In the name of God

Persian influence on Greece

By: Janine Bakker

The ancient Persian and Greek cultures did not exist in isolation. There was cross-fertilization. The
present article contains a description of Persia's influence on Greece.
Introduction
The first part of this article is not to read, but to look at:

In front of us, we see the extensive Achaemenid empire (green), stretching from the Indus in the east to
the Mediterranean Sea in the west. Beyond the Aegean Sea, almost at the left edge of this map, we see a
green area that consists of several islands and city-states, which have not yet decided whether they are
one country or not. That is Greece.

Iranian Amazing Collection

Now it is remarkable that there have been more scholars who have studied the fuss and bustle on the
northwestern border of the Achaemenid empire than researchers who have analyzed the world power
itself. Of course, there are good reasons for this situation. Greece is relatively close to western Europe,
where it had, since the age of the great art historian Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717-1768), a more
or less privileged status as the cradle of western civilization. Another reason is that the impressive Greek
collection of literary, scientific and other texts has survived, whereas there is no such collection from
Persia. (The collection of religious texts known as the Avesta dates from the fifth or sixth century CE.)
Moreover, in their historical writings, the Greek authors make it clear that the Persians are a mere bunch
of decadent, effeminate barbarians, natural slaves that could be ignored in the history of mankind. The
Greeks themselves had the best culture and there was simply nothing that other civilizations could add.
Western scholars have long accepted this judgment.
This almost hostile attitude has long existed in Europe, together with a fascination for all that was strange
and unknown, such as the mysterious Orient. Because of this combination of fascination and suspicion,
questions about the exact interaction between the two cultures are not only interesting, but also necessary.
One must see further than the end of one's nose.
When one studies the past, it is important to understand that no event, nation, or culture exists in isolation.
Empires, ideas, and societies are formed by the empires, ideas, and societies surrounding them. It is the
conviction of the author of this article that exchange always exists, albeit on different levels and with
varying intensity. Even when those involved deny this influence. (Perhaps a strong denial even represents
a strong influence. Otherwise, it would not be necessary to deny influence.)
Let's return to the Greeks and Persians. Many scholars have researched Greek influence on the east,
especially in the era after the conquests of the Macedonian king Alexander the Great (336-323 BCE). It is
about time to to analyze the other direction of cross-cultural influence. That this remains an odd subject,
is proven by the lack of literature on the subject; if the question about Persian influence is posed, it is
usually in a footnote. It is, however, the main subject of the present article.
We shall discuss the question whether the Athenians, in the age after the Persian Wars (say after 479
BCE), have adapted Persian ideas on the fields of architecture and government. We shall discuss oriental
influence on architecture, concentrating on the Odeon of Pericles, the Prytaneum, the Parthenon frieze,
Iranian Amazing Collection

and the caryatids. After this, we will investigate whether there is similar influence on the management of
the Athenian empire, the Delian League. But first, we will give a brief overview of the most important
events during the period under consideration.
History
In 547 or 546 BCE, the Persian king Cyrus the Great conquered the region that is now called Turkey. His
son Cambyses added those parts of the Levant that had not been conquered yet, and went on to add Egypt
to the Achaemenid empire (525 BCE). Under his successor Darius I the Great (522-486 BCE), the
Persians for the first time invaded Europe, where Thrace was subdued.
Since the days of Cyrus, the Greek towns in western Turkey -usually called the Ionian cities- belonged to
the Achaemenid empire, but in 499 they decided to revolt against those that had been their rulers for
almost half a century. The men who ruled the Ionian towns on behalf of the Persian kings were expelled,
and the help of the mainland Greeks was invoked. Although Athens sent a considerable force to help the
Ionians, the rebels were brought to heel.
According to the Greek researcher Herodotus of Halicarnassus (who may have been mistaken at this
point; click here), the Ionian revolt caused king Darius to punish the Greeks who had supported the
rebels. In 492 BCE, general Mardonius conquered Macedonia, and in 490 BCE, Datis and Artaphernes
added the islands in the Aegean Sea. At the end of the summer, they led a punitive action against Athens,
which ended in disaster in the battle of Marathon.
This battle meant a boost for the Athenian self-confidence, and the city became even stronger after the
discovery of silver ore near Laurion. The new affluence was used to build a large navy.
In 480 BCE, the Persian king Xerxes (486-465 BCE) decided to avenge his father's defeat at Marathon.
With a huge army and a large navy he invaded the Greek mainland, and defeated his enemies at
Thermopylae. Thessaly and Boeotia were added to the Persian possessions and Athens was captured.
However, the Persian navy was badly damaged when it encountered the Greek navy in the Athenian
harbor. Because at the same time the Babylonians revolted under ?ama?-eriba, Xerxes was forced to
return. He left the war to general Mardonius, who sacked Athens but was defeated in the summer of 479
BCE near Plataea.
Iranian Amazing Collection

