(Regarding publications: Vriant R. Histoire de l'Empire perse. De Cyrus a Alexandre. Paris, Fayard, 1996. 1248 p.; idem. Recherches recents sur 1'Empire achemenide. Topoi. Orient - Occident, Suppl. 1. Lyon, 1997. 434 p.)

P. Briand's book summarizes the author's many years of research on various aspects of the history of the Achaemenid Empire (1.) This is probably the most significant work of recent decades on this topic. The book is intended as a kind of compendium, which, on the one hand, brings together the results of studying ancient Persian history achieved so far, and on the other hand, lays the foundations for further development of this direction, bringing it to a new level. The author tried to give his book the form of a handbook, in which both specialists and non-specialists will be able to find information on various aspects of ancient Persian history that interests them.

To present his material, P. Briand developed a rather original system, which is not quite familiar for scientific publications. The book is divided into two parts. The first one, the main one (pp. 9-896), is the actual presentation of the material. Despite the very large volume of the text, its four-step division into parts, chapters, paragraphs and, finally, rather small (0.5-5 pages) sub-paragraphs, as well as the presence of detailed content, make it easy to navigate the material. The use of the book is also simplified by a detailed index that includes names, geographical names and basic concepts (p. 1147-1216), as well as a special index of sources used in the book (p.1217-1236). All this allows the reader to easily find the passage that interests him, which is extremely important for such a generalizing work, which, among other things, is intended to play the role of a kind of encyclopedia of ancient Persian history.

1. The Paris edition of the book was reproduced in the same year as the X volume of the Achaemenid History series, published in Leiden by the Netherlands Institute for the Middle East.

page 174

If such an organization of the material in the book is welcome, another feature of its construction is not so indisputable. The presentation of the material in the main part contains references to sources and in some cases rather detailed citations from them, but it is completely devoid of the usual notes and references to literature in scientific publications. The entire scientific apparatus is included in the second part, entitled " Documentary Notes "(pp. 897-1077), which is accompanied by an extensive list of references cited in the notes in abbreviated form (according to the principle of "author and year", pp. 1079-1145). Unfortunately, this list has not been verified carefully enough, and a number of cited publications have been omitted. In addition, publications of the same author published in the same year are included in the bibliography, as is usually done, under the letters (1990a, 1990B, etc.), but in the text very often references to them are given without letters. The structure of the notes follows the structure of the main part: each sub-paragraph corresponds to note (2), which gives a bibliography of the problem discussed in it, and in some cases describes its individual specific aspects in more detail.

Justifying this unusual principle of composition, P. Briand writes that putting the entire scientific apparatus at the end of the book facilitates the presentation and makes it more accessible to students and non-specialists. The author probably manages to achieve the desired goal, but for this he has to pay significant costs. The lack of references in the main part leads to the fact that the notes exist quite independently of it and do not form an integral part of the presentation, but rather something like an appendix. As a result, not all the provisions of the main part are sufficiently documented in the notes, and some of them need to be more fully justified. At the same time, a number of notes, which in principle are intended to document the main part, do not have an obvious connection with it and are rather independent excursions from it. In my opinion, these shortcomings could have been avoided if the author, even if he kept the whole apparatus at the end of the book, provided the main text with links that allow us to link notes more closely to it. At the same time, this would make it easier for the reader to judge whether each of the author's statements is justified. It is unlikely that such a more traditional principle of composition would significantly weigh down the presentation.

The book begins with a brief preface, in which the author explains how the idea of his research was formed, and formulates a number of methodological principles. He then proceeds to the prologue entitled " The Persians Before the Empire." The main conclusion of the author is that we do not know almost anything reliable about the history of the Persians before the beginning of the conquest of Cyrus: Near-Eastern sources are practically absent, archaeological data allow for different interpretations, and the reliability of the news of ancient authors raises great doubts. Speaking briefly about the problem of relations between the Medes and the Persians, P. Briand emphasizes that the traditional ideas about the existence of a centralized Median power, which included the Persians, are not as indisputable as it is usually believed. The idea that the political and social structures of the Achaemenid state mostly reproduce the corresponding structures of the Median state is also not sufficiently substantiated. P. Briand believes that the influence of Elam, rather than Media, was decisive in the formation of the Persian state, but does not deny, however, the existence of political dependence of the Persians on Media (3).

The first part ("Empire Makers: from Cyrus to Darius"), which follows the prologue, is devoted to the formation of the Persian empire and consists of four chapters. Две

2. However, some sub-paragraphs are devoid of notes, and in other cases there are errors in the notes. Thus, the title of the note on page 917 "Cyrus and the Persian Gulf" does not correspond in the text. In references to the main text on pages 939, 943, etc. there are also typos.

3. Due to a strange misunderstanding, P. Briand denies M. A. Dandamaev's reading of the "Dream of Na-bonida", according to which Cyrus is called ardu ("slave") Astyages (p. 907), but elsewhere (p. 41) accepts this reading himself.

page 175

The first ("Land Collectors: Cyrus the Great and Cambyses (559-522)" and "Conquest and Post-Conquest: an Interim Summary") are mainly devoted to the history of the conquests of Cyrus and Cambyses, as well as their creation of imperial structures. This presentation is detailed and well-founded, but some significant episodes are covered, in my opinion, insufficiently thoroughly. Thus, speaking about the conquest of Lydia and the subsequent fate of the Lydian king Croesus, P. Briand refers only to Herodotus and Xenophon's Cyropaedia (p. 910), from which it follows that he considers their reports that Croesus survived the capture of Sardis and became close to Cyrus to be reliable. At the same time, earlier sources, for example, the text of Bacchilides (III. 58) and some images of Croesus in the vase painting (for example, the vase of Mison ARV2, p. 238, N 1, cf. ARV2, p. 571, N 74), which P. Briand does not mention, allow us to conclude that Croesus died during the capture Sard. Bacchilides ' report that Apollo stole Croesus from the fire and transported him to the land of the Hyperboreans is an obvious indication that after the fall of Sardis, the Lydian king disappeared from the world of men. This ancient tradition seems to be more reliable than the accounts of Croesus ' rescue from the pyre where he was supposed to be burned, and of his subsequent life at the court of Cyrus. The chronicle of Nabonidus (II. 15-17), where it is reported that Cyrus made a campaign against Lydia in 547/546 BC, captured it and killed its king, can also testify to its authenticity. P. Briand believes, however, that this passage of the chronicle does not mean Cyrus ' Lydian campaign (p. 44, with an inaccurate reference to passage II. 13), while noting that the name of the country is not read in it. At the same time, he himself accepts 547/546 BC as the date of the conquest of Lydia and the capture of Sardis. In my opinion, there is a contradiction here. If we date the capture of Sardis to 547/546, it is difficult to assume at the same time that Cyrus made another campaign of the same importance in the same year, and that the chronicle of Nabonidus mentions it, and not the Lydian campaign. If we assume that it reports a different campaign under 547/546, it is impossible to date the Lydian campaign to the same year, so one of two possible solutions would have to be chosen here. It should be noted, however, that for purely palaeographic reasons, the restoration of the name of Lydia in the corresponding passage of the chronicle of Nabonidus, contrary to the opinion of P. Briand, is most likely: the first sign, although damaged, is still more likely to be read as LU (4). Thus, it can be considered most likely (although not definitively established) that Cyrus ' Lydian campaign actually dates back to 547/546 BC, and it is the one mentioned in the chronicle of Nabonidus. Croesus, apparently, did not survive the capture of Sardis. The Greek tradition that he was pardoned by Cyrus and became his adviser is quite recent and probably results from a literary treatment of the Delphic tradition, which represented Croesus as a pious ruler and a favorite of Apollo, who could not be allowed by god to perish in such a deplorable way as it actually happened (Bacchilides, apparently, will give an early version of this story). traditions).

Of particular interest is the analysis of the ancient tradition about the madness of Cambyses and his outrages in Egypt, in particular about the murder of the sacred bull Apis, which ends the first chapter. In general, supporting the traditional point of view about the unreliability of this tradition, the author notes that a more cautious and balanced approach is needed here. The tradition reflected in Herodotus and other ancient authors, in his opinion, expresses the Egyptian point of view and testifies to the unpopular and repressive measures taken by Cambyses after the conquest of Egypt; some modern Egyptian sources also speak about them. In addition, according to the author, the Egyptian texts that are usually referred to, proving the unreliability of the story of Herodotus, are far from being as incompatible with it as it usually seems.

In the second chapter, P. Briand, noting the continuity of social, economic and

4. Ср. Grayson A.K. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Locust Valley-New York, 1975. P. 107, 282 (secondary collation).

page 176

The study of the political structures that existed in various areas of the Achaemenid Empire before and after the Persian Conquest (which is usually the main focus of the literature) highlights at the same time the emergence of various innovations associated with this conquest. After the Persian conquest, traditional structures were integrated into a new imperial synthesis, often radically changing their content. In addition, P. Briand emphasizes that, contrary to popular opinion, the creation of the system of organization of the empire should not be entirely attributed to Darius, and many imperial structures were created already in the era of Cyrus and Cambyses. The author also pays special attention to the discussion of problems related to the brief reign of Bardia or the usurper who ruled under his name, which have already been discussed many times in the literature. After analyzing the versions of these events preserved in the ancient tradition and comparing them with the evidence of the Behistun inscription of Darius, the author comes to the conclusion that we cannot establish whether the king deposed by Darius was the real Bardia, the brother of Cambyses, or, according to the official version, a usurper.

The next two chapters of the first part are devoted to the reign of Darius: the third chapter deals with the events associated with his coming to power and the subsequent unrest and uprisings in different parts of the empire, and the fourth deals with the conquests of the king. The author sums up the long discussion about the conspiracy of the seven Persians that brought Darius to power, and offers his own reconstruction of the events. He examines in detail the history of the revolts against Darius and their suppression. In addition, he collects known data on the six conspirators who helped Darius seize the throne, and their families. The author quite convincingly justifies the opinion that the special position of these families in the empire was not institutionalized and they, like other close associates of Darius, were completely dependent on the royal will, so it would be a mistake to consider the descendants of the conspirators as a special group in the Persian aristocracy, significantly different from other noble families.

Some details of the reconstruction of P. Briand, however, raise objections. Thus, he considers false many of the statements that Darius makes in the Behistun inscription, in particular, about the royal status of eight of his ancestors, pointing out, in particular, that his father and grandfather were not kings and the first king in the family was Darius himself (pp. 122-123). This statement, however, is not proved by anything. Darius 'ancestors may well have had the title x? aya9iya -, and Darius himself was most likely not the first king in the family, but the first "king of kings". The very existence of this title in the inscriptions of Darius, which later became traditional in the Iranian empires, indicates that the "king of kings" was subordinate to persons who bore the title "king". It is quite possible that before the conquests of Cyrus in Persia there were several rulers who bore the title of king. In exactly the same way, the first Sasanian kings, when describing their genealogy, invariably give Ardashir the title "king of kings", and several of his ancestors, who were minor princes, the title "king". It is not necessary, therefore, to reject so emphatically the veracity of Darius ' claim that his ancestors were called kings. As for the evidence of ancient authors, according to which Darius was not the king's son, they, of course, mean that he was not the son of a Great king. P. Briand's refusal (following a number of other authors)is also not justified by anything from the point of view that Darius belonged to a side branch of the same family as Cyrus, and the statement that if one of his ancestors bore the name Theisp, it could only be the namesake of Cyrus ' great-grandfather.

Also unconvincing is the suggestion of P. Briand that Darius deliberately changed the meaning of the term" Achaemenid " and understood it not as a clan or clan uniting several families, but only as his patrilineal family, and made Cyrus a fictitious ancestor of the new royal family. These statements directly contradict the sources ' data. First, the inscriptions of Darius contain his official genealogy, and Cyrus is not included in the number of royal ancestors, so he can not be a "fictitious ancestor of the new royal family". Second, Darius takes credit for himself

page 177

that he restored his own line, the Achaemenid line, to its rightful position, which it had held before Gaumata's usurpation, and did not allow Gaumata to overthrow his own line (DB I. 61-71). The legitimate position of the house of Darius is, of course, that of king of kings, and therefore Darius counts Gaumata's predecessors on the throne, Cyrus and Cambyses, among his own line, without including them simultaneously as members of his patrilineal family. In another passage of the same inscription (I. 28), Darius explicitly states that Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, was "of our lineage", although of course he does not include him in his patrilineal family. The terms tauma - and vi6 -, which Darius uses, refer specifically to a clan that unites a group of families, while the term mana, which denotes a patrilineal family, is not used by Darius. Finally, the formula that he uses for self-identification is "Darius, son of Hystaspes, Achaemenid, Persian, son of a Persian, Arius, of Aryan origin" (DNa, cf. similar formulations in other inscriptions) contains elements of the traditional Iranian three-member structure-family (mana: son of Hystaspes), clan (tauma-/vi9-: Achaemenid), tribe/people (zantu/dahyu: Persian), as well as an indication of belonging to a broader community, Aryans (Iranians). The name "Achaemenid" stands here exactly in the place intended for the name of the clan. All this, in my opinion, clearly indicates that, contrary to the opinion of P. Briand, the term "Achaemenid" for Darius means exactly a clan or clan, and not a small family at all. This perfectly corresponds to the common Iranian idea that royal power belongs not to a small family of the king, but to the entire royal family, and that, therefore, it does not necessarily have to be inherited in a direct line from the king to his eldest son (although in practice this was most often the case), although it should remain within the limits of the royal family.

Finally, it seems no more reasonable to assume that the (false) Bardia was eliminated as a result of a real, correct battle, and not a palace coup (pp. 125-126). This assumption is purely speculative and contradicts the data of all sources. Both the classical texts and the Behistun inscription present the murder of Smerdis as a typical palace coup carried out by a narrow group of individuals, although, of course, it could include, in addition to the main seven conspirators, and their other supporters. The only argument that P. Briand gives in favor of his interpretation is analogies. However, if we can cite many analogies of open battles between kings and pretenders to the throne in both Persian and world history, then we can cite no less examples of palace coups and murders of monarchs committed by conspirators without any open battles. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no reason to reject the unanimous reports of our sources for the sake of a completely speculative construction.

Analyzing the problem of Darius ' conquests, P. Briand briefly examines the expansion of the empire in the west (the subjugation of Samos and Cyrenaica, the Scythian campaign and the conquest of Thrace, the campaigns of 492-486 BC and the subjugation of Macedonia, Phasos, a number of islands of the Aegean Sea, the Battle of Marathon) and dwells in detail on the Ionian revolt of 500-493 BC. That the ideological motives that were often attributed to this uprising (the struggle for independence, national consciousness, etc.) did not really play any role in it, P. Briand emphasizes the important role of its internal social causes, in particular the struggle of parties in the Ionian poleis. In this struggle, proponents of Athenian-style democratic transformation were forced to come into conflict with the Persians, who, as in other parts of the empire, tried to rely on local traditional elites and, consequently, served as a support for the regimes that existed within the poleis at the time of the conquest.

The second and third parts of the book are devoted to the internal structure of the Persian empire as it was formed in the era of Darius I and continued to exist under his successors. The second part is called "The Great King" and includes four chapters devoted to various aspects of the organization of central power and imperial ideology. The first two chapters of the second part ("Images of the World" and "Royal Images").

page 178

images and monarchical ideology") are devoted to the ideological design of the royal power and ideas about the tsar and his relations with his subjects.

In the fifth chapter ("Images of the World"), P. Briand, briefly focusing on the construction activities of Darius and its propaganda significance, examines the lists of countries that were part of the Persian state, which are preserved in royal inscriptions, as well as images of natives of them in famous tributary processions and other similar images. Focusing on the complex problems associated with their interpretation, the author comes to the conclusion that neither of them represented complete and accurate catalogues of subordinate peoples or lists of taxable districts. It is more about sampling from a list of subordinate peoples, the purpose of which was not to provide accurate information, but to create the impression of the vast size of the territory and the diversity of peoples subordinate to the tsar.

P. Briand also examines information about the movements of the tsar and his court on the territory of the empire, about the gifts presented to him by his subjects, ceremonial army reviews, royal gardens and feasts, etc.and notes that they were more representative and propagandistic than practical. Here he also examines the problem of the relationship between the center and the periphery in the Persian imperial ideology and, in particular, the meaning of the term "Arius"in it. The author's views on this topic are not quite clear (pp. 193-194), but it seems that he is inclined to believe that this term implies rather a linguistic community and unites the Iranian-speaking peoples of the empire. It should be noted, however, that the meaning of this term, which was used by almost all Indo-Iranian peoples as a self-designation, varied significantly in different epochs and among different Iranian peoples. Thus, it is well known that in the Avesta Aryans are called the tribesmen of Zarathustra and their neighbors-farmers, similar to them in language and culture. At the same time, the Saks, other nomadic neighbors, were not included among the Aryans and were designated by the term Tiga, despite the fact that they called themselves Aryans. At the same time, from a linguistic point of view, the Saks and their settled neighbors were extremely close: Sogdians and Khorezmians belonged to the same north-eastern group, and Bactrians - to the closest south-eastern group of Iranian languages. Thus, the defining role here was played not by linguistic, but by cultural and economic community. In Sasanian Iran, the term covered a number of Iranian peoples who spoke both Western and Eastern Iranian languages. According to the available sources, in the Achaemenid era, the meaning of this term was significantly narrower and it seems most likely that it covered only the Persians and Medes and did not include the rest of the Iranian peoples. I will also note that the term preserved in Herodotus (I. 105; IV. 67)?vdp??(, (cf. a more accurate rendering of this Iranian word in Hippocrates, De aeg. 22.1:

avapieKy), contrary to the opinion of P. Briand (p. 194), is not related to this problem and does not convey the equivalent of the Avestan word anairya - "non-Aryan". This Scythian word does not refer to foreigners, but to a special category of Scythian priests who practiced ritual travestism (had a female appearance, dressed like a woman and behaved like women) and whom Herodotus calls androgynous. The word has long been explained as a transfer of the Scythian a-pagua- - "unmanly" (5).

The next (sixth) chapter is entitled "Royal Images and monarchical ideology" and is devoted to the analysis of images of the king in Persian palace art (statues, reliefs, coins, seals, etc.), as well as their comparison with data from ancient texts. This part of the book is illustrated with quite numerous drawings. Unfortunately, the author rarely gives accurate references to the origin of his illustrations, which makes it much more difficult to use them. This lack of attention to the scientific apparatus, as in the case of references to the literature, which I mentioned above, makes it difficult to verify the author's statements and, consequently, to make them more accurate.,

5. Miller V. F. Ossetian studies. III. Moscow, 1887. P. 132; Vasmer M. Untersuchungen Uber die altesten Wohnsitze der Slaven. I. Die Iranier in Slldrupland. Lpz, 1923. P. 13; Abaev V. I. Scythian-Sarmatian dialects // Osnovy iranskogo yazykoznaniya [Fundamentals of Iranian Linguistics], Moscow, 1979, pp. 276, 296.

page 179

P. Briand briefly dwells on the images of the royal audience and the rules of palace etiquette associated with it, as well as on the testimonies that emphasize the image of the king as a warrior and hunter. In addition, he examines the evidence of the kings ' organization of parks (paradises) and connects this tradition with the role of the king as a guarantor of fertility and a giver of rain (6). Finally, here P. Briand speaks very fluently about the state cults of the empire and the role of the king in them.

Having finished the consideration of the ideological aspects of tsarist power, P. Briand proceeds to study the system of organization of the royal court, which is devoted to the seventh chapter ("People and life of the court"). The author dwells here on the functions and roles of some of the king's inner circle (the chiliarch, the immortals, and the royal guards, the cupbearers), and speaks in more detail about the royal physicians. In the same chapter, P. Briand examines the status of palace women, legitimate spouses and concubines of the king, and also collects preserved information about royal feasts and briefly mentions royal hunts.

A special place in this chapter is occupied by the problem of Persian eunuchs. P. Briand believes that their role in the royal court was exaggerated by ancient authors, and many stories about them reflect more current literary plots (a treacherous eunuch scheming against a noble hero or, on the contrary, a servant who is completely devoted to the master) than historical reality. Further, P. Briand suggests that not all the eunuchs mentioned in ancient texts were actually eunuchs. In his opinion, real eunuchs only belonged to the lowest rank of the court and performed various household chores in the palace. On the contrary, the highest-ranking courtiers who held important positions, as he believes, were not eunuchs, and Greek sources translate in this way a certain court term that had a completely different meaning. This assumption is based on extremely weak grounds.

