Since the publication of Histoire de l’empire perse,[1] Pierre Briant has been one of the most recognisable scholars in the field of Achaemenid studies. His new monograph, to borrow the expression used in the title, follows in the footsteps of its illustrious predecessor. In 1151 pages, densely filled with interesting and diverse information ranging from the Italian excavations in Sistan in the 1960s to the political intrigues inside the National Museum of Iran at the dawn of the 21st century, the author succeeds in presenting the reader with a detailed overview of the historiography of the Achaemenid Empire from the 1930s to the date of the book’s writing.
In the introduction, the author offers a brief summary of Achaemenid historiography in the previous centuries and explains his methodology, objectives, and the book’s structure: Based on meticulous bibliographical research, but also on a questionnaire sent to more than 135 scholars of various ages and nationalities concerning their academic career and interests, as well as their view of the discipline’s prospects (p. 35–36), Briant aims to present the progress of Achaemenid historiography in the course of the last 100 years, while also highlighting the innovations that marked its journey (p. 27). Indeed, the book is not a simple bibliographical catalogue or a rigid enumeration of scholars. On the contrary, the author provides the necessary context, details the various academic debates (without refraining from expressing his personal opinion) and explains how each article or monograph, with its strengths and weaknesses, contributed to, influenced or even conflicted with the prevalent historiographical tendencies in the field.
Divided into six parts and twenty-two chapters, according to a principally chronological and secondarily thematic orientation, the book begins with the excavations of the Oriental Institute of Chicago (since 2023 renamed as the Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures, West Asia & North Africa) in Persepolis and the subsequent discovery of the tablet archives, which, as often repeated by the author, constitute one of the cornerstones of Achaemenid studies. The first chapter concludes with the posthumous publication of Albert Olmstead’s History of the Persian Empire[2] and its academic reception. The second chapter delves into the archaeological excavations in Iran until the Iranian Revolution of 1979, underlining their multiethnic composition (Swedish, Italian, Japanese, Iranian etc.). Chapters 3 and 4 concern respectively the studies of the textual (tablets and inscriptions) and iconographic (seals) sources of Persepolis, as well as their interpretation by the historians, especially in regard to the art, religion and kingship of the Achaemenids.
The second part, comprising five chapters, describes the archaeological excavations which took place in the territories controlled by the Achaemenids (besides Iran itself, addressed in chapter 2) in the aftermath of World War II and until the early 1980s. This section follows a westward direction, starting from the Soviet Republics of Central Asia and the divisive question of the irrigation system in Achaemenid Afghanistan (chapter 5) and moving towards Iraq (chapter 6), where the focus is on the gradual examination, publication and interpretation of the enormous cuneiform corpus of Achaemenid Babylonia (especially the Murašû archive). Chapter 7 shifts its attention to the Levant, with special attention paid to Phoenicia and Judaea, while chapter 8 examines the archaeological and multilingual sources (hieroglyphic, Demotic and Aramaic) for Achaemenid Egypt. Chapter 9 (one of the book’s longest) presents a very detailed overview of the archaeological and epigraphic research in Achaemenid Anatolia[3], demonstrating the author’s familiarity with the subject.
