Kitabı oku: «The History of Antiquity, Vol. 5 (of 6)», sayfa 18
It is not clear from these descriptions whether the fortifications at that time included the whole city or not. Herodotus only speaks of the fortifications of the citadel, and represents the city as built at the foot of its walls. Yet we may assume that Phraortes and Cyaxares followed the pattern of the chief cities of Assyria and Babylonia in placing a strong wall round their city. A late and very uncertain authority, the book of Judith, states that the walls of Ecbatana consisted of splendid masonry, and reached a height of seventy cubits (about 110 feet); the towers of these walls were a hundred cubits in height, and there were gates in them.497 When the Medes lost their empire and became subject to the Achæmenids, it was to their interest that the metropolis of the Medes should not be fortified, but that the citadel should be in the hands of a Persian garrison. Cyrus himself, therefore, after the conquest of Astyages, or Darius, after suppressing the rebellion of the Medes, may have thrown down the walls which surrounded Ecbatana. The silence of Herodotus respecting them would then be explained by the fact that they were no longer in existence in his time. The circuit of the external wall Herodotus compares with the circuit of the city of Athens, which, exclusive of the harbour cities but including the space between the Phaleric and the long walls, reached 60 stades, or 7-1/2 miles.498 If we chose to assume that Herodotus included the Phaleric and long walls in the circuit, the total extent would be 22-1/2 miles, an incredible length for the wall of a citadel. Of the outer walls of the royal citadels at Babylon, Diodorus puts those on the one bank of the Euphrates at 30 stades, and those on the other at 60, and of the two inner walls of the latter the first was 40 stades in length and the second 20.499 The circuit of 22-1/2 miles may, therefore, refer only to the whole extent of the citadel and city of Ecbatana, and it would then come near the statement of Diodorus, who puts the circuit of Ecbatana at 250 stades.
The royal citadel of the Achæmenids at Persepolis was surrounded, according to Diodorus, with a triple wall; the first wall was 16, the second 32, the third 60 cubits in height. These walls were decorated with great expense, and adorned with towers. The citadel of Ecbatana is said to have had seven walls, and, however strange this may appear, religious no less than military motives might have led to that number. We know the importance ascribed in the Avesta to the number seven – the seven supreme deities, and the seven girdles of the earth. On the other hand, if we leave out of sight the hill on which the citadel was built, the elevated plateau of Ecbatana did not present the natural difficulties such as rivers and heights, which strengthened the fortification of the Assyrian metropolis and the walls of Babylon; hence it was more important to meet this deficiency by the number of towers and walls. The successive walls would have been of little service had not each inner one been higher than the outer, and they would have been the reverse of serviceable, had not the distance between them been so great that the arrows and missiles of the enemy, when they had gained the outer walls, failed to reach from it to the next, so that the assault of the next wall had to be begun afresh after the capture of the adjacent outer wall, without any cover. If we might assume that the words of Polybius: "The palaces, of which the extent reaches to about seven stades, lie below the citadel," are to be interpreted as meaning that these buildings lay under the protection of the walls of the citadel, i. e. behind them – and it is scarcely conceivable that the Achæmenids should have chosen an unprotected palace in Media for a constant residence, and deposited there large treasures, and the archives of the kingdom – the circuit of the buildings of the palace and that of the external wall of 60 stadia would give a space between the walls of each of about 2000 feet; a distance not much in excess of that absolutely required. Hence the circuit of 60 stadia from the outer wall does not appear too large.
