fish,
and Lampsacus, whose territory contained extensive vineyards, for wine (Diodorus XI:57:5-7). We have
come to the death of one (in 471 BCE) of the greatest of the Greeks, about whom many dispute whether it
was because he had wronged his native city and the other Greeks that he fled to the Persians, or whether, on
the contrary, his city and all the Greeks, after enjoying great benefits at his hands, forgot to be grateful for
them but unjustly plunged him, their benefactor, into the uttermost perils. But if any man, putting envy
aside, will estimate closely not only the man's natural gifts but also his achievements, he will find that on
both counts Themistocles holds first place among all of whom we have record. Therefore one may well be
amazed that the Athenians were willing to rid themselves of a man of such genius (Diodorus XI:58:4-5)
It is obvious that the romance proposed by Diodorus Siculus is the fruit of his imagination. Most Greek
historians have assumed that Themistocles' project had been adopted by Artaxerxes I but that in the end,
remorseful at having betrayed the Athenians, Themistocles would finally have committed suicide as
imagined by Aristodemos of Nysa (c.110-30 BCE) who wrote (Wescher: 1868, 177-188):
Themistocles, envied because of the superiority of his intelligence and merit, was driven out by the
Athenians and came to Argos (...) Themistocles, fearing the Lacedemonians, did not stay in Argos, left for
Corcyria, and from there for the country of Molossians, where Admetus, until then, was his personal enemy
(...) Themistocles, not knowing where to turn, sailed to Persia. He failed in this navigation, being caught and
arrested. When the Athenians were at war with Naxos (in 475 BCE) Themistocles arrived in Persia, where
he no longer found Xerxes but his son Artaxerxes, in whose presence he did not appear. It was only after
having spent a year (in 474 BCE) studying the language of the Persians that he presented himself to
Artaxerxes, to whom he recalled the services he seemed to have rendered to Xerxes his father, even
claiming to have saved him (...) Artaxerxes heeded his words, and gave him an army with three cities for his
sustenance, Magnesia for the wheat, Lampsacus for the wine, and Myonte for the table. Themistocles,
having thus provided, came to Magnesia; but being so near to Greece, he repented and thought that it was
not necessary to make war against those who were of the same race as us. Sacrificing to Diana
Leucophryne, he placed a cup under the slaughtered bull, filled it with blood, drank it, and died (471 BCE).
The accounts of Greek historians overlap on several points concerning Themistocles' interview with
Artaxerxes I, but they all err on one essential point: Artaxerxes completely abandoned the expansionist
policy of his father who had supported the pro-Persian Greek cities, through his powerful Phoenician fleet,
against those who had rallied to Athens. Indeed, the Athenians were convinced that Artaxerxes I was going
to oppose the Athenian hegemony (Delian League) and that he had to give up his project when he saw the
superiority of the Athenians after the conquest of Cyprus (victory of Kition in 451 BCE and victory of
Salamis in 450 BCE), which finally forced him to negotiate the “Peace of Callias” (in 449 BCE?). This
Athenian propaganda unfortunately continues to be propagated by current historians73, although it is easy
to see that it is contradicted by the following facts: Artaxerxes did not lead any military expedition against
Greek cities. The Battle of the Eurymedon, in 470 BCE, according to Diodorus XI:60:1-61:1, was a double
battle, taking place both on water and land, between the Delian League of Athens and her Allies, against
the Persian army (Thucydides I:100) which stayed in the vicinity of the mouth of the Eurymedon River
(now the Köprüçay) in Pamphylia, Asia Minor. Diodorus even specifies that Cimon, who was at the head
of the Athenian army, defeated the Persians by means of deception (Diodorus XI:61:1). Similarly, it was
again the Greek armies that attacked the pro-Persian Cypriot cities (Kition and Salamis) and not the other
way around. If we stick strictly to the facts, Themistocles' project failed because Artaxerxes I was a peaceful
king, respectful of the sovereignty of the Greek and Cypriot cities (however Egypt was a Persian satrapy).
By taking into account this crucial point it is possible to harmonize the accounts of Greek historians.
73The validation of this propaganda is subtle. Usually historians begin by recalling the different versions of Greek historians and
then refer to the views of current historians to finally justify that Thucydides' version is erroneous (Briant: 1996, 995-996).
46
By cross-referencing all the accounts of Greek historians and placing the characters in their context, it is
possible to reconstruct Themistocles' meeting with Artaxerxes I. Xerxes was assassinated by Artabanu, his
prime minister, because a large part of the Persian aristocracy no longer wanted to support the war against
Athens because it was becoming ruinous. The appointment in 475 BCE of Darius A (488-475), the eldest
son of Xerxes, as Crown Prince indicated that the king would train his eldest son to pursue his war plan
against Athens, since normally the king's eldest son was his legitimate successor, unless he appointed
another of his sons. Darius A was not Xerxes' co-regent, because in 475 BCE he was only 13 years old,
which prevented him from extending the dynasty, since he was not yet married, and from leading an army,
since as a soldier he must have been over 20 years old74. Therefore, when Themistocles met Artaxerxes I,
this Persian king could not be head of the armies because he was only 11 years old at the time of this
meeting (in 474 BCE). Themistocles therefore had to discuss with Artabanu (c.500-474) who, as Prime
Minister, represented the king as head of the armies. Since he had disapproved of Xerxes' warlike policy, he
had to explain to Themistocles that, from then on, the young king Artaxerxes I would no longer interfere
in Greek affairs. However, as Queen Mother, Esther was the legal representative of the young king, and
therefore implicitly his regent, it was probably with her agreement that Artabanu was able to negotiate with
Themistocles. This unprecedented and exceptional situation of a young king (under 20 years of age) under
the regency of a queen mother had already occurred with Queen Semiramis75.
On the cylinder seal (opposite figure) there is a king (who wears
the tiara with two royal ribbons in his back) kneeling before his
co-regent (who wears a diadem with also two royal ribbons). As
the object belonged to Bêlu-lû-balâṭ (815-810), the governor of
Baliḫu, the anonymous king has to be Šamšî-Adad V (who had
just died) and the Crown Prince Adad-nirari III. The queen, with
a 5-spike crown and two royal ribbons, faces the king (her
husband), himself before the co-regent (beardless young man who
wears the two royal ribbons). This representation (Reade: 2009,
252-254) is doubly outstanding because it is the only depiction of an Assyrian queen76 and also the only
depiction of a Crown Prince without a beard, however it fits perfectly with the 5-year coregency of
Sammu-ramât (811-806) with his son Adad-nirari III who was around 20 years old in 806 BCE at the end
of his coregency. Herodotus mentioned the existence of this exceptional queen (The Histories I:184).
Artababu's interim as prime minister lasted only 7 months, because when Megabyzus saw that the position
of the young king Artaxerxes was accepted by the Persian aristocracy and that his policy was in line with
what was expected of him, he revealed to him that the assassination of Xerxes had been premeditated and
that in reality it was Artabanu who had murdered Xerxes and not his son Darius A. Artaxerxes therefore
had Artabanu executed by Megabyzus (in March 474 BCE) as proof of his loyalty to the king. Artaxerxes
began his reign with his mother (Queen Esther) as regent and Megabyzus as army general. This regency
probably lasted 10 years, because Artaxerxes was 20 years old in 465 BCE. The main difference between a
regency and a coregency concerns the signing of documents, because if the co-regent signs the documents
in his name, the co-regent signs them in the name of the king. At least three elements show that Queen
Esther was the regent of Artaxerxes during his first 9 years of reign:
• When Themistocles met Artaxerxes, and his prime minister Artabanu, he was introduced to the Queen
Mother (Esther). If the Queen Mother had only an honorary role, there was no need to meet her to
negotiate a military strategy with Themistocles.
• The royal wives and princesses stayed in a part of the palace called the “house of the royal women”
(“harem”), and the queen stayed with the king. There was a notable exception with Artaxerxes I, who
had reserved a special estate called “estate of the lady of the palace” (Briant: 2002, 461). For example,
74 According to Herodotus: After valour in battle it is accounted noble to father the greatest number of sons: the king sends gifts yearly to him who
gets most. Strength, they believe, is in numbers. They educate their boys from 5 to 20 years old (...) Hystaspes son of Arsames was an Achaemenid, and
Darius was the eldest of his sons, then about 20 years old; this Darius had been left behind in Persia, not yet being of an age to go on campaign (The
Histories I:136,209). When he was appointed “king” of Parthia in 498 BCE, Xerxes (521-475) was 23 years old and was already
married to Vashti (a Persian princess). When he was appointed co-regent of Darius I in 496 BCE, he was 25 years old. Similarly,
when in 434 BCE, Darius B (460-426), the eldest son of Artaxerxes I, was appointed co-regent, he was 26 years old.
75 Adad-nîrârî III (811-783) started his reign with a 5-year coregency with his mother (811-806), the famous Semiramis (Sammu-
ramât “Heavens-beloved”). It was indeed a 5-year coregency (Siddall: 2013, 13-17,129-132) since Semiramis led a military
campaign alongside her son (Russel: 2013, 86-100). Because a king had to be at least 20 years old to be able to reign, Adad-nîrârî
III may have become king at the age of 16 years and the coregency of Semiramis ended when he reached 20.
76 The representation of this queen on this royal seal being unique it is controversial (Gansell: 2018, 83), but as the seal belonged
to Bêlu-lû-balâṭ (815-810), the governor of Baliḫu, it imposes the choice of Semiramis.

