by Thomas Faassen
From November 4th until December 1 st I stayed and studied at the Dutch Institute in Turkey (NIT) as a fellow. My aim in Istanbul was twofold: I wished to complete writing my PhD proposal for the upcoming ‘NWO PhD’s in the Humanities 2025’ round and to finish a journal article to be published in the Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie (TMA) in the summer of 2025. The resources, fellow researchers and academic environment at the NIT have helped me tremendously in conducting my research and writing both the PhD proposal and the journal article.
My research focusses on the ancient East. The aim is to break down the ‘border’ that previous scholarship has placed between the Persian and Greek cultures. For my PhD I wish to examine how the Achaemenid, Argead and Seleucid dynasties – the three dynasties that ruled over the Persian societies from c. 559 – 63 BCE – sought to legitimize their reigns in order to provide structure to their society. The focus of this doctoral examination will be on the dynasty as a whole entity – rather than merely on the monarchs or courts – since studies on later Premodern dynasties have illustrated the effectiveness of investigating the social and political functioning of premodern societies through their dynasties. In my PhD I aim to bring
this effective field of study to the ancient world as well.
Max Weber’s theory on the legitimacy of rule will be the project’s starting point, since ancient dynasties relied on ‘charismatic legitimacy’. By focusing on how all members of the dynasties tried to translate (ideological) power into practice, this project’s innovative approach will give new insights into the internal organization and cohesion of ancient dynasties and the continuation of agency and behaviour within the three succeeding dynasties that ruled Persian societies. The three most important ideological components of ancient kingship were: their ancestry, military accomplishments, and the dynasty’s religious piety and/or divinity. Therefore, the agency of royal family members in these areas will be examined, because these elements were most crucial in creating legitimacy for the dynasty’s rule and thus, eventually, for creating structure in society.
Secondly, the article I wrote for TMA aims to illustrate the fruitfulness of my PhD proposal’s approach and research subject. In this article, I argued that various epigraphical and iconographical sources from within the Persian empire illustrate that Darius I and Xerxes I were preparing Xerxes’ succession together, in order to make the transfer of power as smooth as possible. For too long, scholars assumed based on Herodotus’ description of the event that Xerxes was appointed as crown prince merely a few months before Darius I’s death. The epigraphical and iconographical records from Persepolis and Bisitun indicate, however, that Darius and his son were actively trying to convince the people that Xerxes possessed the same virtues, qualities and charisma as his father; the prince’s image literary mirrored Darius’ in the royal palaces. Importantly, Xerxes contributed as much as Darius, illustrating his agency in this inheritance of Darius’ charisma. This is merely one case-study and I wish to conduct many more in my PhD research to illustrate how the dynasty as a whole entity sought to safeguard its continuation and continue the charisma of their founder.
In short, the NINO Outgoing Mobility Grant allowed me to travel to and from the NIT in Istanbul to write my PhD proposal and an academic journal article. I met many new scholars and, in general, this experience opened new doors for my development as a researcher of the ancient (Near) East.