Two years later, the Athenian statesman Aristides organized the Greek towns of Ionia and the mainland
that wished to continue the struggle in a new alliance, the Delian League. However, during the following
decades, Athens, originally only the first among equal towns, started to regard the members of the League
as its subjects. Because she was economically and military very strong, and became even more powerful
because she now controlled an empire, Sparta, the leader of the other Greeks, became afraid.
In 461 BCE, war broke out. In the meantime, Athens was still at war with Persia. Sometimes, the
Athenians were successful (e.g., at Eurymedon in 465 BCE), and sometimes the Persians were victorious
(e.g., in Egypt in 456 BCE). For a dozen of years, the Athenians had to cope with two enemies at the
same time, but in 449 BCE, the hostilities with the Persians were ended.. Three years later, Sparta and
Athens concluded a treaty. This might have been the moment to dissolve the Delian League, but the
Athenians refused to do so, and in spite of minor troubles, its members supported Athens in a second war
with Sparta, which broke out in 431 and lasted until 421 BCE.
However, in 415 BCE, Athens attacked Sicily in the far west and supported Amorges, a rebel in the
Achaemenid empire. The Sicilian expedition was a disaster, but Athens still might have survived;
however, the intervention in the Persian sphere of influence led to an alliance between Sparta and king
Darius II Nothus. Several member states of the Delian League now revolted, and Sparta received a
powerful navy. In 404, Athens had to surrender and the League was dissolved.
Persia now regained the Ionian towns, but did not enjoy them uncontested. The Spartan king Agesilaus
invaded Asia, where he remained successful until 394 BCE, when he was recalled by his government
because Persia was now supporting Athens. For almost half a century, the Persians were able to retain
their Asian possessions, simply by keeping the Greeks divided.
Persian influence on Greece
By: Janine Bakker

The ancient Persian and Greek cultures did not exist in isolation. There was cross-fertilization. The
present article contains a description of Persia's influence on Greece.
Iranian Amazing Collection

Architecture
The buildings we are about to discuss, were all built after the
Persian general Mardonius had destroyed Athens in 479 BCE, and
after the battles in the harbor of Athens, at Plataea and at
Eurymedon, where the Greeks had defeated the Persians. The
Athenians had obtained much wealth after these battles. Herodotus
tells that after the battle of Plataea:
the Greeks dispersed themselves about the Persian camp and

Persian rhyton

found tents furnished with gold and silver, and beds overlaid

Tehran (National Museum)

with gold and overlaid with silver, and mixing-bowls of gold, and cups and drinking vessels [i.e.,
rhytons]. They found also sacks laid upon wagons, in which there proved to be caldrons both of
gold and of silver; and from the dead bodies which lay there they stripped bracelets and collars,
and also their swords if they were of gold, for as to embroidered raiment, there was no account
made of it.
[Herodotus, Histories 9.80]
When a Persian king went to war, he not only took his army with him, but many courtiers as well. In this
way, he could also live like a king when he was at the front, and was able to give fitting rewards to his
brave warriors.
After the Greek victory, the booty was divided between the towns and cities that had shared in the
fighting, and everybody received a fair share. So did Athens. As one of the leading powers, it must have
been one of the first to choose, and as a consequence, much silver,
gold, and other luxuries were brought to Athens. A simple but
excellent example are the Persian rhytons (drinking vessels), which
appear in Athens suddenly and in great quantities after the war.
They were immediately imitated by Greek artists.
Except for precious metals, utensils and luxuries, weapons and tents
were taken away from the battle field at Plataea. Especially the

