Activities of peoples:
| People | Activity |
|---|---|
| Assyrians | Transporting the cedar wood from Lebanon to Babylon |
| Babylonians | Molding sun‐dried bricks |
| Carians | Transporting the cedar wood from Babylon to Susa |
| Egyptians | Goldsmiths |
| Egyptians | Woodworking |
| Egyptians | Wall adorning |
| Ionians | Transporting the cedar wood from Babylon to Susa |
| Ionians | Stone‐cutting |
| Lydians | Stone‐cutting |
| Lydians | Woodworking |
| Medes | Goldsmiths |
| Medes | Wall adorning |
DSf is complemented by two other documents, equally recording the building of the palace in Susa. DSz is a much damaged copy of DSf. The other inscription, DSaa, exclusively recorded in Babylonian, does not connect specific materials with countries. After enumerating the various materials used for the palace (11–17), it simply states:
These are the lands that have brought the materials for the decoration of this palace: Persia, Media, Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, the Sea Lands, Lydia, Ionia, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandāra, Cimmeria, Sattagydia, Arachosia, Maka (Qadê).
Clearly, these building inscriptions fit into the royal ideology concerning the vispazana‐ness of the empire. Thanks to the unity and collaboration of all lands, guided by the master hand of the king himself, this magnificent palace has been built. The inscriptions stress the unity as well as the diversity of the Achaemenid Empire. Conspicuously, but not surprisingly, nearly all building activities are realized by two lands/peoples: stone‐cutting is the job of the Ionians and Lydians, whereas woodworking is taken care of by Egyptians and Lydians, etc. This is in contrast to the Persepolis Fortification Archive (cf. infra), where there are but few instances of two ethnonyms appearing together in a single text (Henkelman and Stolper 2009: pp. 278–279). This underlines the ideological character of the inscriptions, which stress the solidarity and the eagerness, shared by all people governed by the Achaemenid king, to collaborate in order to realize the king's great projects.
Finally, the Achaemenid iconography also gives us some information on the royal consciousness concerning the multitude of peoples living in the empire. Throne bearers are depicted in Persepolis and Naqš‐i Rustam. They are neatly distinguished with regard to their external appearance and are accompanied by captions describing them. Note that here the peoples' names are used rather than the lands' names: Persian, Median, Elamite, Parthian, Arian, Bactrian, Sogdian, Chorasmian, Drangianian, Arachosian, Sattagydian, Gandharian, Indian, hauma‐drinking Saca, Pointed Hat Saca, Babylonian, Assyrian, Arab, Egyptian, Armenian, Cappadocian, Lydian, Ionian, Saca across the sea, Thracian, petasos‐wearing Ionian, Libyan, Nubian, Macian, Carian.
A statue of Darius (DSab), but sculpted in Egypt, depicts 24 persons, each belonging to a different people or land: Persia, Media, Elam, Aria, Parthia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Arachosia, Drangiana, Sattagydia, Chorasmia, Saca of Marsh and Saca of Plain, Babylonia, Armenia, Lydia, Cappadocia, Skudra, Assyria, Hagar (Arabia), Egypt, Libya, Nubia, Maka, India.
The Persepolis reliefs also show representatives of countries bringing their tribute: Medes, Elamites, Armenians, Arians, Babylonians, Lydians, Arachosians, Assyrians, Cappadocians, Egyptians, Saca (three types), Ionians, Bactrians, Gandharians, Parthians, Sagartians, Indians, Arabians, Drangians, Nubians.
If all this is taken together, one can make up a list of people mentioned by the Achaemenid kings as subject people. No less than 36 lands or people appear in these texts: Persia, Elam, Media, Sagartia, Akaufaciya, Parthia, Aria, Bactria, Sogdiana, Chorasmia, Drangiana, Arachosia, Sattagydia, Gandhara, India, hauma‐drinking Saca, Pointed Hat Saca (these two peoples are plainly called Saca in the eldest inscriptions DB and DPe), Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Nubia, Armenia, Cappadocia, Lydia, Skudra, Saca across the sea, Caria, inland Ionians, Ionians by the sea, Ionians across the sea, petasos‐wearing Ionians (the Ionians are brought together under the header Ionia in DB), Lands across the sea, Dahia, Maka.
The rather large number of textual and iconographical royal sources listing the subject lands corroborates the importance for the Achaemenid kings to act in such a way. In other words, the enumerating of these lands is firmly established in the royal mind. In fact, it is one of the central axes of the royal Achaemenid ideology.
Peoples and Languages in Elamite, Babylonian, and Greek Texts
Elamite Texts
Large groups of ethnically defined workmen also appear in documentary texts from the Achaemenid period, especially in the Persepolis Fortification and Treasury Texts, where they are active in the Persepolis economy (cf. Henkelman and Stolper 2009 on the Skudrians; Rollinger and Henkelman 2009 on the Ionians; Tavernier 2015 on the Lycians; Uchitel 1989 and 1991 in general; Wasmuth 2009 on the Egyptians).
People attested in Persepolis, which must have been a really multicultural residential city, are Ākaufacians, Arabs, Arachosians, Arbelans, Areians, Armenians, Assyrians (Syrians), Babylonians, Bactrians, Cappadocians, Carians, Carmanians, Drangianians, Egyptians, Gandharians, Hattians (north Syrians), Hyrcanians, Indians, Ionians, Lycians, Lydians, Macians, Parikanians, Parthians, Sagartians, Skudrians, and Sogdians (Henkelman and Stolper 2009: pp. 300–306).
Remarkably, Persians, Medes, and Elamites are absent or nearly absent from the written documents, although their role in the Persepolis economy is beyond doubt (as already indicated by the Old Persian, Median, and Elamite names). This absence or near‐absence may be explained by the fact that their ethnicity did apparently not matter for the Persepolis administrators (Henkelman and Stolper 2009: pp. 275–278).
Babylonian Texts
Babylonian texts dated to the Achaemenid period too sometimes mention foreign groups or individuals (Joannès 2009: pp. 224–227) and the fact that they are rather private texts than texts belonging to the public administration makes the context in which these groups appear different from the Persepolis context. An interesting dossier is that of the Caro‐Egyptian (i.e. Carians coming from Egypt) soldiers stationed in Borsippa (Waerzeggers 2006; Heller 2010: pp. 341–344). This dossier illustrates one of the systems by which the Achaemenid state channeled the influx of foreign people in Babylonia: Borsippean citizens had to provide rations for the Caro‐Egyptians. Other systems are (i) war prisoners that were sold into slavery or donated to a temple and (ii) the military land‐grant system, which functions according to the “land‐for‐service” principle and which is fairly well attested in the late fifth‐century Murašû Archive. One text also illustrates this system for Jews (Waerzeggers 2006: p. 68). In addition, the Murašû Archive contains various names of so‐called arus, which were named after
