I found two maps that show territorial composition of Achaemenid Empire around 500 BC: The First The Second

While there are other significant differences between them (because of historical sources scarcity), the most significant difference is that they have regions India (Hinduš) and Sattagydia (Thataguš) switched places. Which arrangement corresponds to an academic consensus?

  • 3
    Where did you find them, and where else have you researched this? – LаngLаngС Aug 22 '19 at 8:19
  • 2
    Very difficult to discuss uncited sources. Spencer asserts that the maps cite sources internally - I'd have to grab a 32x zoom magnifier to verify that. – MCW Aug 22 '19 at 8:53
  • @MarkCWallace The first map, at least, cites its own sources. – Spencer May 13 '20 at 16:30
  • Using other people's intellectual property without credit is not appropriate for this forum. While the map may mention sources, there is insufficient information to tell if the sources are current, or old, if they are politically biased or scholarly, etc. – MCW May 13 '20 at 16:35
  • 1
    With more details on the sources of these maps we might be able to help determine which is more reliable, but... "Much of the work that is attempted in the field of early Iranian historical geography is by necessity hypothetical, since there are no explicit descriptions of the spatial nature of political control in Iran before the accounts of Greek writers of the 5th century B.C. and later (source)." – Brian Z May 13 '20 at 19:06

According to Herodotus, the Hidush was the highest tax district in the Achaemenid empire and so it definitely has to corespond with the fertile region of the Punjab. Herodotus mentions that the Thatagush belonged to the same tax district as the Dardae (Dardic people of Chitral), Gadara (Gandhara) and Aparytae (Afridi) and if the Aparytae are the modern Pashtun Afridi, we know that their stronghold is in Bajawar agency, somewhere between Chitral and Peshawar. The other thing worth mentioning is that in all the Persian artifacts depicting the eastern territories, Thatagush is alway mentioned between Harahvatish and Gadara and Hidush is at the very end, so it might indicate an intermediate position between the two. One estimate puts it at Bannu, and it would make the most sense according to Herodotus' description, but then it means that the Achaemenids had no territories south of the Punjab, in the plains if Sindh or even the plains areas of Balochistan such as Sibi, and this doesn't make sense either from a logistical standpoint. One would assume that the empire eould have followed the Indus all the way down to the sea all the way to the Indus and the only way that would make sense is if Thatagush was in the Northwestern plains of Sindh and Balochistan in areas like Sibi and Balochistan. It really is a mystery.

[Map with the legend "Tribute in the Achaemenid Empire"]()!

  • 2
    Can you add the specific quotations by Herodotus? – gktscrk May 13 '20 at 9:46
  • Hi. Please add some paragraph breaks. – Spencer May 13 '20 at 16:31
  • 1
    Please also provide the source of the map and the interpretations of Herotudus (e.g. whose "estimate puts it at Bannu", etc.). – Brian Z May 13 '20 at 18:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.