Imperial Imagined Geographies and Greek Worldviews: Center and Periphery in Herodotus

1 Empires, Space, and Paradigms

To describe the impact of imperial geographies on societies living within and beyond the territories controlled by empires, I draw inspiration from two bodies of scholarship. The first is concerned with the qualities of spatial representation created by empires. On a basic level, Henri Lefebvre has argued that knowledge of space is not simply the result of detailed geographical studies, but rather the outcome of reflections on ideologies and knowledge.^[7] His observation is particularly relevant to the description of space in the representation of empires. Their rulers aimed to establish a dominant position in the ongoing discourse on imperial success by claiming conquest of the world’s extremes.^[8] Accordingly, this discourse has consistently stimulated geographical innovations since the 3rd millennium BCE.^[9] Imperial geographies are thus purposeful representations of space, rather than objective depictions of the territory that an empire encompasses. On a more specific level, such representations are based on narrative devices and intentional representations of dominated spaces, which Edward Saïd referred to as ‘imagined geographies.’ These representations served to justify ideological claims by employing “…style, figures of speech, setting, narrative devices, historical and social circumstances…,” as they are not aimed at adhering to “…the correctness of the representation nor its fidelity to some great original.”^[10] With that in mind, it is evident that the imperial representation of space takes distinct forms, each representing unique discourses. These forms can then be compared and their impact on others inquired.

The second body of scholarship is concerned with the impact of the spatial concepts created by empires on their surrounding world. In particular, Sarah A. Radcliffe demonstrated that the ‘imperial imagined geographies’ of colonial empires significantly impacted national geographies of their former subject nations. She argued that post-colonial national geographies inherit imperial concepts of space, contributing to shaping and sustaining the citizens of nations’ identities. This inheritance provided them with a geographic common sense of belonging that allowed them to place themselves imaginatively within an established space.^[11] Empires, through their unique concepts of space, offer a framework that provides others with an orientation in the world.

Inspired by these bodies of scholarship, it is tempting to ask whether the imperial imagined geographies of the Achaemenid Empire had an impact on the world of Classical Greece. Recent studies have demonstrated that the relationship between the Greeks and the Persian Empire was more intricate than previously thought.^[12] The ideas of Ionian intellectuals about geography underwent significant changes after their initial contact with the Persian Empire.^[13] This shift occurred when the Greek cities in Asia Minor became subjects of the empire, placing them in an area marked by intense cultural exchange. Consequently, the inhabitants of these cities developed cosmopolitan perspectives on the world.^[14] This area was home to Herodotus. His perspective is that of a Greek from Halicarnassus, a city that remained under Achaemenid control until it joined the Delian League in the 5th century BCE.^[15] In this context, it is not surprising to find information in the Histories that aligns with ancient Near Eastern texts, particularly with regard to ideas of space.^[16] However, the manner in which Herodotus transformed this information into his historical narrative and the channels of knowledge transmission remain subjects of ongoing debate.

Scholarly paradigms still influence how we assess the relationship between Herodotus and the ancient Near East, even though Herodotean studies have seen an increasing plurality of new approaches. One of these paradigms is that the Greeks acquired geographical knowledge through active engagement with their environment, such as exploration and travel.^[17] Based on this paradigm, scholars view Herodotus’ statements of autopsy as evidence that his descriptions are based on personal travel experiences.^[18] Nevertheless, he provides such statements only in his descriptions of regions familiar to his readers, inviting us to question whether he indeed traveled or not.^[19] A definitive answer to Herodotus’ traveling activities based solely on his account is unattainable. More relevant in this context is the fact that he crafted a geographical description of the world that directs readers toward a particular interpretation, rather than striving for an objective representation.^[20]

It is worth emphasizing that, in many ways, the Achaemenid Empire serves as the central focal point of Herodotus’ description of the inhabited world, both historiographically and geographically.^[21] The empire provides a crucial intellectual context for Herodotus’ composition of the Histories and holds significant importance for his audience. Thus, it deserves attention that the Achaemenid Empire held vast parts of the world known to the Greeks under its sway and made it a topic in its geography.^[22] The representation of the world in the imperial imagined geography is the topic to which we now turn.

