Darius the Great's Suez Inscriptions: Birth Certificate of the Silk Roads

Суэцкие надписи Дария Великого: Свидетельство о рождении Шелкового пути

Suez-Inschriften von Darius dem Großen: Geburtsurkunde der Seidenstraßen

Büyük Darius'un Süveyş Yazıtları: İpek Yollarının Doğum Sertifikası

大流士的銘文-埃及蘇伊士: 絲綢之路的開端

کتیبه های داریوش بزرگ - سوئز ، مصر: آغاز راه های ابریشم

Prof. Muhammet Şemsettin Gözübüyükoğlu

شمستتين گوزوبیوکوغلو استاد

Профессор Шемсеттин Гёзюбююк оглу

穆罕默德舍姆塞丁教授 。大眼睛的人

Introduction

The Historical Silk Road is an entire, complex system of commercial routes across lands, deserts and seas. Silk was only one of the numerous products that were transported from east to west, from north to south, and vice versa. It would therefore be more accurate to call this historical commercial network "silk, spice and frankincense trade routes across lands, deserts and seas".

In reality, this commercial network was never launched all at once; in fact, it consists in the merge of several earlier regional trade routes that had existed for millennia. This merge occurred at the times of the Achaemenid Empire of Iran and after the early conquests by Cyrus the Great (559-530 BCE) and Cambyses (530-522). To great extent, the merge of the earlier, regional trade routes is due to the unmatched, royal administrative genius of Darius I the Great (522-486), who expanded the empire more than his predecessors.

Darius the Great contributed more than any other king and emperor to the emergence of the complex and vast commercial network that linked Cyrenaica and Egypt with Central Asia, the Balkans with India, Siberia with Somalia, the Mediterranean Sea with the Indian Ocean, and Aramaean Syria - Phoenicia with China. Even more importantly, Darius the Great's contribution to the emergence of the east-west trade network is twofold: a) the establishment of the Royal Iranian Road and b) the circumnavigation of the Arabian Peninsula and the direct maritime connection of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea with the Persian Gulf.

I. Royal Achaemenid Road

First, Darius the Great established the Royal Achaemenid Road (ca. 515-510 BCE) as a militarily controlled, central transportation and communication system across the vast Iranian Empire; the 2700 km long royal road linked Susa (in today's SW Iran) with Sardis (near the western coast of today's Turkey), and the Achaemenid administration ensured that the royal couriers made the journey in just 9 days – a worldwide first. Well-functioning military posts enabled the work to be done in shifts. As a matter of fact, the Royal Road was the central part of a road network that interconnected all parts of the empire, making it therefore possible for someone to move from today's Macedonia and Libya to today's India and China within the borders of only one state; this was the first time in World History for this to happen.

About:

https://www.livius.org/articles/person/darius-the-great/6-organizing-the-empire/

https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/royal-road/

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/achaemenids/royal_road.php

https://web.archive.org/web/20140216182845/http://riversfromeden.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/the-persian-royal-mail/

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/darius-iii

The five Pharaonic names of Darius I and their variants:

Extra Reading:

Economics. International commerce expanded greatly in Achaemenid times, stimulated particularly by the introduction of fixed weights and measures and, above all, of a settled monetary system (see above). In all subjugated countries throughout the empire advantageous conditions for economic development were created. The imperial administration had to cope, in particular, with the immense distances. To facilitate communication between the different parts of the empire and especially with its capitals, Darius ordered a number of roads to be built, which connected Susa and Babylon with the provincial capitals and made possible a rapid transport of (trade) caravans, post troops, and the king’s inspectors. The best known of these is the so-called “Royal Road” (described by Herodotus 5.52-54) from Susa to Sardis (later extended to Ephesus) through Assyria, Armenia, Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Phrygia and crossing the rivers Tigris, Euphrates, and Halys. In all, its length was 450 parasangs (see below) or 13,500 stades (i.e., about 2,600 km; Herodotus 5.53), and it was furnished with 111 royal post-stations (stathmoí) with the best quarters (ibid. 5.52.6). There were other (and in part older) roads—natural caravan routes as well as artificial “all-weather roads”—e.g., from Babylon via Susa to Persepolis, from Babylon through the Zagros Mountains and via Ecbatana to Bactria and India, or from Issus across Asia Minor to Sinope on the Euxine coast.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/achaemenid-dynasty

II. Reopening of the old Suez Canal

Second, Darius the Great reopened the old Suez Canal (also known as the Canal of the Pharaohs), which linked the easternmost ('Bubastite': near the city of Bubastis, known as Per Bastet in Ancient Egyptian) branch of the Nile (in the Antiquity the Delta was traversed by four, not two, branches of the river), through Wadi Tumilat, with the Timsah Lake; thence through various river expanses, boats and fleets could reach the Red Sea.

About the topography:

http://isida-project.org/egypt_december_2013/bubastis.htm (in Russian)

https://web.archive.org/web/20131030134954/http://ees.ac.uk/research/Tell%20Basta.html

http://www.gitta-warnemuende.de/tellbasta/project.htm (in German)

https://project-min.de/home/english/zagazig_en.html

www.geocurrents.info/geonotes/egypts-storied-wadi-tumilat

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Тимсах

http://fishconsult.org/?p=9620 (video)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Timsah

It is noteworthy that this route from the Delta region to the Gulf of Suez and the Red Sea seems to have been the historical path of the Biblical Exodus. The origin of the old Suez Canal is thought to be remote and to possibly date back to the Middle Egyptian Kingdom (ca. 2050-1710 BCE), and more particularly Pharaoh Senusret (Sesostris) III (1878-1839). Ancient Egyptian fleet navigation to Punt (today's Somalia) definitely involved sailing along the Nile, through the old Suez Canal, and down the Red Sea to the Horn of Africa (and the Ras Hafun (Somali: Ras Xaafuun) region more particularly). The earliest mention of Punt dates exactly back to the times of the Middle Egyptian Kingdom, and this shows that some preparatory work had already been done, because in the Classical Egyptian Antiquity only small military outposts were positioned in the otherwise small Red Sea harbors of Egypt.

It is also believed that in periods of turmoil and decay, when the commercial relations were severed and Egypt was split into two or more countries, the old Suez Canal was abandoned and then wind storms filled parts of it with sand, therefore making the navigation impossible. Most probably, Nechao II (610-595) reopened the old Suez Canal, and the Phoenician fleet, commissioned by the Pharaoh, sailed through the canal in order to effectuate the circumnavigation of Africa.

About:

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/herodotus/herodotus-on-the-first-circumnavigation-of-africa/

https://labrujulaverde.com/en/2018/11/the-egyptian-phoenician-expedition-that-circumnavigated-africa-more-than-2500-years-ago/

But again Egypt's decadence during the 6th c. BCE and the inaptitude of the successors of Nechao II (the 26th, so-called Libyan dynasty) left the old Suez Canal in desuetude. Cambyses invaded Egypt, Cyrenaica and the Sudan (historically known as 'Ethiopia' in contrast with modern, Fake Ethiopia), but Darius the Great organized and administered the vast territory of his empire in a most efficient manner.

The reopening of the Suez Canal played an outstanding role in the interconnection of the provinces of vast Achaemenid Empire. Products, tributes, merchandises and all sorts of valuable items from satrap's reports to confidential messages could be dispatched by sea from Egypt and Cyrenaica to Fars (Persia), the central province of Iran, where the imperial capital was located at Parsa (Persepolis), 60 km north of today's Shiraz. As the Iranian Empire's expansion was a relatively new phenomenon and it was materialized basically through the conquest of the Nabonid Empire of Babylonia, the imperial rule was unstable in Southern Mesopotamia where the outright majority of the population was Babylonian. Imperial garrisons, military couriers, tasked courtiers, administrative dispatches, and Aramaean caravans could easily fall in ambush while crossing the region. On the contrary, every type of communication and transportation from Egypt to Fars (Persia) would be safe, if the Achaemenid fleet sailed around the Arabian Peninsula from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf. And in his stelae erected alongside the reopened canal, Darius I stated exactly that!

