Wright Persian Feasting, Banquets, Gift Exchange Blackwell Long Version

8/2/2019 Wright Persian Feasting, Banquets, Gift Exchange Blackwell Long Version

1/17

GIFT-GIVING AND FEASTING

JACOB L.WRIGHT

ANDMEREDITH ELLIOT HOLLMAN

RESEARCH CONTEXT

Within the cultural matrix of the Achaemenid Empire, gift exchange served as a physical

means of representing and renegotiating social hierarchy. As a tangible representation of

conferred honors, the gift was symbolic capital. The classical authors recognized the

close conceptual propinquity between gifts and honor, using timao (to honor) often to

refer the act of giving a gift and timai (honors) to the gifts themselves (Plut. Art. 14.1;

Xen.Anab. 1.9.14; Cyr. 8.4.2; see also Cyr. 8.1.39; Diod. 14.81.6; 16.52.2; Hdt. 7.8D).

Not only classical but also biblical literature devotes significant space to descriptions of

Persian practices of gift-giving and feasting, as their authors deemed them to be of

paradigmatic-pedagogical value for their readers. When approached cautiously, these

witnesses can be used to supplement the range of other evidencenon-literary cuneiform

and Aramaic texts, iconography, architecture, objects from material culture, etc.

witnessing to the Achaemenids extraordinarily sophisticated, meritorious conventions of

gift-exchange, honor, and rewards.

Feasting is closely akin to gift exchange. By means of both activities, one

converts prestige objects and material surplus into social bonds and political power. Yet

in feasting, the gift is ingested and thereby destroyed. This is the literal embodiment or

incorporation of the gift and the social debt that it engenders. Aside from the powerful

symbolic dimension of this practice, it also results in the pragmatic fact that, unlikedurables, the food cannot be recirculated or reinvested. (Dietler/Hayden 2001:73-

74). If gift-exchange often accompanies feasting, it is because it serves what is usually

its primary objective. A host typically strives to leave a deep impression on his or her

guests. The choice of delicacies, their distinctive taste, the aesthetics of the space, the

entertainment, and gifts or party-favors, which the guests do not consume but rather


2/17

take home as memorabilia or souvenirs, all work toward this goal of memory-making. In

turn, guests should usually not arrive empty-handed.

Given the amount of evidence for Achaemenid gift-giving and feasting, and the

importance of these practices at the courts of both the Great King and his satraps, the

subject is in dire need of a careful and extensive book-length study. When doing so, one

must view gift-giving and feasting in relation to other strategies with which the court

sought to centralize an expansive empire in the person of the king. Fortunately, several

studies have collected much of the relevant data and synthesized it in useful frameworks

(see esp. Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1989; Briant 2002). Most recently, scholars have made

significant progress in developing a promising comparative framework (Jacobs/Rollinger

2010adopting the paradigm of court-societies) as well as in interpreting primary

evidence (Miller 2010, Kistler 2010: material culture; Henkelman 2010: the Persepoliscuneiform archives).*

THE KING AS RECEIVER

The Great King sat at the center in an elaborate network of gift-exchange. As both the

chief recipient and the supreme benefactor, he could share from his unsurpassed wealth

(Xen.Hell. 6.1.12; Ath. 12.546). Due to his ability to out-give all others (Hdt. 3.139-140,

7.27-29, 38-39), he also stood to receive more gifts (Xen.Anab. 1.9.22). Yet the lavish

gift-giving of the king should not be seen in terms of a simple do ut des reciprocity but

rather as the privilege of his higher status (Marcel Mausss magister-minister

opposition; see Wiesehfer 2001).

Reliefs from the Apadana in Persepolis depict representatives from all subject

peoples bearing gifts to the Achaemenid ruler (image 1). What is distinctive about these

representations, which convey the unity of the empire, is that they, in contrast to earlier

Egyptian and Assyrian tribute scenes, avoid any blatant allusion to the obligatory nature

of a tribute rendition and deemphasize the militarily imposed control of the king over

the subject peoples bring that tribute (Root 1979: 284). The satrapal courts, in places

like Daskyleion, Sardis, Kelainai, and likely throughout the empire, emulated the royal

court in its rhetoric of gift-bringing and formal processions (on the mimetic principle, see

Xen. Cyrop., 8.6.10-11 and discussion Miller 2010 and Kistler 2010).


3/17

Aelian claims that it was a custom of the Persians (even the peasants) to meet the

king with gifts when he visited their towns (VH1.31-32). According to Xenophon, every

subject people sent the king its best products (Cyr. 8.6.23). Subjects and political allies

were expected to put freely their resources at the king's disposal (Xen. Cyr. 8.2.15-23;

Hdt. 7.118-120), and many hurried to supply his needs before being asked (Hdt. 7.27-28;

Xen. Cyr. 5.4.29-30).