2 Periphery and Centrality in Achaemenid Imperial Imagined Geography

Royal inscriptions are our prime source to examine Achaemenid imperial imagined geography. Only initially, the small number of these inscriptions appear not to represent particularly insightful sources due to their formulaic character. When situating these inscriptions within their original context, namely ancient Near Eastern imperial traditions, we obtain a more complex understanding of how the Great Kings imagined imperial space.^[23] Two inscriptions are particularly significant for this purpose.

The first inscription is the Akkadian version of the monumental trilingual ensemble of inscriptions at the southern façade of the terrace of Persepolis. This ensemble was composed in the early years of Darius I’s reign and, therefore, is presumably the oldest set of royal inscriptions from the Achaemenid period, serving as a model for later texts from that time.^[24] Although the ensemble’s Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian inscriptions are independent texts in their own right, they still complement one another. Regarding geographical entities, the Akkadian text (DPg) is the most significant, as it allows for comparison with numerous other texts written in the same language during the 1st millennium BCE. Such a comparison helps to illuminate the specific Achaemenid imagination of space within a process of ideation. Here, the imperial space is described as follows:

Ahuramazdā (is) great, who (is) great over all gods, who created the heaven and the earth and created water. Who gave all prosperity and people to live on, who made Darius the king, and to Darius the king (he) gave the kingship in this wide earth of many lands, among (them) Persia, Media and other lands of another tongue, of mountains and plain, of this near side of the sea and that far side of the sea, of this near side of the waterless desert and that far side of the waterless desert. Darius the king says: in the protection of Ahuramazdā these (are) the lands which did this which was done here: Persia, Media, and other lands of another tongue, of mountains and plain, of this near side of the sea and that far side of the sea, and this near side of the waterless desert and that far side of the waterless desert, as I had ordered them. [What] I did, all in the protection of Ahuramazdā I have done. Me Ahuramazdā [may pro]tect, with all the gods, me and what I love.^[25]

Besides deserts, the limits of empire are defined by the sea, creating an alternation between these two entities that constitute the world’s extremes in imperial imagined geography. Of course, the geographical concept that guides Darius’ notion of imperial space remains rather vague until the semantics of desert and sea are illuminated.

Beginning by examining the Achaemenid notion of the sea, there is no doubt that DPg borrows from the ‘Babylonian Map of the World.’^[26] This map is a schematic representation of the world created by Babylonian scholars sometime during the 9th and 7th centuries.^[27] In both texts, the Akkadian term ^ÍDmarratu refers to the sea. In Babylonian worldview, this specific term defines the cosmic sea that separates the inhabited world from the realm of myth.^[28] Still, the geographical concepts of the Babylonian map and DPg indicate that the land of myth is located beyond the cosmic sea, without clearly defining its design. Given the description of space in the Babylonian map, the lands on the far side of the ^ÍDmarratu appear to be island-like portions of land (nagû) where mythical creatures live.^[29] Remarkably, the Old Persian term draya-in Achaemenid royal inscriptions indicates that it has the same meaning as the ^ÍDmarratu, where, if located in the context of the Avesta, daemons dwell.^[30] What makes these island-like portions of lands important is that previous ancient Near Eastern rulers referred to those when asserting universalism, though they did not claim control over them. For example, the Neo-Assyrian king Ashurbanipal described Lydia as island-like portions of land (nagû) in the Upper Sea, which he did not control directly but regarded his ruler as subordinate.^[31] Later, the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II framed his empire by referring to the distant nagûs in the Upper and Lower Sea.^[32] Subsequently, Cyrus II drew on the same geographical model when claiming universalistic rulership.^[33] Darius I further developed the idea of universalistic rulership into universalism by changing the geographical framework from the Upper and Lower Seas to the ^ÍDmarratu as the reference point, thereby asserting his domination over the entire world. In this way, the Upper and the Lower Sea, the traditional geographical reference points in ancient Near Eastern royal representation, were substituted with the concept that underpins the ‘Babylonian Map of the World.’^[34] The ideation of the sea as a reference point for universalism came with enormous implications that changed the prevailing geographical models in terms of the qualities attributed to the distant lands. Mesopotamian mythology holds that only the sun god Shamash and the mythical hero Gilgamesh visited these distant lands that Darius claims to control.^[35] The lands beyond the cosmic sea are, therefore, undoubtedly outside the reach of reliable geographical knowledge. In Achaemenid thought, these lands theoretically include locations in the far West, such as the ‘Straits of Heracles,’ which are not mentioned in their inscriptions.^[36] The message that Darius’ claim conveys was unmistakably clear in an ancient Near Eastern context: He surpassed all his predecessors’ claims by positioning himself dominantly in the ongoing discourse about imperial success.