It is well known that New Assyrian and New Babylonian inscriptions distinguish between two categories of court letters, sa (sut) resi and sa ziqni. "(people's) heads " and "(people's) beards". This distinction also corresponds to the images on reliefs, where some courtiers are represented as beardless, and some are bearded. Both are depicted as armed and unarmed, and judging by the texts, both of them may have held the highest positions. The exact meaning of these terms has been the subject of debate, but the most convincing view seems to be that the first term, regardless of its origin, meant eunuchs, and the second, emphasizing the presence of beards, did not mean eunuchs (7). Many Mesopotamian institutions were inherited by the Achaemenids, and nothing prevents us from assuming that this also applies to role and position the eunuchs. By the way, the division of courtiers into bearded and beardless is also preserved in Persian reliefs. The examples given by P. Briand, as well as some others, indicate that eunuchs could hold the highest positions at the court of the Persian kings, and some of them came from aristocratic families. However, this only shows that in Persia, as in Assyria and Babylon, the status of a eunuch did not at all contradict the receipt of high court* and military posts. The conclusion that the persons named in the sources as eunuchs and who held high positions were not actually eunuchs is based only on the a priori assumption that the representatives of the eunuchs were not actually eunuchs.

6. Here is also a drawing of an Assyrian relief depicting winged geniuses in front of the tree of life. The identification of these geniuses with the Assyrian king is obviously erroneous. However, there are no references to this figure in the text and it is not clear why it was placed here.

7. См. подробно, с литературой: Tadmor H. Was the Biblical saris a Eunuch? // Solving Riddles and Untying Knots. Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield / Ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, M. Soko-loff. Winona Lake, 1995. P. 317- 325.This article was included in the first issue of the Bulletin of Achaemenid History (see about it below), but with an erroneous reference to its publication in the collection in honor of D. Jung.?a (Sut) reSi, but also the biblical sarisim as eunuchs and makes a strong case for this interpretation.

page 180

aristocracies and high officials could not be castrated. Thus, P. Briand refuses to recognize Bagoy, the famous courtier who held the highest positions at the court of the last Persian kings, as a eunuch only on the grounds that he had the title of chiliarch, although he is directly referred to as a eunuch in both ancient and Babylonian texts (BHLT 35).

The next chapter of the book, "Royal Men", is devoted to the relationship between the king and the upper stratum of the Persian aristocracy, whose representatives held the most important positions in the imperial administration and formed the immediate environment of the king. P. Briand emphasizes that the Persian nobility was more a court nobility than a birthright aristocracy. The position of an aristocrat or official in the state hierarchy was determined primarily by the attitude of the tsar towards him and the degree of proximity to the ruling monarch. This situation was reinforced by royal gifts, which not only represented a significant material value, but also had a symbolic meaning: the recipient of the royal gift assumed the obligation to remain faithful to the donor. This obligation, however, was one-sided, and the king could at any time, on his own initiative, deprive his subject of both the gifts received earlier and his high position. Despite the decisive importance of the degree of proximity to the king, noble birth continued to play a significant role. Aristocratic families often had very significant material resources of their own, independent of the tsar, and could create their own clientele system, building relationships with it on the same principle as their own relationships with the tsar were built. Here, P. Briand examines the problem of the powers of satraps and their relations with the king, noting that the control of satraps by the central government was quite effective. At the same time, each satrap was required to create his own court, where he reproduced in miniature all the essential features of the royal court and performed the same duties that the king himself performed in the center (including, among other things, organizing and supervising the education of the younger generation of aristocrats). This practice did not at all undermine the unity of the empire, as it might seem, but rather served to strengthen it, since it created the necessary conditions for maintaining the political and cultural unity of the Persian diaspora throughout the empire. As for the role of non-Persians within the ruling stratum, it was apparently very limited. The vast majority of positions of political and military importance are held by Persians, and other Iranians (Medes and Hyrcans) have some access to them, but other foreigners (Greek defectors and representatives of local elites), despite all the court honors and royal gifts, have almost never been appointed to really responsible positions.

Having finished considering the problems associated with the tsarist power, P. Briand proceeds to analyze the economic and social structure of the empire. This is the subject of the third part of the book "Spaces, Population and the tributary Economy", consisting of four chapters (ninth - twelfth). In the ninth chapter ("Spaces, communication and exchange"), the author summarizes the available information about the road network in the Persian Empire and about the strict state regulation of their use (control of local administration, obtaining permission to use the road, maintenance of seconded officials, etc.). in particular, systems of light and sound signals. It should be noted, however, that there are some inaccuracies regarding terminology in this part of the work. First of all, it is objectionable to suggest that the royal couriers were designated by the word aotau (; - this word, apparently, actually meant one of the highest positions in the Achaemenid court, the position of "speaker", who served as an intermediary between the sacred person of the king and his subjects. Thus, Darius III was aetta5t1<; before becoming king. It is obvious that the next of kin of the reigning king, who later succeeded him

page 181

the throne could not serve as a simple postal courier (8). The Persian name of this courier, dyyapTi,o<5, is known from Herodotus (III.126, the manuscript stirpis Romanae, which should be read in this case, cf. VIII. 98; the first of these texts P. Briand does not take into account; in the form dyyapo<; the word is also known in other texts, see LSJ, LSJ Suppl. " s. v.). We also know other Persian terms for messengers, such as crayydv8r(; (or orayd6r<; - Gram. post Phot. (ed. Pors.) s. v. 6roetaut)(;), TrapacrdyyTif; (Soph. Frr. 125, 520 Pearson, Eur. Fr. 686 Nauck, Hesych. s.v. ?п-арастауу1\6у(4, leg. 'n-apacrdyyrr dyyeXaO. The presence of different terms seems to indicate the existence of different categories of messengers in the Persian empire, but due to the lack of sources, we cannot judge these differences. In the same chapter, P. Briand summarizes the evidence of sources about the water (river and sea) communication routes that existed within the borders of the Persian empire, and about their role in the development of trade, as well as about state customs.

The next, tenth, chapter is devoted to the system of tributes and taxes that existed in the Achaemenid state. P. Briand reconstructs the rather complex fiscal system of the empire and analyzes such problems as the composition of tax districts, the amount of taxes, the ratio of various types of taxation (direct regular taxes, more or less regular gifts, various types of taxes, the mobilization of soldiers and labor Here the author examines the problem of money circulation in the Persian Empire and notes that the natural character of the Persian economy was unnecessarily exaggerated in the literature and that taxes were actually collected in most cases not in kind, but in monetary form (weight silver); products received in the form of natural taxes were sold. As for coinage, the introduction of coins by Darius I, according to P. Briand, had more ideological and representative than purely economic significance, and the weight of silver continued to dominate monetary circulation. P. Briand also considers the problems of land ownership in the Persian Empire and, in particular, the relationship between "taxable lands" and "crown lands".

The eleventh chapter is entitled " Persia, the Empire, and the Tributary Economy." It is based primarily on the analysis of tablets from the famous economic archives of Persepolis, written in most cases in the Elamite language. Based on the data of the published tablets, P. Briand examines the structure of economic administration and the organization of production, the status and duties of direct employees (kurtas), the nature of land ownership and land use, and other issues of production organization in the Persian Empire. Having finished analyzing the Persian-Polish tablets, P. Briand asks to what extent the conclusions he made can be extended to the entire empire and whether they do not apply only to its central part. Comparison with Egyptian materials allows him to conclude that the economic administration in Egypt, and therefore most likely in other parts of the empire, functioned in a similar way as it did in its center. This conclusion is confirmed by other data, including the evidence of the ancient tradition. See also p. Briand examines the problem of the relationship between state property and the property of the royal family and suggests that a distinction was made between them, although it was not always completely consistent.

Having considered the general problems of the social and economic organization of the Persian Empire, P. Briand turns to the study of the regional features of its individual parts, which is devoted to the next chapter "The King of Countries". In this chapter, P. Briand confines himself mainly to information related to the era of Darius ' reign. Separate paragraphs are devoted to Egypt, Babylonia, and the Trans-Euphrates region

8. See substantiation of this interpretation and etymology of the word sag6.u6t}S, Grantovsky E. A., Ivanchik A. I." Vestniki " pri dvorakh iranskikh tsarey ["Messengers" at the courts of the Iranian tsars]. VDI. 1995. N 2. pp. 162-169. I would like to note another bibliographic inaccuracy: the article Narr by N. Zu Aay6. vST\ (,, sklsaiZs;, u. oTdv8r\<, = "Bote", referred to by P. Briand, was published in the journal "Glotta" not for 1992, as he points out, but for 1962, and not for the first time. in volume 11, and in volume 40.

page 182

(including Judea and Cyprus) and Asia Minor (including Ionia). Unfortunately, there are no similar sections dealing with the eastern parts of the empire, which is partly due to the state of available sources. It also deals with the problem of cultural interaction between the Persians and the subordinate peoples of the empire, in particular the problem of the formation of the general Achaemsnid style in art. In my opinion, the uniqueness of this style is still somewhat exaggerated by the author: local schools that had long traditions, such as Egyptian, Greek and others, retained their originality, although, of course, the features of Iranian influence are often noted in them. At the same time, Persepolis art itself was strongly influenced by Mesopotamian art.

The author pays special attention to the problem of deportations and population movements within the empire, which significantly affected the ethnic composition of its various parts. It also addresses issues of multilingualism. P. Briand rightly, in my opinion, notes that the Persian language did not have a significant distribution in the empire, and local languages were widely used even in the imperial administration. Aramaic, which was widely spoken in the territories formerly subject to Assyria (including Egypt), continued, of course, to be used even more widely there, both in offices and in everyday life. It seems to me, however, doubtful that it had the same meaning in most of Asia Minor. Greek was widely used by various peoples of Asia Minor (Lydians, Carians, Lycians, etc.) even before the Persian conquest and, of course, continued to retain its role later, hardly conceding in importance to Aramaic, although, of course, the use of Aramaic in Asia Minor along with Greek and local languages is quite reliably attested.

The fourth part of the book, "From Xerxes to Darius III: the Empire in Motion", includes three chapters (13-15) and deals with the history of the Persian Empire from the death of Darius I (4306 BC) to the beginning of the reign of the last Persian king Darius III (338 BC).