About:

https://www.academia.edu/4359888/Darius_Suez_canal_and_Persian_imperialism

https://www.academia.edu/4359893/Darius_Suez_canal_and_Persian_imperialism_Bibliography

Extra Reading:

Trade was further stimulated by completion of the ancient Suez Canal, which connected the Mediterranean with the Red Sea and thus made possible direct contact from the western to the eastern borders of the empire. The canal was already planned by the Egyptian pharaoh Nekho but was finished by Darius (cf. Herodotus 2.158; Strabo 17.1.25; and particularly Darius’ stelae with quadrilingual inscriptions found near the ancient canal, among them DZc; see also G. Posener, La première domination perse en Ēgypte, Cairo, 1936). It led from the Nile (at Bubastis) through the Wadi Tumilat and through (or along?) the Bitter Lakes to the Red Sea (at Suez), was broad enough for two triremes sailing side by side, and could be passed through in four days (Herodotus 2.158.1). With both a thirst for geographical knowledge and interest in a long-sighted trade policy (i.e., a search for new markets and new natural resources), Darius sponsored expeditions such as that of Scylax of Caryanda (Caria), who discovered the mouth of the Indus (i.e., the sea-route thither from the Persian Gulf) and its navigability (Herodotus 4.44). His description of this expedition in his Periplūs brought the first information about India to the occident. Other Greeks were similarly active in the Achaemenid empire; e.g., Democedes of Croton and Ctesias of Cnidus practiced medicine at the court of Darius I and Artaxerxes II respectively.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/achaemenid-dynasty

III. Darius the Great's old Suez Canal Inscriptions

The imperial inscriptions are texts written on five stelae erected by the Iranian imperial authorities in order to commemorate the reopening of the old Suez Canal. The quadrilingual inscriptions are in cuneiform Old Achaemenid Iranian, Babylonian and Elamite on one side and in Egyptian hieroglyphics on the other side. The best preserved among them is the pink granite stele, which is known as Shaluf (or Chalouf) Stele. It was discovered in the said locality, near el Kabret, ca. 30 km north of Suez. See the location here:

https://geographic.org/geographic_names/name.php?uni=-453021&fid=1597&c=egypt

Charles de Lesseps, son of Ferdinand de Lesseps, tasked with the administration of the Suez Canal, found the Shaluf Stele in 1866. The upper part of the stele is decorated with two reliefs of Darius I protecting with his hands the Egyptian Pharaonic cartouches that contain his name written in Old Achaemenid cuneiform – not in Egyptian hieroglyphics, which is a unique case. In Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions, the Egyptian Pharaonic names of Darius the Great are his five Egyptian names – not his Persian name Dârayavauš (Darayavaush).

So, in reality, in the cuneiform inscriptions of the Shaluf Stele, Darius I accepts the then 2500-year old Egyptian tradition of writing imperial names only within cartouches and makes it his. His scribes wrote the name of their emperor in his own native language and placed it within an Egyptian cartouche. This practice was never repeated again – neither under the Macedonians, nor under the Romans. The royal names of Alexander the Great, of the Ptolemies and of the Roman Emperors were written only in Egyptian hieroglyphics within cartouches; and only in the Greek or Latin versions of the texts were written in Greek or Latin.

In the Shaluf Stele, Darius I is depicted as standing under the auspices (wings) of Ahura Mazda. To his right and left, other inscriptions are engraved containing his entire imperial titulature. And under his feet is engraved the long inscription that details the reopening of the old Suez Canal in Old Achaemenid and Elamite. The verso (reverse) of the stele bears the same inscription (with few extra details) in Egyptian hieroglyphics.

IV. Darius the Great's royal titulature

Darius' royal titulature (known as Achamenid inscription DZb) is written in 6 lines, being herewith transliterated in Latin characters:

1. Dârayavauš \ XŠ \ vazraka

2. \ XŠ : XŠyânâm \ XŠ \ dahy \

3. ûnâm \ XŠ \ ahyâyâ \

4. bumiyâ \ vazrakâyâ \

5. Vištâspahyâ \ pu

6. ça\ Haxâmanišiya

The English translation reads:

Darius the great king, king of kings, king of all nations, king in this great earth, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid

As in all other cases of imperial Achaemenid inscriptions, the Iranian Emperor imitates the Universalist (or ecumenist / ecumenical) imperial tradition of the Assyrians and the Babylonians. However, the claims are more modest and the tone is lower than in the earlier Mesopotamian Empires where the title of 'emperor' was literally 'king of the universe' (Ass. – Bab. Šar Kiššati) or 'king of the four corners (of the universe)' (Ass. – Bab. šar kibrāt erbetti). Only Cyrus the Great, among all Achaemenid Iranian Emperors, used these terms, but this is quite understandable; he had to justify his conquest of Babylon, posturing as a servant of Marduk and as the result of Marduk's wrath against Nabunaid's tyranny. In order to please the Babylonians and to demonstrate to them that he was 'their' emperor, Cyrus the Great used the traditional Mesopotamian Universalist titulature, encompassing the entire universe as his own realm, which was given to him by Marduk.

About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_Universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_Four_Corners

(there is vast textual evidence and immense Assyriological bibliography in this regard)

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/

The titulature cannot be a long inscription; so, it was impossible for Darius the Great's scribes to enumerate in the Shaluf Stele inscription the nations that the Iranian Emperor claimed to rule over. The term 'king of nations' (bumiyâ vazrakâyâ) apparently refers to the nations enumerated as subject peoples of the Empire in other, longer, inscriptions like those of Naqsh-e Rustam, 7 km west of Persepolis.

As per the Naqsh-e Rustam inscriptions, the subject nations of Darius I were the following (I include the inscription's introductory lines too):

By the favor of Ahuramazda these are the countries which I seized outside of Persia; I ruled over them; they bore tribute to me; they did what was said to them by me; they held my law firmly; Media, Elam, Parthia, Aria, Bactria, Sogdia, Chorasmia, Drangiana, Arachosia, Sattagydia, Gandara, India, the haoma-drinking Scythians, the Scythians with pointed caps, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, Armenia, Cappadocia, Lydia, the Greeks, the Scythians across the sea, Thrace, the sun hat-wearing Greeks, the Libyans, the Nubians, the men of Maka and the Carians.

V. Darius the Great's old Suez Canal Inscription: the main text

Darius' main part of the inscription (known as Achamenid inscription DZc) contains 12 lines and constitutes a brief, yet complete presentation of his spirituality, world view, moral philosophy, civilized imperial order, and a very clear explanation of the reasons that led him to the reopening of the old Suez Canal, which is termed as 'digging'. This suggests that the historical canal that linked the Delta region with the Gulf of Suez had been disastrously abandoned for some decades at least and thus filled with sand.

The text is herewith divided into two sections and transliterated in Latin characters:

1. baga \ vazraka \ Auramazdâ \ hya \ avam \ asmânam \ adâ \ hya \ imâm \ bum

2. im \ adâ \ hya \ martiyam \ adâ \ hya \ šiyâtim \ adâ \ martiyahy

3. â \ hya \ Dârayavaum \ XŠyam \ akunauš \ hya \ Dârayavahauš \ XŠyâ \xšaça

4. m \ frâbara \ tya \ vazrakam \ tya \ uvaspam \ umartiyam \ adam \ Dârayavauš \

5. XŠ \ vazraka \ XŠ \ Xšyânâm \ XŠ \ dahyunâm \ vipazanânâm \ XŠ \ ahyây

6. â \ bumiyâ \ vazrakâyâ \ dûraiy \ apiy \ Vištâspahyâ \ puça \ Ha

1. xâmanišiya \ thâtiy \ Dârayavauš \ XŠ \ adam \ Pârsa \ amiy \ hacâ \ Pâ

2. rsâ \ Mudrâyam \ agarbâyam \ adam \ niyaštâyam \ imâm \ yauviyâ

3. m \ katanaiy \ hacâ \ Pirâva \ nâma \ rauta \ tya \ Mudrâyaiy \ danuvatiy \ ab

4. iy \ draya \ tya \ hacâ \ Pârsâ \ aitiy \ pasâva \ iyam \ yauviyâ \ akaniya \

5. avathâ \ yathâ \ adam \ niyaštâyam \ utâ \ nâva \ âyatâ \ hacâ \ Mudrâ

6. yâ \ tara \ imâm \ yauviyâm \ abiy \ Pârsam \ avathâ \ yathâ \ mâm \ kâma\ âha

The English translation reads:

A great god is Ahuramazda, who created yonder sky, who created this earth, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Darius king, who bestowed on Darius a great kingdom with good horses and good people. I am Darius the great king, king of kings, king of all kinds of men, king in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achae-

-menid. King Darius says: I am a Persian; setting out from Persia, I conquered Egypt. I ordered to dig this canal from the river that is called Nile and flows in Egypt, to the sea that begins in Persia. Therefore, when this canal had been dug as I had ordered, ships went from Egypt through this canal to Persia, as I had intended.