With the conception of the cosmic sea in DPg discussed, we can recognize similarities in Darius’ notion of the deserts. Similar to the cosmic sea, deserts are vast and undefined geographical entities. The respective Akkadian term qaqqar ṣumāmīti translates to ‘land of thirst.’ Qaqqaru in Akkadian, however, does not simply refer to defined land. Rather, it delineates vast and boundless areas.^[37] The semantics of the expression ‘the land of thirst’ imply that Darius claimed dominion over barren regions extending into the unknown. The ideological value of the deserts in imperial imagined geographies can only be understood when reading DPg alongside texts from the Neo-Assyrian period. In the royal inscriptions of this period, the land of thirst is depicted as an arid and boundless expanse where the enemies of Assyria seek refuge. As these areas represent the terrestrial extremes in Assyrian imperial geography, the king cannot pursue enemies into this boundless area.^[38] This is comparable to the concept of the ‘midst of the sea’, the maritime extreme of the world, which is intentionally described imprecisely.^[39] Arguably, the Assyrian conception of the deserts posits that they delineate the boundaries of concrete knowledge, effectively dividing the world into two distinct realms: the known imperial space and the uncharted, empty lands beyond, inhabited by less civilized peoples.^[40] Ancient Near Eastern empires provided information about regions at the fringes of the known world with the intention of emphasizing their monopole on knowledge of the entire world.^[41] Thus, deserts function as pivotal markers that distinguish between two realms of knowledge, qualifying them alongside the cosmic sea as ideal reference points for asserting a narrative of universalism.

The second inscription, hereafter referred to as DHa, is an Old Persian inscription of Darius I from Hamadan.^[42] It presents a list that conceptualizes imperial space through four geographic edges, represented by three ethnically connoted regions and one people, namely Lydia, the Sakas, India, and Kush (DHa §2).^[43] Those are reference marks that can be understood as the cardinal points of imperial imagined geography, based on a solar orientation: North-West (Lydia), North-East (Sakas), South-East (India), and South-West (Kush/Ethiopia).^[44] The Achaemenid concept follows Assyrian role models that conceptualize the world by four regions. These regions, just as in the Achaemenid notion, represent the main trajectories of imperial expansion.^[45] It is worth to emphasize that in Old Persian Sparda, i.e. Lydia, functions as a general term encompassing the inhabitants of various satrapies in Western Asia Minor, even including the Yaunā. The latter is a general designation for all inhabitants of the Aegean, not exclusively referring to the Ionians.^[46]

Another important aspect is that the underlying concept of DHa guides the so-called ‘lists of lands’ (OP dahyāva-), which, while varying in detail, appear in numerous royal inscriptions. These lists of ethnically connoted regions begin with the Old Persian term Pārsa and conclude each direction with one of the peoples mentioned in DHa.^[47] The purpose of their underlying principle is to reinforce the Achaemenid concept of universalism by defining the empire as synonymous with the world.^[48] Strikingly, all Achaemenid ‘lists of lands’ consistently place Pārsa first. In this way, these lists highlight the central status of Pārsa, which has a dual connotation. It refers both to the Persians’ homeland as an ethnically defined region and to the designation of the royal residence of Persepolis.^[49] Undoubtedly, Persia and the Persians occupy the central position within the imperial imagined space.

