![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Trips to and from the court of King Darius I are richly documented from 509 to 493 BCE thanks to the Persepolis Fortification Archive. This paper analyzes patterns in the timing of these trips and demonstrates that trips to and from the court of the King peaked around the Persian New Year. The peak around the New Year is especially pronounced for trips between the King and distant regions. A number of these trips around the New Year involved the presentation of tax, as the article will show. In addition to the collection of tax, meetings at the royal court around the New Year served both the symbolic purpose of demonstrating the unity of a heterogenous empire and the administrative purpose of organising the imperial government.
Acknowledgments
The research presented in this article was made possible by the Persepolis Fortification Archive Project. I would like to thank Wouter Henkelman and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Dates of Achaemenid regnal years in this article follow convention. “Dar” indicates the reign of Darius I, and the Arabic numerals following this indicate the regnal year. Henkelman, The Other Gods Who Are, 65–179 provides the fullest description of the Persepolis Fortification Archive.
2 On the uninscribed but sealed tablets, see Garrison, “The Uninscribed Tablets from the Fortification Archive.”
3 Demotic Egyptian: Azzoni et al., “From the Persepolis Fortification Archive Project,” 7; Akkadian: Stolper, “The Neo-Babylonian Text;” Greek: Canali de Rossi, Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco, 133; Old Persian: Stolper and Tavernier, “From the Persepolis Fortification Archive Project 1,” Phrygian: Brixhe, “Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes,” 118–26.
4 Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets; Hallock, “Selected Fortification Texts.”
5 Wouter Henkelman is presently preparing all the PF-NN texts for publication.
6 Arfaee, Persepolis Fortification Tablets.
8 E.g., Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 422–71; Briant, Henkelman, and Stolper, L’Archive des Fortifications de Persépolis; Henkelman, The Other Gods Who Are, and a number of the contributions to Jacobs, Henkelman, and Stolper, Die Verwaltung im Achämenidenreich.
9 Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, 13–69 describes these categories.
10 See Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, 365–440 for the Q texts. For the S3 texts, see Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, 484–86. For studies of these texts, see, inter alia, Briant, “From the Indus to the Mediterranean;” Colburn, “Connectivity and Communication;” Henkelman, “Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm;” Hyland, “The Achaemenid Messenger System and the Ionian Revolt.”
11 Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, 366. The word translated above as “subordinates,” puhu, Hallock translates as “boys.” Hallock notes in his glossary that the term is used of subordinates (746); earlier he says “boys” is used in an “occupational” sense (Hallock, “A New Look,” 93–94). I use the term “subordinate” because it is the more likely option in travel rations (see Giovinazzo, “I ‘puhu’ nei testi di Persepoli;” Henkelman, “Bactrians in Persepolis,” 239).
12 On halmis, see Henkelman, The Other Gods Who Are, 151–53; Tuplin, “The Bodleian Letters,” 154–63.
13 The highest deputy of a satrap, such as Ziššawiš in Parsa, could also issue halmis in some areas (Henkelman, “Persia,” 887).
14 For the fullest discussions of the satrap Karkiš, see Henkelman, “‘Consumed before the King,’” 704–13; Henkelman, “Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm,” 49–54.
15 On the mobility of the King’s court, see Briant, “Le nomadisme du Grand Roi;” Tuplin, “The Seasonal Migration of Achaemenid Kings;” Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 186–92.
16 The Fort. texts are omitted because they have not yet been completely studied.
17 The total in is less than 922 because not all of the texts record a month. See earlier Tuplin, “The Seasonal Migration of Achaemenid Kings,” 88–89 for broad patterns on the distribution of the Q texts across months.
18 252 of the texts have either a broken year or no year recorded.
19 The years in this sample are reflective of those of the overall Archive (see Henkelman, The Other Gods Who Are, 123–25, 174 on the dates of the texts). The majority of the travel texts with a surviving year date to the four-year span of Dar 21–24: 527 out of 670 (78.7%). 446 of these 670 texts date to years 22 or 23 (66.6%).
20 Hartner, “Old Iranian Calendars,” 739–40.
21 Tuplin, “The Seasonal Migration of Achaemenid Kings,” 88.
22 For and , one could add to these numbers by including texts which do not mention the King but show travellers going to the King’s known location (see below). However, doing so would inflate the months where the King’s location is known, while not affecting the months where the King’s location is unknown. This would, therefore, give an incorrect impression of the ratio of some months to other months, and it is the ratio, rather than the exact figures, that is important here.
23 869 of the 922 texts record either a toponym as the origin, a halmi-issuer, or both. In contrast, 613 of these texts record a destination.