The next part, consisting of three chapters, concerns the historiographical tendencies of the same period, but from a mostly prosopographical perspective, focusing on more global approaches to Persian history, society and culture. Starting from university textbooks and the perspectives of leading scholars of antiquity, in general (Michael Rostovtzeff, Arnaldo Momigliano, Louis Robert etc.), the book shifts its attention towards the classicists that developed a particular interest in Persian history, from David Lewis and Simon Hornblower to Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Pierre Briant himself. The final chapter provides a critical analysis of the monographs and edited volumes about Persian history that have been published during the period in question.[4]
The fourth part signals a chronological shift forward towards the transitional period of 1980–2000, which marked a new phase in Achaemenid studies. Chapter 13 is dedicated to the Achaemenid History Workshops, assembling researchers from different scientific fields (Classics, Assyriology, Egyptology, Aramaic studies etc.) and countries, but brought together through their common interest in the Achaemenid Empire. The author underlines the contribution of these Workshops, but in a nuanced manner: Despite their importance, the traces of the progress of the Achaemenid studies can be witnessed before (as the previous chapters indicated) and in parallel with these international conferences. Chapter 14 delves into the studies concerning the tablets and seals of Persepolis, while the two subsequent chapters imitate the geographical structure of the second part. Chapter 15 addresses the studies of the cuneiform sources of Achaemenid Babylonia, as well as the research about Persian rule in the Levant, regarding especially the project Transeuphratène led by Josette Elayi. Chapter 16 deals with Egypt and Anatolia, as well as with the archaeological excavations in the Caucasus (Armenia and Georgia), following the dissolution of the USSR. This section culminates with chapter 17, which functions as the conclusion of the previous chapters and includes a summary of Briant’s Histoire de l’empire perse, which still serves as the recommended introductory monograph for anyone interested in Persian history.
The fifth part examines the progress of Achaemenid studies from 1999 to 2023. Chapter 18 provides a general overview of various scientific projects of mainly collaborative nature, such as international conferences and edited volumes, but also PhD theses and monographs. This chapter is equipped with a very useful chart enumerating the various conferences held, including their most important details (location and dates, names of the organisers, publication of their results etc.). Special attention is paid to the digitalisation of the Achaemenid studies, with the launching of the online review ARTA and the site Achemenet, which aims to provide researchers with direct and free access to a wide variety of sources for the Achaemenid history, be it archaeological, iconographic or textual. Chapter 19 focuses on two specific topics: The impact of Persian rule on Babylonia, including the hotly debated question of Xerxes’ policy in the region (sectarian, conciliatory or pragmatic?), and the flourishing studies of the Aramaic sources of the empire, such as the Idumean ostraca, the so-called Arshama correspondence in Egypt and the Aramaic texts from Afghanistan about the satrapal administration of Bactria, which had just been published. Chapter 20 concerns the results of the archaeological excavations that have taken place during the period in question, including in Iran, where access had been restricted in the aftermath of the revolution and because of the invasion launched by Baathist Iraq. Chapter 21 returns to the beginning of this long historiographical journey: Persepolis and its enormous archives. Briant presents the various studies of the archives, as well as the scholars undertaking them.
The sixth and final part consists of a single chapter, which serves as the book’s conclusion. The author recapitulates the progress and achievements of the Achaemenid studies since the first excavations in Persepolis and offers certain suggestions for the future paths to follow. The book ends with a bibliography, an alphabetical index of all the authors mentioned and a very useful appendix listing the doctoral theses defended between 1932 and 2024 and concerning, directly or indirectly, the history of the Persian Empire. For those that have been published, the date of publication is also added, including that of a doctoral dissertation defended in 2021 and published in 2025.[5]
To conclude, Pierre Briant clearly succeeds in authoring a very detailed, extremely dense and always interesting overview of Achaemenid historiography during the last 100 years. Far from being a rigid catalogue of studies and researchers, Sur les traces de l’empire des Grands Rois masterfully illustrates the progress of Achaemenid studies since Ernst Herzfeld’s times, describing the obstacles, dilemmas and milestones experienced by the various researchers, as well as their personal motivations (at least for the younger generations that were available to answer the author’s questionnaire). Of course, as the author himself recognises (p. 27), the book cannot be truly exhaustive, but the multilingual bibliography (French, English, German, Italian, Dutch, Russian, Iranian etc.) reveals the author’s very extended scope, with only a handful of omissions observed.[6] The book is also well structured, according to a chronological, thematic and geographical orientation, which allows the reader to efficiently navigate through the hundreds of pages. Indeed, repetitions, albeit inevitable,[7] are rare and never distracting.