It is noteworthy that centrality is a pivotal aspect of the worldviews of empires. Aside from the Achaemenids, Mesopotamian and Hellenistic rulers, the Romans too created mental maps that structure the world around their imperial capitals, representing the world’s center.^[50] In the Achaemenid royal inscriptions, the central position of Persia and Persians is further underlined by the fact that Persians are never listed among the subject nations obliged to pay tribute to the Great King.^[51] The concept of Achaemenid imperial imagined geography also posits that the empire is predominantly ruled by Persians. Royal inscriptions frequently emphasize the Great King and elites as being ‘of Persian descent’ (OP Aryia-). It conveys the notion of superiority through the concept of a world ruled by an imperial elite composed of Persians.^[52]

Having discussed the Achaemenid imperial imagined geography, we should now address its dissemination in both the imperial and non-imperial worlds. Although most royal inscriptions were situated hundreds of miles from the Greek world, it is reasonable to assume that they were widely read and recognized. From Darius’ famous Bisitun Inscription (DB §70), we learn that its content was disseminated across various media and languages, thereby being appropriated by diverse subject societies.^[53] Judean scribes in Elephantine copied the Bisitun Inscription and the lower part of Darius’ tomb inscription (DNb) in Aramaic. Their copies provide evidence that the Achaemenids extensively circulated their imperial narratives and that local societies responded to them.^[54] The same can be said for the Cyrus Cylinder, which had a profound impact on the theology of Judean societies in the Levant, without putting the Persian stamp on them.^[55] Additionally, the media representing imperial narratives were not exclusively displayed in the empire’s heartland. They were also shown and made accessible at the frontiers of the empire.^[56] As parallels between DNb and the Greek inscription of the Lycian dynast Arbinas, dating to the early 4th century, show, imperial narratives were understood by Greek-speaking elites, who used them for their representation.^[57] That the Greeks were able to understand imperial narratives, even when written not in their own language, is evidenced by Thucydides. He mentions a translator of an ancient Near Eastern language in Athens.^[58] Incidentally, we should also consider the significant number of slaves who originated from the empire, living in Attica.^[59]

From the available evidence, a picture of Achaemenid imperial narratives emerges, showing how they were effectively communicated within and beyond the empire’s administrative boundaries in various languages for targeted audiences. The question, therefore, arises as to whether these narratives had an impact on Herodotus.

3 The Peripheries of the World in the Histories

Herodotus’ description of the world’s extremes as an alternation of deserts and the sea is peculiar in the light of Achaemenid imperial imagined geography. A significant number of parallels can be drawn. While the sea, in the form of an encircling ocean, represents the ultimate frontiers of Europe in the northwest, deserts constitute the world’s extremes in the northeast, southeast, and southwest in the Histories.^[60] As these deserts form desolate, challenging, impassable, almost uninhabited, and thus literally ‘empty’ (ἐρῆμος) regions, Herodotus states that knowledge beyond them remains imperfect.^[61] Still, he maintains the Homeric idea of an ocean encircling the world, whose shores are, however, partly unknown due to the vast deserts at the extremes of the inhabited world.^[62] As it can be seen in the case of the Libyan Desert, Herodotus follows the imperial model by describing it as a boundless region at the fringes of the known world. It has been argued that Herodotus had access to information about this region, which served as a nodal point in trading routes leading from the south to Egypt.^[63] Apparently, his geographical narrative concerning the world’s peripheries aligns more with the imperial model than with practical spatial knowledge.

Besides describing the properties of the world’s extremes in the Histories, Herodotus also follows the imperial model by choosing one people as the focal point around which the world and its peripheries revolve.^[64] Unsurprisingly, his choice fell on the Greeks. They serve as a standard for measuring the cultural advances of others, while the inhabitants of the world’s extremes are depicted as almost uncivilized and isolated peoples.^[65] Similar to the imperial imagined geography, he locates the Scythian people, India, and Ethiopia at the edges of the world.^[66] Furthermore, he demonstrates an awareness of the significance of the Scythians to the Achaemenids. Herodotus states that the Persians call all the Scythians Σάκας, a statement that aligns well with the principle of the empire’s imperial imagined geography.^[67] To this list of parallels, it should be added that Herodotus states that mythical creatures live on the fringes of the world.^[68]

While the empire’s imagination of space was a dominant concept, other geographical models existed, as evidenced by Herodotus’ own understanding of the world. It is well-known that the Greeks framed the world in the shadow of ancient Near Eastern models of space, though they did not neglect to integrate these models into their worldview, leading to the creation of distinct ideas of space.^[69] This means that several geographical models were available to the Greeks of Herodotus’ time, allowing him to manipulate them. The case of Europe serves as an example of the Herodotean reimagining of specific paradigms.