24 Compare, e.g., PF-NN 1564 which records a group travelling to the King at Susa on Dar 21 month 12 to PF-NN 0773 which shows a group travelling to just Susa on Dar 21 month 12.
25 This accords with the long period of time Marduk-nāṣir-apli of the Babylonian Egibi family is known to have stayed in Susa. On one trip, he stayed over a month, and on another he stayed nearly a month (Abraham, “Šušan in the Egibi Texts,” 63). See further below on the Babylonians who travelled to Susa.
26 The neighbouring regions are Elam (Susa), Media, and Carmania. This also excludes travel within Parsa.
27 However, some trips that appear to be local in the texts may have been supra-regional. Satraps could reissue travel authorizations to groups coming from afar. However, it is usually not possible to identify such re-authorizations, and therefore these are omitted from . The figure, therefore, underrepresents the total number of supra-regional trips, but there is no way to know by how much it underrepresents them.
28 This includes texts which explicitly name the King as an origin or destination (42 total texts with surviving months) as well as those that do not (33 total).
29 At a minimum, such trips cost the state 1–1.5 litres of flour per person per day, in addition to 1 L of a beverage. At ca. 25 kilometers per day (Kuhrt, The Persian Empire, 739), this cost quickly adds up across hundreds of kilometers.
30 Tuplin, “The Seasonal Migration of Achaemenid Kings.”
31 PF 1496 (Dar 23 month 1) records the King issuing a halmi from a broken toponym starting with Ku-, which was presumably nearby (or otherwise the second half of a round trip).
32 The location of this toponym is not known.
33 Tuplin, “The Seasonal Migration of Achaemenid Kings,” refers to these as category II and category I texts respectively. excludes any texts with uncertainty regarding the location or date; Tuplin includes more of these uncertain readings in his tabulations. Because Tuplin includes texts that are less clear about the King’s location and because he includes texts other than Q texts, his tabulations are larger; however, the overall pattern of the King’s location is similar.
34 On these texts, see also Tuplin, “The Seasonal Migration of Achaemenid Kings,” 80–81; Henkelman, “Bactrians in Persepolis,” 16.
35 The obvious round trips are those with a halmi from the King but travel from far away from southwestern Iran. The texts are PF-NN 1713 (travel from Areia, Dar 22? month 7), PF 1318 (India, Dar 23 month 2), PF 1474 (Arachosia, Dar 23 month 4), and PF 2056 (Areia, Dar 28 month 11). PF-NN 2522 (travel from Matezziš, Dar 22 month 10) can also be safely considered a round trip authorisation because PF-NN 2511 shows the King in Susa the month prior, while PF 1364 shows him in Susa on the same month. PF-1378 (travel from Persepolis, Dar 23 month 1) is also the second half of a round trip, as three other texts (PF 1398, PF-NN 1458, PF-NN 2426) show that the King was at Susa at this time.
36 As for New Year of Dar 24, the King is certainly present at Susa at the end of Dar 23, but there is no explicit mention of his presence at Susa in the first month of Dar 24.
37 Because there are so few Persepolis Fortification texts overall dated to Dar 25 and 26, Tuplin, “The Seasonal Migration of Achaemenid Kings,” 84 is right that we should not extrapolate from this that the King was absent from southwestern Iran at this time (though we cannot discount this possibility either).
38 The travel away from Susa is indicated by the halmi of Bakabana, the satrap in Susa (Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 351; Henkelman, “Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm,” 114; Koch, Achämeniden-studien, 22–31).
39 Waerzeggers, “Babylonians in Susa.” Tolini, “La Babylonie et l’Iran,” 255–370 considers the relationships between Babylonia and Susa during the entire reign of Darius I. See earlier Abraham, “Šušan in the Egibi Texts,” on the same phenomenon, though Waerzeggers has changed our knowledge of the toponyms discussed here. Stolper, “The Murašû Texts from Susa,” examines later texts which show travels of the Murašû family to Susa. These, of course, are not directly relevant to the reign of Darius I, as discussed here, but suggest that the pattern seen in Darius I’s reign continued into the later fifth century. For the term “long sixth century,” see Jursa, Aspects of the Economic History, v.
40 Joannès, “Les relations entre Babylonie et Iran,” 193–96; Jursa and Waerzeggers, “On Aspects of Taxation in Achaemenid Babylonia,” 243–46; Tolini, “La Babylonie et l’Iran,” 255–370.