two tablets drafted at Nippur in 444 and 439 BCE record the payment of rent from an “estate of the
Lady of the palace” (bīt sinništi ša ekalli) that was at the disposal of the Murašū firm. As Stolper has
noted, both these texts (BE 9, 28 and 50) refer to land in the same place. In his opinion, the “lady of
the palace” was certainly a queen, possibly one of four wives of Artaxerxes I or his mother Amestris
(Dandamayev: 1992, 158). A detailed study of this particular and rare expression has shown that
during the Neo-Assyrian period it referred only to the queen in title (Svärd, Luukko: 2015, 279-294).
Therefore, this reserved area was that of Amestris (Esther) as queen.
• When it learned of Xerxes' death, Egypt revolted (in 474 BCE) against the Persian Empire, with
Inaros leading the rebellion. Athens strongly supported this revolt militarily, primarily to weaken the
Persian empire which supported the pro-Persian Greek cities that refused the supremacy of Athens
(Diodorus XI:71:1-5). Officially this revolt was put down by Artaxerxes through his general
Megabyzos (485-450), but two details of Ctesias' account (parts underlined below) show that
Artaxerxes was still (in 469 BCE) under the regency of Amestris (Nichols: 2008, 96):
Inaros fled to Byblos (in 474 BCE), a very powerful city in Egypt, with all the Greeks who did not die with
Charitimides (an Athenian) in the battle. Consequently, all of Egypt, with the exception of Byblos, was
returned to Megabyzos. Since the city seemed impregnable, Megabyzos made peace with Inaros and the
Greeks who still numbered 6,000 with the promise that they would suffer no harm from the king and the
Greeks were granted a free pass to return home whenever they wanted. He appointed Sarsamas satrap of
Egypt and taking along Inaros and the Greeks, returned to Artaxerxes and found him in an angry mood with
Inaros for the killing of his brother Achaemenides. After Megabyzos related all that happened and how he
gave pledges of faith to Inaros and the Greeks before taking Byblos, he solemnly begged the king to spare
their lives, secured their salvation, and finally broke the news to the army that Inaros and the Greeks would
not be harmed. However, Amestris was incensed that there would be no reprisals for Inaros and the Greeks
on behalf of her son, Achaemenides, and begged the king who rebuffed her requests. Then she approached
Megabyzos who likewise dismissed her pleas. By continuously annoying her son (Artaxerxes I), ultimately,
she achieved her goal and 5 years later (in 469 BCE) the king delivered Inaros and the Greeks over to her.
She impaled Inaros on three stakes and beheaded the 50 Greeks she was able to get her hands on.
Megabyzos was very upset and grieved; then he requested to be discharged to his territory of Syria.
As only the king, or the co-regent, had the power to appoint satraps, Megabyzus, as general of the armies,
could not appoint Sarsamas as satrap77. He could only do so with a royal mandate from the regent (Esther)
in the name of Artaxerxes I. Likewise, only the king, or the co-regent, could ask the general of the armies
for the execution of a usurper. According to Ctesias, it was not Artaxerxes I who decided to impale (or
crucified) Inaros and behead the 50 Greek mercenaries, but Amestris. This accusation is absurd, because a
queen, however powerful she was, could not exercise military authority. So Amestris certainly
commissioned Megabyzus, in the name of Artaxerxes I, to execute the Egyptian usurper and his 50 Greek
(Athenian) mercenaries. This anecdote, although partially false, as well as the episode of the destruction of
part of the Persian army by the Jews to defend themselves (in 484 BCE) from the genocide planned by
Haman, the prime minister of Xerxes, certainly contributed to the bad reputation of Amestris among
Greek historians. For example, when Aeschylus, a pro-Athenian tragedian78, wrote in 473 BCE “The
Persians”, which was performed in 472 BCE in the context of the ongoing war with the Persians, he
deplored the tragic death of the many victims of Xerxes' ubricity, including Amestris(!):
The magus Arabus, Artames the Bactrian, that leader of thirty thousand horsemen with black couriers,
transplanted to a hard earth (Salamis in 480 BCE, Plataea in 479 BCE); they perished there, and like them
Amestris, Amphistres (Greek name!), the one whose hand waved a lance tirelessly, the valiant Ariomardus
(son of Darius and Parmys), who will be regretted in Sardis, Sisame the Mysian (The Persians l.318-322).
Obviously Amestris was not dead at that time, but this remark shows that she was associated with the
murderous ubricity of Xerxes in the eyes of Athenian nationalists. Looking at Ctesias' account we can see
that he collected a lot of gossip to write his history of Persia. Likewise, Herodotus also sometimes collected
some unfounded rumours (but he specifies it). The only Greek historian who has systematically verified his
(few) sources is Thucydides and he gives some details about the Egyptian revolt led by Inaros. He was
unfavourable to the Athenian war in Egypt, unlike Ctesias, and considered that the support for the revolt
of Inaros was a serious mistake which led to the unnecessary loss of many ships and lives. He mentions
77 Ctesias was visibly mistaken in situating Arsames (445-407), the satrap of Egypt at this moment in history, because neither
Herodotus nor Thucydides, historians more reliable than Ctesias and closer to the events, speak of it.
78 “The Persians” is an ambiguous tragedy because it seems to sympathize with the defeats of the Persians, victims of Xerxes’
ubricity, but it is also at the same time a celebration of the Greek victories in the context of an ongoing war and the heroism of
the Greek soldiers. The significance of the war against Persia was so great to Aeschylus and the Greeks that Aeschylus' epitaph
commemorates his participation in the Greek victory at Marathon while making no mention of his success as a playwright.
48
Artaxerxes, not Amestris, and explains that Artaxerxes had sent Megabyzus to Sparta to monetize the
evacuation of the Athenians from Egypt, but in vain. Finally, after a siege of 18 months the Greeks were
driven out of Memphis and Inaros was crucified. Thucydides does not mention any cruelty of the Persians.
I:104 — Meanwhile (in 474 BCE) Inaros, son of Psammetichus79 (Psamtik III), a Libyan king of the
Libyans on the Egyptian border, having his headquarters at Marea, the town above Pharos, caused a revolt
of almost the whole of Egypt from King Artaxerxes and, placing himself at its head, invited the Athenians
to his assistance. Abandoning a Cyprian expedition upon which they happened to be engaged with 200 ships
of their own and their allies, they arrived in Egypt and sailed from the sea into the Nile and making
themselves masters of the river and two-thirds of Memphis, addressed themselves to the attack of the
remaining third, which is called White Castle. Within it were Persians and Medes who had taken refuge
there, and Egyptians who had not joined the rebellion.
I:109 — The Athenians in Egypt and their allies were still there and encountered all the vicissitudes of war.
First (in 474 BCE) the Athenians were masters of Egypt, and the King sent Megabazus a Persian to
Lacedaemon with money to bribe the Peloponnesians to invade Attica and so draw off the Athenians from
Egypt. Finding that the matter made no progress, and that the money was only being wasted, he recalled
Megabazus with the remainder of the money, and sent Megabuzus, son of Zopyrus, a Persian, with a large
army to Egypt. Arriving by land he defeated the Egyptians and their allies in a battle, and drove the
Hellenes out of Memphis, and at length shut them up in the island of Prosopitis (north of Sais), where he
besieged them for 1 year and 6 months. At last, draining the canal of its waters, which he diverted into
another channel, he left their ships high and dry and joined most of the island to the mainland, and then
marched over on foot and captured it. Thus, the enterprise of the Hellenes came to ruin (in 469 BCE) after 6
years of war. Of all that large host a few travelling through Libya reached Cyrene in safety, but most of
them perished. And thus Egypt returned to its subjection to the King, except Amyrtaeus (I), the king in the
marshes, whom they were unable to capture from the extent of the marsh; Inaros, the Libyan king, the sole
author of the Egyptian revolt, was betrayed, taken, and crucified. Meanwhile a relieving squadron of 50
vessels had sailed from Athens and the rest of the confederacy for Egypt. They put in to shore at the
Mendesian mouth of the Nile, in total ignorance of what had occurred. Attacked on the land side by the
troops, and from the sea by the Phoenician navy, most of the ships were destroyed; the few remaining being
saved by retreat. Such was the end of the great expedition of the Athenians and their allies to Egypt.
Thucydides is categorical: the aggressors were the Athenians, not the Persians, and King Artaxerxes I
carried out a measured and progressive defence of Egypt (his satrapy). Thucydides thus completely
exonerates the accusations of cruelty against Amestris, probably resulting from the Athenian propaganda.
Artaxerxes I was therefore a peaceful king, he did not attack any Greek city and was never at war with the
Athenians. Moreover, after the expulsion of the Greeks from Egypt (in 469 BCE) this great satrapy
regained peace, as confirmed by Herodotus who had come to Egypt around 445 BCE:
Those that went for him found that the son was no longer alive but had been the first to be slaughtered; but
they brought Psammenitus (Psamtik III) up and led him to Cambyses; and there he lived, and no violence
was done him for the rest of his life. And if he had known how to mind his own business, he would have
regained Egypt to govern; for the Persians are inclined to honour kings’ sons; even though kings revolt from
them, they give back to their sons the sovereign power. There are many instances showing that it is their
custom so to do, and notably the giving back of his father’s sovereign power to Thannyras son of Inaros
(c.530-474 BCE), and also to Pausiris son of Amyrtaeus (I); yet none ever did the Persians more harm than
Inaros and Amyrtaeus. But as it was, Psammenitus plotted evil and got his reward; for he was caught raising
a revolt among the Egyptians; and when Cambyses heard of it, Psammenitus drank bull’s blood and died (in
526 BCE). Such was his end (The Histories III:15).
Herodotus' account confirms that of Thucydides on
two important points: the Persian kings, unlike the
Athenians, were generally not bellicose and after the
death of Inaros, Egypt was peacefully ruled by
Artaxerxes I. In addition, archaeological discoveries
have confirmed the accounts of Thucydides and
Herodotus. Firstly, even if Artaxerxes I was only 16
years old in 469 BCE and was therefore still under
the regency of Amestris, the seal found in Egypt,
which commemorated his victory over Inaros
(opposite image), is in his effigy. The executed king is
an Egyptian pharaoh (Inaros), he is recognizable by his hairstyle with the royal pshent, as well as the Persian
79 Psamtik III was the last Pharaoh of the 26th Dynasty of Egypt from 526 BCE to 525 BCE. Since the son of Psamtik III was
killed by Cambyses II in 526 BCE, Inaros must have been a baby at that time which allowed him to escape death, in this case he
must have been a little over 52 years old in 474 BCE.
king (Artaxerxes I). The four prisoners are likely to be Athenian mercenaries (Briant: 2002, 215). Secondly,
the precise chronology of the Inaros revolt given by Thucydides has been confirmed by Egyptian papyrus
dated to the years of Artaxerxes' reign, those dated to the years 1, 5 and 6 of Artaxerxes (Porten: 1996, 158-
171,351-355) prove that Egypt was ruled by Inaros only during the first 4 years of his revolt in Memphis.
BCE Inaros Elephantine pap. Egyptian date Julian date
475 21 0
474 1 1 Revolt in B24 Year 1 18 Kislev / [17] Thoth 5 January 474 BCE
473 2 2 Egypt
472 3 3
471 4 4
470 5 5 Memphis C29 Year 5 Paophi February 470 BCE
469 6 6 besieged B25 Year 6 21 Kislev / [21] Mesore 4 December 469 BCE
Before the revolt of Inaros, the satrap of Egypt was Achemenes (485-474), but after this revolt, Herodotus
indicates that around 445 BCE, Egypt was ruled by Thannyras, son of Inaros, and Libya by Pausiris, son of
Amyrtaeus. This remark proves that Arsames, the satrap of Egypt who died around 407 BCE was not yet
in place in 445 BCE. Given that Inaros dominated Egypt only during the first 4 years of his revolt it seems
logical to assume that Artaxerxes appointed in Year 5, a new satrap to replace Achemenes. An inscription
dated in the year 5 of Artaxerxes was written by Ariyawrata, who was the chamberlain of Persia (the
hieroglyphic word imitates the Babylonian word saris “the head”), and therefore an equivalent of a satrap:
Min of Koptos, lord of the chapel Sehent. Year 5 of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, lord of the two
lands, Artaxerxes —may he live for ever— beloved of the gods. Made by the saris [chamberlain] of Persia,
Ariyawrata (Aryau-rāta) son of Artames (Artamišu), born of the lady Qandjou; that he may live before Min,
Horus, and Isis of Koptos (Kuhrt: 2010, 323).
Although the period between Inaros and Arsames is not well known, it can be assumed that this satrap was
appointed by Artaxerxes through Nehemiah who was governor of Yehud during the period 455-443 BCE
and procurator (tirshata) of Artaxerxes I over the entire region. The first papyrus to mention Arsames is the
Elephantine papyrus B10 dated 19 Marcheshvan of the year 38 of Artaxerxes I (August 437 BCE), which
leads to the conclusion that he must have been appointed a few years before the year 38. Moreover, as at
that time the average lifespan was around 65 years, and important positions were filled by officials aged
over 20 years, this implies a starting career of around 445 BCE80 (= 407 + 65 - 25):
Yehud Egypt Lybia Persia
Jehoezer? 495-480 Pherendates 496-486 Darius I/Xerxes 496-486
Ahzai? 480 - Achemenes 485-474 Xerxes 486-475
-468 Inaros 474-469 Artaxerxes I 475 -
(Nehemiah) 468-455 Ariyawrata 469 - Amyrtaeus I 469-450?
Nehemiah 455-443 Thannyras -445? Pausiris 450-440? -434
Governors 443-410 Arsames 445-407 Darius B 434-426
Bagohi 410-400 Belshunu 407-401 Darius II 424-405
The archives of Elephantine in Egypt as well as those of the Murashu in Babylonia, which cover the entire
reign of Artaxerxes I, show that after 469 BCE there is no trace of war in the Persian Empire. The wars
against the allied cities of the Persian Empire were the consequences of Athenian imperialism. If the
conquest of Cyprus in 450 BCE marked the end of the Athenian aggression against the Persians it was not
because of a peace treaty that Thucydides would have handled if it had existed (The Peloponnesian War
I:112), but because the internal dissensions in Greece prevented the continuation of this ruinous war.
When her son became king at the age of 11, Queen Esther very wisely chose Nehemiah as the king's
confidant by establishing him as chief cupbearer81 (rab šāqê), a kind of head of diplomacy. This choice
explains why Artaxerxes has always been favourable to the interests of the Jews. For example, when the
revolt of Inaros was completely defeated in 469 BCE, the first decision of Artaxerxes, the 7th year of his
reign (Ezr 7:1-8), in 468 BCE82, was to ask Nehemiah to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem:
This Ezra came up from Babylon. He was a copyist who was well-versed in the Law of Moses, which
Jehovah the God of Israel had given. The king granted everything he requested, for the hand of Jehovah his
80 This date of 445 BCE is consistent with an age of 65 for Thannyras’ death, because if he was born when his father Inaros
(c.530-474) was 20 years old, he died around 445 BCE (= 530 – 20 – 65).
81 Nehemiah (498-405) must have been about 24 years old in 474 BCE and Megabyzus (c.515-440) was about 41 years old.
82 This date is not due to chance because the previous jubilee had been celebrated in 518 BCE, 70 years after the end of the fast
marking the destruction of the temple in 587 BCE (Zc 7:1). It can be noted that 468 BCE = 538 BCE – 70 years.
50
God was upon him. Some of the Israelites, the priests, the Levites, the singers, the gatekeepers, and the
temple servants, went up to Jerusalem in the 7th year of King Artaxerxes. And Ezra came to Jerusalem in
the 5th month, in the 7th year of the king83 (August 468 BCE). On the first day of the 1st month, he began
the journey from Babylon, and he arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the 5th month, for the good hand
of his God was upon him. Ezra had prepared his heart to consult the Law of Jehovah and to practice it, and
to teach its regulations and judgments in Israel. This is a copy of the letter that King Artaxerxes gave to
Ezra the priest and copyist, an expert in the study of the commandments of Jehovah and of his regulations to
Israel: Artaxerxes, the king of kings, to Ezra the priest, the copyist of the Law of the God of the heavens:
May you have perfect peace. And now I have issued an order that everyone in my realm of the people of
Israel and their priests and Levites who is willing to go with you to Jerusalem should go. For you are sent
by the king and his seven advisers to investigate whether the Law of your God, which is with you, is being
applied in Judah and Jerusalem, and to take the silver and the gold that the king and his advisers have
voluntarily given to the God of Israel, whose residence is in Jerusalem, with all the silver and the gold that
you receive in all the province of Babylon, along with the gift that the people and the priests voluntarily
give to the house of their God, which is in Jerusalem. And you are to buy promptly with this money bulls,
rams, lambs, along with their grain offerings and their drink offerings, and you are to present them on the
altar of the house of your God in Jerusalem. And whatever seems good to you and to your brothers to do,
you may do with the rest of the silver and the gold, according to the will of your God. And all the vessels
that are given to you for the service of the house of your God, you are to deliver before God at Jerusalem.
And the rest of the necessities of the house of your God that you are required to give, you will give out of
the royal treasury. I, King Artaxerxes, have issued an order to all the treasurers in Beyond the River, that
everything that Ezra the priest, the copyist of the Law of the God of the heavens, requests of you is to be
done promptly, up to 100 talents (3420 kg) of silver, 100 cor measures (22,000 l) of wheat, 100 bath
measures (2200 l) of wine, 100 bath measures of oil, and salt without limit. Let everything that is ordered by
the God of the heavens be done with zeal for the house of the God of the heavens, so that there may be no
wrath against the king’s realm and his sons. And you are further advised that it is not permitted to impose
any tax, tribute, or toll on any of the priests and Levites, musicians, doorkeepers, temple servants, and
workers of this house of God. And you, Ezra, according to the wisdom that you possess from your God,
appoint magistrates and judges to judge all the people in Beyond the River, all those who know the laws of
your God; and you should instruct anyone who does not know them. And everyone who does not observe
the Law of your God and the law of the king should have judgment executed on him promptly, whether it is
death, banishment, a fine, or imprisonment (Ezr 7:6-26).
It was during this meeting that Esther must have entrusted Ezra with the book written by Mordecai which
would later be called the Book of Esther. When she was Xerxes’ wife, Esther received the outstanding title
of queen (malakah), first mentioned in Esther 2:22. After Xerxes' death she retained her title of queen, but
did not hold office, hence the title of queen-consort (Ps 45:10), which is mentioned in Nehemiah 2:6. This
rare word šagel means “queen-consort”, it is different from the word “queen” which sometimes designated,
for example, one of the four wives of Artaxerxes I by Greek historian Ctesias (F15§46,47). According to
the historian Plutarch, when Themistocles (536-471) met Artaxerxes I (The Peloponnesian War I:137), who
was about 11 years old in 474 BCE, the young king introduced him to his Queen Mother (Esther).
According to Plutarch, Themistocles even listened to the lessons of the magi84 (Life of Themistocles 29:6).
If the mission of Ezra, during the 7th year of Artaxerxes (468 BCE), concerned the financing of Palestine
by the treasurers of the former province of Beyond the River85 (Palestine thus regained its autonomy and
was freed from taxes), the diplomatic mission of Nehemiah entrusted by Artaxerxes I, during the 20th year
of his reign (455 BCE), concerned all the kingdoms of the region of Beyond the River. In order to be able
to assume his mission to these kings, Nehemiah, who was the king's cupbearer and had previously been
tirshatha, i.e. Artaxerxes' procurator (Ne 8:9), was appointed governor of Judea (Ne 12:26).
In the month of Nisan, in the 20th year of King Artaxerxes, wine was set before him, and as usual I took up
the wine and gave it to the king. But I had never been gloomy in his presence. So, the king said to me: Why
do you look so gloomy when you are not sick? This can be nothing but gloominess of heart. At this I
became very frightened. Then I said to the king: Long live the king! Why should I not look gloomy when
the city, the place where my forefathers are buried, lies in ruins, and its gates have been consumed by fire?
The king then said to me: What is it that you are seeking? At once I prayed to the God of the heavens. I then
83 The Temple was burnt in 587 BCE the 5th month (2Ki 25:8) which became a day of mourning for 70 years (Zc 7:1-5). In 468
BCE, Artaxerxes I was 17 years old and mother Queen Esther was 41. Nehemiah (498-405) could have been 30 at the time.
84 This remark is strange concerning the magi, but according to the Book of Daniel, the magi were either magic-practicing priests
(astrologers) or wise men (Dn 2:10,14). The magi consulted by Themistocles must have been advisors to the king Artaxerxes I,
or wise men, rather than astrologers (Mt 2:1-2).
85 The mentions of titles and regions are accurate, because after the two Babylonian revolts in 485 BCE, Xerxes had transformed
the satrapy, composed of Babylon and the provinces of Beyond the River (Palestine, Phoenicia and Cyprus), into a province of
Babylon and several small kingdoms ruled by governors: Yehud, Samaria, Arabia, Byblos, Tyre, Sidon, Arwad, Cyprus.
said to the king: If it pleases the king and if your servant has found favour with you, send me to Judah, to
the city where my forefathers are buried, so that I may rebuild it. Then the king, and the queen-consort
(Esther) sitting beside him, said to me: How long will your journey be, and when will you return? So, it
pleased the king to send me, and I gave him a set time. Then I said to the king: If it pleases the king, let
letters be given me for the governors of Beyond the River, granting me safe passage until I reach Judah, as
well as a letter to Asaph the keeper of the Royal Park, so that he may give me timber for beams for the gates
of the Fortress of the House and for the walls of the city and for the house where I will go. So, the king gave
them to me, for the good hand of my God was upon me. Eventually I came to the governors of Beyond the
River and gave them the king’s letters. The king also sent with me army chiefs and horsemen (Ne 2:1-9).
The decree of Artaxerxes in his 20th year (in 455 BCE) was a turning point in the history of Israel as well
as in the history of Persia. It is also noteworthy that on this memorable occasion the presence of the queen
(Esther) is mentioned, she occupied a place of honour next to the king (Ne 2:6). This decree had two
consequences of primary importance: it ordered the reconstruction of the city of Jerusalem, which was also
the starting point of the Messianic prophecy of “70 weeks of years” (Dn 9:24-25) and in order to facilitate
this reconstruction, all the kingdoms of the region of Beyond the River regained their sovereignty and were
freed from the Persian tutelage. Therefore, to ensure their autonomy, these kings were allowed to mint
their own coins instead of using Persian darics (Ezr 8:27). The events that took place during the years 7 to
32 of Artaxerxes' reign (468-443 BCE) did not leave a written record because from the reign of Xerxes
onwards the Achaemenid chanceries adopted Aramaic, written on parchment, as a means of
communication instead of Babylonian, written on clay tablets. However, the letters of Artaxerxes I that
were delivered (by Nehemiah) to the governors of the region of Beyond the River brought about political
changes for these small kingdoms. This kind of diplomatic mission to the kingdoms of the Levant,
especially to the kings of Phoenicia, was not new because the Phoenician cities provided the bulk of the
fleet of ships to fight against the Greek cities. For example, Darius I had mandated Uštanu, the governor
of Babylon and Beyond the River, to coordinate, from 498 to 494 BCE, the Phoenician navies and to
subdue the Ionian revolt. Similarly, Artaxerxes I commissioned Megabyzus (485-450), a former general in
the armies of Xerxes, to coordinate, from 474 to 469 BCE, the Phoenician navies and quell the Inaros
revolt supported by the Athenians. Nehemiah's mission, from 455 to 443 BCE, did not have a military
aspect, since Artaxerxes did not want to wage war on the Athenians despite their repeated attacks. On the
contrary, Artaxerxes wanted to free the Phoenicians from their obligations to the Persian empire and give
them back their independence and allow them to mint their own currency (c. 453 BCE), which was the sign
of their regained sovereignty. Information from Greek historians and analysis of the coins issued by the
Phoenician kingdoms make it possible to reconstruct the chronology of these changes:
BCE King
456 19 Artaxerxes I (was 29 years old. Esther was 54 years old)
455 20 0 0 Nehemiah (was 43 years old) appointed as governor of Judaea (Ne 13:6)
454 21 1 1 Beginning of the 70 weeks of years or 490 years (Ne 2:1-8; Dn 9:24-25)
453 22 2 2 (The cities of Phoenicia are allowed to mint their own currency which proves that the kings of
452 23 3 3 these cities were no longer vassals of Artaxerxes I)
451 24 4 4
450 25 5 5 Amyrtaeus I asks for support from the Athenians (The Peloponnesian War I:112)
449 26 6 6 without success. Invention of the “Peace of Callias” (The Histories VII:151-152)
448 27 7 7
447 28 8 8 Herodotus' journey to Egypt. Amyrtaeus I was dead (The Histories III:15)
446 29 9 9
445 30 10 10 Arsames (Aršāma) appointed satrap of Egypt
444 31 11 11 Silver shekels used again (Ne 5:15), minted by Arwad (Ezk 27:8)
443 32 12 12 Nehemiah, last year as governor of Judaea (Ne 5:14)
434 41 0 21 Artaxerxes I (was 50 years of age) / Darius B (Murashu tablets)
433 (42) 1 22 Tablets CBS 5506; CBS 4986 (clash between Athenian and Peloponnesian League ships)
432 (43) 2 23
431 (44) 3 24 (Beginning of the Peloponnesian War which lasted until 404 BCE)
430 (45) 4 25 Elephantine papyrus B40 dated year 4 of Darius B (14 July 430 BCE)
429 (46) 5 26
428 (47) 6 27
427 (48) 7 28
426 (49) 8 29 Esther died and was buried in the acropolis of Susa
425 50 (0) 30 Artaxerxes I (Xerxes II) Tablet BM 65494
424 (51) 0 31 (Sogdianus) / Darius II Thucydide IV:50; Tablet CBM 12803
52
419 5 (49) 36 The high priest of Jerusalem asked the Jews of Elephantine to celebrate the
418 6 (50) 37 Passover according to the instructions of the law of Moses (letter AP 21)
(418 = 468 – 50)
406 18 49 Temple rebuilt (Ne 11:1-2, 12:22-27; Dn 9:25) 406 BCE = 455 – 49 (7x7)
405 19 0 50 The ruler of Judaea (Yehud) is not anymore a governor but a high priest
404 1 51 Artaxerxes II (end of the Peloponnesian War) / Amyrtaeus II (404-399)
CE 482
29 483 29 CE = 483 (69x7) – 455 + 1 (no year zero). Baptism of Jesus (Lk 3:1-23)
Current historians do not consider the reign of Darius B (434-426), but Plutarch and Justinus describe in
detail the coregency of Darius (B) with Artaxerxes his father86:
But Artaxerxes (I), being now advanced in years, perceived that his sons were forming rival parties among
his friends and chief men with reference to the royal succession. For the conservatives thought it right that,
as he himself had received the royal power by virtue of seniority, in like manner he should leave it to Darius
(B). But his youngest son, Ochus (future Darius II), who was of an impetuous and violent disposition, not
only had many adherents among the courtiers, but hoped for most success in winning over his father
through the aid of Atossa. For he sought to gain Atossa's favour by promising that she should be his wife
and share the throne with him after the death of his father. And there was a report that even while his father
was alive Ochus had secret relations with Atossa. But Artaxerxes was ignorant of this; and wishing to
shatter at once the hopes of Ochus, that he might not venture upon the same course as Cyrus and so involve
the kingdom anew in wars and contests, he [Artaxerxes] proclaimed Darius, then 50 years of age87, his
successor to the throne, and gave him permission to wear the upright “kitanis (kitaris),” as the tiara was
called (...) Accordingly, it was adding fire to fire when Tiribazus attached himself to the young prince and
was forever telling him that the tiara standing upright on the head was of no use to those who did not seek
by their own efforts to stand upright in affairs of state, and that he was very foolish if, when his brother was
insinuating himself into affairs of state by way of the harem, and his father was of a nature so fickle and
insecure, he could suppose that the succession to the throne was securely his (...) Accordingly, Darius put
himself in the hands of Tiribazus; and presently, when many were in the conspiracy, an eunuch made
known to the king the plot and the mention of it, having accurate knowledge that the conspirators had
resolved to enter the king's chamber by night and kill him in his bed. When Artaxerxes heard the eunuch's
story, he thought it a grave matter to neglect the information and ignore so great a peril, and a graver still to
believe it without any proof. He therefore acted on this wise. He charged the eunuch to attend closely upon
the conspirators; meanwhile he himself cut away the wall of his chamber behind the bed, put a doorway
there, and covered the door with a hanging. Then, when the appointed hour was at hand and the eunuch told
him the exact time, he kept his bed and did not rise from it until he saw the faces of his assailants and
recognised each man clearly. But when he saw them advancing upon him with drawn swords, he quickly
drew aside the hanging, retired into the inner chamber, closed the door with a slam, and raised a cry. The
murderers, accordingly, having been seen by the king, and having accomplished nothing, fled back through
the door by which they had come, and told Tiribazus and his friends to be off since their plot was known.
The rest, then, were dispersed and fled; but Tiribazus slew many of the king's guards as they sought to arrest
him, and at last was smitten by a spear at long range and fell. Darius, together with his children, was
brought to the king, who consigned him to the royal judges for trial. The king was not present in person at
the trial, but others brought in the indictment. However, the king ordered clerks to take down in writing the
opinion of each judge and bring them all to him. All the judges were of one opinion and condemned Darius
to death, whereupon the servants of the king seized him and led him away into a chamber nearby, whither
the executioner was summoned. The executioner came, with a sharp knife in his hand, wherewith the heads
of condemned persons are cut off; but when he saw Darius, he was confounded, and retired towards the
86 Since the king Artaxerxes is identified with Artaxerxes II, the history of these two historians is not taken into account.
Although Plutarch speaks about the life of Artaxerxes II in his introduction, his description does not match the end of his reign,
which appears to have happened smoothly according to Diodorus Siculus (Historical Library XV:93), but rather that of
Artaxerxes I with its fratricidal strife between his sons: Xerxes II, Sogdianus and Ochos, the future Darius II, not to be confused
with Darius B, the eldest son of Artaxerxes I. Confusion of Kings among some historians is due to the frequent presence of
homonyms and family trees which are close enough. There was a 3-year coregency at the end of the reign of Artaxerxes II, but
his successor Ochos, the future Artaxerxes III, ascended the throne without difficulty. By contrast, it was not the case of Ochos
(Darius II) who performed no coregency with his father (Artaxerxes I) and ascended the throne after eliminating Sogdianus.
87 Several commentators corrected the number 50 into 30, because Plutarch says a little later that Darius (B) was a young man at
his enthronement (less than 25 according to Cyropaedia I:2:13), which is confirmed by Justinus (Epitome of the Philippic
History X:1-3). In fact, the number 50 refers to Artaxerxes’ age, not to Darius’ age, because Artaxerxes was 11 years old when
Xerxes died in 475 BCE, therefore 50 in 434 BCE when Darius (B) was enthroned, and 62 when he died in 423 BCE (Plutarch
says Artaxerxes reigned 62 years!). According to Justinius, Artaxerxes was barely out of childhood (11 years old) and Darius was
already in adolescence (14 years old) when Xerxes was murdered (History III:1).
door with averted gaze, declaring that he could not and would not take the life of a king. But since the
judges outside the door plied him with threats and commands, he turned back, and with one hand clutching
Darius by the hair, dragged him to the ground, and cut off his head with the knife. Some say, however, that
the trial was held in the presence of the king, and that Darius (B), when he was overwhelmed by the proofs,
fell upon his face and begged and sued for mercy; but Artaxerxes (I) rose up in anger, drew his scimitar, and
smote him till he had killed him; then, going forth into court, he made obeisance to the sun and said:
"Depart in joy and peace, ye Persians, and say to all whom ye meet that those who have contrived impious
and unlawful things have been punished by great Orosmasdes." Such, then, was the end of the conspiracy.
And now Ochus (future Darius II) was sanguine in the hopes with which Atossa inspired him, but he was
still afraid of Ariaspes, the only legitimate son of the king remaining, and also of Arsames among the
illegitimate sons (Plutarch —Life of Artaxerxes 26:1-30:5).
Artaxerxes (I), king of Persia, had 115 sons by his concubines, but only 3 begotten in lawful wedlock,
Darius (B), Ariarathes (Arsites?), and Ochus (future Darius II). Of these the father, from paternal fondness,
made Darius king during his own lifetime, contrary to the usage of the Persians, among whom the king is
changed only by death; for he thought nothing taken from himself that he conferred upon his son, and
expected greater enjoyment from having progeny, if he saw the insignia of royalty adorning his son while
he lived. But Darius, after such an extraordinary proof of his father’s affection, conceived the design of
killing him. (...) Artaxerxes, from fondness from his children, said at first that he would do so, but
afterwards, from a change of mind, and in order plausibly to refuse what he had inconsiderately promised,
made her a priestess of the sun, an office which obliged her to perpetual chastity. The young Darius (B),
being incensed at this proceeding, broke out at first into reproaches against his father, and subsequently
entered into this conspiracy with his brothers. But while he was meditating destruction for his father, he was
discovered and apprehended with his associates, and paid the penalty of his guilt to the gods who avenge
paternal authority. The wives of them all, too, together with their children, were put to death, that no
memorial of such execrable wickedness might be left. Soon after Artaxerxes died of a disease contracted by
grief, having been happier as a king than as a father. Possession of the throne was given to Ochus (Justinus
—Epitome of the Philippic History X:1-3).
The length of the reign of Darius B can be deduced from two elements: the disappearance of Year 9 in
Murashu's archives (Stolper: 1985, 23-24) and the appearance of a contract (BM 65494) clearly dated
4/VI/50 of Artaxerxes I (July 425 BCE). The last dated contract of Darius B is the papyrus B42 (Porten:
1996, 234-236), dated on 6 Tishri/ 22 Paoni, Year 8 of Darius (25 September 426 BCE) that means Darius
B probably died at the beginning of 425 BCE. Artaxerxes’ death can be dated xx/XI/50 and as the first
tablet of Darius II (PIHANS 79, 22) is dated 14/IX/00 (25 December 424 BCE). The death of Artaxerxes
I is also precisely dated by Thucydides (early March 424 BCE) in agreement with the account of Diodorus:
When Stratocles when archon in Athenes [July 425 to June 424 BCE] Artaxerxes, the king of the Persians,
died after a reign of 40 years, and Xerxes succeeded to the throne (...) King Xerxes (II) died after a reign of
1 year, or, as some record, 2 months; and his brother Sogdianus succeeded to the throne and ruled for 7
months. He was slain by Darius (II), who reigned 19 years (Historical Library XII:64:1; 71:1).
BCE month Persian Ruler