More astonishing still is the account given by Herodotus of the ornamentation of the turrets of these walls – the colours of the turrets of the first five, the silver and gold of the two last. The attempt has been made to explain these statements as a legendary echo of the fame of the splendour of Ecbatana in the time of Cyaxares and his successor Astyages. But Polybius tells us very distinctly that the roof of the palace and that of the temple of Anahita consisted of silver tiles at the time of the Achæmenids, that the beams and panels of the roofs as well as the pillars were entirely covered with gold and silver plates, and that these decorations remained in the temple of Anahita at the time of Antiochus Theos. This ornamentation might be extended to the turrets of the inner walls. Considering the amount of the spoil of Nineveh, it cannot be regarded as an impossibility that the ramparts of the interior walls, the length of which, according to the statement of Polybius, did not reach more than 4200 feet, were covered with plates of gold, and of the next with plates of silver, when the roof of the palace could consist of silver tiles. That the overthrow of the Assyrian kingdom and the spoil of the cities brought considerable possessions to the Median nation may be concluded from the remark of Herodotus that the Persians had adopted better clothing and more luxurious habits from the Medes. The kings would without doubt receive the richest part of the spoil. The decoration of the turrets was possibly rude, but it exhibited in a striking manner the splendour and exaltation of the kingdom, which was thus encased in gold and silver, while the sovereign dwelt in gold and silver chambers. Such a parade of royal magnificence is not out of harmony with the character of the ancient East. To those who were not allowed to enter the wide and high gates of the palace, these turrets showed far and wide, through city and country, the splendour of the citadel. The colours of the five outer walls would be given by glazed tiles, such as those found in the ruins of Nineveh and Chalah, of Babylon and Mugheir. We may assume with certainty that Cyaxares desired to give to his palace and citadel a splendour no less than that displayed by the palaces of Nineveh, or the royal citadel of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, or the golden citadel in Sardis. Religious conceptions may also have determined the colours of the decoration as well as the number of the walls. As Auramazda sat in pure light, on a golden throne on the golden Hukairya, so was the ruler on earth to dwell in his palace of Ecbatana in golden chambers surrounded by golden walls. The Avesta exhibits Mithra with a golden helmet and silver coat of mail, the wheels of his chariots are of gold, his horses are greys,500 shod on the fore hoofs with gold, and on the hinder hoofs with silver; in like manner the upper turrets of the citadel must shine with silver and the highest with gold. We have seen that the metals, owing to the brilliance inherent in them, belonged in the ideas of the Iranians to the good spirits. And as the splendour of gold and silver belonged to the highest gods, so must the colours of the other turrets have been assigned to the good spirits, to whose protection each separate wall was entrusted.501
The account which Polybius gives of the structure of the palace, the cedar and cypress wood of which the door-posts, pillars, roofs, and panels in the walls were made, shows that wood was employed in building in Media, which agrees with the habits of mountaineers. In Teheran and Ispahan buildings of wood of this kind are still in use, and no doubt the mountain forests of northern Media provided better materials in ancient times than now. The noblest trunks and best kinds of wood were sought out for the royal house. The kings of Asshur, and Nebuchadnezzar tell us in their inscriptions that they have caused trees to be cut down on this or that mountain for their buildings. The wooden palace, which Deioces, and perhaps Phraortes, first erected, must have been extended by Cyaxares, and may have been furnished by him or his successor with the brilliant ornamentation. The inner walls of the palace of the Achæmenids at Persepolis, if we may draw this conclusion from the metal supports which are found in the remains of the stone walls, were decorated in a similar manner. When the palace of the Median kings at Ecbatana had become the summer residence and treasure-house of the Persian monarchs, it would, no doubt, be enriched and adorned yet more. The temple of Anahita, connected with the palace, which Polybius has described above, is the work of Artaxerxes II. Alexander caused the spoil he had taken in Babylon, Susa, Persepolis, and Pasargadæ, to be brought to Ecbatana, where he is said to have collected 180,000 talents in gold and silver.502 At a later time, the Arsacids are said to have resided at Ecbatana during the summer like the Achæmenids.503 At the present day, Hamadan, which is built high up on a slope of Elvend, marks the site of the ancient Ecbatana. It contains about 40,000 inhabitants; the ruins of the ancient city have not yet been satisfactorily explored. The slender pillars with lotus-like capitals, discovered here, are like the pillars of Persepolis, and therefore might be the work of the Achæmenids; what has been discovered in engraved stones and coins comes from the time of the Arsacids and Sassanids. Some cylinders covered with cuneiform inscriptions have not yet been examined.
