RECIRCULACIÓN POR COMUNICACIÓN TUBING – CASING

How Paphlagonian leaders related to the Achaemenid administration is one of the few questions that the extant textual sources let us address; the sources only refer to Paphlagonians when they appear on the wider Achaemenid stage in Anatolia. Without even a condensed history of Paphlagonia, such as Pompeius Trogus’ background on the

Paphlagonians mentioned in the summary of his tenth book,385 we are restricted to

discussing mere fragments of political and social relations when we focus on the textual sources alone. In the introduction and Chapter 6, I deconstruct Paphlagonia as a bounded region inhabited by ethnic Paphlagonians; I would therefore not want to write a history of

Paphlagonia even if it were possible, but rather histories in Paphlagonia.386 Neither a

history of—nor histories in—Paphlagonia are possible in the light of the textual sources dealt with here. Rather, our fragmented sources and disintegrated landscapes let us write a history around Paphlagonia or on Achaemenid relations with Paphlagonia.

384 _{In studies of chiefdoms and similar archaeological concepts, such as states, resides a misunderstanding} of conceptual reality. Chiefdoms do not have reality but rather are concepts that are reified through scholarly arguments in the present and may approximate social relations in the past. Whereas contemporary states make themselves visible through institutions, spectacles, and monuments, for Paphlagonia, the ancient chiefdom is a more intangible concept. It would be a mistake to merely identify chiefdoms and describe them; it is necessary to specify what aspects of social relations they help explain and suggest other perspectives for the understanding of the society.

385 _{Paphlagonon origo repetita (prol. libri 10 l. 6, Seel 1956:309). His background may have helped us} discuss Paphlagonian dynastic histories.

386 _{In Mediterranean histories before Fernand Braudel’s The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world}

in the age of Philip II, history was written as if set in the Mediterranean region. In Braudel’s history of

the Mediterranean the ecology binds the region and brings out structures of the longue durée (1972:23- 4, 25-102 passim). In Peregrine Horden and Nicholas Purcell’s revision of Braudel for the medieval and ancient Mediterranean they return to a discussion of the fragmented histories of microecologies set in the Mediterranean. Here, in contrast, we are discussing history in the region formerly occupied by Paphlagonia in the modern historical imagination.

i. Achaemenid administration

Unfortunately, when we turn to the scholarship on the administrative organization of the empire to find Paphlagonia’s position within it, we find instead that the scholarship is itself plagued with conflicting interpretations of the textual sources. Conflicting positions for Paphlagonia are the result; they vary from repeated assertions that the Paphlagonians

were a dependency of Daskyleion387 to “[Paphlagonia] had always belonged to the

satrapy of Cappadocia.”388 According to both, Paphlagonia occupies a similarly

dependent position in the administrative hierarchy,389 but the orientation of the landscape

changes from the Black Sea to the basin of the Kızılırmak. Fortunately, a fragile

consensus on the satrapal organization of the empire and its development in Anatolia

under the Achaemenids and Alexander the Great has emerged.390 The consensus is most

prominently articulated in Briant’s From Cyrus to Alexander, and founded on qualified acceptance of Herodotus’ description of the tribute reforms of Darius I and interpretation

387 _{For example, Briant 2002:698, Klinkott 2000:88.}

388 _{“Paphlagonien, das von jeher zur Satrapie Kappadokien gehört hatte, wurde nun dem Calas unterstellt,} weil der übergeordnete Satrapensitz in Kappadokien am Pontus ‘noch’ nicht in makedonischer Hand war” (Jacobs 1994:57).

389 _{Paphlagonia’s position in both variations is similar only in so far as Paphlagonia is dependent on a} satrapy. In Briant the satrapies are not arranged hierarchically and Daskyleion is only dependent on the imperial center (2002:390-3); in Jacobs Paphlagonia is a Kleinsatrapie dependent on the Hauptsatrapie

of Cappadocia/Katpatuka which is itself under the Grosssatrapie of Lydia/Sparda (1994:118-46). 390 _{Jacobs who refers to the consensus as “deceptive” (trügerisch) is the principal dissenting voice. He}

argues for continuity in the administrative organization from the kingdoms conquered by the Achaemenids through the two centuries of Achaemenid rule and down to Alexander. This perspective is yet another example of the static orient where flexibility and change are “stolen” in western historical interpretation (Goody 2006:185-7). Jacobs arbitrarily rejects Herodotus as a source on account of his Homeric references and insists that the country lists along with the historians of Alexander are “primary” sources (1994, 2003a, 2003b). His arguments reveal that by “primary” he means that a source can be (ab)used without first clarifying how ritual, literary characteristics or any other factor influences the source. The role played by the country lists in the ritual mapping of the empire precludes their adjustment in response to every administrative exigency. He concludes with an elaborate (and rigid) hierarchical organization of nested satrapies (compare Weiskopf 1982:71, Debord 1999:23), whereas the sources demand a heterarchical interpretation of Achaemenid administration with a judicious review of every source.

of the country lists of the Achaemenid royal inscriptions in their ritual context.391 Pierre Debord’s subsequent in-depth comparison of the geographical aspects of Herodotus, the royal inscriptions, and the historians of Alexander, which treats the satrapal organization throughout the empire, reaches an assessment similar to Briant’s, and argues for Paphlagonia’s fluctuating affiliation with the Daskyleion satrapy from Darius I through

Alexander.392

In Herodotus’ description of the tribute reforms, Darius I groups Paphlagonians with the peoples on the southern shore of the Sea of Marmara and the Black sea in the third

satrapy with its satrapal residence at Daskyleion.393 Following Darius’s institution of

twenty satrapies and his appointment of their governors, Herodotus then describes Darius

as assessing the tribute obligations of each of the satrapies.394 During the assessment

Darius “attached to each people their neighbors, and moving beyond those nearby, he

391 _{Following Armayor (1978:7-9) historians often discredit Herodotus as a source on satrapal organization} and tribute collection due to his mirroring the catalog of ships in the Iliad in his list of satrapies. Briant accepts the Hellenization of the list with an Aegean centered numbering and literary characteristics similar to the catalog of ships. He also admits that Herodotus’ description likely reflects the changes in the organization between Darius I’s reforms and the time at which Herodotus was writing (2002:172- 86, 908-10). Darius I possibly begins to resemble in Herodotus an eponymous founder who has ascribed to him incremental and subsequent changes. Briant quite wisely omits a detailed study of the “geographical aspects” of Herodotus with the excuse that such a study is out of place in his general history (2002:931).

392 _{Debord 1999:110-5; see also Klinkott 2000:79, 88, 91, 99 (table with results summarized); 2005:458-9.} Briant 2002:698 (Paphlagonians were a dependency of Daskyleion), 743 (Paphlagonia subject to Daskyleion under Alexander), 796 (Paphlagonians commanded by Daskyleion satrap Arsites at Granikos).

393 _{“The third nome was the Hellespontians on the right as you sail in, Phrygians, Thracians in Asia,} Paphlagonians, Mariandynians, and Syrians, and their tribute was 360 talents” (ÉApÚd¢ÑEllhspont¤vn t«n §p‹ dejiå §spl°onti ka‹ Frug«n ka‹ Yrh¤kvn t«n §n tª ÉAs¤˙ ka‹ PaflagÒnvn ka‹ Mariandun«n ka‹ Sur¤vn •jÆkonta ka‹ trihkÒsia tãlanta ∑n fÒrow: nomÚw tr¤tow otow, Hdt. 3.90.7-10). See also 3.89.1-7 on satrapies, 3.120.9 on Daskyleion as the capital of the province/nome (under Cambyses), 3.126.6 on the governor/hyparchos from Daskyleion (under Cambyses), 6.33.18 on the governor/hyparchos in Daskyleion. Cyrus II added the Lydian province of Daskyleion to the Achaemenid possessions in the 540s, and Paphlagonians are mentioned as living on the west bank of the Kızılırmak and affiliated, possibly loosely, with Lydia before Lydia’s defeat by Cyrus II (Hdt. 1.6, 28, 72; Xen. Cyr. 2.1.5, 8.6.7-8 [Xenophon’s passages arguably reflect events later than Cyrus II]). 394 _{Tribute in kind from Paphlagonia could have included agricultural and pastoral products, copper, forest}

resources; but transport either through Gangra to the royal road or from Sinope to Daskyleion by sea would have presented some difficulties.

distributed those farther on to one or another people.”395 The description of the constitution of each satrapy through the grouping of peoples with their neighbors introduces a list of the twenty satrapies and presumably explains the description of Daskyleion in the list as the satrapal center in charge of the “Hellespontians on the right as you sail in, Phrygians, Thracians in Asia, Paphlagonians, Mariandynians, and Syrians.” It is probable that the Paphlagonians were imagined as an administrative entity

through the same grouping procedure of the peoples on the coast, in the Gökırmak

catchment, and the Gangra vicinity.396

The Daskyleion satrapy had both a European and maritime orientation that the name of the satrapy in the Old Persian royal inscriptions reflects, “the people near the sea”

(tayaiy drayahyā).397 Although Herodotus includes Phrygia in the Daskyleion satrapy,

references around the end of the fifth century to the expeditions and relations of its satrap

395

ª PoiÆsaw d¢ taËta, §n P°rs˙si érxåw katestÆsato e‡kosi, tåw aÈto‹ kal°ousi satraph¤aw: katastÆsawd¢tåw érxåwka‹˝rxontaw §pistÆsaw§tãjatofÒrouw oflprosi°naikatå¶yneãteka‹ prÚwto›si ¶ynesitoÁw plhsiox≈rouwprostãssvn,ka‹ Íperba¤nvntoÁw prosex°awtå•kast°rv ˝lloisi˝lla¶ynean°mvn (Hdt. 3.89). Note how Herodotus describes the grouping of peoples, and not regions, in satrapies.

396 _{Although it is possible that Herodotus’ explanation is a rationalization from the perceived pattern of the} satrapies, it is more probable that it is derived from the Achaemenid ideology reported by Herodotus (1.134) on honoring neighbors over more distant peoples. The discussion in the previous chapter of how the earliest attestations of the name Paphlagones after Homer are in Herodotus and the first references to Paphlagonia and Paphlagonians are by Xenophon is also relevant to the Achaemenid imagination of Paphlagonia.

397 _{On tayaiy drayahyā, see Schmitt 1972; Debord summarizes further points in support of the identification} of tayaiy drayahyā as the Daskyleion satrapy (1999:70-2), whereas Lewis (1977:83 n. 10), Petit (1990:136, 182-3), and Lecoq (1997:141) question the identification. Sancisi-Weerdenburg’s unconvincing argument against the identification (2001a) disregards how the country lists ritually map the empire and are meaningfully constitutive of it. Additionally, her argument assumes a maritime orientation in the Behistun country lists from Egypt to Yauna through eastern Mediterranean coastal peoples and Lydia (2001a:3, 2001b:324-33; DB I §6 [col. 1.15] in Kent 1953:117-9, Kuhrt 2007b, vol. 1:141 no. 5.1 [Old Persian list]). Weiskopf notes the decrease in Daskyleion’s stature relative to Sparda when the Achaemenids withdrew from Europe (1982:349-50). The satrapal residence at Daskyleion has seen two phases of archaeological investigation. The first phase was directed by Ekrem Akurgal from 1954 to 1960, and the second phase, ongoing since 1980, under the direction of Tomris Bakır. For a bibliography of the Akurgal’s excavations, see Bakır 1995. On the Achaemenid satrapal palace and the ongoing excavations more generally, see Bakır 2003, 2007. For the most recent of the annual reports published in the proceedings of the Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, see Bakır 2009.

Pharnabazus indicate that Daskyleion’s reach a century after Darius’s reforms did not extend much beyond the Sakarya River at Gordion. The city was the crossroads where

the road from Daskyleion joined with a royal road from Sardis.398 Herodotus’ Phrygia is,

without question, far more extensive, and consists of both lands south of the sea of

Marmara and the vast extent of the Anatolian plateau southwest of the Kızılırmak from

south of the Paphlagonian mountains, north of the Taurus Mountain Range, and as far

west as the tributaries of the western Anatolian rivers.399

As early as the 460s, a satrap of Phrygian lands on the plateau, Epixues, was reportedly hostile to Themistokles and impeded his passage on the royal road in the

vicinity of the fort at Leontonkephalai.400 A Phrygian satrapy on the plateau could have

seceded from Daskyleion between Darius’s reforms and Pharnabazus,401 but Herodotus’

sometimes overly conventional, sometimes muddled knowledge of the Anatolian plateau