426 8 V [49] 8 Darius B (Darawušu)
9 VI
10 VII Elephantine papyrus B42 dated 8*/VII/8 of Darius B (25 September)
11 VIII
12 IX
Death of Darius B (Plutarch -Life of Artaxerxes 26:1-30:5)
425 1 X
2 XI
3 XII
4 I 50 (9) Artaxerxes I (Artakšaṣu)
5 II
6 III
7 IV Tablet BM 65494 dated 4/IV/50 of Artaxerxes I
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX
424 1 X
2 XI Death of Artaxerxes I before a solar eclipse (Thucydides IV:50,52)
3 XII 1 [0] Xerxes II (Xšayārša) (dated 21 March 424 BCE)
4 I 2 [1] (51)
5 II 1 [0] Sogdianus (Sogdyậna). According to Ctesias, Xerxes II ruled 45 days
6 III 2
7 IV 3 before Sogdianus a usurper who ruled 6 months and 15 days.
8 V 4
54
9 VI 5 Tablet LBAT 1426 dated 14/VI/[51] Lunar eclipse dated 28 September
10 VII 6
11 VIII 7
12 IX 0 Darius II (Umakuš) first tablet dated 14/IX/00 of Darius II
423 1 X
(throne name: Darawušu)
2 XI
3 XII Tablet CBM 12803 dated 20/XII/51 and /00 of Darius II
4 I 1
5 II
6 III
Artaxerxes I's decree of autonomy in 455 BCE had a decisive impact on his relations with Greece, as the
Phoenician kings (Byblos, Tyre, Sidon, Arwad) had been allies of Xerxes in his war against Athens by
placing their large naval fleet at his disposal. Persia had continually lost territory to the Greeks after the end
of Xerxes I's invasion in 479 BCE. Greek historians have noted that King Artaxerxes I had to make a deal
with his Phoenician allies and gave autonomy to the Ionian states in Asia Minor, prohibited the
encroachment of Persian satrapies within three days march of the Aegean coast, and prohibited Persian
ships from the Aegean. Athens at that time lost a fleet aiding an Egyptian revolt against Persia (Thucydides
I:14-16). Through Herodotus we know that the kings of Sidon, Tyre and Arwad placed their naval fleets at
the disposal of Xerxes (Histories VII:98) and by cross-referencing this information with the inscriptions on
coins (Boyes: 2012, 33-44) we obtain the following chronological set of governors:
Palestine Phoenicia
Yehud Samaria Sidon Tyre Arwad Byblos
Jehoezer? 495-480 Anysos Hiram IV Agbalos Rikiskalâmu-Bēl 500-485
Ahzai? 480-468 Tetramnestos Mattan III Merbalos Urimilk II 485 -
(Nehemiah) 468-455 Yeharba‘al -460
Nehemiah 455-443 Sin’uballit Ba‘alšillem I ? ? Yehawmilk 460-440
anonymous 443 - Abdamon ? ? Elpaal 440-420
governors -410 Ba‘ana ? ? ‘Ozbaal 420 -
Bagohi 410-400 Delayah -400
Cyprus Egypt (Lybia) Persia
Gorgos 500 - Pherendates 496-486 Darius I/Xerxes 496-486
-480 Achemenes 485-474 Xerxes 486-475
Baalmelek I 479 - Inaros 474-469 Artaxerxes I 475 -
Ariyawrata 469 - Amyrtaeus I 469-450?
-449 Thannyras -445? Pausiris 450-440? 455-443
Azbaal 449-425 Arsames 445? - (Darius B) -425
Baalmelek II 425-400 -407 Darius II 424-405
The province of Beyond the River, led by Tattannu (522-489), was made up of the regions of Phoenicia,
Palestine and Cyprus, each of which was headed by a local governor88. The peace with the Greeks had
important consequences on the region of Beyond the River, because Artaxerxes I renounced the exercise
of his sovereignty over the cities of this former province, the levying of tribute or tithes and the sending of
his Phoenician fleet to the Aegean Sea (the Phoenician cities had lost many galleys in their battles against
the Greeks). The decree of Artaxerxes, promulgated by Nehemiah89 in 455 BCE, was unilateral and not a
treaty with Athens, so it did not concern the Greek cities that had been allies of the Persians against
Athens. This explains why Thucydides did not mention it in his reliable and accurate account of the events
of that time since this treaty, later called the “Peace of Callias”, never existed90:
Three years afterwards a truce was made between the Peloponnesians and Athenians for five years.
Released from Hellenic war, the Athenians made an expedition to Cyprus with 200 vessels of their own and
their allies, under the command of Cimon (in 450 BCE). 60 of these were detached to Egypt at the instance
of Amyrtaeus (I), the king in the marshes; the rest laid siege to Kitium, from which, however, they were
compelled to retire by the death of Cimon (in 449 BCE) and by scarcity of provisions. Sailing off Salamis in
88 For example, a Babylonian tablet mentions the tithe paid to Darius I by Rikis-kalâmu-Bēl, the governor of Byblos (Fried: 2003:
no 36). The other kings of Byblos and Sidon have been restored through inscriptions (Sader: 2019, 84-96).
89 Nehemiah (498-405) is also called Malachi “My messenger” (Mal 1:6-16 = Ne 13:6-31).
90 The Peace of Callias refers to a hypothetical peace treaty made in the mid-5th century BCE between Athens and Persia
following the Persian Wars. Our knowledge of the Peace of Callias comes from references by the 4th century BCE orators
Isocrates (438-338 BCE) and Demosthenes (384-322 BCE) as well as the historian Diodorus (Historical Library XII:4:4). The
ancient historian Theopompus of Chios (c.378-c.320 BCE) deemed it a fabrication arguing that the inscription of the treaty was
a fake —the lettering used hadn't come into practice until half a century after the treaty was purported to have been agreed.
Cyprus, they fought with the Phoenicians, Cyprians, and Cilicians by land and sea, and being victorious on
both elements departed home, and with them the returned squadron from Egypt. After this the
Lacedaemonians marched out on a sacred war, and becoming masters of the temple at Delphi, placed it in
the hands of the Delphians. Immediately after their retreat, the Athenians marched out, became masters of
the temple, and placed it in the hands of the Phocidians (The Peloponnesian War I:112).
Thucydides wrote only that the naval fleets of the Phoenicians and Egypt, allies of Persia, did not fight
against the Greeks. Herodotus gave more details of what happened. The city of Argos, which had been an
ally of Xerxes in his war against Athens, finally rallied to Athens after the Athenian victory at Salamis (in
449 BCE). To justify their sudden change of sides, the Argives came up with the following explanation:
Such is the Argives' account of this matter, but there is another story told in Hellas, namely that before
Xerxes set forth on his march against Hellas, he sent a herald to Argos (...) This is borne out, some of the
Greeks say, by the tale of a thing which happened many years afterwards. It happened that while Athenian
envoys, Callias son of Hipponicus, and the rest who had come up with him, were at Susa, called the
Memnonian, about some other business (in 449 BCE), the Argives also had at this same time sent envoys to
Susa, asking of Xerxes' son Artaxerxes whether the friendship which they had forged with Xerxes still held
good, as they desired, or whether he considered them as his enemies. Artaxerxes responded to this that it did
indeed hold good and that he believed no city to be a better friend to him than Argos. Now, whether it is
true that Xerxes sent a herald with such a message to Argos, and that the Argive envoys came up to Susa
and questioned Artaxerxes about their friendship, I cannot say with exactness, nor do I now declare that I
consider anything true except what the Argives themselves say (...) As for myself, although it is my
business to set down that which is told me, to believe it is none at all of my business. This I ask the reader to
hold true for the whole of my history, for there is another tale current, according to which it would seem
that it was the Argives who invited the Persian into Hellas, because the war with the Lacedaemonians was
going badly, and they would prefer anything to their present distresses (The Histories VII:150-152)
In reality, peace with the Greeks was not negotiated by Callias (Herodotus didn't believe the story he'd told
his readers91), otherwise Thucydides would have mentioned it, but was offered by Artaxerxes I when he
gave back their autonomy to the Phoenician cities that had been his allies in the fight against the Greeks.
This offer was passed on by Nehemiah when he came to the region as Persian governor of Yehud in 455
BCE. To avoid endangering his former Greek allies and also to keep a deterrent power, Artaxerxes did not
reveal his renunciation to use the Phoenician naval fleet92. It is possible to date when Artaxerxes gave his
autonomy to the Phoenician cities through a study of the coins issued by these port cities.
Arwad's naval fleet played a leading role for the Persians in their war against Athens, but the many
successive destructions that the Aradian fleet had suffered during the reign of Xerxes must have seriously
depleted Arwad's financial resources. In addition, Arwad's credibility as a major naval power was
compromised as well. The return to autonomy offered two immediate advantages for the Phoenician cities:
their participation in the war against the Greek cities (opposed to the Persians) was no longer required,
which preserved the number of galleys, and they could mint their own currency, which gave them a
financial advantage93. Moreover, the Phoenicians were no longer trading extensively within the Aegean,
where coinage was largely utilised. In spite of these circumstances, within a span of two decades (c. 455–
435 BCE) all four of Phoenicia’s coastal centres: Byblos and Tyre at first, c. 455 BCE, followed by Sidon
91 Herodotus, who travelled to Egypt around 445 BCE, states that after the revolts of Inaros (474–469) and Amyrtaeus I (469–
440?) Egypt was peacefully ruled by the Persians (The Histories III:15). Therefore, during the period 460-445 BCE the
conclusion of a peace agreement was moot. There was peace until Egypt revolted again with Amyrtaeus II (404–399).
92 According to Thucydides: As soon as the Athenians heard the news (in 441 BCE), they sailed with 60 ships against Samos. 16
of these went to Caria to look out for the Phoenician fleet, and to Chios and Lesbos carrying round orders for reinforcements,
and so never engaged; but 40 ships under the command of Pericles with 9 colleagues gave battle, off the island of Tragia, to 70
Samian vessels, of which 20 were transports, as they were sailing from Miletus. Victory remained with the Athenians. Reinforced
afterwards by 40 ships from Athens, and 25 Chian and Lesbian vessels, the Athenians landed, and having the superiority by land
invested the city with three walls; it was also invested from the sea. Meanwhile Pericles took 60 ships from the blockading
squadron, and departed in haste for Caunus and Caria, intelligence having been brought in of the approach of the Phoenician
fleet to the aid of the Samians (this Phoenician fleet never showed up); indeed Stesagoras and others had left the island with 5
ships to bring them (The Peloponnesian War I:116).
93 Since the face value of the coins was on average 5% higher than their intrinsic value in silver, and also a political advantage,
because the image of the Phoenician cities had been tarnished by successive defeats, the dissemination of a currency with the
effigy of a triumphant galley was an instrument of political propaganda that helped to restore a reputation (Elayi, Elayi: 2015,
134-145). The Phoenicians were late in adopting the practice of minting coins. The first mainland issues appeared around 450
BCE – more than 140 years after coinage first circulated in western Asia Minor. The reason for the delay is easily understood:
with an economy based upon a long tradition of fixed exchange involving raw goods and metals, there was no practical incentive
to coin. By the fifth century BCE, the Phoenicians traded primarily within the Achaemenid commercial realm, which itself was
based upon a similar economy of exchange (the Persians’ own decision to issue coinage was, in fact, motivated chiefly by an
interest in facilitating exchange with the minting cities of Greek western Asia Minor).
56
and Arwad, c. 445 BCE, successively adopted coinage. In order to restore their prestige as naval powers the
cities of Byblos, Sidon and Arwad all adopted the emblem of a war galley as their primary numismatic
motif. On its earliest issues, datable c. 450 BCE, Tyre chose, for its obverse, a flying dolphin and a murex
shell, both obvious references to the city’s maritime greatness. The coinage of mainland Phoenicia, with the
exception of Arwad, employed the Phoenician weight standard, based upon the shekel. Early issues were
minted exclusively in silver. As a mark of its premier status among Phoenicia's cities, Sidon alone issued the
double shekel, a coin of considerable value and prestige. The moneys of Tyre and Sidon were most heavily
exported beyond Phoenicia's borders, while that of Arwad enjoyed a fairly limited, regional distribution.
The coinage of Byblos, on the other hand, was almost entirely reserved for internal city use. In contrast to
its mainland Phoenician counterparts, Arwad, like the Cypriot cities, issued its coinage on the Persian
standard. As the major outlet for trans-Euphratian trade via the Akkar plain, it probably served under the
Achaemenids as the primary Mediterranean port for commerce with Cyprus and the west. Aside from
Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, and Arwad, none of the other mainland Phoenician cities struck coinage prior to the
Hellenistic period (Markoe: 2000, 98-99). This numismatic analysis confirms that Byblos received its
independence from the Persian power around 455 BCE.
The primary purpose of Nehemiah's mission, when he came to Jerusalem in 468 BCE as procurator of
Artaxerxes I, was to rebuild the temple (Ne 12:22-27) and restore worship (Ne 8:1-10). Nehemiah had to
solve a hard problem related to the application of the Law of Moses which required all Israelites over 20
years of age, rich or poor, to send each year to the temple in Jerusalem a bekah or “half-shekel” (Ex 38:26)
called the holy shekel (Ex 30:13). This obligation to pay the half-shekel94 was observed until the destruction
of the Temple of Jerusalem in 587 BCE (2Ch 24:9). Nehemiah could have replaced the half-shekel (5.7 g)
used to pay the Temple tax, which no longer existed in his time, with the silver Siglos (5.45 g) issued by
Darius I or the Athenian didrachma (5.8 g = 2 x 2.9 g), but these coins were not available in Judea95. In the
first century of the Christian era these equivalences had become possible96. By giving back its autonomy to
Phoenicia, the decree of Artaxerxes transmitted by Nehemiah in 455 BCE when he came as governor of
Judah, allowed Phoenician cities to mint their currency in shekels. However, the coins issued by Byblos
were reserved for its internal use and those issued by Tyre and Sidon were reserved for its trade with
Greece (Curtis/ Tallis: 2005, 209). Only the city of Arwad issued a large number of shekels for its trade
with its neighbouring regions: Syria and Palestine as well as with Persia. The shekels used by Nehemiah
were therefore those issued by Arwad from 445 BCE onwards:
Moreover, from the day that he commissioned me to become their governor in the land of Judah, from the
20th year (455 BCE) to the 32nd year of King Artaxerxes (443 BCE), 12 years, neither I nor my brothers
ate the food allowance due the governor. But the former governors who were before me had burdened the
people and had been taking from them 40 silver shekels for bread and wine each day (Ne 5:14-15).
The reappearance of shekels in Israel during the governorate of Nehemiah (455-443 BCE) coincided with
the issuance of these coins by the city of Arwad from 445 BCE. This coincidence explains an anomaly that
has long intrigued Bible readers: why did Nehemiah replace the half of a shekel with a third of a shekel?
94 The word shekel (šeqel) is based on the Semitic verbal root for “weighing”, cognate to the Akkadian šiqlu, a unit of weight in
Babylonia. The definition of the Israelite shekel, used in Israel, was slightly different from the Mesopotamian shekel, used for
transactions with merchants, since a mina was worth 50 shekels in Israel (Ex 30:24) while a mina was worth 60 shekels in
Mesopotamia (Ezk 45:12). Therefore, an Israelite shekel was heavier (11.4 g) than a Mesopotamian shekel (8.3 g) also called
“silver piece” to differentiate it from the Israelite shekel or “royal shekel” (2Sa 14:26), a silver piece weighed by the
administration of the king of Israel. Therefore, the money to buy a field that weighed 7 shekels and 10 silver coins (Jr 32:9-10)
meant that the field was worth 163 grams of silver (= 7 x 11.4 g + 10 x 8.3 g). Israel's half-shekel weighed 5.7 g, which
represented about 2 days' wage for a worker. At the time of Nehemiah, the shekel used to pay, which had been a standard
measuring weight consisting of a piece of silver in the form of a small ingot, had been replaced by coin. Darius I (522–486 BCE)
introduced in his empire a new thick gold, called daric (Ezr 8:27), which had a standard weight of 8.4 grams, equalling in value
20 silver Siglos (šiqlu), which were 5.4-5.5 grams each. In Greece, the stater minted at Corinth of 8.6 g weight was divided into
three silver drachmae of 2.9 g.
95 When the Israelites returned from captivity in 538 BCE, they continued to use silver “pieces” made in Babylonia (Ezk 45:12;
Dn 5:25), also called shekels (8.3 g) but of a different weight from the ancient Israelite shekels (11.4 g). Gold darics (8.4 g) were
only used for important transactions (Ezr 8:27) and silver Siglos (5.45 g) were mainly used by the Persian administration.
96 1 bekah (1/2 sheqel) = 1 didrachma (The War of the Jews VII:218) = 1/2 stater (Mt 17:24-27). Tyrian shekels were coins of
Tyre, which in the Roman Empire took on an unusual role as the medium of payment for the Temple tax. The shekel and half-
shekel of Tyre were issued from 125 BCE, when the city became an autonomous city. The Tyrian shekels were considered
tetradrachmas by the Greeks, as they weighed 4 Athenian drachmas, about 14.3 grams, more than earlier 11.4-gram shekels but
regarded as equivalent for religious duties at that time, because Roman coinage was in average only 80% silver (11.4 g = 14.3 g x
0.80). Roman silver denarius (Mt 20:10) of 3.85 g did not have the same weight as Greek silver drachma (Lk 15:8). According to
the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:4), the Jews had to convert the half-shekel into another currency after their return from captivity.
Those who attested it by putting their seal to it were: Nehemiah the governor, the son of Hacaliah (...) we
imposed the obligation on ourselves for each of us to give a third of a shekel yearly for the service of the
house of our God (Ne 10:1,32).
For an ill-defined reason, the city of Arwad issued shekels and thirds of shekels (perhaps because of
poverty) while the other Phoenician cities issued shekels and half shekels (Elayi/ Elayi: 2015, 202-207). The
Jerusalem Talmud treaty called Shekalim shows that the Temple tax had always been half a shekel even if
its weight has been converted into other pieces of silver. Nehemiah therefore pragmatically adapted the
Law of Moses, because of the constraints of his time, but did not change it. According to the biblical text,
Nehemiah was sent as personal representative of King Artaxerxes in order to finance the rebuilding of the
temple and inform regional authorities that the province of Yehud was no longer a vassal province, with a
provincial governor at its head, but an allied province as was the kingdom of Arabia. This change of status
explains why Nehemiah received the strange title of Tirshatha (Ne 7:70; 10:1; Ezr 2:63) rather than the
former title of Governor (Ne 12:26). The word tur-šati means “pro-curator” in Elamite, in agreement with
the full authority he received (Ezr 7:15-26). This clarification explains why he ceased to be governor after
the 32nd year of Artaxerxes because the high priest was again the legitimate authority of the Jews.
Although Nehemiah ceased to act as governor after 443 BCE, he held a prominent role because he
organized the inauguration of the wall of Jerusalem (in 406 BCE), at the end of the reign of Darius II (Ne
12:22-31). The two drafts of the letter of 407 BCE to Bagohi97, the governor of Yehud (Judah), refer to an
earlier letter of 410 BCE to Bagohi and to Johanan, the High Priest, which remained unanswered. The fact
that the Jews of Elephantine turned to the Persian governor of Yehud and the Jerusalem High Priest for
help is most revealing regarding the functioning of Judaean authorities. This letter reads:
To our lord, Bagohi, governor of Yehud, (from) your servants: Yedaniah and his associates, the priests who
are in the fortress of Yeb (Elephantine). May the God of the Heavens perpetually pursue the welfare of our
lord greatly and grant you favours before Darius the king and the "sons of the palace" a thousand times
more than now. May you be joyful and healthy at all times. Now your servant Yedaniah and his associates
testify as follows: In the month of Tammuz, in the 14th year of King Darius [410 BCE], when Arsames
departed and went to the king, the priests of the god Khnub, who is in the fortress of Yeb, conspired with
Vidranga, who was administrator here, to destroy the temple of Yahu in the fortress of Yeb. So that villain
Vidranga sent this order to his son Nefayan, who was in command of the garrison of the fortress at Syene:
The temple of the god Yahu in the fortress of Yeb shall be destroyed. Nefayan consequently led the
Egyptians with other troops. Arriving with their weapons at the fortress of Yeb, they entered the temple and
burned it to the ground. They smashed the stone pillars that were there. They demolished five great
gateways constructed of hewn blocks of stone which were in the temple; but their doors (are still standing),
and the hinges of those doors are made of bronze. And the roof of cedar in its entirety, with the ... and
whatever else was there, were all burned with fire. As for the basins of gold and silver and other articles that
were in the temple, they carried all of them off and took them as personal possessions. Now, our ancestors
built this temple in the fortress of Yeb in the days of the kingdom of Egypt; and when Cambyses [530-522
BCE] came to Egypt he found it (already) constructed98. They (the Persians) knocked down all the temples
of the Egyptian gods; but no one damaged this temple. But when this happened, we and our wives and our
children wore sackcloth, and fasted, and prayed to Yahu, the Lord of Heaven, who has let us “see to”
Vidranga. The axes removed the anklet from his feet (?) and any property he had acquired was lost. And all
those who have sought to do evil to this temple —all of them— have all been killed, and we have “seen to”
them. We have (previously) sent letters to our lord when this catastrophe happened to us; and to the high
priest Yehohanan and his associates, the priests in Jerusalem; and to Ostan, the kinsman of Anani; and the
Judahite elites. They have never sent us a letter. Furthermore, from the month of Tammuz, the 14th year of
Darius the king, until today, we have been wearing sackcloth and fasting, making our wives as widows, not
anointing ourselves with oil or drinking wine. Furthermore, from then until now, in the 17th year of Darius
the king [407 BCE], no grain-offering, incense, or burnt-offering has been sacrificed in this temple. Now
your servants Yedaniah, and his associates, and the Judahites, all inhabitants of Yeb, state: If it seems good
to our lord, remember this temple to reconstruct it, since they do not let us reconstruct it. Look to your
clients and friends here in Egypt. Let a letter be sent from you to them concerning the temple of the god
Yahu to construct it in the fortress of Yeb as it was before. And the grain-offering, incense, and burnt-
offering will be offered in your name, and we will pray for you continuously —we, our wives, and our
children, and the Judahites who are here, all of them— if you do this so that this temple is reconstructed.
And you shall have honour before Yahu, the God of the Heavens, more than a man who offers him burnt-
offerings and sacrifices worth a thousand talents of silver and gold. Because of this, we have written to
inform you. We have also set forth the whole matter in a letter in our name to Delaiah and Shelemiah, the
sons of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria. Furthermore, Arsames (c.445-406) knew nothing of all that was
perpetrated on us. On the 20th of Marcheshwan, the 17th year of King Darius (Porten: 1996, 139-144).
97 This name is written Bigwai in the Massoretic text (Ne 10:14-16) but Bagoi in the Septuagint.
98 After the destruction of Jerusalem (in 587 BCE) many Jews fled to Pathros (Elephantine) where they settled (Jr 44:15-18).
58
The letter confirms several points from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah: 1) During the Persian period the
expression “God of the Heavens”, or “the Lord of Heavens”, was used, instead of Yehowah (Ezr 1:2; 5:11;
Ne 1:4-5); 2) Darius II (424-405) was the Persian emperor at that time (Ne 12:22-31); 3) Yahû “Yah
Himself” was a substitute of the divine name Yehowah99 (Gertoux: 2002, 86-100), the Israelite god,
frequently found at the end of theophorous names in –yahû (Yah-hu’ “Yah Himself”); 4) Sanballat
(Sin’uballit ‘Sin gives life’) was the governor of Samaria under the Persians (Ne 2:10; 3:33-4:7; 6:1-14;
13:28); 5) Yehôhanan (“Yehow[ah] has favoured”) was the high priest of Jerusalem (Ne 12:10-11,23); 6)
The Persian regime was not oppressive and did not force their national worship of Ahuramazda upon the
other ethnic groups under its power, like Egyptians or Judaeans (Siljanen: 2017, 297-301).
Many academics believe that Bagohi was a Persian governor of the province of Judaea because it is written
at the beginning of the letter “To our lord, Bagohi, governor of Yehud”. However, Josephus (Jewish
Antiquities XI:297-301), who is usually quite reliable (Williamson: 2004, 79-86), mentions that Bagohi
(written Bagoi in the Septuagint) was the general of Artaxerxes II, not governor100:
When Eliashib the high priest was dead, his son Jodas (Joiada) succeeded in the high priesthood; and when
he was dead (before 410 BCE), his son Joannes (Johanan) assumed this office; on whose account it was also
that Bagoses, the general of the second Artaxerxes (405-359), defiled the sanctuary, and imposed tributes on
the Jews, that out of the public stock, before they offered the daily sacrifices, they should pay for every
lamb 50 shekels. Now Jesus was the brother of Joannes, and was a friend of Bagoses, who had promised to
procure him the high priesthood. In confidence of whose support, Jesus quarrelled with Joannes in the
temple, and so provoked his brother, that in his anger his brother slew him. Now it was a horrible thing for
Joannes, when he was high priest, to perpetrate so great a crime, and so much the more horrible, that there
never was so cruel and impious a thing done, neither by the Greeks nor Barbarians. However, God did not
neglect its punishment, but the people were on that very account enslaved, and the temple was polluted by
the Persians. Now when Bagoses, the general of Artaxerxes, knew that Joannes, the high priest of the Jews,
had slain his own brother Jesus in the temple, he came upon the Jews immediately, and began in anger to
say to them: Have you had the impudence to perpetrate a murder in your temple? And as he was aiming to
go into the temple, they forbade him so to do; but he said to them: Am not I purer than he that was slain in
the temple? And when he had said these words, he went into the temple. Accordingly, Bagoses made use of
this pretext, and punished the Jews 7 years for the murder of Jesus.
Many commentators do not understand why the title of “General” is used instead of “Governor”, but
Josephus was right, because according the Bible (Ne 10:1,14-15), Nehemiah had been the king's
representative “procurator” (tirshatha) before 443 BCE; Bagoi had been the “head” of the people (rosh in
Hebrew and archon in Greek) and Johanan had been the High Priest (kohen hagadol in Hebrew). Their
hierarchical positions explain why the high priest Johanan, the legitimate authority, could not act politically
as well as Bagohi (410-400?), who was the administrative authority of the Jews, had little real power over
the Persian province of Egypt, with the exception of sympathy from Arsames (c.445-407), the Persian
satrap of Egypt. As a result, from 443 BCE the only legitimate authority in the province of Judaea (Yehud)
was the high priest. A letter of Elephantine (AP 21) shows that he was at that time the legitimate authority
for the Jews of Egypt and was considered the representative of the Persian emperor (Darius II):
To my brothers, Yedaniah and his colleagues of the Judahite garrison, (from) your brother Hananiah. May
the gods seek the welfare of my brothers. Now this year, the 5th year of King Darius [419 BCE], word was
sent from the king to Arsames, saying: In the month of Nisan, let there be a Passover for the Judahite
garrison. Now accordingly count 14 days of the month Nisan and keep the Passover, and from the 15th day
to the 21st day of Nisan are 7 days of Unleavend Bread. Be clean and take heed. Do not work on the 15th
day and on the 21st day. Also, drink no intoxicants; and anything in which there is leaven, do not eat, from
the 15th day from sunset until the 21st day of Nisan, 7 do not eat, from the 15th day from sunset until the
21st day of Nisan, 7 days, let it not be seen among you; do not bring it into your houses, but seal it up
during those days. Let this be done as King Darius commanded. To my brethren, Yedaniah and his
colleagues of the Judahite garrison, (from) your brother Hananiah (Porten: 1996, 125-126).
This religious requirement was not an instruction from Hananiah as “head” (Ne 10:14-23) to celebrate the
Passover because the festival had already been celebrated in Egypt since at least 495 BCE (Grelot: 1972,
76-77, 374-387), but to do so according to the lunar calendar of Judaea101 As the high priest of Jerusalem
was both the religious and the political authority for the Jews, there was an ambiguity to designate him. If
we look at the Judaean coinage during the Persian period until the Hasmonean period (Maltiel-Gerstenfeld:
1982, 103-124), there is a diversity of titles for the governors of the province of Judaea (Ne 5:15):
99 The papyrus Amherst 63 in Demotic, dated c. 350 BCE, mentions Psalm 20 but uses only Yaho or Adonai.
100 The chief eunuch and general under Artaxerxes III called Bagoas has nothing to do with Bagohi because being the most
trusted friend of Artaxerxes III (359-338) he played a prominent role in court affairs of that time (Diodorus Siculus, 16:47.4).
101 Starting on the new moon and not according to the Egyptian lunar calendar which was starting on the full moon.
BCE Empire Ruler of Judaea (Yehud) Title of the “ruler” of Judaea High priest
538-525? Persian Zerubbabel Governor (hapeḥah) Jeshua
525-510? Hananiah? Governor (hapeḥah) Joiaqim
510-495? Elnathan? Governor (paḥôh)
495-480? Jehoezer? Governors (paḥôth)
480-468? Ahzai? (Ne 5:14-15)
468-455 Nehemiah Procurator (tirshatha) Eliashib/ (Ezra)
455-443 Governor (hapeḥah) (Ne 12:22)
c.443-410 (Ne 10:14-27) Heads (roshei) of the people Joiada (Ne 12:22)
c.410-400 Bagohi Head (rosh)/ General (archon) Johanan (Ne 12:22)
c.400-375 Jaddua? [High Priest of] Judaea (Yehud)
c.375-350 Manasseh I [High Priest of] Judaea (Yehud)
c.350-323 Yehezqiah Governor (hapeḥah)/ High Priest
323-300 Greek Onias I [High Priest of] Judaea (Yehud)
300-287 Simon I the Just
287-265 Eleazar II
265-241 Manasseh II
241-229 Onias II
229-185 Simon II
185-175 Onias III
175-172 Jason (Antiochus IV)
172-164 Menelas (Antiochus IV)
167-161 Judah Maccabee (Essenians)
164-160 Alcimus Onias IV (Leontopolis)
161-143 Jonathan
143-135 Simon III Onias V (Leontopolis)
135 - Yehohanan I (Hyrcanus) High Priest and Head Partner (rosh ḥaber) of the Jews
High Priest and Partner (ḥaber) of the Jews
-104 High Priest of the Jews
104-103 Yehudah (Aristobulus) High Priest and Partner (ḥaber) of the Jews
103 - Yehonathan High Priest and Partner (ḥaber) of the Jews
King (hamelek) / Partner (ḥaber) of the Jews
-76 (Alexander Jannaeus) [High Priest and] King (malka’)
76-67 Yonathan High Priest and Partner (ḥaber) of the Jews
37-27 Roman Herod the Great King (hamelek) High Priest Ananel
The legal status of the province of Judaea (Yehud) was unclear to define because for the Jews the high
priest was both a religious and political “ruler”. During the period 538-443 BCE, Judaea being a province
of the Achaemenid Empire was ruled by a governor102. After 443 BCE, as it had become politically
independent, there was no longer any need for a governor, therefore its management came back to the high
priest. This very special status had been restored by Nehemiah, but in fact the influence of Queen Esther
had played a decisive role in the turn of events. Since the Messianic prophecy of Daniel chapter 9 is based
on the decision to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and its temple, all these events are precisely dated:
Date (BCE) Dated event
May 538 Order to rebuild the Temple given in the 1st year of Cyrus (Ezr 1:1-2).
October 538 The people are gathered together in Jerusalem in the 7th month (Ezr 3:1).
May 537 Beginning of the construction of the Temple in the 2nd year (Ezr 3:8-10).
March-November 522 Samaritan opponents write to Artaxerxes 0/Bardiya (Ezr 4:7-23).
12 March 515 The Temple (exterior) is completed in the 6th year of Darius I (Ezr 6:15).
April 484 Missed genocide against the Jews in the 12th year of Xerxes (Ezr 4:5-6).
April 468 Order to beautify the Temple (interior) in the 7th year of Artaxerxes I (Ezr 7:8,20).
April 455 Order to rebuild Jerusalem read to Nehemiah in the 20th year (Ne 2:1-8).
2 August 455 Order to rebuild Jerusalem read to the Jewish leaders on 3 Ab (Ne 2:16-18).
22 September 455 Walls of Jerusalem completed in 52 days on the 25th Elul (Ne 6:15).
28 September 455 The Law of Moses is read to the people on the 1st Tishri (Ne 8:1-2).
26 September 406 Jerusalem is inaugurated at the end of the reign of Darius II (Ne 12:22-43).
102A bulla (a clay seal impressed with an official seal stamp, mentioned in Haggai 2:23), found in Jerusalem depicts a man seated
on some kind of throne or administrative chair —perhaps a king or Persian governor— together with pillars (perhaps the rod
symbols of the Babylonian god Nabu or Marduk). The bulla parallels others of similar style found in the City of David, dating
around 500 BCE (Biblical-Era Seal and Bulla Discovered in City of David, in WatchJerusalem June 29, 2020).
60
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHECKING OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER
Several details in the narrative seem exaggerated or wrong but have been confirmed by archaeology. For
example, the courtyard of the garden of the king's palace in Susa (Est 1:5) and the outer courtyard of the
king's house (Est 6:4) could actually receive “several thousand people” because according to excavations
(see hereafter), these courtyards were large squares of 60 meters length each side (Steve, Vallat, Gasche:
2003, 491-492). In addition, the description of the palace is in agreement with archaeology:
Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace [room n°6], opposite the king's
hall [room n°5]. The king was sitting on his royal throne inside the palace opposite the entrance to the
palace (Est 5:1).
Only eyewitnesses could have known these architectural details at Xerxes' time.
Palace of Darius I in Susa