Provision of troops was one of the most basic, and earliest, forms of tribute or

gifts a vassal, ally, or friend could offer the king. Later it became a fundamental form

of tribute required of all peoples (see e.g. Hdt. 7.61). In special cases, a ruler could grant

exemption from all duties, including the obligation to provide troops (Hdt. 3.67).

The later system of taxing goods has its origins in the shares of the king (bji-

(ka), likely from OP *baga; Greek: tag), which consisted primarily of portion of theflocks, and later grain and other produce. In Achaemenid times, the system ofbji- was

extended to include all the forms of tribute and gifts, which were stored in royal

magazines that supplied the king and his royal troops as they traveled throughout the

empire. However, the Persian homeland did not bring tribute to the king (e.g. Prsa is not

mentioned in the Daiva-inscription, XPh), but instead stands next to the king as the

recipients and beneficiaries of tribute and gifts. By redistributing gifts and tribute to the

circle of his closest supporters (i.e. the dominant ethno-class of the imperial

aristocracy), the king strengthened the personal bonds between himself and his power

base, and simultaneously fostered cohesion among the latter (on the relationship between

gifts and tribute, see Briant 2002:394-399 and pp. ^^ of this volume).

The royal table often served as a central redistribution center. Provisions for the

kings daily meals were a huge expense paid from both the private estates of the palace,

which were located in Persis and throughout the empire, and gifts from the provinces (see

Henkelmans study of the tibba texts, 2010). In turn, the king shared from his meals with

his kin, friends, alliance partners, and high-ranking officials from the court and

military (note pat-bagof the king in Dan. 1 and compare OP *upayta), many of

whom were not actual table-guests and received their portions as gifts sent by the king

from great distances. From his table, the king distributed durable gifts of great value

(esp. cups and tableware; see e.g. Menel., Od., 4.615-619), and conferred titles and


4/17

honors (Xen. Cyr. 8.2.2-4; 8.4.1-28 and Wiesehfer 1980). Artaxerxes, for example,

showed extraordinary favor to the Spartan Antalcidas by honoring him publicly after a

meal (Plut.Pel. 30.4,Art. 22.1; cf. Ath. 2.48e). The tables of the satraps and governors

were modeled on that of the king; thus Nehemiah in Judah not only boasts of his

hospitality but also refers to taxation as eating the bread of the governor (Neh. 5:14-18

and Wright 2010).

According to Herodotus (3.89), the imperial income during reigns of Cyrus and

Cambyses consisted solely of the gifts (dra) that subjects were expected to deliver,

while a system of tribute and taxation was not established until Darius (see however

3.67). Though the Greek historians claim has aroused suspicion, one cannot deny that

Darius introduced empire-wide reforms in order to alleviate the coastal lands from the

massive costs posed by the expansion of the fleet and harbors.Peoples who surrendered to the Persians without resistance, or whom the Persians

could not manage to integrate into the imperial administration (Arabs, African Ethopians,

Indian Ethopians, Colchians, their neighbors in the Caucasus mountains, and others),

were accorded a special client status. They were expected to send annually gifts (dora)

that they collected themselvesconsisting of gold, ebony, ivory, frankincense, as well as

many boys and girls. All others, with the exception of the Persian homeland, paid

tributes (phoroi) collected by the imperial/satrapal administration (Hdt. 3.13, 3.89,

3.97). The Persepolis cuneiform archives and royal inscriptions (DB 7) reveal however

that certain parts of Frs/Persis was required to deliver both gifts and various provisions

for the king.

THE KING AS GIVER

With the resources of the empire at his disposal, the king could offer greater rewards than

any of his potential rivals. Gifts from the king were highly coveted, bringing both wealth

and honor. Various clues point to the existence of a category of gifts, called royal,

distinguished from one another in a subtle hierarchy, and conferred on those whom the

king wished to honor for good actions (Briant 2002:305). Royal presents often bore

some inscription or marking on them to identify their provenance clearly. Thus a vase

was found in the treasury at Persepolis engraved with the inscription: I am from Xerxes


5/17

the King. Aelian mentions a Median robe labeled dorophorike (given as a gift, VH

1.22). By wearing (Persian and Median) robes, jewelry, and weaponry from the king, the

recipients advertised their favored status. Courtiers and officials were likely required to

wear this special attire to display their status and relationship to the king (Plut.Alex.

18.8).

According to Xenophon, everyone knows that one was allowed to possess or

display ostentatious symbols of wealth (bracelets, necklaces, and horses with gold-

studded bridles) only if they had received them from the king (Cyr. 8.2.7-8). Insofar as

this information is reliable, it testifies to a consciousness that the accumulation and

display of wealth posed, in a culture of conspicuous consumption/leisure, a political

threat to the centralized rule of the palace.