Cyaxares had rescued Media from the most extreme peril. The consequences of the defeat, in which his father, with the greatest part of his army, fell before the Assyrians, had been averted. Though subsequently overpowered by the Scythians, he yet became once more sovereign in his own country. This rise of Media, and the weakening of the Assyrian kingdom by the inundation of the Scythians, he used in order to subjugate Armenia and Cappadocia. And though he was not able to achieve anything decisive against the Lydians, he attained a greater success; in combination with Babylonia he avenged on the Assyrians the supremacy they had exercised over Media; he overthrew the remnant of that kingdom, whose tough vigour showed itself even at the final hour in an obstinate resistance. It was a great achievement and at the same time an important extension of the Median dominions, not merely by the whole extent of the Assyrian country on the left bank of the Tigris, which fell to Media, but also by the closer connection which Cyaxares thus obtained with Armenia and Cappadocia, the subject lands to the west. Then followed the spread of the Median power over the kindred nations in the north and east of Iran. The Persians were already subjected to Phraortes, and Cyaxares brought under his sovereignty the Sagartians, Hyrcanians, Parthians, and Bactrians; he made the Sacæ dependant on him, and in the east perhaps extended his power as far as the Indus. From his proud citadel at Ecbatana he ruled from the Halys to the Oxus. It was a powerful empire. Herodotus depicts the reign of Cyaxares when he says: "He was far more powerful than his predecessors." With the Medes he passes as the founder of their sovereignty; and his reign must have been held in grateful remembrance, not by the Medes only, but also by the subject nations. Those who afterwards attempted to bring the Medes and Sagartians under arms against the dominion of the Persians, called themselves the descendants of Cyaxares – and one even laid aside his own name, Phraortes, to do so.
After the fall of Assyria the leading portion passed to Media, Babylonia, and Lydia. As the two first had united for the overthrow of Assyria, and had come to terms with Lydia for this object, so in other respects they displayed a friendly feeling towards each other. The daughter of Cyaxares became the consort of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and the daughter of Alyattes, king of Lydia, was married to his son Astyages. Afterwards, Babylon prevented the attempt of Egypt to unite Syria with the land of the Nile; it was eagerly occupied with subjugating Mesopotamia and Syria, while Lydia established its power over the tribes and cities of Asia Minor as far as the Halys. Neither Media nor Lydia thought of putting any hindrances in the way of the extension of the Babylonian dominion over Syria and Phœnicia. Of these three kingdoms, thus connected by mutual alliances, Media was the strongest. Babylonia and Lydia were not equal either in extent of country or amount of population; Lydia was perhaps inferior in the vigour of the ruling tribe, and Babylonia certainly inferior in the military strength of the population. Even when united they did not reach the size or strength of the Median power, whose army Cyaxares had arranged, and for which he had provided at Ecbatana a strongly fortified centre, equidistant from the Halys and the Oxus. When Astyages ascended the throne, on the death of his father in 593 B.C., he entered upon the inheritance of a secure dominion in peaceful and friendly relations to all the neighbouring powers. While his father-in-law, Alyattes of Lydia, and his son Croesus were occupied in subjugating the Carians and the Greek cities on the west coast of Anatolia (III. 439), and Nebuchadnezzar carried on one campaign after another in order to incorporate in his kingdom the great trading marts of the Syrian coasts, Astyages could enjoy, for more than thirty years, the fruits of the efforts by which his father had founded and established the Median empire.
CHAPTER III.
THE TRIBES OF THE PERSIANS
The oldest subjects in the Median kingdom were the Persians. Their country lay in the south-west corner of the table-land of Iran. The heights of the Zagrus, which run down to the sea in a south-easterly direction, divide it from the ancient kingdom of Elam, and the land of the Tigris, just as in the north they divide the land of the Medes from the valley of the two rivers. The Eastern border of the Persian territory was formed, almost down to the coast, by the great desert, which fills the centre of Iran; the northern boundary towards the land of the Medes is marked by the range which the Greeks call Parachoatras; the name would be Kuruhvathra, i. e. very brilliant, in Old Persian. The southern boundary of Persia was the sea. Nearchus, who sailed along the coast of Persia, gives it an extent of 4400 stades, i. e. 550 miles; their land began at the mouth of the Oroatis (Old Persian, Aurvaiti, i. e. the swift),504 the Tsab, which falls into the Persian Gulf below the modern Hindian, and reached to the east almost as far as the entrance into this gulf, where it ended opposite the island of Coloë (Kishm).505 Euripides contrasts the sun-lit mountain flats of Persia with the wintry land of Media and the citadels of Bactria.506 According to Strabo the coast of Persia was hot and sandy, and, with the exception of some palms, produced no fruit. But beyond the coast was a land of very great fertility, abounding in lakes and rivers, and providing the most excellent pasture. Further to the north, the Persian land became cold and mountainous, and supported nothing but droves of camels and their keepers. Arrian tells us that to the north of the coast of Persia the air was temperate, and the land traversed by the clearest streams, in addition to which there were also lakes; the