ESTHER’S TOMB IN SUSA
Archaeologists are unable to identify this unique Achaemenid tomb (below) discovered by Jacques de
Morgan in 1901 on the acropolis of Susa (Harper/ Aruz/ Tallon: 1992, 124), which remains a unique case.
This bronze coffin103 (below) was sober and anonymous as are all the Achaemenid royal tombs. The use of
bronze “bathtub” coffin may have been inspired by funerary practices of Neo-Babylonian, or Neo-Elamite
origin, known during 8th-6th century BCE for high status persons (Wicks: 2012, 37,94-101).
The Achaemenid tomb was facing an altar which

was itself oriented westward (opposite drawing).
Unfortunately, subsequent excavations at Susa have
completely removed all traces of this exceptional
tomb. Like most archaeologists, Jacques de Morgan
was motivated by the increase in his prestige among
his colleagues, more than by the search for historical
truth, and also by the market value of the
magnificent jewels of this Achaemenid tomb.
Similarly, the curators of the Louvre Museum did
not carry out any historical research to identify the
character of this prestigious tomb and relied solely
on the hypothesis of Ernest Babelon (1910) to date
it to around 350-333 BCE (Amandry: 1958, 9-23).
The bathtub-shaped bronze tomb is 1.65 m long at the top and 1.29 m at the base. The height is 0.56 m. It has no decoration.
103
The position of the skeleton and the length of the tub assume a person's height of about 1.50 m (presumably a woman).
62
Fortunately, Jacques de Morgan kept a very accurate picture of this tomb by means of a water colour
painting (below). He surmised that it was a woman because the bones were small and there were no
weapons in the sarcophagus, in addition, she was elderly because of the worn state of the teeth.
The objects unearthed in that tomb are regularly exhibited in museums with out-dated or fanciful
explanations. For example, one reads:
Two Aradus coins dating between 350 and 332 B.C. seem to indicate that the burial took place at the end of
the Achaemenid period. Unfortunately, we have no textual references to help us identify the corpse (Harper/
Aruz/ Tallon: 1992, 124,242-252).
In clear they do not know anything! Consequently, a more serious investigation is needed. Historians know
that chronology is the backbone of history, therefore the first step in historical research is to date the tomb
as accurately as possible. The presence of two Phoenician silver shekels from Aradus (Arwad), a city which
strongly supported Xerxes in his war against the Greeks, in the “Achaemenid tomb of the Acropolis” is an
enigma because the currency used in the Persian Empire, from Darius I, was the famous daric (Ezr 8:27)
and the presence of two Aradian shekels of insignificant
value in a royal Achaemenid tomb is inexplicable (Curtis/
Tallis: 2005, 179). In fact, several numismatic studies have
partially solved this puzzle. A closer examination of these two
coins (picture right) has given a date towards the end of the
5th century BCE (Elayi/ Elayi: 1992, 265-270) instead of 350
BCE. As the powerful Phoenician cities of Tyre, Sidon and Aradus, which belonged to the province of
Beyond the River, had supported Xerxes in his war against the Greeks, after 450 BCE, their currencies
became the norm in this western Persian province (Elayi: 1994, 289-309). A thorough investigation into the
metallic composition of Aradian silver made it possible to date the minting of the two shekels between 440
and 404 BCE (Elayi/ Blet-Lemarquand/ Elayi/ Duval: 2012, 129-140) and a new investigation has
narrowed the coinage period to 440–420 BCE (Elayi/ Elayi: 2015, 202-207). It is interesting to note that
the first minting of “Yehud” coins104 began around 400 BCE (Zlotik: 2009, 1-23). This coincidence is no
chance, for when Nehemiah ceased to be governor of Yehud in 443 BCE, it was the High Priest who
replaced him as the supreme authority for the Jews. The first action of the priest Johanan (Ne 12:22) was
to mint coins in order to pay the Temple tax. A bekah “half-shekel” minted by Johanan (c.410-400?) bears
the Paleo-Hebrew inscription YWḤNN HKWHN “Johanan the (high-)priest” (Lemaire: 2017, 163-186).
Although the large silver cup in the Acropolis tomb did not interest the archaeologists, it allows us to know
which king buried the anonymous royal person. On the inside a lotus flower, which was a royal symbol,
and a bud garland encircle the centre of the silver cup (right below).
Large silver cup: High 4.3 cm; Diameter 18.4 cm. Musée du Louvre Sb 2756
The presence of this large silver cup (generally used by cupbearers) without any inscription in a royal tomb
is difficult to explain. Fortunately, three other similar large silver cups have been found of which one with
the following inscription in cuneiform:
Artaxerxes, the great king, king of kings, king of lands, son of Xerxes the king, of Xerxes (who was) son of
Darius the king, the Achaemenian, in whose house the silver drinking-cup (was) made (Curtis/ Cowell/
Walker: 1995, 149-153).
All four drinking-cups have very similar compositions being silver-
copper alloys with high silver contents and traces of gold and lead.
This composition105, particularly the traces of gold and lead, is
typical of ancient silver in general and similar to analyses of other
pieces. The technical evidence therefore clearly indicates that the
drinking-cup of Artaxerxes I (opposite) is ancient and the epigraphic
and art historical evidence are also in favour of its being genuine.
What they have in common is that all four bowls are authentic.
These four drinking-cups are important because they offer a good
deal of intrinsic information, about metalworking, epigraphy and,
last but not least, vessel shapes in the mid-fifth century BCE.
Consequently, these drinking-cups for testing wine, were mainly
used by the cupbearers of Artaxerxes I (475-425 BCE).
British Museum ME 1994,0127.1
What was the use of such bowls in the Achaemenid period? Those in gold and silver, as well as various
other precious objects, were esteemed for their bullion value. They were probably made from (and to)
carefully prescribed weights of silver and could have been stored or exchanged as currency. In the Ancient
Near East there is a long tradition of precious metal being used for currency, and this tradition continued
even after the introduction of coinage. Such bowls would have belonged to the royal treasury and would
104 Most “Yehud” coins are gerahs (Ezk 45:12) or half-gerahs, but with 1 shekel = 24 gerahs of 0.48 g (Rohen: 1998, 122-126).
105 Average composition: silver 97%, copper 2.5%, gold 0.34%, lead 0.4%.
64
have counted as part of the wealth of the state. In fact, they could have served a dual purpose, being used
both for state banquets and being kept for monetary value. There was an ancient practice of adding royal
inscriptions to vessels, including bowls, especially for those used as gifts or for monetary value.
Consequently, the anonymous silver cup found in the tomb of the Acropolis belonged to the cupbearer of
Artaxerxes I. The royal cup-bearer was a prestigious office held only by the monarch’s trusted courtiers,
like Nehemiah, who performed that duty for Artaxerxes I (Ne 1:11-2:1). Similarly, the son of high-ranking
Prexaspes, who served at Cambyses’ court (Herodotus III:34), for the cup-bearer was charged with
managing all the court’s wine-pourers and tasters106, although he alone poured the king’s wine into his egg-
shaped cup and tasted the monarch’s drink to check that is was poison free. To avoid the intrigues of the
court, the cupbearers were often chosen among foreigners. In ancient Egypt many cupbearers were
foreigners who became confidants and favourite of the king. As such, they held considerable political
influence. Because he was royal cupbearer, Nehemiah was a wealthy courtier (Ne 5:8-19). Accordingly:
could the anonymous character in the tomb of the Acropolis have been a royal cupbearer like Nehemiah?
The answer is no for the following reasons:
• Although the royal cupbearer accompanied the king, especially at banquets, he did not belong to the
royal family. As we can see on the reliefs from the Palace of Xerxes I (hereafter), the cupbearer did not
wear any royal jewellery like golden earrings and gold bracelets. Consequently, the jewellery of the
anonymous character of the tomb belonged to a member of the royal family of King Artaxerxes I,
undeniably, and not one of his courtiers (as was the case of his cupbearer) or archer of his royal guard
(called the “Immortals”).
Relief depicting a Persian cupbearer Princeton University Art Museum y1949-115

on a stairway of Palace of Darius I Relief from the Palace of Xerxes I
106 For example, Pharaoh’s cupbearer is described as “the chief cupbearer” (Gn 40:2).
We notice on this frieze of high dignitaries that the Persian princes all have a supple collar (of gold) around
their neck, not a rigid torque (only wore by Scythe princes), and they all have a sword at their side. In
addition, Achaemenid rulers had weapons in their tombs, because Quintus Curtius asserts that, after
Cleitarchus, when Alexander visited the tomb of Cyrus on his return from India, he only found the shield
of Cyrus, then rotten, two Scythian bows, and a sword in the sepulchre (History of Alexander X:1).
The tomb contained many jewels (now exhibited in the Louvre), and some of them are typically feminine
such as pearl necklaces (there were many). Among the many precious objects from the tomb there is a
golden crown which, consequently, must have belonged to a Persian queen. Indeed, on some bas reliefs the
members of the royal family are shown wearing golden earrings and gold bracelets but never with pearl
necklaces. We can add that it was a royal figure given that this woman was buried in the royal enclosure of
Susa at the end of the reign of Artaxerxes I, which is an absolutely unique case.
Necklace Louvre Sb 2763 Pair of buttons Louvre Sb 2766
Gold bracelet Louvre Sb 2761 Earrings Louvre Sb 2764, Sb 2765
As Jacques de Morgan rightly remarked, the anonymous character of the tomb was female because the
pelvic edge (below) is clearly feminine and she was elderly due to the state of wear of the teeth.
The only inscription near this tomb is the name “Xerxes” (496-475) at the bottom of a column (Vallat:
2003, 556), but the royal woman (about 1.6 m in height) in the tomb could not be Atossa (550-475)
because she died at the beginning of Artaxerxes I's reign (475-425), not at the end. Another element of the
tomb confirms that this elderly queen, who must have been prestigious since King Artaxerxes chose to
66
bury her in the royal city of Susa, had known King Xerxes. The two alabaster ointment vases found in the
tomb were very expensive objects that were given as gifts by kings. The alabaster vases that have been
found are in the names of Darius I and Xerxes, but the specimens belonging to Xerxes I represent the
largest group in number. It consists of eight alabaster or dark hard rock vases and fragments (Qahéri/
Trehuedic: 2017, 1-10). Some vases with a hieroglyphic titling are dated to the year 2 of Xerxes (in 494
BCE) or the year 31 of Darius I, in 491 BCE (Qahéri: 2012, 317-348).
Louvre Sb 524 (anonymous) British Museum ANE 132114 (Xerxes)