Sancisi-Weerdenburg (1989:135, 139-140) argues that the gifts of the kingarobe, a horse, bracelets, necklaces, weapons, etc.were not merely prestige symbols or

evidence that one enjoyed the favor of the king. They also made known that the throne

was the source of the bearers rank and authority. All power and wealth flowed directly

from the king. Gift-giving must then be appreciated as sophisticated a strategy to

monopolize power and centralize it in the body of the king, the omnipotent gift-giver who

can out-perform all others (Hdt. 7.27-29). Moreover, it was at the table that the king not

only awarded gifts and conferred honors but also assembled his supporters and kept an

eye on potential political opposition. By means of leftovers (see below), the political

commensality and centralizing function of his table extended to those abroad.

Achaemenid monarchs cultivated a reputation forpolydoria in which they

lavishly rewarded acts of service (XPl26-31; Xen. Cyr. 8.2.9-12;Anab. 1.9.11-15; Hdt.

7.135; 8.10.3). Like other imperial powers (New Kingdom Egypt, Neo-Assyrians, and

Romans), the Achaemenids had a highly developed system of decorations and honors.

The inscriptions of Darius and Xerxes express the rinciple of justice (arstam)

underlying the system of honors and rewards, as well as punishments and sanctions, the

crown conferred on its subjects. Thus Darius declares: Whosoever helped my house,

him I rewarded; yet the one who was hostile, I punished (DB 63; cf. 8). He goes on to

name those who supported him and beseeches his successors to protect the families of


6/17

these men (68-69: see also 60-67, as well as DNb 8, 16-17; Hdt. 1.136; Xen.

Cyrop., 1.2.7, 8.1.39; the Gadatas-Edict; Thuc. 1.129.3).

Herodotus reports that Xerxes set himself at a position during the battle of

Salamis from which he could observe his soldiers. His secretaries recorded the names of

the soldiers, who fought valiantly in competition with each other in order to be the first to

win a reward from the king (3.154; 7.194; 8.10, 86, 88-90). Such was apparently a

common practice among soldiers serving Persian commanders (Xen.Anab. 1.9.15; Oec.

4.6-10). A recurring literary motif is the tale of an individual raised from obscurity to

prosperity in return for exceptional service rendered to the king (Aelian VH1.32; Hdt.

3.139-140, 144). The meritocratic principle drives the plot of the biblical court tales

(Joseph, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, etc.).

A formal occasion on which the king bestowed gifts on other Persians was thebanquet on his birthday (Hdt. 9.110). The gift-giving ceremony itself was called tykta

(


7/17

Cambyses in Egypt, see the Udjasorresnet inscription). The biblical book of Ezra-

Nehemiah presents the Achaemenid rulers restoring cultic inventory to the temple in

Jerusalem, sponsoring its reconstruction, subsidizing the sacrifices, freeing the cultic

personnel from three types of taxes, and donating generous amounts of gold and silver as

well as vessels for the temple service (see chaps. 1-8). The attention to law in the context

of Ezras mission of conveying these gifts and decrees from Babylon (Ezra 7:12-14, 25-

25) matches the concern of the Achaemenids in maintaining law and order throughout the

empireas way of awarding loyalty (e.g. DNa 16-22).

ITEMS OF EXCHANGE

Within numerous lists of Persian gifts, a few specific items are repeatedly attested:

garments/textiles, jewelry, cups, other food service items, furnishings, horses, slaves andconcubines, children, and a special scimitar (akink). Textiles featured embroidery,

often gold, on fabric of costly purples, reds, and blues (Hdt. 9.80.2; 3.20.1; 9.109.1; Xen.

Cyr. 8.2.8; 8.3.3; cf. Ath. 12.539b-540a). Median garments (Aelian, VH1.22; Hdt.

3.84.1; 7.116) likely also included the traditional aristocratic riding habit depicted in the

Apadana reliefs (fig. 1). Other texts mention clothing in the Persian style (Aelian, VH

1.32; Xen.Anab. 1.2.27; Ath. 12.535a; Esth. 6:9; Hdt. 3.20; 3.84). Serving vessels and

bridles, like jewelry, were often made of gold or silver, and decorated with gemstones

(Ath. 2.48f; Xen. Cyr. 5.2.7;Anab. 1.2.27; Hdt. 7.190; Strabo 15.3.19; cf. Ath. 4.147f-

148b). Presents could also consist of food and drink (Aelian, VH1.31; Xen.Anab.

1.9.25-26). These items for consumption had a special capacity for strengthening social

bonds (Xen. Cyr. 8.2.2,7). Presents of food could extend table-fellowship in conditions

of geographical separation (see below).