398 _{On Pharnabazus (satrap ?-388) in Bithynia, see Xen. An. 6.4.24; in Gordion, see Xen. Hel. 1.4.1; in} Phrygia, see Hell. Oxy. 24.3-25.1 (Chambers 1993:46-8), Xen. Hel. 4.1.1; other more ambiguous passages appear in Xen. Hel. 3.1.13 (see Debord 1999:94-5 n. 100, Lewis 1977:56 n. 39). Compare with Debord, who places Leontonkephalai under Pharnabazos (1999:94-6). Arrian reports that Gordion is in Hellespontine Phrygia (the Daskyleion satrapy) and the upper Sakarya River is in Phrygia (on the plateau) under Alexander (Arr. Anab. 1.29.5).

399 _{Phrygia on the plateau: Hdt. 1.72; 5.49, 52; 7.26, 30-1.} 400 _{“Ruling as satrap of upper Phrygia”}

satrapeÊvn t∞w ãnv Frug¤aw (Plut. Vit. Them. 30.1). Briant notes that although Herodotus credits Darius I with the reforms, their description may reflect changes in the organization between Darius I and when Herodotus is writing in the third quarter of the fifth century (2002:392). The reference to a satrap of upper Phrygia, however, casts doubt on whether this explanation is cogent for the omission of the Anatolian plateau satrapies. Klinkott errs when he describes upper Phrygia as the Daskyleion satrapy (2005:459); ênv, the opposite of kãtv (the coast), means the plateau. Petit identifies Epixues as a satrap of Sardis (1990:appendix 2). Whether Xenophon’s reference to the greater Phrygian satrapy on the plateau under Cyrus II (Xen. Cyr. 8.6.7) reflects the satrapal organization of Artaxerxes II is debated (Debord 1999:80). The appointment of Cyrus III as the satrap of Lydia, Greater Phrygia, and Cappadocia can be argued as evidence that the satrapy of Greater Phrygia existed before his appointment (Xen. An. 1.9.7). Other sources refer a ruler, but not a satrap, of Greater Phrygia (Xen. An. 7.8.25, Polyaenus Strat. 7.28.2) but is clear that if Greater Phrygia was affiliated with a satrapy and subsequently seceded, then the affiliated satrapy was Sardis, not Daskyleion (compare Hdt. 3.127).

401 _{Debord 1999:77, 91-6, 155, Klinkott 2005. Briant comments that the date of the foundation of a} Phrygian satrapy with its center at Kelainai is unknown; “perhaps it was during the fourth century” (2002:706). In 518-517 Darius began his reforms after his suppression of the rebellions that arose after his accession (see Briant 2002:390).

reveals him to be an unreliable source for the satrapal organization of the plateau from the end of the sixth century to the middle of the fifth century, precisely when he was

conducting his inquiries.402 In addition to a Phrygian satrapy on the Anatolian plateau,

Herodotus does not mention a satrapy of Cappadocia, but rather includes Syrians (Cappadocians, as Herodotus explains they were also known) in the Daskyleion

satrapy.403 Historians rarely have any hesitation about either removing Herodotus’

Syrians from the Daskyleion satrapy or restricting Herodotus’ reference to Syrians near the Black sea. The reasons given are many; a few are as follows: first, the inconsistency

between the descriptions of the eastern boundary of Paphlagonia as the Kızılırmak and a

reference to Syrians between the Terme and Bartın Rivers; secondly, the improbably

extensive range of both Herodotus’ Syrians and his Armenian satrapy; and last, the

presence of Cappadocians in the country lists of the royal inscriptions.404 Nothing is

402 _{Herodotus’ boundaries between Anatolian peoples, such as Phrygians and Lydians, are embedded in} natural features, ritual practices, political histories, and literary topoi, and should not be expected to closely reflect narrated events, such as Darius’ tribute assessment. Debord’s exercises in mapping Herodotus compounds the inconsistencies and results in some preposterous boundaries and routes, especially the Sinope to Cilicia route (1999:84 map2, 32 map 1), and emphasizes the need for an acceptance of Herodotus as a source with modifications. Summers provides a cautionary example of the identification of an Anatolian plateau city, Kerkenes Dağı/Pteria, on the evidence of a single passage in Herodotus. Summers’ historical argument is now improbable with the redating of the relevant Yassıhöyük/Gordion and Boğazköy/Hattusha ceramic sequences (G.D. Summers 1997, 2000; cf. Rollinger 2003a:305-19, 2003b; Tuplin 2004:247-8), but the identification is still probable.