Herodotus uses the geographical concept of Europe as a continent, a notion that is alien to ancient Near Eastern ideas of space. He offers only a rough description of Europe, leaving its design rather vague. Herodotus describes only those parts of Europe that are close to the Greek world, omitting Western, Central, and Northern Europe. His conception of the world places Europe as larger than Asia and Libya, with the latter two united. Europe is the largest continent, representing a vast space about which knowledge remains imperfect.^[70] Despite the peculiar pettiness of Europe in Herodotus’ narrative, it is remarkable that he describes this continent as an undefined space with vague characteristics. This description corresponds with the Mesopotamian concept of the edges of the world.^[71] Also he mentions Europe primarily in the context of Persian imperialism. The Herodotean Persians consider Europe to be the entire land mass opposite Asia, which they aimed to conquer after seizing power over Greece.^[72] The Persian general Mardonius, for instance, describes the Ionians as living in Europe, which, in the Histories, is the continent opposite Asia, lying beyond the sea.^[73] Additionally, Herodotus’ Persians locate Athens at the edges of the world, counting the Athenians among the Ionians.^[74] Both statements are based on the notion that the cosmic sea divides the empire from an undefined mass of land that represents the world’s extreme, as known from imperial imagined geography. By depicting his Persians as viewing Europe this way, Herodotus conveys the notion of Achaemenid universalism. This notion holds that the Great King controls the undefined land mass beyond the cosmic sea, i.e. the Bosporus and the Hellespont.^[75] As we see, the properties of the world’s peripheries in the Histories align remarkably well with those outlined in Achaemenid imperial imagined geography.

Still, Herodotus has a Greek perspective, so he describes Europe as seen in the eyes of a Greek, though framing it within an imperial model of space. Support for this framing comes from Herodotus’ humorous references to the Greek maps of his time, particularly that of Aristagoras, with whom he competes.^[76] He feels comfortable providing corrections to this map by describing Asia in his so-called ‘nomoi list’ in a manner that resembles the principles that guide the Achaemenid ‘lists of lands,’ as Anca Dan has noted.^[77] Thus it is apparent that Herodotus works with various cultural viewpoints and he uses them in the same way as he does the imperial imagined geography. The world in the Histories is the result of the reimagination of specific paradigms.

What serves as strong evidence of both Herodotus’ knowledge of and deep engagement with Achaemenid imperial narratives is the way he subverts Persian imperialism in his narrative. By recontextualizing imperial narratives from triumphant conquests of the world’s extremities to catastrophic failures, he subversively undermines the original message of Achaemenid imperial narratives. The Histories provide an impressive list of such failures. Cyrus was unsuccessful in conquering the Massagetae, who live in the desert beyond the river Araxes in the vastness of the northeastern emptiness of Herodotus’ world.^[78] Cambyses, in his expeditions to the world’s southwestern extremity, where Herodotus locates Ethiopia, faced significant losses of soldiers due to the inhospitable nature of the desert.^[79] In this case, it is possible to say something more concrete regarding the subversive elements in his geographical narrative. One of the main reasons for the Persians’ campaign against the Ammonians was a local revolt, which they failed to suppress.^[80] Herodotus likely had information about this revolt, even though he states that a sandstorm destroyed the army.^[81] This suggests a narrative choice that may reflect his intention to subvert the empire’s claim to universalism. Additionally, Cambyses’ imperialism had to halt at Cyrene, making a potential campaign toward sunset impossible.^[82] Darius failed to campaign through the Scythian desert in the northeast and had to stop his campaign in the southeastern desert region of India.^[83] Xerxes famously failed to conquer Greece and Europe located beyond the cosmic sea.^[84] Herodotus uses a Greek cultural perspective to conceptualize Europe, which helps him to subvert Xerxes’ idea of universalism. The empire ultimately fails to conquer Europe, only reaching Megara, which, as he states, is the point closest to sunset that the imperial army has reached.^[85]