VI. Darius the Great's old Suez Canal Inscription: analysis

In the Old Achaemenid version of the inscription, Egypt is called ' Mudrâya' and the Nile is named 'Pirâva'. The Iranian name of Egypt was formed under the impact of the Akkadian – Assyrian, Babylonian name of the country, namely Musur, Misru, and Mat Masri (Land of Egypt). Similarly, the terms used in all other Semitic languages for 'Egypt', such as Mitzraim (which is Plural, namely 'the two Egypts') in Hebrew and Mesr in Arabic, are derived from the Akkadian – Assyrian, Babylonian name. In Ancient Egyptian, the country was named 'Kemet', i.e. the land of the Black, and Tawy, i.e. the Two Lands (meaning the Upper and Lower Egypt). The former term is preserved in Coptic down to our times as 'Keme'.

About the Assyrian-Babylonian and the Ancient Egyptian names of Egypt:

Herbert Verreth - The Egyptian Eastern Border Region in Assyrian Sources

https://www.academia.edu/28017040/The_Egyptian_Eastern_Border_Region_in_Assyrian_Sources

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Names

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Km_(hieroglyph)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetism (modern spirituality based on Ancient Egypt)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Egyptian_towns_and_cities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_and_Lower_Egypt

http://files.school-collection.edu.ru/dlrstore/6d79315a-411f-42e3-b99e-257480f13444/1011216A.htm (in Russian)

About the names of the pharaohs:

https://pharaoh.se/

http://www.ancient-egypt.org/language/royal-titulary.html

The Iranian name of the Nile, 'Pirâva', was thought to be associated to word piru (ivory) by some scholars, but there is no apparent reason to associate the Nile with this exquisite product. Most probably the Persians and other Iranians found first similar products in Mesopotamia, Phoenicia and India. It is more plausible to associate the Iranian name of the Nile with the Ancient Hebrew name of the Nile, i.e. Pishon (Pîšōn).

The text of the inscription consists of two units: in the first unit, the general spiritual and imperial context is described in brief. The second unit concerns the reopening of the old Suez Canal. In the first unit, Ahura Mazda, the One God, whom Zoroaster preached among all Iranians, is praised and credited with the all the stages of Creation.

VII. Darius the Great's old Suez Canal Inscription: first unit

The order of the stages or levels of Creation or Cosmogony reminds us of Assyrian – Babylonian monotheistic theological currents as per which AN (Anu) was believed as the only God and described as the Lord of the Heaven. This was underscored by the fact that, to write Anu's name, the Assyrians and the Babylonians used the Sumerogram DINGIR, which was translated into Assyrian-Babylonian as "ilu", i.e. the "God". From this Assyrian-Babylonian word originate both the Ancient Hebrew name of God as 'Elohim' and the Arabic name of God as al-ilah (with the article) – Allah. 'Yonder sky' is a term parallel to Jesus' term 'Kingdom of Heaven', and it refers to Ether as the absolute quintessence and as the original element out of which all the other elements emanated.

Mentioning the Earth as the second stage of the Creation, the scribes of Darius the Great reflect the cosmological teachings of Zoroaster (Zardosht) that were apparently closer to the Assyrian-Babylonian theological school of Ea (equivalent of the Sumerian ENKI) and opposite to the Assyrian-Babylonian doctrine of the Enlil priesthoods. Ea was considered by the Assyrian monotheistic priesthood as the aspect of divine wisdom at the stage of the Creation of the Universe and, as such, he was viewed as the continuation of the pre-cosmic Apsu. Ea symbolized as element the Soft Waters.

Darius the Great's inscription does not literally refer to 'soft waters', but the Iranian Cosmology followed in this regard the earlier Mesopotamian concepts that the Sumerians, the Akkadians, and the Assyrians-Babylonians developed during millennia: according to those concepts, which were diffused among many other nations as well, down to the Christian and Islamic times, the surface of the earth is thought to be 'hanging' on soft waters. The imperial inscription mentions therefore the central part of the surface (: earth) and not the periphery (: soft waters).

The imperial inscription passes from cosmological and spiritual topics to the basics of Iranian Zoroastrian morality, stating that the 'happiness of man' was a supreme concern for Ahura Mazda, thus insinuating that it constituted a particular stage of the Creation itself. This reveals the character of the Moral Order that had to prevail across the vast empire of Darius the Great. What comes next is the embodiment of the Divine Oriental Monarchy, namely the clarification that the universal kingdom of Darius was given to him by Ahura Mazda himself. Despite Darius the Great's known and numerous conquests, in the imperial inscription's first unit, there cannot be any reference to the emperor's exploits and other achievements, and everything appears to be "given by God". A remarkable 'environmental' concern is shown when the fauna ("good horses") is mentioned before the Mankind ("good men"). This is not strange because the order of the Creation is always the same, and in all the Oriental Epics of the Creation, the animals are said to have been created first.

At the end of the first unit, the titulature of the Iranian emperor is mentioned; added to it, several data about Darius' ancestry are recorded. This part is important for historical comparisons; as a matter of fact, this excerpt of the inscription fully justifies all those, who support the idea that the Sassanid emperors (224-651 CE), who rose to power in Istakhr more than 550 years after the end of the Achaemenid dynasty, although trying to rule as per the traditional Achaemenid manner and to establish an anti-Parthian restoration, reigned indeed very differently and viewed their empire in a totally different way.

Darius the Great is herewith presented as "king in this great earth far and wide"; this means that he viewed himself as the sole ruler of the Earth without making a distinction between lands located within his vast empire's borders and territories left beyond. Even more importantly, there is no land differentiation into "good" and "evil", and the entire surface of the Earth is evidently considered as the abode of "good people" and "good horses", with the latter representing the entire fauna.

This means that, in striking difference with the Sassanid world view and imperial universalism, which provided with a distinction of the Earth into an ideal, perfect, 'central' to the Earth, and paradisiacal "Iran" and an evil, calamitous, ominous, 'peripheral' to the Earth, and hellish "Aniran" (i.e. "Non-Iran), the Achaemenid precursors of the Sassanid emperors viewed the entire Earth as "Iran", i.e. a "good" realm of benevolent people, who lived only to enjoy the happiness that Ahura Mazda "created" for them.

The above observation becomes even more extraordinary if placed within the historical background from which Darius the Great rose to power. Cambyses had a tragic end, the empire was shaken from its foundations, and only after vanquishing the evil Mithraic Magian Gaumata, Darius I became an emperor and managed to put everything under control. However, for the sake of the Universalist, paradisiacal, Achaemenid rule, all these historical 'details' are forgotten and everything is depicted as peaceful, blessed and celestial. This environment has nothing in common with Kartir's diatribes, with the persecution of the Manichaeans, the Nestorians and others, and with the tragic destiny that Mani, Mazdak and many others met at the times of the merciless Sassanid restoration and imperial reinvention.

VIII. Darius the Great's old Suez Canal Inscription: second unit

I expanded much on the inscription's first unit, although there is no mention to the reopening of the old Suez Canal in it, for a very good reason. The study of an ancient text cannot be correct without the complete exploration of all its data, without the plain observation of all its contents, and without the correct assessment of its parts and their proportions. There is no utilitarianism in the study of History. The historical research is not useful, because everything useful has a price, and History is priceless.

Those who believe that they 'extract' benefit from the study of History, being therefore utilitarian in their approach, merely project their own mentality, world view, sentimental character, mindset, and personal or sectarian desires onto the text that they want to 'utilize'; then, in reality, by 'utilizing' a historical text, one definitely distorts it. My former professor at the École Pratique des Hautes Études, the Assyriologist Jean Bottéro (1914-2007), even wrote a plea for Assyriology, defining this disciplines as "a useless science" (J. Bottéro, Apologie d'une science inutile, Akkadica 30, 12 (1982)). Discussion about this article can be read here (in French):

http://www.passion-histoire.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=13482

The only correct way to understand a historical text is to view it in the same way its author or scribe did. So, in the present case, it is important to observe carefully that half the text is dedicated to the spiritual and religious aspect of the magnificent accomplishment and that, for the Ancient Iranians, the then world's most civilized, most advanced and most enlightened nation, not one major imperial undertaking could be narrated without a first and foremost reference to God. For the monotheistic Zoroastrians of Ancient Iran, every major, human and imperial, activity depended on the Divine Providence; there could not be human civilization without fully assessing every human act's spiritual dimension first. This is of primordial importance for anyone willing to study ancient civilizations and texts; otherwise he merely distorts them.

After ascribing himself to Ahura Mazda's omnipotence, Darius the Great felt safe to claim what was not his! The text contains indeed an evident lie: it is not Darius but Cambyses who conquered Egypt. But this historical fact is now forgotten and the name of his predecessor is removed from the historical record. The text makes state of an obvious arrival of Darius in Egypt and gives the impression that the Iranian Emperor was personally involved in the reopening of the old Suez Canal.

