![]() ![]() But the chaotic arrangement of the nomoi list, which conflicts with geographic reality, its over-emphasis on the western regions, which shows that Herodotus had no authentic source at his disposal, and the fact that the data in the paragraphs in question are in conflict with all other sources, Greek and Latin texts included, force us to take a different methodological approach. Even very recently this controversial passage provided the basic data for the expositions of Achaemenid provincial administration in large-scale historical works (Briant, 1996 Debord, 1999). This list continues to be claimed as the basic source for the reconstruction of satrapal administration (for summaries of previous research, see: Jacobs, 1994, pp. (1) Herodotus’s list of satrapies (Histories 3.90-94). 139), in archives (e.g., Hallock Stolper, 1990 Koch), and on coins (e.g., Alram, pp. To these sources are to be added several hundred passages in Greek and Latin literature, as well as sporadic information in inscriptions (e.g., the Droaphernes inscription, see Briant, 1998 the Payawa sarcophagus inscription TL 40 d, see Laroche, p. 522-486) from Susa and on the Suez Canal stelae (Yoyotte). Stève, 1974- Schmitt, 1991 2000 Lecoq, 1997) and, in addition, the enumerations on the base of the statue of Darius I (r. ![]() (3) The inscriptions of the Achaemenids, and in particular their dahyāva lists (DB par. P 264 D-265 B Georgios Kedrenos, P 155 D). 117), the Alexander romance (Ps.-Callisthenes, 3.33.13-22 52-61 Julius Valerius, 3.94 Leo Archipresbyteros, 3.58), and medieval sources (Georgios Synkellos, Chron. 92.71b Diod., 18.39.5-7) and, later on, Persepolis (Diod., 19.48.1-6), together with the lists appearing in the so-called testament of Alexander the Great ( Test. (2) The lists of satrapies given by the Alexander historians in their accounts of the empire’s division at Babylon (Arrianus, Succ. Three groups of sources play a specially prominent role in the reconstruction of satrapal administration: (1) The so-called nomoi list of Herodotus ( Histories 3.90-94 5th century BCE cf. These structures in turn determined the hierarchical construction of the satrapal system which, remaining essentially unchanged, proved a successful instrument of administration throughout the entire Achaemenid period. 530-522 see CAMBYSES ii) adapted the existing structures of predecessor empires on a large scale. 559-530 see CYRUS ii) and his son Cambyses (r. In order to guarantee control over an empire which expanded rapidly between 550 and 522 BCE, Cyrus the Great (r. Dealing with crises and uprisings was also the responsibility of satraps, as was defense against external threats. The satrapies formed a system which made it possible to rule over the whole Achaemenid territory, to raise and forward taxes, to recruit military forces, and to control local bureaucracies. dahyāva see below the section on Terminology), and not * xsaça-pā-vana-, is employed for the administrative units that formed the empire, and this usage may indicate that * xsaça-pā-vana- had a more specific meaning, making dahyu- the apparently appropriate term. Notwithstanding this reconstructed Persian form, the Greek word satrapeia ( satrapēiē) was derived from a Northwest Iranian (Median) dialect. From the title of this official an OP * xsaça-pā-vana- can be deduced (Hinz, 1975, p. Only the title xsaça-pā-van-, which combines pā (protect) and xsaça- (empire, sovereignty) with the suffix - van- and thus describes an administrator as the “protector of empire” or “protector of sovereignty” (Schmitt, 1976, p. In the extant Old Persian (OP) texts, there is no word that is an equivalent to satrapy with regard to both etymology and meaning. In modern research the use of the term satrapy follows that of the word satrapeia ( satrapēiē) in Greek sources. ACHAEMENID SATRAPIES, the administrative units of the Achaemenid empire. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |