Judah on the Eve of Persian Rule

CHAPTER 2 Judah on the Eve of Persian Rule

Introduction

Given this assessment of imperial goals and policies, the view of the neo- Babylonians as having utterly destroyed the little kingdom of Judah leaving behind an empty land, its elite classes deported, should be re-examined, for what sense would it make to leave the region unexploited? Like the Assyrians who preceded them, and the Achaemenids who followed them, the Babylonians were interested in conquest for the same reasons: simply to spread their power, conquest for the sake of conquest, as a defensive tactic which necessitated expansion of rule, control of resources, which included control of trade routes and the commodities traded, and collection of tribute. Without doubt all three of these empires used coercion and violence; they were all destructive forces in certain periods and in certain regions. They all recognised that in spite of the effectiveness of force, much of the ancient economy depended on local knowl- edge of long established elites, necessitating therefore the preservation of certain elite groups in the various territories under their control. In spite of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and deportation of its population, there is evidence that under Babylonian rule a certain group of elites began to thrive and functioned within the confines of Babylonian demands. Moreover, it is these conditions which best explain the struggle between elites from Ammon, Samaria and Jerusalem, as well as an Arab leader called Geshem, which are recounted in the NM. The tendency to regard the Persians as having introduced an entirely new policy into conquered regions is probably much of the time anyhow ill-founded,1 and Limat has demonstrated that many of the systems through which the neo-Assyrians operated continued into the time of Persian rule.2

1 Van De Mieroop claims that the Persians constructed a policy which contrasted sharply to the Assyrian. Whereas Assyrian policy resulted in the erosion of cultural differences, Persian policy deliberately encouraged subject peoples to express their cultural differences (Van De Mieroop, A History of the Ancient Near East, 274). Parpola holds similar views (Parpola, “National and Ethnic Identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Assyrian Identity in Post- Empire Times,” 5–49). I do not however agree with these views of the Assyrians. 2 H. Limat, “Les exploitations agricoles en Transeuphratène au Ier millénaire á la lumière des pratiques assyriens,” Transeuphratène 19 (2000): 35–50. Roaf explores the continuation of

This included the retention of territorial divisions (for example Samerina) and probably also included the retention of local rulers operating in these territories, as long as they had acknowledged the new overlordship of the Achaemenids. The neo-Assyrians are rarely given the credit for laying the foun- dations of systems and institutions which would be used by imperial powers in the eastern Mediterranean even in Roman times, but as the previous chapter has demonstrated, many of the institutions established by the neo-Assyrians were developed first by the neo-Babylonians, and then by the Achaemenids,3 most important among these for our concerns was the practice of using indigenous elites to collect tribute and to maintain order.4 The Persians did not enter a political vacuum, nor did they undo everything which the neo-Assyrians and the neo-Babylonians had done in these conquered regions. In a number of locations the Persians left in place many of the institutions and structures through which the neo-Assyrians and the neo-Babylonians had maintained control,5 but it is obvious that the circumstances which accompanied the transition from neo-Babylonian to Persian rule will have varied from region to

Assyrian themes in the art of the Achaemenid imperial court (M. Roaf, “The Median Dark Age,” 13–22 in Continuity of Empires (?) Assyria, Media, Persia. Proceedings of the International Meeting in Padua, 26th–28th April 2001. History of the Ancient Near East, Monograph V. Edited by G.B. Lanfranchi, M. Rost and R. Rollinger. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice & Libreria, 2003). 3 Indeed, Parpola has shown how Assyrian rule left some lasting influences, noting that the Achaemenid empire was continuous in many ways with it in terms of policy and practices (Parpola, “National and Ethnic Identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Assyrian Identity in Post-Empire Times,” 5–49); idem, “Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh,” JCS 39:2 (1987): 161–89) and see also the discussion in N. Postgate, The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur: Studies on Assyria 1971–2005 (Oxford: Oxbow, 2007), 55–57. Parpola also notes the Athenian borrowing from Assyria of the system of nine archons and the system of year eponyms (Parpola, “Assyria’s Expansion in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE,” 103). For the continuity of administrative structures from the neo-Assyrian to Persian periods see E. Stern, “The Dor Province in the Persian Period in the Light of Recent Excavations at Dor,” Transeuphratène 2 (1990): 147–55. 4 Although Assman thinks that the Persians departed dramatically from Assyrian practises towards indigenous elites in Egypt when they chose to enter into relations with the priest- hoods of Egypt, rather than with the military elite who had been the choice of the Assyrians (J. Assman, The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2002; 367). I think in his assessment Assman is drawing too certain a conclusion based on the few examples which we have, and I do not think any universal policy in this regard is evident in the sources. 5 Dandamayev and Lukonin, The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran, 103–111. Keen notes the preservation of native forms of rule under the Achaemenids (Keen, Dynastic Lycia, 39).