Iranica Antiqua, vol.

XXXIV, 1999

ACHAEMENID IMPERIAL POLICIES

AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

BY

M.A. DANDAMAYEV

The first millennium B.C1. was a period of the rise, decline and fall of
great empires. It is true that large empires existed already in the third and
second millennia but their economic basis differed in a striking manner from
that of the later empires. While the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and
Achaemenid empires depended mainly on taxes from private households,
out of which the kings maintained the official staff and the army, the ear-
lier empires were based on enormous state or state-temple economies. This
difference is easily to be explained by the fact that in the third and second
millennia, there did not yet exist a developed market economy or any
private extensive international trade and consequently there was no pos-
sibility to acquire freely raw materials in any considerable quantity or to
use hired labor on a large scale in the crafts or in agriculture. The most
obvious case of such empires was the Sumerian state of the kings of the
dynasty of Ur who ruled Mesopotamia, Elam and Syria for about a hundred
years (2112-2003). But already during the period preceding the Persian
conquest of Mesopotamia, the royal economy in Assyria and Babylonia
had not occupied a large share of the economy of these countries. In the
first millennium an enormous royal economy would have been an anom-
alous phenomenon.
The Neo-Assyrian state, the borders of which stretched from Egypt to
Median regions, was the first world empire. At the end of the seventh cen-
tury the well-organized Assyrian empire was replaced with rather primi-
tive Neo-Babylonian and Median states, to a considerable degree based on
tribal organizations.
Within a few decades, between 550 and 512, the Persian state, originally
also based on tribal organization, raised to the position of an enormous
world empire, which comprised the Iranian plateau, Central Asia, the

1
All dates in this paper are B.C.
270 M.A. DANDAMAYEV

northwestern India and many other countries to the west and north of
Persia. This empire existed for two hundred years, however, never was a
monolithic state. In other words, the socio-economic structures, legal sys-
tems and institutions of the Achaemenid empire were extremely diverse
ranging from the highly developed to very primitive, since it comprised
the economic developed regions of Asia Minor, Elam, Babylonia, Syria,
Phoenicia and Egypt, which had their own state institutions, and also
numerous primitive tribes or even peoples who still retained matriarchal
relations. Moreover, Persia itself which was the main body of the empire
remained a comparatively backward country. For instance, Elamite eco-
nomic and administrative documents from Persepolis drafted at the end
of the sixth and in the first half of the fifth century reveal the contours
of a huge royal household which embraced the large territory of Persia
and Elam [see Dandamayev and Lukonin 1989:145ff.]. The reasons of the
emergence of this type of economy were the same ones as in earlier empires,
namely the absence of markets and consequently the poor development
of commodity-money relations in Persia. Thus, despite its decisive role
in the establishment and maintenance of the empire, from economic point
of view Persia remained a peripheral country and could not determine or
even influence to a considerable degree the tendencies of development
typical of advanced regions based on private property and intensive market
relations. For instance, though the Persian kings possessed a large amount
of land in Babylonia during the Achaemenid period, the royal economy
did not play there the leading role which belonged at that time to the pri-
vate and temple households.
The Persians who had had little experience of government were now to
create a developed system of administration to govern more than eighty
ethnic groups. For this they had apparently to turn to the administrative
institutions of the preceding empires, first of all, of the Assyrians and at
the same time to interfere as little as possible in the traditional political
and social structures of their provinces. The Achaemenids realized well
that they were to rule, inter alia, the nations who had had thousands of years
of cultural traditions behind them and therefore had not only to demon-
strate a high respect for these traditions but also to appear in the role of the
direct heirs to them and their keepers. Thus, for instance, already Cyrus II,
the founder of the empire, in his Babylonian inscriptions proudly calls
himself “the great king of Anshan”, using this age-old royal title in
order to emphasize his Elamite and Mesopotamian cultural and historical
 ACHAEMENID IMPERIAL POLICIES AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS 271