Many scholars believe that Darius the Great was the first to open the old canal, but this is inconsistent with 1500 years of Egyptian navigation, while at the same time, it results from a very bad reading of this brief inscription. Since it is established that Darius claimed what was not his in the case of Cambyses and the Iranian conquest of Egypt (which occurred three years before Darius I rose to the Achaemenid throne!), one can understand that, instead of accurately specifying the work that he ordered as "re-digging" or "clearing from the sand" or "re-opening" the old canal, the Iranian Emperor boasts having entirely conceived the magnificent work. This is not a big deal! One lie per line of cuneiform text! After all, Ahura Mazda is not involved in this section, so the appropriation of others' work is not a big deal.

However, there is a point of utmost importance that justifies this lie to some extent; there is indeed a major difference between the way the old Suez Canal was used by earlier Egyptian pharaohs (from Senusret/Sesostris III to Hatshepsut to Nechao II) and the use that Darius the Great envisioned for the same canal. During the 2nd and the 1st half of the 1st millennium BCE, the Ancient Egyptians used the old Suez Canal to connect basically the Nile Valley and the Delta (and only to lesser extent the Mediterranean coast) with the Red Sea coast lands of Egypt down to modern Ras Banas (near Berenice) and with other parts of the East African coast lands further to the south, notably Punt in the Horn of Africa region.

However, those maritime expeditions – of which one narrative has been almost fully preserved down to our times thanks to the monumental inscription on Queen Hatshepsut's mortuary temple at Deir el Bahari (Luxor West), which describes the famous Expedition to Punt (Somalia) ca. 1475 BCE – were undertaken only for the purpose of bringing back to Egypt frankincense, myrrh, spices, gold and other valuable products in exchange with Egyptian exports and know-how. These maritime expeditions reached lands that may have been uninhabited or were known as having minimal local hierarchical structure or constituted well-established and organized kingdoms like Punt where King Perehu and Queen Eti conversed with Hatshepsut's admiral Nehesy who led the entire expedition.

Contrarily to the aforementioned, Darius the Great's use of the old Suez Canal would be and actually was totally different. In his case, the canal would enable the maritime connection between two provinces of his empire, one central (Persia: Fars) and one peripheral (Egypt). This means that, according to Darius the Great's viewpoint, the reopening of the canal would play a significant role in the consolidation of the imperial rule in Africa (parts of today's Libya and Sudan were already parts of Iran) and in the strengthening of the imperial provinces' interconnection.

It is interesting to notice that Darius I viewed the seas between Fars and Egypt (that we today distinguish as Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean and Red Sea) as just one sea expanse without dividing it in sections. This originally Iranian viewpoint was later accepted by the Greeks and the Romans, who viewed the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean as one unit, one sea expanse.

Darius I states that the sea "begins in Persia". This geographical and oceanographic consideration reflects the concept that the world starts from the east; this viewpoint was later expressed through the world-known Latin maxim "ex Oriente lux", which dates back to the Christian times. Darius the Great's explicit statement that he ordered the canal to be dug in order to send a fleet from Egypt to Fars (probably in an ancient Iranian harbor in the area of today's Bushehr / بندر بوشهر or Bandar Abbas / بندر عباس) is an indication of the Iranian Emperor's personal presence at the inauguration of the old Suez Canal's reopening, when for a first time a fleet was dispatched to the harbors of Fars. About:

https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/بوشهر

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бушир

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushehr

https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/بندرعباس

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бендер-Аббас

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_Abbas

IX. Conclusion: the historical importance of Darius the Great's old Suez Canal Inscriptions

When Darius the Great inaugurated the old Suez Canal, stating explicitly the use that the Iranian imperial authorities would make of it, he could never imagine how far-reaching consequences his major geo-economic, geo-political and geo-strategic exploit would have over the ages.

The establishment of major alternative trade routes across continents offered considerable opportunities to various kingdoms, merchants and navigators over the next two millennia. In fact, by so doing, Darius I did not offer extraordinary privileges and advantages only to his own administration but to many other paragons of royal power, imperial competition, world trade development, cultural exchange, religious diffusion, and spiritual impact that were not present at the moment.

Examples: centuries after Darius I, the Ptolemies of Egypt had the privilege of direct contact and communication with various Asiatic kingdoms located east of the Seleucid Empire, which was their main rival.

As a matter of fact, what Darius the Great did put an end to at least 2000 years of established commercial practice. The need for Egyptian, Sudanese, and Libyan products, merchants and caravans to cross Syria and Mesopotamia in order to proceed further to either Central Asia or the Indus Valley was cancelled; and vice versa, exports from Central Asia and the Indus Valley did not need any more to follow the same path in order to reach recipients in Egypt, Sudan and Libya.

The daring concept and its magnificent materialization did not work only to the benefit of the Iranian imperial court and administration but also to their disadvantage. In reality, Darius the Great's groundbreaking concept was a bet against time! To extract real benefit from the reopening of the old Suez Canal, Iran had to permanently control Egypt. That was not an easy affair; Darius' predecessor Cambyses conquered a deeply divided land whereby the ruling 26th, "Libyan" (according to Manetho) i.e. Berber, dynasty had been put on the throne of Egypt ca. 150 years earlier by the Assyrian Emperors Assarhaddon and Assurbanipal, who invaded the land of the Nile thrice (671, 669, 666 BCE), occupied the entire country, and annexed it for ca.40 years.

Even worse, the Assyrian intervention and annexation of Egypt was tantamount to Ninevite siding with the monotheistic Heliopolitan priesthood of Ra (the so-called 'theology of the the Ennead') against the polytheistic Theban priesthood of Amun which, to consolidate its grip on power, had invited (at the end of the 8th c. BCE) the Sudanese (i.e. Cushitic - Ethiopian) Qore (Kings) of Napata to rule Egypt. The Assyrians kicked the Sudanese kings of Napata out of Egypt, sacked Thebes of Egypt (Luxor), and gave full power, at the local level, to the Isiac priesthood of Iwnw (Heliopolis), who were the custodians of the Ennead dogma, and to their pupils, i.e. the Berber princes of the Sahara and the Atlas. The ongoing, terrible conflict between the two Egyptian theological doctrines, which caused an enormous division among the people for many long centuries, did not bode well for the Achaemenid Iranian rule in Egypt. The fact that the Iranians appeared as the 'New Assyrians', siding with the Heliopolitan priests and the Berber princes, was in fact a time capsule that would sooner or later explode.

Darius the Great's magnificent project functioned greatly as long as Egypt was an Iranian province (525-404 BCE). With the rebellion of Amenirdisu (Amyrtaios) in 404 BCE and the termination of the Iranian rule (that corresponds to the 27th dynasty of Egypt), Egypt was plunged again in ceaseless internal strives. This event put an end to the Iranian imperial use of the old Suez Canal. Egypt was in chaotic disarray, as the succession of different short-lived dynasties during the 4th c. BCE demonstrates (28th dynasty: 404-398 BCE; 29th dynasty: 398-380 BCE; 30th dynasty: 380-343 BCE), but the Iranian Empire's economy took a severe hit during that time, due to the commercial disconnection from Egypt and the cancellation of the commercial road that Darius I had introduced.

The dynasties succeeded one another and the rise and fall of empires continued throughout millennia, but the original commercial pattern introduced by Darius the Great remained forever. The Iranians invaded Egypt for a second time in 343 BCE (establishing the 31st dynasty: 343-332 BCE) and this consisted in a proof of the vital importance that the merchandises shipped through Darius the Great's alternative maritime trade route had for the Iranian Empire. The Second Iranian Occupation was short-lived too, because the empire's internal religious strives had brought down the formidable power that Iran had originally; the polytheistic Mithraic priesthood's onslaught on the monotheistic Zoroastrian Imperial court shook the empire from its foundations.

Artaxerxes III, Artaxerxes IV, Khababash and Darius III were proclaimed pharaohs of Egypt, following the tradition launched by Cambyses and Darius I; Alexander the Great followed in their footsteps without the slightest differentiation. As the Iranian emperors were 'gods' in Egypt (like all the Egyptian pharaohs who postured as 'living Horus'), Alexander became a 'god' too and, to rule Egypt, he accepted the same pharaonic titulature: a total of five different names illustrated each pharaoh's different functions and the theological background that he would follow during his tenure. After all, Alexander did not 'invent' anything, but ruled Iran as an Iranian Emperor, and the only real differentiation in terms of imperial administration was the 'logical' transfer of capital to Babylon. Alexander knew that, if he ever dared to found a capital in Fars, his days would be numbered; he therefore preferred to strike an alliance with the Babylonians and the Aramaeans, who not only constituted the quasi-totality of the population in Syria and Mesopotamia but also were the driving force of the imperial administration (if we don't take the Persians of Fars into consideration), and to live among them.