meadows were grassy and well watered, and provided excellent pastures for horses and other beasts of draught. The soil produced all kinds of fruits and even wine, but not olives. The forests were extensive and rich in game, and all kinds of water-fowl were to be found there. But further to the north the land of the Persians was wintry and full of snow.507 What the Greeks relate of the desolation of the Persian coast is still applicable; it consists of naked sand-flats, broken only by scanty groves of palms. Above this coast the soil rises in terraces, which are separated from each other by yet higher ranges. Further to the north the slopes of the mountains provide excellent pastures, till the ground becomes more bare as we approach Media, while on the east it gradually passes into the great desert of the centre. On the mountain terraces and in the depressions between them are some favoured lands and valleys. The warmth of the southern situation is tempered by the elevation of the soil and the winds blowing from the sea. This happy climate allows a perpetual spring to reign, and increases the fertility which the abundant mountain springs produce in such a degree that groves of orchard trees, cypresses, and myrtles alternate with vineyards and carpets of flowers. The beauty of Persia and the fertility of the vegetation is concentrated in the valleys of Kazerun, Shiras, and Merdasht, which lie in stages one above the other, between mountain walls which rise to a height of 8000 feet. The most extensive and at the same time the highest valley is that of Merdasht. It is traversed by the Murghab, which brings an abundant supply of water from the snow-covered heights in the north-west. The upper course is surrounded by steep cones, and jagged walls of rock; in the lower part it takes another name, and is called the Pulwar. Further down, it unites with the Kum-i-Firuz (the Araxes of the Greeks), and from this confluence down to the mouth in the great lake of Bakhtegan it is known as the Bendemir. The Greeks called the Pulwar the Medus, and the Bendemir, which is also known as the Kur in modern times, they named the Cyrus.508
According to Herodotus the Persians regarded their land as of moderate extent, poorly equipped, and filled with rocks. In the Books of the Laws which are ascribed to Plato, we are told that the Persian land is naturally adapted to produce strong shepherds, and as they had to watch their flocks night and day, they were thus in a position to do good service in war. As a fact Persia is a mountainous country; the slopes are admirably fitted for cattle breeding, but there is little room or encouragement for agriculture. According to Xenophon's description, the Persians in ancient times were much occupied in the chase, and in riding; they only ate once in the day, and at their banquets goblets might indeed be seen, but no pitchers of wine. Strabo remarks, with reference to a later period, that the Persian youth remained long in the open air with their flocks, and were eager hunters; when thus engaged, their only drink was water, their food bread, flesh, and salt. The Greeks with one consent describe the Persians of ancient times as simple, hardy, self-controlled men, of great endurance and martial vigour, with few requirements. They were also called "Eaters of Terebinths," in order to mark the scantiness of their food: their drink was water; and their clothing, coats as well as trousers, were of leather.509
The nation of the Persians consisted of various tribes. Herodotus gives a special prominence to three, on which the rest were dependent. These were the Pasargadae, the Maraphians, and the Maspians. "Other tribes are the Panthialaei, the Derrusiaei, the Germanii, all of which are agricultural; while the remainder, the Dai, Mardi, Dropici, and Sagartii are Nomads."510 According to this statement six of the Persian tribes carried on agriculture, and four were pastoral. But the Germanians and Sagartians were distinguished from the tribes of the Persians in the narrower sense. The Sagartians (Açagarta) are spoken of in the inscriptions of Darius, and by Herodotus himself in other passages, as a separate nation; we have already found their country on the western edge of the great desert, and observed its character (p. 6). The Germanians of Herodotus are the Carmanians of the later Greeks, who also passed with them as a separate nation, though closely allied to the Persians and Medes.511 They wandered to and fro to the east of Persia in the district now called Kirman. The number of the tribes mentioned by Herodotus would therefore have to be reduced to the Pasargadae, Maraphians, Maspians, Panthialaeans, Derusiaeans, Dai, Mardi, and Dropici, if we did not hear of two others in the inscriptions of Darius, the Yutiyas and the Patisuvaris, whose names were known to the later Greeks in the form Utei and Pateischorei. These later authorities tell us also of other Persian tribes: Kyrtians, Rhapaesans, Stobaeans, Suzaeans, etc. They also reckon the Paraetaci, or Paraetaceni, among the Persians.512 The Mardians of Herodotus are also called Amardians by later writers, who place them in the West, among the mountains which divide Persia from Elam.513 With regard to the position of the rest of the tribes, we can only ascertain that the Pasargadae occupied the best part of the Persian land – the valley of the Pulwar; that the Maraphians514 and the Maspians were their neighbours, and the land of the Pateischorei followed next after that of the Pasargadae on the eastern side, towards Carmania. Besides these three chief tribes, the Pasargadae, Maraphians, and Maspians, the Persian nation, according to these statements, was made up of a considerable number of more or less powerful tribes, of whom each one, like the chief tribes themselves, must have had a separate territory, or, at any rate, a pasture for its flocks.