background. Presenting himself as liberator of Mesopotamia, he also

declared (and, in all probability, believed in this himself) that the Baby-
lonian supreme god Marduk ordered him to become the ruler of the whole
world and to enter Babylon in order to liberate its population from the
oppressive role of Nabonidus, the last native king. Similarly, when Cam-
byses conquered Egypt, according to his words, this was done at the
appeal of the Egyptian goddess Neith. Cyrus and Cambyses retained with
practically no alterations the local administrative, economic and legal
institutions in Media, Babylonia and other countries, gave their conquests
the character of a legitimate union with the vanquished peoples, crowned
themselves in each country according to local customs. For instance,
Cyrus formally preserved the Neo-Babylonian kingdom within its former
borders comprising Mesopotamia and the countries to the west of the
Euphrates. Moreover, he received his title of king of Babylon from the hand
of the god Marduk, having performed the ancient ceremonies. Similarly,
Cambyses considered himself the legitimate successor to the pharaohs of
the Saite dynasty.
When in 522 Darius I became king of the Achaemenid empire, numer-
ous revolts broke in Persia and many conquered countries. Having crushed
these revolts, he was confronted with the need to reform the provin-
cial administrative system in order to avert separatist tendencies. Ca. 519
he started to carry out his important reforms, first of all, creating twenty
satrapies, in which the supreme administrative and judicial power
belonged to the satraps appointed by the king. A large central bureaucracy
was created which was situated in Susa, the administrative capital of the
empire. The state bureaucracy was based on the Aramaic language which
was also dominant in the commercial sphere. Official documents were sent
in Aramaic from Susa throughout the entire state and back to Susa. In
addition to Aramaic, in various countries were also used local languages
for the compilation of official documents (Elamite in southwest Iran,
Akkadian in Babylonia, Demotic in Egypt, Greek in Ionian cities of Asia
Minor, etc.).
Nevertheless, there was no uniform provincial system which was
characterized rather by the variety and diversity than by uniformity. For
instance, Persia was exempted from monetary taxes, Media held a special
position, Babylonia and Egypt formally remained separate kingdoms.
There were also many hereditary rulers: Carian princes in Halicarnassus,
a local dynasty in Cilicia, semi-autonomous temple communities and the
272 M.A. DANDAMAYEV

tyrants in the Ionian cities, free Greek cities with a democratic organiza-
tion in Asia Minor; a council of aristocrats on the island of Naxos, local
kings on Cyprus, and so on [cf. Frei 1990:160]. Such remote tribes as
the Arabs, Colchians, Ethiopians, Sakai, etc. were governed by their own
chiefs. Moreover, the Arabs, Cilicians, Phoenician cities and some other
peoples not only enjoyed local autonomy, but were also considered allies
of the Persian king. Besides, Phoenician and Ionian city states, satraps and
rulers in Asia Minor and Syria were allowed their own local coinage.
Some remote areas of the empire (such as regions of India) were probably
administered not directly by royal governors or local chiefs but with the
help of their neighbors living more near to the center of the empire [see
Vogelsang 1990:108].
In other words, each province remained independent socio-economic
unit with its own social institutions, internal structure, old local laws, cus-
toms, traditions, systems of weights and measures, and monetary systems.
Thus, the Persian empire was based on previous infrastructures in various
areas which “retained to a large degree their individual, traditional struc-
tures” [Kuhrt and Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1991:XVIII).
As we have seen above, different political regimes (monarchic, democra-
tic, aristocratic. and theocratic) existed in the countries of the Achaemenid
empire and continued to function owing rather to historical traditions in
each given region, as well as to convictions of the subjects of the Persian
king than to the choice or preference of the central government. When
autonomy was granted to a certain province, kingdom or city, Persian
administration remained indifferent towards the internal political structure
of the population. But in a few cases such a practice caused a serious
dissatisfaction of the subjects. For instance, in Asia Minor the Persians
did not alter the traditional political order, and they showed support for the
tyrants who had already ruled there. But soon tyranny had become an
unpopular force which was against the spirit of time and which the Persian
government continued to support out of tradition. Therefore it appeared to
the Greek citizens in Ionia that it was impossible to throw away the tyrants
without first liberating themselves from Persian domination [cf. Balcer
1991:65]. Therefore the Ionian cities revolted against “Persian despotism”
(499-493). Having crushed the Ionian revolt, the Persians reinstated the
tyrants into their former positions. Some time later, however, the Persian
general Mardonius put down all the tyrants and set up democracies in Ion-
ian cities [Herodotus 6.43].
 ACHAEMENID IMPERIAL POLICIES AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS 273

