V. As to the question, whether the author of Daniel confused Darius the Mede with Darius Hystaspis,1 based upon the assumption that because Darius the Mede is said in 6:1, to have organized the empire into 120 satrapies, he has confounded him with “Darius Hystaspis, who actually organized the Persian empire into satrapies, though much fewer than 120,” and “who established the system of satrapies” of which “the Behistun Inscription enumerates 23, etc.”2 the answer is:
First. The author of Daniel does not speak of organized satrapies, but simply of satraps. He does not mention the extent of their dominions, nor the limits of their authority, except by saying that “Darius set them over the kingdom.” The word “kingdom” as here used, like “land” in 6:25, must be defined by the context teaches us is that Belshazzar the Chaldean was killed and Darius the Mede received the kingdom; that is, obviously, Belshazzar’s kingdom. This kingdom was, probably, Chaldea, Babylon, Accad, and Susiana. In addition to this, as the title “the Mede” implies, and as would
1 See p. 162. 2 Driver, p. 500.
certainly be true if Darius the Mede be identical with Gobryas, he was also governor or sub–king of Gutium as the Cyrus Chronicle relates. Gutium was a country of undefined extent, but probably embracing all the territory between Babylonia on the one side and the mountains of Armenia to the north and Mt. Zagros to the northeast on the other, and perhaps even the country beyond Mt. Zagros whose capital city was Ecbatana.1 Secondly, it can scarcely be said, in conformity with the facts of history as revealed on the monuments, that Darius Hystaspis established the system of satrapies, if by this is meant, as Dr. Driver seems to imply, that a system of government by officials mostly of the governing race, appointed by the central or predominant authority, was originated and first introduced by Darius Hystaspis as a method of government subject races. However it may have been with the monarchs who preceded Sargon who reigned as king of Assyria from 722 to 705 B.C., it is certain that his system of governing the subject cities and peoples was by means of officials, mostly Assyrians, appointed by him, upheld by his armies and authority, ruling as his representatives and paying tribute to the dominant central power. Certain it is, also, that this system continued to be used by his successors in the kingdom of Assyria, and later, by the kings of Babylon and by Cyrus. To give all of the proofs for these statements would too much enlarge the extent of this chapter.
1 See the Cyrus Cylinder, 13. Winckler makes Gutium a term to denote the country north of Babylonia probably of undefined and shifting limits, but embracing in the time of Cyrus the whole country between the Euphrates and Tigris (Untersuchungen, p. 131). It has been shown above that there may well have been 120 satraps in this kingdom, whether it were of the larger or smaller extent.
Sufficient, however, will now be given to satisfy the unprejudiced reader, that aside from the mere change of the names of the officials from Assyrio-Babylonian to Persian, no change, except along the line of development of Sargon’s original conception and organization, can be traced to Darius Hystaspis. Notice, we admit that Darius Hystaspis was the first to thoroughly organize the Persian government as Canon Rawlinson has clearly shown,1 and that he carried on the government by means of subordinates commonly called satraps: but we claim, that such a system of government, less perfectly organized, was in existence for at least two hundred years before this time, and that while the Persians did introduce a new name for the subordinate rulers of the subject state, they did not essentially change the system in vogue before this time. They simply perfected a system which was already in existence, and which has been called from the satrapial system. This system involved three principles: —a government by officials representing the king and appointed by him, a fixed burden of tribute, and “the establishment of a variety of checks and counterpoises among the officials to whom it was necessary that the crown should delegate its powers.”2 As bearing upon the present discussion, it is only necessary that we should bring forth evidence to show that the first of these principles, —to wit, government by officials representing the king and appointed by him, was in existence before the time of Darius Hystaspis, and especially that it was in existence under Cyrus, and that it would have been used by a sub–king of Cyrus, such as we believe Darius the Mede to have been. Before citing our evidence, it may be well to summarize
1 Ancient Monarchies, vol. iii, 416 seq. 2 Rawlinson, id., iii, 417.
the main points of the satrapial system of government as they are given in that most excellent work of the late Canon Rawlinson, Professor of Ancient History in the University of Oxford, which he gives us in the third volume of his Ancient Monarchies, in the seventh chapter of his history of the Fifth Monarchy, in his account of the organization of the empire of Persia. For convenience of comparison with the system of the predecessors of Darius Hystaspis, what Prof. Rawlinson says may be treated under the following captions.
First, the satraps were appointed by the king, but the native kings sometimes were allowed to reign as subordinates.
Secondly, they had some of the powers and prerogatives of a king, i.e., they had armies, levied taxes, and possessed palaces and seraglios.
Thirdly, the subject nations were allowed “to retain their languages, habits, manners, religion, laws, and modes of government.”
Beginning our evidence that the Assyrians had a government similar to that of the Persians with Sargon, the king of Assyria, who reigned from 722 to 705 B.C., we find:
1. That he also appointed governors of the subject provinces and cities and sometimes allowed the native kings to reign as subordinates.
(a) As to provinces, he is found using the frequently recurring phrase “my officers I set as governors over them,” e.g., in the Annals (lines 7–10, Winckler’s edition), Sargon says that he appointed his officers to be governors over the lands of Rapiku, all Chaldea, Hasmar, the distant Medes, Namri, Illibi, Bit–Hamban, Parsua, Man, Urarta, Kasku, Tabal, and Muski.1
1 Amelu shuparshakishu shaknuti ileshunu ishtakkanu. So also in the inscription from Hall xiv, p. 29, he says he had appointed his officers to be deputies (shaknuti) over Media, Illipi, Andia, Zikirtu, Man, the Hittite lands of Gargamish and Kummuh and Kammanu, and his governors (bel pihati) over Gamgumi, (perhaps) Egypt, and Miluhhi (certainly), Ashdod, Bit–Humri, Kasku, Tabal, Hilaḳḳu, Muski, Gaza, the sub–kingdoms of Jatnana, Kaldu, —the totality of which proud land he divided between the deputies (shanuti) of Babylon and Gambulu, —Dilmun, Sharru, Hatti, Gutium, Rashi, Elam, the Arameans on the Tigris, the Suti Jutlurim Sam’una, Ganduniash, and Bit–Jakin.
In line 19 of the same inscription, he speaks of the shaknu, or deputy–governor, of the city of Babylon and of the shaknu of the land of Gambuli, and in line 12 of placing an officer as bel piḥati over the whole of the broad land of Miluhhi (Ethiopia) including Egypt (unless Ashdod alone is meant in the passage). In the Display inscription 17–22, he speaks of setting his officers as governors (bel piḥati) over Jatnana, Muski, the broad land of Aḥarri (Amurri), the entire land of the Hittites, all Gutium, the distant Medes, Illibi, Rashi, the tribes of the Lu’, the Rubu’, the Harilum, the Kaldudu, the Hamranu, the Ubulum, the Ru’ua, the Li’ittaui, the Gambulu, the Hindaru, the Pukudu, all the desert–dwelling Suti of Jatburi, certain cities of Elam, the land of Ganguniash, upper and lower, the land of Bit–Dakkuri, the land of Bit–Shilani, the whole land of Bit–Sa’alla, all the land of Kaldi, the land of Bit–Jakin, and the region of Dilmun.1
1 For similar statements, see, also the Pavement inscription ii, 4–16, iii, 5–22, v, 14–27. On the Pavement inscription iv, 16–27, he says that he placed governors (shaknuti) over Shurda, Harhar, Media, Illipi, Andia, Zikirtu, Man, Amatti, Kummanu; and on IV he says further, that he put his governor (bel pihati) over Bit–Humria, Jamnaai, Kasku, all Tabal, Hilḳḳu, Muski, Rapihi, Ja’ Jatnanau, Kaldi, Babylon, Gambuli, Dilmun, Amurru, Hatti, Gutium, Media, Illipi, Rashi, the people of Itu; Rubu’, Harilum, Kaldudu, Hamranu, Ubulum, Ru’ua, Litaai, Hindari, Puḳudu, the desert–dwelling Suti of the land of Jatburi, Sam’una, Gandunuash upper and lower, Bit–Amukkani, Bit–Dakuri, Bit–Shilani, Bit–Sa’ alla, all the land of Kaldi, Bit–Jakin, and Dilmun.