The objects of exchange that are easiest to identify in the material culture of

excavated sites are luxury toreutic and especially the Achaemenid cups, which not only

signify the convergence of banqueting and gift-giving but also exhibit the central political

role of commensality. The Apadana reliefs depict at least 11 different delegations brings

these chalices. On the basis of burials, Miller (2010) argues that many of the precious

vessels originated in the context of satrapal workshops; they were used to establish and

consolidate relations with the local elite. These cups belonged to the Achaemenid


8/17

imperial koine, with their material and quality reflecting/demarcating a hierarchy (see

Dusinberre 2003 and Kistler 2010). The cups are well attested in the Greek sources. For

example, Lysias (19.25) tells how a certain Demus receives a golden cup as a royal

sumbolon, as proof that he came with the kings authorization and favor (see also Hdt.

7.190; Xen. Cyr. 8.3.33-35; Anab. 4.4.21)

Other items of exchange included:

command of an army (Hdt. 9.109.3 [to a young woman!]; Nepos, Datames 3;

Diod. 16.52.2; Xen. Cyr. 4.1.4);

a house or multiple houses (Hdt. 3.132; 9.116; Neh 2:8; Xen.Kyr. 8.4.28, 6.3;

Nepos,Paus. 3, 4);

estates (Hdt. 6.70, 8.85; Xen.Hell. 3.1.6; for Arsames, see Driver 1954:10-18);

authorization to rebuild a city or temple (Ezra 1, 5-6; Neh. 2; 1 Esdr. 4);governance of city ortyrannis over it (e.g., as a reward for military assistance:

Hdt. 5.11; see additional cases in Klinkott 2005:187-194);

governance of province or satrapy (Hdt. 3.140; 5.11; 9.107; Diod. 15.91.1;

Xen.Anab. 1.1.6; 1.9.14; Ezra 5:14; Neh. 5:14; Dan. 2:48);

title to a throne (e.g., Plut.Mor. 225 C);

tax exemption (e.g., Ezra 7:24, Gadatas-Edict, the Cyrus Cylinder, the

Udjasorresnet inscription, and discussion in Wiesehfer 1989);

the hand of the kings/noblemans daughter in marriage (Hdt. 5.116, 7.2, 7.73;

Xen. Cyr. 4.6.9;5.2.7; Plut.Art. 27.7-9; Thuc. 1.128);

inclusion among the kings kin (syngeneis), to one of the many elite court

circles, and among the most elite units of the army (Diod. 17.20.2, 17.59.2; Arrian

3.11.5; Quin. Curt. 3.3.14, 21; and discussion in Briant 2002:309-312, 331-338).

honorary titles (cupbearer, mace-bearer, scepter-bearer, etc.) and registration of

name/deeds in court records (such as the Catalogue of the Kings Benefactors

called orosangai [


9/17

have normally remained in the possession of the king, who would reassign them after the

death of the holder or in punishment for disloyalty (Ctes. 41; Xen. Cyr. 8.1.20). Yet the

awarded properties were occasionally inherited by successors (Hdt. 7.164, Xen.Hell.

3.1.6; Cyr. 8.4.28; 6.5; Plut. Themist., 32.5). In many cases, satraps and tyrants made

gifts of land to others under them, in keeping with the imatio regis principle that

informed the imperial administration (e.g. Xen.Hell. 3.1.12, 14; and discussion in

Klinkott 2005:202-204).

Monetary gifts were the exception (PT 4; PT 5; Hdt. 3.130.5; Plut.Art. 22.5;

Aelian, VH1.32). Ctesias mentions a golden millstone as the most outstanding gift

the king can give among the Persians. While such a common object seems out of place

next to goblets, millstones were proverbial in antiquity for their weight. Currency or

unwrought metal was usually accompanied by other presents or designated for a specificpurpose, such as raising an army (Diod. 14.81.4-6; Xen.Anab. 1.1.9-10). According to

Strabo, most of the Persians gold and silver was not used as currency but was wrought

into luxury items, which they considered best suited for presents, and for depositing in

store-houses (15.3.21). A gift of wrought metal has the advantage of being more

personal than raw currency. In addition to its bullion value, it serves as a visible

reminder of the relationship between giver and recipient and the occasion on which it was

given. These items were likely meant to be used, especially in the company of guests on

occasions of formal commensality. The costly tools of commensality were brought on

campaign and the personal items (jewelry and ornate weapons) carried in combat (Hdt.

7.190, 9.80).

THE KING'S TABLE

The royal table, in its abundance and variety, became a symbol for the vast and powerful

Achaemenid Empire. Strabo, for example, begins his description of Persian customs with

a description of dining habits (15.3.19). Similarly, biblical literature consistently presents

Achaemenid rulers in the activity of feasting and making important decisions from the

table. The significance that all these authors assign to the banquet agrees with the native

evidence.