If the name Parsua could signify Persians, the inscriptions of the kings of Asshur would confirm the division of the Persians into several tribes. Shalmanesar II. tells us, that in the year 833 B.C. he received tribute from the heads of the Parsuas, as the inscription says: from twenty-seven princes of the Parsuas. Afterwards Tiglath Pilesar II. traversed the land of the Parsuas and imposed tribute upon them (744 B.C.).515 The books of the Hebrews confirm Esarhaddon's dominion over Persia, inasmuch as they tell us that he settled Persians and Dai (Dahas) in Samaria (III. 154).
It must have been in the period of the supremacy of Assyria, at the latest in the first half of the seventh century B.C., that the worship of the gods, which the Persians shared from all antiquity with their fellow-tribesmen on the table-land of Iran, the worship of Mithra, Vayu, Anahita, and fire, underwent the change which bears the name of Zarathrustra. As we saw good reason to assume, the new doctrine first came to the Medes from the North-East; from the Medes it passed, without doubt, to the Persians. If Herodotus places the Magians, or special priestly order, among the tribes of the Medes and not among those of the Persians, among whom Strabo is the first to mention them, the conclusion is, as has been sufficiently proved, not that the Persians were without priests before and after the reform, but rather that even after the reform the priestly families remained in their natural unions, and did not form themselves into a special tribe (p. 192).
The supremacy of Assyria over the West of Iran came to an end when Phraortes united the tribes of the Medes under his leadership, and, towards the year 640 B.C., undertook to maintain the independence of Media against Assurbanipal, the successor of Esarhaddon. In this struggle the Persians joined the Medes and ranged themselves under them. Herodotus, who obviously follows the tradition of the Medes, represents Phraortes as marching against the Persians, conquering and subjugating them; according to the Persian account, which is preserved in Ctesias, the chief of the Medes induced the Persians to revolt against the Assyrians, and to join him, by the promise that they should remain free under his leadership (III. 250). The situation of affairs agrees better with the second version than with the first. Considering the enormous power which Assyria under Assurbanipal possessed down to the middle of the seventh century, it is hardly probable that Phraortes would have inaugurated the recent independence of Media by an attack on the Persians, which might, and indeed must, drive them into the arms of the Assyrians. It is far more probable that the two nations formed a league against Assyria. As already observed, the annihilation of the kingdom of Elam, which Assurbanipal accomplished in the year 645 B.C., would supply the Persians with a strong incentive to unite themselves with the kindred and more powerful nation of the Medes.