Frequent mention also is made by Sargon of governors of particular countries. Thus, in the Annals, lone188, he gave over the land of Kammanu to his officer (amelu shuparshakia); in line 214, he sets an officer (amelu shuparshakia) as bel pihati over the new inhabitants of the land of Ḳui;1 in line 401, he says he numbered Muttallu of Kummuh among the governors of his land;2 in the stele inscription i, 63, he speaks of putting his officer as governor (shaknu) over the land of Hammath.
(b) As to cities, also, we find a similar phrase, “I set my officer as governor over it,” e.g., Annals, lines 11–17, “my officer I set as deputy3 over the city of Samaria.” Line 68, he sets an officer as governor (bel pihati) over Kishshim and in line 72 he does the same for Harhar; in line 399 he does the same for Uliddu which he settled with people from Bit–Jakin and reckoned this governor among the governors of his land (line 401).
(c) Or, the governor or deputy, may have been set over several cities, e.g., in Annals, line 22, he sets his officer as governor (bel pihati) over Ashdod, Gaza, and Asdudimmu.
(d) Also, there might be one deputy appointed over a number of native rulers of one land, e.g., in Annals, 254–259, he puts over the sheikhs (nasikati) of Gambuli one of his officers as governor (bel pihati).
1 Amelu shuparshakia amelu shaknuha mati Ḳui.
2 Itti amelu bel pihati Matiya.
3 Shaknu; but Display inscription i, 22 bel pihati.
(e) Also, there might be several deputies in one land, e.g., in the Display inscription i, 38, Sargon speaks of the great deputies (shaknuti rabuti) of the land of the Manneans.
(f) We find, also, that the native kings were in some cases permitted to continue their reign as subordinates to the central authority at Nineveh. E.g., in the Annals, lines 97, 98, it is said that Sargon received tribute from Pharaoh, king of Egypt, Samsi, queen of Aribbi, and It’anna, king of the Sabeans. In line 215–219, Sargon tells how he deposed Azuri, king of Ashdod, and set up his brother Ahimiti in his place. In the Display inscription, lines 145–149, he tells of the submission and tribute of the sub–kings of Ja’ in Jatnuna (Cyprus).
(g) The extent of the country ruled over by these satraps varied from time to time. E.g., in the Annals, 42–45, Sargon says that he captured Shinuhtu, the capital of Kiakki, and gave it to Matti of the land of Atun. In 66 and 67 he conquered certain districts of the land of Naksama and added them to the province of Paruash.1 In 67–70, he conquered the land of Bit–Sagbat, and several others, and joined them to the government of Kisheshim, whose name he changed to Ḳar–Aden. In 70–73, he conquers the Urikatu and five other districts (nagi) and adds them to the prefecture of Harhar, changing the name to Ḳarsharrukin. In 99, 100, he takes two fortress from Mita, king of Muski, and adds them to the land of Kui. In 365–369, he conquers parts of Elam and gives then into the hands of his officials the deputies (shaknuti) of Babylon and Gambuli.
1 Eli pihat Parsuash.
2. The governors of Sargon, like the satraps of Persia, had many of the powers and prerogatives of a king.
(a) They had armies under their command. For example, Sargon says in his Annals, 304–307, that he sent his governors (bel pihati) against the Hamaranai who had taken possession of Sippar. In 371–379, he says, that while he himself had been conquering the Chaldeans and Arameans, his official, the deputy of Kui, had been sent against Mita, king of Muski, had conquered him and brought some thousands of his warriors as prisoners before him in Elam. In 386, he sends a trusty officer with chosen troops on an expedition apparently to Cyprus, and he brings back the booty to Sargon in Babylon. In 388–399, he sent his officers with their troops against Muttallu of Kummuh, who conquered him and brought the booty to Sargon at Kalhu, and he made his officers governors over the newly conquered country. In 408 he sent some of his governors (bel pihati) to aid Ispabara in the war against the king of Elam.
(b) They levied taxes. This is implied in the fact that they all paid tribute to the king of Assyria. E.g., in Annals, 10, it is said, that Sargon placed his governors over the land of Chaldea, Media, Tabal, and others, and placed upon them a tribute. This tribute they levied as they saw fit, the Assyrian kings caring more for the money than for the means by which it was gotten. A good example of the fact that the governors levied taxes is found in the Annals of Ashurbanipal, Col. ix, 117, where it says, that the people of Usu had shown themselves disobedient to their governors and had given them no tribute; whereupon Ashurbanipal himself punished the rebellious people.
(c) They had palaces. For example, when the king
of the city of Ashdod refused to give tribute, Sargon besieged and conquered it and spoiled the treasure of his palace.1 Kiakki, also, of the city of Shinuhtu was thinking of not paying his tribute, when Sargon conquered him and captured his wife, sons, daughters, and his palace servants.2 Pishiri of Carchemish rebelled and Sargon captured the treasures of his palace;3 so, also, with Bel–shur–usur of Kisheshim.4 Again, Ashurbanipal says in his Annals5 that he capture the treasure of the palace of Dunanu of Gambuli.
(d) They had seraglios. For example, Dalta, king of Illipi, had at least two wives; for Nibi and Ispabara are called the sons of his wives.6 Again, Ashurbanipal says in his Annals7, that he captured Dunanu of Gambuli, a rebel, and his wife, his sons, his daughter and his concubines, his male and female musicians, etc.
3. The subject nations retained their own religion and local government. This is plain from the history of Israel and Judah as recorded in the Old Testament; and it was true of every other nation, so long as they did not by rebellion force the Assyrians to destroy them utterly. For example, the nisakkus of the Aramaic tribes retained their names and deities after they were compelled to pay tribute;8 so with those of Gambuli,9 and Jatbur.10
So, also, the Egyptians, Babylonians, Arameans, Arabs, Medes, and all others were allowed to retain their own gods and worship, so long as they did not enrage the kings of Assyria beyond endurance by their rebellions. In case only of a war to the death, were the
1 Annals, 215–226. 2 Id., 42–44. 3 Id., 46–50. 4 Id., 68–70.
5 Cyl. D, Col. vi, 22. 6 Annals of Sargon, 404. 7 Cyl. B, Col. vi, 10–23.
8 Annals, 264–270. 9Id., 255–264. 10 Id., 280–284.
gods of the enemy carried away, as was done with 20 gods of Elam, when Susa was conquered and destroyed by Ashurbanipal.1 Once, Ashurbanipal imposed the earlier worship (?) and religious customs (?) of Ashur and Belit and the gods of Assyria upon the people of Akkad, Chaldea, Aram, and the sea-lands.2
Secondly, having thus shown, that the government of the Persian empire under Darius Hystaspis did not differ essentially from that of the Assyrian empire under Sargon; and that the sameness of methods of government of the Assyrians and Persians will be evident to anyone who substitutes the word “satrap” for deputy (shaknu) and governor (bel pihati) in Sargon’s inscriptions, or vica versa, the Assyrian words for deputy and governor for satrap in the records bearing upon the form of government among the Persians, —in other words that the difference between the two systems is one of nomenclature, or language, rather than one of essence, or fact; we come next to a consideration of whether there could have been 120 satraps in the sub–kingdom Darius the Mede. We have seen above that the sub–kingdom most probably embraced Gutium, over which Gobryas had been governor before the taking of Babylon by the Persians, Chaldea, Accad, and Susa, over which Belshazzar had most likely reigned as sub–king to Nabonaid, and Babylon, over which Belshazzar had been de facto king after the capture of his father Nabunaid and over which Cyrus made Gobryas governor after its conquest. Having been given so much of the Babylonian empire, it is altogether probable, also, that Cyrus, who was busied with the affairs of his wars and much greater empire, extending them from the Indus to the Bosphorus, may have entrusted the whole of the
1 Rassam Cylinder, Col. vi, 30–40. 2 Id., Col. iv, 97–107.
realm of Nabunaid to Gobryas, this trusty servant and able general, to administer in his behalf and as his representative. At any rate, no one knows anything to the contrary. It is probable, again, that Cyrus, when he had seized Ecbatana, after the defeat and capture of Astyages,1 would deliver the governorship of Media into the hands of one of the Medes who had been a partisan of his cause during the conflict with Astyages. As late, certainly, as Darius Hystaspis, subjects other than Persian, especially Medes, were at times made deputy rulers for the king of Persia. For example, Dadarshish, an Armenian, was the general of Cyrus in command against the rebellious Armenians.2 This Dardarshish may be the same man who is later called a Persian, who was satrap of Bactria.3 Again, Takhmaspada and Vindafra, both Medes, were generals of Darius Hystaspis in his wars against the rebellious Sagartians and Babylonians.4 Further, Darius Hystaspis announces it as his policy and custom to favor all who are friendly to him and to his family.5 The traditions of the Medes and the Persians, as embodied in Herodotus and Xenophon, would lead us also to believe that Cyrus treated the Medes and their rulers as his especial favorites and with singular deference and kindness. So that, we can well believe that the realm over which this subordinate Median king, Darius the Mede, ruled may have been as great even as the realm of Sargon of Assyria. Now, then, for the point. Sargon of Assyria, on the inscriptions which have come down to us and which are published by Winckler, mentions by name one hundred and fifteen lands and seventeen
1 See inscription of Abu Habba, i., 28–33, and the Cyrus Chronicle, 3, 1–3.
2 Behistun Insc. ii, 29. 3 Id., iii, 13,14. 4 Id., ii, 82 and iii, 83.
5 Id., 20–22, iv, 65–67.
peoples, which were tributary to him; and in most cases states that these tributary countries and peoples were ruled by deputies, or governors, appointed by himself. Why, then may not another king coming between his time and that of Darius Hystaspis have had one hundred and twenty deputies, or governors (call them satraps, if you please), appointed by him to rule the subject lands in his stead? Even if Darius Hystaspis thoroughly organized the satrapies and enlarged them and reduced their number to twenty, as Herodotus implies,1 this would not prove anything as to the number which the kings of Assyria after Sargon had, nor as to the number which the kings of Babylon had, nor as to the number which Cyrus and Cambyses had, nor as to the number which a sub–king under Cyrus had. Granting that there was a Darius the Mede, ruling a kingdom which was a part of the Persian empire, who can say how many, or how few, deputies and governors he may have appointed to administer his kingdom for him? A rose by another name would smell as sweet. So, whether you call these legates of the king satraps or shaknus or deputy–governors, it matters not. It is the thing and not the name, that is important here.
But, again, when Dr. Driver says, that Darius Hystaspis on the Behistun Inscription enumerates in one place (Col. i, par. 6) twenty–three satrapies and in the later (sepulchral) inscription of Naksh–i–Rustam (lines 7–19) twenty–nine, he is begging the question at issue. For, first, on neither of these inscriptions is it said that Darius Hystaspis divided his kingdom into satrapies, few or many. Countries only are mentioned. Thus we read on the Behistun Inscription (Col. i, 13–27):
1 Book III, 89.
These are the countries which submitted to me; through the might of Ahuramazda, I became their king; Persia, Susiana, Babylon, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, which is on the sea, Sparda, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Asia, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandara, the Sacæ, the Sattagetæ, Arachosia and Maka, altogether twenty–three countries. Thus saith Darius the king. These are the lands which submitted to me; through the grace of Ahuramazda they became my servants, they brought me tribute, what was commanded them by me day or night, they fulfilled.
In the Naksh–i–Rustam inscription v., 19, we read:
Thus saith Darius the king; Through the grace of Auramazda, these are the lands, which I seized outside of Persia; I ruled them, they brought me tribute; what I commanded them, they did; may law was observed; Media, Elam, Parthia, Aremu, Bactria, Sug’da, Chorasmia, Zaranka, Arachosia, Sattagytia, Gandaria, India, the Saka Humavarka, the Saka Tigrakhauda, Babylon, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, Aremnia, Cappadocia, Sparda, Ionia, the Saka who are beyond the sea, the Sk’udra, the Ionians Takabara, the Patiya, the K’ashiya, the Maciya, the Karkas.
Dr. Driver might have mentioned, also, the inscription of Persepolis,1 where we find:
Thus saith king Darius; Through the grace of Auramazda, these are the lands which I rule with my Persian army, which feared before me and brought me tribute; Elam, Media, Babylon, Arabia, Assyria, Egypt, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parda, Ionia of the continent, and those of the islands; and these lands in the East, Asagarta, Parthia, Zaranka, Aria, Bactria, Sug’da, Chorasmia, Sattagytia, Arachosia, India, Gandara, Saka, Maka.