10/17

Just as the king outperformed all others in gift-giving, so he stood at the head in

an empire-wide hierarchy of hosts. The opulence of the royal banquet evinced the king's

wealth and power, making conspicuous consumption an essential strategy for preventing

ambitious courtiers from attempting to usurp the throne. Accordingly, the Achaemenid

rulers directed the empire from the table as much as from the throne.

The varieties of foods consumed at the royal table mirrors the diversity of the

empire. Such is brought to visual expression by the dramatic iconography at Persepolis

and Susa, which depicts an array of subject peoples bringing food, drink, and other items

for the table of the king (see fig. 2). A new food item was reportedly not enjoyed until

the land from which originated was subjugated (Ath. 14.652b-c; Xen. Cyr. 8.6.6, 8.6.23).

All nations were expected to send provisions for the royal board (Aelian, VH1.31; Ath.

9.393c). A record of provisions includes items from Egypt to India (Poly. 4.3.32; c. Xen.Cyr. 8.6.13; Ath. 2.67a-b; 14.652b-c). For example, wheat was brought from Assos, oil

from Carmania, water from the Choaspes River, salt from Egypt, water from the

Nile, and wine from Damascus (Strab. 15.3.22; Ath. 1.28d, 2.45a-b, 2.67a-b). Xenophon

reports that scouts were sent throughout the land to locate exquisite wines for the royal

table (Ages. 9.3). According to the tryph-clich of Greek historians, the Persian king

offered prizes to those who found delicacies fit for his table (Ath. 12.529d; for discussion

of the table, the kitchen and preparation, see Jacobs 2010).

Estates and paradises (see in this volume pp. ^^) were maintained in the various

satrapies to provide for the local and royal courts. Both cuneiform evidence from

Persepolis and the classical authors witness to the existence of these farms. Pliny, for

example, mentions a rare kind of date, grown only in one garden near Babylon, which

were honored with the qualification royal, because they were reserved for the kings of

Persia (6.143; cf. Theophr.,History of Plants 2.6.7). In Egypt, farms raised domestic

fowl near Memphis to supply the satraps table and that of the king's table when he was

in region (Briant 2002:289).

According to Heraclides (Athen. 4.145-146), the king dined alone with the guests

outside. A more select group sat in an adjacent hall where the king could view them but

they could not view him. On occasions when the king did not eat alone, the most favored

and trusted guest sat to the leftof the king since the king was better protected from the


11/17

right (Xen. Cyr. 8.4.3-5). His honored table companions had special titles (homotrapezoi,

homositoi,sussitoi, syndeipnoi, and sympotsoi in Hdt. 3.132, 5.24, 7.119; Xen. Anab.

1.6.25; 4.146c). After a feast, the host and his most honored guest or closest associates

retired to a separate room to converse over wine (Ath. 4.145c; Aelian, VH8.7, 12.1).

During thesesymposia, the men enjoyed performances by music-girls and the company

of concubines (Plut.Mor. 140b; Aelian, VH8.7). They carried on late into the night until

they were thoroughly inebriated (Ath. 4.145c; Xen. Cyr. 8.8.10). According to

Aristophanes (Achar. 2.12), only heavy eaters and drinkers had honor among the

Persians. The subjects of conversation often included important political and military

matters (Hdt. 8.67-69; Strabo 15.3.20). Matters were discussed in a highly intoxicated

state in the evening and then again in full sobriety; those proposals that made sense in

both contexts were instituted (Hdt. 1.133; Strabo 15.3.20; Ath. 4.144b).Greek sources refer to the wives of the king sitting beside him during the banquet

and being sent away after the meal (e.g. Plut.Mor. 140b;Art. 5.3; yet see Neh. 2:6; 1 Esd

4:28-32; Esth. 1:11 et passim). Yet on the basis of Elamite sources (Henkelman 2010),

we know that the royal women (two of whom we know by name: Irdabama and Irtatuna)

had their own tables. This table was an institution of its own right and recognized as such

by the Persepolis administration. Its economic realm or house (ulhi) was modeled after

that of the king and intricately interwoven into the Persepolis economy at large. The sons

of the women sat at their table until well into maturity. The women followed their own

travel itineraries to visit their domains, bringing with them their table entourages.