41 Waerzeggers, “Babylonians in Susa,” 808.
42 The timing of the Babylonian trips to the King, in fact, correlates even more strongly with the New Year than do the Persepolis texts. Of the relevant texts with extant months, the majority fall between month 11 and 1: 5 texts date to month 11, 11 texts date to month 12 (or the intercalary month), and 6 texts date to month 1. 2 texts each date to month 10 and 2. 1 text each date to month 5 and 7. See Waerzeggers, “Babylonians in Susa,” 801. Note that these figures include more material than just from the years Dar 22–24. The stronger correlation with the New Year in the Babylonian texts should not be surprising: Babylonians had less reason to travel to Susa than did people nearer than imperial court in southwestern Iran, who travelled for other reasons (logistics, messages, etc.) in addition to meetings with the King’s court around the New Year.
43 On baziš, see note 46 below. As for the use of the word “tax” in general, what survives in these records is merely the transportation of surplus, with no details of extraction provided. There is therefore no means by which to distinguish among, e.g., tax, rent, and tribute (in the manner of, for example, Bonney and Ormrod, “Introduction: Crises, Revolutions and Self-Sustained Growth;” see also Monson and Scheidel, Fiscal Regimes and the Political Economy in an ancient context). “Tax” is chosen because it is the most neutral term available.
44 In the following table, Fort. 2173-101:6’-9’ and Fort. 0895–101 are both published in Stolper, “Atossa Re-Enters.” The cited portion of Fort.1901A-101 is published in Henkelman, “Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm,” 133. Fort. 7862 is published in Arfaee, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, 207–9.
45 In addition, see Tuplin, “The Bodleian Letters,” 237, no. 365. Tuplin includes brief references to unpublished Fort. texts which mention the transportation of silver, but these references only include the origin and destination.
46 In , I translate šalur as “free man,” libar as “servant,” and puhu as “subordinate.” The precise meanings of these terms are outside the scope of this article. On puhu, see note 11 above. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, 720 notes that šalur and libar are often paired and contrasted. See also Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 432 on the contrast.
47 Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “Gifts in the Persian Empire,” 137–38; Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “Bāji-.” See also Herrenschmidt, “Le tribut dans les inscriptions.”
48 Naveh and Shaked, “Ritual Texts or Treasury Documents?;” Hinz, “Zu den Mörsen und Stösseln;” Henkelman, “Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm,” 102–9; King, “Taxing Achaemenid Arachosia.”
49 For the location of Antarrantiš, see Arfaee, “The Geographical Background,” 57–58. The location is often associated with workers of Queen Atossa in the Persepolis texts (Stolper, “Atossa Re-Enters”), though this is not the case in either of the two entries in the table. The location may, therefore, parallel the case of the treasure associated with the queens in PFa 14, discussed below. The spelling of “Hyrcania” in this text and in Fort. 2173-101:6'-9' is unusual; see Stolper, “Atossa Re-Enters,” 460.
50 Regarding the date, the year 20 matches the tablet better, but the other texts in which one of the individuals appear date to year 23. The reading of kanzabara is also uncertain here.
51 For the location of Maturban, see Arfaee, “The Geographical Background,” 87.
52 A metal ingot inscribed in Elamite found in Kabul (Hulin, “The Signs on the Kabul Silver Piece”) suggests that precious metal was monitored by the Achaemenid administration in Central Asia and may have been among the objects transported to Parsa or Elam as tax. Stoneware was certainly among the valuables transported from Arachosia to Persepolis (King, “Taxing Achaemenid Arachosia”).
53 Henkelman, “Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm,” 150–74.
54 A word for “livestock” is missing from the tablet, but Hallock (Persepolis Fortification Tablets, 97) supplies it based on comparison with similar texts. The other texts which describe livestock as baziš are unrelated to the taxation described in the Q texts (Tuplin, “Taxation and Death,” 326–28).
55 For this sealing protocol, see Hallock, “The Use of Seals,” 127; Garrison, “Sealing Practice in Achaemenid Times,” 530.
56 Presumably the same core group travelled from Arachosia to Susa, while different officials travelled between settlements along the way.
57 On Barrikana, see Tavernier, Iranica in the Achaemenid Period, 389–90; Henkelman, “Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm,” 106–7.
58 Henkelman, “Precarious Gifts,” 38–39 proposes that the baziš came from Otanes’ estate. Henkelman also reviews the possible identification of this Otanes with other homonymous persons known from Herodotus. King, “Taxing Achaemenid Arachosia,” 198 also suggests that the individuals associated with the baziš in these texts were people on whom a tax was incumbent.
59 The seal is PFS 1393s (seal identification by M.B. Garrison). King, “Taxing Achaemenid Arachosia,” 198. suggests this Miššabada may be the same person known as Mtrpt, a segan-officer, in the texts on the green chert objects from Persepolis; both are associated with Arachosia.
60 The number of men in the party also differ between the texts, but the evidence here is not as clear, because travelling parties could fluctuate across a single trip. Cf. the discussion on PF-NN 2149 and PF-NN 2580 above.
61 Waerzeggers, “Babylonians in Susa,” 799.
62 For the word kantaš, see Henkelman, “Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm,” 116; Stolper, “Atossa Re-Enters,” 460.
63 Kawase, “Kapnuški in the Persepolis Fortification Texts.”
64 For the text and translation, see now Taylor, “The Bodleian Letters: Text and Translation,” 42–43. The Aramaic term is gnz’, rendering Old Iranian *ganza-, which appears in Elamite in the Persepolis texts as kanzam.
65 Tuplin, “The Bodleian Letters,” 236–41.
66 The recipient of the flour in PF 1357 is likely the same as the one in PF 1942 and in PF-NN 1656 (Tuplin, “Taxation and Death,” 329–30).
67 Waerzeggers, “Babylonians in Susa.”
68 The ration-recipient in PF 1357, Batteša, may be the same person as the Batteša in PF 1942:19–22 (Dar 19, month 12, unknown travel route, authorisation of the King) and PF-NN 1656 (broken year, month 1, travel from Susa to Persepolis, authorisation from the King). In both these texts, Batteša is called dasaziya, which Hinz and Koch (Elamisches Wörterbuch, Vol. 1, 294) propose to be a “Zehten-Einheber,” i.e. a tax-related official; see also Koch, “Steuren in Achämenidischen Persis?,” 123. However, their translation of the term is speculative by their own admission.
69 This is already suggested by Giovinazzo, “I ‘puhu’ nei testi di Persepoli,” 152–53; Henkelman, “An Elamite Memorial,” 133–34. If this interpretation is correct, it is likely that the 71 subordinates were accompanied by a group of free men who were rationed by the Persepolitan administration in a separate stream of documentation. Such a case is recorded, for example, in the texts PF-NN 0802 and PF-NN 0803 (King, “The House of the Satrap,” 292–94). For the activities of Irdabama and Irtašduna as recorded in the Persepolis Fortification Archive, see Brosius, Women in Ancient Persia, 123–44. Irdabama is called by the title abbamuš in this text, on which see Brosius, Women in Ancient Persia, 132–44; Henkelman, “Irdabama and Her Seals.”
70 Henkelman, “Precarious Gifts,” 35–36 suggests this, though he also suggests that all of PFa 14 may represent extractions from estates of Irdabama and Irtašduna in Carmania that were owed to the King. The present evidence does not allow a certain conclusion.
71 On Matezziš, see Sumner, “Achaemenid Settlement in the Persepolis Plain,” 23; Gondet, “Occupation de la plaine de Persépolis,” 5.7.2.1; Arfaee, “The Geographical Background,” 23–28.
72 See Stolper, “Ganzabara” for the word used for “treasurer” here.
73 The same phrasing of “attached to the treasury” is also used in PF-NN 1684 and PF 1442. Concerning the possible difference between Old Persian kanzam and Elamite kapnuški, Henkelman, “Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm,” 97–99 argues that kanzam denotes a larger operation than kapnuški.
74 On the trip recorded in PF 1342 and Fort. 7862, see also Tuplin (“The Bodleian Letters,” 238 n. 369), who notes that the traveller was moving quite slowly.
75 Workers paid in silver or in kind: Tamerus, “Elusive Silver in the Achaemenid Heartland,” 263.
76 See Stolper, “Hidali;” Henkelman, “Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm,” 97–99 for Hidali in the Achaemenid period, and Henkelman, “Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm,” 191 for a text edition and translation.
77 The seal is PFS 1240*; seal identification courtesy of M. Garrison.
78 Two other texts record large travelling parties in the table above: PF-NN 1564 and PF 1495. However, neither is likely to represent taxed labour. The ratio of servants (libap) to free men (šalup) in PF-NN 1564, at approximately 1.5:1, is not nearly high enough to indicate a group of men transporting corvée and/or dependent labourers; compare the 28:1 ratio of subordinates to men in PF-NN 0431. The šalup and libap of PF-NN 1564 more likely represent a group of dignitaries and their personal retainers or slaves on a trip to the King related to taxation. PF 1495 refers to all the thirty-one travellers as “men” rather than as a term indicating subordination (libap or puhu). It is unlikely that these travellers are corvée labourers when designated as such.