Alexander did not live long to appreciate the ensuing benefits from Darius the Great's groundbreaking concept; the old Suez Canal was always useful to an imperial administration that controlled territories from Central Asia and the Valley of Indus to Egypt, Libya and the Mediterranean. As Alexander's death heralded the split of Iran among his warring successors and contenders, the maritime connection between Egypt and Fars took another meaning, as I already mentioned; the old Suez Canal proved to be equally important to emperors, who control all lands between Fars and Egypt, and to warring kings who rule during periods of division.

With the gradual interconnection of China and the Maurya Empire with the vast network of trade routes across lands, deserts and seas, …

with the emergence of many Central Asiatic empires, notably the Parthian Arsacid Empire and Kushan, …

with the weakening of the Seleucid, Attalid and Ptolemaic empires,

with the major regional significance that several kingdoms and caravan cities acquired across vast regions (Cappadocia, Pontus, Commagene, Osrhoene, Tadmor / Palmyra, Hatra, Rekem /Petra, Adiabene, Characene, Gerrha, etc.), …

with the intensified impact that Aramaeans, Sogdians, Khotanese and various Turkic/Turanian nations exerted across the trade routes, …

with the increased role played by Cushitic East Africans, Yemenites (Qatabanis, Sabaeans, Himyarites, Hadhramis, etc.), Dravidians of the Deccan (: falsely called "Central and South India") and other South Asiatic nations in the entire commercial network, and

with the ascent of the Roman Empire in the East (30 BCE – 117 CE / from Octavian to Trajan), ….

….. Darius the Great's ingenious concept could prove to eventually work against Iran itself, since Iran did not control Egypt any more. If Octavian sent the Roman fleet under Aelius Gallus in its sole expedition outside the Mediterranean to sack Aden (26-25 BCE), this is due to the fact that he had to force the Yemenites (Sabaeans and Himyarites) to extract less benefit from the sea trade route that Darius had envisioned and conceived 500 years earlier. After this difficult and adventurous expedition (narrated by Strabo) marked a certain success, Oriental merchandises were more affordable to Romans.

The aforementioned developments would therefore herald only the spectacular rise of the Sassanids in Iran (224 CE); their intention was to reassert the old Achaemenid glorious days, and truly speaking, some of the Sassanid emperors eclipsed even the foremost rulers of the Achaemenid dynasty. Shapur I (240-270) defeated all Roman armies that he encountered, being probably one of the five most powerful emperors of the Pre-Islamic world (along with Sargon of Akkad, Senusret III, Tiglath-pileser III, and Assurbanipal). Crown in utero, Shapur II (309-379) was the only king in the World History, who reigned during his entire life – even before he was born. And Khusraw (Chosroes) I Anushirwan ('Immortal Soul' / 531-579) was the absolute equivalent of his contemporaneous, Roman Emperor Justinian I. But none of these three great Sassanid rulers managed to recapture Egypt.

For almost 300 years, the Sassanids and the Romans (and after the division of the Empire in 395 CE, the Eastern Romans) warred one upon the other, before the Iranians managed to conquer Egypt for a third time (618) under Khusraw (Chosroes) II Parvez ('Perfect' / 590-628). The Sassanid conquest of Egypt (618-629) was as brief as the second Achaemenid conquest, but soon again (642) the north of Egypt and Iran would be found again within the same empire, this time the Islamic Caliphate. In fact, the wealth accumulated (less in the Umayyad Caliphate and more) in the Abbasid Caliphate was mainly due to their full adjustment to the earlier trade network, commercial patterns, and traditional practices; the overwhelming majority of the Aramaeans in either the Eastern Roman Empire or the Sassanid Empire of Iran adhered to Islam and they were the driving force of the commerce, the administration and the education.

During their wars with the Sassanid Empire, the Eastern Romans tried many times to use the benefit they had in their hands, since they controlled Egypt, and bypass Iran and the heavy Sassanid taxes in order to ensure more profitable trade with China, South Asia, and East Africa. Once, the Constantinopolitan emperors asked the help of their Axumite Abyssinian coreligionists to invade Yemen and thus ensure lower taxes for the Eastern Roman Empire. This resulted only in the Sassanid Iranian invasion and annexation of Yemen, which was not too difficult an exploit, because Oman was always, since the early Achaemenid times, an Iranian province.

However, the far-reaching ramifications of Darius the Great's concept of a worldwide network of trade routes across lands, deserts and seas did not involve only import of merchandises and dispatch of satrap reports to the Iranian capital; as it is, the enterprising and magnificent masterpiece of Iranian administration helped also export Iranian doctrines, faiths, dogmas and religions to Africa and thence to Northwestern Africa. The diffusion of Mithraism in Egypt and Meroe (Sudan, i.e. Ancient Ethiopia) consists in only one example.

The worldwide diffusion of Manichaeism was carried out alongside the then existing trade routes; however, although the diffusion of Mani's religion in Central Asia, China, Siberia, Caucasus and Anatolia was carried out through other parts of the silk-, frankincense- and spice-trade roads, the overwhelming prevalence of Manichaeism in Alexandria and in Egypt at the end of the 3rd c. CE and the subsequent proliferation of Mani's adepts and Manichaean communities in Northwestern Africa must be also considered as consequences of Darius the Great's majestic accomplishment.

X. Further reading and bibliography:

The links below offer access to either reading or search of further bibliography, the latter concerning mainly the Wikipedia entries.

1. About the Achaemenid inscriptions:

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/dz/

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/dna/

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/

2. About Darius I the Great and his predecessors Cambyses and Cyrus the Great:

CYRUS i. The Name

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cyrus-i-name

CYRUS iii. Cyrus II The Great

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cyrus-iii

CYRUS iv. The Cyrus cylinder

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cyrus-iv

HERODOTUS iv. CYRUS ACCORDING TO HERODOTUS

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/herodotus-iv

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cambyses-opers

HERODOTUS v. CAMBYSES ACCORDING TO HERODOTUS

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/herodotus-v

Uzume Z. Wijnsma - The Worst Revolt of the Bisitun Crisis: A Chronological Reconstruction of the Egyptian Revolt under Petubastis IV

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/70943/The_Worst_Revolt_of_the_Bisitun_Crisis.pdf?sequence=1

Jean Yoyotte - Les inscriptions hiéroglyphiques égyptiennes de la statue de Darius

https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/crai_0065-0536_1973_num_117_2_12879.pdf

https://www.persee.fr/doc/crai_0065-0536_1973_num_117_2_12879

La statue de Darius Roi de Perse, pharaon d' Égypte

Par Jean Perret

https://sup.sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/files/public/files/Palais-de-Darius_2010-11-10_ARCHEOLOGIA.pdf

Eyal Meyer - The Satrap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks

https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4259&context=edissertations

DARIUS iii. Darius I the Great

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/darius-iii

https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/dareios+i./132403.html

HERODOTUS vi. DARIUS ACCORDING TO HERODOTUS

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/herodotus-vi

3. About Darius I the Great, his Egyptian Campaign and the Suez Inscriptions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_the_Great

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_the_Great#Egyptian_campaign

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дарий_I

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/大流士一世

https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/داریوش_یکم

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dareios_I.

https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._Darius

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_Ier

https://tr.qwe.wiki/wiki/Darius_the_Great%27s_Suez_Inscriptions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_the_Great%27s_Suez_Inscriptions

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inscriptions_de_Darius_le_Grand_%C3%A0_Suez

4. About the three Iranian conquests of Egypt, the Iranian-Egyptian cultural exchanges and the Iranian presence in the Red Sea during Pre-Islamic times:

David Klotz, Persian Period - UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 2015

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/04j8t49v

Alan B Lloyd - The Egyptian Attitude to the Persians

https://www.academia.edu/8205273/A_The_Egyptian_Attitude_to_the_Persians

EGYPT i. Persians in Egypt in the Achaemenid period

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/egypt-i

EGYPT iii. Relations in the Seleucid and Parthian periods

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/egypt-iii

EGYPT ii. Egyptian influence on Persia in the Pre-Islamic period

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/egypt-ii

EGYPT iv. Relations in the Sasanian period

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/egypt-iv

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Dynasty_of_Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Dynasty_of_Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-ninth_Dynasty_of_Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirtieth_Dynasty_of_Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-first_Dynasty_of_Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_conquest_of_Egypt