Iranian Amazing Collection

Athenian rhyton
Museo di archeologia ligure, Genova

royal pavilion, in which Mardonius had had his lodgings, had the full attention of the Athenians.
Architecture: Odeon
It is certain that after Plataea, the pavilion of the great king was taken to Athens. But what happened next?
It has been assumed that (a part of) it was already used in 472 BCE as decor [sk] of the tragedy The
Persians by Aeschylus. Another and more plausible suggestion -not necessarily contradicting the
preceding one- is that the wooden construction was used as a music hall (odeon) and later rebuilt from
stone. This can be concluded from the following words by the Greek author Plutarch of Chaeronea:
The Odeon, or music room, which in its interior was full of seats and ranges of pillars, and outside
had its roof made to slope and descend from one single point at the top, was constructed, we are
told, in imitation of the king of Persia's pavilion [sk]. This was done by Pericles's order.
[Plutarch, Life of Pericles 13.5-6]
It is not surprising that the pavilion was used as a piece of scenery or/and music room. After all, Athens
had been sacked and emergency accommodation and temporary buildings are to be expected. Besides, the
pavilion of Xerxes was not a family tent, but a portable
palace.
When the Odeon of Pericles was excavated, it turned
out to have almost the same dimensions as the socalled Hall of the Hundred Columns at Persepolis, the
capital of the Achaemenid empire. The Odeon
measured 68,50 x 62,40 meters and contained 9 x 10
columns; the room of the Persepolis palace had
-surprise, surprise- 10 x 10 columns and measured

Pericles' Odeon

68,50 x 68,50 meters.

The similarity is too obvious to be coincidental. The pavilion must have been a copy of the Hall of the
Hundred Columns, and the Odeon must have been a copy of this copy.
It should be noted, however, that this Persian example was not really followed in Greek and Roman
architecture. The acoustics of the Odeon of Pericles must have been terrible. Later odeons, e.g. those of
Agrippa, Domitian and Herodes Atticus, were little theaters and not square halls.
Iranian Amazing Collection

The Hall of the Hundred Columns at Persepolis

Architecture: Prytaneum
The prytaneum at the Athenian market (agora) was the building where the prytaneis, the executive
committee of the Athenian democracy, gathered. It was built in 465 BCE. The building has the form of a
circle and is very simple, without much ado. The Athenians called this building simply the tholos ('round
building') or skias ('parasol'). It is therefore probable that the building looked like a parasol and had a
round, pointed roof.
The Persian king and his satraps were often portrayed with a parasol. It has therefore been assumed that
the Athenians used Persian left-behinds (e.g., a royal tent) and reconstructed it in a more durable material,
retaining the original form. (The same happened when the Athenians built the Odeon of Pericles.) This
assumption gains credit when we take into account that round buildings were extremely rare in the period
before the Athenian prytaneum was built. There were, of course, round buildings, but they were always
surrounded by stoas - something that is certainly not the case with the tholos.
Again, we may assume that the Athenians used the Persian spoils. And again, the influence of this model
was not very great. Later prytanea were built differently.
Our next subject is completely different. The Parthenon frieze, just like the Pathenon itself and the
Athenian owls, has become a symbol of the Greek world and its culture. They represent Athens at the top

Iranian Amazing Collection

of its power and at its best. The fact that the way of representation may be un-Greek, makes the frieze no
less important and certainly more important.

Persian influence on Greece

By: Janine Bakker

The ancient Persian and Greek cultures did not exist in isolation. There was cross-fertilization. The
present article contains a description of Persia's influence on Greece.

Architecture: Parthenon frieze

The construction of the Parthenon, one of the great building projects of the Athenian leader Pericles,
started in 449 BCE. As temple of Athena, the protecting goddess of Athens, it was the place par
excellence where the Athenians could show what they thought of themselves, their town, and their
goddess - and they were proud. They had every reason to be so. Their fathers had defeated the Persians
(480-479 BCE), and the city was rightly
famous for this victory. Besides, the economy
was functioning well, and Athens was the
leader of the Delian League, a position that it
used unhesitatingly to impose tribute.
Once, the Athenian leader Aristides had
organized the League as a confederacy of equal
states with equal rights (isonomia), but in the
decades between 479 and 449 BCE, Athens had

The Parthenon

seized the initiative and had started to regard the other towns as subjects. Rebellions against the tribute
and Athenian intervention in local affairs had mercilessly been repressed. Athens possessed the means to
do this, because it had used the tribute to built the largest army and navy in the Greek world.

Iranian Amazing Collection

The Athenians had every reason to build a temple worthy of the powerful goddess that had assisted them.
Therefore, the Parthenon was the best place to show the world why the Athenians and Athena were the
best rulers of the Greek world. An ambitious project by an ambitious town.
In these years, people started to speak of an "Athenian empire", and perhaps the Athenians were looking
for inspiration to the other superpower of their age: Persia.

Xerxes, Darius and Pharnaces

Some seventy years earlier, the Persian king Darius I the Great had started to build one of the palaces
where he and his court were to stay: Persepolis. Here the king received guests and subjects; here he lived
his official and private lives when he was in Persis; here he stored his treasures. Craftsmen and specialists
from all parts of the Achaemenid empire were invited to come and help building the palace, such as
YaunGreeks from Ionia), who were well-known for their expertise in sculpture. Although we can not
have absolutely certainty that the Ionian Greeks are the makers of the reliefs discussed below, it is
reasonable to assume this, since no other nation in the Achaemenid empire was capable of the perfect
rendering of the human body.

Iranian Amazing Collection

The relief under discussion can be found on the eastern wall of the audience hall, which is usually called
Apadana. It is part of the decoration of a large stairs. On the relief we can see how the subject nations
come and visit the great king during the New Year's festival and bring their tribute. They approach from
the right, and every ambassador is accompanied by a Persian courtier; they are introduced to king
(Darius) and crown prince (Xerxes) by a high official (who has been identified with Pharnaces) (see
picture above). Behind the king are noblemen, horses,
chariots, knights, and guardsmen. Everything appears
to be ready to begin. The ambassadors and the men
behind the king are talking and correcting their dresses.
The highest official is about to introduce the first
ambassador.
Now let's compare the relief of the Apadana at
Persepolis to the frieze of the Parthenon in Athens,
which is currently in the British Museum in London

The western side of the Apadana stairs

(the so-called Elgin marbles). Here we see the Panathenaea, the yearly festival in which the Athenian
citizens visited the statue of Athena. Every four year, they offered her a new cloak (peplos). At the end of
the procession, on the western side of the sanctuary, are the knights, then we see chariots, citizens, the
carriers of the objects needed during the ceremony, victims, and the officials of Athens. On the eastern
side, above the main entrance of the temple, the gods are already waiting to receive the offerings.
In the central part of the frieze, the old peplos is folded up, a footstool is brought for the ritual king and
queen of Athens (the basileus and basillina), and everybody is waiting for the ceremony to begin. People
in the queue are talking to each other, horses are calmed down.

Iranian Amazing Collection

Reclining gods on the Parthenon frieze London (British Museum)

Both reliefs are tripartite, and the central parts are the most important. The other two parts, flanking the
central composition, also show strong similarities. At the extreme ends, we see the last partakers in the
processions, e.g., horses and other animals. There is much space allotted to them. More to the center, the
people become more quiet, are placed closer to each other. Here, turned heads or stretched arms are the
only visible actions. The central panel, where Darius and Xerxes or the basileus and basillina are visible,
is larger and more spacious. This composition forces, so to speak, the spectator to look to the center of the
relief.
It is possible to make another tripartite division. In both works of art, the picture is that of a central figure,
an entourage surrounding him, and people approaching him. (In the Parthenon frieze, the entourage
consists of gods and the folding of the peplos.)
Another resemblance is their placing: they are both situated on the spot where the ceremonies actually
happened. This must have caused a special effect. The Athenian spectator was not just looking at a
beautiful picture with an obvious symbolism, but recognized something that he had experienced himself.
The Persepolis relief created a similar involvement of the spectator, although at a larger scale. But those
who saw the relief on the Apadana, knew instinctively that they belonged to this procession of subjects,
belonged to the Achaemenid empire, and had to contribute to its strength. This solidarity was of course
what the great Achaemenid empire, or any nation that wanted to be great, needed. Of course, the depicted
Iranian Amazing Collection

unitedness -social and political in Persia, religious in Athens- was not necessarily real, but an ideal.
The Parthenon is not a pure religious building. The frieze is also a political statement, inviting the citizens
to remain united. But this is not the only message. Elsewhere, on the metopes, we can see a battle
between Amazons (dressed as Persians) and Greeks that is usually interpreted as a mythological reference
to the war between Athens and Persia, and a deep insult to the Persians, who could not be offended more
than by being called "woman". We can also see gods fighting against giants, Greeks against centaurs, and
Achaeans against Trojans. (Similar representations of the war between the powers of chaos and order can
be found in Persepolis, where we find pictures of a bull and lion.) All this served to present the Athenians
as valiant warriors, the equals of the gods and the legendary heroes.
The Parthenon also had a function as treasury of the Delian League and a reserve fund. For example,
every tributary town was supposed to send an ambassador to the Panathenaea and offer a cow and a coat
of arms. This was again similar to the Persian example, because one of Persepolis' main functions was
that of treasury. Both buildings, Apadana and Parthenon, were an empire's focus points of politics,
religion, and finance, and it is possible that Athenian artists had learned from their older Ionian colleagues
how the great king had invited his subjects to be his collaborators.

Persian influence on Greece

By: Janine Bakker

The ancient Persian and Greek cultures did not exist in isolation. There was cross-fertilization. The
present article contains a description of
Persia's influence on Greece.

Architecture: Erechtheum
Another example of the emulation of artistic
ideas can be found in the Erechtheum on the
Athenian acropolis. It was built after the
Iranian Amazing Collection

Athenian caryatids

Parthenon, between 425 and 409 BCE, during the war against Sparta. For the present purpose, we are
interested in only one part of this complex sanctuary: the caryatids.
In one of the wings of the Erechtheum, these female figures carry the roof on their heads. They are not the
first examples of thus type of column in Greece: the caryatids of the Siphnian treasury at Delphi were,
according to some art historians, erected after the Greek victory over the Persians in 479 BCE.
The issue is how and from where these women were introduced into Greek art. One explanation is offered
by Vitruvius, a Roman architect who published a textbook On architecture. He writes:
Should any one wish for information on the origin of those draped matronal figures [...] called
caryatids, I will explain it by the following story. Carya, a city of Peloponnese, joined the Persians
in their war against the Greeks. These in return for the treachery, after having freed themselves by
a most glorious victory from the intended Persian yoke, unanimously resolved to launch a war
against the Caryans. Carya was taken and destroyed, its male population extinguished, and its
matrons carried into slavery. To ensure that these circumstances might be better remembered, and
the nature of the triumph perpetuated, the victors represented the matrons draped, and apparently
suffering under the burden with which they were loaded, to expiate the crime of their native city.
Thus, in their edifices, did the ancient architects, by the use of these statues, hand down to
posterity a memorial of the crime of the Caryans.
[Vitruvius, On architecture 1.1.5]
In other words, caryatids are not only statues with the function of columns, but express an idea: you were
not supposed to collaborate with the enemy, because you would be subdued, humiliated, and punished.
This motif is also known from Persia. In the
second half of the sixth century BCE, the great
king had assembled a great many conquered
nations. These people, or rather their
subjection, became part of the royal imagery.
To express the idea that others were subjected,
the Persians used no human but animal figures.
For example, the imposts of the columns in the
The Naq?-i Rustam relief
Iranian Amazing Collection

palaces (the top of a column which connects it with the supporting beams of the roof) often have the
shape of of a bull or a winged feline. The analogy is obvious: like a griffin or a wild bull under a yoke, the
nations were kept under control by the king.
Sometimes, humans are depicted as carriers of a great weight: for example, on the royal tombs at Naq?-i
Rustam, we see the king, standing on two large platforms. These platforms are carried by men, who
probably resemble the subject nations. Another example is the representation of the king on the tripylongate at Persepolis, where the king is sitting on a throne, supported by three levels of humans.
The Athenian caryatids do not resemble Athenian women: their hair cuts are uncommon and resemble
Peloponnesian hair cuts. This is something we can say with certainty. It is tempting to look for a Persian
antecedent for the caryatids, because there are no obvious antecedents in Greek art. But when we try to
establish a Persian influence, we have to be more speculative. Why didn't the Athenians copy the animal
figures and did they use women instead?
If we ignore the possibility that the Athenian men treated their women like animals -which is certainly a
possible interpretation- the solution may be that the Athenians only emulated the general idea behind the
representation. In the Persian context, yoked
animals or people are carrying a great weight,
which was apparently seen as the essence of
subjection. The same element can be found in
the Greek situation: the caryatids are carrying a
heavy load. This time, they are not animals but
women, but this has a reason: as we have seen
in the example of the Parthenon frieze (above),
the Athenians adapted a general idea to a
specific situation. They used a concrete
example, the shameful subjection of the women
of Carya, to show that they were prepared to
Relief from Persepolis

subject people, as the Persians did.

This was not merely an intention, but the Athenians put it into practice. In the next section, we will deal

Iranian Amazing Collection

with their imperialist policy. In the years after the Persian Wars, Athens expanded its empire and
controlled a great part of the Greek world with its superior navy. This created new problems in the
management of the empire, and the Athenians wanted to deal with them as efficiently as possible.
Probably, they looked abroad how the Achaemenid empire had solved the same problems. Of course it is
possible that the Athenian leaders were original and creative thinkers, but, as we shall see in the next parts
of this article, there are indications that they copied Persian solutions.
Politics
As we have seen above, Athens brought the war against the Persians to a good ending and discovered the
opportunities offered by the Delian League. As long as the war against Persia had been going on, its
members had had every reason to remain united, but now that the immediate cause was removed, Athens
had to look for a tool to keep its nascent empire together.
Member states that wanted to segregate from the League, were brutally attacked. The smaller city states,
which could use some help and protection, were inclined to side with Athens, but others, which hated to
pay tribute and the increasing Athenian involvement in their internal affairs, were visited by the Athenian
navy and forced into surrender (e.g., Naxos in 470 and Thasos in 465 BCE). These towns, which had been
forced to remain in the League, had another status than the cities that obeyed Athens. They had to disband
their navies, had to pay tribute in cash, and lost much of their autonomy. If they were not democratic, they
were forced to change their constitution.
At a later stage, towns that had always paid their tribute in cash were equaled with the subject cities. The
number of autonomous cities diminished. When the Peloponnesian War broke out in 431 BCE, only
Chios and Lesbos had retained some of their former independence.
But it was not only military power that helped Athens become the master of a
great part of Greece; its economic power was a source of strength as well. The
Athenian port was the center of interregional commerce and the city had
commercial treaties with many towns and nations inside and outside the
League. It controlled the monetary system and ordered that only the famous
Athenian 'owl'-coins and weights were to be used in commercial transactions.
Athenian coin

Iranian Amazing Collection

Athens also founded colonies (cleruchies). These were meant to repopulate subject towns from which a
part of the population had been expelled. This gave the Athenians a stronghold in potentially unquiet
areas, because the colonists retained their Athenian citizenship and did not have to pay tribute. After 450
BCE, Athens started to station garrisons throughout its empire.
Every town in the Athenian empire, whatever its precise status, was supervised by an episcopus or
overseer. This Athenian magistrate kept an eye on the town where he resided. He controlled the payment
of the tributes, was supposed to prevent insurrections and had to investigate evils and report them to the
government at home.
All in all, the Delian League was a complex organization. We will now investigate whether the
organization of the Achaemenid empire served as a model to the Athenian empire, and we will
concentrate on the following aspects:

the organization of the League, and its resemblances with and its differences from the structure of
the Persian state, and especially the way tribute was paid.

the function and origin of the office of the episcopus.

The ancient Persian and Greek cultures did not exist in isolation. There was cross-fertilization. The
present article contains a description of Persia's influence on Greece.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Politics: Delian league
The most remarkable aspect of the Delian League
is that it was a maritime empire. Earlier Greek
(con)federations of Greek towns had all been landbased. A maritime empire demands another kind of
organization, not in the least because the lines of
communication can be threatened in the winter,
whereas transport between the member states is
much cheaper. This makes it unlikely that a Greek
league was the model of the Athenian empire, and
The Delian League
Iranian Amazing Collection

Page 5

it is possible that the western part of the Achaemenid empire -with its maritime lines of communication
and active navy- was the real source of inspiration.
The maritime organization of the western part of the Achaemenid empire was was a result of king
Cambyses' conquest of Egypt (525 BCE), which was only possible after the building of a large imperial
navy. (Without marine superiority, it was impossible for an army to cross through the Sinai desert,
because any army marching to the west would be exposed to Egyptian naval actions.)
When Egypt was defeated and added to the Achaemenid empire, it was necessary to keep the navy to
control the new region. Many men and lots of silver and gold were necessary for the upkeep, and the
result was the monetarization of the tribute by king Darius I the Great (described in Book Three of the
Histories by Herodotus of Halicarnassus). Although it was still possible to pay in kind, payments in cash
were preferred.
The organization of the western Achaemenid empire was, therefore, largely based on the demands of the
navy, and the Athenians copied certain aspects of this. For example, the ships of the Persian navy had a
mixed crew: the rowers came from various parts of the empire. The Athenian ships were partly manned
by Athenians, partly by the allies. Towns in the Achaemenid empire could pay their tribute by manning
ships; the kings appreciated this type of tribute, because towns that had sent part of their manhood away,
were less likely to revolt. The Athenians did the same.
But the main factor is the tribute system. After the Greeks had defeated the Persians, the Athenians took
over the Persian fiscal organization of the Greek towns in Asia. After the Ionian revolt, the satrap of Lydia
and Ionia, Artaphernes, had established the tribute that the Greek towns had to pay, and the Athenians did
not change his system. Every four year, the Athenians and their subjects revised the tariff.
At least in theory, the subject towns could negotiate about the amount they owed to their masters, and it is
tempting to link this fact to the remark by Herodotus that the Persians regarded king Darius as a merchant
(kapelos) because he negotiated about everything (Histories 3.89). This is really remarkable, because a
king was not supposed to make deals with his subjects about the prize of his reign.
The negotiations between the ruler -whether Persian or Athenian- suggest a voluntariness and an equality
Iranian Amazing Collection

which probably did not really exist. But the illusion was kept intact in both empires.
Politics: Episcopus
The functions of the episcopus have already been described: every town in the Athenian empire, whatever
its status, was supervised by an Athenian episcopus or overseer. This official kept an eye on the town
where he resided. He controlled the payment of the tributes, was supposed to prevent insurrections and
had to investigate evils and report them to the Athenian government. Usually, the episcopus was elected
by the people's assembly.
The Achaemenid empire knew similar officials, who were called "the eye of the king". They were
appointed by the king to inform him of what was going on in the empire, had more powers than the
satraps, and were responsible for a well-defined region. They supervised the policy of the satraps and the
payment of tribute, oversaw how rebellions were suppressed, and reported evils to the king.
The similarities are remarkable. The "eye" and the episcopus are responsible only to the highest
authorities, they are supervisors of the local rulers, are responsible for the taxation, and are -in case of
troubles- the direct link to the central government.
Their name may be similar as well. The real Persian title of the Eye is not known, but may have been
spasaka ("seer"). If so, episkopos (which also has an association with "to see") is a translation that
remains close to the sound of the original. However, this hypothetical.
It should be stressed that every ruler uses officials like the Eyes to know what is happening. The names of
these inspectors may be different, but there are some primitive tasks that have to be executed anyway. For
example, Charlemagne employed missi dominici. The Athenian government needed to send out
inspectors, like all rulers had to do. Nevertheless, because the job responsibilities of the Eye and the
episcopus are so very similar, we must seriously entertain the possibility that the Athenians copied a
Persian function.
Conclusion
In the fields of architecture and politics, the Athenians of the fifth century BCE copied several Persian
innovations. In the branch of architecture, this happened in two ways: practical and ideological. The first
Iranian Amazing Collection