The two ointment vases (Louvre Sb 524, Sb 537) found in the tomb of the Acropolis belonged to Queen
Esther and are connected with the preparations for her marriage to King Xerxes:
In those days when King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) was sitting on his royal throne in Shushan the citadel (Susa),
in the 3rd year of his reign (493 BCE), he held a banquet for all his princes and his servants (...) When the
king’s word and his law were proclaimed and when many young women were brought together at Shushan
the citadel under the care of Hegai, Esther was also taken to the king’s house under the care of Hegai the
guardian of the women. Now the young woman was pleasing to him and won his favour, so he promptly
arranged for her beauty treatments and her diet, and he assigned to her seven selected young women from
the king’s house. He also transferred her and her young attendants to the best place in the house of the
women (...) Each young woman had her turn to go in to King Ahasuerus after completing the 12-month
treatment that was prescribed for the women, for this was the way they had to fulfil their beauty treatment
—6 months with oil of myrrh and 6 months with balsam oil and various ointments for beauty treatment (...)
Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus at his royal house in the 10th month, that is, the month of Tebeth, in
the 7th year of his reign (489 BCE). And the king came to love Esther more than all the other women, and
she won his favour and approval more than any of the other virgins. So he put the royal crown (keter) on her
head and made her queen instead of Vashti (Est 1:2-3; 2:8-17).
Persian kings often had several wives. To distinguish the king's legitimate wife, mother of the future heir,
from his concubines, Greek historians have sometimes attributed the title of queen to their royal wife
without her having exercised any power. For example, Damaspia was wife of King Artaxerxes I and
mother of Xerxes II, his legitimate heir. She was Persian. According to the Greek historian Ctesias of
Cnidus, King Artaxerxes and his wife died the same day and their corpses were carried to Persia. Xerxes II
succeeded his father but was murdered not much later by his half-brother Sogdianus (424 BCE). However,
next to Damaspia there were three concubines of Babylonian origin (Ctesias F15§46,47):
Some time afterwards, Amestris (Esther) died at a great age, and Artaxerxes also died (in 425 BCE) after
having reigned 42 years107. Artaxerxes was succeeded by his son Xerxes (II) his only legitimate son by
Damaspia, who died on the same day as her husband. Bagorazos brought the bodies of his father and mother
back to Persia. Artaxerxes had 17 illegitimate children including Sekyndianos from a Babylonian named
Alogoune; Ochos, who would later become king (Darius II), and Arsites were the children of another
Babylonian named Cosmartidene. In addition, the king also had children named Bagapaios and Parysatis by
Andia, another Babylonian; Parysatis later became the mother of Artaxerxes (II) and Cyrus.
Given that king Artaxerxes I and his wife, Damaspia, died the same day (in 425 BCE), the queen who was
buried by Artaxerxes I just before his death was his mother, Queen-consort Esther (510-426). When
Esther married Xerxes she became a royal wife, a “queen”, but the biblical text (Est 2:17) also states that
she received the “royal crown” (keter malkût), which was only the privilege of kings. Apart from the word
107 This figure corresponds to the 50 years of Artaxerxes I's reign (475-425) minus the 8 years of Darius B's reign (434-426).
tiara ancient authors108 also used the term kidaris/kitaris, which derives from the Hebrew keter, to denote
the Achaemenid crown, often in combination with the designation orthe “upright” (Olbrycht: 2014, 177-
187). The word keter “crown” only appears in Esther's book. This royal crown was reserved for the king
who could also grant it to his heir or Crown prince. By wearing this golden crown (shown with five spikes
on numerous seals) the crown prince became a co-regent, which was a great privilege. For example,
Artaxerxes I, when he reached the age of 50, allowed his eldest son, Darius (B), to ascend the throne and
thus become his co-regent. According to Plutarch (Life of Artaxerxes 26:1-2):
But Artaxerxes (I), being now advanced in years (50 years of age), perceived that his sons were forming
rival parties among his friends and chief men with reference to the royal succession. For the conservatives
thought it right that, as he himself had received the royal power by virtue of seniority, in like manner he
should leave it to Darius (B). But his youngest son, Ochus (future Darius II), who was of an impetuous and
violent disposition, not only had many adherents among the courtiers, but hoped for most success in
winning over his father (...) he (Artaxerxes I) proclaimed Darius (B), then 50 years of age (in 434 BCE), his
successor to the throne, and gave him permission to wear the upright "kitaris," as the tiara was called.
This royal crown (kitaris) allowed Darius (B) to reign for 8 years (434-426). By receiving this royal crown
(keter), Esther could exercise power as co-regent of Xerxes. This hierarchical position was the highest after
that of the king but before that of the Prime minister. Haman being the Prime minister of Xerxes he hoped
to reach this position of co-regent as the biblical text indicates:
And the king came to love Esther more than all the other women, so that she gained more favour and
loving-kindness before him than all the other virgins. And he proceeded to put the royal crown (keter) upon
her head and make her queen instead of Vashti (...) After these things King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) magnified
Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite and proceeded to exalt him and to put his throne above all the
other princes that were with him (Prime minister). And all the king’s servants that were in the king’s gate
were bowing low and prostrating themselves to Haman, for so the king had commanded respecting him (...)
When Haman came in, the king proceeded to say to him: What is to be done to the man in whose honour the
king himself has taken a delight? At this Haman said in his heart: To whom would the king take delight in
rendering an honour more than me (as Prime minister)? So Haman said to the king: As for the man in whose
honour the king himself has taken a delight, let them bring royal apparel with which the king does clothe
himself and a horse upon which the king does ride and on the head of which the royal crown (keter) has
been put (...) The king now said to Esther also on the second day during the banquet of wine: What is your
petition, O Esther the queen? Let it even be given to you. And what is your request? To the half of the
kingship —let it even be done! (...) Then the king removed his signet ring that he had taken away from
Haman (as Prime minister) and gave it to Mordecai; and Esther went on to place Mordecai over the house of
Haman (...) As for Mordecai, he went forth from before the king in royal apparel of blue and linen, with a
wreath (‘atarah) of gold, and a fine-fabric cloak, even of wool dyed reddish purple (as Prime minister). And
the city of Shushan itself cried out shrilly and was joyful (Est 2:17; 3:1-2; 6:6-8; 7:2; 8:2,15).
When Haman's plot to eliminate the queen and her people was revealed to Xerxes (Est 7:1-4) Haman was
executed and Mordecai took his place as Prime minister (484-483). The word wreath (‘atarah) used for the
coronation of Mordecai is different from the word crown (keter) used for the enthronement of Esther, this
wreath can also be translated as a diadem. The biblical text shows that Haman's conspiracy had a twofold
objective: to eliminate Mordecai, who refused to worship him in public, and Esther, who as co-regent had
a superior position as Prime minister than his own. This conspiracy could succeed because Xerxes did not
know that Esther and Mordecai were Jews (Haman probably knew it?). The killing of Haman (and his
family) at the request of Queen Esther, as well as allowing the Jews to defend themselves during the attack
by the genocidal soldiers, which resulted in thousands of deaths in the Persian army, likely caused
resentment among the Persian aristocracy. This bloody episode accounts for the bad reputation of Queen
Esther being peddled by the Persians who informed Herodotus around 440 BCE (The Histories VII:114;
IX:109-111). Although Queen Amestris is sometimes also portrayed in a cruel way by Ctesias (c. 400 BCE),
some details show on the contrary that she was sensitive and peaceful (Persica F13§34,42,44). Unlike his
contemporaries, Plato (c. 390 BCE) describes Queen Amestris as an influential and wise woman (First
Alcibiades 123b-124b). Plutarch relates that, after the murder of Xerxes, Themistocles met (around January
474 BCE) the new king Artaxerxes accompanied by his “Grand vizier” Artabanu to negotiate a new
108Strabo (11.13.9) uses three different terms, tiara (cylindrical crown), kitaris (crenellated crown), and pilos (felt bonnet), for the
Persian royal paraphernalia as adopted from the Medes, but he does not mention a diadem. It was the American Orientalist
Olmstead who pointed out that the term kidaris/kitaris derives from the Semitic languages including the Hebrew keter. It seems
that the Persian cylindrical crown (often topped with crenellations), known from the reliefs and coinage (usually a crown with
five spikes), should be identified as the kidaris/kitaris, and hence this is the type of crown referred to in the written records.
Greek authors have given contradictory descriptions of the various crowns of Persian kings: cylindrical crowns generally worn at
audiences, crenellated crowns worn at victories and felt bonnets worn at processions (Tuplin: 2007, 67-97).
68
alliance with the Greek cities allied to the Persian empire. He also states that Themistocles' meeting was
negotiated by a woman who was to marry Artabanu (Life of Themistocles 27:1-5). As Artaxerxes was
about 11 years old at that time, it was clear that Artabanu had planned to assume the regency as Prime
minister. However, Esther as Queen (malakah) had her husband's murderer (Xerxes) as well as her eldest
son (Crown Prince Darius A) executed, was able to assume the regency of her second son (Artaxerxes),
until he came of age109. When her son Artaxerxes began to reign, Esther became a queen-consort (šagel)
with a crown in the shape of a torque (below). Artaxerxes placed this special crown in Esther's tomb.
Gold torque Louvre Sb 2760

The gold crown was ranked among the necklaces according to the catalogue of the tomb:
This torque (diameter 20.2 cm), probably cast in the lost-wax process, consists of a fluted tube, 1.27 cm in
diameter, in two units that fit into each other over a section of 3.7 cm at the back of the neck and were
attached by means of a pin (Harper/ Aruz/ Tallon, 1992, 245).
This explanation is illogical because the large gold torque resembles more a
crown than a necklace and on the other hand it contradicts the way of wearing
it, because in the tomb the gold torque was clearly around the head of the
skeleton (opposite figure), not “at the back of the neck and attached by means
of a pin”. Decorated necklaces were worn by princesses. Among the many
representations of princes on the bas-reliefs of Persepolis (without princesses)
there are only two Mede princes who wear a simple (gold) collar, not a torque,
and a statue of Egyptian dignitary wearing a torque in two parts connected by
hinges. All catalogues have classified this special crown as one of the torques
worn by the Scythian princes. This identification poses two problems: 1)
because of the 20.3 cm diameter of the torque of the tomb of the acropolis,
this queen could not have removed it, because of the size of her skull, and
would have had to keep it permanently; 2) on all the representations, the bas-
reliefs and in the texts, the Persian princes wear supple gold necklaces, never c-
shape torques. The only exception appears on the mosaic of Naples where Darius III is shown with a
torque around his neck, similar to that of the tomb of the Acropolis (Amandry, 1958, 9-23).
109 Similarly, King Adad-nîrârî III (811-783) started his reign with a 4-year coregency with his mother, Queen Semiramis.
This late example (opposite) does not correspond to
Achaemenid customs, perhaps Darius III (335–330
BCE) was influenced by the customs of the Scythian
princes or perhaps he did not want to be identified by
the soldiers of Alexander the Great. In addition,
among all Achaemenid jewellery there is only a single
case of torque worn as a necklace (Paul/ Hajime:
2000, 1371-1437), but it is of Egyptian type and has
two hinges duck-shaped head. This hinge system
allowed the torque to be folded at the shoulders.
This kind of torque is composed of two rigid parts: a cylindrical

part in gold to be worn on the neck and a plastron shaped part
meant to be worn on the chest (the medallion is illustrated by the
god Ahura Mazda). This torque worn as a necklace was not
circular because it had the shape of shoulders and it had also two
hinges in order to be folded at the shoulders as shown on the
Egyptian dignitary (opposite figure). The torque of the tomb of
the acropolis was therefore a special Persian royal crown that was
worn by Esther when she was queen-consort (Ne 2:6) and by
Darius III (381–330 BCE) when he was on a battlefield against
Alexander the Great. All archaeological and historical information
is consistent and identify the anonymous queen of the tomb of
the Acropolis to Amestris (510-426 BCE) who was the mother of
Artaxerxes (485-424 BCE). Amestris and Esther being the same
person, this explains many of the quirks of the tomb.
70
From Darius I, Persian kings all worshipped Ahura Mazda whose effigy appears
regularly on their tombs, including on earrings (opposite), unlike Queen Esther
who kept no representation of this Persian god even in the centre of her earrings
(the little characters on the earrings are images of King Darius I). Given that the
God of the Bible had forbidden the worshipping of images, there are none in the
tomb. Why did King Artaxerxes put the silver cup of his cupbearer as well as
two shekels of little value in the tomb of his mother, Queen Esther? The
presence of the silver cup (of Nehemiah “He comforts: Yah”) may be easily
explained because the following event was surely memorable for Queen Esther:
Now I (Nehemiah) myself happened to be cupbearer to the king. And it came about in the month Nisan, in
the 20th year of Artaxerxes the king (455 BCE), that wine was before him, and I as usual took up the wine
and gave it to the king (...) After that I said to the king: If to the king it does seem good, and if your servant
seems good before you, that you would send me to Judah, to the city of the burial places of my forefathers,
that I may rebuild it. At this the king said to me, as his queenly consort was sitting beside him: How long
will your journey come to be and when will you return? So, it seemed good before the king that he should
send me, when I gave him the appointed time. And I went on to say to the king: If to the king it does seem
good, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the River, that they may let me pass until I come to
Judah (...) So the king gave [them] to me, according to the good hand of my God upon me. Eventually I
came to the governors beyond the River and gave them the letters of the king. Moreover, the king sent with
me chiefs of the military force and horsemen (Ne 1-11-2:9).
Several details of this letter are historically accurate: before Nehemiah, Yehud was ruled by a governor (Ne
5:15); Yehud was a province of the satrapy called “Beyond the river”; Nehemiah reinstated the old Mosaic
custom (Ne 10:32) for each Israelite to give a half-shekel yearly for the service of the house of God (Ex
30:11-15; Mt 17:24). Since 1 shekel was to be paid for 3 people, not 2, in the time of Nehemiah110, the 2
shekels in the tomb were maybe the amount of money (the last one before she died) for 6 persons, likely
Esther and her 3 sons (including Darius A) and 2 daughters (Amytis and Rhodogune). Another indication
of the Jewishness of the anonymous queen is the absence of religious symbols in her tomb and also the
presence of two cylinder-pendants of low value (left below), that look like cylinder seals (right below).
Louvre Sb 19362, Sb 19363 British Museum ANE 134761