David Klotz, Darius I and the Sabaeans: Ancient Partners in Red Sea Navigation

https://www.academia.edu/11329189/Darius_I_and_the_Sabaeans_Ancient_Partners_in_Red_Sea_Navigation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seminar Studies:

1. Fragment de stèle du canal, Egypte

Louvre Museum Département des Antiquités orientales

numéro(s) d’inventaire : AO 2251

lieu : Kabret, Egypte. Dite aussi stèle de Chalouf (Posener 1936, p. 63-81)

période : achéménide (règne de Darius Ier, 522-486 avant J.-C.)

matériau : granit rouge

description : Ce fragment fait partie de la stèle trouvée en Egypte (stèle de Chalouf), par Charles de Lesseps; frère de Ferdinand de Lesseps, lors des travaux de creusement du canal de Suez, en 1866. Il entra au Louvre en 1892 par un don de Victor Chartrey, agent de la compagnie de Suez. D'autres fragments du même monument furent trouvés depuis par Clédet, qui fouilla le site en 1911-1912. La stèle avait, à l'origine, une hauteur d'environ 3,15 m.

inscription : la stèle portait, sur une face, une inscription trilingue en écritures cunéiformes et, sur l'autre, une inscription en hiéroglyphes égyptiens. La face principale (celle à laquelle appartient le fragment du Louvre) représentait le roi Darius Ier, figuré deux fois, de part et d'autre d'un cartouche portant son nom écrit en vieux-perse, sous le globe ailé. Derrière le roi, ses titres et sa filiation étaient écrits dans les trois langues officielles de la cour de Perse : le vieux-perse, l'élamite et le babylonien. Le registre inférieur relatait, dans ces trois langues, le creusement du canal : "Le Roi Darius déclare : Je suis un Perse ; j'ai pris l'Egypte ; j'ai donné l'ordre de creuser ce canal à partir d'un fleuve dont le nom est Nil, qui coule en Egypte, jusqu'à la mer qui vient de Perse. Ce canal fut creusé ainsi que je l'avais ordonné et des bateaux depuis l'Egypte, grâce à ce canal, naviguèrent jusqu'en Perse, ainsi que je l'avais désiré." (version vieux-perse)

historique : Don de V. Chartrey, 1892

http://www.achemenet.com/en/item/?/achaemenid-museum/object-categories/monuments/3018167

2. About Egypt / Mudraya, as Iranian satrapy:

5. Great Satrapy Mudrāya/Egypt. Like Lydia and Babylonia, Egypt, attacked by Cambyses in 525 BCE, must have been incorporated into the Persian Empire as a Great Satrapy. During Cambyses’ occupation of Egypt, as well as later, during Alexander’s invasion, the capture of Memphis was sufficient for claiming the conquest of the entire country. Evidently the city was the base for administration of the whole Great Satrapy (Hdt., 3.13; Arr., An. 3.2.7; cf. Strab., 17.1.31). Among the known satraps, we again find a prince of the Achaemenid dynasty in the person of Achaemenes, son of Darius I (Hdt., 7.1; for the Achaemenid officials, see Bresciani).

Besides Mudrāya itself, at first only Arabāya/Arabia (already named in the Bisotun inscription) belonged to the Great Satrapy as a Main Satrapy. Arabāya must refer to the region that Nabonidus had conquered around the oasis of Taymāʾ (Gadd, pp. 79-89; Tadmor; Lambert, pp. 54-57; Rashid). Although it had once been part of the Babylonian empire, it was probably added to Egypt because it was won in connection with the conquest of the latter (Cook, p. 262; Knauf, pp. 202, 206-7).

Cambyses’ further campaigns against Libya and Nubia (Hdt., 3.13, 3.25-26, 4.165) were unsuccessful; only in 513/12 was Darius I able to subdue them (Hdt., 4.145 in connection with DNa 29-30 and DSe 29-30 etc.; also Hdt., 4.167, 4.200-204). Geographical considerations alone mean that Libya can really only have been added as a Main Satrapy to the Great Satrapy Egypt, and it seems reasonable to suppose the same of Nubia. At the end of the Achaemenid era Nubia is no longer mentioned as a province. A purely formal claim may still have persisted, perhaps tangible in the fact that Alexander is said to have temporarily thought about conquest (Curt., 4.8.3). But that the Macedonian appointed in Memphis Apollonius as governor of Libya (Arr., An. 3.5.4) indicates that this province was still part of the empire.

5.1. Central Main Satrapy Mudrāya/Egypt. This comprised two Minor Satrapies: Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt. When Cambyses set about the conquest of Nubia, he proceeded to Thebes, where subsequently the administration of Upper Egypt had its seat (Hdt., 3.25). During Alexander’s reign a certain Ephippus was probably installed as satrap of Upper Egypt, but his predecessors are unknown to us (Arr., An. 3.5.3; Jacobs, 1994, p. 62).

5.1.1. Central Minor Satrapy Mudrāya/(Lower) Egypt. This included the delta region with the area of the opposite riverbanks (Hdt., 2.18; cf. Strab., 1.2.23-24, 17.1.4). In Herodotus’s time frontier fortresses with Persian garrisons were situated at Daphnae near Pelusium in the east and at Marca in the west (Hdt., 2.30). The border with Upper Egypt was located not far south of Memphis on the line between the 22nd Upper and the 1st Lower Egyptian district (Schlott-Schwab, pp. 90-92, 108-9).

5.1.2. Minor Satrapy Upper Egypt. This presumably coincided de facto with the strip of alluvial land between the border of Lower Egypt and the first Nile cataract (the border of Nubia), below which on the island of Elephantine a garrison was stationed to protect the country (Hdt., 2.29-30; Strab., 17.1.3). While in the west the province was bordered by the desert, in the east the whole territory as far as the Red Sea must have been considered part of the satrapy. The capital was Thebes (see above 5.1).

5.2. Main Satrapy Putāyā/Libya. This province is likely to have benefitted from the numerous Egyptian uprisings and the resulting rather long periods of independence from the Achaemenid Empire. Nevertheless it was still part of the empire under Darius III, for Alexander appointed successor officials (Arr., An. 3.5.4; Curt., 4.8.5).

The Cyrenaeans sent gifts to Alexander, when he was moving along the coast (Curt., 4.7.9), as they are said to have done already when Cambyses was approaching (Hdt., 3.13; Diod., 10.15), thereby acknowledging Alexander as the legitimate successor of the Achaemenid rulers and accepting his claims to their territory. Thus, Cyrenaica belonged to the Achaemenid empire until its end, and the territory of the Achaemenid province of Libya extended along the Mediterranean coast as far as the Great Syrtis and must have included the oasis of Siwah in the desert to the south.

5.3. Main Satrapy Kūšiyā/Nubia. While the date at which the province recovered its independence cannot be accurately determined, it was definitely no longer part of the Achaemenid empire by the time of Alexander’s arrival (cf. Morkot). The province cannot have stretched beyond the second Nile cataract, and must therefore have extended between the first and the second cataracts. Nubia’s capital, Meroë (Hdt., 2.29), was probably never under Persian control.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/achaemenid-satrapies

3. М.А. Дандамаев - Политическая история Ахеменидской державы, Дарий в Египте

Бехистунская надпись упоминает среди других мятежей также восстания египтян, саков и саттагидийцев, которые вспыхнули после вступления Дария на престол, однако ничего не говорит об их подавлении. Исходя из этого, многие исследователи полагают, что Египет, Страна саков и Саттагидия были возвращены в состав Ахеменидской державы лишь после 518 г., когда закончился поход против скифского племени тиграхауда и работы по сооружению Бехистунской надписи подходили к концу, так что оказалось невозможным поместить рассказ о новых событиях [216, с. 372; 405, с. 74; 126, с. 309—311; 213, с. 184; 247, с. 163; 411, с. 236]. Но с таким мнением трудно согласиться, так как от 30 декабря 518 г. сохранился демотический папирус с распоряжением Дария египетскому сатрапу (имя его разрушено) послать к нему в Сузы знатоков местных законов. Кроме того, известен также демотический хозяйственный документ, датированный третьим годом царствования Дария, т. е. 519 г. [CDP, т. III, с. 25 и сл.]. Следовательно, по крайней мере к 519 г. восстание в Египте уже было подавлено. Что же касается Страны саков и Саттагидии, они, по всей вероятности, были вновь покорены еще в 521 г., но Бехистунская надпись об этом ничего не сообщает, потому что восстание в Саттагидии прекратилось после победы войска Дария в соседней Арахосии, а волнения среди саков, по-видимому, были связаны с восстанием в Маргиане [ср. 60, с. 8]. Во всяком случае, как мы видели выше, область Гандутава, где состоялась битва между войсками Вахьяздаты и Дария, в эламском варианте Бехистунской надписи локализована в Арахосии, а в вавилонском — в Саттагидии.