The countries which enjoyed autonomy in internal affairs could also be

included in the more extensive satrapies. For instance, under Cyrus, Cam-
byses and Darius I, Mesopotamia and all the regions to the west of the
Euphrates as far as the border on Egypt constituted a single satrapy called
Babylonia and Beyond the River (Ebir Nari, Aramaic Abar Nahara). This
enormous satrapy comprised almost all the territory of the former Neo-
Babylonian empire. This satrapy was divided into the semi-independent
Phoenician city states Tyre, Sidon, Byblos and Arad ruled by local dynasties
of the kings; the province of Judah; Samaria where the post of governor
was handed down by inheritance in the family of Sanballat; and, finally, the
provinces Megiddo, Dor, Ashod and Gaza [see Stern 1984:78-87; Eph‘al
1988:157-164]. The rulers of all these provinces and of autonomous cities
were responsible to the satrap of Babylonia and Beyond the River. Only
sometime after 486 this satrapy was divided into two parts, i.e. Babylonia
and Beyond the River [see Stolper 1989:288-293].
As to Judah, for a short time during the reign of Cyrus Sheshbazzar was
its governor, and then this post was taken by Zerubbabel. Gradually, this
province began to enjoy great independence in domestic affairs. In the
fifth and fourth centuries, its rulers were also appointed from among the
local individuals. As a result of the activities of Ezra and Nehemiah, a
foundation was laid for the Jerusalem community united around its Tem-
ple and headed by the high priest. Jerusalem gradually transformed into
a self-governing temple city [Tadmor 1994:269-270]. The Persian satrap
did not interfere into the internal affairs of this community. Thus, the high
priests of Jerusalem gradually became the governors of the province, col-
lected taxes in the name of the Persian kings and also minted silver coins
[cf. Machinist 1994:376-379].
The interest of the Persian kings in Jewish religion or their benevolent
attitude towards the Jews are, however, sometimes exaggerated by scholars.
Arguing with the view of Meyer [1896:65] and Schaeder [1930:55] that
“Judaism was created by the Persian empire”, Albright [1950:53] wrote
that “there was more opposition than support among Persian… officials”
to the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem. According to Albright,
Judaism was “developed by the Jewish people, working against great
odds”. It seems to me that the historical situation can be presented as fol-
lows. Rigid monotheism prevailed among the Jews in Babylonian captiv-
ity, while pagan practices and syncretic rites continued to function among
the Yahwists in Judah itself and Samaria. As known, Cyrus’ Edict permitted
274 M.A. DANDAMAYEV

