<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Persian Female Weavers in the Persepolis Economy

Yazdan Safaee

► To cite this version:

Yazdan Safaee. Persian Female Weavers in the Persepolis Economy. Nathalie Kallas. Bridging the Gap: Disciplines, Times, and Spaces in Dialogue, vol. 2, pp.247-259, 2025. hal-05004267

HAL Id: hal-05004267

https://hal.science/hal-05004267v1

Submitted on 25 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Open licence - etalab
Bridging the Gap:
Disciplines, Times, and Spaces in
Dialogue

Volume 2

Sessions 3, 7 and 8 from the Conference
Broadening Horizons 6 Held at the Freie
Universität Berlin, 24–28 June 2019

Edited by
Nathalie Kallas

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

BROADENING HORIZONS 6

Access Archaeology

Archaeopress Access Archaeology
# About Access Archaeology

*Access Archaeology* offers a different publishing model for specialist academic material that might traditionally prove commercially unviable, perhaps due to its sheer extent or volume of colour content, or simply due to its relatively niche field of interest. This could apply, for example, to a PhD dissertation or a catalogue of archaeological data.

All *Access Archaeology* publications are available as a free-to-download pdf eBook and in print format. The free pdf download model supports dissemination in areas of the world where budgets are more severely limited, and also allows individual academics from all over the world the opportunity to access the material privately, rather than relying solely on their university or public library. Print copies, nevertheless, remain available to individuals and institutions who need or prefer them.

The material is refereed and/or peer reviewed. Copy-editing takes place prior to submission of the work for publication and is the responsibility of the author. Academics who are able to supply print-ready material are not charged any fee to publish (including making the material available as a free-to-download pdf). In some instances the material is type-set in-house and in these cases a small charge is passed on for layout work.

Our principal effort goes into promoting the material, both the free-to-download pdf and print edition, where *Access Archaeology* books get the same level of attention as all of our publications which are marketed through e-alerts, print catalogues, displays at academic conferences, and are supported by professional distribution worldwide.

The free pdf download allows for greater dissemination of academic work than traditional print models could ever hope to support. It is common for a free-to-download pdf to be downloaded hundreds or sometimes thousands of times when it first appears on our website. Print sales of such specialist material would take years to match this figure, if indeed they ever would.

This model may well evolve over time, but its ambition will always remain to publish archaeological material that would prove commercially unviable in traditional publishing models, without passing the expense on to the academic (author or reader).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
Bridging the Gap:
Disciplines, Times, and Spaces
in Dialogue

Volume 2

Sessions 3, 7 and 8 from the Conference
Broadening Horizons 6 Held at the Freie
Universität Berlin, 24–28 June 2019

Edited by
Nathalie Kallas

Access Archaeology

Archaeology
Access
Archaeology
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

ARCHAEPRESS PUBLISHING LTD

13-14 Market Square
Bicester
Oxfordshire OX26 6AD
United Kingdom
www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-80327-728-8

ISBN 978-1-80327-729-5 (e-Pdf)

© the individual authors and Archaeopress 2025

Cover: Broadening Horizons 6 conference logo, designed by Rana Zaher.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.

This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com
# Introduction

Nathalie Kallas

The second volume of the proceedings of the conference ‘Broadening Horizons 6 – Bridging the Gap: Disciplines, Times, and Space in Dialogue’ compiles papers presented in three enlightening sessions: Session 3 – Visual and Textual Forms of Communication; Session 7 – The Future of the Past. Archaeologists and Historians in Cultural Heritage Studies; and Session 8 – Produce, Consume, Repeat. History and Archaeology of Ancient Near Eastern Economies. Within this volume, the 20 papers traverse diverse topics spanning multiple periods, from the 5th millennium BCE to the Roman Empire, and encompass a wide array of geographical regions within the Near East.<fnref n="1" />

As Foucault so brilliantly illustrated in his first chapter of the *Archaeology of the Human Science*, any object stripped of its layers of meaning, of its historical context and of our gaze as observers, represents nothing more than itself.<fnref n="2" /> Through their diverse contributions to **Session 3** the authors strive to unveil these layers offering readers a glimpse into the concealed life behind textual or visual representations.

Marian Feldman’s keynote contribution serves as a foundational exploration of the premises outlined in this session, specifically delving into communication, meaning, and the concept of meaningfulness. She introduces diverse theoretical approaches employed by archaeologists and historians in deciphering messages conveyed through visual and textual forms of communication. Feldman then applies this theoretical discussion to the architectural program of the Third Dynasty of Ur and how it responded to the legacy of the preceding Akkadian rulers, unravelling its implications.

The subsequent contributions within this session embark on an illuminating journey through case studies spanning ancient Iran to Egypt. These studies showcase the many ways in which scholars examine specific aspects of textual and visual communication, seeking to decode the meanings carried within and gain insights into their inherent meaningfulness.

Certain authors have chosen to concentrate their attention on visual representations across various art forms, aiming to uncover the cultural, social, political, or religious narratives embedded within them. Delphine Poinsot investigates the animal iconography found on Sasanian bullae at the site of Qasr-I Abu Nasr, with a specific focus on the depiction of sexual determinant characteristics within the portrayed species. Her research highlights that the male body was frequently chosen for representation due to its ability to encapsulate the most representative elements of the species, irrespective of gender. Furthermore, these depictions offer insights into the observer’s experience of nature. Elisa Roßberger contributes insights into the role of mould-pressed clay miniatures portraying chariots and thrones as visual media linked to oath taking. Through a meticulous comparison of evidence from Old Babylonian

<footnote n="1">¹ This volume is dedicated to Christian W. Hess, who assisted with reviewing proofs. Though he is no longer with us, his support and encouragement will always be remembered. The editor extends heartfelt gratitude to Federico Manuelli for his invaluable efforts in reviewing the proofs and for his constructive feedback. These proceedings benefited from the contribution of Rocco Palermo during the initial stages of preparation. This publication was financed in part by the open access fund for monographs and edited volumes of Freie Universität Berlin.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Foucault 1970, 27-40.</footnote>
written records and the visual representations impressed on clay artefacts, she underscores how the latter ensured the future adherence to the conditions and consequences of binding oaths. Margaux Spruyt's comprehensive examination of a hunting scene featuring onagers from the Neo-Assyrian period goes beyond figurative representations. She reveals how every element of the composition, including spaces, frames, voids, and choice of posture, among others, collaborates to convey the intended message more effectively to the viewer.

Three more authors direct their attention to textual sources, surpassing the confines of the inscribed text itself to explore broader contextual dimensions. Marta Pallavidini's paper transcends the apparent meaning of specific texts, unravelling the significance of metaphors in diplomatic discourse. By deciphering Hittite expressions rooted in verbs of motion and those suggesting specific orientations, Pallavidini illuminates how these linguistic nuances were universally understood, establishing them as cross-cultural indicators. In Olivia Ramble's contribution, a multidisciplinary approach draws on insights from anthropologists, historians, and archaeologists across diverse regions. Ramble's exploration shifts away from a macro-scale perspective, intricately examining the cumulative nature of texts at Persepolis. Her analysis focuses on the interplay between the inscriptions themselves, their contextual relationships, and the medium through which they are conveyed, providing a nuanced understanding of their interconnected significance. Federica Pancin's work explores the intersection between religious tradition and textual sources. By scrutinising mentions of sacred trees in the 'geographical lists' of the Graeco-Roman temple tradition, Pancin reveals the materialisation of extensive knowledge encompassing both local and national traditions. She concludes that these references serve as agents in transmitting Egypt's cultural memory, highlighting the profound connection between religious practices and the preservation of heritage within textual sources.