With respect to the size of the banquets, Heraclides (Ath. 4.145e) claims that each

day 1,000 animals were slaughtered for the kings table: horses, camels, oxen, asses,

deer, and most of the smaller [four-legged] animals; as well as many birds, including

Arabian ostrichesgeese, and cocks (cf. Poly. 4.3.32). Such prodigious quantities seem

to be confirmed by disbursement receipts from the Persepolis Fortification Tablets (see

assessment by Henkelman 2010). The table, as noted above, served as a distribution

center, where the king sent the abundance of leftovers to his loyal ones. Much of the

meat went to the royal body-guard and troops in the courtyard; they received their

leftovers in requital for services. The same was done for both the high-ranking guests

and, after the meal, for the servants (Ath. 4.145d-146a; see Dan. 1). Some elites


12/17

depended upon these shares, which they in turn distributed among their clients. The king

could demonstrate special regard by sending personally selected items or, best of all, his

own half-eaten leftovers. The shares were likely understood to convey the kings vitality

(Dan. 1). Xenophon claims that Cyrus the Younger curried favor by sending allies a half-

emptied wine jar or halves of geese and bread-loaves with the message, Cyrus enjoyed

this and therefore wants you also to taste it (Xen.Anab. 1.9.25-26; see also Cyr. 8.2.1-4

[leftovers as remembrances], 8.4.6-7). The Persian conventions of leftovers have a

long tradition among Mesopotamian rulers (see Wright 2010:336 and literature cited

there).

When travelling, the king maintained his splendid table (Hdt.1.188). Subject

populations were required to supply the provisions when he visited their cities (Ath.

4.145a). The cities were informed long in advance so that they could prepare for thekings meal with not only food but also fine cups and banquet furnishings. The burden of

the meal, whose cost Herodotus estimates at 400 silver talents (7.118-120), was reckoned

as part of the tribute/gifts owed to the king.

CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION AND COMPETITIVE GIFT-GIVING

As the authors of both classical and biblical literature understood, feasting was serious

business in the political calculus of the Achaemenid Empire. Elites and social climbers

hosted opulent banquets as politically calculated displays of power. The number and

status of the guests mirrored the influence of the host (Xen. Cyr. 8.3.23b). Should

military conflicts arise, a leaders table-companions would become his comrades-at-arms

(Xen.Anab. 1.8.25; 1.9.31; Cyr. 8.5.8; 8.4.3-5), bringing with them their own allies and

resources (Anab. 1.1.9-11; Plut.Art. 21.4-22.3; Hdt. 7.27-30). Insofar as charismatic

leaders played the game well, they consolidated their power and extended their political

influence over peoples and territories without resorting to displays of violence (Neh. 5:17

and Wright 2010). A bountiful table could win more allies than a hundred spears, at less

expense and without provoking rancor (Xen. Cyr. 8.2.13-23). In turn, guests ingratiated

themselves with a powerful person to whom they could appeal in their own time of

need. Their social standing increased as their access to a powerful host, such as the king,

prompted others to approach them with petitions (Xen. Cyr. 8.3.20-23; Esth. 4).


13/17

Achaemenid banquets and gift-exchange were closely related within the syntax of

symbolic power among elites. The host invited guests of political interest, and the tables

splendor procured him/her social capital (Esth. 5:12; Xen. Cyr. 8.1.40; 8.3.1,5). Feasts

provided ideal settings for elites to flaunt gifts they had received (Xen. Cyr. 8.2.3-4). It is

no coincidence that the most popular prestige objects among the Persians were those that

could be used at the table. As noted above, feasts were popular settings for gift-giving

(Xen. Cyr. 5.2.4-7; Plut. Art. 22.1; Hdt. 9.110.2, 111.1; Esth. 5:6; 7:2; and see

above). Formal presentation in a public setting magnified the gift's symbolic value as

the recipient received honor in the eyes of all the distinguished guests (Xen. Cyr. 4.1.2-4;

cf. Esth. 6:6-11). By rewarding service well rendered, the host encouraged other guests

to perform similar service in hopes of being rewarded themselves (Xen. Cyr. 8.4.4).

By means of commensality and gift-giving practiced by the local dynasts andsatraps, which mimicked that of the Great King, the empire built a network connecting

elites throughout the empire to both the satraps, representing the king, and to the king

directly (Kistler 2010, Klinkott 2005). As exemplified in the case of Histiaeus (Hdt.

5.23-24), potential political rivals could be enticed to leave the periphery, where they

posed a greater threat, and assume a place in the court, serving as the kings table

companion and advisor. Cyrus the Younger complains that his father, King Darius II,

did not provide sufficiently for his daily meals (Plut.Artax. 4.1). Although he could

obtain it elsewhere (from the table of his mother, for example), it was properly the duty

of the king to supply these items with which he could cement political bonds with his

dependentsbut also potentially rebel against the king!