the Jewish exiles in Babylonia to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple
there. Eph‘al [1988:151] correctly writes that since “it is rather improba-
ble that the Jews received preferential treatment, one can assume that other
ethnic-national groups were dealt with similarly”.
As far as it can be judged from various sources, no Persian officials laid
any obstacles to the Jewish repatriates who returned to Jerusalem with
Sheshbazzar and later with Ezra, except some individuals like Sanballat,
the governor of Samaria, who regarded Judah as part of his province [see
Albright 1950:48] or Tobiah, an opponent of Nehemiah, whose Yahwistic
convictions differed from those of Nehemiah and his followers.
Although after Darius’ reforms, many important military and civil posts
were occupied by the Persians, frequently governors of cities and whole
regions, judges and other comparatively highly-placed civil servants were
from among local inhabitants. In the central administrative apparatus in
Susa, alongside with Elamite and Aramean scribes, there were also coun-
selors from other countries, like Ezra who was an expert on Jewish affairs.
For some time of his life, Nehemiah served the king as cup-bearer at the
court at Susa, as well as the Egyptian dignitary Ujahorresne who was a
physician of Darius I.
Such experts advised the Achaemenid kings on local traditions of vari-
ous nations of the empire. Owing to these experts, the traditional laws of
the peoples of the empire were given the royal authorization. Apparently,
it was Ujahorrense, at whose advice Darius I ordered his satrap of Egypt
to convene wise men among the warriors, priests and scribes to put down
the Egyptian laws which had been in force during the reign of the pharaoh
Amasis [cf. Bresciani 1984:360; Johnson 1994:157f.].
Similarly, in 458 the priest and scribe Ezra was sent by Artaxerxes I to
establish the laws of Torah among the Jewish community in Judah [Stern
1984:73; on the authorization of laws in some other regions of the empire
see Frei 1984:7ff.; cf. Ackroyd 1990:216f.].
At first glance, it might appear that significant changes occurred in tem-
ple policies during the Achaemenid period. Let us consider this problem
briefly. Cambyses issued a decree on the financial administration of the
sanctuaries of Egypt. According to this decree, he cut in half the issue of
numerous donations to the temples in silver, poultry, grain, construction
timber, etc., which they obtained from the pharaohs of the Saite dynasty.
Under Cambyses only three temples (including the sanctuary of the god
Ptah in Memphis) retained their exclusive position.
 ACHAEMENID IMPERIAL POLICIES AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS 275

The restoration of the Temple of Jerusalem, sanctioned by Cyrus, later

was reaffirmed by Darius I. The latter and Artaxerxes I also issued decrees
providing for the sacrificial cult, expenses on which were paid from the
taxes collected in Beyond the River. Besides, the temple personnel was
exempt from payment of the taxes and from forced labor which were
obligatory for all the subjects of the empire. There were also established
sacrifices intended for the welfare of the king and his sons [Ezra 6:10; see
also Eph‘al 1988:151; Tadmor 1994:269f.].
Under the Achaemenids, the Babylonian temples were obliged to deliver
considerable amounts of barley, sesame, beer, sheep, cattle, etc. to the state,
as well as to supply the provisions of the government officials and to send
temple slaves to work in the royal household [Dandamayev 1979:594f.].
A decree of Darius I addressed to Gadatas, the manager of his estates in
Asia Minor, contains an order not to collect taxes from the farmers of the
Temple of Apollo at Magnesia, and not to send them for tilling royal land
taking into consideration that the oracle of Apollo had predicted victory
for the Persians [Boffo 1979:267ff.].
Thus, to judge from our sources, the status of the temples in various
countries differed, since some important sanctuaries were given special
privileges, while other ones were obliged to pay the state taxes and to per-
form corvée duties. But these dissimilarities can perhaps be easily explained
if they are considered within the framework of the authorization given by
the Persian kings to local traditions. Thus, the reduction in the income
belonging to Egyptian temples was “an act which can be parallelled many
times in the course of Egyptian history” [Johnson 1994:152]. Similarly,
long before Achaemenid times, the Temple of Jerusalem was cultic and
spiritual center of Judah which was given special favors as the sanctuary
of the state god Yahweh.
As to Babylonian temples, under Nabonidus, i.e. still before the conquest
of Mesopotamia by Cyrus, they were obliged to take upon themselves a
considerable burden of state expenses and to send their slaves to work on
the palace estate [Dandamayev 1979:594]. Finally, the special privileges
granted to the Temple of Apollo in Asia Minor are explained in the decree
of Darius I itself regarding this sanctuary. Thus, it seems that the Persian
kings preserved more or less the same status of the temples which had
existed still before the Achaemenid period.
Various taxes, duties and requisitions existed as early as approximately
twenty five centuries before the Achaemenids and always caused the
276 M.A. DANDAMAYEV