The combination of textual and pictorial elements was frequently employed in the ancient Near East to construct compositions capable of conveying multi-layered messages and facilitating diverse interpretations by the audience. In her examination of the semantics of mathematical diagrams on Old Babylonian clay tablets, Adeline Reynaud explores the pictorial representations and their interaction with the accompanying discursive text. Her findings reveal how the close integration of visual and textual components aimed to minimise ambiguity, ensuring the conveyed messages were as unequivocal as possible. Benedetta Bellucci probes into the text-image relationship on Late Bronze Age ring seals, specifically those featuring composite creatures from Hittite and Syro-Hittite corpora. Her study sheds light on the magical and protective attributes of these creatures, emphasising their embedded meanings. Iria Souto Casto considers the interaction between iconography and text on votive stelae from Ramesside period Egypt. She examines the role of these stelae as a means of private communication between humans and the divine, serving as identity markers and expressions of personal beliefs. Additionally, Souto Casto underscores the distinction between the perspectives of the literate few who could comprehend the texts and those who viewed the stelae without understanding the written content.

The dynamic interplay between medium and visual communication comes to light in three compelling contributions. A collaborative effort by Agnese Vacca, Valentina Tumolo, Georges Mouamar, and Stephen Lumsden scrutinises the Early Bronze Age seal-impressed vessels from the Northern Levant. This joint paper systematically dissects both the characteristics of the ceramics and the iconographic repertoire, aiming to unveil the meaning behind the depictions and discern the vessels' functions. Metoda Peršin, in her contribution, endeavours to unravel the messages conveyed by potmarks incised on vessels from Early Bronze Age contexts along the Lebanese coast. By scrutinising the signs themselves, their placements, and the pairings of signs with vessels, this paper contributes to a deeper understanding of the elaborate system to which this relatively undeciphered medium of communication belonged. Maria Silvana Catania's study explores the private Tombs of the Theban Necropolis. Here, she
meticulously disentangles the complex relationship between text and scenes, rituals and recitations, monumentality, and location. Catania’s work reveals how these tombs play a vital role in preserving and transmitting personal, family, and cultural memories, showcasing the profound connection between visual representation and the perpetuation of cultural memory.

As argued by Bernbeck and Pollock, archaeological work is inherently entangled in the ‘production of heritage’, carrying in the process a myriad of paradoxical cultural, political, social and intellectual ‘underpinnings’.<fnref n="3" /> The two contributions in **Session 7** offer a direct and indirect exploration of various aspects related to the intricate relationship between archaeology and cultural heritage. These aspects include the underlying processes shaping heritage development, the reflection of political ideology and colonialism in museology, and the ensuing politics of objectification, memory, and memorialization. Both contributions underscore the pivotal role played by sound archaeological research and the formulation of timely research questions.

Lamia Sassine critically deconstructs the labelling of specific materials as Phoenician, both in research and museum contexts. Tracing this classification back to an inherited graeco-roman view of the ancient world. Her case studies shed light on the challenges associated with adhering to a so-called Phoenician identity in research. Sassine advocates for a balanced contextual approach to the study of material culture, proposing that museums hold the key for archaeologists to re-examine artefacts in a more comprehensive light.

Cinzia Pappi presents the integrated approach adopted by her research, the Archaeological Survey of Koisanjaq/Koya Project. Her work exemplifies the significant potential that arises from combining traditional archaeological fieldwork and survey methods with modern radar sensing technology and the inclusion of oral sources. Additionally, she emphasises the crucial role of engaging local stakeholders, academics, and communities in advocating for the development of conscientious measures that ensure proper and sustainable preservation of the cultural landscape. Pappi recognizes that these diverse voices are essential for shaping policies that genuinely reflect the values and needs of the communities involved in the cultural heritage preservation process.

Archaeological material, be it textual sources or material remains, has a great - and mostly unexplored - potential to contribute to our understanding of ancient state economies.<fnref n="4" /> Drawing upon a variety of archaeological findings and textual data, thoroughly examined within the broader socio-political contexts, the papers presented in **Session 8** vividly illustrate the diverse economic landscapes of the ancient Near East. The authors direct our attention towards specific facets such as craft production, specialised working groups, shops and markets, and social and trade networks. Through these lenses, the contributions collectively highlight the significance of employing a spectrum of methodologies to shed light on the intricate mechanisms that governed ancient economies.

Eivind Heldass Seland’s keynote contribution lays the foundation for the papers in this session. He provides an overview of the historiographical background of studies on ancient economies, contextualised within recent theoretical and methodological advancements. Emphasising the merits of New Institutional Economics, Seland illustrates how it facilitates the examination of trade through the lens of social networks. His case study on Roman trade networks in the east underscores the utility of various network analysis models in making sense of scenarios with limited evidence.

Takehiro Miki’s contribution brings attention to an often-overlooked facet in the analysis of craft production, namely skill. Focusing on six ceramic vessels with identical motifs from the Chalcolithic

<footnote n="3">³ Bernbeck and Pollock 2007.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Smith 2004.</footnote>
site of Tall-e Bakun A in Iran, Miki employs a skill score analysis derived from quantified pottery attributes. The results yield compelling observations, providing insights into the vibrant reality of pottery production.

In a meticulous analysis of 60 texts from the Persepolis Fortification Archive of the Achaemenid era, Yazdan Safaee reconstructs our understanding of the role and identity of a specific specialised working group: female weavers. Through a careful examination of etymology, epigraphic details, and textual content, he sheds light on the multifaceted aspects of the female weavers' presence, enriching our knowledge of their significance within the broader socio-economic context of the Achaemenid era.

Redirecting attention to the economic role of shops within an urban setting, Hassan El-Hajj explores two distinct types of shops uncovered in the Roman Colony of Berytus. Through a thorough examination of these establishments, his paper underscores the complex interplay of factors shaping the economic dynamics within the urban environment.

In the final paper in this session, and this volume, Naseem Raad embarks on an exploration of the maritime commercial networks of the Roman port of Berytus. His comprehensive approach in the study of a distinctive type of amphora employed in the wine trade unveils insights into the economic trajectory, growth, and decline of the city within the broader context of socio-political external developments.

In conclusion, the second volume of the conference proceedings weaves a rich tapestry of scholarly inquiries presented across three insightful sessions. The case studies presented in Session 3 delve into the layers of meaning embedded within the material culture of the ancient Near East, unravelling the concealed life behind textual and visual representations. Session 7 navigates the entanglement between archaeology and cultural heritage studies, underscoring the importance of sound research and timely questions, advocating for an integrated contextual approach and highlighting the merits of combining traditional fieldwork with modern technology and community engagement. The diverse perspectives presented in Session 8 offer a multitude of perspectives that vividly illustrate the diverse economic landscapes of the ancient Near East. Collectively, all these papers not only deepen our understanding of the region but also underscore the interdisciplinary nature of archaeological research, enriching our appreciation of the interconnected facets of this fascinating region.

**Bibliography**

Bernbeck, R. and S. Pollock 2007. The political economy of archaeological practice and the production of heritage in the Middle East, in L. Meskell and R.W. Preucel (eds) *A companion to social archaeology*: 335-352. Wiley Online Library.

Foucault, M. 1970. *The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences*. New York: Pantheon Books.

