Tlie vast territorial extent of the Achaemenid Empire is often assumed to have impeded connectivity and communication within the empire. This paper challenges the validity of this assumption. Two factors in particular favor this conclusion-the presence of an extensive road network and the high communication speed in the empire, made possible by the pirradazish service. Together, they demonstrate the enormous potential for movement and interaction throughout the empire.

This chapter introduces two major aspects of the study of Achaemenid Persian art, namely its definition, and the analysis of quotations of other artistic traditions. Achaemenid art is best defined as consisting of two categories of material. One is the art of the empire, that is, art produced in furtherance of imperial goals. The other category consists of art in the empire, or the artistic production of regions subject to Achaemenid rule. Though this art often took an outward form typical of its local context it was always produced in dialogue with the art of the empire. In both of these categories visual quotations of other, often earlier, artistic traditions figured prominently. These quotations were utilized by individuals as a means of constructing and negotiating visually their positions in the social order of the empire, and by parsing these quotations it becomes possible to reconstruct some of the social conditions in which they were selected. This concept is illustrated in three case studies that demonstrate the breadth of Achaemenid art and its value as a historical source for the study of the empire.

The final chapter considers briefly how Ptolemaic ideology and propaganda have refashioned the memory of Achaemenid rule into something explicitly negative, thus coloring all subsequent accounts of the period. It then discusses and recapitulates how studying experience provides a way around these Greek-influenced accounts of the Persians, and provide a clearer picture of the complexity of ancient imperialism.

The introductory chapter provides some historical context for the study of Achaemenid Egypt. This period in Egyptian history is an orphan of sorts, falling between the earlier periods, of great interest to Egyptologists, and the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, of great interest to classicists. Along with this lack of interest, there is also a more insidious tendency to emphasize the scarcity of evidence for this period, something Margaret Root has called the ‘politics of meagerness.’ This tendency is tied to nineteenth century orientalist views of the Persians as savage despots, a view also held by the ancient Greeks. To avoid these issues, this book focuses on the experience of Achaemenid rule. This involves two main approaches: 1.) the examination of continuities and changes in the structures of Egyptian society, and 2.) a study of identity through decisions made about material by individuals and communities.

Studies of Egyptian Late Period statuary often assume that the extant corpus is a representative sample of the artistic output of the Twenty-Sixth to Thirty-First Dynasties (c. 664-332 BCE). This assumption ignores the various human processes that affect the survival of statues after their initial dedication. In particular, the Roman practice of collecting Egyptian naophorous statues for reuse in cult spaces of Egyptian gods in Italy has skewed the chronological distribution of the corpus in favour of statues of Twenty-Sixth Dynasty date. This in turn informs perceptions of the Twenty-Seventh Dynasty, the period of Achaemenid rule in Egypt, as being a time of artistic poverty. This paper examines the biographies of Egyptian statues in order to better distinguish between the products of ancient agency and modern scholarly constructs.