With the parallels between Herodotus and imperial imagined geography in mind, it comes as no surprise that he has his Great Kings suffering defeat or stopping their campaigns in regions crucial to their geographical concept. So, it is evident that Herodotus not only adopted the reference points of imperial imagined geography but also embraced the empire’s principles of universalism.^[86] His playful depiction of Persian imperialism as a counter-model to the original Persian paradigm suggests that he had a profound knowledge of Achaemenid ideology.^[87] With the peripheries discussed, the question arises about the imperial impact on Herodotus’ notion of centrality.

4 Herodotus and the Question of the World’s Center

As Jennifer Finn has put it, centrality is a key element in the worldviews of ancient societies, represented through mental maps. Centrality sparked debates, particularly among Greek intellectuals, regarding the location of the world’s center.^[88] Interestingly, even though the world described by Herodotus has no clear center, Asia is, in many regards, the focal point of both his historical and geographical narrative. In the Histories, Asia embodies a rich significance that goes beyond a mere geographical designation of a continent. It also holds political significance, as evidenced by two key aspects of Herodotus’ geographical narrative.

The first aspect is that Herodotus’ knowledge of Asia is primarily confined to the Achaemenid Empire, as no less an expert than Herbert Bunbury recognized over a century ago. Beyond the limits of this empire, Herodotus relies primarily on hearsay, which in turn delineates the boundaries of his knowledge of the East.^[89] Alternatives to the imperial model to describe Asia might have been available to Herodotus, as Strabo says that many ancient writers described its eastern parts.^[90] As their works are today lost, their descriptions of Asia can only be the subject of speculation. Nevertheless, in her analysis of Herodotus’ geographical narrative, Jessica Romney has emphasized that while Asia serves as its focal point, it also aligns with the trajectory of Persian imperialism.^[91] Herodotus, for example, considers Samos as part of Asia after its acquisition by the Persians.^[92] Incorporating this island into Asia serves as evidence of the political connotations associated with Asia in his geographical narrative. For instance, in his description of Western Asia, Herodotus characterizes it as a mere landmass, extending in the form of two peninsulas from Persia to the sunset.^[93] Asia thus serves inter alia as a cipher for the Achaemenid Empire and its expansion in the Histories. Another aspect worthy of examination is that Herodotus describes in the so-called ‘nomoi list’ the empire and the tributes of each subject to the Great King, beginning with Ionia rather than Pārsa.^[94] Although it appears that an imperial geography served as a model for describing the world, in contrast to this model, Persia does not hold the status of Asia’s center within the Histories. The departure from the principles of the empire’s imagination of space in this case is striking and warrants explanation.

Remarkably, Herodotus demonstrates an understanding of the role of the Persians as occupying the center of the world, as delineated in their imagined geography. This understanding can be grasped through his statement that the Persians living in the heart of the empire are considered the most distinguished and are not obliged to pay tribute to the Great King.^[95] At the same time, his Persians regard those on the periphery as having a lesser status.^[96] Herodotus departs from imperial geography when he describes the outset of the world in terms of the extent and relation of the continents in book four. Here, he depicts the region of Persis where the Persians dwell, as just one of many parts of Asia lacking a distinct function.^[97] Moreover, if we assume that Herodotus was indeed someone who traveled widely across the world, we would expect a reference to Persepolis, which is notably absent. This expectation holds true even if we consider that he was fond of the empire’s representation of space, where the royal residence occupies the world’s center. Thus, the question arises as to why Persepolis is not mentioned in the Histories.