The first of the chapters of this part (the 13th) is devoted to the reign of Xerxes. P. Briand begins by considering information about the system of succession to the throne and the royal investiture. He rightly points out that although the throne was usually inherited by the eldest son, this was not an absolute rule, and the king had great freedom in choosing his heir. Then the author turns to the campaign of 4CO / 479 BC against the Greek poleis of Europe and rightly notes that the significance of the defeat of 479 for the Persian power is often exaggerated. Despite some territorial losses, however insignificant (Persia lost most of the Aegean islands annexed in 490 BC, but retained almost all the Greek cities of Asia Minor), its influence, both on the internal state of the empire and its further development, was insignificant. Then P. Briand goes on to consider the internal policy of Xerxes and comes to the conclusion that, contrary to popular belief, his policy towards the conquered countries, in particular Egypt and Babylonia, practically did not differ from the policy of his predecessors.

Here, P. Briand analyzes the famous "Anti-Deva inscription" of Xerxes. According to him, the inscription does not refer to any specific historical events or actions of the king, but is only a kind of ideological declaration that creates his ideal image. This interpretation does not seem convincing to me. Although the royal inscriptions of the Achaemenids, like their predecessors, for example, the Assyrian kings, are imbued with monarchical ideology, the corresponding declarations in them are not abstract, but are linked to a very concrete reality and are made about real events. It seems to me that, despite all its ideological burden ,the "Anti-Devo inscription" reflects real events, but concrete identification of these events remains impossible in the current state of sources. P. Briand's interpretation of the term "devas"is also very doubtful. According to him, Xerxes ' veneration of the devas means

page 183

Only the "unorthodox" ritual forms of the Ahura Mazda cult are mentioned (pp. 568-569, 585), and its inscription reflects the desire to codify the official cult of this god. In my opinion, neither the inscription itself nor the evidence of other sources allow us to draw such conclusions: it is, without any doubt, a question of the worship of deities other than Ahura Mazda. The author does not give convincing arguments in favor of the assumption that Xerxes is talking about some changes concerning the religion of the Persians themselves. The possibility that devas refer to foreign gods (for example, Median, Babylonian, or Greek), as has been repeatedly suggested in the literature, still remains, although this interpretation, given the current state of the sources, is nothing more than a hypothesis. The chapter ends with a review of the scant information about the events of 478-466 BC, primarily about the confrontation with Athens and its allies, as well as about the murder of Xerxes.

The fourteenth chapter is entitled " From the reign of Artaxerxes I to the death of Darius II (465-405/404 BC)". Speaking about the reign of Artaxerxes I, P. Briand examines in detail the Athenian-backed revolt in Egypt, which ended with the victory of the Persians, as well as the confrontation with Athens and its allies in Asia Minor, both before and after the peace of Callia. This treaty itself, according to P. Briand, was beneficial primarily to the Persians. He, on the one hand, guaranteed the peace of their possessions in Egypt and Cyprus, and on the other, allowed them, using the contradictions between the Greek poleis, to increasingly become an arbitrator in internal Greek affairs. The autonomy granted to the Ionian poleis was rather formal, and the Persian king continued to consider them his subjects; on the contrary, its recognition could be used against the inclusion of these poleis in the Athenian Naval Union. P. Briand pays special attention to the biblical accounts of the activities of Ezra and Nehemiah in Judea, which he attributes to the same period, as well as to the problems of relations between Jerusalem and the Jewish diaspora in the Achaemenid Empire. Next, the author examines the dynastic struggle that followed the death of Artaxerxes I and ended with the victory of one of his collateral sons, Ochus, who ascended the throne under the name of Darius II. Speaking about his reign, P. Briand focuses on the Western policy of the king, which is explained by the state of sources covering almost exclusively events in Asia Minor. Noting the relative passivity of Darius in this region, the author justifiably objects to the common explanation of this passivity by the general decline of the empire or the decline of its military system. As the Babylonian sources show, under Darius II the system of land ownership due to military service continued to function fully; there is no reason to talk about the decline in other areas.

The fifteenth chapter is devoted to the reigns of the next two kings, Artaxerxes II (405/404-359/358 BC) and Artaxerxes III (359/358-338 BC), and focuses on the former. P. Briand begins by analyzing the rebellion of Cyrus the Younger at the beginning of Artaxerxes ' reign. this is overly exaggerated by Greek sources, and after them by many modern authors. The core of Cyrus ' army was not composed of Greeks, but of contingents drawn from the western part of Asia Minor in accordance with the usual Persian practice. The massive recruitment of Greek mercenaries, which was a new phenomenon in Persian history, was caused not so much by their combat advantages as by the lack of their own forces, since most Persians, including in Asia Minor, did not support the rebellion against the legitimate king. As for further developments, our sources, mostly Greek, cover almost exclusively the situation in the western regions of the Empire that directly bordered the Greek world. The main goals of Artaxerxes ' policy in this region were to restore full control of the Aegean coast, suppress separatist tendencies in Cyprus, and conquer the fallen Egypt. In carrying out the first task, the Persians faced resistance from Sparta, which claimed hegemony

page 184

over the cities of the Aegean coast. Despite the partial successes of the Spartan king Agesilaus, who led the troops of the Greeks and their few local allies in Asia Minor, the confrontation ended in the defeat of the Spartans. The king was able to dictate to the Greeks the terms of a peace agreement known as the" Royal " or Antalkid Peace, under which all the cities of Asia were recognized as Persian possessions. For the first time since the creation of the Delian League in 478-477 BC, the Persians managed to secure complete control of the Aegean coast. The second task of Artaxerxes ' policy was also accomplished. He stopped the expansion of the Salamis king Evagoras, who sought to subjugate all of Cyprus, using the support of not only the rebellious king of Egypt, but also Athens, an ally of the Persians in the fight against Sparta, and even Tyre and some other subjects of Artaxerxes in the Levant. After the defeat of Evagoras, although he remained king of Salamis, he had to give up all other possessions forever. As a result, the traditional situation was restored, in which Cyprus was divided into the possessions of several small kings, who were completely dependent on the Great King and paid him a regular tribute. At the same time, full control of the Persians in the Levant was restored. However, their attempts to recapture Egypt in the 370s were unsuccessful, and it remained independent throughout the reign of Artaxerxes.

Next, P. Briand refers to the last period of the reign of Artaxerxes II (366-359 / 358 BC), which accounts for the so-called" great revolt " of the satraps. The author shows that, contrary to the instructions of Diodorus and the opinion of a number of contemporary authors, we are not talking about coordinated actions of satraps who sought to overthrow the king, but about several isolated rebellions that did not pose a significant threat to the central government. A particular problem is the religious policy of Artaxerxes II. His inscriptions are the first to mention not only Ahura Mazda, as in his predecessors (sometimes they also mention "other gods"), but also Anahita and Mithras. In addition, Beros writes that this king introduced the official cult of Anahita in the main imperial centers (Persepolis, Bactra, Damascus, Sardis), and also for the first time ordered the construction of her statues in Babylon, Susa and Ecbatani. P. Briand believes that the introduction of the official cult of Anahita was primarily addressed to the Persians of the imperial diaspora and was aimed at rally them around the idea of the sacredness of royal power. This interpretation, in my opinion, is insufficiently reasoned and is nothing more than a hypothesis, and the very problem of the religious reforms of Artaxerxes II remains open. The chapter concludes with a review of events dating back to the reign of Artaxerxes III, most notably the suppression of revolts in Cyprus and Phoenicia (351-345 BC) and the conquest of Egypt (343-342 BC), which brought it into the Achaemenid Empire after a nearly 60-year hiatus.

The fifth part of the Fourth century and the Empire of Darius III in the Achaemenid Perspective: A Preliminary Summary is devoted to the evolution of imperial structures from their final formalization under Darius I to the fall of the Achaemenid empire as a result of Alexander's campaign and the attempt to restore what that power was at the end of its existence. the significance for these purposes of the testimonies of Alexander's historians, who left rather detailed descriptions of the empire of Darius III. Their special value lies in the fact that they provide descriptions of almost all areas of the empire, including the eastern ones, which usually did not fall into the field of view of Greek authors and remain practically unknown during almost the entire history of the empire. In addition, various local documents (Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, etc.) of the Early Hellenistic period are also essential. As a result, the reign of Darius III turns out to be paradoxically the period of Persian history best described by sources.

The sixteenth chapter (first chapter of Part Five), "Countries, Peoples, and Satrapies: A Catalog of the Achaemenid World," provides an overview of available information about various cultures.

page 185

regions of the Persian Empire in the fourth century BC, organized according to geographical principle: the order of presentation follows the route of Alexander's army, with a separate review devoted to each cultural and historical area. Based on these regional reviews, P. Briand concludes that the widespread ideas about the decline of the Persian power in the IV century BC, about the weakening of central power and about the nominal control of most of the territory of their empire by the Achaemenids do not correspond to the known facts. He notes the almost complete preservation and successful functioning under Darius III of the main imperial institutions formed under Darius I. There are also no signs of the disintegration of a single empire; on the contrary, some countries that previously had the status of autonomous kingdoms, in the IV century BC.e. turn into satrapies (Cilicia, Lycia, Caria). Preserving the dynasties of local kings and the autonomy of certain territories was the traditional policy of all Persian kings. Local dynasts who acted simultaneously as representatives of the royal power (hence their double designation in sources as kings and satraps), according to P. They did not pose a threat to the unity of the empire and, on the contrary, contributed to its stability, being under the quite effective control of the central government. The Achaemenids never sought to unify the empire, which remained fundamentally multi-ethnic and multicultural, but this diversity did not interfere with unity at all. Finally, the widespread perception of the weakness of the cultural influence of the Persians on the peoples of their empire is also erroneous. According to P. Briand, the discoveries of recent decades indicate that this influence, even in very remote areas from the center, was very significant.

The next, seventeenth, chapter ("The Great King, his army and treasury") is devoted to the actual reign of the last Persian king Darius III. Having considered the information of sources about his coming to power, P. Briand notes the unreliability of the propaganda tradition of Macedonian origin about this event. Darius III was not a usurper at all; he belonged to the Achaemenid family and became king after the death of his second cousin Artaxerxes IV, who left no heirs; the future Darius III held the highest posts at the court of his two predecessors. The new king had the support of a large section of the Persian aristocracy; the role of the eunuch Bagoi in the events surrounding his rise to power is greatly exaggerated by Greek authors. As for the aristocracy itself, P. Briand notes a significant continuity in its position from Darius I to Darius III. Thus, representatives of the same noble families held important positions in the imperial administration (including satraps) during this time. At the same time, an important change is also noticeable: in contrast to the era of Darius I, the upper layer of the Persian aristocracy was to some extent opened up to people from non-Persian elites, whose representatives became related to the Persian nobility and were appointed to top positions.

