While royal genealogies could serve to legitimize a line that was already established, like that of Cyrus, they could also give rise to new claims. This is manifest with Darius, who was not directly in line for the throne. The Behistun Monument clearly illustrates this in that he formulates a six-generation lineage back to the eponymous founder, Achaemenes.
(Schmitt 1991: 49 lines 1–11)
I (am) Darius the great king, king of kings, king of Persia, king of the countries, the son of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, an Achaemenid. Proclaims Darius, the king: my father (is) Hystaspes; the father of Hystaspes (is) Arsames; the father of Arsames (was) Ariaramnes; The father of Ariaramnes (was) Teispes; the father of Teispes (was) Achaemenes.
Proclaims Darius, the king: For this reason we are called Achaemenids; from ancient times we are noblemen; from ancient times our family has been kings. Proclaims Darius, the king: (There are) eight in my family who formerly have been kings; I (am) the ninth; (thus altogether) nine, now as ever, are we kings.
This genealogy is particularly significant because Darius, like Cyrus, claims that his right to the throne is based on his family line. Also, like Cyrus, he claims that his family had been kings for a long period of time, in succession. What can one make of these statements? There are conspicuous absences in this genealogy, including Cyrus and Cambyses. Herodotus comments in a story concerning Cambyses in Egypt that Darius was a member of Cambyses’ guard and a “man of no great importance” (III.139–40). Thus, according to Herodotus, Darius was not in line for the throne, although he was of noble birth. Yet David Stronach argues that Darius’s ancestors may have had control of certain areas of Fars, and thus he was from a family of monarchs (2003: 256).
Hence, his claim is not necessarily a lie. What then is Darius attempting to do in his genealogy? There are clear examples of usurpers who did not attempt to create a genealogy in order to justify their right to the throne. The classic case is the Neo-Assyrian ruler, Sargon II, who never provides a genealogy to support his right to the throne. Yet Darius did not claim that he had no royal pedigree but, rather, justifies his right to the throne through his family. Still, he provides no specifics except for family names. Unlike Cyrus, he gives no geographical location for his ancestors’ supposed kingdom.
Hence, Darius attempted to redefine what it meant to be the rightful monarch through the use of his genealogy. Briant observes, “It was not because he was Achaemenid (in the clan sense) that Darius achieved power; it was his accession to royalty that allowed him to redefine the reality of what it meant to be ‘Achaemenid’” (2002: 111). Christopher Tuplin questions Briant’s interpretation, adding that Darius may not have been intentionally lying about his descent from Achamenes but rather is speaking in “symbolic terms” (2005: 230). Whether Darius is giving a faithful rendering of his family line or lying is unclear. But it is apparent that through the use of his genealogy, Darius, in essence, is undoing Cyrus’s rightful claim to the throne by taking his genealogy to the founder of the dynasty, Achaemenes, whereas Cyrus only connects himself to Teispes. Wilson adds that, in the case of the Achaemenid kings, “many . . . were engaged either in expanding the Persian Empire or protecting it from the threat of internal political chaos” (1977: 70).
Darius felt the need to construct this genealogy, whether real or imaginary, in order to show his family’s past claims to power.
