🔍 From "Tomb of Solomon's Mother" to "Cyrus’s Mausoleum": Britain and the Forgery of Mesopotamian Inscriptions

In the 19th century, while the French secured exclusive excavation rights in Iran, the British obtained similar privileges in Ottoman territories—including Mesopotamia—to carry out archeological activities. But British activities went beyond excavation and often extended into systematic forgery of ancient artifacts and cuneiform inscriptions.

Why did they forge?
Three main motives drove this practice:

1️⃣ Colonial propaganda – shaping historical narratives to serve imperial interests.
2️⃣ Producing replicas of inscriptions and artifacts.
3️⃣ Lucrative trade in counterfeit antiquities, highly sought by museums and private collectors worldwide.

Among the most skilled forgers were the Ready brothers of Baghdad, later employed by the British Museum to produce replica cuneiform tablets.

But one key figure stands out: Claudius James Rich, a British East India Company agent based in Baghdad. Not only did he deal in artifacts—he also first proposed that the structure known locally as the "Tomb of Solomon’s Mother" in Marvdasht was actually the tomb of Cyrus the Great.

This theory was initially accepted by British travelers such as James Morier and Robert Ker Porter, though later questioned for lack of evidence.

Many forged tablets from the late 19th and early 20th centuries were crafted so expertly that even today, distinguishing them from originals remains a challenge for specialists. Some early forgeries were clumsier—they even overlooked basic details, such as the fact that cuneiform texts on opposite sides of a tablet should be oriented in opposite directions.

The scale of forged Mesopotamian artifacts and inscriptions is far greater than commonly acknowledged. Many museums quietly deal with doubts around their collections’ authenticity, avoiding public controversy.

As researcher Reza Moradi Ghiasabadi notes, the sheer volume of forgeries—largely produced by British nationals—means many museum-held cuneiform texts and artifacts cannot be certified as definitively authentic.

📚 Learn more:
For detailed accounts of the Ready brothers and Claudius James Rich, see:
Walker, C. B. F., Cuneiform, University of California Press, 1987.

---

✍️ Source: https://jscenter.ir/slave-jews/cyrus/1718
#Archaeology #Forgery #Cyrus #Mesopotamia #BritishEmpire #History

🆔 @rahyafte_en

🔍 Pasargadae – or a Women‑Only Shrine? The untold story of the “Tomb of Solomon’s Mother”

The structure known today as the Tomb of Cyrus the Great in Pasargadae was, for centuries throughout the Islamic period, called "Tomb of Solomon's Mother" (مقبره مادر سلیمان).

Historical records reveal a remarkable fact: until recent times, men were strictly forbidden from entering the shrine.

📜 What travelers observed:

· John Struys (1672) noted it was a pilgrimage site for devout women, who would bow and kiss the tomb three times before praying.
· Sir Robert Ker Porter (1706) reported that the shrine was maintained by women from nearby villages.
· Eugène Flandin (1844) confirmed that men were absolutely barred from entering, and local women fiercely guarded this rule.
· Even James Morier (1809) was denied access because he was a man.
· When Madame Dieulafoy (1881) entered wearing men’s clothing, she faced violent reactions from local women who believed she was male.

🕌 A site with a feminine identity
During the reign of the Atabegs in Fars (around 620–621 AH), a Friday mosque was built around the tomb, and a mihrab was carved into the stone inside the burial chamber. Yet the local tradition remained unwavering: this was a women’s sanctuary, associated in popular belief with a revered female figure.

❓ How did it become "Cyrus’s Tomb"?
The attribution to Cyrus the Great is not a centuries-old local belief, but a later Western assertion—one that lacks clear early evidence and contradicts the site’s long‑standing gendered tradition.

For generations, people of the region insisted the tomb belonged to a woman. Only after Western orientalists began promoting the Cyrus narrative did that certainty turn into doubt.

---

📖 Sources & further reading:

· George Nathaniel Curzon, Persia and the Persian Question (1892)
· Travel accounts of Struys, Porter, Flandin, Morier, Dieulafoy
· Encyclopaedia Iranica: “Cyrus v. The Tomb of Cyrus”

📍 Original article (Persian):
https://jscenter.ir/slave-jews/cyrus/3831

#Pasargadae #Cyrus #IranianHistory #ColonialNarratives #WomenHistory #Archaeology

🆔 @rahyafte_en