Smith, M.E. 2004. The Archaeology of Ancient State Economies. *Annual Review of Anthropology* 33(1): 73-102.
# Persian Female Weavers in the Persepolis Economy

Yazdan Safaee<fnref n="1" />

EPHE IVe/PSL, Paris

yazdan.safaee@gmail.com

## Abstract

One of the areas in the study of the Persepolis archives is that of dossiers on working groups. These rich sources can improve our comprehension of the economic mechanisms and administrative structures within the institutions of Persepolis. One particular group, the so-called *pašap*, has so far remained mysterious; a new unpublished discovery clarifies the nature of their work as weavers. Despite the inclusion of some male workers, *pašap* groups as a whole are often marked as female. In the present study, dozens of texts from the *pašap* dossier in the Persepolis Fortification Archive will be treated with special focus on the identification, rations, geography, and analysis of the procedure of work activities of these weavers through contextual analysis.

## Keywords

*Pašap*, Female Weavers, Female Workers, Persepolis Economy, Ration

## Introduction

The Persepolis Fortification Archive (PFA) yields valuable information on various working groups in the Achaemenid era. The archival documents, mainly written in Elamite, were found on the northeastern edge of the Persepolis terrace by Ernst Herzfeld in 1933/4.<fnref n="2" /> As the PFA is essentially a ration-centered archive, its main goal is to record the payments to workers, travelers, royal elites, etc. In the process, the archival system occasionally labels workers with geographical, ethnic or occupational designations, and occasionally connects them to royal elites and/or courtiers. One can generally assert that a study on occupational designations is more unwieldy than research on other topics, especially if an etymological problem could pose a barrier to the investigation.

The present study deals with one of these working groups, called *pašap*. Little research has been done so far on the identification of these *pašap*. The first and probably the most important treatment of the subject is Kawase's paper which argues that *pašap* were working groups of female weavers.<fnref n="3" /> Her thesis was based on 23 texts, the corpus available to her at that time. The fact that Kawase had access only to the published texts led Brosius, who herself was aware of only 34 texts, to recognize that her evidence was not enough for such a conclusion.<fnref n="4" /> Accepting Kawase's identification of *pašap* as weavers, however,

<footnote n="1">¹ I wish to express my appreciation to Wouter Henkelman for commenting on an earlier draft of this paper. My thanks also to Annalisa Azzoni for providing the reading of a single line of Aramaic epigraph on PF 0999. Needless to say, any remaining errors are mine.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² The excavator never published a full report, but it was his successor, Erich Schmidt, who provided us with a satisfactory report on the excavations at Persepolis. For reports on the excavation of these tablets, see Schmidt 1953, 40-41. Herzfeld has just briefly referred to the tablets (Herzfeld 1934, 231; 1941, 226, 271; even shorter in 1938, 11, note 1). A comprehensive review can be found in Henkelman 2008, 69-85 and Stolper 2017.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Kawase 1984 followed by Uchitel 1991, 129.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Brosius 1996, 155-156, 163-166. She had further less-weighty arguments to reject Kawase's suggestion (see for example Brosius 1996, 165).</footnote>
Briant believes that this team worked wool and made a series of cloth.<fnref n="5" /> Of importance is the observation that this particular teamwork is marked by a feminine determinative and treated as specialist workers.

Currently, as many as 60 pašap texts are available to us, all of which have been studied in the present contribution. Though in light of a discovery, Kawase’s argument for the identification of pašap as weavers has been proven correct, one should not stop at this point: the pašap dossier contains valuable information on various infrastructural levels of practical mechanisms of the Persepolis institutions, which merits further investigation.

Though I do not intend to mention every pre-Achaemenid piece of evidence of ancient female weavers to contextualize the Achaemenid evidence, it might be useful to briefly mention some earlier attestations. I believe one can claim that Achaemenid pašap workers are a continuation of an old tradition. Female weavers in Elam are already attested in three documents from the time of Gudea, which mention female weavers from a locality called Elanir. In two of these texts (MVN 6 105 and 492), the women are designated as weavers by the Sumerian term uš-bar.<fnref n="6" /> To be added to this dossier, it might be useful to mention an early second-millennium cuneiform archive from Chogha Gavaneh (ancient Palum) in Kermanshah province, western Iran, where dozens of clay tablets in Akkadian were found. In their analysis of these texts, Abdi and Beckman concluded that ‘Chogha Gavaneh seemingly sustained itself through the raising of sheep and the cultivation of grain, as well as perhaps by the production of textiles in workshops staffed primarily by women.’<fnref n="7" /> Of course, a full survey of the evidence requires a more detailed study. Yet, Persian female weavers may be seen against the background of older traditions.

## Identification of pašap as weavers

The smaller corpus of Aramaic texts within the PFA contains some important information on the Achaemenid administration. Although the importance of Elamite as the most prominent language used in the PFA has often been stressed, in this case, it is a single line of Aramaic written on the left margin of the obverse of PF 0999 that informs us about the nature of pašap as weavers.<fnref n="8" /> The Aramaic writings found in the PFA are currently under investigation by Annalisa Azzoni, who has generously given me access to her reading of the Aramaic line on PF 0999 and has provided me with her comments on it. She reads ptp 'šprt' on PF 0999. According to Azzoni, the last letter looks more like a yodh in the photographs, but an aleph makes more sense grammatically, as feminine plural emphatic. It is noteworthy that Raymond Bowman had read zšprt', which suggests the final aleph as well. Azzoni is certain about the initial aleph versus zayin in the reading suggested by Bowman. So, if the reading is correct, it would mean ‘rations (for/of) the female weavers.’<fnref n="9" /> Aramaic 'špr is a loanword from Akkadian išparu.<fnref n="10" />

<footnote n="5">⁵ Briant 1996, 443. He also refers to PF 0058 - PF 0077 in which the delivery of skins to treasuries is mentioned; he suggests that the needed wool for weavers perhaps have come from this source (Briant 1996, 454; see also Briant 1979, 154). Note that it is attested in Greek sources that Persian kings received wool, among other things, from local producers (Strabo, *Geog.*, XV.III.21; see Jones 1966). Aristotle discusses different kinds of revenue, a fifth of which comes from cattle and is called tax on animal products (*Oeconomica*, II. I. 1-5 [=1346a]; see Forster 1920). Briant refers to these attestations to stress the importance of the productions of pastoral sectors (Briant 1979, 137, with note 4). The abundance of flocks of every kind is reported in post-Achaemenid sources, in the area around Persepolis (Diod, XIX, 21. 3; see Stronk 2017, 428; Briant 1979, 144, note 44). Also, one should make mention of the Elamite mar-na (NN 2252:4) which betrays Iranian *varna-*, ‘wool; garment made of wool’ (Tavernier 2007, 445 [4.4.11.2]), though this attestation is outside of the dossier of Persian weavers.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Steinkeller 2013, 299.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Abdi and Beckman 2007, 48.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ For the general manners of use of Aramaic in the PFA and its importance, see Azzoni 2008; 2017. Hallock briefly informs us of the occurrence of a single line of the Aramaic writing on PF 0999 but yields no more details (Hallock 1969, 289).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Personal communication Annalisa Azzoni.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Akkadian išparu occurs as a loan in other languages (cf. CAD I-J 255-257 s.v. išparu). It is attested in the other (later) Aramaic dialects, but the present attestation would be the only one in imperial Aramaic, and the only feminine overall, which is of</footnote>
Taking this small but crucial piece of evidence into consideration, it becomes clear that Kawase was right in her recognition of pašap being weavers and that Brosius’ rejection of this interpretation was overly cautious. Kawase’s position was inspired by the Iranian etymology that Hinz first suggested, and EW later endorsed for paša-.<fnref n="11" /> The word is a transcription of Iranian *pas-*, ‘to bind, to tie,’ as attested in Avestan, Middle Persian, Parthian, Khotanese, etc. Hinz and Koch accordingly translate the plural pašap as ‘Schneiderinnen.’<fnref n="12" /> With the Aramaic observation, Hinz’s suggestion finds solid ground. Therefore, we can safely consider pašap as weavers.

