A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set. Группа авторов. Читать онлайн. Newlib. NEWLIB.NET

Автор: Группа авторов
Издательство: John Wiley & Sons Limited
Серия:
Жанр произведения: История
Год издания: 0
isbn: 9781119071655
Скачать книгу
alluvium (Adams 1981), were able to detect (on the basis of a calculation of settlement and population density) a significant population increase not later than the seventh century BCE. Thus, the values for the gross occupied site area rose from the Middle Babylonian (1150–700 BCE) to the Neo‐Babylonian and Achaemenid periods (until 300 BCE) from 616 ha to 1769 ha, the average site size from 4.6 ha to 6.88 ha. From the very obvious increase in large sites (settlements of 10‐plus ha may be described as urban communities) from 36% to 51% of the area in this period, it has been concluded that “we are dealing with fairly abrupt, probably state‐directed, policies of settlement formation in the case of the urban communities” (Adams 1981: p. 178). Table 2.2 underlines this development (for the original table, see Jursa 2010: p. 40).

Site size Ur III‐Isin‐Larsa Old Babylonian Kassite Middle Babylonian Neo‐Babylonian‐Achaemenid Seleucid‐Parthian
200.1+ ha 2 1 2
40.1–200 ha 11 7 4 1 5 4
20.1–40 ha 10 7 2 3 6 15
10.1–20 ha 16 10 7 2 19 34
4.1–10 ha 57 45 59 28 70 95
0.1–4 ha 143 108 165 100 157 265
(Total) 239 (2725) 178 (1791) 237 (1308) 134 (616) 257 (1769) 415 (2955)
Average site size (ha) 11.4 10.06 5.52 4.6 6.88 7.12

      It has recently rightly been pointed out that each model of the Neo‐Babylonian (and Achaemenid) economy (and population development) has to be based on those studies. At the same time, however, scholars have pinpointed the problems (partly already referred to by the author of the surveys himself) of the evidence and the methods of investigation employed: the dating uncertainties (of the pottery involved), the non‐consideration of the area where the majority of the most important Neo‐Babylonian urban centers were located (along the new western course of the Euphrates), and of the territories (in western and southeastern Babylonia) that represented the centers of the Chaldean tribes. The fivefold increase in the population between 700 BCE and 300 BCE postulated in the 1981 surveys is now regarded as too high, although it remains unclear by how much. Nevertheless, the following trends may be stated for the Neo‐Babylonian and Achaemenid periods: “demographic growth, an increasing degree of urbanisation, agrarian expansion and the role of the state” (Jursa 2010: p. 42). These are trends that, for the sixth century BCE, find their expression also in a significant increase in economic activity (which in turn is suggested by the extent of the written documentation) and the great Neo‐Babylonian building projects (Jursa 2010: p. 42).

      As for late Persian period Judah, both excavations and surveys (of settlements and administrative‐oriented sites) have proven that this political entity must have been “a rural province with no more than half the number of settlements as the late Iron Age” (Lipschits and Tal 2007: p. 47. See also Lipschits 2003, 2005, passim). Conversely, no change can be observed between late Persian and early Hellenistic Yehud as far as settlement patterns, territory, and the organization of the administrative system are concerned.

      Persian imperialism did not lead to the development of new megatowns (like Babylon) but rather to the adjustment to Persian needs of existing royal centers such as Babylon, Susa, Sardis, and Ecbatana. Still, the Achaemenids contributed significantly to the process of urbanization in the Ancient Near East by promoting satrapal capitals as regional centers (thereby following an Assyrian program) and by investing revenues in constructing new royal cities in their home province of Fars (Persepolis, Pasargadae, Matezzish). Since the “itinerant ruler” was a particular feature of Achaemenid kingship (Briant 1988; Tuplin 1998), Persian residences (note the kings' self‐portrayal as master builders, hunters, and gardeners) were marked by special architectural and landscaped constituents (palaces, fortifications, administrative buildings – open spaces for tents, gardens, and game parks [paradeisoi]).

      At first sight, the Persepolis Fortification Archive (for the Archive see Briant et al. 2008; Henkelman 2008: