Phrygians, and Tyrians (Stolper 1985: pp. 72–79). An Egyptian community at Susa is well‐attested in the Babylonian documentation (Joannès 1984).
From Babylonian texts can also be derived that Babylonian workers were active in the construction of a palace at Taokè (modern Borazjan, in the Bushehr region; Tolini 2008). The Elamite texts corroborate this, in naming groups of Egyptians, Skudrians, Cappadocians, and Lydians that were directed to the same place (Henkelman and Stolper 2009: pp. 279–280).
It should be kept in mind, however, that the Achaemenid Empire was not unique in using workforces not belonging to the same ethnicity of the ruling class for its own purposes. The Neo‐Assyrian Empire is notoriously famous for its deportations of workmen from conquered areas to Assyria proper. In the same way the Neo‐Babylonian Empire did precisely the same (just to mention the Babylonian Captivity) and at the royal court many non‐Babylonian people are attested (Heller 2010: p. 336; Jursa 2010: pp. 72–73). The difference between the earlier empires and the Achaemenid Empire, however, is that in the latter the ethnically‐defined groups play a role in the royal ideology whereas in Mesopotamia they are kept away from this ideology.
Greek Texts
The many Greek classical sources informing us on the history of the Achaemenid Empire mention numerous people, but the most famous passage must be the one in which Herodotus lists the 20 provinces installed by Darius I (Hist., III 90–97; cf. Jacobs 2003; Ruffing 2009). The provinces are:
1 Ionians, Magnesians in Asia, Aeolians, Carians, Lycians, Milyans, and Pamphylians.
2 Mysians, Lydians, Lasonians, Cabalians, and Hytennians.
3 Hellespontines, Phrygians, Thracians in Asia, Paphlagonians, Mariandynians, and Syrians.
4 Cilicians.
5 The city of Posideium up to Egypt (except the Arabs), including Phoenicia, Palestinia, and Cyprus.
6 Egypt, Libya, Cyrene, Barca.
7 The Sattagydians, Gandharians, Dadicae, and Aparytai.
8 The Susians and the other lands of the Cissians.
9 Babylon and Assyria.
10 The Ecbatanians, the rest of Media, Paricanians, and Orthocorybantes.
11 The Caspians, Pausicae, Pantimathi, and Daritae.
12 The Bactrians as far as the Aegli.
13 The Pactyic region, the Armenians, and the adjacent regions as far as the Black Sea.
14 The Sagartians, Sarangians, Thamanians, Utians, and Mycians.
15 The Saca and Caspians.
16 Parthians, Chorasmians, Sogdians, and Areians.
17 Paricanians and the Ethiopians of Asia.
18 The Matieni, Saspires, and Alarodians.
19 The Moschi, Tibareni, Macrones, Mossynoeci, and Mares.
20 The Indians.
These are the people paying tribute. Other people, only giving presents to the Persian king, are the Arabs, the Ethiopians, and the Colchians. The list is certainly not exhaustive. In the work of the same author, other people occur as well, e.g. in Asia Minor (1.170–180): Caunians, Calyndians, and Pedasians.
Also Xenophon (Cyrop. 1.1.4) gives a list of people subdued by Cyrus II: Medes, Hyrcanians, Surians, Assyrians, Arabians, Cappadocians, Phrygians, Lydians, Carians, Phoenicians, Babylonians, Bactrians, Indians, Cilicians, Sacians, Paphlagonians, Magadidians, Greeks in Asia, Cyprians, Egyptians, “and many other nations, whose names one cannot even say.” It should be noted, however, that the conquests of Xenophon's Cyrus are not the same as those of the historical Cyrus (Ambler 2001: p. 287), e.g. Egypt was only conquered by his son Cambyses.
The Languages of the Achaemenid Empire: An Overview
Xenophon has it that Cyrus “ruled these nations even though they did not speak the same language as either he himself or one another.” Diodorus tells his readers that before the battle of Gaugamela the Achaemenid king “was most concerned lest some confusion should arise in the battle from the numerous people assembled that differed in speech” (Diodorus Siculus 17.53.4). In his Bīsitūn inscription, Darius I commands the diffusion of his text in his subordinates' languages: “Afterwards this inscription I sent off everywhere among the provinces. The people unitedly worked upon it” (iv 91–92). Finally, in Esther 3.12 one may read that an order was to be sent “to every province in its own script and every people in its own language.”
These are only four examples of the multilingual character of the Achaemenid Empire, in which languages of various families were spoken. East Iran has its own languages and dialects (e.g. Arachosian, Bactrian, Sogdian), which was already noticed by Strabo (Geogr., 15.2.8). In the north, northern Iranian languages were spoken, whereas Elamite, Persian, and Median controlled southwest and central Iran. In Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Anatolia people continued to speak their own languages: Egyptian, Babylonian, Aramaic, Phrygian, Anatolian languages (Lycian, Lydian), Greek, etc. (see Chapter 54 The Interplay of Languages and Communication).
Language and Administration in the Achaemenid Empire
After their glorious military expeditions which resulted in the creation of a huge territorial empire (Figure 3.1), the Achaemenid kings faced a political unit with lots of different ethnic groups as well as languages. It was a daunting task to keep such a large territory together. The Achaemenid administration especially had to deal with various administrative systems in different languages. The big challenge here was to communicate commands and directives to the various satrapies and to make these orders comprehensible for the non‐Persian‐speaking inhabitants of these satrapies, even more so knowing that the knowledge of Old Persian, the king's and the Persian elites' vernacular, was not widespread in the empire (Briant 1996: p. 525).
In fact, in order to solve these linguistic problems the Achaemenids conducted an active language policy (Tavernier 2008; 2017; 2018; forthcoming). The main basis for the reconstruction of this policy is the many administrative formulas at the end of, e.g., letter‐orders. Such formulas are attested in Aramaic texts (from Egypt as well as from Bactria), Egyptian (demotic) texts, and Elamite texts. They reveal a coherent system, imposed by the Achaemenid kings and used throughout the existence of their empire, both geographically and chronologically. The formulas are attested from the reign of Darius I (521–486 BCE) to that of Artaxerxes III (358–338 BCE) in texts from Egypt (Arsames Correspondence [Aramaic], Pherendates Correspondence [Egyptian]), Persia proper (Persepolis Fortification and Treasury Archives [Elamite]), and Bactria (Akhvamazda Correspondence [Aramaic]).
The administrative notes are attested only on letters from the satrap or from his administration; letters to satraps do not have these formulas. Unfortunately, this implies that outside of the satrapal administration the Achaemenids' dealing with multilingualism cannot be reconstructed. In addition, the evidence for this system does not cover the whole Achaemenid territory, as it is not attested in Anatolia, although various Aramaic inscriptions were found there.
The formulas are:
| Language |
Level 1
|
|---|