1 Spiegel, Altpersische Keilinschriften. p. 49.
As to the rulers of these countries, he speaks twice only of satraps, once of Dadarshish, a Persian, who was a satrap in Bactria, and once of a Vivana who was satrap in Arachosia. Notice, that we have said in Bactria and in Arachosia, not of Bactria and of Arachosia. For Spiegel and Weisbach and Bang translate the words for Bactria and Arachosia as if the cases were locatives, rather than genitives. We confess that we are not convinced that they must be locatives rather than genitives. And, if they be locatives, then Darius Hystaspis says simply, that these men were satraps, one in Bactria and the other other in Arachosia, admitting the possibility of one or more satraps in either country. The case ending being ambiguous, so that as evidence on either side in this controversy, it can determine nothing. If the case be genitive, then we must admit, that these two countries, Bactria and Arachosia, each had a satrap at some time before the Behistun Inscription was made. This would not prove that the other countries had then at all, much less that they had each but one. If, on the other hand, it be admitted that the case is a locative, then Bactria and Arachosia may have had more than one satrap and the whole argument derived from there being a satrap over each country and only about thirty countries for satraps to rule over would fall to the ground. Here, also, let me reiterate the statement, that even if Darius Hystaspis organized his kingdom in to about thirty satrapies, this would not prove anything as to the number or organization before his time, —under Cyrus, for example.
Further, we cannot gather from the Behistun Inscrip–
tion, that these two satraps there mentioned were anything more than generals of the armies of their respective countries where they hailed from. Neither of them is ever spoken of as having performed any duties except as general of an army, Dadarshish against the rebellious Margians and Vivana against the Persians.
Nor are all the countries of his empire mentioned on any one of the inscriptions, but only those he conquered again. Again, it will be noted that no two of the lists agree exactly, either in the number or order of the countries mentioned; nor do all three lists together mention all the countries under the dominion of Darius Hystaspis, his own inscriptions being witness.
For first, the Naksh–i–Rustam inscription makes three divisions of the Sacæ and adds the names of the Skudra, Putiya, Kushiya, Macuiya, and Karkas to those mentioned in the Behistun Inscription, while it omits the Maka and Margiana. The Persepolis inscription1 divides the Ionians into those of the continent and those of the islands and adds India to the list of conquered lands; but otherwise agrees in number and names with the Behistun, but not in the order of the names.
Secondly, it will be noted, that in the Behistun Inscription Darius Hystaspis mentions as subject to him countries other than those given in any of these lists. Such are the Autiyara (Beh. ii, 58). Kampada (Beh. ii, 27), Gandutava (Beh. iii, 65), Nisaya (Beh. i, 58), Paishiyauvada (Beh. iii, 42, perhaps a city), Patishuvar (NRc, a people), Raga (Beh. ii, 71), and Hyrcania (Beh. ii, 92). While most of these are, doubtless, subdivisions of the greater countries mentioned in the lists,
1 H by Spiegel.
this can hardly be the case with Gandutava and Hyrcania. Thus we see that Darius Hystaspis mentions in all thirty–four distinct countries; and that, counting the lands that were subdivisions, there are forty countries all told mentioned in the Persian inscriptions as being under the rule of the great king, or king of kings.
Dr. Driver further cites Herodotus,1 as stating that Darius Hystaspis divided his kingdom into twenty satrapies. Herein, Dr. Driver is correct in his citation. However, before discussing the bearing of this on the matter before us, we shall quote the passage at length and entirely from Herodotus, Book III, 89–97, Cary’s translation. Darius
constituted twenty governments, which they called satrapies; and having constituted the governments and set governors over them, he appointed tributes to be paid to him from each nation, both connecting the adjoining people with the several nations, and omitting some neighboring people, he annexed to some others tat were more remote. He distributed the governments and the annual payment of tribute in the following manner. Such of them as contributed silver were required to pay it according to the standard of the Babylonian talent; and such as contributed gold, according to the Euboic talent. The Babylonian talent is equal to seventy Euboic minæ. During the reign of Cyrus, and afterward of Cambyses, there were no fixed regulations with regard to tribute, but they brought in presents. In consequence of this imposition of tribute, and other thing of a similar kind, the Persians say Darius was a trader, Cambyses a master, and Cyrus a father. The first, because he made profit of everything; the second, because he was severe and arrogant; the third, because he was mild, and always aimed at the good of his people. (90).
1 See Bk. III, 80.
From the Ionians, the Magnesias in Asia, the Æolians, Carians, Lycians, Milyens, and Pamphylians (for one and the same tribute was imposed on them all) thee came in a revenue of four hundred talents in silver; this, then, composed the first division. From the Musians, Lydians, Lasonians, Cabalians, and Hygennians, five hundred talents; this was the second division. From the Hellespontians, who dwell on the right as one sails in, the Phrygians, the Thracians in Asia, Paphlagonians, Mariandynians, and Syrians, there was a tribute of three hundred and sixty talents; this was the third division. From the Cilicians, three hundred and sixty white horses, one for every day, and five hundred talents of silver; of these a hundred and forty were expended on the cavalry, that guarded the Cilicians’ territory, and the remaining three hundred and sixty went to Darius; this was the fourth division. (91). From the city of Poseideium, which Amphilochus, son of Amphiaraus, founded on the confines of the Cilicians and Syrians, beginning from this down to Egypt, except a district belonging to Arabinas, which was exempt from taxation, was paid a tribute of three hundred and fifty talents; and in this division is included all Phœnicia, Syria which is called Palestine, and Cyprus; this was the fifth division. From Egypt and the Libyans bordering on Egypt, and from Cyrene and Barce (for these were annexed to the Egyptian division), accrued seven hundred talents, besides the revenue arising from Lake Moeris, which was derived from the fish; in addition, then, to this money, and the fixed supply of corn, there accrued seven hundred talents: for they furnished in addition 120,000 measures of corn for the Persians who occupy the white fortress at Memphis, and their allies; this was the sixth division. The Sattagydæ, Gandarians, Dadicæ, and Aparytæ, joined together, contributed one hundred and seventy talents; this was the seventh division. From Susa, and the rest of the country of the Cissians, three hundred talents; this was the eighth division. (92). From Babylon and the rest of Assyria there accrued to him a thousand
talents of silver and five hundred young eunuchs; this was the ninth division. From Ecbatana and the rest of Media, and the Paricanians and Orthocorybantes, four hundred and fifty talents; this was the tenth division. The Caspians, Pausicæ, Pantimathians, Daritæ, contributing together, paid two hundred talents; this was the eleventh division. From the Bactrians as far as the Aeglæ was a tribute of three hundred and sixty talents; this was the twelfth division. (93). From Pactyica, and the Armenians, and the neighboring people as far as the Euxine Sea, four hundred talents; this was the thirteenth division. From the Sagartians, Thamanæans, Sarangeans, Utians, Mycians, and those who inhabit the islands of the Red Sea, in which the king settles transported convicts, from all these came a tribute of six hundred talents; this was the fouteenth division. The Sacæ and Caspians paid two hundred and fifty talents; this was the fifteenth division. The Parthians, Chorasmians, Sogdians, and Arians, three hundred talents; this was the sixteenth divisoin. (94). The Paricanians and Asiatic Ethiopians paid four hundred talents; this was the seventeenth division. The Matienians, Saspires, and Alarodians were taxed at two hundred talents; this was the eighteenth division. From the Moschians, Tiberians, Macronians, Mosynœcians, and Marsians, three hundred talents were demanded; this was the nineteenth division. Of the Indians the population is by far the greatest of all nations whom we know of, and they paid a tribute proportionally larger than all the rest —three hundred and sixty talents of gold dust; this was the twentieth division. (95). Now the Babylonian standard, compared with the Euboic talent, makes the total nine thousand five hundred and forty talents; and the gold, estimated at thirteen times the value of silver, the gold dust will be found to amount to four thousand six hundred and eighty Euboic talents. Therefore, if the total of all these are computed together, fourteen thousand five hundred and sixty Euboic talents were collected by Darius as an annual tribute; and passing over sums
less than these, I do not mention them. (96). This tribute accrued to Darius from Asia and a small part of Libya; but, in the course of time, another tribute accrued from the islands and inhabitants of Europe as far as Thessaly. This tribute the king treasures up in the following manner; having melted it, he pours it into earthen jars, and having filled it, he takes away the earthen mold, and when he wants money, he cuts off so much as he wants from time to time.
(97). These, then, were the governments and the imposts on each. The Persian territory alone has not been mentioned as subject to tribute, for the Persians occupy their land free from taxes. They, indeed, were not ordered to pay any tribute, but brought gifts. The Ethiopians bordering on Egypt, whom Cambyses subdued when he marched against the Macrobian–Ethiopians, and who dwell about the sacred city of Nysa, and celebrate festivals of Bacchus —these Ethiopians and their neighbors use the same grain as the Calantian Indians, and live in subterraneous dwellings— both these bring every third year, and they continued to do so to my time, two chœnices of unmolten gold, two hundred blocks of ebony, five Ethiopian boys, and twenty large elephants’ tusks. The Colchians numbered themselves among those who gave presents, as well as the neighboring nations, as far as Mount Caucasus; for to this mountain the dominions of Persia extend; but the people to the north side of the Caucasus pay no regard to the Persians. These, then, for the gifts they imposed on themselves furnished even to my time, every five years, one hundred boys and one hundred virgins. The Arabians also furnished every year a thousand talents of frankincense. These, then, brought to the king the above gifts, besides the tribute.
By comparing these satrapies of Herodotus with the countries mentioned in the Persian inscriptions, it will be seen, first, that Herodotus sometimes includes two or more of the countries named by Darius in
one of his satrapies. For example, the sixteenth satrapy of Herodotus embraces four countries of the inscriptions, Parthia, Chorasmia, Sogdiana, and Aria; the seventh contained the Sattagytæ, and the Gandarians as well as two other peoples not mentioned on the monuments, to wit, the Dadicæ and the Aparytæ; and the fouteenth contained the Sarangians (Drangians) and Mycians (Maciya) of the Naksh–i–Rustam inscription, and also, the Sagartians, Thamaneans, Utians, and the inhabitants of the islands of the Red Sea.
Secondly, the monuments mention some countries which Herodotus does not. For example, Arachosia, Maka, Sparda (?), the Patiya, the Kushiya (Cissians?), and the Karkas.
Thirdly, Herodotus names many countries and even whole satrapies which are not named as on the monuments. For example, of the five countries named as in the second division, or satrapy, of Herodotus, not one is found on any of the inscriptions. Two of these countries are those of the familiar Mysians and Lydians and the others are those of the unfamiliar Lasonians, Cabalians, and Hygennians.
Again, Herodotus divides Asia Minor, on the near side of the river Halys, into four satrapies; wheras in this region, the inscriptions of Darius Hystaspis mention only the Ionians and the Cappadocians.
It will be seen that the testimony of Herodotus does not agree with that of the Persian inscriptions as to the number and limits of the satrapies, even if we should admit that the inscriptions do refer to satrapies at all, when they name the countries which submitted to the rule of the Persian king.
Further, and finally, let us say that it seems to us
impossible, with our present knowledge of the whole subject, to reconcile the statements of Herodotus as to the number and extent of the satrapies as recorded in Book III, 89–97, with those made by him in other places, or with those made by Thucydides, Xenophon, Arrian, and Strabo. The evidence seems to show that like the governments of Sargon the number and extent of the satrapies was a shifting quantity; that a satrap might have satraps under him; that the name satrap was indefinite, and corresponded not merely to the shaknus and bel pihatis of the Assyrio–Babylonians, but to the satraps, archons, and hyparchons of the Greeks and to the satraps, sagans, and pehoths of the Aramaic of Daniel: so that, in conclusion, we may say with some degree of confidence, that the case against the possibility of the appointment by Darius the Mede, a sub–king, satrap, or bel pihati, under Cyrus, of 120 satraps under him “to be in all his kingdom” is not supported by the evidence.
the book of Daniel says that such an appointment was made. We have endeavored to show, that there is nothing in the language or history against the possibility of such an appointment. Until, therefore, proofs, not ipse dixits and assertions, can be produced to show that the book of Daniel is wrong, and that this statement with regard to satraps cannot be true, we hope, that our readers will agree with us, that according to the laws of evidence, we are justified in holding to the veracity and historicity of Dan. 6:1, when it says: that “it pleased Darius [the Median, chap. 5:31] to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes (satraps) which should be over the whole kingdom.” The burden of proof rests upon those who assail the veracity of this statement.
Studies In The Book Of Daniel: A Discussion Of The Historical Questions by Robert Dick Wilson. New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, The Knickerbocker Press, 1917.
E-Text transcribed from the 1917 edition.