Then P. Briand proceeds to consider information about the army of Darius III and his immediate predecessors. He rejects the authenticity of the unanimous ancient tradition about the superiority of the Greek army and Greek weapons over the Persian ones, as well as about the central role of Greek mercenaries in the Persian army of the IV century BC. P. Briand believes that the Greek authors referred to this term not only to the mercenaries themselves, but also to all soldiers who received remuneration from the treasury for their service, in particular including military settlers like the ones who made up the Elephantine garrison. As is well known from written sources, they received regular in-kind support from the State. In addition to these military settlers, who constituted a sort of permanent territorial army, the Persian army included contingents who were represented by the owners of large land holdings, who used them as conditional holdings. In addition, the peoples dependent on the empire, who retained their autonomy, also sent military contingents by order of the tsar (or satrap, on whom they depended) . Briand is able, in my opinion, to show quite convincingly that this system functioned in almost unchanged form both in the time of Darius I and in the time of Darius II.

page 186

Darius III, and refute the popular thesis about the disintegration of the Persian army in the IV century BC. At the same time, it seems to me that the author goes too far in denying the important role of Greek mercenaries in the events of the fourth century BC. The ability to recruit a fairly large army consisting of professional soldiers in a short time was probably an important factor that had a significant impact on all the events that took place in the western part of the Persian Empire in the Middle Ages. Undoubtedly, ideological stereotypes, including those about the superiority of the Greeks over the barbarians, left their mark on the reports of a number of Greek authors, but this does not mean that all evidence about the role of Greek contingents, including mercenaries, in the armies of Persian satraps and kings is unreliable.

Proponents of the theory of the decline of the Persian Empire consider its main cause to be exorbitant taxes, which led to the depletion of the provinces, and the funds received were excluded from circulation, turning into treasures that lay dead weight in the capital. According to this theory, Alexander's conquests put an end to the "vampirization" of the provinces and led to the inclusion of funds accumulated by the Persian kings in circulation. P. Briand shows the inconsistency of this theory, pointing out that it is not supported by sources and is based on speculative constructions. This theory ignores the system of redistribution that operated in the empire, which promoted the active involvement of funds collected in the form of taxes in circulation. The central administration's efforts to develop the provincial economy, including maintaining existing irrigation systems and creating new ones, are also ignored.

So, in the fifth part of his book, P. Briand refutes the widespread theory about the decline of the Persian Empire and its crisis, which serves as the main explanation for the success of Alexander the Great's campaign of conquest. According to him, there are no signs of the decline of the empire in the era of Darius III, compared with its heyday under Darius I, in the financial, economic, military, administrative or ideological sphere, although, of course, some evolution took place. Having made this conclusion, P. Briand asks what was the reason for the defeat of the empire in the face of the Macedonian invasion in this case: if it cannot be explained by the crisis and decline, then whether the reasons for the collapse of the Achaemenid power lie in its initial structural fragility. The final part of the book "The Fall of the Empire (336-330 BC)", which includes a single chapter "Darius and the Empire in the face of Macedonian aggression", is devoted to this problem.

This chapter is devoted not so much to the history of Alexander the Great's campaign as to the measures taken by the imperial authorities to repel the Macedonian offensive. Special attention is also paid to the attitude of local authorities and representatives of elites, both Persian and non-Persian, towards the conquerors. In addition, P. Briand specifically examines the tradition of correspondence between Alexander and Darius and is inclined to believe that it reflects Macedonian political propaganda, and not historical reality. Returning to the question of the reasons for the fall of the Persian Empire, P. Briand notes that they lie in the very features of its structure: the weakness of the Achaemenid empire turned out to be a continuation of the strength thanks to which it maintained its unity for more than two centuries. The Empire has always remained fundamentally multi-ethnic and multicultural, and the subordinate peoples have retained in their internal life most of the traditional structures and their own identity. The unity of the empire was realized, first of all, through the recognition of the supreme authority of the tsar, which was very large and sacral, but still remained at the level of personal power and personal loyalty. The empire did not develop a single Achaemenid identity, so for the subjects of the great king, the replacement of one reigning family by another and one dominant ethnic class by another was insignificant. This explains the fact that, despite the absence of hatred for the Persians among the vast majority of the subject population or local elites, they easily agreed to replace the Persians.-

page 187

after the first military victories of the Macedonians, provided that the traditional type of relations with the supreme power was preserved.

It is more difficult to explain that the attitude of the Persians themselves, including the Persian aristocracy, turned out to be similar to Alexander: they began to actively switch sides with the Macedonians (the surrender of Babylon, Susa and other centers of Babylonia and Persia without a fight) at a time when Darius had already suffered a number of major defeats, but his situation was by no means hopeless and he had at his disposal the untouched resources of the eastern part of the empire, where he could easily recruit a new army. P. Briand explains this fact by saying that the relationship between the Persian aristocrats and the king was always a personal relationship, based on the exchange of royal gifts for service and personal loyalty, and this kind of loyalty could easily be transferred to another a person, provided that the new monarch retained the defectors ' privileges. This explanation does not seem to me entirely satisfactory. Even if we were to proceed from pure pragmatism, the Persians could not hope to maintain their former dominant position under a foreign monarch surrounded by close associates from among his own tribesmen. Even if Alexander did admit some Persians to his inner circle, the Persian aristocracy as a whole, and even its individual representatives, could not hope to replace the Macedonians in it. The best they could hope for was a position similar to that of the Medes under Cyrus and his first successors, i.e., although privileged in comparison with other subject peoples, it was incomparable with the status of a real imperial people, which the Macedonians now acquired. In reality, they were pushed into the background not only by the Macedonians, but also by the Greeks.

It seems to me that the explanation for the easy and massive transition of the Persian aristocracy to Alexander's side after the battle of Gavgamela, despite the fact that, as Briand himself notes, such cases were extremely rare in the previous period of the war, lies rather in the ideological sphere. According to the general Iranian, including Persian, concept of royal power, which was highly sacral, the king and his family retained their legitimacy, and therefore the throne, only as long as they possessed a special divine charisma, farn (pan-Iranian hvamah), a sign of divine election (9). Farn A person who transformed an ordinary person into a divine king could leave the monarch and his family in order to move on to a more worthy one; in this case, nothing could save the former king from defeat and death. A real legitimate king, i.e., a king with the farn, could not in principle have been defeated (meaning, of course, not a private defeat in battle, but the loss of the throne and death): if this happened, then he had already lost the farn and with it his legitimacy. At the same time, the usurper also could not in principle retain the throne, even if he managed to temporarily seize it: if this happened, it only meant that farnus passed to him and he thereby became the rightful king. This is exactly the case in the later Iranian tradition, which was reflected, in particular, in the work of the VI century. "The deeds of Ardashir, son of Papak", justified the legitimacy of the founder of the Sassanid dynasty, Ardashir. The divine Farn left the great king Ardavan and went over to Ardashir, which immediately transformed him from a rebellious vassal into the only legitimate king and made all attempts at armed resistance to him meaningless. It was Farnus who turned Ardashir's family, which until then had not been distinguished from other aristocrats, into a royal family.

It is not difficult to assume that the views of the Persian aristocracy on the development of the political situation at the end of the reign of Darius III were determined by similar ideas. As long as Darius remained the rightful great king, the Persians, with few exceptions, remained loyal to him, considering his failures temporary and eventual victory

9. See about these representations in detail with the literature: IvantchikA. l. Une legende sur 1'origine des Scythes (Hdt. IV, 5-7) et Ie probleme des sources du Scythikos logos d'herodote / / REG. 1999. 112. P. 141-192.

page 188

unavoidable. However, a continuous series of military defeats and the loss of half the empire was a sure sign that the king had lost the farn, which confers, among other things, victory in war. In the face of these events, it was hard for the Persians not to conclude that Farnus had passed over to his victorious rival, thus making him the only legitimate king, who also made a number of symbolic gestures indicating his intention to pursue traditional Achaemenid policies. Under these circumstances, remaining loyal to Darius, who in principle could not win a war against the bearer of Farnus, as Alexander became, was not only suicidal from a practical point of view, but also contrary to the divine will. In my opinion, this very nature of the concept of royal power explains why the Persian aristocracy not only easily abandoned Darius and began to pass en masse to Alexander after the battle of Gavgamela, but also that it did not try to restore the Achaemenids to the throne of the great king after the death of either Darius or Alexander.

The book ends with a brief conclusion entitled "From Nabonidus to Seleucus". P. Briand notes here that the creation of the Achaemenid Empire was a new phenomenon in world history, which ensured a long and stable existence within a single state formation of a large number of different peoples with very diverse cultures. Alexander's conquest was not, from a geopolitical point of view, the end of the Persian Empire - Alexander himself continued the policies of Darius III and his predecessors. The real end of the world empire was the advent of the era of diadochi after the death of Alexander. The main reason for the collapse of the Achaemenid Empire was that Alexander failed to create a new stable ethno-class that could take the position that the Persians occupied in the imperial structures of the Achaemenid era.

P. Briand's book sums up the study of the Persian Empire and fairly fully reflects the level of our knowledge in this area achieved so far. This is evidenced, among other things, by the extensive bibliography, which includes the main publications on the history of the Achaemenids (10). Unfortunately, the book has one significant gap in this area: Like most Western authors, P. Briand is practically unknown to Russian-language literature on Persian issues. Thus, in the section devoted to the Scythian campaign of Darius (pp. 154-156, 931), there is not a single reference to Russian-language publications, although the Russian bibliography on this issue is very extensive. The same applies to less specific aspects of the Persian problem. The only Russian author whose views P. Briand knows quite well is M. A. Dandamaev, thanks to his numerous publications in Western languages. The works of other major Russian Iranian artists remained virtually unknown to him. Suffice it to say that P. Briand cites only three not very important publications by I. M. Diakonov, one by V. G. Lukonin, one (co-authored) by V. A. Livshits, and none by E. A. Grantovsky. At the same time, the contribution of all these authors to the study of the Persian Empire is very significant, and the lack of familiarity with the results of their research is a significant drawback of any publication on this topic, especially a generalizing publication, such as P. Briand's book.