The main focus of Kawase is on PF 0999, in which we deal with three main sub-groups of workers: *tukli* *huttip*, *kansukka* *huttip*, and *luplak* *huttip*. She argues that *tukli* is ‘undoubtedly a product of wool’ and the second and third materials have been interpreted each as ‘a kind of mantle,’ because of *the* presence of ‘(sesame) oil makers,’ *pašap* workers were engaged in weaving wools, not in sewing.<fnref n="13" /> In this particular text, *pašap* are dealing with *tukli*, *luplak*, *kansukka* and ì. The latter is the sumerogram for oil. Kawase takes this oil as sesame oil and argues that since sesame oil has been used from the Sumerian time onwards for fulling, then *pašap* must be weaving (of wool).<fnref n="14" /> A table is probably more applicable to demonstrate a clearer picture of the relation between products, rations and professions in PF 0999:

A quick look at the **Table 1** shows that those workers who make *bariš* products receive more rations compared to those who make *ramiya* products. Most probably, this is the reason why EW has interpreted *bariš* as ‘edel, Künstlerisch, superfein.’ If we take *ramiya* as ‘fine,’ which is reasonable, I think it is safe to interpret *bariš* as ‘super fine;’ but as will be described (see below), the term could be interpreted in a broader context as ‘precise.’ A link to the Iranian term ‘bārīk’ has convinced me that it should even be interpreted as ‘delicate.’

Despite the ambiguity of the nature of *luplak* and *kansukka*, the link between *tukli* and garments can be safely confirmed.<fnref n="15" /> *kán-su-ka* (PF 0999:19-20, 22) and *kán-su-uk-ka* (PF 0999:15) probably transcribe an Iranian term, **kančuka*-, which means ‘cloak, coat.’<fnref n="16" /> This, Kawase’s argument on the use of oil, Hinz’s suggested etymology of *pašap*, and most importantly, the new reading of the aforementioned Aramaic epigraph by Azzoni (see above) lead to strong support for the identification of *pašap* as weavers in the broad sense.<fnref n="17" />

<footnote>great importance (personal communication Annalisa Azzoni). See also Kaufman 1974, 59 (with note 136 for references) for the attestations of the Akkadian term in other (later) Aramaic dialects.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Hinz and Koch 1987, 163-164 (EW s.v. paš-ab-be, paš-á-be, paš-á-ip, etc). Cf. Hinz 1971, 287 with note 58. See also Hinz 1973, 172; Kawase 1984, 22.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² There is even a Hittite cognate: *paske*-, ‘to plant,’ see Cheung 2007, 299, s.v. *pas*. Comparing with an Avestan root, fšu-, fšav and middle Persian šobān and Persian šobān, čupān, Arfaee interprets the term as ‘shepherds’ or ‘food producers’ (Arfaee 2008, 282, s.v. pašab, see also Arfaee 2008, 145). It remains unclear how he connects the aforementioned Avestan root to the word; however, it is clear that his interpretation is not justifiable within the context (Fort. 5206). The Achaemenid Elamite term for shepherd or herdsman is *batera* (Henkelman 2011a, 7; Cameron 1948, 163-164)</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ Kawase 1984, 23. The huge amount of flour attested in PF 0999 also led to an assumption that these pašap workers must have been ‘bread bakers’ (Henkelman 1997, 344; he no longer stands by this idea [personal communication]).</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Kawase 1984, 23, with note 21.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ *Tukli* is attested in the so-called Acropole texts. For instance, see S 281:10 (N. 120 in Scheil 1907, 107; for his translation of *tukli* as ‘étoffe, écharpe, lainage,’ see Scheil 1907, 215). See also Henkelman 2011b, 605, note 85 where he cites S 281:29, PAP 6 TUK 6 ⌜BE⌝ *pár-sip* da-⌝at⌝-ia-⌝na⌝-ip ⌜du-iš-da⌝ and translates it as ‘6 *tukli* garments (and) 6 (*kuktu* garments), Persians from Dat(ti)yana- received.’ See also Henkelman 2003, 96 on S 108:9, reading 1 *tuk-li* pu-ur-na, ‘1 *tukli* [made] of pur.’ See also S 135.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Tavernier 2007, 445 (4.4.11.1).</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Despite the assumption of some researchers (for instance: Koch 1990, 217), it is noteworthy that clothing is not mentioned elsewhere in the PFA. Briant notes that Aramaic glosses on PF 0857, PF 0858, and PF 1587 refer to clothing items (Briant 1979, 153, note 98). He refers to Dandamayev, but neither Dandamayev claims such a reading nor does Aramaic evidence support this (Dandamayev 1973, 11; Cf. Hallock 1969, 246, 247, 442).</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 1: Products, rations and professions in PF 0999.</caption><thead><tr><th>Female workers</th><th>Male workers</th><th>Product</th><th>Ration (barley)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>--</td><td>1 huttira (maker)</td><td>tukli bariš (delicate tukli garment)</td><td>45 l.</td></tr><tr><td>--</td><td>2 huttip (makers)</td><td>luplak bariš (delicate luplak)</td><td>45 l.</td></tr><tr><td>10 huttip (makers)</td><td>--</td><td>tukli bariš (delicate tukli garment)</td><td>40 l.</td></tr><tr><td>6 huttip (makers)</td><td>--</td><td>luplak bariš (delicate tukli garment)</td><td>40 l.</td></tr><tr><td>---</td><td>1 zilpira</td><td>--</td><td>40 l.</td></tr><tr><td>---</td><td>2 huttip (makers)</td><td>ì (oil)</td><td>30 l.</td></tr><tr><td>21 huttip (makers)</td><td>---</td><td>tukli ramiya (fine tukli garment)</td><td>30 l.</td></tr><tr><td>18 huttip (makers)</td><td>---</td><td>kansukka ramiya (fine cloak)</td><td>30 l.</td></tr><tr><td>7 huttip (makers)</td><td>---</td><td>luplak ramiya (fine luplak)</td><td>30 l.</td></tr><tr><td>1 huttip¹ (maker)</td><td>---</td><td>luplak ramiya (fine luplak)</td><td>25 l.</td></tr><tr><td>1 huttira (maker)</td><td>---</td><td>tukli ramiya (fine tukli garment)</td><td>25 l.</td></tr><tr><td>1 huttira (maker)</td><td>--</td><td>kansukka ramiya (fine cloak)</td><td>25 l.</td></tr><tr><td>2 huttira! (makers)</td><td>--</td><td>luplak ramiya (fine luplak)</td><td>20 l.</td></tr><tr><td>3 huttip (makers)</td><td>--</td><td>kansukka (cloak)</td><td>20 l.</td></tr><tr><td>7 huttip (makers)</td><td>--</td><td>Tukli (garment)</td><td>20 l.</td></tr><tr><td>---</td><td>1 zilpira</td><td>--</td><td>20 l.</td></tr><tr><td>--</td><td>1 razaka (dyer)</td><td>--</td><td>20 l.</td></tr><tr><td>1 woman takdudum, wife of the zilpira</td><td>---</td><td>--</td><td>20 l.</td></tr><tr><td>1 girl</td><td>2 boys</td><td>--</td><td>15 l.</td></tr><tr><td>5 girls</td><td>6 boys</td><td>--</td><td>10 l.</td></tr><tr><td>5 girls</td><td>2 boys</td><td>--</td><td>5 l.</td></tr></tbody></table>

## The network of weavers

Our dossier, as mentioned, contains 60 texts of different levels of importance. 23 texts from PFA are already translated and published in Hallock 1969 and studied in Kawase 1984.<fnref n="18" /> One more related text can be found in the Persepolis Treasury archive.<fnref n="19" /> 25 more texts from the PFA mentioning *pašap* were transliterated by Hallock and are currently being prepared for publication by Henkelman.<fnref n="20" /> Eleven more unpublished fragmentary texts have been edited by Stolper, available to me through the OCHRE database.<fnref n="21" />

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ PF 0847, PF 0875, PF 0876, PF 0999, PF 1012, PF 1089, PF 1090, PF 1091, PF 1128, PF 1129, PF 1165, PF 1171, PF 1184, PF 1200, PF 1201, PF 1203, PF 1236, PF 1590, PF 1606, PF 1608, PF 1790, PF 1794, PF 1848.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Brosius correctly adds a text from the Persepolis Treasury Archive (PT 6; Brosius 1996, 137-138), the previous reading of which by Cameron 1948, 93 (PT 6:3-5) was corrected by Hallock 1960, 97.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ NN 0132, NN 0249, NN 0397, NN 0406, NN 0674, NN 0783, NN 0916, NN 0983, NN 0987, NN 0992, NN 1218, NN 1241, NN 1404, NN 1410, NN 1620, NN 1653, NN 1734, NN 1887, NN 1914, NN 2134, NN 2391, NN 2405, NN 2622, Fort. 01017, Fort. 05206. Wouter Henkelman has given me access to all of these texts. The last text, Fort. 05206, was published in Arfaee 2008, 145.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ Fort. 0287-101, Fort. 0505-101, Fort. 0570-101, Fort. 1344-103, Fort. 1537-102, Fort. 1526-104, Fort. 1542-101, Fort. 1748-102, Fort. 2080-107, Fort. 2337-101, Fort. 2342-103. These texts are mostly poorly preserved. EW (s.v. *pašap*₅) suggests that the term may be read in one of the so-called Elamite Nineveh letters (Nin 19:8). Yet, after examination of Weissbach’s autograph (Weissbach 1902, 195, n. 19), this reading remains uncertain, especially when one takes the fragmentary nature of the text into consideration. I wish to express my gratitude to Kiumars Alizadeh for drawing my attention to Hinz’s reading.</footnote>
The first remarkable sub-category is that of the single leading woman receiving 50 l per month. This sub-category appears in PF 0847, NN 0397, NN 0783, NN 1404, NN 1653, NN 2134, Fort. 2337-101, and Fort. 0570-101.<fnref n="22" /> The number of women receiving 50 l in the last text is missing. Of great importance is the observation that in the PFA women normally receive 20 l. It means that the female leaders in these texts received 2.5 times more than an ordinary female worker. Note also that there are also significant numbers of female workers in the same texts who received 40 l (i.e., twice the standard).

Six of the aforementioned texts (PF 0847, NN 0397, NN 0783, NN 1653, NN 2134, and Fort. 2337-101) are significantly analogous in terms of numbers, gender ratio, and ration levels; moreover, *Irtuppiya* acts as supplier in them and the responsible director is *Iršena*.<fnref n="23" /> Seal PFS 0004* is used on all six tablets. The number of 40-liter women varies between 33 and 34, another indication that the same group of *pašap* workers is referred to in this subset.

NN 1404, by contrast, contains a sub-group of 65 (?) women who receive 30 l and seems to refer to a different team (different supplier and different place). Another particular aspect of NN 1404 is the presence of one man who receives 40 l and a much lower number of 40-liter women (16). Some other texts are very similar to NN 1404 in terms of rations, number of workers, and gender, but they do not explicitly mention that the workers are *pašap*.<fnref n="24" /> In all of these texts, a single man receives 40 l and the number of 40-liter women is comparable with that of NN 1404. One can safely assume that these texts refer to the same team as NN 1404, an important indication that our *pašap* dossier can probably be extended still.

Several texts show a huge amount of rations, including barley, grain, *tarmu* (wheat?), sesame, *pit* (figs; fruit), sheep/goats, beer and wine; this can be used to argue for the large numbers of *pašap* workers.<fnref n="25" /> Sheep and/or goats as rations are generally rare in the archive. The fact that meat is distributed among the weavers shows their economic value for the institution.

Those women who receive 30 l of *wine* in PF 0875, PF 0876, PF 1012, PF 1790, NN 1887 and Fort. 1344-103 are called *araššara*. In one exceptional case, PF 1790, we deal with five *araššara* women, each receiving four heads of sheep/goats per annum.<fnref n="26" />

PF 0865, PF 0866 and NN 1524 list personnel of a 'treasury' or craft-center (restored in NN 1524) receiving barley rations. Among these is one woman *araššara* receiving 50 l of barley; Kawase suggested that these women should be considered as *araššara*.<fnref n="27" /> Following this idea, Brosius recognized that the 50-liter barley women in the *pašap* texts are probably also *araššara* or in a position similar to it. It would furthermore seem that 30 l of wine belonged to the same remuneration scale as the 50 l of barley.<fnref n="28" /> *Araššara* perhaps means

<footnote n="22">²² I have excluded Fort. 0570-101, because it is very poorly preserved and for the fact that it includes three unclear sub-groups of workers.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ Iršena's responsibility is described in the formula PN *damanna* and in one case (Fort. 2337-101) in the formula PN *šaramana*. *damanna* is a conj. IIIm form of *da*-. PN *damanna* is normally translated as 'assigned by PN' (Cf. Hallock 1969, 679-680, s.v. *damanna*). *šara* - literally means 'to cut [off], divide, apportion' (Hallock 1969, 754, s.v. *šara*). Here, I follow Henkelman's interpretation: 'under responsibility of PN' for PN *šaramana* (see e.g., NN 2541:33-34 in Henkelman 2011a, 4).</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ Texts comparable to NN 1404 are: PF 0930, PF 0931, PF 0932, NN 0048, NN 2528, Fort. 6365.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ PF 1590, PF 1606, PF 1608, PF 1794, PF 1848, NN 0916, NN 0987, NN 0992, and Fort. 1748-102. Numbers of workers which appear only in NN 2622 and Fort. 1748-102 support our argument. The low rations in the dossier of the weavers attested in NN 0406, NN 1218, NN 1887, NN 1914, NN 2391, Fort. 01017, Fort. 2342-103, Fort. 1344-103 are due to different reasons.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ The fact that PF 1790 informs us of five *araššara* women who are called by name shows that their individuality was recognized by the administration. The status of these women is particular, since they receive sheep/goats, a rare commodity in the PFA (see Brosius 1996, 149).</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ Kawase 1984, 21-22, 25; Kawase's suggestion has been followed by Brosius 1996, 147, 150-151, 155-156.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ Brosius 1996, 156. This is not a general principle in the archive, however, see Henkelman 2005; 2008, 475-478; and 2011c, 96, note 20, where he demonstrates that normally ten liters of wine is as worthy as 30 l of grain and one average sheep or goat normally equals 100 l of grain.</footnote>
‘great (person), chief.’<fnref n="29" /> It may be assumed that the term *araššara* as a specific designation in the expression *araššara pašabe-na* meant ‘chief of weavers’ or something close to it.<fnref n="30" /> If *araššara* is a term used only to qualify the chief or supervisor of weavers, here again it might lead to the extension of our pašap dossier.

The extra rations paid to weavers also deserve mention. Though different terms are used to refer to them, their small amounts reveal their nature as a bonus.<fnref n="31" /> In agreement with the previous studies on the larger dossier of mothers of newborn children in the PFA, the reward for weaver mothers who gave birth to boys was doubled: 20 l barley or 10 l wine/beer, in accordance with the whole dossier of mothers within the PFA.<fnref n="32" />

Other groups mentioned together with the pašap are either ethnic or occupational designations. Ethnic groups mentioned in the pašap texts are iškudrabe and turmilap, hence respectively, Skudrians and Lycians.<fnref n="33" /> The scribes of the Fortification Archive typically attempt to gather information on the distribution of a particular commodity. In the process, different groups might be already mentioned together simply because they have received the same commodity.<fnref n="34" /> This administrative purpose explains the co-occurrence of unrelated groups, such as ethnic groups and the weavers.

There are also two texts where an *el-nuškira*, conventionally translated as door-keeper (which probably refers to sort of safety guards), occurs with an *araššara pašabena* (chief of weavers). Door-keepers are mentioned together with weavers in the Neo-Sumerian period to control the inputs and outputs of workers.<fnref n="35" />

Yet, this is not always the case: some of the occupation designations attested along with ‘weavers’ do point to an institutional framework. The terms *kapnuškip* (Fort. 05206) and *razaka* (PF 0999) occurred most

<footnote n="29">²⁹ The connection between the other form of *araššara* (pl. *araššap*), that is *iršara* (pl. *iršap*), with the term *matištukkašbe*, the etymology of which is certain, has led to this interpretation (Hallock 1969, 704; cf. Kawase 1984, 22). Hinz has showed his skepticism of Hallock’s interpretation (Hinz 1971, 267, note 31 after Hinz 1952, 238-240; discussed by Koch 1983, 36, note 104). Cf. EW, s.v. *a-ráš*, *a-ráš-ša-h-ši-ik-ra*, *a-ráš-šá-ip*, and *a-ráš-šá-ra*. Based on the different contexts in which *matištukkašbe* and *araššara* occur, this identification has become the subject of some doubt (see Brosius 1996, 146-147). But if one takes the occurrence of *iršap* (PF 1076) and compares it with that of *matištukkašbe* (PF 1063, PF 1064, NN 2114), it becomes clear that in fact these two terms refer to the same group: a group of two women and one man who are supplied for by Uštana and in total receive 90 l of wine. As a result, *iršara* can mean ‘chief.’ *Araššara* backformation from Elamite *iršara* (*< riša ‘great’*) is based on aural perception of the word by Iranophone scribes (personal communication Wouter Henkelman); this means that the interpretation suggested by Hallock can be taken into account, yet one should beware of considering *araššara* and *iršara* as the same occupational designation.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ See also Brosius 1996, 146-163. She translates the expression as ‘(female) supervisor of pašap (women)’ (Brosius 1996, 147). To the five texts cited by her (PF 0875, PF 0876, PF 1012, PF 1790, NN 1887), one should add Fort. 1344-103.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ Terminology of these bonuses:</footnote>

<footnote>*Karmaziš* (0.2 l monthly payment to each worker, always referring to flour): EW (s.v. *kar-ma-zí-iš*): ‘vielleicht = ap. *garmačiš* oder *garmačia.*’ Tavernier (2007, 507 [5.3.4.31]) cautiously relates it to *garma*, ‘warm’.</footnote>

<footnote>*kamakaš*: EW (s.v. *qa-ma-ak-kaš*) suggests the Old Persian *kāmaka*, ‘Wunschkost’ as the root. Tavernier (2007, 408 [4.4.3.5]) refers to the root *kāma-ka-: ‘reward, bonus, lit. wish, desire, special rations of provisions because of special prestations’*. The etymology of *sat* is unknown; (0.5, 0.7, 1 l. and 1/30 of one head of sheep/goat monthly payment to each worker); Hallock (1969, 35) suggests that it could simply mean ‘food’.</footnote>

<footnote>*zanam*: Following Hinz (1973, 90-91) who suggested a Median etymology (*zaina-*) ‘Prämie, Bonus,’ and consulting Gershevitch, EW interprets it as ‘Gratifikation, Bonus’ (EW s.v. *za-a-na-um*; 0.5 l monthly payment to each worker). Cf. Tavernier 2007, 411 (4.4.3.20).</footnote>

<footnote>The etymologies of *Zaššizzam* (one liter monthly payment to each worker), and *zizal* are unknown.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² Briant 1996, 448; Kawase 1984, 21; Koch 1994, 131. For the classic attestation of mother receiving awards, see Safaee 2016-7, 118.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ In general, for the attestations of ethnic groups in the archive see Henkelman and Stolper 2009; Henkelman 2011a; 2018.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ See Brosius 1996, 148.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ Lafont 2016, 156. For a Sumerian text related to weavers that mentions part-time workers and also a door-keeper, see Garcia-Ventura 2016, 187.</footnote>
probably in relation to the presence of weavers. The former, which is a general term, is usually translated as ‘treasurers,’ but actually denotes craftsmen of various specializations occupied in regional craft centers.<fnref n="36" /> The arguments for the connection of the occupational designation *razaka* and weavers will follow (see PF 0999 below).

## Geographical landscape

Only 39 out of 60 texts in the *pašap* dossier clearly mention a locality. Altogether we are dealing with the toponym mentioned in **Table 2**.<fnref n="37" /> Once, in the text Fort. 1017, the expression ‘to the King’ is used as a geographical destination.

Weavers were active in most parts of the region under the purview of the Persepolis administration: the only exceptions are the northern and southern clusters, where no weavers are as yet attested. This geographical distribution is another indication of the significance of their work for the institution. The most common area remains the Fahliyān region; this must be due to the high production of raw

<table><caption>**Table 2: Geographical distribution of weaver's work activities.**</caption><thead><tr><td>Toponym</td><td>Area</td><td>Occurrences</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tašpak</td><td>Fahliyān region</td><td>6x</td></tr><tr><td>Liduma</td><td>Fahliyān region</td><td>5x</td></tr><tr><td>Zappi</td><td>Fahliyān region</td><td>5x</td></tr><tr><td>Baktiš</td><td>Kāmfirūz region</td><td>4x</td></tr><tr><td>Hidali</td><td>Fahliyān region</td><td>3x</td></tr><tr><td>Kaupirriš</td><td>Kāmfirūz region</td><td>3x</td></tr><tr><td>Narezzaš</td><td>Persepolis region</td><td>3x</td></tr><tr><td>Matannan</td><td>Persepolis region</td><td>2x</td></tr><tr><td>Atek (Atuk)</td><td>Fahliyān region</td><td>1x</td></tr><tr><td>Dašer/ Zakzaku</td><td>Fahliyān region</td><td>1x</td></tr><tr><td>Hišema</td><td>a station on the royal road from Persepolis to Susa</td><td>1x</td></tr><tr><td>Hunar</td><td>Fahliyān region</td><td>1x</td></tr><tr><td>Kurra</td><td>between the Fahliyān and Kāmfirūz regions</td><td>1x</td></tr><tr><td>Pamiraš</td><td>?</td><td>1x</td></tr><tr><td>Parmadan</td><td>Ardakān plain</td><td>1x</td></tr><tr><td>Tikraš</td><td>Persepolis region</td><td>1x</td></tr><tr><td>Tirazziš</td><td>Persepolis region</td><td>2x</td></tr><tr><td>Umpuranuš</td><td>Fahliyān region</td><td>1x</td></tr><tr><td>Uranduš</td><td>Persepolis region</td><td>1x</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ See Stolper 2000.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ Since PT 6 belongs to the Persepolis Treasury Archive, it should be related to the Persepolis region or near it, even though a toponym is missing in the text. For a survey of the toponym in the PFA, from which our table has very much benefited, see Henkelman 2008, 481-509 (with references).</footnote>
materials needed for weavers by the pastoral population.<fnref n="38" /> In this region, the animals produced by semi-
autonomous (agro-)pastoralist inhabitants could be exchanged with the staple commodities produced
by the Persepolis economy, which is the institution represented by the PFA.<fnref n="39" />

PF 0999

Due to space constraints, I give the text of PF 0999 in translation only.<fnref n="40" /> The reproduction presented
here is accompanied by some remarks to clarify the choices I have made.