discontent of the population. In ca. 519 Darius I established a new system

of state taxes. All the satrapies were obliged to pay strictly set sums of
taxes in silver on the basis of cultivated land which had been precisely sur-
veyed. These taxes can be regarded as sufficiently moderate, and it seems
that during Darius’ reign their collection did not cause serious problems.
But gradually arbitrary methods used by incorrigible royal and local offi-
cials began to ruin the tax-payers, and especially in the fourth century the
taxes became a heavy burden. Besides, the fact that taxes were to be paid
in silver adversely affected the condition of the tax-payers who had to bor-
row money mortgaging their lands. For instance, many documents from
the Murashu Archive, drafted in the second half of the fifth century in the
Nippur region, attest to that sometimes the members of the Murashu house
and their agents ruined entire villages, taking off from there all the movable
property of their debtors. It must be said, however, that such actions were
illegal, and, in a number of cases, the Murashus had to restore the harm
caused by them [see, e.g., Cardascia 1951:183]. It is also well known that
some individuals in Judah were forced to borrow silver to pay the royal
taxes, delivering their sons and daughters into slavery [Nehemiah 5:3-5].
The discontent of the subjects of the Persian king was caused also by
military service. But all the population of the empire was obliged to con-
tribute military contingents only in rare cases (for instance, during the war
of Xerxes with the Greeks). Finally, many skilled craftsmen of various
ethnic origin were sent for a considerable period of time to Iran to build
and maintain royal palaces.
Until comparatively recent time, following Olmstead, scholars have usu-
ally attributed to Achaemenid fiscal policy in the countries of the empire
an overtaxing and disastrous drain of gold and silver which were extracted
as taxes and hoarded in royal treasuries thus disrupting local markets
and ruining the economy [Olmstead 1948:297f.]. But documentary and
archaeological evidence show that there was no shortage of cash or a
decay of the economy [Stolper 1985:143-146]. It must also be noted that
in a number of countries, the royal administration carried out important
projects of cultivation of new or long-abandoned lands and of construction
new canals or improving the existing irrigation systems. Thus, there was
no economic stagnation in the countries of the empire, and the Achaemenid
administration stimulated agriculture, industry and commerce throughout
the state [Kuhrt and Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1990:XV; Stolper 1994:259;
Young 1988:97].
 ACHAEMENID IMPERIAL POLICIES AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS 277

During the formative period of Achaemenid imperial ideology and cul-

ture, the Assyrian, Median, Urartian, Egyptian and other ancient traditions
were widely used. In particular, Assyrian artistic traditions exercised a
considerable influence on Achaemenid representative art intended to sym-
bolize the might of the empire and the grandeur of the royal power [Root
1979:203ff.]. The fundamental norms of Achaemenid art were eventually
created in Persepolis, built at the end of the sixth and the beginning of the
fifth centuries, and then became extremely widespread creating a unity of
culture over the entire territory of the empire, although later new motifs
and images were added. The fundamental features of this art were a strict
canonization of forms, absolute symmetry, and a mirror composition of
one and the same scene. The cultural unity of East and West, of course,
was not confined to the unity of style in the works of art. Under the
Achaemenids, despite the diversity of social and economic structures, eth-
nic and cultural varieties, for the first time in history, the world became
united and indivisible on enormous territories, beginning with Egypt and
ending with northwest India, causing intensive processes of ethnic mixing
and syncretism of the cultures and religious concepts of various peoples.
This indivisible world was not confined to the upper strata of the popula-
tion and therefore caused enormous shifts in psychology.
Contacts between peoples of various languages, cultures and modes of
life go back to the most remote times and can be traced in written sources
and archaeological finds as early as the dawn of civilization. But it was
during the Achaemenid period that the world became united and contacts
with distant regions were no more a privilege of the groups of population
like the Phoenician merchants. In Egypt, Mesopotamia and many other
countries the Achaemenid administration established military colonies
consisting of soldiers of dozens of various nations who until that time had
not even heard of each other. For instance, Chorasmian soldiers from Cen-
tral Asia served in Elephantine military colony on the border of Egypt on
Nubia, along with Jews, Persians, Medes, Babylonians and representatives
of various other peoples. In the Nippur region in Mesopotamia, among
royal soldiers there were Lydians, Phrygians, Sakai, Egyptians, Indians
and even Areians from Haraiva on the territory of modern Afghanistan.
Furthermore, craftsmen from many regions of the empire were used in
state workshops located in Arachosia, Persia, Egypt, Babylonia and some
other countries. Many highly-placed officials and petty civil servants
arrived in Susa and Persepolis on state business from various ends of the
278 M.A. DANDAMAYEV