Moreover, despite the book’s impressive size, errors are also hardly noticeable and, apart from the single exception I managed to detect,[8] always concern insignificant misprints (mostly about the titles of books and articles cited or the authors’ names) that in no way render the text less comprehensible.[9] Indeed, the quality of the publication (hardcover) is very satisfying, per the usual standards of the publishing house (Belles Lettres), which also justifies the book’s rather high price. My only complaint is that the pages are too thin. An understandable decision, given their great number, but their semi-transparency sometimes renders them difficult to read, especially the maps. Overall, Pierre Briant’s Sur les traces de l’empire des Grands Rois is definitely recommended as an extremely detailed and informative book that will become an essential reading for anyone interested in Achaemenid history and historiography. I have myself already gained from it by discovering a few articles and doctoral theses about the Achaemenids that had until then escaped my attention.
Works cited
Almagor, E., 2018, Plutarch and the ‘Persica’, Edinburgh.
Binder, C., 2008, Plutarchs Vita des Artaxerxes: Ein historischer Kommentar, Berlin.
Briant, P., 1996, Histoire de l’empire perse: de Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris.
Cook, J., 1983, The Persian Empire, New York.
Dandamaev, M., 1989, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, Leiden.
Gershevitch, I. (ed.), 1985, The Cambridge History of Iran II: The Median and Achaemenian Periods, Cambridge
King, R., 2025, The House of the Satrap: The Making of the Ancient Persian Empire, Oakland.
Lorenz, J., 2008, Nebukadnezar III/IV: Die politishen Wirren nach dem Tod des Kambyses im Spiegel der Keilschrifttexte, Dresden.
Madreiter, I., 2012, Stereotypisierung — Idealisierung — Indifferenz: Formen der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Achaimeniden-Reich in der griechischen Persika-Literatur, Wiesbaden.
Olmstead, A., 1948, History of the Persian Empire, Chicago.
Stylianou, P., 1998, A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus, Book 15, Oxford.
Notes
[1] Briant 1996.
[2] Olmstead 1948.
[3] By Anatolia I am referring to the peninsula in its entirety, although the author appears to distinguish Anatolia from Asia Minor (see the chapter’s title, for example).
[4] Such as Cook 1983, Gershevitch 1985 and Dandamaev 1989.
[5] King 2025.
[6] See, for example, Lorenz 2008. Recent studies of classical authors writing about ancient Persia are very briefly mentioned or sometimes ignored, like Stylianou 1998, Binder 2008, Madreiter 2012 and Almagor 2018. Finally, some Soviet scholars that have led excavations in Central Asia are absent (e.g. Edvard Rtveladze and Igor Piankov), but their works are indeed extremely difficult to access in France.
[7] Such as the description of Margaret Root’s early career (p. 183; 189–190), where there is also a minor contradiction concerning her date of birth (1947 or 1949?). Also, on p. 197, the defence and publication dates of Muhammad Dandamaev’s doctoral thesis appear twice, but they also appear to be inconsistent.
[8] In p. 363, it is indicated that Diodorus mentions the involvement of an “Arab king” in an anti-Persian revolt, side by side with an Egyptian pharaoh during the 4th century BC. Two different passages are cited in support of this claim, but the first is about a supposed revolt in the 5th century BC (Diod. 13.46.6; the actual reference given in the book is slightly inaccurate) and the second concerns the revolt of Evagoras in Cyprus (the Egyptians were also implicated in the rebellion, but they were not the instigators of the uprising nor were they associated with the Arabs).
[9] For instance, “Herzeld” instead of Herzfeld (p. 55), “lequel” and “chez” written twice (p. 386, 683), “Hermopoulis” instead of Hermopolis (p. 897), “S.S.S. Sajjadi” instead of S.M.S. Sajjadi (p. 944), “Aghan” instead of Afghan (p. 946), “Mohammakhani” instead of Mohammadkhani (p. 952) and “perio” instead of period (p. 1116). The rest of the typos I have been able to detect are equally inconsequential.