The Nassouhi Prism

Introduction

The Nassouhi Prism is not a new discovery but it presents a problem of interpretation and historical reconstruction to Persian scholars. In an earlier article the prism was cited as evidence of the use of the name “Cyrus” in connection with the royal house of Anshan as early as 646.[1] The point of this article is to add an historical reconstruction for the prism.

The Nassouhi Prism

The name “Cyrus” is typically Elamite/Persian (Kūrush) and it may be a given name or a throne name for rulers in Anshan/Parsumash at least as early as 646. A text, from the thirtieth year (646) of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, has Kūrush paying tribute through his first-born son, Arukku.

The Nassouhi Prism is an Akkadian clay prism, originating from Babylon and reads:

(When) Kurash, king of Parsumash, heard of the mighty victory, which I had inflicted on Elam with the help of Ashur, Bel, Nabu and the great gods, my lords, (and that) I had overwhelmed the whole of Elam like a flood, he sent Arukku, his eldest son, together with his tribute, as hostage to Nineveh, my lordly city, and implored my lordship.[2]

The identification of this Kūrush is disputed, with some scholars willing to equate him with Cyrus I, while others regard 646 as too early for Cyrus I to be the ruler of Anshan/Parsumash, who is given dates like 620-590 or 640-600.[3]

If 646 is indeed too early for Cyrus I, our suggestion would be that “Kūrush” is a given name for Teispes[4] (675-640), the father of Cyrus I, and Arukku a given name for Cyrus I or an older son that did not succeed in the dynasty. Persian scholars have not made this proposal, partly because they have adopted consensus views about Second Isaiah and his prophetic mention of Cyrus II.[5] If we instead take Isa 44:28/45:1 to be from Isaiah of Jerusalem, this changes the possibilities for the history in question.

In order to avoid an equation between the Kūrush of the Nassouhi Prism and Cyrus I, scholars hypothesize about the existence of another otherwise unknown region with a similar name of “Parsumash” (further north).[6]  Their reconstruction is that the Nassouhi Prism is about the ruler of this region rather than the well documented Anshan/Parsumash in the south. However, if we factor in the evidence of Isaiah (see below), then we have two texts that give witness to a “Cyrus” of Anshan/Parsumash, one from 700 and one from 646.

The chronology of the early Achaemenids is uncertain and texts are scarce before Cyrus II,[7] and so an equation between Teispes and the Kūrush of the Nassouhi Prism cannot be proven or disproven, especially if the texts from Isaiah are discounted. If we factor in Isaiah’s evidence—that he had a historical reason to nominate a Cyrus—then an equation between Teispes and Kūrush becomes a distinct possibility. If Teispes began his reign in 675 at age 40, then he might be a young prince in 700, age 15. We know that the party of Babylonian envoys included princes and it is possible Teispes was a member of the party learning the diplomatic trade. If we change the dates of Teispes’ reign, the age we hypothesize for him in 700 can also change.

The practise of taking throne names upon accession was widespread in the Ancient Near East. Although it might be thought that “Cyrus I” and “Cyrus II” indicates that “Cyrus” is a throne name, this cannot be proved. If we equate Teispes and the Kūrush of the Nassouhi Prism, Kūrush would be one of his given names. A. Kuhrt notes that “Kūrush” is now thought to be an Elamite name,[8] meaning “He who bestows care” or “He gives fortune”. The Nassouhi Prism is anti-Elamite insofar as it celebrates victory over the Elamites; the selection of “Kūrush” as Teispes’ given name in the prism could be part of this anti-Elamite propaganda. This is our proposal for the historical reconstruction of the prism.

We have noted that scholars are unwilling to equate Cyrus I with the Kūrush of the Nassouhi Prism. If instead, we make the equation with Teispes, the name of his eldest son, “Arukku”, would be the given name of Cyrus I, and this would then be evidence for “Cyrus” being a throne name, so adopted in deference to his father Teispes (and Isaiah’s prophecy given in Teispes’ presence?). The throne name was then continued in the grandson, Cyrus II.

Conclusion

Our conclusion remains the same as in our earlier article: In 700, the Achaemenid dynasty was just beginning with Achaemenes, and the region of Anshan would have been perceived as an active part of the Elamite Empire, traditional enemies of Assyria and traditional allies to Babylon. The house would have been perceived in terms of the minor nobility of Elam, the junior governing partner in the Elamite alliance.[9] It is not implausible to suppose that Isaiah would have nominated a future liberator from Assyrian dominance nominating a prince of this region especially if the royal prince was a member of the party of envoys. In this case, Isa 44:28/45:1 is primary evidence for “Cyrus” being a given name of Teispes (or even Achaemenes if we want to canvass all possibilities).

An Elamite-focused prophecy nominating a Persian prince is an inspired, historically plausible, prognostication by Isaiah in 700. It works because the prince is representative of the Achaemenid dynasty and the eventual succession of kings named “Cyrus”.

[1] A. Perry, “Naming Cyrus” CeJBI Annual 2008, 68-73.

[2] A. Kuhrt, The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period (London: Routledge, 2007), 53.

[3] On this see M. Brosius, The Persians (London: Routledge, 2006), 7; E. M. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 71; Kuhrt, The Persian Empire, 54.

[4] It is significant that Cyrus II lists the dynasty from Teispes in the Cyrus Cylinder which has a number of echoes with Isa 45:1—ANET, 316.

[5] See Kuhrt’s treatment in The Persian Empire, 84.

[6] Kuhrt, The Persian Empire, 54.

[7] Kuhrt, The Persian Empire, 47-48.

[8] Kuhrt, The Persian Empire, 48. Compare the older view in Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 72.

[9] Brosius, The Persians, 6.