Of the three tribes of the Pasargadae, Maraphians, and Maspians, the most prominent – so Herodotus tells us – are the Pasargadae.516 To them belongs the race of the Achæmenids, from which sprang the Persian kings. In the inscription of Behistun, King Darius says: "From old time we were kings; eight of my family have been kings (Kshayathiya), I am the ninth; from very ancient times we have been kings."517 He enumerates his ancestors: "My father was Vistaçpa, the father of Vistaçpa was Arsama, the father of Arsama was Ariyaramna, the father of Ariyaramna was Khaispis, the father of Khaispis was Hakhamanis; hence we are called Hakhamanisiya (Achæmenids)." In these words Darius gives the tree of his own family up to Khaispis; this was the younger branch of the Achæmenids. Teispes, the son of Achæmenes, had two sons; the elder was Cambyses (Kambujiya), the younger Ariamnes; the son of Cambyses was Cyrus (Kurus), the son of Cyrus was Cambyses II.518 Hence Darius could indeed maintain, that eight princes of his family had preceded him; but it was not correct to maintain that they had been kings before him, and that he was the ninth king.519
In this series of the ancestors of Darius we find names belonging not only to the East of Iran, but also to the Arians of India. The name Cambyses (Kambujiya) points to the Cambojas, a nation which we found in the north-west of India (IV. 249); the name Cyrus (Kurus) to the ancestors of the ancient princely race who founded the first great empire in the land of the Ganges on the upper course of the river, whose contest with and overthrow by the Pandus is celebrated by the Indian epic, while the name Vistaçpa repeats the name of the King of Bactria, whom the prayers of the Avesta extol as the protector of Zarathrustra (p. 132). Of Achæmenes we are told that an eagle nourished him;520 a prophet of the Hebrews calls Cyrus "the eagle;" we know the importance which the Avesta ascribes to the two eagles of the sky, and the modern Persian epic to Simurgh; and we have seen that the standard of the Achæmenids was an eagle (p. 173). Hence from this notice we may with certainty conclude that the tradition of the Persians ascribed to this ancestor of their kings a youth distinguished by the favour of heaven.
As Cambyses the father of Cyrus is a contemporary of Astyages of Media, Teispes the father of Cambyses must be reckoned a contemporary of Cyaxares, and Achæmenes, the father of Teispes, as a contemporary of Phraortes.521 We must therefore assume either that Achæmenes was at the head of the Persians, at the time when they joined Media, or that he was established by Phraortes as the chief of Persia and his vassal-king, and that his throne passed with the duties of vassalage to his descendants Teispes and Cambyses. It is not very probable that the traditions of the Persians should have accorded signs of divine favour to the youth of a man, who had been placed over them after their subjugation as viceroy of Media. Moreover, we find among the Persians, according to this tradition, a form of constitution, such as a Median viceroy would hardly have established, even for the object of overthrowing the Median power. The race of the Achæmenids belonged to the tribe of the Pasargadae; we may therefore assume that Achæmenes was the first to become chief of this tribe.
Aeschylus enumerates the seven men who stand at the side of the king of the Persians.522 Josephus says that the "seven houses" of the Persians had named Darius as king. As a fact we see that when Darius, after the extinction of the older line of the descendants of Achæmenes, sets himself to ascend the throne, six men stand at his side, whom Herodotus distinguishes as the "first of the Persians." The Laws ascribed to Plato say that the empire was then divided into seven parts between Darius and the Six, and that a relic of this division was still in existence.523 In regard to the privileges of the Six and their descendants we find that they consisted in the right of free access to the king, and that the king could choose his chief wife only from their families;524 the descendants of the Six had also the right to wear the head-dress of the king, the upright kidaris, which was the symbol of royal dignity. In the kingdom of the Sassanids, we find seven hereditary princes under the king; these princes, like the king, wear crowns, but their crowns are lower than that of the king; the "sons of the houses," i. e. the members of these seven families, form the highest rank of the nobility. Hence in these six chieftains of the Persians standing at the side of and beneath the seventh, who is the prince of the Pasargadae, we may suppose that we have the princes of the remaining tribes.525 And in respect of the privileges of the six co-chieftains in the kingdom of the Achæmenids we may assume that they originally occupied a position close to the king, and formed the council and court of the chief tribal prince. These privileges the Greeks ascribe to the services which the Six rendered at the time when Darius ascended the throne. But as the seven houses existed before, and the Six had previously been "the first of the Persians," their privileged position must have been of an older date; it must have been introduced by Cyrus or be of even more remote origin. It is not probable that such a mighty warrior prince as Cyrus would, after the reduction of the Medes, impose limitations on his power by sharing the symbols of royalty and hereditary privileges. According to the narrative of Herodotus, Cyrus does not simply command the Persians to take up arms against the Medes, but he assembles the tribes, and ascertains their feeling. In considering the peculiar position of these six families we may certainly assume, that under the ancestors of Cyrus there were chiefs among the Persians with whom the Achæmenids had to deal. If the Achæmenids were the heads of the tribe of the Pasargadae, the other tribes would have chiefs also. Yet we only hear of "six princes" besides the Achæmenids, though we have seen that the number of the Persian tribes was considerably more than seven.
