Kings, Countries, Peoples: Selected Studies on the Achaemenid Empire.

• Author: Colburn, Henry P.
• Position: Book review

Kings, Countries, Peoples: Selected Studies on the Achaemenid Empire. By PIERRE BRIANT, translated by AMELIE KUHRT. Oriens et Occidens, vol. 26. Stuttgart: FRANZ STEINER VERLAG, 2017. Pp. xxv + 633. [euro]99.

"Magisterial" is an adjective one often finds applied to the work of Pierre Briant, especially to his From Cyrus to Alexander (2002), but it is equally applicable to the book under review, a collection of his French papers rendered elegantly in English by Amelie Kuhrt (herself a magisterial scholar of Achaemenid history). The papers span the years 1979 to 2008, with most dating to the 1990s and 2000s. In fact, the two papers from the 1970s (chaps. 10 and 20) were already included in Briant's (1982) first volume of collected papers. Chapter 18, a commentary on and analysis of the Aramaic customs from Egypt, is coauthored with Raymond Descat. The papers have not been changed, save for providing references to English editions of books where available (including, notably, Briant 2002) and the very welcome insertion of cross-references. The exceptions are chapter 14, which is abridged, and chapter 28, which condenses two longer papers.

A lengthy preface follows a full bibliography of Briant's work (which begins with his 1964 MA thesis). This preface contains some biographical details, such as the happenstance that led to Briant's initial involvement in the Achaemenid History Workshops (p. 3 n. 7). Primarily, however, it discusses the reception of the papers in the collection, and provides references to recent bibliography and overviews of relevant developments and new discoveries. In this respect it serves a similar purpose to his "Bulletins d'histoire achemenide" (Briant 1997; 2001). It also includes remarks on how Briant's own thinking has changed. For example, in discussing chapter 5, he notes that:

I have to admit (although I do not reject) that the concept of the of 'ethno-classe dominante', which has entered the vocabulary of Achaemenid history specialists, requires some clarification, in view of numerous studies published in the last thirty years on the concept of ethnicity and the realities of intercultural contacts. (p. 5) For the most part, however, he stands by his findings. This is especially evident in his discussion (pp. 26-29; see also pp. 600-601 n. 37) of the reaction to his 1979 remark that Alexander "could be regarded as the 'last of the Achaemenids.'" After making some observations on how and why this remark has been...