empire, beginning with Egypt and ending with India. Not only soldiers,
merchants, artisans and state officials traveled regularly in the territory of
the empire but also tourists and scholars. When Herodotus, a former sub-
ject of the Persian king, traveled through countries of the Near East some
time between 460 and 454 and visited Babylonia and Egypt, he met there
Greeks who provided him with historical information which not infre-
quently was doubtful.
Persians, Medes and other Iranians, as well as Egyptians, Lydians, West
Semites, etc. participated in Babylonian everyday business life using local
law.
Intensive contacts existed not only between ordinary individuals of var-
ious peoples but also between their intellectual elite. For instance, some
documents from Mesopotamia attest to communications of Iranian magi,
the official priests of the Persian kings, with Babylonian temple officials.
There is every reason to believe that not only economic affairs were the
subject of their contacts [on such contacts see Dandamayev 1995:34ff.]
but also religious ideas, including cosmological notions. In Babylonian
cities these magi could easily meet leaders of Jewish Diaspora with whom
they had some common or similar religious concepts [cf. Shaked 1984:
324f.]. Approximately during the same time Plato, Aristotle and other
Greek philosophers became acquainted with Zoroastrianism in its general
features.
The empire consisted of dozens of peoples and tribes, and inimical rela-
tions took place between some of them. Such relations were based on
commercial or other kinds of competition. For instance, the Phoenicians
were strong competitors of the Ionian merchants for the markets of the
Near East. But the enmity based on ethnic or racial background was alien
to ancient societies during the Achaemenid or earlier periods. Even in the
Neo-Assyrian world empire with its practice of constant massive depor-
tations of people from one part of the state to another, there were no eth-
nic persecutions. Individuals of various nations could gain comparatively
high positions at the royal court or in the state administration. Moreover,
the ruling class of the Assyrians was not homogeneous in ethnic terms,
since many Arameans belonged to it, and it was impossible to differ them
from the “ingenuous” Assyrians. All the more, the ethnic persecutions
were alien to the Achaemenid empire, the administration of which would
not have been able to function successfully without enlisting the services
of officials and experts of various nations.
 ACHAEMENID IMPERIAL POLICIES AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS 279

During the Achaemenid period, Zoroastrianism had still not yet become
a dogmatic religion with firmly fixed norms, and there emerged various
modifications of this religious teaching. One of these modifications was
the official religion of the Persian kings. As to the religion of the Persian
people, they worshipped the deities of nature exclusively, first of all, the
sungod Mithra and Anahita, the goddess of waters and fertility. The cult of
Ahuramazda, who was the supreme god of the royal pantheon and was
always mentioned in the first place in the official lists of the gods, did not
find the recognition among the Persians during Achaemenid times. For
this reason, there are attested no theophoric names with Ahuramazda for
the entire Achaemenid period, while many names with Mithra are known.
This apparently might attest to the fact that the population of Persia was
not obliged to worship Ahuramazda. This fact can easily be understood if
we have in mind that in ancient polytheistic societies there existed no dog-
matic religions. Moreover, any kind of proselytism was alien to ancient
ideology, since nobody wished to share the benefits from their gods with
other people. Therefore dogmatism and intolerance toward the beliefs of
others were alien to polytheistic religions and for the same reason ancient
gods were not jealous to one another [Burkert 1987:48].
Although the Achaemenids considered their own Ahuramazda the most
powerful god, they also believed in the deities of the vanquished peoples,
worshipped them, and aspired to obtain for themselves their benevolent
attention. Therefore the Persians favored the gods and temples of the van-
quished nations, and the official pantheon of the Achaemenids included
many dozens of deities all of whom were considered state gods of various
importance, and sacrifices and prayers for the welfare of the kings were
offered in the temples of these gods in the name of the Persian kings
[Bickerman 1976:94ff.; see also Tadmor 1994:269].
Although the deification of kings was alien to the Persians, in Egypt, in
accordance with local ideology, the Achaemenid kings as successors to the
traditions of the old pharaohs were considered divinities. Thus, Diodorus
Siculus [1.95,4-5] writes that Darius was deified by the Egyptian priests
for his benevolent treatment of local culture and religion. This is corrobo-
rated by Egyptian texts. For instance, an Egyptian inscription states: “Darius
was born of the goddess Neith… When he was in his mother’s womb…
Neith acknowledged him as her son” [Turaev 1913:135].
The Achaemenids considered themselves the elects of the gods and their
regents on earth. Especially important was the link between the Persian
280 M.A. DANDAMAYEV