79 For the reading of Gandhāra rather than Kandahar in PF-NN 0431 and PF 1358, see Bernard, “Un problème de toponymie antique,” 181; Bivar, “The Indus Lands,” 205; Henkelman, “Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm,” 154–55.
80 Potts, “Camels and Their Rations” reviews 19th century literature on the ratio of humans to camels in commercial caravans, which range from one human: four camels to one: six. An early twentieth century source says that one camel driver looked after seven camels, and one mule driver cared for five mules (Maclean, Report on the Condition and Prospects, 80.) The humans greatly outnumber the animals in PF-NN 0431, and this all but eliminates the possibility that this group was carrying valuable goods, unless in small quantities.
81 Herodotus 3.92, though see Jursa, “Taxation and Service Obligations” on the applicability of Herodotus to the Akkadian sources. On taxation of labour in Babylonia, see, inter alia, Henkelman and Kleber, “Babylonian Workers in the Persian Heartland;” Jursa and Waerzeggers, “On Aspects of Taxation in Achaemenid Babylonia;” Jursa, Aspects of the Economic History, 745–53; Jursa, “Labor in Babylonia;” Jursa and Schmidl, “Babylonia as a Source of Imperial Revenue.”
82 For similar texts, see, e.g., PF 1386 (2 men, 58 subordinates) or PF 1491 (5 men, 65 subordinates).
83 The supplier, Katukka, was likely stationed at Pirdatkaš, in the eastern part of the Fahliyān region (Henkelman, The Other Gods Who Are, 506). The travelling group had a minimum of several hundred kilometers remaining to travel (the exact number depends on the precise location of Pirdatkaš). Unless they travelled unusually slowly, this group would have nevertheless arrived before the New Year, but this accords with the conclusion that these delegations arrived in a staggered fashion.
84 Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “Nowruz in Persepolis.” For the publication of these reliefs, see Schmidt, Persepolis I, 82–106, plates 15–61.
85 Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “Nowruz in Persepolis,” 199.
86 On the interpretation of the reliefs, see Jacobs, “Cyropaedia and the ‘Gift-Bearer Reliefs,’” 247–48. On the administrative meaning of dahyāva, see Jacobs, Die Satrapienverwaltung, 89–116; Jacobs, “Kontinuität oder kontinuierlicher Wandel,” 20–23.
87 See Klinkott, “Steuern, Zölle und Tribute,” 267–69 for a discussion of gifts within the system of Achaemenid taxation. As Wiesehöfer, “Tauta gar en atelea,” 184–86 points out, these gifts are often associated with semi-autonomous, nomadic groups, so if there was any distinction, it may have been to distinguish among types of subject populations. Ruffing reads the gift versus tax distinction in Herodotus specifically as a commentary on politics in the author’s contemporary Greek world (Ruffing, “Gifts for Cyrus, Tribute for Darius;” Hackl and Ruffing, “Taxes and Tributes,” 967–72). Ruffing is correct to argue that the distinction had implications in the Greek context, although that does not rule out a real (if underexplained by Greek authors) distinction in the Achaemenid context.
88 Jacobs, “Cyropaedia and the ‘Gift-Bearer Reliefs’,” 250–51. See Labrousse and Boucharlat, “La fouille du palais du Chaour,” 2–3 for the first publication.
89 For the accounts of Classical authors on the travels of the King, see Tuplin, “The Seasonal Migration of Achaemenid Kings,” 63–72. For the provisioning of the royal court, see Henkelman, “‘Consumed before the King.’”
90 This includes the Babylonian texts; see above, no. 41.
91 Most Babylonian taxation spent locally: Jursa, Aspects of the Economic History, 779, though with the caveat that this may have changed somewhat after 484; treasuries at Persepolis: Cahill, “The Treasury at Persepolis;” de Callataÿ, “Les trésors achéménides et les monnayages d’Alexandre;” King, “Taxing Achaemenid Arachosia.”
92 Bresson, “Silverization, Prices and Tribute in the Achaemenid Empire,” esp. 244–45. Note that Bresson’s arguments do not mean that nearly half of all the tax was taken to central treasuries. The Achaemenids collected tax in various forms, including labour, and Bresson’s argument concerns precious metal, specifically.
93 Tamerus, “Elusive Silver in the Achaemenid Heartland,” demonstrates how silver paid for labour in Parsa via the Persepolis Treasury texts (published by Cameron, Persepolis Treasury Tablets; Cameron, “Persepolis Treasury Tablets Old and New;” Cameron, “New Tablets from the Persepolis Treasury;” Hallock, “A New Look”).
94 Waerzeggers, “Babylonians in Susa.”