The two cylinder-pendants are not cylinder-seals because they are completely smooth (and therefore
cannot seal anything), moreover they have only one hook which indicates that they were worn vertically
whereas the two hooks of a cylinder seal forced its owner to wear it horizontally. There is no simple
explanation, but for the Jews of that time these two cylinder-pendants were perceived as a symbol of the
two rolls of the Torah. If King Artaxerxes encouraged so easily Nehemiah to go to Jerusalem in order to
rebuild the city, which was without benefits for the Achaemenid empire, that was because he had been
sensitive to the desire of his mother, Queen Esther. If we examine Nehemiah's journey from Susa to
Jerusalem, we can see that Jerusalem is exactly west of Susa (azimuth 264° west from north) and the tomb
of Esther points westward with exactly of the same value, it’s not by chance (1Ki 8:44; Dn 6:10).
THE HISTORICITY OF ESTHER IS DENIED, WHY?
Today, for most historians, the Book of Esther is an Oriental story and for most archaeologists it is either a
fairy tale for children or an historical myth (Beckling: 2006, 3-18) for gullible believers (for the majority of
scholars, believers are considered “fundamentalists”), because they do not investigate in order to find an
accurate and reliable chronology as well as to identify all the archaeological anonymous evidence. They
prefer to display their erudition to prove that the Bible is false. For example, in the Anchor Bible, a
reference book, the author of the article on Esther develops a specific section entitled: “Evidence against
The 1/3 silver shekel coins from Arwad were used from c. 455 to c. 400 BCE (because the 1/2-shekels weren't minted in
110
Arwad), as the 1/2 silver shekel coins (5.7 g), which worth 12 gerahs, were only minted from the High Priest Johanan (410-400).
its historicity” (Moore: 1971, XLV-XLVI). Today, the most virulent attacks against the Book of Esther
come from Catholic and Jewish theologians:
For example, according to Catholic bishops (http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=esther&ch=):
The Book of Esther tells a story of the deliverance of the Jewish people. We are shown a Persian emperor,
Ahasuerus (loosely based on Xerxes, 485–464 B.C.), who makes momentous decisions for trivial reasons
(...) The book is a free composition, not a historical document. Its fictional character can be illustrated by
many examples of literary motifs: the use of extensive conversation to move the plot along; the motif of
concealment (Esther is a Jew, related to Mordecai, but Haman does not know it, even as he comes to her
banquet in chap. 7). A whole series of banquets structure the work: two by the king, one by Vashti, three by
Esther, and the joyful banqueting that ends the book. Further artificialities are clear in the way characters
are paired (e.g., Mordecai and Esther) and in the delays and the speed of the action (Esther delays the
banquet in 5:3-8, but the tempo of chaps. 5-6 is particularly fast); Mordecai passes from the threat of death
(5:9–14) to royal honors (6:10-11) within twenty-four hours. There are many exaggerations, and even
sarcastic implausibilities (cf. the effect of Vashti’s disobedience in 1:17-18), and huge ironies (e.g., Haman
in 6:6, 10). The work is a composite of reversals (cf. 9:1) in the lives of individuals and communities.
According to the Jewish Encyclopaedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5872-esther):
Improbabilities of the Story: It is now generally recognized that the Ahasuerus (‫)אחשורוש‬, mentioned in
Esther, in Ezra iv. 6, and in Dan. ix. 1, is identical with the Persian king known as Xerxes (Ξέρζης,
"Khshayarha"), who reigned from 485 to 464 B.C.; but it is impossible to find any historical parallel for a
Jewish consort to this king. Some critics formerly identified Esther with Amastris (Ionic, "Amestris"), who
is mentioned by Herodotus (viii. 114, ix. 110; compare Ctesias, 20) as the queen of Xerxes at the time when
Esther, according to Esth. ii. 6, became the wife of Ahasuerus. Amastris, however, was the daughter of a
Persian general and, therefore, not a Jewess. Furthermore, the facts of Amastris' reign do not agree with the
Biblical story of Esther. Besides all this, it is impossible to connect the two names etymologically.
M'Clymont (Hastings, "Dict. Bible," i. 772) thinks it possible that Esther and Vashti may have been merely
the chief favourites of the harem, and are consequently not mentioned in parallel historical accounts. It is
very doubtful whether the haughty Persian aristocracy, always highly influential with the monarch, would
have tolerated the choice of a Jewish queen and a Jewish prime minister (Mordecai), to the exclusion of
their own class —not to speak of the improbability of the prime ministry of Haman the Agagite, who
preceded Mordecai. "Agagite" can only be interpreted here as synonymous with "Amalekite" (compare
"Agag," king of the Amalekites, the foe of Saul, I Sam. xv. 8, 20, 32; Num. xxiv. 7; see Agag). Oppert's
attempt to connect the term "Agagite" with "Agaz," a Median tribe mentioned by Sargon, can not be taken
seriously. The term, as applied to Haman, is a gross anachronism; and the author of Esther no doubt used it
intentionally as a fitting name for an enemy of Israel. In the Greek version of Esther, Haman is called a
Macedonian (...) Finally, in this connection, the author's knowledge of Persian customs is not in keeping
with contemporary records. The chief conflicting points are as follows: (a) Mordecai was permitted free
access to his cousin in the harem, a state of affairs wholly at variance with Oriental usage, both ancient and
modern. (b) The queen could not send a message to her own husband (!). (c) The division of the empire into
127 provinces contrasts strangely with the twenty historical Persian satrapies. (d) The fact that Haman
tolerated for a long time Mordecai's refusal to do obeisance is hardly in accordance with the customs of the
East. Any native venturing to stand in the presence of a Turkish grand vizier would certainly be severely
dealt with without delay. (e) This very refusal of Mordecai to prostrate himself belongs rather to the Greek
than to the earlier Oriental period, when such an act would have involved no personal degradation (compare
Gen. xxiii. 7, xxxiii. 3; Herodotus, vii. 136). (f) Most of the proper names in Esther which are given as
Persian appear to be rather of Semitic than of Iranian origin, in spite of Oppert's attempt to explain many of
them from the Persian (compare, however, Scheftelowitz, "Arisches im Alten Testament," 1901, i.). In view
of all the evidence the authority of the Book of Esther as a historical record must be definitely rejected.
As we can see all these criticisms propagated by theologians are fallacious because they are systematically
based on “improbabilities” as well as misunderstood comments, not on evidence. For example, the
statement: “Amastris (Esther), however, was the daughter of a Persian general and, therefore, not a Jewess”
is easily rebuttable. According to Herodotus:
Such was the judgment of Otanes (in 522 BCE): but Megabyzus urged that they resort to an oligarchy. I
agree, said he: with all that Otanes says against the rule of one; but when he tells you to give the power to
the multitude, his judgment strays from the best. Nothing is more foolish and violent than a useless mob; for
men fleeing the insolence of a tyrant to fall victim to the insolence of the unguided populace is by no means
to be tolerated (...) The men who served in the army were the following: the Persians (...) Their commander
was Otanes, son of Amestris and father of Xerxes’ wife (The Histories III:81,VII:61).
Otanes (Ú-mi-it-ta-na-na-‘) who was a prestigious Persian general (The Histories III:68,141) would have
been a supporter of democracy, which is unlikely since the Greek democrats were considered enemies. We
know that Herodotus was well informed because he was aware of a “record of the king’s benefactors” (The
72
Histories VIII:85-86), mentioned in Esther 6:1-3, however, although annals for recording the deeds of
Persian kings existed (Esther 2:23, 10:2; Diodorus II:32), Herodotus was not able to see them because he
depended mainly on biased informers (The Histories I:95). In any case, General Otanes could not have
been the father of Amestris for two reasons: Herodotus would have mentioned this dynastic link, which he
did not do (Briant: 2002, 132-135) and Amestris would have been born at least 10 years before 522 BCE111
and would have been more than 40 years old (instead of 21) at the time of his marriage in 489 BCE!
Consequently, this Otanes (Utāna “having good descendants”) was a sobriquet, not a genuine name.
The statement « It is very doubtful whether the haughty Persian aristocracy, always highly influential with
the monarch, would have tolerated the choice of a Jewish queen and a Jewish prime minister (Mordecai), to
the exclusion of their own class —not to speak of the improbability of the prime ministry of Haman the
Agagite, who preceded Mordecai » is incorrect because, according to Esther 2:10 when Xerxes married
Esther he had no idea Esther was Jewish, she was officially a Babylonian girl112, consequently coming from
a prestigious city. Regarding Haman, the son of Agag, he was not a literal son of Agag, who died around
1070 BCE, because this king of Amalek had been devoted to destruction (1Sa 15:20). In addition, the
remnant of the Amalekites disappeared (1Ch 4:43) in the time of King Hezekiah (726-697 BCE). Mordecai
refused to bow low and to prostrate himself to Haman (Est 3:1-4) because this gesture, called proskynesis
“kissing towards”, occurred: when one is of much less noble rank than the other, he falls down before him
and worships him (The Histories I:134). Thus, as the proskynesis was an act of worship113 it was exclusively
dedicated to God for a pious Jew (Dn 3:14; Rv 19:10). Agag, whose name means “furious” (Black/
George/ Postgate: 2000, 5), had become the symbol of the opponent intended to destruction, this explains
why the name of Gog in Numbers 24:7 was changed into Agag (Pap 4Q27, LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch).
In the Septuagint, Haman is referred to as Macedonian (Est 9:24), i.e. “rebellious”. Consequently, “son of
Agag (furious)” was a nickname referring to a furious opponent intended to destruction, in the same way
that “son of the Devil” meant an opponent to God (Ac 13:10) i.e. an offspring of the serpent (Gn 3:15).
The statement « Mordecai was permitted free access to his cousin in the harem » is wrong because it is
written precisely « Every day Mordecai would walk around in front of the court of the harem to learn how
Esther was and how she fared » (Est 2:11; New Revised Standard). Other so-called contradictions are of
the same ilk. Thus, contrary to what is usually said, the author's knowledge of Persian customs is in keeping
with contemporary records. For example, the amazing comment « for an edict written in the name of the
king and sealed with the king's signet ring is not possible to undo » (Est 8:8), looks fanciful but this custom
is corroborated by Diodorus Siculus (XVII:30) who relates the account of Darius III and Charidemus.
Darius in a fit of anger, condemned Charidemus to death. When his anger abated, the king repented and
tried to undo his mistake, but it was not possible because the royal edits could not be undone. The
immutability of Persian laws has already been mentioned by Herodotus (c. 440 BCE) « so they (Persian
judges) neither warped the law through fear of Cambyses » (The Histories III:31). In fact, in the Eastern
world a king had to keep his word « The king [Herod] was grieved, yet out of regard for his oaths and for
the guests, he commanded it to be given » (Mt 14:9).
In order to discredit the story of Esther some biblical scholars claim that the feast of Purim came from the
resumption of the Persian feast of the New Year addressed to the deceased ones, or the implementation of
the Babylonian feast of the New Year which was celebrating the victory of Marduk over its rivals (Bach:
1987, 1079). These allegations are absurd for the following reasons (Lang: 2005, 141-196): 1) pagan rituals
have nothing to do with the goal of Purim; 2) the feast of Purim was not celebrated at the vernal equinox,
but 15 days before; 3) after their return from Babylon (538 BCE), the Jews definitely broke with all pagan
rites (Persian or Babylonian). Consequently, the existence of the feast of Purim114, which is still celebrated
today, depends on the existence of the Book of Esther. In Esther 9:20-28 we read:
Mordecai recorded these events and sent official letters to all the Jews in all the provinces of King
Ahasuerus, both near and far. He instructed them to observe the 14th day of the month of Adar, as well as
111 For example, Phaidyme, daughter of Otanes, was the wife of Cambyses II who died in 522 BCE (The Histories III:68).
112 Esther “Ishtar (star)” was known as Babylonian as well as the name Mordecai (Mardukaya in Aramaic) was understood as
“the Mardukean” i.e. “the Babylonian”. It is noteworthy that Artaxerxes I had three Babylonian concubines (Ctesias F15§47).
113 Plutarch described how Themistocles was introduced to Artaxerxes I: Amongst our many excellent customs, this we account the best, to
honour the king and to worship him (proskynein), as the image of the god of all things. If then you (Themistocles) approve of our practices, fall down
before the king and revere him, you may both see him and speak to him; but if you think otherwise, you will need to use messengers to intercede for you,
for it is not our national custom for the king to grant audience to any man who does not pay him obeisance (...) When Themistocles was led into the
king’s presence (Artaxerxes I), he kissed the ground in front of him and waited silently (Life of Themistocles 27:1-5, 28:1).
114 Purim means “lots” (Est 3:7), it comes from the Babylonian word pûru “lot”. During the Babylonian festival of the New Year
(called Akitu), on 8 Nisan, Marduk was set free, the statues of the gods were gathered in the Destinies Hall “Ubshu-Ukkina”, to
deliberate his destiny (or lot), there it was decided to join all the forces of the gods and bestow them upon Marduk.
the 15th day, each and every year, because on those days the Jews rested from their enemies and in that
month their grief was changed to rejoicing and their mourning to a day of celebration. They were to observe
them as days of feasting and rejoicing and as a time to send portions of food to one another and gifts to the
poor. And the Jews agreed to continue the celebration that they had started and to do what Mordecai wrote
to them. For Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, had schemed against
the Jews to destroy them, and he had cast Pur, that is, the Lot, to throw them into a panic and to destroy
them. But when Esther came in before the king, he gave orders in writing: Let his evil scheme against the
Jews come back on his own head; and they hanged him and his sons on the stake. That is why they called
these days Purim, after the name of the Pur. Therefore, because of all that was written in this letter and what
they saw concerning this matter and what had come upon them, the Jews obligated themselves and their
descendants and all those joining them to celebrate these two days without fail and to carry out what was
written concerning them at the appointed time each and every year. These days were to be remembered and
observed in every generation, by each family, each province, and each city; and these days of Purim should
not cease among the Jews, and their commemoration should not come to an end among their descendants.
According to the Book of Maccabees, Purim was observed in March 161 BCE and the 14th of Adar was
called the Day of Mordecai (not Purim):
Having collected the spoils and booty, they cut off Nicanor's head and the right hand he had stretched out in
a display of insolence; these were taken and displayed within sight of Jerusalem. The people were overjoyed
and kept that day as a great holiday: indeed, they decided to celebrate it annually on the 13th of Adar (...)
He hung Nicanor's head from the Citadel, a clear and evident sign to all of the help of the Lord. They all
decreed by public vote never to let that day go by unobserved, but to celebrate the 13th day of the twelfth
month, called Adar in Aramaic, the eve of what is called the Day of Mordecai (1M 7:47-49; 2M 15:35-36).
At the end of the book of Esther, we read the Greek additions to Esther 11:1 (in 112 BCE):
And these days in the month Adar, on the 14th and on 15th of the month, will be observed by them with a
gathering and joy and rejoicing before God, from generation to generation forever among his people Israel.
In the 4th year of the reign of Ptolemy [VIII] and Kleopatra (in 112 BCE), Dositheos, who said he was a
priest and Levite, and Ptolemy his son, brought the above letter about Phrourai (Purim), which they said
existed, and Lysimachus the son of Ptolemy, one of those in Ierousalem, translated it (NETS 2007).
According to Flavius Josephus (37-100 CE), there was a festival on 13 Adar, the Day of Nicanor, just
before the feast of Purim on 14 and 15 Adar:
He led them out to fight, and joining battle with Nicanor, which proved to be a severe one, he overcame the
enemy, and slew many of them; and at last Nicanor himself, as he was fighting gloriously, fell (...) This
victory happened to fall on the 13th day of that month which by the Jews is called Adar and by the
Macedonians Dystrus; and the Jews thereon celebrate this victory every year, and esteem it as a festival day
(Jewish Antiquities XII:409-412). Now when the royal decree was come to all the country that was subject
to the king, it fell out that the Jews at Shushan slew 500 of their enemies; and when the king had told Esther
the number of those that were slain in that city, but did not well know what had been done in the provinces,
he asked her whether she would have anything further done against them, for that it should be done
accordingly: upon which she desired that the Jews might be permitted to treat their remaining enemies in the
same manner the next day; as also that they might hang the ten sons of Haman upon the gallows. So the
king permitted the Jews so to do, as desirous not to contradict Esther. So they gathered themselves together
again on the 14th day of the month Dystrus, and slew about 300 of their enemies, but touched nothing of
what riches they had. Now there were slain by the Jews that were in the country, and in the other cities,
75,000 of their enemies, and these were slain on the 13th day of the month, and the next day they kept as a
festival. In like manner the Jews that were in Shushan gathered themselves together, and feasted on the 14th
day, and that which followed it; whence it is that even now all the Jews that are in the habitable earth keep
these days festival and send portions to one another. Mordecai also wrote to the Jews that lived in the
kingdom of Artaxerxes to observe these days (14 and 15 Adar), and celebrate them as festivals, and to
deliver them down to posterity, that this festival might continue for all time to come, and that it might never
be buried in oblivion; for since they were about to be destroyed on these days by Haman, they would do a
right thing, upon escaping the danger in them, and on them inflicting punishment on their enemies, to
observe those days, and give thanks to God on them; for which cause the Jews still keep the aforementioned
days, which they call Phruraioi (Purim), and Mordecai became a great and illustrious person with the king,
and assisted him in the government of the people (Jewish Antiquities XI:289-295).
The Roll of Fasting (c. 117 CE) states that the Day of Nicanor on 13 Adar, being a festival (Lichtenstein:
1931-32, 279-280), it was forbidden to fast on this day (Megillat Taanit 18b). After the destruction of the
Temple in 70 CE, the observance of days of fasting became random. The Mishna (Taanit 2:10; Rosh
Hashana 1:3) states that there was no fasting at Purim in the month of Adar and Maimonides said « even
though the memory of the tragedies will fade, the days of Purim will not be rescinded » (Hilkhot Megillah
2:18). According to Josephus the book of Esther belonged to the Bible and was written at the time of
74
Artaxerxes (Against Apion I:37-41) and according to the Babylonian Talmud, this “parable” (Megillah 14a)
was written by the men of the Great Assembly created by Ezra (Baba Batra 14b). The Book of Esther in
Hebrew was not copied in the first century, probably to not exacerbate patriotic sentiment against the
Romans, but it was read (Perrot: 1973, 219-222) from Adar 11 to 15 (Mishna Megillah 1:1). Thus, the feast
of Purim is a historical proof of the book of Esther, in the same way as the modern celebration of the