As a host, one spared no expense (Ath. 4.147a-e). The banquet hall was usually

columned, similar to those of the royal court (Gopnik 2004). Both host and guests

dressed to impress. Fine clothing and jewelry, likely gifts from notables if not the king,

marked the wearers importance and invited name-dropping. As guests tried to outdo one

another in opulence, the host rose in status, as it demonstrated to others that s/he had

friends in high places (Xen. Cyr. 8.3.4). Diners reclined on gilded couches with

embroidered cushions (Hdt. 9.82; Ath. 4.142a; Esth. 1:6, image from the Karaburun tomb

chamber in Jacobs 2010). Tapestries in reds, blues, and purples adorned the walls, often

embroidered and accented with gold (Ath. 4.147f; Esth. 1:6). The tables worked with


14/17

gold and silver, held goblets, plates, and utensils of precious metals (Hdt. 9.82; Xen.

Cyrop. 5.2.7; Ath. 4.142a; 4.147f; Esth. 1:7).

Seating arrangements made visible the social hierarchy among the diners (Hdt.

8.67; Xen. Cyr. 8.1.39; 8.6.11; Arr. 7.11.8; Diod. 19.22.2-3; Ath. 4.145c; Aelian, VH

8.7). The distribution of food was likewise unequal. Favorites received the largest

portions of meat, presented so that everyone could take note (Xen. Cyr. 1.3.6-8). Armies

of slaves served the finest foods in extravagant quantities (Xen. Agesilaus 9.3; Strabo

15.3.19; Xen. Cyr. 1.3.6; Hdt. 133.1). Persians reportedly dined at a leisurely pace,

tasting many kinds of food and eating only a small portion of each, so that feasts could go

on for hours (Xen. Cyr. 1. 3.4-5; Hdt. 1.133.2). The wealthiest Persians had access to a

wide variety of foods from throughout the empire (Xen. Cyr. 8.6.6; Polyaenus

4.3.32). They acquired a taste for exotic delicacies (Ath. 4.142a; Xen.Hiero 1.22-23),many of which the Greeks found repulsive (Xen. Cyr. 1.3.5). They also hired chefs to

invent new dishes (Xen. Cyr. 8.8.16;Ages. 9.3;Hiero 1.16-25; Ath. 12.545d).

Even on military campaigns, high-ranking Persians brought their banquet supplies

with them (Hdt. 1.188.1; 9.82; c. Plut.Art. 24.2b; the story of Judith). Greek authors

marvel at the Persians opulent camps, which reportedly contained tents decorated with

tapestries and precious metals (Hdt. 9.80; c. Ath. 2.48d,f), dining furniture and service

items of gold and silver (Hdt. 9.80; Xen.Anab. 4.4.21), and provisions worthy of a palace

kitchen (Hdt. 1.188.1; 7.83.2).

For Achaemenid satraps and elites throughout the empire, it paid to spend. A

public reputation of wealth and munificence constituted an essential element of an elite

Persian's power (Xen. Cyr. 8.1.48; 8.3.1; Plut.Pelopidas 30.3). Those seeking influence

strove to outdo (huperballomai; Xen. Cyr. 8.2.7) and triumph over (nikao, Xen.

Anab. 1.9.11; Hdt. 9.18.3) one another in generosity, since whoever could offer the

greatest rewards would draw more allies. One could bankrupt his rival in competitive

consumption (Ath. 12.531c-e; Aelian, VH, 7.2). The king participated in this system of

gift-for-service politics as the supreme patron (Hdt. 7.27-30, 38-39, and Kistler

2010:433-436). Xenophon portrays Cyrus the Great as a master of commensal politics

and attributes Cyrus success to his strategic benefaction (Cyr. 8.1.48; 8.2.1-4, 9, 15-

19). By investing the royal wealth in luxuries for his friends and subjects, the king


15/17

accumulates political capital and consolidates his control over a vast realm (see also Hdt.

3.89.3; 3.160.1; 3.71.4-5; Diod. 15.91.1; Nepos,Datames 3).

The competitive gift-giving and commensality among the Persian elites stand in

stark contrast to the ideals of collective feasting set forth by the Esther story (Wright and

Chan 2012). After depicting in detail a series of banquets hosted by the king and elites,

the tale concludes with Mordechai commanding the Jewish communities at Susa and

throughout the empire to celebrate the Purim feast as a people by sending gifts of food to

each other as well as presents to the poor (Esth. 9; for Achaemenid collective and cultic

feasts, see Henkelman 2011 and in this volume, pp. ^^).