king and Ahuramazda. The image of the Persian king as an ideal ruler was
taking shape as early as under Cyrus II, and this concept was developed in
the inscriptions of Darius I. Thus, in one of his inscriptions from Naqshi-
i-Rustam he declares: “I am a friend to right, I am not a friend to wrong.
It is not my desire that the weak man should have wrong done to him by
the mighty…” [Kent 1953:140]. This declaration is word for word repeated
also in one of Xerxes’ inscriptions [Hinz 1969:46]. Thus, following Sumer-
ian, Babylonian and Assyrian kings, the Achaemenids depicted themselves
as protectors of justice and social order and emphasized their care for the
weak and poor.
It goes without saying that the dependence of the subjects of various
regions of the empire on central power was not the same but on the whole
the Persian administration made no attempts to establish a total control
over the population at all. Such a control would have contradicted tradi-
tional social institutions and popular psychology. The authorities required
from the subjects only political allegiance to the regime. The state did not
interfere in their private life, daily affairs, and interrelations between the
various members of the society, if only the laws in a given country were
not violated.
A rather high percent of literacy and libraries belonging to vassal rulers,
temples and private persons existed in a number of the countries of the
empire (e.g., Egypt, Palestine, Babylonia, and Asia Minor). But the state
authorities did not care for the books in these libraries and were not inter-
ested in what their subjects read. Attempts to destroy historical chronicles
or other books which occurred extremely rare in ancient societies (for
instance, in China) are not attested in first-millennium Near East.
Royal officials or local temple authorities did not control whether or
how private persons performed their religious duties. People could offer
sacrifices to any deities they wanted to but, as a rule, they paid homage to
their local city tutelary gods, as well as to their private deities.
In the whole, the subjects of the Achaemenids lived in a rather moder-
ate ideological climate and felt much less pressure of official ideology and
religious doctrines than it was characteristic of later periods of history.
Thus, the central government practically did not interfere in local social
and economic structures and existing traditions. Moreover, the imperial
administration was not interested in the internal intellectual life of the sub-
jugated peoples. The ancient cultures of Egypt, Babylonia, Judah, Elam,
Ionia and other countries continued to develop during the Achaemenid
 ACHAEMENID IMPERIAL POLICIES AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS 281

period, but all their cultural and ideological alterations were due to inter-
nal development and were not considerably influenced by the Persian rule.
The Persian authorities were only concerned with creating a stable admin-
istration and establishing an efficient system for collecting royal taxes.

Bibliography

ACKROYD P., 1990, “The Written Evidence for Palestine”, Sancisi-Weerdenburg H.