Olympic Games proves the antic existence of these games, even if the date of its establishment in 776 BCE
is challenged. Will the truth regarding the book Esther succeed in prevailing? When I saw that many items
in the Louvre had been incorrectly dated and, still worse, some explanations were false, I decided to send a
copy of my study to Julien Cuny, Heritage curator in the Department of Oriental Antiquities, in order to
correct these erroneous data. I received his polite answer (email in French, dated 15 September 2016,
below) in which I underlined the real purpose of this institutional scholar: his responsibility is to support
the official truth and its conventional chronology115, not to find the historical truth.
Dear Sir, I thank you for your message. I read your article with all the attention it deserves and congratulate
you for this long and patient work. Nevertheless, as you know, scientific production is intense, as our work
at the museum. I therefore regret not being able to personally receive each person writing about collections
when they brought out a new study (sic). However, my colleagues and I are always happy to see the latest
work and keep us abreast of the latest hypotheses when issued. Our responsibility then is to present those
which seem most plausible, or rather to keep the caution required when a hypothesis does not seem to us
quite supported. Thank you for your interest in the Achaemenid collections of the Louvre and I wish you a
good continuation. With my best wishes,
Cuny’s concept of what “seems the most plausible”, in fact “the most consensual (like Wikipedia116)”, is
quite different from André Parrot (1901-1980) who was a French archaeologist specializing in the ancient
Near East117. He was the first director of the Louvre Museum, a position he held from 1968 to 1972. He
also directed the academic journals: Syria and Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale. Parrot was an
outstanding archaeologist whose scientific competence was universally recognized, but what is more
important, he always supported the historicity of the Bible. He wrote for example:
To understand or try to understand the religion of the patriarchs, it is therefore necessary to place them in
their context and in their time. But here and all impartial specialists really agree: life as it appears in the
narratives of Genesis devoted to them, is perfectly in line with what we know today, through other channels,
of the beginning of the 2nd millennium but imperfectly with another later period (Parrot: 1962, 11).
Since the 1980's we can see that there are no longer any academics who defend the biblical text. Historicity
of the Book of Esther according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Esther):
The blatant historical difficulties, the internal inconsistencies, the pronounced symmetry of themes and
events, the plenitude of quoted dialogue, and the gross exaggeration in the reporting of numbers (involving
time, money, and people) all point to Esther as a work of fiction, its vivid characters (except for Xerxes)
being the product of the author's creative imagination. According to some sources, it is a historical novella,
written to explain the origin of the Jewish holiday of Purim. As noted by biblical scholar Michael D.
Coogan118, the book contains specific details regarding certain subject matter (for example, Persian rule)
which are historically inaccurate. For example, Coogan discusses an apparent inaccuracy regarding the age
of Esther's cousin (or, according to others, uncle) Mordecai (...) In her article "The Book of Esther and
Ancient Storytelling", biblical scholar Adele Berlin discusses the reasoning behind scholarly concern about
the historicity of Esther. Much of this debate relates to the importance of distinguishing history and fiction
within biblical texts, as Berlin argues, in order to gain a more accurate understanding of the history of the
Israelite people. Berlin quotes a series of scholars who suggest that the author of Esther did not mean for the
book to be considered as a historical writing, but intentionally wrote it to be a historical novella. The genre
of novellas under which Esther falls was common during both the Persian and Hellenistic periods to which
scholars have dated the book of Esther (...) According to Coogan, considerable historical inaccuracies
remain throughout the text, supporting the view that the book of Esther is to be read as a historical novella
which tells a story describing historical events but is not necessarily historical fact.
115 Similarly, Peter J. Huber, a statistician, wrote a “review” of my article in NABU 2019-3 (pp. 143-147) in order to defend the
conventional chronology, but without success (Gertoux: 2019, 179).
116 According to Wikipedia (2020), the “tomb of Esther and Mordechai” would be located in Hamadan (ancient Ecbatana).
117 Conservative deputy of the national Museums (1937), he became chief curator at the Louvre (Oriental Antiquities and Islamic
Arts) in 1946, Secretary General of the excavations and archaeological missions Commission (1958).
118 Michael D. Coogan is lecturer on Hebrew Bible/Old Testament at Harvard Divinity School, Director of Publications for the
Harvard Semitic Museum, editor-in-chief of Oxford Biblical Studies Online, and professor emeritus of religious studies at
Stonehill College. Coogan was raised as Roman Catholic and for 10 years was a Jesuit. He holds a doctorate in Near Eastern
Languages and Literatures from Harvard University, 1971. In 2000, he received Stonehill's Distinguished Faculty Award in
recognition of his scholarship and teaching.
Biography
Abraham, Kathleen
2011: The Reconstruction of Jewish Communities in the Persian Empire: The Āl-Yahūdu Clay Tablets.
Alstola, Tero
2018: Judeans in Babylonia: A Study of Deportees in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries BCE (Academic dissertation).
Amandry, Pierre
1958: Orfèvrerie achéménide, in Antike Kunst I:1.
Bach, Daniel
1987: Purim, in: Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la Bible.
Barguet, Andrée
1997: Bulletin d’Histoire Achéménide (I), in: Topoi, Supplement 1.
2002: Hérodote L’enquête. Livres I à IV (collection folio classique).
Beckling, Bob
2006: “We All Returned as One!”: Critical Notes on the Myth of the Mass Return.
Bertin, Adèle
2001: The Book of Esther and Ancient Storytelling, in: Journal of Biblical Literature 120:1.
Black, Jeremy/ George, Andrew/ Postgate, Nicholas
2000: A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian.
Boiy, Tom
2001: Dating Problems in Cuneiform Tablets. JAOS 121.
Bongenaar, A. C. V. M.
1997: The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar.
Boyes, Philip J.
2012: “The King of the Sidonians”: Phoenician Ideologies and the Myth of the Kingdom of Tyre-Sidon, in: BASOR 365.
Bresciani, Edda
1995: L'Égypte des satrapes d'après la documentation araméenne et égyptienne.
Briant, Pierre
1992: Darius. Les Perses et l’Empire
1996: Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre.
2002: From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire.
Brosius, Maria
2010: The Royal Audience Scene Reconsidered in: The World of Achaemenid Persia.
Cameron, George
1941: Darius and Xerxes in Babylonia, in: AJSL 58.
1948: Persepolis Treasury Tablets, in: OIP 65
1965. New Tablets from the Persepolis Treasury, in: JNES 24, 186.
Carter, Charles E.
1999: The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study
Charles, Jones E./ Stolper, Matthew W.
2006: Fortification Texts Sold at the Auction of the Erlenmeyer Collection in: Arta vol. 1.
Charles, Michael
2015: The Chiliarchs of Achaemenid Persia: Towards a Revised Understanding of the Office, in: Phoenix 69:3/4.
Clay, Albert T.
1908: Legal and Commercial Transactions Dated in the Assyrian and Persian Periods. The Babylonian Expedition vol. VIII.
Curtis, John/ Tallis, Nigel
2005: Forgotten Empire. The world of Ancient Persia.
Curtis, John E/ Cowell, M.R. / Walker, C.B.F.
1995: A Silver Bowl of Artaxerxes I, in: Iran Vol. 33.
Czichon, Rainer-Maria
1992: Die Gestaltungsprinzipien der neuassyrischen Flachbildkunst (= MVS 13).
Dandamayev, Muhammad A.
1989: A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire.
1992: Iranians in Achaemenid Babylonia, in: Columbia Lectures on Iranian Studies 6.
Démare-Lafont, Sophie
2010: Les prébendes dans la Mésopotamie du Ier millénaire avant J.-C.
76
De Miroschedji, Pierre
2005: Les archéologues réécrivent la Bible in: La Recherche n°391.
Depuydt, Leo
1995: The Date of Death of Artaxerxes I. WO 26.
1996: Contrats babyloniens d'époque achéménide du Bît-Abî Râm avec une épigraphie araméenne, in: RA 90.
Dever, Williams G.
2003: Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?
Dougherty, Raymond P.
1923: Archives from Erech Time of Nebuchadrezzar and Nabonidus
Edelman, Diana Vikander
2014: The Origins of the Second Temple: Persion Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem.
Dušek, Jan
2007: Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450-332 av. J.-C.
Elayi, Alain G./ Blet-Lemarquand, M./ Elayi, J./ Duval, F.
2012: Analyses of the Composition of the Coinage of Arwad (5th-4th cent. BC), in: Transeuphratène 42.
Elayi, Alain G./ Elayi, Josette
1992: Nouvelle datation d'une tombe achéménide à Suse in: Studia Iranica 21:2.
2015: Arwad, cité phénicienne du nord, in Transeuphratène Supplément n°19.
Elayi, Josette
1994: La diffusion des monnaies phéniciennes en Palestine in: La Palestine à l’époque.
2006: An Updated Chronology of the Reigns of Phoenician Kings during the Persian Period, in: Transeuphratène 32.
Eng, Milton
2011: The Days of Ours Years: A Lexical Semantic Study of the Life Cycle in the Biblical Israel.
Everling, János
2013: Materials for the Study of First Millennium B.C. Babylonian Texts. Vol 1. in: Specimina Electronica Antiquitatis -Libri 3.
Farkas, Ann
1974: Achaemenid Sculpture Istanbul.
Figulla, Hugo
1949. Business Documents of the New-Babylonian Period.
Finkelstein, Israel
2005: Le grand roi? Rien qu'un potentat local in: Historia n°698 (février).
Finkelstein, Israel/ Silberman, Neil A.
2002: La Bible dévoilée
Fried, Lisbeth S.
2003: A Governor of Byblos from Sippar, in: NABU 2003-2.
Gansell, Amy Rebecca
2018: Dressing the Neo-Assyrian Queen in Identity and Ideology: Elements and Ensembles from the Royal Tombs at Nimrud,
in: American Journal of Archaeology 122: 1
Garrison, Mark B./ Cool Root, Margaret/ Jones, Charles E.
2001: Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets Vol. I, in: OIP 117.
Gertoux, Gérard
2002: The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah. Its Story.
2018: Dating the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, in: Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 40.
2019: Dating the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, in: NABU 2019-4.
Grabbe, Lester L.
2004: A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period (vol. 1):
Graziani, Sara
1986: I testi Mesopotamici datati al regno di Serse (485-465 a.c.), in: Annali 46 sup. 47
Grelot, Pierre
1972: Documents araméens d’Égypte. Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°5.
Hacham, Noah
2012: Bigthan and Teresh and the Reason Gentiles Hate Jews in: Vetus Testamentum 62.
Hallock, Richard T.
1969: Persepolis Fortification Tablets, in: OIP 92.
Harper, Prudence O./ Aruz, Joan/ Tallon, Françoise
1992: The Royal City of Susa.
Henkelman, Wouter F.M.
2000: De Novis Libris Iudicia in: Mnemosyne Vol LIII:4.
2003: An Elamite Memorial: the šumar of Cambyses and Hystaspes, in: Achemenid History XIII.
2010: Xerxes, Atossa, and the Persepolis Fortification Archive, in Annual Report 2010.
2010a: “Consumed before the King” The Table of Darius, that of Irdabama and Irtaštuna, and that of his Satrap, Karkiš, in: Der
Achämenidenhof/ The Achaemenid Court.
Herzfeld, Ernst
1932: A New Inscription of Xerxes From Persepolis. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations n°5.
Horowitz, Wayne
1995: An Astronomical Fragment from Columbia University and the Babylonian Revolts against Xerxes, in: JANES 23.
Hrouda, Barthel
1965: Die Kulturgeschichte des assyrischen Flachbildes (= SBA 2).
Hunger, Hermann
2001: Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V.
Joannès, Francis
1990: Pouvoirs locaux et organisations du territoire en Babylonie achéménide in: Transeuphratène.
2002: La Mésopotamie au 1er millénaire avant J.-C.
Joannès, Francis/ Lemaire, André
1996: Contrats babyloniens d'époque achéménide du Bît-abî-râm avec une épigraphe araméenne, in: RAAO 90:1
Jursa, Michael
1999: Das Archiv des Bēl-Rēmanni (= PIHANS 86).
2007: The Transition of Babylonian from the Neo-Babylonian Empire to Achaemenid Rule.
Jursa, Michael/ Schmidl, Martina
2014: Babylonia as a Source of Imperial Revenue from Cyrus to Xerxes, in: Imperium & Officium.
Jursa, Michael/ Stolper, Matthew W.
2007: From the Tattannu Archive Fragment in: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 97.
Kahn, Daniel
2008: Inaros’ Rebellion and the Athenian Disaster in Egypt in: Classical Quarterly 58:2.
Kaper, Olaf E.
2015: Petubastis IV in the Dakhla Oasis: New Evidence about an Early Rebellion against Persian Rule and Its Suppression in
Political Memory, in: Political memory in and after the Persian Empire.
Krückmann, Oluf
1933: Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungstexte, in: Texte und materialien der Frau prof. Hilprecht collection of
Babylonian antiquities II-III.
Kugler, Franz
1907 / 1912: Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel 11.
Kuhrt, Amélie
2010: The Persian Empire. A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period.
2014: Reassessing the Reign of Xerxes in the Light of New Evidence, in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 68.
Lang, Andrew
2005: Magic and Religion.
Lecoq, Pierre
1997: Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide.
Leichty, Erle
1974: XXX
Lemaire, André
1994: Histoire de la Palestine à l’époque perse in: La Palestine à l’époque perse.
2017: Unité et diversité des judéens à l’époque achéménide d’après les données épigraphiques, in: Transeuphratènes 49.
Lenfant, Dominique
2004: Ctésias de Cnide, la Perse.
2009: Les Histoires perses de Dinon et d'Héraclide, in Persika 13.
Lerner, Judith A.
2010: An Achaemenid Cylinder of a Woman enthroned in: The World of Achaemenid Persia
Levy, David
1995: Skywatching. The ultimate guide to the Universe.
Lewis, David
1977: Sparta and Persia.
78
Lichtenstein, Hans
1931-32: Die Fastenrolle eine Untersuchung zur Jüdisch-Hellenistishen Geschichte, in: HUCA.
Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd
2013: King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 BCE
MacGinnis, John
1995: Letter Orders from Sippar and the Administration of the Ebabbara in the Late-Babylonian Period.
2008: A Judgment of Darius the King, in: JCS 60.
Maltiel-Gerstenfeld Jacob
1982: 260 years of Ancient Jewish Coins.
Markoe, Glenn E.
2000: Phoenicians.
Marsman, Hennie J.
2003: Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East.
Millard, Andrew R.
1977: The Persian Names in Esther and the Reliability of the Hebrew Text in: JBL 96:4
Moore, Carey A.
1971: Esther. The Anchor Bible.
Nichols, Andrew
2008: The complete Fragments of Ctesias of Cnidus: Translation and Commentary with an Introduction (PhD).
Olbrycht, Marek Jan
2014: The Diadem in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic Periods, in: Anabasis 5.
Paul, Bernard/ Hajime, Inagaki
2000: Un torque achéménide avec une inscription grecque au musée Miho, in: CRAIB 144:4.
Perrot, Charles
1973: La lecture de la Bible. Les anciennes lectures palestiniennes du Shabbat et des fêtes.
Petit, Thierry
1990: Satrapes et satrapies dans l'empire achéménide de Cyrus le Grand à Xerxès Ier.
Pinches, Theophilus G.
1904: Notes upon a Small Collection of Tablets from the Birs Nimroud Belonging to Lord Amherst of Hackney in:
Verhandlungen des XIII Internationalen Orientalischen-Kongresses.
2004: The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia.
Parrot, André
1962: Abraham et son temps.
Porten, Bezalel et al
1996: The Elephantine Papyri in English.
Qahéri, Sépideh
2012: Fragments de vaisselle inscrite en égyptien conservés au Musée national d’Iran (Irân-e-Bâstân) – Téhéran, in: BIFAO 112.
Qahéri, Sépideh / Trehuedic, Kevin
2017: Premier alabastron d’époque perse à inscription araméenne, in: Arta 2017.002.
Reade, Julian E.
2009: Fez, Diadem, Turban, Chaplet: Power-dressing at the Assyrian Court, in: Studia Orientalia vol. 106.
Ronen, Yigal
1998: Persian and Early Ptolemaic Period, in: Near Eastern Archaeology 61:2.
Rollinger, Robert
1999: Xerxes und Babylon. NABU 1.
Rossi, Adriano
2012: Building Chronology and Epigraphic Chronology at Persepolis.
Russel, John Malcolm
2013: The Reign of Nîrârî III.
Sader, Hélène
2019: The History and Archaeology of Phoenicia.
Scaligeri, Josephi
1658: Thesaurus Temporum Eusebii Pamphili Cesareae, Chronicorum Canonum: Joannem Janssonium.
Shapur Shabhazi, Alizera
2004: The Authoritative Guide to Persepolis.
Shayegan, Rahim
2011: Arsacids and Sasanians: Political Ideology in Post-Hellenistic and Late Antique Persia.
Shea, Williams
1987: Esther and History in: Concordia Journal of July.
Shea, William /Van Wyk, Koot
2008: Persian Names in the Book of Esther and Cuneiform Texts, in: Sahmyook Theological Review 16.
Shepherd, Dorothy G.
1961: An Achaemenid Sculpture in Lapis Lazuli, in: The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 48:2.
Siddall, Luis Robert
2013: The Reign of Adad-nīrārī III.
Siljanen, Esko
2017: Judeans of Egypt in the Persian period (539-332 BCE) in light of the Aramaic Documents (Academic dissertation).
Silverman, Jason M.
2020: Persian Royal–Judaean Elite Engagements in the Early Teispid and Achaemenid Empire: The King's Acolytes
Soubigou, Louis
1949: Esther, introduction. Valeur historique in: La Sainte Bible L. Pirot, A. Clamer Tome IV.
Spawforth, Anthony J.S.
2007: The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies
Steve, Marie-Joseph/ Vallat, François/ Gasche Hermann
2003: Suse in: Supplément au dictionnaire de la Bible fas. 73.
Stern, Sacha
2000: The Babylonian Calendar at Elephantine, ZPE 130.
Stigers, Harold
1976: Art 2. XIIb.11.40, in: JCS 28.
Stolper, Matthew W.
1983: The Death of Artaxerxes I, in: AMIT 16.
1985: Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murashu Archive.
1988: The Evidence of Cuneiform Texts for the date of Xerxes' Death, in: JHS 108.
1989: The Governor of Babylon and Across-the-River in 486 B.C. in: JNES 48:4.
1992: The Estate of Mardonius, AulaOr. 10 (2).
1996: A Paper Chase after the Aramaic on TCL 13 193, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 116:3
1999: Late Achaemenid Babylonian Chronology, NABU 6.
2001: "Fifth-Century Nippur: Texts of the Murasus from their Surroundings", JCS 53.
Svärd, Svärd/ Luukko, Mikko
2015: Who Were the "Ladies of the House" in the Assyrian Empire?, in: Studia Orientalia Electronica 106.
Swerdlow, Noel
1998: The Babylonian Theory of the Planets.
Tavernier, Jan
2007: Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.): Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names.
2014: Some thoughts on the ustarbaru in: SAOC 68.
Tolini, Gauthier
2014: Les sanctuaires de Babylonie à l’époque achéménide. Entre légitimation, soumission et révoltes, in: Topoi 19:1.
Ungnad, Arthur
1959-1960: Neubabylonische Privaturkunden aus der Sammlung Amherst, in: Archiv für Orientforschung 19.
Tuplin, Christopher
2007: Persian Responses: Political and Cultural Interaction with(in) the Achaemenid Empire.
Vallat, François
2003: Les religions à Suse in: Supplément au dictionnaire de la Bible fas. 74.
Van der Spek, Robartus Johannes
2014: Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations, in: Studies
in Ancient Oriental Civilization 68.
Vasseghi, Sheda
2008: Understanding Royal Women in Ancient Persia: Queen Parysatis. PhD thesis (July 22).
Waerzeggers, Caroline
2003/2004: The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes and the ‘End of Archives’, AfO 50.
2015: Review Article: Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia
80
Wescher, Carle
1868: Fragments inédits de l'historien grec Aristodème recueillis et publiés par C. Wescher, in: Revue Archéologique, Nouvelle Série 17
Wicks, Yasmina
2012: Bronze “Bathtub” Coffins in the Context of 8th-6th Century B.C.E. Babylonian, Assyrian and Elamite Funerary Practices
(PhD Dissertation).
Williamson, Hugh G.M.
2004: Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography.
Yamauchi, Edwin Masao
1992: Mordecai, the Persepolis Tablets, and the Susa Excavations, in: Vetus Testamentum 42:2.
2003: The Eastern Jewish Diaspora under the Babylonians in: Mesopotamia and the Bible.
Zadok, Ran
2004: Old Iranian anthroponyms and related material in late Babylonian sources in: RA 98.
Zawadzki, Stefan
1994: Bardiya, Darius and Babylonian Usurpers in the Light of the Bisitun Inscription, AMIT 27.
Zlotnik, Yehoshua
2009: Coin minting in Eretz Israel during the Persian period-does it reflect various political situation?