Translation:

¹⁻³ 36270 (l. of) grain, allocation from Karkiš, 107 weaver workers received as rations.³⁻⁴ For a period of 13 months, they monthly receive 2790 (l. of) grain. ⁵⁻⁷ From the first month to the intercalary 12th (=13th) month of the 24th year. ⁷⁻⁹ One maker of delicate *tukli* garments, two makers of delicate *luplak*, total three, each 45 l. ⁹⁻¹² Ten women, makers of delicate *tukli* garments, six women, makers of delicate *luplak*, one *zilpira*, total 17, each 40 l. ¹³⁻¹⁷ Two oil makers, 21 women, makers of fine *tukli* garments, 18 women, makers of fine *kansukka* (cloaks), seven women, makers of fine *luplak*, total 48, each 30 l. ¹⁷⁻²¹ One woman, makers (*sic!*-) of fine *luplak*, one woman, maker of fine *tukli* garments, one woman, maker of fine *kansukka* (cloaks), total three, each 25 l. ²¹⁻²⁵ Two women, maker (*sic!*-) of fine *luplak*, three makers of *kansukka* (cloaks), seven makers of *tukli* garments, one *zilpira*, one dyer, one *takdudum* (?) woman, wife of the *zilpira*, total 15, each 20 l. ²⁵⁻²⁶ two boys, one girl, total three, each 15 l. ²⁶⁻²⁷ Six boys, five girls, total eleven, each 10 l. ²⁷⁻²⁸ Two boys, five girls, total seven, each 5 l.

Both *bariš* and *ramiya* qualify the preceding term, *tukli* (garment). *ramiya* also qualifies other productions in the same text: *kansukka* (cloak) and *luplak*; *bariš* qualifies *luplak* but not *kansukka*. *ramiya* may also qualify flour and roasted barley.<fnref n="41" /> Hinz interprets it as ‘fein’ derived from OP *ramya*- (EW s.v. *ramiyam*). *ramya*- is interpreted as ‘nice, kind, pleasant.’<fnref n="42" />

EW s.v. *bariš* has these interpretations: *edel*, *Künstlerisch*, *superfein*, considering it to be a loan from OP *bārya*. These interpretations for these qualifications show the excellence of the garments. While discussing an Iranian loan in Aramaic, De Menasce compares his evidence with Middle Persian *bārīk* kār and Persian *burridan*, which means ‘to cut.’<fnref n="43" /> This occurrence of the MP *bārīk* may be suitably adopted in contexts of the *pašap* dossier. Hinz interprets *bārīk* as ‘fein, dünn.’<fnref n="44" /> It is correct that *bārīk* in new Persian means ‘thin,’ and the meaning ‘superfine’ may well fit. Yet, it may be more accurate to interpret it as ‘precise’ or better ‘delicate.’<fnref n="45" />

<footnote n="38">³⁸ See note 5.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ For the animal exchange, see Henkelman 2005.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ For edition see Hallock 1969, 288-289. My thanks to Wouter Henkelman for providing me with both the photographs of the tablet and his transliteration.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ Hallock 1969, 747, s.v. *ramiyam*.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² Tavernier 2007, 281 (4.2.1351).</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³ De Menasce 1954, 162. The connection with Iranian *bārīk* is followed by Tavernier (2007, 404 [4.4.2.3]; 2007, 412 [4.4.5.4])</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ Hinz 1973, 41.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ For the meaning of ‘precise’ for *bārīk* in a broader context in MP, see, e.g., ēn-iz ē wēnīhēd *bārīkīhā* pad rāst-nigerišnīh kū ... (Dēnkard 3.80) (‘It is also seen with a right and precise look;’ my thanks to Yusef Saadat who brought this to my attention). Hinz (1973, 41) prefers a reconstruction as *bārya-kara-* and takes it with a similar meaning as *ramya-kara*, ‘nur eben eine Stufe höher’.</footnote>
razakka has been interpreted as ‘painter.’<fnref n="46" /> In the context of textiles and garments the proper interpretation is dyer. EW suggests an OP root *razaka-* and relates it to the NP raz i.e., ‘Färber.’ *Razakka* should be a kind of occupational designation that completes the tasks of weavers. It is not hard to imagine that a dying activity could be done during the process of production of garments, and as such, a *razakka* could be expected along with weavers.

The interpretation of EW s.v. *zi-ul-pi-ra* as ‘Zuschneider’ is a mere guess. In PF 0999, there are two *zilpira*, one is receiving 40 l of grain and the other 20 l. The second one’s wife is mentioned with the designation (?) *takdudum*, the meaning of which is not clear; she is receiving as many rations as her *zilpira* husband receives. There are also 21 accompanying children, boys and girls, who must be co-workers of *pašap*, perhaps their apprentices.

**Conclusion**

This paper contributes to the problem of identification of one of the most frequently-attested female working groups in the Persepolis economy. I have also tried to deal with their procedure to shed light on the general view of Persian women and how they were integrated within an economically active institution. In the process, I have dealt with the rations, geographical backgrounds, administrative procedures, and the production of these Persian weavers, who were significantly specialized and were identified by Persepolis administrators as such.

**Abbreviations**

CAD = The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Oppenheim and Reiner (eds) 1960).

EW = Hinz and Koch 1987.

Fort. = Fortification Texts transliterated by Matthew Stolper.

MVN = Materiali per il vocabolario neosumerico.

PF = Persepolis Fortification texts in Hallock 1969.

PFA = Persepolis Fortification Archive.

NN = unpublished Fortification texts read by Richard Hallock and prepared for publication by Wouter Henkelman (who generously provided me with his transliteration and translation of these texts).

PFS = Persepolis Fortification seal.

PT = Persepolis Treasury texts.

S = text from the Acropole archive at Susa published in Scheil 1907.

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ Tavernier 2007, 430 (4.4.7.99).</footnote>
Bibliography

Abdi, K. and G. Beckman. 2007. An Early Second-Millennium Cuneiform Archive from Chogha Gavaneh, Western Iran. *Journal of Cuneiform Studies* 59: 39-91.

Arfaee, A. 2008. *Persepolis Fortification Tablets: Fort. and Teh. Texts*. Tehran: Centre for the Great Islamic Encyclopaedia (The Centre for the Islamic and Iranian Studies).

Azzoni, A. 2008. The Bowman MS and the Aramaic Tablets, in P. Briant, W.F.M Henkelman and M. Stolper (eds) *Les archives des Fortifications de Persépolis dans le contexte de l'Empire achéménide et de ses prédécesseurs* (Persika 12): 252-274. Paris: Éditions de Boccard.

Azzoni, A. 2017. The Empire as Visible in the Aramaic Documents from Persepolis, in B. Jacobs, W.F.M. Henkelman and M. Stolper (eds) *Die Verwaltung im Achämenidenreich: Imperiale Muster und Strukturen (Administration in the Achaemenid Empire. Tracing the Imperial Signature)*. Akten des 6. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema »Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen« aus Anlass der 80-Jahr-Feier der Entdeckung des Festungsarchivs von Persepolis Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 14.-17. Mai 2013 (Classica et Orientalia 17): 457-468. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Briant, P. 1979. L'élevage ovin dans l'Empire achéménide: VIe-IVe siècles avant notre ère. *Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient* 22(2): 136-161.

Briant, P. 1996. *Histoire de l'Empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre*. Paris: Fayard.

