It was through the complex series of symbolic ritualised acts that majesty was made (see Geertz 1983: 124). In any monarchic system, ceremony naturally revolves around the figure of the ruler; in fact, ceremonies have always been the favourite way for a regime (in our case the Achaemenid dynasty) to exhibit its political clout and, when properly employed, ceremony nearly always produces the desired results, by appealing to people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs. Alongside promoting the regime’s power and stability, ceremony served to reveal its ideological basis and world-view to its targeted population. Therefore the study of Achaemenid ceremony (as far as can be achieved, given the limitation of the sources) offers clues as to the dynasty’s self-definition.
If we examine certain aspects of Persian court ceremonials then it becomes apparent that intended messages lie encoded in various components of the rituals. The architectural venue for ceremonies (such as the Apadana or ‘throne hall’) and the route of imperial processions (delineated by rich carpets so that the king never stepped on the bare floor), for example, can offer the scholar clues about the meaning of ceremonies, about the life and ideology of the dynasty. Similarly, the study of objects used in ceremonies can be a rich field of exploration: thrones, footstools, parasols, fly-whisks, sceptres, crowns, and robes had symbolic implications, although many of the subtleties of these objects’ symbolic importance still require scholarly exploration. Moreover, the identity of courtiers participating in ceremony, reflected in their attire - from headgear to garments - as well as their position and stance throughout the ceremony, imparts a mass of information about the self-perception of the ruling elite. However, the codes still need to be unlocked.
Since ceremonies operated around the figure of the Great King, he was always distinguished from the other participants in the ceremony by his dress, posture, or his isolated or somehow unique position; indeed, without such distinctions it would (in theory) have been impossible to differentiate the monarch from some of his high-ranking courtiers. Therefore, carrying out the ceremonial roles of his office meant that the ruler cloaked his mortal body within the sacred garments of kingship and came to be regarded by his inner circle of courtiers and by his subjects at large as embodying within himself the sanctity of his office. This was how Achaemenid majesty was created.
In addition, Achaemenid court ceremonies maintained and reinforced hierarchy within the ruling elite and delineated power relations between courtiers, the royal family, and the monarch himself. After all, imperial majesty required the strict observation of hierarchy at all times and it is highly likely that the royal chiliarch acted as a sort of ‘master of protocol’ and was responsible for arranging and setting the hierarchical order of all ceremonies.
The royal residences of the Empire witnessed a constant traffic of diplomatic emissaries: Persian satraps and officials as well as foreign ambassadors and envoys could potentially obtain an audience with the Great King provided that they brought the required tribute or gifts. The staircases of Persepolis’ Apadana show diplomatic gift-giving on an imperial scale (see below for a discussion), which alerts us to the idea that court ceremony was not just an act staged for ‘home spectators’ but that its audience included ‘outsiders’. Perhaps the actors in the drama of ceremony were more careful to play their parts well and to avoid faux pas when foreigners appeared at court, because receptions for envoys served both to signal the smooth running of the realm and to enhance the prestige of the territories of the Empire.
It is highly likely that the reception ceremonies of individual states reflected current twists and turns in Achaemenid foreign policy and that an envoy’s royal audience was shaped by politics. A country which expressed its loyalty to the crown and paid its taxes on time might have enjoyed the special attention, indulgence, and favour of the king, while an envoy arriving from a troublesome country at a time of political tension might have experienced nothing but disfavour and even humiliation should the king have wished to degrade him as an example to other bothersome parts of the Empire. Territories outside the borders of the Empire experienced similar situations, and stories of Greek ambassadors at the Persian court testify to the barometer-like relationship between the court and the various poleis of Greece (Miller 1997: 109-14).
World History