Modern scholars attribute Herodotus’ omission of Persepolis to his lack of knowledge, because he provides no detailed description of any palace in his work.^[98] Judging solely by the remnants of Classical Greek literature, one could argue that the Greeks did not learn of Persepolis until Alexander approached the Persis, or that Herodotus never traveled that far.^[99] Instead of mentioning Persepolis, 5th century authors, particularly Aeschylus and Herodotus, however, identify Susa as the capital of the Great Kings.^[100] Their view is rooted in ancient traditions rather than being based on the geographical knowledge of their time. Susa was considered to be the city of Memnon, a king from Ethiopia, known as the most distant land toward sunrise, who participated in the Trojan War.^[101] Why Susa was linked to Memnon remains unclear to modern commentators, even though this association had a considerable influence on later writers’ depictions of the city.^[102] This link may have contributed to the perception of Susa as the Persian capital located in the far East. Herodotus draws on this tradition, evidenced by his references to Susa as ‘the city of Memnon’ (Μεμνόνειον ἄστυ).^[103] Thucydides also adheres to this tradition by stating that the Persians advanced from the farthest reaches of the world to conquer Greece.^[104] It seems that Herodotus and other Classical writers adhered to a shared tradition holding that Susa is the capital of the Persian Empire.^[105] One could argue that the Greeks knew Susa as the endpoint of the royal road that connected the Western satrapies to Mesopotamia, which might have served as the primary communication line between the Greeks and the highest officials of the empire.^[106] Still, from the administrative archive at Persepolis, we learn that Darius communicated with Sardis in the West from the Iranian heartland.^[107] Administrative sources thus support the idea that the Greeks’ notion of Susa as the imperial capital may stem from tradition rather than from their actual experience with the empire. These sources raise the question of whether the Greeks of Herodotus’ time were aware of Persepolis.

A set of documentary sources from the Achaemenid world clearly indicates that Greeks, prior to the time of Herodotus, visited Persepolis. Such sources include the ‘Persepolis Fortification Tablets,’ which shed light on the imperial administration and that of the royal residence in the years around 500 BCE. Given that the majority of these texts are held in Elamite, one tablet is noticeable as it is written in Greek. It serves as evidence of the presence of a person engaged in the administrative apparatus at Persepolis. As this person had the ability to write in Greek, they most probably stemmed from the Aegean.^[108] In addition, Greek workers are referenced in this archive and the so-called ‘Persepolis Treasury Tablets’ provide evidence of a group of more than 1,000 Greeks in Persepolis, as well as another traveling from Arachosia to Persepolis.^[109] Incidentally, some of these administrative tablets are stamped with Greek coins, which suggests the presence of people from the Aegean at the royal palace.^[110] Besides documentary texts, there is monumental art that depicts various groups of people that might be identified as Greeks.^[111] Additional evidence is found in the royal inscriptions, mentioning that Greeks were also engaged in the construction of Achaemenid palaces.^[112]

Having established that Persepolis was known to the Greeks prior to the time of Herodotus, it is worthwhile to closely examine a probable source of information about the imperial imagined geography known to Herodotus. In his account of the Persian expedition to Scythia, Herodotus describes a stele that Darius ordered to be erected at the Bosporus:

After having viewed the Pontus, Darius sailed back to the bridge, whose architect was Mandrocles of Samos; and when he had viewed the Bosporus also, he set up two pillars of white marble by it, engraving on the one in Assyrian and on the other in Greek characters the names of all the nations that were in his army: all the nations subject to him. The full census of these, over and above the fleet, was seven hundred thousand men, including horsemen, and the number of ships assembled was six hundred. These pillars were afterward carried by the Byzantines into their city and there used to build the altar of Orthosian Artemis, except for one column covered with Assyrian writing that was left beside the temple of Dionysus at Byzantium.^[113]

With the erection of steles on the boundaries of the empire, Darius acts out an age-old Near Eastern script, serving to highlight imperial might and power.^[114] Although Herodotus does not indicate whether he personally read the text of the stele, his description leaves no doubt that it included an imperial narrative, a ‘list of lands.’ Of these lists, he had a good knowledge, as evidenced by his ‘nomoi list’ and his description of Xerxes’ army. Those adhere to the principles of Achaemenid imperial imagined geography, enhanced by Greek ethnographical and geographical thinking.^[115]