В. В. Струве обратил внимание на то, что историческое повествование Бехистунской надписи начинается с 27-й строки I столбца, а упоминание о египетском восстании содержится в начале II столбца. А между тем в 14—17-й строках I столбца надписи, которые писались во втором году правления Дария, когда он уже подавил восстания и велел начать работы по сооружению Бехистунского рельефа, Египет наряду со Страной саков, Саттагидией и другими сатрапиями упомянут среди стран, уже признавших власть Дария. Другими словами, египетское восстание, так же как и восстания других народов, было подавлено не позже чем во втором году царствования Дария [60, с. 7 и сл.].

Источники не позволяют уверенно судить, охватило ли восстание в Египте широкие слои населения. Дж. Камерон, ссылаясь на надпись египетского сановника Уджагорресента, полагает, что подавление этого восстания сопровождалось массовыми убийствами [126, с. 309-311]. Но, по мнению В. В. Струве, волнения, о которых говорит надпись Уджагорресента, относятся ко времени возвращения Камбиза из похода в Нубию, восстание же против Дария было незначительным событием, оставшимся неизвестным Геродоту [60, с, 7 и сл.]. Ю. Прашек считал, что Египет вообще не восставал в начале правления Дария, но сатрап этой страны Арианд держался независимо по отношению к этому персидскому царю [330, т. II, с. 41]. Э. Бикерман высказал нам мнение, что, судя по рассказу Геродота, в Египте в начале правления Дария не было и какого восстания, если не считать отпадения Ливии, которой на время удалось стать независимой страной.

Арианд, которого Камбиз назначил сатрапом Египта, Ливии и Киренаики, возможно, не спешил выразить свою преданность Дарию и не оказывал ему помощи в восстановлении державы Ахеменидов. Согласно Геродоту (IV, 166), Арианд выпускал серебряную монету, по чистоте не уступавшую царской, что было сочтено государственной изменой и послужило причиной его казни. Трудно сказать, насколько это сообщение соответствует действительности. По словам Геродота, монеты Арианда еще находились в обращении, когда он посетил Египет, однако до нашего времени они не сохранились. Дарий мог казнить Арианда также по какой-то другой, неизвестной нам причине.

Источники не содержат каких-либо указаний на время смещения Арианда. После смерти Камбиза Арианд подавил восстание в Ливии, но, возможно, действовал не в интересах Дария. Согласно Геродоту (IV, 200 и 204), при Арианде персы осадили Барку и начали подкоп под стену города. Затем город был сдан с условием, что персы не будут чинить в нем разрушений. Тем не менее баркияне были обращены в рабство и уведены в Персию. Однако нам опять-таки неизвестна точная дата осады Барки. Ж. Йойотт относит это событие к 513/512 г. [422, с. 266]. Ф. К. Киниц полагает, что Арианд был казнен между 510 (предполагаемая им дата похода против Барки) и 492 гг., когда сатрапом Египта определенно был Ферендат [248, с. 64 и сл., примеч. 7]. Такого же мнения придерживался и А. Т. Олмстед [312, с. 225].

В конце лета 518 г. Дарий отправился в Египет и прибыл в Мемфис. Возможно, что именно в это время был низложен Арианд и новым сатрапом назначен Ферендат [411, с. 236; 126, с. 311 и сл.; ср. 320, с. 376 и сл., где предлагаются различные даты прибытия Дария в Египет — от 519 до 515 г.]. Олмстед полагал, что Дарий подавил восстание египтян, восстановил Арианда в должности сатрапа и почти немедленно вернулся в Персию, получив известие о заговоре Интаферна, одного из своих сообщников в убийстве Гауматы [312, с. 142 и сл.]. Однако источники не содержат каких-либо данных в пользу такого предположения.

Если верить Полиэну (VII, 11, 7), египтяне, не будучи в состоянии выносить жестокость Арианда (который у Полиэна назван Ориандром), восстали и изгнали его из страны. Поэтому Дарий отправился в Мемфис, чтобы усмирить мятежников. В это время пал апис (священный бык, которого египтяне обожествляли), и Дарий предложил 100 талантов серебра для приобретения нового священного тельца, а египтяне, пораженные великодушием царя, сами прекратили восстание. Трудно сказать, есть ли хотя бы зерно истины в этом рассказе Полиэна. По египетским источникам, апис умер 31 августа 518 г. [см. 327, текст № 5].

Находясь в Египте, Дарий распорядился о сооружении канала от Нила до Красного моря. Этот канал позволил установить прямую связь между Египтом и Персией, минуя путь через Синайскую пустыню, который был ненадежен из-за набегов кочевников. Античные сообщения о канале очень противоречивы. Согласно Геродоту (II, 158 и IV, 39), египетский фараон Нехо первым начал сооружение канала, и работа эта впоследствии была продолжен Дарием, так как Нехо оставил ее незавершенной из-за неблагоприятного изречения оракула. По Геродоту, канал был длиной в четыре дня пути и по нему две триеры (корабли с тремя ярусами гребцов) могли плыть рядом. Канал начинался с восточного рукава Нила, близ города Бубастис, проходил через Вади-Тумилат и около территории современного города Суэца выходил в Красное море. В отличие от нынешнего Суэцкого канала, укорачивающего путь из Европы в Индийский океан, древний канал был предназначен для облегчения связей между долиной Нила и берегами Красного моря.

О сооружении канала повествуют три стелы Дария на египетском (иероглифическим письмом), древнеперсидском; эламском и аккадском языках. При этом египетская версия — не перевод клинописного текста, поскольку ее стиль и фразеология чисто египетские. Б. А. Тураев полагал, что автором египетской версии был саисский верховный жрец Уджагорресент [65, с. 360]. Одна из стел о сооружении канала была найдена еще в 1889 г. В. С. Голенищевым близ Тель-эль-Масхута, на бывшем перешейке Суэцкого канала. Ее можно было видеть с кораблей, следовавших по каналу. Другая стела обнаружена в 33 км к северу от Суэца, в Шалуфе. На стеле из Суэца дана также титулатура Дария: «Царь Верхнего и Нижнего Египта, да живет вечно великий царь, царь царей, сын Виштаспы, Ахеменид». На всех трех стелах в иероглифическом тексте имеются сходные изображения, где обе половины Египта символически соединены с овалом, содержащим имя Дария (Интариуаш). Далее в иероглифическом тексте из Суэца упоминаются 24 подвластные Дарию страны, включая также Персию и Мидию. Представители каждой страны изображены в отдельных овалах, обращенными лицом к овалу с царским именем Дария. Список этот близок к перечню подвластных Дарию стран, сохранившемуся в надписи из Накш и Рустама. По сравнению с Бехистунской надписью на стеле из Суэца появляются еще три новые провинции: Индия, Ливия (Пут) и Нубия (Куш). Следовательно, ко времени сооружения канала все три страны были завоеваны персами (по-видимому, около 517 г.).

По свидетельству египетских текстов, канал был протяженностью 84 км. Согласно одной плохо сохранившейся египетской надписи, флотилия из 24 (или 32?) кораблей направилась из Египта в Персию [327, с. 180 и сл.; все сведения о канале собраны и исследованы Ж. Познером: 328, с. 259 и сл.; 327, с, 48—87].

Наиболее пространная из клинописных надписей, найденных на Суэцком перешейке, имеет следующее содержание: «Велик бог Ахурамазда, который создал то небо, который создал эту землю, который человека создал, который для человека благополучие создал, который Дария царем сделал, который царю Дарию доставил царство великое, доброконное и добролюдное.

Я — Дарий, царь великий, царь царей, царь стран многоплеменных, царь этой великой (и) обширной земли, сын Виштаспы, Ахеменид.

Говорит Дарий царь: "Я перс; из Персии я захватил Египет (Мудрая). Я повелел выкопать этот канал от реки Нила (Пирава), которая течет в Египте, к морю, которое начинается от Персии. Затем этот канал был выкопан, как я повелел, и корабли пошли из Египта в Персию через этот канал, как (на то) было мое желание"».