and Kuhrt A. (eds.), Achaemenid History, vol. 4, Centre and Periphery: 207-
220 (Leiden).
ALBRIGHT W.F. 1950, The Jews. The Biblical Period (Pittsburg).
BALCER J.M. 1991. “The East Greeks under Persian Rule: A Reassessment”,
Sancisi-Weerdenburg H. and Kuhrt A., Achaemenid History, 6. Asia Minor
and Egypt: Old Cultures in a New Empire: 57-65 (Leiden).
BICKERMAN E. 1976. “The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra I”, Bickerman E., Studies in
Jewish and Christian History, Part 1:72-108 (Leiden).
BOFFO L. 1979. “La lettera di Dario I a Gadata: I privilegi del tempio di Apollo
a Magnesia sul Meandro”, Bulletino dell’Istituto di dirrito romano. Tierza serie,
vol. 20:267-303 (Milan).
BRESCIANI E. 1984, “Egypt, Persian Satrapy”, The Cambridge History of Judaism,
vol. 1:358-372 (Cambridge, etc.).
BURKERT W. 1987, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge: Harvard University Press)
CARDASCIA G. 1951, Les archives des Murasû (Paris).
DANDAMAYEV M.A. 1979, “State and Temple in Babylonia in the First Millen-
nium B.C.”, Lipinski E. (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near
East, vol. 2 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 6, Leuven): 589-596.
—, and LUKONIN V.G. 1989, The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran
(Cambridge, etc.).
—, 1995, “The Ebabbar Temple and Iranian Magi”, Altorientalische Forschungen
22:34-36 (Berlin).
EPH‘AL I. 1988. “Syria-Palestine under Achaemenid Rule”, The Cambridge
Ancient History, 2nd ed., vol. 4: 139-164 (Cambridge, etc.).
FREI P. 1984. “Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achämenidenreich”, Frei P.
– Koch K., Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich. Orbis Biblicus
et Orientalis 55:7-43 (Freiburg/Göttingen).
—, 1990. “Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im achämenidischen Kleinasien”,
Transeuphratène 2:157-171.
HINZ W. 1969. Altiranische Funde und Forschungen (Berlin).
JOHNSON J.H. 1994. “The Persians and the Continuity of Egyptian Culture”, San-
cisi-Weerdenburg H. and Kuhrt A. (eds.), Achaemenid History 8. Continuity
and Change: 149-159 (Leiden).
KENT R.G. 1953. Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon (American Oriental Series
33, New Haven).
282 M.A. DANDAMAYEV

KUHRT A. and SANCISI-WEERDENBURG H. 1990, “Introduction”, Sancisi-Weer-

denburg H. and Kuhrt A., Achaemenid History 4:XI-XV.
—, 1991. “Introduction”. Sancisi-Weerdenburg H. and Kuhrt A., Achaemenid
History 6: XIII-XVIII (Leiden).
MACHINIST P. 1994. “The First Coins of Judah and Samaria: Numismatics and
History in the Achaemenid and Early Hellenistic Periods”, Sancisi-Weerden-
burg H. et al. (eds.), Achaemenid History 8:365-379 (Leiden).
MEYER E. 1896. Die Entstehung des Judentums (Halle).
OLMSTEAD A.T. 1948. History of the Persian Empire (Chicago).
ROOT M.C. 1979, The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art (Leiden).
SCHAEDER H.H. 1931. Ezra der Schreiber (Tübingen).
SHAKED Sh. 1984. “Iranian Influence on Judaism”, The Cambridge History of
Judaism, vol. 1:308-325 (Cambridge, etc.).
STERN E. 1984. “The Persian Empire and the Political and Social History of
Palestine in the Persian Period”, The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 1:
70-87 (Cambridge, etc.).
STOLPER M.W. 1985. Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murasû Archive, the Murasû
Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylonia (Leiden).
—, 1989. “The Governor of Babylon and Across-the-River in 486 B.C.”, Journal
of Near Eastern Studies 48:283-305.
—, 1994. “Mesopotamia, 482-330 B.C.”, The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 6:
234-260 (Cambridge, etc.).
TADMOR H. 1994. “Judah”, The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 6:261-296 (Cam-
bridge, etc.).
TURAEv B.A. 1913. Istorija drevnego Vostoka (History of the Ancient East), vol. 2
(St. Petersburg).
VOGELSANG W. 1990. “The Achaemenids and India”, Sancisi-Weerdenburg H.
and Kuhrt A. (eds.), Achaemenid History 4:93-110 (Leiden).
YOUNG T.C. 1988. “The Consolidation of the Empire and Its Limits of Growth
under Darius and Xerxes”, The Cambridge Ancient History 4: 53-111 (Cam-
bridge, etc.).