Wife_of_Xerxes_and_mother_of_Artaxerxes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wife_of_Xerxes_and_mother_of_Artaxerxes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wife of Xerxes and mother

of Artaxerxes I: Queen Esther

INVESTIGATING THE BOOK OF ESTHER

tribute, the translation “forced labour” is more appropriate.

BCE month regnal year King

Ruler of Babylon Period Babylonia as: Title

13Bēl-apla-iddin (522?-517?), Nabû-šuma-ukīn (517?-510?), Iddin-Nergal (510?-505?), Baga-pana (505?-500), Ina-Esagil-lilbur

BCE month [A] [B] King according to the Nabonidus Chronicle

Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River (Satrapy)

BCE City King BCE

the year 2 to the year 20 [of Xerxes].

IDENTIFYING QUEEN ESTHER /AMESTRIS

Cylinder seal C16496 Cylinder seal AO 22359

Cylinder seal Abb. 165 Scaraboid gem Gold finger-ring

The Histories of Herodotus Book of Esther

Principal routes of Achaemenid Empire

BCE month Egy. Persian Ruler

to Bêlu-lû-balâṭ (815-810), the governor of Baliḫu, it imposes the choice of Semiramis.

BCE month Persian Ruler

Palace of Darius I in Susa

The Achaemenid tomb was facing an altar which

Relief depicting a Persian cupbearer Princeton University Art Museum y1949-115

Necklace Louvre Sb 2763 Pair of buttons Louvre Sb 2766

Gold bracelet Louvre Sb 2761 Earrings Louvre Sb 2764, Sb 2765

Louvre Sb 524 (anonymous) British Museum ANE 132114 (Xerxes)

Gold torque Louvre Sb 2760

This kind of torque is composed of two rigid parts: a cylindrical

Louvre Sb 19362, Sb 19363 British Museum ANE 134761

THE HISTORICITY OF ESTHER IS DENIED, WHY?

You might also like