403 _{Hdt. 1.72, 76; 5.49; 7.72.}

404 _{Debord 1999:83-8. Kızılırmak as boundary under Kroisos: Hdt. 1.6, 28, 72, 75-6; Syrians on the coast} up to the Bartin River: Hdt. 2.104; Syria bordering Egypt (Hdt. 2.116, for example). Herodotus’ Black sea Syrians/Cappadocians are also known as Assyrians (Pseudo-Skylax Perieg. 89-90, Ap. Rhod.

Argon. 2.964) and Leukosyrians (Hecataeus FGrH 1.7a, etc.). In the majority of sources they inhabit the deltas of the Kızılırmak, Yeşilırmak, and Terme River. Regardless, Herodotus is probably not inconsistent; it is historians who are comparing apples and oranges. The Syrians on the “Paphlagonian” coast appear in a passage about the spread of circumcision, and Syrians to the east of the Kızılırmak appear in a passage describing a political boundary. Compare Debord’s discussion of the two variants as derived from literary traditions begun by Hecataeus and Eumelus (1999:85-6). Katpatuka/Cappadocia is present in most of the country lists of the royal inscriptions (summaries of the lists are on Klinkott 2005:70-3), and historians following Laird (1921:306-8, 324) argue that the Paktuïke appearing in Herodotus’ description of the thirteenth satrapy is a corruption of Katpatuka (Debord:83-8, Klinkott 2005:107). Because Herodotus does not use Katpatuka elsewhere, rather than a textual corruption of Katpatuka, Paktuïke seems to reflect Herodotus’ muddled knowledge about the

certain about the satrapies on the plateau, but with all the reasons for a Cappadocia satrapy separate from Daskyleion, and all of the problems with the Phrygian lands on the plateau within Daskyleion, Herodotus seems to have merged the plateau satrapies into a satrapy with a more familiar European and maritime orientation.

Herodotus’ omission of the Phrygian and Cappadocian satrapies on the Anatolian plateau is not extraordinary, however, if we consider that the sources of Greek (and Carian) knowledge on Anatolia were restricted to coastal navigation and settlements with harbors. This maritime knowledge is reflected directly in Herodotus’ description of the Daskyleion satrapy, and indirectly in the Homeric catalog of ships and other literary

sources on which Herodotus draws.405 Herodotus, therefore, cannot stand alone as

evidence of the Daskyleion satrapy’s maritime orientation, but this is nevertheless a proposition that I will explore further through Paphlagonian relations to the plateau and the coast.406

Many Achaemenid historians have embraced Michael Weiskopf’s caveat against the drawing of satrapal boundaries. Due to the scarcity of the historical sources on Achaemenid Anatolia, Weiskopf argues that historians ought to research the personal relations of elites and not the empire’s administrative organization or boundaries. Although Weiskopf’s argument is well taken, his concern with the flexibility of empires Katpatuka/Cappadocia (cf. Casabonne 2007:105). Ktesias also refers to the satrap of Cappadocia, Ariaramnes, under Darius I (FGrH 688 F 13 §20, see Debord 1999:89-90 for discussion).

405 _{Herodotus’ references to the Greek literary sources are discussed in the second chapter. Herodotus} alludes not only to the Greek literary and mythical tradition but also to the Achaemenid; the number of satrapies Herodotus mentions conforms to Achaemenid myths with the number twenty—for example, twenty names of Ahura Mazda and the twenty sons of the eponymous founder of Parsa (Pirart 1995:65- 8).

406 _{In addition to its maritime orientation towards the sea of Marmara and Black Sea, Weiskopf argues that} the satrapy was originally conceived as a bridge for Achaemenid expansion into Europe, and