In WORK-IT, your focus shifts to analysing the Persepolis archives and the status of workers under the Achaemenid Empire. How does your linguistic expertise help you approach these sources in a unique way?
Yes, my work on the Elamite dictionary directly connects with how I approach the Persepolis texts. In both cases, I focus on the root of the word, aiming to understand the grammar and sentence structure myself, rather than simply relying on previous interpretations. This approach allows me to dive deeper into the meaning of each word and ensure that I'm interpreting the texts accurately. My linguistic background is especially helpful when working with the Persepolis archives. Even though I’m still familiarizing myself with some administrative expressions, I can quickly recognize grammatical patterns, which helps me interpret the meaning of key words. I can then verify these meanings with the glossaries and context.
Another important factor is how we interpret the signs. Many scholars tend to repeat previous readings without reconsidering their accuracy. A single sign can have multiple meanings, and names in particular can be tricky. Many were written phonetically in Elamite but were adapted from Old Persian or other languages. That means that the written form wasn’t reflecting the actual pronunciation. Tavernier’s work, which explores how names were written across languages, helps us get closer to the actual pronunciation, providing a more nuanced understanding of the texts.
Overall, my linguistic approach enables me to go beyond simply reading the words and focus on understanding why they were written that way. This deeper level of analysis reveals more about the administration, the workers, and the broader systems behind these texts.
What kind of insights to labor structures do the Persepolis archives reveal about the Achaemenid Empire?
This is the topic of my PhD. The archives reveal an administrative system focused on ensuring workers were fed, not on recording their tasks. Around this, we find data like names, job titles, and classifications. Some individuals are named with titles, others just as basic workers — kur-taš in Elamite, translated once simply as “men” in Aramaic. This leads to important questions: Did job titles correlate with better rations? Can we identify labor hierarchies through food distribution? Who fared better in this system?
There’s a lot of focus on the kur-taš. One scholar calculated their annual rations using FAO standards and concluded they were likely underfed, possibly enslaved. But the evidence isn’t clear-cut. Some tablets mention seeds — if those were partially processed or meant for eating, their intake could have been higher. Skilled workers like goldsmiths and blacksmiths received rations that perfectly matched nutritional needs. That contrast suggests different labor values and support. My research asks: Were basic workers systematically underfed, or are we misreading the data? Were they enslaved or poorly paid laborers? The archives offer a structured view of labor, but the human reality has to be pieced together.
Given your expertise in both language and archaeology, do you see evidence that local communities resisted or negotiated their roles within the imperial labor system?
That’s a really interesting question — and yes, there are signs of that negotiation. Dr. Henkelman has written about the relationship between the state and pastoralist communities, and you can also see it in how different groups are recorded in the texts. For example, some workers are referred to by their ethnonym — Ionians from western Anatolia, Bactrians from what is now Tajikistan, Assyrians, even people from India. They might have lived and worked together in mixed or separate groups, and this creates something like local communities within the empire. There’s a mutual adaptation — the Persian Empire was adapting to them just as they were adapting to the empire.
We can even see hints of resistance or negotiation. In the archives; we have a range of documents — some track specific activities, some are more like yearly journals detailing the distribution of rations for different activities, from rations to sacrifices, like an ancient Excel spreadsheet. Others are letters, and these are particularly fascinating. One of my favorites is a letter where a man — we don’t really know who he is, maybe not very high-ranking — writes to his superior to complain. There was supposed to be a sacrifice using the king’s sheep, but the sheep didn’t arrive in time, so a subordinate had to use his own property. He’s writing to say he hopes this person can be reimbursed. It shows how the people involved weren’t just passive recipients of orders. They were trying to navigate their place within the system.
Have there been any unexpected discoveries or findings in your research so far?
It might still be a bit early to talk about final results, but one thing that’s becoming clear in my research is that some of the earlier assumptions about the kur-taš workers may not be as solid as we thought. For example, there's an ongoing debate: were the kur-taš slaves, or were they simply low-status workers with limited rights? Some scholars argue they were underfed and likely enslaved, while others say they weren’t, and that the administrative texts only show one part of their lives. According to this view, the workers might have had their own households, private plots, or other forms of remuneration beyond just food rations such as clothing or tools.
But from what I’ve seen so far, both perspectives seem to be missing something. Take the issue of the seeds: some texts mention that workers were given seeds — but what does that actually mean? Were they meant for eating, planting, or something else entirely? If workers were cultivating the land, did they do so for themselves or for the administration? So, one of the unexpected findings has been this realization that a lot of earlier conclusions rest on shaky ground. There’s still a lot we don’t know, and these uncertainties open new questions that might help us rethink how labor was actually structured and experienced in the Achaemenid Empire.
Stay tuned for our next post, where we shift from the archives of Persepolis to the complexities of ancient economies. We’ll meet Dr. Jeremy Land, exploring informal taxation, smuggling, and how the hidden layers of economic life connect past and present.