EVALUATING IMPORTANCE

What importance should we assign to gift-giving and feasting in the history of theAchaemenid Empire? Are these practices treated in literature just because they are more

fascinating than the quotidian activities of taxation and bureaucracy? The conclusion to

Sancisi-Weerdenbergs study represents one approach: Although there is no doubt that

in actual practice the Achaemenids frequently handed out gifts, the impact of this gift-

giving on the whole of the empire may rightly be doubted. Its most important function

may be regarded as a legitimising ideological one (1989:141). Our survey of the

evidence, however, suggests that gift-giving and feasting played a much more central

role. The success and longevity of the vast Achaemenid Empire were due not only to

military-strategic strength and superb administrative organization, but also to the skillful

use of gift-giving and commensality. These practices established a network connecting

potential political opposition, both at the palace and in the satrapies, directly to the person

of the king and to the institution of the royal table. The direct relationships that the king

cultivated with a vast array of individuals rested on a clearly articulated system of merit,

which encouraged all to seek opportunities to demonstrate loyalty to the king (Brosius

2007). By means of highly sophisticated practices of gift-giving and commensality, the

king could centralize power at his table and thereby secure deep allegiances to his rule.


16/17

Bibliography

Briant, Pierre.From Cyrus to Alexander: a History of the Persian Empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels.

(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002).Idem, Table du roi: tribut et redistribution chez les Achmnides. Pp. 35-44 in P. Briant and C.

Herrenschmidt, eds.,Le tribut dans lempire perse: Actes de la table ronde de Paris, 12-13

dcembre 1986, Paris, 1989.

Brosius, Maria, New out of old? Court and court ceremonies in Achaemenid Persia. Pp. 17-57 in A. J. S.

Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies. (New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2007).

Gopnik, Hilary. Why Columned Halls? Pp. 195-206 inFood and Identity in the Ancient World, ed.

Christiano Grottanelli and Lucio Milano. Padua: S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria, 2004.

Henkelman, Wouter F.M., "Parnakkas Feast: ip in Prsa and Elam. Pp. 89-167 in Javier lvarez-Mon

and Mark B. Garrison,Elam and Persia (Winona Lake, ID.: Eisenbrauns, 2011).

Idem, Consumed before the King. The Table of Darius, that of Irdabama, and Irtatuna, and that of his

Satrap, Karki. Pp. 667-776 inDer Achmenidenhof, eds. Bruno Jacobs and Robert Rollinger,

(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010).

Jacob, Bruno, Hfischer Lebensstil und materielle Prachtentfaltung. Pp. 377-410 in in Der

Achmenidenhof, eds. Bruno Jacobs and Robert Rollinger, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag,

2010).

Kistler, Erich, Achmenidische Becher und die Logik kommensaler Politik im Reich der Achmeniden.

Pp. 411-458 in inDer Achmenidenhof, eds. Bruno Jacobs and Robert Rollinger, (Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010).

Klinkott, Hilmar,Der Satrap: Ein Achaimenidischer Amtstrger und seine Handlungsspielrume,

Oikumene 1, Frankfurt: Verlag Antike, 2005.

Mathys, Hans-Peter, Der Achmenidenhof im Alten Testament. Pp. 231-310 in inDer Achmenidenhof,

eds. Bruno Jacobs and Robert Rollinger, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010).

Miller, Margaret C. "Luxury Toreutic in the Western Satrapies: Court-Inspired Gift-Exchange Diffusion."

Pp. 853-897 inDer Achmenidenhof, eds. Bruno Jacobs and Robert Rollinger, (Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010).

Mitchell, Lynette G., Greeks Bearing Gifts, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002.

Root, Margaret Cool, The King and Kingship in the Achaemenid Art. Acta Iranica 19. Leiden: Brill, 1979.

Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Gifts in the Persian Empire. Pp. 129-45 in P. Briant and C. Herrenschmidt,

eds.,Le tribut dans l'empire perse, Paris, 1989.

Wiesehfer, Josef, Die Freunde und Wohltter des Grossknigs, Stud. Ir. 9, 1980, pp. 7-21.


17/17

Idem, Tauta gar en atelea: Beobach tungen zur Abgabenfreiheit im Achaimenidenreich. Pp. 183-191 in

P. Briant and C. Herrenschmidt, eds.Le tribut dans lEmpire perse, Paris, 1989.

Wright, Jacob L. Commensal Politics in Ancient Western Asia: The Background to Nehemiah's Feasting.

Part I:ZAW122 (2010), pp. 212-233; Part II:ZAW122 (2010), pp. 333-352.

Wright, Jacob L. and Michael Chan, Feasting: From Kings to Communities, forthcoming in Oxford

Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archeology (ed. Daniel Masters); New York: Oxford, 2012.

* NB: When interpreting the classical source, it is critical to consider Greek conventions of gift-giving, which unavoidably influenced the way the classical authors interpreted Persianconventions (Mitchell 2002). Biblical literature that bears the imprint of Persian feasting includesnot only Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel, but also the Joseph story, the account of Solomonstable, Judith, Tobit, and 4Q550 (see Mathys 2010).

Wright Persian Feasting, Banquets, Gift Exchange Blackwell Long Version

Documents

Transcript of Wright Persian Feasting, Banquets, Gift Exchange Blackwell Long Version