Согласно египетским текстам, Дарий как преемник традиций древних фараонов благожелательно относился к местной культуре и религии. Диодор (I, 95, 4—5) пишет, что Дарий изучал у египетских жрецов теологию и подражал правившим до него фараонам, поэтому египтяне относились к нему с большим почтением, а после смерти удостоили его божественных почестей. Это, конечно, преувеличение. Но по распоряжению Дария был отремонтирован храм бога Птаха в Мемфисе и построено крупное святилище бога Амона к западу от Фив, в оазисе Эль-Харга в Ливийской пустыне. Руины этого храма, строительство которого продолжалось 20 лет (510 490), сохранились до сих пор. В надписи этого храма говорится: «Царь Дарий соорудил (памятники) отцу своему Амон-рэ...» [перевод О. Д. Берлева; см. издание: 119, табл. XII; см. также 169, с. 140]. Дарий делал также богатые приношения египетским храмам. В одном из текстов серапеума в Мемфисе он назван «царем Юга и Севера, да живет он вечно, любимец аписа». Надпись эта сделана на вазе, посвященной Дарием живому апису [396, с. 56 и сл.]. В Демотической хронике говорится, что египтяне были послушны Дарию «из-за превосходности его сердца» [DC, с. 31, стб. С, 8]. Он был провозглашен сыном богини Нейт в Саисе, и ее храм занял привилегированное положение. Верховному жрецу Уджагорресенту, который в смутное время отсиживался в Сузах, Дарий велел вернуться в родной город,Саис и восстановить ученое заведение (академию?) при храме, разрушенное во время волнений в этом номе [327, с. 175 -190; см. также 134, № 7, 219 и 248; 131, с. 18 и сл.]. В надписи Уджагбрресента говорится: «Государь, князь, казначей царя Нижнего Египта... великий врач Уджагор-ресент... говорит: „Приказал царь Верхнего и Нижнего Египта Дарий — да живет он вечно — чтобы я вернулся в Египет, когда его величество был в Эламе — вот он царь великий нагорий всех и правитель великий Египта, — чтобы установить палаты Домов жизни, творящие врачевание, после того как они пришли в упадок.

Несли меня чужеземцы из нагорья в нагорье, доставив меня в Египет согласно тому, что приказал владыка Обеих Земель. Действовал я согласно тому, что приказал мне его величество. Снабдил я их (т. е. палаты) персоналом всяким из детей мужей, причем не было детей черни там... Приказал его величество дать им вещи всякие добрые, чтобы они делали работу свою всякую... Сделал его величество это, потому что он знал полезность мастерства этого, чтобы оживить страждущих всяких, чтобы установить имя богов всех, храмы их, жертвы их, проведение праздников их вечно"» (перевод О. Д. Берлева).

Имя Дария I встречается на египетских памятниках чаще, чем имена всех остальных персидских царей, вместе взятых. О строительной деятельности Дария в Египте свидетельствуют также надписи в каменоломнях Вади-Хаммамата. Согласно Ж. Познеру, из 250 надписей, обнаруженных в этих каменоломнях, 17 датированы XXVII, т. е. персидской, династией. Работы в каменоломнях велись непрерывно от 524 до 477 г., пока в Египте не настало смутное время. Имя Дария сохранилось также на каменных блоках в Фаюме, Мемфисе и т. д. [327, с. 88; 169, с. 146—155].

https://historylib.org/historybooks/M-A--Dandamaev_Politicheskaya-istoriya--Akhemenidskoy-derzhavy/16

4. Олмстед Альберт, История Персидской империи

Строительство канала в Египте

В эпоху Среднего царства был вырыт канал от Факуссы на Пелусийском рукаве Нила для орошения плодородной вади Тумилат (вади — арабское название сухих русел рек и речных долин временных или периодических водных потоков, заполняемых, например, во время сильных ливней. — Пер.), расположенной на востоке, где позднее в Гошене поселились евреи. Нехо (фараон Саисской династии, правивший в 610–595 гг. до н. э. — Пер.) тщетно пытался продлить его через Горькие озера к Суэцкому заливу в качестве этапа той исследовательской политики, которая привела к плаванию финикийцев вокруг Африки. Совершив путешествие через Аравийскую пустыню в 518 г. до н. э., Дарий продолжил свой путь через вади Тумилат и таким образом увидел этот незаконченный канал. Его интерес оживился надеждой на более дешевый и прямой морской путь в Индию, и он принял решение завершить начатое.

Выкопанное по приказу Нехо было занесено песком. Сначала все нужно было расчистить и выкопать колодцы для рабочих. Когда, наконец, канал был открыт, он имел 46 метров в ширину и такую глубину, чтобы могло пройти торговое судно. Этот предшественник Суэцкого канала можно было переплыть за четыре дня.[8]

В память об осуществлении такого масштабного проекта через определенные промежутки на берегах канала были поставлены огромные стелы из красного гранита, которые должны были радовать глаз путешественника. На одной стороне дважды изображенный Дарий держит в руках свиток с написанным на нем клинописью своим именем под символом защиты Ахурамазды. На трех языках клинописью начертано: «Я перс. Придя из Парсы, я захватил Египет. Я приказал, чтобы этот канал был вырыт от реки под названием Нил, которая течет в Египте, до моря, которое начинается у Парсы. После того как этот канал был вырыт по моему приказу, корабли стали ходить по нему из Египта в Парсу, согласно моей воле».

На обратной стороне помещена более полная версия на египетском языке. Под изображенным спереди египетским солнечным диском, который в конечном счете изначально был символом Ахурамазды, протекают два Нила в традиционном ритуале «соединения двух стран». Один говорит Дарию: «Я дал тебе все земли, всю Финикию, все иноземные страны; все склонились перед тобой»; другой: «Я дал тебе все человечество, всех людей, все народы островов и морей». Использованные слова известны завоеваниями времен Восемнадцатой династии, но здесь они стоят для соответствия современной тому времени географии. Царю дарованы «вся жизнь, богатство, здоровье, радость, приношения, подобные приношениям Ра, вся пища, все, что есть на земле хорошего, даже быть царем Верхнего и Нижнего Египта, подобно Ра, вечно; все земли и иные страны в знак благоговения перед ним».

Далее идет список сатрапий — их названия взяты из оригинала на арамейском языке. В хорошей египетской манере, подражающей спискам могущественных царей Восемнадцатой и Девятнадцатой династий, каждое название изображено в виде орнамента, зубцы которого указывают на завоеванный город; пленники в разных головных уборах стоят на коленях в благоговении. Дарий действительно царь царей, сын Гистаспа, великий царь, но он также носит и все древние египетские титулы. Он рожден от богини Нейт, покровительницы Саиса (тонкий комплимент Уджахорресну); он также являет собой образ Ра, который посадил его на трон, чтобы он завершил начатое. Когда он был в материнском лоне и еще не вышел на свет, ему было даровано все, что есть под солнцем, которое ходит по кругу, так как Нейт признала его своим сыном. Она пообещала ему, что с луком в руках он будет побеждать своих врагов каждый день, как она пообещала это своему сыну Ра. Он могуч, уничтожая своих врагов во всех странах, как сын Нейт он расширяет границы своих владений; народы с готовой данью предстают перед ним.

После упоминания города Парсы и Кира текст на стеле рассказывает о том, как обсуждалось строительство канала и как эта задача была выполнена. В Парсу были отправлены двадцать четыре корабля с данью. Далее следуют приветствия Дарию и написано, что были отданы распоряжения о возведении этих стел; ничего подобного раньше еще не было.

https://history.wikireading.ru/171460

5. Б. А. Тураев («отец русской египтологии») - История Древнего Востока/Том II/Дарий I / 1911

По умиротворении государства Дарию предстояло заняться его организацией. Его предшественники все время употребили на завоевания и даже редко бывали дома; к тому же они находились под таким сильным влиянием древних, культур, что и не думали о замене того, что нашли. Теперь волей-неволей пришлось убедиться в недостаточности ассиро-вавилонского наследства: государство переросло все бывшие до него монархии, а национализм господствующего племени не мог мириться с преобладанием запада; наконец, новое мировое государство, простираясь от Эллады и Карфагенской области до Индии и Южной России, ставило новые вопросы экономической политики. И вот, реформы. Дария имели задачей сосредоточить управление в руках персов, которые получали должности сатрапов в тех новых областях, на которые было разделено государство и которые были гораздо обширнее ассирийских провинций. Затем были урегулированы подати, заменившие прежние подарки, ставшие в организованной империи анахронизмом; наконец, был санкционирован переход к денежной системе хозяйства введением монетной единицы. Некоторые ученые считают, кроме того, Дария творцом персидской клинописи и проводником зо