What warrants closer examination is Herodotus’ clear assertion that there was a stele in Greek alongside a version written in an ancient Near Eastern language, which the Greeks commonly referred to as Assyría Grámmata.^[116] Having a Greek version next to one probably written in Old Persian is indication that Darius’ Bosporus stele was specifically crafted for a Greek audience. This assumption is not arbitrary. It is important to emphasize that all the Akkadian and Elamite texts counted among the Achaemenid royal inscriptions are partly cultural translations of the Old Persian master copies and partly independent texts in their own right, rather than verbatim translations.^[117] Even more importantly, Johannes Haubold posits that the Achaemenids created imperial narratives for targeted audiences by aligning with their worldview to validate Achaemenid rule.^[118] In this sense, instead of the Persians and Persepolis, Western Asia Minor might have been depicted as the world’s center, simply to adhere to the common view of the Greeks. What initially appears to be paradoxical is not, however, an isolated case.

An excellent example of imperial imagined geography adapted to the expectations of a specific audience is the so-called ‘Cyrus Cylinder.’ This cylinder is a propaganda text that celebrates Cyrus II as the conqueror of Babylon, created to legitimize Persian rule by portraying him as a Babylonian king.^[119] Remarkably, the text leaves no room for doubt that Babylon is the center of the world, as it is said that all the kings of the world brought their tribute to Babylon, where they prostrated themselves in front of Cyrus.^[120] The text borrows heavily from Assyrian royal inscriptions, where the trope of prostration in front of the king and bringing him tribute is utilized to present the royal residence as the center of the world.^[121] Undoubtedly, the conquest of Babylon by the Persians triggered the factual loss of the city’s status as the center of the world, as it was just one of many cities in Cyrus’ empire that had its center in Pasargadae.^[122] The idea of Babylon representing the world’s center is an ancient concept that is a significant element of the Babylonian worldview.^[123] However, even though the Cyrus Cylinder mentions that Cyrus is the king of Anshan, clearly marking him as a foreigner, centrality is solely aligned with Babylon. Apparently, the Babylonian scribes responsible for composing the text aimed to present Cyrus as their legitimate king while still adhering to their city’s role as the world’s center.

By shifting focus back to Herodotus, it is striking that although he leaves open the location of the world’s center, he subtly references Ionia’s central and favorable location.^[124] From Herodotus’ account of the Ionians’ plans to resist Cyrus, we learn that they considered Ionia a point of orientation for the question of centrality, as seen in the case of the Panionion, the common sanctuary and assembly place of the Ionians.^[125] Additionally, the advice of Thales of Miletus to the Ionians, which also belongs to this context, is concerned with centrality as well.^[126] Thus, it seems that the Ionians believed Ionia to be the center of the world, and the empire responded to this idea. Also to be considered in this context is the fact that the Greeks among all other inhabitants of the Aegean Sea were regarded as Yaunā in the eyes of the empire, and that the Greeks were aware of this notion.^[127] Most likely the imperial scribes translated the ‘list of lands’ in a Greek version displayed at one of the Bosporus steles as an imperial narrative in a way that accommodated their Greek subjects. Similarly, their Babylonian colleagues did so in the case of the Cyrus Cylinder. In this way, the Achaemenids offered their Greek subjects a shared sense of geography and belonging, enabling them to imaginatively position themselves within an established space.

To conclude, the Achaemenids created a unique concept of their imperial space, articulated through imaginary geographies in their royal inscriptions. Since these geographies were part of the dissemination of ideologically charged messages of the empire, it is likely that they reached the Greek world, among other peoples within the empire’s reach. Adapted to the expectations of targeted audiences, these messages had an impact on their worldviews, providing them with an imaginary space in which they could position themselves. This positioning within a world largely encompassed by an empire is evident in Herodotus’ Histories, where the imperial imagined geography serves as one conceptual framework for his description of the inhabited world. Herodotus does not, however, simply describe the world based on imperial geographies, but rather he employs various cultural viewpoints to subvert the empire’s paradigm of universalism, thereby adding complexity to his narrative.