Creating a comprehensive work on Persian history is an extremely difficult task also because it requires the use of a large number of heterogeneous sources. If we talk about texts, then Persian history is directly covered by sources in the languages of various peoples that were part of the empire: in addition to the Persian inscriptions themselves, there are numerous Elamite, Babylonian, Egyptian, Aramaic and Hebrew texts, as well as more rare Lydian, Lycian, Carian, Phrygian and other inscriptions. A special group consists of ancient sources, which reflect rather the view not from the inside, but from the outside: despite

10. The rich bibliography of P. Briand's book can be supplemented with a special book published in the same year: Weber U., WiesehoferJ. Das Reich der Achaimeniden. Erne Bibliographic (AMI Ergzbd. 15). V., 1996. The two works together provide an almost complete picture of publications on Persian history.

page 189

Because of their close contacts with the empire, and despite the fact that part of the Greek world was part of it, the Greeks always remained outsiders in relation to it. However, ancient texts are very numerous and diverse, and in some cases cover aspects of Achaemenid history that are not available in other sources. To this should be added the data of numismatics, sphragistics and archeology. It is clear that no one can have equal competence in all these areas, and therefore any researcher of the Achaemenid state relies primarily on those sources that belong to his field of competence, and the rest is forced to attract, largely trusting specialists in the relevant field. Of course, he can control their results to a greater or lesser extent, but he cannot feel quite confident in the "foreign territory". Since different periods and aspects of Persian history are covered unevenly by different categories of sources, when creating a generalizing work that includes all of them, the completeness and depth of their research will inevitably also be uneven. The book of P. Briana is generally a good example of an interdisciplinary approach to the problem, and the author analyzes the most diverse sources originating from different traditions with sufficient completeness and professionalism. Despite this, it is felt that in his research, classical texts are still the main base, and Eastern texts often remain rather auxiliary material. Speaking about the Eastern texts, in some cases he refrains from his own interpretation and chooses one of the interpretations already proposed in the literature, and the motives for such a choice are not always clear to the reader (see, for example, his statements on the debatable problem of the chronology of Ezra and Nehemiah, pp. 600-605 (11)).

Despite the fact that classical texts are the main area of competence of P. Briand, one of the main ideas of his book is the need to overcome the Hellenic-centric approach to the Achaemenid Empire, which is characteristic of many publications on this topic. Paradoxically, however, it is the qualification of a Hellenist that is best suited for this task: professional Orientalists often underestimate the complexity of classical sources and tend to take them too literally and straightforwardly. P. Briand's competence in the field of Greek texts allows him to successfully analyze them and separate historical reality from distortions in them, both involuntary and explained by the peculiarities of the Greek perception of barbarians, and conscious political propaganda. This is especially important for the period of the second half of the fifth and fourth centuries BC, when Eastern sources are becoming increasingly rare and when the history of the empire has to be judged primarily by the reports of Greek authors. Thanks to the analysis of ancient texts and their comparison with Eastern sources, p. Brian will be able to convincingly refute some of the popular ideas that have passed into modern scientific literature directly from the polemical writings of Greek authors, in particular about the decline of the Achaemenid state and its progressive disintegration in the IV century BC. In his struggle against the negative image of the Persian Empire created by Greek authors (which in itself can only be welcomed), P. Briand, it seems to me, sometimes goes to the opposite extreme. Under his pen, the Achaemenid empire often turns into an almost ideal multinational state, in which the central government creates the best conditions for the development of the economy and culture of each subject nation based on its own traditions, and relations between the "ruling ethnic class" (Persians) and other subjects of the great king are almost idyllic. At the same time, according to P. Briand, the patchwork of the Persian Empire was apparent, but in reality it maintained unity and structural stability, and the great king exercised quite effective control over the provinces: the empire was the embodiment of the principle of " one-

11. Cf., however, Briunt R. Bulletin d'hi. stoire achemenide (1) / / Recherches recents sur 1'Empire achemenide. Topoi, Suppl. 1. Lyon, 1997. P.56-57.

page 190

society in diversity". Such an image, in my opinion, is idealized, and it hardly fits both the constant separatism of certain parts of the empire (primarily Egypt), which has never been overcome, and the equally constant hostility, which often turned into real military operations, between neighboring satraps (for example, in the western part of Asia Minor).

If we talk about sources on Persian history, then there is another group that is usually underestimated when studying the Achaemenid state. We are talking about comparative material originating from other Iranian traditions. This is primarily the Avesta, as well as sources concerning the later Iranian empires (Parthian and Sasanian) and other Iranian peoples related to the Persians, especially the Scythians and Saks. Comparative Iranian data can be particularly useful in studying the social structure and ideology of the Persian Empire. Of course, the status of the dominant ethnic group of the world empire left its mark on the culture of the Persians;

In addition, it was very significantly influenced by the old Far Eastern civilizations, primarily Elamite and Babylonian. However, all these influences were superimposed on their own Iranian tradition. Elucidation of the correlation between borrowed and proper Iranian elements in the Persian civilization is impossible without reconstructing the general Iranian fund of Achaemenid culture, which should be based primarily on comparative Iranian material. Unfortunately, this aspect of the problem, and generally studied worse than others, is not reflected in the book of P. Briand.

Here are just a few examples of how ignoring the common Iranian background can lead to significant distortions of the historical perspective. It is well known that the Achaemenid court had an order according to which subjects, as a rule, did not have direct access to the king, and communication with him was carried out through special intermediaries. P. Briand (p.104) believes that this order was first introduced by Cyrus and borrowed from the palace etiquette of the Assyro-Babylonian kings. At the same time, a number of data allow us to conclude that a similar order existed at the courts of the kings of other Iranian peoples (including the Scythians) and can be built back to the pan - Iranian era and is associated with a purely Iranian idea of the charism of royalty-hvarnah. This institution, therefore, could not simply be borrowed from the Mesopotamian tradition (where its existence in this form, by the way, is not attested). The situation with the formation of the Persian palace ceremonial, therefore, is much more complicated and cannot be reduced to a simple borrowing of Mesopotamian and Elamite models. The same applies to what P. said. Bryan is of the opinion that the well-known account of Darius ' election to the throne by a kind of hippomancy (Herod. III. 84) is fictional and goes back to the Asia Minor and Greek milieu (p. 127). To the Greeks in this story, perhaps, we should refer only a rationalistic interpretation, explaining the election of Darius by the cunning of his stable boy. On the contrary, the process of electing a king itself reflects ideas that find close analogies in various Iranian traditions and are related to the idea of the solar nature of royal power and the charisma of royalty and the connection of the horse with the sun (12). Thus, this story most likely goes back to the official Persian tradition, which emphasized, in accordance with the Iranian ideas about royal power, the motive for electing a king by a deity who endowed him with a special charisma, hvarnah, which had a solar nature. Darius ' numerous indications in his inscriptions that he was chosen by Ahura Mazda reflect the same Iranian ideas about the nature of royal power.

Drawing on comparative Iranian materials would also be extremely useful for reconstructing the traditional Persian system of education. Comment-

12. Cf. Widengren G. The Sacral Kingship of Iran // The Sacral Kingship. Studies in the History of Religions, Supplements to Nurnen 4. Leiden, 1959. P. 246-248; idem. Die Religionen Irans. Stuttgart 1965. S. 55-57, 151-154, 353, with references.

page 191

Analyzing Strabo's famous passage on the education of the Persian youth (XV. 3.18), P. Briand rightly notes (p.339-340) that here we are talking about the inclusion in the new context of the ancient Persian rite of initiation, which formed the transition of young men to the age class of adults. However, he refers only to the Spartan cryptiae, completely ignoring the rich material derived from the Persian and Iranian traditions that are closer to the Persian one. This material allows us to reconstruct in sufficient detail the Iranian initiation rites (13) and would probably be more appropriate here than the material of the Spartan cryptiae.

The use of comparative Iranian and Indo-Iranian materials would also allow for a better understanding of ancient texts that report on the rites associated with the royal investiture (pp. 539-540). Commenting on the well-known text of Plutarch (Art. 3), describing the dedication to the kingdom of Artaxerxes II, P. Briand speaks only in general terms about the sacred nature of royal power and the emphasis on dynastic succession in this rite. At the same time, Plutarch's evidence looks different in the broader context of the Indo-Iranian data. It is well known that, according to various Indo-Iranian traditions, the king, who came from the warrior class, at the same time embodied the entire society and served as a representative of all its three main classes - warriors, priests and producers (14). The rites of succession to the kingship were supposed to transform the heir belonging to the warrior class into a representative of all three classes. Thus, the well-known ancient Indian investiture rites included two symbolic marriages of the king: with the Varna of the Brahmans and the people, as well as his symbolic birth from them (15), as a result of which the king turned into a member of all three varnas, embodying the unity of society. The three-functional role of the king in Iranian societies, including the Achaemenid and Sasanian empires, and the Avestan tradition, is well known. Thus, the ceremonial royal costume of Darius III, described by Curtius (III. 3.17) and including elements of three colors (white, purple, and blue), has long been interpreted as the embodiment of the unity of the three estates, whose symbol was these colors (16). According to Plutarch's account, the heir to the throne who was ordained king had to throw off his clothes and put on the clothes that Cyrus had worn before becoming king, i.e., according to the royal legend, the clothes of a shepherd. After that, he had to drink a cup of sour milk, eat fig paste and chew terebint, i.e. eat a common meal. In the light of the above, this rite is easily explained as a symbolic transformation of the crown prince, who belonged to the military class, into a representative of the producers ' class, the people. A similar rite undoubtedly took place in relation to the priestly class, as evidenced by the direct instruction of Cicero (Div. I. 41.90); the Iranian king, as is known, performed the functions not only of a warrior, but also of a priest (17). Thus, we can assume that Plutarch's description preserved for us a fragment of the Achaemenid rite of investiture of the king, which has deep Indo-Iranian roots. The meaning of this rite is to affirm the role of the king

13. See Wikander S. Der Arische Mannerbund. Diss. Lund, 1938; idem. Vayu. Bd I. Uppsala - Leipzig, 1941; Widengren G. Hochgottglaube im alten Iran. Uppsala, 1938. S. 311-351; idem. Der Feudalismus im alien Iran. Mannerbund - Gefolgswesen - Feudalismus in der iranischen Gesellschaft im Hinblick aud die indogermanischen Verhaltnisse. Koln-Opiaden, 1969, and lvantchikA.1. Les guerriers-chiens. Loups-garous et invasions scythes en Asie Mineure // Revue de 1'histoire des religions. 1993. 210. P. 305-329. Here you will also find references to comparative materials originating from other Indo-European traditions, including Greek.

