Sources

Sources for the Achaemenid Empire are diverse but sporadic, and it is difficult to assemble a continuous historical narrative. Historians of the period generally spend more time in assessing the usefulness of any source available rather than on de­ciding which sources to use.

Archaeological excavation has unsurprisingly been focused on urban areas throughout the empire, and in several cases Achaemenid settlement, which is not frequently the focus of modern excavators, is only one level of often thousands of years of occupation. Several important cities in the ancient Near East have been continuously inhabited from antiquity into the modern period—for example, Hamadan in Iran (ancient Ecbatana), considered the capital of Media—and exca­vation opportunities in these areas have been limited, regardless of any political considerations. Upheaval in the Middle East has periodically made excavation diffi­cult, if not impossible, in many areas. Within Iran itself, Pasargadae and Persepolis, the two most prominent Achaemenid sites (both in Fars), have received much at­tention. The city of Susa in Khuzistan was important for centuries as an Elamite center, and it too became a royal center, the one most frequently referenced in the Greek sources.

The empire's scope is reflected in documentary sources from several languages, those of the core included Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian (Akkadian), as well as Aramaic. The last was the lingua franca of the Empire, i.e., for the entire ancient Near East. Nevertheless, Greek sources dominate Achaemenid historiography, a phenomenon that has necessitated the consideration of Achaemenid history through a Greek lens. Until the late nineteenth century ce, Achaemenid history was primarily a construct of Greek and biblical accounts, on whose traditions the first Persian Empire had an enormous impact. With the decipherment of various cuneiform scripts, more records from the core of the empire became accessible. Royal inscriptions and administrative texts, offering new insights and different perspectives, have dramatically changed our understanding of Achaemenid his­tory. Advancements are ongoing, as these sources—along with the archaeological and art historical evidence—are analyzed and contextualized in their own right and also weighed against the Classical and biblical accounts.