Brosius, M. 1996. *Women in Ancient Persia* (559-331 BC). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Cameron, G. 1948. *Persepolis Treasury Tablets* (Oriental Institute Publications 65). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Cheung, J. 2007. *Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb*. Leiden: Brill.

Dandamayev, M.A. 1973. Royal Estate Workers in Iran (End of sixth, first half of fifth century BC) [Работки Царского Хозяйства в Иране (Конце VI, Первой Половине V в. До н. Э.)]. *Journal of Ancient History* 12(3): 3-24.

De Menasce, P.J. 1954. Mots d'emprunt et noms propres iraniens dans les nouveaux documents Araméens. *Bibliotheca Orientalis* 11: 161-162.

Forster, E. (trans.) 1920. *Aristotle. Oeconomica*. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

Garcia-Ventura, A. 2016. The Sex-Based Division of Work versus Intersectionality: Some strategies for engendering the Ur III textile work force, in B. Lion and C. Michel (eds) *The Role of Women in Work and Society in the Ancient Near East*: 174-192. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Hallock, R. 1960. A New Look at the Persepolis Treasury Tablets. *Journal of Near Eastern Studies* 19(2): 90-100.

Hallock, R. 1969. *Persepolis Fortification Tablets* (Oriental Institute Publications 92). Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Henkelman, W.F.M. 1997. Footnote at Foodnotes (on Elamite ku-ra-qa-ráš and šá-mi.da.kur-ra), in M.F. Boussac (ed.) *Recherches récentes sur l'Empire achéménide* (Topoi Supplement 1): 343-345. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient Méditerranéen.

Henkelman, W.F.M. 2003. Persians, Medes and Elamites: Acculturation in the Neo-Elamite Period, in G.B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf and R. Rollinger (eds) *Continuity of Empire (?)*: *Assyria, Media, Persia*: 181-232. Padova: S.a.r.g.o.n. editrice e libreria.

Henkelman, W.F.M. 2005. Animal Sacrifice and 'External' Exchange in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, in H.D. Baker and M. Jursa (eds) *Approaching the Babylonian Economy: Proceedings of the Start Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1.-3. July 2004* (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 330): 137-165. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.

Henkelman, W.F.M. 2008. *The Other Gods Who Are: Studies in Elamite-Iranian Acculturation based on the Persepolis Fortification Texts* (Achaemenid History 14). Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

Henkelman, W.F.M. 2011a. Of Tapyroi and tablets, states and tribes; the historical geography of pastoralism in the Achaemenid heartland in Greek and Elamite sources. *Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies* (54)2: 1-16.

Henkelman, W.F.M. 2011b. Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Elamite: a case of mistaken identity, in R. Rollinger, B. Truschnegg and R. Bichler (eds) *Herodot und das Persische Weltreich. Herodotus and the Persian Empire* (Classica et Orientalia 3): 577-634. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Henkelman, W.F.M. 2011c. Parnakka's Feast: šip in Pārsa and Elam, in J. Álvarez-Mon and M.B. Garrison (eds) *Elam and Persia*: 89-166. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Henkelman, W.F.M. 2018. Bactrians in Persepolis – Persians in Bactria, in J. Lhuillier and N. Boroffka (eds) *A Millennium of History. The Iron Age in southern Central Asia (2nd and 1st Millennia BC)*. *Proceedings of the conference held in Berlin (June 23-25, 2014). Dedicated to the memory of Viktor Ivanovich Sarianidi* (Archeology in Iran and Turan 17): 223-255. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Henkelman, W.F.M and M. Stolper. 2009. Ethnic identity and ethnic labelling at Persepolis the case of the Skudrians, in P. Briant and M. Chauveau (eds) *Organisation des pouvoirs et contacts culturels dans les pays de l'empire achéménide* (Persika 14): 271-329. Paris: Éditions de Boccard.

Herzfeld, E. 1934. Recent Discoveries at Persepolis. *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* 66(1): 226-232.

Herzfeld, E. 1938. *Altpersische Inschriften*. Berlin: Verlag von Dietrich Reimer.

Herzfeld, E. 1941. *Iran in the Ancient East*. London - New York: Oxford University Press.

Hinz, W. 1952. Zum elamischen Wortschatz. *Zeitschrift für Assyriologie* 50(1): 237-253.

Hinz, W. 1971. Achämenidische Hofverwaltung. *Zeitschrift für Assyriologie* 61(2): 260-311.

Hinz, W. 1973. *Neue Wege in Altpersischen*. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.

Hinz, W. and H. Koch 1987. *Elamisches Wörterbuch*. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Jones, H.L. (trans.) 1966. Strabo, *Geography Volume VII: Books 15-16* (Loeb Classical Library 241). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kaufman, S. 1974. *The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic* (Assyriological Studies 19). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kawase, T. 1984. Female Workers 'Pašap' in Persepolis Royal Economy. *Acta Sumerologica* 6: 19-31.

Koch, H. 1983. Zu den Lohnverhältnissen der Dareios Zeit in Persien, in H. Koch and D.N. MacKenzie (eds) *Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte der Achämenidenzeit und ihr Fortleben: 19-51*. Berlin: Verlag von Dietrich Reimer.

Koch, H. 1990. *Verwaltung und Wirtschaft im persischen Kernland zur Zeit der Achämeniden*. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

Koch, H. 1994. Zu den Frauen im Achämenidenreich, in P. Vavroušek (ed.) *Iranian and Indo-European Studies. Memorial Volume of Otokar Klíma: 125-141*. Prague: Praha.

Lafont, B. 2016. Women at Work and Women in Economy and Society during the Neo-Sumerian Period, in B. Lion and C. Michel (eds) *The Role of Women in Work and Society in the Ancient Near East: 149-173*. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Oppenheim, A.L. and E. Reiner (eds) 1960. *The Assyrian Dictionary: Volume 7 (I and J)*. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Safaee, Y. 2016-7. Achaemenid Women: Putting the Greek Image to the Test. *Talanta* 48-9: 101-132.

Scheil, V. 1907. *Textes Élamites-Anzanites, troisième série* (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse IX). Paris: Ernest Leroux.

Schmidt, E. 1953. *Persepolis, volume I: Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions* (Oriental Institute Publications 68). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Steinkeller, P. 2013. Puzur-Inšušinak at Susa: A Pivotal Episode of Early Elamite History Reconsidered, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (eds) *Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives* (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58): 293-318. Leiden - Boston: Brill.

Stolper, M.W. 2000. Ganzabara, in E. Yarshater (ed.) *Encyclopædia Iranica Vol. X, Fasc. 3: 286-289*. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publisher.

Stolper, M.W. 2017. The Oriental Institute and the Persepolis Fortification Archive, in B. Jacobs, W.F.M. Henkelman and M. Stolper (eds) *Die Verwaltung im Achämenidenreich: Imperiale Muster und Strukturen (Administration in the Achaemenid Empire. Tracing the Imperial Signature)*. Akten des 6. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema »Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen« aus Anlass der 80-Jahr-Feier der Entdeckung des Festungsarchivs von Persepolis Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 14.-17. Mai 2013 (Orientalia et Classica 17): XXXVII-LIX. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag.

Stronk, J.P. 2017. *Semiramis' Legacy: the History of Persia According to Diodorus of Sicily*. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Tavernier, J. 2007. *Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.). Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts* (Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta, 2007). Leuven: Peeters.

Uchitel, A. 1991. Foreign workers in the Fortification Archive, in L. De Meyer and H. Gasche (eds) *Mésopotamie et Elam: actes de la XXXVIème Rencontre assyriologique internationale, Gand, 10-14 juillet 1989: 127-135*. Gent: University of Ghent.

Weissbach, F.H. 1902. Susische Thontäfelchen. *Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft* 4: 168.