14. For more information, see: fvantchik. Une legende sur 1'origine des Scythes...

15. Heesterman J.C. The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration. The Rajasuya Described according to the Yajus Texts and Annoted. Disputationes Rheno-Trajectinae 2. 's-Gravenhage. 1957. P. 52- 53, 77-78, 141-142, 150-151, 191-195, 201-202, 226-227.

16. DumezilG. L'oubli de 1'homme et 1'honneur des dieux. Vingt- cinq esquisses de mythologie (51-75). P., 1985. P. 231-234. Cf. Widengren. Die Religionen Irans. P. 127-128, 154.

17. Cf. Christensen A. L'lran sous les Sassanides. Copenhague, 19442. P. 261-262; Widengren. Hochgottglaube... P. 161-163, 260-262, 359-361; idem. Stand und Aufgabe der iranischen Religionsgeschichte // Numen. 1954. 1. S. 19-20, 60-61, 71, 82; idem. The Sacral Kingship... P. 249-254; idem. Die Religionen Irans. S. 316-317 etc.

page 192

as an embodiment of the unity of society and a guarantor of its stability and prosperity, representing all the traditional elements of this society.

Ignoring the Iranian data causes particular damage to the author's research in those parts that relate to the tsarist ideology and religion (pp. 217-265). P. Briand is based here exclusively on iconographic data and reports of ancient authors; even the evidence of Persian royal inscriptions is paradoxically not fully attracted by him.

The shortcomings and lacunae I have noted (although some of them may be so only from my point of view: choosing one interpretation out of several possible ones is not easy and often subjective) are unavoidable in such a generalizing work. They do not detract from the merits of P. Briand's book, which is currently the best general work on the history of the Persian empire. It will undoubtedly serve for a long time as a necessary working tool for all those who will turn to Achaemenid topics: they will find reliable information and a basic bibliography on almost all issues related to this topic.

* * *

P. Briand's monograph is closely related to the book "New Studies on the Achaemenid Empire" published a year later, which is the first volume of the new series "Topoi. Orient-Occident. Supplement". The book is divided into two parts. The first one contains the "Bulletin of Achaemenid History" compiled by P. Briand, which is a kind of supplement to his monograph, in which the author takes into account the literature that appeared after its publication (mainly between the autumn of 1995 and the autumn of 1997). The "Bulletin" also takes into account some earlier publications that became known to the author after 1996 G. (in particular, a number of important articles by R. Schmitt). P. Briand intends to make his " Bulletin "regular and publish reviews of new literature on the history of the Achaemenids every three years on the pages of the magazine" Topoi " or its appendices. The second issue of the Bulletin is nearing completion and is expected to be published in 2000.

The new literature that P. Briand analyzes in his review is divided into six thematic groups. The first group includes general works, conference proceedings, bibliographies, and collections of texts. The second one is devoted to the publication of new sources, including the results of new excavations. The results of recent excavations in Gordione are highlighted in particular detail. There are also reports of the publication of new pictorial monuments (seal impressions from Daskileion, Artashat, Persepolis and others, reliefs from Xanthus and Limyra, a stele from Saqqara) and new texts (Greek-Carian bilingua from Kavn, Aramaic ostraca from Edom, Demotic ostraca from Gain-Manavir, private demotic papyri from the era of Darius I from the necropolis of Thebes, several important publications of tablets from Mesopotamia, etc.). The third part is devoted to the political history from Cyrus to Darius III. Among other topics, special attention is paid here to the active discussions about the policy of Cambyses in Egypt and the circumstances of the coming to power of Darius I (cf. above). The fourth concerns the central administration and the royal court. Special attention is paid here to a number of important recent publications devoted to various aspects of the problem of the Achaemenid religion. The fifth section combines research on the relations between the center and provinces, the economy of the empire, and individual regions. The problems of coinage are also discussed here. Finally, the sixth part concerns cross-cultural and inter-linguistic contacts within the Achaemenid State. In this part, P. Briand provides new information about the Iranians ' stay on the territory of the empire (mainly onomastic data), and also reports on new publications related to the religious policy of the Achaemenids. He also pays special attention to the influence of Persian art on the art of other peoples of the empire.

page 193

The second part of the book is no less closely related to P. Briand's monograph. It contains the proceedings of an international conference held in Lyon on March 31 and April 1, 1997, specifically devoted to a critical analysis of this monograph. In his" Bulletin " P. Briand managed to respond to the articles published here, so in some cases this book contains a kind of dialogue (sometimes polemical) between him and the conference participants. The works contain 15 articles devoted to various aspects of Achaemenid history and more or less related to the book of P. Briand.

The works open with an extensive article by P. Bernard " Two Thessalian historians of Alexander's generation on the Thessalian origin of Armenia "(pp. 131-216). The article analyzes the theory of the historian Medeus of Larissa, a participant in Alexander's campaigns and his favorite, about the origin of the Armenian population from the Thessalians, and in particular from the companions of Jason. The work of Medeus has been lost, but this theory is known to us because of its presentation in the XI book of Strabo (the second Thessalian historian mentioned in the title, Cyrsilus of Pharsalus, is practically unknown and is sometimes mentioned together with Medeus in connection with the same theory). The significance of the article is not limited to the fact that it covers this very interesting but particular issue with all possible thoroughness: it has a significant methodological significance. P. Bernard manages to show on what grounds such ethnogenetic constructions were built, which filled the ancient literature and which became especially fashionable in Hellenistic times, and what logic guided their creators.. It is particularly important, in my opinion, that p. Bernard specifically identifies various pseudo-etymological constructions that played a special role in the calculations of ancient erudites, and convincingly explains the principles by which they were built. I would especially like to mention the explanation of the term Frequency, which denoted monuments that, according to Medeus (in Strabo), were found in large numbers in Armenia and Media. P. Bernard aptly interprets it as a transmission of the Iranian ayazana - "sanctuary". The Greeks took this Iranian word to mean the heroons of Jason, and it was used by Medeus as a significant argument in favor of his theory.

R. Bouchardl's article "The Royal camp and Achaemenid residences" is devoted to the role of the royal capitals (Pasargadae, Ecbatana, Babylon, Susa, Persepolis) in the conditions when the royal court was nomadic for most of the year. Noting the weak construction of the Achaemenid capitals and the presence of vast empty spaces in them, the author believes that these spaces were used as a place where the king's entourage camped. Only the king himself and his immediate entourage lived in the palace, while the rest of the court and administration continued to be housed in tents not only during the king's travels around the country, but also during his stay in the imperial capitals. Thus, the royal capital was always a nomadic camp, regardless of whether the king was in one of the cities or moved around the country.

M. K. Ruth's article "Cultural pluralism on the Persepolis tablets of the Fortification Tablets series" examines the problems of multilingualism and multiculturalism of the Persian Empire based on the seal impressions preserved on the tablets of the Fortification Tablets series (509-494 BC). The author makes a number of interesting observations about the meaning of Elamite, Aramaic and Persian in the Persepolis chancelleries and offices. confirms the assumption that the role of the latter was insignificant. She also notes the simultaneous use of seals of various styles, and the choice of style and iconography of these seals, apparently, was not directly related to the ethnic group and status of their owners.

In the article "Tribute and tributary economy in the Achaemenid empire" R. Deska examines the problem of the correlation of "gifts", taxes and tribute in the perception of the Greeks and Persians and the problems that arise in the sources due to differences in this perception. In addition, it addresses some operational issues

page 194

the Persian tax system, mostly agreeing with the point of view of P. Briand, but making some adjustments to his presentation.

J.-C. Garden, in his article "On the' Bactrian Political Unit'", returns to his interpretation of the position of Bactria in the Persian Empire, which was criticized by P. Briand. Based on the survey of the remains of irrigation systems studied during exploration in Eastern Bactria and the analysis of ceramics, the author confirms the existence of continuity in the development of these systems from the Bronze Age to Hellenism. At the same time, he notes, agreeing with P. Briand, that the Persian conquest should have caused significant changes in the political and administrative nature, but the features of our sources are such that these changes are not noticeable in them.

In the article" The position of Babylonia in the Persian Empire", F. Joannes focuses on three aspects of this problem: whether Babylon was the center of anti-Persian opposition; whether the decline of Babylonian cities and rising prices in the Achaemenid era is real; what are the reasons for the disappearance of cuneiform archives since the era of Xerxes. The author notes the groundlessness of the idea that Babylonia was a theater of constant uprisings suppressed by the Persians: it was, on the contrary, well integrated into the Achaemenid empire. As for the development of cities, we should not speak of their decline, but rather of a change in the settlement structure: the development of a fairly dense network of small settlements and towns, which led to a relative decrease in the role of traditional large cities, but the total number of urban population increased. Ideas about price growth in the Persian era are also not confirmed: on the contrary, in the second half of it, their decline is noted. As for the disappearance of archives, it seems to be due to the simultaneous influence of several factors, but this problem still remains open. In general, the author's conclusions are consistent with the provisions of P. Briand's book.

In the article" Achaemenids in the Indo-Iranian context", J. Kellens, as its title already indicates, places the Old Persian problems in the general Indo-Iranian context. This approach to the problem, which, unfortunately, remained alien to the monograph of P. Briand, as well as most other studies on this topic (see above), is very fruitful, as, in my opinion, this article clearly shows. J. Kellens is limited to the problem of the Achaemenid religion and its relationship with the Avestan religion, but This approach can also be used to study other aspects of ancient Persian issues, including problems of social structure, state institutions, or imperial ideology. Speaking about the Achaemenid religion, the author notes, in my opinion quite rightly, the falsity of the usual statement of the question: "Were the Achaemenids Zoroastrians?" and the need to put the question differently: "What is the peculiarity of the development of the Indo-Iranian ideology that they represent?". Noting the presence of at least two religious systems within the Avesta - the Gatic and Young Avestan (the relationship between them remains unclear: whether we are talking about two stages of development of the same system, or two variants of independent development of the Proto-Iranian system), J. Kellens notes the proximity of the Achaemenid religion with the second, although some features bring it closer and from the first one.