In the biblical material, certain royal and priestly genealogies may point to periods when legitimizing one’s genealogy was particularly important. There are two examples of this, 1 Chr 3:1–24, the Davidic genealogy, and 1 Chr 8:33–40, the so-called Saulide genealogy. Both lineages focus on monarchs who had long been out of power. In the example of the Davidic genealogy in 1 Chr 3:1–24, this extensive genealogy continues for 26 generations in the MT, from David to the seven sons of Elioenai. It also builds on the Judahite genealogy in 1 Chronicles 2, which also connects David to Judah, Jacob, and beyond. 1 Chr 3:1–24 employs both linear and segmented formats that continue for over 600 years. The Davidic lineage begins with a segmented genealogy highlighting all of the first-born sons born to him in Hebron by his six wives and then moving on to the sons born to him in Jerusalem by Bath-shua. A linear genealogy is employed from the time of Solomon to Josiah (16 generations). The genealogy returns to a segmented format from the period of Josiah until the sons of Elioenai. But this is not simply a genealogy of David’s dynastic line. It continues long past the Exile and Return, through the family line of Zerubbabel and down to the sons of Elioenai. Thus, the Davidic genealogy focuses on one line and its endurance and survival, even after the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah. Although the power of this family had long ago diminished, it is clear that this genealogy is attempting to position one branch of the Davidic family in line for power. And thus, in a period when they had long been out of power, as Gary Knoppers points out, the “careful demarcation of continuity among the descendants of David throughout periods of tremendous change demonstrates the dynasty’s resiliency and importance” (2004: 335–36). The genealogy functions as a way of authorizing one family line within the larger Davidic lineage to a position of power, if the occasion ever arose where power could be bestowed on them.
Another example of a royal genealogy found within the lineage of the Benjaminites is the so-called Saulide genealogy (1 Chr 8:33–40), which is really the Jeielite genealogy because it begins with Saul’s grandfather Jeiel. The Chronicler’s interest in the family of Saul acknowledges his earlier importance as well as his descendants’ continued importance during the postexilic period. The importance of Saul’s family is carried through Chronicles, where Saul and David are the two royal lines within the narrative of the monarchy. Unlike the Davidic genealogy, which highlights one particular family line, 1 Chronicles 8 highlights the importance of the Benjaminite clan and their position in their different territories, including Jerusalem and Gibeon. Saul’s genealogy, which begins in v. 29 with his grandfather Jeiel and continues for 17 generations, ends with the phrase “all these were from the descendants of Benjamin” (8:40), thus concluding the Benjaminite genealogy with Saul’s descendants.
Saul’s family clearly endures long after the loss of the monarchy, and the Benjaminite genealogy does not hide the character of Saul but rather honors him and his sons and holds them in a position of esteem, ending the lengthy Benjaminite genealogy with Saul’s particular family line of the Benjaminites. As a consequence of the antique Jeielite and Saulide genealogy, the tribe of Benjamin gained prominence. Further, the Benjaminites were an important tribe within postexilic Yehud and, for the Chronicler, a loyal subject of the Davidic monarchy. They were also an integral member of Yehud during the Achaemenid era, and thus past events or the genealogy legitimized their place in the Second Commonwealth by recourse to the ancient past through Jeiel and Saul, their most famous members.
Long genealogies were fairly uncommon in nonroyal material, save a few notable exceptions. One such example appears in Herodotus’s Histories. In book two, Herodotus recounts his visit to Thebes (Karnak), where he tells a story about Hecataeus of Miletus, the sixth-century historian (550–490 b.c.e.), who wrote works on geography, enumerating different regions of the known world, and also genealogies, in which he attempted to order the stories of gods and heroes (of these works, there are extant some 35 fragments). Hecataeus is also credited with revising a map of the world first created by Anaximander. Herodotus states that Hecataeus “had studied his own lineage and had traced his family history back to a divine ancestor in the sixteenth generation” (II.143). He continues his narrative, stating that the priests at Thebes did not believe Hecataeus’s claim that one could descend from the divine, and took him into the Temple of Amun and showed him the statues of the high priests, each representing a generation. The position was passed down from father to son. In the end, the priests showed Hecataeus 345 statues and claimed “that every one of the figures represented a piromis descended from a piromis [in Greek this would be a “man of rank”] . . . they did not connect any of them to either god or a hero” (II. 143). Herodotus questions this notion that one could trace a genealogy back to the gods, and indeed Herodotus states that he does not have a genealogy of his own family and thus this practice seems strange to him. This story is noteworthy because this is the only real evidence for the creation of long genealogies during this period in the Ionian world.”