of these can be found in the production and elaborating of rhytons, but also in the building of the Odeon
and the Prytaneum. A Persian tent (and therefore a Persian architectural style) was used when the city was
rebuilt and offered space for cultural and political activities. At the same time, they offered proof of the
Athenian victory in war.
The second type of emulation can be found in the Parthenon frieze and the caryatids. The difference is
twofold: in the first place, the caryatids and the frieze are not based on something tangible like rhyta or
tents; in the second place, not only a from, but also a general idea are copied. In the Parthenon frieze, the
Persian ideal of "unity under the king" has been "translated" to Greece. The image and idea were adapted
to Greek tastes, which made the work of art more accessible. In the caryatids, the original image (a bull or
a feline) has been ignored and only the essence, the general idea, is copied - to women. Apparently, the
Greeks found women better motifs to show subjection than animals.
Summing all up, a case can be made for the existence of Persian influence on Greek art. The same can be
said for politics. The Athenians and Persians both were masters of the Greek towns in Ionia, and since the
Athenians had no experience in ruling an empire (whereas the Persians stood in a long tradition), they
copied Persian measures. Therefore, they copied the tribute system, organized their navy like their
enemies did, and appointed episcopi to control the subject towns.
It was the obvious thing to do. After all, it is sound policy to make use of knowledge developed by others.
Nineteenth-century European historians, however, have often ignored the Persian contribution to Greek
culture. They believed in a "Greek miracle" and were unable to conceptualize oriental influences. (They
had more or less the same perspective on European history, which had developed -in their viewautonomously.) Cultural contacts were ignored. Today, in a world in which cross-fertilization and clashes
between cultures can no longer be ignored, scholars are more interested in cultural contacts. This
perspective does more justice to the complexities that existed when two cultures encountered each other.

Literature

J. Balcer, "The Athenian episkopos and the Achaemenid King's Eye" in: American Journal of
Philology 98 (1977) 252-263

Iranian Amazing Collection

John Boardman, Persia and the West (2000 London) [for a completely different interpretation of
the evidence]

O. Broneer, "The tent of Xerxes and the Greek theater", in: University of California Publications
in Classical Archaeology 1 (1929) 305ff

J.A.S. Evans, "The settlement of Artaphrenes" in: Classical Philology 4 (1971) 344-348

E.D. Francis and Michael Vickers, Sigma priscae artes. Eretria and Siphnos, in: the Journal of
Hellenic Studies 103 (1983) 49-67

H. Hoffman, "The Persian origin of Attic rhyta" in: Antike Kunst 4 (1961) 21-26

R.J. Littman, The Greek experiment. Imperialism and social conflict 800-400 BC (1974 London)

S.G. Miller, The Prythaneion, its function and architectural form (1978)

Margeret Miller, Athens and Persia in the fifth century BC (1997)

P.J. Rhodes, The Athenean empire (1985 Oxford)

Margaret C. Root, "The Parthenon frieze and the Apadana reliefs in Persepolis: reassessing a
programmatic relationship" in: American Journal of Archaeology 89 (1985) 103-120

Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, "De Ori : bedreiging of bekoring?" in P.W. de Neeve and H.

Sancisi-Weerdenburg (eds.), Kaleidoskoop van de Oudheid. Opstellen van Nederlandse
oudhistorici (1989) Groningen

Ch. G. Starr, "Greeks and Persians in the fourth century BC. A study of cultural contacts before
Alexander", part 1, in Iranica Antiqua 11 (1976) 39-99

Ch. G. Starr, "Greeks and Persians in the fourth century BC. A study of cultural contacts before
Alexander", part 2, in Iranica Antiqua 12 (1977) 49-115

D.B.. Thompson, "The Persian spoils in Athens" in: Saul S. Weinberg (ed.), The Aegean and the
Near East. Studies presented to Hetty Goldman (1956 Locust Valley) 281-291

Michael Vickers, "Persepolis, Vitruvius and the Erechtheum Karyatids" in: Revue Arch ogique
1 (1985) 3-28

H. von Gall, "Das Zelt des Xerxes und seiner Rolle als Persicher raumtyp in Griechenland" in:
Gymnasium 86 (1979) 448ff

H.T. Wallinga, "The Ionian revolt" in Mnemosyne 37 (1984) 410-437

H.T. Wallinga, "Persian tribute and Delian tribute" in: Pierre Briant and C. Herrenschmidt (eds.),
Le tribut dans l' Empire Perse (1989 Paris) 173-182

R.E. Wycherley, Stones of Athens (1978 Princeton)

Iranian Amazing Collection

http://www.iranchamber.com

Iranian Amazing Collection

www.irane7000saale.com
www.Great-Iran.com

Iranian Amazing Collection