E. Kurth devoted her article "A few thoughts on P. Briand's book "The History of the Persian Empire" to two aspects of the history of Achaemenid Babylonia. While agreeing in general with P. Briand's reconstructions, she makes some clarifications in them. The first essay is devoted to the circumstances of the proclamation of Cambyses as king of Babylon after his capture by Cyrus and the participation of both in the New Year festival. The second is devoted to the revolts in Babylonia under Xerxes. E. Kurt questions the reliability of Ctesias ' reports about these revolts and believes that the Babylonian tablets, which were seen as evidence of these revolts, should actually refer to the end of the era of Darius I, and not Xerxes, thus rejecting their dates proposed by P. Briand.

page 195

In his article "The use of Western Semitic sources (Aramaic, Phoenician, Hebrew, and Minyan)", A. Lemaire gives a generally positive assessment of P. Briand's book, but criticizes some of its details. The author believes that P. Briand does not fully use Eastern sources, including Western Semitic ones, and that classical texts occupy too much space in his presentation. In my opinion, this remark is not entirely fair (see above). In addition, according to A. Lemaire, more attention should have been paid to the substrate on the basis of which the Achaemenid state was formed, since in some cases it reproduced the features of earlier powers (especially the New Assyrian and New Babylonian), which relates, in particular, to the administrative division. In addition to these basic observations, the article contains a number of small page-by-page observations. Finally, the author briefly reports the presence of some West Semitic texts, mostly unpublished, which were not taken into account by P. Briand.

In the article "Notes on the letter of Darius to Gadatus", D. Metzler examines the inscription of the 5th century AD originating from Magnesia on the Meander, which reproduces the text of the letter of Darius concerning the privileges of the temple of Apollo. The author argues for the Semitic rather than Iranian origin of the name of the addressee of the letter and suggests identifying the temple mentioned in it with the sanctuary and oracle of Apollo on Lesbos. In addition, D. Metzler shows that the ideology reflected in the letter fully corresponds to the tsarist ideology of the Achaemenids.

X. Sancisi-Werdenburg dedicated her article " Crumbs from the royal table. Culinary notes to Briand (pp. 297-306) " the problem of royal meals, which is discussed in the corresponding section of P. Briand's work. Considering the problem of the authenticity of the letters of Cleomenes and Parmenion to Alexander, which serve as important sources on this issue, she quite convincingly, in my opinion, showed the unreliability of the first and the probable reliability of the second (P. Briand considers both letters to be authentic). Further, the author clarifies a number of P. Briand's statements about the nature of Persian dishes (in particular, notes the inaccuracy of the translation of the Greek etforg (1) as "desserts") and makes a number of interesting remarks about the difference between the diet and culinary customs of the Greeks and Persians, for example, about the role of bread in their menu. The article is accompanied by a short note by V. Henkelman, which clarifies the meaning of a number of Elamite terms related to the art of cooking, which are used in the Persepolis tablets.

M. Stolper in the article "Flagellation and hair pulling" compares the reports of the ancient tradition that the Achaemenids used the flagellation of their clothes as a punishment for grandees with the data of Babylonian tablets. He comes to the conclusion about the reality of this custom, in which the public humiliation was not the body of the offender, but his social status itself.

In his article "Darius in the Pasargadae: an overlooked source on the history of early Persia", D. Stronach examines a number of problems of early Persian history, based on the traces of Darius ' activity in the Pasargadae, primarily on the analysis of inscriptions executed by him on behalf of Cyrus, as well as on the results of his construction activities. Comparing this data with other sources, he suggests that the first Persian kings (beginning with Teisp, the Great-grandfather of Cyrus the Great) began to be called "kings of Anshan", borrowing this title from the Elamites shortly after the defeat of Elam and the capture of Susa by the Assyrians in 646 BC. e. Perhaps the dynasty was not purely Persian and included a significant Elamite element. Kings retained this title, in his opinion, until Darius I, who first replaced it with the title "king of Persia" and began to specifically emphasize his Persian origin. According to the author, Darius also introduced the term "Achaemenid". Concerned with proving his rights to the throne, he extended the term to his predecessors on the throne, including them retroactively in his own family, which explains the text of the inscriptions written on behalf of Cyrus ("Cyrus, king (great), Achaemenid"). In my opinion, however, the considerations given here are by no means sufficient to ensure that,

page 196

in order to deny the common origin of Darius and Cyrus (to which, although not quite definitely, the author is inclined) and to consider the very concept of "Achaemenid" a late fiction. It is much more likely that Darius did not invent his genealogy with Cyrus and Cambyses, but emphasized a real, though distant, relationship with them. In addition, by tracing his family back to the common ancestor Teisp, Cyrus did not need to invent another, more ancient ancestor of Achaemenes for propaganda purposes: rather, it was a question of using an existing genealogy. Finally, D. Stronach traces a change in the attitude of Darius to Cyrus: from his silence at the time of writing the Behistun inscription (his references are not even accompanied by the title "king"; however, this remark of D. Stronach is not entirely correct: if in the old Persian version Cyrus is indeed deprived of the title, then in the Babylonian version he is called " king of Parsu") until the gradual "rehabilitation" of his image in the Pasargad inscriptions (first with the title "king", then "great king").

K. Tallin's article "Achaemenid Arithmetic: Numerical problems in Persian History" consists of five essays devoted to various problems related to numbers. The first one deals with the size of the army that participated in Xerxes ' invasion of Greece. The author believes that its estimate of about 200 thousand people is quite realistic. The second essay examines the nickname ko. tgtHo (; (small merchant), which the Persians allegedly gave to Darius after his tax reform (Herod. III. 89), finds out its direct meaning and negative connotations associated with it in both Greek and Persian environments, and also notes the probability of the origin of this nickname from Persian. wednesday. The third essay examines the recent assumption made by M. Vickers that a number of members of the Athenian Maritime Union paid taxes in Persian coin. Based on numerous concrete examples, K. Taplin concludes that this assumption, which is possible in principle, is not supported by the available data. The fourth essay is devoted to the dating of the revolts in Babylonia under Darius and Xerxes. Tallinn explains Herodotus 'report that the siege of Babylon at Darius lasted 20 months by saying that three events were brought together here: the recognition of Bardia as king of Babylon and the two Babylonian revolts of the beginning of Darius' reign. From the beginning of the first to the end of the last event in 522-521 BC, just 20 months passed. As for the Xerxes-era revolts, the author considers the proposed dates of 481 and 479 BC by P. Briand to be unlikely (especially the first one). Without denying the possibility of dating the revolts back to the time of Darius, as suggested by E. Kurt (cf. above), he notes that they can be dated to the second half of the reign of Xerxes. The author himself is inclined to date at least one of them to 482 BC, but notes that the available sources do not allow us to reliably date these events. Finally, the last essay is devoted to the directions given by Xenophon in his "Anabasis"for the distances covered in the parasangs. The author convincingly shows that these indications are reliable and, after analyzing various possibilities, prefers to explain their origin by the presence of "mile" poles indicating distances along Persian roads, although he does not consider this explanation to be definitively proven.

V. Walla's article "Cyrus the Usurper" offers a new version of reconstruction of the early Achaemenid history. The author gives serious arguments in favor of the reliability of Darius ' genealogy in the Behistun inscription and that, in fact, eight of his predecessors bore the title of king, as he claims. According to the reconstruction proposed by the author, Darius belonged to the main branch of the Persian ruling dynasty, dating back to the king of the first quarter of the sixth century BC, Teisp, and Cyrus-to a side branch of the same family. Cyrus, like his father and grandfather, were kings of Anshan, vassals to the kings of Persia Ariaramn and Arsam, but after Cyrus managed to defeat the king of Media Astyages, he usurped the Persian throne, overthrowing his great-uncle Arsam. This reconstruction does not seem to me the most likely, even if we assume the veracity of Darius ' reports in the Behistun inscription. Nothing forces us to assume the existence of the one

page 197

the Persian kingdom in the pre-Cyrus era and the relationship of vassalage between his ancestors and those of Darius. It is quite possible that Cyrus I, Cambyses II, and Cyrus II were kings of Anshan, a small but independent kingdom, while their closest relatives Ariaramnus and Arsam were not kings of all Persia at all, but kings of another similar minor principality (it should be noted that Darius, reporting that eight Achaemenids were kings before him, does not say what they were kings of). These (and probably other) minor Persian principalities were probably directly vassalage to the Median kings, and the unified Persian kingdom was created only by the king of Anshan Cyrus, who freed it from the power of the Medes. It should also be noted that, contrary to the author's opinion, his reconstruction can hardly serve as an argument in favor of the authenticity of the well-known inscriptions of Cyrus of Pasargadae and does not contradict their attribution to Darius. In my opinion, the arguments in favor of attributing their authorship to Darius remain valid. However, they do not necessarily have to be considered deliberate falsification, as is usually done. It is quite possible that Darius did not try to give the impression that the inscriptions were executed in the era of Cyrus. They are carved on reliefs depicting Cyrus, and their content ("(I), Cyrus, (great) king, Achaemenid") may simply indicate the identity of the depicted character, as is done, for example, in the reliefs of Behistun. This interpretation removes the contradiction, which has often been pointed out (including by D. Stronach and F. Balla), between Darius ' direct statement in the Behistun inscription that it was he who first introduced the Persian script, and the intention attributed to him to create the impression that Cyrus already used the same script.

Generally released in the " Topoi. Orient-Occident. The volume serves as a valuable addition to P. Briand's monograph and fairly fully reflects not only the current state of research on ancient Persian optics, but also the impact that the publication of this monograph had on the development of these studies.

THE HISTORY OF THE ACHAEMENID POWER:

SOURCES AND NEW INTERPRETATIONS

(Apropos of two publications: Briant P. Histoire de Г Empire perse. De Cyrus a Alexandre:

Paris, Fayard, 1996;

Recherches recents sur Г Empire achemenide. Suppl. 1 Lyon, 1997) A.I. Ivantchik

The article is written in connection with the publication of P. Briant's book, the most significant work on the history of the Achaemenid Power of the last decades. The article discusses the basic points of Briant's conception and puts forward some arguments supporting or contradicting them. Specal attention is paid to the methods of treating historical sources, including the comparative Iranian and Indo-Iranian data for the study of Ancient Persia's history. Besides, the problems of Achaemenids' ideology are considered in greater detail, as well as some aspects of the earlier history of the Persian Power. The author also reviews a recent publication dedicated to a round-table discussion of the book (1).

1. The Parisian edition was reproduced in the same year as the 10th volume of the "Achaemenid History" series issued in Leiden by the Netherlands Institute of the Near East.

Permanent link to this publication: