Ars Orientalis 32 (2002)

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

Front Matter Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002) Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629588 Accessed: 01/02/2009 09:05 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

*XXXII

O

RIENTALIS

A

R

S

O

R

I E

N

T

A

L

I S

XXXII

VOLUME

O

RI

EN

LII 2002

S

TALI

MEDES AND PERSIANS REFLECTIONS

MARGARET

ON ELUSIVE

COOL ROOT,

SPONSORED

GUEST

EMPIRES

EDITOR

BY

FreerGalleryof Art,SmithsonianInstitution Departmentof the Historyof Art,Universityof Michigan PUBLISHED

BY

The Departmentof the History of Art Universityof Michigan

ManagingEditor MargaretA. Lourie UniversityofMichigan EditorialBoard SussanBabaie MartinJ.Powers Ning Qiang JenniferRobertson MargaretCool Root Thelma K. Thomas FreerGalleryofArt Editorial Committee Joseph Chang Louise Cort DebraDiamond MassumehFarhad Ann Gunter JulianRaby Jan Stuart JamesT. Ulak Ann Yonemura

Editorial Offices Ars Orientalis FreerGalleryof Art SmithsonianInstitution P.O. Box 37012, MRC 707 Washington,DC 20013-7012

ISSN 0571-1371 Printedin the United Statesof America C 2003 Departmentof the Historyof Art, Universityof Michigan

Ars Orientalissolicits scholarlymanuscriptson the art and archaeologyof Asia, includingthe ancientNear East and the Islamicworld. Thejournalwelcomesa broadrangeof themesand approaches.Articlesof interestto scholarsin diversefieldsor disciplinesareparticularlysought,as aresuggestionsfor occasional thematicissues and reviews of importantbooks in Western or Asianlanguages.Briefresearchnotes and responsesto articlesin previousissues ofArsOrientaliswill alsobe considered.Submissions must be in English, with all non-Englishquotationsnormallyprovided in translation.Authorsare asked to follow The ChicagoManual of Style, 14th ed. A style sheet is availablefrom the managingeditoror at theArs Orientalishome page. Special subscriptionratesare currentlyavailableas a membershipoption throughthe AmericanOrientalSociety.Formore informationwritetheAmericanOrientalSociety,HatcherGraduateLibrary,Universityof Michigan,AnnArbor,Michigan481091205, or access the society'shome page at. The fulltextofArsOrientalisis alsoavailablein the electronic versionsof the Art Index.

On thecover:Detailfroman eighteenth-centuryengravingof the PersepolisTakht.AfterCorneliusLe Bruyn, Travelsinto Muscovy,Persia, and Part of theEast-Indies... II, Translated from theFrench(London:A. Bettesworth,1737), unnumbered plate followingpage 22. Full imagereproducedhere on page 194.

ARSx ORIENTALIS

MEDES

AND

PERSIANS:

REFLECTIONS

ON

ELUSIVE

i

Preface and Editorial Notes MargaretCool Root, GuestEditor

1

Medes and Persians: The State of Things MargaretCool Root, UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor

EMPIRES

17

An Excavated Ivory from Kerkenes Dag, Turkey: Transcultural Fluidities, Significations of Collective Identity, and the Problem of Median Art ElspethR. M. Dusinberre,Universityof Colorado,Boulder

55

The "Archers" of Darius: Coinage or Tokens of Royal Esteem? Cindy L. Nimchuk,StanfordUniversity

81

Assessing the Damage: Notes on the Life and Demise of the Statue of Darius from Susa ShahrokhRazmjou,TheNational Museumof Iran

105

The Ethnicity Name Game: VVhatLies behind "Graeco-Persian"? JenniferE. Gates, UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor

133

Notes on the Iranianization of Bes in the Achaemenid Empire KamyarAbdi, DartmouthCollege

163

Impirial Legacies, Local Identities: References to Achaemenid Persian Iconography on Crenelated Nabataean Tombs BjornAnderson, UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor

209

Persepolis in Retrospect: Histories of Discovery and Archaeological Exploration at the Ruins of Ancient Parseh Ali Mousavi,Universityof California,Berkeley

BOOK

253

REVIEWS

The Lie Became Great: The Forgery of Ancient N>earEastern Cultures, by Oscar White Muscarelia KennethLapatin,J. Paul GettyMuseum

257

Shitao: Painting and Modernity in Early Qing China, byJonathan Hay RichardEdwards,UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor

261

The Great Mosque of Damascus: Studies on the Makings of an Umayyad Visual Culture, by Finbarr Barry Flood AlkaPatel, UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor

264

Glass of the Sultans, by Stefano Carboni and David Whitehouse Jens Kroger,Museumfur IslamischeKunst,Berlin

266

Beauty and Islam: Aesthetics in Islamic Art and Architecture, by Valerie Gonzalez CynthiaRobinson, CornellUniversity

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

Preface Author(s): Margaret Cool Root Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. i-iv Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629589 Accessed: 01/02/2009 10:20 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

Preface The idea of a projecthighlightingwork by young scholarsfrom NorthAmericaand Irancameto me in May 1999. I was privileged to returnto Iranfor the firsttimesince the 1970s, this timenot as a dissertationwriterbut as a co-leaderof the firsttour organizedby the FreerGalleryof Art and the ArthurM. SacklerGalleryof the SmithsonianInstitutionsince the IranianRevolutionof 1979. At that moment, the political barriersto culturalexchangebetween the U.S. and Iranwereliftingafterfartoo manyyears.Iraniancolleagues and their studentswelcomed me warmly.Their interests in the study of ancientIranintersectedwith those I was thrashing out with my own students at home. At the same time, they also offereddifferingperspectivesand broughtdifferenttypes of information to bear on the same issues. It was clear that the field was attractingoutstandingpeople in both parts of the world-people who deservedto be connectedup somehow"ontherecord"-hopefullyas partof an ongoingdialogue. Scholarship on the Achaemenid Persian empire in North Americaas well as in Europe thrived,perverselyenough, during the prolonged era of virtualisolation of U.S. citizens from Iran. This floruitwas largelydue to the energy and vision of Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg.Her creation of the annualAchaemenid HistoryWorkshopsbroughttogethera wide arrayof scholarsfrom variousspecialistdisciplinesfor heady discussions. Thiroughthe workshops'encouragementof theoreticalhistoricalengagement, they offereda forumfor the insertionof empiricalresearchon the archaeologicalrecordintolivelyintellectualdebate.Meanwhile,archaeologicaltrainingand fieldworkcontinuedin Iran,perpetuating a distinguishedtraditionthere.Analyticalwork on previously excavatedmaterialalso continued. Unfortunately,the effortson either"side"were not easilyshared. The lastAchaemenidHistoryWorkshop(in 1990) wasthefirst and only one to be held in the U.S. Withfundingfromthe National Endowmentfor the Humanitiesas well as from the Universityof Michiganwe wereableto fulfillone of Heleen'skeenestwishes:the competitiveawardingof stipendsto young scholarsof any nationality to participatein the roundtablesessions in Ann Arbor.Alreadythen, Heleenwas seeingthe importanceofpassingthe torch. Bynow, thoseyoungpeopleof 1990 areestablishedfigures.It seems time to pass the torchagain-now in a slightlydifferentway. That 1990 workshopperforcedid not bringIraniansinto the mix, even thougha wonderfuldevelopmentwas the increasedease in incorporatingcolleaguesfromtheU.S.S.R. andtheFarEast.The present volume very deliberatelyextends the embraceof the workshop

projectin the directionI thinkHeleen would have desired-at last hearingthe voices of Iranianscholars. As for the definitionof "young"here:I set as an arbitraryupper limit a Ph.D. date of no earlierthan 1997, for this describeda five-yearmaximumbetweenreceiptof the Ph.D. and the planned publicationdate of 2002. The actualappearanceof this 2002 issue of thejournalhas been greatlydelayeddue to sagasof international politics in the past two yearsthatdo not bearrecountinghere. (In some instancesauthorshave chosen to makesmallchangesto incorporatenew material,but for the most part their researchwas capped two to three years ago.) Happily, all the contributorsremainyoung despitethe turmoilinterjectedinto the lives of manyof them(andtheirexternalreviewers).Papersby severaleligiblescholars both fromIranand the U.S. could not appearhere for various personalor logisticalreasons.And as I write this, a whole new cohortof IranianandNorthAmericanstudents(not to mentionthose fromotherpartsof the world)is movingup throughthe ranks,with topics in the worksthatwould also havebeen marvelousadditions to this issue. Anothertime. The good news is thatthereis a lot happeningin the field,with these initiativesemergingfromindividualspoised at the beginning of their careers,with varyingacademicbackgroundsand professionalambitions.At the earlyend of the specialistspectrumof our sevencontributorstoMedesandPersiansis KamyarAbdi.Although he writes here on the Egyptiandeity Bes across the Achaemenid empire,his recentdissertationin anthropologyis titled"Strategies of Herding:Pastoralismin the Middle ChalcolithicPeriod of the Western Central Zagros Mountains" (University of Michigan, 2001). He has alreadypublishedwidely, andamonghis projectsin progress is a book on the archaeology of Iran from prehistory throughSasaniantimes. He has also achievednotabledistinction in creatinga largeumbrellaorganizationundertheauspicesof which numerousinternationalfield efforts(includingU.S. involvement) arenow takingplace in the Farsprovinceof southwesternIran.At the other end of the chronologicalspectrumare two contributors: Jen Gates, discussing the problem of Graeco-Persianart here, is writingher dissertationon landscapeand commercein Ptolemaic Egypt (involving intensive archaeologicalsurvey in the eastern desert). BjornAndersonis workinginJordan on a dissertationin Nabataeanarchaeology,which fixes his temporalfocus primarily on the Romanempire.His articleforMedesand Persiansexamines thelargeclassof NabataeancrenelatedtombsfromHegraandPetra as indices of social resistanceto encroachingRoman hegemony through systematic invocation of symbols drawn from the Achaemenid empire. Each has emerged in specialist circles as a new figure of great interest, through conference presentations and papers forthcoming.

The remainingfourcontributors aremorecentrallyfixedfortheir long-termgoals in Median-Persianstudiesof the firstmnillennium. Ali Mousavi,alreadywell-publishedon issues in Iranianarchaeology andinterpretiveanalysesof remains,is completinghis dissertationon pre-Achaemenid IronAge Iran.His articlein thisvolumeon thehistoryof the explorationandarchaeological investigationof the Achaemenidcapitalcity, Persepolis,resonatescompellinglyon a personalas well as a professionallevel.His discussionstraceaspects of the Persepolistraditionthatintertwinewith his father'sarchaeologicalcareerin the 1960s and'70s. BethDusinberre's1997 dissertation,reflectingmultipleseasonsofworkatSardis,hasjustappeared asAspectsofEmpirein Achaemenid Sardis(Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress, 2003). Her articlehere, on an excavatedfigural ivoryfora luxuriouschairor throne foundin a purportedlyMedian fortifiedcity in centralAnatolia,reflectsthis longstandingcornmitment to Anatolianarchaeologyof periodsand historicalchallenges informingMedian-Persian studies.Shenowpursuesnewprojectsin Anatolianarchaeologyandin Achaemenidartandsocialhfistory(includingpreparationof a monographon the sealsand sealingsfrom Gordionandan iconographicalstudyof thecrossed-anirmal motifin theglyptictraditionsof MesopotamiaandIranwithspecialfocuson artproductionin the Achaemenidempire). ShahrokhRazmjouworksbroadlyin Iranianfield archaeology as well as on a multitudeof Iranianartifactsunder his care in the NationalMuseumof Iran,Tehran.His articleon thelifeanddeathof the Egyptian-made statueof DariusfromSusarelatescloselyto that realmof his career.He haspublishedin Iranianjournals andincreasingly in Westerncontexts. His intellectualinterestsare closely art historicaland philological,with a specialconcernfor refinedwork on the Achaemenid-period Elamiteadministrative documentsfrom Persepolisandthesealsthatratifiedthem.He hasrecentlyembarked on a new arm of the PersepolisSeal Projectwith my own former studentandlong-timecollaborator,MarkGarrison.They will coordinatematerialfromthe PersepolisFortificationand Treasurytablets housedin Tehranwith materialstillon study-loanat the Oriental Instituteof the Universityof Chicago.Cindy Nimclhuk's2001 dissertation,"DariusI and the Formationof the AchaeinenidEmpire: Communicatingthe Creationof an Empire"(Universityof Toronto), focused on formativephases of Achaemenidideology throughexplorationsoftext-imageconstructionin thereignofDarius the Great.Her specialisttrainingin numismaticsat the American NumismaticSocietyis one of the definingfeaturesof her careerin Achaemenidstudies.This aspectof herprofileis highlightedin the present volume through her innovative interpretationof early AchaemenidPersiancoins as tokensof royalesteem-a projectof greatinterestin discussionsof the confluencesof economiesandvisuallyexpressedideologiesof empire.

It has been a realpleasureto workintensivelywith the authors here in a give-and-takeaboutthe natureof evidenceand the exciting instabilitiesof the record.On behalfof all of themand myself,I extend special warmestthanksto Peg Lourie, who has served as Managing Editor of Ars Orientalis for many years-doing the copyediting,layout,andallmannerof administration withthegreatest intellectualengagement,skill, and patienceimaginable.We all extendthanksas well to a largecadreof anonymousreviewers,who respondedgenerouslywith stimulatingsuggestions.DMARGARETCOOL ROOT ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN SUMMER2003

EditorialNotes * We have left transliterationsof Persiannames to the discretion of each author.Thus therewill be variationsamongdifferentarticles between the use of, e.g., Naqsh-i Rustam and Naqsh-e Rostam. * The NationalMuseumof Iran(the IranNationalMuseum)now encompassesthe antiquitiesof the formerIranBastanMuseum of Tehranas well as Islamicartcollectionsin Tehran.We have, however,left it to the authors'discretionwhich name they use for the museum. * In places where Islamicsolarcalendaryearsare cited as well as Gregoriancalendaryears, the Islamic solar year precedes the Gregorianyear,separatedby a slash(/). The solarcalendaryear begins at the yearof the Hegira.Its annualcycle of monthsdoes not correlatecompletelywith the annualcycle of the Gregorian calendaryear.

iv

* In the occasionalinstancesof citationof an Islamicdate according to the lunarcalendar,the lunardateprecedesthe Gregorian date and is designatedby A.H. to distinguishit from the solar calendardatingsystem(S.H.).

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

Medes and Persians: The State of Things Author(s): Margaret Cool Root Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 1-16 Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629590 Accessed: 01/02/2009 09:05 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

MARGARET

Medes

COOL

and

ROOT

Persians:

The

State

of

Thing

In memoryof HeleenSancisi-Weerdenburg

T

HIS VOLUME IS ABOUT the

studyofartis- itselfat firstblush (especiallyto the archaeologist)as

tic productionand the historiographicburdens of that study in a particularcontext. Itsplatformis the strugglebetweentheperceivedcertaintiesof Westerntraditionsof knowledgeaboutthe East and the complexitiesof the culturalrecord of the Eastitself. The assembledarticleswill be of particularsubstantiverelevanceto scholarsof Achaemenidempire studies and more generallyto specialistsin Greek, Roman,Near Eastern,Transcaucasian,and Central Asian studies. They ought also to be thought-provokingto scholarsworkingin issuesof empireregardless of geographical/cultural context. Beyond that, numerousissuesareraisedhereon method,theoreticalpositioning,andargumentation ofevidenceon types of art-historical problemsthatresonatewithconcerns of the wide-rangingArsOrientalisreadership. In broadesttermsthe projectshows how a particulargeographic/cultural areaof inquiryconstitutes a nexus of socialforces,interculturalencounters,politicaland ideologicalacts and events. Such a nexus can exert considerable(and often contested) influence on artisticproductionsand on art-makingas a practice.The nexus approachdepends upon rigorous, empiricallygrounded, historicallyand culturally specific foundations,thus sustaininginterdisciplinarymethodologicalor theoreticalinnovation.In this, the approachhas the potential to revitalizea crediblenotion of areastudies,which havebeen dismissed recentlyin some academiccircles.' This volume is also very much about art things in the study of elusiveempires.Some thingsaretangible object-entities;some things are tangledideaentities.The object-entitytype of thingmaypresent Ars Orientalis,volumeXXXII (2002)

a knowablecommodity,if onlywe canfocusit under the microscope sharplyenough. The tangledideaentitytype of thingis the sortthatexists in the plainspokenbut denselyfigurativevernacularof contemporary English usage: "How're things?"-where "things"become the very conditionof existence. Currentart-historicalparlanceaboutmodernity sometimeschooses to call fine art objects "things" deliberatelyto defrockthemand thento clothethem anew in a narrativeapparelof irony-lacedartistic practice.In thus destabilizingtraditionsof authorial preeminence,this type of rhetoricalstrategyeffectively brings discourse "down" into the realms of Near Easternart-historicalstudy. We strugglewith the visualrecordtowardall sorts of social-historical goals of inquiry(including,I might add, notions of the ironic, subversive,and irreverent).While some maywish it werepossible to focus on the biographically knowableidentity of the artist-as-geniusand haveeven triedto makethatwork,heroizationof the authoris not reallypart of our game. Our strategies of engagement must be different. They depend largelyon the objects themselvesas biographically rich, often convoluted,sites of formand meaning.2 The timelinessof theorizationof thlisfactoris reflectedin the callforpapersforthe 2004 session of the CollegeArtAssociationof Americaon "Livesof Objects" (Feldman and Thomason forthcoming). The session proposes, with special attentionto ancient NearEasterncontexts,to treatobjects as active participantsin the negotiation of personal and institutionalidentities, the constructionof culture,and the instigation

1

MARGARETCOOLROOT

northeastIranand contiguousareasbeforethe Persians, under CyrusII (the Great),defeatedthem in ca.550. The continuingheateddebatesaboutthetype of power Mediarepresented,its geographicalrange, and its qualificationfor the term"empire"becomea key issue in Dusinberre'sdiscussion. The ensuing AchaemenidPersianempire(holdingswayuntil the completionof Alexander'sconquestsin 330 B.C.E.) The articlesin MedesandPersiansarealldeliberately becamethe largestthe worldhadyet known,stretchfocused on object-entitythings thatlive within par- ing from the Indus and areasof centralAsia across westernAsiaintoEgyptandbeyondto modernLibya. ticularly interesting idea-entity habitats. Even Mousavi'scontributionon the history of archaeol- Itis acceptableto calltheheritagesharedby theMedes ogy at the imperialcity of Persepolisis in essence and Persians"Indo-Iranian" or "Iranian,"with the about a thing. By no means a simple, straight-line appreciationthat"Iranian"relatesto ethnolinguistic interpretiveaccounting of dates and endeavors,it concernsratherthanto themodemnation-state of Iran produces this site as a type of object-entitythat is per se. Buthow we understandand dealwith the imcomplexlysituatedin a braidedstreamof ideologies. plicationsof thatnotionremainsa vexed question.In By the sametoken,Anderson'spaperinvokesissues his articlehereAbdiuses the term"Iranianization" to of ruined Persepolisas a strategicminefieldof culcharacterizea processof transmissionand acculturaturalmemoryavailableto be insertedinto discourses tion of imagesof the Egyptiandeity Bes within the of powerandresistancein (andabout)Nabataeadur- multiculturalsphere of the Achaemenidempire.In ing the Romanempire. doingthishe explicitlychallengesus to reckonwitha notionof predilectionsdeterminedby Iranianness. "Iranianization" has also been used by Young A FRAME OF REFERENCE (1997: 449), in a slightlydifferentway, to describe thepoliticalandculturalunificationof variousindigThe Medes and the Persianswere peoples of Indo- enouspeoplesof theZagrosareathatmusthavetaken Iranianethnolinguisticbackground.Witha nomadic placealreadyunderthe (Iranian)Medes.In the early legacy, they also shared ties to (proto-)Zoroastrian decades of the twentiethcenturysuch terminology, traditionsof ethicalbelief and religiousobservance. and the ideas underlying notions of biologically They hadpushed westwardand settledamongstencoded culturalinevitabilities,becametaintedby asclavesof indigenouspeoples alongthe Zagrosmoun- sociation with Third Reich eugenics policies hartains within the bordersof modern Iranat least by nessed to Aryanism.So it is a word and an idea that the dawn of the first millenniumB.C.E. There they comes with significantbaggage. That said, we do found themselves interactingwith multiple longneed to have ways of discussing the phenomenon standing cultural traditions.3These included the Abdiobserves.An articleby P. R. S. Moorey(1985), mightyAssyrianempireand the kingdomsof Baby- which avoids the naming problem, remainsa key loniaand Urartu-all of whichwere complexorgani- statement on the struggle to define aspects of zationsof manifoldculturalassociationsacrosswest- Iraniannessunderlyingvisualculturespecificallyin ernAsia, Egypt,and areasof Greekcolonialinterest the Achaemenidimperialenvironment. and domain.A host of less generallyknownpeoples inhabitingregionsin which the Medes and Persians settledinclude the Mannaeansand the Ellipi in the PRIMARY TEXT SOURCES northandtheElamitesof southwesternIran,withtheir AND THEIR PROBLEMS5 venerablecapitalcity of Susa, which was to become one of the heartlandroyalcentersof the Persians.4 Classical Writerson Iranian Subjects.Medes and The Medes held some degree of hegemonyin Persiansremainparticularlyelusivedespite(andalso of social and political change. Analyses could consider the consumption of objects, the formation of identities through objects, biographies of objects within multiple contexts, and any other subjectsthatexaminethe ongoing or subsequent impact of objects within their ancient social matrices.

J2

MEDESAND PERSIANS

becauseof) the strengthof classicaltext traditionsin the formationof Western scholarlyapproachesto them.The historianHerodotus,writingin Greekfor an Athenianaudiencein the mid-fifthcentury B.C.E., looms as a major source for the early empire, particularlyits engagements with the West. He and other later authors serving Greek and then Roman imperial patron mandates will figure prominently in the articles assembled here. Their reliability on matters of stipulated fact must repeatedly be queried (viz., Dusinberre, Razmjou, Nimchuk, and Anderson). The subtexts of their representations, often reflecting complex contemporary agendas, must be probed relentlessly (as in the presentations of Razmjou, Anderson, and Mousavi).6 This is not to say that the classical sources are unimportant. Importance is not the same as objective reliability.It is even safe to say, and is reconfirmed by papers in this volume, that importance is much more interesting and significant than any notion of bland reliability. Thus the degree to which any of these papers must question the objective reliability of a classical text is in no way a measure of the richness of the source; it is a measure, rather, of the urgency of our continued investment in allowing such sources to be historically complicated.

Modern Eurocentric Overlays. Further entanglements ensue when modern Western worldviews cloud the lens through which the classical authors are read and through which the visual record of EastWest cultural contact is interpreted. Progress here involves a long, slow process of self-reflexive contemplation by impressively educated scholars who are willing to question themselves and the foundations of their learning with open minds. It also involves the willingness of new generations earnestly to challenge even the giants in the field. Increasingly sophisticated calibrations of critical (art-) historical method can empower this productive interrogation of received paradigms. Eurocentric notions of history continue to exert tremendous control in the field, even if only by innuendo. The old narrative of the Persians as an evil, crude barbarian antithesis to the noble Western (Greek and then Roman) world still runs deep. Gates's paper on the Graeco-Persianname game lays all this out for us. Solidly based studies

treatingthe visual culturesof East and West in the asconstructions Achaemenidperiodanditsaftermath of complex,collusiveinterdependenciesareincreasto thispolaringlyofferingalternatives-by-implication izingparadigm(e.g.,Miller1997;Cohen1997).Gates, in effect,makesthe issuesexplicitandoffersmethodologicalstrategiestowarda new approach. Eastern Text Sources and Their Problems. The Medes and the Persianshave not left us historical narrativescomparableto the classicaltestimoniesof Herodotus,Diodorus,and others.Indeed,we so far haveno writtenmaterialwhatsoeverfromtheMedes.7 This may simplyreflectthe luck of archaeology.8It also mayreflecta culturesteepedin the performance of elaboratedoralhistoriesand epics and in a mysticalemphasison memoryas the mechanismfortransmissionof thefaith.Othertextualsourcescanbe used with learneddiscretionto informus on the Medes andPersians.These includetheZoroastrian religious textsof theAvesta,laterIranianmythicalandliterary motifs, and post-Achaemenidhistoricaldocuments andcommentaries(IranianandArabic).A veryreadable discussionby Vesta Curtis(1993) offersa useful introductionto some of this material;and work by ParivashJamzadeh(most comprehensivelypresentedin 1991) appliesthis understandingof broad continuitiesintoIslamictimesto iconographical studies in the representationof Achaemenidkingship. andEgyptiantextualsourcesofthe Mesopotamian Achaemenidperiod(althoughnot forthemostpartin the formof extendednarratives) areincreasinglysubject to analysisfroma varietyof perspectives.Manyof themareadministrative, legal,or funerarydocuments informingaspectsof socialhistorythatofficialcourt rhetoricis notlikelyto revealso straightforwardly. One of the impressiveachievementsof recentdecadeshas beenthemainstreaming ofseriousanalysisof suchtexts and the coordinationof effortsmore generallyto see theNearEasterntextualmaterialbothon itsownterms andalongsidethe classicaltestimonies.

VISUAL EVIDENCE AND ITS PROBLEMS

At the 1986 Achaemenid History Workshop, Sancisi-Weerdenburgspoke of an elusive empire,

3

MARGARETCOOLROOT

of corporaof excavatedobjectsthatmightgive us a broad-basedstandardforwhatMedianartis, a timehonored tacticof the antiquitiesmarkethas labeled as "Medianart"artifactsthatdo not quitefitwhatwe know about art of Achaemenidimperialcontexts. This problemhasbeenvividlyprofiledby Muscarella in manypublications(Muscarella2000 for a recent review). When we strip away all this unexcavated material,the result,as Dusinberre'sarticlediscusses, is that,amongthe most scientificallymindedpeople workingin the field today, not a single item of demonstrably"Medianart"has yet emerged. In ourzealto discreditspuriousMedianartifacts we have, however,perhapsmissed opportunitiesto Median Things.Tuplin(1994: 251) hascommented definethe termsof the debatein otherways.A small ruefullyon "the generalarchaeologicaland histori- numberof seals(andsealspreservedas impressions) were discoveredat Nush-iJan.They arenot considcal elusivenessof the Medes."That word again.The ered Medianart by the archaeologistsmost closely Medes seem to havebeen powerfulin the firsthalfof the firstmillenniumB.C.E. But our firsthandknowl- associatedwith the site andits smallfinds.Although edge of themis so scantyas to havemanycommenta- thoughtmost likelyto be locallymade,theyarecontorsthese daysenclosingthe adjectiveMedian(ifnot sidered so dependentupon the repertoiresof Late thenounMede)in quotationmarks.The centralroyal Assyrianand Syro-Phoenicianart that they cannot city of the Medeswas Ecbatana,which, alas,lies unqualify as having a separately definable identity derthemoderncityof Hamadan.A greatdealof clan- (Curtis 1984: 24-25; 1995: 23 and n. 5). Stronach destinedigginghas takenplace therein the past (excommentsthat"Ifthe singleearringand the various the of acerbating difficulties art-historicalinquiry). spiralformbeads fromthe [Nush-iJan] silverhoard Scientificallycontrolledexcavationhasbeenpursued do little to illustrateany special characterthat Meonly in recentyears.Followingsystematicpurchase dian artmayhavepossessed, it can only be said that of propertiesand the necessaryrelocationof fami- the sameobservationholds truefor the fewwell prelies, Iranianteams have uncovereda massiveforti- servedsealsthathavebeen found"(1984: vii). Years fiedenclosure,whichprobablypostdatesMedianand laterhe reiterateswith convictionthe idea thatthese AchaemenidPersiantimesbut hints at whatlies beseals cannot be insertedinto the record of Median low atearlierlevels. Othersites now beingexcavated art, statingthat "not one object can be reliablydisin Iranin additionto Ecbatanamay eventuallyprotinguished as an example of 'Median art"'(1998: vide corporaof visual arts that can be attributedto 242). The stampseal displayingan image of a cow the Medianpresence in pre-AchaemenidIran. An sucklinga calf (Curtis 1984: no. 233) is interesting exampleis Tepe Ozbakinortheastof Tehran, exca- in this regard.The motif goes back to very ancient vatedunderthedirectionofDr. YousefMadjidzadeh, Mesopotamian traditions referring to the great wherea massivefortificationmaybe Median(http:// motherNinhursagin the guise of a cow. But while www.ozbaki.com).9 the seal can be seen, as Curtishas explainedin deThe smallerbut remarkablesite of Nush-iJan, tail,whollyin thecontextof moreWesterntraditions, excavatedby David Stronachwith MichaelRoafin its motif also has Zoroastrian resonances, as the 1960s and'70s, is understoodto be Medianbased Negahban(1983) and Calmeyer(1995: 41-42) have upon its location in referenceto commentarieson both pointed out. Mediain the Assyrianrecords.Nush-iJan,for all its How do we deal with an artifactlike this one in significance,has been disappointingin the matterof the beleagueredcontext of the absent presence of smallfindsbecauseit was abandoned.In the absence Medianart?At whatpoint does an artifactexcavated referringto the currentstateof ourunderstandingof the AchaemenidPersianhegemony (Sancisi-Weerdenburg1990). At the nextworkshop,I tookup this issue, reflectingon a perversetendencyin the scholarshipstudiouslyto pursueperceivedclaritiesfrom the classicalsources while studiously ignoringpotentialclaritiesfromthe archaeologicaland primary textualrecordof theAchaemenidempireitself(Root 1991). In other words, I claimed(and still do) that the materialelusivenessof the Achaemenidsis not so much the resultof a dearthof evidenceitself;it is more the result of biases that make a constructed notion of scarceevidenceeminentlyreassuring.

MEDESAND PERSIANS

ata siteacceptedthroughhistorical-geographical and otherevidenceas Medianbecome, by virtueof that, itself Median?Have we, in the stressfulpresenceof so much spuriousmaterialand the stressfulabsence (despite such promisingexcavations)of corporaof certifiableMedianmaterial,become shy about confrontingthe complexitiesof whatMedianvisualculturalidentity would have been? Is it not to be expected thatlocalworkshopsproducing"Medianart" at Nush-iJan would plausiblycommingleelements of Assyrian/Syro-Phoenicianimageryand cultural connotationwith elementsthat resonatedwith Iranian ones (including proto-Zoroastrian conceptions)?The architectureof the site and,moreimportantly,the ritualaspects of the abandonmentof the fire temple there are widely acknowledgedthrough Stronach'sanalysesas blendingelementsof Mesopotamianform and culturalpracticewith elementsof Indo-Iranian/proto-Zoroastrian tradition.Couldwe not consider artifacts from Nush-iJan in the same way? Or does the seal need to be inscribed in the Medianlanguagewith a Medianname to qualifyas Medianeven though the site itself is happily called Medianin the absenceof this formof evidence? Why is the namingof Medianartsuch a fraught issue, when comparativelylittle anxiety surrounds other ethnicallyassociatedmilieusof productionin first-millenniumIran?I think it all comes down to one double-edgedthing. On the one hand, our expectationsof distinctivenessfor the concept are inflatedbecauseof the importancethe Medes assume throughthe narrativesof Herodotus. On the other hand, our eagernessto see, through the art of the Mediankingdom,thefoundationsofAchaemenidart and culturehas createdpredeterminedexpectations thathave not been submittedto theoreticalcritique as expectations.

The questionof standardsforassessinga notion of Mediannessis posed in thisvolumeby Dusinberre in the context of a unique fragmentof luxuryivory furnituredecorationexcavatedatthe siteof Kerkenes in centralAnatolia.The identificationof this site as a Medianoutpost is controversial,and the validityof Dusinberre'sanalysisdoes not depend on this. But if, forthe sakeof discussion,we acceptKerkenesas a fortifiedcity built or at least occupied by the Medes alongthe westernrimof theirhegemonicexpansion,

then arewe entitledto considerthis remarkablefiguralivoryan exampleof courtlyMedianart?An explorationof the artifacton this basis is revelatory.It opens our minds to a world of complex cultural strains.Set againstan intricatearrayof parallelsfor variousindividualfeatures,the piece remainsutterly unique in its entirety.Muscarellacogentlywarnsof the likelihoodthatan unexcavatedunicumris a forgery (Muscarella2000: 18). Butan excavatedunicum deserves the best and broadest possible reach of analysis.In this respectthe Kerkenesivoryis analogous to the "gold bowl" from the artifact-richIron Age site of Hasanlujustsouthof LakeUrmia(Dyson and Voigt 1989), which is consideredan ethnically Mannaean(non-Iranian)placebasedon assessments of historicalgeographyin the absenceof any textual evidence identifying it. Most recently, in a dense scholarshipon the object,Rubinson(2003) suggests links between the Hasanlu vessel and tlle Transcaucasiansphere of luxury art production,just as Dusinberrehasposited such linksherein relationto the traditionsinformingthe Kerkenesivory. Such connectionshighlighta growingrealizationin general(partlyresultingfromthe end of the Cold War) thatscholarsof Median-Persian studiescanandneed to workwith Transcaucasia(and centralAsia). Persians and the Arts of the AchaemenidEmpire. While Medianart has seemed so famouslyunfathomablefromthe excavatedrecord,the situationfor Persianartin the yearsbeforethe adventof CyrusII and the emergenceof the Achaemenidempire has actuallybeenjust as elusive. Manyscholarsdo not really expect to find a visual record that could be definedas specifically"Persian"beforethe deliberate formationof Achaemenidart. There has been a strong undercurrentof misplacedassumltion that Persiansemergingout of a nomadicpast will have had no traditionsof art-makingof their own, and perhapsno "taste."Andersonmakesinterestingobservationsaboutthe similaritiesof discussionof the proto-Nabataeans andtheparvenuAchaemenidPersians.Gates'sarticleremindsus thatthisfeelingabout the Persiansis fadingout only slowly. One revelationaltersthepicturea bit. A cylinder seal(PFS93* on the PersepolisFortificationtablets), inscribedwith the name and titularyof the Persian

5

MARGARETCOOLROOT

6

Cyrus I, was used on administrativetablets of the reign of Darius at Persepolis (Garrisonand Root 1996 [1998] for the decades-longhistory of publication of this seal; discussion by Dusinberre and Gates in this volume). The fact that the style and imageryof PFS 93* invokesa very high-qualitylate Elamiteglyptictraditionis tremendouslyimportant. Addedto that,theinscriptionin the Elamitelanguage clinches its significance as a product of a preAchaemenidofficialPersianmilieuin which Elamite artisticpractice and administrativeprotocols were partof an adaptivenegotiationof politicaland social dimensions.'0The seal of CyrusI notwithstanding, we stilldo not havea sense of whatranges of artproductionwerecurrentamongthepre-empirePersians. As with the Medianproblem,a greatdeal of learned discussionon artifactsthatmightqualifyas pre-empire Persianarthas centeredon unexcavatedand in some casescertainlyspuriousobjects.The so-called Oxus Treasureis one example of materialthat remainsfrequentlycited as if it had scientificintegrity but cannotbe claimedto have anythinglike the evidentiary status of an excavated corpus (e.g., Muscarella2000: 208 n. 30; forthcoming). The Achaemenidimperialprojectcreateda set of ideologicallychargeddemandsforofficialart.It is this self-conscious court production that we call Achaemenidart(Root 1979: 1). The seal of CyrusI is part of that same sphere of deliberatelyallusive royal apparatus,even though it was createdin the years before imperial consolidation. Razmjou, Nimchuk,Mousavi,andAndersondealdirectlywith art-historicalissues centralto our ongoing effortsto appreciatethe nuancesof the programmaticAchaemenidendeavor.Nimchuk'sarticleis tied closely to the formativephase. Addressing issues of official message conveyance, it offers rigorouslyinformed new paradigmsin the analysisof numismaticdata. Her analysisleads to originalperspectiveson imperialdynamicsas well as on issues of iconographyand the importanceof gift exchangeas a mechanismof social orchestration.Her paper can be placed in relation to the classic work on symbols and their formationby Firth(1973) and Matheson'sstudy of the processes and discourses in identityleading to the creationof the imageryof the Canadianflag(Matheson 1980). For explicit discussion of gifting,which

is importantto Nimchuk'sargument,Dusinberre's articleprovides substantialbackground(to which add Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1989 forits relevancespecificallyto Nimchuk). In discussing the statue of Darius from Susa, Razmjouis also lodged in the formativeera. But his focuson thepostcreationbiographyof themonument bringsit down into the less-developedarenaof later Achaemenidstudies and from there into the phase of Macedoniandevastation.There is increasinginterestin lateAchaemenidhistory.Briant'snew book on DariusIII(2003), whichhasjustreachedmydesk, assertstheprofoundrichnessof thisphaseas a metaphoricalsite of historiographicintricacy.On the archaeologicalfront,Razmjou'saccountof thelifestory of the Dariusstatuebegins to link togetherissues of politicalrepositioningandphysicalrelandscapingof ceremonialinstallationsafter the formativeyears. Studiesof latealterationsto the builtenvironmentsof Persepolisand Susahavebeen made(e.g., Calmeyer 1990;citationsofBoucharlat in Razmjou).Butthetime is ripefora comprehensivetreatmentthatsees theculturalpolitics and the physicalmanifestationsin the holisticwayRazmjoupointsus toward. In largerhistoricalterms,Razmjou'sworktakes up issues of vandalismanddestructionas expressive strategies that can be read off the archaeological recordand interpretedsymbolically(viz., Nylander 1999, aswellas earlierworkby NylanderandBahrani cited by Razmjou).Razmjou'sclose interrogationof the destructionof a monumentalroyalimagereveals interestingaspectsof the intendeddurabilitiesof the thingas well as the loci of its ultimatevulnerabilities. In this, the articletakesits place beside the importanttechnicalstudy of the constructionand demise of the life-sizedbronze statueof the second-millennium Middle Elarnitequeen Napir-Asu,also excavated at Susa (Meyers2000). Additionalaspects of analysisthatemergehere involvethe valorizationof unique "originals"in artproductionversus the social efficacyof producingmultiplesof sculpturessimultaneously.This lastis a topicofwideinterest,with particular but hardly exclusive applicability to Achaemenid/NearEasternstudiesand to Greekand Romanarthistory(e.g., Ridgway1984;Gazda2002). Two articles balance analysis within the Achaemenid period and analysis of reflections on

MEDESAND PERSIANS

the empire in later times:Anderson and Mousavi. Anderson'swork tracingNabataeanemulationsof Achaemenidart perforceoffers thought-provoking discussionsof selectedAchaemenidmotifswhile arguing for the enduringcharismaof postdestruction Persepolis as a site. It dismantlesnumerouslongstandingassumptionsaboutthe natureof Nabataean "eclecticism,"seeing,rather,a programof calculated appropriationsthat reflectan embattledNabataean positioningin relationto the RomanWest on the one hand and to a culturalmemoryof privilegewithin the earlierEasternAchaemenidhegemony on the otherhand. It challengesthe readerto imaginea culturalenclavewithin a parvenupoliticalentity making informedvisual choices in the service of politically attuned constructionsof identity. The many insightsAnderson offersinto the historiographyof Nabataeanstudies and its parallelsin Achaemenid studies bear considerationin relationto Vickers's articleon Nabataeangold vessels and economies of gifting.Vickers (1994) makes the point that Nabataeangold tablewareused as a medium of weighed exchangeharksback to Achaemenidpractice.This in turnties in with Nimchuk'spaperon Achaemenid coinageas weighed "tokensof royalesteem." Mousavi'shistory of archaeologyat Persepolis cogentlyinformscurrentinterestsin Achaemenidart historywhen he commentson the hopes of the Iranian excavatorAkbarTadjvidi to revealthe nature of GreaterPersepolisas anurbanentity.Tadjvidiwas committedto this scientificexplication,while simultaneously invested in a mythologized notion of Persepolis as a city hidden from the non-Persian world. The subjecthas attractedother scholarsapproaching it from different perspectives (e.g., Boucharlat 2003;GarrisonandRoot2001:9-10; Root 2001; Anderson,thisvolume).Thus Mousavi'sassertionof the tensionsin Tadjvidi'sthinkingis mostwelcome. Tadjvidi'sbook on the Persepolisexcavations (in Persian)is difficultto findanywherebut especially in NorthAmerica(Abdiand Root forthcoming). In allusionsto Persepolisasa highlyprogrammed visuallandscapefill of symbols,both Andersonand Mousaviin differentways reinforcethe work of the IranianscholarParivashJamzadeh, who is only one Ph.D. generationbeyond them (Jamzadeh1991). A focalpoint of her researchhas been the Achaemenid

throneas a physicalandsymbolicformandas anidea that takes on metaphoricalvalences relatingto the Takhtof Persepolisitself.Sitesas thronesandthrones as vehicles of elaboratesignification-this is a topic that returnsus to Dusinberre'spaper on the ivory fromKerkenes,wherethelushiconographiesof royal furnitureand the importanceof furnitureas a medium of symbolicallychargedgift exchangeloomed large. Here we also call into the dialoguea study of Achaemenid furniture forms from Macedonia (Paspalas2000). Paspalasdeals with receptionand emulationof Achaemenidcourtlyassociationsin the West at the late end of the Achaemenidempire. In this sense it also meritsa readingin connectionwith Anderson'spaperin Medesand Persians. Everycontributionto this volume addressesissues of ethnicityandidentityconstructionin one way or another.So pervasiveis this themethatI can only alludeto selectedfeaturesof its presencelhere.Abdi andGatestackleproblemsin the analysisof ethnicity in art, focusing primarilyon materialrepresenting personaltastesand preferencesof people operating within the imperialmilieubut not necessarilyor exclusivelyin officialcapacities.1'Bothworkwithproblems of Iranianness(or Persianness)set in relationto a strong cultural tradition embraced within the Achaemenidhegemony.Gatesexplicitlyemphasizes modern cultural subtexts embedded in naming withinthe discourseof Persianempirestudies,while she exploresthe so-calledGraeco-Persianphenomenon as a kaleidoscopicallyshifting set of performances of art production, reception, and use in a multiculturalimperialmilieu. In the contextof identitystudiesas well as studies of styleandiconography,the evidentiaryvalueof sealsimpressedon excavatedarchivesof tabletsbearing informationon the seal users takes on critical importancefor Gatesand also forAbdi, Dusinberre, Nimchuk,andAnderson.The expandedavailability of andinterestin this type of evidenceis a significant developmentin Achaemenidstudies,facilitatingcontemplationof the discretionarybehaviorof individuals. Because some of these people are known to us througha varietyof identifiers(name, occupation, sex, and so on), we can consider their seals in the context of individualidentitynegotiationswithin a richlyvariegatedempire.'2This materialhelpsclarify

7

MARGARETCOOLROOT

8

the situationin the perverseway of demonstrating Persian"style"revealhow pervasiveis the tendency to call elementsof iconographyfeaturesof style. Yet conclusivelyhow prevalentthe tangledprocess of in orderto considervariationsin style(at the level of self-consciousidentityconstructionwas in this context. Despite such substantialevidence, the cultural line,composition,volume,andthelike)acrossa realm ofincreasinglywidespreadintercultural exchangeand premisesupon which we assess the how and why of glypticstylesandtheirsocialmeaningshasremained commingling,it is imperativethatwe be ableto sepahotlycontested,aswe havenoted,in the specificcase rateout (forthesakeof analysis)performancesof style fromperformancesof iconographicalcontent. of so-calledGraeco-Persianart.Gates'sarticleis not The issue of art as a mechanismfor and refleconly importantas an effortto provide some transparencyto the murkyscholarlywatershere ("Mod- tion of social cohesions across culturalboundaries ern EurocentricOverlays,"above);it is also impor- leads naturallyto a discussionof empireitself.In the discussionhereI willfocusquitea bit on Abdi'sstudy tant because the criticalfeatureof the solution she of the Achaemenidlife of EgyptianBes as a way of proposesto theprobleminvolvesinsistenceupon an demonstratinghow criticalthe gatheringof evidence interrogationof excavatedevidence-particularlyin the formof sealsimpressedon archivallyinformative remainsto the field. His articlerevealsthe remarklabels and tablets.In so doing she demonstratesthe able geographical diffusion of Bes and defines a greatpotentialsof these dataas well as the inevitable timeframefor the establishmentof Bes in areasbeflaws in argumentationthat emerge from analysis yond Egyptitself (and east of the densely EgyptianinfluencedPhoenicianzone).'4Abdi shows thatthe based, instead, on unprovenancedartifacts.This is tactic used who all the Besalsoa by Abdi, deity'spopularityemergesjustwhen the empirehad catalogues imagescurrentlyknownto himbutgivesspecialweight been consolidatedand broad-basedideologicalvisions had been established.This may suggest that to objectsthathavethe highestscientificstatus. The convoluted synergies of style, ethnicity, the empirewas ideologicallysecure in its tolerance identity construction,influencetheory, and recep- of a foreigndeity across all strataof society and in tion are majorthemesrunningthroughmanyof the highlyvisibleaswell as intenselyprivatespheres.But articlesin this volume. In his object-basedstudy of anotherapproachmightbe to see the assimilationof one icon, Abdihasdeliberatelyeschewedanyexplicit Bes as a formof resistanceor a manifestation of some contextualizationof his own method and approach other form of social anxiety.This all remainsto be with referenceto other scholarshipthat treatssimi- debatedon thebasisofAbdi'sassemblageof evidence. larproblems.Anderson'sarticledoes go throughthat The welcomingof Bes into visual and spiritual process. It provides one richly texturedbackdrop domains across the expanse of the empire and up against which Abdi can be read. Additionally, againstits centralAsianandTranscaucasian frontiers Schapiro'sclassic study of style (1994 [1962]: esp. providesan index of the culturalpermeabilityof the 81-90) and Miller'swork on reception (1997) are Achaemenid enterprise. To the wooden bridle importantcomplements.Anyfutureconsiderationof plaques in the form of Bes heads from Siberian the definitionaloperationsof style-in Achaemenid Pazyrykin the Altai mountainregion, which Abdi art strictly speaking and also in the arts of the mentions as exemplarsto give a sense of the range Achaemenidempire inclusively-will want to deal just beyondtheimperiallimits,we canaddtheleather with the challengesposed by concepts of "interna- Bes-imagethatformedpartof a leatherbreast-strap tional style" as these have been articulatedfor the found in barrow2 at Pazyryk.Rudenko (1970: 48 second-millenniumeasternMediterranean,includ- and fig. 76) calledthis Bes a "humanmask,"but it is ing western Asia (Feldman2002), and specifically clearlyBes. This warnsus that scholarsworkingin for this same expansivearenain the context of the centralAsianstudieswillnotnecessarilyuse terminolAchaemenidempire(Melikan-Chirvani 1993). The ogy thatdovetailswiththatof NearEasternandMediproblemsarecomplex,and, as with the Graeco-Per- terraneanstudies.Thus it is crucialto look at the visiandilemma,theymustbe contemplatedwith refer- sualmaterialitselfratherthanrelyingupon indicesin ence to excavatedevidence.'3Discussionsof Graeco- anyiconographicalsearchthatcrosscutstheserealms.

MEDESAND PERSIANS

Bes's inclusion among materialfrom the Oxus Treasure signals that the Bactria/Sogdianaregion of the empire probablyinteractedreadilywith the culturesof the nomadic chiefdoms (Azarpay1959, reinforcedby Lerner1991). This much can be said despite our inability (already noted) to treat the Oxus Treasure as excavated evidence. Hopefully we will soon have more excavatedmaterialto work with from the eastern reaches of the empire. Current controlledarchaeologicalwork in easternIran at sites such as Dahaneh Gholamannear the modern city of Zabol promises much. An international team, headed by Seyd Mansour Sajiadi, has returnedto earliersurveysites (Vogelsang1992: 26063, with references).Reports in the press suggest lavish evidence of the visual arts. At anotherfrontier,this timealongthe BlackSea rim, we also find importantevidence of Bes's presence. Objectsin a cryptof the GreatBliznitsakurgan on the Taman peninsula include an EgyptianBes amuletand an Achaemenidseal of heroic encounter (Farkasn.d.: 28, cat. nos. 62 and 63). Farkascomments on the plethoraof Egyptianobjects here, as well as objects apparentlyof Egyptianmanufacture but bearing Achaemenidroyal-nameinscriptions. The material(including the Bes amulet) is clearly passingthroughthe filterof the empireto end upjust beyond its borders-in an areaof increasinginterdisciplinaryinterestfor analysesof the culturalencounters among Greeksin the wake of Alexander, indigenouscultures,andAchaemenidlegaciesof interactionin the region. The militaryis a criticalfeatureof any empire. The link between the embrace of Bes and the Achaemenidarmywas a phenomenon surely catalyzed by the associationsof Bes as a protectivedeity. Through this realizationAbdi provides a platform forexploringhow a certainmulticulturalsocialgroup may have used a cohesive cult affiliation,and its visual imagery, to consolidate one aspect of an identity.This conceptspeaks ethnicity-transcending to Anderson'sthesisthatNabataeancrenelatedtombs displayed calculated evocations of Persepolitan/ Achaemenidimageryin a specificclimateof tension between acceptance of and resistance to Roman power. An importantfeatureof the Nabataean/Arabian environmentin which these reminiscencesof

Achaemenidmotifs were developed is its military association. Parr (1997: 447) has noted that the crenelatedNabataeantombs"demonstratea concentrationof high-rankingmilitarypersonnelin the city [of Hegra/ Meda'inSaleh], presumablyon account of its importancefor guardingthe southernlimitsof the Nabataeanrealm."In other words, two articles hereraiseissues of the roleof militarygroupsas forgers of specific claimsof identityplayedout through visualdeviceswithinan imperialcontext. In empirestudiesexplorationof the aftermathis oftenparticularlyrevealingof elementsof the imperial experienceitself. It seems that, with the fall of theAchaemenidempire,Besceded to Heraklesquite quicklyin Iranianand Mesopotamianlands. Abdi's catalogueincludes one Bes-imagefromthe Masjid-i Sulaimanexcavations,where occupationoccurred fromAchaemenidtimes to the late Parthianperiod. Abdi has proposed an Achaemeniddate for the object. The site may have become a Macedonianmilitarygarrisonstrategicallyguardingaccessin two crucial directions:between the Susianaplain and the PersianGulfandbetweenMasjid-iSulaimanand the Iranianplateau (Herrmann 1977: 39, discussing Ghirshman'sinterpretationsofhis excavations).Significantevidence of a cult of Herakleswas revealed in the post-Achaemenidphases. Post-Achaemenid appearancesof Bes in westernAsia maybe rare,but the subjectdeservessystematicpursuit.One prominent Bes-imageon a crenelatedNabataeantomb at Hegraraisesa questionas a resultof the confluence here of the articlesby Abdi and Anderson:Is it possible that furtherresearchwould indicate that this imagerepresentsyet anotherconsciousdeployment among some elites in Nabataeaof motifs meant to evoke allegiancesto the great Easternempire of a bygone time? The alternative-that the impulse to deploy Bes here camedirectlyfromEgyptand signifiedonly ratherrandomeclecticsensibilities-is possible; but Anderson'sentire argumentgives legitimacyto the factorof mythologizedculturalmemory in the serviceof currentpolitical/socialconcerns. One finalfacetof empirestudies I note here involvesstrategiesfortalkingaboutthewholespectrum of phenomenaof acculturationwithin a hegemonic project.We havealreadynoted thatAbdi'suse of the term "Iranianization" is historiographicallyloaded

9

MARGARETCOOLROOT

10

(see "A Frameof Reference").Whathappenswhen we consider this term specificallyin the context of artproductionin the serviceof personalratherthan officially canonized tastes? It suggests that an Iraniannessin some sense informedthe assimilation of Bes amongnon-Iranians(in the militaryand otherwise)as well as Iranianpeoples withinthe empire. This in turnsuggestsaninterplaybetweenaninitially Iranian-based popularreceptivityto Bes andthe flexibilityof imperialideologyto accommodateandperhaps even to encouragethe incorporationof a foreign deityinto popularculture.It maybe possible to theorizethisissueby referencingthe extensivelypursued and still evolvingconcept of Romanizationas a mechanismof acculturationwithin the much more lavishly documented Roman empire (e.g., Woolf 1998; Webster2001), althoughthe analogieswill be inexactand in some senses inverted. In variousways severalof the papers in Medes and Persiansworkwith issues of the portability,the mobility,of things and the people who makethem and use them (again-idea-things as well as objectthings). It is perhaps the most common thematic bond beyond thatof ethnicity,identity,and empire itself.When we contemplatethis elementaland obvious phenomenon, it is salutaryto return to the materialrecord. We are accustomedto thinkingof idea-thingsas convolutedandoftenimpossibleto sort out. Especiallyin this age of theory, there may be some sense in which object-thingsought, by comparison,to be quite straightforward and beneaththe considerationof trulygreatminds.I takea lessonfrom a colleaguewhose experienceis vast and whose understandingof thingsis subtle:GeorginaHerrmann. In the contextof luxuryivoryproductionin western Asiashe layson a memorable,irony-lacedphrasethat seems to captureit all:"theimponderablesof mobility" (Herrmann1986: 7). As we perforceponderthoseimponderables,the mostbasicfeaturesof furnitureproductionloom like monsters.We have alreadynoted the special symbolic chargeof the iconographyof furniture,especiallyin royalcontextsof intercultural exchange.That chargewill have made the medium,as a site of culturalexpression,farmoredynamicthantheterm"furniture"impliesto most of us today.On the practical level of archaeologicalinquiry,furnitureis a night-

marethat makesmusingson the social strategiesof sitting,dining, and the like seem effortlessby comparison.Fittingmarksandjoiningtechniques(documented across the entiregeographicalrangeof this volume)demonstrablyfacilitatedthe dismantlingand reassemblingof furniturein antiquity.We maysometimesbe lookingat multipleloci of componentproductionby workerslivingin widelyseparatedplaces and havingvaryingpersonalidentitiesthatrivalthe contemporaryglobalizedscene of distributedmanufacturing.This scenariodoes not even introducethe mobilitiesof artisanswho traveledto do theirwork or the mobilitiesof elite owners. Neitherdoes it introducethe mobilitiesof secondarygiftexchangeor the mobilitiesof images of furniturethatin some circumstancescan have carriedat least as much symbolic weightas the actualconstructedobjects. Notions of mobility returnus full circle to the veryprocessesof empire,whichdemandeddiffusion aswellas controlof ideasin multipledirections.Gates offersthe term"meteorological" (asin a weathersystem) to characterizethe dynamiccultural/socialenvironmentof the Achaemenidempire,feelingthatit cannot be expressedadequatelyby rigid top-down or center-periphery models. Dusinberre's term "transcultural fluidities"similarlystrivesto free the discourseon empirefromnotions of unidirectional modeling.Both effortsresonatewith a callDan Potts has put forth: we must stop looking at WesternAsia in terms of diametricallyopposed centresand peripheries, andbeginto grapplewiththefargreatercomplexity posed by the overallmatrixof relationships which characterizedany momentin time. (Potts 1999: 439)

IRANIAN VERSUS AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES?

There is a latent question that emergesfroma volume that deliberatelyjuxtaposes papers by Iranian and North Americanscholarsof the sameacademic generation:the degreeto which membersof the two groups may have differentintellectualapproaches thatcleavealong culturallydeterminedfaultlines. I discuss this at my peril, and in an unblushingly

MEDESAND PERSIANS

subjectiveway. Eachof the people representedhere is, of course, an individualwith a differentpersonal historyand compositiondespitemembershipin one or the other overarchingcategoryof identification. It mayseem quaintin the currenteraof globalization andinternetaccesseven to raisethe topic. Butall the North Americansare products of North American education(despitenumerousdistinctionsin ultimate ethnicassociationsandso on); allof themhavecome of age entirely in an era when Iran was off-limits. Thus, as broadas theirfield experienceshavebeen, and involvingseveralcountriesin the Mediterranean NearEast,none of themhasyet had a chanceto visit, much less do fieldworkin, Iranitself. By the same token, all the Iraniansreceivedtheirformativeeducationin Iran.And all,regardlessofwell-traveledacademiclives,remainfirmlylinkedto Iraniantraditions and to the practiceof archaeologythere.I will offera few observationson this matter,while leaving the readerto ponder it furtherin relationto the contributions themselves. Iranianarchaeologywas untilthe mid-twentieth centurydominatedby foreignarchaeologicalconcessions. It is well understoodthat Old World archaeology has been the handmaiden of colonialism (Meskell 1998). These issues have now spawned greatcriticalintrospectionamongIranians,who energeticallyseek to illuminatethe politics of the archaeologyof theirown patrimonythroughstate archives, some of which areonly quite recentlyaccessible (e.g., Mousaviin thisvolume;Abdi 2001). It is not merely that languagefacilityand researchpermitsencouragethis typeof investigationby Iranians. There is also a kind of need (and responsibility)to "know"representedhere-a need to knowat a point nowwheresubstantialcriticaldistanceis actuallypossible. In this context, it is interestingthat in documentingthe demiseof the statueof DariusfromSusa, Razmjoudeliberatelyomitsclandestinediggingfrom his list of humanactivitiescontributingto thedestruction of archaeologicalmonuments.FormanyAmericans writingon the samematerial,this would probablybe nearthe top of such a litany.This difference reflects,I think,a kind of generousdiscretionon the one hand and a desire on the other hand not to divert historicalanalysistowardcurrentpoliticalpolemic. His omission is certainlynot born of apathy

about or ignoranceof market-drivenarchaeological devastation.That said, it is noteworthythatIranin the last decadeshas been less troubledby this problem thanmanyothercountries,so thatits relevance to currentIranianscholarsmay lie in retrospective contemplationsof colonialistarchaeologicalpractice (as, for instance,with Mousavihere). Most of us in theWest,by contrast,areconfrontedwitha guiltfactorcombinedwith a pragmaticrealitythatourmuseums are full of questionablyretrievedartifacts.In orderto proceed, manyof us feel compelledto state our positions on these mattersexplicitlyand with a sense of needinessthatmaybe analogousto the Iranians"need to know"aboutotherthingsand to illuminatefor the recordthe complexitiesof the history of archaeologythere as it served the interestsof internaland internationalpolitics. Perhapsto state the obvious, the Iranianshave a deep knowledgeof the materialrecord thatstems in partfromrigorousearlyarchaeologicaleducation in an empiricallygroundedmode of learning.It also stems from the kinds of awareness that can only come fromdirectand repeatedcontactwith things, places, and people carryingdeeply entrenchedculturalmemories.I do not suggest that only Iranians should write about Iran. It is, however, important to acknowledge that Americanarchaeologistsand arthistorianshavesufferedforseveralacademicgenerations in their inability even to begin to experience in situ the things-, places-, and people-filledwith-memoriesthat create the texture of a world. Over the sameperiod, researchersin Iranhave suffered from an equally challengingisolation: grave difficultiesin acquiringand updatingthe necessary apparatusfor data managementand for sophisticated interdisciplinary work on site, where the things, places, and memoriesare. The needs range frommonographs,referencetools, andjournals to state-of-the-arttechnological support in terms of computerhardwareandsoftware,imageproduction, conservationequipment, and so on. The internationalinternetinitiative(http://www.achemenet.com) spearheadedby PierreBriantthrough the College de Franceis one crucialway of assistingin the timely sharingof information.But even this ever-expanding informationnetworkcannottakethe place of access to other elements.

11

MARGARETCOOLROOT

12

In the U.S. and Canadawe takefor grantedthe about him and his conquest of the Persianempire. So it is perhapsno surprisethata healthycynicism capacityto pursue relativelyeasilymost lines of inrunsthroughRazmjou'sarticlewhenhe discussesthe quirythat strikeus, with access at least throughInterlibraryLoan to primaryand secondaryresources Macedoniandestructionat Susa.This destructionis in anyfield (not includingthose thatcan only be ap- clearfromthe archaeologicalrecord(in partthrough preciatedin situ, as I have said). At the same time, his analysis),yet it is muted in the classicalsources graduateeducationin Old World archaeologyhas and thus also in typical Western scholarlydiscustended for some time to emphasizetheoreticalexsions. He writesnonethelesswithoutrecourseto an plorationin a climateof enforcedshort time to dealternativedemonizationofAlexander.Iranianshave gree. There is a dangerouspotentialto inhibit stu- theirown legaciesof historicaland mythicalheroes. dents' abilityto structuremeaningfulrepertoiresof Culturalapproachesto notions of nobility and hedatathatwill lend theirtheoreticalapplicationsseri- roic caliberintersectwith how we all interpretevious significance.Jen Gates's contribution on the dence on issues such as kingship, ideologies of Graeco-Persianparadigmexemplifiesa happy out- power, and theirmodes of expressivenessin visual come of this scenario,with a clearevolutionarytra- terms. Ali Mousavi'scontributionis redolentwith jectory. Her projectwas born initiallyof a theory- specificallyIranianvalences-in this case concerndriven,interdisciplinaryU.S. seminar.The firstver- ing the power of the ruin-placethat is Persepolis. sion of the work,forthatcontext,was sharpandproBasedin parton his access to archivalevidenceand vocative;but it only lightlyglossed the materialevi- anecdotalinformationfromprincipalsin thearchaeodence thatservedas the pawnin the "ethnicityname logicalexplorationat theheartlandcapitalof the Pergame"scholarshipthat she was critiquing.She has sianempire,Mousavi'scontributionbringsprivileged gone on hereto pressurethe intellectualproblemshe insightsto bearnot only on a historyof archaeology hadoriginallylaidout,packingaroundit andthrough as narrativebut also on a historyof archaeologyas an its fissuresan analysisof a well-chosen set of exca- interpretiveexpressionof Iranianculturalintonation. vated data and simultaneouslyheighteningour apSet in dialogue with these studies, Cindy preciationof the analyticalpotentialsinherentin the Nimchuk'sarticlecanbe appreciatedwith evenmore empiricalevidenceitself. richnessthanit could on its own, workingas it does I suspect that had Gates been raisedin an Ira- in a surprisingsympathywith the Iranistundercurnian educational environmentthe process would rentsin Mousavi'spaper.Withoutexplicitlytheorizhave worked in reverseorder. This, at any rate, is ing her tactics, Nimchukmoves away from a rigid how it proceededfor ShahrokhRazmjou.He began Westernconcept of whatearlyAchaemenidcoinage with a carefuland extremelyvaluablestudy of the representedas a social tool. Was it just "money," physicalevidence of the statueof Dariusand its excopying,albeitwitha differentimagery,theeconomic cavated surroundings. The original product was standardand functionof the coinage of Croesusof based on firsthandaccess to the object and the site Lydia?Or does a reassessmentof the evidenceopen and was intendedto servehis mandateas a museum up new possibilitiesmore in tune with culturalmoprofessional.To the armatureof this self-sustaining res of Iraniankingship?Her explorationis informed analysis,he proceeded for this volume to build up by detailedresearchinto numismatictechnicalities, historicalandhistoriographical commentariesof lay- as we have noted; but in the process it alludes by ered analyticalsignificanceand theoreticalimplica- implicationto the torturedhistory of how the Pertion. The point hereis thatgiftedmindswith serious sians have been treatedas subjectsof analysis.Auintentionswillbe flexible-able continuallyto receive tomatic assumptionsof Darius's (crass) economic freshchallengesto the normsand particularvirtues motivations(based on Western readings of Heroof theirrespectiveacademictraining. dotus's characterization of his shrewdness)may,we In theWest,Alexanderof Macedonis Alexander learn, miss a criticalpoint about the agency of the the Great,a culturehero. Iranianslearn about this royal image, about the numinous, and about the figureverydifferentlyfromthewayWesternerslearn bonds of loyalty and gift exchange.

MEDESAND PERSIANS

IN CONCLUSION

Manyintertwinedthemesare addressedin different ways by the articlesin this volume. These include: art-makingand use as a locus of social negotiation; manipulationof historicallychargedartisticlegacies as a means of identityconstructionand politicalresistance;difficultiesin the collisionof (largelyWestern)literarytestimonyandthe archaeologicalrecord; destructionor defacementof art(andsites)as a mode of negotiationand production;social memoryand meaning;excavatedversusunexcavatedevidence;life cycles and produced meaningsof sites; portability and its myriadsocial implications;notions of ethnic predilectionin the analysisof style;imperialideologiesversuslocalizedand/orpersonalizedexpression; problemsof ancientIraniancitiesas archaeologically knowableimperialand urbanentities. This overviewof themesand analyticalagendas in Medesand Persianshas emphasizedthe stateof a selectedclusterof object-andidea-thingsas theyhave been profferedfor our study here. It has not been meantto serveas a comprehensivestate-of-the-field essay. That much-neededthinkpiece has yet to be written. The seven explorationspresented in this volume do, however,begin to createa blueprintfor such a project, and they offer an impressivecross section of work focused on the culturalnexus of art production in the service of elusive and historiographicallyburdened Iranianempires in the first

logically or geopolitically.The archaeological,historical,and ethnolinguisticliteratureis vast. This introductiononly strives to offera generalstorylineas a backdropto the particularanalyses containedin the assembledarticles.The continuedprominenceof archaeological/historical-geographical inquiryinto Iran in the IronAge immediatelyprecedingthe Achaemenidempire is highlightedby Liverani1995 and by a recent conferencein Paduathe proceedingsof which will soon appear(Lanfranchi, Roaf,and Rollingerin press). 4. E.g., Medvedskaya1999; Dyson andVoigt 1989; Miroschedji 1990; Potts 1999; Waters2000; and Zadok2002. 5. AmelieKuhrt(forthcoming)is currentlycompletinga critical referenceworkon primarysourcesforthe studyofAchaemenid history. 6. See Nylan 2000 for a comparativediscussion of these issues in relationto the study of women in AchaemenidPersia and Han China.Issues of genderdo not happento be foregrounded in any of the articlesin our volumehere, but workproceeds on this frontin Achaemenidstudies. 7. Inscriptions on "Median" silver vessels published by Mahboudian(1995 [1978]) are not writtenin Mediandespite the author'scertaintythat they are preservedon Median artifacts.It is to Mahboudian'screditthathe sought the servicesof a specialist.But G. Lambert(pp. 31-32) explainsthe oddities of the inscriptionswithout recourseto an assumptionthat the languageis Median.Similarly,reportsof tabletsin Medianfrom an archiveat Assur cannotbe credited. 8. Manyclassicaltexts, afterall, have come to us on papyrirecycled as packingfor mummiesin RomanEgypt.We would be in poor shape if we relied on findingsof texts on parchmentor papyrifromthe climateof Athens.

millennium B.C.E. CI

9. It is worth observing,for Western readerswho are curious about what contemporaryIranis like these days, that many of the scientific staffat Ozbaki are young women archaeologists with M.A. degrees.

Notes

10. Young'sstatement(2003: 245) that"argumentson stylistic grounds, however, date this seal to the time of Darius I (or slightlyearlier)"is baffling.On "stylisticgrounds"it is unquestionably neo-Elamite. The possibility that it is a carefully archaizingproduct (in the neo-Elamitestyle) of a Persepolitan workshopin the eraof Dariusis an interestingone. But thatis a differentmatterentirely.Any argumentfora productiondatein the reignof Dariuswould need to depend on a shiftin linguistic assessmentof the inscription-not on the style and imageryof the representationalcomponent. The continued use of a Persianroyal-namesealofpre-empiredateon administrativedocuments well into the period of Darius has been frequentlyacknowledgedand explained.

1. I thank my Michigan colleague, the anthropologist/ JapanologistJenniferRobertson,for offeringme persuasiverationales for pressing forwardwith my proposed special issue when I confessed anxietiesto her. 2. On irony, see Root 1999. Gunter 1990, both the introduction and manyof the variouscontributions,remainsan important statementof issues around art production in the ancient Near East. See also Root 1993. 3. I make no pretensehere to map the intricaciesof debate on archaeologicalfine points of the many issues involved in our attemptsto understandthese Indo-Iranianmigrationschrono-

13 11. A new study of Achaemenid-periodseals in variousstyles

MARGARETCOOLROOT

familiarfromheartlandglypticcorporabut bearinghieroglyphic inscriptionscomplementsaspects of the articlesby Gates and Abdi (Giovino 2002). 12. Recent studies on majorbodies of such evidence include Garrison and Root 2001; Bregstein 1993 and 1996; and Ehrenberg1999. 13. MarkGarrisonis engaged in a majorproject of this sort, emergingin part fromhis longstandingwork on styles observable throughseals used on the PersepolisFortificationtablets (Garrison1991 amongotherpublications). 14. Abdi'sarticlehereis parttwo in a plannedtrilogy.Partthree will deal specifically with issues of Bes and Mithra in the Achaemenidempire.

WorksCited

14

Abdi, Kamyar.2001. "Nationalism,Politics, and the DevelopmentofArchaeologyin Iran."American Journal ofArchaeology105:51-76. Abdi, Kamyar,and MargaretCool Root. Forthcoming.Akbar Tadjvidi'sArchaeologicalReportsand Contemplationson Persepolis [1355/19 76]: An Annotated and Illustrated Translation. Azarpay,Guitty. 1959. "Some Classicaland Near EasternMotifs in the Art of Pazyryk."ArtibusAsiae 22:313-39. Boucharlat, Remy. 2003. "The Persepolis Area in the AchaemenidPeriod."In N. F. Millerand K. Abdi, eds., YekiBud, YekiNapud:Essayson theArchaeology ofIran in Honorof WilliamM. Sumner,261-65. Cotsen Instituteof ArchaeologyMonograph48. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology,Universityof California,Los Angeles in associationwith the AmericanInstituteof IranianStudies and the Universityof PennsylvaniaMuseumof Archaeology and Anthropology. Bregstein, Linda L. 1993. "Seal Use in Fifth Century B.C. Nippur, Iraq:A Study of Seal Selectionand SealingPractices in the MurasuArchive."Ph.D. diss., Universityof Pennsylvania. 1996. "Sealing Practices in the Fifth Century B.C. MurasuArchive from Nippur, Iraq." In M.-F. Boussac and A. Invernizzi, eds., Archives et sceaux du monde helle'nistique, 53-63. Bulletin de correspondance helleniquesuppl. 29. Paris:CentreNationalde la Recherche Scientifique. Briant,Pierre. 2003. Darius dans l'ombred'Alexandre.Paris: Fayard. Calmeyer,Peter. 1990. "Das Persepolis der Spatzeit."In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburgand A. Kuhrt,eds., Centreand Periphery,7-36. AchaemenidHistory4. Leiden:Nederlands Instituutvoor het NabijeOosten.

---.1995. "MiddleBabylonianArtand ContemporaryIran." InJ. Curtis,ed., LaterMesopotamiaand Iran: Tribesand Empires1600-539 B.C.,33-45. London:BritishMuseum Press. Cohen,Ada. 1997. TheAlexanderMosaic: Storiesof Victoryand Defeat. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Curtis,John. 1984. Nush-ijan III: TheSmall Finds. London: BritishInstituteof PersianStudies. 1995. "Introduction."In J. Curtis, ed., Later Mesopotamia and Iran: Tribesand Empires 1600-539 B.C., 124. London: BritishMuseumPress. Curtis,Vesta Sarkhosh.1993. PersianMyths.London: British MuseumPress. Dyson, Robert H., and Mary M. Voigt, eds. 1989. East of Assyria.Expedition31.2-3. Ehrenberg,Erica. 1999. Uruk:Late BabylonianSeal Impressions on Eanna-Tablets. Ausgrabungenin Uruk-Warka Endberichte18. Mainz:Philippvon Zabern. Farkas,Ann.N.d. FromtheLandsoftheScythians:Ancient TreasuresfromtheMuseumsof the U.S.S.R.3000 B.C.-1 00 B.C. New York:MetropolitanMuseumof Artand Los Angeles CountyMuseumof Art. Feldman,Marian.2002. "LuxuriousForms:Redefininga Mediterranean'InternationalStyle,' 1400-1200 B.C.E." TheArt Bulletin 84:6-29. Feldman,Marian,and Allison Thomason, chrs. Forthcoming [2004]. "Livesof the Objects:New Approachesto Ancient Art."Thematic Session at the College Art Associationof America,AnnualConference.Seattle,Wash. Firth, RaymondW. 1973. Symbols:Public and Private. London: Allen and Unwin. Garrison,MarkB. 1991. "Sealsandthe EliteatPersepolis:Some Observations on Early Achaemenid Persian Art." Ars Orientalis21:1-29. Garrison,MarkB., andMargaretCoolRoot. 1996 (reprint1998). PersepolisSeal Studies:An Introductionwith Provisional Concordances ofSealNumbersandAssociated Documentson Fortification Tablets 1-2087. Achaemenid History 9. Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. --. 2001. Sealson thePersepolisFortificationTabletsI: Images of HeroicEncounter.OrientalInstitutePublications 117. Chicago:OrientalInstituteof the Universityof Chicago. Gazda,ElaineK., ed. 2002. TheAncientArtofEmulation: Studies in Artistic Originalityand Traditionfrom thePresent to ClassicalAntiquity.Memoirsof the AmericanAcademy in Romesuppl. 1. AnnArbor:Universityof MichiganPress for the AmericanAcademyin Rome. Giovino, Mariana.2002. "AchaemenidIconographyat Memphis: Four Cylinders with Hieroglyphic Inscriptions." Paperpresentedat the conference"AchaemenidMemphis Workshop."London:UniversityCollege London. Gunter,Ann C. 1990. InvestigatingArtisticEnvironmentsin the AncientNear East. Washington,D. C.: Smithsonian Institution. Herrmann, Georgina. 1977. The Iranian Revival. Oxford: PhaidonPressLtd.

MEDESAND PERSIANS

Herrmann, Georgina. 1986. Ivoriesfrom Room SW 3 7 Fort Shalmaneser:Commentaryand Catalogue.London: British School of Archaeologyin Iraq. http://achemenet.com. http://www.ozbaki.com. Jamzadeh,Parivash.1991. "The AchaemenidThrone: Its Significanceand Its Legacy."Ph. D. diss., Universityof California,Berkeley. Kuhrt,Amelie.Forthcoming.A SourcebookforAchaemenid History.London:Routledge. Lanfranchi,Giovanni,MichaelRoaf,andRobertRollinger,eds. In press. Continuityof Empire:Assyria, Media, Persia. Historyof the AncientNear East MonographSeries. Lerner,Judith. 1991. "Some So-called Achaemenid Objects fromPazyryk."Source10:8-15. Liverani,Mario,ed. 1995. Neo-AssyrianGeography.Universita di Roma"LaSapienza"Quadernidi GeograpfiaStorica5. Roma:Universit'adi Roma "LaSapienza." Mahboudian,Houshang. 1995 [1978]. Treasuresof theMountains: TheArt of theMedes.London:H. Mahboudian. Matheson,JohnRoss. 1980. Canada'sFlag:ASearchforaCountry. Studiesin FlagHistoryand Symbolism.Boston:C. K. Hall and Company. Medvedskaya,I. N. 1999. "Mediaand Its NeighboursI: The Localizationof Ellipi."In R. Boucharlat,J.E. Curtis,and E. Haerinck, eds., Neo-Assyrian,Median, Achaemenian and OtherStudiesin Honor of David Stronach,vol. 2:5370. Iranica Antiqua34. Melikian-Chirvani,Assadollah-Souran.1993. "The International Achaemenid Style." Bulletin of the Asia Institute 7:111-30. Meskell,Lynn, ed. 1998. Archaeology underFire:Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterraneanand MiddleEast. London and New York:Routledge. Meyers, Peter. 2000. "The Casting Process of the Statue of Queen Napir-Asuin the Louvre."In C. C. Mattusch,A. Brauer,and S. E. Knudsen, eds., From the Parts to the Whole,vol. 1. Acta of the 13th InternationalBronzeCongress,Held at Cambridge,Massachusetts,May 28-June 1, 1996, 11-18. Journalof RomanArchaeologysuppl. 39. Miller,MargaretC. 1997. Athensand Persia in the Fifth CenturyB.c.:AStudyin CulturalReceptivity.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress. Miroschedji,Pierrede. 1990. "Lafin d'Elam:Essaid'analyseet d'interpretation."Iranica Antiqua25:47-95. Moorey, P. R. S. 1985. "The IranianContributionto Achaemenid MaterialCulture."Iran 23:21-37. Muscarella,Oscar White. 2000. The Lie Became Great: The Forgeryof AncientNear Eastern Cultures.Studies in the Art and Archaeology of Antiquity 1. Groningen: Styx Publications. Forthcoming. "Museum Constructions of the Oxus Treasure:Forgeriesof ProvenienceandAncientCulture." In AncientCivilizationsfromScythiato Siberia. Negahban, Ezat 0. 1983. Metal Vesselsfrom Marlik. Prahistorische Bronzefunde,section 2, vol. 3. Munich: C. H. Beck'scheVerlagsbuchhandlung.

Nylan, Michael. 2000. "Golden Spindles and Axes: Elite Women in the Achaemenid and Han Empires." In Li Chenyang, ed., TheSage and theSecondSex: Confucianism, Ethics, and Gender, 199-222. Chicago: Open Court. Nylander, Carl. 1999. "Breakingthe Cup of Kingship: An ElamiteCoup in Nineveh."In R. Boucharlat,J.E. Curtis, andE. Haerinck,eds.,Neo-Assyrian, Median,Achaemenian and OtherStudiesin HonorofDavid Stronach,vol . 2:7 183. Iranica Antiqua34. Parr, PeterJ. 1997. "Meda'in Saleh." In E. M. Meyers, ed., TheOxfordEncyclopediaofArchaeologyin theNearEast, vol. 3:446-47. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paspalas, Stavros A. 2000. "On Persian-Type Furniturein Macedonia:The RecognitionandTransmissionofForms." AmericanJournal ofArchaeology104:531-60. Potts,DanielT. 1999. TheArchaeology ofElam,Formationand Transformationof an AncientIranian State. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Ridgway, Brunilde Sismondo. 1984. Roman Copiesof Greek Sculpture:TheProblemof the Originals.Ann Arbor:Universityof MichiganPress. Root, Margaret Cool. 1979. The King and Kingship in AchaemenidArt:Essayson the Creationof an Iconography of Empire.Acta Iranica19. Leiden:E. J. Brill. --. 1993. "ContextualizingAncient Near EasternArt: A ReviewArticle."TOPOI3:217-45. --. 1999. "IrreverentInversions:Humor Public and Private in the Glyptic Art of the PersianCourt."Paperpresentedat the colloquium"Humorin WorldArt."London: WarburgInstitute. ---. 2001. "Goodvs. Evil:AthensandPersepolisin theWestern Political/HistoricalImagination."Paperpresentedin the thematicsession "The City as Metaphor,the City as Reality."CollegeArtAssociationofAmerica,AnnualConference.Chicago. Rubinson,KarenS. 2003. "The HasanluGold 'Bowl':A View from Transcaucasia."In N. F. Millerand K. Abdi, eds., YekiBud, YekiNapud:Essayson theArchaeology of Iran in Honorof WilliamM. Sumner,237-42. Cotsen Instituteof ArchaeologyMonograph48. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology,Universityof California,Los Angeles in associationwith the AmericanInstituteof IranianStudies and the Universityof PennsylvaniaMuseumofAArchaeology and Anthropology. Rudenko,SergeiI. 1970. FrozenTombsof Siberia:ThePazyryk Burials of Iron AgeHorsemen,trans. M. W. Thompson. Berkeleyand Los Angeles:Universityof CaliforniaPress. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Heleen. 1989. "Gifts in the Persian Empire." In P. Briant and C. Herrenschmidt, eds., Le tributdans l 'empireperse:Actesde la TableRondedeParis 12-13 decembre1986, 129-46. Paris:Peeters. --. 1990. "The QuestforanElusiveEmpire."In H. SancisiWeerdenburgand A. Kuhrt,eds., Centreand Periphery, 262-74. Achaemenid History 4. Leiden: Nederlands Instituutvoor het NabijeOosten.

15

MARGARETCOOLROOT

Schapiro,Meyer. 1994 [1962]. "Style."In Theoryand Philosophy of Art: Style,Artist, and Society.SelectedPapers, 51102. New York:George Braziller. Stronach,David. 1984. "Introduction."InJ. Curtis,Nush-iJan III: The Small Finds, v-vii. London: British Instituteof PersianStudies. Stronach,David. 1998. "On the Date of the Oxus Gold Scabbard and OtherAchaemenidMatters."In 0. Bopearachchi, C. Bromberg,and F. Grenet,eds., Alexander'sLegacy in the East: Studies in Honor of Paul Bernard, 231-48. Bulletin of theAsia Institute 12. Tuplin, Christopher.1994, "Persiansas Medes."In H. SancisiWeerdenburg,A. Kuhrt,and M. C. Root, eds., Continuity and Change,235-64. AchaemenidHistory 8. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Vickers,Michael.1994. "Nabataea,India,Gaul,and Carthage: Reflectionson Hellenistic and Roman Gold Vessels and Red-Gloss Pottery." AmericanJournal of Archaeology 98:231-48. Vogelsang, W. J. 1992. The Rise and Organisation of the Achaemenid Empire: The Eastern Iranian Evidence. Leiden, New York, and Cologne:E.J. Brill. Waters, MatthewW. 2000. A Surveyof Neo-ElamiteHistory. State Archives of Assyria Studies 12. Helsinki: Institute for Asian and AfricanStudies, Universityof Helsinki.

Webster,Jane.2001. "CreolizingtheRomanProvinces."AmericanJournal ofArchaeology105:209-25. Woolf, Greg. 1998. BecomingRoman: The Originsof Provincial Civilizationin Gaul. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Young, T. Cuyler,Jr. 1997. "Medes."In E. M. Meyers, ed., The OxfordEncyclopediaofArchaeologyin theNear East, vol. 3:448-50. New Yorkand Oxford:Oxford University Press. ---. 2003. "Parsua,Parsa,and Potsherds."In N. F. Miller and K. Abdi, eds., YekiBud, YekiNapud. Essayson the Archaeology of Iran in Honorof WilliamM. Sumner,24348. Cotsen Instituteof ArchaeologyMonograph48. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology,Universityof California,Los Angeles in associationwith the American Instituteof IranianStudiesand the Universityof PennsylvaniaMuseumof Archaeologyand Anthropology. Zadok,Ran. 2002. "The Ethno-LinguisticCharacterof Northwestern Iranand Kurdistanin the Neo-AssyrianPeriod." Iran 40:89-15 1.

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

An Excavated Ivory from Kerkenes Daǧ, Turkey: Transcultural Fluidities, Significations of Collective Identity, and the Problem of Median Art Author(s): Elspeth R. M. Dusinberre Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 17-54 Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629591 Accessed: 01/02/2009 10:20 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

ELSPETH

An

R. M.

DUSINBERRE

Excavated

Turke:

Ivory

from

KiCerkenes

Dat,

Transcultural Fluidities,

Significations of

Collective

Identity,

and

of

Art

the

Problem

Median ABSTRACT

KerkenesDa', in the mountainsof centralAnatolia,is a vast fortified urbansite thathas plausiblybeen identifiedas the greatcity of Pteriadescribedby Herodotus. The site seems to have been an importantearly sixth-centuryB.C.E. power base in the western reachesof the expansionistMedianstatecenteredin northwestern Iran. Test excavationsin 1996 exposed an ivory furniturepanel carvedin relief,with gilding and amberinsets. The partiallypreserved relief shows a frieze of five animals,alternatingmale and female,framedat top with a bead-and-reeland at bottom with a meander.It is almostall thathas so farbeen retrievedof the ornamentalapparatusof this impressivefoundation.Due to the notorious dearthof excavatedworksof artthatcanbe associatedwith the unicum Medes,theintrinsicsignificanceof thepanelasa remarkable is enhancedby the emblematicstatusit mustassumein controversies overthe natureof Kerkenesitself(withinpolarizeddebateson the natureof the Median state) and the natureof Medianvisual culture.The technique,style, and iconographyof the panel suggest a complex system of traditionsinformingits inspirationand production-with comparativematerialforvariousfeaturesemerging fromthe ScythianCaucasusandcentralAsia,Iran,andGreater Mesopotamia,and the spheresof centralandwesternAnatoliaand the Levant.Ultimately,a Lydian/westernAnatoliantechnicaltraditionrichlyinformedby a representationaltraditionof deep resonancein Iran,Mesopotamia,and Transcaucasiais posited for the piece. Its discoveryat Kerkeneshighlightsissues of luxuryproductionandgiftexchangein the sociopoliticallyfluidenvironment across earlyfirst-millenniumwesternand centralAsia; it emphasizes,moreover,theimportanceof developingnuancedframeworks for defining"Medianart."

17

Ars Orientalis,volumeXXXII (2002)

ELSPETH R. M. DUSINBERRE

Maikop

vegn

Delphi

o

L

SECVAN \ ~LAKE

l hTrialeti

5->Athens

c\,

ne

e SinopbsaKERKENES e

*

ik kiztepe

A. ~ Ephesos

odionAltintepe

A

LAKEVAN .

Acemhoyuk.

?SAMOS * P% Bayindir jnODES

CT-Van

Arslantepe Kinet Ho1yuk*

EHoyak

Xanth Meydancikkale.

CRETE

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

RU

*

*

LAKE RI

APA \TGRIS RIVER URMA C archemis Khorsabad* Hasanlu

, ODEADSEA

ZiiEcbtn

Surkh . Dum

er (

9\

X

Nush-iJan

Giyan sk ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~RIVE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Borsip ~~~~~~~~~Memnphisl

E S

Marlik

DuraE urqopos Attur-imU

DaanditswidertranscuturalarenaREUPHRAEd MapshowingKerkenes

a

*Bsa

Nineveh

(

\

BSuasJa Kish rut NippurU

Pasargadae

>Ma~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mlyane Persepolis

FIG. 1.

Map showing Kerkenes Dag' and its wider transcultural arena. Rendered by the author.

FIG. 2.

The ivory panel from KerkenesDag, color image. Photo courtesyof G. D. Summers and M. E. F Summers. Preserveddimensions:ca. 29.5 cm L x 5. 0 cm H x 0.5 cm Th.

i8

AN EXCAVATED IVORY FROM KERKENES DAG, TURKEY

KERKENES

K

IN CONTEXT

ERKENES DAG IS THE SITE

ofan IronAge

urbaninstallationon a hill thatlooms above an ancient east-westroute within the bend of the HalysRiver(fig. 1), nearmodernYozgat,Turkey.' The outlinesof the vast and massivelyfortified seven-gatedcityremainclearlyvisibleon the surface, but untilrecentlythe mound has only been explored archaeologicallyonce (tentativelyand very briefly). In the 1920s, ErichSchmidt(bestknownforhis work at Persepolisin the 1930s) divertedhimselffromhis excavationsatnearbyAlisharto open a few smalltest trenches at Kerkenes. He exposed burned rooms containing pottery and some additional artifacts

2

? -+57'.

"17

250 - .

/

. 2000

NORTH-EAST GA

WEST GAT

V1

TEOK)jP.

}

1500

lsoojo.

(Schmidt 1929).2

Beginningin the 1990s work at KerkenesDag has at lastresumed,this timeundertakenby a multinationalgroupof archaeologistsled by Geoffreyand FrancoiseSummersof the Middle EasternTechnical Universityin Ankara,joined recentlyby David Stronachof the Universityof Californiaat Berkeley. These explorationshavebeen path-breakingin their use of surveytechniques:aerialphotographyfroma hot-air balloon, photography from a hand-held blimp-shaped balloon, GPS survey, architectural surveywith total station and tapes to draw 3-D reconstructionsin AutoCAD, magnetometry,electric resistivity,andtraditionalarchitectural drawingshave allbeencombinedto createmultipleimagesandmaps of thecity.3 Test excavationswerecarriedoutin 1996, and partof the city wall has been cleanedsince. Permissionhas since been grantedfor extensiveand ongoingexcavationsto beginat Kerkenesin the summer of 2003, butatthispointtheonlyartifactsthatareavailableforstudyarethosefromthe testtrenchesof 1996. Test Trench 15 (TT 15) exposedtheivorypanel thatbecomesthe focalpoint of this article(figs.2 and 3).4 The panel, broken in antiquity,was carvedin relief,with gold sheet gilding, amberinsets, and fugitive inlay. As preserved, it includes a lively and elaboratelydetailedfriezeof fiveanimals:a maledeer walkingright,meetinga fileof a maleandfemalegoat and a maleand femalesheep walkingleft. The panel is articulatedby gildedandinlaidelements,framedby an amber and gilt bead-and-reelat the top and a squaredmeander(perhapsenhancedby inlay)at the

(SUH-E

,

/ ;

Larga:eReservo( G-f 1 BOsyOk

J -S:

b1 Ge

PivPalacp/;;t 500

0

FIG.

COCzAT

GA,TE)

_ -SE f

>

~~~~KERKENES DAGI - YOZGAT. Reservoir Defences

\>

A

1000

/

N

Ak

Watercourse 1500 m

3.

Site P?lanof KerkenesDag,vwith Test Trench 15 (TT 15). Courtesyof G. D. Summers and M. E. F. Summers.

bottom.At present,this remnantof a lavishpiece of furniturestandsaloneas testimonyto an apparatusof visualcultureherethatincorporatedfiguralrepresentation.Togetherwith a carvedivory handle,a plain stripof gold, and a facetedcarnelianbead, the panel is, furthermore,the only indicationso farretrievedof ornamentaldisplayof anykindata siteof evidentgrandeur thatsurelymust once haveincludedmanyportableitemsof prestigeand intrinsicvalue. The areasprobed so farsuggestthatthe citywas systematicallycleanedout andabandoned.Thus the currentscarcityof high-statusartifactsfromthe city maywell remaina featureto contendwith even after extensiveexcavations.It is, indeed, remarkablethat the panelwas found at all, given the limitedscope of excavationsto date, combinedwith the apparentnature of the site's evacuation.These factors,coupled

19

ELSPETHR. M. DUSINBERRE

20

with the interestof the panel as a beautifulluxury workof layeredmeaningand complexheritage,lend it a specialimportanceas well as a specialset of interpretiveburdens.It is a criticalpiece of excavatedevidence in the explorationof transculturalfluiditiesin artistictraditionsof westernand centralAsia in the firsthalfof the firstmillenniumB.C.E.5 Morespecifically, issues of identitysurroundingKerkenesitself demandthat the ivory it has yielded speak out in a polarizeddebateaboutthe natureof the Medianstate and the natureof Medianvisualculture. In orderto analyzeandcontextualizethisextraordinaryfind,it is thuscrucialto discussthesitewhence it has emerged.This task drawsus into a set of archaeological, art historical, and historiographical complexitiesandcontroversies.To beginwith:What were the chronological ranges of habitation and floruitat thisancientcitywe see so boldlyarticulated alongthe mountainousterrainof KerkenesDa'? To what culturalcollectivedid the ancientcity belong? Do we have any attestationsof the city in ancient records?Canwe assigna nameto it? If these issues can be establishedwith some certainty,where does thatleaveus in attemptingto inserttheKerkenesivory into an historicalframeworkof production,use, and social signification? There is as yet no epigraphicevidencefromthe site whatsoever,muchless any thatnamesthe place. Thus, investigationof this aspect must rest on circumstantial evidence. The habitation period of KerkenesDag was originallydated, on the basis of potteryfromSchmidt'sexcavations,to the broadarchaeologicalhorizonof IronAge AlisharV (roughly the sevenththroughfourthcenturies).Closerdating through state-of-the-artceramicsanalysiswill ultimatelyplay a key role in the renewed scientificefforts. But the archaeologicalrecord as we can currentlygleanit seems to supporta date at the turnto the sixth centuryfor the foundationof the site. Furthermore,a bronzefibularecoveredby Schmidt(and thankfullyillustratedin the 1929 publication)canbe assigneda productiondate of ca. 600 on the basis of linkswith the mostrecentdatingschemeformaterial fromthe rich and intensivelyanalyzedPhrygiansite of Gordion in centralAnatolia.So far, none of the ceramicevidencefromKerkenescontradictsa foundation date of ca. 600. A small group of stamped

potsherds with diamond-facetedreliefpatternsretrievedby Summersareof a type thatseems to have a relativelyshort use span at Gordion, where they may date to ca. 700. But the Kerkenessherdscould well representa transitionallater stage in development of the type thanwhatwe see at Gordion.6 Looked at from the vantagepoint of historical analysis(in an attemptto link the site to ancienttextualaccountsnot archaeologically associatedwithit), the datingparametersof the floruitanddemiseof the walled city at Kerkenescan be furthernarrowed. Summershas compellinglyarguedthatthe site is to be identifiedwith a city namedPteria,mentionedby the fifth-centuryGreekhistorianHerodotus,writing his sweeping story of the wars between the Greeks and the Persiansand the scenariosthat,accordingto his narrative,led up to these conflicts (Summers 1997). Herodotussays (1.76) that the Lydiansand Persiansfoughta noteworthybut inconclusivebattle at Pteria.This Pteria,Herodotusremarks,is down from(south of) Sinope, east of the Halys River,and occupiesa strongloftypositionabovethe plain.The identificationof Kerkeneswith Herodotus'sPteria is, in my view, secure,even in the absenceof definitive epigraphicalevidence from the site. No other majorurbanmoundin thiswell-reconnoitered region conformsto Herodotus'scharacterization of the geographicalplacement.The Greekhistorian'snarratives need, of course,to be readcritically.Sometimesthis is necessaryin orderto ferretoutfaultysourcesaswell asblatantbiasesandfictionaltropesspeakingto a midfifth-century Athenianaudienceforwhom (theGreek testimonystresses)a repulsionof the armiesof the GreatKingof theAchaemenidPersianempirewasthe definingwatershedof their history.At other times, criticalrereadingsofHerodotusarenecessarybecause a returnto his textwith new issues in mindcanyield informativenuances.7 In this instanceof locatingprecisely(as he does and wherehe does) the strategicallyimportant,imposing city he calls Pteria,Herodotus seems to be right on target. He remarks,furthermore(also at 1.76), thatCroesus,the last king of Lydia,captured Pteriaand led its inhabitantsinto slavery.The testimony of Herodotus regardingthe depopulationof Pteriain thecourseof bitterfightingaccordswellwith whatwe cangleanof the circumstancessurrounding

AN EXCAVATED IVORYFROMKERKENESDAG, TURKEY

the demise of the place. The physicalrecord so far instabilitiesin the reconciliationof Herodotuswith NearEasterntextualsources(Kuhrt1995: 546), the suggestslooting and burningafterthe departureof inhabitants-rather than the cataclysmicsiege and Scythianswereclearlyimportantin themixof cultures, fiery devastationof a settlementwith the defending identities,and economic-military engagementsof the populationmurderedwithin the walls. (This latter firsthalf of the firstmillennium.They were players scenariois optimalretrospectivelyforthe archaeolo- across a vast terrain that touched upon Greater gist, of course.)8 The depopulation of Kerkenes Mesopotamiaand points fartherwest into Anatolia. would,then,haveoccurredin thecontextof thehard- Evidenceof theirpresencein the materialrecordof foughtbut inconclusivebattlebetweenCroesusand varioussitesin thiswesternarenais now treatedmore the Persianking Cyrusin the plain below Pteriain critically(lesspositivisticallyas an eagervalidationof 547. All these events came on the heels of Cyrus's Herodotus)thanit oncewas(Zimansky1998:51-56, defeatof theMedesin the Persianhomelandin south- on the Cimmeriansandthe Scythians).This does not westernIran,followedby his press firstto embrace diminish the Scythians'significancein the mix-it withina new hegemonyall the landsformerlyunder merelychargesarchaeologists toworkthematerialdata Mediancontroland then to push victoriousto Lydia on thebasisoftheirown evidentiary valuesratherthan itself in the west (as well as to new territoriesin the as corroborativeevidenceon the accuracyof a Greek east). The story of Pteria(now that we have estab- text.PeoplesoccupyingregionsofTranscaucasiaalso lished its linkwith the Kerkenessite) providesa cir- enterin hereasgroupswithlongstandingandvitalcraft cumstantialbasis for datingthe demise of Kerkenes traditionsin the representational artsthat,as we shall to 547. The floruitof the site will have been in the see, may well have informed the creation of the earlyyears of the sixth century.Such a dating sceKerkenesivory(Kohl 1995). nariois not contradictedby theas-yetlimitedceramic The Medes were an Indo-Iranianpeople who recordfromthe site, and it is confirmedby the dat- had migratedwestwardand by the turninto the first ing of the fibulamentionedabove. millenniumhad settledin Iranalong the northwestKerkenesis thus situatedtemporallyas well as ern flank of the Zagros mountains on the eastern geographicallyat a pivotalpoint in the ancienthisfringeof the Neo-Assyrianempire.We firsthear of tory of westernand centralAsia. This was a time of themin Assyrianannalsof the ninth century;theregreatculturalandeconomicinteractionsandmilitary after, they are repeatedly noted as inhabitants of power plays across the GreaterMediterraneanbastrong-walled cities against whom the Assyrians sin, GreaterMesopotamia,the Caucasus,the Iranian waged vigorousbattle.The city of Ecbatana,under highlandsand plateau,and farthereast across Sibe- modernHamadan,was the heartlandcapitalof Meriaand centralAsia. dia(Knapton,Sarraf,andCurtis2001: 99-100). The To the east of KerkenesDa', the Neo-Assyrian sitehadbeenunexploredscientificallyuntil,afterthe empirethathad dominatedGreaterMesopotamiafor Revolution,Iranundertookcontrolledexcavations, centuriesmetits end in the lateseventhcenturyat the whichpromiseto advanceourknowledgeof Median handsof a coalitionof the long-establishedandabun- materialculture generally,in addition to yielding dandydocumentedBabylonians, alongwiththeMedes long-awaitedevidenceon one of the famouscities of and possibly the Scythians(Farkasn.d.: 16). The antiquity.At present,however,the siteremainsenigScythiansarebestunderstoodas a loose andfar-flung matic as faras the Medes are concerned.The masgroupof tribesoperatingalongthenortherm shoresof sivefortification andvastadjacentstorageinstallations the BlackSea as well as much farthereastand north; now revealedtheremayreflecta long traditionat the Herodotuscharacterizes thematlengthin book4. The site that reachesback ultimatelyto the Ecbatanaof evidenceof archaeologyconfirmsmanyaspectsof his Mediantimes,but they seem to postdatethe Median depictionof the customsandmaterialcultureof these period(Sarraf1997;CurtisandSimpson1997).With peoples. While the preciserole the Scythiansplayed thefallofAssyria,theMedescontinuedto expandtheir in variousspecifichistoricalevents,such as the fallof power westwarddeep into Anatoliaas well as enAssyria,is currentlyconsidereduncertainbecauseof croachingto some extent in areasof Khuzistanand

21

ELSPETH R. M. DUSINBERRE

22

Farsin southwesternIran.In these southernregions of westernIran,the indigenousElamiteculture,with its majorcapitalat Susa, had been overwhelmedby the Neo-Assyriansin the 640s but still persistedto some degree as a political and social force (Potts 1999; Waters 2000). Continuitiesin and self-conscious revitalizationsof Elamiteadministrative practice, language, and artistic traditions during the AchaemenidPersianempiredemonstratethe significance of this tenacity(Garrison1991; Garrisonand Root 1996 and 2001; Root 1991). The Persians,an Indo-Iranianpeople like the Medes, had pushed westwardat the same time to settlein Farsratherthanin northernIran.Here they movedin on ancientElamiteturf.Herodotustellsus (book 1) that in the middle of the sixth century,a young half-Persian,half-Medianman named Cyrus defeatedtheMedesin battlein Farsandfoundedwhat was to be the Achaemenidempire.He firsttook over the centralterritoryof the Medes, becomingmaster of the Medianroyalcityof Ecbatana(Herod. 1.129), and then he continuedto press his advantagewestwardinto areason the peripheryof Medianoccupation. Cyrus'sdeath in 530 fightingin centralAsia, ratherthanalongthewesternperiphery,is animportantreminderthatcontainmentand/orneutralization of the powerfulnomadictribesin the northeastwas critical to the strategiesof the young Achaemenid empirecenteredin Fars just as it surelywas for the earlierMedian kingdom. Militaryencounters and transculturalexchangesgo hand in hand. Thus we canposit the significanceof the easternrealmsas part of the backdropof visual arts informingthe arts of any Mediancourt circle. AlongwithMedes,Lydians,Scythians,Persians, Elamites,andcoreMesopotamianculturesofAssyria and Babylon(with their very deep, complex traditions), other peoples and identity collectives also entered the mix of transculturalengagementin the early first millennium. Urartiansin the Caucasus, Mannaeansand othersin northwesternIranhardby the Urartiancenter, Phrygiansin centralAnatolia, Neo-Hittitesin the centralAnatolian/Syrianregion all contributeto a ratherremarkablesituationthat informsthe problemsand potentialsof interpreting visual evidence fromthe site of Kerkenes.The systematicallyexcavatedsite of Hasanlu,south of mod-

ern LakeVan on the easternperipheryof Assyrian culturalhegemony,is an importantsource of informationon assemblagesof eliteartifactsin the Iranian spherethathasbeen associatedwiththe Manneaeans describedin Assyrianannalsof the earlyfirstmillennium. This site had its floruitca. 1100-800; it was besieged and burned (almost certainly by the Urartians)in ca. 800 andwas, fora time,reoccupied by them.' The Urartians,meanwhile,also had extensive contactswith people fartherwest. Some of the bronze cauldronsfound at the Greeksanctuary of Olympiaseem, forinstance,to havebeen Urartian imports.The earlysixth centurysaw the increasing embattlementof the Urartiankingdomby Medianas well as Scythian forces, leading ultimately to the evaporationof Urartianpower,probablyatthehands of the Scythians,by the earlyyearsof the sixth century(Zimansky1998: 37). To the west in Anatolia,the Hittites,who had ruledthe Anatolianplateauin the BronzeAge of the secondmillennium,hadmovedintothesouthernpart of the CappadocianplainandnorthernSyria,carving rockreliefsandcommissioningelaborate,sculpturally embellishedbuildingslike those at Carchemishand Zincirli.The majorpoliticalplayersin centralAnatolia afterthe Hittites seem to have been the Phrygians, who had theircapitalat Gordion.This cityhadbeen rebuiltaftera firein ca. 800, and its inhabitantsapparentlycontinued to live much as they had done, although with perhaps somewhat diminished resources.10The AchaemenidPersianpresence is reflectedin the materialrecordhere alongsidecontinued strongindigenoustraditions(Voigt and Young 1999). IronAge Gordionis the most extensivelyexplored of the centralAnatoliancities of this era;for this reasonas well as its undoubtedpoliticalandculturalimportance,Gordionsheds lighton allthe sites of the Anatolianplateau(Sams 1995; Voigt 1997). Fartherwest yet, we again invoke the Lydian kingdom,which was pushing its bordersout in all directions.Lydia,with its capitalat Sardis,encompassed the fertile and prosperous valley of the HermosRiverandlandsto the northand south of it. UnderKingAlyattesin the earlysixth centuryit underwenttremendousexpansionto thewest (annexing the Greekcolonies on the Aegeanseaboard)and to theeast,into Phrygianlandsandbeyond(Greenewalt

IVORYFROMKERKENESDAG, TURKEY AN EXCAVATED

1995). Lydia was a culturalcrossroads,where native Lydians, Greeks, Phrygians,and others intermingledand produced remarkableworksof artand architecture."With Sardis,we have come full circle to the expansionisteffortsofAlyattesof Lydia,which eventuallyresultedin the clash of Lydian and Median armiesin 585, as describedby Herodotus, at the very foot of KerkenesDag/Pteria. We cannow returnto a basicquestion:whatwas Kerkenes?Some sense of the answerto this question willenhanceourunderstanding ofhow theivorypanel excavatedthererelatesto issues at stakein defining the natureof questionsof collectiveculturalidentity in thiscomplex,turbulently fluid"international" arena. Summershas arguedthat Kerkenes,as ancient Pteria,was specificallya Mediancity foundedsometimeafterthe finaldefeatof Assyriain 609 at the turn to the sixth century(Summers1997). This scenario makes circumstantialsense in terms of the logic of Median activity in swiftly filling the vacuum they helpedcreatethroughthedestructionof theAssyrian empire.The timingcorrelateswell with the archaeological evidence so faravailablefor establishingthe foundationdateof the site(asdiscussedabove).Summersposits, further,thatKerkenesprovidedthebase fromwhich the Medesconductedtheirfive-yearwar againstLydia.'2The city on the hill of Kerkenesis vast and seems to have been plannedin its entirety, withdifferentquartersset asidefordifferentfunctions and all of the elementsnecessaryfor prosperitylaid out withinits walls. Such a self-sufficientfoundation suggests a colonial installation-built at this strategic locationpossiblyto servethe militaryandlifestyle interestsof a largelyMedianand Median-associated importedpopulation. Withrespectto specificattributesof the archaeological record at Kerkenes,it is prematureto draw conclusionsaboutthe ethnicityof the site'srulingoccupants from the ceramicfinds. We are, however, likely to determinethatindigenoustypes of pottery were enhancedby formsandproductiontechniques indicativeof the lifestyleof a partly(or largely)colonial Medianpopulation that made generoususe of local resourcesbut also demandedproducts reminiscentof a heartlandaesthetic.These infusionsmay have been in the form of imports as well as locally producedpots madein a heartlandMedianmanner.

At Sardis during the AchaemenidPersianempire, suchinteractionscanbe tracedin ceramictypologies as well as in firingtechniques.A specificIraniantype of ceramicbowl entersthe assemblageand has been shown to indicatethe impactof the presenceof Persiansand Persiandiningcustomson the population of this ancient city (Dusinberre 1999 and 2003). Similarly,a shiftin firingtechniquesatAchaemenidperiodGordionaddsa red-firedwareto a previously homogeneous gray-firedassemblage (Henrickson 1994; Voigt and Young 1999). Preliminarydocumentarypublicationof the Medianpotteryat Nushijan (R. Stronach1978) and Godin (Young 1969; Young and Levine 1974) will soon be enhancedby syntheticanalyticalstudies of heartlandMedianceramics,such as thatpresagedby H. Gopnik'sdissertation(Gopnik2000). As thisoccurs,in tandemwith full-scaleexcavationsat Kerkenesscheduled to begin in 2003, we shallbe in a betterposition to iiiterpret the meaningsof variationsin the potterythere. In regardto architecture,the presenceof manycolumnedhalls at Kerkenesindicatesa Median(or at least Iranian)backdropto architecturaltraditions informingthe planninghere. The precise columnar configurationsof specifichypostylebuildingsso far elucidatedatthesitearecurrentlybeingrefined.Nevertheless,the publishedplans(e.g., Summers1997: fig. 7) invitecomparisonwith uncontestedlyMedian sites so far known in Iran as well as with the later magnificentdevelopmentofhypostyleaudiencehalls atthe famousroyalcitiesof the AchaemenidPersians (Pasargadae, Persepolis, Susa, and-not leastAchaemenid-period Ecbatana). The many-columned edifice was certainlya hallmarkof Median architecturethat continued to signifyIraniangrandeurin publicspacesas these traditionswereappropriatedand glorifiedby the Achaemenidsfollowing their conquest of the Medianstate. It seems also to havebeen a moregeneralizedtraditionin earlyfirstmillenniumwesternIranthatwas not limitedto sites we can designateas ethnicallyMedianby virtue of their locations in referenceto Assyrianannalsthat plotted militaryengagementswith named peoples. The population of Hasanlu IVB was presumably Mannaean.Its many-columnedhalls(Dyson 1989a) demonstratethe prominenceof the columned-hall traditionacrossethniclines in westernIran.

23 l

ELSPETHR. M. DUSINBERRE

24

CurrentthinkingaboutUrartianarchitectureis, by contrast,questioningthelikelihoodthathypostyle halls(knownat two sites) are,in fact,properlydated to the Urartianperiod at all (Zimansky1998: 180). They may, rather,reflectIranianformscominginto play as a resultof Medianor laterAchaemenidPersian hegemonic incursions in previously Urartian realms.This reinterpretation of the Urartianevidence furtherassociatesthehypostyleformas a regionalIraniantype thatmayhavebeen sharedby severalidentity collectivesin the westernZagrosin the firsthalf of the first millennium-perhaps foremost among them being the Medes. The building type thus seems diagnostic of an Iranianand especially Median presence when we encounter it in central Anatoliaat thisjuncture. In addition to the many-columnedhalls, two buildingshavenow beenrecognizedat Kerkenesthat may be of the megaronform,with a centralhearth. This would hint at some interplayin the planningof KerkenesbetweenIraniantraditionsfromthe Median heartlandandmorelocalcentralAnatolian(Phrygian) traditionsthatareso prominendydisplayedatGordion (viz., Voigt 1997: fig. 2).'4 Such a simultaneousdeployment of Median heartlandand local Phrygian formsin the buildingof the installationat Kerkenes makessense, whetherKerkeneswas a MediancolonialfoundationoranAnatoliancityusedby theMedes as a powerbase.It wouldrepresenta logicalreconciliationof heartlandprestigepractices(meantveryconsciouslyto resonatewith Medianinterestsand invocationsof its center)withindigenousformswellsuited to the oftenharshclimateof thispartof Anatolia. AlthoughHerodotushimselfnowherecharacterizes Pteriaby anyethnicdescriptor,he does saysomething tantalizing.He notes explicitly(1.76) thatthe plain aroundthe city was inhabitedby people called Syrians."Syrians"forHerodotusmustbe code (misguidedlyovergenericin this context)for the people we call archaeologicallythe Neo-Hittites-in other words,a localpopulationassociatedwithNeo-Hittite materialculturewho continuedto occupy regionsof Anatolia.The context and phrasingof Herodotus's words set up an oppositionbetweenthe ethnicityof Pteria'sinhabitants(who are specificallynot folded into the samecategoryas thepeople in theplain)and the "Syrian"ethnicityof the indigenousplain-dwell-

ers. Summersremarksupon this intriguingopposition embeddedin Herodotus'sstoryas follows: It is strikingthatCroesustreatedthe inhabitants of Pteriadifferentlyfromthe "Syrians"in thesurroundingvillageswho, in contrastto thePterians, had done no wrong. It can thus be arguedthat the phraseologyof Herodotus implies that the inhabitantsof Pteriawere not the same as the ruralinhabitants,an implicationthat can easily be understoodif the occupantsof the city were Medes and their allies: a foreign occupying power. (Summers1997: 89) This interestingline of thoughtdeservessharpening. By 547, when Croesus(Herodotustells us) led the inhabitantsof Pteriainto slavery,it was the Persians who were now the enemiesof the Lydians-not the Medes.The Medes,at leastin the Iranianheartland, had(aswe havealreadymentioned)beensuccessfully conqueredby theirPersiancousin,Cyrus,in ca. 550. Thatsaid,theLydianswillhaveknownthattheMedes werenowsubjectto thePersianpower.Theywillhave had specialreasonfor wantingto takeinto enslaved oblivionthepopulationofMedesandMedian-aligned peoplefromPteriaspecificallyso astowipeouta group thatmightpredictablyfind theirbest interestserved by claimingallegianceto the insurgentnew Iranian imperialorder,with its militarymightpouringforth into Anatolia.The Lydianswill alsohavehad special reasonfor needingto set fireto a Medianstronghold thatwouldotherwiseverylikelyhavebeen takenover by the Persiansintact-probablywith littleor no resistancefromMedianresidents,who saw the proverbial handwritingon the wall and alreadyknew that Ecbatanahad openedits gatesto Cyrus. The acceptance or rejection of Kerkenesas a specificallyMedianstrongholdon the westernfrontier depends in large measureon the position one takesin an ongoing debateabout the natureof Medianpower.Werethe Medesan expansionistempire pressingout to centralAsiaon the eastanddeep into Anatoliaon the west-a power of the sort thatcould have/wouldhave createda colonial installationlike Kerkeneson its frontier?Muchink has been spilled in the last twentyyearsover the degreeto which we can trust Herodotus's description (his so-called

AN EXCAVATED IVORYFROMKERKENESDAG, TURKEY

such as Nush-iJan and Godin. In the context of the growingambitionof Medianauthority,the frontier installationat Kerkeneswould have been used and maintainedwith centralresourcesand sanction-to serveMedianexpansionistagendasin the west-regardlessof the ethnicityof its originalbuilders. In sum, Kerkeneswas a huge fortifiedinstallaProbablyall scholarsagree that from the ninth tion thatcan be confidentlyassociatedwith the Methrough most of the seventh century B.C. the Assyrianrecordssuggestthatthe Medeswerenot dianexpansioniststate,andwith Medianuse, on the a unifiedstate;evenduringthetimeofEsarhaddon basisof allarchaeological andcircumstantial evidence Medianchiefs, who were in conflict with each presentlyavailable.It enjoyedgood agriculturalreother,arestill mentioned(Helm 1981: 86). But sourcesandamplewater;it commandedtraderoutes the BabylonianChronicles suggest/indicateto and controlleda largetractof land near the volatile me (andothers)thata moreunifiedsituationhad borderalongthe westernMedianfrontand the eastdevelopedby 615 B.C. (Muscarella1994:60).... ernextentof Lydianpurview.The cityplayeda cruit is not incorrectto recognisethe existenceof a cialrolein powerstrugglesbetweenthe Lydiansand Medianempire,in the sense of a predatorystate the Medes. And in 547, when the armiesof Cyrus extendingits power and controlbeyond its ter- thePersianadvancedtowardLydia(followingthederitory,but one of relativelylimitedsize. And the featof the Medesin 550) andengagedCroesusat the "limitedsize" modifierwould be considerably foot of Pteria,it was surelyno coincidence.The Perless significantif one agreeswith Briantconcern- sians will have known full well that Pteria,as a Meing the natureof Mediancontrol of the eastern dian strongholdon a recentlyalteredpoliticalmap, areasof Iran[Briant1984a and 1984b;now add was theirsforthe taking-a greatstrategicprize. UnBriant1996: 3 7], andifwe knewsomethingspefortunatelyfor Cyrus (and for the continuedlife of cificaboutMediancontrolof westernand north- Pteria),Croesusgot therefirst. westernIranbeforethe Lydiantreatyof 585 B.C. Againstthis backdrop,we can now turn to the (whichsuggeststhattheseareaswereunderMe- ivorypanelfromKerkenesas a workof artthatspeaks diancontrolby this time).(Muscarella1994: 62) to the luxuryapparatusof a colonialMediancity in centralAnatolia.Our aimwill be to contextualizeit Archaeologistsgenerallyagreethatafteran earlyhisthroughtechnical,functional,iconographic,andstytoryas a groupled by rivalchiefsin anarenaof settle- listicanalysesandto insertit into thevexed discourse mentsof multipleidentitycollectives(sensuethnico), on the "problemof Medianart." the Medes coalesced into a powerfulstate ruled by one king. At this point, the gradualdisappearance fromtheAssyrianannalsof settlementsin theZagros EXCAVATION OF THE IVORY PANEL region identifiedwith specific non-Medianpeoples seems to confirman increasingdominationof the The panelwasfoundlyingfacedownin Test Trench Medesoverneighboringgroups.There is fairagree- 15 above the poorly preserved,laid clay floor of a mentthatthe Medes emergedto exercisesome form chamberwithina largebuildingcomplex.The floor of hegemonyover a largeterritoryprior to theirdelevel of this chamberrested about 1.5 m below the feat by Cyrus in 550.16 It was a hegemony that seems moderngroundlevel. Burialconditionswere fortuincreasinglyto have commandedthe centralization nateforthepreservationof ivory.'7Thus, despitethe of heartlandresourcesand bases of operationthat weight and pressureof the soil and the naturalproearlierhad been dispersedamongvarioussites ruled cess of aging,the ivoryremainsremarkably well preby local Medianchiefswithin the heartland.This is servedand has cleanedup beautifully(fig. 4).18 widelyconsideredthemostviableexplanationforthe The chamberin which thepanelwas discovered abandonmentof recognizablyMedianmanorsatsites was the westernmostof a row of three, situatedupMedikosLogos) of Medianorigins,political/military activities, and status as an "empire."'5 Oscar Muscarellahasintervenedcogentlyintotheselearned debates, offeringimportantcritiquesof entrenched positions and establishinga viablemiddleground:

25

ELSPETH R. M. DUSINBERRE

~ ~

I~

S-

#?

,Y,.

_~~~~~~~

hill from and behind a large hypostyle hall with an antechamber or porch. Unlike the columned hall and indeed much of the rest of the site, this chamber was unburned except for the door frame.'9 Originally it had a second story, apparently constructed of mudbrick. The panel probably fell through the floor of this upper room since it was found in debris that raised it well-above the surface of the laid clay floor of the lower room rather than directly on the floor itself.20The chamber stood doorless and abandoned, subject to wind and damp, with the roof eventually crumbling in. Two minute fragments of gold leaf found in the passage outside and in front of the chamber probably come from the same piece of furniture that the panel once ornamented (or perhaps even from this very panel), washed or blown out of the room before the structure collapsed.2' The structure that housed the ivory panel was sparsely utilitarianrather than ceremonial or even rudimentarilyhabitational.22The survivingground floor chamber opened out onto a narrow, paved passage behind the columned hall. Perhaps we have here a set of rooms serving as part ofa treasurycomplex that also incorporatedactivitiestakingplace in the nearbyhall.23

Ne FIG-4.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MATERIALS, TECHNIQUES,

AND FUNCTION

The Ivory, Its Carving, and Its Coloristic Treat-

Detail of the ramfrom the Kerkenesivory: (top) precleaning, (middle)postcleaning, and (bottom)as drawn by the author. Photos courtesyof G. D. .626Summers and M. E. F. Summers.

ment. The Kerkenes panel is made of a single piece of elephant ivory. As preserved, it measures ca. 29.5 cm long, 5 cm high, and 0.5 cm thick, with relief standing above the surface to as much as another 0.3 cm to give a maximum thickness of 0.8 cm. It was carved from a dense, opaque, slightly off-white tusk with evident laminations.24The tools used to carve the ivory included a saw, one or two chisels, drills of at least two different sizes, a hollow circular punch, a fine-tipped tool for incision, and an agent with which to polish the panel (perhaps sands of varying degrees of fineness, followed by a smooth stone or piece of bone or leather for final burnishing).25The tusk was straightened before carving, as the slightly backcurved laminations visible on the back of the panel suggest.26It was then sawn into a slender plank, ca. 5 cm high and 1 cm thick, probably a little over 52 cm

AN EXCAVATED IVORY FROM KERKENES DAG, TURKEY

5. The ivory panelfrom KerkenesDag. Photo courtesyof G. D. Summers and M. E. F Summers. Preserveddimensions:ca. 29.5 cm L x 5.0 cm H x 0.5 cm Th. FIG.

A

FIG.

6

Drawing

of the ivory

panelfrom

Kerkenes

Dag'.

Rendered

long in its originalstate(see below). The outlinesof the animalsandborderswereprobablydrawnon the surfaceof the ivory before the extraneousivorywas carvedawaywith smallchisels and gougingdevices, tracesof which areleftat the rightedge on the tenon. Marksleftby the tools used to createthe subtlemodeling of volumes on the animals'cheeks, shoulders, withers,bellies, and hauncheswere smoothedaway in the process of polishingthe ivoryto the fine sheen it still retains.27 The survivingpartof the mainfriezeshows five animals:a maledeerwalksright,while two goatsand two sheep walkleft, one maleand one femaleof each species (figs. 2, 5, and 6). The originalcomposition of the friezewas surelysymmetrical,with eight animals rather than the preserved five. Thus its full lengthwould have been ca. 50 cm, plus an added 1 cm on each end to accommodatea tenon for securing it in placeon a piece of furniture.The top border of the panel is definedby a bead-and-reeldesign of

by the author.

which the beads are amberand the reels part of the originalpiece of ivory. The amberbeads are 0.6 x 0.7 or 0.8 cm, the ivory reels 0.4 x 0.7 or 0.8 cm. The beads, rounded at top and frontand cut flatat the backand sides, were insertedinto slots between the reels, which were gilded with narrowsheets of gold leaf, mostly now missing.28Underneath the beads on the Kerkenesivory, small shiny metallic sheets,probablyoftin or silver,reflectedlightthrough the amber,enhancingits translucentred-orangeglow and enablingit to retainits luminousqualityeven by A parallelforthisway of integrating palelamplight.29 amberinsets into the bead-and-reelis found on ornamentalivoriesdedicatedat the earlysixth-century Temple of Artemisat Ephesus, a corpus generally thought to represent a contemporary Lydian oeuvre.30Butthe additionof shinymaterialunderthe amber insets is so far documented only on the Kerkenespanelto my knowledge.The bottomof the panel is demarcatedby a simple meander,the lines

27

ELSPETHR. M. DUSINBERRE

FIG.

7PI

Drawing of an ivorystagfrom Sardis. ? ArchaeologicalExploration of Sardis/Harvard University. (

28

-_

of which were formedby threeadjacentdrill holes, squaredat the sides to makecrisp angles.The drill holes were left unsmoothed.These rough indentationswerethencoveredby aninlayofwhichthetraces areso slightas to eludesubstanceidentification.3" The inlaymaterialmay have been a red glass paste, thus balancingthe amberof thebead-and-reelborder.Use of a red glasspasteherewould reinforceconnections with Lydiancrafttraditions(Brilland Cahill1988). Once the animalshad been modeled, theirsurfaces were elaborated.The distinctivespots of the Dama mesopotamica(fallow deer) were excavated with a large-bitdrill, roughlytwice as large as that used to formthe meander.The spots wereoriginally filled. Althoughthe tracesleft inside the spots have not yet been tested, visualanalysissuggeststhe materialwas silver.In nature,the fallowdeer has white spots on otherwisered-brownfur.If the body of the deer had originallybeen stainedreddishbrown, the spots inlaidin silverwould havesimulatedthis natural color scheme. No vestige of color staininganywhere on the Kerkenespanel remains.This lack of evidence is not definitive,however. The very large corpus of ivories from Nimrud reveals extensive documentationof colorationbut onlyby virtueof the abilityto examinehundredsof pieces on which,overall, therearegenerallyonly fainttracespreservedon disparatefeaturesof disparateartifacts(Herrmann 1986: 59-60). Thus, the chancesof retrievingmaterialevidenceof originalstainingfromanisolatedivory (especiallya lone itempreservedfroma site with the climateof Kerkenes)are extremelysmall. Connections between ivory and silver abound in Homer, reflectingGreekexposureto andfascinationwith the courtlyartsof the Eastaround800 (e.g., Od.8.40 15 [a sword], 9.55-58 [a footstool],and 23.199-201 [Odysseus'sbed]). Homerspecificallylinksthe technique of ivory-stainingwith Lydia in his famous

<

!

2

3 cm

simile describinga Lydianwomanwho stainsivory with purple (I. 4.141-45). It was, in fact, a widespreadtechniquein ivory-producingenvironments. But it is nonethelessinterestingthatthe Greekepic associates the process so closely with the western Anatolianmilieuof Lydia. Fine lines on the faces of all the animals,their nostrilsand mouths,and the basesof theirearswere incised with a single sharptool. The fleeces of both sheep are indicatedby small,tightlypackedcircles, eachwith a centralpuncheddot. Circlesof the same size outlinethe eyes of the deer and both sheep and pick out thehairyfetlocksof allthe animals.All these circularmarkingswere madewith the same tubular metalpunch. The eyes of the deer and sheep havea pupil drilledjust frontof center.Lines at frontand back enhance the realistic quality of the lozengeshaped eyes. While the billy goat'shead is missing, the nannygoat'seye is fashionedwholly by incision ratherthanpunching. The basictechniquesofworkmanshipanddecorativetreatmentdocumentedon the Kerkenesivory arepartof an establishedluxurytraditionin the Near East,documentedfromIranto Cyprus,thathad significantimpacton ivoryproductionservingmarkets fartherwest in Greece and Etruria(Barnett1982). The gilding of ivory is a knownAnatolianpractice, atleastas earlyas theHittites(Guterbock1971;Bourgeois 1992). It is also documentedat Hasanluand AssyrianNimrud.Assyriantexts reinforcewhat we can glean frommany Near Easternivoriespreserving actualremnantsof lavishgold overlays;theyalso document the use of silver overlayon ivory (Herrmann 1986: 58). Significantly,earlyGreekliterary sources allude to the common occurrenceof ivory, gold, silver,and amber(Carter1985: esp. chap. 1), but they may be evoking the courtly milieu of the kingdomsofAnatoliasince no actualearlyexamples

AN EXCAVATED IVORY FROM KERKENES DAG, TURKEY

FIG.

8.

Back of the ivory panelfrom KerkenesDag. Photo courtesyof G. D. Summers and M. E. F. Summers.

displaying such elaboratecombinationshave been foundat mainlandGreeksites. An ivorystag,perhapsanornamentalattachment to a horse's trappings,was excavatedfrom archaic Lydianlevels at Sardisin 1994 (fig. 7) (Greenewalt andRautman1998: 493-94, fig. 19). This delicately carvedpiece(itsantlersunfortunately brokenoff)demonstratestheexpertiseof ivory-workers renderinganimalsfora Lydianclientelein the earlysixthcentury. Form and Function. At the preservedrightedge of the panel, the tenon (with a pair of holes for pins or dowels) is partiallyintact. It was probably the full heightof thepanelin its originalstate.Once fittedinto anadjacentmortise,thetenonwouldhavebeenpinned in place. This systemparallelsthe mannerin which the wooden furniturefrom PhrygianGordion was joined.32The back of the ivorypanel is smooth and flat,withno tracesof sawmarkspreserved.Two shallowincisedlines-one runningparallelto thetopedge, about0.2 cm down and the otherrunningparallelto and almostflushwith the bottomedge of the panelmayperhapshavebeen used as guidesin the carving or thefittingof thepanel(fig.8). Presumablyit was set into a wooden stretcherof a piece of furniture.The backofthepanel,whichwouldhavebeenhiddenfrom view if set into such a wooden casing,is smoothlyfinished but not burnished.Similarly,the tenon section at right,which would havebeen insertedinto a mortise and thushidden fromview, was leftunsmoothed and unpolished.By contrast,the entirefrontsurface of thepanelhas been polishedto a fineglossysheen. The standsandcomplextablesactuallypreserved fromGordiondemonstratethe tremendousvarietyof decoratedfurnituretypes currentin IronAge central

Anatolia(Simpson 1985; Simpsonand Spirydowicz 1999).Similarly,anassemblagefromTomb 79 atCypnioteSalamis(Karageorghis1973; Bamett1982: 4950 and pl. 52a-b) revealsan arrayof intact types of ivory-ladenfurniturefrom Phoenician workshops datingto thecloseofthe eighthcentury(whenAssyria had control of the island). The Salamisivories reflectthesamePhoenicianluxuryproductionwe know from farther east at the Assyrian court-either throughivory elements(usuallynot preservedwith theiroriginalfurnituresettingsstillintact)or through representationsof furnishings on Assyrian palace reliefs(fig. 9a-b). Backlessseats, footstools, stands, couches,andhigh-backedchairsoftenhaddecorated legs, not infrequentlywith animalpaws or hoofs as their terminations and occasionally with animals walkingaround the base of the legs.33They sometimes had stretchersbetween legs ornamentedwith narrowdecorativebands. The Kerkenes ivory probably decorated a wooden stretcher from the back of a magnificent straight-backedchair/throne(a backed chair with arms)or a couch/bed.34Couches, beds, and chairs areknownto havebeen embellishedwith a varietyof materials,including ivory and amber; textual evidence suggeststhatcouches were sometimesembellishedin gold andsilveraswell.Ivory-inlaidexamples have been found at Gordion and CyprioteSalamis, while othersmade of wood and decoratedwith amber and ivory have been found in Greece.35Some stretchers excavated at Nimrud with ivory-inlaid fiiezes seem, by theirdimensions,to havecome from couches:one measuringabout100 cm long by 8.2 cm high (Mallowan1966: 534, fig. 452; Simpson 1993: 572); anothermeasuring110 cm long by 4.4 cm high

29

ELSPETH

R. M. DUSINBERRE

t

^ Plate LXXX7V

1

yVol,

1

Plate LXXXV.

I F1g ,

LXXXIF

0 aiia ry Asyr anTWes, from the bas rtlef.

-A-

I 1

'~~~n II

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o. n== i,.fg2

No. I.

Arc hair

bione (

on ia bad).

22.

i

A yria abi.es fromb kssI tas-xliefs Fl

g\

,No 1.Tble, ernaimntci with

r='

3.

)md See

ycnieriaonsb tht tob)e

Fig

4.

.y

me

i

Fig.4.

FIG. 9 A-B.

Renderingsoffurniture on Assyrian reliefs.After G. Rawlinson, The Seven Great Monarchies of the Eastern World. Vol.1: Chaldaea. Assyria (New York,Philadelphia, and Chicago:TheNottingham Society, 1870), p1.LXXXIV(a) and PI. LXXXV(b).

w

-~~

0 0

10

FI(C. 10.

30

Drawing of the carved woodenstretcherfrom Tumulus MM at Gordion. After Simpson and Spirydowicz 1999:Jig. 50.

IVORYFROMKERKENESDAG, TURKEY AN EXCAVATED

combinationof preservedelementsand representationsin art.36Animalsarecommonelementsof structuraldecorationon the legs and armsof chairs,usuThe Kerkenespanel, at ca. 50 cm long beforeit broke, would have made for an unusuallynarrow allyin the formof sphinxes or lions, seatedand acting as a supportforthe arms.They arealsodeployed couch if meantto ornamentalmostthe entirespanof eithershortend. The couchesfromtheAchaemenid- in frieze formaton such furniture.On the banquet relief of Assurbanipal from the North Palace at periodIkiztepeburialsnearAktepeon the bordersof Phrygiaand Lydiaare,forinstance,between76 and Nineveh, the king reclineson a couch thatincorpo84 cm wide (Ozgen et al. 1996: 49). The recon- ratesa stretcherspanningthe long side, displayinga structedlengthof the Kerkenesivoryis, on the other seriesof confrontedanimals(Barnett1976: pls. 6465). Otherexamplesincludethe couch shownin the hand, an appropriatedimension for spanning the back of a chair.An excellentparallelfor the dimen- wallpaintingin the Persian-periodKaraburuntomb sion is the carved boxwood stretcher found in in the Lycianregion of Anatolia(Mellink1998). A TumulusMM(the"MidasMound")atGordion(fig. limestone couch with carved decoration from the 10). Thought to have come from the back of a Achaemenid-periodtomb at Aktepein Lydiasurely straight-backedchair,it measured47 cm long at the rendersin funerealpermanenceornamentalfeatures timeof discovery(now preservedonly to 33 cm), 4.5 we mightexpectto findon an actualcouch madeof a cm high, and 1.5 cm thick(Simpson 1993; Simpson wooden core clad in luxurymaterials.Here a frieze andSpirydowicz1999). Whilesomeelaboratechairs of animals,hunting,equestrians,and a wheeled veand couches had curvedbackswith decorativeivory hicleis incisedalongthelong side (Ozgenet al. 1996: panelsrunningin a seriesof verticalsalongthe curv- 41-42, 70). Animalfriezeson preservedivory paning surface(Barnett1982: pl. 52a [Salamis]and pl. els for couches fromNimrudincludecombatscenes 55 [an"eastAnatolian(?)"examplefromNimrud]), involvinggriffins,lions, and bulls (Mallowan1966: some chairs were straight-backedand validatethe 512-13, figs. 416-17, and 534, fig. 452). Assyrian identificationof the Gordionstretcher.Beds,too, had and north Syrianchair backs often include animal straight-backed elements.The bed fromSalamiswith friezes,frequentlyin huntingscenes(e.g., Herrmann Phoenician-madeivoryinlayshas a framingof three 1996:pl. 36b [Nimrud7904]). There areindividual horizontalivory-inlaidstretcherssetwithinthemuch Phoenicianivory panels of a height comparableto widerframeof the entirestraight-backed headboard the Kerkenespaneland carvedin reliefwith displays structure(Barnett1982: pl. 52b). of isolatedgrazingstags(e.g., Barnett1982: pl. 47eThe Kerkenespanel was probablyset into the f, from Arslan Tash). They may have formed eletop horizontalstretcherof a chairor the headboard ments in more extended compositions decorating of a bed with a narrower inset framing (like the furniturewith filesof suchgrazinganimals.Butthere Salamisexample)so thatthe undulatingedge of the is no hint of the elaborationsof iconographywe see bead-and-reelborderperhapsextendeddecoratively on the Kerkenesivory. The carved wooden chair above the wooden piece into which it was set. The stretcherfromPhrygianGordionalreadymentioned wear patternson the highest points of relief of the (fig. 10) shows a sequence of discretescenes:a lion sheep's fleeces corroboratea placementwhere they andbull combat,pairsof heraldicgoatsandheraldic were subjectto occasionalgentlerubbing. stags, and a horse whose eye was originallyinlaid. The style, composition, and iconography of the Gordionpieceare,however,verydifferentfromthose ICONOGRAPHY AND STYLE on the Kerkenespanel. Meandersand bead-and-reelfriezesare closely Iconography. Animals were a critical feature of the associatedwith furnitureembellishmentin Greek, decorative programming of elaboratefurniturefor sitwestern,and centralAnatoliancontexts. One couch tingandrecliningin the earlyfirstmillenniumacross represented on a vase imported from Chios to a wide spectrumof cultures-as we can gleanfroma Naukratisin Egyptis, for instance,decoratedwith a (Mallowan 1966: 512-13, figs. 416-17; Simpson 1993: 572).

31

ELSPETH R. M. DUSINBERRE

FIG. 11.

Detail of the male Dama mesopotamica (fallow deer) on the Kerkenesivory.

_.

*.

. . ...

FIG. 12.

X-ray of the ivorypanelfrom KerkenesDag, showing evidenceof the deer'sapplied antlers onceextending across the bead-and-reel. Courtesyof G. D. Summers and M. E. F. Summers.

of thebillry goatefoandkthes h ery sa sowng tevKerenesvof Detail nanygoa

FIG.-uS10 13.

atesoneetnigars

AN EXCAVATED IVORY FROM KERKENES DAG, TURKEY

meander and a bead-and-reel (Walter-Karydi 1973: no. 802). And the meander is a strong element in the repertoire of Gordion, appearing on the tomb decorations at Midas City as well as on revetment tiles and furniture (e.g., Boehmer 1973; I?ik 1987). Evidence for the combination on one piece of furniture of animal imagery with the bands of meander and beadand-reel that we see on the Kerkenes panel is, however, quite rare. The stone couch from Aktepe incorporated bead-and-reel and meander borders along with the animal frieze already mentioned. Although the arrangement of these three elements is entirely differenton the Aktepe couch and the Kerkenesivory, we at least see in both these items the full complement of three elements deployed on a single furniture item. It is noteworthy that both come out of an Anatolian context. We have rehearsed a number of ways in which the Kerkenes ivory relates to longstanding traditions of ivory (and wood) carving and furniture embellishment in first-millenniumwestern Asia. What becomes strikingly apparent, however, is that the Kerkenes panel stands apart from currently known ivory-carving repertoires in its detailed iconography and in many specific aspects of style. While the virtuosity of the piece suggests that it must have been made by a highly accomplished school of ivory-working artisans, the Kerkenes panel is the unique representative of such a school at this point. We must look outside the realm of furniture in order to appreciate the range of traditionsinfusing the artifactfrom Kerkenes. Ivory- and gold-working technical traditions (perhaps specifically of Lydia) as well as a legacy of complexly programmed representations on precious vessels from farther east seem to come together to form the backdrop of the aesthetic and the patron mandate that informed the creation of the Kerkenes ivory. Of the five animals walking along the surface, all but the ram have their four hooves flat on the meander (fig. 6). The deer at the left of the panel, as preserved, faces right and leads a file of animals of which he is the only surviving member. He has male genitalia but lacks surviving antlers (fig. 11). No trace of roughness on his head is preserved, where ivory antlers might originally have been before breaking off. If he had antlers, they were made of another substance, probably gold. A slight discoloration in the

x-ray of the panel suggests that antlersin another materialwere indeed attachedto the panel and that theyoverlappedthe upperborder(fig. 12). The outline of the deer's profile is slightlyconcave, its ear largeand held horizontallybehindits head. Two incisedlinesaboveits roundeye lendit a quizzicallook. The billygoatto therightfacesthedeerandleads the file of animalson the righthalf of the panel. Its head and forelegsare now missing,but the position of the preservedtip of the horn and the angleof the neck show thatits head is down as if grazing,neatly tucked under the raised head of the deer (fig. 13). The horn is the short, only gently curvinghorn of the domesticatedgoat ratherthanthe long, dramaticallyarcedtypeso distinctiveof thewild goat.It may have been gilded, but no traceof gold rernains.Despite damagein this area,the goat'stesticlesare still clearlyvisible.The body is subtlymodeledat shoulder and haunchto indicatein delicatereliefthe contoursof the muscles. Followingthe billygoatis a nannygoat (fig. 13). She does not standas tallas her mate,but her body is longer.Tracesof gildingremainon herhorn,which extendsvery slightlyover the bead-and-reelborder. Her smallpointed earoverlapsthe base of the horn. Her eye, set in a concaveprofile,is slightlycrescent shapedratherthanround;finelinesareincisedabove andbelow it. The nannygoat'sdistendedbellyis not an original feature meant to indicate pregnancy. Rather,it is a resultof postdepositionaldistortionof thepanelaccentuatedby consolidationat thispoorly preservedsection. A ewe continuesthe paradeof animals(fig. 14). As with the nannygoat, her horn extends over the top border.Here, however,thereis no traceof gilding preserved.Her slightlyroundedearoverlapsthe horn. Her eye, set in a face with concaveprofile,is round,witha shallowlineincisedaboveit. Herfleece begins behind her ear and covers her entire body except for the legs and underbelly.The fleece is indicatedby smalldotted circles. She has a short tail. Herbodyis subtlymodeled.Certainareason herside andhaunchareworndown. Directlybehindthe ewe a largeramappears,completingthepairedsequence of species on the right side of the panel. The ram's small,slightlyroundedearoverlapshis largecurling horn,whichpreservesa traceofgilding.Liketheewe's,

33

ELSPETH R. M. DUSINBERRE

FIG. 14.

Detail of the ewe and the ram on the Kerkenesivory.

34

the ram'sfleecebeginsbehind his earand covershis body except for legs and underbelly;it is also shown with punched circles,eachwith a centraldot. Again, the surfaceof his side and haunchis somewhatworn down so thathis fleeceis no longerevidentin places. He has the roundeye, with addedincised line above it, of theewe,whilehis profileis stronglyarchedrather thanconcave.His faceis furtherenhancedby a double line abovehis nostrils.His genitaliaarepronounced. Although the faces of all three animalsranged behind the nannygoat on the rightside of the panel are poised near the hind quartersof the creaturein front,the ramseems activelyto sniffat the tailof the ewe. This is suggested by the lines above his nostrils,which imply olfactoryaction. It is also implied by the assertive forwardthrust of his head. (The heads of the ewe and nanny goat are tipped gently downward,whereasthe ram'shead pushes forward in a straighttrajectoryfrom the neck.) The ram's raisedleftleg projectingtowardthe ewe enhancesthe sense that he is directlyengagedin the sniffingand pursuitof the female.This gestureshows dominance and sexualarousalas well as indicatingtime of year: the autumn. Sheep, like goats and deer, enter the matingseason in the fall. They bear theiryoung in the earlyspring,aftera gestationperiod of aboutfive months. The ram'sexcitementover the ewe before him can now be seen as corroborationthat the discolorationvisibleon the x-rayabove the head of the

male fallowdeer results from antlersthat originally adornedthis animal.Malesof the species fallowdeer drop their antlersin April and remainwithout antlersforseveralmonthsbeforeregrowthbeginsin time for the matingseason in September.Attached antlers on the male deer would, then, also indicatethe fallmatingseason. The maledeer at the leftwould surelyhavebeen followedby threemoreanimals.They would also be moving to the right, complementingthe length and dispositionof the groupon the righthalfof the panel. The animaldirectlybehindthe deerwas surelya doe of the samespecies. The othertwo mustbe guessed. A cow followedby a bull is one possibility, offering yet anotherhorned,cloven-hoofedcreatureand one with great resonancein the art of the ancient Near East. Even more compelling is the suggestion of a female-malepair of anotherspecies of wild animals withhornsandclovenhooves(suchas gazelles).This option would createa symmetricaljuxtaposition of wild animalson the left side and domesticatedvarieties on the right. The inclusion of gazelleswould have the added interestvalue of completinga group of four species thatmatein the fall. The complexity of narrative subtext on the Kerkenesivoryis remarkable-addressingas it does seasonaltime,the cycles of fertility,and the natureof behaviorallyand physicallyrelated species (across wild and domesticatedgroups). It has been argued

AN EXCAVATED IVORY FROM KERKENES DAG, TURKEY

FIG. 15. Drawing of thefigural representationson a gold beakerfrom Marlik, Iran. Adaptedfrom Negahban 1983:fig. 14, p. 28.

that one of the famousgold vessels from Marlik,in the northwesternIranianhighlands, may show the life cycle of the goat (Negahban1983: 27-28, fig. 14 and pls. 42-46). The excavatorposits thatthe cycle beginswith the sucklingof the newbornon the bottomandmovesup thevesselfroma sequenceof goats nibblingat trees, to a file of predatoryhyenas, and culminatingin the topmost registerdepicting multiple tableauxof the ravagingof the animal'scarcass by vultures,presumablyafterits killing by the hyenasbelow (fig. 15). Some areskepticalof the specificityof thisinterpretationas renderingphasesof the life of one particularspecies. Neverthelesstherehas been cogent defense of the basic notion of a cyclical narrativeof life sustainingthe representationalprogramof the Marlikbeaker.While the programmay reflectupon more than one species, it does seem to makegeneralizedobservationsaboutthe life cycle of gentleherbivorousanimals(in thiscase,perhapsfrom bottom to top: deer, goats, and gazelles)versus the world of predatory carnivorous ones (Calmeyer 1995: 42). The Marlikbeakersuggeststhe possibility of a backdropof Iranianartistry(albeitenhanced by the adaptationof Mesopotamianmotifs) reflecting sophisticatedcontemplationsof the animalworld thatrelatesomehowto the creativerealmof patronage and production whence the Kerkenes ivory

emerged.It was probablyof local manufacture,dating to sometimebetweenthe fourteenthandthe tenth centuries.Althoughwe areat thispoint hardpressed to identifythe precise sociolinguisticmakeupof the inhabitantsof Marlik,theywerepartof the orbitlater dominatedby theMedesin theheydayof theirpower, with a decidedly eastern Indo-Iranianconnection (Negahban1998). The motifof maleand femaleanimalswalkingin an extended file is a venerableone in the art of the ancientNear East.A largeritualalabastervessel (the UrukVase)depictsalternatingramsandewes on one of its lower friezes, reinforcingthe sense of fertility and fecundityassociatedwith the goddess Inanna, portrayedat the top of the vase (fig. 16). This importantartifactis one of a pair,originallyelaboratedwith attachments probably in gold, excavated from a templetreasurycache at Urukin southernMesopotamiadatingto ca.3000 (LevelIII).The vesselsthemselveswerecarvedmuchearlierthanthe dateof their finaldeposition(Moortgat1969: 11-13, pls. 19-2 1; Lindemeyerand Lutz 1993). The UrukVase is part of a largerrepertoireproduced in this earlycity emphasizinganimalsoften within a context of explicit visualdiscourseaboutfertilityand propagation.Another such item is an alabastertroughcarvedwith a scene showing a centrallypresented reed hut with lambs emergingfrom its sides and convergingfiles of alternatingrams and ewes (Moortgat1969: pls. 17-18; Lindemeyerand Lutz 1993). In laterMesopotamia,therewas a continuation of interest in issues of sexual differentiationof the species and in notions of pairingsas paradigmsfor existence and fertility.These interestswere played out in mythologizednotions of the universe (Lambert 1995: 1830) and also in the experimentalpractice of animalhusbandry(Postgate 1992: 159-64). Laterstill, in the Assyrianempire, vignetteswithin the largerschemes of palacewall reliefsoccasionally include animalsproceedingin bucolic files thatimply notions of animalfertility.One such scene, from Sennacherib'spalace at Nineveh, shows a familyof wild pigs among reeds, illustratingthe naturepreservethe kinghad createdas a symbolicimperialgesture (e.g., Reade 1998: 54-55 and fig. 58 [fig. 17 here]). Anothercategoryof Assyrianpalatialrepresentationis closer in formatto the representationon

35

ELSPETH R. M. DUSINBERRE

FIG. i6. Drawing of representations on the Uruk Vase.After Lindemeyer and Lutz

j

0

1993:pl. 25.

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

k8 Nottgha

(Koyinjik@ Afte

1,X<0-FIG. 17.

V._ . .

Socety10

The

G. Ralnsn

See

Great.

RDering of the wil o relie in th Paac of Sennacheri at NJinzeveht Monarchies of the EasternWorld. Vol.1: Chaldaea. FIG.18.~~~~FG.17

Assyria (NVewYork,Philadelpia,y and0Chcao

8~~~~~~~~~ Drawing of thefileof D animals on the shoulder of a gold vesselfrom Maiko. AfterFrankfort 1996:fig. 240.

,

Theig

g

2

S

il

S

Y

0g

X

AN EXCAVATED IVORYFROMKERKENESDAG, TURKEY

the Kerkenesivory but farremovedfromits apparent narrativefocus. In this type of Assyrianvignette, we sometimessee filesof animalfamiliesand/ormalefemalefiles of animals.When we look at themin the largercontextof the decorativeschemestheyarepart of, it is clear,however,thatthey serveextendednarrativesof the hunt or the herdingaway of the livestockbooty of war(Reade1998: figs.92-93; Russell 1991: figs. 68 and 105). Their portrayalsgive some emphasisto the male-femaleconnectionin the animalworld specifically,we mightsay, in orderto enhance the king's triumphantcapacityto dictate the termsof survivalor demise of the fruitfulcreatures. Furthermore,they are not nearlyas systematically encyclopedicas the Kerkenesivoryis in renderinga carefullyselectedvarietyof species meantto characterizea group of similartypes of animals. Animal friezes in ivory destined to embellish various furnishings have been found at Nimrud (e.g., Herrmann1992: esp. pl. 72). They sometimes show a line of grazingdeer or cows with calves. But beyond that they emphasize action scenes of the hunt or of lions ravagingherbivores.They do not depict the complex range of nuances about a cohort of multiplespecies in male-femalepairingsthat we see at Kerkenes. Indeed, thereis no parallelknown to me for the full complementof representationalfeatureson the Kerkenesivory.We must insteadlook to individual traitsthatrelateto it. Seeminglypacificfiles of alternatinganimalsappearon severalgold vessels from Maikop(fig. 18), a third-millennium sitein theKuban valleyof south-centralAnatolia(Frankfort1996:figs. 240-43). A series of embossed gold vessels from Marlikin Iran(relatedto the beakerdiscussed earlier [fig. 15]) display pacific animalfriezes,at least one with a goatin the distinctivetail-sniffingposture (Negahban1983: 19-21 and pl. p. 38). IllicitlyretrievedMarlikvessels have been on the marketfor decades, creatingthe notion of a Marlikaestheticin advanceof the excavatedcorpus publishedby Ezat Negahban.These illegallyharvestedvesselsalsocreated a demandfor forgeriesto serve the same eager antiquitiestrade.It is tellingin this regardthat the tail-sniffingmotif specificallyis replicatedas a hallmark of Marlikculture in the forgeries of Marlik metalware(Muscarella2000: 37 and 273, no. 32).

.1

1

I

-.4'>

FIG. 19.

Drawing of thefile of deer on the Trialeti silver goblet. After Boehmer and Kossack2000: fig. 34b. We can thus posit that the examples retrieved under controlled circumstances represent a sampling from an originally much larger corpus that included numerous vessels bearing this distinctive motif. Seeking more specific comparanda for files of male-female herbivores, we find interesting material from traditions of metalware production in the Scythian Caucasus. The Kurgans of southern Georgia have yielded an impressive array of decorated metalware that incorporates friezes of alternating animals. This remarkable corpus includes the famous silver goblet (fig. 19) displaying an elaborate sequence of representation (Boehmer and Kossack 2000: figs. 30-52; Kohl 1995: 1056; Kuftin 1941: pls. XCI, XCII, figs. 93-95). The largest figural band of representational imagery displays a complex narrative of combat and its aftermath as well as a procession to a seated personage or deity. In a lower register, above a leaf pattern that grows up from the juncture of the foot and the body, a file of alternating male and female deer proceeds in one

37

ELSPETH R. M. DUSINBERRE

v

-~ ~v-r ?rwv_-_w?vs

-

FIG. 20.

Drawing of the row of alternating male andfemale fallow deeron the lowestregisterof a silver alabastronfrom Lydia. Adaptedfrom Ozgenet at. 1996:flg. 154.

38

direction. The males are poised to sniff at the tails of the femalespreceding them, as the ram does on the Kerkenesivory. Our fig. 19 happens to show the only segment of the animalfile where two male deer aredisplayedtogether.This one segmentis directlyunder the tree in the narrativerepresentation above it, which acts as a punctuationfor the entire scene. The pairingof the two stagsbelow servesthe samepunctuatingpurpose.Otherwise,the extended file of animalsproceeds in strict alternatingmode, with the male in each case posed with head down andjuttingforwardto sniffthe tailof the female.The Trialetigobletseems to datesometimein the Middle BronzeAge II at Trialeti,in the earlysecond millennium (Rubinson 1977: 243). In westernAnatolia,a silveralabastronfroman extraordinarilyrich tomb at Gure in Lydiaoffersan informative parallel for male and female animals shown in matingbehavior(Ozgen et al. 1996: 12425). The bottom registerof representationon this elaboratelyincisedvesseldisplaysfemaleandantlered malefallowdeer, with one of the malesliftinga front leg towardthe doe in frontof him while placinghis headon herrump(fig.20). This alabastronmayhave been an heirloom when it was deposited. The majority of the funeraryassemblageis certainlyof the Persianperiod,perhapsmid-to latesixthcentury.But the alabastronbearsa strikingresemblancein some aspectsof its decorativeprogramto Protocorinthian Orientalizing paintedpotteryof theseventhcentury.37 Close connectionscertainlyexistedbetweenceramic pots andmetalvessels.These connectionsareapparentin commonalitiesof shape(Dusinberre1999) and alsoin sharedrepresentational andornamentalrepertoires.The implicationis thatthe elite metalwareof-

feredprototypesthatwerereworkedin theless expensive ceramicmediumformassconsumption. A corpus of parallelsfor animalfiles exists in a particularOrientalizingproduction-the Wild Goatstylepaintedpotteryof westernAnatoliaandthe eastern Aegean islands. Wild Goat pottery acquiresits name from the male animal that most commonly populates its friezes of grazingcreatures(although the male fallow deer is also frequent).The corpus becomes particularlyinterestingto our study of the Kerkenesivory as an index of wide-rangingcultural interactionsand the playingout of these interactions in the production of a relativelyinexpensive, even humble, ceramicproduction. Over and over again on theseWild Goatpots we see filesof malewild goats withtheircharacteristic sweeping,notchedhornsthat symbolizethe effectivenessof the beast in the competitivejousting of the matingseason. The processions do not display the male-femalealternationof the species-which is such an importantpart of the program of the Kerkenes ivory and the complex legacy of vessel depictions in the ancientNear East to which it relates.Rather,the notion of animalfile has been essentialized to a fairlyperfunctory-yet visuallyappealing-pattern (figs. 21-22). Wild Goat pottery is still poorly defined archaeologicallyfor variousreasons:there are multiplelocalvariantsof the style;we haveas yet no clear idea where most of them were made; and they are largelydated on the basis of stylistic criteriarather thanexternallydatableartifactsfound in association with them. Many of the Greek colonies in Egypt, coastalAnatolia,and the BlackSea rimseem to have developed their own versions of this popular Orientalizingdecorationthatdrew, as we haveseen,

AN EXCAVATED IVORY FROM KERKENES DAG, TURKEY

.. .: .......:. ........

: ..

FIG. 21.

FIG. 22.

Wild Goat-style pot. After Walter-Karydi1973: no. 515. By permission of the GermanArchaeological Institute.

Wild Goat-style pot. After Walter-Karydi1973: no. 516. By permission of the GermanArchaeological Institute.

on traditions of a broad range of cultures in the ancient Near East. It is important to note, nevertheless, that some versions of the pots that have actually been excavated were apparently made locally at native Anatolian sites, including Sardis in Lydia (Greenewalt 1970).38The difficulties in archaeological microanalysis of the Wild Goat pottery do not interferewith the significance of the style to our arguments here. The existence of the style in multiple variants enhances the notion that pacific animal files in more nuanced luxury prototypes must have been far more prevalent and available as models across a wide spectrum than we currently can appreciate on the basis of preserved luxury artifacts themselves. In addition to precious metalware serving as prestige prototypes for humbler production, other portable items, includ-

ing textiles and ivories, will have supplied ideas that stimulated the emergence of the Wild Goat-style repertoire on ceramic vessels. The popularity of Wild Goat pottery serves as an index of a once robust representational tradition in luxury arts-where it was much more complexly articulated than on the inexpensive Wild Goat adaptations. It is this robust luxury-art tradition that the Kerkenes ivory represents in unique and virtuoso fashion. Style. Stylistically (as opposed to technically), the well-known, materiallywell-documented ivory-carving traditions of the Near East offer no close parallels for the Kerkenes panel.39Looking from east to west, a late sixth- or fifth-centuryAchaemenid-period ivory dagger sheath excavated from the "Temple of the

39

ELSPETH R. M. DUSINBERRE

40

Oxus" at Takht-i Sanginis a rareitem thatmightin theoryofferevidenceof ivory-carvingtraditionsthat would speak significantlyto a pre-Hellenistic,eastern Iranianaesthetic informingthe creationof the Kerkenesivory. This sheathincludes a reliefrepresentation of a lion attackinga stag (Litvinskiyand Pichikiyan1981: pl. 1). Analysisreveals,however, that the deer's spots are indicatedby incised ovals ratherthanthedrilledholesofthe Kerkenesivory,and the highly stylizedincised decorationson the lion's body removeany sense of connectionbetweenit and the methodsof ivoryworkmanshipon thepanelfrom Kerkenes.Movingwestward,Hasanluhas yielded a largecorpusof ivories(Muscarella1980);yet it offers not a singlespecificstylistic(oriconographical)parallel for the Kerkenesivory. Neitherthe Assyrianmodeled-stylenor incisedstyle ivories resemblethe style of the carvingon the panelfromKerkenes.Assyrianmodeled-styleivories displayoutlines of animalsand floralmotifs thatare ratherdeeply incised, with interiorvolumes of the animalsmodeled in discreteroundedsurfaces,each set offfromthe surroundingareaby incisedlines that divide the body into separateparts(e.g., Herrmann 1992: no. 351 [Nimrud10498]). Assyrianivoriesin incised style areflat,with incised decorationsdrawn on the background(e.g., Herrmann1992: no. 352 [Nimrud10519]). Certainspecificidiosyncrasiesof the Kerkenesanimalsalso set them apartfromtheir Assyriancounterparts:for instance, the circles suggestingthe fleecesof the sheep on the Kerkenesivory do not appear on Assyrian sheep, and the ears of Assyriansheeplop forwardalongthe faceratherthan pointing up or back to overlap the horn (e.g., Herrmann1992: 89 [Nimrud7747]). The variousSyrianschools of ivory-carvingrender animalfriezesdifferentlythan the Assyrian:the volumes of the bodies in north Syrianivories meld into one anothermore thando those of the Assyrian animals to form rounded, modeled volumes that somewhatresemblethose of the Kerkenesanimals (Herrmann 1992: discussion at no. 137; Winter 1976; 1981). The effect is, however, somewhat heavierthanthe Kerkenesivory:it is almostas if the animals were conceived in the round and then pressed onto a backgroundratherthanhavingbeen conceivedin reliefin the firstplace. Phoenicianivo-

FIG. 23.

Ivorypin or spindle whorlfrom Tumulus B at Gordion,B 7: (left)full view, (right) detail. Photos courtesy of E. Kohler.

ries also rendersmootherand heaviervolumes than those found on the Kerkenesanimals;animalfriezes in reliefon a solid flatbackgroundarenot partof the Phoenicianrepertoireyet published. The ivory-carvingtraditionsof the easternparts ofAnatoliaprovideno close parallelsto the Kerkenes ivory.AlthoughUrartianartifactsincludesome spectacularexamplesof animalscarvedfromivory, they are generallyportrayedin the round ratherthan as relief friezes (Barnett 1982: pl. 40c [the stag in a thicketfromAltin Tepe]). The ivoriesexcavatedso farin westernAnatolia (first and foremost from Ephesus but also from Lycian/PhrygianBayindirin the southwest)tend to be figurines.Most are thus of relativelylimitedusefulness in discussions of stylistic links with the Kerkenesreliefpanel.40An exceptionis the ivorypin or spindlewhorldecoratedwith a ram'shead, found at Gordionin Tumulus B (a tomb datingto ca. 580) (fig. 23).4' The tomb containedsignificantimports fromwesternAnatolia,and this ivoryartifactmaybe anadditionalone. The ramfromGordionshareswith

v

AN EXCAVATED IVORY FROM KERKENES DAG, TURKEY

0

3 cm

FIG. 24.

Drawing of the gold ram from Gdkfeler Koyui(Manisa Museum 5289). Rendered by the author. the Kerkenes ram an ear that overlaps its horn and a general sense of stylistic commonality. In contrast to the Kerkenes ram, however, it has no wrinkles on its nose, and it has a less complex and a more elongated eye. It is overall rather simpler and more schematic than the ram on the Kerkenes panel. The deep relief and its variations of level on the Kerkenes ivory lead to an unusual sense of delicately modeled volumes. Rather than to ivory-carving, the best stylistic parallels for the Kerkenes panel relate more to metalworking and to a representational tradition that we currently know best from pottery painting current in western Anatolia in the early sixth century. Close stylistic parallels are observable between the rendering of the fleeces on the Kerkenes ivory and on a gold couchant ram from Gokceler Kdyii, near Sardis (Ozkan 1996) (fig. 24), which also has a fleece composed of small adjacent circles made with a punch, with a tiny dot at the center of each circle. One difference between the gold sheep from G6k eler Koyiu and the ivory ones from Kerkenes is the positioning of the fleece. The fleece on the gold ram begins just behind the eyes and is set off from the face in relief and with a drawn line rather than beginning behind the ear as on the ivory panel. The gold ram does, however, share with the Kerkenes ram a strongly curved face and two delicately incised lines above the nostrils over the bridge of the nose, as well as the telling tiny dot at the center of each of the circles of fleece. A similar fleece is sported by a gold recumbent ram, part of the "Lydian Treasure" repatriated to Turkey by the Metropolitan Museum of Art (fig. 25).42 This fleece is more strongly stylized, with larger punched

/

-

FIG. 25.

Goldramfrom the "Lydian Treasure"(Usak 1.129.96). After Ozgenet al. 1996: no. 151. By permission of the TurkishMinistry of Culture.

dots inside the circlesand a less naturalisticfacethan those of the G6kqelerKoyii or the Kerkenessheep. Nevertheless,a similarconcept governsthe rendering of fluffywool. Returning to Wild Goat painted pottery, we find close parallelsfor certainaspects of the style of the deer of the Kerkenespanel on many of these vessels. Of particularimportanceare similaritiesin the renderings of the animals' heads and faces. These links include the concave facialprofiles (as seen on the deer, the nannygoat, and the ewe of the Kerkenespanel), the eyes formed of a circle with triangularelongations at front and back and with a dot for pupil, the fine incised lines above the eyes, and the placementof the nostrilat top of the muzzle and mouthjust above the bottom (figs. 21-22; 2627).43Despite these similarities,the Kerkenesivory displays more complexity of line and mass. Thus, for instance, there is a subtler presentation of the ear than what is common on the Wild Goat paintings, where ears of goats (and also deer) are regularly shown held straight,stiff, and tipped backparallel to the horn ratherthan curving delicately across it. The use of meanderborders is also quite

41

ELSPETH R. M. DUSINBERRE

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ... .. .nS: . Ww:.S

.: :. ...:.

Iq

. hl .. ..

.i

. .....

..

'... ..., ;f...-- ......

:,^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, r4l~~~~~

FIG.

26.

Wild Goat-style pot. After Walter-Karydi1973: no. 652. By permission of the GermanArchaeological Institute.

common on the Wild Goatpots as a decorativepattern under the animal file (fig. 27, seen better on the full view of the pot published in Walter-Karydi 1973, no. 527).

42

FIG. 27.

Wild Goat-style pot. After Walter-Karydi1973: no. 527. By Permissionof the GermanArchaeological Institute.

expansionandconsolidationin centralAnatolia.Does this qualifythe Kerkenesivoryas a workof "Median art?"In orderto respondto thisquestion,it is importantfirstto clarifythis term.By "Medianart"I do not anofmeanspecificallyandexclusivelyto characterize ficial,ideologicallyprogrammedcourtartof the MeKERKENES AND THE PROBLEM OF MEDIAN ART dian kings analogousto the constructionof "Achaemenid art"put forthby Root (1979: 1) in order to The problemposed by thenotionof"Medianart"has definea veryparticularphenomenonin thatcontext. artithe dearth of nonceramic largelyrevolvedaround We arein no positionyet to venturein thatdirection factsthatcanbe legitimatelyassociatedwiththeMedes withtheMedes.Wewillnotbe untilEcbatanahasbeen (Muscarella1994:62-63). We havealreadynotedthat extensivelyexcavatedatMedianlevels.The prolonged Medianlevelsof Ecbatanaareyet to be revealed.The inaccessibilityof thegreatMedianroyalheartlandcity two majorexcavatedIraniansites thathave been seof Ecbatana,undermodemHamadan,hasmadeit imcurelyidentifiedas Median(Nush-iJan and Godin) possibleto grapplewith the natureof Medianculture werefoundlargelydevoidof artifictsbecausetheyhad at the imperial center. To make matters worse, been abandoned.Curtis(1995: 23) does not see any Hamadanhasseendecadesof misuseasa forgedprovof theseitemsas viablylabeled"Medianart,"in part enanceforputative"Median"artifactson the artmarbecausehe considers the seals elementsof material ket (Muscarella1987; GunterandRoot 1998). Many culturebut not partof a repertoireof "art."This is a such artifactsaremodem forgeries(Muscarella1989; definitionalproblemthatneeds to be addressedevendiscred1994;2000). Andthesyndromehasjustifiably tuallyin some depth, for it seems to createan unnec- itedall artifcts "saidto havecome fromHamadan"eventhosethatmayactuallybe genuine(ifillicidyharessarilyhigh (i.e., luxury-level)barfor detennininga recordof artatMediansitesthatwillbe acknowledged vested)antiquitiesfromMedianlevelsthere. as informingthe notionof "Medianart." At present the term"Medianart"must be used Kerkeneshas been identifiedas ancient Pteria, much more generallyto signifyart (i.e., items of viwhichin turnhasbeeninterpretedasanestablishment sual culture)produced by and/or used within a Mebuiltor at anyrateused by the Medesas partof their diansocialcontext."In thissense, the Kerkenesivory

IVORYFROMKERKENESDAG, TURKEY AN EXCAVATED

certainlyqualifiesas "Medianart."It also meets the implicitlyvery restrictivenotion of "art"as specificallyhigh-artproductionimpliedby Curtis. We can expect the artassemblagesof any wellendowed Median establishmentto exhibit a range of products that reflect the transculturalfluidities described at the beginningof this article.We must not hold the notion of an artof the Medes to a standard of specificityand homogeneitythatwe do not ascribeto other realmsin this arenain the firstmillennium. Those small finds (such as the seals) that have been recoveredfrom Nush-i Jan suggest that Medeslivingin this settlementhad access to a mix of items,with particularconnectionsto Assyrianstyles and practices (Curtis 1984). The Hasanlu assemblage revealsthe full force of a multiplicityof styles in use on the easternperipheryof the Assyrianempire around800 (Muscarella1980; Marcus 1996). Peoplehad manyoptionsfromwhich to choose, and choose theydid-opting eitherforspecific,differentiated,recognizablydistinguishablestylesor forcombinationsof variousstyles and motifsin a single object. The samecanbe saidof the "animalarts"of centralAsia (e.g., Bunker,Chatwin,and Farkas1970: esp. 19-27). The palacesof the Assyriankingsweremagnets for luxuryproducts fromall over theirempire.The Assyrians(like the kings of Babylon,whose paylists recordMedianandotherforeignworkers)employed artisansdraftedas prizesof warfromtheirmanycampaigns(Zaccagnini1983).45This meansthatit would be specious to determinethe ethnicityof the artisan as thequalifierofwhatmakesanartifact"Medianart." Our review of many aspects of the ivories from Nimrudshows the diversityof stylesin play simultaneously at the Assyriancourt. We may speak of an "Assyrianart"much as we do of an "Achaemenid art"(differentiatingamong the variousarts operating withinthe Assyriancourtin variousstylesat any givenmoment)becausewe areprivilegedin thatcontext to know a good dealaboutthe monumentalofficial art production clearlymade on site within the indisputablydirectpurviewof theAssyriancourt.But the luxury apparatusof the Assyriancourt speaks loudly and deliberatelyof the notion of conquest throughdiversificationof styles. Diversificationis, in other words, an importantpositive value in the

andproductionsthat milieuof empire.Diversification calculatinglycreatenew hybridmanifestationsof stylistic and culturalinvocationsfrom aroundthe imperial domain are quintessentiallypart of what the art of empire is often all about (Dusinberre1997). Whatwould be surprisingwould be to discoverthat "Medianart,"aswe eventuallyretrieveit atEcbatana, is a homogeneous,insulatedphenomenonthat has one "Median"look. An assemblageof ivoryfragmentsfromSusathat seem to be debrisof Achaemenid-periodpalacelife hasbeenrecoveredfroma wellapparentlyof Seleucid (Hellenistic) date (Amiet 1972). These fragments comefromvarioustypesof objects(includingcombs, boxes, furniturepanels,andfurnitureelementsin the round)as well as froma rangeof stylistictraditions, which Amiet (1972: 168-69) classifies as SyroPhoenician,Achaemenid,Egyptian,Greek,and Diverse. The Susa corpusshows thatthe Achaemenid courtcontinuedto displayivorywealthin ways that drewon multiplestylisticschools, followingthe traditions of the Assyriankings. This apparentsituation in ivory-carvingworkshopsat the Achaemenid courtparallelsthatfoundin seal-carvingworkshops (Garrisonand Root 2001). In this lattercontext, a seal used repeatedlyas an importantoffice seal on the PersepolisFortificationtablets(dating to 509494) offersinsightinto the mechanismsof transmission and legacy in court environments of the Achaemenidsthatis surelyapplicableto a considerationof comparablecircumstancesunderthe Medes slightlyearlier.PFS 93* in the Fortificationarchive (fig. 28) is a seal in late Neo-Elamitestyle made for Cyrusof Anshan,son of Teispes (the grandfatherof Cyrus the Great, founder of the Achaemenidempire).46As we would expect from other indications also, this seal demonstratesthe strengthof Elamite artisticand administrativetraditionsamongthe Persiansin southwesternIran.We canexpect thatin the northwest,where the Medes were emergingas the dominantIndo-Iraniangroup, similarrelationships to compellingmicro- and macroregionaltraditions will have been in effect.In the Medianarena,those traditionsare likely to have been not Elamiteones but rathertraditionsreflectingcross-cuttingsalong the northerlyeast-westaxis of traveland otherforms of culturalexchange.In otherwords:we mayexpect

43

ELSPETH R. M. DUSINBERRE

~~~~yA

~

~

~

~

'

FIG. 28. PersepolisFortificationSeal 93* (2:1): a royal-nameseal of CyrusI of Anshan. Photo (left), courtesyof M. B. Garrison, M. C. Root, and the Persepolis Seal Project; compositedrawing (above), courtesyof M. B. Garrison and M. C. Root.

44

to see a vivider presentation of ties with a range of Scythian and Transcausian traditions as well as with a sweep of traditions involving the central and western Anatolian "path" of transcultural fluidity.47This is exactly what the Kerkenes ivory presents us with. It was made in a technique and style that seems most at home in traditions of western Anatolia (especially Lydia), as we have seen. At the same time, it resonates in terms of iconography with more eastern traditions that seem to blend very ancient Mesopotamian ideas with a distinctive strain of Iranian/ Scythian and Transcausian ones. The Assyrian historical annals as well as the palace reliefs suggest that numerous fortified cities in Iran along the eastern fringe of the Zagros, including Median ones, were plentifillly endowed with portable arts that were there to be looted.48 Thus we should not assume that cleaned-out and abandoned Median settlements are all we can ever expect to find. Indeed, the ivory panel from Kerkenes enables us to expand our vision of what may constitute Median art as we stand at an importantjuncture, with prospects of increasing archaeological discovery in the near future. With this in mind, Achaemenid Persian art and rhetoric can also be helpful in thinking about Median art or what it meant-artifactually and artistically speaking-to be a Mede. The gifts carried by the Median delegations to the Great King on the Apadana at Persepolis may indicate something about what the Medes signified culturally to the Achaemenid Per-

sians. The Medes on the north stairof the Apadana are destroyedabove the knees, but we can see that theybringa horse and a suit of Iranianridingclothes (the leggingsarevisible). On the well-preservedeast stair(fig. 29), they do not bring a horse (which is a rathercommon form of gift on the reliefshere). Instead,theybringa largespoutedsitula-likecontainer, two very deep, handlelessbowls thatresemblelarge tumblers,a sheatheddaggerwith an ornatelycarved chape, two pairs of torquesthatprobablyoriginally had animalfinialsnow eroded away, and the three elements of the Iranian riding costume (Schmidt 1953: 85 and pl. 27). The dramaticchange in iconographyfromthe earliernorth stairto the east one is particularlyinteresting.It impliesthata rethinking of the situationhad been called for, leading to a rejection of the more perfunctoryand less distinctive formulationfor the Mediandelegationon the north stair.The emphasishere on luxuryvessel andjewelry paraphernalia(probably in gold) is noteworthy. This identificationof the Medes with gold is also suggested by the Susa Foundation Charter (DSO, a royal inscription of Darius I, in which Medes are cited as goldsmiths and as those who "adorned" the walls (Kent 1953: 142-44). Although this inscription should not be read as simply a straightforwardcharacterizationof fact without due attention to its strategiesas a statementof imperialpower (Root 1979; 1989; 1991), the inclusion of the Medes within this rhetoricof empire

AN EXCAVATED IVORYFROMKERKENESDAG, TURKEY

FIG. 29.

Drawing of the relief showing theMedian delegation,east staircase of theApadana at Persepolis. Adaptedfrom W. F Dutz and S. A. Matheson,with F. Ghani and A. Bakhtiar, Parsa/Persepolis (Tehran: YassavoliPublications, 1998), 59.

Herodotusclaims(1.74), the ensuingtreatywas secured with the gift of the Lydian king Alyattes's daughterAryenisto theMedianking,Astyages,along with otherformsof symbolicexchangelike the mingling of blood. The connectionof high-valuegifting with lastingtreatiesis a common one.49The use of giftsin establishingreciprocalobligationsand fending offwarfareis well attestedin manydifferentsociCONCLUSIONS eties, and the exchangeof women (a gift par excellence) is oftena key elementin securingpeacefulreHow might the beautifuil,lavishlyinlaid and gilded lations.50Importantlyin the context of the ivory ivorypanelhavefoundits way to Kerkenes?It could panel,elaboratefurniturewas a high-prestigeitemin certainlyhavebeen madethereby highlyskilledarti- Lydia, associatedwith complex gift-givingceremosans broughtin to produce it at this greatcity with niesandthe establishmentof reciprocalobligations.5' Medianboundaries.Alternatively,the panel(andits This panel may thus have been part of the decorachairor bed assemblage)mayhavebeen madeat an- tion of an elaboratechair or bed made in Lydia at othercityandbroughtto Kerkenes.In eithercase,our specificationsmeant especiallyto please the sensistylisticand technicalanalysisat this point strongly bilitiesof its intendedrecipient-a Mediannoble or suggests an artisanal tradition linked to western even a memberof the Medianroyalfamily-for use Anatolia/Lydia workingin the earlyyearsof the sixth on visits to the Anatolianbastionof Medianpower. century(around580-570). In termsofpatronageman- As suchit would haveformedpartof the gift-secured dateforthisremarkable piece, we posit a stronginput connectionsbetweenLydiansandMedesbest exemof sensibilityto the iconographicalstrainsdiscussed plified by the gift of Croesus'ssister as wife to the above,emphasizingelaboratevisionsof differentiated Medianking Astyages:part of the complex mutual animalsportrayedin the contextof attentiveobserva- reciprocitiesbindingLydiansand Medes to a treaty tion of theirlife cyclesof ruttingand fertility. thatlastedalmostfortyyears(Huxley1997-98). This It is intriguingto contemplatethepossibilitythat arrangementlasted until the ascensionof Cyrusthe the Kerkenesivorywas partof a lavishgift exchange Greatto the PersianthroneannulledpreexistingtreabetweenLydiaand Mediain the sixth century.After ties and usheredin the rise of the AchaemenidPerthe battle between Lydians and Medes in 585, sian empire.FC as a people specifically linked with luxury arts is extremelyimportant.Whereasthe Mediandelegation on the east stair carriesfive separatetypes of high-prestige personaljewelry adornmentand/or metalware,the most that any other delegation carries of this sort of item is threedistinct types.

45

ELSPETHR. M. DUSINBERRE

Notes I am most gratefulto M.C. Root, editrixof this volume, for her invaluablesuggestionsandhelpwith thiswork.In Turkey,many thanksgo to the directorand staffof the Museumof Anatolian Civilizationsin Ankaraforhousingthe paneland supportingits conservationand display,as well as to M. Ozcan(Directorof the YozgatMuseum)for his help and encouragement,to N. Kayal (Vali of Yozgat),V. Sanal(Directorof the Yozgatoffice of the Ministryof Culture),and E. Yaman(Kaymakamof Sorgun),for theirsupportof work at Kerkenes.Specialthanksaredue to G. D. Summers,Directorof the KerkenesDa' Projesi,forallowing me to publishthis remarkablefind and to M. E .F. Summersfor superbtechnicalsupport.In additionI would like to thanknumerousindividualswho have respondedgenerouslyto specific inquiriesover the courseof my research:L. Bum, D. Collon, K. De Vries, C. H. Greenewalt,jr., J. L. Fitton,A. C. Gunter,E. Kohler,G. K. Sams,E. Simpson,D. Stronach,and M. M. Voigt. Finally,I gratefullyacknowledgesuggestionsmadeby theanonymous reviewersforArs Orientalis.Residualerrorsaremy own. 1. As has recentlybeen demonstrated,the AchaemenidPersian "RoyalRoad"probablydid not passby Kerkenes(French1998). There was, however,a road in the Achaemenidperiod thatdid go past the site-part of the extensive road network of the AchaemenidPersianempire that supportedits fast-messenger ("ponyexpress")systemhailedby Herodotus(5.52-54) andveritextson thePersepolisFortification tabfiedby theadministrative lets (Hallock1969; GarrisonandRoot 2001). Importantanalytical discussionsof the RoyalRoadandits possibleroutesby Graf (1994) and French(1998) workedalongmore interdisciplinary linesthantheearlystudyby Calder(1925), basedon Herodotus. Now fora comprehensivediscussionof the evidenceforthe multiple roadsystemsunitingan empirethatstretchedfromcentral Asia across Egypt (combiningcritiquesof the classicalsources againstthe backdropof the Fortificationtabletinformationand historicalanalogues),see Briant1996: 369-74. 2. A few grainyphotographspublishedby Schmidtarethe only recordof anynonceramicobjectsfoundin his excavations.This material(and any artifactsthatmay not have been illustratedin Schmidt 1929) may be somewherein the cratesof finds from Alisharnow housedby the Museumof AnatolianCivilizationsin Ankara.But these crates are not currentlyaccessible, nor did Schmidtleaveinventoriesof the Kerkenesfinds. 3. For archaeologicalworkat Kerkenes,see Summersand Summers (1994) and annualreportsfrom 1993-2002 in Ara?tzrma SonuflarzToplantzst,Ankara;Summers,Summers,and Ahmet (1995); Summerset al. (1996), and the newsletterby Summers, Summers,and Stronach(2001). See also the extensiveand impressivewebsiteat http://www.metu.edu.tr/home/wwwkerk/.

46

4. I followHerrmann(1986: 11) in use of the term"panel"to denoteivorieslikethe Kerkenesartifactthatarerectangular in shape and were affixedto furniturein variousways (e.g., with tenons

andadhesives).The term"panel"is used by Herrmannto designateelementsin shapesthat"suggestthe originalformof the objects of which they formedparts"-such as a set of trapezoidal panelsmakingup a facetedstand(Herrmann1986: 9 and fig. 1). 5. Hereafter,dates in this article will be otherwise.

B.C.E.

unless stated

6. See Summers, Summers, and Stronach 2001 and the KerkenesDa' home page at http://www.metu.edu.tr/.For current views on the foundationdate in relationto the fibulaand the pottery,takinginto accountveryrecentdatafromGordion, I relyon personalcommunicationsfromG. K. Sams,G. D. Summers, K. De Vries, and M. M. Voigt, all in Summers2002. 7. Importantdiscussions of the Greek sources on the Medes (and Persians)haveappearedin theAchaemenidHistoryseries. See, e.g., Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1987 and (for an index of AchaemenidHistoryvolumes 1-8 by author)Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Kuhrt,and Root 1994: 437-42. 8. It is thistypeof scenarioatthefirst-millennium siteof Hasanlu, Iran (to which we shall returnlater), that makes it such a rich context for investigationsof the materialand physicalrecord. 9. For a recentoverviewof work to date on the extraordinarily rich materialfrom Hasanlu,with bibliography,see Dyson and Voigt 1989. 10. The datingforthis fireat Gordionhas recentlybeen pushed up to ca. 800 on the basis of numerousradiocarbondates. Discussionis soon to be publishedby M. M. Voigt and G. K. Sams. 11. For Sardis,see ongoingexcavationreportsin Bulletinof the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearchand the American7ournal of Archaeology.The ongoing monograph series for the excavation'spublicationsis produced by HarvardUniversity Press. Hanfmann1983 remainsa useful overview. 12. Pers. com., December 1998. This is a modification of Summers's earlier framingof the likely scenario around the foundingof Kerkenes.He had originally(1997: 94 and 87) postulatedthatKerkenes" was builtby the Medesafterthe conclusion of theirwar with Lydia that ended in 585 B.C." He envisioned at that time that "The war between the Medes and the Lydians,[is] perhapsbest understoodas a seriesof annualcampaignswithbothprotagonistsfightingtowardsthepracticallimits imposed by the distancefromtheirrespectivehome bases" (1997: 87)-without the Medes having establisheda fortified colonialoutposton thewesternperipheryin orderto strengthen theirposition in this drawn-outseries of militaryengagements. 13. Plansof the columnedhallsat Kerkenesarecurrentlyunder finalrevisionby the excavatorsbasedon findingsin 2002. Thus they arenot availablefor illustrationas this manuscriptgoes to press. Differencesin proportionsbetween the columnedhalls at Kerkenesand those at known excavatedMediansites in the

TURKEY IVORYFROMKERKENESDACG, AN EXCAVATED

heartlandhavemade Summersmore cautiousaboutthe significance of these many-columnedbuildingsas keyindices of Median occupationthanhe was in 1997 (Summers:pers. com., fall 2002). But we are at a very early stage in understandinghow proportionalaestheticsrelateto the overarchinginvestmentin themany-columnedlayoutin IronAge Iran.Differencesbetween the halls at Pasargadaeand Persepolisin the Achaemenidempire suggest that even at this later date there were variantsin play. Yet the importanceof the many-columnedhail as a generaltype with significantsocial resonancesis clear.For a short review of the many-columnedhalls at MedianNush-iJan and Godin, see Roaf 1995; more detailedpresentationsin advance of the final reportoccur in D. Stronach 1969; 1975; 1985, as well as D. Stronachand Roaf 1973 and 1978. For Babajan,see Goff 1969a and 1969b. Accessible primarydocumentationof hypostylehallsof Pasargadae,Persepolis,andSusais foundin D. Stronach1978, Schmidt1953, andPerrot1981, respectively.Although neitherAchaemenid-periodnor Median-periodpalatial structureshaveyet been unearthedin the Iranianexcavationsat Ecbatana,royallyinscribed(aswellas uninscribed)columnbases foundatthesite(combinedwithtextualreferencesto restorations ofan Apadanathere)indicatethathypostylehallsweresurelypart of theEcbatanalandscapein Achaemenidtimes(Knapton,Sarraf, and Curtis2001; Boucharlat1998). It would be surprisingindeed to findthatEcbatanahad not been thelocus of grandmanycolumnedhallsin Mediantimes,forminga prestigemodelforlater AchaemenidPersianroyalinstallationseverywhere. 14. G. D. Summers,pers. com.,June 2002. The buildingslook likemegaronson themagnetometricandresistivitysurveymaps. 15. Earlyon, P. R. Helm (1981) challengedour relianceupon Herodotusto provideanaccuratesense of Medianhistory.Later a hot debateensued specificallyconcerningthe degreeto which Mediacould be consideredan empire.Keyplayerswere thehistorianH. Sancisi-Weerdenburg(arguingagainstthe notion of a centrallyorganized Median state, much less empire) and the anthropologist/archaeologistS. C. Brown (arguing that the Assyriantexts takenin conjunctionwith the archaeologicalindices in westernIranactuallysupportthis presentationof Media as an increasinglyorganized,centrallycontrolledstatewith expansionist practices) (Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1988; 1994; Brown 1988; 1990). 16. Both in print and in conferencedialogues, archaeologists comingfroma varietyof slantson a multidisciplinaryfieldstress the importanceof seeing the Median state as an expansionist power-even thoughwe cannotyet assess the precise natureor degree of administrativecontrol it exercised in various areas. See, e.g., Young 1997: 448; Roaf 1995: 61 ("the Medes had gained and lost controlof a vast empire");Negahban1998: 51 (on a strongMedianpresencein the east);Zimansky(1998: 37) accepts the concept that the Medes "eventuallytook controlof Urartu,but it mayalreadyhavebeen in ruins [throughScythian incursions] by the time they got there." This basic stance emerges strongly among several papers (as yet unpublished) presentedat a conferenceon the Medes held in Padua,Italy,in

2001. Historiansof the Near Eastworkingprimarilywith Near Easterntexts areperforcemore cautious.Waters(2000) is, for instance, extremely circumspect in relation to the southern Zagrosregion in the aftermathof the Assyriansack of Elamite Susa in the 640s. He says (2000: 102, emphasismine): "three externalfactorsmustbe keptin mindwithregardto Neo-Elamite history:the Neo-Babylonianempirein Mesopotamia,thepreeminenceof theMedesin northernIran, and the rise of a Persian kingdomin Fars."He continues(p. 107, emphasismine):"After the sackof Susa, Mesopotamiansourcesprovidelimitedinformationon Elam until the early Persianperiod. Analysisof the lateElamitesourcesindicatesthatElampersistedin its fragmented state until it lost its independence to Persia....

The

Neo-Elamiteswere also affectedby the expansionof their Iranian neighbors,particularlytheMedesand Persians,but Elam's relationswith these peoples are obscure." Briant(concerned primarilywith the issue of the Medianstateas a possible structural,administrativemodelforthe AchaemenidPersianempire) does not choose to call the Medianenterprisean "empire,"but he does acknowledgeits hegemonicpower (1996: 34-36). The factthatwe haveyet to locateanywrittenrecordsin the Median languageposes a significantdifficultyfor the text-basedhistorian. See, however, Muscarella'sapt warningthatwe not take the lack of retrievedMediantexts as a sign of anythingbut the factthatwe have not yet recoveredany (1994: 59). 17. It was surroundedby hard-packedclaywith a pH of 6 to 7, moderatedampness,andlittlesolublesaltthatprotectedtheivory from radicaltemperaturechange or moisturefluctuation.Very pooraerationlimitedmicrobiological influences.The stabilityand neutralityof the soil preservedboth the organicand inorganic componentsof thepanel,as well as its essentialstructure. 18. Followingcarefulextractionin a block of soil, cleaningand conservationwere carriedout by Simone A. Korolnik.Initial cleaningand consolidationwere done at the expedition base, while x-rays were taken and more extensive conservationundertakenover seven weeks at the laboratoryof the Museumof AnatolianCivilizationsin Ankara,wherethe artifactis currently on display(Korolnik1997). Conservationof thisivorywaspossible thanksto the generosityof the BritishInstituteof Archaeology atAnkara,the BritishAcademy,andtheAnkaraSheraton. 19. The roommaynot haveburnedin the torchingof Kerkenes because-unlike the columned hall and the other structures within the urbanblock thatformedits architecturalsetting-its walls were stone to the ceiling ratherthan timberframefilled with mudbrick.These stone walls are even now preservedto a height of approximately2 m. If the wind was blowing fromits usual strongnortherlydirectionat the time of the generalconflagrationat Kerkenes,it would haveshuntedthe firein the columned hall awayfromthis rangeof rooms. They thereforedid not burn with the same intensityas the buildings to the south and east, apartfrom the wooden door framethat opened directlyonto the narrowalleybehind the columnedhall.

47 20. For useful discussions of two-storybuildingsand the ways

ELSPETH R. M. DUSINBERRE

in which smallfindsbehavein the debrisof such constructions, see, e.g., Dyson 1989a; 1989b; Muscarella1980; 1989. 21. Other finds fromthe room were a polished bone spatula,a facetedcarnelianbead, a burnishedbronzebowl-likeobject(cut down fromsome largerpiece andincorporatingfivesuspension or attachmentholes and one extantpin), and a trefoil-mouthed, flat-based,burnishedgraywarejug.All of these objectsderived fromthe upper story. 22. On the basis of meticulouscleaningthattook place in 1998 we cansaythatit lackedanyappliedembellishment(suchas limeplasteredwalls)or anyinstallationssuchas ovensorhearths.The only naturallight in the lower chamberappearsto have come throughthe door, makingthe spaceratherdarkand airless.The upperfloormayhavehad windows,but we do not know this. 23. At Persepolisin the heydayof the AchaemenidPersianempire we see a varietyof activitiestakingplace in the treasury, including (but not limited to) the storageof intrinsicallyvaluable objects of gold and silver, courtlyparaphernaliaand furnishings, antiquities,trophies,and weaponry(Schmidt 1957). Itemswere certainlyremovedfromthe PersepolisTreasury,on demand,for activeuse. Utilitarianartifactscomingledwith the preciousones there-in a spacethatservedadministrative needs, aswellassecure-storage needs,andincorporated expansivespaces andproximityto the audiencehailcalledthe Throne Hallor the Hall of One HundredColumnsin the archaeologicalliterature. 24. At this time, it is impossibleto distinguishdifferentsources of ivory (i.e., from Africanversus Indian elephantsor various subspecies)on the basis of visualanalysis.Geographicalconvenience might seem to suggestthatthe Kerkenespanel is carved of Africanivory (obtainedvia tradefrom Africato the Levant andthenceeastward)ratherthanIndianivory(obtainedviaoverland routes). But thereis enough evidence of widespreadcontact across the Asian continent that we should resist assumptions on this matter.For the characteristicsof differentivories, see C. H. Brown 1975. Lafontaineand Wood (1982) distinguish between Africanand Indian ivories, althoughtheir conclusions cannot be replicated with reference to other ivory samples.Greep(1987) and Minney(1991) both summarizeand discuss the characteristics of differentelephantivoriesin objects theyhaveconserved.I amindebtedto S. A. Korolnikforpointing me to these references.Currentattemptsto use DNA in distinguishingIndianandAfricanivoriesmayproveof interest. 25. Pliny the Elder (writinghis encyclopedicNatural History in the first centuryC.E.) discusses carvingtools and polishing agentscurrentlyin use (HN 4). For moderndiscussions of ancientcarvingtoolsandpolishingagents,see Krzyszkowska1990; Burack1984: esp. 41-49; Evely 1992; St. Clairand McLachlan 1989: 5-6.

48

26. Ancient recipes exist for softeningand straighteningivory: e.g., Pausanias(5.12), writingin the second halfof the firstcentury C.E.: "the horn of both oxen and elephantscan be by the

actionoffiremadestraightfromcurvedandcanin factbe turned into anyshape,"andTheophilus(Dediversisartibus3.93), who recommendsheatingivoryin wine orvinegaror anointingit with oil over a fireand thenwrappingit in leatherto soften the ivory enough to straightenit. For excellentrecentdiscussionspecifically of ancientGreekpracticesof straighteningand otherwise moldingthe originalshapeof an ivorytuskbeforecarvingit, see Lapatin1997; 2001. 27. The factthatthe bottom edge of the panel is also polished, and thatall of the frontsurfaceis equallyglossy regardlessof its depth of relief, precludes the possibility that the sheen is the resultof wear. 28. Tests haveas yet been done neitheron the ambernor on the gold to determinetheirprobablesources. Carefulexamination with the eye and a low-poweredmicroscopehaveprovidedinsufficientinformationto know whence the gold and amberornamentationon the ivorycame. If the suggestionis indeed correctthatyellow "butter"amberis fromthe Balticand red amber fromthe BlackSea, this panel shows the collectionof materials fromvariouspartsof Anatoliaand southernareasbut not from the distantnorth.For a discussionof differentambersand their chemical qualities, see, e.g., Strong 1966: 1-16 and Knigge 1976: 60-83. Moregenerallyforthewhole rangeof ancientcraft materialsincludingivory, gold, silver,amber,and glass pastes, see Moorey 1994. 29. Tests havenot yet been madeto determinethe precisecomposition of the metal.Althoughno traceof adhesivehas been preserved,the slightroughnessof the ivoryunderthe reflectors mayhave assistedthe bindingpropertiesof an adhesiveagent. 30. See the ivory double reels inlaid with amber,which may have decorated the handles of flywhisks(Hogarth 1908: esp. pl. 36, nos. 2, 4, 25, 26). On relationsof the Ephesusivoriesto Lydia,see Bammer1984. 31. As with the ivory under the metalreflectorsfor the amber beads, the unsmoothedirregularsurfaceleftinside the meander by the drillholes would have assistedthe adherenceof the inlay to the ivory surface. 32. Publications of the remarkablearray of furniture from Gordion include Acar 1996; Ardiog'lu 1994; and especially Simpson 1996; 1985; 1995; n.d.; forthcoming;and Simpson and Spirydowicz 1999. I am very gratefulto Dr. Simpson for herhelpfulcommentson furniture-making practicesin Anatolia. Joining practices as gleaned from the Nimrud ivories of the Assyrianempirearealso relevant(Herrmann1986: 56-57). 33. See, e.g., Richter 1966: 49-52; Herrmann1996: pls. 41, 42; Calmeyer1996:pls. 72-73. Specificalyin the Greeksphere, some Bronze Age Mycenaeanstools seem to have had inlaid friezes. But stools of later date (more contemporarywith the Kerkenesivory) were generally not ornamentedwith friezes along theirsides (viz., Sakellarakis1996: pl. 27).

IVORYFROMKERKENESDAG, TURKEY AN EXCAVATED

34. HenceforthI shall use chair to referto all backed types includingthrones.I shalluse the word couchinsteadof the Greek wordkline(pl. klinai)becauseit has specificGreekculturalconnotationsthatshould be avoidedhere. 35. For Gordion, see, e.g., Korte and Korte 1904: 110 and Knigge 1976: 63; for Salamis,see Karageorghis1973; Barnett 1982: 49-50; and Herrmann1986: 35-36. For a wooden examplefromthe Kerameikosin Athens,with applieddecoration in amberandivory,see Knigge1976. Couchesinlaidwith ivory havealso been found at Verginaand Kertch.I am indebtedtoJ. L. Fittonof the BritishMuseumforshowingme the Kertchivories in March 1998; the Vergina ivories are discussed in Andronicos 1984: 122. Althoughthese couches were all inlaid with ivory, none of the ivories resemblesthat from Kerkenes, being either flat inlays or more rounded inserts ratherthan a long reliefpanel. Both the Verginaand the Kertchivoriesprobablypostdateours considerably. 36. We must avoid an uncriticalassumptionthat representationsnecessarilyrenderrealiain somepuredocumentarysense, forindeed therearecertainlycases in which depictionsof items may have been symbolicallychargedto suit narrativesubtexts. A classicexampleis the tableauof Assurbanipaland his queen, whererenderingsof realiahavebeenconvincinglystudiedasstatementsof conquest(Albenda1976 and 1977). Yet it remainsessentialto takethe representational informationinto accountbecause survivingfurnitureremainsrare.Manyexamplesare collected in Richter1966: 52-63. The rangeof decorationis great. See, e.g., nos. 286 (animalsand rosettes),297 (gallopinghorses withriders),316 (lionandbullconfrontingeachotherwitha fourpetaledrosettein between;snakesandmorerosetteson thesides). 37. In Greekarchaeology,the term"Orientalizing" refersboth to a phenomenon and to a time period. Temporallyit designates the period at which the assimilationof Near Easternmotifsinto the decorativetraditionof pot paintingmade by or at least for Greeks(and Etruscans)reachedits firstheight in ca. 700-600. 38. Gul Giirtekin,of Ege Universitesiin Izmir,is engagedin a thoroughstudy of Wild Goat pots and theirsignificance. 39. I amgratefulto the membersof the departmentsof Western AsiaticAntiquitiesandGreekandRomanAntiquities,especially toJ. L. Fitton, L. Burn,and D. Collon, for corroboratingthese suspicionsin the courseof severalfruitfuldaysspent at the British Museumin November 1996 and March 1997. 40. The ivoriesof Ephesusare,of course,well knownandwere originallypublished in Hogarth 1908. See also Bammer1984. The ivories from the tumuli at Bayindir,in Lycia, which date between the ninthand the fifthcenturiesand show tremendous linksbetweensouthwesternTurkeyand Phrygia,arepublished in Ozgenand Ozgen 1988 and Ozgen 1994. That therewereinteractionsbetween centralAnatoliaand the southwestis made clearby thepresenceof Phrygiangraffition silverandbronzevessels fromone of the Bayindirtumuli(Varinlioglu1992).

41. Tumulus B was originallydated to ca. 630 due to our understandingat the timeof the chronologyof the so-calledSamian lekythoi,which werefoundin the tombalongwith the ivorypin or spindlewhorl. Recent developmentsforcea down-datingof the lekythoiand hence also the tomb. K. De Vries, pers. com. 2002. The ivory is accessioned as TumB No. 7 (now in Ankara).It was found on the floorof the tomboutside the coffin,at the head end (Kohler1995: 9-24, figs. 3-9, and pl. 9 A-C). 42. U,ak 1.129.96, published as no. 151 in Ozgen et al. 1996. Its provenanceis uncertain,but it was sold to dealersduringthe same time as the objectsof the "LydianTreasure"(whichwere eventuallypurchasedby the MetropolitanMuseum).It mayhave come fromtombs in the areanearGiire,perhapsfromthose at YoncaliMevkisior fromIkiztepe. 1973:nos. 515,516,518,523,527,562,652. 43. Walter-Karydi She suggests,on the basis of excavatedparallels,that all of the Wild Goatvesselscitedhereweremadeon the islandof Rhodes anddateto the earlysixthcentury(1973: 50-56). Those vessels thatshe datesmorecloselyshe puts betweenca. 580 and 570. 44. A similarpoint has been madefor southwesternAnatoliain the Achaemenidempire(Mellink1998). 45. Groupsthepaylistsmentionasworkingalongsidethe Medes include people from Persia, Egypt, Elam, Ionia, Lydia, and Byblos (Weidner1939). 46. I am grateful to M. C. Root, M. B. Garrison, and the PersepolisSeal Projectforpermissionto include a photograph of this seal, PFS 93*. For publications,see Garrison(1991) on the use of the sealin administrativecontexts;Garrisonand Root (1996) for the finalcompositedrawingof the seal'simpression plus much bibliography;Garrisonand Root (2001: introduction) for the usage of royalnameseals;and the definitivepublication, Garrisonand Root (forthcoming). 47. Burney(1999) stresses the continued easternassociations of the Medes aftertheirinstallationin the northwesternZagros. 48. For Mediancities on Assyrianreliefs,see Gunter1982: pls. 2,3,4. 49. Gifts should not be thoughtof as being donatedwillingly; they may be necessary components of maintaininga treaty. "These totalservicesand counter-servicesarecommittedto in a somewhatvoluntaryform by presents and gifts, althoughin the finalanalysistheyarestrictlycompulsory,on pain of private or public warfare"(Mauss 1990: 5). The sameidea is rendered somewhatdifferentlyby Hobbes (1950) in his discussionof the Laws of Nature,pt. 1, chap. 15 (quoted also in Sahlins 1972: 178). Naturally,such reciprocalties do not implyunificationof disparatepeoples;indeed reciprocityof giftexchange,in correlating the opposition of separateparties, may perpetuatethat opposition. This has been discussedby Sahlins 1972: 170. See also Yan 1996: introduction.

49

ELSPETHR. M. DUSINBERRE

50. For the crucialrole women play in productionas well as in gift exchangein general,see Weiner 1992. For the inclusionof women in gift-giving, see Levi-Strauss 1969: 63-65 and Strathern1988. For gift-givingand treaties,see Mauss 1990: 13: "to refuseto give, to failto invite,just as to refuseto accept, is tantamountto declaringwar." See also Sahlins 1972: 174. The idea of maintainingcontrolover certainobjectswhile still creatingthe bond of reciprocalobligationsformedby gift-giving is exploredby Weiner(1992). 51. Ornatefurniturewas associatedwith gift-giving,as is clear in Herodotus'sdescriptionof Croesus'stremendoussacrifice, burningcouches overlaidin gold and silver to Apollo (1.50); and with the gift of a throne from Midas to the sanctuaryof Apollo at Delphi. Sacrificeoftentook the formof reciprocalgiftgiving, do ut des,wherebythe mortalofferedgood thingsto the gods in expectationof receivinggood things in return.This is clearfromthe inscriptionon the bronze statuettededicatedby Mantiklosto Apollo, Boston 3.997: "Mantiklosgave me to the far-darter (Apollo)as tithe;now you, PhoibosApollo,givesomething good to me in return."The connectionbetween sacrifice and gift-givingis described by Mauss 1990: 13: "The institution of 'totalservices'does not merelycarrywith it the obligation to reciprocatepresentsreceived.It also supposedtwo other obligationsjust as important:the obligation,on the one hand, to give presents, and on the other, to receive them." See also Maussand Hubert(1964: 97): "Thisprocedure[thatunitesthe concept of widely disparateformsof sacrifice]consistsin establishing a means of communicationbetween the sacredand the profaneworlds throughthe mediationof a victim, that is, of a thing that in the course of the ceremonyis destroyed."For an excellent recent summary of research into gift-giving, see Godelier 1999.

WorksCited

50

Acar,Ozgen. 1996. "KralMidas'inBilmeceDolu Mobilyalari." Ah?ap(April):68-70. Albenda, Pauline. 1976 and 1977. "LandscapeBas-Reliefsin the Bit-Hilaniof Ashurbanipal."Bulletin of theAmerican Schoolsof OrientalResearch224:49-72; 225:29-48. Amiet, Pierre. 1972. "Lesivoiresachemenidesde Suse."Syria 59:167-91; 319-72. Andronicos,Manolis.1984. Vergina:TheRoyalTombsand the AncientCity.Athens:EkdotikeAthenon. Ardio'lu, Ahmet. 1994. "Gordion: Mobilyanin Be?igi." ra?amasanati(October-November):68-73. Bammer,Anton. 1984. Das HeiligtumderArtemisvonEphesos. Graz:AkademischeDruck-u. Verlagsanstalt. Barnett,RichardDavid. 1976. Sculpturesfrom theNorth Palace of Ashurbanipalat Nineveh (668-627 B.c.). London: BritishMuseum.

- . 1982. Ancient Ivories in the Middle East. QEDEM. Monographsof the InstituteofArchaeology14.Jerusalem: The Instituteof Archaeology,Hebrew University. Boehmer,RainerMichael. 1973. "PhrygischePrunkgewander des 8. Jahrhundertsv. Chr." ArchdologischerAnzeiger 88:149-72. Boehmer, Rainer Michael, and Georg Kossack. 2000. "Der figiirlichverzierteBecher von Karasamb.Umfeld, Interpretationund Zeitstellung."In R. Dittmann,B. Hrouda, U. Low, P. Matthiae,R. Mayer-Opficius,and S. Thiirwachter, eds., Variatio Delectat. Iran und der Westen. GedenkschriftfirPeter Calmeyer,9-71. AlterOrientund Altes Testament272. Miinster:Ugarit-Verlag. Boucharlat,Reamy.1998. "Ala recherched'Ecbatanesur Tepe Hegmataneh." In R. Boucharlat,J. E. Curtis, and E. Haerinck,eds., Neo-Assyrian,Median,Achaemenianand OtherStudiesin HonorofDavid Stronach,vol. 1:173-85. Iranica Antiqua33. Bourgeois, Brigitte. 1992. "An Approachto AnatolianTechniques of Ivory Carvingduring the Second Millennium B.C." InJ. Lesley Fitton, ed., Ivoryin Greeceand theEastern Mediterraneanfrom the BronzeAge to the Hellenistic Period, 61-66. London:BritishMuseum. Briant, Pierre. 1984a. L'asie centraleet les royaumesprocheorientauxdupremiermill6naire(c. VIIIe- IVesieclesavant notree're).Paris:EditionsRecherchessurles Civilisations. 1984b. "LaPerseavantl'empire:un 'tatde la question." Iranica Antiqua 19:71-118. 1996. Histoire de l'empirepersede Cyrus2 Alexandre. Paris:Fayard. Brill, Robert H., and Nicholas D. Cahill. 1988. "A Red Opaque Glass from Sardis and Some Thoughts on Red Opaques in General."Journal of Glass Studies 30:1627. Brown,C. H. 1975. StructuralMaterialsin Animals.London: Pitman. Brown, StuartC. 1988. "The MedikosLogosof Herodotusand the Evolution of the Median State."In A. Kuhrtand H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg,eds., Methodand Theory,71-86. AchaemenidHistory3. Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. --. 1990. "Mediain theAchaemenidPeriod:The LateIron and Age in CentralWestIran."In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg A. Kuhrt,eds., Centreand Periphery,63-76. Achaemenid History 4. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het Nabije Oosten. Bunker,EmmaC., C. BruceChatwin,andAnn R. Farkas.1970. "AnimalStyle"ArtfromEast to West.New York:The Asia Society. Burack, Benjamin. 1984. Ivory and Its Uses. Rutland, Vt.: CharlesE. Tuttle. Burney,Charles. 1999. "Beyondthe Frontiersof Empire:IraniansandTheir Ancestors."In R. Boucharlat,J.E. Curtis, andE. Haerinck,eds.,Neo-Assyrian, Median,Achaemenian and OtherStudiesin Honor of David Stronach,vol. 2:120. IranicaAntiqua34.

IVORYFROMKERKENESDAG, TURKEY AN EXCAVATED

Calder, William M. 1925. "The Royal Road in Herodotus." ClassicalReview39:7-11. Calmeyer,Peter. 1995. "MiddleBabylonianArt and ContemporaryIran."InJ. E. Curtis,ed., LaterMesopotamiaand Iran: Tribesand Empires1600-539 B.C., 33-45. London: BritishMuseum. ---. 1996. "AchaimenidischeMobel und kussusa sarrute." In G. Herrmann,ed., TheFurnitureof WesternAsia:Ancient and Traditional, 223-45. Mainzam Rhein: P. von Zabern. Carter,Jane Burr. 1985. GreekIvory-Carvingin the Orientalizing and ArchaicPeriods.New York:Garland. Curtis,John. 1984. Nush-i,Jan III: TheSmall Finds. London: BritishInstituteof PersianStudies. Curtis,John, ed. 1995. Later Mesopotamiaand Iran: Tribes and Empires1600-539 B.C. London: BritishMuseum. Curtis,Vera S., and St. John Simpson. 1997. "Archaeological News fromIran."Iran 35:139-40. Dusinberre, Elspeth R. M. 1997. "ImperialStyle and ConstructedIdentity:A 'Graeco-Persian'CylinderSeal from Sardis."Ars Orientalis27:99-129. 1999. "Satrapal Sardis: Achaemenid Bowls in an Achaemenid Capital."AmericanJ7ournalof Archaeology 103:73-102. ---. 2003. Aspectsof Empire in AchaemenidSardis. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Dyson, Robert H. 1989a. "The Iron Age Architecture at Hasanlu:An Essay." In R. H. Dyson and M. M. Voigt, eds., East ofAssyria.Expedition31.2-3:107-27. --. 1989b. "RediscoveringHasanlu."In R. H. Dyson and M. M. Voigt, eds., East of Assyria.Expedition31.2-3:311. Dyson, Robert H., and Mary M. Voigt, eds. 1989. East of Assyria.Expedition31.2-3. Evely, Doniert. 1992. "Towardsan Elucidationof the IvoryWorker'sTool-Kit in Neo-PalatialCrete."InJ. L. Fitton, ed., Ivoryin Greeceand the EasternMediterraneanfrom the BronzeAge to the Hellenistic Period, 7-16. London: BritishMuseum. Farkas,Ann. N.d. FromtheLandoftheScythians:AncientTreasuresfromtheMuseumsof the U.S.S.R.3000 B.C.-100 B.C. New York:MetropolitanMuseumof Art and Los Angeles County Museumof Art. Frankfort,Henri. 1996. ArtandArchitectureoftheAncientOrient (5th ed., rev.). New Haven:Yale UniversityPress. French, David. 1998. "Pre- and Early-RomanRoads of Asia Minor.The PersianRoad."Iran 36:15-44. Garrison,MarkB. 1991. "SealsandtheEliteat Persepolis:Some Observations on Early Achaemenid Persian Art." Ars Orientalis2 1:1-30. Garrison, Mark B., and MargaretCool Root. 1996 (reprint 1998). PersepolisSeal Studies.An Introductionwith Provisional Concordancesof Seal Numbers and Associated Documentson FortificationTablets1-2087. Achaemenid History 9. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het Nabije Oosten.

--.

2001. Sealson thePersepolisFortificationTabletsI: ImOrientalInstitutePublications117. agesofHeroicEncounter. Chicago:OrientalInstituteof the Universityof Chicago. --. Forthcoming.Sealson thePersepolisFortificationTablets I: Imagesof Human Activity.Chicago:OrientalInstitute of the Universityof Chicago. Godelier, Maurice. 1999. The Enigma of the Gift. Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress. Goff, Clare. 1969a. "Excavationsat BabaJan, 1967: Second PreliminaryReport."Iran 7:115-30. 1969b. "Excavationsat BabaJan,1968: Third PreliminaryReport."Iran 8:141-56. Gopnik, Hilary. 2000. "The Ceramicsof Godin II: Ceramic Variabilityin the ArchaeologicalRecord." Ph.D. diss., Universityof Toronto. Graf,David F. 1994. "The PersianRoyalRoad System."In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg,A. Kuhrt,and M. C. Root, eds., Continuityand Change,167-89. AchaemenidHistory 8. Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Greenewalt,CrawfordH.,jr. 1970. "OrientalizingPotteryfrom Sardis:The Wild Goat Style."CaliforniaStudiesin ClassicalAntiquity3:55-89. --. 1995. "Croesusof Sardisand the Lydian Kingdomof Anatolia."lnJ. M. Sasson,J. Baines,G. Beckman,and K. S. Rubinson,eds., Civilizationsof theAncientNear East, 3:1173-84. New York:CharlesScribner'sSons. Greenewalt,CrawfordH.,jr., and MarcusL. Rautman.1998. "The Sardis Campaignsof 1994 and 1995." American J7ournalofArchaeology102:469-505. Greep, StephenJ. 1987. "Use of Bone, Antlerand Ivoryin the Roman and Medieval Periods." In K. Starling anidD. Watkinson,eds., ArchaeologicalBone, Antlerand Ivory,35. London: United KingdomInstitutefor Conservation. Gunter,Ann C. 1982. "Representationsof Urartianand Western IranianFortressArchitecturein the AssyrianReliefs." Iran 20:103-12. Gunter,Ann C., and MargaretCool Root. 1998. "Replicating, Inscribing,Giving:Ernst Herzfeldand Artaxerxes'Silver Phialein the FreerGalleryof Art."Ars Orientalis28:1-38. Giiterbock,Hans G. 1971. "Ivoryin Hittite Texts." Anatolia 15:1-7. Hallock, Richard T. 1969. PersepolisFortification Tablets. OrientalInstitutePublications92. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. Hanftnann,GeorgeM. A. 1983. SardisfromPrehistoricto Roman Times.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress. Helm, PeytonRandolph.1981. "Herodotus'MedikosLogosand MedianHistory."Iran 19:85-90. Henrickson,RobertC. 1994. "ContinuityandDiscontinuityin the CeramicTraditionat Gordion duringthe Iron Age." In D. Frenchand A. (4ilingiro'lu,eds., Proceedingsof the ThirdInternationalAnatolianIronAgeSymposium(Van 1990), 95-129. Ankara:Turkish Ministryof Culture. Herrmann, Georgina. 1986. Ivoriesfrom Room SW 3 7 Fort Shalmaneser:Commentaryand Catalogue.London: British School of Archaeologyin Iraq.

51

ELSPETHR. M. DUSINBERRE

--.

1992. TheSmall Collectionsfrom FortShalmaneser(Ivoriesfrom Nimrud V). London:BritishMuseum. Hermann, Georgina. 1996. "Ivory Furniture Pieces from Nimrud:North SyrianEvidence for RegionalTraditions of FurnitureManufacture." In G. Herrmann,ed., TheFurniture of WesternAsia:Ancientand Traditional, 153-66. Mainzam Rhein:P. von Zabern. Hobbes, Thomas. 1950. Leviathan.New York:Dutton. Hogarth,David G. 1908. Excavationsat Ephesus:TheArchaic Artemisia.London: BritishMuseum. Huxley, George. 1997-98. "A Lydo-Median Treaty in Herodotus (1.74.3-4)." Deltion: KentrouMikrasiatikon Spoudon12:9-1 1. I?ik, Fahri. 1987. "ZurEnstehungder phrygischenFelsdenkmaler."AnatolianStudies37:163-78. Karageorghis,Vassos. 1973. Excavationsin the Necropolisof Salamis III. Salamis V. Nicosia, Cyprus:Departmentof Antiquities.

52

Kent,RolandG. 1953. OldPersian:Grammar,Texts,Lexicon. AmericanOrientalSeries33. New Haven:AmericanOriental Society. Knapton,Peter,M. R. Sarraf,andJohnCurtis.2001. "Inscribed ColumnBases fromHamadan."Iran 39:99-117. IX:DerSiidhiigel. Berlin:W. Knigge,Ursula.1976. Kerameikos de Gruyter. Kohl, Philip L. 1995 "CentralAsia and the Caucasusin the BronzeAge."InJ. M. Sasson,J. Baines,G. Beckman,and K. S. Rubinson,eds., CivilizationsoftheAncientNearEast, vol. 2:1051-65. New York:CharlesScribner'sSons. Kohler, Ellen. 1995. The LesserPhrygian Tumuli, pt. 1: The Inhumations.TheGordionExcavations(1950-1973) Final Reports,vol. 2. UniversityMuseumMonograph88. Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum,Universityof Pennsylvania. Korolnik,SimoneA. 1997. "The Conservationof a CarvedIvory Plaque."AnadoluMedeniyetleri MuzesininYtllarz11:17396. Korte,Gustav,and AlfredKorte. 1904. Gordion.Jahrbuchdes KaiserlichendeutschenarchiologischenInstitutssuppl. 5. Berlin:Georg Reimer. Krzyszkowska,Olga. 1990. Ivoryand RelatedMaterials:An IllustratedGuide.BritishInstituteof ClassicalStudiessuppl. 59, ClassicalHandbook3. London: Instituteof Classical Studies. Kuftin, B. A. 1941. ArchaeologicalExcavations at Trialeti. Tiflis: GeorgianAcademyof Sciences (in Russian). Kuhrt,Amelie. 1995. TheAncientNear East c. 3000-330 B.C. RoutledgeHistoryof theAncientWorld.LondonandNew York:Routledge. Lafontaine,RaymondH., and PatriciaA. Wood. 1982. "The Stabilizationof Ivory againstRelativeHumidity Fluctuations."Studiesin Conservation27:109-17. Lambert,W. G. 1995. "Mythand Mythmakingin Sumerand Akkad."InJ. M. Sasson,J. Baines,G. Beckman,and K. S. Rubinson,eds., Civilizationsof theAncientNear East, vol. 3:1825-35. New York:CharlesScribner'sSons. Lapatin,KennethD. S. 1997. "Pheidiaselefantourgos."AmericanJournal ofArchaeology101:663-82.

2001. Chryselephantine Statuary in theAncientMediterraneanWorld.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress. Levi-Strauss,Claude. 1969. TheElementaryStructuresof Kinship (rev. ed). Boston:BeaconPress. Lindemeyer,Elke, and MartinLutz. 1993. Uruk:Kleinfunde 1II.Mainzam Rhein:P. von Zabern. Litvinskiy,BorisA., andIgorR. Pichikiyan.1981. "The Temple of the Oxus."jtournalof theRoyalAsiaticSociety2:13652. Mallowan,MaxEdgarLucien. 1966. Nimrud and Its Remains, vol. 2. New York:Dodds. Marcus,MichelleI. 1996. EmblemsofIdentityand Prestige:The Seals and SealingsfromHasanlu, Iran. Commentaryand Catalogue.UniversityMuseum Monograph84. Hasanlu SpecialStudies3. Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum,Universityof Pennsylvania. Mauss, Marcel. 1990. The Gift: TheFormand Reasonfor Exchangein ArchaicSocieties(rev. ed.), trans.W. D. Halls. New York:W. W. Norton. Mauss, Marcel,and Henri Hubert. 1964. Sacrifice:Its Nature and Function.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. An ArchaicPainted Tomb Mellink,MachteldJ. 1998. Kzzzlbel: Chamberin NorthernLycia.Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum, Universityof Pennsylvania,for BrynMawrCollege. Minney,Frank.1991. "The Conservationand Reconstruction of a LateBronzeAge IvoryInlaidBox fromPalestine."The Conservator15:3-6. Moorey, P. R. S. 1994. AncientMesopotamianMaterialsand Industries.Oxford:ClarendonPress. Moortgat,Anton. 1969. TheArtofAncientMesopotamia, trans. J. Filson. New York:PhaidonPress. Muscarella,OscarWhite. 1980. The Catalogueof Ivoriesfrom Hasanlu, Iran. UniversityMuseumMonograph40. Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum,Universityof Pennsylvania. --. 1987. "MedianArt and MedizingScholarship."journal ofAncientNear EasternStudies46.2:109-27. - . 1989. "Warfareat Hasanluin the Late9th CenturyB.C." In R. H. Dyson and M. M. Voigt, eds., East of Assyria, 24-36. Expedition31.2-3. --. 1994. "MiscellaneousMedianMatters."In H. SancisiWeerdenburg,A. Kuhrt,and M. C. Root, eds., Continuity and Change,57-64. AchaemenidHistory 8. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. --. 2000. The Lie BecameGreat. The Forgeryof Ancient Near EasternCultures.Groningen:Styx Publications. Negahban, Ezat 0. 1983. Metal Vesselsfrom Marlik. PrahistorischeBronzefunde,section 2, vol. 3. Munich:C. H. Beck'scheVerlagsbuchhandlung. --. 1998. "Suggestionson the Origin and Backgroundof the MarlikCulture."In R. Boucharlat,J.E. Curtis,and E. Haerinck,eds., Neo-Assyrian,Median,Achaemenianand OtherStudiesin Honor of David Stronach,vol. 1:43-56. Iranica Antiqua33. Ozgen, Engin,andIlknurOzgen. 1988. AntalyaMuseumCatalogue.Ankara:TurkishMinistryof Culture. Ozgen,Ilknur.1994. "IronAge Ivoryand SilverFigurinesfrom Bay-ndlr."AmericanJournalofArchaeology98:324-25.

AN EXCAVATED IVORYFROMKERKENESDAG, TIJRKEY

Ozgen, I lknur,andJeanOztiirk,eds., with MachteldJ.Mellink, Crawford H. Greenewalt,jr., Kazim Akbiyikoglu, and LawrenceM. Kaye.1996. HeritageRecovered:TheLydian Treasure.Ankara:TurkishMinistryof Culture. Ozkan,T. 1996. "Lydia'daEle GeSenBir Greko-PersBuluntu Grubu." In H. Malay, ed., Erol Atalay Memorial (Ege Universitesi Edebiyat Fakiltesi Yayznlart, Arkeoloji Dergisi OzelSayz,vol. 1), 131-35. Izmir:Turkish Ministry of Culture. Perrot,Jean. 1981. "L'architecturemilitaireet palatiale des Achemenides 'a Suse." In 150 Jahre DeutschesArchaologischesInstitut 1829-1979, 79-94. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. Postgate, Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia:Society and Economyat theDawn of History.London and New York: Routledge. Potts,DanielT. 1999. TheArchaeology ofElam:Formationand Transformationof an AncientIranian State. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Reade, Julian E. 1998. Assyrian Sculpture. London: British Museum. Richter, Gisela M. A. 1966. The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans,and Romans.London: Phaidon. Roaf, Michael. 1995. "Mediaand Mesopotamia:History and Architecture."In J. Curtis, ed., Later Mesopotamiaand Iran: Tribesand Empires1600-539 B.C., 54-66. London: BritishMuseum. Root, Margaret Cool. 1979. The King and Kingship in AchaemenidArt:Essayson the Creationof an Iconography of Empire.Acta Iranica19. Leiden:E.J. Brill. ---. 1989. "The PersianArcher at Persepolis:Aspects of Chronology,Style,andSymbolism."In R. Descat,ed., L 'or perseet l'histoiregreque, 33-50. RevuedesEtudesAnciennes 91. --. 1991. "Fromthe Heart:PowerfulPersianismsin theArt of the WesternEmpire."In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg,A. Kuhrt,and M. C. Root, eds., Asia Minor and Egypt:Old Culturesin a New Empire, 1-29. AchaemenidHistory 6. Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Rubinson, Karen S. 1977. "The Chronology of the Middle BronzeAge Kurgansat Trialeti."In L. D. Levine and T. C. Young, Jr., eds., Mountainsand Lowlands:Essays in the Archaeologyof GreaterMesopotamia,235-49. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica7. Malibu:Undena Press. Russell,John Malcolm.199 1. Sennacherib'sPalace withoutRival at Nineveh. Chicago and London: Universityof Chicago Press. Sahlins,Marshall.1972. StoneAgeEconomics.Chicago:AldineAtherton. Sakellarakis,Yannis. 1996. "MycenaeanFootstools." In G. Herrmann,ed., TheFurnitureof Western Asia:Ancientand Traditional, 105-11. Mainzam Rhein:P. von Zabern. Sams, G. Kenneth.1995. "Midasof Gordionand theAnatolian Kingdoms of Phrygia." In J. M. Sasson, J. Baines, G. Beckman,and K. S. Rubinson, eds., Civilizationsof the AncientNear East, vol. 2:1147-59. New York: Charles Scribner'sSons.

Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Heleen. 1988. "Was There Ever a MedianEmpire?"In A. Kuhrtand H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, eds., Methodand Theory, 197-212. Achaemenid History 3. Leiden: Nederlands Instituutvoor het Nabije Oosten. --. 1994. "The OralityofHerodotus'Medikos Logosor:The MedianEmpireRevisited."In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt,and M. C. Root, eds., Continuityand Change, 39-55. Achaemenid History 8. Leiden: Nederlands Instituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Sancisi-Weerdenburg,Heleen, ed. 1987. Sources,Structures and Synthesis.AchaemenidHistory1. Leiden:Nederlands Instituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Sancisi-Weerdenburg,Heleen, Amelie Kuhrt, and Margaret Cool Root, eds. 1994. Continuityand Change.Achaemenid History 8. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Sarraf,M. R. 1997. "Ecbatane,capitale des Medes, capitale achemenide."Arche'ologia 339:40-41. Schmidt, Erich F. 1929. "The Excavations in the City on KerkenesDagh."American_ournal of SemiticLanguages and Literatures45:83-92. --. 1953. PersepolisI: Structures,Reliefs,Inscriptions.Oriental Institute Publications 68. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. --. 1957. PersepolisII. Contentsof the Treasuryand Other Discoveries.OrientalInstitutePublications69. Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress. Simpson, Elizabeth. 1985. "The Wooden Furniture from Tumulus MM at Gordion." Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania. --. 1993. "A Carved Stretcherfrom the Big Tumulus at Gordion."In M. J. Mellink,E. Porada,T. Ozguii, eds., and ItsNeighbors. AspectsofArtand Iconography:Anatolia Studiesin HonorofNimet Ozgiik,569-672. Ankara:Turk Tarih KurumuBasimevi. --. 1995. "Furniturein Ancient Western Asia." In J. M. Sasson,J. Baines,G. Beckman,and K. S. Rubinson,eds., CivilizationsoftheAncientNearEast,vol. 3:1647-71. New York:CharlesScribner'sSons. --. 1996. "Phrygian Furniture from Gordion." In G. Herrmann,ed., TheFurnitureof WesternAsia: Ancientand Traditional, 187-209. Mainzam Rhein:P. von Zabern. --. Forthcoming.TheWoodenFurniturefromTumuls MM at Gordion, Turkey.Philadelphia:University Museum, Universityof Pennsylvania. --. N.d. TheFurnitureand WoodenObjectsfromTumulus P, Tumulus W, and the CityMoundat Gordion,Turkey. GordionFinalReports.Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum, Universityof Pennsylvania. Simpson, Elizabeth,and KrysiaSpirydowicz. 1999. Wooden Furniture.Ankara:Museumof AnatolianCivilizations. St. Clair, Archer, and Elizabeth Parker McLachlan, eds. 1989. The Carver'sArt: Medieval Sculpture in Ivory, Bone, and Horn. New Brunswick, NJ.: Jane Voorhees Zimmerli Art Museum, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

53

ELSPETHR. M. DUSINBERRE

Strathern,Marilyn.1988. TheGenderof theGift:Problemswith Womenand Problemswith Societyin Melanesia.Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress. Stronach, David. 1969. "Excavations at Tepe Nush-i Jan, 1967." Iran 7:1-20. 1975. "A FourthSeason of Excavationsat Tepe Nush---. iJan." In F. Bagherzadeh,ed., Proceedingsof the 3rd Annual SymposiumonArchaeological Researchin Iran, 20312. Tehran:IranCentreforArchaeologicalResearch. 1978. Pasargadae.Oxford:ClarendonPress. 1985. "TepeNush-ijan:The MedianSettlement."CambridgeHistory of Iran, vol. 2:832-37. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress. Stronach,David, and MichaelRoaf. 1973. "Tepe Nush-iJan, 1970: Second InterimReport."Iran 11:129-40. 1978. "Excavationsat Tepe Nush-iJan:PartI, A Third InterimReport."Iran 16:1-11. Stronach,Ruth. 1978. "Excavationsat Tepe Nush-i Jan: Part II, MedianPotteryfromthe FallenFloorin the Fort."Iran 16:11-24. Strong,Donald E. 1966. Catalogueof the CarvedAmberin the Department of Greekand Roman Antiquities. London: BritishMuseum. Summers, GeoffreyD. 1997. "The Identificationof the Iron Age City on KerkenesDa' in CentralAnatolia."J7ournal ofNear EasternStudies56:81-94. Summers,GeoffreyD., and M. E. FranqoiseSummers. 1994. "The MountainTop City on KerkenesDa' (Yozgat)in Cappadocia."Arkeolojive Sanat 62-63:2-20. Summers,GeoffreyD., M. E. FranSoiseSummers,and Kemal Ahmet. 1995. "The RegionalSurveyat KerkenesDa': An Interim Report on the Seasons of 1993 and 1994." AnatolianStudies45:43-68. Summers,GeoffreyD., M. E. FranSoiseSummers,and David Stronach.2001. "KerkenesNewsletter4-2001." Ankara: METU Press. Summers, Geoffrey D., M. E. Franqoise Summers, Niliifer Baturayoglu,OmurHarman?ah,andElspethR. McIntosh. 1996. "The KerkenesDa' Survey:An InterimReport." AnatolianStudies46:201-34. Varinlioglu, Ender. 1992. "The PhrygianInscriptions from Bayindir."Kadmos31:11-19. Voigt, MaryM. 1997. "Gordion."In E. M. Meyers, ed., The OxfordEncyclopediaof Archaeologyin the AncientNear East, vol. 2:426-31. New Yorkand Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.

54

Voigt, Mary M., and T. Cuyler Young, Jr. 1999. "From PhrygianGordion to AchaemenidEntrepot:Middle and Late PhrygianGordion." In R. Boucharlat,J. E. Curtis, andE. Haerinck,eds.,Neo-Assyrian, Median,Achaemenian and OtherStudiesin HonorofDavid Stronach,vol. 2:191241. Iranica Antiqua34. Walter-Karydi,Eleni. 1973. SamosVI. SamischeGefassedes 6. ?Jahrhundertsv. Chr. Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefasse.Bonn:Habelt. Waters, MatthewW. 2000. A Surveyof Neo-ElamiteHistory. State Archives of Assyria Studies 12. Helsinki:Institute forAsianand AfricanStudies, Universityof Helsinki. Weidner, Ernst F. 1939. "Jojachin, K6nig von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten."In Melangesoffertsa MonsieurRene Dussaud, vol. 2:923-35. Paris:Librairie OrientalistePaulGeuthner. Weiner,Alison. 1992. InalienablePossessions:TheParadoxof Berkeley:Universityof California Keeping-While-Giving. Press. Winter,IreneJ. 1976. "Phoenicianand North SyrianCarving in HistoricalContext:Questionsof StyleandDistribution." Iraq 38:1-22. --. 1981. "Is There a South SyrianStyle of Ivory Carving in the EarlyFirstMillenniumB.C.?" Iraq 43:101-30. Yan, Yunxiang.1996. TheFlowof Gifts:Reciprocityand Social Networksin a ChineseVillage.Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press. Young, T. Cuyler,Jr. 1969. Excavationsat Godin Tepe:First ProgressReport.Toronto: RoyalOntarioMuseum. --. 1997. "Medes."In E. M. Meyers,ed., TheOxfordEncyclopediaof Archaeologyin the AncientNear East, vol. 3:448-50. New YorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Young, T. Cuyler,Jr.,and Louis D. Levine. 1974. Excavations of the Godin Project:SecondProgressReport. Toronto: RoyalOntarioMuseum. Zaccagnini,Carlo. 1983. "Patternsof MobilityamongAncient Near EasternCraftsmen."journal of Near EasternStudies 42:245-64. Zimansky,Paul. 1998. AncientArarat.A Handbookof Urartian Studies.Delmar,N.Y.: CaravanBooks.

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

The "Archers" of Darius: Coinage or Tokens of Royal Esteem? Author(s): Cindy L. Nimchuk Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 55-79 Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629592 Accessed: 01/02/2009 09:06 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

CINDY

The Coinage

L.

NIMCHUK

"Archers" or

of

Tokens

Darius: of

Royal

Esteern?

ABSTRACT

This articlereconsidersthe traditionalview that the Achaemenid imperialcoinage bearingemblems of the Royal Archer (in gold daricsandsilversigloi)was institutedby DariusI primarilyto serve economicneeds as a mode of paymentformercenariesin the west. Traditionally,the AchaemenidArchersare thought to be direct functionalsuccessorsof the LydianCroeseidLion-and-Bullbimetalliccoinage.Here, by contrast,the communicativeand ideological aspectsof the Archersare emphasizedover the economic. Reassessmentof the stateof ourknowledgeof the introductoryphases of the Archerseries and of the weight ratios in the Achaemenid system suggests that, unlike the Croeseids, these coins were not initiallyintended to facilitatemonetaryexchange. Furthermore, iconographicalanalysisof the Type I andType II Archersdesigned in the reignof DariusI shows the forceof the messagestheseitems conveyedas tokensof wealth,power, obligation,identity,andprotection. The primaryintendedrecipientsof these messageswere, the articleargues,Persianelites in Asia Minor,with non-Persian elites as a secondaryaudience. The Archerscan thus be consideredaspartof the systemof royalgiftingfromthe kingto his nobles thatreinforcedsymbolicrelationshipsby offeringtokens of value well beyond the mereguaranteedweightand contentof the metal. Rethinkingthe questionof the balanceamongideological,political, and economicelementsof the Archersprovidesnew perspectives on earlycoinageand earlyAchaemenidhistory.

55

ArsOriental>is, volumeXXXII (2002)

CINDY L. NIMCHUK

FIG. 1.

FIG. 2.

Drawing ofa millennial 1999 coin issue, Royal Canadian Mint. Adapted from http://www.mint.ca/ en/collectors_corner/ circulation/millennium/ 1999coins/millennium25/ december99.html.

Drawing ofa millennial 2000 coin issue, Royal Canadian Mint. Adapted from http://www.mint.caen/collectors_corner/ circulation/millennium/ 2000coins/millennium25/ juneOO.html.

FIG. 3. Drawing of the obverseof a Croeseidstater (ca. 2:1). Adapted by the author from Carradice1987: pl. X,fig. 2.

Ilb

3

di

FIG. 4.

56

Drawings of obversesof (a) a TypeIJArcher,(b) a TypeII Archer, (c) a Type IIIlArcher,and (d) a Type IV Archer(ca. 2:1). Adapted by the authorfrom Alram 1993: flgs. I-IV.

1 OF THE ";ARCHERS DARIUS

INTRODUCTION

M

O

NEY CAN COME IN manyforms.Itisgen-

erallyconsidered to be any item or unit that serves as a means of storing value or as a medium of exchange or payment of value that can be measured according to a standard that qualifies and guarantees its worth by a recognizable measure. Currency in the form of coinage is one particular form of money. But, that said, the functions of coinage are not restricted to the sphere of economics, as is the concept covered by the generic term "money." Coinage (like paper currency imprinted with imagery) also acts within the social spheres of politics and ideology. The distinction between money and coinage is particularlycrucial when discussing the ancient Near Eastern traditions of exchange prevalent in Mesopotamia and to which the Medes and the Persians both fell heir. The first known coins in the sense in which we shall use the term here (weighed metal pieces stamped with imagery) were made of electrum and were struck in Lydia, probably a little before 600 B.C.E.1 But forms of metallic money without applied imagery had existed in Mesopotamia long before this (Powell 1978; 1996). At the Median site of Nush-i Jan a silver hoard including cut-up ingots offers material evidence of Iranianadoption of this type of system in the centuries immediately preceding the formation of the Achaemenid empire (Curtis 1984). In short, there was no strictly economic necessity for Darius I (the Great; r. 521-486 B.C.E.) to devise a system of coinage. Yet, as we shall see, the traditional view holds that the primary motive for the creation of the Archer series of gold and silver coins under Darius I was, indeed, economic. This article will argue for a rebalancing of the relative importance of economic and ideological motives in the development and deployment of the Archer coins of Darius. Today we consider coins as small change, almost a nuisance as they collect in odd locations. How often do we stop to look at the images on our coins to consider what they might imply? Far less than was the case in earliereras, no doubt. We are increasingly removed from a sense of identification with the ultimate governmental issuing authority of the coinage (and the paper money for that matter) we use in the

moderneraof moneymachinesandcreditcards.And certainlywiththe ever-lesseningbuyingpowerof our coins, we handlethemless andless in whatevercash transactionswe still engagein. Yet despite this decreasein useof currencygenerally(infavorofthecredit card)and use of the coin in particular(becauseof its severelydeflatedbuyingpower),thelinkbetweenpoliticallegitimacyandeconomicsthatcurrencysymbolizesremainsimportant.Whyelsewouldso muchtime andtroublebe takento formimagesforourpaperand metalmonies?Whenwe do stop to considerour image-emblazonedcurrency,we recognizethatthe imageswe see wereintendedto sendmessagesfromour issuingauthoritiesto us, theiraudience.At the very leasttheimagesremindus subliminallyof theidentity of the issuingauthority(to whom we ultimatelyowe the presenceof the monetaryitem). The lingeringpowerof the communicativestrategies of coinageeven in the modernage reassertsitself when commemorativeissues are designed. In Canada,for instance, twenty-fournew reversedesigns for 25-cent coins were commissionedto celebrate the millennium, twelve each for 1999 and 2000. The new images for 1999 paid homage to Canada'spast; those for 2000 addressedhiopesfor Canada'sfuture(RoyalCanadianMint 1999; 2000). Thus one of the 1999 issues (fig. 1), entitled"Trhis Is Canada,"is a visual statementof elements that made Canadagreat:its naturalbeauty(mountains), its indigenouspopulations(aplainsteepee),its emnergent urbanism(avillage-turned-city), its agriculture, and its industry.One of the 2000 issues (fig. 2), entitled"Harmony,"characterizedthe abstractnotion of unity in a pluralisticsociety. Here six abstractly andidenticallyrenderedhumanfiguresfornm the contours of a maple leaf (the symbol of Canada),with theirhandsjoined.Bothof thesecommemorativeseriesincorporatebilingualinscriptions,reinforcingthe strongpoliticalmessageof a unityin diversitymeant to neutralizeethnicand culturaltensions. This veryrecentexamplesuggestsan important ongoing featureof coinageas a mediumof message conveyance. Today, when the practical utility of metalcurrencyas money is decreasing,its symbolic functionas a messageconveyorreassertsitself perhaps most emphatically.The millennialCanadian 57

CINDYL. NIMCHUK

coins were intended to spreada worldviewthat the issuing authorityfelt compelledto propagate-even if (orperhapsespeciallyif) it was not a messagecharacterizinga realitythat all receiversof the message necessarilyfelt investedin. The propagandistic agenda of coin imagery thus remainsan importantpartof its meaningeven to this day. Given that the ideological functions of coinage still operateunder modern conditions, we are entitled to consider how much more important the power of coin imagerywas to ancientaudiences. It is with this in mind thatwe here reassessthe relativebalanceof imagecommunicationand economic practicalityin the creationof the Archercoinage of the Achaemenidempire. When DariusI had the image of a crowned archer placed on roundishpieces of silveror gold of a standardizedweight and purity, the institution of coins and coinagewas only abouta centuryold, give or takea few decades.As we havesaid, moneyin the form of weighed pieces of precious metalhad long existed in the Near East.Whatwas unusual,froma Near Easternperspective,was the placingof an image on the metal. I will arguehere that the Persian Archers,both in gold andsilver,wereinstitutedprincipallyas objectswith ideologicalsignificance.They weredevisedandreceivedaspreciousandprestigious giftsof guaranteedintrinsicas well as symbolicvalue, bearinga specificmessageaimedat a particularaudience. Their nonsymboliceconomic utility (e.g., as regulatorsandfacilitatorsof gold-silverexchangevalues)was, I suggest,a secondaryfunctionandone that was exploitedfor its potentialas a bimetallicsystem only decadesafterthe issuingof the firstArchers.

58

connected in scholarship,with assumptionsabout historicaland functionalties directingthe force of traditionalinterpretation.Croeseids-the Lydian gold andsilverparallelissueswith the Lion-and-Bull imageon the obverse(fig.3)-are widelyfamousbecausetheyareemblematicof thefabledwealthof King Croesus of Lydia. For specialists,they are particularlyimportantbecausetheyareacknowledgedas the earliest known bimetallic series-that is, the first knowncoinagein a parallelgold andsilverissue,with a deliberateand rationalexchangeratiocreatedbetween the two. It is importantto note at the outset thatneitherCroeseidsnor Archersbeardateformulaeor otherinscriptionalinformationof anysort.This is on one level an interestingsimilaritybetweenthe twoissues.On anotherlevel,it complicatesdiscussion, forcingnumeroushistoricalargumentsto be couched in frustratingly qualifiedterms,as we shallsee.

Historical Overview.Traditionholds thatgold and silver Croeseids were first minted (at Sardis) by Croesus(r. ca. 560-547 B.C.E.) (Kraay1976). Martin Price (1984: 211-21) once arguedfor the attribution of the entire Croeseid series to the Achaemenid kings.Althoughthis idea has not won acceptance, it does show how fluid the evidenceremains in terms of materiallydemonstrablechronological frameworks.4 The widelyheld view is that,when the AchaemenidPersianCyrus II (the Great)defeated Croesusin 547, the Lydiankingdomalongwith its customsandtraditions(includingthemintingof gold and silvercoins) cameunder Persiancontrol.Thus the Croeseids continued to be minted at Sardisby Cyrus.Exactlyhow long thispracticemayhavecontinued-plausibly down into the reign of Dariusremainsa matterof debate(Le Rider2001: 101-21, CROESEIDS AND ARCHERS: for a review of the evidence). Whatevermay have NUMISMATIC DISCUSSIONS2 been the time span of the continuedmintingof the Lion-and-BullCroeseidsunderthe Achaemenids,it In order to appreciatethe validityof this nontradi- is clearthatduringthe reignof DariusI, a new cointionalthesis, it is crucialfirstto rehearseand then to agewasintroduced:the PersianArcherseries.It bore reassess some aspects of the historical/numismatic a distinctiveand very differenttype of imagerydisliteraturethathavelong sustainedthe traditionalnoplayinga crownedandrobedbow-wieldingfigurein tion of an economic motivationfor Darius'sinven- fouriconographicalvariants(fig. 4). tion of the Archers.To startwith, we take a closer The introductionof the Archerserieshas been look at the Croeseidcoins of Lydiaandtheirrelation ascribedto DariusI on the basis of the testimonyof to the earlyArcherseries.The two seriesareclosely classicalsources.Herodotus(e.g.,3.89-97) discusses

THE

FIG. 5.

A TypeII Archer used as a seal (PFS 1393s) on PersepolisFortification tablet 1495 (ca. 2:1). Photo courtesyof M. B. Garrison, M.C. Root, and the Persepolis Seal Project.

the economic and administrative reforms of this king; the name "daric" applied to the gold pieces by classical authors reinforces the idea that Darius was the innovator here. This understanding has certainly not been refuted by any archaeological evidence or hoard analyses. Furthermore, the welldemonstrated visionary impulses of Darius in empire management (viz., most comprehensively, Briant 1996) and visualized strategies of ideological reinforcement (Root 1979; 1990; 2000) make his patronage of the first Archers logical. We now have positive and remarkableproof that by 500 B.C.E. at the latest the Type II Archer was already in circulation-and at the center of the empire rather than locally in the region of the assumed mint location at Sardis. In the 1980s it was discovered that a Type II Archer coin had been used as a seal on an administration tablet in the Persepolis Fortification archive (Root 1988; here fig. 5). PFS 1393s occurs on PF 1495 (Hallock 1969:419), which bears the date of the twelfth month of year 22 in the reign of Darius (500 B.C.E.). This informationgives us a precious fixed point by which time the Type II Ar-

";ARCHERS

~OF DARIUS

cherhadto havebeendevisedandstruck,withenough time allowedfor an exemplarto have come into the possession of a personageworkingin Persepolison administrative matters(moreon thislater).The availableevidencedoes not revealhow long beforeits appearanceas PFS 1393s on the Fortificationtabletsthe Type II Archerswerefirstminted.In theory,we have a rangebetween521 and 500. The two Apadana foundation deposits from Persepolishave been brought to bear on the chronology of the introductionof the Archerseries.Each depositincludeda gold anda silverplaqueinscribed witha trilingualtext(DPh),fourgold Croeseids(style F, thereforelate in the series), and two Greeksilver coins-but not a single Archer.5The Apadanamust have been begun by about 515. The absence of any Archersin the deposits has been used to arguethat the seriesdid not exist at the time;but the samenegative evidencehas also been explainedas a rhetorical device to emphasizethe depositionof coins emblematicspecificallyof non-Persianentitiesbroughtunder Achaemeniddominion.6The absenceof Archersin theApadanadepositcannotbe viewedasevidencethat theydidnotexist(evenin theType I form)by ca.515.7 The Type I Archerhas long been thoughtto be the earliestof the iconographicalvariantsin the series (henceits numericaldesignation).This assumption has been based in part on the fact that no example of Type I has yet been found in gold. The mintingof Type I in silverwithout a gold counterparthas been seen as suggestingan initiatoryphase of the largersystem thatwould develop with the introductionof Type II (in both silverand gold). This argumentex silentiothatdaricswere not introduced until the Type II variantwas created is fragile, of course. There are, afterall, only five Type II gold Archersknownatpresent(Le Rider2001: 142). The low numberof survivingType II Archerswarnsus that the gold Type I Archermay also have existed and simply not yet been retrieved.At the moment, however,we do haveType II gold Archers,albeitin such a smallquantity,whereasthe last 150 years of excavationin the GreaterMediterraneanand of research on ancient coins have not yielded even one Type I in gold. The datingof Type I as the firstin the 59 Archerseriesalso relatesto perceptionsaboutits iconographyandstyle(see thesection"Communication:

CINDY L. NIMCHUK

Image and Audience" below). MargaretRoot has warnedthatnothinginherentin the artisticelements of the design necessarilyindicatesthe chronological precedenceof Type I (Root 1989: 44-45). But conventionalwisdommaintainsthe orderingof the Type I andType II issues (e.g., Descat 1989: 18). Acceptingthiswisdomforlackof an alternative, what evidence is there upon which to determinea date for the introductionof this firstArcher?Once the Apadanadeposits disappearas a point of reference afterwhich the Type I would haveto havebeen struck,we areleftwithsubjectiveestimationsofprobable time lags between Type I and Type II. David Stronach(1989: 264-66) suggestsa space of about ten yearsbetweenthe issuingof Type I andType II. This wouldplacetheintroductionof theType I sigloi at about510 or earlier(sometimein the firstdecade of the reign of Darius). This dating reallyremains open to debatebasedon varyingnotionsof how style workedin officialAchaemenidart. The datesof issue forthe Type Illa-b andType IV Archersdo not havethe advantageof evidencein the form of a coin used as a seal on a dated document. Types Illa and IlIb are generallyascribedto the end of Darius'sreignor theearlyyearsof thereign of Xerxes (r. 486-465). The inaugurationof Type IV is dated to the middle of the fifth century(late Xerxes-earlyArtaxerxesI [r.465-425] ).8 The typology andinternalchronologyof the Archershasbeen refinedovertime.The currentorderof the typeswas established,in large measure,throughthe work of Sydney Noe (1956: 40-44) and E. S. G. Robinson (1958:188-90). Morerecently,IanCarradice(1987: 76-78; 1998a: 20-23; 1998b: 79-80), Stronach (1989: 258-61), and MichaelAlram(1993: 29-46) have offeredfurtherrefinements.

6o

Notions of Functional and Systemic Continuity. Despite their radicaldeparturefrom the Croeseids in imagery,the gold darics and silver sigloi of the Achaemenidempireareseen as functionallycontinuing theinnovativebimetallicsystemof the Croeseids. Thus the Archershavetypicallybeen understoodas intended for a monetarypurpose:the facilitatingof rationalizedeconomic exchangebetweenlower and higherdenominations(e.g., Head 1967 [1877]: 2230; Schlumberger1953: 12; Robinson 1958: 188;

Carradice1987: 73, 75; Le Rider 2001). The Archersaregenerallythoughtto havebeen mintedinitially, and perhaps always, at Sardis, where metal sources and minting technology were well established.This locationhas seemedlogicalalsobecause the Archersare conventionallyunderstoodto have been intended to circulatein Asia Minor (for the sigloi) and the Mediterraneanmore widely (for the darics).Thus, the continuedmintingof the imperial issue at the westernfringeof the empireratherthan at its Persian center has typically been taken for granted.'0This hypothesisreinforcestheideaof continuityof economicmotivationand rationaleunderlying the inventionof the Archers. Let us thenlook atbasicphysicalcharacteristics of the Croeseidcoinageand at the economicsystem it expresses.The mainunit of the Croeseidsilverissues seems to have been the stater,at a weight standardof ca. 10.70 g." The gold issues arecommonly thoughtto havebeen struckto twoweightstandards, designatedin the literatureas "heavy"and "light."''2 The "heavy"gold staterwas on the samestandardas the silver stater, weighing ca. 10.70 g, while the "light"gold staterwas ca. 8.05 g. Both the gold and silvercoins registera high degreeof purity:fourgold coins at 99 percent;one silverat 100 percent;six silver at 99 percent;and one silver at 97 percent (all with an accuracyof ?1 percent).'3Other physical of the Croeseidsalsodistinguishthem. characteristics At a depth of ca. 3-5 mm, the statersandhalf-staters are quite thick compared to most other ancient coins.'4The design of both the gold and the silver issues is the same, with the obverse depicting the Lion-and-Bullemblem. In the place of any figural imageor otherdecorativeelementon the reverse,the statersandhalf-statersbeartwo squareincusepunch marks,one small and one larger(with one punch markoccurringon the smallerfractionalcoins).'5 In manyof these basic physicalfeaturesthe Archers, both darics and sigloi, are similar to the Croeseidgold and silvercoins. Like the Croeseids, the Archersaredistinctivelythick,at approximately 3-6 mm.'6And like the Croesids, the Archersbear representationalimageryonly on the obverse,with the reversereservedfor an incuse mark.Comparativestatisticson purityof metalsacrossthe two coinages arealso quite close. Althoughrarelytested, the

1 THE ";ARCHERS OF DARIUS

darics have long been thought to be exceptionally pure. This belief is based in part on Herodotus (4.166), commentingthat Darius had refinedgold to the highest purity possible and coined it. Two analyses support Herodotus's testimony (Caley 1944; Tuplin 1989: 72-73; here appendix Ia), reporting an averagepurity of 98 percent. The sigloi also havenot undergoneextensivetesting,but much ofwhathasbeendonehasfocused(usefully)on hoard evidenceratherthanon isolatedpieces(appendixlb). The fabric of the sigloi is similar to that of the Croeseidsilverhalf-staters(Kraay1976:32). An early test (Caley 1944) gave a range between 88.4 and 96.35 percentpurityforsigloi.'7Butlatertestinghas reporteda rangebetween96.1 and 98.1 percent.In sum, recentanalysesshow a highpurityforthe sigloi even thoughit is slightlylower thanthe purityof the silverCroeseids.The significanceof this close similaritymustbe temperedby the factthatthe purityof all archaicsilver issues submittedto testing never appearsto drop below 95 percent (Gale, Gentner, and Wagner 1980: 48). Thus the purity of the Achaemenid sigloi is roughly in keeping with Croeseidprecedents-but it is also in keepingwith standardsof the timemuch morebroadly.18 These similaritiesnotwithstanding,thereis a key area of divergencebetween the Croeseids and the earlyArchersin monetaryterms.The gold:silverratios, the fractionalvalues, and the weights of the Croeseids and Archers have often been linked, to showyet anotherset of congruencesbetweenthe two seriesas economicentities.But thereareseriousdifficultieshere thatdemandreassessment.That reassessmentwill allowus to see the Achaemenidinvention of the PersianArchersin a new light. The Gold:Silver Ratio, Fractional Issues, and Weights.The silverstaterof the Croesidcoinagewas also struckin fractionsof 1/2 (the half-stater),1/3, 1/6, 1/12,

and 1/24.Fractions Of1/3,

1/6.

and 1/12were appar-

ently also struck in both the "heavy"and "light" Croeseid gold standards.We see here a rationally articulatedsystemofvalueexchangebetweenthe two metals.The weightsof theheaviestCroeseiddenomination(the stater)in eachmetalareequivalent,indicatingthat the ratioof gold:silvermight be a whole number(or a simple fraction),likely between 1:10

and 1:15.19The rangeof extantdenominationsof the gold Croeseidsexchangeswellwith the Croeseidsilver denominationsat a ratio of 1:12. This ratiofits theevidencesuchaswe haveit andexpressesa simple relationof equivalentsbetweengold and silver.20 Despitetheevidenceofthematerialitself,thegold andsilverCroeseidsareusuallyinterpreted (albeitwith expressedambivalence)as havingbeen struckon a gold:silverratio of 1:13 1/3 (e.g., Price 1989: 9-14; Descat 1989: 15-31). The backgroundforthisinterpretationis the force of traditionurgingthatwe see the Croeseidsas the directfunctionalinspirationfor theearlyAchaemenidArchercoins.SincetheArchers are typicallythoughtto have functionedon this unwieldy ratio,the Croeseidsmust have as well. Such argumentation is circuitousand deeplyproblematic. I propose here that the Croeseidswere struck using a straightforward1:12 ratio of gold to silver. Others have arguedthis before me (e.g., Giesecke 1938: 51-52;Jones 1998: 259-61). But the conventionalinterpretationhas held sway, forcingthe evidence on the Croeseidsand the Archersto conform to a commonexchangeratio.This positionis untenable.The Croeseidsystemseemsto havebeen a true bimetallicone, whereasthe Archerseries at its outset seemsnot to havelaid claimto thatparticularfeatureof Lydianprecedent. We have alreadypointed out that the Type I Archerseems not have existed in a gold format all. This stronglyurges that at its inception the Archer series was not conceived of eitheras a replacement for or as a simultaneouslyavailablealternativeto the bimetallicCroeseids.Furthermore,in contrastto the Croeseidsystem,wherea coherentandwell-attested rangeof fractionaldenominationsin gold and silver existed, fractionaldenominationsfor Archers are extremelyrare.Forthe Type I Archer,only one fractionalsilverpiece has been reportedby PaulNaster, andhe is somewhatdoubtfulaboutit. The existence of this piece does not automaticallyindicateit was meantto functionin an economicrangeof fractions of the siglos.The knownType II fractionalpieces offera possiblylargerrange,but it is difficultto fathom theirpurpose. Only the threegold specimensat '/12 andthe twosilverspecimensat 1/3 offermorethanone exampleeach at a particularweight standard.The extantnumbersreportedare too few to build upon

61

CINDY L. NIMCHUK

62

them an understandingof any role they may have playedin an economicsystem.To makethingseven more difficult,none of these fractionalArchershas been reportedin a recordedhoard (appendix Ilab). Amongthisverysmallnumberof examplesoffractional strikes, severalbear otherwiseunknownfiguralimagetypes. This seems to reinforcethe probabilitythatthey are anomalousitems thatcannotbe takenas proof thatthe Achaemenidcoinagecontinued the rationalizedand straightforwardfractional systemused for the Croeseids. When we look atweightsof the two systems,we confrontanomaliesas well-again callinginto question the idea that the AchaemenidArchers,in their initial phase, were intended to play the same economic role as the Croeseids. It is true that the first sigloi at ca. 5.40 g have the same weight as the Croeseidsilverhalf-statersat ca. 5.35 g. The darics were, however,issued at the shekelweight standard of ca. 8.40 g.YThis weightstandardis the one Darius consciouslyadoptedas theroyalweightstandardfor universalpurposes. In this, he certainlydid not follow Croeseidprecedent.Thus the daricwas somewhatheavierthanthe "light"gold Croeseidstaters.22 Againstthis standardfor the daric,the siglos (at ca. 5.40 g) is 9/14 the weight of the daric.This is a relationshipthatdoes not lend itselfto easeof exchange. The resultis thatthe exchangeof a daricfor an integral numberof sigloi would requirethe gold:silver ratio to be nonintegraland based on divisions of 14ths. Thus, the earlysigloi and daricsdo not use a tidy exchangeequation,in contrastto the Croeseids (appendixIII).It is only afterthe raisingof the siglos weight to ca. 5.60 g (withType IlIb, no earlierthan the end of the reignof Darius)thatsigloi and darics are adjustedto a weight relationshipthat facilitated ease of exchangethroughthe productionof sigloi in an integralnumberin relationto the daric(appendix IV).23What is expressed in the later Archer types approximatesthe weight relationship of the later Croeseidsilverhalf-staterandthe "light"gold stater. This shift, at a latermomentin Achaemenidhistory than the heady early years of Darius, may indeed implya deliberatepatterningafterthe Croeseideconomic paradigmon certainkey elements. The apparentlyawkwardweight relationship, arising from the use of the weight of the silver

Croeseidhalf-staterfortheearlysiglosandtheweight of a fullshekelforthe earlydaric,has been explained as indicatingthe strikingof the gold and silverArchers at a ratioof 1:13, on the assumptionthatone daric is exchanged for twenty sigloi.14 When the weightof the siglos is raisedto ca. 5.60 g (withType IlIb), it is taken as an indicationthat the ratio has returned to the "traditional" value of 1:13 1/3 (Robinson 1958: 191).25 There are underlyingassumptionsin the above explanation:thatdaricsand sigloi were intendedto be exchangedfromtheirinception;thatthe value of theirexchangewas meant to staystablethroughtime, in contrastto the fluctuatingvalueof gold and silverbullion;thatthis stable valuewas a gold:silverratioof 1:13 1/3; and thatone daricwas meantto exchangefor twentysigloi. Whence comes the insistence on a 1:13 1/3 gold:silverratiofor Achaemenidcoinageas a traditionalone going backto Croeseidpatterns?Herodotus mentionsa gold:silverratioof 1:13 (3.95) in a commentaryon the calculationof the silverequivalent of the gold tributecoming from India into the Persiancoffers.26But he does not say whether this value dates to Darius'sreign or whether it reflects, rather,Herodotus'sown eraroughlyfiftyyearslater. Neitherdoes he tell us whetherhe is givingan exact ratioor one thathas been roundedoff. It is also unclearwhetherthe 1:13ratiohe mentionsrefersto gold dust, the meansof paymentby the Indiandistrict,or gold bullion.27And nowheredoes the Greekhistorian discuss coinage per se in this passage. When Herodotus refers to the king's surplus wealth, he statesthatit was keptin ingot formand thatthe king

cutoffonlyasmuchashe neededformoney(3.96).28 Indeed, thispassagedescribesDariusmeltingdown the tributehe receivesin orderto turnit into ingots. Althoughnot explicitlystated,the implicationis that Dariusmelted down coins from the west as well as tributein precious metals coming to him in other formsfromall over the empire. A passagein Xenophon'sAnabasishasalsobeen used to calculatethe gold:silverratioand has undeniablycreateda certainamountof confusionin the scholarshipon theArchers.At 1.7.18 we aretoldthat Cyrusthe Younger(d. 401 B.C.E., youngerbrother of ArtaxerxesII, r. 405-359) had promised 10 talents to a seer if his predictionturnedout to be true.

THE

It did, andso Cyrusgavethe seer3,000 darics.From this anecdote, scholars have calculatedthat 3,000 daricswere equivalentto 10 talents,and 300 darics to 1 talent.We are left to assumethatthe talentsare supposedto be silver,since3,000 daricsat ca. 8.40 g (= 25.2 kg) would not come close to being 10 talents (ca. 320 kg) in weight.This passagedescribesa scenariolong afterthereignof DariusI. It does not tellus what(ifany)ratiowasusedwhenthedaricswereoriginallyinstitutedin the reignof thatking.It only tellsus a story about the amount promised by Cyrus the Youngerandwhathe actuallypaid-about a hundred yearsafterthe issuing of the firstArchers.To make matterseven more open to varyinginterpretations, Xenophondoes not specifytheweightsystemhe used in the calculationembeddedin this tale.It is not clear whetherCyrusthe Youngerwould have been referringto the Mesopotamianweightsystemoperativein the Achaemenidcourt circleshe would have known or a Greekweightsystemused by the Greeksoldiers in his employ. Persiansliving in Asia Minorwould plausibly have become familiar with non-Mesopotamianweightsand Greekcoinageby this period, so Cyrusthe Youngercould have used eitherone.29 Thus the positedrelationof 3,000 darics= 10 talents canbe calculatedin differentwaysusing differentancientweightsystems,resultingin differentgold:silver ratios(e.g., 1:12usingthe Babyloniansystem,1:102/3 usingthe Greek)(appendixVa-b).30 One must bear in mind that none of the Greek sources fromwhich the scholarshipdraws support is contemporarywith the firstissuingof the Archers. In addition, and most important,we must also acknowledgethatnoneof theGreeksourcesin factstates unambiguouslythat 1 daricwas equalin valueto 20 sigloi or that the ratioof gold to silverwas 1:13 '/3. Amongotheradditionalproblemsis the factthatratios of gold to silverfluctuatedmarkedlyin antiquity. Given this, it is especially dangerousto rely on an anecdotein HerodotusorXenophonto establisheconomic facts. The compulsionto forcethe classicalsourcesto state a 1:13 1/3 ratioappearsto go back to the nineteenthcenturyand the earlydays of the modernexplorationofBabyloniaandAssyria.As MarvinPowell has noted in his study of Mesopotamianweight systems, the understandingof Babylonianmetrology

wv~~-M

FIG.

ccARCHERS

1

OF DARIUS

6.

Drawing ofa TypeIArcher (ca. 2:1). Adaptedby the authorfrom Alram 1993:fig. I.

took some time to sort out (Powell 1979: 74-79). Elaborate misunderstandings of the Babylonian weight systems, coupled with the overzealousand uncriticaluse of the Greek sources, allowed nineteenth-centuryscholars to bring forth the 1:13 1/3 ratio.3'Once conjuredup, they becameestablished. They have rarelybeen questionedsince. The circularpathof reasoningthathasled scholars to try to make Croeseids and the earlyArchers conformto the sameeconomicsystemhasled to misunderstandingsof both series. When we approach the earlyArchersfromthe vantagepoint of symbolic valueratherthanas vestiges of a directcontinuation of the Croeseid bimetallicsystem in the economic sense, we can appreciatetheirprofoundsignificance on an entirelydifferentlevel.

COMMUNICATION: IMAGE AND AUDIENCE

The four basic obverse Archerimages all display a figurewearingthe crenelatedAchaemenidcrownand the pleated court robe with full sleeves. This figure is now generallyacceptedas representingthe notion of the Achaemenidking and Achaemenidkingship (Root 1979; 1989: 46). Other coinages (those of Ionian cities and laterof the satraps)were certainly struckwithinthe confinesof the empireandpresumablywith the tacitif not overtpermissionof the reigning king. The Achaemenid Archers are the only coins, however,thatcan be arguedto representofficial imperialauthorityemanatingdirectly from the royal house (viz., Root 1988: 1-12; 1989: 33-50; Stronach1989: 255-83). The Type I image displays a half-lengthroyal figure-the head and torso of a Persianking, facing right,holding a bow in his left hand and two arrows in his right (fig. 6). In this image, the royal figure wears his voluminous sleeves down. He does not weara quiver.

63

CINDY L. NIMCHUK

FIG. 7. Drawing of a TypeIIArcher (ca. 2:1). Adaptedby the authorfrom Alram 1993:fig. II.

FIG.8.

Drawing of a TypeIIIArcher (ca. 2:1). Adaptedby the authorfrom Alram 1993:flg. III.

FIG. 9.

Drawing of a TypeIVArcher (ca. 2:1). Adaptedby the authorfrom Alram 1993:flg. IV.

64

The Type II, Type III, and Type IV imagesall displaya full-lengthfigureof the Persianking in the knielaufposture, facingrightas in the Type I image. These renderingsdepartmarkedlyfromthe Type I not only in theirfull-figuredaspect but also in their aggressiveattitude.They displaythe archerfigurein court robe but now with sleeves pushed up for action. In Types II throughIV the figurealso wearsa quiver (most prominentin the Type II issue), emphasizinghis preparednessforengagement.In Type II, the figureis shown in the act of drawinghis bow (fig. 7). In Type III, the figurethrustshis bow forwardin his left hand, while in his righthand he carries a spear(fig. 8). Type IV is a variantof Type III. Here the royalfigureagainthrustsfortha bow in his left hand, but in his right hand he draws a dagger backbehind him (fig. 9). The importanceof the imageryof the Archers has come to the forefrontin recentyears. Root has addressedthe questionof the messageand audience of the Archercoin series, noting that the archerimagesproject"aparticularmessageout fromthe heart of the empire"(Root 1991: 15; see also Root 1988: 11-12; 1989). In imageryand style, the sigloi and darics expressed "a quintessentially Persian, Achaemenid,manifestationof imperialpower"(Root 1991: 16). While the Archercoins aremeantspecifically to evoke concepts of the royal image and the

ideologyofAchaemenidkingship,theyalsoresonate withimagesofthe bow-wieldinghunter(withorwithoutroyalregalia)thatproliferateon earlyAchaemenid seals fromworkshopsin Persepolis.Althoughused by a wide rangeof seal owners with extraordinarily diverse stylistic predilections, the archer image is prominent among those seals carved in the Court Style, which had a limited patronageaccess (Root 1991: 16; Garrison 2000: 135-41; Garrison and Root 2001; Garrisonand Root forthcomingfor all the archerseals on Fortificationtablets1-2087). By trackingartistichands at work carvingseals in the extensive corpus of those used on dated PF tablets 1-2087, Mark Garrison has been able to posit a timeframefor the experimentationleading to a canonized PersepolisCourt Style, includingdistinctive elements such as the ways of renderingthe Persian court robe. He determinesthat this importantcreativeinitiativemusthavebegunveryearlyin the reign of Darius and resolved itself into a canonized style by 510 B.C.E. at the latest (1988; 1991: 18). This datingaccordswell with how we envision the chronologyof emergenceof the stylisticandiconographical markersof the Type I Archer. It reinforcesthe idea that creativeagendas in official seal and coin imagerywerepartof the sameinitiative,with similar motivations of message conveyance (Root 1979). Whereverthe Archerseries was actuallyminted, it was definitelya core elementof the Achaemenidimperialprogramas manifestedin Persepolis. The Archermotifis also foundon Achaemenidperiod sealsand coins used in Asia Minor.The seals impressedon bullaefromDaskyleion,thesatrapalcapital of HellespontinePhrygia,are particularlyimportanthere (Kaptan1996; 2000: 219-21; 2002). The archerappearsnot only on officialsealsand coins of the empirebut also on monumentalreliefs of Achaemenidart. The motif of the bow-bearing Persianwas full of symbolic import as a signifierof ideologies of kingshipand noble affiliationwith dynasticidentity(Root 1979: 164, 167 n. 17, 168-69; 1989; in press). As such, it is in the reign of Darius thatwe have our earliesttestimonyof the imageryas an Achaemenidemblem. In monumentalform, the image is, as faras we currentlyknow, limited to figures of the king or his elite guardholding the equipment of the bowman in a ceremonial (ratherthan

1 THE ";ARCHERS OF DARIUS

action-oriented)context(Root 1979; Garrison2000: 134-36). The link between the king and his bow is an importantone thatappearsboth visuallyand textuallyon monumentsof DariusI. This king is portrayedholding his bow (Bisitun;Naqsh-i Rustam), and/oraccompaniedby bow-bearers(on his reliefat Bisitun,on his tomb faSadeat Naqsh-i Rustam,and on the original central panels of the Apadana at In officialtexts, Dariuscommentsthat Persepolis).32 he is a well-trainedarcher,on foot and on horseback (DNb ?8h:Kent:1953:140; DB: Kent1953; Schmitt 1991;Garrison2000: 134-36). Darius'smartialabilities are not only personalskills;they are royalskills that he uses, as king, to protect his people and his empire(Nimchuk2001: 89). Robinson(1958: 189) recognizedthatthe style andimageryof Type I reflecteda Neo-Assyriantype, similarto renderingsof Assur. The Type I imagery and style arereminiscentof the Bisitunrelief,which itselfhas Neo-Assyrianelementsof styleandiconography (Root 1979: 202-18; 2000; Stronach 1989: 265).3 The pose of the Type I king is statelyand controlled, with a focus that is more mental than physical. This aspect of the Type I royal image is alsoseen in Darius'stombrelief,whichshowsDarius in a similarcalm stillness (Nimchuk2001: 74-75). The Type I king seems implicitlysituatedin a moment of time in which he is the focus of attention. Any movementwill be the duty of others.And it will allbe directedtowardhim.This combinationof royal stillnessandapproachingmovementis foundexplicitly in the original Apadana central panels from Persepolisand the Bisitunrelief.The use of a halffigureechoes the divine timelessnessof the Ahuramazda and Assur half-figures;indeed it may have been meant deliberatelyto recall the cosmic realm and the image of the Achaemenid patron deity Ahuramazdaemergentfrom the winged symbol. It was Ahuramazdawho bestowedkingshipon Darius and was a crucialparticipantin Darius'svision of worldorder,as expressedin complexvisualandverbalrenditionson the BisitunmonumentandDarius's tomb (Root 1979; Nimchuk 2001: 10-40, 68-91). Root (1989: 47-48) has suggestedthat the imageis meantto invokememoriesof the way in which most people of the empirewill, in actuality,have experienced anyvisualencounterwith the king:appearing

FIG. 10.

Renderingof Sennacherib enthroned,from Nineveh. AfterG. Rawlinson,The Seven Great Monarchiesof the EasternWorld. Vol.1: Chaldaea.

[ r3 0I

1'Assyria(New ork.,Philadelphia,and Chicago:The

gg

4)1

FX

~~~~~

p>

Nottingham Society,1870), p. LXXXIV,fig.3.

in state and visible only from the waist up. This type of encounter would have occurred as the king rode in ceremonial processions in his chariot, as Root suggests. It will also have been the essential mnanifestation of the royal presence perceived by those privileged to appear before the king enthroned. We do not have any preserved monumental representations of the Achaemenid king visible half-length holding his bow as an emblem of power as he rides in a chariot or sits enthroned in state. On the original Apadana central panels, the enthroned king holds a staff and a lotus-with his bow held for him by the royal bowbearer. But this type of imagery has a long tradition in Neo-Assyrian art, which Darius reworked masterfully toward his reshaped vision of empire (Root 1979; Garrison and Root 2001; here fig. 10). The calmness of the king as we experience it in the Type I emblem also engenders the ideas of order and strength, ideas prevalent in both the Bisitun relief and tomb faSade of Darius (Nimchuk 2001: 1040, 68-9 1). The bow and arrows are part of this message of order, in that military strength is required to establish and protect order; the military power is suggested by the quiescent aspect of the bowvand

65

CINDYL. NIMCHUK

66

arrows-in an importantsensemorea powerfulmessagethananactivemartialrepresentation (Root 1979: 164, 167 n. 17, 168-69; Nimchuk 2001: 81-83). The Persianrobe and royal crown emphasize the courtly element. The king has not pushed up his sleeves for aggressiveaction, as is so often seen on Achaemenidimageryofheroicencounterandthehunt (see Garrisonand Root 2001; forthcoming).The image is quintessentiallyregal.It proclaimsthata Persianis kingandthatthisPersiankingis atthe centerof the orderhe has createdwith the aid of Ahuramazda. It is possible to view the Type I Archeras a form of rulerportraiture(Root 1991: 17).34As such, the Type I image may claimboth that a Persianis king and thatDariusis the particularPersianwho is king (Vargyas1999: 261).35 Not only does the imageestablishDarius'slegitimacyas king; the image itself establishesDarius'smetaphoricpresence wherever thedaricsandsigloiarelocatedin theempire(cf.Root 1991: 15-16). The order of the empire is due to Darius,who was giventhe kingdomby Ahuramazda; partof thatorderhas been achievedthroughmilitary means. Orderalso impliesprosperity,as evidenced by thevalueof themetal(silverin the caseof theType I issue); this prosperityis due to Darius. Thus the recipientis made awarethathe owes his own prosperity(in the formof the Archer)on a moreideological level to the order(representedby the image)and on a morepracticallevel to Dariushimself(the ultimatesourceof the siglos). The Type II Archeris an activeimage,delivering a similar, albeit more secular, message of the power of the Persianking and the order of the empire. The archeris kneeling,aboutto shoot his bow. Movementis impliedin thepose. Roothasnotedthat the image appearsto have been isolated and taken directlyfromAchaemenidseals thatportrayarchers engagedin the hunt (Root 1991: 16; Garrison2000: 134-41). There is a tensionin the imagebetweenthe (unseen)forcesapproachingandthe outward-aimed arrow.This imageryportraysthe kingboth as hunter (aggressor)and as protector;indeed, the two roles merge, since a hunter (like a hero) often fulfillssimultaneous missions as agent against threatening forcesand protectorof the weak.36Narrativescenes showing the king kneelingin the hunt are found in Neo-Assyrianreliefs(Root 1989: 49). The imagefits

into the Near Eastern iconographic tradition of hunter/protector(Root 1989: 45-46, 49-50). In this message the king is activelyprotectingthe empire (alongwith its inhabitants)and defendingorder.By extension, this protectionprovides stability,which enhancesthe wealthof the empireand specificallyof the recipient.37As with the Type I Archer,the Persian crownand courtrobe of the king send the message of the power of the Persians,reflectingthe textual instances in which Darius proclaims his Persiannessand the controlof the empireby a Persian. Stronach (1989: 269) has commented that Dariusmayhave used the earlyArchersto communicate"amoreassertive'Persianidentity'in the characterof Achaemenidkingship."38 Significantly,such an assertiveproclamationof identity here, fusing notionsof aggressionagainstenemies(thosewho do not cooperate,in Darius'swords) and protectionof those who are weak and needy (as well as cooperative) enablesthis emblemof Persiannessto address the imperialfamilyat large.Any royalinsistenceon belongingto a specificethnicgroup runs the riskof exclusion,of the creationof a marginalized"Other." The Archersuccessfullyavoidsthispitfallandoffers an imagethatcan be aggressivebut also incorporating. It allowsthekingto addressallsubjects,not only Persians,in his protectivestance. Such a multilevel messagecan be seen in the monumentalimagesand inscriptionsof Darius,whichhavespecificmessages aimed at specific audiences (Nimchuk 2001: 10112); here we see the multilevelmessageoperating in a smallerformat-but with a potentiallyfar-reaching rangeof effectiveness. Who, indeed,was the intendedaudienceforthe Archer'smessage? It is generallythought that the sigloi were meantto pay Greekmercenarytroopsin AsiaMinor,as a royalsilvercoinagein linewiththose of Ioniancities. Root at one point followedthis supposition,arguingthatthe messageof the coinswould have been well suited to this purpose becauseof its universallegibilityaccordingto variousculturaltraditions (Root 1991: 16-17). The Type II Archerin particular,she proposed,would be powerfullyresonantin the West, given the familiarityof the archer imagein associationwith Herakles(Root 1989: 4950). Peter Vargyas(2000: 36-38) has recentlyexpressedskepticismaboutthe notion thatthe Archer

1 OF DARIUS THE ";ARCHERS

imagerywas aimedat a Greekaudience,whetherthe audiencewas Greektroopsreceivingsigloi or Greek politiciansreceivingdarics.As he points out, archaic coinagesuse symbolsthatarepertinentto the minting city, and the Persianswould be no different.39 The messages conveyed by the Type I and II Archers have been recognized as partakingof the worldviewpromulgatedby Dariusin his monumentalimagesandinscriptions.Thus I would expect the same audience,or type of audience,for the Archers as for the monuments.AlthoughDarius'sworld vision speaks to severalaudiences,firstand foremost arePersiansof elitestatus(Nimchuk2001: 10-112). To such an audience, the Type I imagewould not only emphasizethelegitimacyof Darius'srule(echoing the Bisitunmonument);it would alsoincludethe elite Persianaudiencein the wealth,rule, and prosperityof the kingdom.On the one hand, the Persian audience would understandthat this prosperityis due to Darius'smanagementof an empiregiven to him by the Persianpatron deity; in order to enjoy the prosperity,the systems of cooperationmust be maintained,andthe Persiansmustsupporttheirking. On the other hand, the deliverymediumwould be somewhatforeign,since coinagewas not a featureof Persianculture.The foreignnatureof thecarrierwould implyPersiancontrolofa foreignform,withtheadaptationof the formto suit Persianroyalinterests.To a Persianaudience,the Type II imagewould reinforce themessageof inclusionthroughtheuse of theactive, protectiveimagery.The Persiankingasa Persianman, fulfillinghis role in the orderingof the world,would representthe Persianelitemalein his role as warnror andprotector.Throughsuchimagery,thePersianelite on a broaderlevelarebound togetheras a rulingstratum,helpingmaintainorder-and theirownprivileged place- in the empire.In this way, the Persianking cooptsthe Persianeliteintosupportinghis worldview (Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1990: 269), therebystrengtheninghis own positionagainstpossiblerivals,foreign or domestic(Nimchuk2001: 84-85). A secondarylevel of audiencewould be the local (Lydian?)elite, who might receive the Archers froma residentPersianor possibly as a giftfromthe kinghimself.40 Whiletheywouldunderstandthegeneral messages of order and prosperity,the Persian identityof the coin wouldprovidea differentimpact,

at once claimingthata foreigner(specificallya Persian)is in chargeand at the sametimeremindingthe recipientof his inclusion in the empire. This message of foreignnessis in tension with the physical mediumof the message,a coin thatwould havea faA similar miliarweight and feel to an elite Lydian.4" tension operates in the Egyptian monuments of Darius,whichblendEgyptianforn withPersiancontent.42Despite the foreignidentity of the king, the order and prosperityimplied by the image and the physicalfact of the coin would increasethe obligation of the recipientto supportthe Persianking by upholdinghis vision of empire. The messagein the Archerimagerytakesus beyond considerationsof economics. Darius devised an imperialvision in which the empirewas basedon his ruleoverwillinglysupportivenationsratherthan conquered victims (Root 1979: passim). Whether this was in realitythe case was less importantthan Darius'swill to have this vision become the official imperialideology (Briant1996: 177-265). In order to be effective,Darius'snew vision of empireneeded to be communicatedto thepeople of the empire.Disseminationnecessitatedknowingwhich audiencesto targetfor particularmessages(Nimchuk2001). The sigloi and daricArchersinstitutedby Dariuscan be viewedwithinthislargercontextof communication. The mostcommonmeansof monetaryvaluation in the Near East was silver, althoughit was not the only item to fulfill this function (barley,gold, and copperwere also in use at varioustimesandplaces). Items would be equated to a certainamountof silver,whichwasweighedin amountsof talents,minas, shekels, and fractionsof a shekel.43Persianswould nothaveusedcoinsas countedunits;anysigloiwould be treatedas bullion,in the mannerofjewelryor precious metaltablewareused in a monetaryfashion.44 Silver and gold in the Near East were valued commodities: both metals were used to makejewelry, vessels, assorted dining implements, and even inscriptionalplaques (the DPh texts in the Apadana foundationdepositarecomposedof gold anclsilver). But such items fulfilledvaried primaryfunctions. Economicones were secondary.45 In this sarnefashion, the use of silverfor the Type I sigloi does not automaticallyprove thattheywereinitiallydesigned to fill an economicniche.46

67

CINDY L. NIMCHUK

68

It is interestingto note Strabo'sreport(15.3.2 1) thatthe Persiankingsused silverandgold mainlyfor gifts and storing in treasuriesratherthan for coinage.47Royalgiftswerehighlyprized,with a symbolic worthgreaterthantheintrinsicvalueof the giftitself. Such giftswould revealthe royalesteemfelt toward the recipientand increasehis statusthroughthe act of having the gift bestowed. At the same time, the recipientwouldacknowledgetheking'sauthorityand the obligationimpliedby the gift(Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1989: 133-35; Briant1996: 316-27). The Archerimagery,used in the contextof a gift given by the king, would communicateseveralmessages that enhancedthe giftingrelationshipin a social and politicalsense. Given the importanceof silver in the Near East, the initialissue of the Archers in silverwould of course have had an intrinsiceconomicworth,but at a level secondaryto the symbolism and status of receivinga royal present. A later issue in gold (the Type II daric)would have further symbolicandintrinsicvalue,offeringa refiningof the statusassociatedwith a royalgift. The standardized valuerangeof the items would be usefulfor spreading Darius'smessage as well, since the king could easilyvarythe size of his gift accordingto the status of the recipient. Nor would the Archersbe the firstinstanceof such a gift item. FrancisJoannes reports that gifts weregivenby Hammurabi(eighteenthcenturyB.C.E.) to soldiers of Zimri-lim,the king of Mari;the gifts werepresentedaccordingto exactingrulesdepending on the rankof the recipientand the value of the gifts.They includedgold or silver"rings"of 5 or 10 shekelsand silverpieces calledkaniktumof 1, 2, or 3 shekels.48These silverpieces wereimprintedwith a markof some kind; moreover, their values were basedon thecurrentweightstandard,andtheirstated value was higher than their actual weighed value. Joannes postulates that the missing portion of the weightwould be thevalueof theworkmanshipof the item.49He states that they were not meantfor mercantile circulation,and they were not used in exchange. While the characteristicsof the kaniktum suggestthose of money,the timeperiod and theparticularcircumstancesof theirissueweighagainstthis interpretationto Joannes (1989: 81), and he designates them "medallions."50

Joannes (1989: 81) comments on the parallel between these silvermedallionsof Hammurabiand the gold darics: both were marked,had a weight basedon the currentstandard,andwerenot involved in mercantilecirculation.PierreBriant(1996: 960) and GeorgesLe Rider (2001: 19-20) rejectthe implicationthatthe daricswerenot meantto be a "coinage"and consider that they operatedprimarilyin a monetaryrole of payment and exchange. Vargyas (2000), by contrast,has arguedthat the daricsprimarilyservedthepurposeof prestigeandplayedlittle role in the economy. The parallelsbetween the medallionsof Hammurabiand the silverand gold Archersdo add impact to the argumentthatthe Archerscanbe considered gift items. That both used a standardin which the shekelwas ca. 8.40 g is not surprising,giventhat Dariusused the Babylonianstandardfor his weight system. The use of silveras a valuedgift item is an importantpoint, particularlywhen the pieces of silver have been markedand have been given according to the rankof the recipient.5' In a similarvein,Pricesuggeststhattheearlyelectrumcoinagescan be consideredas gifts more than coins as we understandthem. These earlyelectrum issuesmayhavebeenused as giftbonuses,withregularremunerationfor a servicebeing paid in termsof room and board. The recipientcould use the electrumto purchaseotheritemsor as a meansof storing wealth. In this case, the stampingof the electrum wouldindicatetheissuerratherthanactingas a guaranteefor circulationpurposes(Price 1983: 6-7). The rarityof the Types 1,11, and lIla Archers limitsthe use of hoardinformationin discussionsof theirintendedfunction.52 EighthoardsincludeType I and/orType II sigloi:threeincludingboth Type I and II sigloi; one with a single Type II siglos; four including Type II and Type III.53 Of these eight hoards, four also include silver Croeseids (mainly Fourof the eighthoardsarefromAsia half-staters).54 Minor,twofromSyria,one fromEgypt,andone from an unknownprovenance.55 A hoardrecentlystudied by Carradicehas led him to conclude that the late Croeseidsilverhalf-statershad a largervolumeof issues than the early sigloi, based on die linkages (Carradice1998a:10).This couldalsoindicatea shift in theprimaryfocusof the firstsigloi,if the argument

THE ";ARCHERS~OF DARIUS

that the late Croeseids were struck by the Achaemenidkingsholds valid. At the veryleast, the sigloi hoardsindicatethat, whatever their original purpose as conceived by Darius, the sigloi were considereda means of storing wealth. The presence of the hoards does not, however,provetheywerenecessarilyissuedformiliNo daricsof types tarypaymentsor retailexchange.56 II or Illa haveyet been found in hoards.57That the later(Type IIIb-IV)daricsdo circulatemorewidely, as witnessedby their"international" findspots,may be due to the politicalcircumstancesin the Aegean in the fifthandfourthcenturiesmorethanto Darius's originalintentin producingthem. The Type IIArcherused as a sealon a Persepolis Fortificationtabletdated to 500 B.C.E. (Root 1988) comes into play againhere. Whetherthis impressed image (fig. 5) was made by a siglos or a daric, the Archerwas in the hands of someoneinvolvedin the administrationof the empireand likely of elite status. The owner of the Archer,Missabadda,was in chargeof movingthe tax dues of Udanato Susa (PF 1495: Hallock 1969: 419). JonathanKagan(1994: 24 n. 7) reportsthe use of the samecoin by the same person on an unpublished tablet. Deniz Kaptan (2000: 216) has commentedthat this use of an Archer revealsthat a Persianin Parsawould think of the Archeras a typeof seal-that is, servingas a mark of identificationratherthanfocusingon its economic use. Was Missabadda'scoin a giftfromthe king-an item of which he was inordinatelyproud and which he chose to use insteadof his regularseal becauseof its specialcachet?Missabaddawas operatingin the heartlandof the empirewhen he used his Archeras a seal. Classicalsourcesrecountinformativeinstances of the giftingof daricsin internationalpolitics of the fifthandfourthcenturies(Lewis 1989), thuslending credence to the idea that our Persiantax agent in Persepolisbelongedto an innercircleof courtmembers who were also entitled to receive this form of prestigelargesse. Recent studies have takenthe largercontext of thereignof DariusintoconsiderationfortheArchers. Briantemphasizesthatsigloi and daricshave different origins and differentfunctions:the sigloi were createdprimarilyto financearmyoperationsin Asia Minor;the darics,on the otherhand, were intended

to show power and prestigein termsof finance(relatingto the valueof Sardisgold), politicsandpolicy (settinga royalweightstandard),andideology(claiming his statusas founder).Darics could be used as royal gifts and in this way could be deliberatelyredistributed(Briant1996: 420-21). AlthoughBriant (1996: 959-60) supportsthisideologicalimportance of the darics,he still considersthem to be money or coins. Vargyasrecentlyhas also arguedfor the separatefunctionsof sigloi and darics.Althoughhe emphasizes the symbolic natureof the sigloi, Vargyas (1999: 258-62) nonethelessplacesthe discussionin the overallcontextof themonetaryreformsof Darius, givingprecedenceto the militarypaymentfunction associated with sigloi.8 In regard to the darics, Vargyas(2000) sees themas primarilyissued forthe purposeof prestige,playinganalmostnegligiblepart in the economicsof the empire. In both studies,althoughthe ideologicalimpact of thedaricshasbeenconsidered,theroleof thesigloi has been seen as mainlythatof paymentfor military purposes, either associatedwith Darius'sconquest of Babylonin 522 B.C.E.59 orhis expeditionto Thrace in ca. 515-512 (Vargyas1999).6? In eithercase, the mainmotivationforthe issuingof the sigloiis seen as paymentformilitaryexpenses.The metaphoricaluse of the term"archers"to characterizethe eniblemon Achaemenidcoinagebut therebyalsoto alludeto the actual archers of the Achaemenid military (viz., Plutarch,Artaxerxes 20) contributesto the armature of this assumption. If militarypaymentsweretheprimaryneed, why would Darius not have used the Croeseids, which he is thoughtto have continuedissuing, or bullion? Moreover,Darius's troops, many of whom would havebeen elitePersians,wouldlikelybe accustomed to being "paid"in a portion of the booty gainedby the king at the place of victory(if one could speakin terms of paymentfor a nonstandingmilitaryforce) or possiblya grantof land.The Achaemenidempire at this stage did not have a professional standing army,so paymentin termsof wageswas not anissue. Certainlythe Persianswould not be accustomedto paymentin coinage,since coinagewas foreignto the NearEasterncurrencysystem.6' The impetusfor the designof the Archers,both silver and gold, can instead be attribute(dto their

69

CINDY L. NIMCHUK

70

communicativefunction.The imageryof theArchers expressed Darius'snew vision of empireand kingship (Root 1989: 45-50); the wealthrepresentedby the Archers expressed the order and stability of Darius'srule. The Archersthemselvesbecame the meansto deliverthis message.To Persianeyes, this wouldhavebeen akinto blendingthe impactof a seal withtheimpactofpreciousmetal(Kaptan2000: 216). The Type I siglosimageryfitsinto Darius'sprogramof communicatinghis worldvision. The likely earliestexpressionof thisvisionis the Bisitunmonument, datedto ca. 520-519 B.C.E. The impactof the Type I imagewould probablybe greaterin the context of knowledgeof the Bisitunmonument.Darius statesthathe had the inscriptionsent throughoutthe empire(DB ?70) (Schmitt1991: 73-74; Kent 1953: 130, 132). Fragmentsof a smaller version of the Bisitun relief have been found in Babylon (Seidl 1976; 1999), suggestingthat the visual image was distributedalongwiththe text.Thus, throughoutthe empire, the Persianswould have had a largercontext for the Archerimagery.I suggest,then, thatthe Type I siglos should not be dated earlierthan the Bisitunmonument,ca. 520-519 B.C.E. The calmness, order,andprosperityconveyedby the Type I imagery offer an officialcounterpointto the turmoilof Darius'sclaimingof the throne. In this largercontext, the claimof legitimacywould havebeen partof Darius'slargeroverallmessagecommunicatedto the Persianelite (andothers)throughvariousvisualand textual media. The imagery of the Type I siglos would have been both a subtle and not-so-subtle meansof reinforcingDarius'sposition,communicating thathe is the ultimateauthoritywhile at the same time coopting the supportof the Persianelite. Such a gift item from the king would have been visible, portable,andeasilyspreadthroughthe elitelevelsof Persianand non-Persiansociety,perhapsespecially in Asia Minor. The Type II Archer,in gold and silver,focuses Darius'smessageof consolidationof the empireunder the protectiveguidanceof the Persianking. As such, the Type II imagemay indicatea chronological developmentin the programmaticexpressionof Darius'sview of kingshipand imperialorder. The use of both gold and silverlikely added a new level

to the statusdifferentiationimpliedby the giftof Archers.Perhapsthe emergenceof thegold coinagewas especially charged with symbolic significance. Plutarch(Artaxerxes 5.1) records that Artaxerxes gavea giftof a golden cup and 1,000 daricsto a man who hadpleasedhim. Herodotus(4.166) recountsa storythatemphasizesDarius'sview of his darics(and presumablysigloi)as specificallychargedwith royal associationand prerogative. Whileboth sigloiand daricsdid manifestlyhold intrinsicvalue,theirworthwas tied to andenhanced by theirstatusas giftsgivenby the kingand symbolizing his authorityand friendship.In this context, the story of Pythiushavingjust under four million darics is interesting.Herodotus reports (7.27-29) thatPythiushad about seven thousanddaricsshort offourmillion.This shortfallwasmadeup by Xerxes, as a gift/rewardforPythius'shostingofXerxes'sarmy and offeringof financialsupportfor the expedition to Greece.The preciseaccuracyof the figuresgiven by Herodotus may be suspect. Four million darics may simply be his way of saying Pythiuswas very wealthy(the wealthiestman afterthe king [7.27]).62 Whetheror not the amountis accurate,we see here an associationof daricswith an elite Lydianwho already had a gift relationship with Darius, since Pythiushad once given Dariusa golden plane tree and vine (7.27).

CONCLUSION

The silverand gold Archersare recognizedas part of Darius'sprogramto express and disseminatehis imperialvision. The Type I Archerconveys a messageof worldorderin religious,military,social,economic, and politicalterms,thus linkingcosmic and secularaspects of that order. The Type II Archer conveys a more secularimageof kingshipand consolidationof the empire.I have here suggestedthat the primaryreasonforthe conceptionof the Archers was not to servean economicfunctionin some part of the empire but to spreadDarius'sworldviewto and throughthe Persianand non-Persianelitelevels of societymoredirectlyin the formof tokensof royal esteem. Coinageas a concept was relativelynew in

THE "4ARCHERS" OF DARIUS

the sixth century,new enoughto be adaptedto a differentpurpose. Darius took advantageof a readily availableform, in which economic and ideological values were alreadymingled, and adaptedit to his communicativepurpose. His concern was to use these smallpieces of preciousmetalto emphasizehis view of the world and his role as GreatKingin that world. Darius could offer gifts of Archers(the gift could varyin amountdependingon the statusof the recipient)to elite Persians,alongwith otheritems of esteem (Gunterand Root 1998). The advantageto giftingthe Archerswas that they were portableand divisible;theimagescouldbe (re)distributedto many othersof lowerstatus,thus spreadingthe messageto a furtherlevel of audience. That Darius knew the Archerscould be used as money is beyond doubt. Butthe adoptionandadaptationof a coin shapedoes not necessitatethatthe item was primarilyissued to fill an economic role-witness the medallions and tokensissued throughoutthe historyof coinagethat were not coins yet were made of precious metals (Grierson1975: 162-81). The demonstrationin the earlypart of this articlethat Darius specificallydid not adopt the practicalaspects of the Lydianbimetallicsystemshowsthathe hadotheragendasin mind when he createdthe earlyArchers.Dariusborrowed the idea, shape,andpreciousmetalsof the Croeseids and adaptedthe design to communicatehis imperial vision to a specific audience. Such an innovative means (to Darius'seye) of emphasizingboth ideology and realitysuitedDariusbrilliantlyin his taskof consolidatinga vast empire.D2

Appendices APPENDIX Ia PURITY OF DARICS

Caley 1944, testing 10 darics(cf. Tuplin 1989: 72): Yieldedan averageof 98%(min.96.7%,max.98.7%)gold. Tuplin 1989, testing2 daricsdatingto the fourthcentury: Yielded resultsof 99.3% and 98.9% gold.

APPENDIX Ib PURITY OF SIGLOI

(1) Earlyreportby Caley(Noe 1956: 21-22): Values of 96.35% silver, 93%, 94%, 88.4%, and 90.1%. Caleyalsocommentedthatthe differencescould be related to the date of issue of the sigloi. (2) Three sigloi from the Asyut hoard (Gale, Gentner, and Wagner 1980: 16-17 [IGCH no. 1644]; Thompson, M0rkholm, and Kraay1973 for the IGCH listing): Rangein purity= 96.1% to 97.2% silver. Since the sigloi fromthe Asyut hoardare of Types II and Illa, they fallinto the earlierissues at ca. 5.40 g. (3) Seven sigloi from a Babylonianhoard (IGCH no. 1747: Thompson, M0rkholm,and Kraay1973; Reade 1986: 79-89, with appendix2 by M. R. Cowell [p. 89]): Six of these rangedin purityfrom96.4% silverto 97.4% silver;the seventhsiglos was tested at 98.1 %silver.Six of the sigloi areof Type IlIb, andone is Type IV, thus falling into the 5.60 g range.This hoardhasbeen ascribeda deposition date of 390-385 B.C.E., althoughthe sigloi arelikely earlierthanthis as they arereportedto be worn. N.B.: It is apparentfrom thesereportsthat a changein weight for thesigloi in laterAchaemenidtimesdid not meana changein thepercentageof silver.

APPENDIX IIa ATTESTED GOLD FRACTIONAL DENOMINATIONSIN THE ARCHER SERIES

A. Le Rider(2001: 143-44) reportsa few gold fractions: (1) at least two '/12 pieces displayingthe Type II Archer image,with weights of ca. 0.75 g and ca. 0.72 g. (2) a few 1/54 or '/60 pieces, displayingan anomalousemblem-the headof a crownedfigure(theking),withweights of ca. 0.155 g. Le Rider comments that the reductionof the royalimagein these pieces may simply reflectthe necessities of workingon the limited surfacearea. The option of consideringthese items as 1/60 pieces is appealing, since 0.140 g would be a sixtiethof 8.40 g. The '/12 pieces in group (1) here area bit overweightas well. B. Hill 1967 [1922]: Persia 184, pl. xxvii.22, in the British Museum: (1) a '/12 gold piece displayingthe Type II image, with a weight of ca. 0.68 g.

71

CINDY L. NIMCHUK

APPENDIX IIb

APPENDIX IV

ATTESTED SILVERFRACTIONAL

VARIABLE POSSIBILITIESIN EQUIVALENCE OF ONE DARIC:

DENOMINATIONSIN THE ARCHERSERIES

THE LATERDEVELOPMENTOF THE ARCHERS

(daricsat ca. 8.40g, sigloi at ca. 5.60g) A. Naster(1970: 130 n. 9) notes ten possible fractionalsigloi: (1) possibly one l/6 (or '/8) of Type I, weighing ca. 0.78 g (Naster is somewhatskepticalabout the accuracyof the reporteddescriptionof this piece) (2) two 1/3 pieces of Type II, weighingca. 1.72 g and 1.75 g (3) one l/6piece of Type II, weighingca. 0.90 g (4) one possible '/4 of Type II, weighingca. 1.48 g (5) one '/8of Type III, weighingca. 0.71 g (6) one possible 1/3 or 1/4 of Type IV (pierced), weighing ca. 1.20 g (Nastercalls this piece a '/3) (7) one possible '/6 of Type IV, weighing ca. 0.65 g (this may ratherbe a 1/8) (8) one possible 1/5 of Type IV, weighingca. 1.10 g (9) one 1/3 piece of anomalous(untyped)imagery,weighing ca. 1.70 g

Daric: 1= 1= 1= 1= 1= 1=

Sigloi:: 15 16 17 18 19 20

Gold:silver 1:10 1:10

2/3

1:11 1/3 1:12 1:122 /3 1:131/3

1=

21

1:14

1=

22

1:142/3

1= 1=

23 24

1:151/3

1:16

APPENDIX Va

N.B.: Naster notesthat thesetenpiecesdo not correspondto the normalfractionalunitsfound in Greekcoinage.Oneshouldremember,however,that the Achaemenidswere not Greeks,and their weightsystemof shekelfractions did encompassfractions suchas i14, '/8, and 1/5. B. Three additional fractionalsilver pieces can be added to Naster'slist: (1) one possible 2/3 of Type II, weighingca. 3.69 g (British Museum 1985-4-3-24) (2) one possible 1/3 of Type II, weighingca. 1.58 g (British Museum 1927-4-3-72) (3) one 1/8of Type IV, weighingca. 0.66 g N.B.: It is not clearatpresentwhetheritem (B.3) hereis perhaps thesamepiecereportedbyNaster[item (A.7) above].

CALCULATIONOF EQUIVALENCESOF DARICS TO SIGLOI WITH REFERENCETO THE BABYLONIANWEIGHT SYSTEM

3,000 darics=10 (Babylonian)talentsof silver.Thus 300 darics = 1 talent. 1 talent=60 minas= 3,600 shekels. Therefore300 daricsalso = 60 minas= 3,600 shekels. Therefore, 1 daric= 12 shekelsof silver. 1 siglos (at 5.60 g)63= 2/3 shekel, 3 sigloi = 2 shekels, and 18 sigloi = 12 shekelsin weight. Therefore, 1 daric= 18 sigloi at a ratioof 1:12. Thus the ratioof gold: silveris 1:12.

APPENDIX Vb CALCULATIONOF EQUIVALENCESOF DARICS

APPENDIX III VARIABLEPOSSIBILITIESIN EQUIVALENCE OF ONE DARIC:

TO SIGLOI WITH REFERENCETO

THE EARLYARCHERS

THE EUBOIO-ATTICWEIGHT SYSTEM

(daricsat ca. 8.40 g, sigloi at ca. 5.40 g)

(seeKraay1976: appendixI, 329-30)

Daric: Sigloi :: Gold:silverratio of exchange 1= 15 1:99/14 1= 16 1:10 4/14 (or 10 2/7) 1= 17 1:10 13/14 1= 18 1:11 8/14 (or 114/7) 1= 19 1:12 3/14

72

1=

20

1:1212/14(or 126/7)

1=

21

1:13

1=

22

1:142/14 (or 14'/7)

1=

23

1: 4

1=

24

1:156/14(or 153/7)

7/14

(or 13

'/2)

"1/14

3,000 darics =10 (Attic) talentsof silver. Thus 300 darics = 1 talent. Therefore5 darics= 1 Attic mina = 100 Attic drachmae 1 daric= 20 drachmae 20 drachmae= 120 obols 7 1/2 obols = 1 siglos. Thus 20 drachmae = 16 sigloi = 1 daric.

16 sigloi at 5.60 g would equal 89.60 g of silver. Thus the ratioof gold:silveris 1:10 2/3.

THE ";ARCHERS~OF DARIUS

Notes

themselvesare made fromthese same metals.For a recentdiscussion of the date of the Apadana,seeJacobs 1997.

The present articlearises in part from researchfor my Ph.D. dissertation(Nimchuk2001) for the Ancient Studies Collaborative Programthrough the Departmentof Near and Middle EasternCivilizationsat the UniversityofToronto. This research was supportedby grantsfromthe Social Sciencesand Humanities ResearchCouncil of Canada,the OntarioGraduateScholarshipprogram,the School of GraduateStudies Bursaryprogram,and the Universityof Toronto Teaching Assistantships, andtheAmericanNumismaticSocietySummerGraduateSeminar.I wish to thankProfessorMargaretCool Root forgivingme the opportunityto be a partof this specialissue andforhermost helpful comments as the outside readerof my dissertation.I would also like to thankthe membersof my doctoralcommittee, who readearlierversionsof the research:ProfessorsA. Kirk Grayson, MargaretC. Miller, Malcolm B. Wallace, and T. Cuyler Young, Jr. ProfessorWallace has graciouslyread and offered comment on the present work. Any errors,of course, are my responsibility.

8. Carradice(1987: 73-93, esp. 92) gives dates of ca. 480s for the startof Type IIIband ca. 450 forType IV. Stronach(1989: 261) dates the Illa and IIlb Archersto the 480s (with the lIla continuingto the 450s, and the Illb to the last quarterof the century),and the Type IV Archersfromthe middle of the century(to ca. 300 B.C.E.). Alram(1993: 45) places the initiationof Type ITlbArchersin the reignof Xerxes and of Type IV in the reign of ArtaxerxesI. All three scholarsbase theiropinions on the datingof coin hoards. 9. Both the bimetallicseries of the Croeseid coins and that of the AchaemenidPersianArcher coins are included by classicists andnumismatistsunderthe umbrellaof "Greek"coinages, thus ascribingto Greekculturethe developmentof this type of money system.In fact,of course,neitherwas formulatedunder Greekauthority.Quite the contrary:HerodotuscallecdCroesus barbaros,a foreigner(1.6), andtherewas neveranyquestionbut thatthe Achaemenidswereconsideredbarbaroiin Greekeyes.

1. The proposalthatelectrumcoinagebeganca. 630-600 B.C.E. has become more generallyacceptedover the earlierdate of ca. 700-650. Fortheargumentsforthelaterdate,see Karwiese1995.

10. Suggestionsfor a second or alternatemint for the Archers have occasionallybeen made, particularlyin connection with the laterissues. See, e.g., Carradice1987: 84-85.

2. The conclusions presented here are based in part on work done for my dissertation (Nimchuk 2001: 113-47). The Croeseidevidencewill be presentedin a forthcomingarticleon Croeseidcoinage.In the presentarticle,manydetailsof numismatictechnicalityon CroeseidsandArchershavebeen distilled for a wide audience.

11. Discussions of the exactweight standardsused for the gold and silver Croeseids have been numerous. I am following the weightstandardscalculatedby Naster(1976). The slightdifference in thereportedweightstandardof the silverstaterat 10.70 g and the "heavy"gold staterat 10.71 g is likelya productof ancientandmoderninaccuraciesin the measurementof nass. The "light"gold Croeseidis reportedas ca. 8.05-8.06 g. The terminology of the Croeseidsin scholarshipis unanimouslygiven as "stater,""half-stater,"and variousfractionsof a stater.

3. For gold and silver refining at Sardis, see Ramage and Craddock2000: esp. chaps. 1, 4, 7, 10, and epilogue. 4. Editor'snote: Croeseids recentlyexcavatedat Sardisunder the mid-sixth-centurydestructionlevel supportthe traditional attributionof the initiationof this seriesby the Lydians-before theAchaemenidconquest(pers.com. E. R. M. Dusinberre,October 2002). 5. For photographsand commentary,see Schmidt 1957: 110, 113-14. See also Root 1988: 3; Kagan1994: 36-43; Vargyas 2000: 41-42. For Croeseidstyles, see Nimchuk2001: 118-33. 6. For example,Vickers(1985) has arguedfor the introduction of the Archers after the deposit; Root (1988: 1-12) has convincinglyarguedforthe introductionof the Archerspriorto the deposit. 7. A furtherstudy of the Apadanafoundationdeposits, in terms of whatis included,whatis excluded, andwhy, would enhance our understandingof this deposit and its significanceto Darius as the Achaemenidking. The use of both silverand gold in the deposit is striking;not only are coins included, but the plaques

12. Evidence from the styles, style distributions,and die links suggeststhatthe gold Croeseidswere struckto one weightstandardratherthantwo as is generallythought.In such a case, the "light"gold staterwould be a 3/4 stater,based on the full stater of ca. 10.70 g. See Nimchuk2001: 133-36. 1 amhere following the designations of "heavy"and "light";the question of the weight standardof the gold Croeseids will be examined in a forthcomingarticle. 13. See Cowell and Hyne (2000: 170-73 and tables 7.4-7.5), who testeda numberof gold and silverCroeseidsfromthe British Museum. 14. The fractionalcoins are, of course, smallerin size and proportionallythinner. 15. This placementputs the largerpunch opposite the lion and the smallerpunch opposite the bull. Surprisingly,given their importancein the sequence of early coinage, a comprehensivestylistic and die-link study of

73

CINDY L. NIMCHUK

the Croeseidshas not appeared.The two most completepublished studies to dateareNaster 1965 and Carradice1987. See also Nimchuk(2001: 113-33) for styles and linkages. 16. For the castingand shapingof blanksfor the sigloi, see Noe 1956: 16-19. 17. Caley suggested that the rangeof purityvalues seen in his testingmight reflectdate of issue. This has subsequentlybeen refuted. 18. Like other silverissues of the archaicage, the sigloi have a highersilvercontentthanmodernsterlingsilver,whichis minted at 92.5 percent. 19. This is a reasonablerangeof the gold:silverratioin the Near East.Manganaro(1974: 58-63), using a somewhatbrokentext on a silver tablet found under the base of the Artemision at Ephesus, calculatesan exchangerateof 1:14 1/2 for gold:silver. The basis deposit is now generallythoughtto date to ca. 630600 B.C.E.-to well beforethe beginningof the reignof CyrusII in 550, in any event (Karwiese1995). 20. The gold:silverratiofor the Croeseidsis also calculatedby meansof exchangewithelectrumcoinage.SeeJones(1998: 25960) for a concise explanation. 21. The Achaemenidshekelof ca. 8.40 g is based on a mina of ca. 504 g, calculatedfromthe stone weights of Dariusfound in the PersepolisTreasury(Schmidt 1957: 105-7). The Achaemenid weight systemis adaptedfromthe Babylonian,in which 60 shekelsequals 1 mina,and 60 minasequal 1 talentin weight. For ancientweightsandscales,see Powell 1971: 182-85; 1979: 72-74, 79-89. For the Achaemenidweights, see Powell 198790: 509, 511. See also Bivar(1983: 624), who has noted that thereareproblemsin dealingwith theseinscribedweightssince most aredamagedandlower thanthe theoreticalweightscalculated by scholars. 22. Robinson (1958: 189) claimedthatthe daricwas originally struckat the weight of the "light"gold Croeseidstater,using as evidencea single daricat ca. 7.87 g. Robinson'sargumentdoes not hold as it is based on a single coin, and one that may have been struckunderweightat that. 23. As with the Croeseids, severalvalues exist in the literature for the variousArcherweight standards.For simpleease of calculation,I am using the figuresgiven by Schlumberger(1953: 12, 16) of a daricof 8.40 g, a light siglos of 5.40 g and a heavy siglos of 5.60 g. These figuresaccordwell with Powell's(198790: 509, 511) calculationof the shekelweight of Darius. 24. 8.40 g x 13 = 109.2 g. So one would need 109.2 g of silver, which would be 20 pieces at 5.46 g or 20 and a fractionat 5.40g.

74 25. But see Vargyas(1999: 252-53), who notes thattheweights of the earlysigloi anddaricsdo not support"thesupposedgold/

silver ratio."He does, however, follow Robinson's argument for the initiallylower weight of the darics. 26. The topic of the taxationoutlinedby Herodotusand its relationto the fiscalstructureof the empireunderDariushas been much discussed. See Briant1996: chaps. 10-1 1. 27. These problems have been noted, for example, by Jones (1998: 261). 28. Herodotus uses the generic termXpflpta,"money,"rather thana morespecificterm,such as vO6LLCa, indicatingcoinage, or UTUTfTp, indicatinga staterweight or coin. 29. SinceXenophonhimselfwasanAthenian,he wouldhavebeen most familiarwith the Attic weight systemand mighthave put Athenianpracticeinto themouthof CyrustheYounger.Le Rider (2001: 159-60 and 159 n. 4) observesthat0. Viedebanttmade thissamecalculationof daricsto theAtticstandardin 1917, arguing thatXenophonwould have reportedin a systemfamiliarto his readers-the Atticsystem-ratherthanin the systemmost familiarto his Persianprotagonist.Le Riderhimselfthinksthe systemXenophonrefersto is actuallya "Persian"system. 30. It is clearfromBabyloniantextualevidencethatthe ratioof gold:silverin Babylonvariedthroughtimefrom1:3 to 1:15, the lattervalue attributedto the reign of Cambyses(Dubberstein 1939: 23 n. 8; Leemans 1971: 512-13; Sack 1994: 92 no. 7; Zaccagnini1997: 364). The gold:silverratioat Athens and in Lydiaalso fluctuated;the valueat Athens rangesfroma high of 1:16.66 before434/3B.C.E. to a lowof 1:11.01in 402/1 (Lewis 1968), and Lydiawas using a ratioof 1:14 1/2 sometimepriorto ca. 550 B.C.E. (Manganaro1974). 31. BarclayHead, forexample,arguedthat100 sigloi/drachmae = 1 Persian/Babyloniansilvermina of 560 g, and 6,000 sigloi/ drachmae= 1 talent.He thenwas ableto claimthatXenophon's statementreferredto sigloiand that300 darics= 1 talent= 6,000 sigloi, which gives 1 daric= 20 sigloi. And at a ratioof 1:13 1/3, 1 daric would be equivalentto 112 g of silver, or 20 sigloi at 5.60 g each (Head 1967 [1877]: 29-30). Unfortunately,Head arguedon the basis thatsigloi and drachmaewere interchangeable. This meantthat since an Attic mina held 100 drachmae, so too a Babylonian mina would have 100 sigloi, and a Babyloniantalentof 60 minaewouldhave6,000 sigloi,thusleading to the 1:13 1/3 ratio (Head 1967 [1877]: 4-7; cf. Le Rider 2001: 154-60). 32. Schmidt 1970; Schmidt 1953; and Root 1979 respectively. 33. Textualelementsof Neo-Assyrianepigraphsarealsopresent in the Bisituntext; see Nimchuk2001: 24-38, 182-90. 34. The imageof the Persianking,institutedby Darius,quickly became canonical.While there were variationsin the stylistic depictionsof Dariusat Bisitun,Persepolis,andNaqsh-iRustam, the overallimageof the king remainedconstant.The imagesof Dariusand Xerxes associatedwith theirrespectivepalaces,for

1 OF THE ";ARCHERS DARIUS

example, are distinguishedby their identificationtexts rather than individualisticportraiture(see Nimchuk 2001: 96-102). That said, the imageof the Persiankingas formulatedby Darius likelyhad some referentialresemblanceto Dariushimself,even if the image chosen was idealizedin some manner.To this extent, the royalimageas institutedby Dariuscan be said to representa type of portraiture. 35. Note thatthis claimto legitimacyis prevalentin the Bisitun inscriptionand imagery:Root 1979: 172-74; Nimchuk2001: 10-40. 36. Stronach(1989: 270-72) has noted the similaritiesbetween the motif of the Archer and the royal hero motif on reliefs at Persepolis. See also Kaptan2000: 219-20. The opponent of the king or hero is usuallya mythicalor wild animalrepresenting the forcesof chaos. For multiplemeaningsof the heroic encounterin NearEasterntraditionandin the Achaemenidmanifestations,see now Garrisonand Root 2001. 37. The royalconcern over protectionof the empireis evident in Darius'sinscriptions,particularlythe tombinscriptions,DNa and b, for which see Kent 1953: 138, 140. 38. For Darius'sproclamationof his Persianidentity, see, for example,DNa ?2 (royaltitulary),?3 (lands conqueredexcepting Persia),?4 (Persianconquestof a largeempire)in Kent1953: 138. See also Nimchuk2001: 73-85. 39. Vargyasalsonotes the illogicin the idea thatthe Persianking would be more concernedwith producing an image aimed at Greeksthanone aimedat Lydians,the originatorsof coinageand occupantsof the most importantwesternsatrapyin the empire. 40. That the mainlocal audiencewould be Lydiansis based on the prevalenceofArcherhoardsfoundaroundSardis,theirpresumed mintinglocale. That a local Lydianwould receivegifts from the king is not unlikely (viz., the story of Pythius in Herodotus 7.28). 41. Presumablythose of elite statuswould havebeen somewhat familiarwith variouscoins of electrum,gold, and silver. 42. This blend of foreign(i.e., Persian)and local elementscan be seen in the Susa statue and the Canal Stelae of Darius;see Nimchuk2001: 41-67; Razmjou,this volume. 43. Powell(1971: 208-12; 1987-90: 508-14) has madea study of the Near Easternweight systems. See also Bivar 1971: 99; Bongenaar1999. Fales (1997: 296-97) discusses the situation in the Neo-Assyrianempire,wherecopperwasmorecommonly used as valuationat the beginning of the empire but was displaced by the use of silver;see also Radner1999. 44. Reade(1986: 79-89) discussesa hoardfoundin Babylonia, comprisedof silvercoins(bothwholeandfragmentary, i.e., cut)of varioustypes,a silverjarhandle,silverjewelry,pieces of silvercut fromtableware,silversheet,a gold earring,andseveralamulets.

45. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (1989: 133-35) hasnotedthewealthof silverandgold objectsusedby thePersianelite,as reportedby the Greekhistorians.For theDPh plaques,see Schmidt1953: 70. 46. Bongenaar(1999: 174) commentsthatthe high valueof silver in comparisonwith othercommoditieswould negateits use as an everydaymoney in Mesopotamia.The differencein value between gold and silver tends to makeus think of silver as an "everyday"currencyand gold as a "big ticketitem"currency. Bongenaar,however,notes thatone shekelof silverwould be a month'swages (174). 47. Straboalso notes that the Persiankings only struckin coin what they needed in orderto pay expenditures(possiblybased on Herodotus3.96). 48. These "rings"arenot fingerjewelryper se but ratherpieces in the shapeof a spiral.See Powell 1978: 211-43. Accordingto Joannes,the texts show a differencebetweenthe statedvalueof a kaniktumandtheactualweightofthe intrinsicmetal:akaniktum valuedat 1 shekelof silverhas an actualweightof 2/3 of a shekel (ca. 5.60 g), a 2-shekelpiece weighingin actuality1 2/3 shekels (ca. 14.03 g), and a 3-shekel piece weighing 2 2/3 shekels (ca. 22.45 g) (Joannes1989: 80-81).Joannes statesthattheweightof the3-shekelpiece was 2 i/2 shekels,equivalentto 22.45 g. Given the weight of 22.45 g, 2 i/2 is a mistakefor 2 2/3. 49. The value of the workmanshipfor the kaniktumwould appearto be 1/3 of a shekel,no mattertheweight.Perhapsthiswould be due to the size of the item, largersizes being easierto work thansmaller.The chargefor workmanshipis odd in a giftitem. Forpreciousmetalobjectsatfullweight,see Vickers1990; 1991. Two thingsshouldbe noted,however:the spanin timebetween Hammurabiandtheitemsconsideredby Vickers;andtheweight or size of the items(thekaniktumis smallin comparison). 50. Le Rider(2001: 20), however,postulatesthatthekaniktum could have been turnedin to the palace in exchangefor other commodities. 51. This is not to say thatDariusbased his sigloi and daricson these tokens of Hammurabi.It is possible that Darius and/or his advisorswere aware of these gifts as part of the legacy of knowledgeaboutthe past kept alivein variouswaysin the Near East and subsequently retooled by the Achaemenids (Root 1994). Mechanismsforknowledgetransmissionwerevariedand included historicaltraditionpassed down throughgeiierations by those of elite statuswhose ancestorswere recipientsof such tokensor by those in whose traditionthe creationand caringfor such itemsrested(e.g., silversmiths,templeandpalacecaretakers, priests). The collection from Ur of impressions of seals, coins, and metalwaremotifsused by an engraverin the fourth centuryB.C.E. shows one practicalmeansby which visualideas werekeptin circulationforfuturereference(Legrain1951: 4753; Garrisonand Root 2001: 39 for furtherbibliography). 52. For the sigloi hoards, see Carradice1987: 79; 1998a: 1-2, 18-20.

75

CINDY L. NIMCHUK

53. Types I and II sigloi:IGCH no. 1166. Types I, II, and III sigloi: IGCH no. 1178 (with CoinHoards 11.11),and hoardA reportedin Carradice1998a. Type II siglos: CoinHoardsI.14. Type II andIlla sigloi:IGCHnos. 1175, 1183,1644 (withCoin Hoards II.17), and CoinHoardsVI.4. Note as well thatIGCH no. 166 also includeda silverpectoral,and 1644 included silver ingots. 54. IGCH nos. 1166, 1175, 1178, and hoard A in Carradice 1998a. 55.AsiaMinor:IGCHnos. 1166,1175,1178 (withCoinHoards 11.11), 1183. Syria:CoinHoards1.14, VI.4. Egypt:IGCH no. 1644 (with Coin Hoards II.17). Unprovenanced:hoard A in Carradice1998a,who commentsthatthehoardlikelycamefrom a spot close to Sardis (9). The largervolumes of sigloi (comparedto thetotalnumberof silverpieces in thehoards)arefound in the Asia Minorhoards. 56. Vargyas(1999: 249) notes that the presence of a high volume of Archersdoes not necessarilyprove they were "used as coins, i.e., counted rather than weighed." The incidence of countermarksor punchmarkson the silver Croeseids and Archers may point to the verificationof their purity and weight, highlightingtheideathattheywerenot strictlycountedandtaken at "facevalue."For countermarks,see Noe 1956: 19-20, 3739; Carradice1998a: 11-12. Kim (2001: 18) points out that silvercontinued to be weighed afterthe adventof coinage;see also Osborne 1996: 250-59. Powell (1978: 218-19) has contested the idea that the introductionof coinage in the Aegean caused an immediatecessation of weighing and a total shift to countingas the sole meansof assessingvalue. 57. Forthedarics,see Carradice1987:86-87. The earliestdated darichoardis theAthoshoardfromMacedonia,which hasbeen datedto the reignof Xerxes, forwhich see Nicolet-Pierre1992. Le Rider(2001: 142) notes thatof thefiveType II daricsknown to him, each was struckwith a differentobverse die, and only two of the daricsmay have shareda reversepunch, suggesting thatthe Type II issuewaslargerthanindicatedby the numberof survivingdarics.Die studiesof the sigloianddaricsareongoing, and futureresearchhopefullywill clarifythe extentof the issues. 58. Vargyasbases his argumentin largepart on the discussion of the Akkadianphrase kaspuginnu, used as a qualificationof silverin Babyloniantexts of the Achaemenidperiod. For a critique of Vargyas'sarticle,see Le Rider2001: 30-35. The exact meaningsof the increasingnumberof terms used to describe silver in the Achaemenidperiod is a topic of ongoing discussion; see, e.g., Powell 1978: 222-27; 1996: 230-38; Bongenaar 1999: 172-74.

76

59. Accordingto the Bisituntext,Gaumatawaskilledin September522 B.C.E. (DB ?13) (Kent1953: 120;Briant1996: 120). The revoltin Babylonwas put down in Decemberof 522 (DB ?1820) (Kent 1953: 120, 123; Briant 1996: 127). Scholars date Darius'srule either from 522, when he defeatedGaumataand claimedthe Persianthrone,or fromthe end of the revoltsin 521.

60. The exact date of the Thracianexpeditionremainsopen to debate,but in generaltermsit canbe said to dateto ca. 515-512 B.C.E.; see Briant1996: 420-21; Descat 1989: 27, 29. 61. The Persepolis Fortificationtablets and Treasury tablets recordthe paymentof wages and travelsuppliesin termsof rations (foodstuff),as well as some paymentin weighed silverbullion respectively(Hallock 1969; Cameron1948). 62. In this same way, Herodotus's estimate for the size of Xerxes's armyis wildly overstated(7.60, where he claimsthat the land armywas 1,700,000); for a discussionon the overestimateof Xerxes'sforces, see Young 1980. The use of the term"daricstaters"herehas been arguedto be a weightreferenceratherthana coin reference,forwhich see Price 1989: 11-12; Le Rider2001: 154. 63. This calculationuses the weightof the heaviersiglos,which would have been currentat the time. Note thatthe weight relationshipbetweenthe daricand the siglos at 5.40 g is less simple, with the siglos being 9/14 of the weight of the daric.

WorksCited Alram,Michael.1993. "Dareikosund Siglos."In ResOrientales 5:23-50, including a section on weight standards by StephanKarwiese(46-49). Bivar,A. D. H. 1971. "A Hoard of Ingot-Currencyof the Median Period from Niush-iJan, Near Malayir."Iran 9:97111. --.1983. "AchaemenidCoins, Weightsand Measures."In I. Gershevitch,ed., The CambridgeHistoryof Iran, vol. 2:610-39. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Bongenaar,A. C. V. M. 1999. "Moneyin the Neo-Babylonian Institutions."In J. G. Dercksen, ed., Tradeand Finance in AncientMesopotamia: ProceedingsoftheFirstMOSSymposium(Leiden1997),159-74. MOS Studies 1. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul;Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Briant, Pierre. 1996. Histoire de l'Empireperse, de Cyrusa Alexandre.Paris:LibrairieArthemeFayard. Caley, EarleRadcliffe.1944. "The Specific Gravityand Fineness of PersianDarics."NumismaticReview2:21-23. Cameron,George G. 1948. PersepolisTreasuryTablets.Oriental Institute Publications 65. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. Carradice,Ian. 1987. "The 'Regal'Coinageof the PersianEmpire."In I. Carradice,ed., Coinageand Administrationin theAthenianand Persian Empires,73-93. BAR InternationalSeries343. London and Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. 1998a. "Two Achaemenid Hoards." Numismatic Chronicle158:1-23.

1 THE ";ARCHERS OF DARIUS

Carradice,Ian. 1998b. "The Dinar Hoard of PersianSigloi." In R. Ashton and S. Hurter,eds., Studiesin GreekNumismaticsin MemoryofMartinjtessopPrice, 65-81. London: Spink. CoinHoards I = Price, Martinjessop, ed. 1975. CoinHoards, vol. 1. London: RoyalNumismaticSociety. CoinHoardsII = Price, Martinjessop, ed. 1976. CoinHoards, vol. 2. London:RoyalNumismaticSociety. CoinHoardsIV = Price,Martinjessop,ed. 1978. CoinHoards, vol. 4. Greeked. London: RoyalNumismaticSociety. Cowell, M. R., and K. Hyne. 2000. "ScientificExaminationof the LydianPreciousMetalCoinages."In A. Ramageand P. Craddock, eds., King Croesus'Gold:Excavations at Sardisand theHistoryof GoldRefining,169-74. ArchaeologicalExplorationof SardisMonograph11. Cambridge, Mass.: Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Harvard UniversityArt Museums,in associationwith BritishMuseum Press. Curtis,John. 1984. Nush-i_fan III: TheSmall Finds. London: BritishInstituteof PersianStudies. Davies, Glyn. 2002. A Historyof Moneyfrom Ancient Timesto the Present Day (3rd ed.). Cardiff:University of Wales Press. Descat, Raymond. 1989. "Notes sur l'histoiredu monnayage achemenidesous le regnede DariusIer."Revuedesetudes anciennes91:15-3 1. Dubberstein, Waldo H. 1939. "ComparativePrices in Later Babylonia (625-400 B.C.)." The American J_ournalof SemiticLanguagesand Literatures56:20-43. Fales, FrederickMario. 1997. "AnOverviewof Pricesin NeoAssyrian Sources." In J. Andreau, P. Briant, and R. Prix etformationdesprix Descat, eds., EconomieAntique: dans les economiesantiques, 291-312. St.-Bertrand-deComminges:Musee archeologiquedepartemental. Gale, N. H., W. Gentner,and G. A. Wagner. 1980. "Mineralogical and GeographicalSilver Sources of ArchaicGreek Coinage."In D. M. Metcalfand W. A. Oddy, eds., Metallurgyin Numismatics,vol. 1:3-49. RoyalNumismaticSociety Special Publication13. London: RoyalNumismatic Society. Garrison, Mark B. 1988. "Seal Workshops and Artists in Persepolis:A Study of Seal Impressions Preservingthe Theme of Heroic Encounteron the PersepolisFortification Tablets."Ph.D. diss., Universityof Michigan. 1991. "Sealsand the Elite at Persepolis:Some Observationson EarlyAchaemenidPersianArt."Ars Orientalis 21:1-29. ---. 2000. "Achaemenid Iconography as Evidenced by GlypticArt:SubjectMatter,SocialFunction,Audienceand Diffusion."In C. Uehlinger,ed., Imagesas Media:Sources for the CulturalHistoryof theNear East and the Eastern Mediterranean (lst Millennium B. C.E.), 115-63. Orbis Biblicuset Orientalis175. Fribourg,Switzerland:University Press. Garrison,MarkB., and MargaretCool Root. 2001. Sealson the PersepolisFortificationTabletsI: ImagesofHeroicEncounter. OrientalInstitutePublications117. Chicago:Oriental Instituteof the Universityof Chicago.

Forthcoming.Seals on thePersepolisFortificationTabletsII:Imagesof Human Activity.Chicago:OrientalInstitute of the Universityof Chicago. Giesecke,Walther.1938. AntikesGeldwesen.Leipzig:KarlW. Hiersemann. Grierson, Philip. 1975. Numismatics. London, Oxford, and New York:Oxford UniversityPress. Gunter,Ann C., and MargaretCool Root. 1998. "Replicating, Inscribing,Giving:Ernst Herzfeldand Artaxerxes'Silver Phialein the FreerGalleryof Art."Ars Orientalis28:1-38. Hallock,RichardT. 1969. PersepolisFortificationTablets.OrientalInstitutePublications92. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. Head, BarclayVincent. 1967 [1877]. TheCoinageofLydiaand Persia. San Diego: Pegasus. Hill, GeorgeFrancis.1967 [1922]. Catalogueof theGreekCoins of Arabia, Mesopotamiaand Persia. A Catalogueof the GreekCoins in the BritishMuseum.Chicago:Argonaut. IGCH = Thompson, Margaret,Otto Morkholm,and Colin M. Kraay,eds. 1973.An Inventoryof GreekCoinHoards.New York: Published for the InternationalNumismaticCommission by the AmericanNumismaticSociety. Jacobs, Bruno. 1997. "Eine Plananderungan den ApadanaTreppen und ihre Konsequenzenfir die Datierungder Planungs- und Bebauungsphasen von Persepolis." Archaeologische Mitteilungenaus Iran 29:281-302. Joannes, Francis. 1989. "Medaillesd'argentd'Hammurabi?" Nouvellesassyriologiques breveset utilitairesnote 108:8081. Jones,JohnR. Melville.1998. "TheValueofElectrumin Greece and Asia." In R. Ashton and S. Hurter, eds., Studies in GreekNumismatics in MemoryofMartin]essopPrice,25968. London: Spink. H. 1994. "AnArchaicGreekCoin Hoardfrom Kagan,Jonathan the EasternMediterraneanand Early Cypriot Coinage." NumismaticChronicle154:17-52. Kaptan,Deniz. 1996. "SomeRemarksabouttheHuntingScenes on the Seal Impressionsof Daskyleion."In M.-F Boussac and A. Invernizzi, eds., Archives et sceauz du monde helle'nistique, 85-100. Bulletin de correspondance helleniquesuppl. 29. Athens:Ecole Franvaised'Athenes. --. 2000. "Common Traits on Seals and Coins of the Achaemenid Period in an Anatolian Context." In 0. Casabonne, ed., Mecanismeset innovations monetaires dansl'Anatolieachemenide:numismatiqueethistoire,Actes de la TableRondeInternationaled'Istanbul,22-23 mai 1997, 213-23. VariaAnatolica12. Paris:InstitutFranSais d'EtudesAnatoliennesd'Istanbul;De Boccard. 2002. Catalogueof Seal Impressionson theBullaefrom Ergili/Daskyleion. Achaemenid History 12. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Karwiese,Stefan.1995. DieMiiunzprdgung vonEphesos.Vienna: Bohlau. Keaney,JohnJ.,ed. 1991. Harpocration:Lexeisof the TenOrators.Amsterdam:A. M. Hakkert. Kent,RolandG. 1953. OldPersian:Grammar,Texts,Lexicon. AmericanOrientalSeries33. New Haven:AmericanOriental Society. --.

77

CINDY L. NIMCHUK

78

Kim,HenryS. 2001. "ArchaicCoinageas Evidencefor the Use of Money." In A. Meadowsand K. Shipton, eds., Money and Its Usesin the Ancient GreekWorld,7-21. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. Kraay,Colin M. 1976. Archaicand ClassicalGreekCoins.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress. Leemans,W. F. 1971. "Gold.A." In E. Ebeling,B. Meissner,E. F. Weidner, and W. von Soden, eds., Reallexikonder Assyriologie3:504-15.BerlinandNewYork:W. de Gruyter. Legrain,L. 1951. Ur ExcavationsX: Seal Cylinders.London: BritishMuseum;Philadelphia:Universityof Pennsylvania Museum. Le Rider, M. Georges. 2001. La naissancede la monnaie:pratiques monetaires de l'Orient ancien. Paris: Presses Universitairesde France. Lewis, David M. 1968. "New Evidencefor the Gold-SilverRatio."In C. M. KraayandG. K.Jenkins,eds., Essaysin Greek CoinagePresentedto StanleyRobinson,105-10. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. 1989. "PersianGold in GreekInternationalRelations." Revuedesetudesanciennes91:227-35. Manganaro,Giacomo. 1974. "SGDI,IV, 4, n 49 (DGE, 707) e il bimetallismomonetale di Creso." Epigraphica 36.12:57-77. Naster, Paul. 1965. "Remarques characteroscopiques et technologiques au sujet des Creseides." In Congresso Internazionaledi Numismatica, Roma, 11-16 settembre 1961, vol. 2:25-37. Rome: Roma Istituto Italiano di Numismatica. 1--. 1970. "Werethe Labourersof PersepolisPaidby Means of Coined Money?"AncientSociety1:129-34. --. 1976. "The Weight-Systemof the Coinageof Croesus." In H. A. CahnandG. Le Rider,eds.,Actesdu 8emeCongres Internationalde Numismatique,New York-Washington, septembre19 73 = Proceedingsof the8th InternationalCongress of Numismatics,New York-Washington,September 1973, 125-33. Publication-Associationinternationaledes numismates professionnels 4. Paris-Bale: Association Internationaledes NumismatesProfessionnels. Nicolet-Pierre,Helene. 1992. "Xerxes et le tresor de l'Athos (IGCH362)." RevueNumismatique6th ser., 34:7-22. Nimchuk, Cindy L. 2001. "DariusI and the Formationof the AchaemenidEmpire:Communicatingthe Creationof an Empire."Ph.D. diss., Universityof Toronto. Noe, Sydney P. 1956. Two Hoards of Persian Sigloi. NumismaticNotes and Monographs136. New York:American NumismaticSociety. Osborne, Robin. 1996. Greecein the Making, 1200-4 79 B.C. RoutledgeHistoryof theAncientWorld.LondonandNew York:Routledge. Powell, MarvinAdell. 1971. "SumerianNumerationand Metrology."Ph.D. diss., Universityof Minnesota. 1978. "A Contribution to the History of Money in --. Mesopotamiaprior to the Invention of Coinage." In B. HruskaandG. Komoroczy,eds., FestschriftLuborMatous, vol. 2:211-43. Budapest: Eotvos LorainTudomainyegyetem,OkoriT6rtenetiTanszekek.

--.

1979. "Ancient Mesopotamian Weight Metrology: Methods, Problemsand Perspectives."In M. A. Powell and R. H. Sack, eds., Studiesin Honor of TomB. 3rones, 71-109. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 203. Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag. --. 1987-90. "Masse und Gewichte." In E. Ebeling, B. Meissner,E. F. Weidner, W. von Soden, D. 0. Edzard, and P. Calmeyer,eds., Reallexikonder Assyriologieund Vorderasiatischen Archaologie,vol. 7:508-17. Berlinand New York:W. de Gruyter. 1996. "Money in Mesopotamia."Jrournalof the Economicand SocialHistoryof the Orient39:224-42. Price, MartinJessop. 1983. "Thoughts on the Beginningsof Coinage."In C. N. L. Brooke, B. H. I. H. Stewart,J. G. Pollard, and T. R. Volk, eds., Studies in Numismatic MethodPresentedto Philip Grierson, 1-10. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. --. 1984. "Croesusor Pseudo-Croesus?Hoard or Hoax? ProblemsConcerningthe Sigloi and Double-sigloiof the Croeseid Type." In A. Houghton et al., eds., Festschrift fur Leo Mildenberg. Numismatik, Kunstgeschichte, Archdologie= Studiesin Honorof LeoMildenberg:Numismatics,Art History,Archaeology,211-21. Wetteren,Belgium:EditionsNR. 1989. "Darius I and the Daric." Revue des eudes anciennes91:9-14. Radner,Karen. 1999. "Moneyin the Neo-AssyrianEmpire." In J. G. Dercksen, ed., Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia:Proceedingsof the First MOS Symposium (Leiden 1997), 127-57. MOS Studies 1. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul;Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Ramage,Andrew. 2000. "The Excavationsand Finds." In A. Ramageand P. Craddock,eds., King Croesus'Gold:Excavationsat Sardisand theHistoryof GoldRefining,72-98. ArchaeologicalExplorationof SardisMonograph11. Cambridge, Mass.: Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, HarvardUniversityArtMuseums,in associationwith British MuseumPress. Ramage,Andrew,andPaulCraddock,eds. 2000. KingCroesus' Gold:Excavationsat Sardisand theHistoryof GoldRefining. ArchaeologicalExplorationof SardisMonograph11. Cambridge,Mass.:ArchaeologicalExplorationof Sardis, HarvardUniversityArtMuseums,in associationwith British MuseumPress. Reade, Julian E. 1986. "A Hoard of Silver Currency from AchaemenidBabylon."Iran 24:79-89. Robinson, EdwardStanleyGotch. 1958. "The Beginningsof Achaemenid Coinage." Numismatic Chronicle ser. 6, 18:187-93. Root, Margaret Cool. 1979. The King and Kingship in AchaemenidArt:Essayson the Creationof an Iconography of Empire.Acta Iranica19. Leiden:E. J. Brill. --. 1988. "EvidencefromPersepolisfor the Datingof Persian and ArchaicGreekCoinage."NumismaticChronicle 148:1-12.

3 OF DARIUS THE ";ARCHERS

Schmidt,ErichFriedrich.1953. PersepolisI: Structures,Reliefs, Root, MargaretCool. 1989. "The PersianArcherat Persepolis: Inscriptions.OrientalInstitutePublications68. Chicago: Aspects of Chronology,Style and Symbolism."Revuedes Universityof ChicagoPress. etudesanciennes91:33-50. --. 1957. PersepolisII: Contentsof the Treasuryand Other --. 1991. "Fromthe Heart:PowerfulPersianismsin theArt Discoveries.OrientalInstitutePublications69. Chicago: of the WesternEmpire."In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburgand Universityof ChicagoPress. A. Kuhrt,eds., Asia Minor and Egypt:Old Culturesin a 1970. PersepolisIII: TheRoyalTombsand OtherMonuNew Empire, 1-29. Achaemenid History 6. Leiden: ments. OrientalInstitutePublications70. Chicago:UniNederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. versityof ChicagoPress. --. 1994. "Liftingthe Veil: ArtisticTransmissionbeyond the Boundariesof HistoricalPeriodisation."In H. SancisiSchmitt,Rudiger.1991. TheBisitun Inscriptionsof Darius the Great,OldPersianText.CorpusInscriptionumIranicarum Weerdenburg,A. Kuhrt,and M. C. Root, eds., Continuity and Change, 9-37. Achaemenid History 8. Leiden: part1, vol. 1, texts 1. London:Publishedon behalfof Corpus InscriptionumIranicarumby P. Lund, Humphries. NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. ---. 2000. "ImperialIdeology in AchaemenidPersianArt: Seidl, Ursula. 1976. "Ein Relief Dareios' I. in Babylon." Transformingthe MesopotamianLegacy."Bulletin of the Archaeologische Mitteilungenaus Iran 9:125-30. CanadianSocietyforMesopotamianStudies35:19-27. 1999. "Ein Monument Darius' I. aus Babylon." --. In press. "The Lioness of Elam. Politics and Dynastic ZeitschriftfiirAssyriologie undvorderasiatischeArchdologie Fecundityat Persepolis."In W. HenkelmanandA. Kuhrt, 89:101-14. eds., Memorial Volumefor Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg. Stronach,David. 1989. "EarlyAchaemenidCoinage:PerspecAchaemenidHistory13. Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoor tives fromthe Homeland."Iranica Antiqua24:255-83. het NabijeOosten. Tuplin, Christopher.1989. "The Coinage of Aryandes."ReRoyal Canadian Mint. 1999. http://www.mint.ca/en/colvue desetudesanciennes91:61-83. 1999coins/millenlectors_corner/circulation/millennium/ Vargyas,Peter. 1999. "Kaspuginnu and the MonetaryReform nium25/december99.html. of Darius I." Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie und vorder2000. http://www.mint.ca/en/collectors_corner/circuasiatischeArchaologie89:247-68. lation/millennium/2000coins/millennium25/juneOO.html. --. 2000. "DariusI and the Daric Reconsidered."Iranica Sack,RonaldH. 1994. CuneiformDocumentsfromtheChaldean Antiqua35:33-46. and Persian Periods. Selinsgrove:SusquehannaUniverVickers, Michael. 1985. "EarlyGreek Coinage: A Reassesssity Press; London and Cranbury,NJ.: Associated Uniment."NumismaticChronicle145:1-44. versityPresses. --. 1990. "Golden Greece: RelativeValues, Minae, and Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Heleen. 1989. "Gifts in the Persian Temple Inventories."AmericanJ7ournalof Archaeology Empire." In P. Briant and C. Herrenschmidt, eds., Le 94:613-25. tributdans l'Empireperse:actesde la tablerondedeParis, --. 1991. "Persian,Thracianand GreekGold and Silver: 12-13 de'cembre1986, 129-45. Travaux de l'Institut Questionsof Metrology."In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and d'Etudes Iraniennes de l'Universite de la Sorbonne A. Kuhrt,eds., Asia Minor and Egypt:Old Culturesin a Nouvelle 13. Paris:Peeters. New Empire, 31-39. Achaemenid History 6. Leiden: --. 1990. "The Questforan ElusiveEmpire."In H. SancisiNederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Weerdenburgand A. Kuhrt,eds., Centreand Periphery, Young,T. Cuyler,Jr.1980. "480/479 B.C.-A PersianPerspec263-74. Achaemenid History 4. Leiden: Nederlands tive."IranicaAntiqua 15:213-39. Instituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Zaccagnini,Carlo. 1997. "Pricesand Price Formationin the Schlumberger, Daniel. 1953. "L'argentgrec dans l'empire Ancient Near East: A MethodologicalApproach." In J. achemenide."In R. Curieland D. Schlumberger,Tre'sors Andreau,P. Briant,andR. Descat,eds., EconomieAntique: monetairesd'Afghanistan, 1-64. Memoires de la Deleprix etformationdesprix dansleseconomiesantiques,361gationArcheologiqueFrancaiseen Afghanistan14. Paris: 84. St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges:Musee archeologique Impr.nationale. departemental.

79

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

Assessing the Damage: Notes on the Life and Demise of the Statue of Darius from Susa Author(s): Shahrokh Razmjou Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 81-104 Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629593 Accessed: 01/02/2009 10:21 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

SHAHROKH

RAZMJOU

the

Assessing Demise

of

Notes

Damage: the

Statue

of

Darius

on

the

from

Life

and

Susa

ABSTRACT

The Egyptian-madestatueof Dariusthe Great,discoveredat Susa (in Khuzistan,southwesternIran)in 1972, has becomejustifiably famousand oft-illustrated.Its imposing colossal monumentality, its importantmultilingualinscriptions,and its rich iconography havebeen extensivelydiscussed.Manyquestionsremain,however, surroundingits eventualremovalfromEgypt to Iran,the circumstances of its new placementat the Gate of Darius in Susa, and mostimportantlythephysicalevidenceattestingto its demise.The biographyof this monumentonce it was moved fromthe Egyptian satrapalperipheryto its new life in one of the royal cities of the Achaemenidimperialcenteris consideredhere. Particularemphasis is placed at once on the remarkabledegree of preservationit enjoyed(in contrastto the other Achaemenidmonumentson the Apadanamound at Susa) and also on the variedformsof massive damage the image sustained. Close analysisof the statue in the NationalMuseumof Iran,Tehran,permitsits conditionto be interpretedwith forensicprecision.Resultssuggestthatthe statueof Dariuswas damagedthrougha combinationof causesandlmotivations rangingfromnaturalforces to multipleformsof violent human intervention.The acts of deliberatedamagerangeacrossthe full spectrumfrom randomindividualvandalismto injuriesspecificallyinflictedforpoliticalreasonswith calculatedandinformned symbolicefficiencyof purpose.

8i

Ars Orientalis,volume XXXII (2002)

SHAHROKH RAZMJOU

..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... nFFwi.a $.i ............................ .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....... ...

*_

u

.W

......Sv,

NE

,t,.

,

]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .| . 4i

..

\._

FIG. 1.

The statue of Darius in situ shortlyafter discovery.

AfterCDAFI4 1974:pl. III. FIG. 2.

Front view of the statue of Darius after conservationand installation in the National Museumof Iran, Tehran. Photo by the author, courtesyof theNational Museumof Iran, Tehran. 82

ASSESSING THE DAMAGE

R

E EMAINS M

OF A COLOSSAL

freestanding state, the height of the figurealone must have mea-

statueof an AchaemenidPersiankingwere excavatedin 1972 at Susaby the FrenchArchaeologicalDelegationled byJean Perrot(fig. 1).' The upperthirdof the statue(includingthe head) is missing,and no remnantsof a crownor otherdisengagedelementshavebeen discovered.As preserved, the statueshowsa standingfigurein the Persiancourt robeandstraplessroyalPersianshoes. It standsupon a rectangularbase measuring51 cm H x 64 cm W x 1.04 m D. The maximumpreservedheightof the figureitselfis 1.95 m. Thus, with the baseincluded,the maximumpreservedheightis 2.46 m. In its original

suredabout3 m (or even more dependingupon the typeofcrownworn).Combinedwiththebase,itwould havemeasureda totalof about3.5 m in height.Thus the figureis about 1.5 timeslife-sized,and its setting atopthe basemakesit a trulyimposingvision (fig.2). Carvedentirelyfroma single block of stone, the statue includes a back pillar that emerges from the base and extends all the way up the back of the preservedportion of the figure(fig. 3). This structural featureof the statueis an obvious sign of its connection to Egyptiansculpturaltradition.Furthermore, the stance of the figure is Egyptian. Its left leg is pushed forward,with the stone betweenthe two legs leftengagedas a solid mass.The leftarmis bent,with clenched hand holding the stem of a flower (probablya lotus)pressedagainstthe torsoabovethewaist; the rightarmis held rigidlydown alongthe leg, with the fist enclosing the characteristicshort Egyptian emblematicstaff.On the frontand back of the base, flankedby hieroglyphicinscriptions,are carvedthe fecundityfiguresof Upper and Lower Egypt, binding togetherthe lotus andpapyrusin a symbolicdisplay of unificationunder the rule of Darius (fig. 4). On each side of the base are carved twelve figures with upraisedhands, each personifyinga different land of the Achaemenidempire.Each figurekneels atopa fortificationringenclosingthe nameof theland he represents,evokingan age-old Egyptianformula

'

FIG. 3.

Side view of the statue of Darius showing the backPillar. Photo by the author, courtesyof theNational Museumof Iran, Tehran.

FIG. 4.

Front of the base of thestatue showing the binding imagery. Photo by the author, courtesyof the National Museumof Iran, Tehran.

83

SHAHROKH RAZMJOU

FIG.

S

5._

Viewof the long side of the base of the statue under the king's_ left side. Photo by the author, courtesyof theNational ' Museum of.Iran, Tehran. FIG.

..

,

;

n 6.

Front view of the statue showing the variety ofll znscriptionson the royal robe.Photo by the author,| courtesyof theNational Museum of Iran, Tehran. _

84

for the representationof enemies under the foot of pharaoh(fig. 5). Inscriptions on the robe appear in Egyptian hieroglyphsas well as in the threecuneiform-written languages typically used for official Achaemenid texts-Old Persian,Elamite,and Akkadian(fig. 6). The textsreferto a KingDarius.A rangeof combined evidence,includingthe name of the king'sfatherin the inscription,makesit clearthatthis statuemustbe an imageof the firstDarius(Dariusthe Great:r. 522486 B.C.E.), as well as linkingthe statueto the cult of Atum at Heliopolis (a city at the southerntip of the Nile deltaon the west side of the river).2Sinceits predisliminarypublicationin 1972, this extraordinary coveryhas been the subjectof much discussionand analysisof its inscriptions,its Egyptianorigins, the contextat Susa (one of the natureof its architectural majorroyalcitiesof the Achaemenidempire),and its

elaborateblendingof officialAchaemenidPersianand Yet untilnow only Egyptianpharaoniciconography.3 limitedobservationshave been made on the life historyof thestatue.In particular,themonumenthasnot been systematicallyscrutinizedin an effortto understandthe full natureand historicalcontext of the repeated damageit sustainedthroughoutthe ages beforeits excavationthirtyyearsago. In orderto pursuethis topic, it is firstimportant to review selected evidence of the active life of the statue.Its biographyplayed a key role in determining its fate. Analysesof the stoneof the statue,takentogether with historicalconsiderations,indicatethatit was almostcertainlyquarriedatWadiHammamatin southern Egypt, where work in the reign of Darius I is knownto havetakenplace(TrichetandPoupet1974, recentlyreaffirmedin TrichetandVallat1990;Perrot

ASSESSING THE DAMAGE

and Ladiray1997: 74). Furthermore,the trilingual inscriptionin Old Persian,Elamite,and Akkadian refersto the monumentas "thestatue of stone that Darius theKing commandedto be madein Egyptso that those seeing it will know that the PersianMan has taken Egypt" (Vallat 1974: 162-63; emphasis mine).4Thus, therearemanyindicationsof an Egyptian connection here: the material, the important Egyptianinspirationforkeyiconographicalelements, and the textualvalidationsof both Egyptianproduction and intended Egyptiancult associations. Nevertheless,the statuealso revealsthe strength of Achaemenid Persian patronage combined with additionalelementsthatfurtherreinforcethe hybrid aspectof this monumentboth technicallyandiconographically.The personificationson the base turn the bound enemies of traditionalEgyptianiconographyinto supporting cooperativeagents in a harmonious imperialenterprise.5The inclusion of the cuneiform texts (including formulaefamiliarfrom other Achaemenid cuneiform inscriptions) is an obvious Persianizing element. Furthermore, the cuneiforminscriptions are placed along the vertical pleats of the court robe. This is a well-documented Achaemenidpractice for royal representations and diverges prominentlyfrom the standard Egyptianpractice of renderingtitularyand prayer formulaeon the back pillar (Bianchi 1995: 2543), which continuedin the LatePeriodthroughAchaemenid,Ptolemaic,andRomantimes(Bothmer1960: e.g., pls. 60-61,64, and 65). On the statueofDarius, thebackpillaris, however,leftuninscribed.Remnants of red paint have been detected on the statue, although there are no vestiges of guidelines for painted embellishment. The sculptures of Persepolis were painted, often but not alwayswith preliminary sketches applied to guide the detailing (Tilia 1978). In contrast, the use of paint to decorate sculptures in hard stone in Egypt of the Late Period was extremelyrare(Bothmer 1960: 27). Interestingly,the Persiancourtrobe and shoes (aswell as the Persianbraceletwith calf-headfinialsand the Persian daggerwith winged bull decorations) displayed on this figure are importantphysical manifestationsof AchaemenidPersianidentity overlaid onto a traditionalEgyptiansculpturalformat.The

A, I

.

7'A~ N

..4~~~~~~~~~~~.

FIG.

7.

Viewof the left hand of Darius showing vestigesof the lowerpart of the stem of aflower. Photo by the author, courtesyof theNational Museumof Iran, Tehran.

figure holds a flower in his left hand. Only a small section of the stem remains above and below the king's fist (fig. 7). This iconographyreminds us of representationsof the king on reliefs at Persepolis where the royal figureholds a lotus in his left hand in a varietyof ceremonialcontexts.6We do not know what type of crown the king wore. Stronach(1972: 242) has noted a satrapalcoin type displayinga figure in Persian court robe and Egyptian crown as providingsupportfor reconstructinga similarcombination on the statue of Darius. But it is equally possible in my view that the visual message of the figureof the king on this statuewas meantto establish in Egyptthe Persianaspectof his personaas ruler ofEgypt.In this case, he mighthavemandateda Persian royalcrown.7

85

SHAHROKH RAZMJOU

FIG 8. Map showing the

U

transportrouteof the

-

statue of Darius from Heliopolis to Susa. CourtesyofM. C. Root.

ELU"NTEB RIn

S

a

DEAD SEA

Cfi

g

PESIANGULF

RWSO

AW.~~~N.

THE ORIGINAL INTENDED PLACEMENT OF THE STATUE

86

As noted, the Egyptianinscriptionsreferto Atumof Heliopolis. It is universallyagreedthatthis statueof Darius (or, perhaps,its prototype)must have been madespecificallyfora templeof Atumat this importantEgyptiancity and cult center(fig. 8). There are at least two possible explanationsfor the situation: (1) the statueis an Egyptian-madecopy of the original statue meant for Heliopolis (with this copy intended from the startfor shipment to Susa); or (2) the statue discovered at Susa is itself the original statue, made in the reign of Darius specificallyfor the Egyptiantemple and only removed from Heliopolis to Susaat some latertimeeitherin his reignor laterin the Achaemenidperiod. Both scenariosallow for the rich blending of Egyptianand AchaemenidPersianfeaturespresentedto us in this statue. But the second scenariois mostprobableand is generallyaccepted.8 Lendingsupportto this view is the observation thatthe statuemayoriginallyhavebeen intendedfor placementwhere the back as well as the front and sides would be visible. This is suggestedby the appearanceof a duplicateof the binding imageryand

hieroglyphictext on the back of the base. Although the carvingon the back is renderedwithout modeling, in contrastto the modeled forms on the front (see CDAFI4 1974: pl. XXX, 1-2), thisin itselfdoes not argueagainsta possibleoriginalplacementwhere the back was visible. The codes of Egyptiansculpturalpractice allowed for varyingdegrees of completenessandrefinementin differentpartsof the same monument even in areas that were clearly visible (Bianchi 1995: 2543). Thus, the replicationof image and text on the back of the base (even in more schematicform)maysuggestthatthestatuewasmade for a specificplace where its positioningrenderedit visible at the back (noted early by Stronach 1972: 245). This would argue for the statue having been originallymade for a placementother than its final one, whereit was set close againstthe wallof the gate at Susa and totallyinvisibleat the back. Regardless of this factor, the inclusion of the Egyptianunificationimageryon the backof the base emphasizesthe originallyEgyptiancontext for the statue'sdisplay.This imageryis a hallmarkof Egyptian pharaonicsculpture, and its repetition on the backof the statuewould havehad meaningin Egyptiancultureeven if the backwere not visible. By contrast,it is not typicalAchaemenidpracticeto carve

ASSESSINGTHE DAMAGE

FIG. 9.


i,

VILLAGE

i'APAOANA

'

DARIU

CHAOI.R Ii

T

Plan of Susa in the Achaemenidperiod showing

theGateofDariusand adjacent palatialstructures. Adaptedfrom Boucharlat 1990:flg. 1.

LE

?

00O

2COMet,.5

(,?

~

~

,

\

~

AL/

r>

9\X

hidden elementsof sculptures.9It is not likelyin my view that a copyof the Heliopolis statuemade specificallyforthisplacementat Susawould haveadded the bindingimageryon the (invisible)backside. As we have noted, the inclusion of cuneiform texts and theirplacementon the pleats of the court robespeakstronglyforAchaemenidpatronageoversightin the designingof the sculpture.Yet it hasbeen observedthat rhetoricalfeaturesof the Old Persian textdivergefromotherwisetypicalOld Persiantexts of Dariusand stronglyarguefor an intended Egyptianaudience(Herrenschmidt1977: 37). Similarly, the exactway the cuneiformtexts areorientedalong the pleats of the court robe divergesfrom standard Achaemenidpractice. On the statue of Darius the cuneiformsigns areplaced so thatreadersmustturn their heads sideways to read them (Perrot and Ladiray1997). These factorsfurthersuggest that, although the monument was meant to invoke Achaemenidvisions of kingshipand identity,it was intended to do this in an Egyptiancontext-not an Iranianone.

D

Finally,the geographicalcorrelationof the personificationsof the lands of the empireon the sides of the baseis not consistentwith the orientationthey wouldhavehadif renderedfromthe startforthe specific cardinalplacementwe witness at Susa (Perrot andLadiray1997: 74-75). This furthersupportsthe idea thatthe Egyptian-madestatueof Dariuswas not createdfor this location.

THE PLACEMENT OF THE STATUE AT SUSA AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

The statueof Dariuswas found at the south side of the western door of the monumentalentrancegate givingaccesson the easternedge to the palatialcomplex ("palaisroyal")of the Apadanamound at Susa (fig.9). The statuefacedthe royalpalaces.This Gate of Darius(the "Portede Darius,"as thepublications of the French expedition call it) was an imposing edificewithinteriorcolumnsthatprobablymeasured 12 or 13 m in height.At the easterndoor of the gate,

87

SHAHROKH RAZMJOU

FIG. 10.

Section reconstructionof the Gate of Darius at Susa and its substructure, showing the statue of Darius and the positedguardian colossusat the oppositedoor. Adaptedfrom Perrot and Ladiray 1997: 77.

88

Posited

Guardian

Statue of Darius

Colossus

;,fi= iooI

_

massivestone foundationson eitherside suggestby theirshape,depth,anddispositionthelikelihoodthat colossalattachedstone sculpturesof wingedbulls or manbullsoriginallylooked out over the city below the Apadanamound, very much as they do at the PersepolisGate of All Nations (fig. 10) (Perrotand Ladiray1974: 49; 1997: diagramon p. 77). It seems, however, that unlike the situation at Persepolis (where attached bull/manbull colossi guard both mainaxialdoors) the gate at Susawas plannedfrom the startto incorporatea pairof freestandingstatues atthewesterndoor.Judgingby the foundations,both theseimageswerealwaysintendedto be of fairlycontainedbase measurementsratherthanrepeatingthe more massive dimensions requiredfor the posited guardianbull colossi at the easterndoor (Perrotand Ladiray1974: 52-53). Althoughno remainsof the secondsculpture(the mate to the statue of Darius we are studying here) havebeen foundin situ, symmetrywas a basiclaw of architecturaland spatialdesignand of the placement of reliefsandentrancesculpturesin Achaemenidart. Becauseno remainsof the second statueitselfwere foundin situ, it is impossibleto saywhetheror not it was madein Egyptof Egyptiangranite,like its counterpart.It is certainlypossible that it was one of a pair of essentiallyidentical statues, both of which originallystoodin Heliopolisandbothof whichwere broughteventuallyto Susa. Butis it possible, instead,thatthe second statue

;.-G

e -^-.-

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

was made in Iran as a matefor a single one brought from Egypt?A fragmentbelonging to the head and face(withlong royalbeard)of a statueaboutthe size of the Egyptian-madeDarius statue was found by Mecquenemin Susa. This fragmentis now in the Louvre (Scheil 1929: 57 and pl. 13; Mequenem 1938: 324; Root 1979: 110-12 and pl. XXXI, 31a; Luschey 1983: 193; Muscarella1992: 219-20). Itis carvedof a darkgraylimestone thatis in color very similarto the darkgraygraniteof the Dariusstatue.'0 Thus it would havebeen a suitablematerialfor preservinga sense of visualsymmetrybetween the pair. The darklimestoneof this face fragmentfrom Susa is a stone availablein the Zagrosmountainsof western Iran, and surely the monumentwas carved locally (a suggestion favored by Luschey 1983 and Muscarella1992: 220). Documentationof the excavation of the fragmentis vague but suggests a location in the Apadanaand thus close to the Gate of Darius(Mecquenem1947: 47). There are no other identified fragmentsof a monumentalfreestanding sculpturefromSusacarvedout of thisdarklimestone. Multiple fragments of colossal statuary from Susa made of a white limestone include one preservinga sectionof draperyof the Persiancourtrobe that bears a cuneiform inscription naming Darius (Muscarella1992: 219; Root 1979, 110-16 and pl. XXXIIa; Luschey 1983: 194). Another of these fragments preserves part of a colossal foot with strapped (nonroyal) Persian shoe. This probably

ASSESSINGTHE DAMAGE

belonged to a statueof a hero grapplingwith a lion or otherpowerfulcreaturesince the hero figureson the Persepolisreliefsconsistentlywearthe strapped shoes." Given the emphasis on symmetry in Achaemenidartmentionedabove,it is doubtfulthat (1) the darkgraniteDarius statuewould have been paired with a statue of white stone and that (2) a hero statue would have been paired with the very differentlyposed Egyptianstatue of Darius. Whereverexactly on the Apadanamound the monumentsnow preservedonly in these limestone fragmentswere originallyinstalled,they are all now reducedto small,isolatedremnantsof statuesfound as scattereddebris. The two-thirdspreservedstate of the granitestatueof Darius,still standingin situ at the gate when unearthedby the excavators,is strikinglydifferent.The limestonemonumentsforwhich theassortedfragmentsareevidencedid notwithstand the forcesof destructionnearlyas well as the granite sculpturedid. This factalonesuggeststhe likelihood thatindeed the mateof the statueof Dariuswas made locallyof therelativelyfriableZagroslimestonerather thanmade in the Nile valleyof the very hard Egyptiangranite.The degreeof preservationof the statue of Darius from Egypt is directly attributableto its materialand also to the specialcaretakento secureit in place.'2 The sculpturewas attachedto its stone foundation blocks by moltenlead thatwas poured between the statuebase and the surfaceof these blocks. The excavatorsretrievedseveralkilosof metalhere(Perrot and Ladiray1974: 50). The use of so much lead to fix the statuein place mayhavebeen thoughtnecessarybecauseof the perceivedinstabilityof such a tall andheavygranitemonumentrestingon a baseof relativelysmallarea.'3This extraordinary precautionmay also have been takenbecauseof the specialvalue of the statueas a symbolof Darius'sconquestof Egypt broughtto Susa fromthe Nile. Attentionto the cult of Atumat Heliopoliswasextremelyimportantin the exercise of Egyptianpharaoniclegitimacythroughout Egyptianhistoryeveninto PtolemaicandRoman times (Shaw and Nicholson 1995: 45-46, 124; Bainesand Malek1996: 173-74). We know littleof Heliopolis archaeologicallybecause of its situation largelyundersuburbanCairo.Thus we are not in a position to discuss Persian-periodindicationsof the

statue'soriginalsetting.Nevertheless,thesignificance of Heliopolis in Egyptianroyalobservanceof Atum is paramount.This factoris crucialfor appreciating the profoundmeaningfor Dariusof being in a position to commissiona sculpturefor dedicationthere as rulingpharaohfromPersia.

DAMAGE TO THE STATUE OF DARIUS: A PREAMBLE

The partiallypreservedstatueof Dariusis the only well-preservedelementfoundin situfromthe superstructureof the Gate of Dariusat Susa.'4I have already suggested reasons for this remarkablefact. Giventhe extremefragmentation of the otherstatues knownfromtheApadanamound(combinedwiththe factthatno monumentalfreestandingrepresentations of Achaemenidroyaltyhave yet been discoveredat other sites), the statueof Dariusprovides a unique opportunityto assesswith somebreadthof evidence the mannerin whichone suchroyalAchaemenidimage met its ultimatefate. In addition to two complete fractures of the statue(to be discussedbelow), manyscratches,hack marks,and chips (both large and small) are visible on the royalimage,its backpillar,andits base. They indicate multiple types of damage sustained, and they provide evidence that can be interpretedforensically. It is evident that at some point in time the originalsanctityand respect accorded this image (and other similarmonumentsat Susa) ceased. The statuefell prey to attackby one or more, probably numerous,individuals.It also fell prey to neglect thatallowednaturalforcesto damageit irreparably. First we must assess the natureof the damages. Then we can try to determinewhen the various types were inflicted,by whom, and underwhat historical circumstances.In order to do this, it is importantto take a broad look at the types of scenariosmost usually observed in studies of deliberate damageto sculpturalimages. Deliberatevandalismto ancientremainshas occurredthroughouthistory. Leavingto one side for the momentthe issue of naturaldamage,we can divide such acts of human-inflicteddamageinto three 89 categories:

SHAHROKHRAZMJOU

(1) damageinflictedby commonpeople who are motivatedby either practicalor casual actions ratherthanideology; (2) damagecaused by the violence of invading armies; (3) damagecaused by the specific commandof rulersor in response to ideologicalmotivations directlyinspiredby such authority. Damage caused by all three categoriesof behavior hasresultedin a vastloss of culturalheritagethroughout history.Such actionshaveallowedand continue to allow ancient sites, monuments,and artifactsto disappearand graduallyto be forgottenover time along with the culturalsignificancethey once held. Of coursethereareinterestingexceptionsto thisgeneralizednegativeaspect.Sometimesa defacedor otherwise destructivelyalteredmonumentis invested (eitherby the perpetratorsof the damageor by others) with a new culturalrelevancethat replacesthe originalone but does perpetuatesome positive recognitionof the monumentas important,meaningful, and perhaps even laden with religious sanctity or politicalprestige.In thisarticlewe are,however,concerned with a scenariothat cannot be said to have this type of redeeminghistoricalquality. Commonpeopleactingindependendyratherthan aspartof a concertedmilitaryoperationcaninflictvarious typesof damage.At Persepolis,the Persianheartland capitalof the Achaemenidempire,we haveevidencefromthebeginningof thetwelfthcenturyC.E. of common folk using the Persepolisruins as a source forlimestonethatwasthoughtto havemedicinalproperties.Ibn-eBalkhiwroteof Persepolisthatit was madeof a white stone like marbleand in the whole of Pars there is no stone like it. No one knows the sourceof this stone;but it is good for curinginjuries.Piecesof the stonearetakenfrom Persepolis;and when someone receives an injury, [the stone] is filed down and [thepowder] is appliedto theinjuredspot,whichwillbe cured in time. (Ibn-e Balkhi1363 A.H.: 126, trans.S. Razmjou) 9o

There are many archaeologicallydocumented casesof ancientbuildings,sculptures,andothertypes

of monumentsbeingbrokenanddismantledto serve practicaluses when, forwhateverreasons,the original reverencefor the thing has diminishedor when the desire or need for materialis strongerthan any hesitancy to damage culturalheritage.Frequently common people have, for instance,removedstone from abandonedsites to use in their own humble constructions-for items such as grindingstones or stone thresholds. Sometimescommonpeople haveinflicteddamageupon antiquitieswith seeminglythoughtlessand wantondisregardforthe culturalvalueof the victimizedmonumentandapparentlyforno particularpracticalor ideologicalpurpose.A good exampleof this type of damage is the evidence at Persepolis and Bisotunfor the use of Achaemenidreliefsculptures forriflepractice.Tracesof such shots canbe seen on windowjambreliefsin the Hadish(Palaceof Xerxes) at Persepolisand on the figureof KingDariusI and his prostrateprisoner,Gaumata,carvedon the great inscribed rock relief high up on the cliff face at Bisotun(fig. 11).15 These shotsaregenerallythought to havebeen madeby the Khansor otherarmedtravelers of the last centuries. Damageinflictedby invadingarmiesis of course a majorsourceof destructionthroughouthistoryand one thatIranhas sufferedrepeatedlyover time.One exampleof this type of vandalismis the destruction andlootingvisitedupon the Elamitecities(especially the city of Susa)by Assyriansoldiersin the reignof

Assurbanipal (seventhcenturyB.C.E.). The wordsof Assurbanipalglorifyingtheworkof his armyaretruly shocking.He describesin detailthedestructionof cities andtownsin a 600+ kmarea,includingthe smashing of cult statuesand othersculptures,the razingof the zigguratat Susa,and the pillagingof the tombsof theElamitekings.This tabulationincludesa sentence thatsuggeststhe utterruinationof a civilization: In a monthof daysI leveledthe whole of Elam,I deprivedits fieldsof thesoundsof humanvoices, the treadof cattleand sheep, the refrainofjoyous animals. (Potts 1999: 284-85, quoting Brinkman1991: 50) Assurbanipal'sproud statementsindicate that the damagewroughtby his soldiers occurredwith his

ASSESSING THE DAMAGE

ments were erased by the order of laterauthorities. The name of Queen Hatshepsutwas, for instance, erased by the order of Thutmosis III from her images;the namesofAkhenaton,Tut-ankh-Amun,and Ay were erasedfromtheirmonumentsby the order of Horemheb(Clayton1997: 108 and 138). The erasure of the royalnamewas, in symbolicterms,a destructionof the life forceand identityof the image. FIG, 11. Othertypesof symbolicdestructionincludesystematicdamageto key featuresof a figure, such as the eyes,againto disempowertheimage.We see such to imagesof the king on the originalcentral damnage of the Apadanaat Persepolis,which had alpanels FIG . ..11... ready been removed to a new indoor location in a ceremonial courtyard of the Treasury (Schmidt 1953:pls. 121-22). A greatdealof lootingtookplace in the Treasuryduringthe stormingof Persepolisby the soldiers of Alexanderof Macedonin 330 B.C.E. (Schmidt 1957). And it is likely that the eyes of the royal images were hacked as a symbolic statement relatingto the takingof the City of the Persiansin that siege. Certain other damage to reliefs at Persepolis, specificallyinvolving a combinationof faces,hands,andfeetof figures,is morelikelyinstead to have occurredat the time of the Arab invasions. Detail of thefigure of Darius on the rockrelief at That particularpatternof destructionconforms to Bisotun, displaying damage at the shouldersustained specificradicalreligiousbeliefsthatwouldhavebeen from a rifl!eshot. Photo by GeorgeCameron,courtesyof held by the invadersin this historicalcircumstance. the CameronArchive,KelseyMuseumofArchaeology, Similarly,archaeologicalevidence of the locations University of Michigan. where such damagewas sustainedsuggests a much laterperiod. To be sure, a close analyticalstudy of royalapproval.In that sense it mightbe considered allthe indicationsof damageon the Persepolissculpa form of damage caused by rulers (our third cat- turalremainshas not yet been undertakenandwould egory).Yet in physicaltermsplunderingarmieswho be a welcome contributionto knowledge.'6 were underorders(as the Assyrianarmyapparently Anothertype of damageinflictedon antiquities was) to destroy totallyratherthan simply to punish at the commandof rulersoccurs when the motivasymbolicallyoften caused a particularformof dam- tion is not political/religiouszeal or retaliationbut age. It tended to be massivein scale and level of inratherstems froma practicaldesire to makeuse of a discriminatedestruction. site for a new monumenteven when this may mean Damage caused by rulers is often, as we have encroachingon a more ancient preexisting monunoted, closelyassociatedwith such massivedestruc- ment.We cansee this typeof situationclearlyon sevtion inflicted by marauding armies acting in the eralrockreliefsof Iran.The SasaniankingBahramII course of warfare.The other type of ruler-initiated (r. 276-293 C.E.) seems to havebeen responsiblefor destructioninvolvesa morespecificallytargetedand erasingmostof an earlyNeo-Elamiterockreliefin orsymbolictype of action. Manyexamplesof this can derto takeadvantageof a primesectionof clifffacefor be seen throughouthistory. In ancient Egypt, the his own memorializingreliefat Naqsh-iRustamnear namesof certainpharaohsinscribedon theirmonu- Persepolis (Schmidt 1970: pls. 86-88; Ghirshman

91

SHAHROKHRAZMJOU

1962: 170). Anotherexampleis a "donationinscription"of SheikhAli KhanZanganeh,of the QajarpecenturiesC.E.), whichwas riod(eighteenth-twentieth face at to cliff added the Bisotun,seriouslydamaging a Parthianreliefcarvedthere (Ghirshman1962: 52 and pl. 64).

DAMAGE TO THE STATUE OF DARIUS: AN INTERPRETIVE INVENTORY

92

The typesof damageinflictedon the statueof Darius relate closely to severalof the scenariosdiscussed above.As noted earlier,no partof the upperthirdof the statuehasyet beenfoundat Susa.Thus one might surmisethatit had been attackedin Egypt (perhaps by Egyptianrebelsduringthe uprisingsin the reign of Xerxes,r. 486-465). This scenariowould suggest thatonce the Persianshadreassertedcontrolin Egypt (still in the reign of Xerxes), the radicallydamaged statuewasbroughtto thepalatialareaof theApadana mound at Susa. This idea is, however, not acceptable.Rebelsin a situationof this sortwould be likely much more thoroughlyto destroy a statue such as this, which casts the rulerof an occupying foreign powerin the guise of a traditionalreligiouslyinfused iconographyof kingship.Furthermore,it seems implausible that the Achaemenidswould take a royal image (with its upper third missing) all the way to Susa,exposingthe disrespectit enduredin Egyptto a heartlandaudienceincludingthe royalfamily,governmentalofficials, and visiting delegates of other lands.Such a severelydamagedmonumentmightbe broughtto Iranafterdesecrationin Egypt to be included in a treasurycollection of reveredhistorical monuments.17 But it is not conceivablethatit would be set up in this conditionas a gatewayimage. The statuemust have been brought(with great labor)by ship to Iranstill in its complete state (fig. 8).18 In my opinion, this transferwould have taken place not too long afterits creationand installation at Heliopolis.'9 Its removalto Susa seems to have taken place while Egypt was still in Achaemenid hands (before the revolts under Xerxes, when the statue surely would have been subject to destruction by local rebels). The Gate of Darius at Susa was largelyconstructedunderDarius,althoughnot

completed until the reign of Xerxes (Perrot and Ladiray1974: 51-52). As we have alreadynoted, it was plannedfromthe beginningto receivetwo statues at the western door supportedby foundations conformingto the physical support requirements of the Egyptian-madestatue.The damagesustained by the sculptureneeds to be assessed in the context of this historicalsituation. Deliberatedamageto the statueby humanhands seems to havebeen causedby threedistincttypes of violence, perhaps representingthree differentepisodes. These episodes correspondto the categories of human-inflicteddamagethat have alreadybeen outlined.In addition,otheraspectsof damagewere causedby naturalforces. Below, I discuss the damage in a postulatedchronologicalsequence. (1) Human Interventions.Manyindicationsof deliberatehuman-inflicteddamagehave been obvious since the initial discovery of the monument.They deservesystematicinterpretation,especiallybecause the classical authors tell us that Alexander of Macedonsimplywalkedinto Susaunopposedin 331 B.C.E. Unlikethe situationatPersepolis,thesesources say nothing about violent sackingand destruction. Rather,they suggesta totallypeacefulacceptanceof the inevitabilityof Macedoniantakeover.The archaeologicalrecordtells a differentstory;the statue of Dariusis partof thatstory. Multiple deep hacking marks,made by sharp tools includingone with a smallbranchedtip, canbe seen behind the left armin a verticalline extending down thepreservedlengthof the sleeve(figs. 12-13; additionalimagesat CDAFI41974:pl. XXIV).This sametype of tool was also used on the opposite side of the statue,this timealongthe edge of the sleeveat the rightwrist of the royalfigure(fig. 14; additional imagesat CDAFI4 1974: pl. XXVI, 1). The attempt to chop off the king'srighthand at the wrist (where the hackingoccursalongthe sleeve)failedto achieve this result.Nevertheless,the righthandwas partially destroyedat the frontedge in a separateeffort(figs. 15-16). Destructionof the righthand is a symbolic actof vandalism.Andit is particularly interestingthat this destructionhere removes from the right hand the short Egyptianemblematicstaff that originally protrudedfromthe clenchedfistat the front(as well

ASSESSING THE DAMAGE

FIG.

13.

Detail showing hack marks on the statue along the edgeof the left Photo by the author, courtesyof the National Museum of Iran, Tehran.

alongsleeve. tit. Photo by the

Detail of the statue showing hack marks on the right sleeveat the wrist. Photo by the author, courtesyof the Museum of ~~~~~National Iran, Tehran.

. ..... .... FIG. 12 ./

Hack marks on the statue of Darius in/ a vertical line behind the left arm along the sleeve, made bysharp tools including one with a small branched tip. Photo by the author, courtesyof the National Museum of Iran, Tehran.

-~~~~~

::..ow.' ...

15. Detail of the right hand of the statue showing destructionof thefront section of thefist. Photo by the author, courtesyof theNational Museumof Iran, Tehran. FIG.

FIG.

16.

Detail of hack marks on the right hand of the statue. Photo by the author, courtesyof theNational Museumof Iran, Tehran.

93

SHAHROKHRAZMJOU

as the back). The back end of the staffis still intact (fig. 14). Othersimilartracesof hacking,this timewith a sharp-headedtool, can be found on the daggerthat is held in placeby the king'sbelt at the midsectionof the statue(fig. 17). Interestingly,no hackingmarks of the particulartype we have been discussing are found on the inscriptions.This reinforcesthe view thatthe mainpurposeof the hackingdamagewas the physical dismantlingof the statue. The apparently symbolicallymotivatedattackon the righthandwas secondary. On the rearof the statue'sbody and base there are almost no traces of the hackingmarksor abrasions thatareapparenton manyareasof the frontof the image.This canbe explainedby the factthatthe statuewas still in its originalposition, on its stone foundationblocks, backedup againstthe wall of the Gate of Darius, when the damageto the frontwas inflicted.By contrast,both edges of the back pillar thatsupportstheimagefrombehindexhibitevidence of massivegashesproducedby blows fromthe sides while the statuewas in place againstthe wall of the gate(figs.3, 12, 14). These blows wereinflictedin a sustainedand systematicmanner.We must postulate that the attackersunderstood two competing practicalfactors:(1) that the weakeningof the back pillarwould be key to their abilityto topple or dismantlethe monument;but (2) thatdue to the superior qualityof the stone and the protected siting of the backpillar,it would be very difficultto get at it. Althoughthey did inflictdamageto the edges of the pillar, it was superficialin the sense that it did not pose a structuralthreatto the monument.These attackersdid not achieve their ultimategoal of radically breakingthe statue.The greathardnessof the granite(combinedwith the difficultangle of attack causedby thepositioningagainstthewallof thegate) defeatedthem.

94

(2) Damage by Individuals CommittingRandom Actsof Violence.Anothertypeof damageto the statue seems to havebeen producedby individualsfor the purpose of releasinghostile energy by performing randomdestructiveacts upon it. The upperpart of the statue still preservedfor analysisrevealsmuch evidence of being struckat the stomach, the arms,

andthe lefthand,whichlies alongthe torso.Some of the actions upon these areasresultedin distinctive deep linearscratchesthat end in a smallchip (figs. 18-20). Others resultedin chips at discrete single points. These types of damageare very familiarto experienced archers.Based upon my own experimentsshootingarrowsat hardstone surfaces,I have determinedthatthesemarkson the statuemusthave been caused by shooting arrowsat the statue.The scratchesending in a peak or smallpoint were producedby arrowsshot ata slightlyobliqueangle.The single discretechips were causedby arrowsshot at the statuestraighton. At some time beforethe midsection of the imagebecameburiedunderaccumulatingdebris,the statueof Dariuswas used fortarget practiceby men armedwith bows and arrows. Othertracesof scattereddamageindicateuse of a weapon largerand strongerthanan arrow.These various types of damagesuggest inflictionby light spears thrown forcefullyfrom a distanceas well as by an instrumentwith a blade,such as a sword.The lattertype of damageis especiallyvisible on the left hand(fig.21) and stomach.Undoubtedlythe perpetratorsof alltheseformsof targetpracticewereaware thattheiractivitieswould not cause seriousdamage to the statue. Rather, their intention was casual amusementin the enactmentof audaciousbehavior, displayingpublic irreverencetoward the memory of the gloryof the Persiankings.Such activitiesmust have taken place in conjunctionwith the occupation of the city by the Macedonians.The number and density of injuriesfromthis hostile targetpractice increasetowardthe upperpartof the preserved section of the statue. No doubt the action culminated at the face and head. (3) SymbolicDamage Meant to Erase Identity.We also see evidenceon the statueof Dariusof damage intentionallyinflictedas a symbolicact to erase the statue'smeaningandidentity.Alongthe pleatsof the royalrobecoveringtheforward(left)legalonginscriptionin Egyptianhieroglyphsrunsfromtop to bottom. This entiretextis in pristineconditionexceptforthe exact place at which the royalname and titularyof Dariusarewrittenwithina traditionalEgyptianroyal cartouche.At thisspota round,sharp-headed toolwas used to render a series of violent blows that left

ASSESSING THE DAMAGE

. .4 ....

:

.. . ....... . ...

18. Detail of the statue showing deepscratchesending in chips. Photo by the author, courtesyof theNational Museumof Iran, Tehran.

FIG. 17.

FIG.

Detail of the statue showing the dagger and stomach area. Photo by the author, courtesyof theNational Museumof Iran, Tehran.

,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.,, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. . .

C...

.

.:

~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

u

g M W@steeveof~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e *

Museumof Iran, Tehran. FIG. 19.2

Detail of theleftsleeveof thestatue showing deep scratchesending in chips.__d

Photobytheauthor,courtesyof the

~ ~ ~ ~ Tehran. ~ FG.21 FIG. 19. NationalMuseumofIran,

_

in

on t

f

sleeveof

the National

_ f

Tehran.

Photo by the author, courtesyof the statue theleft of hand Detail of Museum of the Tehran. National Iran, so Nga

amgne bynablade shiongldscra

95

SHAHROKHRAZMJOU

*4Z

FIG. 23 (ABOVE).

_

of the statue showing the cartoucheson the belt ties of the royal ~~~~~Detail robe.Photo by the author, courtesyof theNational Museum of Iran, Tehran. FIG. 22 (LEFT).

Radical damage to the cartoucheon thepleat of the royal robeof the statue. Photo by the author, courtesyof theNational Museum of Iran, Tehran.

96

numerousdistinctivemarks(fig.22). Despitethehardness of thestone,theseblowsdamagedthecartouche, partof the royaltitleframedby it, and the royalepithet, "livingforever."Only the last characterof the nameof Darius,representing"sh,"remainspreserved within the lower part of the cartouche.Some blows missed the cartouchecompletelyand insteadstruck the folds of the royalrobe to eitherside. There are threemorecartouchesenclosingtheroyalnameof the king on the statue(figs. 4 [inscriptionon the upper surfaceof the base], 23). These havesustainedonly a few strikes.Yet it is significantthat these royal cartouches(boththeradicallydamagedone andthethree slightlydamagedones) aretheonlyareason the entire extensivesequenceof hieroglyphictextson the statue and its base thathave receivedany human-inflicted damage.Most of these strikeswere clearlydelivered fromrightto leftata consistent45-degreeangle.This observationaboutconsistencysuggeststhatone righthanded individualwas responsiblefor the physical blows producingthisparticulardamage.

The personwho struckat the cartouchesin this symbolicmannereitherknewsomethingaboutEgyptianhieroglyphicformsand formulaehimselfor was underthe ordersof an individualwho knew the significanceof the cartoucheformatas an indicatorof royalidentification.The personagegivingthe orders would not need to have been functionallyliteratein the Egyptianhieroglyphicscript. He would simply haveneededto be ableto identifythe cartoucheforms forthe individualchargedwith inffictingthe blows. It is mostlikelythatimmediatelyafterthe takingof Susa a Macedonianin Alexander'sarmyperformedthis hostilebutessentiallysymbolicact.The entourageand armyof Alexanderinitiallycameto Susaon theireastwardmilitarypush in 331 afterhavingspent significant time in Egypt. The classical sources recount Alexander'sEgyptiansojournin somedetail,mentioning the constructionand dedicationof monumentsto Alexanderin pharaonicmodeat theTempleof Amun (e.g., Diodorus17.49-52). These testimoniaof extensive buildingactivityimmediatelyon the heels of the

ASSESSINGTHE DAMAGE

occupationareverifiedby archaeological remainsthat demonstrateEgyptianimageryput to the serviceof Alexander (e.g., Clayton 1997: 207-8; Mysliwiec 2000). Representational programsfor Alexanderincludedtheubiquitouscreationof traditionalEgyptian cartouchesembracingthe name and titularyof the Macedonianconqueror;these parallelin formatand significancethose that had been createdabout 175 yearsearlierforthePersianconquerorofEgypt:Darius I. This experiencealonewith the workingsof Egyptianpharaoniciconography(includingthe symbolic conceptof the cartouche)madethe Macedonianconquerorcapableof discerningthe politicalstatement made by the selectivedefacementof one or more of the cartouchesincludedwithin the hieroglyphicinscriptionson the statueof Dariusat Susa. Perhapsa humbleMacedonian soldierwouldnothaveunderstood thesethingsdespitehavingcometo IranfromtheEgyptiancampaign.Butawell-placedadvisorinAlexander's campwouldindeedhavebeenin a positionto encouragesuchapurposefulandinformedactofsymbolicvandalismin the nameof a leaderwho claimedforhimself thelegaciesof theAchaemenidempire.

SUMMARY OF THE SEQUENCE OF HUMAN-INFLICTED DAMAGE

The damageinflictedby targetpracticewith a bow and arrowrepresentsa formof symbolicvandalism to the statuethatis differentfrombut relatedto the type of symbolicassaulton the cartouches.In both cases, the purpose was in some sense to insult the royalimageratherthanto dismemberand dismantle it. An examinationof the edge of the statue at the waist-levelfracturesuggeststhatthemarksproduced by target-practicevandalismin this areawere made before the statue was fracturedat this place. The marksappearto be continuationsof scarringthatresultedfromblows thatstruckalongthe now-lostupper section and followed throughseamlesslyalong the section preserved at the edge of the fracture. These marksincreasein numberas theyget closerto the upper edge. This evidence indicates that the statuewas therein its entiretyduringthe Macedonian siege of Susa. Initiallythe monumentwas subjected to the two formsof symbolicvandalismwe havejust

discussed. It was only laterattacksthat aimed specificallyto dismantlethe image.If the statuehad alreadybeenbrokenintopieces,it wouldnothavebeen an enticing target for this type of vandalism. For sharpshooters,it would have been less appealing because it would have lacked the primarypsychologicalfocalareasof chest and (especially)head. For theindividualwho specificallystruckatthecartouches of Darius,theabsenceoftheuppersectionwouldsimilarlyhavemadethe statuea muchless compellingfocus of symbolicblows againsttitularyidentifiers. Consideringwhat we have observedso far,we postulatethat the varietiesof human-inflicteddamage to the statuewere perpetratedby Macedonians in a range of scenarios soon after the arrival of Alexanderat Susawith his forces.Episodes of wanton casualviolence againstthe imagein the guise of targetpracticeby bow and arrow,spear,and sword seem to have occurred while the statue was still whole. Similarly,the symbolic damage to the cartouches is likely to have occurredbefore the upper partof the statuewas brokenoff. Initialattemptsby theinvadingforcesto toppleanddismantlethe statue wereunsuccessful.By contrast,theinvadersdid succeed in the total destructionof the other sculptural elementsof the Gateof Darius. The reconstructionoffered here identifies the Macedonianinvadersof Iranas the probableperpetratorsof the multipleforms of intentionalhumaninflicteddamageseen on the statue.This opiniondiffersfromwhatothershavesuggestedin the past (notablyBoucharlat1990). Basedon the classicalhistoriansof Alexander,thereis (as alreadynoted) a generallyheld belief thatno significantdestructionoccurredwhen the Macedonianstook Susa. Diodorus (17.65.3), for instance,describesa totallypeaceful takeover: Fromtherehe [Alexander]enteredSusianewithout opposition and took over the fabulouspalace of the kings. The satrapAbuleutessurrenderedthe city to him voluntarily,and somehave writtenthat he did this in compliancewith ordersgivenby Dareiusto his trustedofficials.The kingof Persiahopedby thispolicy,it is suggested, thatAlexanderwouldbe keptbusywithdazzling distractionsand the acquisitionof brilliantcities

97

SHAHROKHRAZMJOU

andhuge treasures,while he, Dareius,won time by his flight to prepare for renewed warfare. (Welles 1963: 305) The condition of the remains of Achaemenid Susa suggests a very differentscenario. It is difficult to reconcilethe classicaltestimoniawith the archaeologicalevidenceof violentandwidespreaddestruction.It has oftenbeen pointed out thatfor such an importantroyal city of the empire, the remains of AchaemenidSusaaremeager,especiallyby comparisonwith Persepolis,where ruins of the palatial compound on the citadel platform(the Takht) are relativelyintact. Yet, for Persepolis, Diodorus and others recount the Macedonians'utterlooting and destruction-first of the palaces and other installations in the plain and ultimatelyof the citadelwith its ceremonialbuildings and its Treasury. This is not the place to explore problems of the classical sources as evidence. For the purposes of this presentation,it is simplyimportantto note thatwe cannot take these narrativestotally at face value concerning the fate of the various royal cities of the empire. We must work with the archaeologyas a primaryevidentiaryresource. The archaeologyof Susa urges that we acknowledgemassive destruction at the Gate of Darius and elsewhere on the Apadanamound.20If Diodorus's descriptionof the ravagingof Persepolis(17.70-71) had insteadbeen applied to the Apadanamound at Susa, we would not confrontsuch a difficultconflict between literary and archaeologicalevidence. His words about the fate of Persepolis actuallycapturethe archaeologicalfeel of the remnantsofAchaemenidSusaand the scenarioof rampantdestructioninflictedon the statue of Darius after all the limestone sculptures had been smashed to small pieces. Of Persepolis, Diodorus says in part:

98

Alexanderdescribedit to theMacedoniansas the most hatefulof the citiesof Asia,andgaveit over to his soldiersto plunder,all but the palaces[on the Takht]. It was the richestcity underthe sun and the privatehouses had been furnishedwith every sort of wealth over the years. The Macedonians raced into it slaughteringall the men whomtheymetandplunderingtheresidences....

The enormouspalaces fell victim to insult and utterdestruction. The Macedoniansgavethemselvesup to this orgy of plunderfor a whole day and still could not satisfytheirboundlessgreedformore. Such was theirlustforloot withalthattheyfoughtwith each otherand killedmanyof theirfellowswho had appropriateda greaterportion of it. The richestof the finds some cut throughwith their swords so that each might have his own part. Some cut offthe handsof thosewho weregrasping at disputed propertybeing driven mad by theirpassions.... As Persepolishadexceededallothercitiesin prosperity,so in thesamemeasureit now exceeds all othersin misery.(Welles1963:319, 320) Plutarch(Alexander37.2) adds an interestingscene in his descriptionof the sackingof Persepolis: Among other things,he [Alexander]happened to observea largestatueof Xerxes throwncarelessly to the ground in the confusion made by the multitudeof soldierspressinginto the palace. He stood still, and accostingit as if it had beenalive,"Shallwe,"saidhe, "neglectfully pass you by, now thatyou areprostrateon theground, because you once invaded Greece, or shall we erectyou againin considerationof the greatness of your mind and othervirtues?"But at last, after he had paused some time and silently consideredwith himself,he went on withouttaking any furthernotice of it. (Clough 1964: 218) Whether or not this episode actuallyhappened is relativelyunimportant.The passageis significantnot becauseit tellsa literallytruestorybutratherbecause it revealsa sense of how the storyof the desecration of Achaemenidroyalstatuarywas used by a classical writer.It describesa typeof event (Alexander'sencounterwith a vandalizedstatueof a Persianking). In that context, it portraysa believableidea about Alexander'sethos as a conquerortowardimagesof the Persiankings. That ethos matches what is reflected in the state of the statue of Darius at Susa. Scorn and animositycreated an environmentthat sanctionedextremeviolence.

ASSESSINGTHE DAMAGE

THE FRACTURING OF THE STATUE: DAMAGE BY MAN OR NATURE?

In my opinion the statue of Darius remainedcomplete (includingthe upperthirdthatis now missing) duringthe process of vandalismand politicallymotivateddamagethatmost plausiblyoccurredduring and immediately after the Macedonian takeover. What, then, caused the sculpture to break apart? When and why did this occur? By the time of its discovery in 1972, the statue had sufferedtwo complete breaksas well as several minor cracks runningin the same direction as the complete breaks. One of the complete breakssevers the imagebelow the knees. The other separates the upper third of the imagejust above waist level. An examinationof the breaksshows that the statue was fracturedalong two parallel,diagonallines. In both cases, as seen from a profile view, the direction of breakageran from the bottom back to the top front(CDAFI4 1974: pls. II, 1 and IV, 2). This characterizationcorrects the initial published descriptions (e.g., Kervran1972: 239). This type of break could only occur when the statue received massiveblows or other intense pressurethat could force two such clean and parallelfracturelines on a granitemonument.In theory, humanagents could have inflicted this damagewith a massive apparatus such as a batteringram.But thereare simplyno traces of the use of such an implementon the surface of the statue. Other indicationsalso speakagainstthe notion that a batteringramcaused the monumentto break apart.The statuecould not havebeen rammedwith a mechanical device from the back because it remainedin situ againstthe wall of the gate. It could not have been hit from the sides because, if it had been, it would have fallento one side or the other. Instead,thebottomtwo-thirdsof the statueremained uprightdespite the slightdisplacementof the lowest section. Rammingfrom the front is not indicated because such an action would have simplypressed the statueup againstthe gate,preventinganyserious damage.(In addition,the lack of corroboratingsurfacedamageof therelevanttypespeaksagainsta frontal assaultwith a batteringram.) If the statuewasnot batteredby themassiveforce

of a mechanicalrammingdevice, then how was it broken?There are two possible scenarios. Scenario 1: Early Interpretations.Upon discovery in 1972, the statuewas positionedat a slightincline towardtheback.The excavators initiallyproposedthat the twobreaksoccurredatdifferenttimes.The upper break,it was thought,was producedfirst,while the statueremainedexposed(notyet coveredby accumulatingearthand debris).This damagewas thoughtto havebeen producedby a blow at chestlevel. It is implied thatthe upperthirdof the statuehas totallydisappearedbecauseit wascarriedaway(orsmashedinto irretrievablesmallbits?)by its attackersafterhaving beenbrokenfromtherestofthemonument.The lower breakwas consideredto have occurredmuch later. Earthand debrisgraduallyaccumulatedaroundthe statueof Dariusandnew constructionswerebuiltup aroundit. By sometimein the Sasanianperiodit had become completelyburied. Then, somewhatlater, constructionactivityaccidentallyrevealedpartof the statue.Sometimebeforethat,whenthemonumenthad beenclearatthefrontallthewayto thefoundations,it had been tiltedbackto see whetherany treasurewas buriedunderits stonefoundationblocks(orperhaps in orderto mine the lead thatjoined the base to the foundationblocks).2'Earlyinterpretations suggested thatthe lower breakto the statuewas relatedto this shiftingof its position. Scenario1: Critique.I havealreadyrefutedthe likelihood thatthe uppermostpartof the statuewas broken off by humanagentsusing a batteringram-type device.The idea thatthe statuewas tiltedbackusing a leverof some kindin a searchforvaluablesis, however, credible.The position of the statueat the time of its excavationlends supportto such a theory(figs. 1, 24).22 We can posit that the damageto the front edge of its base occurred when a lever and other implementswere used to force the monumentupwardatthe frontedge (fig.25).23 Recentpublications havesuggestedthatwhen the statuewas tiltedup and back, soil and debris createdpressurethat broke it in bothplacesat once. This is a revisionof the initial interpretationthat the upper breakwas caused by humanattackand only the lower breakwas caused by naturalforces.24

99

SHAHROKH RAZMJOU

:4~~~~~~~~4

4., .~~~~~~~

~~~FIG.

.

25 (ABOVE). 9

*_*

*

Damage to the upper edgeof the base of the statue caused by attempts to dislodgeit. Photo by the author, courtesyof theNational Museumof Iran,

FIG. 24 (LEFT).

*1. yo

100

_under

Scenario 2: A Synthesis of New Observations. A slightlydifferenttheoryemergesfrommy analytical survey of the directionof the two parallelfractures thatsliced the statueinto threeparts.First,it is taken as a given that the statuewas indeed tilted back by humanagentsusing a lever(as describedin scenario 1 above).This activity,I suggest,occurredwhile the statue was still intact (having suffered the various mutilationsdescribedearlierbut not havingactually succumbed to the attemptsto breakit apart).The statuewould havehad to be pushed forwarda bit in orderto effectthis tilting,which could explainsome of the tracesof damageto the sides of the backpillar. My analysis indicates that after the statue was tiltedback,greatpressurewas exertedon it by naturalforcessimultaneouslyfromthe top and the back. Boththe directionof actionof the breaksandthe type of fracturingproduced supportthis idea. When the breakbelowthekneesoccurred,the entireupperpart of the statue(still intact,includingthe now-missing upper third) slipped slightly back and downward becauseof the inclinedangleof the statuecausedby the deliberatetiltingwith a lever.The backwardtilt

Frontal view of thestatue of Darius at the time of its discovery,showinghow it had tilted to its right thestressof vandalism andfalling debris. Photo courtesyofMr. AbbasEtemad.

andthe slippageof theupperpartof the statueis clear fromthe excavationphotographsand drawings. Since the statuewas close to the wall of the gate and thenwas pressedup againstit throughthe powerfulforceof the leveragethattiltedit backward,it is likelythatthewallatthebackcreatedsignificantpressure on the monument,now in this precarious,unstablesituation.Perhapslater,when the gate began to fall into total ruin, its collapsing superstructure contributedenough additionaland countervailing pressure from the top to break the statue clear throughalongthe twoparalleldiagonalfracturelines. The gatehadverythick,high brickwalls,andits roof was supportedby toweringstone columns 12 or 13 m in height. It was a structurecapableof generating a huge amountof debris.The pressurefromthis debriswould haveexacerbatedthe countervailingpressurealreadybeingexertedon the statuefromtheback by the lower wall of the gate. To test this idea, I madea smallplastermodel of the statueand submittedit to simultaneoussustained pressurefromthe top and fromthe back.The model broke into three parts along the same trajectoryof

ASSESSING THE DAMAGE

.G

27

......... .

(ABOVE)

.

.

. .. ..

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W

l

/

area at thefront of the right shoulderof the statue. Photo by ~~~~~Crushed

X

author, courtesyof theN4ationalMuseumof Iran, Tehran. ~~~~the FIG. 26 (LEFT).

a

I

Reconstruction drawing of the statue ofDarius (suggestingthe lost t ~) [ upper third) showingforces exertedin trajectoriesfroma to b by (1) fallen debrisand (2) pressurefrom leverageup and against the wall of thegate. Renderingby the author.

movement as I have proposed for the statue of Darius: two parallel diagonal fractures occurring from bottom back to top front (fig. 26). The angle of the fractures and the support of the strong wall and debris behind the statue kept the two lower sections in place (with only minor shifting) from the time of the breaks until 1972. The wall (working against the angle at which the levering up of the statue left it vulnerable) exerted part of the pressure that ultimately caused its fracturing.At the same time, however, it helped protect the monument from any further damage in its final broken state. The fate of the uppermost section of the statue remains as much a mystery in scenario 2 as it does in scenario 1. The upper third of the original statue was clearly removed at some point after the fracturing by natural causes. It is difficult to establish the cause of the crushed area at the right shoulder just at the edge of the upper break (fig. 27). It may have been the result of rough handling when the upper third was removed from the rest of the statue. The upper part must have been taken to another location to be reused as raw material. Otherwise some

evidence of it would have been found during excavations and subsequent search operations on the Apadanamound (Perrotand Ladiray1997: 75-76). It is only remotely possible that such fine stone would have been thrown into the riverratherthan reused somewhere. The missing fragment,which must weigh about two tons, mayhave remainedfor a while at some corner of the site but was clearly laterremoved from that location.

SUMMARY

The inferencesmadeaboveabouthow the breaksin the statue occurredare interestingadditions to the historyof its demise.Butthe mostimportantelement is theaffinnationthattheactualfracturingof the statue was not causedby deliberatehumanintentionto destroy it. The massiveradicaldamage(the complete severing of the statue along two parallel diagonal breakagepoints) was causedby the naturaleffectsof extraordinary pressure.This fracturingwas unintentionallyaidedby the greateffortof leveringthe statue

101

SHAHROKHRAZMJOU

up at the frontand tippingit backto searchbeneath it. At thattime,theupperpartof the statuemusthave been carriedoff (probablyfor reuse as construction material).This finalchapterin the story took place long afteranymemoryof the politicalmeaningof the Egyptianizingimage of an ancientking would have remainedalive.By contrast,the intentionaleffortsto deface and defile the monument occurred several centuriesearlier.Bearingwitness to devastationinflictedat Susain 331 andthereafter,theseeffortstella very differentstory of the natureof Alexander'sencounterstherethanthatofferedby theclassicalsources. This revisionto thehistoryaccordswithnewevidence emergingfromthefieldatSusaandfromongoingstudies of additionalartifactsretrievedearlier.D-

Notes The presentpaperis a significantlyupdatedand expandedversion of anarticlein Persian(Razmjou2001). I renderedthetranslation into Englishwith the editorialcollaborationof Margaret Cool Root. From there, much expanded argumentationand documentationproceeded. I am gratefulto ProfessorRoot for stimulatingcollegial dialogue and feedbackon issues of substance as well as on editorialmatters.The opinions expressed areentirelymy own, and I assumefull responsibilityfor any errors.The originalarticlein Persianupon whichthepresentwork buildswas basedon researchundertakenformy lectureentitled "The Statueof Darius:HistoricalBackground,Inscriptions,and Conclusions,"deliveredin February1999 at the NationalMuseum of Iran, as well as a presentationspecificallyon the destructionof the statuepresentedto the seminaron "FrenchArchaeologicalResearchin Iran,"held at the museumin conjunction with an exhibitionin October2001. 1. The statueis now in the NationalMuseumof Iran,Tehran: inventorynumber4112. 2. The preliminarypublicationsof the monumentare Kervran 1972; Stronach1972; Vallat1972; and Yoyotte 1972.

102

3. A group of studies offeringmore in-depth analysisthan the 1972 collection appears in Cahiers de la Dele'gationArche'ologiqueFranfaiseen Iran (CDAFI)4 (1974). On the archaeology, Perrotand Ladiray.On the texts, Vallat;Yoyotte. On the identificationof the stone, Trichet and Poupet. On selected descriptiveand iconographicalfeaturesof the statue,Stronach; Roaf. Since then, the date within the reign of Darius I and the

formalfeaturesof the statuehavebeen discussedfurther,and its iconographicalprogramhas been contextualizedin termsof its complex relationto ideological constructsof the Achaemenid empire (Root 1979: 68-72, 131-61). See now also Calmeyer 1991: 285-303; Luschey 1983: 191-206; Muscarella1992: 219-21. 4. Partof this text (knownas DSab) is renderedin Englishand placedin the contextof Darius'sotherinscriptionsfromSusain Potts 1999: 327. 5. This motif, contextualizedas part of an Achaemenidsculpturalprogrampresentinga coherentimperialideology, was initiallycharacterizedin Root 1979: 131-61, elaboratedin Root 1990, and summarizedin Root 1995. 6. E.g., on the originalcentralpanels of the Apadana(formerly known as the TreasuryReliefs),on doorjambsof the Palaceof Darius,and on the upper panels of doorjambsof the northand southdoors of the Hallof One HundredColumnsofArtaxerxes I (Schmidt 1953: pls. 121-23, 138-41, and 98-99, 105-6, respectively). 7. I am currentlyworkingon an articleon this topic, tentatively entitled"The Statueof Darius:PossibleReconstructionsof the MissingSection." 8. E.g., Stronach1972: 242; Briant1996: 229,492; Perrotand Ladiray1997: 74. Root (1979: 71) notes evidenceof some column bases from Susa made of Egyptianpink granitethat was presumablyshipped in enormous blocks of raw materialfor workingon site in Iran. But she also opts for the idea that the statueof Dariuswas madein Egypt. 9. Even on exposed surfacesof architecturalreliefs,one can see some areasleftunfinished,as tabulatedin Tilia 1968. Concerning areasnot visible, I have,for instance,observedthatsome of the animalprotomecapitalson the PersepolisTakht retainunfinishedpassagesbehind the neck. 10. In fact,when the statueof Dariuswas firstdiscovered,it was assumed,basedon appearancealone(priorto scientificanalysis), to havebeen carvedof thislocalZagroslimestone,which is used forcolumns,columncapitals,andreliefsat Susa.It is worthnoting thatthe closest Zagrossourcesfor the "local"limestoneare about50 kmdistantfromSusa.See TrichetandVallat1990:205. 11. Root 1979: 112-23 and pl. XXXIb (compareon pl. XVIb the hero relief type from the Palaceof Darius that could have been translatedinto a freestandingheroic image).See Luschey (1983) for elaborationof this idea. 12. Unlike granite(with its rounded veins), the Zagroslimestone is characterizedby linearveins thatmakeit vulnerableto fracture.Graniteis a rockformedmainlyof quartz(mohs hardness of 7) and feldspar(mohs hardnessof 6). Limestoneis less hard.

ASSESSINGTHE DAMAGE

13. The complete statuemust haveweighed about 5 tons complete (Trichet and Vallat1990: 205). 14. Remnantsof stone columnbases inscribedby Darius'sson and successor,Xerxes, were discoveredin the debrisand serve to date the structureto a late Dariusinitiation,with work completed by the heir. But these remainswere not still in situ and show thatin factthe columnshad been brokenup. 15. For rifledamageto windowjambreliefsin the Hadish (Palace of Xerxes), see Schmidt 1953: pl. 187 A. 16. Severalstudies of ancientNear Easternmaterialshow the significance of such a project (e.g., Nylander 1980; Bahrani 1995; Reade 2000). 17. Fora discussionof the damagedMesopotamianmonuments collected at Susa, see Amiet and Harper1992. 18. It would have been transportedvia the Nile through the canal constructed by Darius leading to the Red Sea, then up the PersianGulf to the KarounRiver,and thence close to Susa (Trichet and Vallat 1990: 206-7; Perrot and Ladiray 1997: 74). 19. Perrotand Ladiray(1974: 52-53) suggestedthatthe statue mighthavebeen placed at the Gateof Dariusaround490 (with the planningof the structureand its foundationemplacements havingalreadytakenplace earlierin the reign of Darius).Hinz (1975: 120-2 1) proposed thatXerxes would have broughtthe statueto Susa in orderto salvageit once Egypthad revolted.It does not seem likely to me thathe would have been able to do this once the revoltwas underway. 20. For example,we callattentionto a fragmentof a stone foundation tabletfrom Susa with an inscriptionof Darius I, found by the Frenchmission and rediscoveredby the authorin storage at the NationalMuseumof Iranduringthe establishmentof the Tablet Room (inventorynumberpending). On this artifact, tracesof hackingmarksmade duringthe smashingprocess are clearlyvisible. The text on this fragmenthas been introduced into the inventoryof Old Persianinscriptionsby Steve (1987: 55, fig. 44 and 58, fig. 46) as DSe. Other examplesof deliberately mutilatedAchaemenidartifactshave now been found in excavationsconducted by Mir Abedin Kaboliand his team at Susa. I thankMr. Kabolifor sharingwith me unpublishedinformationon recentlyretrievedarchaeologicalevidence of the violent destructionof AchaemenidSusa. 21. The photographstakenat the timeof discoveryclearlyshow this titledposition. See CDAFI4 1974: pl. II, 1. The initialinterpretationof the breaksappearsin Kervran(1972: 238-39, fig.2). 22. See Kervran(1972: fig. 2) for a diagramshowing the displacementof the foundationblock and the tiltingof the statue visible at the time of its discovery.

23. The excavators,Monique Kervranand Jean Perrot,have reiterated(pers.com.) the theoryof deliberatetiltingof the statue in searchof a foundationdeposit. 24. Perrotand Ladiray(1974: 50; 1997: 75-76) suggest that the pressureof the soil anddebrisaroundthe statue,ratherthan human agency, createdboth breaks.Bourcharlat(1990: 230) once emphasizedmoregenerallythathe saw no evidenceof deliberate(human)destructionon theApadanamound.On the basis of the new evidencefromthe site, he has alteredthis opinion.

WorksCited Amiet, Pierre, and Prudence 0. Harper. 1992. "The MesopotamianPresence:MesopotamianMonumentsFound at Susa."In P. 0. Harper,J. Aruz, and F. Tallon, eds., The RoyalCityof Susa:AncientNear Eastern Treasuresin the Louvre,159-82. New York:MetropolitanMuseumofArt. Bahrani,Zainab. 1995. "Assaultand Abduction:The Fate of the Royal Image in the Ancient Near East."Art History 18:363-82. Baines,John,andJaromirMalek.1996. AtlasofAncientEgypt. Oxford:AndromedaOxfordLtd. Bianchi,Robert S. 1995. "AncientEgyptianReliefs, Statuary, and MonumentalPaintings."InJ. M. Sasson,J. Baines,G. Beckman,and K. S. Rubinson, eds., Civilizationsof the AncientNear East, vol. 4:2533-54. New York: Charles Scribner'sSons. Bothmer,Dietrich.1960. EgyptianSculptureof theLatePeriod: 700 B.C. to A.D. 100. New York:BrooklynMuseum. Boucharlat,R6my.1990. "Lafindes palaisachemeniclsde Suse: Une mort naturelle."In F. Vallat, ed., Contributions2 l'histoirede l'Iran. Melangesoffertsa'jean Perrot, 22533. Paris:EditionsRecherchesur les Civilisations. Briant, Pierre. 1996. Histoire de l'empireperse de Cyrus a Alexandre.Paris:Fayard. Brinkman,JohnA. 1991. "Babyloniain the ShadowofAssyria." CambridgeAncientHistory, vol. 3.2:1-70. London and New York:CambridgeUniversityPress. Calmeyer, Peter. 1991. "Agyptischer Stil und reichsachaimenidischeInhalteaufdem Sockel der Dareios-statueaus Susa/Heliopolis." In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburgand A. Kuhrt,eds., Asia Minorand Egypt:OldCulturesin a New Empire, 285-303. Achaemenid History 6. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. CDAFI= Cahiersde la DelegationArche'ologique Fran(aise en Iran Clayton,PeterA. 1997. Chronicleof thePharaohs:'TheReignby-ReignRecordof the Rulersof the Dynasties of Ancient Egypt.New York:Thames and Hudson. Clough, ArthurHugh. 1964. Plutarch:Eight GreatLives. The Dryden TranslationRevisedbyArthurHugh Clough,ed. A. Robinson,Jr.New York:Holt, Rinehart,andWinston.

103

SHAHROKHRAZMJOU

1o~

Ghirshman,Roman. 1962. Iran: Partheset Sassanides.Paris: Gallimard. Herrenschmidt,Clarisse.1977. "Lescreationsd'Ahuramzda." Studia Iranica 6:17-58. Hinz, Walther. 1975. "Darius und der Suezkanal."ArchaeologischeMitteilungenaus Iran 8:115-21. Ibn-eBalkhi.1363 A.H. TheFars-Nameh,ed. G. Le Strangeand R. A. Nicholson (in Persian). Tehran: Donyaye Ketab, 1984. Kervran,Monique. 1972. "Une statuede Dariusdecouvertea Suse: Le context archeologique." Journal Asiatique 260:235-39. Luschey, Heinz. 1983. "Die Darius-statueaus Susa und ihre Mitteilungenaus Iran Rekunstruktion."Archaeologische suppl. 10:191-206. Mecquenem, Roland de. 1938. "The Achaemenidand Later Remainsat Susa."In A. U. Pope, ed., A Surveyof Persian Art, vol. 1:321-29. London and New York:Oxford UniversityPress;Tehran:ManafzadehGroup. 1947. "Contributiona l'etudedu palaisachemenidede Suse."Mimoiresde la Dedgation Perse31:1-119. Muscarella,OscarWhite. 1992. "Sculpture."In P. 0. Harper, J. Aruz, and F. Tallon, eds., TheRoyal Cityof Susa:AncientNear EasternTreasuresin theLouvre,219-21. New York:MetropolitanMuseumof Art. Mysliwiec, Karol.2000. The Twilight of AncientEgypt:First MillenniumB.C.E., trans.D. Lorton. Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress. Nylander, Carl. 1980. "Earless at Nineveh: Who Mutilated 'Sargon's' Head?" American Journal of Archaeology 84:329-33. Perrot,Jean, and Daniel Ladiray.1974. "Laporte de Dariusa Suse." CDAFI4:43-56. --. 1997. "La porte de Darius a Suse." Iran: La persede 227. Cyrus2 Alexandre,72-77. Dossiersd'Arche'ologie ofElam:Formationand Potts,DanielT. 1999. TheArchaeology Transformationof an AncientIranian State. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Razmjou,Sharhrokh.2001. "Hackingthe Statue:An Analytical Studyof the Damageson the EgyptianStatueof Darius the Greatfrom Susa" (in Persian).Archaeologyand History 14:3-10. Reade,Julian.2000. "Restructuringthe AssyrianSculptures." In R. Dittmann, B. Hrouda, U. L6w, P. Matthiae, R. Mayer-Opificius, and S. Thiirwichter, eds., Variatio Delectat: Iran und der Westen.GedankschriftfiirPeter Calmeyer,607-25. Miinster:Ugarit-Verlag. Roaf, Michael. 1974. "The SubjectPeoples on the Base of the Statueof Darius."CDAFI4:73-160. Root, Margaret Cool. 1979. The King and Kingship in AchaemenidArt:Essayson the Creationof an Iconography of Empire.Acta Iranica19. Leiden:E.J. Brill. --. 1990. "Circlesof ArtisticProgramming:Strategiesfor StudyingCreativeProcessat Persepolis."In A. C. Gunter, ed., Investigating Artistic Environmentsin the Ancient Near East, 115-39. Washington,D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution.

1995. "Artand Archaeologyof the AchaemenidEmpire." In J. M. Sasson, G. Beckman,J. Baines, and K. S. Rubinson,eds., Civilizationsof theAncientNearEast, vol. 4:2627-30. New York:CharlesScribner'sSons. Scheil, Vincent. 1929. Inscriptions des Achemenides2 Suse. Memoiresde la DelegationPerse 21. Schmidt,ErichF. 1953. PersepolisI:Structures,Reliefs,Inscriptions.OrientalInstitutePublications68. Chicago:University of ChicagoPress. --. 1957. PersepolisII: The Contentsof the Treasuryand OtherDiscoveries.OrientalInstitutePublications69. Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress. --.1970. PersepolisIII: TheRoyalTombsand OtherMonuments. OrientalInstitutePublications70. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. Shaw, Ian, and Nicholson, Paul. 1995. BritishMuseumDictionary of AncientEgypt.London:BritishMuseum. Steve, Marie-Joseph.1987. Nouveauxmelangesepigraphiques: inscriptionsroyalesde Suseet de la Susiane. Memoiresde la DelegationPerse 53. Stronach,David. 1972. "Descriptionand Comment."3rournal Asiatique260:241-46. --.1974. "Lastatuede Dariusle Granddecouvertea Suse." CDAFI4:61-72. Tilia, Ann Britt. 1968. "A Study on the Methods of Working and RestoringStone and on the PartsLeft Unfinishedin AchaemenianArchitectureand Sculpture."Eastand West 18:67-95. --. 1978. Studiesand Restorationsat Persepolisand Other Sites of Fars 2. Istituto italianoper il medio ed estremo oriente, Reports and Memoirs 18. Rome: Istituto per il medio ed estremooriente. Trichet,Jean,andPierrePoupet. 1974. "E-tudepetrographique de la roche constituantla statue de Darius decouvertea Suse en decembre1972." CDAFI4:57-59. Trichet,Jean,andFran ois Vallat.1990. "L'origineegyptienne de la statue de Darius."In F. Vallat,ed.,Contributions2 l'histoirede l'Iran. Melangesofferts&aean Perrot,205-8. Paris:EditionsRecherchesur les Civilisations. Vallat, Francois. 1972. "L'inscription cuneiforme trilingue (DSab)."journal Asiatique260:247-51. --. 1974. "Les textes cuneiformesde la statuede Darius." CDAFI4:161-70. Welles, C. Bradford.1963. Diodorusof Sicily, BooksXVI.6695andXVII. Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress; London:WilliamHeinemannLtd. Yoyotte,Jean.1972. "Lesinscriptionshieroglyphiques.Darius et l'Egypte."3ournal Asiatique260:254-66. 1974. "Lesinscriptionshieroglyphiquesde la statuede Darius."CDAFI4:181-83. --.

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

The Ethnicity Name Game: What Lies behind "Graeco-Persian"? Author(s): Jennifer E. Gates Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 105-132 Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629594 Accessed: 01/02/2009 09:11 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

JENNIFER

The What

E.

GATES

Ethnicity Lies

Name behind

Game:

"Graeco-Persian".?

ABSTRACT

The idea thata group'scohesiveidentity(its ethnicity)will be reflectedin and discerniblethroughthe stylisticidiosyncrasiesof its visualculturehaslong beencentralto the arthistoricalandarchaeological approach.This is, however,a problematicpremise. Style cannotbe linked productivelyto ethnicitywithout a direct social contextthatcan characterizethe natureof the populationgroupat issue and provide cues to possible versionsof meaning.The persistentandtortureduse of theterm"Graeco-Persian style"is aprime exampleof difficultiescausedby the approach-especiallywhen it is deployed within a narrow and predetermined eurocentric worldview.Inventedby a classicistat the beginningof the twentieth century,the termhas continuedto exerttremendousinfluence on scholarshipdespite its serious flaws, even on the level of describingwhat it is intendedto signifyvisually.It has servedto describe and explain collections of predominantlyunprovenanced seals produced in the Achaemenidempirein termsof theirimagined relationsto a notionallypure Greekidiom. Here analysisof securelycontextualizedseal impressionsfromthe PersepolisFortificationandTreasuryarchivesexcavatedin theAchaemenidheartland capitalhighlightsthe problematicnatureof assumptionsbehind the term"Graeco-Persian." In particular,PT4 866, a claylabel from the PersepolisTreasuryarchivebearingimpressionsof six discreteseals, is examinedto illustratethe valueof focusingon contextualizedartifactsin discussionsof stylisticvariabilityin imperialglypticproductionand use. Style,we find, was one element in a tool kit for communicatinga fluid notion of identity in the Achaemenidempire.Relationshipsthatemergesuggestthe significanceof a morenuancedconceptof the linkagesbetweenstyleand identity.A notionof situational,ratherthanethnic,identitybecomes a key elementin this imperialmilieu. 105

ArsOrientalis, volume XXXII (2002)

JENNIFER E. GATES

io6

~

~

~

.u

iE

1|

1

|SS_..

FIG. 1.

impression of the seal of Gobryas,PFS 857s (ca. 3:1), applied to PersepolisFortification tablet 688, showing two lions attacking a stag. PFS 85 7s usage date: in 499 B.C.E. Photo courtesyof M. B. Garrison, M. C. Root, and the Persepolis Seal Project.

THE ETHNICITYNAMEGAME

I share with Robert Byron his inability to be moved by thesejolies laidesat any humanlevel, in the way thatmost of us can be moved by the varietyanddramaof the Assyrianreliefs,or mesmerizedby the eleganceof Egyptianand Orientalart,and even no littleaffectedby Greekartof the High Classicalperiod ... [which]led to the creationof what long proved to be an adequate workingidiom for the westernworld. Boardman2000: 225 A

RCHAEOLOGICAL/ART HISTORICAL

en-

counters with an ancient artifacttypically strive to determine what it really was: by whom it was created and used, what it was destined

to mean and to whom, when and underwhat set of conditions it operated. The productive pursuit of such an inquiry requires some kind of cultural framework within which to situate the object, a framework

that facilitatesassessmentof its relationships.Style is an important factor in such an analysis. But it needs to be evaluated according to rigorous standards of visual categorization of forms and techniques of pro-

duction. Evenwhen stylisticanalysisof an artifactis practiced according to carefully posed criteria, its results are of limited diagnostic value for understanding anything about culture if the artifact and its typologized stylistic qualities are viewed in isolation from its relational conditions. Indeed, cultural inquiry is ill-served when an artifactis analyzed accord-

ing to flawedanalyticalcriteriaof style,isolatedfrom relational conditions, and subjected to an investigative approach driven by a predetermined mindset. This three-pronged handicap pertains in the case of a class of largely unprovenanced artifacts of the Achaemenid Persian empire: seals in the so-called Graeco-Persian style. The historiography of the term "Graeco-Persian" reveals its serious flaws as a construct. Following a selective review of these problems and a critique of the premises about ethnicity embedded in some of the most influential literature on the topic, I shall propose an alternative approach to analysis of culturally fluid glyptic styles in the

Achaemenidempire.

THE NAME GAME-PROBLEMATIC TERMS OF DISCOURSE

Before diving headlong into this paper, I nmustlay issues.In thediscourseabout outa fewterminological Graeco-Persianstyle several key terms have been used so loosely as to be obfuscatory.In much of the scholarshipquoted and discussedhere, "Persia"is, forinstance,used vaguelyto referto theAchaemenid Persianempire.Properly,"Persia"refersspecifically to Parsa(now Fars),the region of the modernstate of Iranwhere the sites of Persepolisand Pasargadae are located-the seat and heartlandof the AchaemenidPersianempire.The empire,by contrast,encompassed many geographic regions whose local materialculturescannotproperlybe called"Persian" no matterhow infusedwith heartlandPersianstinmulus throughthe processesof empire.By the sametoken, a Persianperson(a "Persian")is properlysomeone affiliatedwith Persiaeitherby blood ties to the Persiansor by acquiredsociopoliticalidentity.' The adjective"Persian"is frequentlyused to characterizeofficial imperial manifestations.The the shouldproperlycharacterize term"Achaemenid" and of the projects official imperial art, ideology, empire(Root 1979). "Achaemenidart"does nothave to havebeen producedin or even for the heartland. Nor does it necessarilyhaveto lookformallythe same as the court sculpturaltraditionwe are accustomed to consideringfromtheheartlandroyalcities.A good exampleof this fluidityis the statueof Dariusexcavated at Susa. It was originallymade in and for an Egyptiancontext, and many of its formalelements workwith Achaemenidiconographicaltraditionsin anEgyptianmodeof presentation(Razmjou,thisvolume). But it is certainlyAchaemenidart. It would qualifyas Achaemenidart even if it had been excavated at Heliopolis ratherthan Susa, for it was produced in serviceof the imperialmessage.It could be so even if the inscriptiondid not specificallyinvoke the nameof the kinghimself. Additionalcomplexitiesemergewhenwe look to in theserviceof regionalsatrapal visualmanifestations courtsof theempire.Thesephenomenamustbe evaluatedon a case-by-casebasis,ashasnow beendone for 107

JENNIFERE. GATES

io8

Sardis(Dusinberre1997b;2003). Someaspectsofthe regionalrecord are part of the officialAchaemenid programintendedforwidespreadconsumption.Other of ideas madepromiaspectsreflecttransformations nentby theAchaemenidprogram-buttranslated into an arrayof formaland iconographicalvariantsbased upon localpredilections.In casesof this lattersort,it is clearestto deploy the term"artof the Achaemenid empire"ratherthan"Achaemenidart." Evenmorecomplexitiesbecomeapparentwhen we look to visual cultureproduced for individuals across the vast empire:individualsacting (in their aestheticandidentitypreferences)essentiallyon their own behalfratherthanas high-levelrepresentatives of theimperialproject.By studyingsealsknownthrough impressionson informativearchivesof tabletsandlabels,we canfrequentlyidentifyindividualsas specific personalitiesand observethemcloselyin connection withtheirseals.How, forinstance,do we characterize a sealclearlycommissionedasapersonalaccouterment by a demonstrablyPersianindividual? The seal of Gobryas (PFS 857s), preserved through an impression on tablet PF 688 of the Persepolis Fortificationtablets, is an excellent exampleof the dilemmasinherentin the ethnicityname game(fig. 1). The Fortificationtabletsarean archive of administrative documentsexcavatedatPersepolis, dating between 509 and 494 B.C.E. in the reign of DariusI. PFS 857s is a largestampseal bearingthe image of two lions attackinga stag. The man who used it on PF 688 was a memberof an elite Persian family.Herodotusmentionshimas a close friendand collaboratorof Darius and also as the fatherof the general Mardonius, who led Darius's invasion of mainlandGreece. Herodotus also describes close family ties: Gobryas's daughter was married to Darius,and Darius'ssisterwas marriedto Gobryas. Darius himselfrefersto Gobryason his Bisituninscription.The kingalsosinglesout Gobryasby name with an accompanyingsculpturalrepresentationas the spear-bearerof the king.2 We know that PFS 857s was used on a day in 499 B.C.E. in Persepolis,the heartof theAchaemenid empire. We also know something of the circumstances under which Gobryasused this particular seal. He was moving between two locationswithin Persia-within the Persepolisadministrative region-

carryinga sealeddocumentof the king.Whatwe do notknowis thenameor thedeclaredkinshipethnicity of the artistwho produced it. Should this seal be called de facto "Persian"art because we (wonderfully)happento know thatthe ownerwas an ethnic Persianby kinship group and an individualwhose Persiannesswas declaredin monumentalreference to himon the tombof his king?Or shouldit be called "Achaemenid art" because the individual was a highlyplacedpersonagewithinthe empirewho used it while travelingon businessforthe king?Gettingto the critical point in the debate: Do the solidly groundedanswersto eitherof thesequestionschange utterlyif the seal in question does not lookparticularly "Persian"or "Achaemenid"-especially to a scholarof classicalart? PFS857s hasrecentlybeencalled"virtually early Graeco-Persian"(Boardman2000: 166). This estimationof its "look"avoidsworkingwith NearEasternbackdropsforstyleandcompositionandfocuses narrowlyon traditionallyaccepted conventions of stylisticcategories,which themselvesarefocusedon hegemonicconstructsof the superiorityof Greektradition. Furthermore,the estimation of the seal's "look" as an uncomplicated determinant of the Greeknessof the artifactin a social sense (and the dominanceof Greeknessas an aestheticvalue)is suspect. Art commissionedby individuals(even highly placedofficialsof the empire)is subjectto manyvariables, we shall find. Unofficial(in the sense of personallycommissioned)art of this sort served a different(but not necessarilyoppositional)set of social demands than Achaemenid art strictly speaking. Given the torturedsenses of the term"Graeco-Persian,"does this namingassist any understandingof what PFS 857s representsas an artifactused within the Achaemenidempire? In order to embracethese complexitiesmeaningfully,we need to reimaginethe imperialproject in which individualssuch as Gobryasand others of varyingsocialstatureweresituated.In culturalterms, as we probe layersof artproductionin this milieu, we should retirethe rigiditiesof the center-periphery model of empire.When we discuss culturalimplications of art used by people in the empire (as opposed to Achaemenid art), perhaps we should imagine a vast and diverse project that allowed/

THE ETHNICITYNAMEGAME

a kindof meteorologically encouraged/sustained modeled hegemony:a polity of weathersystems-separatephenomenacomposedof uniquegeographicand historical influences but ultimately bumping up against other entities responding to larger atmospheric forces in common. These polysemous regional and individualizedphenomenaexisted separate from, but influenced by, the official arts (Achaemenidart).Their relationto Achaemenidvisual and societal norms was entwined with many other factors.The challengeis how to encapsulate such a complex situationwhen we wish to speakof its manifestationsin visualculture. The periodof theAchaemenidempire(ca. 550330 B.C.E.) was a pivotalmomentin the culturalhistory of westernAsia and the GreaterMediterranean more broadly.This is true not only in termsof the sheer political and military achievement of the Achaemenidrulersand the unificationof a diverse and vast empirebut also with regardto the way this criticalmomenthasbeenconstructedasparadigmatic of a "culturalclash"between"Persian"and "Greek" (Hartog 1988; Hall 1989; Cartledge1993). In this exerciseof polarization,moreproblemsof terminology emerge.We have alreadydealt brieflywith the problemof the term"Persian."How is "Greek"used within the discourse of ethnic/cultural hybridity manifestin theAchaemenidempireandencapsulated in the discourseon Graeco-Persian? The tendencyto speakof loniansandLydiansas well as mainlandGreeksas simply"Greeks"contributes to thatsenseof Greek-Persian polarizationthatis such a tropein the scholarship.The collapsedterminologyalsoreflectsandcontributesto a generaltrend to appropriate, hegemonicallyanduncritically,aspart of a notionalGreeknessanyculturalmanifestation that seemsusefulfora givenprojectin thehistoryof Greek art. This appropriation as "Greek" of arenas of multiculturalinteractionthatare,fromthe mid-sixth centurydown throughthe fourthcentury,partof the situationalcontextof the Achaemenidempireandits immediateaftermathcontributesto the mutingof the empireas a culturalphenomenon.3 The realities of "Greekness" were complex enough without any need to gatherunto it the cultural intricacies of the western reaches of the Achaemenidempire.WesternAnatoliahad been in-

fusedwith Hellenicmanifestationsby colonistsfrom the Greekmainlandduringa long and sporadicperiod of emigrationfrom the eleventh through the ninth centuries (Boardman 1980; Graham 1982; 2001; Cook 1982;Descoeudres1990;Murray1993; Tsetskhladzeand De Angelis 1994). These groups of settlersfoundednew citiesamongestablishedculturalgroupswith theirown traditions,includingthe Carians, Lydians, Lycians, and Hellespontine Phrygians.Ultimately,these regions were heavily influencedby mainlandGreeceand its own diverse traditionsresulting from colonial encounter. [t is importantto remember,however,thatthe variously Hellenizedregionsof westernAnatoliacontinuedto possess distinctive culturalcharacteristicsof their own, separatedfrommainlandGreeceby centuries of independentexistenceand subjectto the continued influencesof indigenoustraditionsandmultiple externalculturalinteractionsaswell(Dunbabin1957; Mitchell1993). Despite these complexities,western Anatoliais oftencomfortablydescribedas "Greek"or "Hellenized"asif thiswerein itselfa one-dimensional description.Encountersbetweenpeoples emanating fromtheAchaemenidimperialheartlandancdpeoples in westernAnatoliathusbecomeessentializedas culturalclashesbetweenGreekand Persian. The term"Graeco-Persian" will be seen to play a crucialrole as an emblemof theseproblenms and as an agent in theirperpetuation.Adding to the difficulties, the term is particularlyassociatedwith the notionof a specificart"style"(orgroupingof related styles) as manifestedon "gems."Both of these last termsare also loaded in the discoursewe are about to probe. "Style"is used ratherindiscriminatelysometimesseeming to indicate specifics of carving technique,sometimesparticularaspectsof line and modeling,sometimesspecificelementsof themeand iconography, sometimes aspects of composition, sometimesa kind of "spirit."It should be clear already that as a collective analyticalterm, "GraecoPersianstyle"is so ambiguouson so manylevelsthat it is an impedimentratherthanan aid to currentexplorations of the processes of culture within the Achaemenidempire. Use of the term"gems"(or "gemstones")to describe intaglio-carvedstone artifactsdisplayingimages in "the Graeco-Persianstyle" exacerbatesthe

109

JENNIFERE. GATES

analyticalproblems."Gems"suggestspieces ofjewelry created and worn for their value as things of beauty,status,personalenhancement,and perhaps magicalagencies. It does not suggest an item that might also be used as an administrativetool, marking transactionsor ownershipby creatingimpressions in clay. It may be thatsome signet rings once worn by people in Greecewere rarelyif everused as sealing tools. But we have abundantevidence that manysuchitemswereindeedused to sealdocuments and commodities across the Achaemenid empire. The persistent use of the term "gems"in the discourse on Graeco-Persianseals dissociatesthis materialfrom the very contexts of functionalitywhere we shallbe able to find relieffromthe circularargumentationof a centuryof scholarship.The samecriticism applies to the term "seal stones" or "stones" used so oftenin the discourseon Graeco-Persianart.

ETHNIC NAMING: A DRIVING FORCE IN THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF GRAECO-PERSIAN4

110

TheDominant Paradigm throughthe 1970s. Adolf Furtwangler(1903: 116-26) was the firstto articulate a set of core characteristicsthathaveformedthe backdropfor scholarshipon Graeco-Persianseals. His goalwas to classifythe manyavailablesealstones fromregionsunder the purviewof the Achaemenid empire.These sealswerealmostexclusivelyunprovenanced. He identifiedtwo groups:"Persisch"and "Griechisch-Persisch." Evenhis "Persisch"category was definedas a mix of Orientaland archaicGreek elements(Furtwangler1903: 117). His "GriechischPersisch"categorycircumscribeda groupthatin his view bore an almostcompleteresemblanceto Greek art, except for a primitive, mannered stiffness (Furtwangler1903: 116ff.).5 This perceivedresemblance led him to prioritize(throughword order) Greekelementsover Orientaland to tip the scalesin favorof a Greekheritagefor the objects.He claimed them for the Hellenistby proposing that they were produced by Greek artisanswho were simply employed by Persianpatrons. This earlyanalysisset the agendaforgenerations of mainstreamscholarswith only a few dissenting voices (see "AlternativeandAlternatingVoices"be-

low). In 1946, Gisela Richtercataloguedthe many elements of Persian art (by which she meant Achaemenidart in that context) that she believed found theiroriginsin Greekconventions.For Richter, very little of Achaemenidart was not Greekin origin.The only non-Greekelementsof this monumentalcourtartwere, she proposed, the costumes... the accoutrements,the typesof the figures,and the compositionarenot Greek; and above all the theme-an Orientalpotentate with his subjectsand tributaries,repeatedad infinitum-is farremovedfromGreekconceptions. (Richter1946: 23) Almostall the detailsof carving,conventionsof figure and drapery,as well as "the delicacy of the work and the lightness of touch in many of the Achaemenianproducts"were,by contrast,"typically Greek."Some of it was even "pureGreek"(emphasis mine). Richter believed that Greek artists "adaptedtheir style in varyingdegrees to local requirements"(1946: 28) but neverthelessleft a distinct callingcardin the feelingof theirwork (1946: 23). She describedtheirposition thus: Greeksthere [in Persia]workeddirectlyfor the "kingof kings."They were in a subordinateposition and had to accommodatethemselvesto rigorous rules, which demanded stereotyped forms.... Moreover,the Greekartistsnot only workedside by side with Orientals,but hadperhapsthemselveslivedin the Orientforsometime ...

and so had become imbued with Oriental

conceptions.(Richter1946: 30) The mention of Ionian artisansin a late sixthcenturyinscriptionby DariusI (DSf) fromSusaand some figuralgraffitiin a presumablyGreekstyle at Persepoliswere harnessedby Richterand othersto the taskof provingthatGreekartistswere regularly employedin the productionof Achaemenidartand were dominantforces in its creation.6There was a strong implication that the only thing keeping Achaemenidartfrombeing trulyGreekartwas that these Greeks were working under the shadow of Orientaldomination.7

THE ETHNICITY NAME GAME

FIG. 2.

Modern impression of a chalcedonyscaraboid (enlarged), showinga "Persian"hunting a stag or reindeer.Private collection:no provenancegiven, conventionallydated 'fifth-fourth centuries." Adaptedfrom Richter 1952: pl. XXX,fig. 3.

Richter was enthusiastic about using the DSf text and the graffiti on a shoe from a sculpture of Darius at Persepolis to prove points about Greekness. But she expressed no curiosity about how the glyptic finds from the excavations at Susa and Persepolis might eventually alter approaches to Graeco-Persian seals. When looking specifically to Graeco-Persian seals, as opposed to the monumental court art of the Achaemenids documented on ceremonialarchitecture, Richter noted an importantwidening of thematic content. In particular, she cited depictions on such seals of Persian noblemen engaged in everyday activities, including hunts (here fig. 2). This repertoire she attributedto Greek influence (1952: 191). Following the path laid out by Furtwangler, she saw such images totally within the confines of the Greek world, divorced from millennia of Near Eastern traditions in seal carving and other forms of sculptural production.8 In her considerations of these Graeco-Persian seals, Richter did, however, begin to find it difficult to account for the similarities between Furtwangler's "Persisch" and "Griechisch-Persisch"-categories that she had initially embraced. So-called Ionian seal stones with similar stylistic and thematic content also confounded her attempt to plot them into these categories. She stated: increasingly it becomes apparent that the dividing line between Ionian Greek and Graeco-Persian seal stones is difficult to draw. The explanation is simple. During the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. there was constant intercourse between Greeks and Persians. Greeks served in

Persia as soldiers, traders, physicians, artists. Moreover, individuals of both countries traveled extensively. Hence the varied provenances of Graeco-Persian stones-Greece proper, Asia Minor, South Russia, Lydia, Persia, Babylonia and India; hence also the Anatolian provenance of some purely Greek stones. These circumstances explain the two-fold character of Graeco-Persian stones-sometimes purely Persian in subject, sometimes with Greek intrusions. The adaptable Greeks obeyed the directions of their Persian patrons, but their own artistic individuality did not fail to assert itself. (Richter 1952: 194) The acknowledged problems with these categories led to open questioning in some quarters of the assumption that the artisans producing these objects must have been Greek (see "Alternative and Alternating Voices" below). Yet the dominant discourse on Graeco-Persian art through the first half of the twentieth century relied upon the simplistic assumption that a Greek would have been the only person capable of producing or traininganother artisanin diagnostic aspects of "Greek"art and that a Greek's nature would have compelled him to produce in a Greek spirit that would be detectable in greater or lesser degrees depending upon the sensibilities of the patron. We may summarize the thrust of the first seventy years of published scholarship on Graeco-Persian seals using the following ethnic labor-patronage configurations, which explained what Graeco-Persian glyptic is and how it looks the way it looks: (1) A "Greek" artist produced a "Greek"-looking seal for a cosmopolitan "Persian" who allowed him to produce an object of "pure Greek" style without interfering. (2) A "Greek" artist produced a somewhat"Greek"looking seal for a "Persian" client, which was, however, modified to accommodate his "Persian" aesthetic preferences-making it stiffer, more repetitive, and of generally lower quality. (3) A "Persian" artist produced an only slightly "Greek"-looking seal for a "Persian" client of presumably limited sensibilities, yielding the least "Greekness" and the lowest quality.

ill

JENNIFER E. GATES

112

These discussionsreliedon preconceivedideas aboutthe natureof Greekand Persiantasteand had little to do with the objectsthemselvesor the way in which their imagerymight actuallyhave worked in culturalcontext. Certainfeatureswere taggedas essentialto the ethnicidentityof the makeror the consumer,but these featuresvariedwithoutcompelling analyticalvalidity.The distinctivetraitsof the seals werereducedto a kindof symbolicshorthandforstereotypesaboutethnicidentity.The lackof anyknown provenance for most of these objects encouraged such an approachsince they could be used to demonstratethe inexorableworkingsof the stereotypes without any need to factorin ambiguity-ladencomplications that would inevitablyarise in the face of detailsof socialuse (andreuse),findspot,andthelike. The effortsofJohn Boardmanmarkeda turnin the terms of inquiry, even as the primaryassumptions that had been built ultimately upon Furtwangler'sparadigmremainedfirmlyin place. In a seminalarticle(1970b) Boardmananalyzeda large corpusof (mostlyunprovenanced)pyramidalstamp seals,linkingthemthroughvariousstrategiesto production in western Anatoliaand arguingthat they constituted a formative phase of conventionally termed Graeco-Persian style seals (fig. 3). The Graeco-Persianchapter in his monumental Greek Gemsand Finger Rings (1970a: 303-27) focused similarlyon compiling from disparatecollections, grouping, and dating by associativestylistic means as many seals as possible that conformed to conventional (if very loose) understandings of what Graeco-Persianmight be (figs. 4-9, as a sampling of included types). In thiswork, Boardmanshiftedthe discourseso far as to say that the question of whether the gems were carvedby Greeksor by Persianswas relatively unimportantin comparisonto the questionof defining the artifactsas a class (Boardman1970a: 303). But the issue of the artist'sethnicityremainedstrong in the strategyof definitioneven within this modified agenda.Morebroadly,termsof culturalownership through ethnic attributionof the production enterpriseremainedan importantpart of the discourseamongleadingarthistoriansperpetuatingthe dominantview. These terms of culturalownership seem to have been crucialto how the study of the

FIG. 3.

Modern impression of a chalcedonypyramidal stamp seal (ca. 3:1), showing a wingedfigure in a heroic control encounter with two lions. Bowdoin College 484: said to befrom the Black Sea area, conventionallydated 'fifth-fourth centuries"B.C.E. Adaptedfrom Boardman 1970a:fig. 823.

, /.d

FIG. 4.

Modern impression of banded pink chalcedony scaraboid (ca. 3:1), showing a "Persian"huntinga stag. London: no collection or provenance given, conventionallydated 'fifth-fourth centuries"B. C.E. AdaptedffromBoardman 1970a: fig. 888.

artifactswasjustified, to why the scholarlyaudience should "care."Like Furtwangler,Richter,and others, Boardmanbelieved the "gems"were significant becausethey ultimatelysaid somethingaboutan oppositionalrelationshipabsolutelycentralto the historicalunderstandingof both "Persian"and"Greek" civilizations. Boardman'spublication(1970a) becamethe locus classicus for most generaldiscussionsof Graeco-

THE ETHNICITY NAME GAME

FIG. 5 (FAR LEFT). Modernimpressionof a chalcedony scaraboid (ca. 3:1), showing a standing "Persian"soldier. Cambridge:no collection or Provenancegiven, conventionallydated 'jfifth-fourthcenturies"~B.C.E.Adaptedfrom Boardman 1970a:flg. 884. FIG.

6 (NEAR LEFT).

Modern impression of a chalcedony scaraboid (ca. 3:1), showing a Persian woman with cosmeticcontainers. Berlin: no collection given, said to befrom Megalopolis, conventionallydated 'fifth-fourth centuries"B. C.E. Adaptedfrom Boardman 1970a:flgE.854.

. ...

-~~ >

~

~

.

N_

FIG.

7.

Modern impression of a mottled chalcedonyscaraboid (ca. 3:1), showinga lion attackinga stag. Paris: Bibliothteque Nationale, no acc. no. or provenance given, conventionallydated 'jfifth-fourthcenturies" B. C.E. AdaptedfromBoardman 1970a:fig. 909.

FIG. 8. Modern impression of a chalcedonyscaraboid (ca. 3:1), showing a lunging bull. Berlin: no collection given, said to have been "boughtin Athens.," conventionallydated 'fifth-fourth centuries"B. C.E. Adaptedfrom Boardman 1970a:fig. 899.

FIG. 9.

_j ,

~

Modern impressionof a carnelian scaraboid (ca. 3:1), showing a "Persian" cavalryman pursuing two other "Persians"in a "biga"(?).London: British Museum 435, said to be 'from Mesopotamia," conventionally dated 'fifth-fourth centuries"B.C.E. Adapted from Boardman 1970a:fig. 864.

113

JENNIFERE. GATES

was in generalagreementwith Richteraboutthe influenceof Greekartistson Achaemenidart (the officialmonumentalcourtart),he arguedthatthe artists who producedGraeco-Persian sealswerePersiansnot Greeks.He envisionedPersianswho had been influenced by Greek conventions through contact with the Ioniancities (Seyrig 1952: 200). The voice of Maximova,followedby Seyrig's,attemptedto shift the weight of responsibilityfrom ethnic Greeksinfused with a certainOrientalnessto ethnic Persians infusedwith a certainlonianness.It would be interestingto probe in moredetailandwith moregeopoliticalinflectionthehistoriographyof Graeco-Persian thanis possiblehere.ButSeyrig'sshiftin assignment of ethnicresponsibilityforproductionnotwithstanding, his mode of analysisremained,like Richter'sin the sameera,focusedon a notionof the ethnicity(the bloodline ethnicity)of the artistas the determinant of how a givensealwould look. Subtledifferencesin this look were ascribedto the relativerole of the client. Seyrig's position remained an approach to Graeco-Persiansealsdrivenby notionsof the artist's ethnicitywithin a world of Greek-Persianencounter, even though his suggestionscontain strainsof nuance. Much later, NataliaM. Nikoulina(1971) criticized the paradigmof Greek-Persianethnicencounter,asplayedoutwithreferenceto the term"GraecoAlternative and Alternating Voices. Despite the Persian."Insistingon the complexityof the Achaedominanceof the eurocentricview amonghighlyinmenid world, she challengedmany of the assumpfluentialclassicistssuch as Richterand Boardman, tions inherentin the historicalmodel employed in alternativeperspectiveshave been offered.As early previousdiscussionsof the seals, and she firmlyasas the 1920s, M. E. Maximova(1928) made coun- serted that the peripheralregions of the empireenterclaimsfor Persian production. It is noteworthy couragedrich melangesof styles, each with a comthat to demonstratePersianauthorshipshe used a plexity all its own. At aboutthe sametime, Miranda methodvery similarto the one used by Furtwangler Marvin(1973: 18-19, 25) flatlyrejectedthe whole to emphasizeGreekfeatures.In a differentera, this notionof Graeco-Persian, arguingthatthecategorycapacityof the Furtwanglerstrategyto yield a comeitheras a set of subjectsor a productiontechniquepletely opposing interpretationmighthave sparked simplydoes not exist: lively debate. But for various reasons Maximova's ideas did not stimulatewidespreadreassessment. it is not whetherthe gems belongto Greekartor Then, in the same volume in which Richter's Persian art, or whether the engravers were 1952 essay appeared,Henri Seyrig reacted (more Greeksor Persianswhich are the questionsone than forcefully Richter'sforthrightbut puzzled conmustask,butin whatcityatwhattimewerethese cerns had allowed her to) againstthe conventional gems made. One can no longer discuss style in assumptionthat the artistswho produced Graecoan abstractmanneras an attributeof an ethnic Persiansealsmusthavebeen Greek.AlthoughSeyrig group. (Marvin1973: 19) Persianart-presenting as it did in one sumptuously illustratedvolumeso muchvisualmaterialotherwise not known (becauseheld in privatehands) or availablein one place.As anarchaeologist,he himselfcertainlyunderstoodthatthereweremanyissues stillto be askedof therepertoirehe hadassembledandmany difficultieswith workingoff a repertoireof floating artifacts.Yet GreekGemsand FingerRings did not clearlyconvey these pitfallsto its large and varied audience.In the hands of scholarsfromotherdisciplines whose mainpurposewas to use a selectionof Graeco-Persianseals as boilerplateillustrationsof a concept such as culturalkoine, the nuancesof stylistic analysisBoardmanhad attemptedoften became essentializedto an unfortunatedegree. Graeco-Persianstylesbecame,once again,in some casesGraecoPersianstyle-as if all these seals were part of a formallyhomogeneousandthereforeculturallydiagnostic family.9In otheracademiccontexts,the ingrained strategyof subsuminga rangeof artproductionunder the dangerouslyexpansiveandill-definedumbrellaof Graeco-Persianpermittedeven Achaemenidglyptic art,in thestrictestsenseof royal-namesealsof satrapal courts of the empire, to be called Graeco-Persian (Zazoff1983: 163-93, who includesthe royal-name sealof Darius,now in the BritishMuseumandsaidto be fromEgyptianThebes, underthis rubric).'0

114

THE ETHNICITYNAMEGAME

This was a vital step out fromunder the historiographicalburden of the field. It representedan attemptto get at the situationof the artifactitself in the "long-establishedanduniquecultureof Ionia"to give it some provenanceother than a perceived ethnostylisticaffiliation(Marvin1973: 141). Marvin aimedto recreatecontextsfor these unprovenanced seals by regrouping them according to localized workshopclusters.In so doing she hoped to define specificregionalenvironmentswhere certainstylisticvariantswereproduced,thusenablingherto speak in terms of real-worldculturalcontexts within the empire. Unfortunatelyfor the field of Achaemenid empirestudies, Marvinturnedto otherarenasof archaeologicalinquiry(albeitwith greatsuccess). Her 1977 dissertationwasneverpublished,andto thisday it is availableonlyin photocopydirectlyfromHarvard University.This importanteffortneverresonatedasit shouldhaveoverthe ensuingtwo decades." The nextalternativeapproachto Graeco-Persian sealscamefromthe circleof scholarsworkingto correct the problemsthatNikoulinahad highlightedin 1971: the relativelyundeveloped sense of Achaemenid history and materialculture that seemed to permeatethe dominantscholarship.MargaretRoot, workingwith the seals known throughimpressions on the PersepolisFortificationtablets,began to encouragea reevaluationof"Graeco-Persian" with referenceto evidencefromthe imperialheartland.She coordinateda specialsession of the CollegeArtAssociationof Americain 1985, whichbroughtarchaeologists such as Gail Hoffman into dialogue with GoranHermeren,thenoted theoristof theprocesses of influence(viz., Hermeren1975). Hoffman'spaper (1985) on the sealof Gobryas,PFS 857s (fig. 1), situatedit as partof the AchaemenidPersiancultural context(in termsof the personageof Gobryas)while alsoexploringin detailpossiblestrainsof specifically Greekinfluencevisiblein its compositionand style. Soon thereafter,Root (1991) tackled GraecoPersian problems head-on, challenginglong-held assumptionsabout the perceivedAchaemenid"absence"fromthe archaeologicalrecordin thewestern empire. She suggested that this trope in the literature served to mute the significanceof the imperial project when indeed there was adequate material evidence of Achaemenid"presence"to discuss in

serious terms. She also laid out a case for consideringNearEasternmodelsforelementsof styleandcontent in so-called Graeco-Persianart conventionally ascribedto a Greekinfusion.In particular,Rootused evidence from the Persepolis Fortificationtablets showing the legacyof late Elamiteglyptictraditions indigenousin theAchaemenidheartlandan(ddisplaying models for elementstypicallyhailedin classicist scholarshipas hallmarksof "Greek"inspiration.She broughtthe sealof Gobryasto bearon thisproblem, relatingit to well-modeled glyptic productions in cylinderseal formatused in the archive(e.g., PFS 142: here fig. 10) and suggesting that we see the Gobryasseal as a hybridphenomenonthatcould at once resonatewith Greekmodelsforthemeandstyle and simultaneouslyevoke ties with longstandinglocalheartlandtraditions.The factthatPFS 142 is used on PersepolisFortificationtablet 1235 alongsidea modeled Babylonian-styleworship seal of the pyramidal stampshape (PFS 143s) offersan interesting asideon NearEasternlegaciesof modeledformsand moregenerallyon a vastarrayof stylesin circulation in Persepolis.She offereda selectivereviewof other seal types thatcould speakto the issue-focusing on free-field equestrian compositions in a smoothly modeled style. Included here were the free-field equestrianhunt scene (fig. 11) on the neo-Elamite period heirloomseal PFS 51 (used by the royalwife Irdabamaon the tablets)andthe free-fieldequestrian battlescene(figs. 12-13) on the often-illustrated PFS 93* (the heirloomroyal-namesealof CyrusI, dating to pre-empiredaysbutmaintainedin use generations laterin the reignof DariusI).12 Root's argumentsof 1991 were addressed by Boardmanin his revisitationof the Graeco-Persian problem in 1994. He had modulatedhis position somewhatin the faceof suggestionsthathis focus on the Greeknessof models for Graeco-Persianglyptic mightmisrepresentthe importanceof othercultural influences.He thus turnedto an interpretiveanalysis of Persian reception of Greek models, using the Graeco-Persian repertoireas one basisfordiscussion. In theorythisprojectmighthavesuggestedthe legitimacy of probingthe agencyof "Persian"patronsas historicallyinterestingsubjects.But his introduction statedthat"muchof this book is about [Persian]reception [of Greektraditions]withoutunderstanding

[15

JENNIFER E. GATES

FIG. 10. >

i

~~j .: ~~~~Forti~fication FIG. 1 BIS.

Impression of the seal of Gobryas,PFS 857s (ca. 2:1).

limpressionof a cylinderseal used by a supplier, PFS 142 (ca. 2:1), on upper reversesurface of Persepolis tablet 1235, showing two lions attacking a stag. PFS 142 usage dates: on various documentsin 500 and 499 B.C.E. Photo courtesyof M. B. Garrison, M. C. Root, and the Persepolis Seal Project.

FIG. 11.

Impressionsof theNeo-Elamite period heirloomcylinderseal belongingto the royal wife Irdabama, PFS 51 (ca. 2:1), showing a hunter on horsebackpursuing quarry, applied multiply on Persepolis Fortification tablet 736. PFS 51 usage dates:on various documentsin 501 and 498 B.C.E. Photo courtesyof M. B. Garrison, M. C. Root, and the Persepolis Seal Project.

116

[emphasismine]"(Boardman1994: 7). This study, then, explored the movement of motifs and styles fromthe Greekworld (still a monolithicentity)outwardto peopleson itsperipherieswho couldnot fillly appreciatethem. This eurocentricnotion of emulationwas used to explainthe appealof "classical"materialsin areas

outside the traditionalboundaries of the classical world. Graeco-Persiansealswere an essentialpartof this argument.They becamea foil in the demonstration of the essentiallycrudenatureof Persianartistic styles(andsensibilities)as theywere combinedwith more refinedGreek motifs and techniques (Boardman 1994: 42-48). This was an embattledscholarly

THE ETHNICITY NAME GAME

.ws... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ye._M....;

FIG. 13.

.

*.

FIG. 12.

Impressions of the Neo-Elamite period heirloom cylinder seal bearing the royal-name inscription of CyrusI of Anshan, PFS 93 * (ca. 2:1), showing a cavalryman, with two deadfoe beneath him, attacking a fleeing enemy;here applied multiply on PersepolisFortification tablet 2033. PFS 93* usage dates: on various documentsbetween503 and 500 B.C.E. Photo courtesyof M. B. Garrison, M. C. Root, and the Persepolis Seal Project.

stance,no longer trulyfocused on the objectsthemselvesbut concernedwith the defenseof a polarizing idealofHellenicsuperiority.In later,moredeveloped versions of these arguments,he was nominallywilling to abandonthe claimthatstyle and the ethnicity of the artistwere necessarily direcdyrelated.But he did not abandonthe idea that "ethnic training"resultedin a certainset of stylisticqualitiesthatcanand should be linked to the experience of a particular cultural group (Boardman2000: 222-23). In essence, his model was still limited to uncomplicated conceptions of identity and how it might relate to materialculture. Boardman also urged the importance of the uniquely Anatoliancontext of Graeco-Persianart, since this is the "only environmentin which such styles and subjectsmight have been generatedand found some approvaland currency."They would havebeen meaninglessin a "purelyGreekor purely Persianenvironment"(Boardman2000: 170-71). This was animportantrecognitionthattheseobjects

Impressionof theNeo-Elamiteperiodheriloomcylinderseal bearing the royal-nameinscriptionof CyrusI ofAnshan, PFS 93 * (ca. 2:1); hereappliedpartially on PersepolisFortificationtablet692 in an impressionthat revealsthefigural modeling.PFS 93 * usagedates:on various documentsbetween503 and 500 B.C.E. Photo courtesyofM. B. Garrison,M. C. Root,and thePersepolisSeal Project.

were in fact tied to a world beyond the museumor private collection. Yet for Boardman,the "purely Persianenvironment"remainedundefined.His conceptionof the elementsof anythingAchaemenid,includingmaterialfromtheundisputedheartlandof the empire, rested on one central tenet: that even the "purelyPersian"ultimatelydepends on non-Persian (i.e., Greek)models for both style and content. He did concede that the term "Graeco-Persian"could be changedto "Anatolian,"but he gave no opening for any other shift that might usefully alter his approach(Boardman2000: 222). GreekGemsand Finger Rings (Boardman1970a) was then reissuedin a second edition without any substantivechanges to his discussionof theseobjects(Boardman2001). The value of continuedavailabilityof this compendium, produced by such a distinguishedscholarof Greek art,is clear.Yet studentsofAchaemenidempirestudies mustregretthathis Graeco-Persianchapterdoes notacknowledgethevibrantdialoguethathasoccurred since 1970. In effect,the reissuingof GreekGemsand FingerRingswith minimallyupdatedannotationhas the potentialprematurelyto restabilize(for any but the few hardcorespecialists)a discoursethathad finallybecome more open to new types of inquiry. Following up on an unpublished blueprint of problemsin the study of Graeco-Persian(Root and Dusinberre1994), both Root and Dusinberrehave experimentedwith variousstrategiesforrecentering

117

JENNIFERE. GATES

ii8

discourse (Root 1997; 1998; Dusinberre 1997a; 1997b/2003;2002; in press).Theirrespectiveefforts havebeen basedupon workwith excavatedsealartifactsand sealsknownthroughimpressionsin archival contexts.All of it has takenadvantageof the importantheadwaymade by MarkGarrisonin establishingcloselyanalyzed,visuallybasedworkshopand handgroupingsthatprovidea standardforarticulating sharedand distinctiveformaltraits(e.g., Garrison 1988; 1991). The archivalmaterialnow availableforsystematicanalysisrangesfromthe Treasury and Fortification tablets of Persepolis (Cameron 1948; Schmidt 1957; Hallock 1969; Garrisonand Root 2001, with bibliography)to various corpora west of the imperialheartland:from Mesopotamia (e.g., Bregstein 1993; 1996; Collon 1996), to Samaria(Leith 1997 [publishinga 1990 dissertation]; Lapp and Lapp 1974), to Hellespontine Phrygia(Kaptan1996; 2002, with bibliographyon additionalpublications). Dusinberre(1997a) publishedan importantattempt to mediate between polarized positions on Graeco-Persianby emphasizingthe convergenceof local Lydianand Achaemenidimperialpatronmandates in the context of a specific excavatedseal artifactfroma tombattheLydiansatrapalcapital,Sardis. This seal would traditionallyhave been considered as a variantof Graeco-Persian art,withallthesubtexts of thatterminology.Dusinberreinsteadgroundedit in heartlandglyptic traditionsas gleanedfromseals used on the Persepolis Fortificationand Treasury tablets.Her articleproved thatimportantquestions canbe askedof a seal thatcanbe examinedas partof a relationalframework,once liberatedfromthe limbo of "Graeco-Persian"; it also emphasizedthe importantissue of patronagencyin determiningthe look of the seal. The questionof the ethnicityof the individualwho carvedthe sealwas not at stake. In the same year Root (1997) portrayed the multicultural aspectof sealsin activeuse in Persepolis duringthe reignof DariusI. She thenargued(1998) for the significanceof the socially diverse environment of Persepolisin the developmentof the pyramidal stamp seal types that had been seen by Boardman (1970b) as products solely of Greek (Anatolian)engagement.Boardman(1998) incorporateda reactionto Root(1998) in a sequelto his origi-

nalstudyof pyramidalstampsealsand subsequently dismissedits suggestionssummarily(2000: 168).'3

ETHNICITY AND STYLE

The ethnicand culturalaffiliationsof artistsand the effectsof this associationon theirwork forman extremelycomplex topic. Our review of some of the majorworkson Graeco-Persian the styledemonstrates long life thatthe close associationof styleand ethnic affiliation hashadin classicalarchaeology,particularly in setting Greekart into relationwith ancientNear Easterncultures.The scholarshipon Graeco-Persian sealsis a fascinatingillustrationof the routethatsuch agendashave takenand how they havedevelopedin responseto the generalscholarlyclimate.Questions of styleandgroupidentityarefundamental to thelarger pursuitsof archaeologyand arthistory.But very elementalpoliticalissuesoftenlie behindostensiblydispassionatevisualanalysisandinterpretation. The term"ethnicstyle"is oftenused to describe a relationbetweenobjectsandgroupaffiliationbased on a preconceivednotionof identityandthewayit is markedby visualcues. But style cannotbe linkedto ethnicity or group identity without a direct social contextthatspecifiespossiblefunctionandmeaning. "Graeco-Persian" is an exampleof an artificialcategorythatconflatesa spectrumof visualtypesunder one "ethnic"rubricin an attemptto cover over the holes left by the casualuse of groupmonikers.This long-livedand problematiccategorywas createdby classical scholars to describe and explain unprovenanced seal collections and to claim materialcultureproduced in the Achaemenidempireas a marginalpartof the Greekidiom. Manyof the sealsused to characterizeGraeco-Persian style(s)by Boardman (1970a; 2001) (figs.3-9) arepresumablyneithercanonicallyGreekin style or production,nor are they Persian (Dusinberre 1997a: 109-15). This highly subjective"moreor less"approachto definingwhat reallymattersaboutwhat an artifactrepresentsculturallyhas producedan amorphousand shiftingset of objectsthatdefy productiveclassificationon formal grounds. Furthermore,somethingof a double standardis beingappliedhereto the"Greekness"of a classification.Whatarethe termsby whichan artifact

THE ETHNICITYNAMEGAME

is labeled "Greek" rather than "Hellenizing" or for instance?How, if at all, have "Graeco-Persian," mostscholarsmovedtowardtheinterpretivenuances impliedby thatquestion? As a stylistic amalgam the characteristics of Graeco-Persian areinfamouslydifficultto apply.The boundariesof the group have been definedin technical, stylistic,and even what I can only describeas "'atmospheric" terms.Scholarshavefocusedon style, motif,and a certainsubjective"spirit"in the images on the seals and sealings,using these characteristics to constructmodelsof productionthatwouldexplain the culturalinteractionthey readin the images.The difficultylies in the subjectivityand subtletyof the group'scharacteristics,as well as an almostuniversal reluctanceactuallyto use "Graeco-Persian" as an analyticaltool (Root 1991; 1994; Garrison2001). One hallmarkof Graeco-Persian studieshasbeen the disinclinationto consider these objects outside of a set of rigid categories with distinct cultural boundaries.This tendencyhas led scholarsto create falseprogressionsof refinementbased on degreesof Greekness.These falseprogressionsultimatelyobscure the fact thatall of these stylisticand technical types coexisted and resonatedin the same cultural context. Furthermore,they obscure the functional interconnectednessof the objects and the complex waysthattheyparticipatedin the samesocial/administrativelandscapes(Root 1997). As Dusinberrehas pointed out emphatically(1997b: 232; 2002: 163), the greatmajorityof the sealsdesignatedGraeco-Persian are unprovenanced.'4For the minoritythat do carrya provenance,thisis oftenputative:the dealer's word,eitherlegitimateorfictive.Becausemostofthese objectsexistwithoutthecomplicationsofarchaeological context,the theoriesthatare constructedaround them can reflectwhateverparadigmsare broughtto them.This almostinescapablycircularapproachdrasticallylimitsthe evidentiarypotentialof theseobjects. Much of their significanceand the social dynamics surroundingthemarelost (Root 1994; 2002: 171). Perhapsworstof allin thisregard,the categories that have been createdaround the Graeco-Persian ideain the traditionalscholarshipareessentiallyuseless in discussing how these floatingartifactsmay relateto excavatedsealsthathavetheiraestheticand social dynamicsintactin some degree.The factthat

these categoriesof culturalboundedness have not been found helpfulby individualsworkingwith the archivesof seal impressionsand contextualizedseal artifactsshouldsignalproblemswith theutilityof the namingand the ideas behind it. The boundariesof things"Greek"havetraditionally been very expansive.LikeAchaemenidart, Romanart,Phoenicianart,andGhandaranartwere(and sometimesstill are) discussed in termsof the overwhelmingdebttheyowedto Greekinfluence,as if this were the most importantaspectof theirexistence.'5 This approachhasservedto enhancethedemonstrable of Greekart,in partby provingthe extraor";worth" dinaryreachof its agencyin timeandplace.The importanceof Greekideasandstylesto allthesecultural groupsis undeniable,butphysicaltransformations are a mutualprocessandinvolvetheexchangeof ideason both sides (Hoffman 1997: 2-5). By contrast,the boundariesof thingsNearEasternshrinkinexorably (such thatroyal-namesealsof the Achaemenidcourt maybe termedGraeco-Persian/Greek-inspired)! Style should not be readas a directindicatorof the ethnicidentityor groupaffiliationof its producer or its consumeras if it were above all a kind of entrenchedor learnedbehavioralpreference.Deployment of a particularstyle-whether in dress, ceramics, seals, or other materialand processualmanifestations-is certainlyone of manypossibletools available to a social group or an individualfor articulating identity.But to insist on the style of an artifactas diagnosticof the ethnicityof the personwho madeit suggeststhat some inheritedfactorpreordainshow artis produced. Certainlyin the developedand mobile context of the Achaemenidempire,this idea is not sustainable.Stylescanbe learned;theydefinitely were learnedby a rangeof producersin the Achaemenidcontext.An artistdid not need to be Persianto carvea convincingPersianman in the Persepolitan CourtStyle.He did notneedto be Athenianto carvea convincingfigureofAthenain PericleanAthens(Root 1986).Bythesametoken,theartpatron(theconsumer in the glyptic studio) did not need to be reactingto encoded"ethnic"patternsofresponsein orderto commissionorpurchaseready-made a sealofa certainlook. Conscioussignalsof groupaffiliationcannotbe interpretedone-dimensionally; theyaresubjectto multiple situationalinfluencesand interpretations on the part

119

JENNIFERE. GATES

120

of the patron(and also on the partof those who see the artin the possessionof the patron). Stylistic choices are inherently complex, and their relationto identityand meaningis almostimpossible to reconstructwithout some kind of social The largelyunprovenancedsealsof the framework.'6 prevalentGraeco-Persiandiscoursehave been read as if style were a direct indicatorof ethnic identity. The mixing of multiple"ethnicstyles"on the seals has been seen as replicatingthe social relationsbetweentwogroups("Greeks"and"Persians"). In such a discourse,the sealsbecome passivepawns. The social context of a seal, when availablefor study, has the potentialto become an activeparticipant in its investigation;its style can be considered along with other factorsas part of a complex social negotiationand representation.Nicholas Thomas's work on the role of the object in exchangesystems and the relation between artifactand identity has demonstratedhow, in a colonial context, style is modified when an object is reappropriated and recontextualizedin a foreign social milieu. As the object is modified and reinterpreted,meaningbecomes lodged not in the appearanceof the objectbut in the way thatit becomes mutable(Thomas 1991: 22-30). In termsof the Graeco-Persianproblem,the style of a sealdid not mapsome absolutetruthabout the weightingof a set of alternativeson a scale between Greek- and Persian-influencedproduction. The style(aswell as otherfeaturesof such a seal)was a suitable slate for many meanings-political, personal, economic, symbolic,etc. Thomas (1991: 88) convincinglydemonstrates that a stylisticallyor functionallyforeign object is broughtinto a new context and resituatedthere,reinterpretedand insertedinto its new home as an essentiallynew thing. Thus, interpretationsof and assumptions about the adoption of foreign objects, styles, and motifswithin a colonizedworld must be approached critically.Without some sense of the social and materialsetting in which an object was used-some sense of its "frame"-one is forced to drawon preconceivednotionsaboutconstituentinfluences. Conclusions formed on that basis are inherentlysuspect. Ozgen, Oztiirk,et al. (1996) have dealtdirectly with a problemrelevantto thisdiscussionof Graeco-

Persianseals. A group of looted antiquities(including numerousseals of types thatwould conventionally be called Graeco-Persian)had been returned from the MetropolitanMuseum of Art to Turkey, where archaeologistswere facedwith the challenge of reintegratingthem within documentedremnants of tombassemblages.The authorspointout twochallenges:first,determiningthe mostlikelypointof origin for each objectbased on analysisof comparanda with securearchaeologicalpedigree;andsecond, refining the assessmentsof archaeologicalcontext so thatmore specificconclusionscould be reachedon theprecisetombassemblageto whicheachitemoriginallybelonged(Ozgen,Oztiirk,et al. 1996: 64). The archaeologicaland forensicresultsachievedby this researchteamwere remarkable.They cannothope to be duplicatedvery often.Instead,otherstrategies need to be developedforthe reintegrationof categories of so-calledGraeco-Persianseals into the life of the Achaemenidempire.

BURIED CONTEXT: PERSEPOLIS TREASURY LABEL PT4

866

The analysisof sealsknownthroughimpressionsused in archivalcontextsoffersone such strategyforexplicatinghybrid styles and repertoiresof imagerythat seemto fuse"Greek"and"Persian"elementsin varyingways.Animportantaimofthisstrategyis tograpple with visualart as a manifestationof fluid notions of identityin a multicultural imperialenvironment. I takeas my case studya claylabel,PT4 866 (fig. 14), belongingto thePersepolisTreasuryarchiveand bearingtheimpressionsof six discreteseals(Schmidt 1957: 5-7). The archive,excavatedby the Oriental Institute between 1936 and 1938, comprises inscribed tabletsand also sealed labels that were attachedto a varietyof items, includingwrittendocuments on leatheror papyrusthat have not survived (Cameron1948; Garrison1988: 172-77; Garrison and Root 2001: 33-34). PT4 866 enablesus to view a clusterof seals in activeuse in the same eventsof social(andstylistic)interactionatthecourtof XerxesearlyArtaxerxesI. Using this clusterof stylistically variantsealsthatembraceboth "Greek"-looking seals and "Persian"'-looking ones, I considerthe patterns

THE ETHNICITY NAME GAME

1.L:!d,,

14. ~~~~FIG.

Persepolis Treasury label PT4 866 (ca. 2:1), featuring the impression of PTS 44s, a stamp seal with ellipticalface showing a nude charioteer. PTS 44s usage dates: between 467 and 459 B.C.E. (established

~~~~through ,~~~~~~~~~. *

.

link with PTS 5*)

Phtocourtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

of use thatemergeas well as the patternsof linkswith otherseals in the archive.This analysisstressesrelations betweenstyle and situational-rather thanethnic-identity. AlthoughErichSchmidtpublishedphotographs and analysesof the seals in the Treasuryarchivein 1957, the materialhas not been explored systematicallyforwhatit maytellus aboutthe Graeco-Persian problem. Each of the seals used on our label sits at the centerof its own web of connections,surrounded by concentricringsof iconographicandmaterialconnections. The "aesthetic,administrativeand social dynamics"of the seals(Root 1997: 231) emergefrom

thepatternsin theiruse;unprovenancedsealsof similar types and styles can at least be placed alongside these multiplycontextualizedseals known through theirimpressions. Out of the some 199 sealedlabelsin theTreasury archive,PT4 866 is of particularinterestto us here because Boardmanillustratedit (2000: fig. 5.33). on sealsknownthrougharchivalimpresCommentary sionswas a lateandwelcomeadditionto Boardman's approach.He illustratedthis Treasurylabelbecause of one of the sealsimpressedon it:PTS 44s (fig. 14).'7 With referenceto this seal, which Boardmancalls a "Greekring"in thecaptionto his fig.5.33, he remarks

121

JENNIFER E. GATES

15. Persepolis TreasurytabletPT4 650 (ca. 2:1), bearing an impressionof PTS 5* a royal-name cylinderseal of XerxesI, showing a heroicencounterscene.PTS 5 * usage dates:on various dated documents(as well as undated labels) between467 and 459 B.C. E. (extending intoyear5 of the reign ofArtaxerxesI). Photo courtesyof the Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago. FIG.

FIG. 16. Persepolis Treasurylabel PT4 619 (ca. 1:1), featuring a partial impressionof PTS 19, a cylindershowing bullmen supporting the symbolof Ahuramazda.PTS 19 usage dates: between467 and 459 B.C.E. (established throughlink with PTS 5*.Photocourtesyof the Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago.

upon the factthatPTS 44s occurswith two "easternstyle"cylinderseals (PTS 5* and PTS 19: see here figs. 15-16 forclearviews of these seals): 122

To use theterm'Greco-'anything of easternproductsinvitescriticismthesedays,butin the caseof

,

'

i

the Greco-Persianseals the prefixcan be readily justified, without assertingthat they could only have been made by Greeks.(Farbetterjustified than the term'Greco-Phoenician'which should be abandoned.)This is a case where elements not only of Greekstyle but of Greektaste were

THE ETHNICITY NAME GAME

TABLE 1.

Patterns of use on Treasurylabels of all seals in the PT4 866 cluster Labelno. PT4619 PT4 771 PT4866 PT4894 PT4 946 PT4947 PT4 604 PT4 705 PT4 894 PT4 198 PT4 671 PT4 944 PT4 945

PTS5*

PTS 19

*

* 0

* * *

. * 0 0

PTS44s

imposed on subjectsdeemed suitablefor a Persiansatrapalenvironment,no littlepermeatedby Greekviewson whatwasappropriateforthelessthan-officialarts.But the products,just as Greek seals,could be used on officialPersianbusiness, andbesidetheeastern-stylecylinderson thesame sealing.(Boardman2000: 168-69) Boardmanuses PT4 866 to demonstratethat Greekthemesand styles had penetratedthe Achaemenidinfrastructure to such an extentthattheywere thoughtjustas appropriateforuse in officialcapacities as were "easternstyle"seals. In fact, the object, as part of the archive,is a fascinatingpiece of evidence of the interplayand use of sealswith multiple stylisticancestriespresenton an object thatparticipated in economic activitiesin the very heartof the AchaemenidPersianempire.Butits interestextends even further.This sealedlabelcanbe thoughtof as a landscapeon which socialdiscourseand the fluidity of choice are negotiated (Root 1997: 231-33). Throughthesesix sealsandthe relationsthatextend out fromthem, so-calledGraeco-Persianimagesare integratedinto the culturalchoices availableto individualswith extensivepersonalconnectionsoperating in a milieuwherepluralismin imageryand style is acceptableand perhapseven coveted. The labeldocumentsa functionalgroupof seals thatwere used togetherrepeatedlyin a series of related social actions.In additionto PTS 44s, Board-

PTS54s

PTS55s

PTS 70s

man'sfocal point, the other five seals appearingon the label are PTS 5*, PTS 19, PTS 54s, PTS 55s, and PTS 70s (figs. 15-19 respectively).PTS 5* is a royal-nameseal of Xerxes, inscribedin Old Persian andused between467 and459 B.C.E. as anofficeseal by a Treasuryofficialwhose namehas not been retrieved(Schmidt1957: 8, 16-17; GarrisonandRoot 2001: 34 and n. 99, 54, 59). As luck would have it, we do not know the name of any of the individuals using the sealson PT4 866, but a web of theirinteractionscan be pieced togetherby looking closely at thepatternsof sealuse in the archiveas a whole. This cluster of seals used on PT4 866 is one of several such clustersused in multiplecombinationsrepeated on tabletsand/orlabelsin the archive. The PT4 866 clusterof six seals is used in various groupingson thirteenseparatelabels (table 1). The groupingof these seal impressionsis remarkablytight,withonlytwootherseals,PTS 21 andPTS 72s, intersectingwith the group on only fourout of thirteenlabels(table2). TABLE 2.

Otherseals(+) interactingwiththePT4 866 cluster(e) Labelno. PTS 5* PTS 19 PTS 21 PTS 28 PTS 70s PTS72s PT4 198 * PT4 840 + PT4 859 + PT4946

*

N.B.: PT4 198 and PT4 946 are also listed in table 1.

+

123

JENNIFER E. GATES

FIG.17.

/

Persepolis Treasury label PT4 894 (ca. 2:1),featuring an impressionof PTS 54s, a signet ring with a pointed elliptical bezel showing a standing nude man. PTS 54s usage dates: between 467 and 459 B. C.E. (establishedthrough link with PTS 5 *). Photo courtesyof the Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago.

FIG.

18.

Persepolis Treasurylabel PT4 619 (ca. 1:1), featuring an impressionof PTS 55s, a signet ring or stamp seal with an elliptical or circular bezel/faceshowing a seated man pulling on a boot (?). PTS 55s usage dates: between467 and 459 B.C.E. (established throughlink with PTS 5*). Photo courtesyof the Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago.

124

THE ETHNICITY NAME GAME

.AX~~~~~~o

FIG. 19.

Persepolis Treasurylabel PT4 944 (ca. 2:1), featuring an impressionof PTS 70s, a signet ring or stamp seal with an elliptical bezel/faceshowng a lunging bull. PTS 70s usage dates: between 467 and 459 B. C.E. (establishedthroughlink with PTS 5 *). Photo courtesyof the Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago.

The types of images and styles representedin the PT4 866 clusterare varied.Two cylinderseals bearveryrecognizableAchaemenidthemesof ancient Near Easternpedigreecarvedin PersepolitanCourt Style (PTS 5* and PTS 19) alongside four stamp seals, all of which convey some other stylistictraits and would conventionally be termed Greek or Graeco-Persian(with distinctionsbetween the two left vague).This observationcertainlydemonstrates how closely a range of "Greek,""Hellenizing,"or seals arewoven into the social in"Graeco-Persian" stitutionsin Persepolis.But it also shows thatseeing Graeco-Persian as a paradigm for a polarized worldviewis decidedly unhelpful. It is especiallyinterestingto note the expansiveness of thevarietyof sealsthatcome into contactwith sealsin the PT4 866 sealclusterwhen these sealsare used in other sealing events. Table 2 shows seals applied to four labels that illustratea chain of rela-

tionsout fromthe originalPT4 866 cluster.PTS 70s interactswith PTS 21 on PT4 198. PTS 21 is a cylinder displayingthe goddess Ishtarin an Assyrianizingmode. In turn,PTS 19 and PTS 5* both interactwithPTS 72s (a Greek-typestampsealin the form of a signetringshowingwhatlooks to be a galloping horse) on PT4 946. Then in its turn, PTS 72s occurs alone (on labelPT4 859) and (on PT4 840) togetherwith yet anotherseal, PTS 28 (a cylinderseal in CourtStyledisplayinga "Persian"leading"Greek" captivesand spearingone of them). Evenmoreinstructiveis the distributionof types in the seals used in associationwith PTS 5* thatdo not also appearin associationwith any of the other sealsin the PT4 866 cluster(tables3-4). These seal types include eleven (possiblytwelve)cylinderseals withreligious,heroic,martial,andgenrescenes,plus a series of seven stampsor signet rings with images rangingfroma Neo-Babylonian-typeworship scene 125

JENNIFER E. GATES

TABLE 3.

Seals used with PTS 5* in the Treasuryarchive that are not in the PT4 866 cluster Sealno. Sealshape PTS 8* Cylinder PTS 11* Cylinder PTS 12 Cylinder PTS 17 Cylinder PTS 23 Cylinder PTS 29 Cylinder PTS 32 PTS 38 PTS40 PTS 41 PTS 43 PTS 50s PTS 52s PTS 53s PTS 58s PTS 61s PTS 72s PTS 74

1i26

Schmidt's (1957) description 2 Persiansstabbing2 crossedlionsbelowwingedsundisk symbol;Xerxesinscription Heroholding2 wingedbullsbelowwingedsundisksymbol, datepalm,inscription Heroholding2 wingedlionsbelowwingedsundisksymbol 2 archersworshipping encircledAhuramazda belowwinged sundisksymbol;pedestalanimalormonsters Persian andSusianflanking firealtarbelowwingedsundisksymbol Combatof 2 warriors, problematic objectbetweenthem, perhapsdeadfoe Galley,2 fish,datepalm 4 wingedgeniein combatwithwingedman-bull 2 wingedman-ibexes; datepalm Humpedbullin rightprofile Ibexandtreesymbol;baseline Beardedman'sheadin rightprofile

Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Stampsealw/ circularface Stampsealw/ 2 nudewrestlers(?) [possibly eroticscene-J.E.G.] ellipticalface Signetringw/pointed Manandhorse ellipticalbezel Stampsealw/ Persianarcher,bearded,kneeling/running, similarto darics ellipticalface Stampsealw/ Priestataltarw/ mushus,spearof marduk,styliof Nabu ellipticalface Probably signetring Runninghorse w/ pointedbezel Stampsealor Charging boar cylinderseal

to types thatwould conventionallybe separatedout as "Graeco-Persian" or "Greek." What can we say about all this interactionbeyond what Boardmanhas suggested-that Greek/ Graeco-Persiansealswereconsideredappropriatein institutionalcontexts of the empireand that Greek ideas had penetratedto the very heartof the establishment?Schmidt(195 7: 15-16) tentativelypostulated that the Greek-lookingseals on the Treasury labels may have been used by actual Greeks at Persepolis.There is nothinginherentlyimplausible aboutGreeksof high statusappearingthereandconductingofficialbusinesswith Treasuryofficials.But two factorswarnus to look at the situationfromadditionalangles.

Schmidt's (1957) classification Hero Hero Hero Ahuramazda worship Ritualandworshipataltar Martial scene Martial scene Combatscene Monstersandanimals Monsterandanimals Monsterandanimals mentionedas exceptionally "un-Greek" Greek Greek "influenced by Greekstyle" Neo-Babylonian Greek Greek

First, there is the lesson of the Fortification archive.Here a muchlargercorpusof evidencemay be seen in conjunctionwith documentsthatenable us to gleanmoreaboutthe individualsusingthe seals thanthe Treasuryarchiveaffords.We have already rehearsedthe evidenceof Gobryasandhis seal, PFS 857s (fig. 1). From this seal alone we can say thata seal(accordingto conventionalcat"Greek-looking" egorizations)neednotimplya Greekperson.We have also reiteratedthe point thatsome formalaspectsof the seal of Gobryasare as much partof a NearEastern glyptic traditionas a Greek one. Gobryasmay not haveintendedto place Greekstylein value-laden opposition to, say, Elamitetraditionwhen he commissionedPFS 857s. And seal carverstrainedin the

THE ETHNICITY NAME GAME

TABLE 4. Pattern of use of additional seals (not in the PT4 866 cluster) in association with PTS 5*

Labelno.

5*

PT3 365 PT3 407 PT4 8 PT4 143 PT4 175 PT4 195 PT4 329 PT4 428 PT4 452 PT4 481 PT4581 PT4 704 PT4 790 PT4804 PT4 810 PT4 913 PT4969 PT4979 PT41021 PT41057 PT63 PT65 PT67 PT68 PT621 PT622 PT623 PT6111 PT6 112 PT6 113 PT6 149 PT6 154 PT6 164 PT6 215

E

8*

11* 12

17

23

.

.

29

PTSnos. 32 38 40

41

43

50s 52s 53s 58s 61s 74

E E

0 0

0 0 0 *

. 0

.

*

0 0

* *

* *

*

highly developed and varied modeled styles of Elamite,Neo-Babylonian,and Neo-Assyriantraditions would have had the capacityto emulateand rework Hellenizing elements to create the seal Gobryaswanted on the day he commissionedthis particularseal.The stylesemergingthroughthestudy of the Fortificationtablets,placed in dialoguewith the individualsusing them, offeran astoundingpotentialforredirectinginquiryon the relationsamong ethnicity,status,andbiographyon one handandseal choice on the other. Such issues havebeen well rehearsedwith reference to the lavishlyAssyrianizingseals of Parnaka, the head administratorof Persepolisas well as the

uncle of Darius,when we glimpsehim in the Fortification archive.'8These extraordinarycreations of Assyrianizingart,with PFS 16* particularlybeing a modeledstylesealof theutmostvirtuosity,provethat notionsof valueand eliteaestheticdemeanoramong the classiestindividualsat the Achaemenidcourt of Dariuswerenot dominatedby obsessionwith things "Greek."Sealson the Fortificationtabletsprovethis over and over. The lovely PFS 48 (fig. 20), for instance, offersa study of a bull marchantthathas so much more to tell us than the unprovenanced "Graeco-Persian" sealillustrated hereasfig.8 bis.Used in the administrationof grainand floursupply,usuallyin high-leveleventsand frequentlyin association

127

JENNIFER E. GATES

_.

FIG. 20.

Impressionof PFS 48 (ca. 3:1), a cylinderseal showing a bull marchant used in an office of grain andflour supply in Persepolis,here on Persepolis Fortification tablet 315. PFS 48 usage dates:on various documents between503 and 499 B.C.E. Photo courtesyof M. B. Garrison, M. C. Root, and the PersepolisSeal Project.

with religiousinstitutionsof the court, this seal was impressed by one Kazakaon a travel document (whereprotocolsallowus to be sure of attachingthe

128

right name to the person using a particular seal).'9 The name Graeco-Persian is simply irrelevant as a descriptor of this seal, but this is doubtless how it would be classified as a floating seal artifact. How does PFS 48 talk stylistically to PTS 70s (fig. 19)? What ways can we devise to discuss style in such a context removed from the necessity to assess quality as a measure of Greekness? The second factor complicating any easy suggestion that a Greek-looking seal means the presence of a Greek personage is admittedly most interesting to me. The defined clusters of seals we see on the Treasury labels display groups of individuals and official personnel interacting according to consistent administrative patterns over a stretch of time. The occurrences of "Greek-looking" seals are not casual and only occasional events. There were people using these seals according to institutional protocols at home in the working environment of Persepolis. It would be possible to do much more with this material. Our ability to reconstruct more precisely what they were doing and why would depend on a more developed sense of these labels as archaeological artifactswithin the archivalapparatus(viz., Root 1996). Among the further questions we might ask: Were

8 BIS. Modernimpressionof a chalcedonyscaraboid (ca. 3:1) showing a lunging bull. FIG.

these labels storedin a recordroom or still attached to theirobjectswhen the Treasurywas sacked?What could an analysisof the reverseimpressionsof each of theselabels(whichpreservenegativeimpressions of the items to which theywere attached)contribute to ourunderstandingof the activitiesof the individuals using the seals in our cluster?Were all the labels attachedto the same type of thing? Were they attachedto doors,jars, baskets,boxes, bags, or documents?Are there sealingprotocols among the cluster thatcan be gleanedby close visualanalysis(e.g., an orderof sealing)?Pursuingsuch questions(which would requirefirsthandstudy of the artifacts)might lead to a rangeof importantassessments.Even to ask the questionsremindsus thatseals-even "GraecoPersian"seals-were indeedfunctioningtools. They were not merely gems or finger rings. My current work with the seals impressed on bullae from the Graeco-Romanperiod site of Karanisin the EgyptianFayoumis demonstratingthe rewardsof thistype of researchand its applicabilityto the Persepolislabels (Gates2003).2o In such research,one must imaginethe creation of the sealed label. The placement and combination of these seals would have been a process, and the act of sealing would have been a social event. Root (1997: 238-39) described this scenario as a "visualexperience"and the sealed clay artifactas a

THE ETHNICITYNAMEGAME

"landscapedterrainof encounterin visualculture." This visual experience, the witnessed application of the seal to a surface,may have been a forumfor the reinterpretationof the seal in its new cultural context. The hand of an official in the Persepolis courtwould havepowerfullytransformedthe meaning of the seal, makingit impossible to imaginethat the sole intention of the user was to evoke Greece (or ancientAssyria,for thatmatter). The act of creating a sealing also resulted in evocativepatternsthatcarrymeaningbeyonda single impression. They are the record of these images' functionalityand are trulythe only way to get at the problemof how individualsusingtheseimagesmight have understoodthem. Thus only systematic, multifaceted study of provenancedarchivesof operatingsealsin combinationwithjudiciousanalysisof excavatedsealartifacts canbreakdown theartificialandpoliticizedconstruct thatis the "Graeco-Persian" paradigm.By connecting the web of imagessurroundinga seal used in an archive,we can extendits morerounded,functional aspectsto collectionsof excavatedseals and thence, with due caution, to collections of unprovenanced seals. In this way the imageryof these archivescan be supplementedby a largercomparativefieldof relevantimages,and the resultingdescriptiveandfunctionalgroupingsmay respond to excavatedobjects, as the conventionalcategoriesbased upon floating artifactsdo not. In addition,the excavatedsealsand sealingswill benefit greatlyfrom thoughts on style thatdo not lead directlyinto the gripof an East-West polarization.A less burdened terminologywill be welcomed by scholars of Near Easternstudies for whom "Graeco-Persian" has presenteda mystification thatsuggeststhewisom of calculatedavoidance. The fundamentallesson thatemergesfroma review of the ethnicnamegameof the Graeco-Persian paradigmis thatwe must rejectthis termand reinsert into the mix both context and, ultimately,the individualswho used these objects. It simply isn't viableartificiallyto elevatepatronchoices thatseem to privilege a Greek ideal and to deride as 'jolies laides" the results of those patron choices in the deeply pluralisticAchaemenidimperialmilieu that happen to lie beyond a Greek-dominatedmodern Westernaesthetic.2'D

Notes 1. Nuancesof how variousindividualsof the empirethoughtof themselvesin relationto Persiaand Persiannessare a complex topic well beyond the scope of this commentaryexcept as an acknowledgmentof the significanceof the issue. 2. Briant1996 indexes his manydiscussions,based on the Persianand Greeksources,of Gobryas2as well as Mardonius2(the son of Gobryas2). 3. The situationcan be furthercomplicatedby consideringthe ways in which Ionian ("Yauna")is used in the Achaemenid sources (viz., Sancisi-Weerdenburg2001)-what conglomerations of peoples the term seems to have been deployed to describeand for whatpoliticalpurposes. 4. Dusinberre2002 offers additionalinsights on the GraecoPersianliterature;her articlein press (not yet availableto me) is sure to provide more than I do here on a topic that clearlydeservescomprehensivereevaluation. 5. Furtwangler'sgroupingswere used by GiselaRichter(1949: 293) and furtherrefinedin herworkon the unprovenancedcollection at the MetropolitanMuseumof Art. 6. Richter 1946 republishesgraffitifirstillustratedin Herzfeld (1935: 73, pl. x). For the Susa FoundationChartertext (DSf), see Kent 1953: 142-44 and Lecoq 1997: 234-37. 7. See Root (1979: 7-9) for a critiqueof the DSf text as a literal statementof the precise roles played by variousethnic groups listed in it. 8. It is not a goal of my analysishere to refutethese claimspoint by point throughcitationof differentvisualevidence.That said, it is difficultto understandhow Richtercould have considered hunting scenes as a predominantlyGreek theme-even based upon what was generallyknown of ancientNear Easternartin the 1940s and '50s. See now Garrison2001 on the extraordinaryvarietyof themes on cylinderseals used in Persepolis,includingan expansiverepertoireof hunt scenes. 9. Dusinberre(2002: n. 7) cites the historianChesterStarras an exampleof this phenomenon(see Starr1977: pls. II-IV). 10. See Garrison1991 for this seal and for a discussion of its version of Achaemenidglyptic Court Style in relationto royalnameseals known fromPersepolis. 11. Dusinberre1997 picks up the thread(see below). 12. The bibliographyon PFS 93* is quite vast because of the historicalsignificanceof this seal issued by the grandfatherof Cyrus the Great. See Garrison 1991 and Garrisonand Root 1996 for a selection,with discussions.

129

JENNIFERE. GATES

13. Boardman1998 appearedbeforeRoot 1998 andwas based on prepublicationaccessto her manuscript.There was no similaropportunityforRoot to reactin her articleto the manuscript of Boardman1998 beforeits publication. 14. Forexample,of the 198 sealsdiscussedin Boardman1970b, 75 percent are unprovenancedeven in terms of a "said to be from"descriptor.The numbersfromBoardman1970a aresimilar. Here, of the 214 objectsdiscussed in the "Greeksand Persians"chapter,72 percentareunprovenanced.On overarching problemsof unexcavatedseals and the marketin both floating and forgedseals, see Muscarella1977 and 1979. 15. Boardman1994 and 2000 are the most recentand explicit examplesof this type of approach.Admittedly,many classical scholarshave activelymoved beyond such a stance, but while this position continuesto be propoundedfromsuch a powerful and persuasivepulpit, it is worth considering. 16. There are really two problems here: (1) defining an "ethnic" group and workingout how this modern concept can be appliedto historicalsituations,if at all, and (2) linkingethnicor groupidentityandstyle.The theoreticalliteratureon both these issues is immense,and I will only referhere to a few of the most frequentlycited discussions. On the question of identityin an archaeologicalcontext, see Shennan 1989; on style and identity, see Conkeyand Hastorf1990; David, Sterner,and Gavua 1988; Plog 1995; Wobst 1999; Hegmon 1992; Pasztoryl989; Schapiro 1962: 297-98. See also Hoffman1997: 1-18. 17. The Treasuryseals are now designatedby the prefix PTS (analogousto the PFS prefixfor the sealsused in the Persepolis Fortificationarchive).Accordingto the conventionsestablished by the PersepolisSealProject(GarrisonandRoot 2001), a raised asteriskafterthe seal numbersignifiesan inscribedseal;a small s afterthe seal numbersignifies a stamp seal. An uninscribed cylinderseal does not carrya special sign. 18. PFS 9* and PFS 16*. See, e.g., Garrison1991; Garrison and Root 2001; Dusinberre2002. 19. PFS 48 occurs on eight Elamitetabletsin the Fortification corpus published by Hallock (1969). See Garrisonand Root 1996 to tracethe links of PFS 48 to otherseals used in the Fortification archive.

20. This is partof a long-termprojectto studythe sealingsfrom Karaniswith the kind permissionof the KelseyMuseumof Archaeology, Universityof Michigan. 21. I refer to the quotation excerpted from Boardman2000, which opens this article.

130

WorksCited Boardman,John. 1970a. GreekGemsand Finger Rings. London: Thames and Hudson. --.1970b. "PyramidalStampSealsin the PersianEmpire." Iran 8:19-45. 1980. TheGreeksOverseas.Middlesex:PenguinBooks. 1994. TheDiftsion of ClassicalArt in Antiquity.London: Thames and Hudson. --. 1998. "Seals and Signs: AnatolianStamp Seals of the PersianPeriod Revisited."Iran 36:1-13. --. 2000. Persia and the West. London: Thames and Hudson. GreekGemsand FingerRings(2nd ed.). London: --.2001. Thames and Hudson. Bregstein,Linda. 1993. "SealUse in FifthCenturyB.C. Nippur, Iraq:A Study of Seal Selection and Sealing Practicesin the MurasuArchive."Ph.D. diss., Universityof Pennsylvania. 1996. "Sealing Practices in the Fifth Century B.C. --. MurasuArchives from Nippur, Iraq."In M.-F. Boussac and A. Invernizzi, eds., Archives et sceaux du monde hellenistique,52-63. Bulletinde correspondancehellenistique suppl. 29. Paris: Centre National de Recherche Scientifique. Briant,Pierre.1987. "Donsde terreset de villes:L'AsieMineure dans le contexte achemenide."Revuedesetudesanciennes 87:53-72. 1996. Histoirede l'EmpirePerse.Paris:Fayard. Brosius, Maria,and Amelie Kuhrt,eds. 1998. Studiesin Persian History:Essaysin Honorof David M. Lewis. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Cameron,George. 1948. PersepolisTreasuryTablets.Oriental InstitutePublications65. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. Cartledge,Paul. 1993. TheGreeks:A Portrait of Self and Others. Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress. Collon, Dominique. 1996. "A Hoard of SealingsfromUr." In M.-F. Boussac and A. Invernizzi,eds., Archiveset sceaux du mondehelMnistique, 66-84. Bulletinde correspondance helleniquesuppl. 29. Paris:CentreNationalde la Recherche Scientifique. Conkey, MargaretW., and C. A. Hastorf,eds. 1990. The Uses ofStylein Archaeology.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Cook,J. M. 1982. "EasternGreeks."InJ. Boardmanand N. G. L. Hammond,eds., CambridgeAncientHistory,196-22 1. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. David, Nicholas,JudySterner,and KodzoGavua.1988. "Why 29:365-89. Pots Are Decorated."CurrentAnthropology Descoeudres,Jean Paul, ed. 1990. GreekColonistsand Native Populations.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Dunbabin, Thomas J. 1957. The Greeksand Their Eastern Neighbours.London:Societyforthe Promotionof Hellenic Studies.

THE ETHNICITYNAMEGAME

Dusinberre, Elspeth R. M. 1997a. "ImperialStyle and ConstructedIdentity:A 'Graeco-Persian'CylinderSeal from Sardis."Ars Orientalis27:99-129. --. 1997b. "Satrapal Sardis: Aspects of Empire in an Achaemenid Capital."Ph.D. diss., Universityof Michigan. --. 2002. "King or God? ImperialIconographyand the 'TiarateHead' Coins of AchaemenidAnatolia."In D. C. Hopkins, ed., AcrosstheAnatolian Plateau: Readingsin theArchaeology ofAncientTurkey,157-71. Boston:American Schools of OrientalResearch. --. 2003. Aspectsof Empire in AchaemenidSardis. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. --. In press. "Graeco-PersianArt."In G. K. Sams,ed., The ArchaeologyofAnatolia:An Encyclopedia. Furtwangler, Adolf. 1903. Die Antiken Gemmen. Leipzig: Gieseckeand Devrient. Garrison, Mark B. 1988. "Seal Workshops and Artists in Persepolis: A Study of Seal Impressions Preservingthe Theme of Heroic Encounteron the PersepolisFortification and Treasury Tablets." Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. 1991. "Sealsand the Elite at Persepolis:Some Observationson EarlyAchaemenidPersianArt."Ars Orientalis 21:1-29. 1998. "The Seals of Asbazana(Aspathines)."In M. BrosiusandA. Kuhrt,eds., Studiesin PersianHistory:Essays in Memoryof David M. Lewis, 113-29. Achaemenid History 11. Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoor het Nabije Oosten. 2001. "Glyptic Insights and Perspectives from Persepolis."In T. Baklr,ed., AchaemenidAnatolia, 6582. Proceedingsof the First InternationalSymposiumon Anatoliain the AchaemenidPeriod, Bandirma15-18 August 1997. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het Nabije Oosten. Garrison, Mark B., and MargaretCool Root. 1996 (reprint 1998). PersepolisSeal Studies.An Introductionwith Provisional Concordancesof Seal Numbers and Associated Documentson FortificationTablets1-2087. Achaemenid History 9. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het Nabije Oosten. 2001. Sealson thePersepolisFortificationTabletsI: ImagesofHeroicEncounter. OrientalInstitutePublications117. Chicago:OrientalInstituteof the Universityof Chicago. Gates,JenniferE. 2003. "AStudyin Clay:The GranarySealings fromKaranis."Paperpresentedat the AnnualMeetingof the AmericanResearchCenterin Egypt.Atlanta. Graham,A.J. 1982. "The ColonialExpansionof Greece."InJ. Boardmanand N. G. L. Hammond,eds., CambridgeAncientHistory,83-164. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. --. 2001. CollectedPapers on GreekColonization.Leiden: E.J. Brill. Hall, Edith. 1989. InventingtheBarbarian:GreekSelf-Definition throughTragedy.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Hallock, Richard T. 1969. PersepolisFortification Tablets. OrientalInstitutePublications92. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. Hartog,Fran ois. 1988. TheMirrorof Herodotus:An Essayon theRepresentation oftheOther.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress. Hegmon, Michelle. 1992. "ArchaeologicalResearchon Style." Annual ReviewofAnthropology21:517-36. Hermeren, Goran. 1975. Influence in Art and Literature. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Herzfeld,Ernst.E. 1935. ArchaeologicalHistoryof Iran. London: OxfordUniversityPress. Hoffman,Gail. 1985. "The Seal of Gobryas:PersianPatronage, Near Eastern Iconography, and Greek-Oriented Style." Paperpresented at the special session, "Defining Modesof Influence:ArtisticRelationsbetweenGreeceand the Near East."AnnualMeetingof the College Art Associationof America.Los Angeles. --.1997. Importsand Immigrants.Ann Arbor:University of MichiganPress. Kaptan, Deniz. 1996. "Hunting Scenes on the Sealings of Daskyleion."In M.-F. BoussacandA. Invernizzi,eds.,Archiveset sceauxdu mondehellenistique,85-100. Bulletin de correspondancehellenique suppl. 29. Paris: Centre Nationalde la RechercheScientifique. 2--.2002. TheDaskyleionBullae:SealImagesfromtheWesternAchaemenidEmpire.AchaemenidHistory 12. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Kent,RolandG. 1953. OldPersian:Grammar,Texts,Lexicon. AmericanOrientalSeries33. New Haven:AmericanOriental Society. Lapp,P. W., andN. L. Lapp,eds. 1974. Discoveriesin the Wadi ed-Daliyeh.Annual of the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research 41. Missoula, Mont.: Scholar's Press for the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch. Lecoq, Pierre. 1997. Les inscriptionsde la Perse acheme'nide. Paris:Gallimard. Leith, Mary.J. W. 1997. WadiDaliyeh I: The WadiDaliyeh SealImpressions.Discoveriesin theJudaeanDesert24. Oxford:ClarendonPress. Marvin,Miranda. 1973. "Studies in Graeco-PersianGems." Ph.D. diss., HarvardUniversity. Maximova, M. E. 1928. "Griechish-persischeKleinkunst." ArchdologischerAnzeiger, 648-77. Mitchell,Stephen. 1993. Anatolia. New York:OxfordUniversity Press. Murray,Oswyn. 1993. Early Greece.AtlanticHighlands:HumanitiesPress. Muscarella,OscarWhite. 1977. "UnexcavatedObjects."in L. D. Levineand T. CuylerYoung,Jr., eds., Mountainsand Lowlands:Essays in the Archaeologyof GreaterMesopotamia, 153-208. Bibliotheca Mesopotamia 7. Malibu: Undena Press. --.1979. "UnexcavatedObjectsandAncientNearEastern Art: Addenda."MonographicJ_ournalsof the Near East, OccasionalPapers1.1:1- 19.

131

JENNIFERE. GATES

Nikoulina,NataliaM. 1971. "Laglyptique'GrecqueOrientale' et 'Greco-Perse'."AntikeKunst 14:90-106. Ozgen, I lknur,andJeanOztiirk,eds., with MachteldJ.Mellink, Crawford H. Greenewalt,jr., Kazim Akbiyikoglu, and LawrenceM. Kaye.1996. HeritageRecovered:TheLydian Treasure.Ankara:Turkish Ministryof Culture. Pasztory,Esther.1989. "IdentityandDifference:The Uses and Meanings of Ethnic Styles." In S. J. Barnes and W. S. Melion, eds., CulturalDifferenceand CulturalIdentityin the VisualArts, 15-38. Studies in the History of Art 27. Washington,D.C.: NationalGalleryof Art. Plog, Stephen. 1995. "Approachesto Style."In C. CarrandJ. and Neitzel, eds., Style,Societyand Person:Archaeological EthnologicalPerspectives, 369-87. New York:PlenumPress. Richter,Gisela. 1946. "Greeksin Persia."AmericanJournal of Archaeology50:18-23. 1949. "The Late Achaemenian or Graeco-Persian Gems."Hesperiasuppl. 8:291-98. --. 1952. "GreekSubjectson Graeco-PersianSealStones." In G. C. Miles,ed.,ArchaeologicaOrientaliainMemoriam ErnstHerzfeld,189-95. LocustValley,N.Y.:J.J.Augustin. Root, Margaret Cool. 1979. The King and Kingship in AchaemenidArt:Essayson the Creationof an Iconography of Empire.Leiden:E.J. Brill. --. Reviewof M. Roaf,Sculpturesand SculptorsatPersepolis. In AmericanJrournalofArchaeology 89:113-14. --. 1991. "Fromthe Heart:PowerfuilPersianismsin the Art of the WesternEmpire."In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburgand A. Kuhrt,eds., Asia Minor and Egypt:Old Culturesin a New Empire, 1-29. Achaemenid History 6. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. --. 1994. "Liftingthe Veil: ArtisticTransmissionsbeyond the Boundariesof HistoricalPeriodisation."In H. SancisiWeerdenburg,A. Kuhrt,and M. C. Root, eds., Continuity and Change, 9-37. Achaemenid History 8. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. --. 1996. "The PersepolisFortificationTablets: Archival Issues and the Problemof StampsversusCylinderSeals." In M.-F.BoussacandA. Invernizzi,eds.,Archivesetsceaux du mondehellenistique,3-27. Bulletinde correspondance helleniquesuppl. 29. Paris:CentreNationalde la Recherche Scientifique. --. 1997. "CulturalPluralismson the PersepolisFortification Tablets." TOPOIsuppl. 1:229-52.

132

1998. "PyramidalStamp Seals-The PersepolisConnection."In M. BrosiusandA. Kuhrt,eds., Studiesin Persian History:Essaysin Memoryof David M. Lewis, 25798. AchaemenidHistory 11. Leiden:NederlandsInstituut voor het NabijeOosten. --. 2002. "Animalsin the Art of Ancient Iran." In B. J. Collins, ed., A Historyof theAnimal Worldin theAncient Near East, 169-209. Leiden:E.J. Brill. Root, MargaretCool, and Elspeth R. M. Dusinberre. 1994. "Whatis Graeco-PersianArt? Perspectiveson the Constructand a Case Study from Sardis."Paperpresentedat the symposium,"Cultureand Ethnicityin the Hellenistic East: Issues, Problems, and Approaches."Universityof Michigan,Ann Arbor. Sancisi-Weerdenburg,Heleent. 2001. "The Problemof the Yauna."In T. Bakir,ed.,AchaemenidAnatolia, 1-11 . Proceedingsof the FirstInternationalSymposiumon Anatolia in theAchaemenidPeriod:Bandirma15-18 August 1997. Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Schapiro,Meyer. 1962. "Style."In S. Tax, ed., Anthropology Today:Selections,278-303. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. Schmidt,ErichF. 1957. PersepolisII: Contentsof the Treasury and OtherDiscoveries.OrientalInstitutePublications69. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. Seyrig, Henri. 1952. "Cachetsachemenides."In G. C. Miles, Orientaliain MemoriamErnstHerzfeld, ed., Archaeologica 195-202. Locust Valley,N.Y.:J.J. Augustin. Shennan,Stephen,ed. 1989. ArchaeologicalApproaches to Cultural Identity.London:Unwin Hyman. Starr, Chester G. 1977. "Greeksand Persiansin the Fourth CenturyB.C. PartII." Iranica Antiqua 12:49-116. Thomas, Nicholas. 1991. EntangledObjects:Exchange,Material Cultureand Colonialismin the SouthPacific. Cambridge, Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress. Tsetskhladze,Gocha, and FrancoDe Angelis, eds. 1994. The Archaeologyof GreekColonisation.Oxford: Oxford UniversityCommitteefor Archaeology. Wobst, Martin.1999. "Stylein Archaeologyor Archaeologists in Style."In E. Chilton, ed., MaterialMeanings:Critical Approachesto theInterpretationofMaterialCulture,1 832. Salt LakeCity:Universityof Utah Press. Zazoff, Peter. 1983. Die Antiken Gemmen. Munich: CH Beck'scheVerlagsbuchhandlung. --.

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

Notes on the Iranianization of Bes in the Achaemenid Empire Author(s): Kamyar Abdi Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 133-162 Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629595 Accessed: 01/02/2009 10:21 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

KAMYAR

ABDI

Notes

on

in

the

the

Iranianization of Bes

Achaemenid Empire

ABSTRACT

These commentariesfollow up on an article published in Ars Orientalis(Abdi 1999) entitled"Besin the AchaemenidEmpire." The earlierstudy catalogued115 depictionsof the Egyptiangod Bes in the context of the vast western Asiatic reaches of the Achaemenidempire.As an exercisein empiricalresearch,it raised a numberof intriguingquestions.Representationsof Bes revealed themselvesacrossa wide rangeof artifacttypes and levels of quality, clearlycuttingacross lines of class and ethnicity.This was a significantfinding,since Bes withinhis originalmilieuwas, above all, the deity of the commoner,despite some notableappearances in elite contexts.He enjoyedspecialexpertiseas a protectorof the home and stalwartdefenderagainstnoxious agents,as a protector of women in childbirthand of ordinarysoldiers. In this new discussion, some twenty-sevenadditionalartifactsbearingthe image of Bes areadded to the Achaemenidrepertoire.Moreimportantly, however,questionshintedatin the firstarticlearetakento another level here:issues of mechanisms,meanings,and chronologicalindicesof thewidespreadappropriationof Besin arenasof theAclhaemenid empireoutside Egypt.The study of Bes leads to a contemplationof Iranianization.This termis offeredas one thatcan assist us in discussing complexitiesof culturaltransmissionwithin the multiethnicrealmof an AchaemenidPersianhegemonyin which directedimperialideologiesinteractedwith regionaland personal idiosyncracies.Ultimatelyit is hoped thatthe conceptsenibedded in the term"Iranianization" mayproveusefulin a largerdiscourse on Achaemenidempirestudies.

133

ArsOrientalis, volume XXXII (2002)

KAMYAR ABDI

FIG. 1.

No. 5.4: Greenishbluefrit amulet from the Persepolis Treasury.Iran National Museumacc. no. PT6 359. Photo courtesyof the Iran National Museum, Tehran.

FIG. 2.

No. 5.21: Amulet (material not cited)from Persepolis.Iran National Museumacc. no. 2024. Photo courtesyof the Iran National Museum, Tehran.

FIG.

3.

No 5.22: Faience amuletfrom Persepolis.Iran National Museum acc. no. 2064. Photo courtesyof the Iran National Museum, Tehran.

FIG.

4.

No. 5.23: Faience amuletlfrom Persepolis.Iran National Museum acc. no. 7631. Photo courtesyof the Iran National Museum, Tehran.

134

-

NOTES ON THE IRANIANIZATIONOF BES IN THE ACHAEMENIDEMPIRE

INTRODUCTION

A

N ENCOUNTER

BETWEEN

two cultures may

triggera complexprocess of interactionthat is capableof affectingalmosteveryaspectof both cultures-subsistence, sociopoliticalorganization, language,iconography,ideology, and cosmology. This interactioninvolvesa tremendousamount of give-and-takebetweenthe two cultures.On a tangible level, it is demonstratedin two-wayexchange of goods and/orone-wayacquisitionof itemsthatcan be recognizedarchaeologically.On a more elusive level, this interactionwill involvetransmissionof behaviors,practices,sociopoliticalforms,and beliefs. A primarystrategyof archaeologistsandarthistoriansis to study the transmissionand modulationof artifactsthroughtheirformalqualitiesof style, typology, symbolism,and so on. It may be a straightforwardprojectto recognizeexoticmotifswhen theyare discoveredin a new host cultureand to assignthem to a specificcultureof origin.Butit is muchharderto understandthe culturalconnotationsof the transmission process and the reworkingof a certainelement froma "giving"cultureto a "receiving"culture.This articletakesup this challengethroughan ongoingexplorationof the historyof the imageof the Egyptian deityBesin non-Egyptiancontextsof theAchaemenid Persianempire.I propose a templatefor envisioning theprocessof transmissionandmodulationof images of Bes fromhis nativeEgyptianhometo a rangeof arenas withinthe Achaemenidempireoutside Egyptas flowingthroughthe followingstages:observation-* adoption-- assimilation-* appropriation.The process itself,and its result,will be termedthe "Iranianization"of Bes.This exercisewilishowthattheboundaries separatingthe four conceptualstagesfromobservationto appropriationareporous. Furthermore, these stages do not necessarilyoccur in a rigid and universaltemporalsequence across the entirepanoramaof the culturallandscapewe arelookingat. In the observationstage the receiverhas access to the apparatusof the giving culture (in this case, observationalaccess to imagesand conceptsof Bes). Observationusuallyoccursearlyduringthe encounterbetweencultures,but it is importantto recognize that observationmay be a continuallyrenewingelementin the four-stagedparadigm.The receivingcul-

tureoftenrathersuddenlyfacesa cornucopiaof new icons, images,andmotifsassociatedwiththe cosmology and ideology of the givingculture.Most of this repertoiremay be meaninglessto the receivingculturewithouta priorknowledgeof itsideologicalbackground. Regardlessof the levels of knowledge acquiredby the receivingculture,some elementsof the givingculturewillresonatewithcertainculturaltraits in the receivingculturemore than others. Presumably,thesearethe elementsmostlikelyto be selected for adoption.In the case of Bes in the Achaemenid empire, the observationstagewill have takenplace initiallyon Egyptiansoil duringthe conquestsof 525 and 518 B.C.E. But thereis also evidenceto support the observation stage through Egyptian artifacts broughtto far-flungregionsof the empire. In theadoptionstagethereceiveruses anelement stemmingfromthe givingculture.Adoptioncan include the use of artifactsnewly and locally made in emulationof the originalexoticartifactsaswell as the use of actualimportsfromthegivingculture.In terms of the study of Bes, the tracingof adoptioninvolves tryingto discernoccasionswhereBes-imagesin their originalEgyptianmodalityhave been used without clearalterationsin formor syntax-not by Egyptian immigrantsbut by non-Egyptians. In the assimilation stage the receiver makes changes to received types-in this case changes to Bes-imagery-to renderthemmore amenableto the ideology and cosmologyof the receivingculture. Appropriationis the synthetic culminationof observation-adoption-assimilation. It partakesof all three of those stages and is in a sense the ultimate essenceof assimilation.In theappropriationstagethe receiverincorporatesreceivedandmodulatedimagery into culturalcontexts within the receivingculture. Here threevariantmodes may operate:(1) the belief systemin which the imagewas originallyembedded as a manifestationof the givingculturemay be maintained,and, alongwith the imageitself, this beliefsystem(theoriginalmeaningsof theimage)may be incorporated intorepresentational vehiclesandthematic structurestypicalof the receivingculture;(2) only certainaspectsof the originalmeaningof the imagerymaybe selected,combinedwith elementsfrom thereceivingculture,andultimatelyincorporatedinto 135 the receivingculture;or (3) the originalimagerymay

KAMYAR ABDI

be completelystrippedof its originalculturalbaggage and assignedan entirelynew set of culturalmeanings as it is incorporatedinto the receivingculture. is a termintendedto character"Iranianization" ize broadly the culturaleffects of the Achaemenid hegemony across a vast and ethnicallydiverse empire.In theirinscriptions,theAchaemenidsacknowledge with explicitpride the notion thatan ideological unityhas been forgedout of the ethnicand topographicaldiversityof theirempire.This rhetoricalso plays out in the metaphoricalmessages of official Achaemenidart(Root 1979; 1990). "Iranianization," then, is used here to express the process of infusion of a spirit born of the Achaemenidimperialenterprise. It is differentfrom, more diffuseand expansive than,the prescribedformsof"Achaemenidart" (the officialart of the court). It must also be separatedfromnotions of rigidethnic categories. Ethnically,ancientIraniancultureincorporated a largenumberof peoples belongingto the Iranian languagefamilyand sharingsome cosmologicaland ideologicalbackground.Within thatculturalarena, PersianswereIranians,but not allIranianswerePersians. Persiawas only a smallregionin the largerIranianworld, and Persianswere only one of manyIranian ethnic groups, of which the Achaemenidclan formedthenobleandroyalclass.ButtheAchaemenid visionemergedout of a deep saturationin indigenous culturaltraditions,such as thatof the Elamitesin the southwesternregion of present-dayIran. My term "Iranianization"is thus an umbrella concept for somethinglargeand fluid. Iranianizationwas a phenomenonof acculturationreflectingthe imperialhegemony that manifesteditself widely and diversely in the variousregions of the empire-including areas that were not homelands of specific ethnically Iranianpeoples. It displayedthe powerfulforce of ethnicallyIranianimpulsesin the imperialsituation, but it was not limited in its impact to lands and peoples of literallyIranianethnicidentity.

THE EGYPTIAN DEITY BES IN THE ACHAEMENID EMPIRE

136

In an earlierarticle(Abdi 1999)1 surveyedimagesof the Egyptiandeity Bes within the visual cultureof

the Achaemenidempire outside the boundariesof Egyptitself.'This studycatalogued115 objectsdisplaying the Bes-image,divided into eleven categories: (1) cylinderseals, (2) stampseals, (3) seal impressions, (4) potteryvessels, (5) amulets,(6) personal ornaments,(7) cippi, (8) metalwareand other metal artifacts,(9) coins, (10) statuettes,and (11) architecturalelements.2Since that paper went to press,I haveidentifiedanothertwenty-sevenartifacts bearingthe Bes-imagefromthe non-Egyptianlands under the purview and chronologicalspan of the empire. These are now added to the preexisting frameworkof categories,since none so far necessitatesthe creationof a new category(appendix:tables 1-11). HereafterI shall referto artifactsin the expandedcatalogueby number(e.g., no. 1.4 beingthe fourthitemlistedin thefirstcategory[cylinderseals]). Itemsknownto come fromareasthatwereunderthe culturalinfluenceof the Achaemenidsbut were not, as far as we currentlyunderstandAchaemenidhistory,underthepoliticalauthorityof the Persiankings are not included in the tabulations.Thus, for instance, I have not cataloguedthe four wooden Bes plaquesdecoratinga horsebridlefromthe fifth-century PazyrykTomb 1 in Siberia (Lerner 1991: 8; Rudenko 1970: pls. 91-92), althoughthey will enter the discussion. Similarly,I have not catalogued Bes-imagesappearingin the materialrecord of the Greekislands or other arenasunder Greekcontrol, even thoughAchaemenidsobviouslyhad significant interactionsin these arenasand left markersof their presencein them.3 In 1999, my documentationof EgyptianBesimageryas it spreadacross the vast westernAsiatic reachesof the Achaemenidempireformedthe basis for preliminaryinquiriesinto the natureof cultural interactionamong people of Egyptian origin and other nationsin the Achaemenidempire,especially Iranians. As an exercise in empirical research, it raiseda numberof intriguingissues, some of which were addressedinterpretivelyand othersleft for futurecontemplation.One key findingwas simplythat the extent of Bes-imagery in the empire outside Egypt-and particularly in heartland regions of MesopotamiaandtheIranianplateau-was fargreater thanearlierdocumented.This factorin itselfacquires a high level of significancewhen seen in relationto

NOTES ON THE IRANIANIZATIONOF BES IN THE ACHAEMENIDEMPIRE

these regions before the Achaemenid empire. Althoughin pre-Achaemenidtimesobjectsbearingthe Bes-imageproliferatedin the EasternMediterranean (e.g., in Phoenicia),theywerealmostcompletelyabsent from the archaeologicalrecord in centraland southernMesopotamiaand the Iranianplateaubefore the rise of the Achaemenids.This dearthis apparent, despite the opportunities for observation throughmuchcontactmilitarily,diplomatically,and otherwisewith Egyptand thingsEgyptianas well as with Egyptianizing repertoires of, for example, Phoenicianmetal-and ivory-workingstudios. Many Egyptianmotifsfind theirplace in Neo-Assyrianart and become subjectto the stagesof acculturationwe arepositingfor the Bes-imagein Achaemenidtimes. But Bes is not amongthese motifs.The smallnumberof itemsincorporatingBes thatareassociatedwith Assyria, for instance, seem to be isolated artifacts broughtbackfromEgyptiancampaignsas booty. Why, under what circumstances,and in what ways did this picture change so dramaticallyin the Achaemenidperiod? The present article seeks to addressthis compoundquestion.At a certainpoint afterthe foundationof the Achaemenidempire,objects bearingthe Bes-imageproliferateddramatically, not only in places like the Levant,where we would most expect them based on earlierpatterns,but in the centrallands of the empire-Mesopotamia and the Iranianplateau.Additionallythey are found in certainenvironmentsto the west (in Anatolia)andin certainenvironmentson the easternfringes of the empireand beyond. What emergesis evidence of a veritableexplosionin popularityof thisidiosyncratic Egyptiandeity acrossvast areasof the Achaemenid hegemonythathad previouslynot been receptive,it would seem, to interestin Bes. In Abdi 1999, I pointed out preliminarilythat the Achaemenidrepertoireof these representations embracesa largenumberof artifacttypesandmodes of production,fromhumble items to highly prestigious ones. Suchwidespreaddistributionanddiversity suggest that in the Achaemenid empire Bes serveda varietyof functionsandroles,manyof which mayhavecrossedclassandethniclines. This is a significantfinding,since Bes, withinhis originalEgyptianmilieu,was,aboveall,thedeityof the commoner, despite some notableappearancesin elite contexts.

He enjoyed special expertise as a protector of the home and stalwartdefenderagainstnoxious agents, as a protectorof women in childbirthand in other ways an agentof fertility,and as a protectorof ordinarysoldiers.This issue of multipleaudiencesin the host milieuwill alsobe pressedfurtherin the current discussion. The earlierpaper specificallycited the military as an importantlocus of popularityof Bes-images. This is not a point I returnto in detail here, but it must be borne in mind as an importantelementin the culturalmix ofwhat encouragedBes to findsuch energeticacceptanceand such a varietyof new lives in the Achaemenidsphere. Most importanthere will be a contextualized contemplationof specificartifactsbearingimagesof Bes in orderto presentthe visualrecordwithin my four-stagedparadigmof acculturation-or Iranianization.In thisendeavormostattentionwillbe focused on some key excavatedartifacts,with selectedother itemsplacedinto discussionaroundthem.Focusing on excavatedandin somecaseschronologically informative data permits us to reach some conclusions aboutthe timetableof the Iranianization of Bes.

EGYPTIAN AND IRANIANIZED APPEARANCES OF BES ACROSS THE EMPIRE

In formalterms,thecorpusofBes-imagesfallsintotwo generalgroups:Egyptianand Iranianizedexamples. The Egyptiangroup is characterizedby conformity to Egyptianrepresentational traditionsand trendsin culturalusage,with no discernibleinfusionof differentmodalitiesofpresentationandsymbolicinference. In my view, the proliferationof the Egyptian-type imagesacrossMesopotamiaand the Iranianplateau seemslikelyto representthe influxof actualpeople of Egyptianorigininto the Achaemenidempire. TheObservationStage:Commonersand Elites. Particularlyin the wake of the reconquestof Egypt by DariusI in 518 B.C.E., Egyptians(alongwithpeoples of otherethnicbackgrounds)areknownto havetraveled backand forth,workingtemporarilyor settling permanentlyin the heartlandof the empire.The assembleddatarevealthatthe largestsingle corpus of

137

KAMYAR ABDI

138

amuletsbearingthe Egyptian-typeBes-image(nos. 5.6-18 [Abdi 1999: fig. 5] and 5.28, representing fourteenout of the thirtyexamplesso farcatalogued) comes from Susa, where people of Egyptianorigin areattestedtextuallyin the reignof DariusI (r. 521486 B.C.E.). In particular,Egyptiancraftsmenbuilding or decoratingtheAchaemenidpalatialcomplexes at Susa may have brought these objects with them from Egypt as protectionagainstunexpectedperils duringtraveland residencein a foreignland.4Such objectswereof modestintrinsicvalue(generallymade of a compositionmaterial),despitethefrequentlyfine detailingof the molds whence they were produced. Whenwe find themin the archaeologicalrecord,we can postulatethatmanyof them were misplacedby or buried with their Egyptianowners there.5The corpus of five (or possibly more) additional such amuletsfromPersepolis(nos. 5.4 and 5.21-23 [figs. 1-4]) offers the second largest assemblage of the type.6It is interestingthatnos. 5.2 1-23 areverysimilarin styleandpresentationof thevisageof Bes, even down to the way the curlsof the beardaredisplayed. (The headdressesof nos. 5.22-23 havebrokenoff.) Althoughtheseamuletswerenot madefromthe same mold, they are similarenough to suggest that they mayhavebeen producedin the sameworkshop.It is an open question(particularlyin the absenceof any materialsanalysis)what this may imply. Were they manufacturedon site in Persepolis in a workshop cateringto an Egyptianclientele?Were they manufacturedin one workshopin Egyptandsubsequently imported to Persepolis in the hands of a cohesive populationdrawnfromone Egyptianlocalitythatwas servedby this workshop? Schmidt(1957: 72 andpl. 41) characterized our no. 5.4 (excavatedin Room64 of the PersepolisTreasury) as an elementof decorativeinlay. The fact of its discoveryin the Treasurydoes not, however,necessarilymeanthatit adornedprestigefurniture.Numeroussealsof themostmodestworkmanshipfound in the Treasury(e.g., Schmidt 1957: 47) warn us, for instance, againstthe assumptionthat only personalartifactsof outstandingqualityor symboliccachet are likely to have found their way into the archaeologicalassemblageof this imperialTreasury. People frommanywalksof life musthaveworkedin the PersepolisTreasuryduringthe activeexistence

of this largemultifunctionbuilding.And in the end, of course, the chaos createdby its violent destruction invitedintrusiveitems.It was the flatbackof no. 5.4 thatseems to haveled Schmidtto callit an inlay. But Egyptianamuletswere frequentlymeant to be held in the hand or placed on the body for aid and comfort;numerousothersimple,mold-madefritBes itemsthatdo incorporatesuspensionholes servedas pendants for necklaces.In both cases, the Bes-images projectedapotropaicagency.7Our attemptsas scholarsto categorizeobjects(as,indeed,I havedone in distinguishing"amulets"from "personalornaments"in my own catalogue)inevitablylead to unfortunatehardeningof functional/meaningboundaries.Bes-imagesin New KingdomEgypt do occur on elite furniture,so there is ample precedent (see below, fig. 18). These inlaysare,however,in plaque formratherthanin the formof tiny isolatedfacesof Bes. In sum, ourno. 5.4 is mostlikelyanotherEgyptian Bes amuletfromPersepolis. Reinforcingthe evidence of a substantialnumber of Bes amuletsfrom Persepolis, workersfrom Egypt in the Persepolisenvironsare attestedin administrativedocuments of food disbursement(the Fortificationtablets) dating to 509-494 (Hallock 1969; Garrisonand Root 2001; forthcominga and b). These testimoniescorroborateinferencesabout the impact of Egyptiancrafttraditionsthat can be drawnfromdirectanalysisof the architecturalforms andsculpturaldecorationsof the ceremonialedifices on the Persepolis Takht (Root 1979; 1990). It is noteworthythat the excavationsat Susa and Persepolis do revealthese numbersof amulets,especially since the Persepolisexcavationshavefocusedprimarily on the ceremonial installationsof the Takht, where the recordof commondailylife will not be as strongas it would be in workers'livingquarters.8 Thus, despite the archaeologicalpreselection factorsthatwill have severelylimitedthe likelihood of discoveringhumbleitems of personal(Egyptian) property,the yield of Bes amuletsis substantial.It is importantto see thisfactorin a largercontextof Egyptian and Egyptian-typefinds outside Egypt. Many excavatedsites in the GreaterMediterraneanhave yieldedimpressivenumbersof Egyptianartifacts.Yet these overallnumbersdo not necessarilymean that faienceBes amuletswill be representedamongthese

NOTES ON THE IRANIANIZATIONOF BES IN THE ACHAEMENIDEMPIRE

corporain largequantities.Samos,forinstance,was an extremelyrich and importantsanctuarythathas revealedthe largestnumberof Egyptianbronzesoutside Egypt itself. Here, however, Skon-Jedelecites only eightfaienceBes amulets(1994: nos. 1816-23; see also Leahy 1988)-a very smallquantityin relation to the massive number of Egyptianimports.9 These datastrengthenmy suggestionthatBes amulets in the archaeologicalrecordatAchaemenidSusa and Persepolisshould be viewed as an index of the presencethereof Egyptiancommoners-and theconsequent observationof culturaltransmissionat the popularsocial level deep in the heartof the empire. Otherexcavatedevidencealso suggeststhepresence of Egyptianfolk (artisans,militarymen, or the like)livingin the imperialheartlandwho wereprobably directlyresponsiblefor the occurrenceof typically Egyptian-typeBes-images.Two very interesting stone votivemonuments(cippi) fit this category. Eachis carvedin reliefin fullyEgyptianmode (nos. 7.1-2 [figs. 5-6]), one from Nippur and the other from Susa (see Abdi 2002). These items clearly served the cultic demandsof Egyptiansdwellingat the imperialcenter but maintainingintact specific representationaland devotional traditionsof their homeland.They seem likely to have been made locallyratherthanimported.'0 FromObservation toAssimilationandIranianization. Some othercategoriesof artifactsbearingtraditional Egyptian-typeBes-imagerysuggest the diffusionof Egyptianformalmodes for the representationof Bes to elitesocialcontextsin the imperialheartland.This is particularlyinterestingin light of the case madein Abdi 1999. Thereit was claimedthata crucialfeature of the historyof Bes in the Achaemenidempireis the deity'sdeploymentacrossa wide socialspectrum,including very high-status individuals of Iranian ethnicity,as well as amongexpatriateEgyptiancommonersand militarypersonnel.One Bes "statuette" (no. 10.1 [Abdi 1999: fig. 10]) excavated in the PersepolisTreasuryis surelya fragmentof an elaboratevesselorvesselstand-not a statuetteperse. Made of EgyptianalabasterwithoutanynecessarilyIranianizingaspects,it certainlysuggestsa prestigeitem that founditswayto PersepolisfromEgypt-eitherbrought homeasbootyfromone of theEgyptiancampaignsor

5. No. 7.1: Drawing of a white stone cippusfrom Nippur. Baghdad Museum acc. no. 11 N 61. After Gibson 1975:fig. 34.3 up. FIG.

6. No. 7.2: Drawing of a blackstone cippusfrom Susa. Iran National Museum acc. no. 2103/103. Rendered by the author (Abdi 2002). FIG.

presented as a gift to the King of Kings by an Egyptian ambassadorialdelegation. Other alabasterartifacts(including royal tableware)from the Treasury were similarly made in Egypt and subsequently transferredto Persepolis (e.g., Schmidt 1957: 90-91).

139

KAMYARABDI

A fragmentarystone statuetteof Bes from the PersepolisTreasury(ourno. 10.2: see below,fig. 15) displaysthe deity frontallywearingonly the leopard pelt and a belt tied aroundhis distendedbelly. This artifactmay also representgiftingdirectlyfrom the Egyptiancourt to the AchaemenidPersiancourt. If so, it is anotherelementin the evidenceof observation. Its formalpresentationconformsto LatePeriod types in Egypt(Romano1989: 196), yet this dating would makeit the only documentedBes-imagein the form of a statuetteknown from the entire Late Period. Romano (1989: 172), albeit unawareat that writingof most of the Bes materialcataloguedin our appendix,statesthatLatePeriodBes-imagery

certainlynot elementsfroma necklacecommissioned and worn by a memberof an Egyptianwork crew. These pendants might representa prestige import fromEgyptitselfto the Achaemenidcourtlycircles. In this scenariothey would exemplifythe observation stageof culturalencounter-but here involving elite audiences.Gold pendantsof Bes (offeringthe god's protection in intrinsically precious and numinous form) are known from New Kingdom Egyptif not fromthe LatePeriodin Egypt(e.g., Boston 1982: cat.no. 351), as arenecklacesof faienceor glazed stone with multiple Bes pendants (e.g., Romano 1989: cat. nos. 109, 144). It is also possible, however,thatthe Pasargadae Bes pendantsarevestigesof a lavishworkofjewelry shows an extremely limited range of types of commissionedin Iranas a productmeantto emulate objectson whichthe god appears.Onlyamulets, Egyptianideas.Eitherway,thearchaeological record molds for amulets,and reliefs,both monumen- does not revealwhetherthisitemwaswornby a hightalandportable,areknown.We do not encoun- statusEgyptianlivingin Pasargadaeor by a high-staterthe richinventoryof cosmeticitems,jewelry, tusnon-Egyptian.Evidencefromthe PersepolisForscarabs,furnitureelements,statues,vessels, etc. tificationtabletsmakesit quiteclearthatIranians(i.e., thatpreviousgenerationsof artisanshad embel- Persiansin this instance)were interestedin evocalished with the Bes-image. tions of non-Persianstyles and motifs for theirprivatelycommissionedpersonalseals.Sometimesthese This comment, based on Romano's extraordinary evocationsareremarkably faithfulto non-Iranianproof the knowledge Egyptiandata,demonstrateshow totypes (e.g., on the first seal of Parnaka,Garrison importantthe evidencefromtheAchaemenidempire and Root 2001: 404-6 [PFS 9*]). There is no reais, not only to an understandingof the host culture son why the same interestwould not have affected but also to an understandingof the giving culture. jewelry. It is also importantto acknowledgethatwe As discussed below, the presence of this particular do not knowwhetheror not the necklacethese inditype of Bes-imageat Persepolisas an instrumentof vidual pendants originallyadornedmay once have the observationstagein Iranianization raisesintrigu- included indisputablynon-Egyptianpendant syming questions about the natureof cross-fertilization bols. If this were the case, thenwe would be dealing of imageryin the Achaemenidempire. insteadwith an exampleof one formof full-scaleapThe fifty-one gold Bes pendants excavatedat propriation(see below). In thisinstance,withoutinPasargadae(cataloguedcollectivelyas no. 6.4 [fig. disputablealterationsto the physicalpresentationof 7]) arevestigesof sumptuouspersonaladornmentBes per se, an Egyptian-typeBes would have been Iranianizedby virtueof being placedin a largerrepresentationalcontextof Iranianimagery. FIG. 7. No. 6.4: Drawingof oneof thegold Pasargadae.Iran pendantsfrom NationalMuseum.AfterStronach 1978:fig. 86.1. 140

IRANIANIZED

BES: PHYSICAL

CHANGES

In his process of Iranicization,Bes underwentsome physicalchangesto LatePeriodmodelsknownfrom Egyptin orderto accommodatethe deity to a different culturalmilieu.

NOTES ON THE IRANIANIZATION OF BES IN THE ACHAEMENID EMPIRE

The Skirt (Kilt). Accordingto Romano'sin-depth study, Egyptianrenderingsof Bes made before the reignof AmenhotepII in the EighteenthDynastydo not displayany garments.Beginningin the reign of Amenhotep III we do see numerous examples of EgyptianBes in the New Kingdomwearingvarious formsof a skirtor kilt(see Romano1989: 118-19 for thebreakdown).Interestingly,however,in Romano's list of Late Period representationsof Bes (which includes a limitednumberfromvariousregionsof the Achaemenidempire)he cites not a singleexampleof Bes wearingthe skirt(Romano 1989: 308-9). With our much-expandedrepertoireof Bes-imagesfrom realmsof the empirebeyond Egypt,we can propose a definitiveadjustmentto this picture. Of these renderingsofBes thatincludea human-formlowerbody, most display the skirt (sometimesvery clearlyand sometimes[indicatedby a"?"] too summarilyto as-

sess with certainty):for example,our nos. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 (fig. 8), 1.5(?), 1.6 (fig. 9), 1.7, 1.8, 3.8 (fig. 10), 3.12 (fig. 11), 6.5 (fig. 12), 10.3 (fig. 13), and 11.1(?). These imagesmaybe said to harkbackin one sense to New KingdomEgyptianprecedents,sincethe Late Period repertoireon Egyptiansoil seems to be devoid of the model. Such calculatedmining of specific antiqueprototypesis an acknowledgedfeature of Achaemenidart(Root 1979). And it is reasonable thereforeto postulatea similarmechanismat work in IranianizedBes-imagesdestinedfor elite groups. Arguably,Bes-imagesservingcourtlycirclesmight havebeen drivenby some of the sameideologicalenergiesthatdrovetheplanningofthe Achaemenidprogramof officialart.In such a scenario,Egyptianartisansmighthavedeliberatelyharkedbackto the prestigeof New Kingdomimperialgloryin theireffortsto appealto customers.With regardto the notionof the FIG.

~~~~~~~~~ .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N

ilW

-iL,,ea3,..O..O....

8.

No. 1.4: Cast of an impressionof an unprovenanced Achaemenidcylinderseal of carnelian, inscribedin Old Persian. British Museumacc. no. 89133 (7. R. Steuart Coll: 1849). Cast:KelseyMuseumacc. no. 1992.2.72, Bonner Cast Collectionno. 72. Photo courtesyof the KelseyMuseumof Archaeology, Universityof Michigan.

. d~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FIG. 10.

FIG. 9.

No. 1. 6: Drawing of an impressionof an unprovenanced Achaemenidcylinderseal of chalcedony.British Museum acc. no. 89352. Renderedby Yasamin Keshtkar.

No. 3.8: Detail of a clay labelfrom the PersepolisTreasuryimpressedwith stamp seal PTS 64s. OrientalInstitutePersepolis ExpeditionPT4 950. Photocourtesyof the OrientalInstitute, Universityof Chicago.

141

KAMYAR ABDI

//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,

FIG. 11.

No. 3.12: Drawing of the impression ofaaue stamp seal used on a tabletfrom the Mura3s2 archive of Nippur. Istanbul Musuem acc. no. Const. 598. After

a

Donbazand Stolper

FIG. 13.

1997: no. 58. FIG. 12.

No. 6.5: Drawing of a gold earringfrom Susa grave Sb 2 764. Louvre acc. no. 31 71. RenderedbyAnne Marie Lapitan after Ghirshman 1962: pl. 323.

FIG. 14.

No. 3.10: Compositedrawingfrom multiple impressionsof a cylinder seal used on tabletsfrom the archive of Nippur. Istanbul Museum acc. MurasMu nos. 5265, 5137, 12857, 12826, 12839. After Legrain 1925: no. 925.

15. No. 10.2: Statuette of lapis lazuli compositionfromthe Persepolis Treasury. Oriental Institute Persepolis ExpeditionPT5 299. Photo courtesyof the Oriental Institute, Universityof Chicago. FIG.

142

No. 10.3: Drawing ofa terracottastatuettefrom Nippur. University Museum, Philadelphia CBS 9454. Rendered by Anne Marie Lapitan afterLegrain 1930: no. 22 1.

NOTES ON THE IRANIANIZATIONOF BES IN THE ACHAEMENIDEMPIRE

skirtedBes as a consciousarchaismreachingbackto the eraof Egyptianimperialpower,animportantitem is PersepolisTreasurySeal (PTS) 64s, a stampseal usedon a claylabel(PT4 950) in theTreasuryarchive (our no. 3.8 [fig. 10]). The appearanceof PTS 64s appliedseveraltimesas the onlysealon thislabelsuggests thatit was a seal representinga high-levelpersonagewhoseinsigniumin thisadministrative context did not need to be countersealedby any otherindividualor office."The reintroductionof the skirtin so many of these Bes-imagesfound outside Egypt in Achaemenidtimesmay,in otherwords, consciously invokeNew Kingdomideasas a deliberate,ideologicallymotivatedaspectof Iranianization. Anotherelementin a postulatedIranianization leadingto the reintroductionof a numberof skirted Bes figures might conceivably be attributedto an Achaemeniddistastefor nudityand explicitrenderings of the malegenitalia-a distastethatled to widespread(althoughnotuniversal)avoidanceof thenude Bes with penis exposed. One could, however,frame thisideadifferently.One couldsupposethattheclothing of Besin so manyof thesepreservedrenderingsof the deity as a full-figuredhumanreflecteda positive interestinportraying theEgyptiandeityin a guisemore in keepingwith imperialnormsof representationof humanfigures.Statedthis way, the clothingof Bes wouldbecomeanIranianization thateffectivelyincorporatedEgyptianBesintothecourtlycode of conduct and self-presentation of Achaemenidaristocrats. One cylinder seal impressed on tablets in the Mura'su archivefromNippurseemsclearlyto display the Bes-imagenude exceptfora fringedbelt (ourno. 3.10 [fig. 14]). Of the otherthreeimagesof Bes as a fully humanformknown throughseals used on the Muras'udocuments,two definitelyshow Beswiththe skirt (our nos. 3.12 [fig. 11] and 3.13). The third (our no. 3.14) is not preservedbelow the waist. No. 3.12 was used by an officialwith an Egyptianname, while our nos. 3.10 and 3.13 wereused by individuals with Babyloniannames. These seals all display variantsof the heroic encountermotifin the Greater Mesopotamiantraditionthatis revivedin a tremendous floruitin theAchaemenidempire(Garrisonand Root 2001). The factthatthe imagesoccuron cylinder sealsis also an index of the Iranianizationof Bes. Interestingly, of the heroic encounters with Bes

shown in any formon tabletsof the Muravsu archive only no. 3.12 is associatedwith an Egyptianname (Bregstein1993: 604-9). TheKnot.Bes-imagesof the LatePeriodfromEgypt are either completelynaked or wear a leopard-skin pelt. Accordingto Romano(1989: 196), when Late PeriodBes figuresfromEgyptwearthe leopardpelt, theyalso"invariably" weara belt.This beltis "almost always"tied with a single loop. Our no. 10.2 (fig. 15), the fragmentarystatuettefrom the Persepolis Treasury,exemplifiesthe Bes type wearingonly the leopardpelt and a tied belt. But the belt here is tied in a distinctive knot with a double loop-not the single loop describedby Romanoas almostuniversallythenormin LatePeriodEgypt.Severalexamples fromsmall-scaleartsshow Bes displayinga largeknot thatis probablythis samedoubleknot (e.g., 1.4 [fig. 8], 1.7, 6.5 [fig. 12], and 10.3 [fig. 13]). Nos. 1.4, 1.7, and 6.5 are all items in which the Bes-imageis incorporatedinto Iranianscenes (see below). There hasbeenmuchdiscussionon the garment worn by the AchaemenidPersians(Herzfeld1941: 259-60; Roes 1951; Goldman 1964; Tlhompson 1965; Beck 1972). Most emphasizethat a knotted belt holds the garmenttogether.This specificknotted belt can be seen in profileon the figureof Darius I at Bisitunand on renderingsof Persiandignitaries on the Apadanareliefsat Persepoliswho have their bodies turnedto displaythe frontalview of the court robe (fig. 16). It is most dramaticallyvisible on the Egyptian-made statueof DariusI fromSusa(Kervran et al. 1972; Stronach1974, as well as numerousimagesin Razmjou,thisvolume).The kingis shownwith a broadbeltdouble-knottedatthe front(fig. 17). The detailsof the tieof theknotarerenderedmeticulously and in preciselythe same formatas what we see (in minutescale)on the Bes statuettefromthe Persepolis Treasury(fig. 15) as well as on the aforementioned representationsof the court robe on Persepolisreliefs. Significantly,however, the knot on the Egyptian Bes statuettefromthe Treasuryis renderedinverselyto the way it is renderedon the Aclhaemenid monuments.The Bes statuetterepresentsthisdouble knot according to the orientationseen on several other EgyptianmonumentsfromEgypt of the New 143 Kingdomor earlier.

KAMYAR ABDI

!

/-

/ '\l |

~

FIG.

$

.

17.

Drawingof the mid-section of theEgyptian-

madestatueof

:, \ <3 ~

Dariusfrom Susa.After

oytt 1974: fig. 24.

.._..'.l.~..f

FIG.

16.

Relief showing Persian noble wearing.fluted tiara and belted/knottedPersian court robe.North stair of the Apadana at Persepolis. Photo byM. C. Root.

144

There are manyways of renderinga knot. The particulardoubleknotwe see depictedon representations of the Persiancourt robe in Achaemenidartis not paralleledin earlierwesternAsiatictraditionsto the best of my knowledge.Indeed, knottedbelts are rarelydepictedin any formatin ancientNearEastern art.12The specificformoftheAchaemeniddoubleknot comes fromEgypt.Althoughit is not a commonfeaturein Egyptiandynasticartin thispreciseformat,the parallelsthatdo existseemusuallyto emphasizeassociationswith the divine in some sense.13This topic deservesfurtherinvestigation by a specialistin thearea. Types of knots carriedsignificantand distinctiveassociationsin Egyptianiconography.Thus, for instance,theprotectiveknotof thegoddessIsis could stand alone as an amuleticdevice (Munster1968). Whatis remarkablein the case of the double knot is the fact that our explorationof the Bes-imageleads

us to consider that the developmentof the formula for the knottedbelt on the Persiancourtrobewas, to beginwith, intendedto bringto officialAchaemenid arta reminiscenceof Egyptiansymbolicalmotifsassociated with divine/cosmic realms. Once fully assimilatedinto the vocabularyof Iranianizedvisual culture,the double-knottedbelt was then appliedto Bes aspartofa processoflranianizationbasedon precedentsthatwere themselvesoriginallyEgyptian.'4 The Headdress. The EighteenthDynasty in Egypt witnessedmanychangesin Bes'sphysicalappearance and outfit.Examplesof the Bes-imagepredatingthe EighteenthDynastyarepredominantlynakedor with minimalclothing. The first item of clothing to appear in the EighteenthDynasty was the feathered headdress, presumablymade from ostrich plumes and apparently adopted from representations of Anukis (Romano 1989: 78). By the Late Period, nearlyevery Bes-imagewears a headdress of some sort. The headdress appears in several different forms,includingthe traditionallotusofNefertem,the atef crown, and a double-plumed arrangement, amongothers(Romano 1989: 194). By farthe most commonheaddresswas, however,a rankof multiple ostrichplumes that flaresout towardthe top, mimicking the profile of the Egyptian cavetto cornice (Romano 1989: 192). Anothercommon headdress takes the shape of the cavetto cornice but with no feathersindicated(Romano 1989: 193).

NOTES ON THE IRANIANIZATION OF BES IN THE ACHAEMENID EMPIRE

None of the elaborateheaddress types can be seen on the examplesof the Bes-imagefoundin nonEgyptianregionsof theAchaemenidempire,butboth themultiple-plumeandthe cornicetypeswerepopular. Some splendidexamplesof the multipleostrichplume headdresscan be seen on the Egyptian-type amulets from Susa (e.g., nos. 5.5, 5.13-17 [Abdi 1999: fig. 5]) and Persepolis(e.g., no. 5.21[fig. 2]), while the cornice-formheaddressis seenveryclearly on amuletssuch as nos. 5.6 and 5.7 (Abdi 1999: fig. 5). A variantform that emergesin the Achaemenid period seems to combinethe strongflaringverticality so prominentin theplumeheaddressandthecompact proportionsand generallymore straight-sided aspectof the corniceheaddress.The resultingformis similarin outlineto the Persianflutedtiaraworn by PersiannoblesalongwiththePersiancourtrobefound on reliefsat Persepolis.Here comparethe headdress worn by Bes on the gold pendantsfromPasargadae (ourno. 6.4 [fig.7]) with figuresof Persiannobleson the Apadanareliefsat Persepolis(fig. 16). The modulated headdress of Bes in some Iranianizedrenderingsmay indicate a syncretistic mergingof the two primarytraditionalEgyptianBes headdresses-the flaringmultiple plumes and the morerigidcavettocornice-bringingBesvisuallyinto the courtly Achaemenidsartorialvocabulary.It is equallypossible that the Persianflutedtiara-as we know it fromrepresentationsin officialAchaemenid artcanonizedduringthe reign of DariusI-was the originalsite of the syncretism(a formdevised deliberatelyto makesome allusionto Egyptianiconography). In this case, the modulatedforms seen occasionally on Bes-imagesin the empirewould follow the lead of the officiallydesigned program. Once again,the concept of such deliberatesyncretismaccordswithwhatwe see elsewherein Achaemenidart (Root 1979). The specificsof theparticularcasehere remainhighly speculativeand difficultto press furtherat present.The issue does alertus to the possibility that the pendantsfromPasargadae,discussed earlierin termsofvariousinterpretiveoptions,should indeedbe consideredassimilatedratherthanmerely adoptedBes-images (images that have undergone deliberatechangein theirIranianization). In any event, Bes-images on demonstrably Achaemenid-periodartifactsdisplaya wide rangeof

headdress variationsalong the basic line between plumesand cavettocornice.Any tendencyto merge the two formatsmustbe understoodwithinthe context of otherrepresentationsthatcontinueto follow Egyptianformulaequitefaithfillyon imagesthathave been Iranianizedin otherways.

THEMATIC CHANGES

Besas a WingedLion-Creature.WingedBes-images firstappearin Egyptin theEighteenthDynasty.They arefoundin the New Kingdombut not, accordingto Romano's1989 tabulations,in the Third IntermediatePeriod.FortheLatePeriodRomanolistsonlyone example (his cat. no. 290). The small number of wingedBes-imagesthatareknownalldisplaythewings eitherbentdownwardor straight(figs.18-19). These two examplesalsotypifythe factthatwingedBes-imagesfromEgyptareassociatedwithbothnobilityand commoners.Figure18 showswingedBes on a carved woodenpanelfroma royalbed foundin Tomb 46 in the Valleyof the Kings,belongingto YuyaandTuya, the parentsof QueenTiye, wife of AmenhotepIII of the EighteenthDynasty(Romano1989:273-77 [cat. no. 87]; Daviset al. 1907: oppositep. 37). Figure19 showsa wingedBes-imageon a wallpaintingin a privatehouse of the Deirel-Medinehvillageof the NineteenthorTwentiethDynasty(Romano1989:446-48 [cat.no. 152]; Bruyere1939: fig. 131). In the Achaemenidperiod outside Egypt, we haveseveralexamplesof Besasa compositelion-creaturewith wings and a Bes head (e.g., our nos. 1.2, 1.3, 1.8 [Abdi 1999: fig. 1], 3.7 [Abdi 1999: fig. 3], 3.9 [fig. 20] 3.10 [fig. 14], and 8.1 [Abdi 1999: fig. 8]). Bes as a wingedhuman-formbeingis not known to me atpresent.(Ourno. 3.1 1 [fig.21] is an elusive seal impression from the Muras"uarchive, but it clearlyshows Bes graspingtwo winged animalsto his torso-not a winged Bes.) The compositenature of the creaturesand the forms of the wings on the Bes-headed winged lion-creaturesare Iranianized elements. Lion-creaturesabound in the art of the Achaemenidempire(viz., Garrisonand Root 2001 for many examples). Furthermorethe style of the wings on thesecreaturesis verydifferentfromthatof 145 New KingdomEgyptianwingedBes-images,seeining

KAMYAR ABDI

i

FIG.

BL~

-

A

i8.

-

FIG. 19.

Drawing of one of the carved woodenpanels from a bed in the tomb of Yuya and Tuya (Eighteenth Dynasty). Thebes, Valley of the Kings. After Romano 1989: 277 (cat. no. 87).

Drawing of a wall paintingfrom a New Kingdom private home at Deir el Medineh.After Romano 1989: 448 (cat. no. 152).

to owe a greatdealto formsdevelopedin Achaemenid glyptic workshops. The winged Bes figuresof the Achaemenidempiredisplaysoftlycurvingwings.The soleLatePeriodEgyptianexampleofwingedBescatalogued by Romano,by contrast,continuesto show Bes with straightwings (Romano1989: 828-34 [cat. no. 290]; Steindorff1946: 157-temple carvingdating to NectaneboI [r. ca. 380-362 B.C.E.]).

146

Bes as an Iranian Hero. In numerousinstancesBes emergesin the Achaemenidempireas a participant in scenes of heroic encounter of the control type (where the hero graspstwo creaturesin a balanced composition).While the traditionsof Bes in Egypt include contexts in which the deity controls other creatures,thesecarrya genderdistinction:femaleBes holds snakes,lizards,anddeserthares;maleBes only graspssnakes(Romano1998: 96). In Bes-imagesof the Achaemenidempire male Bes controls various types of animals and creatures:gazelles or goats, andothermythihorses,lions,wingedlion-creatures, calcreaturesincludingwingedBes-headedlion-creatures(viz., our nos. 1.3, 1.6 [fig. 9], 1.8, 2.11, 1.12, 3.8 [fig. 10], 3.10 [fig. 14], 3.11 [fig. 21], 6.5 [fig. 12]). The proliferationof heroicmodesin which Bes

participatescanbe contextualizednowwithintherich iconographicalfloweringof hero imageryin Achaemenid artas it developsin Persepolis(Garrisonand Root 2001: esp. 53-60 on meaningsof the hero). Heroesof alltypesemergein thisenvironmentin the artof seals(andotherportablearts),eventhoughthe officialart of the same milieu remainsrigidlycodifiedandiconographically restricted.This integration of Besintotheheroicfieldis perhapsthemoststriking and unambiguousfeatureof his Iranianization. The stagewas certainlyset for the emergenceof Bes as an Iranianhero in the very largecorpus of seals documentedon the PersepolisFortificationtablets,which display so many variationson the hero (sometimes franklyirreverentandhumorouslikeBeshimself).But no imageof Bes has been identifiedamongthe hero sealson the Fortificationtablets-or indeedon anyof the sealsused on PF tablets1-2087, which makeup the researchcorpus of Garrisonand Root. This, as discussedbelow,offersa crucialchronological marker. Bes Incorporatedinto OtherIranian Iconographic Systems.SCENES WITH PEDESTALCREATURES. Ourno. 3.9 (fig.20) is a sealknownfromthe Murasuarchive that displaystwo Bes-headedwinged lion-creatures

NOTES ON THE IRANIANIZATIONOF BES IN THE ACHAEMENIDEMPIRE

FIG. 20.

No. 3.9: Drawing of an impressionof a cylinderseal impressedon a tabletfrom the Murasu archive of Nippur. Istanbul Museum TuM 202. After Kruckman 1933: no. LXXVIII.

FIG. 21.

/1

supportedby pedestalcreaturesin the formof lions. Pedestalcreaturesalsofigurein twounexcavatedseals in our catalogue:no. 1.6 (fig. 9) and no. 1.7. In all threeof theserepresentations the Bes-imageis partof an elaboratescene involvingIranianritualsymbols. Sealswithpedestalcreatureshavebeen shownto define a special categoryof elite representationin the Achaemenidempire(Dusinberre1997). Basedon the evidence from the Persepolis Fortificationtablets, Dusinberrepoints out thatin the earlyAchaemenid period,pedestalanimals/compositecreaturesappear on thesealsof a handfulof veryimportantpeopleand/ or imperialoffices.These sealsincludea royal-name seal of DariusI (PFS 1683*) as well as seals of very exaltedcourtpersonagessuchas Ustana,thesatrapof Babylonat the beginningof the fifth centuryB.C.E. (see also Garrison 1998 for further discussion). Dusinberre'sarticle,contextualizinga cylinderseal excavatedat Sardis,demonstratesthatpedestalimagerywas acceptableforan elitepersonageoperatingin the satrapyof Lydiaas well as in the MesopotamianIranianheartland.(The Sardissealdoes not incorporatean imageof Bes. Indeed,no sealwith Bes is so far known from Achaemenid Sardis [see Dusinberre 2003].) Interestingly,our excavatedexample of a seal withpedestalcreaturesthatdoes incorporatethe Besimage(our no. 3.9 [fig. 20]) was used on a tabletrecordingtaxesbearingthe nameof a Marduk-zer-ibni, son of Belsunu,and on anothertabletfromthe Kasr Archive(Stolper1985; 1988: 141 n. 32). Belsunuis recordedas a governorof Babylonbetween417 and

No. 3.11: Drawing of an impressionof a stamp seal used on a tabletfrom the Murasu archive ofNippur. Istanbul Museum Const. 552. After Donbaz and Stolper 1997: no. 18.

414 B.C.E. anda governorof "Abar-Nahara" (Acrossthe-River)between407 and401 B.C.E. (Stolper1987: 392). These observationssuggestthatfromthe early fifthcentury(when we arelooking througlhthe lens of the Fortificationtablets)to the late fifth century (whenwe are lookingthroughthe lens of these corporaof sealedtablets)theuse ofpedestalanimalscontinues to be restrictedto individualsof high status. Within that framework, no. 3.9 shows us that IranianizedBes was operatingas an importantimage, filly assimilatedinto the codes of elitepresentationin sceneschargedwith Iranianreligiousassociations. BES IN IRANIAN CULT SCENES. Cylindersealscontinue to provideour most importantevidencehere, displayingBes-imagesin scenesthatareotherwiseIranian.Egyptianizingmotifsgenerallyarefamiliarto us on seals of the Achaemenidperiod. One prime exampleis PFS38 on theFortificationtablets(Garrison and Root 2001: 83-85 [cat.no. 16]). This is the seal of the royalwifeIrtasduna(Grk.Artystone),incorporatingthe motifof Harpocratesperchedin a papyrus thicket.The challengeis to assessthe meaningof the Egyptianelementsin theirnew culturalcontext.Seals deployingthe Bes-imagemay sometimesuse the imageryas a decorativeelementnot meantto be particularly chargedwith meaning.But it is dangerousto makethatassumption.Certainlyin manycasestheBesimageseemspivotal,includedin meaningfulwaysinto representational schemesdepictingworship. No. 1.4 (fig. 8) is particularlyinteresting.Bes standsfrontally,holdingbarsams orlilies-the former 147 suggestingIranianreligiousritual(Ward1910: 340),

KAMYAR ABDI

FIG. 22.

Drawing of a section of the Pazyrykrugfrom afifth-century nomadic tombin Siberia. Adaptedfromjettmar 1967:fig. 103.

the lattersuggestingroyalcult. FlankingBes are two menin Persiancourtrobesupholdingthewingedsymwithits atlasposturefullof cosmic bol ofAhuramazda implications(Root 1979). The sceneis accompanied by anOld Persianinscriptionthatreads,"Arsaka,son 1981:37-38). BothperofA0(a)iyab(a)sata" (Schmnitt sonalnamesareIranian,and theiroccurrenceherein Old Persianstronglysuggeststhatthis sealbelonged to an eliteindividualof Iranianethnicity.It thusprovides an unambiguousexampleof the appropriation of the Bes-imageby an Iranianwho has incorporated Bes into the visualcodes of Iranianreligion.The seal was collectedearlyand seems certainlygenuine.Its use of Old Persian in a monolingual inscription stronglysuggestsa datein thereignof Xerxesorlater, sincethefirstknownmonolingualroyal-nameinscriptions on sealsonly appearat this time. BES IN OTHER IRANIAN REPRESENTATIONALCON-

Additionalpresentationsof Bes show his integrationinto Iranianschemesof representation.On cylindersealno. 1.2 (Abdi 1999:fig. 1),wherea hero controlsBes-headedlion-creatureswith the winged symbolofAhuramazdaoverhead,a fruiteddatepalm also appears.This elementis considereda hallmark of Achaemenidroyal-nameseals (Schmidt 1957: 8; Dusinberre1997: 107-8; Garrisonand Root 2001). Like the pedestal motif, it seems to have connoted elevated status within an Iranianizedsphere of art production. Our no. 6.2 (Abdi 1999: fig. 6) is an unprovTEXTS.

148

enancedgold necklacedisplayinga centralBes-head elementflankedby smallersquareplaquesshowing equestrians in the Iranian riding costume. The plaques are reminiscentof figures woven into the fifth-centuryPazyrykrugexcavatedfroma royalnomadic burial in Siberia (Rudenko 1970: pl. 174 Lerner 1991; here fig. 22).'5 Althoughthe Pazyryk rugdoes notincorporateBes-imagesintoitsprogram, four wooden plaques fromthe same site are carved as Bes heads (Lerner1991: 8; Rudenko 1970: pls. 91-92). They formedpart of a horse bridle. While not technicallyunderthecontrolof theAchaemenids, the society representedby these elaborateCentral Asianburialswas in directcontactwith the empire. The Bes-headplaqueslook like local products,not carved in a style familiarto us from mainstream Achaemenidassociations.Yettheirpresencehereimplies that Bes, as infused with new energy within Iranianizedcontextsin the heartof the empire,had also made an impact on the eastern fringes of Achaemenidinfluence.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE IRANIANIZATION OF THE BES-IMAGE

Armedwith some examples of the Bes-imagefrom archivalcontexts, we may propose some basic parametersfor the Iranianizationof Bes. It is safe to assume that the Bes-imagewas first introduced to

NOTES ON THE IRANIANIZATIONOF BES IN THE ACHAEMENIDEMPIRE

Iranianaudiences in a majorway after the annex- affirmsour understandingthat before the mid-fifth ation of the Levantor in the course of the firstconcenturyseal motifsincludingIranianizedBes-imagquest of Egypt in 525 B.C.E. But the main burst of ery have become demonstrablypopular. The Ur creativenew definitionsin visual cultureunder the hoard,with a terminusPostquemof 465-460 B.C.E. Achaemenids seems to have taken place under for its deposition based on numismatic grounds Darius and Xerxes. It is likely that Darius'srecon- (Legrain1951; Collon 1996: 66), representsa colquest of Egypt in 518 B.C.E. provided a critical lection of artist'smodels in the formof impressions stimulusof the observationstagerightin Egypt.And of seals,coins, andmetalworkdesigns.Thus ournos. certainlyalso in the early years of Darius we wit3.1-7 (Abdi 1999: fig. 3) show imagesof Iranianized ness the influx into the imperialheartlandof Egyp- Bes not only in existenceby thatdateat the latestbut tians and theirculturalaccouterments-offering an alsoincorporatedinto the toolkitof anartistpresumon-site arenafor furtherobservation.Afterthe conably poised to use these images as models for any solidationof the empireunderDariusI, Bes gained numberof variantschemes.In the space of less than popularity and entered the Iraniandesign reper- thirtyyearsafterDarius'sreconquestof Egyptin 518 toire. The lackof Bes-imageson sealsin the Fortifi- B.C.E., Bes appearsin Iranianizedformon PTS 64s, cation archive (509-494 B.C.E.) iS important. An used in an elite administrativecontext at Persepolis argumentex silentio is alwaysrisky, but in this inandsubsequentlyon a varietyof otherdatableglyptic stance it is worth hazardingbecause the corpus is evidence.We can also look at some laterdatingeviso largeand representssuch a broad cross-section dence with the aid of the sealsused on tabletsin the of a well-traveledsociety(Garrisonand Root 2001). Mura'suarchiveof Nippur(Bregstein1993; Donbaz The one example of a Bes-image from the and Stolper 1997). smaller,moresociallyrestricted,andlaterPersepolis As table 12 shows, the earliestand the latestexTreasurycorpus(492-460 B.C.E.) is crucial.PTS 64s amples of the Bes-imagefrom the Mura"su archive (our no. 3.8 [fig. 10]) shows that sometimewithin (our nos. 3.9 [fig. 20] and 3.10 [fig. 14]) both demthese date parametersa fully IranianizedBes-image onstratetraitsof a fully IranianizedBes-in stylistic had entered the repertoireof motifs at Persepolis, qualities(the curved wings) and in iconographical where it was used by someone workingin a high- contextualization(the pedestal imagerycombined level post in the royal treasury.UnfortunatelyPTS withelementsof Iranianreligiousimageryforno. 3.9; 64s is onlyknownto us throughthisone sealedbulla, the Bes taking the part of a hero controlling Beswhich does not bear an inscription.Nor is the seal headedwinged lion-creaturesforno. 3.10). No. 3.9 knownto us in associationwith anyotherseals, thus was made before the 41st year of ArtaxerxesI (i.e., potentiallyofferinglinks thatmightfurtherrefineits 424 B.C.E.), when it was used in the archive;no. 3.10 usage date here. (On cross-linkingof Treasuryseals was madebeforethe 11thyearof DariusII (i.e., 412 as a method of inquiry, see Gates, this volume.) A B.C.E.), its first attestedusage date. Obviously one seal bearingthe Bes-imageis also now known to us througha cache of sealed anepigraphicbullaeexca- TABLE12. vated by AkbarTadjvidi in the eastern Persepolis Usage-dated Examplesof the Bes-image Fortification(ourno. 3.16; Tadjvidi1976: fig. 147). from theMuras!u, Archive This collection of uninscribedbullaeis not directly Bregstein no. Abdi no. Form associatedwith the Fortificationtablets(whichwere Date 424 3.9 208 (41 Al) Bes-headed winged lionexcavated from rooms in the Fortification at the creatures northeastsector). The repertoireof styles and im420 (3 DII) 210 3.14 ages appearsclose to those on the Treasurytablets 419 (4 DII) 209 3.13 and labels. It would seem, based on this evidence, 417 (6 DII) 206 3.12 that the Iranianizationof Bes had been achievedby 412 (11 DII) 207 3.10 Bes-headed winged lionsometimearound490 B.C.E. or slightlylater. creatures controlled by Evidencefromthe hoardof sealingsfromUr refrontal Bes

149

KAMYAR ABDI

cannotdismissthepossibilitythatthesesealsmayhave been madelong beforetheywereimpressedon these particulardatedtablets.Perhapswhatis mostimportantaboutthe Nippurevidenceis the clearindication it provides for individuals with Egyptian and Babylonian names operating in this arena within Mesopotamia,with Babylonian-namedpeople outnumbering Egyptian-namedpeople in the use of IranianizedBes-imageryon theirseals.

CONCLUSION

150

As I outlined at the beginning of this article, the of Bes canbe viewedas a culturalproIranianization cess, with the followingstages:observation-* adoption -4 assimilation-X appropriation.Prior to the rise of the Achaemenids,as earlyas mid-secondmillennium B.C.E., the Bes-imagewas restrictedto the easternMediterraneanworld, where it had spread throughprolongedcontactwith Egypt.Bes seemsto haveacquiredsomeculturalsignificancein thecoastal areabut hardlyexpandedbeyond the bordersof the Levant.The handfulof examplesthatmadetheirway to UpperMesopotamiaweremostprobablybrought backfromEgyptas booty by the Assyriantroops.In centraland southernMesopotamiaand the Iranian plateau,Bes was virtuallyunknown. The AchaemenidPersiansarose in the land of Fars in southern Iran in the mid-firstmillennium B.C.E. and conqueredthe entireNearEastin less than two generations. This rapid expansion brought people from differentculturesinto sudden contact and triggereda complexprocess of culturalinteraction. Ratherabruptly,people fromdrasticallydifferent culturesfound themselvesin close contactwith othercultureswithunfamiliarcharacteristics, including distinctivesystemof symbolsandicons. Iranians may have made theirinitialobservationof the Besimageat thistime.Iraniantroopsmayhaveoriginally been exposed to the Bes-imageupon the conquest of theLevantandEgypt.This mayexplainthepopularityof Bes amongAchaemenidmilitaryunits.16 Bes seems to have gained popularityboth among commonerand elite Iraniansonce the tumultuousearly empire-buildingyears had passed and the Achaemenid statedevotedmore time to massiveconstruc-

tion worksthatrequiredthe skillsof craftsmenfrom the edges of the empire, including Egypt. These craftsmenshould be creditedwith introducingBes into the imperial heartlandby bringing along examplesof the Bes-imagefromEgypt.The abundance of Bes amuletsfromSusaand Persepolisreflectsthe presence of Egyptiansin these imperialcentersand the intermingling of Egyptians and Iranians that would have provided a fertileenvironmentfor the observationstageof the Iranianizationprocess. Observationof the Bes-imageby Iranianspaved the way for the next stage-adoption. Some aspects of the myth surroundingBes, particularlyhis protectivefunctions,mayhave appealedto some Iranians,but othersmayhavesimplybegunusingthe Besimagefor its originalEgyptiancapacity-that is, as a talismanagainstnoxious creatures.Those Iranians who found some similaritiesbetween Bes and their own beliefsmay then havebegun the appropriation and assimilationstages in the Iranianizationof the Bes-image.Physicalchangeswere made to Bes, and he began to appearin a varietyof thematiccontexts of a fullyIraniantype. The changes mentioned above, especially the thematicchanges, demonstratethe newly acquired culturalsignificanceof Bes in his Iraniancontext.We arenot yet in a positionfullyto graspthe significance of the situation.Nevertheless,the visualrecordsuggests that despite the plethora of IranianizedBesimages,Egyptian-typeBes remainedpopularaswell. The image collection representedby the Ur hoard indicatesone tangiblemechanismwherebyEgyptian Bes andIranianizedBes coexistedin theAchaemenid empire(Abdi 1999: fig. 3), perhapsenjoyingrather differentconnotations. I am unableto end this narrativewith a tidy descriptionof the finalyearsof the careerof Bes in the Achaemenidempire.We currentlylackfirmlydated evidence.Besprobablycontinuedto be popularwell into the lastdecadesof the Achaemenidperiod.I am so farunawareof any datato suggestthathis career continued in westernAsiatic lands formerlyunder the Achaemenidhegemonyafterthe fall of the empire. Perhapsthe Macedonianinvasionwas the terminatingpoint for the IranianizedBes, while his Egyptiancounterpartcontinued to be veneratedin his homelandwell into Ptolemaicand Romantimes

NOTES ON THE IRANIANIZATION OF BES IN THE ACHAEMENID EMPIRE

-~~~~ -~~

-

|

FIG. 23.

FIG. 24.

No. 11.3: Leftfragment of a wall relief displaying a head of Besfrom Persepolis.Iran National Museum acc. no. P-180. Photo courtesyof the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.

No. 11.2: Fragment of a wall relief displaying a head of Besfrom Persepolis,apparentlyjoining at the right of no. 11.3. Iran National Museum. Photo courtesyof the Iran National Museum, Tehran.

numerousexamplesof the Bes-imagethatcould only (Hoffinann2000: 199-205; Frankfurter1998: 124havebeencommissionedby individualsof exaltedsta31 and 169-74). tus. How fardid thisverticalmovementtakeBes?To Why, amongthe numerousEgyptiandeities,did only Bes enjoy such popularityin the Achaemenid judge by the iconographyof severalsealswe havedisempire?Some of Bes's characteristicsset him apart cussed,thelevelsBes attainedreachedthe upperechelonsof courtlylife.Tojudge by thenumberof intrinfrommost Egyptiandeities. On a physicallevel, his sicallypreciousitems,suchas thegoldpendantsfrom comicalfiguremayhavemadeBes moreattractiveto ordinaryIraniansthanothermoremajesticEgyptian Pasargadaeand the gilded silverphiale (no. 8.1, undeities.'7On a functionallevel, Bes offereda fairly fortunatelyunprovenanced), Bes attained enough statureto decorate gifted luxury items that would simplemythologywith a largenumberof usefulbenefits,includingprotectionagainstnoxiousbeastsand have circulatedamongkings and courtiers. The as yet poorlyunderstoodfragmentsof a Bes physical harm, as well as other practicaldomestic functions(Bresciani1992). These benefitstoo may relieffrom Persepolis(nos. 11.3 and 11.2 [figs. 23 have appealedmore to ordinarypeople, who were and 24 respectively]-possiblyjoining fragmentsof moreconcernedwith dailyactivitiesthanthe smooth the same monument) suggest that an installation operationof a mythologicalcosmos, forwhich other somewhere in the heartland imperial capital was decoratedwith a programof Bes-imagery.Was it a Egyptiandeities were responsible. Further,as the centerof a popularcult,Besmayhavebeenintroduced garrisoninstallationwhereBes exercisedapotropaic to Iraniansby theirEgyptianwives,fiiends,comrades- functions?A birthingchamberof some sort?And in in-arms,orbusinesspartners,whereasthegreatEgyp- the serviceof people of what ethnic identifications? Similarly,the fascinatingrelieffromtheAchaemenidtiancults,controlledby specialpriesthoods,werenot period heroon in Lycia (no. 11.1) raises important readilyaccessibleto ordinaryfolks. With this paper I hope to have establishedthat issues about the complex practicesof acculturation among diverse peoples-surely elites in this casethe introduction and adoption of Bes into the Achemenidempirewas a horizontalprocess involv- populatinga multiethnicempire.While these issues arewellbeyondthescopeofmy commentaryhereand ing the commonpeople of Egyptand Iran.But, once my arenaof expertise,I can offersome generalideas 151 adopted, Bes seems to have attractedthe interestof thatmightencourageothersto takeup the challenge. membersof highersocialclasses,as indicatedby the

KAMYAR ABDI

Empires,as they become establishedand grow, typicallyface problems of internalcommunication and control.On the one hand,Achaemenidpractice used strategiesof divisa et impera,recognizingand condoninglocalethnicitiesandtheircultsso thateach componentgroupof the empiremaintainedits identity. On the other hand, Achaemenidpracticealso developedstrategiesfor bindingtogetherthe cadres of imperialadministratorsacross vast stretches of space with special cults, codes of dress and behavior, preferencesfor certaingoods, and the like. Encouragingtheuse of the Bes-image,andalsoperhaps

encouragingbeliefsabouttheeffectivenessof Bes and his protectivepowersthatcutacrossclasslines,seems to have servedboth of these bindingpurposes. Bes came to be a symbol congruentwith virtues of the Mazdaismthatwasdisseminatedin officialroyalproclamations.Withoutthreateningthe ideologiesof the stateand the beliefsof Mazdaism,Bes could symbolize thepersonalstrivingsforprotection,goodwill,and humorthatoperatedfluidlyamongworkers,soldiers, and nobles (andamongwomen as well as men)who servedthe Kingof Kingsthroughouthis realm.'8ni

fBes-Images Appendix:UpdatedCatalogue Thesetables(1-11) incorporateBes-imagessofarassembledfrom thepoliticaland temporalpurviewoftheAchaemenidempireoutside Egypt. Theydo not incorporateBes-imagesfrom regionsoutsidethedirectcontrolof theempire.A dashedline separatesnew additions to eachtablefrom thosealreadypublishedin Abdi1999. Full citationsfor referencesin the tablesappearin "WorksCited"at theend of this article.Regardingthoseartifactsin thecatalogue that are illustratedwithin thearticle,no attempthas beenmadeto renderthemaccordingto a consistentscale. Thereadershoulduse thefiguresonlyas a resourceon the imageryitself

TABLE 1. CYLINDER

No. Category

Material

Dimensions

Placeof discovery Repository

Referenceno. Bibliography

1.1 cylinderseal

red-brown agatebreccia

32 x 16 mm

bought in Lebanon, 1889

Ashmolean Museum

1889.360

Buchanan1966: 121, no. 675

1.2 cylinderseal

limestone

32 x 16 mm

Babylon, find no.29 278

BerlinMuseum

VA 6972

Moortgat1940: no. 758

1.3 cylinderseal

chalcedony

21 x 10.5 mm

antiquities market,1907

BerlinMuseum

VA 3387

Moortgat1940: no. 764

1.4 cylinderseal

carnelian

28 x 12 mm

antiquitiesmarket; BritishMuseum J. R. Steuart Coll., 1849

BM 89133

Wiseman1959: no. 103

1.5 cylinderseal

blue chalcedony

24 x 12 mm

antiquitiesmarket; BritishMuseum SoutheskColl.

BM 129571

Carnegie1908: 108,no. 34, pl. 8

1.6 cylinderseal

chalcedony

BM 89352

Wiseman1959: no.106

BritishMuseum

1.7 cylinderseal 152

SEALS

1.8 cylinderseal

NayyeriColl. agate

23 x 8 mm

Graziani1978 Bibliotheque Nationale,Paris

Delaporte1910: no.502

NOTES ON THE IRANIANIZATIONOF BES IN THE ACHAEMENIDEMPIRE

TABLE 2. STAMP SEALS (CONTINUED)

Dimensions No. Category Material 2.1 stampseal chalcedony 16 mm

Place of discovery Repository Bibliotheque Nationale,Paris

Referenceno. Bibliography 1085a Boardman1970: no. 164

2.2

stampseal

chalcedony

15 mm

Museumof Fine Arts, Boston

27.665

Boardman1970: no. 165

2.3

stampseal

rock crystal 15 mm

BritishMuseum

BM 115596

Boardman1970: no. 166

2.4

stampseal

17 mm

Boardman1970: no. 167 Cyprus(?)

Boardman1970: no. 168

once SoutheskColl.

2.5 stampseal

"green agatejasper"

2.6 stampseal

blue chalcedony

2.7 scarab

greenjasper 14 x 10 x 8 mm

AshmoleanMuseum 1941.1130

Buchanan&Moorey 1988: no.494

2.8

scarab

brownish- 17 x 13 x 9 mm greenjasper

AshmoleanMuseum 1938.875

Buchanan& Moorey 1988: no. 495

2.9

stampseal white quartz 23 x 15 x 18 mm

KennaColl., Geneva

20563 Musee d'artet d'histoirede Geneve

Vollenweider 1983: no. 31

18 x 15 x 10 mm

KennaColl., Geneva

Musee d'artet 20427 d'histoire de Geneve

Vollenweider 1983: no. 126

19 x 13 x 8 mm

bought in Beirut AshmoleanMuseum 1889.429

Buchanan& Moorey 1988: no. 468

2.10 scarab

darkgreen jasper

2.11 scarab

greenjasper

2.12 scarab

jasper

16 x 12 x 8mm

GraveNo. 7, Kamidel-Loz

2.13 scarab

faience

17 x 13 x 10 mm

Deve Hiiyiik

2.14 scarab

carnelian

13 x 8.5 mm

antiquitiesmarket

Nunn 2000: no. 33

2.15 scarab

faience

16.5 x 13 x 10 mm antiquitiesmarket

Nunn 2000: no. 36

2.16 scarab

chalcedony

18 x 13 x 8 mm

antiquitiesmarket

Nunn 2000: no. 37

2.17 scarab

carnelian

20 x 15 mm

antiquitiesmarket

Nunn 2000: no. 38

2.18 scarab

chalcedony

17.7 x 12.4mm

Byblos

Nunn 2000: no.39

2.19 scarab

jasper

17x 13.7x3.3rnm

Syria

Nunn 2000: no.40

2.20 scarab

jasper

16.5x 12.5x 10.5mmantiquitiesmarket

Nunn 2000: no. 41

2.21 scarab

jasper

17 x 12 x 10mm

Lebanon

Nunn 2000: no.43

2.22 scarab

steatite

16 x 12 mm

Byblos

Nunn 2000: no. 44

2.23 scarab

jasper

h. 32 mm

antiquitiesmarket

Nunn 2000: no. 45

2.24 scarab

jasper

15 x 12 x 9.5 mm antiquitiesmarket

Nunn 2000: no. 46

2.25 scarab

jasper

12 x 15 x 9.5 mm Byblos

Nunn 2000: no. 47

2.26 scarab

jasper

17 x 13 x 10mm

2.27 scarab

carnelian

14 x 10.5 x 5 mm antiquitiesmarket

2.28 scarab

glazed steatite13 x 10x5.5 mm

Johns 1933: no. 935 99, fig. 85

Tomb L 24 cAtlit,Palestine KL 64:116g

AshmoleanMuseum

Moorey 1980:ro. 488

Nunn200)0:no.48

Syria AI-Mina

Poppa 1978: 63, table8:7,17

Ashmolean Museum

Nunn 2000: no. 75 MN133

Buchanan&Moorey 1988: no.31

153

KAMYARABDI

TABLE 2. STAMP SEALS (CONTINUED)

No. Category 2.29 scarab

Material steatite

Dimensions 18 x 15 x 6mm

Place of discovery Repository Ras Shamara

Referenceno. Bibliography Stucky 1973: 286

2.30 scarab

steatite

14 x 9.5 x 6 mm

antiquitiesmarketBritish

105068 Museum

Giveon 1985: no. 161

TABLE 3. SEAL IMPRESSIONS

14 154

No. 3.1

Category stampseal impression

Material Dimensions clay

Place of discovery Repository Ur BritishMuseum

Referenceno.

Bibliography Legrain1951: no. 727; Collon 1996: 5b

3.2

stampseal impression

clay

Ur

BritishMuseum

BM 212

Legrain1951: no. 728; Collon 1996: 5d

3.3

stampseal impression

clay

Ur

BritishMuseum

3.4

stampseal impression

clay

Ur

BritishMuseum

3.5

stampseal impression

clay

Ur

BritishMuseum

3.6

stampseal impression

clay

Ur

BritishMuseum

BM 322

Legrain1951: no. 732; Collon 1996: 5g

3.7

stampseal impression

clay

Ur

BritishMuseum

BM 198

Legrain1951: no. 757; Collon 1996: 3c-d

3.8

clay ball w/ 3 clay impressionsof samestampseal

PT 4 950; Seal no. 64

Schmidt 1939: 43, fig. 25; Schmidt 1957: pl. 2, 13

3.9

cylinderseal impression on tablet

Persepolis Treasury

Legrain1951: no. 729; Collon 1996: 5c BM 346

Legrain1951: no. 730; Collon 1996: 5a Legrain1951: no. 731; Collon 1996: 5f

clay

29 x 11 mm

Murasu archive, Nippur

Ancient Orient TuM 202 Museum,Istanbul

Kriickmann1933: no. LXXVIII;Bregstein 1993: no. 208

3.10 impressions clay of 3 similar cylinderseals on 6 tablets

24 x 16 mm

Murasu archive, Nippur

Ancient Orient 5265, 5137, Museum,Istanbul 12857, 12826, 12839

Legrain1925: no. 925; Bregstein1993: no. 207

3.11

stampseal impression on tablet

clay

19 x 16mm

Mura'su archive, Nippur

AncientOrient Const. 552 Museum,Istanbul

Bregstein 1993: no. 21 1; Donbaz & Stolper 1997: no. 18

3.12

stampseal impression on tablet

clay

22 x 18 mm

Murasu archive, Nippur

Ancient Orient Const. 598 Museum,Istanbul

Bregstein1993: no. 206; Donbaz & Stolper 1997: no. 58

3.13

cylinderseal impression on tablet

clay

15 x 11 mm

Muras'u archive, Nippur

Ancient Orient Museum,Istanbul

Bregstein1993: no. 209

3.14 cylinderseal impression on tablet

clay

21 x 16 mm

Murasiu archive, Nippur

Ancient Orient 6129 Museum,Istanbul

3.15

seal impression

clay

Murasuiarchive Ni ppur

3.16

seal impression

clay

Persepolis Fortification

12836

CBS 4020 IranNational Museum

Bregstein1993: no. 210 Legrainl92S: no. 77S Tadjvidi 1976: fig. 147

NOTES ON THE IRANIANIZATIONOF BES IN THE ACHAEMENIDEMPIRE

TABLE 4. POTTERY VESSELS

No.

Category Material Dimensions

Place of discovery Repository

Referenceno.

Bibliography

4.1

jar

pottery

DeveHuyuk

(C)1913.640

Moorey1980:20,no.28

4.2

vase

pottery

Tel Mevorakh

Reg. no.484, loc. 125

Stern 1976: pl. 32A

4.3

jug

pottery

TellJemmeh

Jemmehno. 78C

Stern 1976: pl. 32C

4.4

juglet

pottery

TellJemmeh

Jemmehno. 78F

Stern 1976: pl. 32F; 1984: fig. 211

4.5

jug

pottery

TellJemmeh

Jemmehno. 78M

Stern 1976: pl. 33B; 1984: fig. 210

4.6

fragmen- pottery taryvase

TellJemmeh

JemmehE XXXVI 25/14

Stern 1976: pl. 32B

4.7

fragmen- pottery taryvase

TellJemmeh

JemmehE XXXVI 26/8

Stern 1976: pl. 32E

4.8

jug

pottery

Samariaregion

4.9

jug

pottery

4.10 jug

pottery

240x145mm

Coil. of Carmen & Louis Warschaw

Stern 1976: pl. 33A

Coll. of M. Dayan

Stern 1976: pl. 32D H 81-20668

Tell el-Hesi, Substratum Vd, Pit 1.12.249

4.11 pot sherd pottery

TABLE

Tadjvidi 1976: fig. 137

IranNational Museum

Persepolis Fortification

5.

Bennett& Blakely1989: figs. 177-78

AMULETS

No. 5.1

CategoryMaterial amulet faience

5.2

amulet faience

Dor, Palestine

Stern 1995: fig. 7.6.4

5.3

amulet faience

Dor, Palestine

Stern 1995: fig. 7.6.5

5.4

amulet/ light greenishinlay blue frit

PersepolisTreasury, IranNational PT6 359 Room 64, plot HG 91 Museum

Schmidt 1957: pl. 41:7

5.5

amulet faience

70 x 45 x 14 mm Masjid-iSoleiman

IranNational GMIS.701 Museum

Ghirshman1976: pl. CX3

5.6

amulet faience

h. 41 mm

Susa

Louvre

Sb 3565

Romano 1989: no. 277

5.7

amulet faience

h. 42 mm

Susa

Louvre

Sb 10170

Romano 1989: no. 278

5.8

amulet faience

h. 42 mm

Susa

Louvre

Sb 2954

Romano 1989: no. 279

5.9

amulet faience

h. 22 mm

Susa

Louvre

Sb 10148

Romano 1989: no. 280

5.10

amulet faience

h. 14 mm

Susa

Louvre

Sb 10174

Romano 1989: no. 281

5.11 amulet faience

h. 25 mm

Susa

Louvre

Sb 10175

Romano 1989: no. 282

5.12

h. 18 mm

Susa

Louvre

Sb 10176

Romano 1989: no. 283

5.13 amulet faience

h. 37mm

Susa

Louvre

Sbl10149

Romanol1989:no. 284

5.14

amulet faience

h. 31 mm

Susa

Louvre

Sbl10150

Romano 1989: no. 285

5.15

amulet faience

h. 35 mm

Susa

Louvre

Sb 10151

Romano 1989: no. 286

amulet faience

Dimensions

Place of discovery Dor, Palestine

Repository

Referenceno. Bibliography Stern 1995: fig. 7.6.3

155|

KAMYARABDI

TABLE

5.

AMULETS (CONTINUED)

Place of discovery Susa

Repository Louvre

Referenceno. Bibliography Sb 10172 Romano 1989: no. 287

5.17 amulet faience

Susa, Village perse-achemenide

Louvre

G. S. 2042

Ghirshman1954: 37, pl. XVII:1

5.18 amulet faience

Susa, Village perse-achemenide

Louvre

G. S. 2123

Ghirshman1954: 37, pl. XVII:5

5.19 amulet faience

Necropolis of'Ain el-Helwe, Lebanon

No. CategoryMaterial 5.16 amulet faience

Dimensions h. 29 mm

5.20 amulet lapis lazuli

Romano 1989: no. 288 IranNational Museum

Unpublished

5.21 amulet ?

Persepolis

IranNational 2024 Museum

Unpublished

5.22 amulet faience

Persepolis

IranNational 2064 Museum

Unpublished

5.23 amulet faience

Persepolis

IranNational 7631 Museum

Unpublished

5.24 amulet glazedfrit

h. 14mm

GraveP. 255, Ur

British Museum

U.12797

Woolley 1962: 115

5.25 amulet glazed pottery

h. 24 mm

GraveP. 60, Ur

British Museum

U.16798

Woolley 1962: 122

5.26 amulet faience

24.5 x 18 mm

Graveno.34, Kamidel-Loz

KL 64:314b

Poppa 1978: 100, table 16: 34,6

5.27 amulet faience

24 x 25 x 9 mm

Babylon

British Museum

5.28 amulet faience

Susa

Louvre

5.29 amulet faience

Cyprus

Romano 1989: no. 275

5.30 amulet faience

Cyprus

Romano 1989: no. 269

Reade 1986: 83, no. 43, pl. IVf Sb3564

Romano 1989: no. 246

TABLE 6. PERSONAL ORNAMENTS

No. Category Material Dimensions Placeofdiscovery 6.1 necklace faience Dor, AreaBI

Repository ?

6.2 necklace

Metropolitan 65.169 Museumof Art

Porter1984: no. 65

BritishMuseum

Dalton 1964: no. 32, pl. XII:32

IranNational Museum

Stronach1978: fig. 86:1, pl. 154 a-c

gold

6.3 medallion gold

h. 40 mm

d. 43.5 mm "The Oxus Treasure"

6.4 medallions gold 6.5 earring

gold

antiquitiesmarket

Pasargadae d. 50 mm

Susa, Graveno. Sb 2764 Louvre

6.6 medallions gold

16

Referenceno. Bibliography Sternand Sharon1987:pl. 27B

AO 3171

Ghirshman1962: pl. 323

?

Rehm 1992: fig. 36

IranNational INM 2206 Museum

Unpublished

6.7 medallion gold

h. 27 mm

6.8 medallion gold

24 x 17 mm Graveno. 2, Dosaran Cemetery,Zanjan

Zanjan

Rahbar1997: 24, fig. 2, fig. 3:18

6.9 medallion gold

8 x 4 mm

National 2426/59 Museum

unpublished

Talesh, Gilan

?Iran

NOTES ON THE IRANIANIZATIONOF BES IN THE ACHAEMENIDEMPIRE

TABLE 7. CIPPI

No. CategoryMaterial Dimensions Place of discovery Repository x x 7.1 cippus white stone 88 83 31 mm Nippur, AreaWA 13, Level Baghdad II 1, the "AchaemenidChapel" 7.2 cippus blackstone 94 x 91 x 18mm Susa

Referenceno. Bibliography 11 N 61 Johnson1975

IranNationalMuseum 2103/103

Abdi2002

TABLE 8. METALWARE AND OTHER METAL ARTIFACTS

No. Category Material 8.1 phiale with gold gilded Bes-sphinxappliques silver 8.2 jug with Bes head below the handle

silver

8.3 handlein the shape of a winged ibex on a Bes head

gilded silver

8.4 head of Bes attached to the frontof a miniaturechariot

gold

Dimensions Place of discovery Repository Referenceno. Bibliography d. 172 mm British BM135571 Curtis 1989: fig. 58 h. 18 mm Museum antiquities market

"The Oxus Treasure"

1.14.96

Usak Museum

Ozgen & Ozturk 1996:no.12,p.75

Louvre

Amandry1959: pl. 27: 2- 3; Porada1965: 168,fig.86

British Museum

Dalton 1964: no. 7, pl. IV

TABLE 9. COINS

No. 9.1

Category Material Dimensions Place of discovery Repository drachm silver privatecoll., Paris

9.2

hemiobol silver

privatecoll., Los Angeles

9.3

drachm

silver

Museumof Fine Arts, Boston

9.4

obol

silver

privatecoll., Los Angeles

Mildenberg1995: pl. 1:4

9.5

drachm

silver

privatecoll., Los Angeles

Mildenberg1995: pl. 1:5

9.6

obol

silver

privatecoll.,Jerusalem

Mildenburg1995: pl. 1:6

9.7

obol

silver

privatecoll., Los Angeles

Mildenburg1995: pl. 1:7

9.8

obol

silver

AmericanNumismatic Society, New York

Mildenburg1995: pl. 1:8

9.9

tetratemorion

silver

privatecoll., Los Angeles

Mildenburg1995: pl. 1:9

Abu Shusheh hoard

Departmentof IGCH 1507 Antiquities,Jerusalem

Mildenburg1995: pl. I:10

Samaria(?)

privatecoll., Los Angeles

Mildenburg1995: pl. 1:11

9.10 obol

silver

9.11 hemiobol silver 9. 12 drachm 9.13 drachm

silver silver

Cabinetdes Medailles,Paris Cabinetdes Medailles,Paris

Referenceno. Bibliography Mildenberg1995: pl. 1:1 Mildenberg1995: pl. 1:2 5.220

1071

Mildenberg1995: pl. 1:3

Mildenburgl1995:pl. 1:12 157 Mildenburgl1995:pl.I1:13

KAMYARABDI

TABLE 9. COINS (CONTINUED)

No. Category Material Dimensions Placeofdiscovery Repository silver 9.14 obol Cabinetdes Medailles,Paris

Referenceno. Bibliography 2999 Mildenburg1995: pl. 1:14

9. 15 obol

silver

privatecoll., Los Angeles

Mildenburg1995: pl. 1:15

9.16 drachm

silver

privatecoll.,Jerusalem

Mildenburg1995: pl. 1:16

9.17 drachm

silver

AmericanNumismatic ANS 39 Society, New York

Mildenburg1995: pl. 1:17

9.18 obol

silver

BritishMuseum

Mildenburg1995: pl. 1:18

9.19 drachm

silver

9.20 obol

silver

d. 9.5 mm

Cilicia

H. SirriGoktiirk Coll., Turkey

Goktiirk1997: no. 44

9.21 tetratemorion

silver

d. 6 mm

Cilicia

H. SirriG6ktiirk Coll., Turkey

Goktiirk1997: no. 45

Mildenburg1995: pl. 1:19

TABLE 10. STATUETTES

No. Category Material 10.1 pot stand (?) alabaster

Dimensions

Place of discovery Repository Referenceno. Bibliography PersepolisTreasury, IranNational PT4 1062 Schmidt 1939: 43, fig. Hall 38, Plot HG 31 Museum INM 2050 48 left; 1957: pl. 31:4

10.2 statuette

lapis lazuli composition

10.3 statuette

terracotta

10.4 figurine

clay

10.5 statuette

stone

10.6 statuette

stone

Kharayeb

Nunn 2000: 61, Tf. 28.92

10.7 statuette

stone

Kharayeb

Nunn 2000: 61, Tf. 28.93

10.8 statuette

stone

Ayaa

Contenau1920: 310, pl. 05d

PersepolisTreasury, Hall 38, Plot HG 22 105 x 55 mm

Nippur

PT5 299 University CBS 9454 Museum, Philadelphia

Tel Dan h. 93 mm

Schmidt 1939: 43, fig. 48 right;1957: pl. 31:6 Legrain1930: no. 221

Biran1985:189, pl. 24B

Sidon

A02219

Nunn 2000: 60, Tf. 28.90

TABLE 11. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS

No. Category Material Place of discovery 11.1 8 figuresof Bes in stone Heroon of Golba?ireliefabove the Trysa, Lycia southerndoorway

Repository samelocation

11l.2 relieffragment(?) stone

IranNational

Bibliography Benndorf1889: 34, fig. 34; Eichler 1950: 48, pl. 1 below Oberleitner1994: fig. 30 Romano 1989: no. 271

~~~~~~~~Persepolis Museum

1 158

plainwest of

Referenceno.

11.3 relieffragment(?) stone

Persepolis(?)

IranNational Museum

P-810

Schneiderl1976:34, microflscheno. 7G4

NOTES ON THE IRANIANIZATIONOF BES IN THE ACHAEMENIDEMPIRE

Notes 1. My collection of images is greatlyindebted to the work of James Romano (1989; 1998), whose catalogueof Bes-images fromEgyptand elsewherethatcan be datedto the period of the Achaemenidempireformedthe beginningof my expandedlist (Romano1989: 775 [no. 269]-842 [no. 292]). Romano's1989 catalogueincluded five amulets(fromTunisia, Cyprus,Sidon, and Susa) that I did not include in my 1999 catalogue.I have now incorporatedthreeof these items into my catalogue,along with otherpreviouslyuntalliedartifacts. 2. The numberof individualartifactsis actuallymuch greater than 115. In 1999 I groupedunder one cataloguenumber(no. 6.4) fifty-oneseparategold medallions(in pendantformat)bearing the Bes-imageexcavatedat Pasargadaebecausetheyplausibly originallydecoratedone item. It is worth noting, however, thathad these fifty-onependantmedallionsbeen dispersedon the artmarket,I would havehad to catalogueeachone as a separateitem.This would haveexpandedgreatlythe numberof Besimages registered,while the lack of provenancefor the group would simultaneouslyhave drasticallylessened the research value of the assemblage. 3. Severalimportantstudies have appearedthat deserve to be mined for the possible appearanceof Iranianizedrepresentations of Bes (as defined below) that have found their way to extraimperialshores in the GreaterMediterranean.But such a taskis beyond the scope of the currentproject.See, e.g., SkonJedele 1994 (where some items may date deeper into the Achaemenidperiod thanthe chronologicalscope of the collection suggests);H6bl 1979; 1985. 4. The presence of artisansof Egyptianoriginworkingon the imperialbuildingprojectsat Susa is attestedby the Susa Foundation Charter(DSf). See Lecoq 1997: 234-37 for the trilingual text; Root 1979 and 1990 for commentson its rhetorical aspects. The rhetoricalqualitiesof this text emphasizenotions of imperialpurview and should not necessarilybe taken as a literallyprecisecharacterization of theworkforceat Susa.Nevertheless, there is certainlyan underpinningof historicallegitimacy expressed here concerning the role of Egyptian craftsmen, with their ancient traditionsand expertise in, e.g., goldworking. 5. The precisearchaeologicalcontextsof most of these amulets cannot be established satisfactorily through the excavation recordsof the earlytwentieth-centurymission.Two of the Susa amulets are stipulated as having a specific findspot-"the Apadana."But the degreeto which this constitutesa "deposit" is highly questionable(pace Schmidt 1957: 68 n. 21). 6. Schmidt 1957: 72 mentionsbut does not catalogueor illustrate"two additionalBes heads, one of bluish-greenturquoise, the otherof compositionof the samecolor, [that]were foundin Vestibule 23 and in Courtyard29 of the Treasury."It is not

clearwhethertwo of the fourpreviouslyunpublishedBes amulets fromPersepolisnow in the IranNationalMuseum(herenos. 5.21-23; see Abdi 1999: fig. 5.21-23) may in fact correspond to these two amulets mentioned in passing by Schmidt or whethertheyaretwoadditionalBes-imagesthatshouldbe added to the tallyfromthe site. (Our no. 5.21 [fig. 2] is of fine workmanshipbut thematerialis undesignatedin the records.It might conceivablycorrespondto the turquoiseone cited by Schmidt. Such ambiguitiesin the inventorystatusof smallfindsthatwere not originallyconsideredof tremendousinterpretivesignificance by the excavatorsare quite common.) 7. A vivid example is offeredby a New Kingdomstatuetteof boxwood, ivory, and gilding representinga servinggirl carrying a jar and wearingonly a necklacefeaturinga dynamicBes amulet(Kozloffand Bryan1992: 361-62 and pl. 42 [no. 87]). 8. Tadjvidi (1976) excavatedin the fortificationsrimmingthe Takht, where we might expect multiple manifestations of nonceremoniallife (viz., our no. 4.11 and Abdi 1999 oniBes andthe military).This importanteffort,interruptedprematurely, deservesto be resumed(see Mousavi,this volume). 9. I owe this observationto an anonymousreviewerwho took the time to offerextraordinarilyhelpfulcomments. 10. Relevantliteraturefor appreciatingaspects of the life and assimilationof Egyptiansin western Asia includes Wiseman 1956; Eph'al 1978; Zaccagnini1983; Pedersen1986: 125-29. 11. The sealingprotocolsfortheTreasuryarchivehavenot been examinedas closely as have those for the PersepolisFortification archive.In the lattercorpus, the stand-aloneusageof a seal oftenimplieselevatedstatus(Garrison1991; GarrisonandRoot 2001). 12. One of these rareexamplesis the knottedbelt worn by the Akkadianking Naram-Sinon his victory stele (Harper,Aruz, and Tallon 1992: 168), which was made for Sipparin Iraqbut moved to Susa as war booty. The surfaceof this sculptureis quite abraded.To the best of my ability to assess it, the knot here does not appearto be renderedaccordingto the precise patternwe see on the Achaemenidcourtrobe and onithe belted Bes fromthe PersepolisTreasury. 13. E.g., on representationsof certainroyalfigures(viz., Princess Isis: Kozloffand Bryan 1992: 206-8), on representations of certainminordeities such as the gods who bind togetherthe signs of Upperand LowerEgypt(as seen on the Egyptianstatue of Darius from Susa) and the nome personifications(as portrayed, for instance, on the Old Kingdom triad statues of Mycerinus[Russmann1989: 25]). 14. I amindebtedto MargaretCool Root for drawingmy attention to the significanceof the Egyptianconnectionof the knot.

159 15. These figureson the Pazyrykrugin turninvitecomparison

KAMYAR ABDI

to imagery of heartlandAchaemenid art: on Wing A of the Apadanaat Persepolis.

Buchanan,Briggs. 1966. Catalogueof AncientNear Eastern Seals in theAshmoleanMuseumI: CylinderSeals. Oxford: ClarendonPress. 16. I hope to explore this topic furtherin anotherpaper. Buchanan,Briggs, and P. R. S. Moorey. 1988. Catalogueof AncientNear EasternSeals in theAshmoleanMuseumIII: 17. On a purely speculativenote, one should not neglect the TheIronAgeStampSeals. Oxford:ClarendonPress. factthat,unlikeother, clean-shavenEgyptiandeities, Bes is the Carnegie,JamesS. 1908. Catalogueof the CollectionofAntique only Egyptiandeity with a fullbeard,a characteristicof barbarGemsFormedby_James, Ninth Earl ofSouthesk . T. 2 vols. ians in Egyptianeyes, to which the predominantlybeardedIraLondon:B. Quaritch. nians could have related! Collon, Dominique. 1996. "A Hoard of SealingsfromUr." In M.-F. Boussac and A. Invernizzi,eds., Archiveset sceaux 18. The versatilityand multivalenceof Bes mayhavepaved the du mondehellenistique,65-84. Bulletinide correspondance way for importantlinkagesto the Mithraiccult that I shall exhelleniquesuppl. 29. plore in anotherarticle. Contenau, George. 1920. "Mission archeologique 'aSidon (1914)." Syria 1:287-3 17. Curtis,JohnE. 1989. AncientPersia. London:BritishMuseum. Dalton, 0. M. 1964. The Treasureof the Oxuswith OtherExamples of Early OrientalMetalwork(3rd ed.). London: BritishMuseum. Davis,Theodore M., GastonMaspero,PercyE. Newberry,and Howard Carter1907. Tombof Iouiya and Touiyou.LonAbdi, Kamyar.1999. "Bes in the Achaemenid Empire."Ars don: ArchibaldConstable& Co. Orientalis29:111-40. Delaporte,Louis. 1910. Cataloguedescylindresorientauxet des --. 2002. "An EgyptianCippusof Horus in the Iran Nacachetsassyro-babyloniens, perseset syro-cappadociens de tional Museum,Tehran."3rournalof Near EasternStudla BibliothequeNationale. Paris:ErnestLeroux. ies 61.3:203-10. Donbaz, Veysel, and Matthew W. Stolper. 1997. Istanbul Amandry, Pierre. 1959. "Toreutique Achemenide." Antike Muras'uTexts. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-ArchaeKunst2.2:38-56. ologisch Instituutte Istanbul. Beck, Pirhiya. 1972. "A Note on the Reconstruction of the Dusinberre, Elspeth R. M. 1997. "ImperialStyle and ConAchaemenidRobe."IranicaAntiqua 9:116-22. structedIdentity:A 'Graeco-Persian'CylinderSeal from Benndorf,Otto. 1889. "Das Heroon von Gjolbaschi-Trysa." Sardis."Ars Orientalis27:99-129. --. 2003. Aspectsof Empire in AchaemenidSardis. Cam]7ahrbuchder KunsthistorischenSammlungendes AllerhochstenKaiserhauses9:1-134. bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Bennett,W. J., andJ. A. Blakley. 1989. Tell el-Hesi: ThePerEichler, Fritz. 1950. Die Reliefs des Heroon von Gjolbaschisian Period(StratumV).AmericanSchool of OrientalReTrysa.Kunstdenkmalerherausgegebenvon ErnstGarger searchExcavationReports.WinonaLake:Eisenbrauns. Heft 8. Vienna:FranzDeuticke. Biran,A. 1985. "Tel Dan, 1984." Israel Exploration7ournal Eph'al, I. 1978. "The Western Minorities in Babylonia." 35:186-89. Orientalia47:74-90. Boardman,John.1970. "PyramidalStampSeals in the Persian Frankf-urter, David. 1998. Religionin RomanEgypt:AssimilaEmpire."Iran 8:19-45. tionandResistance.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Boston, Museumof Fine Arts. 1982. Egypt'sGoldenAge: The Garrison,MarkB. 1998. "The SealsofAsbazana(Aspathines)." Art of Living in the New Kingdom1558-1085 B.C. CataIn M. Brosiusand A. Kuhrt,eds., Studiesin PersianHislogueof theExhibition.Boston: Museumof Fine Arts. tory: Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis, 115-31. Bregstein, Linda B. 1993. "Seal Use in Fifth Century B.C. AchaemenidHistory11. Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoor Nippur, Iraq:A Study of Seal Selectionand SealingPrachet NabijeOosten. tices in the Muras-uArchive."Ph.D. diss., Universityof Garrison,MarkB., and MargaretCool Root. 2001. Sealson the Pennsylvania. PersepolisFortificationTabletsI:ImagesofHeroicEncounBresciani,Edda. 1992. "Un nuovo documentodelladevozione ter. OrientalInstitutePublications117. Chicago:Oriental a Bes protettoredell maternita."In U. Luft,ed., TheIntelInstituteof the Universityof Chicago. lectualHeritageofEgypt:StudiesPresentedtoLa'szl6Kdkosy Forthcominga. Sealson thePersepolisFortificationTabbyFriendsand Colleagueson theOccasionofhis 60thBirthletsII:Imagesof Human Activity.Chicago:OrientalInstiday, 81-83. Studia Aegyptica 14. Budapest:l'Universite tute of the Universityof Chicago. Eotvos Loraind. Forthcoming b. Seals on the PersepolisFortification Bruyere, Bernard. 1939. Rapport sur lesfouilles de Deir el Tablets III: Animals, Creatures,Plants, and Geometric Medineh. Fouilles de l'Institut FranSaisd'Archeologie Devices. Chicago: OrientalInstituteof the Universityof Orientaledu Caire 16. Chicago.

WorksCited

160

NOTES ON THE IRANIANIZATIONOF BES IN THE ACHAEMENIDEMPIRE

Ghirshman,Roman.1954. Villageperse-ache'me'nide. Memoires de la Delegationen Perse36. Paris:PressesUniversitaires de France. 1962. Perse:Proto-iraniens,Medes,Achemenides.Paris: Gallimard. .1976. Terrassessacrees deBard-eNechandeh etdeMajidi Solaiman. 2 vols. Memoires de la Delegation Archeologique en Iran45. Leiden:E.J. Brill. Gibson, McGuire.1975. Excavationsat Nippur: EleventhSeason. OrientalInstituteCommunications22. Chicago:OrientalInstituteof the Universityof Chicago. Giveon, R. 1985. EgyptianScarabsfromWesternAsiafromthe Collections of the British Museum. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis,Series Archaeologia3. Friburg:Universitatsverlag. Goktiirk,M. T. 1997. "AkhemenidDonemi KilikiaBuluntusu Oboller."In AnadoluMedeniyetleriMiizesi,1996 Yilligi, 67-100. Goldman,Bernard.1964. "Originof the PersianRobe."Iranica Antiqua4:133-52. Graziani,Simonetta.1978. "Suun'interpretazione achemenide di Bes."Annali dell'IstitutoOrientalediNapoli 38:53-61. Hallock, Richard T. 1969. PersepolisFortification Tablets. OrientalInstitutePublications92. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. Harper,PrudenceO.,JoanAruz,andFrancoiseTalon, eds. 1992. TheRoyalCityofSusa:AncientNearEastern Treasuresin the Louvre.New York:Metropolitan Museumof Art. Herzfeld,ErnstE. 1941. Iran in theAncientEast. London and New York:OxfordUniversityPress. Hobl, Gunther. 1979. Beziehungender dgyptischenKulturzu

Altitalien.Etudespreliminaires aux religionsorientales dans1'empire romain62. Leiden:E.J. Brill. 1985. "Aegyptiacaaus vorhellenistischenFund im Bereichder tiirkischenMittelzusammenhangen InLebendige meerkiiste." Altertumswissenschaft: Festgabe HerrmannVetters, 38-42. Vienna:AdolfHolzhausens. Hoffmann, Friedhelm. 2000.Agypten KulturundLebenswelt in Zeit:Eine Darstellungnach den griechisch-romischer demotischen Quellen.Berlin:Akademie Verlag. Jettmar,Karl.1967.Artof theSteppes:TheEurasianAnimal Style,trans.A. E. Keep.London:Methuen. Johns,C.N. 1933."Excavations at'cAdit (1930-31),TheSoutheasternCemetery." Quarterly oftheDepartment ofAntiquitiesin Palestine2:41-104. Johnson,Janet.1975. "AppendixB: Hieroglyphic Text."In M. Gibson,ed., Excavations Season, atNippur:Eleventh 143-50.OrientalInstituteCommunications 22. Chicago: OrientalInstituteof theUniversity of Chicago. Kervran, Monique,D. Stronach, F.Vallat,andJ.Yoyotte.1972. "Une statue de Dariusdecouvertea Suse."Journal Asiatique260:235-66. Kozloff,ArielleP., and BetsyM. Bryan,with LawrenceM. Berman.1992.Egypt'sDazzlingSun:Amenhotep III and His World.Cleveland: The ClevelandMuseumof Artin withIndianaUniversity cooperation Press.

Krackmann, Oluf. 1933. NeubabylonischeRechts-und Verwaltungstexte.Leipzig:J. C. Hinrichs. Leahy, Anthony. 1988. "Egypt as a Bronze-workingCentre (1000-539 B.C.)." In J. Curtis, ed., Bronze-workingCentresof WesternAsia c. 1000-539 B.C., 297-309. London: KeganPaulInternational. Lecoq, Pierre. 1997. Les inscriptionsde la Perse ache'menide. Paris:Gallimard. Legrain,Leon. 1925. TheCultureoftheBabyloniansfromTheir Seals in the Collectionsof theMuseum.2 vols. Publications of the BabylonianSection 14. London:BritishMuseum. 1930. TerracottasfromJNippur.Philadelphia:University Museumof the Universityof Pennsylvania. -. 1951.SealCylinders. 10.LondonandPhilaUrExcavations delphia:BritishMuseumandUniversityof Pennsylvania. Lerner,Judith. 1991. "Some So-called AchaemenidObjects fromPazyryk."Source10:8-15. Mildenberg, Leo. 1995. "Bes on Philisto-Arabian Coins." Transeuphratene9:63-66. Moorey, P. R. S. 1980. Cemeteriesof theFirst MillenniumB. C. at Deve Hiiyiik, near Carchemish, Salvaged by T. E. Lawrenceand C. L. Woolleyin 1913. BAR International Series 87. Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReports. Moortgat, Anton. 1940. VorderasiatischeRollsiegel. Berlin: VerlagGebr. Mann. zur GottinIsis vonAlten Miinster,Maria.1968. Untersuchungen ReichbiszumEndedesNeuenReiches.Berlin:B. Hessling. Nunn, Astrid. 2000. Derfigurliche MotivschatzPhoeniciens, vom6. Bis zum4.J7ahrhundert Syrienund Transjordaniens v. Chr.Orbis Biblicuset Orientalis,SeriesArchaeologica 18. Friburg:Universitatsverlag. Oberleitner, Wolfgang. 1994. Das Heroon von Trysa: Ein LykischesFiirstengrabdes4. ?/ahrhundertsv. Chr.Zaberns BildbandezurArchaologie18. Mainz:Philippvon Zabern. Ozgen, Ilknur,andJeanOztiirk,eds., with MachteldJ.Mellink, Crawford H. Greenewalt,jr., Kazim Akbiyikoglu, and LawrenceM. Kaye.1996. HeritageRecovered:TheLydian Treasure.Istanbul:GeneralDirectorateof Monuments, Ministryof Culture,Republicof Turkey. Pedersen,Olof. 1986.ArchivesandLibrariesin theCityofAssur. A SurveyoftheMaterialfromtheGermanExcavations.Part II. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis; Studia Semitica Upsaliensis8. Uppsala:Almquistand Wiksell. Poppa, Rudolph. 1978. Kdmid el-Loz:2. Der eisenseitliche Friedhof:Befundeund Funde. SaarbriickerBeitragezur Altertumskunde18. Bonn:Rudolph HabeltVerlag. Porada,Edith. 1965. TheArt ofAncientIran: Pre-IslamicCultures.New York:CrownPublishers,Inc. Porter,BarbaraA. 1984. "AncientNearEasternArt."TheMetropolitanMuseumofArt Bulletin41.4:48-49. Rahbar,Mehdi. 1997. "TheAchaemenidCemeteryatDosaran, Zanjan."Mirals-eFarhangi 17:20-27 (in Persian). Reade, Julian. 1986. "A Hoard of Silver Currency from AchaemenidBabylon."Iran 24:79-87. Rehm, Ellen. 1992. Der SchmuckderAchdmeniden. Altertumskunde des VorderenOrients2. Miinster:Ugarit-Verlag. 161

KAMYAR ABDI

Roes, A. 1951. "TheAchaemenidRobe."BibliothecaOrientalis 8:137-41. Romano,JamesF. 1989. "The Bes-Imagein PharaonicEgypt." Ph.D. diss., New York University. --. 1998. "Notes on the Historiographyand Historyof the Bes-Imagein Ancient Egypt."Bulletin of the Australian CenterforEgyptology9:89-105. Root, Margaret Cool. 1979. The King and Kingship in AchaemenidArt:Essayson the Creationof an Iconography of Empire.Acta Iranica19. Leiden:E.J. Brill. --. 1990. "Circlesof ArtisticProgramming:Strategiesfor StudyingCreativeProcessat Persepolis."In A. C. Gunter, ed., Investigating Artistic Environmentsin the Ancient Near East, 115-39. Washington,D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution. Rudenko,SergeiI. 1970. FrozenTombsof Siberia. ThePazyryk Burials of Iron AgeHorsemen,trans. M. W. Thompson. Berkeleyand Los Angeles:Universityof CaliforniaPress. Russmann,EdnaR. 1989. EgyptianSculpture:CairoandLuxor. Austin:Universityof Texas Press. Schmidt, Erich F. 1939. The Treasuryof Persepolisand Other Discoveriesin the Homelandof theAchaemenians.Oriental InstituteCommunications21. Chicago:OrientalInstitute of the Universityof Chicago. --. 1957. PersepolisII: Contentsof the Treasuryand Other Discoveries.OrientalInstitute Publications69. Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress. Schmitt, Riidiger. 1981. Altpersische Siegel-Inschriften. Veroffentlichungen der Iranischen Kommission 10, OsterreichischeAkademie der WissenschaftenPhilosophisch-Historische Klasse,Sitzungsberichte. Vienna:Verlag der OsterreichischenAkademieder Wissenschaften. Schneider,Ursula.1976. PersepolisandAncientIran.Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress. Skon-Jedele,NancyJoan. 1994. "Aigyptiaka:A Catalogueof EgyptianandEgyptianizingObjectsExcavatedfromGreek Archaeological Sites, ca. 110-525 B.C., with Historical Commentary."Ph.D. diss., Universityof Pennsylvania. Steindorff,Georg. 1946. Catalogueof the EgyptianSculpture in the WaltersArt Gallery. Baltimore:Trustees of the WaltersArt Gallery. Stern, Ephraim. 1976. "Bes Vases from Palestineand Syria." IsraelExploration_Journal 26:183-87. 1984. Material Cultureof theLand of the Bible in the PersianPeriod538-332 B. C. Warminster:Aris & Phillips.

162

--.

1995. ExcavationsatDor, Final Report.2 vols. QEDEM 2.Jerusalem:Instituteof Archaeology,HebrewUniversity ofJerusalem. Stern, Ephraim,and I. Sharon. 1987. "Tel Dor 1986." Israel Explorationjournal 37:201-11. Stolper,MatthewW. 1985. "Empireand Province:Abstractof Remarkson Two LateAchaemenidBabylonianArchives." Paleorient11.2:64. --. 1987. "BeIsunuthe Satrap."In F. Rochberg-Halton, ed., Language,Literature,and History:Philologicaland Historical Studies Presentedto Erica Reiner, 389-402. AmericanOrientalSeries 67. New Haven:AmericanOrientalSociety. --. 1988. "The Saknu of Nippur."3rournalof Cuneiform Studies40:127-55. Stronach, David. 1974. "La statue de Darius le grande decouvertea Suse."Cahiersdela DelegationArche'ologique Francaiseen Iran 4:61-72. 1978. Pasargadae.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Stucky,R. 1973. "Les couches de l'agedu fer."Syria 50:28487. Tadjvidi,Akbar.1976. New Informationon theArtandArchaeologyof theAchaemenidPeriodBasedon Five Yearsof ExcavationsatPersepolis,1968-1972. Tehran:IranianMinistryof Cultureand Arts (in Persian). Thomspon, G. 1965. "IranianDress in the AchaemenianPeriod."Iran 3:121-26. Vollenweider, Marie-Louise. 1983. Catalogue raisonne des sceaux, cylindres,intailles et cameesIII: La collectiondu Dr. V.E. G.Kennaet d'autresacquisitionset dons Reve'rend recents.Mainzam Rhein:Philippvon Zabern. Ward, WilliamH. 1910. TheSeal Cylindersof WesternAsia. Washington,D.C.: The CarnegieInstitution. Wiseman,DonaldJ. 1956. "SomeEgyptiansin Babylonia."Iraq 28:154-58. 1959. Cylinder Seals of Western Asia. London: BatchworthPress. Woolley, Leonard. 1962. Ur Excavations IX: The NeoBabylonianandPersianPeriods.London:BritishMuseum. Yoyotte,Jean. 1974. "Les inscriptionshieroglyphiquesde la statue de Darius." Cahiersde la Diligation Archeologique Franfaiseen Iran 4:181-83. Zaccagnini,Carlo. 1983. "Patternsof MobilityamongAncient Near EasternCraftsmen."Journal of Near EasternStudies 42:245-64.

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

Imperial Legacies, Local Identities: References to Achaemenid Persian Iconography on Crenelated Nabataean Tombs Author(s): Björn Anderson Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 163-207 Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629596 Accessed: 01/02/2009 09:12 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

BJORN

ANDERSON

Imperial References

Legacies, to

Local

Identities:

Actaemenid

Iconograpty on

Crenelated

Persian

Nabataean

Tombs

ABSTRACT

Analysis of the decorativeelements employed in the crenelated Nabataeantombsof Petra(in modernsouthernJordan)and Hegra (in modernnorthwesternSaudiArabia)revealsseveralsignificant similaritiesto the programof AchaemenidPersianimperialarchitecturalembellishment.The Achaemenidprogramis best exemplifiedattheIranianheartlandcapitalcity,Persepolis,withits richly decoratedpalacesand royal tombs. A direct link between the visual expressions of a sector of the Nabataeanelite that commissioned the crenelatedtombs and those of the imperialprogramof the Achaemenidcourt raisesissues of transmissionand reception acrosstimeandspace.The plausibilityof suchaprocessis explored here, alongwith a reviewof historiographicconsiderationslargely responsiblefor the lack of previous interestin this possible relationship.I arguethatthe crenelatedNabataeantombs of the early firstcenturyC.E.displayedspecificAchaemenidPersianmotifswith deliberateintentto invoketheiroriginalimperialsignificancewithin theAchaemenidcontextand to assertnew meaningsthroughthem withina Nabataeanenvironmentof power-brokeringwith the Roman West. The ramifications of this are significant for both AchaemenidPersianandNabataeanstudies.On theone hand,such an informed adaptationof motifs attests to the longevity of the Achaemenidlegacyandits impactin regionsthatwereonce strategic zones of its vast empire.On the otherhand, the possible motivations for an affluent group of Nabataeans to appropriate Achaemenidmotifsinclude a conscious resistanceto Romanculturalhegemony throughthe deploymentof eastward-resonating visualparadigms.

163

ArsOrientalis, volume XXXII (2002)

BJORN ANDERSON

FIG. 1.

Crenelated tomb B-

-

--

'

7atfHegra,one example of the Oriental type.After ?Jaussenand Savignac 1909: 349,fig. 163.

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ......

FIG. 2.

Extent of the Achaemenidempire

beenadded Petra haove

theNabataean region. Renderingby the of auh50 or. I_(ca. 164

~

~

aspit

o

..

04;

;

,(HGA

4

eeenet

mTAX-EXEMPT

164

02

t..

A

A

CLIENTS

HOLDINGS TRIBUTE-PAYING | m~~~~~~~~~~I

E_

_

IMPERIALLEGACIES,LOCALIDENTITIES

PREAMBLE

A

RCHAEOLOGISTS,

ANTHROPOLOGISTS,

arthistorians,and text-basedhistoriansare currentlyconcernedwith multipleissues of identityin the ancientworld.Materialandvisualculture, nuancedreadingsof literaryevidence, and anthropologicaltheoryare synthesizedin orderto explorehow groupsunderstoodthemselves,projected themselves to others, and became the subjects of reprojections in varying historical circumstances (e.g., Shennan 1989; van Dommelen 1998; Woolf 1998). Frequentlythis exercise works against the grain of conventionalpositivist readingsof ancient texts writtenabout a particularculture(or about a mute underclasswithin that culture)fromperspectivesexternalto it. The AchaemenidPersianempire and the laterNabataeankingdomaregood examples of this difficulty.In neithercase do we havea wealth of internallyproduced historicalnarrativesthatcan contest accounts supplied by classical authors. Rather,we arelargelydependent,for text-basedinquiry,upon classicalsourcesthatreflectthe complex perspectivesof an externalWesternsociety.Thus for both the Achaemenidsandthe Nabataeans,explorations of identityconstructionmustrelyheavilyupon the material/visualrecordas an internallyproduced primarytextvoicingperceptionsandpreoccupations of theirrespectivesocieties. A set of rock-cutNabataeantombs with crenelated entablaturesinvites such use as a primaryhistoricalsource (fig. 1). I propose thatwe see in these tombs the selectiveappropriationand adaptationof hallmarkAchaemenidPersianforms.I posit thatthis appropriationand adaptationwas an explicitmeans by which a particulargroup within elite Nabataean society soughtto defineaspectsof a culturalandpolitical identity. Initially,I shall review some crucial historicalandhistoriographic issuesthatset the stage. My explorationthen moves fromNabataeaitself to the heartland capital of the Achaemenid empire, Persepolis,where readilyavailablemonumentsremained perpetuallyin view even afterthe devastation of the region by Alexanderof Macedon.From there, I offer arguments for the plausibility of Nabataeaninvocationsof the Achaemenidlegacyin orderto establisha position in relationto the emer-

gent power of Rome. I maintainthatthe displayswe encounter on the crenelatedNabataeantombs reflected conscious choices and conveyed codes of meaningfor those who commissionedthemand for those who subsequentlybeheld them. I followTomlinson(1991) in believingthatconversationabout culturalbehaviormust be tempered by an appreciationof interpretivevariabilityat every level.This stanceprecludesanysweepingstatements aboutthe universalityof collectivegroupresponseto specifictypesof stimuliand urgencies.It does, however,allowforflexibilityin proposinglayersof negotiation.Such negotiationswill, I propose, have had in theinstanceathand.Posimultivalent motivatations tiveemulationof anAchaemenidlegacyforparticular reasonswill havebeen one factor.At the same time, the perhapsnostalgicinvocationof the Achaemenid pastwilllikelyhavebeenlacedwiththenegativeforce of a resistanceto Romanculturalhegemony.

ACHAEMENIDS AND NABATAEANS: AN OVERVIEW

The Achaemenidempirebegan with the victoryof CyrusII (the Great)overAstyagestheMedein about 550 B.C.E.It lastedformorethantwo hundredyears, endingwith the completionin 330 B.C.E.of the conquestsof Alexander.An aggressiveforeignpolicyled to rapidterritorialexpansion,so thatduringthereign of DariusI (the Great:r. 521-486 B.C.E.) the empire stretchedeastwardas far as Afghanistanand westwardacrossAnatolia,the Levant,and Egypt(fig.2). It thusincorporatedan importantpartof the areainhabited by peoples called Arabians in both the Achaemenid record and the contemporaryGreek testimony of Herodotus. (These Arabians,as discussed below, becamepart of the political/cultural fusionof peoples calledNabataeanby the Romans.) The Achaemenidhegemonywasthelargestyetknown in the ancientworld. Until the Romanera it had no rivalin scope of organizational success,forthe global initiativeof Alexanderdissolvedrapidlyinto rivalregionalkingdomsuponhis death.Achaemenidauthoritywasadministered throughappointedgovernors(satraps),who occupiedimportantprovincialcapitalsto 165 the eastand to the west of the nexus of royalcities in

BJORN ANDERSON

FIG.3.

Aerial photographof the Takhtat Persepolisbefore excavation. Photo courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago.

: *

.

.. . . _.... : :. ................ _. * . ..

_/

166

.

.

.^

'-W

.

. ......

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....

Iranand Mesopotamia.These places were strategically located. Majorand also minor road systems crisscrossedthe empire,facilitatingefficientcommunicationand movement.Highly organizedregional bureaucracieswith overlappingpurviewslinkedvast expansesin a chain of interaction. In ancient Western narratives(and in modern positivisticreadingsof these texts), the Achaemenid empireoccupies a specialplace as the paradigmatic evil barbarianforce that twice invaded mainland Greeceand succeeded once in sackingthe acropolis at Athens. This viewpoint is radicallyat odds with what can be gleaned from other perspectives.The self-proclaimedideology of the Achaemenidempire stressedharmoniouscooperationof the subjectnations in the agendasof hegemony.To a remarkable extent,as recentscholarshiphas shown, thiswas not merelycynical rhetoric.It is borne out not only by officialimperialinscriptionsbut also by analysesof othergenresof Near Easterntexts and the evidence of archaeologyandarthistoricalinterpretation.'The officialartof the Achaemenidcourt offersa primary source for this idealized worldview of harmonious incorporatedidentity.It representeda radicalbreak with the messageof previousmodels of imperialart in the NearEast,even as it consciouslyand shrewdly reworked many motifs from the conquered lands (Root 1979; 2000). The visualmanifestationsof this

ideologyarebestpreservedat Persepolis(fig.3). The programwe see there also reverberatedat satrapal capitalsandin the visualapparatusof individualparticipantswithinthe far-flungimperialfamily.Butthis article focuses upon the authority specifically of Persepolis in the culturalmemory of an important subsetof Nabataeansociety.Achaemenidruleended in 330 B.C.E., but its culturalimpact did not. Similarly,Persepoliswas destroyedin 330, but its visual impactremainedcompelling. Ancient sources paint a vague picture of Nabataeanorigins. The Roman authorDiodorus (2.4849; 19.94-100) describesthemas nomadswho eventuallytook refugeat "therock"(Gr. 1rETpa)and establisheda sedentarysociety.Scholarshavenot, however,reachedconsensuson how to interpretthisnarrativeand integrateit with other types of evidence (see Retso 1999; also Negev 1978; Graf 1990b). A crucial difficultyis that the "Nabataeans"of Diodorus's day emergedneitherfrom a single location nor froma homogeneousgroup.Rather,we aredealing with at least two separatedevelopments:the coaand lescingofan indigenouspopulationandthearnival integrationin southernJordanof a nomadicpopulahererefersto a geographic tionofArabians."Arabian" designation,in contradistinctionto "Arab,"with its implicationsof an ethnicdesignationthatis unacceptablein the contextof currentdiscourse.

IMPERIALLEGACIES,LOCALIDENTITIES

Macdonald2000). Additionalindicationsof an AraScholarsare divided over the relativeweight of bian elementare found in the textualsources. Both local developmentin the formationof Nabataeansociety versus the impact of migration.Furthermore, Diodorus (fl. 60-30 B.C.E. [2.48.3]) and Strabo(fl. 44 B.C.E.-21 C.E. [16.4.22-23]) referto the legendthe precisegeographicaloriginsof the migratingnomadic Arabianelement remainsan open question. ary familiarityof Nabataeanguides with the desert Assessingthe impactof nomadicmigrantsis compli- tracksof Arabia.Earlier,Herodotus(writinghis historyof the PersianWarsfor a Greekaudiencein the catedby the rangeof potentialpopulationsto be considered,who mayhavemoved in severaldirections: mid-fifthcenturyB.C.E. [3.4-9]) had described the northwardfromtheHejazareaof SaudiArabia,west- remarkableabilitiesof the Arabiansto navigatethe wardfromnorthArabia,southwardfromthe Syrian desertlandscape.It may not be possible to prove to Hauran,or eastwardfrom the Negev desert. In my universalsatisfactionthatArabianswho formedpart opinion, the argumentsset forth in favorof migra- of the Nabataeanpopulationdescribedby Diodorus tion westwardinto Jordan from north Arabiaseem and Strabowere the directdescendentsof the midthe strongest.Significantly,thiswouldplacetheorigi- fifth-century Arabians of Herodotus. But it is thought-provokingthatthe samecrucialanddistincnal homeland of the migrating element of the of tive expertiseis ascribedin both historicalcontexts. in immediate environs the Nabataeanpopulation the presence first of Neo-Babylonianpolitical/mili- This was a specialexpertisethatenabledthe Arabitary activity and then of the more than 200-year ans of Achaemenidtimesandthenthe Nabataeansof the Romanerato acquireuniquestatusandsymbolic Achaemenidimperialpurview. But the paucity of exemptionsas gatekeepersof and uniquelycapable evidence prohibits definitiveunderstandingof the issue at present(Graf1990b and Healey 1989, with leadersacrossthe strategicdeserttrekfromtheAsian extensivebibliographies).The occasionformigratory continentto Egypt. in its hiistorical Similarly,the term"Nabataean," movementis thoughtto be the creationof a power vacuumin the wakeof the collapseof localstructures context,characterizesthe constructedidentityof the of authority.Such conditionsin the northArabiare- peoples and the state that coalesced as an entity so gion may have pertainedat twojunctures.The first namedin the classicalsources.It shouldnot be used would be at the fallof the Edomites,when they were to signifya homogeneousethnic populationin any conqueredby the Neo-Babylonianking Nabonidus literalsense of kinship(Macdonald1991: esp. 108). in thesixthcenturyB.C.E. The second,andperhaps As statedabove, the Nabataeanswere comprisedof moreprofoundin impact,would be at the collapseof more than one group. Recent analysis (viz., Macthe Qedarites,who had operatedin northArabiaundonald 1995) proposes the importanceof both Arader the longstandingprotectionof the Achaemenid bian and indigenousparticipationin the formation empire(Knauf1989; Bartlett1990; Grafl990a).2 of the entitycalledNabataeaby the Romans. Arabiawas not a clearlydefinedplace to ancient The Nabataeansestablishedan elaboratelybuilt authors. It was, rather,a term used to embracean andjustifiablycelebratedcenterat Petrain southern imaginedlandscapethatat times rangedfrommod- Jordan(fig.4), whileotherimportantsiteswithmonuern Syriato Yemen. In this sense, a generalArabian mentalremainsincludeObodain theNegevdesertand heritageof this importantsubset of the Nabataean Hegra(Meda'inSaleh)in northwesternSaudiArabia population, which perhaps comprised the ruling (fig.5). They solidifieda kingdomgovernedby a heclasses,is supportedby severaltypesof materialevi- reditarydynasty.The precisenatureand date of this dence. These includethe formof the religiousstelae transitionto a consolidateddynasticpoliticalentityare knownas betyls (Patrich1990; Wenning2001), the unknown.Romansourcesrevealthatthe Nabataeans distributionof ceramicsandotherdiagnosticartifacts were drawn into the internationalstrugglesraging as farafieldas Yemen and Saudi Arabia(al-Ansary throughouttheLevantin theHellenisticperiod.They 1983; Stucky1983; Schmitt-Korte1984;Potts1991; arefirstnamedin the classicalrecordwhenDiodorus DaviddeandPetriaggi1998), andepigraphicandlin(19.94-100) reportsthatin 312 B.C.E. theNabataeans 167 refusedto acceptthe rule of the SeleucidAntigonus guistic development (Milik 1982; Healey 1989;

BJORN ANDERSON

AREASUNDER NABATAEAN ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL

.4

5.~~~~~S.

_

FIG.

A~~~~~f~ d FIG.

~~~~~~~~~~~~FIG.5. Extent of the Nabataean kingdomduring the reign of Aretas IV (ca. 20 C.E.). Renderingbytheauthor.

4.

Viewof the city center at Petra from the east. Photo by the author.

i68

(r. 330-301 B.C.E.) and defeated his forces at Petra. Nabataean sociopolitical structure at this time is not clearfrom Diodorus's account. A named king does not appear in any source until 169 B.C.E., when Aretas [I] is mentioned in 2 Macc. 5:8 as "Ruler of the Arabians." While it would be tempting to use this text to show the Arabian connections of the first Aretas, we do not in fact know how Aretas I referred to himself or, indeed, what the author of the biblical passage meant by the term "Arabians."Nevertheless, it is interestingthat even as Graeco-Roman sources were applying the collective term "Nabataeans"to this group, 2 Macc. persists in using "Arabians." Starcky (1955) notes that a power vacuum in the East in the first century B.C.E. afforded an opportunity for rapid Nabataean expansion. In constant negotiation and brinksmanship with Rome, the Nabataean kingdom persisted as a more or less autonomous entity until 106 C.E. At this time Provincia Arabia was officially subsumed within the Roman empire by Trajan. The Roman sources characterize the takeover as a peaceful annexation. But according to Schmid (1997) the archaeological record suggests

the destruction of much of Petra at this time. Bowersock (1970) has shown, furthermore, that the first Roman garrison installed in Nabataea was the one at Petra, presumably to deter revolts in a still volatile environment (see also Graf 1994a; Freeman 1996; 2001). In other words, the Nabataeans (or some important element within Nabataean society) evidently resisted Trajan's army to a significant degree, while the Roman historical tradition insists otherwise. This conflict between the archaeological record and the Roman literary testimonia (which represent the Nabataeans as generally friendly to Rome) urges that we adopt new strategies and new questions to reevaluate Nabataean cultural identity.

ACHAEMENIDS AND NABATAEANS: HISTORIOGRAPHIC PARALLELS

Both the Nabataeans and the Achaemenid Persians have been widely imagined as folk with a nomadic past that meant (by implication) that they had little

IMPERIALLEGACIES,LOCALIDENTITIES

recognizable"culture"or culturalmemory before circumstancespropelledthemsuddenlyinto rolesof significantpolitical leverage.This characterization emergesforbothsocietiesfirstin the classicalsources and subsequentlyin theWesternscholarlytradition. Thus in both cases the secondary literature has stressed the problem of origins of a material/visual apparatusservinga parvenuelite prone to imitating foreign ideas with little or no meaningattachedto the process. Concerningthe precursorsof the Achaemenids, somethoughtfuldiscussionshavenow exploredwhat nomadismitself(andtheimaginingofnomadism)may more richlyimply for the Achaemenidrecord(Root 1979; Briant1982; 1996; Boucharlat1997a; 1997b: 71). FortheNabataeansonlylimitedeffortshavebeen madeto formulatequestionsbasedon anacknowledgmentof nomadstudiesand theirtheoreticalmodels.4 Severalintertwinedissues become particularly importantin our attemptto understandNabataean links to its own pasts, sensitivityto the Achaemenid legacy,andcontinuedinteractionon theinternational stageasmobilenegotiatorsofgoodsandservices.First, nomadismoughtnotbe viewedas a primitivephaseof socialorganizationpracticedby peopleswho sustain a concomitantly undevelopedmaterialcultureandsensibility.Basedon knowledgeof nomadicsocietiesin general,we canposit thatthe people who formedthe Nabataeankingdomhad some type of dynasticleadershipstructurebeforetheydevelopedelaboratepermanentbuilt environments.Nomadic groups, like those fromwhich the Nabataeanswere at leastpartly descended, generallyhave prominentfigureswhose positions are determinedby kinship and heredity (Khazanov1994). Such culturalorganizationsareattunedto thevalueof symbolicactsandvisualstimuli. Second, nomadism is not necessarily a presedentary state that will eventually evolve into sedentarism if the conditions are right. Strictly processualapproachesto nomadismare difficultto resolve, in part because of the considerablefluidity between sedentary and nomadic conditions (LaBianca 1985; Finkelsteinand Perevolotsky1990). Nabataeansocietyneeds to be studiedwith attention to this issue. We should not assume that the built environmentsof Nabataeancitiessuggestthe shrinking of a nomadicelementor the relegationof its prac-

titionersto increasinglylow status.The carvedtombs of the Nabataeanurbanlandscapesmay uniformly haveservednomadicor seminomadicfamiliesaswell as fullysedentarygroups. Third, nomadismis frequentlycharacterizedas primarilya specializedsocioeconomicreaction (in the formofpastoralistpractice)to environmentsin which agriculture is not viable (Barth 1956; Khazanov 1994). This approach needs revision for the Nabataeansphere. Much of northernSaudiArabia, southernJordan,and the Negev desertis quite arid (averagingless than 100 mm annual rainfall),yet Strabo(16.4.18), forinstance,describesNabataeaas "acountrywith a largepopulationandwell supplied with pasturage"(trans.Horace L. Jones). The hydrological skills of the Nabataeans(Oleson et al. 1995) as well as the existenceof some areasof relative fertilityhelps explain the situation.Nomads in this areatoday operatenot only as pastoralistsbut also as guides, traders,hunters,craftsmen,and even travelingbards.5The richvariabilityof the nomadic condition in this region illuminates the multiple worldlyrelationshipsof Nabataeansas pivotalplayers on the world stage. Achaemenidstudieshave progressedconsiderably beyond eurocentrismin recent decades. The notion of some sort of nomadicpast (or of a persistentlyperipatetictent-usingcourt,for thatmatter)is not so frequentlyequated,at leastexplicitly,with ignoranceandculturalvacuum.Instead,it hasbecome increasingly(though not universally)accepted that permanentbuilt environmentsof a ceremonialand administrativenature emerged among the Achaemenids throughsophisticated,internallymotivated processes.These processeswere definedby historicallyinformedselectionand politicallyastuteadaptationof culturallegaciesfromthe lands now incorporatedwithin a vast pluralisticempire.6The built environmentsof the Achaemenidscoexisted with a persistent(if fluid) mobile lifestyle.Furthermore,it is no longergenerallyacceptedthatAchaeinenidart was essentiallydependentupon Greekart(and artisans)for creativeinspirationand formalsolutionsto issuesof representation.Thanksto aggressiveefforts beginningin earnestin the last decadesof the twentiethcentury(e.g., Nylander1970; Root 1979), gen- 169 eralsurveysof Achaemenidart(e.g., Roaf 1989) are

BJORN ANDERSON

170

now much more likely to stress the significanceof widely informedimperialplannersof the art as the "4creators"of record and to emphasizeas technical ratherthan controllingthe contributionsof artisans from a wide range of cultures now brought under Achaemenidrule. Earlierstudies of the Nabataeans(e.g., Hammond 1972; Parr1978; Patrich1990) have investigatedsourcesupon which the Nabataeansmayhave drawnto createa visualcultureableto speakto their expandingand engaged political position. For the most part, these considerationsof Nabataeanidentity formationhave focused on the impactof Hellenistic and Romaninfluenceon the Nabataeanheritage.Evenhere, therehas been ratherlittlenuanced discussionof the natureandmechanicsof Nabataean receptivity.There has been little acknowledgment thatinfluenceis a complexprocessof negotiationand choice by a host culture-not simply a laying on of ideas and formsby a dominantdonor upon an unformedreceiver.7Leavingthe HellenisticandRoman connectionto one side, some work (e.g., McKenzie 1990;Schmid200 la; 200 lb; Tholbecq2001) is now emergingon the impactof DynasticEgyptiantradition on Nabataeanvisualculture.But littleattention has yet been paid to the significantimpact on the Nabataeanvisualimaginationof Easternpoliticaland culturalforces. Only rarelyhas the idea of any connectionbetweenNabataeanandpre-Hellenisticwestern Asiatic traditions been suggested. Zayadine (1970; 1979) introducesthis theme,layingout a notion of generalizedassimilationof imageryfrompreHellenistic western Asia. His remarksabout preHellenistic origins have not, however, resonated muchwithscholarsattemptingto understandin more detailthe originsandmechanismsof transmissionof formal and symbolic elements in Nabataean art. When we look to scholarshipinvestigatingthe possibilityof an informedNabataeanemulationspecificallyof Achaemenidimperialforms,the field shrinks further.Kanellopoulos(2000) standsout forhis pioneering work on calculatedAchaemenid reminiscences in Nabataeanreligiousarchitecture. One explanationfor the relativelack of interest in pursuinglinks to an Achaemenidlegacy must be soughtin the effectof disciplinarytradition.Neither the Achaemenidempirenor the Nabataeankingdom

fits neatly into the establishedphilologicallybased divisionsof "Classical"and "NearEastern"studies. The tendencyin both arenashas certainlybeen to disparagethe Achaemenidsas the "barbarians" and to downplaythe conceivableimpactof Achaemenid culturalpracticeson regionsunderits imperialpurview (Root 1991). Such a reading has been challengedonly rarelyandquiterecently,in partbecause relativelyfew scholarsare acquaintedas specialists bothwithclassicaltextualandmaterialtraditionsand with either the Achaemenidor the Nabataeanculturalrecord. Even fewerhave pursued all four elementsin this equation. In proposinga calculatedandinformedconnection betweena sectorof elite Nabataeanpatronsand the Achaemenidimperialpast, I am extending the legacyof the Persianempireforwardandoutwardin time and space. Memories of its floruit remained strongin a varietyof arenasof its formerhegemony not only in the immediateaftermathof 330 (e.g., Eddy 1961; Wiesehofer 1996) but for succeeding centuries.The West itself,afterall, continuedto exploit the memoryof the Achaemenidempirefor its own purposes.Diodorus'srecollections(foran Augustanand laterreadership)of Alexander'ssacking of a gloriousPersepolisimmeasurablyenhancedthe prestigeof Roman pressuresto containa new Iranian dynasticfoe, the Parthians.I am also extendingthe linkagesof an importantsectorof Nabataeansociety backinto a "proto-Nabataean" past thatjoinstemporallywith the Achaemenidempire.At this time,Arabiansplayeda key role in a greatenterprisethathad orchestratedstability,arbitratedpower acrosswesternAsia,andpressuredGreekspheresof dominance.

NABATAEAN TOMBS

The massiverock-cutNabataeantombsat Petraand Hegraarethe most celebratedand conspicuousfeaturesof Nabataeanvisualculture(Briinnowandvon Domaszewski1904 and 1909;Jaussenand Savignac 1909; Zayadine 1970; McKenzie 1990; SchmidtColinet,Weber,andZangenberg1997). Severalclassificationschemesexistas frameworks fordocumenting and discussing these monuments, depending chiefly on the forms and organization of their

IMPERIAL LEGACIES, LOCAL IDENTITIES

Graeco-RomanfaSadeof the tombcalledal-Khazneh: the most opulentand richlyadornedtombat the site and the one usually considered the paradigm of Nabataeanarchitecturaltradition(fig. 6).9 The crenelatedtombs that are the focus of this studyarethemajorclasswithinthe Orientalcategory. None of the twelve Graeco-Romantombs at Petra incorporatescrenelationsin its program.At Petra, as we have noted, all decoratedtombs except those '~~~~~~~~J twelve Graeco-Romanexamplesare in the Oriental mode, coexistingthroughtime in the samebuilt urban landscape as the Graeco-Romanmonuments. AR,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The vast majorityof the Orientaltombs at Petraincorporatecrenelations,althougha fewnoncrenelated types (e.g., the Obelisk tomb) are also placed into this generalOrientalcategory.At Hegra, the situation is a bit different.Here, none of the some 218 known tombsis in the Graeco-Romanmode. All the published tombsat Hegraare in the Orientalmode, 18.\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .... and all are crenelated.While Petrais well studied 11' >I .. .1 and well published, the profusionof scholarshipon the Hellenisticand Romanculturalaffiliationsof the site unintentionallydeemphasizesthe importanceof engagementwith eastward-lookingfeaturesof the visualenvironmentthere.'0Hegra,withits uniformly crenelatedtombs,is unfortunatelynot so wellknown. Its relativeobscurity in the scholarshipreflects its FIG. 6. Facade of the tomb al-Khaznehat Petra, epitomizing locationin the kingdomof SaudiArabia,which has the Graeco-Romantype. Photo by the author. been less frequentlyaccessedby non-Saudisandless extensivelyexplored archaeologicallythanJordan. decorative motifs. In largest terms, the decorated Variouscircumstances,then,havecontributedto the tombsaredividedinto two basiccategories:Graeco- low incidence of art historicalinquiryinto the production of the crenelatedNabataeantombs. Romanand Oriental.Funerarymonumentsin both categorieswere produced contemporaneously.8 Tombs in the Graeco-Romancategoryrepresent a verysmallgroup,andtheyexistexclusivelyatPetra. THE CRENELATED TOMBS Of the 851 documented tombs at Petra (Bruinnow I use the term "crenelatedtomb" to designate any andvon Domaszewski1904;1909), only somedozen are in the Graeco-Romanmode. Despite theirscant Nabataeantombincorporatingsteppedcrenelations into its decorativeprogram." By "crenelations"I numbers, it is these monuments that have, in the of mean both stepped formations(merlons)disposed the hallmark become popular imagination, Nabataeancivilizationthroughfrequentillustration in continuous frieze bands (fig. 7) and merlons in andintensityof scholarlyattention.The 1.2 kin-long "split" format(fig. 8). Despite many variationsin otherdecorativefeatures,crenelationsarea dominant naturalchasm(the Bab es-Siq) thatfunctionsas the mainentranceforvisitorsto Petrais linedwithtombs, visualexpressionin all these tombs. Becauseall the Graeco-Romanand Orientalalike. At its climactic published tombsat Hegraarecrenelated,it appears 171 conjunctionwith the cityproperstandsthe towering that the crenelationmay have carriedsome special

II

BJORN ANDERSON

O~~~ ...

. .....

i

. .

^,__,_,~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .. .'* _, .. ...... ...... ...... .,. .. . .............

7. Tombsat Petra withfriezes of running crenelations. Photo by the author.

'

....... . . :_'.i.'1!

......

FIG.

172

associationwiththiscity(orregion)andmayhavebeen seen as a culturalsign in some sense of the Arabian elementwithin Nabataeansociety as it coalesced in the aftermathof the Achaemenidempire.The city of Hegra was not a new foundationof the Nabataean kingdom.But the majorityof extantstructuresdate from Nabataeantimes, suggestingthat the site was imbuedwithnew significancethen.Duringthefloruit of the Nabataeankingdom, Hegra served both as a supplystationfor caravansand as a militaryoutpost. It is thoughtto havemarkedthe southernlimitof the Nabataeanauthority,althoughcertaintyon thispoint awaitsfurtherfieldworkin the region.'2 The tombsat Hegrahavebeen groupedinto different clustersbased on stylistic elements. For our purposes,however,the distinctionsamongthe clusters are relativelyminor.'3Of the some 218 tomb facadesat Hegra, 48 are inscribed (al-Rashid2002 andpers.com. 2002).'4 A studyof the dateablestonemasonsignaturesfromHegra(HealeyandAl-Theeb 1993) shows thatthe crenelatedtombsdo not follow anyformaldevelopmentfromthe simplerto themore complex.Indeed, of the dateabletombsat Hegrathe most ornamentedones arethe earliest(e.g., tomb B6 datingto 1 C.E.). These werebuiltduringthe reign of AretasIV (McKenzie1990: 11-31). Manyof the more elaboratelydecoratedcrenelatedfacadesof Nabataeantombs follow a particular format(fig. 8): A doorwayis framedby two pilasters

w :B

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . ........ ... .': ...

15

.. . ,... ..... ...

FIG.

8.

CrenelatedtombB-6 at Hegra. AfterJaussen and Savignac 1909: Pl. XL.

with Nabataeancapitals;'5it is crowned by a pediment and a triglyph-metopefriezecourse. Flanking thisdoorway,twoadditionalpilasterswithNabataean capitalsoftensupportan overarchingupperentablature (of varying complexity and added motifs) crowned by crenelations.'6Typically, the higher entablatureincorporatesa cavettocornice (as seen, for instance,prominentlybelow the split merlonsin our fig. 1). There aremultiplevariationson these elements.Tombs with split merlonsaremore numerous than those with runningfriezes,but not significantly so. Some of the tomb facadesincorporating runningmerlonfriezesare of a less ornatestructure, without pilasters. On such tombs the crenelations become the primarydecorativefeature(fig. 7). The pedigree of the Graeco-Romantombs at Petra has been much discussed (McKenzie 1990;

IMPERIAL LEGACIES, LOCAL IDENTITIES

p.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p

..;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-3

FIG. 9.

FIG. 10.

View of N4aqsh-iRustam, slhowingthe rock-cutroyal tombfacades. Photo by M. C. Root.

Tombfacade of Darius I at Naqsh-i Rustam. Photo by M. C. Root.

Parr1996) and seems clearin broadtrendsif not in all details.The crenelatedtombsaremoreenigmatic in theirallusiveness.Relationshipswith Egyptiantradition arecertainlypartof the mix (McKenzie1990; Tholbecq 2001). We aredealingherewith a complicatedsituationin which theAchaemenidroyaltombs of DariusI andhis successorsthemselvesreflectconscious appropriationsof certainEgyptianconcepts in an effortto legitimizeand aggrandizethe empire. It is customaryto claimoriginal antecedents(in this case Egyptian)as the antecedentsof formativesignificanceto a new context-especially whenthe original antecedentsemergefroman environmentphysically quite close at hand. But culturalappropriation does not workas simplisticallyas thatmodelimplies. I askhere thatwe considerthe significanceof secondaryantecedents(in this case,Achaemenidreworkings of Egyptianand other traditions)as the antecedents thatcarriedthe weightof authoritativememoryin the Nabataeanimagination. In this scenario,I do not deny the possibilityof direct input from Egyptiantraditionsin the formation of the crenelated tombs of the Nabataeans. McKenzie(1990) and Tholbecq (2001) are rightto recognize specific stylistic similaritieswith Egypt. Both approachescan be nicely wedded. Locallyor

at leastregionallyavailablecraftsmenwere probably used to execute these monuments,even with their programmedallusivenessto the Achaemenidpast. Such artisanswill likely have had connectionswith Egyptianstone-workingtraditions.These will have informedsomedynamics,suchasproportions,in the finallook of the Nabataeancrenelatedtombs. Looking outside Egypt to western Asia, Fawzi Zayadinehas observed a generalizedconnection to pre-Hellenistic forms (1970; 1979), as noted earlier. Here our project becomes a close look at the possibilitythatthe crenelatedtombsdisplayexplicit reminiscences specifically of Achaemenid Persian imperialforms.

ACHAEMENID PROTOTYPES FOR THE CRENELATED TOMBS

The Palace Fafade Concept.The tomb of Darius I was the prototypefor the tombsof his successors,as preservedatNaqsh-iRustamandMountRahmat(the Mountainof Mercy)looking out over the Persepolis citadel (figs. 9-10). With some interesting variations, all these tombs mirrorthe tomb of DariusI in formand exteriordecoration.The lower zone of the

173

BJORN ANDERSON

FIG. 11 (NEAR RIGHT).

The rock-cut tombcalled Diszu Dukhtar. AfterHerzfeld 1941:p l

-

FIG. 12 (FAR RIGHT).

Drawing of columnsand crenelationson thefacade of Diz u Dukhtar.V After Herzfeld 1941:flg. 317. XI V......

Nt~~~~~~4

.,ur. .,,

.

'Wo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

174

exteriorpresentationdisplaysa palatialfacade.Centered in this, an actualdoorwayframedby a threesteppedfasciaandcrownedby a cavettocorniceleads into the rock-cutsepulchralchambers.This door is framedon each side by two pairsof flankingpilasters with half-projectingAchaemenid animal-protome capitalssupportinga stepped entablaturecrowned by dentils. Above this, an elaboratereliefshows the king borne on a dais carriedby personificationsof the subjectlandsas he worshipsbeforea blazingfire altar.He faces the figureof the Achaemenidpatron deity, Ahuramazda,who hovers above as a half-figure emergingfroma winged symbol. The Achaemenid royal tombs offer a formal structuresimilarin generalcharacterto theNabataean crenelatedtombswith palacefacades(figs. 1 and 8). In both caseswe see the dimensionallyreductiverepresentationof a palatialstructurewith engagedcolumnswithinwhich an actualdoorwaygiveswayinto the tomb chambers. The many differences in the decorationof the two types of facadereflectdiffer-

ences in actualarchitecturalforms in the two environments. Among these differencesis the form of column capital. The zoomorphic capitals of the Achaemenidparadigmarenot, forinstance,emulated on the Nabataeantombs.Instead,typicalNabataean capitalsare used. These and other details of ornamentnotwithstanding,thedramaticdifferencein look between the two tomb types lies in the figuralimageryadded to the Achaemenidpresentation:the massive dais supportedby peoples of the subjectlands liftingup the king as he prays.This featureis, however, a discreteand separableelementof a basic design. It representsa scene meantto takeplace in the open airon the flatroof of a royalpalace.And it was a scene specific to royalty. The rock-cuttomb called Da u Dukhtar(near Kurangun,just northwestof Persepolis)is instructivehere (figs. 11-12). This tomb, like severaldecoratedrock-cuttombsfarthernorth,wasonce assumed to be a precursorof the Achaemenidroyal tombs. This assumptionwas drivenby two factors:a notion

IMPERIALLEGACIES,LOCALIDENTITIES

thatthe Achaemenidroyaltombsmusthaveevolved from simpler prototypes and an eagerness to find evidenceof the visualcultureof the pre-Achaemenid Mediankingdom(Herzfeld1941: 206, fig. 317, pls. XXXV-XXXVIII). All these tombs have now been redatedto the late Achaemenidperiod or its immediate aftermath(e.g., Porada 1965: 139; von Gall 1988).17Da u Dukhtaris certainlythe tombof anelite individualpartakingof the prototypeestablishedby Darius I, but in a scaled-backand modifiedmode. The coreideaof the rock-cuttombwith a facaderepresentinga palatialedifice has been deployed here. It has a doorwayframedby engagedcolumns (this time with capitalsformed of "watch-springIonic" volutesratherthanaddorsedanimalprotomes).Absent is the elaboratesuperimposedrepresentational iconographyof sacralkingship.Insteadof this representationalscene, a tall entablaturecrownedby a flatmoldingprovidestheplatformfora dramaticculminating frieze of crenelations. Arguably, the crenelationson this tomb are a code makingvisual referenceto theAchaemeniddynastyandspecifically to Persepolis.This interestingmonumentis important in our attempt to appreciate mechanisms whereby elements of the Achaemenidprogramat Persepoliscould be distilledas encoded symbolsfor use in othervenues and contexts. Beyondthe coreaspectof thepalatialfacade,two elementsof crenelatedNabataeantombspresentarchitecturalfeaturesthat resonateemphaticallywith Achaemenidarchitecturaltradition:the crenelations themselvesand the cavettocornices. Furthermore, the motifsembellishingthese tombsincluderosettes (oftenemblazonedon the metopesof thelowerfrieze course), displayedeagles, and heraldicanimals.All of these features have important pedigrees in Achaemenidart closely associatedwith royaltyand with Persepolis.'8 Crenelations.The stepped crenelationsare, as we have seen, the signatureelementof the Orientalcategoryof Nabataeantombs. Merlonshave a long history in the ancientNear Eastbeforethey areappropriatedby the Achaemenidprogramin a concerted and uniqueway. Garbini(1958) and Porada(1967) have demonstratedan ancientand deeply ingrained pedigreefor the motifin Mesopotamiaand Iran,go-

ing back to the close of the fourthmillenniumand alludingto notions of the sacredmountain.According to Lloyd(1978: 206), crenelationswerefirstused on Mesopotamianarchitecturein the thirteenthcentury B.C.E., perhaps importedfrom Egypt. But the much earlierand continuingsignificanceof the motif in the repertoireof symbols on seals, not least in Iranfromproto-Elamitetimesonward,is crucial. Zayadine(1979: 67) has noted the ubiquityof crenelationsgenerallyin thepre-HellenisticNearEast thatcould haveprovidedmodels to the Nabataeans. He hasproposedabroadandundifferentiated disseminationof themotiffromAssyrianandAchaemenidtraditionsto theNabataeansviasecondarytransmission: Le type des monumentscrenelesest parvenua Petrasous l'influencede l'Assyrieet de la Perse, maisen passantpar la Syrieet la Phenicieoiuon l'a agremented'une corniceegyptiennesous les merlonset plus tardde pilastreset cornicesgrecs. De cette memetraditionsont les monumentsde Amritsurla cote phenicienne,datesde 1'epoque perse,ou ceux de la montagnelibanaisedu debut de l'epoqueromain. We can takeZayadine'simportantacknowledgment of pre-Hellenisticinfluencea step furtherby assessing in depth the distinctions in contexts of usage, pervasivenessof appearance,and specificmeanings of associationthatwouldhavebeenparticularlycompellingfor the Nabataeans. As an architecturalfeature,the merlonwas primarilyassociatedwith fortificationsin the ancient Near East before the Achaemenidempire. In NeoAssyrianartnumerousrepresentationsof city-siege scenes show fortress walls crowned by merlons. Gunter(1982) arguesthatAssyriandepictionsof fortressesunder attackare sufficientlyvariableto warrant the interpretationthat they represent actual structures.'9Representationson small-scaleartifacts fromAssyriaand also fromUrartuon the periphery of the Neo-Assyrianempire reinforcethe idea that the crowningmerlonfriezewas a prevalentmotifin fortressarchitectureand, by extension, was a symbol of the city as a concept.20Smith (in press), specificallyconsideringUrartianusage, has rightlyob- 175 served that crenelationswere part of the symbolic

BJORN ANDERSON

p

5

ro

Z.O

i 30~~~~~~~~~mc

FiG. 13.

Reconstructiondrawing of the Ishtar Gate at Babylon.After Koldewayand J7ohns1914:fig. 21.

176

vocabularyandservedto situatesimplifiedexpressions of powerandorderin thewiderlandscapeof thenaturalworld. In this sense the merlonmotifwould have evenas it perperfonnedas a symbolon fortifications formeda practicalfunctionin militarydefense. In tandemwith thisprimaryassociation,merlons mayhavebeen used also on Mesopotamianreligious structures. Occasionallytheimpressionsoftwo Middle AssyriansealsfromAssurareused to suggestthelook of thatperiod.These of actualtemplesuperstructures sealsdepicttraditionalaltarsof the time,whichareset visions ofelaboratearchitectural beforerepresentations with towers and crenelations.These architectural backdropsseem meant,however,to show the altars setbeforeorin citywalls;theydo notlookparticularly liketemples.Indeed,Colon (1987: 172 andnos. 8056) uses theimagesto illustratetypicalMiddleAssyrian altarsbut does not reintroducethe ideathatthe architecturalbackdropsdisplaytemples. IshtarGateatBabylonconWiththeglazed-brick structedin the reign of Nebuchadnezzar(605-562 wellB.C.E.) we canspeakwithconfidenceof relatively

preservedarchitecturalremainsfrom Mesopotamia ornaments displayingmerlonsascrowningfortification (fig. 13).21It is also significantthatthis wall fusesthe withthe conceptof cultinstalconceptof fortification lation.This bringsus to the thresholdofAchaemenid history.After539 Babylonbecamea principalroyal cityof theAchaemenidempire.The IshtarGatemust have been a powerfullyevocativemonumentin the formativephasesof theAchaemenidartisticprogram. In sum, before the founding of Persepolis in

about515 B.C.E., themerlonalreadyhada longhistory as an ancientNear Easternsymbol allyingageold notions of the sacredmountainto the agencyof fortifications.In the late Neo-Babylonianperiod we begin to see a calculatedfusion of the city fortification motif and an assertivecultic resonance.But at Persepolis,in the architecturalembellishmentspreserved in stone on the Takht, the symbol acquired an unprecedented prominence and a significance suggestinga new emphasison sacredand ritualdomainsof association(Garbini1958). Crowning merlons are ubiquitous on the

IMPERIAL LEGACIES, LOCAL IDENTITIES

Vistaof the CentralBuilding AL

;

theeaststaircaseof the

|and

Apadana at Persepolis, showing theprominenceof crenelationsas architectural members.Photo courtesyof the Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago.

a *~

~~~~~~~11~~~~~~~~~~~

t{Iw-SI4.

*-J _1

_I

_

|

!l

VD_

~

-~

| k| |

S

-

-|I

FIG. 15 ~~~~~~~~~~~~

Closeupview of crenelations on the east staircase of the .-4sl

4

A

E4.:;.

*4? i.

at Persepolis.Photo ~~~~~~~~~~Apadana the Oriental

.

V4

courtesyof Institute of the Universityof

'*; * /h. ...

Chicago.

#2. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Y*"~~~~~~~~~~

Takht at Persepolis. They dominate the imperial architecturallandscapethroughtheir repetitionin importantandvisuallycaptivatinglocations(fig. 14). Carvedin stone with finelydraftedand detailedprecision, the merlons are defined by three mirrored steps inwardclimbingto a culminatingcentralstep, insetwith a framedrectangularrecess(fig. 15). Stone was used very sparingly in the architecture of Mesopotamiabecause of limited availability.Thus forthe greatcapitalsof Assyriaand Babylonia,baked (andsometimesglazed)brickwas the typicalmedium

forsuperstructures,even of the mostprestigiousedifices. Generally,structuralstoneworkwas restricted to foundationsupon which brickwas laid.22On the PersepolisTakhtmudbrickwasalsoemployedforthe walls of buildings(with evidencethat the outermost layerwas oftenof beautifullyglazedbakedbrick)and for fortificationsand lesserinstallations.Butproximity to limestonequarriesallowedfor greaterfreedom in exploitingstoneforthe skeletalarmatureof important state buildings: for columns, stairways,door frames,windowframes,and crowningcrenelations.

177

BJORN ANDERSON

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t

Qi,',f

..........

17. The crenelatedcrown of Darius I on the rockrelief at Bisitun. Photo by George Cameron, courtesyof the CameronArchive (Be 37) of the KelseyMuseum of Archaeology,the University of Michigan. FIG.

FIG.

i6.

TombF-70 at Petra, with crenelationsin the round. Photo by the author.

178

The deployment of highly visible and lavishly embellishedstoneworkat the ceremonialand strategic centerof the empirewas itselfa tokenof imperial might.Nylander(1970) has shown thatthe types of masonrytraditionsemployed at the earlierAchaemenid heartlandcapital, Pasargadae(founded by Cyrusthe Great),were meantto signalthe empire's appropriationof King Croesus'skingdom of Lydia (in western Anatolia),with its history of stone use formonumentaldisplay.Somethingof the samementalitymusthavedriventhe use of stone at Persepolis, althoughhere it mayalso alludeto morerecentconquests(suchas the acquisitionof Egypt).As with the rest of the architectureat Persepolis,the merlonwas thus investedwith new symbolismsimply through

its renderingin stone. A subsidiaryresult was the permanenceof the merlonsat Persepolis,wherethey survivedas vivid models for lateremulation. On the PersepolisTakht, merlonsabound in a multitudeof nondefensivecontexts and representations.Dariusandhis successorsconcertedlydrewthe motifand its associatedmeaningsdown fromthe city walls,infusingthe entirecomplexwithits symbolism. The merlonsprojectthemselvesat the site in robust freestandingform even in ruins left in Alexander's wake.An exceptionalfreestandingtombat Petradisplays the crenelatedfiieze as a form sculptedin the roundatopthemonument(fig.16).23 This tombshows the close visual relation between the freestanding merlons crowning the architectural features of Persepolisand the relief depictions of merlonsdisplayedon the rock-carvedtombs.It indicatesthatthe crenelationscut into the facadesof the rock-carved tombs are meantto evoke freestandingarchitectural memberslike those at Persepolis. Perhaps the most compelling evidence for the significanceof the merlon in Achaemenidart is its introductionas a criticalfeatureof the Achaemenid royal crown. This analysisbegins with the relief of DariusI at Bisitun(fig. 17). There, carvedinto a cliff wall high above the great northerneast-west royal

IMPERIAL LEGACIES, LOCAL IDENTITIES

Near Eastern art that can be so closely dated. It must be among the earliest monumental representations of Darius I as king and is certainly the earliest one preserved. The significance of the monument and its text is clearly evidenced by the fact that both were copied for other venues across the empire.24 On this critical early monument to his kingship, Darius is shown wearing a-crown formed of a diadem decorated with rosettes and adorned at the top by merlons. Although many aspects of the Bisitun relief bespeak conscious invocation of Assyrian tradition, the crown Darius has chosen to signify his kingship is a radical departure from earlierNear Eastern royal headgear.25 The Bisitun relief preserves the earliest extant representation of the head of any Achaemenid king.26 Judging from the dramaticreworkings Darius effected in other aspects of visual (and administrative) formulations of empire, this crown type may well have been meant to signal a highly visible departure from the representational strategies of his predecessors. It .E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. seems to have served as a prototype of a new and henceforth canonical imagery of Achaemenid kingship. The royal figures on architectural reliefs at Persepolis work off this prototypical crenelated diadem, in some instances with the crenelations applied as an overlay in gold (fig. 18).27 The use of stepped crenelations atop a new type of crown meant to signify Achaemenid kingship is a strong statement intended to convey power.28 A religious element was surely expressed by this new form as well, for the FIG. 18. crenelation had early origins in Iran as a sacred symCrenelated crownofDariusIf romtheeastjamb of the bol (Garbini 1958: 90). southdoorwayof themain hall of thePalaceofDarius The crenelated crown is also shown on a variat Persepolis.Photocourtesyof theOrientalInstitute the of official Achaemenid seals, as best indicated ety of Universityof Chicago. by the royal-name seals used on the Persepolis Fortification and Treasury tablets.29 PFS 7*, PFS1 1*, the Ecbatana and between Babylon, king highway and PFS 113* provide examples. PFS 7* and PFS standswith one foot on the neck of the vanquished 113* show the motif of heroic encounter featuring pretenderto the throne,Gaumata,and facingbound a crowned figure as hero.30 Although numerous rebel leaders. He gesturesto the hoveringfigureof seals of the Achaemenid period depict the heroic Ahuramazdaemergingfrom a winged symbol. The thereliefnarrates Darius's encounter, it is possible to isolate the royal-name trilingualtextaccompanying seals as a special category relating to officially desuccessfiilquellingof insurrectionsin his firstyearof reignas well as recordingthe divinefavorof Ahura- termined imagery. On these seals the hero image is mazdain collaboratingin these endeavors(Luschey apparently meant to allude specifically to the royal 1968; Root 1979: 58-61, 182-236). This relief, persona. The crowns on these very small images are carvedin 519 B.C.E., iS a rareexampleof monumental dentate. That is, they are slightly reductive versions S..

X

179

BJORN ANDERSON

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 W-c-~-

y~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~y

FIG. 19.

Compositedrawing of royal-nameseal PFS 7* (2:1) on the PersepolisFortification tablets. Courtesyof M. B. Garrison, M. C. Root, and the PersepolisSeal Project. FIG. 20.

Compositedrawing of royalname seal PFS 113 * (2:1) on the PersepolisFortification tablets. Courtesyof M. B. Garrison, M. C. Root, and the PersepolisSeal Project.

FIG. 21.

Compositedrawing of royal-nameseal PFS 11*

e

(2:1) on thePersepolis

4

(

Fortification tablets.

i

it

_

Courtesyof M. B. Garrison,M. C. Root,

andthePersepolis Seal Project.

FIG. 22.

Compositedrawing of seal PFS 75 (2:1) on the PersepolisFortification tablets. Courtesyof M. B. Garrison, M. C. Root, and the PersepolisSeal Project.

18o

of the crown with articulatedstepped crenelations thatwe see in monumentalform(figs. 19-21). The life-sizedepictionof Dariusat Bisitun(like the numerouswell-preservedrepresentationsof the king on reliefs at Persepolis)illustrateswhat these

minutedentatecrownswould displayin largerscale: a regularpatternof repeatedstepped crenelations. As importantimperialtools, sealsprojectedsymbols across boundariesof status, ethnicity,and geography. Theirimpressedimagescreatedvisualdialogues

IMPERIALLEGACIES,LOCALIDENTITIES

that enjoyed a wide circulation,significantlyshaping concepts of power. The imperialcoinageof the Achaemenidsalso servedto circulateofficiallysanctionedimagesof the kingwearingthe dentatecrown. Both officialroyal-nameseals and coinage disseminated an ideologicallymandatedimageof kingship. Ifwe acceptthe argumentthatthemerlonwas deeply imbuedwith "sacredandprotectivepower"(Porada 1967: 6), the disseminationof royal-nameseals and imperialcoins depictingthe royalpersonawearinga dentatecrown would have served a propagandistic functionsimilarto thatacceptedfor coins of the emperorAugustuswearingthe laurelcrown.3'The late numismaticspecialistLeo Mildenbergconsideredthe dentate crown the most important symbol of the Achaemenidempire, stronglyreinforcingthe argumentsput forthhere(2000: 379; see alsoMildenberg 1994-99). Similarly, Henkelman (1995-96: esp. 279-80) specificallylinksthe crenelatedAchaemenid crownwith the symbolicdeploymentof crenelations on the architectureat Persepolis. The significanceof the crenelatedAchaemenid crownin the culturalmemoriesof laterdynastieswas acknowledgedparticularlyin SasanianIran by the consciousechoingof the motifin the crownformsof selected rulers, including Shapur I in his relief at Naqsh-i Rustam (Schmidt 1970: pl. 84b; Curtis 2000: figs. 89, 93, 94). Depictions of severalaltartypes in Achaemenid artofferimportantadditionalevidenceon thecharged significanceof the merlonin the Persepolismilieu. Furthermore,theyshow close similaritiesto the form takenspecificallyby the split merlonmotifon many Nabataeantombs. The altartypes in question consist of a columnarformcrownedby a splitmerlon.The importance of the fire altaris well known in the religion of the Achaemenidcourt. It is clear from the evidence of sealsthataltarsof variousformsanda rangeof closely relatedreligiousinstallationsfiguredprominentlyin the visualworld of the Achaemenids.The presence of the merlonmotif on a largegroup of these representationsof altarsandrelatedinstallationsreinforces the sense of the renewed meaningof the motif as a sacredsymbolin Achaemenidtimes. The PersepolisFortificationtabletsnow provide excavatedandcloselydatedevidenceon Achaemenid

religiousstructuresvia sealsimpressedon the documenttablets.Two of these sealsstandout as particularlyinterestingforourpurposes.One, PFS 11* (fig. 21), is the royal-namesealof DariusI mentionedearlierin connectionwith the dentateroyalcrown(Garrison 2000: fig. 18 andpl. XXII/18). Here the royal figureis shown twice, flankingan altarcrownedby split merlons,each of which bearsa smallglobelike elementatop its peak. The other, PFS 75, shows a manleadinga hornedanimaltowarda figurewho is pouring a libation(?)over the flameon a fire altar. The terminalelementof the sealdesignshows a large installation,eithera greataltarorperhapssomeother type of religiousstructure(fig.22). This elementis a rectilinearformwith insets on what is preservedof the lowerpartandanupperpartthatrisesto a pairof split merlons (Garrison2000: 142, fig. 19, and pl. XXII/19). To these sealson the Fortificationtablets we can add a group of seals showing crenelatedaltars and/or temple facadesknown throughimpressions on labelsfromthe PersepolisTreasuryadministrativearchive.PTS 22 and PTS 23 arevery similar in compositionto the royal-nameseal PFS 11*, andtheyagaindisplaymonumentscrownedwith tall split merlons(figs. 23-24). Two othersealsused on Persepolistabletsadd to the excavatedcorpusof visual evidence attesting to the prominence of the crenelated-altar motifinthiscontext.32PFS 11*, PTS 22, and PTS 23 in turnfind echoes in otherAcllaemenid seals. One unprovenancedAchaemenidseal, a chalcedony cylinder that has been in the Bibliotheque Nationalesince 1899, is remarkablysimilar to PTS 22 and PTS 23. Mooreyhas groupedthis seal with two otherAchaemenidexamplesshowing the same type of altar:anotherunprovenancedartifactnow in Bostonand,mostimportantly,a cylinder fromthe Gordionexcavations(Moorey 1979: fig. 2 A and B; drawingin Collon 1987: no. 424), which is inscribedin Aramaicwith the owner'sname,patronym,andtitle(?).This elaborateseal,whichincludes the elite motifof pedestalanimals,is a most interesting exampleof the deploymentof the crenelatedaltarby a highlyplaced individualoperatingwithin a key urbanenvironmentin Phrygia.34 Moorey(1979: 222) suggeststhatthese altarswith the split merlons "followa 'Neo-Assyrian'pattern."But, as suggested above, the evidencefor Assyriantransferenceof the

i8i

BJORN ANDERSON

FIG. 23

An impressionof seal PTS 22 preservedon the lower surface of a clay label (PT4 706) from the Treasury at Persepolis.Photo courtesyof the Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago.

i82

FIG. 24.

An impressionof seal PTS 23 preservedon a clay label (PT4 704) from the Treasuryat Persepolis.Photo courtesyof the Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago.

crenelation from fortificationcontexts to religious contexts is extremely sparse and problematic.35 This sparseness is especially remarkable given the abundance of evidence available in Assyrian art-which quantitativelyfaroutstrips what is so faravailablefrom Achaemenid times. It was not until the Achaemenid period that such altars became a "typical" form. The altars(or, more likely, incense burners) that are so far known in first-millenniumPalestine,northwestArabia, and the Levant only rarelyincorporate any merlon element (Shea 1983; Fowler 1984; Graf 1990a: 13637). And these items are themselves plausibly reflecting the influence of Achaemenid forms.36 Regardless of whether we can isolate the very first instance of a crenelated altar, the glyptic evidence for religious monuments adorned with stepped crenelations in the Achaemenid empire is compelling in specificity, in quality, and in quantity. It shows that the motif of stepped crenelation was an integrated programmatic feature of Achaemenid art-from the king's crown, to myriad ceremonial and ritual installations of the court, to the cult apparatus of variant altar types depicted on seals

directlyassociatedwith the courtandwith high-status individualsof the empire.37Manyof these highstatusindividualsoperatedin Persepolisitself or in importantregionalcenters. They were mobile personages who traveled widely and who interacted with others who did so as well. While the stepped crenelationis the constant unifyingdecorativefeatureof the NabataeanOriental tombs, severalother elementsthatfrequentlyoccur on these favadesalso have links to Achaemenid tradition. Here I shall only sketch preliminary thoughts,deferringmore in-depthconsideration. The Cavetto Cornice.The cavetto cornice, such a dominantformon the crenelatedtombswith palatial facades,is alsoa strikingfeatureof the stoneremnants of architecture at Persepolis. This molding form crownsthe stone door framesand window framesof the buildingson the Takht (fig. 25) just as it crowns the doorwaysleading into the rock-cutroyal tomb chambers.Clearly,whenwe encounterit atPersepolis, we are witnessinga conscious appropriationin the Achaemenidheartland ofanage-oldEgyptiantradition.

IMPERIAL LEGACIES, LOCAL IDENTITIES

FIG. 25.

Ruins of the Persepolis Takht showing the so-called Harem of Xerxes. Photo courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

74

_

^

AM,

I

l

-:

ll l

E

_

FIG. 26 (FAR LEFT).

Rosettes on the staircase facade of theApadana at Persepolis. Photo by M. C. Root. FIG. 27 (NEAR LEFT).

./.... .

It can be no accidentthatthe cavettocorniceappears herein suchconcentratedforceon theheelsofDarius's reconquest of Egypt. In the Egyptian sphere the cavettoheld symbolicmeaningin templeand palace architectureaspartofa systemof visualcodes of ornamentrelatingreligiouslychargedstructuresto cosmic entities(Baines1995, withbibliography).The cavetto formwould havebeen availableto Nabataeanpatrons directlyfromcontactwith the monumentsof Egypt. Nevertheless,its deploymentin Persepolisbringsit solidly into the discourse of symbolic architectural motifs that, like the crenelation, resounded in Achaemenidtimes,withnew meaningsreworkingancient legacies.It must be considered,alongwith the crenelation,specificallyas partof theAchaemenidvisual vocabularythatwould have had strongassociationswith Persiankingshipin the ancientworld.

Bull capitalfrom Persepolis, with rosette collar. Photo byM. C.

Rosettes. The palace faSades with cavetto-crowned doorway and soaring columns, along with the ubiquitous crenelations projecting skyward along rising staircases, were the most dramatic architectural elements at Persepolis. We move now to a set of embellishments applied to the surfaces of these structural features. Of these, the rosette enjoys the distinction of greatest prevalence. Rosettes are everywhere, even ringing door sockets and decorating the eyes of volutes on all the elaborate column capitals (e.g., Schmidt 1953: fig. 37). On the Apadana staircases rosette friezes run between each register of relief sculpture and also surround the entire composition (fig. 26). The protomes of great bulls that serve as impost blocks on the complex columns wear rosetteadorned collars (fig. 27). Surviving glazed bricks that once faced the superstructures of the ceremonial

183

BJORN ANDERSON

settebandsof Tomb VI to themoreaustereprototype establishedby DariusI at Naqsh-iRustamunitesthis lateAchaemenidtombin yet one moreway to the visualpresentationof the Takhtoverwhich it presides. The rosette,like the merlon,had an ancienthis~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r tory in the Near East before the rise of the Achaemenid empire.As a symbol of the goddess Inanna/ Ishtar, it alluded to fertility and abundance (Van Buren 1939). By extension (and also because of the .-~~ evolvingnatureof Ishtaras a goddess of war as well as sexualityand fertility)the rosette was closely associatedwithnotionsof royaltyanddynasty.Rosettes decoraterelief representationsof the Neo-Assyrian king's high turbancrown and in this sense createa conceptual backdrop for the crown of Darius at Bisitun(fig. 17). Here we note againthe band of rosettes runningdirectlybelow the crenelations.The combinationof these two motifs on the crown portrayedon this seminal monumentunderscoresthe special role they played in Achaemenid royal art. Rosettes may also have been added to some of the crownson the Persepolisreliefseitherin paintor inlay(Henkelman1995-96). Furthermore,some of the most finelydetailedroyalcrownsrepresentedon the sealsused on the PersepolisFortificationtablets(e.g., PFS 7* and PFS 11* [herefigs. 19 and 21]) display bosses below the dentatecrenelations.These bosses (inminutescale)weresurelymeantto indicaterosettes. Crenelatedparapetswith rosettesrunningbelow appearon theIshtarGateatBabylon(Oates1986:fig. 108). This mayhavehadanimpacton theplannersof FIG. 28. Darius'sprogramof personaliconography-bringing Tomb VI (of Artaxerxes III) on Mount Rahmat above the thesymbolismof Ishtaron a colossalscaleintotheserPerseholis Takht. After Herzfeld 1941: 1. XL V. vice of the Persianking'sbodilypresentation.As appropriatedby the Achaemenids,the ancientrosette acquiredcomplex multivalencethat deserves more installationson the Takht also displaylavish use of inquiry.The forceof the rosetteas a symbolof dynasthe rosette(Schmidt 1953: fig. 35). Mostsignificantlyforthe presentanalysis,bands tic fertilityat Persepolis(Root in press) createdthe of twelve-petaledrosettesembellishthethree-stepped conditionsthatled to its subsequentstrategicdeployrecess of the doorwayof Tomb VI of ArtaxerxesIII ment as an architecturalembellishmenton specific contextsin the West-first in Athens duringthe peabovethe Takht,on MountRahmat(Schmidt1970: 105, fig. 38, andpl. 70 [herefig. 28]).18 This decora- riod of the Achaemenidempire(in consciousquotationofAchaemenidPersianculture)andsubsequently tiveflourishis uniqueto Tomb VI. Its additionto the royaltomblookingdownoverthePersepolisvistasug- in the architecturalornamentationof Augustanand gests that the designersof this particulartomb were later imperial Rome.39Roman uses of the rosette 184 inspiredby the proximityof the rosette-strewnarchi- aboundin the Augustanperiod, when floralimagery tecturallandscapeof the city. The additionof the ro- is assertedas a majortheme of imperialabundance -"

.-

R

*1

gag

7

IMPERIAL LEGACIES, LOCAL IDENTITIES

.

~~..

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. ...

.p .

.*~~~~~....~~~~

~~

~

~

~

Detail of crenelated tomb C-

1atrHegrah setopefinge with rosettes.AferJaussen and ~'Savignacl1909:2:331,fig. Bi4__ wiD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .

144.

11

(Zanker 1988). The important issue of the plausibility of Augustan appropriation of Achaemenid strategies in the visual programming of empire is as yet hardly touched upon in scholarship. When we look at the Nabataeandeployment of rosettes on the crenelated tombs, we may be tempted to see them as a GraecoRoman feature rather than an Oriental one. Yet the complexities of multiple influences across time in the GreaterMediterraneanyield layers of culturalreworking that need to be understood within specific historical frameworks.The rosette is one of those images that might have been brought into the Nabataean architectural vocabulary through direct relations with Augustan Rome, for instance. But its emblematic display on the crenelated tombs, taken together with the crenelations themselves and the cavetto cornices (figs. 1 and 8), evokes a direct inspiration from the Achaemenid heardand. Significantly, the rosette appears prominently as an emblem on the Orientaltombs rather than on the ostentatiously flowery Graeco-Roman ones. The Nabataeans employed several different forms of rosettes, and there is more than one interpretation of their use. On freestanding architecture (such as the Altar Pedestal II at Khirbet el-Tanniir and the Kasr el-Bint Fa'run at Petra), the rosettes are characterized by clearly defined and finely drafted petals of a rather naturalistic form (Gleuck 1965: pls. 103, 104; McKenzie 1990: pl. 40a). On the crene-

l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

lated tombs, however,the rosetteis often expressed in a more stylized manner (fig. 29). The flower is formed of six or four pointed petals in high relief, which are eitherframedby a circularrim or further elaboratedby the addition of more petals in lower relief.Those set in circularmedallionsresemblesolar emblemsas much as they do flowers.They may be attributesof sun-associatedgods such as Helios or Hadad (cf. Glueck 1965: 144, 455). Those set nestedamongadditionalpetalsbecometwelve-petaled rosettesthataresculpturallyarticulatedin twoplanes. The visualfluiditywe see in Nabataeanartbetween solaremblem/starandrosettefloweris itselfnotwithout interestforthe originalNearEasternsensesof the rosettethat form the backdropfor Achaemenidformulations(Blackand Green1992: 156). Eagles. Approximatelytwenty-eighttombsat Hegra are decoratedwith reliefrepresentationsof frontally displayedeagles.40They are most often placed atop the pediment of the door frame,as if renderingin reliefa freestandingcentralacroterion(fig.30).41But theyaresometimessituatedwithinthepedimentarea crowningthe tomb door (fig. 31). The eagles on all these tombs probablyrelateon one level directlyto Nabataeandeities, including Atargatisand Ba'alshamin (see Jaussen and Savignac1909: 400-40 1; Gleuck 1965: 471-74; Healey, Schmitt-Korte,and 185 Wenning 1997; Healey 1989; 2001). But additional

BJORN ANDERSON

I.

=~~~.

I.

......M

.t..t .l

J.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FIG.

i86

30

FIG. 31.

Detail of crenelatedtombB-S at Hegra, showing doorwaywith eagle as acroterion.Aferjaussen and Savignac 1909: pi1XLIII.

Detail of crenelatedtombB-19 at Hegra, showing eagle within pediment.AfterJaussen and Savignac 1909: 2.1:326,fig. 139.

resonances are also possible-resonances that would have supplemented ratherthan supplanted references to the Nabataean pantheon. In Rome, the eagle, as an attribute of RomanJupiter, was deployed on military standards. Conceivably, then, the eagle on crenelated Nabataean tombs might imply Nabataean emulation of Roman symbols of imperial cult and power. The eagle crowning the standard in the center of the cuirass of the statue of Augustus of Prima Porta (Zanker 1988: fig. 148b) is, for instance, very close to that rendered on Hegra tombs C-i15 (fig. 29) and B-5 (fig. 30). This scene on the cuirass displays the Parthians' return of the Roman standard, bringing us within the historical orbit of political interactions between Rome and the Eastern inheritors of Achaemenid legacies of kingship. The eagle was simultaneously an important emblem in Parthian tradition, so that ambiguities are rampant in the pos-

sible associations this emblem might hold in the Augustan age (Dirven 1999: esp. 54-55, 85-87). The other style and pose of the eagle shown on the crenelated Nabataean tomnbs(fig. 3 1) resembles its form on many examples of Roman arts of small scale (on coins and cameos, for instance: Zanker 1988: figs. 76-77), where it represents the eagle of Jupiter and hence a surrogate for the emperor. Against this backdrop, a specifically Achaemenid connection adds yet another layer of interpretiveresonance to the eagle. Xenophon, writing his Greek narrative of military life in the service of the Persian prince Cyrus the Younger in 401 B. C.E., describes the Achaemenid standard as a golden eagle stretched across a shield, implying a display with wings spread (Xenophon Anab. 1. 10, 12; also Cyrop. 7.1, 4). Unfortunately, the square standards depicted behind the royal entourage on the original central panels of the

IMPERIAL LEGACIES, LOCAL IDENTITIES

1955:66; reproducedin Amiet1980:fig. 709). Decoratedwithanimageof anEgyptianizing falconlikebird with outspreadwings, it could be an Egyptianizing versionof the imageon the Achaemenidroyalbattle standard.This interpretationis appealingnot least since it was foundin the Hallof Thirty-twoColumns 14. in theeasternsectorof theTakht,anareacloselyassociatedwith the garrisonat the site. The plaqueis perA4 foratedforattachmentandmayhavebeen an element of architectualdecorationfeaturingmilitaryallusions. In the Achaemenidcontext the eaglewas linked to the greatpatrondeityof the dynasty. Ahuramazda, . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ It is alsopossible thatthe displayedeagleXenophon .. ... speaksof was actuallya renderingof theAchaemenid FIG.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ image of the greatgod Ahuramazda.Nylanderemphasizes that the eagle standard as described by Xenophonwouldhavebeena deeplysymbolicmeans of connecting the Persian king with Ahuramazda. This deity was typicallyportrayedas a half-length figureemergingfroma symbolwith outspreadwings (fig.32).42The figuralrepresentationofAhuramazda coexistedin Achaemenidartwith nonfiguralrenderings of thewingedsymbolalone,withoutthe humanboth SymbolsofAhuramazdaexpressed formimageemergent.The relationNylanderposits thewinged anthropomorphically (as emergentfrom between a displayed-eaglestandardand the figural symbol)and in reductivemode(as theaniconicwinged symbol of Ahuramazdaremindsus of the eagle-assymbol),on thesouthjamb of theeasterndoorwayof Zeus in Roman iconography. In both spheres the the CouncilHall at Persepolis.Photo byM. C Root. rulerwas symbioticallyassociatedwith the god himself as well as with the god's eaglelikeaspectand his capacityto bean eagle. Apadanareliefs at Persepolis and on doorjambreThe eagles of the Nabataeantombs may have liefs of the Throne Hall do not preserveany vestige of appliedpainted decoration.Such figuraldecora- conveyed multiple valences-at once relating to Nabataeandeities in the aniconic mode demanded tion maywell haveexisted, as carefullyretrievedevidence of applied color elsewhereon the Persepolis of Nabataean religion (Hammond 1972; 1982; reliefsnow demonstrates(Tilia 1978). An important Patrich1990) and also invokingeitherallegianceto explorationof the subjectby Nylander(I1983)focuses a contemporaryRoman interest, a contemporary Eastern(Parthian)allegiance,or a nostalgicassociaon the famousAlexandermosaic discoveredin the House of the Faunat Pompeii(pre-79C.E.). This tion with the Achaemenidimperialpast. This possimosaic was based upon a now-lost fourth-century bilitydeservesseparatetreatmentin allits complexiB.C.E. paintedprototype createdsoonafterthefallof ties.43Amongthese complexitieslooms the ongoing questionof the associationsthe owner of the House the Achaemenidempirein 330, plausiblyfor an imof the Faun at Pompeii would have made with the perialloyalist.The standardrepresentedin the molastPersianking,withhis loyalsoldiers,andhis eagle saic is in an areathat has sufferedmuch damagein moderntimes.Archivalresearchindicates,however, standard.This questionhaselicitedcompetingviews fromNylander(1993) and Cohen (1997). Nylander that it originallyshowed some kind of bird. An actualplaque,ca. 12.30 cm square,of blue stone (lapis is moreconcernedwith the patronagecontext of the 187 lazuli?)was excavatedat Persepolisin 1948 (Sami originalwall painting and Cohen with the Roman M......4

.

.

. ... .... . ..

BJORN ANDERSON

33). Displays of heraldicsphinxes with one foreleg posed before a centralfloralelement or an inscription panel are an importantfeaturein Achaemenid monumentalart at Persepolis (Schmidt 1953: e.g., pls. 19, 63). A morestaticvariantof this motifis preserved at Susa in glazed brick (Harperet al. 1992: 229). At Persepolisthere are also numerousfriezes of animalsin processionpresentedheraldicallyin two opposing files flankinga centralemblem (Schmidt 1953: e.g., pl. 105). These friezesappearas architecturalembellishmentsand also as decorativefeatureson representationsof elaborateroyalrobes and hangings(Schmidt 1953; Tilia 1978). We find this motif added to Tomb VI on Mount Rahmat at ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Persepolis(fig. 28) as yet anotherspecialembellishment to the prototype established by Darius I at Naqsh-iRustam(alongwith the bands of rosettesalready discussed). Here a floral motif provides the centralfocalpoint of the composition. In the courtly seals preservedthroughimpressions on the Persepolis Fortificationtablets, such imagesof heraldicallydisposedanimalsandcreatures also abound.To cite only one example,an inscribed PersepolitanCourt Style cylinder (PFS 108*) was FIG. 33. used by a high-levelaccountingofficialin Persepolis Detail of crenelatedtombB-i 7 at Hagra, wit/ (Garrison2000: fig.24; GarrisonandRootforthcomheraldicanimals. After_Jaussenand Savignac 1909: ing). The man reckoned the transactions in the 2.1pl. XXXV. Persepolis district of a wide arrayof people from across the empire (Garrisonand Root 1996 for the tablettexts with which PFS 108* is associated).His reprise. Like the literarytestimonyof Diodorus on the sackingof Persepolis,this visual resurrectionof seal (not completelypreservedin the impressions) an Achaemenid past (however fictive) among the displaystwo ibexes, each originallywith one foreleg raisedtowarda rosette/wheel-likeemblem(compare Roman/Romanizedelites of the Roman empire at Hegra tomb B-17 [fig. 33]). The style of the seal is Pompeii situates the Persian empire squarely within the complicated discourse ofAugustan Rome and the itself a markof greatprestigewithin the Persepolis Nabataeaof AretasIV.At this moment, Rome was corpus (Garrison1991; Garrisonand Root 2001). negotiatingwith Nabataea,strugglingwith Parthia, and honing its own symbolicstrategiesin aid of the pacificationand incorporationof both. How, under PLAUSIBILITY OF NABATAEAN thesecircumstances,mighttheeagleof the crenelated ACCESS TO PERSEPOLIS Nabataeantombs have been multiplyencoded-by deliberateintention,layeredreceptionof anoriginally Distance. Persepolisis some 1,650 kmfromPetraas the crowfliesandjust under2,500 by the usualroad straightforward symbolicintention,or both? up throughSyria.The distanceis significantbutwas HeraldicAnimals. A displayof heraldicanimalsfrecertainlynot prohibitive.Contactbetween the Perquently figuresin the repertoireof crenelatedtomb sianheartlandandtheareaseventuallysubsumedinto decoration,sometimesflankinga centralrosette(fig. the Nabataeankingdom was demonstrablyregular ,O-Z

*_I;

*

..

. .. . ..... ...__

i88

_

IMPERIAL LEGACIES, LOCAL IDENTITIES

Egyptiansites(selectedforeitherimportancein trade or presence of tombs frequentlycomparedwith the Nabataeantombs) are by far the closest to Petra. Failaka,in modernKuwait,is next nearest.Notably, however,Petralies closer (in both D1and D2values) to Persepolis than it does to Rome-where elite Nabataeanphysicalpresenceandculturalinteraction arewell attestedin classicalsources. Figure34 centersPetra(andNabataeagenerally) on the map, bringingthe relationsamongthese distances into context and showing that Nabataeawas neither a fringe communitynor a frontierland. As we recenterNabataeaon the spatialmap,we canbetter appreciateits pivotalposition and the reasonthe region and its skilled desert navigatorswere so importantto the Achaemenidsandthento the Romans. Distanceas the crow flies is not, of course, the only elementthatmustbe consideredin weighingrelative

duringthe Achaemenidempireand was not discontinued in its aftermath.Table 1 lists severalimportantsites, with distance(in kin) given both in linear terms(D1)and as traveledby ship or road (D2).4 TABLE 1.

DistancesfromPetra Site Saqqara Alexandria Beni Hasan Thebes Berenike Failaka Athens Persepolis Marib Qana'

Di 450 550 550 625 750 1200 1425 1650 2000 2250

Rome

2550

D9 450 625 775 1025 850 1275 1800 2425 2000 2300 2875 3300

S

\

,

E

f t

~

~ ~

.:

\..

t@

~

.

~

~ ~~S 2

.:.A

X

t^1~~~

VVEBATv

r

' * SR

POLS

~~~~~~~~513 ~ >0~ 15000

.. B E o_ ...... \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .Z

1750

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

_ _N aSE_f.\ .

FIG. 34.

Map showing a Petra-centeredview of the Nabataean world. Rendering by the author.

189

BJORN ANDERSON

FIG. 35. Schematicplotting of major regional road systemsin the Persian period. Rendering by the author.

t

I

a~~~~/.VJ

RIVERS"x

CROSSINGS DESERT pA POSSIBLE

a

KNOWNROAoS 0

200

- I-LE_---

accessibility for Nabataeans of distant places. Here we must remember the legendary expertise of the Arabians/Nabataeans as travelers and guides through unknowable terrainas well as over roads and sea lanes.

TheMythof a Hidden Persepolis.Considerationof the ancient routes of eastern Iran and northern India shows that Persepolis did link East and West along the south and was quite literally at the center of the empire (Graf 1994b). A host of Western ideological constructs have created the idea of the remoteness and isolation of this city, even stressing that it was deliberately meant to be hidden away from all but Persian eyes. This old view is simply untenable. Although there are good ways to discredit this claim, it is an idea that dies hard (Root 1980). As we have seen, the Persepolis Fortification tablets reveal the bustle of imperial pursuits in the city, with officials crisscrossing the empire along this east-west route carrying documents to and from the king and conducting other business as well (Garrison and Root 2001: 9-10).

190

Time. There is only an eighteen-year gap between the fall of the Achaemenid empire and the earliest mention of Nabataeans by name in the later classical sources. The Nabataeans must have had a sense of collective identity before their kingdom was actually cited as such by external commentators, suggesting

400

600 Eg

800 | KM

thatNabataeawas alreadycoalescingduringthe late Achaemenidperiod. But the first crenelatedtombs at Hegradateablethroughcraftsmansignatureswere not initiateduntil the reign of AretasIV in the first centuryC.E. This createsa gap of more than three hundred years between the capitulation of the Achaemenidempireand the constructionfloruitof the crenelatedtombs. Three complementaryanalyses will addressthis issue. First I shall consider the Achaemenidpresence in the Arabianregion,45then Arabiansin Perthe evidenceof "proto-Nabataean" sia during the Achaemenid empire, and finally Nabataeancontacts with the Iranianheartlandin post-Achaemenidtimes. ACHAEMENIDPRESENCE IN THE ARABIAN REGION.

Achaemenidpresencenear Petrais clearfrom both historicaland archaeologicalevidence (Bienkowski 2001, withbibliography).The campaignof Cambyses in Egypt(ca. 525 B.C.E.) requireda significanttransportofgoodsandmaterialsoverlandfromPersia,passing throughtheregionthatwas to be namedNabataea (fig. 35). This transportwill have followedthe same trajectoriesas thoselaterdevelopedinto the roadsystemsof the Romans,whichwerearguablybasedupon Achaemenidantecedents(Graf1994b).The Arabians' reputationas unparallelednavigatorsof the desert tracksfor Achaemenidventuressupportsthe importantpositiontheyheldfortheAchaemenids'crossings fromAsiato Africafortheirconquestsandreconquests

IMPERIALLEGACIES,LOCALIDENTITIES

of Egypt.HerodotusrecordsthatArabiancamelunits were used in Xerxes'sinvasionof Greece(7.86-87, 184). Such testimonypresupposesextensivemilitary interactionbetweenAchaemenidleadershipandArabians deployed fromthis region.Evidenceof qanat irrigationinstallationsthatseemto be of Achaemenid rather than later date in the Hijaz area hints at Achaemenidtechnologicalinfusionsherethatdeserve moresystematicfieldinvestigation(Grafl990a: 137). Katzenstein(1989) proposes that there was a largePersianpresencein Gazaduringthisperiod, as Gazawas a well-situatedstagingpost with both land and sea routesto Egypt. Gazaitselfhas not been excavated,but storehousesnearbyhavebeen dated to the Persianperiod.46Deutsch and Heltzer (1997), examiningvotive inscriptionsin the Sharonplain, havefound"strongevidenceof Phoenicianand Persianpresence."47 Tell Mazar(in northernJordan) has yielded stamp seals and impressions, arms, metal products,bronzeand silverjewelry,and ceramicsof Persian date and manufacture.Nearby, at Tel esSa'idiyeh, a Persian-periodfortressretainsthe inscriptionl z k w r, translated"belongingto Zakkur."48 Perhapsmoresignificantto the presentinquiryis the discoveryof a cuneiformdocumentat Tawilan(near Petra),which recordsthe businessdealingsof a local entrepreneurwhile in Syria.This documentis dated in the accessionyearof Darius(butwhichDariuscannotbe gleaned[Weippert1987]).Weippertcautiously suggests that the transactionsthemselvesmay have takenplacein the contextof an Achaemenidsatrapal headquarters and that the tablet may have been broughtto Tawilanratherthanwrittenthere.Whateverthe case, the existenceof this one tabletpresupposesothersandimpliescommunications mechanisms in theArabianterritoryof theempirethatmimicdocumenttraditionsof AchaemenidMesopotamia/Iran.49 Accumulatingdocumentationandinterpretation ofAchaemenidpresencealongthePersianGulfisalso crucialin appreciatingaspectsof physicallinksused to facilitatetraveland mechanismsof hegemonicincorporationbetween Persiaand the Arabianregion (Salles 1990). ";PROTO-NABATAEAN"ARABIANS IN PERSIA.

The

presenceof Arabiansin Persiais documentedin numeroustypes of activity:ceremonialand diplomatic appearancesatimperialevents,presenceas laborers,

passage throughthe region in caravanventuresfor long-distancetrade and guiding services, travelin Persepolisby individualArabianson courtbusiness. The types of evidence for these modes of presence include classical testimonia,Achaemenidimperial inscriptions and captioned sculpturalrepresentations, and the Persepolisadministrativedocuments. The indicationof Arabianpresenceat Persepolisis impressive.What remainsan open question is the extentto whichtheArabiansreferredto in thesecontexts can be equated with a specifically protoNabataeanelement.Some, doubtless,can be. The Arabians enjoyed special status in the Achaemenidempire,we aretoldby Herodotus(3.49), thanksto theirassistancein the firstAchaemenid conquestof Egypt.When summarizingthe satrapies of the Persianempire,Herodotus (3.97) notes that the Arabianspaid no tributeper se, althoughthey did renderan annualgift to the king in the formof a thousand talents' weight of frankincense. The Apadanareliefs at Persepolisdisplay foreignemissariespresentinggiftsof praiseto thekingin theheartland capital.This sculpturalrepresentationas well as others(on the royaltomb facadesand elsewhere) thatportraypeoples of the empireliftingthe kingon high includeArabiansas participantsin these ideologically charged celebrationsof the Achaemenid empire. Such representationsseem to blend referencesto actualgatheringsof dignitariesfromthe subject lands with metaphoricalstatementsof empire. Their metaphoricalaspectdoes not reducetheirsignificance as records in some sense of court rituals meant to reinforcethe incorporationof the subject lands (Root 1979: 227-84; 1985; Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1991b; Wiesehofer1996: 25). Such visits by delegatesfromthe subjectlands to the heartland capitalof theempirewillhavebeenimportantmechanisms of hegemonic incorporation. The Arabian group takes part in the Achaemenidideology that emphasizes voluntary cooperation and reciprocal loyaltiesforallsubjectpeoples-even thosewho paid regulartributeas well as "voluntary"giftsto the king (Root 1979;Ephcal1982:206-10; Briant1996: esp. 408-10). Briantpoints out that the special tributeexempt situation of the Arabians(as described in Herodotus)is echoed in latefourth-centurytestimonia concerningthe named Nabataeans.This is yet

191

BJORN ANDERSON

On the Apadana(fig. 36), the Arabiandelegation is shown bringinga large tasseled textile and leading a one-humpedcamel to the king (Schmidt 1953: 89 andpl. 46). There is no sign of the frankincense describedby Herodotus.Emphasisis clearly on the dromedaryhere as a sign of the desertregion so criticalto the culturalidentityof theArabians.The giftson the Apadanaarea mix of elementsthatseem intendedto evokespecificpeoplesandregionsaswell as those thatseem moregenericallymeantto signify prestigeand value. The PersepolisFortification tabletsofferglimpses of anArabianpersonagenamedIstabatukka traveling with small groups of other Arabiansthrough the Persepolisregionundercourtauthorization to see the king in 500 B.C.E. (Hallock 1969: PF tablets 1477, 1534, and 1539).50 These nonpolemicalPersianpriFIG. 36. marysourcesrecordingfood disbursementsarecruDrawing of theArabian delegationon the east cialevidence.They testifyto significantgive and take staircase of theApadana at Persepolis,with between Arabiansand the courtly/administrative accrenelationsrestoredfromothersectionsof the same tivitiesof the vast Achaemenidrealmon the level of staircase. Renderedby the author. businessratherthanritualceremonials.The sealused by Istabatukka on thesedocuments(fig.37) is carved FIG. 37. in a local Persepolitan courtworkshopmode,thestyle Compositedrawing of PFS 298s calledby MarkGarrisonthe"Fortification Style"(Gar(2:1) on the Persepolis rison 1988; 1991; Garrisonand Root 2001: 18 and Fortification tablets, belongingto an Arabian Personage.Courtesyof passim).This suggeststhatIstabatukka wasverywell M. B. Garrison,M. C. Root, and integratedwithinthePersepolisculturalsphere,where the PersepolisSeal Project. he surelycommissionedhis seal (Garrisonand Root 2001: 342, cat.no. 236: PFS 298s). The mainstream anotherindicationof the linkagebetweenthe Arabi- stylisticqualitiesof the sealof Istabatukka, in the conans of Achaemenidtimes and a subset of the later- textof Persepolissealsusedby high-levelpeoplecrissnamedNabataeans. crossing the empire on court business, speak eloAmong the personifications of subject lands quentlyof the place of eliteArabianswithinthis emshownliftingup the kingon Tomb VI (of Artaxerxes pire. This particularArabianwas well establishedin III)lookingdownuponthePersepolisTakhtis anAra- the workings of the imperialbureaucracy(trusted bian. An Arabianpersonificationappearson other with discretionon behalf of the king), and he was Achaemenidmonumentsas well (Roaf 1974; Hach- familiarenoughwiththe culturein Persepolisto want mann1995).ButSchmidt(1970: 111, 116)comments to commissiona sealin thelocalstylepopularin court on the special"torqueof honor"worn only by this circlesthere.5" Arabianfigure.He suggeststhat this embellishment Evidence for lower-level individuals from the wasaddedto thetombofArtaxerxesIIIspecificallyto Arabianregionin the Fortificationtablettextsis more acknowledgetheArabians'help in the thirdconquest elusive at present. Elite guides are frequentlymenof Egypt.It is well withinthe normsof Achaemenid tioned in these texts-but not usuallywith any ethartto articulatesubtledistinctionsof prestigealluding nic/regional characterizationattached. Similarly, 192 to historicalspecificitiesevenon monumentsthathave people leadingcaravangroups of Egyptianworkers overarchingmetaphoricalcontent. to Persepolismay have included Arabianswho are

IMPERIALLEGACIES,LOCALIDENTITIES

simply not indicatedas such in the texts.52Already in the Neo-Assyrianperiodtheincensetradebetween northArabiaand Mesopotamiais well attested(Graf 1990a: 131). The testimonyof Herodotus encourages us to acceptthe importanceof this exotic product at the Achaemenidcourtjustas we also know its popularity as an import in other contexts (Sidebotham1997;Retso 1997). Arabiantradingcaravans probablytraveledthroughthe Persepolisregionjust as menlikeIstabatukka did on officialcourtbusiness. NABATAEANSIN PERSIA. Evidenceis less directfor thepresenceof Nabataeansin Persepolisafterthe fall of theAchaemenidempire.Persisin the Seleucidperiod is not as well understood archaeologicallyas some other regionsof Iranare. Did membersof the rulingclass of Nabataeansociety travelthereforpoliticalor tradenegotiations?The Seleucidkingdom did incorporateFars(Persis),and the natureof Hellenistic diplomacy generally (Bagnall and Derow 1981; Kuhrtand Sherwin-White1987) suggeststhe likely exchange of letters and gifts specificallybetween the Nabataeansand the Seleucids. Although the Seleucid capitallay in Mesopotamia,not Iran, Persis was well integrated into the network of Seleucidcontrol,and at least one new city is known to havebeenfoundedin theregion(Wieseh6fer1996: 109-10). The deliberatelinksmadeby the Seleucids to an Achaemenidpast (e.g., in royaltitulary)guaranteethatNabataeansand otherspartakingof diplomatic communicationswith Seleucid centers will have been awareof the significanceof the Achaemenidmonumentsandthe resonanceofAchaemenid mores. There was certainlygift exchangeand business at places other than the capitalof Seleucia-onthe-Tigris,continuingearliertraditions. The Parthiankingsalso controlledFars.But the areas of Iran most investigatedfor this period are Turkemenistan,Kurdistan,and Khuzistan(Wiesehofer 1996: 125). Susa in Khuzistanbringsus well into the orbitof close connectionalongthe southern route to Persepolis.In Achaemenidtimes, Susawas at the farwestern rim of the Persepolisadministrativepurviewdocumentedby the Fortificationtablets, as shown by the impressionof PFS 7* on a tablet fromSusa(Garrison1996; GarrisonandRoot 2001: PFS 7*). Post-Achaemenidrebuildingin Persepolis as well as graffition the Takht remind us that this

city was continuallypartof the inhabitedlandscape of Farseven thoughthe Takhtitselfwasleftto a great extent as a monument,we might even say a memorial,followingthe sackingby the Macedonians. It is currentlyimpossibleto documentthe presence specificallyof Nabataeantradersand caravan leaders/travel guidesmovingalongthe southerneastwest routevia Persepolis.Indeed, the verynotion of definingmerchantsfromthe regionencompassedby Nabataeaas "Nabataeans" hasbeen calledinto question by Macdonald(1991: 106-16). He arguesthat, while merchants may have shared a common ethnicitywith the inhabitantsof the Nabataeankingdom, the designation"Nabataean"ought not apply to them; in his view the term should ratherbe reservedforthose connectedwith the politicaladministrationof the kingdom. This position is perliaps too narrowunderthecurrentstateof ourunderstanding of the Nabataeanculturalenterprise.It alsoseems to ignoreany administrativecontrol(i.e., tariffs)the Nabataeankingdomwould have exerted over their activities.It seemsbetterfornow to broadenthe definitionof "Nabataeans"to includemerchantsoperating in the serviceof Nabataeaneconomicventures. The discussionhereshowshow complicate(Ithe situationis andhow delicatearethe nuancesof identity construction. Even if we accept traders from Nabataeaas "Nabataeans," theirpresencein the Persian heartland cannot be demonstrated archaeologically at this point. Any attempt to trace "Nabataean"merchantsand travelguides by means of a ceramicrecord along plausible routes to Fars yields sparseevidencealongthe PersianGulf. From FailakaonlyeightspecimensofNabataeanwareshave been recovered(Hannestad1983). Potts (1991) has recentlyextendedthe frontierof Nabataeanceramic findsto reachThaj and Qatifon the coastof the Persian Gulf, but so far no sherds have been found in Iran.53 By contrast,theceramicevidencefromYemen and SaudiArabiais strong.The interpretation of this uneven record is, however, open to question. Nabataeanceramicscannotbe takenas the sole indicators of either Nabataeanpresence or Nabataean absence. As Parrhas pointed out (1978: 204), the chronologyof ceramicsonlypartiallycorrelateswith 193 the presenceof the establishedkingdom. Difficultas the issuesare,it is helpfulto consider

BJORN ANDERSON

38. Eighteenth-centuryengravingof the PersepolisTakht.AfterLe Bruyn 1737: unnumberedpl.followingp. 22. FIG.

194

the diversityof society in Seleucidand then Parthian times in the arenascontrolled by these kingdoms. OnomasticevidencefromDuraEuropusin Syria,for instance, shows the presence of individuals with Nabataean-Arabian names as well as names implying manyother regional/culturalaffiliations(Wiesehofer 1996: 120). In the Parthianperiodthescantyliteraryevidence containssome obliqueclues aboutmerchantsplying the routes between Arabianregions and Iran. Pliny (HN 13.18) mentionsthat myrrhwas a favoriteunguentoftheParthiankings;elsewhere(HN6.145, 162) he commentson the role of Arabiansas middlemen betweenRomeandParthia.54 In addition,tradersfrom India and Afghanistantraveledoverlandwith some Isidoreof Charax,writingin thefirstcenregularity.55 tury B.C.E., documentsthenortherntraderouteacross Iranservingthe Afghanistanconnection.The southerlyrouteviaFarsservedtrafficbetweenIndiaandFars fromremotetimes and with greatactivityin Achaemenidandlatertimes(Kleiss1981;GarrisonandRoot 2001). Naqsh-i Rustamand Persepoliswere prominent sites forallpassingby on thisroad. Indeed, Fars was strategicallycriticalas well as symbolicallypotent in Parthianactivitiesat the time when the crenelatedtombs of the Nabataeanswere beingbuilt(Colledge1977 foranoverviewof Parthian sites and presence in western Iran). The postAchaemenidrock reliefsat Naqsh-i Rustamnestled under the royaltomb facadesof Dariusand his successorsincludea sceneof thevictoryofArdashirI (the firstSasanianking)overthelastParthian(Seidl 1997:

101).The well-traveledpeoplesofthese timessawthe ruinsof Persepolisand more recentadditionsto the landscapein symbolicallychargedhistoricalrelation. Magisterial Ruins. Diodorus (17.70) describesthe sackingof Persepolisby Alexander: The enormous palaces, famed throughoutthe whole civilized world, fell victim to insult and utter destruction.... Persepolis,as much as it had exceeded the other cities in richness, was throwndown to the samedegreebeyondthe others into misfortune.(author'stranslation) There is clearevidencethatthe city was indeed "destroyed," but this destruction was not as utter as Diodorus claimed. Wiesehofer (1996: 25) rightly observes that the destruction of Persepolis, much touted amongthe historiansof Alexanderwritingin Romantimes,wasprobablya literarydevice:thesymbol of opposing power had to be destroyedin order forAlexander'svictoryto seem complete.He points out thatpartsof the site continuedto be occupied in the followingcenturies,althoughat a much reduced level.Sancisi-Weerdenburg (1993) has observedthat the destructionof the Macedonianarmywas farfrom total,as archaeologicalinvestigationhasrevealedthat fires were set in specific locations associated with kingship.Yet, as earlymoderntravelers'illustrations show (viz.,Bruyn1737), the skeletalruinsof theroyal buildingswere not only preservedbut remaineduncovered(fig.38). The factthatthe sitebecameknown

IMPERIALLEGACIES,LOCALIDENTITIES

as ChehelMinar,or Forty[as in "Many"]Columns, may suggest, as Sancisi-Weerdenburg proposes (199la: 3), that the ancient name of the place had beenforgotten.Butit alsoindicates,in apositivevein, the staturethe physicalvestigesheld as dramatically visible phenomena (Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Drijvers1991; Andre-Salviniet al. 1998). The stone remnants of architecturepreserve door framesandwindow frameswith elegantcavetto cornices arcing high as well as stairwayscrowned everywherewithsteppedcrenelations,allsurrounded by fallen architecturalmembers.The door frames, owing to the integrityof theirconstruction,standin markedisolation,givingthe site a ghostlyyet magisterialcharacter.Following the targeteddestruction by the Macedonianarmy,the Takhtwould have alreadyassumedmuch of its present formin the late fourthcenturyB.C.E. The site remainedactivelyvisited afterits destruction.Among the continuously visible monumentshere were the two tombs of late Achaemenidkings(fig.39). Diodorus(17.71.7) specifically describes the tombs on the "royal hill" (which, he notes, was calledby thatname)although he does not referto the decorativefacadesper se. The continuedevocativevisibilityof the Persepolis Takht and the late Achaemenidroyal tombs overlookingit presents a most interestingpossibility. The connection of the Graeco-Roman type Nabataeantomb facadesto the palatialarchitecture of the Hellenisticworld has been clearlyillustrated (Schmid 2001b). In a similarlight, the crenelated Nabataeantombs may in partreflectthe palatialinstallationsatPersepolis-specificallyas ruins in their dramaticallysymbolicskeletalstate.

APPROACHES TO MONUMENTS AND MEMORY

Alexanderof Macedonused fifth-centuryAthenian grievancesagainstthe Achaemenidempiretojustify his campaigns.The classicalsourcesrecountinghis exploitsreinforcedfora Romanaudiencethe notion that in his sackingof PersepolisAlexanderwas deliveringthe West's retributionfor the Achaemenid burningof theAthenianacropolis.In thelateRoman republic and early empire, the time of Nabataean floruit,neoclassicismin Rome revivedthe legacyof

the Athenianempire (Zanker1988). It was in this contextthatthe Romanauthorsdealtwith the narratives of Persepolisand the Achaemenidempire.To a Western audience, Persia was portrayed as a bloated, extravagantworld. But to those who had once enjoyedits favor,its legendaryhegemonyand structureof allegiancesmaywellhavebeendifferently conceived.As Westerndominationrose,thememory of a strongEasternpower perhapsstirredthe pride and chauvinismof those who dwelt in the region, especiallyNabataeans. I argue here that Nabataeanappropriationof Achaemenid forms served an important dynastic purpose for an elite patronage,particularlyduring the reignof AretasIV. The mechanismsandinspirations for such a process of appropriationand adaptationwill havebeen similarto those thatguided the creationof Achaemenidimperialart,drawingin calculatedand richlyinformedways upon antiqueand foreignmodels (Root 1979; 1990a; 1990b; 1994). HellenisticandRomanrulersregularlydepicted themselveswearingAlexander'sanastoleas a means of takingunto themselveshis reputationfor power. In the sameway, the Nabataeankings (in particular AretasIV) arguablyencouragedthe invocationof the Achaemenid past to connect themselves with the majestyof the Achaemenidrulersand to articulatea resistanceto Roman pressures.56A little historical detailwill demonstratethe forceof thisundercurrent of resistancein the politics of Nabataeaas particularlymarkedin the reignof AretasIV. to the Syllaeus,who servedas chiefadministrator Nabataeanking Obodas III (r. 30-9 B.C.E.), iS often rememberedfor his attemptto seize the Nabataean throne.The deathof ObodasIII had left the succession in dispute. According to Josephus (Antiq. 16.293-99), AretasIV assumedthe thronewitlhout first soliciting the consent of the Roman emperor Augustus,who was severelydispleasedthathis presumed authorityin the kingdom'saffairshad been usurped. Seizing upon Augustus's displeasure, Syllaeusattemptedthroughbribesand emissariesto Rome to haveAretasremovedand himselfinstalled. Aretas likewise sought favor in Rome, sending a lengthyepistle and costly giftsin an attemptto inollify the emperor.Augustus,however,left the parties 195 to settle among themselves.Syllaeuscontinued his

BJORN ANDERSON

,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M 'P

8

FIG.

19

39'^

S-

ieenhcnuyegazg Pespls

zhsm

yPsa

ot

nccrce.AtrAdeSlznze

fTm

I(o

atzue

a.198

11

oAtxre

I)a

IMPERIALLEGACIES,LOCALIDENTITIES

intriguesfor a few years,but his enmitywith Herod led him to be sent to Rome for trial(on numerous charges)and subsequentlyexecuted.AretasIV was then able to consolidatehis kingshipand ruled for forty-nineyears. So, at least, runs the account of Josephus, the only ancient source to describe this seriesof eventsin detail.57 The earlyyearsof Aretas'sreignwere characterized by conflictwith the Romanempireanda need to establishthelegitimacyof his rule.Romemayactually have temporarilyannexedNabataeain 3-1 B.C.E., althoughthis is not certain(Bowersock1983: 53-56). In any case, Aretaswas not officiallyconfirmedby Rome until his kingdomregainedits independence. Continueddisregardfor Rome'sauthorityis evident in theexpeditionof 27 C.E., whenAretasinvadedPerea withoutRomanconsent.InresponseRomesenttroops to Arabiawith the intentof punishingthe rogueking. The missionwas abortedonly becausethe deathof Tiberiusforceda shiftin imperialpriorities. Aretas IV shows himself to have been a keen observer,a mastermanipulatorof politicalmessage, and a strong activistvoice for a Nabataeanidentity andagainstRomanacquisitionof theNabataeankingdom. He was one of two Nabataeanmonarchsto give himselfan honoraryepithet.The firstwasAretasIII, who presented himself in the Greek language as "Philhellene."AretasIV, by directand certainlycalculatedcontrast,used theNabataeanlanguageexclusively and presentedhimselfon coins and other inscriptionswith the formulaictitle"Loverof His Own People."It is anironyof eurocentricscholarshipthat thisunusualformulacomposedin theNabataeanlanguage is often renderedin the modernliteratureby the Greek "Philopatris."58 The epithet appearson Aretas'scoinageas earlyas 8 B.C.E. Aretasseems to be playingon the Latinepithet "PaterPatriae"(Father of the Fatherland),apparentlyintroduced by Julius Caesar.59 Both the Nabataeanand the Roman epithetsemphasizenotionsof a collectiveidentityand of a filialbond ofpatriarchal protectionexercisedover allthepeople.AretasIV has takenthe "PaterPatriae" formulaand madeit Nabataean.He has done thisby combining three elements:referenceto Hellenistic titulary(the "lover"descriptor,as in "Philhellene"), allusionto an assertivelylocal Nabataeanethos (the Nabataeanlanguage), and-in a subversion of the

Latin"PaterPatriae"formula-an emphasison "His OwnPeople"in oppositionto theRoman"Patriae."60

CRENELATED TOMBS AND NEGOTIATIONS OF IDENTITY

In presentinghimselfas the Nabataean"Loverof His Own People," Aretas IV was addressing Rome throughcoinage and other formalpresentationsof the honorific. But he was also addressing a local Nabataeanaudience.The title is used as partof the datingformulathatoccurswith artists'signatureson the crenelatedtombsat Hegra.6'This bringsus back full circle to the crenelatedtombs and their formal echoes of Achaemenidiconography. Schmitt-Korte(2001) has proposed thatthe ostentatious, but never-completed, Graeco-Roman type tombat Petra(al-Khazneh)mayhavebeen commissionedby Syllaeus.Given his attemptsto curry favorwith Rome and to discredithis rival,Aretas, the patronchoices behindal-Khaznehbecomemost interesting.We areleft to contemplatethe possibility thatsociopoliticalallegianceswere an irnportant factorin determiningthe patronchoicesmadeby the builders of the crenelatedtombs as well-both in PetraandHegra.Couldtheseincludereferencingan ancient time of Arabiantraditionsand allegiances with a differentworld empire-the Achaemenidhegemony? To date, therehas been littlespeculationon the patronageforces determiningthe variationsin the Nabataeantombs. In beginningto query this issue, Schmid (2002a: 53) considers that the crenelated tombswerecommissionedby a lessprominentgroup of elites than those who sponsored the very small groupof Graeco-RomantombsatPetra-but an elite sectorof thepopulationnevertheless.This notionof aneconomicdistinctionbetweenthosewho commissioned Graeco-Romantombs and those who commissionedtheless ornateOrientaltypesmaybe valid. Complex ornamentationwas generallyassociated with wealthin antiquity(owingto the increasedproduction effortrequired).Also, with one exception, the twelve Graeco-Romantombs occupy the most prominentpositionsin the spatiallandscapeof Petra. 197 The extraordinarily restrictednumberof the Graeco-

BJORN ANDERSON

198

Roman tombs furtherincreasesthe likelihood that some extremedistinctionsof wealthand statuswere operatinghere.It is generallyassumedthatallof them were destined to receivethe burialof royalty(or, in the case of al-Khazneh,would-beroyalty),although the only evidence to supportthis is the prominence and elaboratenessof the tombs themselves. Manyof the crenelatedtombsdisplayfine carving technique(e.g., figs. 1, 29, and30 [Hegratombs B-7, C-15, and B-5]). Furthermore,many of them achievea grandeurin theirscale and deploymentof selective ornamentation.Thus, while the GraecoRoman tombs may indeed indicate the patronage of a royalsuper-elite,some of the crenelatedtombs certainlyindicatesignificantcapacityto commission qualitywork. We need to consider the idea that in theseinstancesProfusion of ornamentationmaysimply not have been the aesthetic priority. Perhaps what matteredmore was allusiveness of message in the ornamentation. The appearanceof the earliestdateablecrenelatedtombsin the reignof AretasIV cannotbe mere coincidence.On the one hand,theimportanceof this fact cannot be overstated.And on the other hand, the coexistence of the crenelatedtombs alongside Graeco-Romanandundecoratedmonumentsshould not causeconcern.Currentthinkingon culturalidentity stresses that notions of consistentbehavior(either chronological or pancultural)are unfounded (Tomlinson1991;Woolf 1997;Terrenato1998;van Dommelen 1998). Thus, we should not expect uniformity in the situation at hand-in which the Nabataeans andRomanswerevariouslyalliedoratwar until the annexationof Arabiaby Trajanin 106 C.E. Whatwe shouldseekinsteadarepointsofinquiryinto the workingsof Nabataeanvisualcultureatwhichwe can sight specificconjunctionsof complexpolitical/ militaryevents and manifestationsof complex responses to them. Our study of the Nabataean crenelatedtombsis one suchpoint of inquiry. The fact that the earliest dateable crenelated tombs are also the most elaborately decorated stronglysuggests that the developmentof this modalityin funeraryarchitecturereflectedan aggressive ideologicalpositioning-not some gradualevolution of formaltrendsunattachedto culturalmeaning.It would seem that elites operatingclosely within the

orbitof AretasIV createdanalternative vocabularyof grandfunerairy architecturespecificallyreflectingthe largerpoliticalagendasof theirruler'sstancein relationto Rome.This newvocabulary(whichwassurely encouragedby AretasIV himself)revivedthe cultural emmemoryof an allegianceto the Eastern-centered pireoftheAchaemenids.Whilethisvocabulary(inless grand terms) remaineda featureof the Nabataean funerarytraditioneven in latertimes,the phaseof its creationis of particularinterestto us here.Evocation of an Achaemenid legacy figured prominently in Nabataeanrealizations of aniconographyof resistance duringthe age of AretasIV in the faceof his encounterswith the imperialistagendasof Augustus.D

Notes I wish to expressheartfeltthanksto MargaretCool Root forher dedicated and invaluable assistance and encouragement throughoutthisproject.SusanAlcock,TraianosGagos,Norman Yoffee, Sharon Herbert,WilliamGlanzman,David Graf,and StephanSchmid also providedhelpfulchallenges. 1. See Briant(1996) forthe mostcomprehensiveoverview(with vast bibliography)of recent approachesto the history of the Achaemenidempirebased on varioustypes of non-Westernas well as classicalsources.Also see Wiesehofer1996, Kuhrt2001, and many contributionsto the published proceedings of the Achaemenid History Workshops (listed in Sancisi-Weerdenburg,Kuhrt,and Root 1994: 437-42). 2. Foranalogousexamplesspecificallyof nomadsedentarization in areasof weakenedlocal authority,see Finklestein1990. 3. The classical historianswe depend upon for narrativeaccounts of the Nabataeanshad theirown interestsin mind and/ or workedunder the directpatronageof the politicallypowerful. They oftendeliberatelyexaggerateda ruler'svaloror mercy and deployed otherliterarydevices as well to enhancea ruler's authority.In thiscase,oursourcesareCassiusDio (fl.earlythird centuryC.E.) andAmmianusMarcellinus(fl. latefourthcentury C.E.), both of whom are notoriousin this regard. 4. This owes partlyto thepaucityof archaeologicalmaterialthat canbe securelydatedpriorto the firstcenturyB.C.E. In my view, however,this problemis not prohibitive,and a thoroughreappraisalof the matteris overdue.See Bartlett1979; Negev 1982; Knauf1989 on theNabataeanissues;Betts1989 andCribb1991 for implicationsof nomadtheoryin archaeology.

IMPERIALLEGACIES,LOCALIDENTITIES

5. Comparethe Solubba ofJordan, who engagein a varietyof activitiesbeyondpastoralism.The Beni Sakhrnomadsof northernJordanofferan interestingcase in point forthisvariabilityof interaction.They employed slaves for agriculturalwork in the late Ottomanperiod (ca. 1880-1917). See Betts 1989.

king]"withoutspecifyinghow much farthersouth the kingdom mayhaveextended.AfterTrajan'sannexationofNabataea,Hegra became the site of a Romangarrison.Publishedfinds there of Nabataeanpedigreeinclude (in additionto the tombs) inscriptions and ceramics(McKenzie1990: 11).

6. Nylander(1970) makes a path-breakingcase for this at the early Achaemenidheartlandcapital of Pasargadae.See Root (1979) on the notion of the Persiansas nomadswho by definition thereforehad no culturaltools of theirown with which to consolidatea visualprogramcapableof expressingan ideology. This study did a great deal to redirect the understandingof Achaemenidartas a carefullyplannedprogrammeantto communicatea pervasivemessageaboutkingshipand empirerather thana randomlyeclectic phenomenon.

13. That said, it would be a worthwhileprojectto reexamineall the Hegratombs on site, askingnew questionsof the record.

7. See Hermeren(1975: esp. 42-50) for a thoughtfulunpacking of the rangesof meaningembeddedin the term"influence" (includingissues of "negative"versus"positive"influence).See also Schmid 2001a; 2002b. For a differentbut analogoushistoricalcontext, compareBandyopadhyay2000. 8. A precise chronologyof the tombshas so farbeen difficultto establish.Numeroustombsat Hegrapreservedateableinscriptions includingstone carvers'signatures(McKenzie1990: 2530). But few tombs at Petra have surviving inscriptions. McKenziehas attemptedto constructrelativedating schemes based on stylistic criteria. Perhaps other approaches to microdating,based upon close examinationsof technicalfeaturescorrelatedwith other archaeologicalevidence (published and as yet unpublished),can somedaybe attempted. 9. McKenzie (1990) argues that the now-lost architectureof Hellenistic Alexandria(as depicted on Romanwall paintings) was the principal source of influence for the Graeco-Roman tombs. But Schmid (200 lb: 398-400) suggests a wider Hellenistic vocabulary. 10. Reportson the ongoingexcavationactivitiesat Petraarepublished annually(e.g., Keller,Savage,and Zamora2002). Martha Joukowsky(BrownUniversity)engagesin annualfieldworkatthe GreatTemple in Petra(seeJoukowsky1998). Severalstudiesof specifictypesof materialin additionto the tombsareavailable. 11. The designation"Hegr-type"(firstemployedby Brunnow and von Domaszewski) is often applied to all the crenelated tombs.Withinthis classificationsystemthereareseveralsubdivisions based mainlyon the layout of the crenelationsand the formof the entablature.While the term"Hegr-type"is familiar to Nabataeanscholars, some use it specificallyto denote only those tombswith the split merlons-not those with the running merlonfriezes.The variablesof its applicationin the literature renderuse of the termproblematichere. I have thus elected to avoid the termentirely. 12. Fordiscussionsof thesitesee, e.g., Healeyandal-Theeb1993, Bowsher1986, Potts 1993, Wenning1996. Strabo16.4.24 simply saysthatHegralies "intheterritoryof Obodas[theNabataean

14. 1 wish to thankDr. Saadal-Rashid,Directorof the Ministry of Antiquitiesand Museumsin SaudiArabia,for his very helpful discussionwith me on this subject. 15. Patrich(1996) definesa Nabataeancapitalas comprisedof fourconcavefacesterminatingin bluntedcorners.The capitals on the engagedtomb columns do not displayall fourfaces. 16. See Zayadine(1970) fordiscussionof crenelatedtombsand their potential connection to pedestal tombs at Amrith (Marathus)in Syria.The presenceof a crenelatedtombatAmnrith can also be seen as a referenceto Achaemenidarchitecture,for Phoeniciawas an importantAchaemenidholdingandprovided the navy with which the PersiancampaignagainstGreecewas conducted in 490 B.C.E. 17. Zayadine(e.g., 1970: 232) is the only Nabataeanscholar known to me to have mentioned Da u Dukhtarin connection with the Hegra-type tombs. Speaking of the deployment of stepped crenelations,he says: "Von der assyrischengelangte sie zur persischenBaukunst,wo sie in Persepolisund bei dem Felsgrabvon Da-u-DukhtarreichlichVerwendungfand." 18. There are also elements not apparently connected to Achaemenidart,such as the urnsthatregularlyserveas acroteria on the pedimentscrowningthe doorwaysof the tombs. 19. E.g., Curtisand Reade 1995: 46, 61, 63, and 98-99 forrepresentationsof non-Assyriancities, and 78 for a representation apparentlyof the Assyriancapital,Nineveh. Actual fragments of steppedmerlonswerediscoveredin associationwith thewalls of Ashur(Andrae1913: 90-91, fig. 136; 148, fig. 226). Reconstructionson site of some Assyriancity fortificationsgive a wonderfulidea of what such fortificationsuperstructuresprobably did look like: viz., Curtisand Reade (1995: 27), even though theyareperforcebasedon verylimitedactualphysicalremnants with respectto the merlons. 20. On fortressimageryon Urartiangold belts, see Smith in press:chap. 6, 29-30. See also the model fortressfromNimrud (ninth-seventhcenturiesB.C.E.), wheretherepresentationsagain include a crowningmerlonfrieze:Curtisand Reade 1995: 106. 21. Koldewey1918; Klengel-Brandt1997. Fora well-illustrated and useful brief account of Babylonat this time and the Ishtar Gate in particular,see Oates 1986: 144-60. 199

22. The stone-workingtraditionsof Urartuarein a separatecategory due to the stone resourcesavailableto this kingdom.But

BJORN ANDERSON

thepoint I ammakinghere concernsthe majorpowersthatwere the key players on the internationalscene extending into the Levantin the pre-Achaemenidfirstmillennium.

otheris anactualcylindersealfoundin the Treasury(PT6 699). See Schmidt 1957: 27, 37, 43, and pls. 7, 13, and 15, respectively.

23. Tomb F70 in McKenzie'sclassificationscheme.

33. Collon 1987: 162-63, no. 754. The earlydate of its acquisition (well before the Persepolisfinds were known)greatlyreduces the likelihood that it is a forgery.The seal is large for Achaemenidtimes.At 3.1 cm in height, it is as tallas the largest cylinder seal in the Fortificationcorpus of seals of heroic encounter:the royal-namesealPFS 7* (whichis estimatedto have had a preservedheightof 3.0 cm). See GarrisonandRoot 2001: fig. 1 and 471-72. This seal, assumingagainthatit is genuine, was undoubtedlyowned by an exaltedpersonage.

24. On the fragmentarycopy of the relief originallyset up in Babylon,see Seidl 1976. 25. The crowns of Assyrianmonarchsare tall, turbanlikeaffairs.See, e.g., the comparativeillustrationsof Dariusat Bisitun and Ashurbanipalat Nineveh in Roaf 1989: figs. 10-11. 26. This is certainlythe case if we leave aside the imageof the winged "genius"at Pasargadae,which may be a metaphorical vision of kingshipratherthan a representationof an historical king (Root 1979: 300-302 and pl. 1). 27. The Achaemenidcrown is discussed by Root (1979: 9293, with references).See Tilia (1978: 58-64) for detailsof the representationsof crowns on the Persepolisreliefs. 28. Interestingly,therearerepresentationsof theAssyrianqueen wearing a mural crown. See, e.g., the famous depiction of Ashurbanipal's wife on the "banquet relief' from Nineveh (Curtisand Reade 1995: 122). This traditionof a royalwoman wearinga muralcrownis also seen earlier,both in Mesopotamia and in Elam, as illustrated,e.g., in Root 1990b: 43 (seal of the thirdmillenniumshowingtheAkkadianprincessTutanapsham) and 24 (queen figureon the [first-millennium?]Elamiteadditionto the second-millenniumElamitereliefatNaqsh-iRustam). This muralcrownis a differententityfromthe crenelatedcrown under discussionin Achaemenidart.The muralcrown depicts an actualdefensivewall, with spaced towers. Its applicationin Near Easternartdeservesa separatestudy.

34. See Dusinberre(1997) for the significanceof supporting pedestal creaturesin Achaemenidglyptic iconography,especiallywith implicationsfor allusionsto heartlandformulations in the westernsatrapies. 35. As evidence for the claim of Assyrianprecedence specifically for the merlon on altars Moorey (1979: n. 14) cites Campbell-Thompsonand Hutchinson 1931: pls. 20 and 27. This is a smallrectangularaltar,damagedon threesides, with a preservedsplitmerlonmotifincisedon the survivingside above the figureof a mythicalbeast. The authorsexplain thatit must belong to the period of Ashurnasipal'spalace(earlyeighthcenturyB.C.E.), presumablyon stratigraphicgrounds.The site was heavilydisturbedin the Parthianperiod, and the stratigraphic argument is tricky.

36. There are horned(not crenelated)altarsof Egyptiantype which have a widespreadoccurrencein the Mediterraneanas well. They should not be confusedwith the Achaemenidrepresentationsof crenelatedinstallations.

30. There are also cases of nonroyal-nameseals of heroic encounterwherethe herowearsa dentatecrownon the Persepolis Fortificationtablets;but theissuesherereflecta complexcourtly milieu of symbols shared as a direct statementof grantedprerogatives.See Garrisonand Root 2001: 56-58 (on fluididentities of the hero and on the crown in relationto these), 68-70 (entry for PFS 7*), and 88-89 (entry for PFS 113*, which is identicalwith PersepolisTreasuryseal 4 [PTS 4*]). For PFS 11*, see Garrison2000: 141-42 and fig. 18.

37. The crenelatedaltarsdisplayedon courtlyAchaemenidseals find directparallelsin latergraffitiin the Nabataeansphere.Severalrepresentationsof altarsof similardesignareinscribedalong thewallsof the Babel-Siq at Petra.Rangingin size from0.8 to 2 m high, these renderingsincorporatesplit merlonsatop pedestalsadornedwithpronouncedbasesandcrowns(Brunnowand von Domaszewski1904: figs. 350-57). One of these Nabataean altarrepresentations(Briinnowandvon Domaszewski'sno. 428: f) is flankedon eitherside by palm trees, importantsymbolsof royaltyin Achaemenidglypticart(Porada1979: 85-86; Garrison and Root 2001). While the crenelationsarenot stepped on these renderings,the overallformalsimilarityto the representations of crenelatedaltarsin Achaemenidglypticstrengthensthe hypothesis that such imageryreflectingassociationswith the Achaemenidlegacy enjoyedvariousmodes of resonancein the Nabataeanenvironment.

31. Zanker(1988: 93) notes thatthe laurelis sacredto Apollo and as such "conferredon the entry to Augustus'house a sacred auraand invoked the powers of primordialreligion."

38. On identificationof the kingsassociatedwith the tombs on Mount Rahmat,see Schmidt 1970, with suggestednuancesin Calmeyer1975; Kleissand Calmeyer1975.

32. One of these is an additionalsealknownthroughan impression on a labelfromthe Treasurytabletarchive(PTS 57). The

39. In the Greek orientalizingperiod the rosette was a major elementof Easterniconographybroughtinto designsin painted

29. See Root (1979: 118-22) for a briefreviewof Achaemenid royal-nameseals from all contexts (includingunexcavatedexamplesofactualseals).On administrative aspectsofAchaemenid royal-nameseals, see, e.g., Garrison1991 as well as discussion in Garrisonand Root 2001: 10-1 1.

200

IMPERIALLEGACIES,LOCALIDENTITIES

pottery, terracottas,and textiles. It was a hallmarkof Oriental influence at this time. See Akurgal(1968: 37) for a still-valid commentaryon the Easternpedigree of the rosette. It is, however, the later occurrencesof the rosette in the Greek sphere, specificallyas an architecturalornamentduring the phase of multipleemulationsof Achaemenidvisual culture(Root 1985; Miller 1997), that concern us here. Among severalsignificant examples, note the late fifth-centuryErechtheion at Athens, where the entablatureover the caryatidporch is decoratedwith a rosettefriezeand "Asiaticdentils"(Dinsmoor 1973: 193). 40. The numberis approximatebecause conditions at several tombs preventa clearanalysisof whetheror not they incorporatedeagles.Significantly,none areseen on thecrenelatedtombs at Petra, although several eagles in similarstyle crown cultic niches(Patrich1990: 108). A finelydrafted,frontallyposedeagle survivesin the 1967 Groupof Sculpture(perhapsfroma previous versionof the presenttemenosgate?).See McKenzie1990: 134-35 and pl. 63c. Al-Khaznehis crownedby fourlargebirds (eagles?),but these are sculptedin the round. 41. In most cases, these eaglesareflankedby representationsof funeraryurns.The urnis a recurringfeaturein Nabataeantomb architectureand can be seen on severaltombs at Petraas well. Alternatively,two eaglesflanka centralurn. 42. On thecontroversyovertheidentificationof thewingedsymbol with Ahuramazda,see Garrisonand Root 2001: 39 and 69, with references.

yardwith a drainand towerat the SE corner"(Tubb, in HomesFredericqand Henessey 1989: 2:entryfor Sa'idiyeh). 49. For furtherdiscussionof Achaemenidrulein Arabia,see in particularGraf1990a and Knauf1990. 50. Twelve Arabiansarealso mentionedtravelingwith a different individualon officialbusiness on PF 1507 (Hallock 1969: 422). 51. This localstyle(theFortificationStyle)producedin thecourt environsof Persepolisis not to be confusedwiththe Persepolitan Court Style, which is a style of very restrictedupper-echelon usage. 52. There aremanydifficultiesin assessingthe "ethnicity"of a person on the basis of name type-particularly in an imperial situation. 53. The Nabataeansherds at Thaj have long been knownibut thoughtto be local imitations.Potts (1991), however,reexamined all the pottery from Thaj and found that one sherd was unmistakablyfromPetra,thrownfromthe distinctivebuffpink clay found nearthe site. 54. The fabledMagiof the biblicaltraditionbearconsideration as well. Oftenseen as Zoroastrianpriests,theyboregiftsof gold, frankincense,and myrrh.If they indeed camefromPersia,their giftssuggestthatfrankincensewas availablein the Iranianheartland (see Shashaani1999).

43. The role of Palmyreneartspecificallywould be partof any such examination.

44. In the estimationof distancesby sea, I assumeusual sailing routes in accordancewith tradewinds and coastlines(Groom 1981; Casson 1989; Sidebotham1989; Macdonald1997). For Qana' I assign two D2 values, one for land travel (which the Nabataeansengagedin frequentlybecause of theirconnections with caravantrade)and one for the usual sea routethroughthe Red Sea. On Qana',see Davidde and Petriaggi1998. 45. "Arabia,"as I use the termhere, is chieflyfocused in modernJordanand northernSaudi Arabia.There were also a Persian presence in the Arabian gulf and connections with the Omanistateof Makar.Fordiscussionandbibliography,see Potts 1990: 1:350-52. 46. Katzenstein(1989) recounts Petrie's excavations at Tel Jemmehand Tel el-Fareah,both nearGaza.Otherwise,his evidence is chieflyliterary. 47. Gitler (2000) has commented on the presence of Achaemenidmotifsin fourth-century coinagefromAshkelonandGaza, which is especiallyimportantin the present surveybecause of the proximityto the date of a known "Nabataean"kingdom. 48. The excavatordescribesit as a "massivelyconstructedsquare buildingconsistingof seven roomsbuilt arounda paved court-

55. Considertoo the elephantcapitalson the GreatTemple at Petra,whichJoukowsky(1998: 198) has pointed out areclearly Asian, not African,elephantsand thereforeindicativeof a special presenceof Indiain the minds of those who commissioned them. In Achaemenidtimes there was a lively trafficthrough Fars(Persepolis)to India,as evidencedby theFortificationtexts. 56. For a discussionof the importanceof "rolemodels"to those who seek to establishtheirpower, see Flannery1999. 57. Josephus's interestlay not in Nabataeanbut in Jewish history; thus any attentionto the events at Petrais the result of Nabataeanintersectionwith the affairsof the Herods. Despite thelimitationsof this source,it is possible to movefroma simple reconstructionof eventsto a morecomplexanalysisof the motivationsand themesthatunderliethem. 58. Thereis onlyone ancientcasein whichthe Greekphilopatris and the Nabataeanrhm 'mh occur together:the bilingualInv. Palmyre10.54. (175 C.E.) 59. Accordingto Suetonius(Caesar85), the titlewas bestowed on Julius Caesarin monumentalfashion on a marblecolumn nearlytwentyfeet tall.Res Gestae35 (Barini1930) recordsthat the titlewas conferredofficiallyon Augustusin 2 B.C.E. Meshorer 1975: coins 49, 49a, 51, 52, 53, 65 all bear the epithet for Augustusand date before4 B.C.E.

201

BJORN ANDERSON

60. See Anderson (in press) for a more in-depth treatmentof the complexitiesof Nabataeanroyalepithetsand the politics of theirpedigrees. 61. E.g., Corpusinscriptionumsemiticarum 2.197: "inthe ninth yearof Aretas,kingof the Nabataeans,loverof his own people."

WorksCited

202

Akurgal,Ekrem.1968. TheArtof Greece:Its Originsin theMediterraneanand theNearEast, trans.W. Dynes. New York: Crown Publishers,Inc. Al-Ansary,A. R. 1983. Qaryatal-Fau:APortraitofPre-Islamic Civilizationin SaudiArabia.Riyadh:Universityof Riyadh. Al-Rashid,Saad.2002. "Archaeologyin the Kingdomof Saudi Arabia:Its ProtectionandConservation."Paperpresented at the AnnualMeetingof the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research.Toronto. Amiet, Pierre. 1980. Art of the Ancient Near East, trans. J. Shepley and C. Choquet. New York: HarryN. Abrams, Inc. Anderson, Bjorn. In press. "KingshipIdeology in Nabataea duringthe Reign of AretasIV." In K. 'Amr, ed., Proceedingsof theSecondConference ofNabataeanStudies.Ma'an: al-Husseinbin Talal University. Andrae,Walter.1913. Die Festungswerke vonAssur.Leipzig:J. C. Hinrichs. Andre-Salvini,Beatrice,et al. 1998. Regardssur la ... Perse antique.(Catalogueof anexhibitionofengravingsandlithographs of Pascal Coste and Eugene Flandin.)Amis de la BibliothequeMunicipaledu Blancet le Musee d'Argentomagus. Bagnall, Roger S., and Peter Derow. 1981. GreekHistorical Documents:The Hellenistic Period. Sources for Biblical Study 16. Chico, Calif.:ScholarsPress for the Society of BiblicalLiterature. Baines,John. 1995. "Palacesand Temples of Ancient Egypt." In J. M. Sasson, J. Baines, G. Beckman, and K. S. Rubinson,eds., CivilizationsoftheAncientNearEast, vol. 1:303-17. New York:CharlesScribner'sSons. Bandyopadhyay,Soumen. 2000. "Fromthe Twilight of Cultural Memory: The Bumah in the Mosques of Central Oman." Proceedingsof the Seminarfor Arabian Studies 30:13-27. Barini,Concetta. 1930. MonumentumAncyranum,Res Gestae Divi Avgvsti.Milano:Bibliotecadella Rivistahistoriadel "Popolo d'Italia." Barth,Fredrik.1956. "EcologicRelationshipsof EthnicGroups in Swat, North Pakistan." American Anthropologist 58:1079-89. Bartlett,JohnR. 1979. "FromEdomitesto Nabataeans:A Study in Continuity."PalestineExplorationQuarterly111:5266.

1990. "FromEdomitesto Nabataeans:The Problemof Continuity."ARAM2:25-34. Betts, Alison. 1989. "The Solubba:NonpastoralNomads in Arabia."Bulletin of theAmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch274:61-69. Bienkowski,Piotr.2001. "ThePersianPeriod."In B. MacDonald, R. Adams,andP. Bienkowski,eds., nheArchaeology ofjordan, 347-65. Sheffield:SheffieldUniversityPress. Black,Jeremy, and Anthony Green. 1992. Gods,Demonsand SymbolsofAncientMesopotamia:An IllustratedDictionary. London: BritishMuseumPress. Boucharlat,Remy. 1997a. "Camp royal et residences achemenides." TOPOIsuppl. 1:217-28. 1997b. "L'architectureachemenide et ses origines." Iran:La Persede Cyrusa Alexandre,Dossiersd'Arche'ologie 227:58-71. Bowersock,GlenW. 1970. "The Annexationand InitialGarrison of Arabia."ZeitschriftfiirPapyrologie undEpigraphik 5:37-42. --. 1983. RomanArabia.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress. Bowsher,J. 1986. "The FrontierPost of MedainSaleh."In P. Freemanand D. Kennedy,eds., TheDefenseof theRoman and ByzantineEast: Proceedingsof a ColloquiumHeld at the Universityof Sheffieldin April 1986, 23-29. BAR InternationalSeries297. Oxford:BritishInstituteof Archaeology at Ankara. Briant,Pierre. 1982. Etat et pasteursau Moyen-Orientancien. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress; Paris:Editions de la Maisondes Sciences de l'Homme. --. 1996. Histoire de l'empirepersede Cyrusa Alexandre. Paris:Fayard. Briinnow,Rudolf Ernst, and Alfredvon Domaszewski.1904. Die ProvinciaArabia, vol. 1. Strassburg:K.J. Triibner. --. 1909. Die Provincia Arabia, vol. 2. Strassburg:K. J. T.rubner. Bruyn,CorneliusLe. 1737. Travelsinto Muscovy,Persia, and Part of theEast-Indies... II, TranslatedfromtheFrench. London:A. Bettesworth,etc. Calmeyer,Peter. 1975. "ZurGenese altiranischerMotive. III. Felsgraber."Archaeologische Mitteilungenaus Iran 8:99113. Campbell-Thompson,Reginald,andR. W. Hutchinson. 1931. "The Site of the Palaceof Ashurnasirpalat Nineveh, Excavatedin 1929-1930 on Behalfof the BritishMuseum." LiverpoolAnnalsofArchaeologyand Anthropology18:79113. Casson,Lionel. 1989. ThePeriplusMarnsErythraei:Textwith Introduction,Translation,and Commentary.Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress. Cohen,Ada. 1997. TheAlexanderMosaic. Storiesof Victoryand Defeat. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Colledge, MalcolmA. R. 1977. Parthian Art. Ithaca:Cornell UniversityPress. Collon, Dominique. 1987. First Impressions:CylinderSeals in the AncientNear East. Chicago: University of Chicago Press;London: BritishMuseumPublications. --.

IMPERIALLEGACIES,LOCALIDENTITIES

Cribb,Roger. 1991. NomadsinArchaeology.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress. Curtis,John. 2000. AncientPersia. London: BritishMuseum Press. Curtis,John, and Julian Reade, eds. 1995. Art and Empire: Treasuresfrom Assyria in the British Museum.London: BritishMuseum. Davidde, Barbara,and RobertoPetriaggi.1998. "Archaeological Surveysin the Harborof Ancient Kane."Proceedings of theSeminarforArabianStudies28:39-44. Deutsch, Robert, and Michael Heltzer. 1997. "Numismatic Evidence from the Persian Period in the Sharon Plain." TranseuphratOne 13:17-20. Dinsmoor, WilliamBell. 1973 [1950]. TheArchitectureofAncient Greece.New York:Biblo and Tannen. Dirven, Lucinda. 1999. The Palmyrenesof Dura-Europos:A Studyof ReligiousInteractionin RomanSyria. Religions in the Graeco-RomanWorld 138. Leiden and Boston:E.

J. Brill. Dusinberre, Elspeth R. M. 1997. "ImperialStyle and ConstructedIdentity:A 'Graeco-Persian'CylinderSeal from Sardis."Ars Orientalis27:99-129. Eddy, SamuelK. 1961. TheKingIsDead:Studiesin NearEastern Resistanceto Hellenism.Lincoln, Nebr.: Universityof NebraskaPress. Eph'al,Israel.1982. TheAncientArabs: Nomadson theBorders of the Fertile Crescent,9th-5th CenturyB.C. Jerusalem: MagnesPress, Hebrew University. Finkelstein, Israel. 1990. "EarlyArad: Urbanismof the Nomads."ZeitschriftdesDeutschenPalaistina-Vereins 106:3462. Finkelstein,Israel,and Avi Perevolotsky.1990. "Processesof Sedentarizationand Nomadizationin the History of Sinai and the Negev."Bulletin of theAmericanSchoolof Oriental Research279:67-88. Flannery, Kent. 1999. "Process and Agency in Early State Formation." CambridgeArchaeologicaljournal 9.1:321. Fowler,MervynD. 1984. "ExcavatedIncense Burners."Biblical Archaeologist47:183-86. Freeman,Philip. 1996. "The Annexationof Arabiaand ImperialGrandStrategy."In E. Kennedy,ed., heRomanArmy in theEast, 91-118.Journal of RomanArchaeologysuppl. 18. -. 2001. "RomanJordan."In B. MacDonald,R. Adams, and P. Bienkowski,eds., TheArchaeology of jordan, 42759. Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress. Garbini, Giovanni. 1958. "The Stepped Pinnacle in the Ancient Near East."East and West9:85-91. Garrison, Mark B. 1988. "Seal Workshops and Artists in Persepolis:A Study of Seal Impressions Preservingthe Theme of Heroic Encounteron the PersepolisFortification and Treasury Tablets." Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. 1991 "Sealsand the Eliteat Persepolis:Some Observa---. tions on EarlyAchaemenidPersianArt."Ars Orientalis 21:1-29.

1996. "A Persepolis FortificationSeal on the Tablet MDP 11 308 (LouvreSb 13078)."journal ofNear Eastern Studies55:15-35. --. 2000. "Achaemenid Iconography as Evidenced by Glyptic Art: Subject Matter,Social Function, Audience, and Diffusion." In C. Uehlinger, ed., Images as Media: Sourcesfor the CulturalHistoryof theNear East and the

--.

EasternMediterranean (lst Millennium B.C.E.),

1

5-64.

Gottingen:Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht. Garrison, Mark B., and MargaretCool Root. 1996 (reprint 1998). PersepolisSeal Studies.An Introductionwith Provisional Concordancesof Seal Numbers and Associated Documentson FortificationTablets1-2087. Achaemenid History 9. Leiden: Nederlands Instituutvoor het Nabije Oosten. --. 200 1. Sealson thePersepolisFortificationTabletsI:Images of HeroicEncounter.OrientalInstitutePublications 117. Chicago:OrientalInstituteof the Universityof Chicago. --. Forthcoming.Seals on thePersepolisFortificationTabletsIII:Animals,Creatures,Plants,and GeometricDevices. Chicago:OrientalInstituteof the Universityof Chicago. Gitler, Haim. 2000. "AchaemenidMotifs in the Coinage of Ashdod, Ascalon, and Gaza from the 4th CenturyB.C." TranseuphratMne 20:73-88. Gleuck, Nelson. 1965. Deities and Dolphins, TheStoryof the Nabataeans.New York:Farrar,Strausand Giroux. Graf,David F. 1990a. "ArabiaduringAchaemenidTimes." In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburgand A. Kuhrt,eds., Centreand Periphery, 131-48. Achaemenid History 4. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. 1990b. "The Originof theNabataeans." ARAM2:45-75. 1994a. "The NabataeanArmyand the CohortesUlpiae Petraeorum."In E. Dabrowa,ed., TheRomanand Byzantine Army in the East, 265-311. Krak6w:Uniwersytet Jagiellonski. --. 1994b. "The Persian Royal Road System." In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg,A. Kuhrt,and M. C. Root, eds., Continuityand Change,167-89. AchaemenidHistory 8. Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Groom, Nigel. 1981. Frankincenseand Myrrh:A Study of the ArabianIncenseTrade.LondonandNew York:Longman; Beirut:Librairiedu Liban. Gunter,Ann C. 1982. "Representationsof Urartianand Western IranianFortressArchitecturein the AssyrianReliefs." Iran 20:103-12. Hachmann,Rolf. 1995. "DieVolkerschaften aufdenBildwerken von Persepolis."In U. Finkbeiner,R. Dittmann,and H. Hauptmann,eds., Beitrdgezur KulturgeschichteVorderasiens.FestschriftfiirRainerMichaelBoehmer,195-223. Mainz:Philippvon Zabern. Hallock, Richard T. 1969. PersepolisFortification Tablets. OrientalInstitutePublications92. Chicago:Uniiversityof ChicagoPress. Hammond, Philip C. 1972. TheNabataeans-Their History, Culture,and Archaeology.Studies in MediterraneanAr- 203 chaeology37. Gothenburg:PaulAstr6msF6rlag.

BJORN ANDERSON

204

Hammond, Philip C. 1982. "The Excavationsat Petra, 1974: CulturalAspectsof NabataeanArchitecture,Religion,Art, and Influence."Studiesin theHistoryand Archaeologyof J7ordan1:231-38. Hannestad,Lise. 1983. TheHellenisticPotteryfrom Failaka, with a Survey of Hellenistic Pottery in the Near East. Aarhus:Jysk ArchaeologiskSelskab. Harper,PrudenceO.,JoanAruz,andFrancoiseTalon, eds. 1992. TheRoyalCityofSusa:AncientNearEastern Treasuresin the Louvre.New York:Metropolitan Museumof Art. Healey,John F. 1989. "Werethe NabataeansArabs?"ARAM 1:38-45. --.2001. TheReligionof theNabataeans:A Conspectus. Religionsin theGraeco-RomanWorld 136. Leiden:E.J. Brill. Healey, John F., Karl Schmitt-Korte,and Robert Wenning. 1997. "ScriptaNabataeaund Sela Aretas."In T. Weber and R. Wenning, eds., Petra: AntikeFelsstadtzwischen arabischer Tradition und griechischerNorm, 99-104. Mainz:Philippvon Zabern. Healey,JohnF., and SolaimanAl-Theeb. 1993. TheNabataean TombInscriptionsof Mada'in Saleh. Journal of Semitic Studies suppl. 1. Oxford:Oxford UniversityPresson behalfof the Universityof Manchester. Henkelman, Wouter. 1995-96. "The Royal Achaemenid ausIran 28:275-93. Crown."ArchaeologischeMitteilungen Hermeren, Goran. 1975. Influence in Art and Literature. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Herzfeld,ErnstE. 1941. Iran in theAncientEast. London and New York:Oxford UniversityPress. Homes-Fredericq,Denyse, andJ. B. Henessey, eds. 1989. Archaeologyof jordan. Leuven:Peeters. Jaussen, Antonin, and Raphae Savignac. 1909. Mission archeologiqueen Arabie.Paris:E. Leroux. Joukowsky,MarthaS. 1998. Petra GreatTempleI:Brown UniversityExcavations 1993-1997. Providence, R.I.: E. A. Johnson Company. Kanellopoulos,Chrysanthos.2000. "Persian,Hellenistic, and Herodian in the Free-standingArchitectureof Ancient Petra:Loans,Eclecticism,andInventionsin the Nabataean Capital"(in Greek).Corpus21:58-70. Katzenstein,H. Jacob. 1989. "Gazain the Persian Period." TranseuphratOne 1:67-77. Keller,Donald R., Stephen S. Savage,and KurtZamora.2002. "Archaeologyin Jordan, 2001 Season."Americanjournal ofArchaeology106:435-58. Khazanov,Anatoly M. 1994. Nomads and the OutsideWorld (2nd ed.). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Kleiss, Wolfram.1981. "EinAbschnittder achaemenidischen Konigstrassevon Pasargadaeund Persepolis nach Susa, bei Naqsh-i-Rustam."ArchaeologischeMitteilungenaus Iran 14:45-54. Kleiss,Wolfram,and PeterCalmeyer.1975. "Dasunvollendete achaemenidischeFelsgrabbei Persepolis."Archaeologische Mitteilungenaus Iran 8:81-98. Klengel-Brandt, Evelyn.1997. "Babylon."In E. M. Meyers,ed., TheOxfordEncyclopedia ofArchaeology in theNearEast,vol. 1:251-56. New YorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Knauf, Ernst Axel. 1989. "Nabataean Origins." In M. M. Ibrahim,ed., ArabianStudiesin HonorofMahmoudGhul: Symposiumat YarmoukUniversity,December8-11, 1984, 56-61. Wiesbaden:Otto Harrassowitz. 1990. "The Persian Administration of Arabia." TranseuphratOne 2:201-17. Koldewey,Robert. 1918. Das Ischtar-Torin Babylonnachden Ausgrabungen durch die Deutsch Orient-Gesellschaft. Wissenschaftlichen veroffentlichungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft32. Leipzig:J. C. Hinrichs. Koldewey,Robert,and Agnes S. G.Johns. 1914. TheExcavations at Babylon.London:Macmillanand Co., Ltd. Kuhrt,Amelie. 2001. "The Achaeinenid Persian Empire (c. 550-c. 330 B.C.E.): Continuities,Adaptations,Transformations."In S. E. Alcock,T. N. D'Altroy,K. D. Morrison, and C. M. Sinopoli, eds., Empires:Perspectives from Archaeologyand History, 93-124. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress. Kuhrt,Amelie,and SusanM. Sherwin-White.1987. Hellenism in theEast: Interactionof Greekand Non-GreekCivilizationsfrom Syria to CentralAsia afterAlexander.London: Duckworth. LaBianca,OysteinS. 1985."TheReturnoftheNomad:AnAnalysis of the Processof Nomadizationinjordan."Annualofthe DepartmentofAntiquitiesin Jordan 29:251-54. Lloyd, Seton. 1978. TheArt and Archaeologyof Mesopotamia: From the OldStoneAgeto thePersian Conquest.London: Thames and Hudson. Luschey, Heinz. 1968. "Studien zu dem Darius-Reliefvon Bisutun."ArchaeologischeMitteilungen aus Iran 1:63-94. Macdonald,M. C. A. 1991. "Was the NabataeanKingdoma 'Bedouin State'?"Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalastinaVereins1:102-19. 1995. "NorthArabiain the FirstMillenniumB.C.E." In J. M. Sasson,J. Baines,G. Beckman,and K. S. Rubinson, eds., Civilizationsof theAncientNear East, vol. 2:135569. New York:CharlesScribner'sSons. --. 1997. "Trade Routes and Trade Goods at the NorthernEnd of the 'IncenseRoad'in the FirstMillenniumB.C." In A. Avanzini,ed., Profumid'Arabia:Atti del Convegno, 333-50. Rome:L'Ermadi Bretschneider. - . 2000. "Reflectionson the LinguisticMapof Pre-Islamic Arabia."ArabianArchaeologyand Epigraphy11:38-79. McKenzie,Judith.1990. TheArchitecture ofPetra.BritishAcademy Monographsin Archaeology1. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Meshorer,Ya'akov.1975. NabataeanCoins.QEDEM3.Jerusalem:InstituteofArchaeology,HebrewUniversityofJerusalem. Mildenberg,Leo. 1994-99. "ANote on the GreatKingWearing thejagged Crown."IsraelNumismaticJournal13:15-24. 2000. "Uber die Miinzenbildnisse in Palastinaund Nordwestarabienzur Perserzeit."In C. Uehlinger, ed., Imagesas Media:Sourcesfor the CulturalHistory of the NearEast and theEasternMediterranean (1stMillennium B.C.E.), 375-91. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 175. Gottingen:Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht.

IMPERIALLEGACIES,LOCALIDENTITIES

Milik,J.T. 1982. "Originesdes Nabateens."Studiesin theHistoryand Archaeologyofj7ordan1:261-65. Miller,MargaretC. 1997. Athensand Persia in the Fifth CenturyB.C. A Studyin CulturalReceptivity.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress. Moorey, P. R. S. 1979. "Aspects of Worship and Ritual on Achaemenid Seals." Akten des VII. Internationalen Kongressesfur Iran. Kunst und Archaologie. Archaeologische Mitteilungenaus IranErgbd. 6:218-26. Negev, Avraham.1978. "The Nabataeansand the Provinceof Arabia."Aufsteig und Niedergang der Romischen Welt 2:520-686. ---. 1982. "The EarlyBeginningsof the NabataeanRealm." PalestineExplorationQuarterly108:125-33. Nylander,Carl.1970. IoniansinPasargadae.Studiesin OldPersian Architecture.Uppsala:Acta UniversitatisUpsaliensis. Boreaas:Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterraneanand NearEasternCivilizations1. Uppsala:Almqvist& Wiksells. 1983. "The Standardof the GreatKing:A Problemin ---. the AlexanderMosaic."OpusculaRomana 14:19-37. 1993. "Darius111-the CowardKing:Point and Coun---. terpoint."In J. Carlsen, B. Due, 0. Steen Due, and B. Poulsen,eds.,AlexandertheGreat:RealityandMyth,14559. Rome:L'Ermadi Bretschneider. Oates,Joan. 1986. Babylon(rev. ed.). London: Thames and Hudson. Oleson, John P., K. 'Amr, R. M. Foote, and R. Schick. 1995. "PreliminaryReportof the HumaymaExcavationProject, 1993."Annual of theDepartmentofAntiquitiesin30rdan 39:317-54. Parr,PeterJ. 1978. "Pottery,People, and Politics."In P. R. S. in theLevant:Essays MooreyandP.J. Parr,eds.,Archaeology for KathleenKenyon,202-9. Warminster: Aris& Phillips. 1996. "The Architectureof Petra:ReviewArticle."Pal---. estineExplorationQuarterly128:63-70. Patrich,Joseph. 1990. TheFormationof Nabataean Art:Prohibitionof a GravenImageamongtheNabataeans.Jerusalem: The MagnesPress, Hebrew University. ---. 1996. "The Formationof the NabataeanCapital."In K. Fittschenand G. Foerster,eds., J7udeaand the Greco-Roman Worldin Light of ArchaeologicalEvidence:Acts of a SymposiumOrganizedbytheInstituteof Archaeology,The HebrewUniversityof?Jerusalem and theArchaeological Institute,Georg-August Universityof Gottingenat7erusalem, November3-4 1988, 197-218. Abhandlungender Akademie Der Wissenschaften in G6ttingen. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht. Porada,Edith. 1965. TheArt ofAncientIran: Pre-IslamicCultures.New York:Crown Publishers. ---. 1967. "Battlementsin the MilitaryArchitectureand in the Symbolismof the AncientNearEast."In D. Fraser,H. Hibbard,and M. J. Lewine, eds., Essaysin theHistoryof ArchitecturePresentedtoRudolfWittkower,1-12. Oxford: PhaidonPress. --. 1979. "AchaemenidArt:Monumentaland Minute."In R. Ettinghausenand E. Yarshater,eds., Highlightsof Persian Art, 5 7-94. Boulder:WestviewPress.

Potts, Daniel T. 1990. TheArabian Gulfin Antiquity.Oxford: ClarendonPress. -. 1991. "NabataeanFindsfromThajand Qatif."Arabian Archaeologyand Epigraphy2:138-44. -. 1993. "Hegrabeforethe Nabataeans."Arabian Archaeologyand Epigraphy4:59-63. Retso,Jan.1997. "The ArabConnection.PoliticalImplications of Frankincensein Early Greece." In A. Avanzini, ed., Profumi d'Arabia:Atti del Convegno,473-80. Rome: L'Ermadi Bretschneider. -. 1999. "NabataeanOrigins-Once Again."Proceedings of theSeminarforArabianStudies29:115-18. Roaf, Michael. 1974. "The SubjectPeoples on the Base of the Statue of Darius."Cahiersde la DelegationFranfaise en Iran 4:73-160. -. 1989. "The Artof theAchaemenians."In R. W. Ferrier, ed., TheArts of Persia, 26-47. New Haven and London: Yale UniversityPress. Root, Margaret Cool. 1979. The King and Kingship in AchaemenidArt:Essayson the Creationof an Iconography of Empire.Acta Iranica19. Leiden:E.J. Brill. -. 1980. "The PersepolisPerplex:Some ProspectsBorne of Retrospect."In D. Schmandt-Besserat, ed., AncientPersia: TheArt of an Empire,5-13. Malibu:UndenaPress. -. 1985. "The ParthenonFriezeand the ApadanaReliefs at Persepolis:Reassessinga ProgrammaticRelationship." AmericanJournal ofArchaeology89:103-20. -. 1990a. "Circlesof ArtisticProgramming:Strategiesfor StudyingCreativeProcessat Persepolis."In A. C. Gunter, ed., Investigating Artistic Environmentsin the Ancient Near East, 115-39. Washington,D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution. 1990b. Crowning Glories:Persian Kingshipand the Power of CreativeContinuity.An Exhibition Guide Celebrating the TenthAchaemenidHistory Workshop,Ann Arbor.Ann Arbor:KelseyMuseumof Archaeology. -. 1991. "Fromthe Heart:PowerfulPersianismsin the Art of the WesternEmpire."In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, ed., ThePersian Empire in the West,1-25. AchaemenidHistory6. Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoorhetNabijeOosten. 1994. "Liftingthe Veil: ArtisticTransmissionbeyond the Boundariesof HistoricalPeriodisation."In H. SaricisiWeerdenburg,A. Kuhrt,and M. C. Root, eds., Continuity and Change, 9-37. Achaemenid History 8. Leiden: NederlandsIstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. 2000. "ImperialIdeology in AchaemenidPersianArt: Transformingthe MesopotamianLegacy."Bulletin of the CanadianSocietyforMesopotamianStudies35:19-27. -. In press. "The Lioness of Elam:Politics and Dynastic Fecundityat Persepolis."In W. HenkelmanandA. Kuhrt, eds., Memorial Volumefor HeleenSancisi-Weerdenburg. AchaemenidHistory14. Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Salles,Jean-Francois.1990. "Les Achemenidesdans le Golfe In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg Arabo-Persique." andA. Kuhrt, eds., Centreand Periphery,111-30. AchaemenidHistory 205 4. Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten.

BJORN ANDERSON

206

Sami,Ali. 1955. Persepolis(Takht-i_7amshid) (2nd ed.), trans. The ReverendR. N. Sharp.Shiraz:MusaviPrintingOffice. Heleen. 1991a. "Nowruzin Persepolis." Sancisi-Weerdenburg, In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and J. W. Drijvers, eds., ThroughTravellers'Eyes:EuropeanTravellerson theIranian Monuments, 173-201. Achaemenid History 7. Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. lb. "Introduction.Through Travellers'Eyes: The --.99 PersianMonumentsas Seen by EuropeanTravellers."In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg andJ.W. Drijvers,eds., Through Travellers'Eyes: EuropeanTravellerson theIranianMonuments, 1-35. AchaemenidHistory 7. Leiden:Nederlands Instituutvoor het NabijeOosten. --. 1993. "AlexanderandPersepolis."InJ. Carlsen,B. Due, 0. Steen Due, and B. Poulsen, eds., Alexanderthe Great: RealityandMyth,177-88. Rome:L'Ermadi Bretschneider. Sancisi-Weerdenburg,Heleen, andJan Willem Drijvers,eds. 1991. ThroughTravellers'Eyes:European Travellerson the Iranian Monuments.AchaemenidHistory 7. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Sancisi-Weerdenburg,Heleen, Amelie Kuhrt, and Margaret Cool Root, eds., 1994. Continuityand Change.Achaemenid History 8. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Schmid, StephanG. 1997. "NabataeanFine WarePotteryand the Destructionsof Petrain the Late First and EarlySecond CenturyA.D." Studiesin theHistoryand Archaeology of fordan6:413-20. --. 2001a. "The 'Hellenisation'of the Nabataeans:A New Approach."Studiesin theHistoryand Archaeology ofjordan 7:407-19. --. 2001b. "The Nabataeans:Travellers Between Lifestyles."In B. MacDonald,R. Adams, and P. Bienkowski, eds., The Archaeologyof 7ordan, 367-426. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademicPress. --. 2002a. "FromAretasto the Annexation:Petraand the Nabataeans."InJ. FrosenandZ. Fiema,eds., Petra:ACity Forgottenand Rediscovered,44-59. Helsinki: Helsinki UniversityPress. --. 2002b. "PtolemaicInfluenceon the MaterialCultureof Cyprus and Nabataea:Parallelsand Differences."Paper presentedat the AnnualMeetingof the Schools of Oriental Research.Toronto. Schmidt,ErichF. 1953. PersepolisI: Structures,Reliefs,Inscriptions.OrientalInstitutePublications68. Chicago:University of ChicagoPress. --. 1957. PersepolisII: Contentsof the Treasuryand Other Discoveries.OrientalInstitutePublications69. Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress. 1970. PersepolisIII: TheRoyal Tombsand OtherMonuments. OrientalInstitutePublications70. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Schmidt-Colinet, Andreas, Thomas Weber, and Jiirgen Zangenberg.1997. "'ArabischerBarok'SepukraleKultur in Petra."In T. WeberandR. Wenning,eds., Petra:Antike FelsstadtzwischenarabischerTradition und griechischer Norm, 87-98. Mainz:Philippvon Zabern.

Schmitt-Korte,Karl.1984. "NabataeanPottery:A Typological and ChronologicalFramework."In A. M. Abdalla,S. AlSakkar,andR. Mortel,eds., Studiesin theHistoryofArabia II: Pre-IslamicArabia, 7-40. Riyadh:King Saud University Press. --. 2001. "The Date of the al-Khasnehat Petra:A New Approach."Paperpresentedattheconference"TheWorld of the Herods and the Nabataeans."London: BritishMuseum. Seidl, Ursula. 1976. "Ein Relief Dareios' in Babylon." Archaeologische Mitteilungenaus Iran 9:125-30. --. 1997. "Naqsh-i Rustam."In E. M. Meyers, ed., The OxfordEncyclopediaof Archaeologyin theNear East, vol. 4:98-101. NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Shashaani,Ramona.1999. "BorrowedIdeas:PersianRoots of Christian Traditions." The Iranian, Dec. 23: http:// www.iranian.com/History/1999/December/New year. Shea, Michael O'Dwyer. 1983. "The Small Cuboid IncenseBurnerof the AncientNear East."Levant 15:76-109. to CulShennan,Stephen,ed. 1989. ArchaeologicalApproaches tural Identity.London:Unwin Hyman. Sidebotham,Steven E. 1989. "Ports of the Red Sea and the Arabia-IndiaTrade."In D. H. Frenchand C. S. Lightfoot, eds., TheEasternFrontierof theRomanEmpire:Proceedings of a ColloquiumHeld at Ankarain September1998, vol. 1:485-513. BAR InternationalSeries 553. Oxford: BritishArchaeologicalReports. --. 1997. "Caravansacross the EasternDesert of Egypt: RecentDiscoverieson the Berenike-ApollinopolisMagnaCoptosRoads."In A. Avanzini,ed., Profumid'Arabia:Atti del Convegno;385-94. Rome:L'Ermadi Bretschneider. Smith,Adam.In press. ThePoliticalLandscape:Constellations of Authorityin Early ComplexPolities. Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress. Starcky,Jean. 1955. "The Nabataeans:A HistoricalSketch." BiblicalArchaeologist18:84-108. Stucky, Rolf. 1983. "Eine Reise nach Marib,in die Stadt der Koniginvon Saba."AntikeWelt14:3-13. Terrenato, Nicola. 1998. "Tam Firmum Municipium: The RomanizationofVolaterraeandIts CulturalImplications." journal of RomanStudies88:94-114. Tholbecq, Laurent.2001. "NabataeanMonumentalArchitecture."Paperpresented at the conference"The World of the Herods and the Nabataeans."London: British Museum. Tilia, Ann Britt. 1978. Studies and Restorationsof Persepolis and OtherSites of Fars 2. IstitutoItalianoper il Medeo ed EstremoOriente,ReportsandMemoirs18. Rome:Istituto Italianoper il Medeo ed EstremoOriente. Tomlinson, John. 1991. CulturalImperialism:A CriticalIntroduction.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UniversityPress. Van Buren,E. Douglas. 1939. "The Rosettein Mesopotamian Art."ZeitschriftfiirAssyriologie 45:99-107. Van Dommelen, Peter. 1998. "PunicPersistance:Colonialism and CulturalIdentityin Roman Sardinia.InJ. Berryand R. Laurence,eds., CulturalIdentityin theRomanEmpire, 25-48. London and New York:Routledge.

IMPERIALLEGACIES,LOCALIDENTITIES

Von Gall, Hubertus. 1988. "Das Felsgrabvon Qizqapan.Ein Denkmalaus dem Umfeld der AchamenidischenKonigsstraBe."BaghdaderMitteilungen19:557-82. Weippert,Manfred.1987. "The Relationsof the StatesEastof theJordanwith the MesopotamianPowersduringthe First MillenniumB.C." Studiesin theHistoryandArchaeologyof J7ordan3:97-105. Wenning,Robert.1996. "HegraandPetra:Some Differences." ARAM8:253-67. .2001. "The Betyls of Petra."Bulletin of theAmerican Schoolsof OrientalResearch324:79-95. Wiesehofer,Josef. 1996. AncientPersiafrom 550 B.C. to 650 A.D., trans.A. Azodi. London and New York:I. B. Tauris. Woolf, Greg. 1997. "BeyondRomansand Natives."WorldArchaeology28:339-50.

--.

1998. BecomingRoman:TheOriginsofProvincialCivilizationin Gaul.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Zanker,Paul. 1988. ThePowerofImagesin theAgeofAugustus. Ann Arbor:Universityof MichiganPress. Zayadine, Fawzi. 1970. "Die FelsarchiteckturPetras:Orientalische Traditionen und hellenisticherEinfluB."In M. Lindner, ed., Petra und das KUnigreichder Nabatder. Lebensraum,Geschichte undKultureinesarabischenVolkes derAntike,212-48. Munich:Delp. 1979. "L'Architecture." In Museede Lyon, lJnroyaume aux confinsdu desert:Petra et la Nabat?ne,66-72. Lyon: Musee de Lyon.

207

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

Persepolis in Retrospect: Histories of Discovery and Archaeological Exploration at the Ruins of Ancient Parseh Author(s): Ali Mousavi Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 209-251 Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629597 Accessed: 01/02/2009 10:23 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

ALI

MOUSAVI

Persepolis

in

Discovery

and

at

the

Ruins

Retrospect:

Histories

of

Archaeological Exploration of Ancient

Parse/i

For myfather, to whomI owe mypassionfor the ruins of Takht-e _Jamshid.

AB STRACT

Since the fallof the Achaemenidempirein 330 B.C.E. the ruins of Parseh(Grk.Persepolis),in the imperialheartlandregion(modern Fars),haveprojectedmanifoldaspectsof symbolicpowerandmystique. Considerableattentionhas been devotedin Westernscholarshipto theinvestigationsandperspectivesof earlyEuropeanvisitors to the site, followed by attentionto the results of European andNorthAmericanarchaeologicalefforts.Butcomparatively little attentionin Westernscholarshipis devoted eitherto Iraniansymbolic associationswith Persepolisor to the legacyof Iraniandocumentaryandarchaeologicalworkthere.This essayreviewsa range of archivalphotographsand documentsas well as published Iranianwork to revealnew aspectsof the historyand historiography of Iranianengagementwith Persepolis-following its destruction by Alexanderand acrossthe ages throughthe 1970s. In doing so, the articlepondersthe sensein which allthe archaeologicalexcavations at Persepolishavebeen expectedto fulfillthe double goal of symbolicconversationwith highlychargednotionsof the past and scientificachievementwithrespectto empiricaldiscovery.Through the intricaciesof these crosscurrents,Persepolishas maintainedits uniquestatusin Iranas a nationalmonumentpar excellence.

209

ArsOrientalis, volume XXXII (2002)

ALI MOUSAVI

Plan of The Imperial Achaemenian Palaces In Persepolis Scale: 1/ 1500

3. AstncT.ncnknpecc.

22 hNi?lmax:efh

PoslthcMasroMH.U. 11. QueApedtrtnowh R. P.1a._'

g~ot\oi

P\\~

ur. teetaJPc.dM32.61rgon\a?crc

25\.

15Ca~w. 8^c. 34.~dfha1c 9o.Th mfialahdo th

26}elfheeti3. Asto edutWczl

|

II.

pau-aybcOwaM.

13iu.

s

*e36

7~~~~~~2. *rhe(uthmBi6ld1in

(TPachrdaHwd)

f thc 14. TheNWjestemStur~casc

7n.

*h

h\t za* g\i

nbfd baicsurn1y6a a aa Q~aAraaxrel. 3bA.SuadieBrclbulinso

i

\~

fWth9e. \h

30. ThVstawhRaaia30.0 6

Thbcthaa tedscvee.

The Southemflaildnp rd chof

thcbovePacec. ______________________________________________________________________________

AliHhkemil,H 1950, 195

PERSEPOLISIN RETROSPECT

Tout est grand et saisissant d'ailleurs dans l'austere paysage qui sert d'encadrement a Takht-i-Djemchid:l'immensitede la plaine qui domine l'antiquepalais,les lignes majestueuses des montagnesdont l'aspect change "achaque pas, la purete de l'atmosphere,l'azurd'un ciel profond,etjusqu'ausilencede ces lieux habites. (Flandin1851: 149) W

x

rITH

THESE WORDS

the Flandin, Eugene

celebratedFrenchartistandtraveler,conveyed the profoundimpactof Persepolis duringhis visit there more than 150 years ago. He wasneitherthefirstnorthelastvisitorto be impressed by the ruins of Takht-e Jamshid (the "Throne of Jamshid")-the beautifulcitadelof a oncevibrantcity that stretchedout across an expansivefertileplain (the MarvDasht)in Fars. Monumentsall overthe worldhaveplayedsymbolic roles as emblemsof identity,epitomizingand transforminginto historicallegacy selective towering momentsof achievementalongthe streamof human civilization.Among these formidablecultural icons of place are the ruins at Takht-eJamshid. In this instance, the iconic statushas served the often competinginterestsof the Westernworld as well as the long and varied sequence of Iraniancultureitself. The monumentalstructuresthere (fig. 1) were conceivedand constructedas an ambitiousprogram underthe reignandpatronageof DariusI, the Great

(r.521-486 B.C.E.). As rulerofa vastempire,he was not contentwith the smallcapitalthathis predecessor and founderof the empire,CyrusII, the Great, had begunto build at Pasargadaesome 80 km to the north. With the foundationof Parseh(conventionally called by the Greek name, Persepolis),Darius put his own seal on the dynasticheartlandboth for his own time and for posterity.!Indeed, the raison d'etre of Persepolis-as an urbancomplex crowned by the Takht,with its strongwallsand elaborateceremonial monuments-cannot be fully understood FIG. 1.

Plan of Takht-ejamshidas redrawnwithadditionsby Ali Hikemi in 1950. AfterMostafavi1978.

without embracingthe crucialidea of transmission of a messageto latergenerations. The rediscoveryof Persepolisby theWestin the earlymodernerahasbeena fascinatingtopicof growing interestin academicresearchandexhibitionpresentation(e.g., Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1991; SancisiWeerdenburgandDrijvers1991;Andre-Salviniet al. 1998). Such workhas, however,maintaineda focus on Europeanexplorationand documentation.Similarly,most archaeologicaldiscussionand interpretationof Persepolishasbeenbasedon theEuropeanand Americanexcavationreports.By comparison,rather little has become widely known abouthow Iranians havereceivedandconsideredPersepolisfronmthetime soon afterits devastationby the armyof Alexanderof Macedonin 330 B.C.E. up intomoderncenturies.Furthermore,referenceto thearchaeological findlingsand interpretive strategiesof Iranianinvestigators atthesite havebeen rarein Westernscholarship. Contraryto the impressioncreatedin Western academeof a dearthof Iranianinvolvementin the ruinsat Persepolis,thereis, in fact,much to ponder here. The firstyears of the twentiethcenturysaw a keen interest in excavating the ancient ruins of Persepolis-an epic enterprisethathad the effectof catalyzingnationalinterestin archaeologicalactivity throughoutIran.What were the processes that inspiredthisattention,givingnew nationalstatusto the place? How did Iranin those yearscome to see the site as a monumentof Iranianhistorypar excellence, the explorationof which would influencethe future of all archaeologyin Iran?To what extent have the effortsof centuriesof explorationat Persepoliscontributedto our presentknowledgeof Iranianhistory and thatof the Achaemenidperiod?How, in short, has Darius's city fared in its aim to converse with posterity?In addressingsuch questions,thlisarticle will reviewselectedkey evidenceof earlyIranianengagementwith the site. Additionally,it will survey Europeanand Iranianarchaeologicalexploration, visual documentation,and excavationthere, highlightingthe Iranianperspectivesandagendasin such workby featuringpublishedworkin Persianthathas receivedlittleattentionin theWest aswell as recently accessedIranianarchivalmaterial. 211

ALI MOUSAVI

FIG. 2.

One of the stone doorwaysof the Palace of Darius (the Tachara) with inscriptions in Pahlavi of the Sasanian king Shapur II (at right) and the Kufic inscrpiztonof Azad-od-Dowlehdated to the tenth centuryC.E. (at left). Photo courtesyof A. Haikemi. OF MYTH AND REALITY: TAKHT-E JAMSHID/PERSEPOLIS

212

Mythologies. After Persepolis was plundered, destroyed,and abandonedin 330 B.C.E., the Takhtbecame a place of fascination,evokinga gloriouspast of spiritual/mythological associationsratherthanliteralistichistoricalrecollections.A few decades after the fallof the empirelocal rulersseem to have reoccupied a limited area of the southwest quadrantof the Takht. Remnantsof constructionand reuse of structuraland decorativeelementsfromvariouslocationsat the site of the so-calledPalaceH bearwitness to this(Schmidt1953:274-75; Tilia 1972:243316, esp. 315-16). But no attemptwas made to rebuild the place in totoor to reestablishit eitheras a centeror as theroutinelyused workingadministrative palatialbackdropfor dynasticritualsand royalceremonies.A passageby the RomanauthorDiodorus relates that Peucestas, the trusted officer whom Alexanderhad installedas his administratorin Pars, used the Takht as a settingfor an elaboratemilitary

banquetand religioussacrificetowardthe end of the fourthcenturyB.C.E. (Diod. 19.22). Whetheror not this text recounts a specific event that actuallyoccurred centuries before Diodorus recorded it, the words somehowringtruein a generalway. They can be understoodas an interestingreflectionof a pervasive situationthatrunslikea threadthroughthepostAchaemenidhistory of Persepolis. For the ruins of the Takht did indeed continue occasionallyto performas settingsfor affirmationof a notion of continuitywith moreancienttraditionsas well as forsymbolic practicesof rulershipand religiousobservance in the Persianheartland. In termsof activeurbanlife, the city of Istakhr, already in existence during Achaemenid times, gained greatly in stature following the fall of Persepolis.The Sasaniankings,themselvesnativeto Farsandprobablydescendantsof the Achaemenids, used Istakhras a royal residence and regionalcenter. But they remained attracted by the ruins of Persepolis,only5 kmawayandso magnificentlysited againstthe mountains.They did not seem to know

PERSEPOLISIN RETROSPECT

Later,in Islamictimes,inscriptionsengravedby orderof the Bouyidprinceson the stoneremnantsof the greatpalacestestifyto the inspirationaleffectof the ruins on new generationsof Iranianrulers addressing themselvesto a long line of predecessors. PrinceAzad-od-Dowleh,forinstance,ordainedthat aninscriptionin Arabicbe carvedatPersepolisin 344 A.H./955 tellingof his visit there.In it, he explained that he had Marasand, the mobad ("priest") of Kazerun,interpretfor him the Pahlaviinscriptions fromthe timeof ShapurII (Mostafavi1978: 218). It is clearthat,notwithstandinganyloss of specifichistoricalknowledgeabout the precise identity of the Achaemenidbuilders of the monumentsat Persepolis, a crucial essence of its symbolic value was In the monthof Spandarmad,in the secondyear handeddown over the centuries.This essence reinof the reign of His ZoroastrianMajestyShapur forced Persepolis as a place of spiritualresonance [II], the kingof kingsof EranandAneran,whose withIraniantraditionsof noblegreatness,transcendorigin is from the gods. At that time when ing myriadsociopoliticalchanges. Additionalnuances of meaningaccrued to the Shapur,the kingof the Sakae,kingof Hindustan, Sakistanand Turan down to the seashore ... ruinson the Takht as succeedingerasattachedspetraveled on this road, the road to Istakhr to cialsymbolicqualitiesto them.They acquiredthestaSakistan,andgraciouslycamehereto Sad-Sotiun, tus of legend throughassociationwithJamshid,the he ate breadin this building.... And he orga- mythicalhero-kingof ancientIran,to whomn the connized a greatfeast,andhe had divineritualsper- structionof the monumentsbecameattributed.The formed,and he prayedfor his fatherand his an- inscriptionof ShapurIIin thePalaceof Dariusproves thattheSasaniansknewPersepolisas Sad-Sotiin.4But cestors, and he prayed for Shapur,the king of kings, and he prayed for his own soul, and he it is likelythatalreadyin Sasaniantimestheruinswere also prayedfor the one who had builtthis build- also known as Takht-e Jamshid. When the poet ing. (AfterWiesehofer1996: 223) Firdowsiwrotehis epic, theShahnameh(the Bookof Kings,completedin 1010 C.E.), he used both names; Two incised sketches of Sasanianprinces on the connectionofJamshidwith Persepolisis likelyto horsebackwere carvedon the stone elementsof the have had a long history already.The metaphorical so-calledHaremof Xerxes,with another(of a stand- concept of the citadelplatformas a takht(a throne) ing figure) occurringon the walls of the Palace of goes allthewaybackto Dariushimself,who described Darius (Schmidt 1953: 227, 258). Here, as well as it thusin one of the inscriptionson the southwall.5 on the monumentsof theAchaemenidsat the nearby One of the earliestpost-ancientdescriptiverefroyalburialsite of Naqsh-eRustam(Schmidt 1970: erencesto Persepolisappearsin the characterization 45-49), the Sasaniankings insertedthemselvesand of the Palaceof Solomoncontainedin one of the oldtheirdeedsinto thenarrativeof Iranianhistoryalong- est survivingbooks in the Persianlanguage:the Perside theirillustriouspredecessors.In additionto apsiantranslationofTabari'sCommentary ontheKoran. and visual Here notions of the mythical IranianJamshid andthe plying importantinscriptions representations on and adjacentto Achaemenidmonumentsin biblical Solomon merge in the attribution of GreaterPersepolis, the Sasaniansemulated major Persepolis.Tabari'sCommentary waspreparedatthe Achaemenidmotifs visible on the still-standingru- Samanidcourtin the earlyyearsof the tenthcentury. ins of the Takhtfor theirown imperialpresentations It preceded the earliest European allusions to 213 (Schmidt 1970: 122-36, pls. 80-95).3 Persepolisby severalhundredyears(Shahbazi1378/ an ancientname for the place, referringto it by the descriptivelyevocative term Sad-Sotiin (100 Columns). Yet they were moved by its historicalaura and wished to establisha spiritualconnectionwith the bygone rulerswho had createdit. ShapurII is proudly advertised through two inscriptions in Pahlavi(Middle Persian)engravedon the southern faceof the eastjambof the doorwaylinkingthe main hall to the portico of the Palace of Darius (the Tachara) [fig. 2]).2 One of these bore witness to a royalvisitin the secondyearof thekingshipof Shapur II(r. 309-379 C.E.),and the otherwas carvedby two nobles in his honor decadeslaterin his long career. The text of the earlierinscriptionreads:

ALI MOUSAVI

1999: 3).6 The subtletiesof Iranianengagementwith this place in early Islamic times deserve to be addressedwith rigorand criticalacumen.An excellent exampleof what is possible is the interestingarticle by A.-S. Melikian-Shirvani(1971), which has consideredin some detailthe mysticalsignificanceof the ruins.7As Melikian-Shirvani haspointedout, thedialogues between the presentand the past createdby generationsof rulers inscribingPersepolis-sometimes explicitly conscious of placing a new text in proximityto anearlierone-created fugalthemes,the harmoniesofwhichenhancedone another(MelikianShirvani1971:38). This notion,calibratedto mythical and mysticalrangesof meaning,has been at the heartof the resonanceof the ruinswith Iraniantradition. It reflectsa very differentapproachto monuments and history than thatexercisedby the Western travelerswho have been discussed at length in other scholarly contexts. The Europeans sought connectionswith thepalpositivistic,material-world aces andpersonaeof the AchaemenidPersiankings. They soughtout connectionsto an ancientOrientas theyunderstoodit (ratheruncriticallyin those days) from classicaland Biblicalsources:an ancientOrient meantto servenarrativesof a Westernratherthan an Iranianromancewith the past. The earlyEuropeanvisitorswere, to a significantdegree,inscribing a differenthistoryand a differentconcept of history onto Persepolis. The Iranianmodes of connection with Persepolis took various turns. A sense of the everlasting melancholyof the ruins at Takht-eJamshid(as evidence of a glorious built environment now renaturalizedand given over to the animalkingdom) is evoked in the fatalisticrefrainof the celebrated Omar Khayyam(whose eleventh-centurywritings were arrangedposthumouslyinto continuousverse entitled the Rubiiiya&t): They say the Lion and the Lizardkeep The Courts whereJamshid gloried and drank deep. (Khayyamquatrain17)

214

In the earlytwelfthcenturyappearedthe Farsnameh,attributedto Ebn-eBalkhi,wherethe author describesthe fortressofJamshidas the most marvelous accomplishmentof thismythicalhero-king:

He Jamshid]builta palaceat the foot of the hill, the equal of which was not to be found in the whole world.At the foot of the hill, he laid out a platformof solid stone thatwas blackin color, the platformbeing four-sided,one side against the hill foot and the other three sides towards the plain, and the height of the platformwas on allsides30 cubits.In thefore-facethereofhebuilt two stairways,so easy to ascent that horsemen could rideup withoutdifficulty.Then upon the platformhe erected columns of solid blocks in white stone so finelyworkedthateven in wood it mightbe impossibleto makethe likeby painting or carving;and these columns are very tall, and differentin patternand design, and among theresttherearetwocolumnsin particularwhich stood before the threshold,these being square in shape, and formed of a white stone that resembledmarble.Nowhere else in all provinces of Parsis any stone like this found, and no one knows whence these blockswere brought.8 HamdollahMostowfi,in his Nozhat-olQolub,composed in the firsthalf of the fourteenthcentury,in the course of a descriptionof Istakhrquotes Ebn-e Balkhi with only minor changes. But following a somewhatdifferentline, Muhammadibn Mahmud Hamadani,in his Ajii'eb-Nameh(Bookof Wonders) of about590 A.H./1 194, consideredthe monuments of Pasargadaeand Persepolisto be amongthe works that monstersmust have made, so incrediblewere the engineeringfeatsthey represented: And in the palace ofJamshid, as it is called, a thousandcolumnshavebeen erected,each one of whichis forty-eightcubitsin height,andtheir girthis such thatfourmen cannotencompassit with theirarmsextended, and it was not within humancapacityto set them up, and manyhave claimed that in that age, even by mechanical means, it would not be possible. And it is clear thatit was done by demonicpower. And in this blackstone edifice [the Palaceof Darius] there are figures carved in stone of Daylamitesand attendants, and the hair of the Daylamites is curly, and the style of hair of the Turks cannot be described, and until one has seen them, the

PERSEPOLISIN RETROSPECT

pressed his delight at wanderingover the beautiful and lush MarvDasht-in the company of Arrian, Quitus Curtius, Diodorus, and other classical authors. He trulyappreciatedthe magnificenceof the ruinseventhoughmanyof his interpretations of their purposewerefaulty(Ferrier1996: 155-64). His sympatheticrelationto contemporaryPersiaand its traditionswasmultifaceted,informedin interestingways by his religiousinclinations,his French Huguenot background(which marginalizedhim in his native land), and his eagernessto learn about the Islamic faith(Ferrier1996: 97). Forty-threeyears before, Persepolis had been visitedby anotherFrenchman,Jean-Baptiste TaverDescriptions. Situatedon the naturalroute linking nier.In contrastto Chardin,Tavernierexudedgreat the PersianGulf to the north of the Iranianplateau, disdain for the site: "Carenfin, ce ne sont que des Persepoliswas an unavoidablestationfor travelers. vielles colonnes, les unes sur pied les autres par Europeans who visited Persepolis from the four- terre,et quelquesfigurestresmalfaites"(Tavernier teenthcenturyonwardhaveleftus theirpassingcom1677: 657). The significanceof Tavernier'svisitlies ments or full-blownnarratives.The significanceof in the fact that he was accompaniedby Philip Antheirearlyexplorationshas been summarizedin two gel, a Dutch painter and draftsman.Angel apparvery useful publications (Gabriel 1952; Sancisi- ently shared his comrade's dislike for Persepolis. Weerdenburg1991). Nevertheless, furtherdetails He spent eight days drawing the ruins and then need to be added here. The Age of Enlightenment complainedthathe hadwastedhis timebecausethe wasanintenseperiodof "scientific"travelforthesake monuments weren't worth drawing (Tavernier of acquiringknowledge.It was in thisperiodthatthe 1677: 657). He had arrivedin Persiaaround 1651 antiquityof Persepolisandits identificationas anhis- with an embassyof the Dutch East India Company toricalsite were established.The earliestextantviin order to teach Shah Abbas lI the art of drawing sual documents of the site in the form of drawings (Sancisi-Weerdenburg1991: 10). It may well be and sketch plans appearedat this point. Creditfor that Angel's renderingsof the ruins at Persepolis the first identification of the ruins as the ancient were in fact produced on the order of Shah Abbas Persepolisgoes to the SpaniardFigueroa(Sancisi- II. Certainly,if his distastefor the artwas as totalas Weerdenburg 1991: 6). When Figueroa visited Taverniersuggests, he would not have spent eight Persepolisin the seventeenthcentury,he had a copy days on the taskwithout the pressureof a very imof Diodorusathand.He wouldhavereadDiodorus's portant obligation. This implies that the great versionof the violentsackingandburningof the city Safavidking was eager to place himself into rela("the most hated in Asia") as retribution for the tion with the ruinsof Takht-eJamshidthroughproAchaemenidinvasionsof Greece(Diod. 17.70-72). duction of a visualrecordof the site thatwould bear It wasJean Chardin,the distinguishedFrenchtrav- the stampof his patronage. eler, who left the first thorough descriptionof the Subsequentvisits by Europeansover much of ruins (Chardin 1735; Sancisi-Weerdenburg1991: the eighteenthcenturywere mostly focused on the 15-17). Chardinmadetheimportantobservationthat enigmatic"arrow-headed" (cuneiform)inscriptions the cuneiforminscriptions carved on the window there(Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1991: 22-25 fora good framesof the Palaceof Dariuswere inlaidwith gold. summary).The deciphermentof Old Persianwas a Indeed, the other inscriptionsof the site may also majormilestone in the study of AchaemenidIran, havebeeninlaidwithpreciousmetals,tracesofwhich opening up many new avenues of interpretation 215 were still visible in the seventeenthcentury.He exbasedon Persianaswell as classicalandBiblicaltexts. wonder of them cannot be imagined, for the stones erected one above anotherweigh each ten thousand "man" [45 tons], and are so closely fitted that there is not a hair's breadth between each stone. And two great bulls have been carved,with hoofs as a bull, and a beard as a man, twelve cubits long and high, and of whatweight only God knows, one on one side, and anotheron the opposite side, such as in the presentage no mancould erect. If it be said that a genius or fairyhad made it, this would be acceptableto the intellect. (AdaptedfromMostafavi 1978: 22)9

ALI MOUSAVI

PHOTOGRAPHY AND EMERGING ARCHAEOLOGY

With the creationof nationalmuseums in Europe from the second half of the eighteenthcenturyand the resultingincreaseddemandfor artobjects,travelers attemptedto investigatefurtherby excavating forportableartifactsand removablearchitecturalelements.Unfortunately,veryfew of themleft records describing their digging operations.James Morier (1780-1849), a Britishdiplomatandtravelerof Swiss origin,visitedthe site twiceand decided to carryout excavationsthere. On his firstvisit in 1809, Morier came to Persiawith Sir HarfordJones,the firstBritish envoy to the court of Fath-Ali Shah Qajar.In 1811, he returnedto Persiaas secretaryto the embassy of Sir Gore Ouseley. After Ouseley's departurefromTehran,Moriertookoverthe chargeof the British Mission for a year as minister ad interim (Wright 1977: 83).1o Aside from his well-known picaresquenovel, TheAdventuresof Haji Baba of Isfahan, Morierpublished the accountsof his travels in A _Journey to Persia,Armeniaand Asia Minor (1812) andA SecondJfourneythroughPersia,Armenia and AsiaMinor(1818). He is also knownas the first to draw attentionto the fact that the so-called Tomb of Motherof Solomon should correspondto themonumentdescribedby theclassicalauthorssuch as Arrianand Straboas the tomb of Cyrusthe Great (Stronach1978: 2-3). Havingreadthe accountsleft by Jean Chardin (1735) and Cornelius Le Bruyn (1737), he had become acquaintedwith the ruins before arrivingin their midst. He writes on his explorationsas follows:

216

I went earlyin the morningto the ruins, which were situatedabout a mile frommy habitation, attendedby the stone-cutters.Consideringthe quantityof sculptureremainsthathadfallenfrom theiroriginalpositions, and which were spread aboutthe ruinsin greatprofusion,I did not hesitateto appropriatesuch partsof themas seemed the most fittingto be sent to England.... The most interestingpart of the ruins, in point of sculpturaldetail,is certainlythefrontof the staircase, which leads to the greathall of columns; andhereI foundmanyfallenpieces, correspond-

ing to those still erect. I caused one largestone to be turned, upon which was sculpturedthe busts of two largefigures.It was impossibleto carryaway the whole block, as I had no other mode of conveyancethanthebacksof mulesand asses,consequentlythe two figureswereobliged to be separated;butunfortunatelya veinrunning acrosstheupperpartof the stone,thehead-dress of one of the figureswas brokenoffin the operation. The Persiansdo not know the use of the saw in stone-cutting,thereforemy dissections were performedin a very ruddermanner.... BothLe BruyneandChardinhaveonlygivenone line of figureson the left staircase;but as it was evidentthatin orderto completethe symmetry there must have been the same numberon the left as there are on the right, I hired some labourers from the surroundingvillages, and made them dig. To my greatdelight, a second row of figures,highly preserved,were discovered, the details of whose faces, hair, dresses, arms,andgeneralcharacter,seemedbutthework of yesterday.(Morier1818: 75-76) AdlehasardentlycriticizedMorier's Shahryar practices: He [Morier]did not askhimselfwhetheror not, underthe ethicalor legalstandardsprevailingat the timein Persia,or even in England,the unauthorizedremovalof a workof artwould deserve reprehension.Nor did he realizethathe had at least made an errorof managementby entrusting the task to Persians,whom he considered devoid of anyskillor qualityandcorrupt.(Adle: 2000: 230, my translationfromthe Persian) Moriercontinuedhis workfor two days, afterwhich it was interruptedby the local governor.Then he madeinquiriesto locate otherruinsin the regionas well as coins and gems. He was not successfulin this pursuiteither.His next effortwas to dig the "subterraneanpassagesthat traversethe ground on which Persepolisis built."He recognizedthesepassagesas sewagecanals,but once againhe complainedof not being as lucky as Chardin(who in his firstattempt had been able to discover them). Morierdescribes this ventureas follows:

PERSEPOLISIN RETROSPECT

structionof the structuresin full color was not apparentlytakenas seriouslyaswerethoseby two other French artists, Eugene Flandin and Pascal Coste (1843-54), who madethe firstdrawingsof the ruins deemed to be accurateand reliablein the late 1840s (Andre-Salviniet al. 1998).13 The discomfortand difficultiesencounteredduringtheir travelsin Persia did not preventFlandin(1851: 21 1) fromadmiring the ruinsof Persepolisin his concludingwords: "'onpeut dire que les monuments de Takht-iHe also explored the structureknown as the Djemchidsont parmiceux du vieux monde,les plus Unfinished Tomb (Schmidt'sTomb VII), mistak- etonnantset plus admirablesque le voyageurpuisse ing the large cuttings of the rock, which had been rencontrer.... Non! a Persepolistoutest art,toutest left unfinished, for "intricateavenues, as to form a elegance."The publicationof Flandinand Coste is labyrinth"(Morier:86). In July of the same year, typically praised as an invaluablework of artistic Morierreturnedto Persepolis for furtherdigging, graphicdocumentation, butFlandin'swrittenaccount now in the company of Robert Gordon (1791(1851: 145-242) containsinterestingobservationson 1847), anothermemberof Gore Ouseley'smission. the structuresthatlikewisedeserveattention. This time the local governorwas unableto obstruct By this time, photographybegins to play a role his activities. With the help of some artillerymen, in the historyof the explorationof Persepolis.In the Morierclearedawaythe "verynarrowpassageinto summerof 1266 A.H./1 850,Jules Richard,a Frenchthe first tomb described by Chardin"(apparently manworkingin Iran,was senton the orderof NasserSchmidt'sTomb V) and briefly explored the inteed-Din Shah(r. 1848-96) to takephotographsof the rior tomb chamber that Chardin had mentioned. ruins. Richardfailedto receive the necessaryfunds Gordon meanwhilehired some villagersto dig for to coverhis travelexpensesdue to the government's him "near the front of the staircase" [of the financialproblems,and he returnedto TehranmidApadana] that Morier had previously uncovered. way throughhisjob withouthavingfulfilledhis task. Gordonwrote enthusiasticallyto his brother,Lord Despitemanyyearsof servicein Iran,Richardseems Aberdeen,abouthis finds. Gordon'sunbridledpilnot to havegraspedthe significanceof Nasser-ed-Din feringled Ouseley and his companions to criticize Shah's command.Althoughthis was a difficultpehim: not for unethicalbehaviortowardthe ancient riod,whenAmirKabirwasreorganizing thecountry's Persianheritagebut forgluttingthe antiquitiesmar- financialsystem,the king'spassionforphotography ket back in England. Gordon promised not to do wouldultimatelyhavecarriedthedayandwouldhave this and ultimatelysought Lord Aberdeen's part- guaranteedthata pay orderwould eventuallycome nership in antiquities dealing (Curtis 1998: 48). through. If Richardhad fully understood the farGordon found sculptural fragments, including a reachingimpact a photographicrecord of the site section fromthe Apadanashowing a chariotdrawn mighthavehad on his career,it is difficultto imagine by two horses, which he gave to Ouseley, who then that he would not have done the work eitherat his sent them to England(Morier1818: 114-15).i2 own expense or with borrowedfunds pending the the removal of many elements from releaseof the shah'spromisedstipend (Adle 1983: Despite Persepolis,someimportantscientificdiscoveriescon255-56; 2000: 231).14 Instead,itwaseightyearslater tinuedto be made.In 1839, the FrenchmanCharles that Luigi Pesce, an Italian infantry officer from Texier observed that the stone sculptures at Naples, took the first photographs of the ruins at Persepolismaywell havebeen originallycolored.He Persepolisand Pasargadae.He did so at his own exproceededto conductchemicalexperimentsandwas pense. 5 Pescepresentedhis albumto Nasser-ed-Din ableto show thattherehad, in fact,been painton the Shah on 15 Ramezan1274 A.H./29 April 1858 (fig. 217 reliefs(Texier 1842-52: 189). His proposed recon- 3). In the dedicationnote to his albumhe wrote: I hadseveralpeoplewithmewithcandlesandlanterns,but we foundourselvesstoppedshortby a very narrowpassage,afterhavingwalkedsome fortypaces upright.We then crept throughthis on our hands and knees, and again came to a higherpart.Againwe proceeded,and thenwere obligedto crawlon ourbellies,undltherewasonly roomtoputone'sheadthrough,whenwe thought it timeto return.(Morier1818: 75-76)"

ALI MOUSAVI

Thefirst knownphotographof PersepolisbyLuigi Pesce, showing a doorjambrelief in the Hall of OneHundred Columns in thefall of 1857. Pescehimself is

J

standingat lefttakingthe

time exposure(signedL. Pesce at lower right). Albumenprint conservedin the Photothequeof the GolestanPalace, Tehran (photographno. 5 in the Shiraz and PersepolisAlbum, 7356/ 335). Photo after Adle in press.

2i8

This book contains images of Takht-eJamshid, the Tomb of the Mother of Solomon known as Mashhad-e Morqab, Naqsh-e Rostam, and some other monuments. Despite many difficulties, and at my own expense, your servant set out on horseback from Tehran to Shiraz in order to take these pictures, and as God willed it, I was able to accomplish the task. I hope it gives His Majesty fulfillment. In order to see the reliefs and monuments at Takht-eJamshid, the rulers of the Western countries give huge sums of money to painters to travel to Iran, to draw and carry images of Takht-e Jamshid back to them, because there is not any other monument so astonishing as Takht-eJamshid in the whole world; and there has yet been nobody from the West to capture the images of the ruins by the procedure of photography. Therefore, it is for the first time that your servant took photographs of the reliefs and ruined edifices of Takht-e Jamshid, and presented them to His Majesty. Hence, I hope to receive His Majesty's gratitude and be rewarded. On the 15th of Ramezan 1274 [A.H.] your servant, Pesce the Italian instructor in the royal in-

fantry, presented the photographic images of Takht-eJamshid.'6

The king, himselfa passionateamateurphotographer,was delighted,and thereis sufficientground for believing that Pesce was indeed subsequently rewarded(Adle 1983: 256; in press). 17 In the early 1860s, upon the order of this king who had such a keen interestin the photographicdocumentationof Persepolis, an IraniannamedAqa Rezalearnedthe art of photographyexpressly to record the ruins.'8 Notably, Nasser-eddinShahhad alreadyexpressed his interestin photographyin the serviceof archaeology by supporting the first Iranianexcavationat Khorheh, where the work was documented with photographs(cf. Adle 2000:231). The archaeological expedition at Khorheh is probably the earliest forwhich photographywas used to recordthe finds. It thus preceded the use of this technology in archaeologyby the Austriansat Samos, in Turkey, in 1860. The third majorexcavatorof Persepoliswas a Persianratherthana European.PrinceMo'tamedalDowleh FarhadMirza(1817-87) (fig. 4) was a son

PERSEPOLIS IN RETROSPECT

FIG.

4.

A lithographshowing Prince Farhad Mirza. After Sharaf (a newsjournal), no. 7, Rajab 1300/May 1883. ofAbbas Mirza, the celebrated crown prince of FathAli Shah. Farhad Mirza became well acquainted with the ruins of Persepolis when he served as governor of Fars. Legendary for his cruelty in punishing local robbers and bandits (Nawab-Safa 1366/1987: 48-75), the prince had an intellectual and antiquarian curiosity about the nearby ruins that was surely enhanced by his interactions with Flandin and Coste, whom he hosted in Shiraz in December 1840. Based upon that early encounter, Flandin (1851: 224) describes Farhad Mirza as extremely friendly (his reputation as an iron-handed governor notwithstanding) and specifically notes his eagerness to acquire knowledge."9 In 1876 Farhad Mirza subdued a rebellion in Fars. On that occasion, he sent his sons to carve an inscription in his name on the walls of Persepolis.20 A few years earlier, in 1872, one of his sons, Soltan Oveys Mirza, had produced a series of photographs of the site (Adle in press). These images represent the first systematic attempt to docu-

ment the state of the ruinsphotographicallyfor scientificpurposes. The taskwas an ambitiousone for the time. It revealsthe depth of interestfelt by the Qajarcourtin seriousexplorationof the countryand its ancientpast. The emergentuse of photography did not totallyeclipse drawingas a medium for recordingPersepolis.In the firstdecade of the twentieth century Forsat-al Dowleh, known as Forsat Shirazi(1854-1920), traveledextensivelyin Farsand documented various monuments of the province, includingPersepolis(Kasheff1999). His best-known work,Asar-eAjam,is a collectionof some fiftyof his own drawingsof these monuments,which was first published in Bombay in 1935 (Forsat-alDowleh Shirazi1362/1983). This publicationstands as the first methodically illustrated description of the Achaemenidcapital. In 1877 FarhadMirzasent MirzaBaqer,his accountant, to hire workers and dig at the ruins of Persepolis with the aim of finding "ancienttools" (asbab-eatiq). He himselfjoined the dig a few days later.The excavationlastedfrom14 Marchto 16 April ofthatyear.Althoughtheprincemayhavesenta record of his investigationsto the courtin Tehran,thereis no evidenceof this. An accountof his work was, howand has ever,incorporatedinto Vaqaye-e Ettefdqieyeh also been reproducedin Nawab-Saf'a'sbiographyof FarhadMirza(1366/1987: 131). Fromthis we learn thatthe workyielded "sculpturesin stone, the location of a lofty edifice, a bridle and an iron plate that bore no figureon it." The "loftyedifice"here is the building known today as the Hall of One Hundred Columns,or alternativelythe Throne Hall (Schmidt 1953: 129). It is a pity thatnothingis knownnow of the whereaboutsof the objectsrevealedby this dig. As with the motivationsdrivingearlyEuropeanexcavatorsat the site, FarhadMirzahad hoped to find bountifulartifacts.It is henceunderstandablethatthe brief but intensiveexcavation(on which some 600 workersmay have been employed)was disappointing for him and was thus soon abandoned.2' Somewhatcynically,GeorgesPerrotandCharles Chipiez (1892: 287) were laterto acknowledgethat the clearingoperationFarhadMirzahad undertaken with such a massivedeploymentof labor served an importantpurpose for latervisitors-both treasureseekersand more seriousinvestigators:"in any case

219

ALI MOUSAVI

220

we maycongratulateourselvesthatsuch a whimever cameinto his head. To it we owe the factthatrecent travellershave found the approachesand the interiorof the Hallof a HundredColumnscleareddown to the floor, where Texier and Coste had their progressimpededby earthtwoor threemetreshigh." In October 1877, less thana yearafterdisbanding his own operationsat Persepolis,FarhadMirza gave permission for excavation to the Germans FriedrichCarlAndreasand FriedrichStolze.But on behalfof the governmentthe princerefusedtheirrequest to takepossession of anyitems theymightdiscover.22The Germansdid not acceptthis condition andabandonedthe idea of diggingat the ruins.Nevertheless, they did take photographs, which they publishedin two largevolumes(StolzeandAndreas 1882). As Sancisi-Weerdenburgpoints out, however, the resultsof this projectdo not live up to the effortand cost expended on it. The qualityof the Stolze and Andreasimagesis no matchfor the quality of thoseproducedeitherbeforeorverysoon thereafter.Betterphotographswere, for instance, taken by MarcelDieulafoyin 1881-82 (Dieulafoy1885). And the work of Antoin Sevruguinis similarlyfar moreaccomplished.23 In 1892, a publication by the English Lord Curzonattempteda thoroughstudy of the ruins of Persepolis and a comprehensive synthesis of all knowledgeof the site acquiredto date(1892: 2:14896). Curzon'sPersiaand thePersianQuestionoffers aninterestingandusefulpresentationof a longphase of earlymoderngraphicand archaeologicalexploration. In a sense it marksthe end of the prescientific eraof archaeologyat Persepolis. In the late nineteenth century a new spirit emerged-one that increasinglyrecognized other ambitionsbeyond mere treasure-huntingfor museums and collectors.An EnglishmannamedHerbert Weld-Blundelled an expedition to Persepolisthat lefthome in November1891 "forthepurposeof taking mouldsof the moreprominentsculptures,with a view to their preservationand reproduction."He arrivedin ShirazinJanuary1893. His reportto the Ninth Congressof Orientalistsin Londonwas laced with disdainfulcriticismof the Persiangovernment for its position in relation to Persepolis. He complainedof the difficultiesexperiencedin obtaininga

workpermit,describinghow he had shrewdlymanagedto obtainlocalpermissionfromthe currentgovernorof Fars:"Byactingon the principleof not asking too close a definitionof my powers, I was able, withoutdistinctinfringementof thelawsof theMedes and Persians,to take a surreptitiouspeep into the hithertosealed book" (Weld-Blundel1893: 538).24 Turningto moresubstantivematters,Weld-Blundel establishedthe goals of his enterprisein specificopposition to the methods Prince FarhadMirzahad employed earlierin the centurywhile governorof Fars:"not for the purpose of research,but with the idea of somethingvaluableturningup." Contraryto most of his predecessors(the Europeans at least as much as the Persians),who were generallyin questof antiquities,Weld-Blundel'saim at Persepoliswas to obtain "datafor drawingconclusions and assistingany futureeffortsin the same direction,supposing at any futuretime powers for excavatingon a large scale might be possible." He mainlydug at fourareasof the Takht:PalaceH (the so-called Palace of Artaxerxes III), the Palace of Xerxes,the moundsbehindthe Palaceof Dariusand the Palaceof Xerxes, and the courtyardto the north of the Palaceof Darius.Aside frommakingsqueezes of the reliefs,his principalobjectivewas to learnas much as possible about the architecturalorganization of the site and its defensive structures(WeldBlundel 1893: 538). In his opinion the exteriorfortificationsranfromthe UnfinishedTomb to a point facingthe northwesterncornerof the Takht, as was laterproved to be true(Mousavi1992: 217). WeldBlundelwas the firstexcavatorwho paid seriousattentionto the remainsin theplain. His plansand reconstructionsketches,thoughschematicandconjectural,representthe firstdocumentationof the architecturalensemblesof the southernplain.Excavations conducted eightyyears latershow that some of his reconstructionsin this areawere reliable(fig. 5). In additionto these efforts,Weld-Blundel'sobservations about traces of paint preserved on the Persepolissculptureswas significant.While uncoveringthe lowerpart of the reliefsdecoratingthe entranceof the Hall of One Hundred Columnsin order to makesqueezes of them, the Italiancraftsman workingat this taskfound thatthe surfacewas covered with a coatingof blue paint, which came away

PERSEPOLIS IN RETROSPECT

* o*9 flrt4.S : tcA O'S :*"

:

:

in&s

::

.

:

5.

;FIG.

::

.

Two sketch maps of Persepolis drawn Weld-Blundel zn 1892. After Weld-Blundel

by

1893.

-PLAN w,

1;0 *

PL*N

OF

.

.

L

W . ''

.

..

?

.

;:

.....

2

.;

tON..

. ..E TO. . 77-77..

.'

.

.....

s.

.

. . .

'~~~S

.

.d ..i

.... 0 8

........

;.

.

.

''.

*

readily to the touch as fine blue powder. WeldBlundel had this powder examined in London by FlindersPetrie.It was found to be silicateof copper, or "Egyptianblue."UnderWeld-Blundel'sdirection severaltracesof paintwere also found in the Palace of Dariusand the so-calledPalaceof ArtaxerxesIII. His persistencein gainingchemicalevaluationof the

retrievedblue substancewas a notableindicationof the scientificinclinationsthatset him apartfromearlier investigatorsand forecastan agenda for future research.25

With the squeezes made during this campaign at Persepolis,Weld-Blundelwas able to makeplaster molds fromwhich casts could be produced. In

221

ALI MOUSAVI

FIG. 6. Viewof Persepolistaken by Friedrich Krefterin 1928 while accompanyingErnst Herzfeldon a reconnaissancevisit before commencementof their excavations. Photo courtesy of Dr. H. Krefter.

. ......... .,

._..... .. ....

1931 these were exhibited for the first time in the British Museum on the occasion of the Exhibition of Persian Art held in the Royal Academy in London (Simpson 2002: 253).

THE BEGINNING OF CONTROLLED EXCAVATIONS

222

Two important interrelated events facilitated the beginning of scientifically controlled archaeological excavations at Persepolis. First, the emergence of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1925 promoted nationalistic feelings, which created broad-based interest in the site as a national monument. Second, and as a direct result of Pahlavi agendas, the abolition in 1927 of the French Monopoly on all rights to conduct archeological explorations in Iran increased internationalattention focused on Iran, opening the door to various possibilities and voices both domestic and foreign.The distressed condition of the ruins had already become a significant concern among the Iranianintelligentsia. Their condition also became a point of discussion with other internal groups. Competing European and American interests soon became a major factor in the history of archaeology at Persepolis as well. In the fall of 1922, Reza Khan (minister of war under the Qajar king Ahmad Shah) had visited

Persepolison his way to the port of Bushehr.He registered his distress over the poor condition of the ruins.And the impactof thatvisit remainedwithhim after he became Reza Shah, the first king of the Pahlavidynasty.26 In 1923/24, ErnstHerzfeld(18801948), the eminentGermanarchaeologistwho was then living in Iran, made a trip to the site. At that timeHerzfeldproduceda carefulplanandapparently tookhundredsof photographs.Then in March1924, at the requestof FirouzMirza,the Qajarprincewho was currentlygovernorof Fars,Herzfeldreturnedin order to complete a report on the ruins (Herzfeld 1929a). AlthoughHerzfeldhimselfdoes not explain how he personallycame to be solicited to work at Persepolis,it mustbe saidthathe was uniquelyqualified amongarchaeologistsin Iranin the early 1920s to takeon such a task.While engagedin this reconnaissanceat Persepolis,Herzfeldreceiveda number of visits fromFirouzMirza.Duringone of those visits, Herzfeldspoke to the prince about the possibility of conducting excavations.27Apparentlyinterested, the prince revealedthat negotiationswere in progressin Paris to abolish the French Monopoly. Then camethe questionof funding:"He askedhow muchit would cost. I said:15 to 20,000 pounds, and I told him that I might get the Parsisof India interested in that."28 Later,with the backingof Firouz Mirza, Herzfeld presented a proposal concerning

PERSEPOLISIN RETROSPECT

possibleexcavationsatPersepolis,withoutanyclaim of possession on any finds that might ensue. But in orderto satisfyanypotentialdonatingorganization, Herzfeldproposedthatpermissionshouldbe granted also to excavate at Istakhr, the finds from which would be dividedbetweenthe donorandthe Iranian government.This particularproposition,so dependent upon the good auspicesof the governor,never came to pass. FirouzMirzawas arrestedfollowinga ";plotof high officialsagainsthim duringthe insurrections in Fars and Isfahan" (Herzfeld Papers, Herzfeldto Schmidt-Ott,1 Nov. 1929: 1). This takes us to the brinkof the foundationof the Pahlavidynasty. Once this new order was established, the FrenchMonopolywas soon abolished. In 1927, Herzfeldwas invitedto give a seriesof lectures to the members of the newly founded Anjoman-eAsar-eMelli (Society for NationalHeritage)in Tehran.PrecedingHerzfeld'spresentationon 18 May,Mohammad-Ali Foroughi,thenthe minister of foreignaffairsand one of the foundingmembersof the Society,gavea shortlecture,at the end of which he talkedaboutPersepolisand Herzfeldas follows: I do not need to speak in detail of Takht-e Jamshidandits pitifulcondition,you gentlemen haveallheardaboutor seen it.... Forits protection fromrobbery,it is necessaryto put a metallic or wooden enclosurewith a gate, and to employ guards to control the entranceof the site, and to build a residence for them nearby, etc. ... But all these requirehuge expenses, and I do not know when the time would come. It is warmhere, and I must not hold you gentlemen anymorewith my words. I had better end my talk and give the turn to Professor Herzfeld. (Foroughi 1351/1973: 66-67, my translation fromthe Persian) Herzfeldtook advantageof the privilegedpositionhe occupiedin Iran(asshownby the trustplaced in him by the Society). He skillfullyused his status to emphasizethe importanceof preservinghistorical monumentsand encouragingthe role theyplayedin shaping the identity of a nation. His opposition to the FrenchMonopolywas an importantfactorin its abolition.The whole quarrelbetweenHerzfeldand

the French Monopoly was, it seems, centered on Persepolis and the possibility of its excavations. Herzfeldhadyearnedto excavatetheresincetheearly 1920s. It was with the prospect of digging at Persepolisin mind that Herzfeldeventuallyparticipated so energeticallyin the draftingof an antiquities law for the Iraniangovernment(Mousavi1382/ 2003). Persepolisoffereda verypromisingfocus for fundraising.In this regardas well as in intrinsichistoricalsignificanceit wasanoutstandingrivalto Susa, which had been excavatedby the French since the late nineteenthcentury. In the springof 1928, on the heels of the abolition of the FrenchMonopoly,Herzfeldorganizedan expedition under the auspices of the Deutschen Wissenschaftfor excavatingat Pasargadaewith the assistanceof FriedrichKrefter,a young Germanarchitect.29In the sameyear, they spent time together atPersepolis,withKreftermakingphotographsof the site (fig. 6)-foreshadowing a successfulcollaboration therea few yearslater. Meanwhile,Herzfeld'sexpeditionto Pasargadae was the firstfieldworkundertakenin Iran afterthe abolitionof the Monopoly. In fact it was to be the only excavationin Irancarriedout in the absenceof a law for the protectionof antiquities(Mousavi1382/ 2003: 36). This shows the esteemin which Herzfeld was held at the timeamongthe Iranianleadershipalthoughhis relationswith manyWesternersworking in Iranwere very strained.But Pasargadaewas one thing;Persepoliswas another.In the absenceof any concretelegislationto protectIranianinterests, there was now no way excavations at Persepolis would be allowed to proceed. Herzfeld'sfirst task was, thus, to convince the Pahlavigovernmentto approve a law regulatingexcavationprocedure in generaland then to apply such a law to the site of Persepolis.It was Herzfeldwho draftedthe firstexcavationlaw, called Loi sur les Fouilles, presented to the courtministeron 10 October 1929.30 The developmentof archaeologyin Irantook a decisiveturnwhen the Act forthe Antiquitiesof Iran (theAntiquitiesLaw),preparedultimatelyunderthe supervisionof the French architectAndre Godard as well as Herzfeld,was finallyapprovedon 3 November 1930. Just after the passage of the Law, 223 Herzfeld (in Tehran, where he was serving as the

ALI MOUSAVI

archaeologicaladvisorto the government)senta telegramto James Henry Breasted,directorof the Oriental Instituteof the Universityof Chicago, urging American action. Breasted replied to Herzfeld at once. Subsequently,Herzfeldasked permissionto concessionwas dig atPersepolis.This extraordinary awardedto him by the unanimousvote of the Persianparliamenton 16 December1930. Itwas thefirst excavationpermitunderthe AntiquitiesLaw. The cost of excavatingat Persepoliswas sure to be very high, and no Europeancountryseemed to be able to raise the necessaryfunds for such a task. Herzfeld nevertheless repeatedly tried to interest Germaninstitutions,especiallytheNotgemeinschaft der DeutschenWissenschaft,in the prospect.As he wrote to Schmitt-Ott: In the past few weeks especially,I havepushed the caseof Persepolismoreenergeticallybecause Mr. Pope has begun to meddle in it. I have not yet figuredhim out. One thing is for sure:he is not a personof realinfluence,yethe is tryingwith greateffortto establishhimselfas a kindof scholarlybrokerbetween all Americanmissions and Persia. (HerzfeldPapers, Herzfeldto SchmittOtt, 1 Nov. 1929: 5, my translation)

224

Apparently,ArthurUphamPope (an art historian/dealerof Iranianantiquitieswho harbored a strong enmity towardHerzfeld)was spreadingthe word about the imminentexcavationsat Persepolis withtheintentionof gettingothercountriesinterested in the project and consequently undercutting Herzfeld's control.3' The beginning of American participationin Iranianarchaeologythus suffered froma rivalrybetweenthe UniversityMuseumof the Universityof Pennsylvaniaand Chicago'sOriental Institute.At this point, Herzfeldthoughtit was time to get in touchwith theAmericans.PerhapsHerzfeld had a premonitionthatthe UnitedStateswasheaded foran economiccrisis.At allevents,adroitas he was, he began by asking the UniversityMuseumif they could provide him with an address for James H. Breasted.He was therebymakingan initialapproach to the UniversityMuseumwhile simultaneouslysignalingto themthathe waspreparedto look elsewhere for support for the project. Breastedand Herzfeld

had known each other from the time of Breasted's studiesin Berlinin the early1920s. In 1928 theymet againin Bonn and in Oxford.Duringthese encounters Herzfeldbroachedthe subjectof his desire to excavateat Persepolis. As a result of Herzfeld's fundraisingstrategy, HoraceJayne, directorof the UniversityMuseum, cabled Herzfeldofferinghim the opportunityto direct an expedition to Persepolis supported by his institutionfor a minimumof four yearswith an annualbudgetof $20,000. At the sametime,Jayne(perhaps not realizingthe intensityof rivalriesbetween variousforeignscholarsoperatingin Iranatthe time) asked Pope to "takeany furthersteps to clinch arrangements."In response to Jayne'srequest, Pope sent a telegramto Herzfeldencouraginghim to discusswithhim"infulldetail"theUniversityMuseum's proposal. It soon became apparent,however, that Pope was trying to challengeHerzfeld ratherthan assist him in his negotiations with Pennsylvania. JayneimmediatelyaskedPope to suspendhis interference. Herzfeld'soriginalintention of contacting Breastedcontinuedto worrytheUniversityMuseum. And in the end, afterallthisnegotiationandintrigue, the OrientalInstituteof the Universityof Chicago won the day. In 1931, Herzfeldwas finallyableto beginexcavatingat Persepolis,sponsoredby the OrientalInstituteof the Universityof Chicago,with the financialsupportof Ada SmallMoore(1859-1955). Mrs. Moore was a wealthybenefactressinterestedin archaeologicalactivitiesin Iran(fig. 7), whom Robert Byron,an Englishwriter/traveler with a causticwit, describedas "a matriarchin shawl, more than seventy years old and worth as many millions"(1934: 15). Itwas thusthata large-scaleprojectof controlled excavationat Persepoliswas launched.32 Recentresearchon unpublisheddocumentsand antiquitiespapersboth in the UnitedStatesand Iran indicatethat the Persiangovernmenthad not actuallygrantedpermissionto Herzfeldand the Oriental Institutefor an excavationper se (Mousavi 1382/ 2003; forthcoming).Whatwas grantedwas a "clearance permission" for promoting restoration and preservationof the ruins.It seems thatoriginallyexcavationof the site was not seen as an end in itself. Herzfeld'sfirst published report (Herzfeld 1929a)

PERSEPOLIS IN RETROSPECT

was reluctantto authorizea foreign institution actuallyto dig at such an importantand symbolic site. It is not clearhow the initialworkof preservation and restorationwas subsequentlytransformedinto a real archaeologicalexcavation(for more details,see Mousavi 1382/2003; forthcoming).In his first and only comprehensivereport,Herzfeld(1929a:37-38) estimatedthe amountandlengthof theworkat Persepolis andin so doinggavesomesenseof whathe envisionedas the characterof the enterprise:

- 3n -

FiGS7 Mrs

of the

AdaiSmall

Apadana

~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n ls ~~~~~~

* Moore

at

standing

Persepolis.

*~~~~~~ *4.

FIG.

A;i ~~~~~~~~~

the

stairc

From before MohammadTaq

i

l

pour Le travail"aexecuterest approximativement la terrasseentiere,le mouvementde 210 000 m cubiquesde terre.Ce travailpeut etre execute a l'aided'unpetitcheminde ferDecoville[sic]sans que les haldesde decombresdeformentl'aspect et gatent l'impression incomparable de la terrasse.Avec un Decoville de 12 charset avec 240 ouvrierson est "ameme d'accomplirce travail en 300 journees de travail"a10 heures. Les fraisn'en surpasseraientpas 30 000 tomans.Les travauxnecessaires pour mouvoir les grandes pierres demandaient approximativement la moitie de cette somme et de ce temps, et les travauxpour construirele systeme de drainage et pour couvrirles pierresd'une couche protectrice de ciment, requerions encore une fois la meme somme et le meme temps. Ainsi au cours de deux anneesj'estimequ'onpourraitaccomplir tous les travauxnecessaires.

7.

Mrs. Ada Small Moorestanding beforethe staircase of the Apadana at Persepolis. From Mohammad Taqi Mostafavi's album of Persepolis dated November 1933. Photo courtesyof the Iran Bastan Museum.

is, in fact, a proposal for the preservation of the monumentsat Persepolis. In an officialletter to the Iranian ambassador in Paris, Teymourtash (the court minister) clearly indicated that "no excavation permit was given to foreign institutions"and that the Oriental Institute, through Herzfeld, "offered a proposal merelyfor the preservationof historical monuments at Persepolis, which was then approved by the governmentthat released an authorization;the permit had nothing to do with an excavationprocess."33Moreover, the government

He subsequentlyrevisedhis cost estimateupwardto a total of 100,000 tomans (approximately?6,500) and statedin a letterto the courtministerin Tehran thathe was convincedhe would be able to raisethe necessary funds if the Persian governmentwould supportthe project(Bayeganiy-e Raked: letterdated 23 January 1931). The security of the site was an obstacleto the beginningof excavations.(The region was often the scene of conflictsbetweenthe tribesof Farsand governmentalforces;these rebellionswere eventuallysubduedin the earlyyearsof RezaShah's reign.) In the winterof 1929, a police headquarters was establishedat Persepolis.This eventuallyprovided the security necessary for the start of work (Biiyeganiy-eRiiked:letterof 13 Dey 1307/3 January 225 1929).

ALI MOUSAVI

. .. ......

.~

. .........

. ..

~

~

~

...

.

VIC.

..,* ..

,

- -,-..4`

~

.. ............

- -

4

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g

.~

_

FIG.

8..'.

-j.7 .D.. C.

(ErnstHerzfeldArchive).

...... ........... I..:.":.,

4

-.44

.4

4 si~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FIG. 8.

The so-called Harem of Xerxes beforereconstruction,in theforegound, and the tents of the Oriental Institute team set up in the main hail of the Palace of Xerxes (the Hadish) in the background.Photo courtesyof the Archivesof the Freer Gallery of Art and the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C (Ernst Herzfeld Archive).

The Persepolisexpedition seems to have been intendedby Herzfeldto pursuea tripleaim: (1) examinationby excavationof the principalpalatial complexesof the terrace; (2) reconstructionof one of the palacesfor housing the expedition; (3) preservationof buildings and sculpturesof the terrace,to "beeffectedby reopeningthe ancientsubterraneandrainagesystem, and protection against damage by rain, frost, and man" (Herzfeld 1933: 406-7). 226

The government'svision of preservationas the main goal of the entireprojectgraduallygave way to dif-

ferentagendas."Preservation"came to be synonymous with physicallyprotectingthe Takht by employingguardsto controlaccessto the site. Butmost of the excavatedremainsin mudbrickreceivedvery little conservationtreatment.The vast area of the Takht, so long exposed to naturaland human destruction,has remaineda majorissue in archaeological preservation-one certainlynot dealtwith in any systematicway duringthe Chicagoexpedition. Herzfeld's staff was composed of Germans: FriedrichKrefter(the architectwho had accompanied him to PasargadaeandPersepolisin 1928), Karl Bergneras a second architectand draftsman,AlexanderLangsdorffand Donald MacCownas field assistants,andW. von Busseasphotographer.Initially,

PERSEPOLIS IN RETROSPECT

FIG. 9.

-

ris

--

A

X

The so-called Harem of Xerxes photographed by Friedrich Krefter in 1931 during the construction o a froof over the northern portico. Photo courtesy of Dr. H. Krefter.

Herzfeld had intended to reconstruct the Palace of Darius to serve as the expedition house (Bayeganiye Raked:letter to the court minister dated 23 January 1931). On the advice of Krefter, this idea was soon abandoned. As Krefter rightly wrote, the building known as the Harem was larger, and its northern portico was in a good state of preservation (figs. 8-9). The northern hall could easily be configured as a museum, while the smaller rooms located in the southern part of the building offered the necessary space to house the expedition staff and equipment. Besides, by virtue of its peripheral location, the Harem could be easily reached from the southeastern corner of the terrace; such an access would have been impossible for the Palace of Darius. A major challenge in modifying any structure on the Takht to serve modern needs was the importance of not disrupting the aesthetics of the site as a whole. The Harem was well suited to meeting this need, since its location on a low level compared to the other buildings on the Takht would make it less obtrusive in altered form (Krefter 1979: 20-22). The first season of work was thus spent in excavating the main part of the Harem and in its partialreconstruction. This task, undertaken by Krefter, was completed by the end of 1932. Byron, who visited Persepolis a year later, described it as "a palace, reconstructed of wood on the

site, and in the style of its Achaemenian predecessor, whose stone door and window frames are incorporated in it, . . . the outcome is a luxurious cross between the King David Hotel inJerusalem and the Pergamum Museum in Berlin" (Byron 1937: 184). In 1932, Herzfeld excavated the major portion of the Gate of All Lands and the system of subterranean canals. In addition, the outline of Palace G was defined, and part of the western wing of the Harem and the southern stairway of the Central Building were uncovered.34 The most remarkable task of the 1932 season was the excavation of the large avenue to the north of the Central Building, between the Hall of One Hundred Columns and the Apadana. This work resulted in the important discovery of the sculptured stairways of both the northern facade of the Central Building and the eastern facade of the Apadana.35In the same season, Herzfeld's team discovered the post-Achaemenid building of Fratadara, 200 m to the west-northwest of the terrace, revealing reused structual material from the Takht as well as doorjamb sculptures carved in emulation of the earlier Achaemenid forms visible at Persepolis. A stone platform called Takht-e Rustam, situated halfway between Persepolis and Naqsh-e Rustam, was also investigated. Finally, the vast site of Istakhr was tested.36

227

ALI MOUSAVI

~~_4

FIG. 101

View of one of the palatial ensemblesuncoveredby Herzfeld in the southern plain, from Mohammad-Taqi Mostafavi's album of Persepolis dated November 1933. Photo courtesyof the Iran Bastan Museum.

228

In 1933, the courtyard between the Hall of One Hundred Columns and the Apadana was cleared. Small trenches resulted in the discovery of the heads of the bulls flanking the entrance of the Hall of One Hundred Columns; at the east of this building, the excavators found a stairway leading to the subterranean canal system. While leveling debris for construction of a roadway for the removal of excavation debris, Herzfeld discovered an archive of some 30,000 inscribed and sealed clay tablets and sealed clay labels in rooms of the northeastern fortifications (the Persepolis Fortification tablets). The discovery has emerged as one of extraordinary significance. The documents record food disbursements relating to work and travel in Persepolis; they contain vast information on the site and on the nature of the economy and life in the empire. Bearing dates between 509 and 494 B.C.E., the texts inform issues of chronology at the site as well as these myriad other social matters. The seals applied to the documents are equally significant.37 Although Herzfeld was primarily interested in

the structures on the Takht, he did conduct soundings in the southern plain and discovered a palatial ensemble there (fig. 10). Like his discovery of the Fortification tablets, his work in the plain laid the basis for important efforts later in the history of excavation and interpretation of the ancient city. The soundings at Istakhrwere abandoned in the winter of 1932/33. Attention was directed instead to Naqsh-e Rustam, where Herzfeld traced the outer enclosure of the site and copied the inscription on the Tomb of Darius I. Meanwhile, on the Takht itself in that same year, Krefter's architectural training and sharp sense of terrain led him to one of the most dramatic archaeological discoveries ever made in Iran. M.-T. Mostafavi, who was present on the site, wrote the firsthand description of the discovery of the foundation tablets of the Apadana (figs. 11-12): In September of that year, when Professor Herzfeld was on vacation in Germany, and the excavations at Persepolis had been frozen because of financial difficulties, there were a few

PERSEPOLIS IN RETROSPECT

FIG. 11.

Viewof the excavation at the northeasterncornerof the main hall of theApadana, wherethefirst pair of the Apadana Foundation Tabletswas found in September1933. MohammadTaqi Mostafavi is sitting outside at the left cornerof the trench, lookingdirectly at the camera; the twoArab excavation foremen Herzfeldhad broughtfrom Samarra are standing infront of him inside the trench, while Friedrich Krefteris visible inside the trenchat the far right (wearing the German hat). Photo courtesyof the Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago.

36~

-

,b

444~~~

FIG. 12

is

>~~~~~--k

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Viewof the excavation at the

*AW

southeasterncornerof the main hall of theApadana, wherethe secondpair of theApadana Foundation Tabletswas found in September1933. Friedrich Krefteris shown at left holding thegold tablet, with the stone box that contained theprecious tablets visible at hisfeet. One of Herzfelds Arabforemen is kneelingat the right cornerof the trench.Photo courtesyof the Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago. 229

ALI MOUSAVI

230

placed on the gold tabletface to face so thatthe ArabforemenfromSamarraemployedfull time inscriptionsdid not touch the rough surfaceof by the expedition, which had to pay them thebox. (Mostafavi1355/1976:70-76, my transwhetheror not therewas work to do. Professor lationfromthe Persian) Krefter,the engineerand architectof the expeditionatPersepolis,who was generallyin charge Two dayslater,Krefterprobedthe southeastern of executive tasks, took advantageof such an opportunityto find out what had been intrigu- corner of the main hall of the Apadanaand found ing him for a long time. ProfessorKrefterhad anothersimilarbox containinga gold anda silvertablet bearing inscriptions of Darius I (DPh-Lecoq alreadynoticedthatin the northwesternangleof the centralhallof theApadana,therewas a small 1997: 230, 218, 125). Accordingto the Antiquities Law of Iran,a pair of these tabletswould havebeen squarehole of abouthalfa meterwith a depth of 15 cm.... Contemplatingvarioushypotheses, givento the OrientalInstitute,butas thenewsof such he thought that it might have contained some an outstandingdiscoverysoon reachedTehran,Reza inscribeddocuments.On 18 September1933, Shah,sayingthat"he did not wantto see againwhat in orderto test thathypothesis,he madecareful hadhappenedto theobjectsfromSusa,"orderedthat observationsof the opposite spot at the north- both pairs be kept and brought to the capital easternangle of the main hall of the Apadana, (Mostafavi 1355/1976: 80). Robert Byron met whereanelevationof aboutone meterabovefloor Krefterin Tehrana few weeks afterthe discovery: level could be seen.... On the sameday and on the order of ProfessorKrefter,the above-menAt the Englishclubwe foundKrefter,Herzfeld's tioned foremenbegan to dig a 1.5 m trench at assistantatPersepolis,deepin conversationwith thatspot. Sincetheywereveryskillful,theysoon Wadsworth,theAmericanFirstSecretary.Their realizedthatwhattheywere diggingwas a mudsecret,which both were too excited to contain, brickwall, which should not be destroyed. So was that in Herzfeld'sabsence abroad,Krefter they stopped the workandwent backto Profeshad dug up a numberof gold and silverplaques sor Krefter,informinghim that the spot he had which record the foundationof Persepolis by ordereddug was a wall,the mudbricksof which Darius.He calculatedtheirpositionsby abstract would be destroyedin the courseof excavation. mathematics;and theretheylay, in stone boxes, ProfessorKreftertold them:"I amgladit is mud when the holes were dug. Ratherunwillinglyhe brick!This showsthatthelowerpartof the origishowedus photographsof them;archaeological nal wall of the main hall is still in place there. jealousy and suspicion glanced from his eyes. Continue to dig, and if during the excavation, Herzfeld,it seems,has turnedPersepolisintohis you come acrosssomething,leaveit in place and privatedomain, and forbids anyone to photocall me." The foremendid as ProfessorKrefter graphthere.(Byron 1937: 44) told them,and two hourslater,at a depth of 70/ 80 cm, they found a stone slab approximately Afterthe discoveryof the Apadanafoundation x x 55 55 40 cm, which had been placedwithin tabletsat Persepolis, RolandDe Mecquenem,then the mud bricks. They called ProfessorKrefter, directorof the FrenchMissionat Susa,remembered who, afterhavingexaminedand photographed that fragmentsof probably similarboxes in stone the slab, had it removed.Under the slab, there had hithertobeen discoveredat Susa, but the excawas a beautifulsquarestone box of 45 x 45 x 15 vators had not been able to discern what type of cm, which had been partly broken under the objectthe fragmentsmightrepresent.It thus seems pressureof the slab.So theywereableto remove likely that similar foundation tablets of precious easilythe fragmentarystone lid of the box (35.5 metal may also have been deposited at Susa x 35.5 x 4 cm). At thatmoment,in a space (33 x (Mostafavi1355/1976: 89). 33 x 1.5 cm) inside the box, there were a gold In Octoberof thatyear,RezaShahofficiallyvisand a silvertablet.... The silvertablethad been ited Persepolis(fig. 13). Herzfeldand Godardwere

PERSEPOLIS IN RETROSPECT

FIG. 13.

Hezfeldwith membersof his .

.~~.. *~~. ~team

..~~,

r

*

and guests at the time of

... .

.. ....

visit of Reza Shah, shown ~~~~~~~~~~~the northern portico of the t~~~~he so-called Harem on 18 October1933. Left to right:

v

*...

V.

..... .... ...... ....

presentto welcome the king, and Herzfeldguided a comprehensivetour of the monumentsand his recent discoveries.At the same time, Breasted,on behalfof the OrientalInstitute,senta telegramwelcoming Reza Shah to Persepolis. The king stayed for lunch and was so pleased with his visit that at the end he said to Herzfeld:"You are doing a work of civilization here, and I thank you."38

Herzfeld'sfourthcampaignof 1934 was his last. The expeditioncontinuedto excavatedifferentparts oftheTakhtandreplacedfallenarchitectural fragments in theiroriginalpositions.Restorationworkwas also carriedout at differentspots on the terrace,and the new-found reliefs of the eastern staircase of the Apadanawere very wisely protectedby means of a screenmadeof reed.Workon the subterranean canal continued,but it did not providesatisfactoryresults. OtherAchaemenidremainswerefoundin the northernsectorof the terracearounda reusedPersepolitan stone doorway. Herzfeld also excavated a large Achaemenidbuildingin the plainbelow the terrace. In the winterof thatyear, the seeminglyubiquitous Byronvisited Persepolis.His impressionof the ruinsandhis tensemeetingwithHerzfeldwereamusingly noted in his Road to Oxiana (Byron 1937).

Langsdorff and his ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Alexander wife, Joseph Upton, Lotte Bradford (Herzfeld'ssister) and her son Charles,Ernst Herzfeld, Friedrich Krefter, Kiihler (technician of ~~~~~~Hans the expedition), MohammadTaqi Mostafavi, and Andre~ Godard. Photo courtesy of the Iran Bastan Museum.

Byron did not like Achaemenid art, and he was affronted by Herzfeld's prohibition against photography on the Takht. Byron's comments are important because they reveal how much Herzfeld, supported by a "code of academic malice controlled from Chicago," wanted to keep the discoveries secret (Byron 1937: 184-88). It is true that Herzfeld had the right to authorize or refuse photography of the finds, but he apparently thought the information obtained from his excavations was his own scientific property. He never published the results of his work at Persepolis. In November 1934, the crown prince of Sweden, Gustav VI Adolf, visited the ruins in the company of his wife, Princess Louise, and his son, Prince Bertil. The visit was a memorable one for both Herzfeld and the crown prince (fig. 14). On this occasion, Herzfeld offered two sculptured fragments to the crown prince in the presence of Iranian officials.39Later, in the face of mounting problems with the Oriental Institute in Chicago, Herzfeld had to resign his directorship of the expedition.40Leadership of the Oriental Institute expedition was temporarily given to Krefter, who remained in chargeuntil Erich Schmidt's arrivalin 1935. Schmidt's work in Iran has been summarized in an article byjack Balcer that is based on the records

231

ALI MOUSAVI

232

draftsman,andDonaldMcCownstayedto workwith Schmidt. One of the best-qualifiedmembersof the mission was undoubtedly the photographerBoris Dubensky, an Iranianof Russian origin who had workedwith SchmidtatReyandreplacedVon Busse at Persepolis.Dubenskyhad a very intimateknowledge of structuresat the site. The architecturalelementsatPersepolisreceivethe lightatdifferenttimes of the day.Dubenskyknewexactlywhatwas the best momentto photographspecificplaces(AliSami,pers. com.). It was Dubenskywho preparedmany of the finalphotographseventuallyiRlustrating the Persepolis 44 volumes(Schmidt1953; 1957; 1970). Hiswithdrawal fromthe expeditionwas a loss for Schmidt,who replacedhim with UrsulaSchneiderin 1938. Schmidt began to work at Persepolis by excavatingthe southeastsector of the terrace,where his team found the impressivearchitecturalremainsof the garrison(Schmidt 1939: 7-15; 1953). The discovery there of seven inscribed slabs of an inscription ofXerxes (XPh)hasprovideda seriesof controversialinterpretationson the religiouspolicy of this FIG. 14. Achaemenidruler.42 The remainsof the fortifications The crown Prince of Sweden (at far left) and Herzfeld at the base of Kuh-eRahmatled to a thoroughstudy (Posedbeforea fallen bull protome capital) at of the defense system of the site. During the same Persepolis on 19 November 1934. Photo courtesy of season, the excavatorscleareda cistern,which had the Bernadotte Library, the Royal Collections, been cut into the rocky slope of the mountainto a Stockholm. depth of about 24 m, without reaching its floor (Schmidt 1939: 88-90). In the spring of 1936, the held in the OrientalInstitute.A few details on his excavationof the Treasury began (fig. 15), which work at Persepolis can be added. Schmidt (1897resultedon 30 Marchin the discoveryof the so-called 1964) came froma backgroundvery differentfrom audience reliefsattributedto Darius the Great(fig. that of Herzfeld,who becameacquaintedwith Iran 16). These two reliefswere found set into the rear at the very outsetof his professionalcareer.Schmidt wallsof the easternand southernporticosof an open courtyardmeasuring13 x 15.5 m, in the easternpart spent partof his youth fightingin Europeduringthe GreatWar, then in captivityin Siberiaas a prisoner of the Treasury.The height of the reliefsis 2.60 m, of war. After his escape from Siberia,he made his while their length variesfrom 6.275 m to 6.225 m. debut in archaeologyby studyingfirstin Berlinand The betterpreservedof the sculptures(the southern thenin New York(ColumbiaUniversity)with Franz one) was removed to the Iran Bastan Museum. Boas.He cameto Iranlate,in thieearly1930s.41 While Schmidt tried in vain to obtain the easternone for Herzfeldhad to fight almost single-handedlyto get his patroninstitutionin the UnitedStates(Bayeganiythe Persepolisexcavationsup and running,Schmidt e Raked, letterto Ali-AsqarHekmat,ministerof pubwas able to step into an organizedand fully opera- lic instruction,dated 5 April 1937). But it remains tionalendeavor.He was assistedby a largerteamof to this day in situ at Persepolis. During the 1960s, the meticulousobservationsandstudiesof Giuseppe specialists.Although Krefterleft Iran in 1935, two new architects,John S. Bolles and Eliot F. Noyes, andAnn BrittTilia showedthatthesereliefshadbeen replacedhim. KarlBergner,Herzfeld'sarchitectural removedfromthe mainstaircasesof the Apadana.43

PERSEPOLIS IN RETROSPECT

...... .~~~ .:..'

: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~" 5 . .... ..^

15. Workcrewsexcavating the Treasuryin 1937. Photo courtesyof the Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago.

FIG.

FIG.

.. .....-... .....

audience,seenas it

F

R.

~~M;I*** ,,..,.....

16.

T The damagedrelief preserving the king in

-

-

~~~~~the j

was discoveredset into rear wall of the tern portico of the e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~as

Treasurycourtyard, where it remains in situ (but now reassembled).Photo courtesyof the Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago.

233

ALI MOUSAVI

234

The date of the removal of the orthostats, as well as the political circumstances and implications of this major event in the history of the Takht, have been much discussed and remain controversial (e.g., Tilia 1972: 207-8, also recording views of R. N. Frye; Shahbazi 1976). What is clear is that the meanings and functions of the ceremonial installations on the Takht did evolve over time during the Achaemenid period. They were not static representations of the original vision of Darius I. Still in the Treasury complex Schmidt found the hundreds of clay tablets and sealed labels now known as Persepolis Treasury tablets (Schmidt 1957; Cameron 1948; Garrison and Root 2001: esp. 3334). While much smaller and more limited in scope than the Fortification archive discovered by Herzfeld, the Treasury corpus (dating between 492 and 459 B.C.E.) also offers major opportunities for ongoing research on the social and economic history of the Achaemenid court and empire. In the fall of 1936, Schmidt decided to dig trenches in the interior of the Hall of One Hundred Columns, where Farhad Mirza had left heaps of dirt from his excavation there in 1877. The season of 1937 involved a great deal of activity, mostly concentrated here and on the continuing excavation of the Treasury. It was in the beginning of this season that Reza Shah and his crown prince, Mohammad-Reza, visited Persepolis. On that occasion, the king authorized Schmidt to resume his aerialexplorations in Iran. But this significantventurewas allowed to continue for only three months before being stopped forever, despite Schmidt's repeated requests for their resumption. The work of the 1938 season consisted of completing the excavation of the Treasury. During the last excavation season, in 1939, focus turned to southern sections of the Takht. Part of the southern area of the Apadana was excavated. And in the southwest corner of the Takht the uncovering of the western wing of the Harem was completed. As an effort in historical preservation,the sections ofthe mudbrickwalls ofthe Treasury were lowered to a uniform "preservable height" (Schmidt 1957: 5). In retrospect the initiation of this practice (albeit motivated by an interest in preservation) seems unfortunate.The uniform wall-leveling of this building was continued by the Iranianteams after the departure of the Oriental Institute. As a result, it is

.. ..... .

-

,-

17. Erich Schmidtposedwith Persepolis I (1953), probablyin the early 1960s on the occasionof a press interview. Photo courtesyof Mrs. Lura Schmidt-Janda and the late WaltherHinz. FIG.

difficult today for visitors to the remains of the Treasury to gain a good sense of the dimensions and impressiveness of this vast, complex structure. Schmidt left Iran in December 1939. His directorship of the excavations at Persepolis coincided with a period of increasing tension among European powers in Iran. Contrary to Herzfeld, who took considerable advantage of the nationalistic significance of the site to build support for his work, Schmidt's increasing tendency to concentrate more on the scientific aspects of the excavations may have led to governmental dissatisfaction with his efforts given the political realities in Iran at that time. The excavations of the Oriental Institute made two remarkable contributions: they stimulated a broad spectrum of archaeological activities in the region, and they provided indispensable knowledge of the site through three luxurious volumes as well as, ultimately, additional documentary and interpretive studies based on the discoveries of those years. The first volume

PERSEPOLIS IN RETROSPECT

(Schmidt 1953) on the structures and sculptural decorations on the Takht was offered in 1959 to Queen Elizabeth of England on the occasion of her visit to the campus of the University of Chicago. It was cited as the publication par excellenceof the university (Haines 1965: 147) (fig. 17).

............

POSTWAR EXCAVATIONS

After the departure of the American expedition in 1939, the Iranian government took over excavating and restorating the site. With the outbreak of World War II, and in the absence of any foreign archaeological mission in Iran, the newly hired members of the General Office of Archaeology moved into higher ranks. Consequently, Hossein Ravanbod took charge of restoration work at Persepolis for four months. From January 1939 to June 1940, Dr. Isa Behnam replaced Ravanbod. Behnam, an archaeologist, studied later in France and became chair of the Department of Archaeology at the University of Tehran. From the end of 1940 to September 1941, Mahmoud Rad took over direction of the site. It was at this time that the mudbrick walls of the Treasury, which had remained partly intact to a height of 2 m since the time of their discovery, were lowered to a height of 30 cm; the mudbrick walls of the northern court of the Harem were also lowered. No excavation was carried out at the site. During this period, Andre Godard, as director of the General Office of Archaeology of Iran (GOA), had overarching authority over the work at Persepolis.44 The name General Office of Archaeology is deliberately used here (rendering the Persian title of the organization, Edarey-e Koll-e Bastanshenasi). The usual Anglicization (as Archaeological Service) is misleading in its specificity. The truth is that after its creation in 1910 as the Edarey-e Atiqat, or Antiquities Office (reorganized fundamentally in 1930), the Iranian General Office of Archaeology undertook multiple tasks of excavation, preservation, and restoration of archaeological sites all over the country for more than forty years before breaking up into several interacting offices within the Ministry of Culture and Arts.45 After the war, Godard opened a special account for Persepolis in the Central Bank of Iran. The post-

.

.

..

FIG. I8. Ali Hiikemi (left) and Ali Siamiin front of the reconstructedHarem of Xerxes,spring 1950. Photo courtesyofAli Hakemi.

war years were fraughtwith financial difficulty for the GOA, but Godard eventually managed to find an Iranian sponsor living in France. Mr. H. G. Tufenkdjian directed the Calous Gulbenkian Foundation in Paris. In October 1946, Tufenkdjian paid ?1,000 for the maintenance of the restoration work at Persepolis. Another ? 1,000 was paid inJanuary 1947 (Bayeganiye Raked, Godard's correspondence with Essayan: October 1946). From 1941 on, Ali Sami (1910-89) took charge of excavations and restoration at Persepolis. Sami was without doubt one of the major figures of Iranian archaeology (fig. 18). He began his career as a teacher in 1936 and then took part in the restoration and construction of some of the historical monuments in Shiraz. Meanwhile, he made the acquaintance of Erich Schmidt, who frequently came to Shiraz for administrative matters and to procure provisions while he was digging at Persepolis. After the departure of

235

ALI MOUSAVI

the OrientalInstitute expedition, Sami startedhis workat Persepolis,firstas an accountantforthe engineer H. Ravanbod.Graduallydevelopingan interest in excavation,he becamean energeticarchaeologist underGodard'ssupervision.Samiwaslaterappointed directorofthe ScientificBureauatPersepolis(Bongahe Elmiy-eTakht-eJamshid).Duringthe twentyyears of his tenureat Persepolis(1941-61) he excavated variouspartsof the siteandexploredothersitesof the region,notablyPasargadae. Thisperiodcoincideswith an increasingnumber of officialvisits. Obviously, Sami'ssuccessfuileffortsto prepareand highlightthe site were extremelyimportantin the eyes of the government.Afterhis retirementin 1962, Samidevoted himselfto teachingancientIraniancivilizationsat the PahlaviUniversityof Shirazuntil the late 1970s.46 His reports, published in two thick volumes of Goziireshh&y-eB&stinshen7si (Archaeological Reports) in 1951 and 1961, areorganizedin chronologicalorannualworkatPersepolis.He gives der,summarizing quite a concise descriptionof the objectsand their context.Nevertheless,his mainconcernwas thepublicationof those findsthatseemedsignificantto him. Thus, thewholeschemeof excavationanditsprogress is not presentedin his reports.47 His principalarchitect,who drewtopographicmapsandbuildingplans, was Ali Hakemi,who went on to a briUliant careerin Iranianarchaeology.48 The excavationof the northernpart of the terracewas themainobjectiveof GodardandSami,who were interestedin probingstructuresadjacentto the Hall of One Hundred Columns and its principal means of access. Godard, who was bothered by Schmidt'ssomewhatdismissivecharacterizationof these structuresas "courtyards,"wrote:

236

Besogneingrate, mais il nous semblaitque les grandsedifices etantconnus, l'importanceetait desormaisde savoir comment s'accrochait,au reste du plan, le vestibulemonumentalsitue en hautde l'escalierprincipalet ce qu'etaitaujuste cet autreedifice qu'on appelle 'la Porteinachevee'. Nous pensions aussi que cette cour ou ces cours d'honneur devaient etre bordees de batimentsd'apparatet d'habitation.Et puis, il fallaitbien que la surfaceentiere de la terrasse fut degagee.(Godard1946: 265)

Work at the site was uninterruptedin spite of the warand financialdifficulty.The plan of the subterraneandrainagesystem was finally completed. Godard (1946: 265) explainedthe aim of working on the canalsystem: Nous chercheronsaussiles reservoirsoiudevait aboutirl'extraordinaire de canalizations systZeme dont les ramifications, taillees dans le roc, s'etaientsous la terrassetoutentiere.Herzfeldet son adjoint,F. Krefter,les ont cherche dejtaet ont deblaye,sansles trouver,plusieurscentaines de metresde tunnels,qui mesuraient1 m 15 environsde largeuret une hauteurde 1 m 75 a 2 m 10. Ils attachaient une grande importance historique "ace vaste drainage, dans lequel Herzfeldvoyaitla preuveque le plangeneraldes batimentsde la terrasseavaientete etablides le debut des travaux,sous le regnede Dariusler. In additionto this historicalsignificance,a full understanding of the subterraneancanal system seemed likely to enablethe excavatorto reestablish theancientevacuationsystemof thesiteso as to avoid the deteriorationof the structuresby thewatersflowing down fromthe mountain.Samialso conducteda seriesof restorationsof the stairwaysof the Apadana and the CentralBuilding, as well as the mudbrick walls of the Treasury.Given the manyarchaeological, restoration, and conservation activities at Persepolisfrom 1939 to 1961, the followingsummaryhasbeen collectedfromSami'svariousreports: 1939-42: removalof the dumps thathad remained fromthe OrientalInstituteexcavationsand shortening the mudbrickwalls in frontof the Harem;excavationof the southernareaof the Apadana;discovery of an embossedgold sheetweighing289 g (February1940), which mayhavebeen used to coverthe wooden doors of the centralhall of the palace;work on the Gateof All Lands. 1942-43: excavation of the unexplored spots between the Apadanaand the Hall of One Hundred Columns;discovery of the discardedlion-creature protomecapitalin the easternporticoof theApadana (fig. 19) (Sami 1330/1952: 186);two silverphialae

PERSEPOLIS IN RETROSPECT

FIG. 19.

The lion-creatureprotome capitalfound in the northern courtyard outside the Apadana. Photo courtesy of A. Hakemi.

(weighing470 g and 394 g respectively)found"outside the northernwallofTakht-eJamshid"(bywhich he seems to meanin the debrisof the northernfortification);discoveryof mudbrickrooms to the east of the Hall of One Hundred Columns;uncoveringof the northernavenuelinkingthe Gateof All Landsto the UnfinishedGate north of the Hall of One Hundred Columns. 1943-44: excavationsof the northerncourt of the Hall of One Hundred Columns. 1944-47: uncoveringof a thirty-two-columnedhall north of the Hall of One HundredColumns;one of the most fascinatingfinds was the smalllapis lazuli head of a prince(?) wearing a crenellated crown; completion of the excavationsin the northernand easternareasof the Hall of One HundredColumns. 1947-49: uncoveringof adjacentrooms to the east of the Hall of One HundredColumns;discoveryof a lapislazulistandardwith the designof an eagle(12.5 x 12.5 x 32 cm). In Augustof thisyearJavadZakatali began to makehis model of the ruins at Persepolis, which he finishedin 1951. 1949-51: excavationatsouthernroomsof the Harem and northernareaof the thirty-two-columnedhall; investigationsat the Palaceof ArtaxerxesIII (Palace H) in southwesterncornerof the terrace.

1952:clearingof the areaknownas the MainMound, to thewest of the Harem.The excavationat the Main Mound yielded a silver coin of Ardashir I. Sami thoughtthatthe centralpartsof the terrace,including the MainMound,werebetterpreservedandmay havebeen reoccupiedaftertheburningandabandonmentof Persepolis.The Mound,in fact,coversa surface of 1,982 m2and is 1.5 m higherthanthe Palace of Xerxes. It was towardthe end of this season that Samiresumedthe excavationof a largepalatialstructure in the southernplain, which had been discovered earlierby Herzfeld.It lies about500 m south of the terrace, close to the mountain. It is a square twelve-columnedhall covering an area of 240 m2. One of the columnbases bearsthe name of Xerxes, muchthe sameas in the otherstructuresof the southern plain (Godard 1946: 267). Sami (1348/1969: 335-36) reportson "some tracesof burningon the walls and on the floor as well, while the floor of the main hall was covered with a red plastersimilarto thatfoundat the Treasury."49 At this time, Samiwas able to excavateanotherimportantmonumentsituated in the southernplain. It is the closest building of the plain to the terrace.Althoughit is called the SmallApadana,its main four-columnedhall covers a surfaceof about324 m2 (fig. 22). The mainhall is flankedby threetwo-columnedporticos. Unlikethe otherbuildingsin thisarea,thecolumnsof thismonumentwere entirelyof stone andpossessed lion-creaturecapitalsmuchlike those of the easternporticoof theApadana.This palacewasalsodistinguishedfrom the othersby its separatedlocationclose to theTakht (about 140 m south of its southwestangle).The last extantcolumnof this monument,10 m high, was destroyed a few years prior to the visit of William Ouseleyin 1811 (cf. Schmidt1957: 62). Flandinand Coste (1843-54: 2:pls. 66-67) included this building in theirgeneralmapof the site. Dieulafoy(1885: pl. II) gives an earlyplan of the building as it could be seen in the 1880s. Sami's report (1348/1969: 338-39) is unfortunatelyvery brief, and no details are provided.50 1953-54: no work at Persepolis. 1954-56: excavation at the northern part of the Takht,beyondthemainavenuelinkingthe two gates.

237

ALI MOUSAVI

FIG. 20.

Professorand Mrs. Krefterworkingon the modelof Persepolis,probably in 1966. Photo courtesyof Dr. H. Krefter.

Excavationin front of Tomb V in Schmidt'snumbering scheme (Schmidt 1970: 99-102) and Tomb VI (Schmidt 1970: 102-7). 1956-58: beginningof the excavationin the areaeast of the Treasury.Excavationof the restof the eastern fortificationsand the garrisonquarters;discoveryof the missing fragmentof the Elamiteversion of the Daivainscription(Cameron1959). Sami stopped excavatingin 1959, and until his retirementin 1962, no significantexcavationwas done at the site. It should, however, be noted that restorationand conservationof the structuresregularlyfollowedSami'sexcavationactivities.One conservationmeasurethat Godard and Sami adopted was to protect the reliefs of the easternstaircaseof the Apadana.As Godard(1946: 268-69) explains:

238

L'eaun'est dangreuse"aPersepolisqu'en cas de gel, maisil ne pleut pas souvent 'aPersepolis, et il ne gel guere. De plus, il est facile d'empecher l'humidite de penetrer dans la pierre en enduisant sa surface d'une encaustique quelconque. Nous en avons fait l'experience avec du succes. Nous avons acquis la certitudeque cette pierre rendue impermeable 'al'eau est

soigneusement defendue du soleil, se conserveraitparfaitementen plein air. In anothermeasure,he affixeda foldingwooden roof over the staircase.He explains the purpose as follows:"Et c'est pourquoi bien qu'a contre-coeur, peu fierdu resultatesthetiquede notreinitiative,nous avonsconstruitau-dessusdes bas-reliefsa conserver, sur des piliers, une toiture en terrasse qui les maintientdans l'ombre." Contraryto his assessment, this lattermeasure proved to be both aesthetic and protective, while the other measure was unfortunate. Alas, the wooden canopywas discardedin the late 1960s and never replaced.5'An unwise protective device was adopted more recently: a huge metallic roof was installed over the eastern staircaseof the Apadana and thatof the CentralBuilding.This roof, supposedly set up to protect the reliefsfromthe sun, is too elevated. The rays of the sun easily penetrate and reach one section or anotherof the reliefsat almost every time of day. In 1961, a branchof the GermanArchaeological Institutewas opened in Tehran, the directionof which was entrustedto Heinz Luschey,who had an idea for constructinga model of Persepolisas early as 1963. Later,with the supportof KurtBittel,then

PERSEPOLISIN RETROSPECT

presidentof the Institutein Berlin,Luscheyencouraged Krefterto make a 1/200 model of Persepolis, his geniusonce againbeingbroughtto bearupon the challengesof reconstructingPersepolis.There were certainseriousproblems,such as the reconstruction of cornices,ceilings,androofingand the reconstruction of the poorly preservedand enigmaticPalaces G and D. Krefteringeniouslyovercamethese problems, as he had done thirtyyears before in reconstructingthe Harem of Xerxes. The model was in wood (fig. 20). The platformmeasured3.30 x 2.75 m, with a height of 10 cm. For transportationreasons, it was divided into threeparts, 1.10 x 2.75 m each,whichcouldbe screwedtogether.A fourthpart representedthe mountaindistrictwith the two rockcut tombs and the cistern.The platformwas made out of plywood,whereasthepalaces,gatehouses,and walls were in balsawood to keep the model light in weight.The architectural detailswerecut out of cardboardwith a very fine electricsaw fitted out with a magnifyinglens. These elementswere then pasted togetherand modeled afterwardwith liquid wood appliedwith a very fine brush (Krefter1969; 1971; 1972). In February1967, the AuswartigesAmt in Bonn had solicited Krefterto begin workingon the model. In its finished state it was a masterpieceworthyof its presentationas a coronationgift to the kingof Iran,Mohammad-RezaShahPahlavi,by Dr. HeinrichLiibke,presidentof the FederalRepublic of Germany.Sadly, this model ended up in a darkened storeroomof the IranBastanMuseum.Another model, smaller than the first, was conceived by Krefteron the occasionof his eightiethbirthdayand is now held in the CharlottenburgMuseumin Germany(Trumpelmann1988).52 In 1964, a teamof Italianrestorersin collaboration with the IranianNationalOffice for Conservation of HistoricalMonumentsbegan an expansive programof restoringhistoricalmonumentsin Iran that lasted until 1979. The restorationwork, first started by Cesare Carbone, was subsequentlyentrusted to Giuseppe Tilia. It involved an immense amountof study,practicalexperimentation,andpatientlyexercisedskill.Ann BrittTilia'spublications on this restorationwork at Persepolishave remarkably enrichedour knowledgeof Achaemenidarchitecture(Carbone1968; Tilia 1972; 1978).

RESUMPTION

OF WORK

In the fall of 1968, AkbarTadjvidi proposed undertakinga new programof researchat Persepolis and other sites of the Marv-Dashtplain with three main aims:

(1) investigationof the "originof Achaemenidcivilizationand its earlymanifestationsin Fars"; thatwould (2) establishmentof a regionalstratigraphy clarifythe chronologyof the plain at the time of the Persianempire(Tadjvidi1347/1968).3 This project proposed to open soundings in the southernplain adjacentto the terraceof Persepolis,at Istakhr,and at Pasargadae. (3) establishmentof a practicalbufferzone for the site of Persepolisandits adjacentremainsin orderto implementmore effectiveprotection.54 Onepoint on whichTadjvidiinsistedwas to hire workerswho provided continuitywith the earlier workof Samiand who were&local people with a sensitivity to the Persepolitanlandscapeand the idiosyncrasiesof its terrain.One reasonwhy continuity amongworkerswas considereda prioritywas that Herzfeldneverfullypublished the resultsof his excavations, and Sami's reports, though useful and published promptly,lackedprecision. Thus continuity of workerswould provide anecdotalinformation aboutpast efforts.For Tadjvidithis continuity was even more importantthan the workers'level of technicalskill.Althoughthe mostskilledexcavators, as a group, came from the ranksof those who had servedthe FrenchMissionat Susaovergenerations, the faithTadjvidiplacedin the localworkerstrained by Samiwas validatedby results.Furthermore,his strategyof hiring local people of Fars bore fruitas his excavationspursued initiativesreachingfar beyond the strictconfinesof the Takht. AkbarTadjvidiwas born into a familyof artists. Himselfa painter,he studiedarthistoryand archaeology in Paris. In his ambitious program for Persepolis,he was assistedby variouspeople, among whom were Mahmud Kordovani(an experienced archaeologistfrom the GOA) as field director for threeseasons, MahmudMousavi(firstas field assis- 239 tant and later as field director), and Mohammad

ALI MOUSAVI

FIG. 21.

1970. Left to right:Asn&-Pashar Persepolis,sprwing (assistant directorof the Scientific Bureau of Persepolis), MohammadMehri~yar(architectof the mission), Akbar Tadjvidi (directorof excavations),AsgharBandis' (directorof the Officefor Restorationof Historical Monuments), GiuseppeTilia (restorer),Hosseyn TayebNa'imi (directorof theArchaeologicalOfficein Shiraz), MahmudMousavi (field assistant), Mahmud Kordov&zni (field assistant), and Jafar Ra'naz (directorof the Scientific Bureau of Persepolis). Photo courtesyof M. Mousavi.

240

(fig.21). Armed Mehriyar(asarchitectanddraftsman) with an excellentstaffas well as with a keenpersonal senseof aestheticsandurbanism,Tadjvidiwasthefirst excavatorofPersepoliswho sawthemonumentalplatform as a core featureof a much largersettlement. Thanks in significantmeasureto his vision and his project,Parsehcannow be presentedgraphicallywith confidenceas an urbanentitywith installationsin the plain thatserveda largeregionalarenaas well as the specializedactivitieson theTakht(fig.22). Itwaswith the ideaof investigatingthe notionof an Achaemenid urbanismthat he startedto pursue and direct fresh activitiesat Takht-eJamshid. archaeological The Iranian GOA welcomed and approved Tadjvidi'sproposal in 1968, with the actualfieldwork startingin the springof 1969. The remarkable

rapiditywith which the bureaucracyacted on this mattermust be understoodagainsta specific backdrop-one that lent energy and support to the archaeologicalmissionbut also conditionedand challengedit. The 2,500th Anniversaryof IranianMonarchywas to be celebratedin the fallof 1350/1971. Amongthe conditionsandconstraintsTadjvididealt with was the necessity of carryingout work that would not hinderpreparationfor the grandfestivities that would highlight the glorious ruins on the Takht.In returnforthis accommodation,Tadjvidi's researchprogramwould benefitfromthe generous funds availablefor the preparationof the festivities. An additionalbenefit of the arrangementwas that it fostered the creation of an organizationat Persepolis that could generate researchprograms

\\

I.

/

::W ~~~~~~~N

Tense~~~~~~~~~

----------

F

FIG. 22.

Plan of the excavated area south of the terrace of Persepolis.Adaptedfrom Tadjvidi 1355/1976:-fig.

quite independently.This initiativewas welcomed by the authoritiesin the Ministryof CultureandArts. The activitiesof the ScientificBureauof Persepolis, foundedby Samiin the late 1950s, had been considerablyreduced a decade later. Thus, Tadjvidi suggested a researchinstitute for Achaemenidstudies based rightat Persepolisin the late 1960s. With the appointmentof Ali Shapur Shahbazias directorof the ScientificBureauof Persepolis,this idea was realized. The Institute of Achaemenid Studies (Bonyad-eTahqiqat-eHakhamaneshi)was founded and becameoperationalin 1973. Although Tadjvidi's excavationswere prematurelyinterruptedin 1972 and were neverresumed, his initiativeshad far-reachingconsequencesfor the legacy of Persepolis studies in Iran.They also had far-reachingconsequencesfor our understandingof the site, as we shallnow see. InitiallyTadjvidichose fourareasto be testedat Persepolis:

22.

(1) the top of MountRahmat,where the easternfortificationsystemof the site could be explored; (2-3) areasto the south and to the northwestof the stone courtyard(ComplexC); and (4) an area to the southeast of the Four-columned Hall (ComplexE, or the SmallApadana).55 The gridsystemadoptedby Schmidt'stopographers (squaresof 100 x 100 m) was maintainedin orderto transfernew discoveriesto the preestablishedgeneral plan of the site. An illustratedand substantial reporton theseexcavationswasfortunatelypublished in Persian(Tadjvidi 1355/1976), providingthe basis for the presentanalysis.Althoughtwo briefnotes on importantfinds were also published in English (Tadjvidi1970; 1973), for more thanthreedecades Tadjvidi'sfullpublicationhasremainedinaccessible to most scholarsin the field. The bookis dividedinto twoprincipalparts.The 241 first section consists of a long introductionentitled

ALI MOUSAVI

a

.n -

'

' '

' S

Pt e ' '

'"St

-.>,

hC

FIG. 23.

FIG. 24.

General view of excavations in the southernplain below the Takht in 1968. Photo courtesyof M. Mousavi.

Trench revealing a section of the southernfoundation wall of one of the brickplatforms in the plain, upon which various architectural ensembleswere erected. Photo courtesy of M. Mousavi.

242

"In Searchof the City of Parseh."It deals with differentproblems of identifyingand locating the city of Persepolis, the heart of which is markedby the huge stone Takht (Tadjvidi 1355/1976: 6-41). This introduction gives a full account of archaeologicalandhistoricalevidenceand extendsthe study to anotherchapterentitled "WasPersepolis Evera Capitalin the AchaemenidEmpire?"Here Tadjvidi examines the importance and raison d'tre of Persepolis as a city within the empire. His conclusion is thatPersepolis,"withoutbeing necessarilya capital,was a sacredand symbolicplace for the Persiansin the heartof theirhomeland,an earthlymanifestationof a heavenlyworld with which our ancestors, by virtue of their religious education, were familiar,and one thatwas kept hidden from foreigners' eyes" (Tadjvidi 1355/1976: 55, my translation; Mousavi 1992: 204-7). The next chapter is an account of the excavations; the second half of the book deals specifically with the excavation of the palatial complexes in the southern plain and the fortificationson top of the mountain (Tadjvidi 1969; 1970; 1973; 1355/

1976; for full bibliography, see Vanden Berghe 1979: 56). In the plain, aside fromthe excavationof seven architecturalcomplexes (excluding Complex E, or the Small Apadana,close to the terrace),Tadjvidi was determinedto explore the southernwall of the terraceand its relationto the structureslocated outside theplatform(figs.23-24). Earlier,Samihad dug quite a deep sounding(6 m) here, at the foot of what was called the "pre-rampart" wall near the inscription of DariusI. The questionof why Dariusshould have wanted to place his inscriptionin such an inconspicuous spot was Tadjvidi's motivationto do some researchin this area.His ideawas to followthe watercanalson the platformat the edge of the southern wall in this areasince they had been alteredfollowing the modificationof this portion of the wall. This investigationhas enabled us to reconstructa history of the southern wall as well as traces of the substructure of a staircase once planned for this location (Tadjvidi 1355/1976: 60-61; Mousavi 1992: 212) (fig. 25). The other discovery at this spot allowed the

PERSEPOLIS IN RETROSPECT

~~ ~~

~

~~-~~v~** ~gives

excavator to suggest the existence of a channel or ditch, at least at the foot of the southern wall. Hakemi had earlier suggested that a ditch might have extended around the platform, serving both to guaranteea supply of water and to provide protectionforthe terrace(Hakemi1349/1970 andpers. com. 21 November 1988; Mousavi 1992: 220). Tadjvidi's team also found traces of burning in a smallcolumnedhall (fig. 26) (Tadjvidi 1354/1975: 10). The charredremainswere not, however, submitted to radiocarbonanalysis. The most importantIranianexcavationin this periodwas the explorationof the fortificationson top of Mount Rahmat. Herzfeld (1929a) had already documented the existence of these structures,and Schmidt (1939: 8, fig. 4) had pinpointed them on his aerialanalysisof the site. Tadjvididecided to excavate a portion of the upper fortifications,which comprisedthreetowersandtheiradjacentstructures (Tadjvidi 1355/1976: 187-213). Aside from the originalityof architecturalfeatures and some 150 iron arrowheads,the most interestingartifactualdiscovery here was a collection of anepigraphicsealed

View of the "Deep Trench" at thefoot Ofthe southern wall of the Persepolis Takht during the 1971-72 season. Akbar Tadjvidi (dressedin white) instructions, while his field assistant, MahmoudMousavi (in black) stands -betweenTadjvidi and members of the work crew. Second from left is Ali Z&r'e,who emergedas one of the most distinguishedforemen ever trained in Iranian archaeology. Photo courtesy of M. Mousavi.

clay tablets. Most of them bear impressions of one cylinder seal that is identicalto one alreadyknown fromthe PersepolisTreasuryarchive(Seal 28 [now designatedPTS 28], published by Schmidt 1957: 10-11, 29, and pl. 9). This seal displays a martial scenefeaturinga victorin thePersiancourtrobedragging three Greek captivesbehind him while spearinga fourth(Tadjvidi1355/1976: 201-7; 1973; Garrison and Root 2001: 34). In terms of architecture,most of the arrowslits in the mudbrickfortificationwalls were found obstructed, and several small rooms in the fortifications revealed traces of abandonment. Tadjvidi datesthe fortificationsto an earlyphase of construction activitiesand insists thatthey had alreadybeen abandonedbefore the destructionof the city by the Macedoniantroops in 330 B.C.E. (Tadjvidi 1355/ 1976: 212). The most profoundoverarchingsignificanceof Tadjvidi'sprogramrests with his attemptto prove the existenceof urbanismat Persepolisand to articulate the natureof thaturbanism.The interruptionof 243 his workin 1972 was a devastatingblow to the long

ALI MOUSAVI

aF

Viewof the burnedtwo-columned hall, locatedin ComplexH on the southernplain, during the 19 7172 season. Photo courtesyofM . Mousavi.

...~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..

. . .... .

...

FIG. 27.

Viewfrom Mount Rahmat of the southernsectorof the Takht (directlyeast of the Treasury)and out over the Tent City constructed to celebratethe 2,500th Anniversary of theMonarchyin 19 71. Photo courtesyof M. Mousavi.

M

M

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

244

-

~

->

PERSEPOLISIN RETROSPECT

tradition of archaeological activity there. Had Tadjvidi been able to continue his investigations, we might be better equipped than we are now to deal with the complex and historiographically charged questions of what kind of place, in fact, Parsehwas meant to be in the reign of its founder, DariusI, what it had become by the time of the last Achaemenid king, Darius III, and what its reception has been throughthe vicissitudesof subsequent ages (fig. 27). As things stand now, the palatialcomplexes of Parseharein desperateneed of protectionandrestoration.A limited rescue excavationwas carriedout in the spring of 1975. Torrentialrains had eroded thevestigesof theeasternsectionofthe CentralBuilding. Here there had originallybeen a vestibuleeast of the easterndoorway(linkedto the Harem)and a long side room. The combinedforcesof earlyexcavationsand naturalerosionof constructionthus disturbedhad demolishedthis partof the core-to the extent of turningit into an ugly slope of debrislevel with the Apadanacourtyard.Rainshad even endangeredthefoundationof theeasterndoorway.Though opposed to anyexcavationin the absenceof the head of restorationefforts,GiuseppeTilia, Shahbazihad to takeactionin orderto preventfurtherdamage.He cleaned out the areaat the foot of the easterndoorway and then reinforced it. During the cleaning mudbrickfragments(33 x 33 cm)werefound,as well as paintpigmentsof yellow, red, and Egyptianblue, which had once been applied to the reliefs. Sculpturefragmentswere alsouncovered.The largestone was a piece about the size of a fist, showing wellgroomedbeardcurls. To the northeastof the doorway, Shahbaziencounteredfoundationsof a mudbrickwallthathadoriginallyformedthenorthernwall of the vestibule (and so blocked the southeastern cornerof the Apadanacourtyard).This wall partly existed until earlierexcavatorsleveled it to join the Apadanacourtyardto the Harem.Aside from this, Shahbazidid two otherthings.He restoredthe stone staircaselinkingthe Haremcourtyardto the original vestibuleleadingto the Apadanacourtyard.In fact, the spot had become a dangerousslope and yet was alwaysused by visitors to and from the Harem.He walledup the easternsector of the CentralBuilding with stone slabs, thus "reconstructingthe original

form"(Shahbazipers. com.) of the mainhall and its southern portico. He also wanted to continue the workand restorethe foundationof the vestibuleand long side room.For this reasonhe reconstructedthe retainingwallwest of the Haremcourtyard,butwhen it had come to a 7-m height, this projectwas halted on Tilia'ssuggestion.56 DuringShahbazi'stenure,the site was regularlyrestoredand conserveduntil the end of the 1970s. After 1979, the direction of the sitewas handedoverseveraltimesto differentpeople whose interestcould not go beyond daily administrativematters. At first glance, it seems difficult to draw conclusionsaboutthe significanceof archaeologicalexcavationsat Persepolis.The site has been a symbol of identityin Iransince its foundation.This extraordinary significancehas in some ways encouraged scientific explorationof the ruins and in other respects tended to deflect energies. A great many questions remainto be asked of Parseh.The excavations to date have certainlyenriched our knowledge of the Achaemenid empire significantly.But in some ways we still know remarkablylittle of the archaeology of Fars (its materialculture, pottery sequencing,and the like)in the Achaemenidperiod. Despite the intensity of archaeologicalactivity at Persepolis from the 1930s into the 1970s, a great deal of surfaceareaon the Takht and in the southernplainremainsto be investigated.Excavationhas tended to focus on the uncoveringof majormonumental structuresin both areas,with the most notableexception to this trendbeing work on the fortificationsfirstby Herzfeldand then (more systematicallyand extensively)by Tadjvidi. In spite of these regrets and hopes for future workthatmayadequatelyaddresssuch issues, there is anotheraspect of the contributionof the Persepolis excavationsthat deserves note. The effect of these excavationson the futureof Iranianarclhaeology has been great. It was the project for the preservationof Persepolisthatinspiredthe Iraniangovernmentto approvean AntiquitiesLaw,whiclhsubsequently promoted and regulatedarchaeological activitiesin the country.Moreover,the archaeological excavationsat Persepolishaveprovidednumerous opportunitiesfor trainingin excavation tech- 245 nique, restoration, and interpretiveresearch, the

ALI MOUSAVI

results of which have been remarkablenot only in termsof the obvious explosion of art-historical/historical discussion based on the revelationsof the last centurybut also in terms of technical achievement in Iran.57 Unlike the mounds at Susa, where the French had been digging since the late nineteenthcentury, the excavationsat Persepolishave benefitedfroma remarkablyhigh profile, including regularofficial visits of kings and queens. It has been said that the Iraniansareboundby a three-waymagneticattraction to theirplacewithinthehistoricallandscape.They are bound to theirgloriousancientpast, to the religious andspiritualimpactof Islam,andto the technological andmodernizingappealof theWest. Parsehseemsto satisfythecomplexandsometimesintertwining urgencies of all threeof theseprofoundimpulses.D-

5. Lecoq 1997: 229 on DPf, the Elamitetext that uses a transcriptionof Old Persiangatu (in the sense of throne). 6. In the seventeenthcentury the SpaniardDon GarciaSilva Figueroawas the firstEuropeanto publish an attributionof the ruins to the Persepolisof classicalauthors,but some probable allusionsto Persepolisarecontainedin accountsof fourteenthcenturytravelers(the FranciscanfriarOdoricof Pordenoneand the emissary of Venice, Josaphat Barbaro). See SancisiWeerdenburg1991: 3-5. 7. Wieseh6fer(1996: 300-302) offersa usefulbibliographiccommentary. 8. Le Strangeand Nicholson 1921: 126-27. The exactnameof the authorof theFarsnamehis as yet unknown,but in the introduction Le Strangearguedthat the book, dedicated to Sultan Qiyass-eddinMuhammad(498-511 A.H./1 104-17), was probably composed sometime during the first decade of the sixth centuryA.H., equivalentto the twelfthcenturyC.E. 9. Mostafavi'srenderingin 1978 containssome typographical errorsthathad creptinto the edition of the text he was using for his work. I have correctedthese errorshere, based upon the originaltextin the 1996 Sadeqiedition(see Hamadani590 A.H./ 1194).

Notes I am very gratefulto MargaretCool Root, whose help, encouragement,and constructivesuggestionsmade the publicationof the present contributionpossible. 1. The name Parseh appears in Old Persian as Parsa in Achaemenidsources, including the Old Persianversion of the trilingualinscription on the Gate of All Lands (Lecoq 1997: 251). In Elamite administrativetexts it was rendered Parsa (e.g., tabletsin the Persepolis Fortificationarchiveindexed in Hallock 1969: 742). For the meaningsof the nameand its etymology, see Shahbazi 1977: 197-99; for issues in the historiography of the conventional use of the name Persepolis, see Root 1980. 2. These inscriptionswere originallypublished in translation by Herzfeld (1914). See Schmidt 1953: 223 n. 11 and Sami 1348/1969: 246-47. 3. The degree to which such emulations reflected historical awarenessof the Achaemenidsin precise termsis anotherissue (viz., Roaf 1998).

246

4. In later times, the naming traditionby referenceto the remarkablesoaringcolumnsat the site mightvaryto indicatedifferent numbers-such as the commonly used epithet CehelMinar(fortycolumns).The idea remainedfocused on conveying theirmarvelousabundanceas a definingphysicalfeatureof the ruins.

10. For more detailson his diplomaticrole and explorationsin Persia, see Wright 1977: 6-7, 15, 17, 151-52; Gabriel 1952: chap. 19. 11. The subterraneandrainagesystemwas laterexploredin the courseof excavationscarriedout by the OrientalInstituteof the Universityof Chicagoin the 1930s (Schmidt 1953: 210). 12. Later,Ouseleydecoratedthe staircasein his Londonhouse with some of thereliefsfromPersepolis(Curtis1998: 48). Eventuallythey were presentedto the BritishMuseum,with the exception of two pieces. Curtis (1998: 50) writes on the fate of these two fragmentsand how one of themended up in the Miho Museuminjapan. Adle (2000: 238 n. 10) providesfurtherdetailson the sale of these fragmentsat Sotheby'sin London. 13. Thanks to the pioneering excavations carried out by Herzfeldin the early 1930s, FriedrichKrefter,the architectof the mission, was able to distinguishand record tracesof paint on one of the reliefs in the Palace of Xerxes (Herzfeld 1941; Krefter1989). Moreinvestigationsof color on the reliefswere conducted in depth much laterby the Italianrestorationteam (Tilia 1978). 14.1 amindebtedto Dr. ShahryarAdle forputtingat my disposition his vast knowledgeof the historyof photographyin Iran. It was he who first drew my attention to the existence of L. Pesce'sphotographsand NassereddinShah'sprojectsforphotographingthe ruins of Persepolis.

PERSEPOLISIN RETROSPECT

15. ColonelLuigiPesce enteredinto the serviceof the Qajarsin the late 1840s on a mission to trainIraniansoldiers. Heinrich Brugschof the royalPrussianlegationmet him in Tehranin the early 1860s and described him as "a friendlyItalianofficerin the serviceof the Shah."Brugschborroweda few photographs fromPescein orderto makegravuresforhis travelbook (Brugsch 1862: viii). For Pesce's life and career, see Zoka 1376/1997: 19; Adle in press.

come AhmadShahon his arrivalhome fromEurope(Mostafavi 1355/1976: 3).

16. The introductionin thealbumis in Persian,publishedin Zoka 1376/1997: 22. It seems thatPesce, interestedin photography, sent two otheralbumsof photographsdocumentingthe monuments of Iran-one to Count Cavour in Rome, the other to WilhelmI, emperorof Prussia(Zoka 1376/1997: 22).

29. Herzfeld had long had a serious scholarly interest in Pasargadae(Herzfeld1908). Forhis publicationof the archaeologicalwork therein 1928, see Herzfeld1929b and 1941, with latercommentariesin Stronach1978.

17. Pesce's photographsare conservedin the GolestanPalace in Tehran. 18. Aqa Rezawas trainedby the FrenchmanFrancisCarlhian, who came to Iranat the end of 1858. He remainedin Iranfor the rest of his life, teachingat the Dar-ol-Fonun(the School of Polytechnicin Tehran) (Adle 2000: 231). 19. For an accountof theprince'sstyleof rulership,see NavvabSaf-a1366/1988: 48-75. 20. The inscriptionwas carvedon one of the windows of the main hall of the Palaceof Darius. For the text, see Sami 1348/ 1969: 258. 21. It was FriedrichStolze, the Germanarchaeologistvisiting Persepolisa few months later,who reportedon the numberof workers(Sancisi-Weerdenburg1991: 29). 22. This is noted in Vaqaye-eEttefdqiyehand cited in NavvabSafa 1366/1988: 132. See also Adle 2000: 233. 23. An impressivecollectionofphotographsof Iraniansiteswas produced by Sevruguin,an Armenianphotographerwho resided in Tehran, on commission from Friedrich Sarre for Herzfeld and Sarre'sIranische Felsrelief,published in 1910 (Bohrer1999). 24. It was Lord Savile and Cecil Smith who had obtained the necessary royal permission from MozaffereddinShah. These two defrayed the travel costs of the expedition, and WeldBlundelundertookat his own expense theworkof superintending the project(Simpson 2002).

27. Colleen Hennessey (1992: fig. 2) has publisheda rarephotographof one of those visits. 28. HerzfeldPapers,notebook84 [PersienII, 1923-24], series 2,30.

30. The originaltext in French has been published in Documentson Archaeology1380/2001: 474-75. 31. Much informationand bibliographyon the Pope-Herzfeld relationship appears in the articles collected in Gunter and Hauserforthcoming. 32. For a generalaccountof Herzfeld'swork at Persepolis,see now Dusinberreforthcoming. 33. This was a response to the Iranianambassador,who had apparentlytransferredcomplaintsmadeby Pope andthe French governmentas well. Letterdated 11 Bahman1309 H.s./3 1January 1931, archivesof the Ministryof ForeignAffairs,published in Karimlou1381/2001: 158. 34. The stairwaywas latertransferredfromits originalplace to the IranBastanMuseumin Tehran. 35. Becausetheeaststairwayfacadeof theApadanahadbeenlong incontrastto themuchdamburied,itsreliefswerevirtuallypristine agedandpilferedreliefsofthenorthstairwayfacade.The comparisons arereadilyappreciatedin theplatesof Schmidt1953. 36. Herzfeldbrieflyreportedon the resultsof his soundingsat Istakhrin Herzfeld1941: 276. 37. For a selection of 2,087 of the Elamitetexts, see Hallock 1969. Muchhas been writtensince then workingwith the texts as historicaldocuments(e.g., Briant1996 andWiesehofer1996 passim,bothwithbibliographies).See GarrisonandRoot 2001: 23-32 (for a discussion of the complexitiesof Herzfeld'sdiscoveryof the archive)and the book moregenerally(forfullpublication of volume 1 of the seals applied to the tabletsthat had been presentedby Hallockin 1969).

25. Chemicalanalysesof the "Egyptianblue" remnantsfrom Persepoliswerepublishedin Schmidt 1957: 133-35. A systematic surveyof color in Persepolisappearsin Tilia 1998 but with acknowledgmentthat more comprehensivechemical analysis still needs to be done.

38. See CharlesBreasted'sillustratedarticlein theNational Geogave graphic(Breasted1933:384). The newspaperEttela'atalso a detailedaccount of the visit (Afsarand Mousavi 1355/1976: 90-93).

26. According to Mostafavi,Reza Khanmade the trip to wel-

39. These fragmentsarenow in Stockholm(Adahl 1978).

247

ALI MOUSAVI

40. For additional material on Herzfeld's resignation, see Mousavi 1382/2003: 40. 41. Forhis biography,see Haines1965;J NationalEncyclopaedia ofAmericanBiography1969: 5 1:671-72. 42. For the DPh text, see Cameron1959 andLecoq 1997: 1045, 256-58. For various interpretations, see Lukonin and Dandamaev1989: 353-54; Briant1996: 568-70. 43. For the discoveryof the reliefs,see Schmidt 1957: 162-69. The Tilias' findingsarepresentedin Tilia 1972: 175-208. 44. During the Germanoccupationof France,Godardand his wife, Yedda, were membersof the French Resistancebacked by GeneralDe Gaulle.In the serviceof the Resistance,Godard was appointedthe Delegue Generalde la FranceLibreto Iran. The IranBastanMuseumLibrarypreservesto this dayissues of theRevuedeFranceLibre,publishedby the Godardsin Tehran duringWorld WarII. 45. In 1926, the AntiquitiesOfficehad only one archaeological mission. By contrast,the GOA was expansivein its mandate, and in 1964 the numberof archaeologicalmissionsranto fourteen. By 1971, this efforthad grownto fifty-onemissionsworking underits auspicesand supervision.These officeswere then regroupedafterthe IslamicRevolutionunderthe CulturalHeritage Organizationof Iran. For a detailed backgroundand the variousnamesof the organization,see Malek-Shahmirzadi 1369/ 1990: 408-11. 46. For a shortbiographyof A. Sami, see Mousavi1990. 47. Sami'swork at Persepoliswas also summarizedin a condensed Englishversion (Sami 1955). 48. Hakemi is well known for his excavationsat Kaluraz,in Guilan,and at the importantsite of Shahdad.His earlystudy of the topographyat Persepolisis a less-knownbutimportantcontribution(Hakemi 1349/1970). This articleis summarizedin Mousavi1992. 49. Sami does not give any furtherinformation,but Schmidt (195 7: 48, fig. 14) publishedHerzfeld'splanof this edifice.The whole structurewas to be carefullyinvestigatedand mapped duringTadjvidi'sexcavationsin the 1970s. 50. For a discussion of differentaspects of this building, see Mousavi1999: 150. 51. For a photographof the canopy, see Mostafavi1978: 120, picture52.

248

52. I amindebtedto Dr. Heiko Krefter,son of the lateFriedrich Krefter,who kindlyprovided me with some invaluablephotographs of his father's,some of which I publish in the present article.

53. Schmidthad triedin vain to establisha chronologyfor the whole region on the basis of ceramicsequences (Balcer 1991: 170), while Tadjvidi'sprogramwould essentiallybe concentratedon the Achaemenidperiod. 54. A few yearsago, when I was in chargeof the preparationof the WorldHeritagefileforthe site of Naqsh-eRostam,I realized thatthesitewasincludedin thetheorticalbufferzoneofPersepolis, which is too large.This hypotheticalzone is supposed to cover severalsitesin theregionofPersepolis,includingNaqsh-eRostam, Naqsh-e Rajab,andthe vast site of Istakhr.Consequently,the whole areawas conceivedas a singlemonument. 55. That is the structureexcavatedby Herzfeldand Sami. 56. The reportpreparedby the excavatorand sent to Tehran was neverpublished. I thankDr. Ali ShapurShahbazifor giving me the informationon his excavation. 57. In fact,the best restorersof stone monumentsin Irantoday arethose who trainedat Persepolis;equallythe best excavation foremenstill come fromPersepolis.

WorksCited Adahl,Karin.1978. "AFragmentfromPersepolis."MedelhavsmuseeBulletin 13:56-59. Adle, Shahryar.1983. "Noteset documentssurla photographie iranienneet son histoire."Studia Iranica 12:249-80. --. 2000. "Khorheh,the Dawn of IranianScientific ArchaeologicalExcavation."TavoosQuarterly3-4:226-39 (Persiantext), 4-31 (Englishtext). --. In press. Daguerreotypistsand Early Photographersin Persia. Afsar,K.,andS. A. Mousavi.1355/1976.PasdariazAthar-eBBastan darAsr-ePahlavi.Tehran:Ministryof CultureandArts. Andre-Salvini,Beatrice,et al. 1998. Regardssur la ... Perse antique.(Catalogueof anexhibitionof engravingsandlithographsof PascalCoste and Eugene Flandin.)Amis de la BibliothequeMunicipaledu Blancet le Museed'Argentomagus. Bayeganiy-eRaked.Archivesof the CulturalHeritageOrganizationof Iran:Tehran. Balcer,Jack Martin.1991. "ErichFriedrichSchmidt, 13 September 1897-3 October 1964." In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg andJ. W. Drijvers,eds., ThroughTravellers'Eyes, 145-72. Achaemenid History 7. Leiden: Nederlands Instituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Bohrer, Frederick. 1999. "Through Photographs:Sevruguin and the PersianImage."In F. Bohrer,ed., Sevruguinand thePersian Image:Photographsof Iran, 1870-1930, 3353. Washington, D.C.: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, SmithsonianInstitution.

PERSEPOLISIN RETROSPECT

Breasted,Charles.1933. "Exploringthe Secretsof Persepolis." TheNational GeographicMagazine63.4:381-420. Breasted,JamesHenry. 1933. TheOrientalInstitute.The Universityof Chicago Survey12. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. Briant, Pierre. 1996. Histoire de l'Empireperse: de Cyrus2 Alexandre.Paris:Fayard. Brugsch, Heinrich. 1862. Reise der K. preussischenGesandtschaftnach Persien 1860 und 1861, vol. 1. Leipzig:J. C. Hinrichs. Bruyn,CorneliusLe. 1737. Travelsinto Muscovy,Persia, and Part ofthe East-Indies... II, TranslatedfromtheFrench. London: A. Bettesworth,etc. Byron, Robert. 1934. "Middle EasternJourney II." Times (London), 28 September, 15. --. 1937. TheRoad to Oxiana. London:JonathanCape. Cameron,George G. 1948. PersepolisTreasuryTablets.Oriental Institute Publications 65. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. --. 1959. "The Daiva Inscription of Xerxes in Elamite." Die Weltdes Orients2:470-76. Carbone, Cesare. 1968. "Comment on a commence les restaurationsa Persepolis?" In G. Zander,ed., Travaux de restauration de monumentshistoriquesen Iran, 31107. Reportsand Memoirs6. Rome: IstitutoItalianoper il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. Chardin,Jean. 1735. Voyagesdu ChevalierChardin en Perse et autres lieux de l'Orient (new ed.). Amsterdam:Aux depens de la Compagnie. Curtis,John. 1998. "A ChariotScene from Persepolis."Iran 36:45-51. Curzon,GeorgeNathaniel.1892. Persia and thePersian Question, vol. 2. London: Longmans, Green. Dieulafoy,Marcel.1885. L'art antiquedela Perse,vol. 2. Paris: Librairiecentraled'architecture. Documents on Archaeology. 1380/2001. Asnadi az bastaznshenasi dar Iran, from the archives of the Presidential Palace. Tehran: Ministryof Islamic Culture and Propaganda. Dusinberre, Elspeth R. M. Forthcoming. "Herzfeld in Persepolis." In A. C. Gunter and S. Hauser, eds., Ernst Herzfeldand the Developmentof Near Eastern Studies, 1900-1950. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Ferrier,Ronald W., trans.and ed. 1996. A jtourneyto Persia. Empire. J7eanChardin'sPortraitof a Seventeenth-Century London and New York: I. B. Taurus. Flandin, Eugene. 1851. Voyageen Perse,vol. 2. Paris:Gide et

J. Baudry. Flandin,Eugene, and PascalCoste. 1843-54. Voyageen Perse, entrepris par ordre de M. le Ministre des Affaires Etrange?res, d'apresles instructionsdresseespar l'Institut, vol. 2. Paris:Gide etJ. Baudry. Foroughi, Mohammad-Ali. 1351/1973. "Moshahedat va taffakoratdarbarey-e Asar-e melli dar zemn-e safar-e Esfahan va Fars." Majmu'eh Entehsharat-e Qadim-e Anjoman-eAsar-eMelli, Seh Khatabeh,Mehr 1306/October 1927, 61-67. Tehran: Anjoman-eAsar-e Melli.

Forsat-alDowleh Shirazi,SeyedMohammad-Nasir. 1362/1983. Asar-eAjam.Reprintof the originalpublishedin Bombay, Bamdad,Tehran. Vienna:Verlag Gabriel,Alfons. 1952. DieErforschungPersiens. Adolf Holzhausens. Garrison, Mark. B., and MargaretCool Root. Seals on the PersepolisFortificationTabletsI:ImagesofHeroicEncounter. OrientalInstitutePublications117. Chicago:Oriental Instituteof the Universityof Chicago. Godard, Andre. 1946. "Persepolis." ComptesRendus de l'AcademiedesInscriptionsetBelles-Lettres,260-70. --.1950. Persepolis.Tehran:Editionsde l'InstitutFrancoIraniennede Teheran. --.1952. "Les travauxde Persepolis."In G. C. Miles, ed., ArchaeologiaOrientaliain MemoriamErnstHerzfeld.Locust Valley,N.Y.:J. J. Augustin. --. 1954. "The Newly Found Palace of Prince Xerxes at PersepolisandSculpturesWhichtheArchitectsRejected." TheIllustratedLondonNews, 2 January,17-19. Haines, Richard. 1965. "Erich F. Schmidt. September 13, 1897-October 3, 1964." Erich F. Schmidt MemorialIssue part 1. Journal of Near EasternStudies24:145-47. Hakemi,Ali. 1349/1970. "Ab-eTakht-eJamshiddar zaman-e azkojata'minmishodeh?"BarressihayHakhamaneshiyan e T&rikhi.HistoricalStudiesof Iran publishedbySupreme Commander'sStaff of theImperialArmyof Iran 5:1--6. Hallock, Richard T. 1969. PersepolisFortification Tablets. OrientalInstitutePublications92. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. Hamadani, Muhammad ibn Mahmiid. Ca. 590 A.H./1194. Ajii'eb Nameh: Aja'eb ol-Makhlftqat va Qara'eb olMowjuTdat, ed.J. M. Sadeqi(1375/1996). Tehran:Nashre Markaz. Hennessey, Colleen. 1992. "The ErnstHerzfeldPapersat the Freer Galleryof Art and ArthurM. SacklerGalleryArchives."Bulletinof theAsia Institute6:131-41. Herzfeld, Ernst. 1908. "Pasargadae. Untersuchungen zur persisichenArchaologie."Klio 8:1-68. Herzfeld, Ernst. 1914. Die Aufnahme des sasanidischen Denkmalsvon Paikuli. Akademieder Wissenschaften,in Kommissionbei GeorgReimer.Berlin:Verlagder Konigl. --.1929a. "Rapportsurl'etatactuel des ruinesde Persepolis et propositionspour leur conservation."Archaeologische Mitteilungenaus Iran 1:17-38. ---. 1929b. "Berichtiiberdie Ausgrabungenvon Pasargadae, 1928." Archaeologische Mitteilungenaus Iran 1:4-16. - .1933. "'The MagnificentDiscovery'at Persepolis."The IllustratedLondonNews, 25 March,406-9. --.1941. Iran in theAncientEast. London and New York: Oxford UniversityPress. --. 1351/1973. "Asar-eMelliy-eIran."Majmu'ehEntehsharat-e Qadim-eAnjoman-eAsar-eMelli, Seh Khatabeh, Mehr 1306/October 1927, 33-34. Tehran: Anjoman-e Asar-eMelli. HerzfeldPapers= The ErnstHerzfeldPapers,FreerGalleryof Art/ArthurM. Sackler Gallery Archives. Washington, 249 D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution.

ALI MOUSAVI

Herzfeld, Ernst E., and Friedrich Sarre. 1910. Iranische Felsreliefs:Aufnahme und Untersuchungenvon Denkmdlern aus alt- und mittelpersischer Zeit. Berlin: E. Wasmuth. Karimlou,Davoud. 1378/1999. T&raj-eMiras-eMelli, vol. 1. Tehran: Institutefor Politicaland InternationalStudies, Ministryof ForeignAffairs. 1381/2002. Tfraj-e Miras-eMelli, vol. 2. Tehran:Institute for Politicaland InternationalStudies, Ministryof ForeignAffairs. Kasheff,Manouchehr.1999. "Forsat-al-Dowla." Encyclopedia Iranica 10:100-102. Khayyam,Omar.1990. TheRubi'iyitof OmarKhayyam,trans. E. Fitzgerald.New York:Dover Thrift Editions. Krefter, Friedrich. 1969. "Persepolis im Modell." ArchaeologischeMitteilungenaus Iran 2:123-37. --. 1971. Persepolis Rekonstruktionen.Teheraner Forschungen3. Berlin:DeutschesArchaologischesInstitut. --. 1972. "The Model of Persepolis and Its Problems." MemorialVolumeof the VthInternationalCongressof Iranian Art and Archaeology, Tehran 1968, 1:282-88. Tehran:Ministryof Cultureand Arts. --. 1979. "MitErnstHerzfeldin Pasargadaeund Persepolis 1928 und 1931-1934." Archaeologische Mitteilungenaus Iran 12:13-25. 1989. "Persepolisin Farbe."Archaeologische Mitteilungenaus Iran 22:131-32. Lecoq, Pierre. 1997. Les inscriptionsde la Perse achemenide. Paris:Gallimard. Le Strange, Guy, and Reynold Nicholson, eds. 1921. The FarsnamaofIbnu'l-Balkhi,E. jr. W. GibbMemorial.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Lukonin,VladimirG., andMuhammad-AliDandamaev.1989. TheCultureand SocialInstitutionsofAncientIran. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Malek-Shahmirzadi,S. 1369/1990. "Barresiye-etahawolat-e motale'at-e bastanshenasi dar Iran." In A. MousaviGarmarudi,ed., Majmu'ehMaqalat-e Anjomanvarey-e Barresiy-eMasael-eIranshenasi,373-447. Tehran: The Institutefor Politicaland InternationalStudies, Ministry of ForeignAffairs. Melikian-Shirvani,Assadollah-Souren.1971. "Le royaumede Salomon.Les inscriptionspersanesde sitesachemenides." Le mondeiranien et l'Islam 1:1-4 1. Morier,JamesJustinian. 1812. A journey to Persia, Armenia and Asia Minor. London:Longman,Hurst. --. 1818. A Secondjourney throughPersia, Armeniaand Asia Minor.London: Longman,Hurst. Mostafavi,Mohammad-Taqi.1330/1951. Sharh-eEjmaliy-e Asar-eTakht-ejamshid. Tehran. ---.1355/1976. "Amanatdariy-e khak." Barressihay-e Tdrikhi.Historical Studiesof Iran PublishedbySupreme Commander'sStaff of the Imperial Army of Iran 11:1154. 250

.1978. TheLandofPPars.TheHistoricalMonuments and ArchaeologicalSitesof theProvinceofFars, trans.into Persian by The ReverendR. N. Sharp.Chippenham:Picton Publishing. Mousavi, Ali. 1990. "Obituary:Ali Sami." Iranica Antiqua 25:189-193. --. 1992. "Parsa,a Strongholdfor Darius:A Preliminary Studyof the DefenceSystemof Persepolis."Eastand West 42:203-26. --. 1999. "La ville de Parsa:quelques remarquessur la topographieet le systeme defensif de Persepolis."In R. Boucharlat,J. E. Curtis, and E. Haerinck, eds., NeoAssyrian, Median, Achaemenian and Other Studies in HonorofDavid Stronach,vol. 2:145-55. IranicaAntiqua 34. --. 1381/2003. "ErnstHerzfeldva tahhavol-ebasanshenasi darIran1925-1935."Majalley-eB&stanshen&si va T&irikh, vol. 17:2-5 (with abstractin English). --. Forthcoming."ErnstHerzfeld, Politics, and Antiquities Legislationin Iran."In A. C. Gunterand S. Hauser, eds., Ernst Herzfeldand theDevelopmentof Near Eastern Studies,1900-1950. Leiden:E.J. Brill. National CyclopaediaofAmericanBiography.1969. New York:

J. T. White. Nawab-Safa,Ebrahim.1366/1987. Sharh-ehal-eFarhadMirza Mo'tamedal-Dowleh.Tehran:Zawar. Perrot,Georges, and CharlesChipiez. 1892. Historyof Art in Persia. London:Chapmanand Hall. Roaf, Michael. 1998. "PersepolitanEchoes in SasanianArchitecture: Did the Sasanians Attempt to Re-create the AchaemenidEmpire?"In V. S. Curtis, R. Hillenbrand, andJ. M. Rogers,eds., TheArtandArchaeology ofAncient Persia:NewLighton theParthian and Sasanian Empires, 1-7. London: I. B. Taurus. Root, MargaretCool. 1980. "The Persepolis Perplex: Some ProspectsBorneof Retrospect."In D. Schmandt-Besserat, ed., AncientPersia: TheArt of an Empire,5-13. Malibu: Undena Press. Smi, Ali. 1330/1952. "Kavoshhay-edavazdahsaley-eBongahe Elmiy-eTakht-eJamshid."Gozareshhay-e Bastanshenasi 2:17-112. --. 1348/1969. P&yetakhthay-eShahanshiahan-eHakhamaneshi.Shiraz:PahlaviUniversity. 1955. Persepolis(Takht-I?Jamshid)( 2nd ed.), trans. The ReverendR. N. Sharp. Shiraz:MusaviPrintingOffice. Sancisi-Weerdenburg,Heleen. 1991. "Through Travellers' Eyes:The PersianMonumentsas Seen by EuropeanVisitors."In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg andJ.W. Drijvers,eds., ThroughTravellers'Eyes,1-35. AchaemenidHistory 7. Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten. Sancisi-Weerdenburg,Heleen, andJ. W. Drijvers,eds. 1991. ThroughTravellers'Eyes.AchaemenidHistory7. Leiden: NederlandsInstituutvoor het NabijeOosten.

PERSEPOLISIN RETROSPECT

Schmidt, Erich F. 1939. The Treasuryof Persepolisand Other Discoveriesin theHomelandof theAchaemenians.Oriental InstituteCommunications21. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. ---. 1953. PersepolisI: Structures,Reliefs,Inscriptions.Oriental Institute Publications 68. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. . 1957. PersepolisII: Contentsof the Treasuryand Other Discoveries.OrientalInstitutePublications69. Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress. ---. 1970. PersepolisIII: TheRoyalTombsand OtherMonuments. OrientalInstitutePublications70. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. Shahbazi,All Shapur.1976. "The Persepolis'TreasuryReliefs' Once More."ArchaeologischeMitteilungen ausIran 9:13150. ---. 1977. "FromParsato Taxt-eJamshid."Archaeologische Mitteilungenaus Iran 10:197-208. ---. 1378/1999. "Kohantarintowsif-eTakht-ejamshiddar zaban-e farsi."Majalley-eBastanshenasi va Tarikh 2324:2-5 (with abstractin English). Simpson, St.John. 2002. "GreatBritain:viii. BritishArchaeological Excavations."EncyclopediaIranica 11.3:252-55. Stolze, Friedrich, and Friedrich Carl Andreas. 1882. Die Achamenidischen und Sasanidischen Denkmdler und InschriftenvonPersepolis,Istakhr,Pasargadae,Shapur.2 vols. Berlin:A. Asher. Stronach,David. 1978. Pasargadae:A Reporton the Excavations Conductedby theBritish Instituteof Persian Studies from 1961 to 1963. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Tadjvidi, Akbar. 1347/1968. "Tarh-e moqadamatiy-ebarnamey-ekavoshhay-ebastanshenasidar Takht-eJamshid va atraf."Unpublishedproposalto the formerMinistryof CultureandArts, IranBastanMuseumArchives,Tehran. 1969. "Les fouilles de Persepolis." Bastan Chenassi 2:20-23.

1970. "Persepolis,ExcavationReport."Iran 8:186-87. 1973. "Persepolis,ExcavationReport."Iran 11:200201. 1355/1975. "Darbaarey-eshahr-eparseh, gahvarey-e tamaddoniderakhshan."Honar va Mardom156:2-11. 1355/1976. Danestanihay-enovin darbarey-ehonar va baistanshenasiy-e asr-e hakhamaneshi bar bonyad-e Takht-e?famshid. Tehran:Minisk&voshhay-epanjsaley-e try of Cultureand Arts. Tavernier,Jean-Baptist.1677. Lessix voyagesdejean-Baptiste Tavernieren Turquie, en Perse et aux Indes orientales. Paris:G. Clouzier. Texier, Charles.1842-52. Descriptionde l'Armenie,la Perseet la Me'sopotamie. Paris:Firmin-DidotFrere. Tilia, Ann Britt. 1972. Studiesand Restorationsat Persepolis and OtherSites of Fars 1. Rome: Istituto Italianoper il Medio ed EstremoOriente. 1978. Studiesand Restorationsat Persepolisand Other Sites of Fars 2. Rome: Istituto Italianoper il Medio ed EstremoOriente. Triimpelmann, Leo. 1988. Persepolis.Ein Weltwunderder Antike, mit Beitragenvon Manizhe Abka'i-Khavariund Heinz Luschey. Mainz:Philippvon Zabern. Vanden Berghe, Louis. 1979. Bibliographie analitique de l'arche'ologie de l'Iran ancien. Leiden:E. J. Brill. Weld-Blundel,Herbert.1893. "Persepolis."In E. D. Morgan, ed., Transactionsof the Ninth International Congressof Orientalists(Heldin London,5th to 12thSeptember1892), vol. 2, 537-59. London:Committeeof the Congress. Wiesehofer,Josef. 1996. AncientPersiafrom 550 B.C. to 650 A.D., trans.A. Azodi. London and New York:I. B. Tauris. Wright,Denis. 1977. TheEnglish amongstthePersians. London: Heinemann. Zoka, Yahya. 1376/1997. Tarikh-e akkassi va akkassan-e pishgamdar Iran. Tehran:OffsetPress Inc.

251

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Kenneth Lapatin Reviewed work(s): The Lie Became Great: The Forgery of Ancient near Eastern Cultures by Oscar White Muscarella Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 253-255 Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629598 Accessed: 01/02/2009 09:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

BookReviews TheLie BecameGreat: TheForgeryof Ancient Near Eastern Cultures.By Oscar White Muscarella.Studies in the Art and Archaeologyof Antiquity,Volume 1. 540 pp. Groningen:Styx Publications,2000. $100.00 hardcover. ORGERIES

TAKE MANY FORMS,

and,once

one startsto look for them, they arenot hard to find. New creationsare passed off as old; genuine antiquitiescan be "enhanced"by modern additions;andfalseprovenancesbecomeattachedto lootedartifacts.FordecadesOscarWhiteMuscarella, a seniorresearchfellowatthe MetropolitanMuseum, has trackedsuch frauds,which corruptthe historirecordandcontributeto the decalandart-historical structionof irreplaceableculturalresources.In this importantbook,whoseimplicationsreachfarbeyond ancientNear Easternstudies, he aims not so much to expose individualitemsfalselyascribedto diverse civilizationsbut rather,as his titleindicates,to demonstratethe scope and scale of damagewroughtby the readyacceptanceof unexcavatedobjectsandfabricatedattributionsand their misuse by those who would (re)constructancientcultures. The literatureon forgeryis vast,but I knowof no otherbook like this. Mosttreatmentsof the topic can be placed into one of threebroadcategories:(1) the philosophical, which probe definitionsand values (e.g., "ifa forgeryis so close to the originalas to fool experts,what is the difference?"or "why,when exposed, shoulda previouslyprizedobjectbe relegated to thebasement?");(2) the anecdotalor biographical, whichusuallyrecountpiquantnarratives, theprotagonists of which, whetherthe young Michelangeloor ZhangDaqian,tend to emergeas cultureheroes;and (3) theprocedural,in whichtechnical,stylistic,iconographic,scientific,and other clues are painstakingly pursuedand presentedin orderto ascertainthe true nature of particularobjects. (These categories, of course,canbe-and oftenare-combined.)' Althoughtheseapproachesareall adoptedhere, the thrustof thisbookis moralandethical.Muscarella presentsa passionate,frequentlyentertaining,regularlysarcastic,and oftendisturbingindictmentnot of Ars Orientalis,volume XXXII (2002)

forgers,nor evenlooters,but ratherof thosewho underwritetheiractivities.He openswitha blisteringatorder" tackon "TheForgeryCulture"-a"clandestine of smugglers,dealers,auctionhouse employees,collectors,donors,curators,museumofficialsand trustees, scholars,and scientistswho practice"bazaararchaeology,"tradingin, authenticating,and publishingobjectsthathavenotbeenproperlyexcavatedfrom sites.The uncriticalacceptance knownarchaeological whethermodernfakesorplundered ofsuch"artifacts," antiquities(oftenalltoo politelycalled"illicitlyrecovered"or even"rescued")is, accordingto Muscarella, the "soft underbelly"of archaeology.Objectspurloined fromancientsites, perforcedestroyedto obtainthem,offertenuousgroundforthereconstiruction of pastcultures,andrelianceon theprovenancessuppliedby dealers,whosebusinessit is to knowandprovide whatbuyerswant,canleadto faultyconclusions regardingsocial,religious,artistic,andecononiiccontactsbetweenancientpeoplesas readilyas misplaced confidencein outrightforgeries.2 Muscarellaemphasizesmethodology.He argues throughout that unprovenancedmaterialmust be treatedseparately,and differently,from excavated artifacts-that "archaeologistsand arthistoriansare not free to creditthe bazaaras a source of historical knowledge."He rejectsas risiblethenotionthatplunderedtombassemblagesremainunifiedas theymake theirway throughthe artmarketand upbraidsthose who unquestioningly employ unique, unprovenanceditems to rewriteancienthistoryor redefine religiouspractice.Numerousexamplesareprovided of diversesites (Luristanand Ziwiyebeing the most popular)and culturesbeing cited by dealers,curators,andscholarsas the sourceof individualartifacts. "Which crystal ball should we believe?" he asks pointedly. Those seeking to reconcile conflicting accountsand anomalousfeaturesoften must resort to intellectualsomersaults(the"provincialartist"' who combineselementsof a numberof traditionsis a habitualfavorite),whichMuscarellarepeatedlyderides. In fact, he draws attention to entire categories of "finds"(oftenunique,precious,or highlydecorated artifactsso desirableto collectors)thathave few, or evenno, excavawted parallels:90 percentof metalvessels publishedas comingfromnorthwesternIranor 253 Marlik,forexample,wereacquiredfromdealersand

BOOK REVIEWS

254

haveno archaeologicalprovenance.Not one incised insteadof-excavated materialas evidenceforancient bronzebelt has been excavatedin Luristan;nor any practicesand beliefs. But his harshestwords are redecoratedquiversin western Iran;nor any Achae- served for scholar/dealers,such as A. U. Pope and menianplate with a figuralmotif in the centralmeR. Girshman,who willfilly manipulatedthearchaeodallion. Such items, Muscarellareports,"havesur- logical record for personalprofit. Despite-or perfaced in the bazaar,and all indicate that they are hapsbecauseof-his obviousbiases,andbecausehe moderncreationsmade to be sold." exposes the usually hidden close relationshipbeMedianartis evenmoreproblematic.Muscarella tween scholarshipand commercethatfacilitatesthe arguesthat"no westernIranianartifactor iconogra- success of the forgersand looters, this introduction, phy can at presentbe identifiedwith suretyto have at least, shouldbe requiredreadingfor studentsand been made by Medes." Unexcavatedexamples,he professionalsin art history, archaeology,museum suggests,are eitherAchaemenianin date or modern studies,culturalmanagement,andrelateddisciplines. forgeries,thelatterbeingtheunsuccessfulproductsof A relentless170-pageannotatedcatalogueof well forgerswho knewnothingaboutMedianartbutaimed overa thousanddubious,unexcavateditemsfollows. to produce Achaemenianworks-and failed. They Some 340 of these "artifacts" in gold, silver,bronze, have,Muscarellawrites,nonethelessbeenrescuedby stone,andterracottaascribedto virtuallyallof the anscholarswho cient civilizations,Neolithic to medieval, of Iran, Mesopotamia,Anatolia,North Syria,and the Levant ingeniouslyinterpretedthe worksto be evidence areillustrated(alongwithimagesof 20 unequivocally ofearlierartisticacivity.... The aberrations instyle genuinecomparanda)on 300 pages of drawingsand and execution,andambience,betweenthe object photographsof unevenquality.Bibliographyforeach (theforgery)andAchaemenian artwerenoted,but piece is providedwhen available-manyare (were?) invaniably interpretedby an intuitiveleap to be a in the hands of unnamed dealers or collectors. characteristicof what we should expect in pre- Muscarelladoes alsooccasionallyofferdetailedanalyAchaemenian art;andthusthisarthistoricalinsight ses of individualpieces, explainingwhy they should allowsone to makea greatdiscovery. be excludedfromthe ranksof genuineantiquitiesor why they should be "keptin abeyance."He readily Thus successfulforgeriesnot only beget more admitshis uncertainties,suggeststhatsomepiecesare forgeriesbut also engendernew and necessarilyer- genuinebut havebeen re- or overworked,and occaroneous interpretationsof ancient cultures. Mus- sionallyreverseshis own earlierassessments.In many carellalamentsthe "lackof scholarlyreflectionand cases,however,he dismissesobjectswithjusta word inadequateeducation"of those who "createfiction" orphrase:"Itis clearlymodernto anyonewho looks"; by publishingor exhibitingunprovenancedobjects "mechanically made";"verybadlyexecuted";"apoor as genuine or from a specific site, when no reliable copy"l;"a trulymodernwork";"terrible"; "ahorror." source recordedtheiremergencefromthe earth."If Thus, he oftenseemsto relyon gut feelingsas much this weren'tserious,"he remarksat one point, "one as thosewhomhe mocksforassertingtheauthenticity could have a good laugh."Frequentlymockingthe of a piece merelybecause"Itspeaksto me." workof others-his notes areevenmorecausticthan Still, regardlessof the accuracyof these indihis text-Muscarellaurgesreaderswho mightbe put vidualassessments,thereis no denyingthe extentof offby his contentioustone to "listento the story,not the problem.Althoughthe readercomes to suspect the story teller."His thirty-page"Introductionand thatthe authorhas searchedhigh andlow forallposPolemic"providesanecdotalaccountsof thesuppres- sible fakes,no materhow unconvincing,manyof the sion of information,collusion,conflictof interest,and pieces he presentshavefoundbuyersandhavemade creation of false knowledge that regularlyoccurs theirway into exhibition(aswell as sales)catalogues when what he archlycalls "provenience-impaired" and into scholarlypublications.And Muscarellaasartifactsenterthe marketplaceand, eventually,come serts that he presentsmerelythe tip of the iceberg. to be employedindiscriminatelyalongside-or even Yet, ironically,becausehis catalogueis subdivided

BOOKREVIEWS

by geography, culture, and medium, and a useful concordanceof museumsand collectionscloses the volume, the authorprovides a ready referencenot only for scholarsand studentswishingto investigate a particularitem or class of objects but also for the dealersand collectorswhose practiceshe so vociferously protests, supplying them with a convenient catalogue of fakes and lists of features to guard against-and he might even equip the enterprising forgerwith guidancetowardimprovement. What is the way forward for the rest of us? Muscarellarightlyurges skepticismin the faceof all unexcavatedmaterialand advocatesgreaterapplication of scientificanalyses(althoughfaithin such tests is oftennaive).Despitetheyearsof efforthe has spent trackingthem down, Muscarellawould seem to be contentto consignall of his fakesto the trashheap of history.But this is to overlooktheirpotentialusefulness. To be sure, forgeriescontaminatethe historical recordand providefalsefoundationsfor investigationsof ancientcultures,butrecentscholarshiphas emphasizedhow, once recognized, they also shed valuablelight on the dynamicreciprocitybetween past and present,offeringfertilegroundfor exploration of how the past is constantlyreshapedto serve the needs of the present.3 "Historicism," writes Muscarella,"hasnot been a relevantconcernto me in developingmy conclusions,"but for him historicism seems to consist only of considerationsthat mightexcuse deficienciesof earlierscholarship.The production and consumption of fakes have been stimulatedby diverse motives-desires for professional and social advancement,as well as for financialgain-but, givenMuscarella's detailedknowledge of the history of the trafficin ancientNear Eastern artifacts,he mightalsohaveprofitablyexaminedwhat the forgerieshe has so painstakinglycollectedreveal aboutthe receptionandconstructionof ancientNear Easternculturesin modern times. In his lengthyand heavily illustrated treatment of alleged neolithic terracottasfromHacilar,for example,he mighthave considered how desires for a peaceful, egalitarian, matriarchalpast have encouragedforgersto create so manycorpulentnude femalefigurines.As tangible evidenceof contemporarydesiresprojectedonto the past, forgeries provide valuable historiographical materialandanimportantreminderof theever-evolv-

ing natureof historicalinterpretation.By gathering and analyzingso manyitems, attributedto so many differentcivilizations,and by exposing the crooked paths by which they have come to be employed in our historical reconstructions,Muscarellahas revealedjust how problematicour view of the past is, and thus he has performeda signalservice. NOTES

1. MarkJones,ed., Fake?TheArt of Deception,exh. cat. (London: BritishMuseum, 1990) is an excellentintroductionto the topic, while SandorRadnoti, TheFake:Forgeryand Its Placein Art (Lanham:Rowman& Littlefield,1999) provides a convenient, if heavily theorized,overview. Many topoi of the literatureon forgerycontinueto be foundin recentbiographicaltreatments, e.g., Douglas Preston, "Woody's Dream," The New Yorker,15 November 1999, 87-89; and PeterLandesman,"A 20th-CenturyMasterScam,"NewYorkTimesMagazine,18July 1999, 3 1ff. For a provocativeand entertainingcombinationof the philosophicaland the anecdotalin the case of an accused forger,see LawrenceWechsler,Boggs:A Comedyof Value(Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress, 1999). 2. For the links among the forgery,looting, and collecting of AegeanBronzeAge material,with broaderimplications,see D. W. J. Gill and C. Chippindale,"Materialand IntellectualConsequences of Esteemfor CycladicFigures,"AmericanJournal of Archaeology97 (1993): 601-59; and KennethLapatin,Mysteriesof theSnakeGoddess:Art, Desire, and theForgingof History(Boston:Houghton Mifflin,2002). 3. In additionto theworkscited above,see especiallythe essays collectedin MarkJones,ed., WhyFakesMatter:Essayson ProblemsofAuthenticity(London:BritishMuseum, 1992). KENNETH LAPATIN

A Bushel of Pearls: Painting for Sale in EighYangchou.By GingerCheng-chi teenth-Century Hsii. 314 + xiii pp. Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press, 2001. $49.50 hardcover. I

N DYNASTIC

CHINA,

in theory,thewell-edu-

cated man practicedpaintingas a means of refininghis sensibilitiesand cultivatinghis moral character.Gentlemenlikenedpaintingto poetryas a wayof expressingprivatethoughtsandsendingmes- 255 sagesof congratulations andsympathyto like-minded

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Alfreda Murck Reviewed work(s): A Bushel of Pearls: Painting for Sale in Eighteenth-Century Yangchou by Ginger Chengchi Hsü Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 255-257 Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629599 Accessed: 01/02/2009 10:24 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKREVIEWS

by geography, culture, and medium, and a useful concordanceof museumsand collectionscloses the volume, the authorprovides a ready referencenot only for scholarsand studentswishingto investigate a particularitem or class of objects but also for the dealersand collectorswhose practiceshe so vociferously protests, supplying them with a convenient catalogue of fakes and lists of features to guard against-and he might even equip the enterprising forgerwith guidancetowardimprovement. What is the way forward for the rest of us? Muscarellarightlyurges skepticismin the faceof all unexcavatedmaterialand advocatesgreaterapplication of scientificanalyses(althoughfaithin such tests is oftennaive).Despitetheyearsof efforthe has spent trackingthem down, Muscarellawould seem to be contentto consignall of his fakesto the trashheap of history.But this is to overlooktheirpotentialusefulness. To be sure, forgeriescontaminatethe historical recordand providefalsefoundationsfor investigationsof ancientcultures,butrecentscholarshiphas emphasizedhow, once recognized, they also shed valuablelight on the dynamicreciprocitybetween past and present,offeringfertilegroundfor exploration of how the past is constantlyreshapedto serve the needs of the present.3 "Historicism," writes Muscarella,"hasnot been a relevantconcernto me in developingmy conclusions,"but for him historicism seems to consist only of considerationsthat mightexcuse deficienciesof earlierscholarship.The production and consumption of fakes have been stimulatedby diverse motives-desires for professional and social advancement,as well as for financialgain-but, givenMuscarella's detailedknowledge of the history of the trafficin ancientNear Eastern artifacts,he mightalsohaveprofitablyexaminedwhat the forgerieshe has so painstakinglycollectedreveal aboutthe receptionandconstructionof ancientNear Easternculturesin modern times. In his lengthyand heavily illustrated treatment of alleged neolithic terracottasfromHacilar,for example,he mighthave considered how desires for a peaceful, egalitarian, matriarchalpast have encouragedforgersto create so manycorpulentnude femalefigurines.As tangible evidenceof contemporarydesiresprojectedonto the past, forgeries provide valuable historiographical materialandanimportantreminderof theever-evolv-

ing natureof historicalinterpretation.By gathering and analyzingso manyitems, attributedto so many differentcivilizations,and by exposing the crooked paths by which they have come to be employed in our historical reconstructions,Muscarellahas revealedjust how problematicour view of the past is, and thus he has performeda signalservice. NOTES

1. MarkJones,ed., Fake?TheArt of Deception,exh. cat. (London: BritishMuseum, 1990) is an excellentintroductionto the topic, while SandorRadnoti, TheFake:Forgeryand Its Placein Art (Lanham:Rowman& Littlefield,1999) provides a convenient, if heavily theorized,overview. Many topoi of the literatureon forgerycontinueto be foundin recentbiographicaltreatments, e.g., Douglas Preston, "Woody's Dream," The New Yorker,15 November 1999, 87-89; and PeterLandesman,"A 20th-CenturyMasterScam,"NewYorkTimesMagazine,18July 1999, 3 1ff. For a provocativeand entertainingcombinationof the philosophicaland the anecdotalin the case of an accused forger,see LawrenceWechsler,Boggs:A Comedyof Value(Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress, 1999). 2. For the links among the forgery,looting, and collecting of AegeanBronzeAge material,with broaderimplications,see D. W. J. Gill and C. Chippindale,"Materialand IntellectualConsequences of Esteemfor CycladicFigures,"AmericanJournal of Archaeology97 (1993): 601-59; and KennethLapatin,Mysteriesof theSnakeGoddess:Art, Desire, and theForgingof History(Boston:Houghton Mifflin,2002). 3. In additionto theworkscited above,see especiallythe essays collectedin MarkJones,ed., WhyFakesMatter:Essayson ProblemsofAuthenticity(London:BritishMuseum, 1992). KENNETH LAPATIN

A Bushel of Pearls: Painting for Sale in EighYangchou.By GingerCheng-chi teenth-Century Hsii. 314 + xiii pp. Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press, 2001. $49.50 hardcover. I

N DYNASTIC

CHINA,

in theory,thewell-edu-

cated man practicedpaintingas a means of refininghis sensibilitiesand cultivatinghis moral character.Gentlemenlikenedpaintingto poetryas a wayof expressingprivatethoughtsandsendingmes- 255 sagesof congratulations andsympathyto like-minded

BOOK REVIEWS

256

friends. For a gentleman-scholarto use this inherently personalart for financialgain was considered crass.This idealpersistedfor centuries,andwhile it was repeatedlycompromised,it was also frequently reinforced by stories of high-minded men taking umbrageat the suggestionthattheirpaintingsmight be bought. In theinformativeandhighlyreadableABushelof Pearls,GingerHsii analyzesthephenomenonof educatedmen breakingwith the literaticode and openly justifyingthe sale of theirpaintings.The settingwas Yangzhou,the flourishingculturalandeconomichub of easternChinaduringtheeighteenthcentury.Hsii's thesisis thatthe commodificationof paintingwas not solely drivenby the enormouswealthin Yangzhou, nor was it the resultof scholar-gentlemen behaving ratherit resultedfroma livelyprocessof eccentrically; negotiationbetweenartistsand patrons.Buildingon the cultural-economicstudies of Ho Ping-ti,James Cahill,CraigClunas,and others,Hsii delineatesthe activitiesof the artmarketand the role of Yangzhou salt merchantsof varyingdegrees of sophistication. Examiningthe social, political,and historicalforces that influencedchoices, she illustratesher thesis by focusingon fourmen who, in the faceof centuriesof taboo,marketedtheirpaintings. The fourartists'backgroundsreveala varietyof negotiatedpositions.Fang Shishu(1692-1751) was froma prominentAnhuifamilythathad madea fortunein thesalttrade.Interestedin paintingfromchildhood, Fangdutifillypursueda degreeto representthe clan in the imperialbureaucracy.Havingearnedan entry-leveldegreeand preparingfor more examinations, he was forcedto takeover the familybusiness when his fatherandbrotherdied. He quicklylost the familyfortune(adisasterthathe attributedto fate)and turnedto art for a living. Fang moved easilyamong commercial,official,andculturalcirclesin Yangzhou. He documentedhis patrons'gardensandtheirliterati gatheringsandprovidedthemwithlandscapesin the styles of the Orthodoxliteratimasters.Since his patronswere his friendsand equals,they were careful not to demandartworksbut merelyto request,and theylet him finishat his own leisure;paymentswere ritualizedas hospitalityandgifts. A sharp contrast is provided by Huang Shen (1687-1765), who as an adolescentbeganpainting

portraitsto help supporthis impoverishedNinghua family.He studiedpoetry and the classics to better himself.When he arrivedin Yangzhouin the mid1720s, he painted figures in meticulous detail. A breakthroughcamewhenHuangdiscardedthatstyle fora loose calligraphicmannerassociatedwithscholars. His monochromefiguresin tremulousbrushworkcould then be linkedto the higherstatusof the conceptualworks(xieyi) of theliteratiwhilealsodisplayingan individualisticstyle thatwas appealingto the Yangzhou market. Huang directly negotiated prices for his paintings, unconventionalbehavior that,Hsii speculates,waspermittedby his craftsman status.In one memorableexchange,Huanginduced a salt merchantto pay for a paintingby purchasing for him a comelylass froma bean curd shop. ZhengXie (1693-1765) was the only one of the fourpaintersto havehad an officialcareer.He was a teacherandawandereruntilhe concludedthat viUlage a classicaleducationwas essentialfor financialsecurity. At age forty-four,he belatedlypassed the metropolitanexaminationandeventuallyservedas a lowlevel officialin Shandongprovince for nearlya decade. Upon leaving office he joined friends in Yangzhouand supportedhimselfthroughpainting and calligraphy.Zhengwas independentenough to meet the demandsof collectorswith candorand humor: he posted a list that specified prices for each size of workand thataskedforpaymentin cash. Two lines of inquiryaresuggestedby Hsii's discussion of Zheng's career in Shandong. Hsii describes the many occasions on which Zheng Xie paintedorchidsforfriendsandacquaintances, a motif with which he closely associatedhimself.In a note she cites a study on Zheng Xie's dismissalfromoffice (p. 158 n. 97). In the chapteronJin Nong, she assertsdirectlythatZhengwas indeed forcedout (p. 178). If he left officialdomunder a cloud, that may influencehow we read his favoriteflowersince orchids were associatedwith Qu Yuan, the archetype of all maligned officials and unappreciatedtalent. Secondly,Zheng'squestto forgehis own calligraphic style meritsfurtherstudy. Zheng'scalligraphyis oftenexplainedas apersonalsynthesisof NorthernWei stele models. This should be expanded to include the late sixth-centuryBuddhistsutrasinscribedon mountainsin southernShandongprovince.Within

BOOKREVIEWS

Morepopularwere flowers,birds,and figures;there easy travel of Zheng Xie's posts in Fanxian and Weixian, the huge inscriptionspredatethe canoni- was an expansionof subjectmatter(some mightsay a dumbingdown) to meet the market:an increasein zationof regularscriptandcombinein one work-as did ZhengXie-elements of seal,clerical,regular,and accessible,colorfulimagery,in popularnarrativestorunningscript.In ZhengXie's Orchids,Bamboo,and ries, in symbolsof wealthand auspiciousness. Fungi on a Cliff(Hsii's fig. 5.2), the placementof a The increasinglyblurred distinction between long inscriptionon a rockreadilycompareswith cliff amateur-literatiand professional is central to this writing. But the more importantissue is: To what study. One hopes Hsii will furtherexplore this perextent was Zheng's calligraphya response to the sistenttensionby examiningit in the contextof those regardedas in the literatimainstreamratherthanas Yangzhou market,always interested in new, eyecatchinginterpretationsof antiquity?Was it a per- eccentricsor professionals.She cites Dong Qichang sonal formulationbased on early models or also a as most clearlyarticulatingthe amateur/professional solution to the practicalissue of finding a saleable ideal, and Dong clearly positioned himself as an style? If so, is thereany differencebetweenthe pre- "amateur,"yet he also marketedhis paintingsto pay 1753 works done as an officialand the post-1753 off debts. Was there a qualitativeor stylisticdifferworks thathe did in Yangzhou? ence betweenthe paintingsthatwent up forsaleand Jin Nong (1687-1763), the fourthof the artists those thatDong kept for himself?Can even this exstudied,is a delightfuil emplarof traditionand arbiterof tastebe seen as reenigma.A finepoet,Jin Nong was a wordsmithwho never took the examinations. spondingin his artisticpracticeto patrons'taste? Insteadhe dealtin antiquities,sourcedchoiceobjects Bushelof Pearlsis illustratedwith 48 black-andfor collectors,and activelymarketedhis artisticpro- whiteplatesandone color(onlya hintof thepictorial ductions from inkstones to lanterns, even asking riches).A bibliographyand index makethe book a friendsto find buyersfor him. WhenJin Nong gave usefulresource.Sinceno Chinesetextsareprovided, up life as an itinerantdealerin his mid-sixties,he was it would have been helpful if the authorhad given equallyresourcefulas a painterand calligrapher.UnChinesetitlesof the translatedpoemsandessays.The ableto sellsufficientartin Hangzhou,JinNongmoved notesprovideonlya book titleanda singlenumber(a to Yangzhou.He becameso successfulthat he had page?a chapter?),makingit difficultto findthe origighost paintershelp him fill commissions.A prolific nal text withoutthe same out-of-printeditionthatis artistevenwithoutghostpainters,he developedawide cited. These slight defects,however,do not detract rangeof subjectsand, with literatipanache,incorpo- fromwhatis a finecontributionto ourunderstanding ratedlong inscriptionsinto his paintings. of the economicandsocialcurrentsbehindthisinnoHsii's book presents a vivid picture of the vativeschool of Chinesepainting.r Yangzhouartworld and thejockeying of both buyers and sellers. Her argumentof mutualinteraction ALFREDAMURCK holds on manylevels,but the evidenceoftensuggests thatthe wealthypatronsand merchantshad the upper hand. The staggeringwealth accrued by the Yangzhousaltmerchants(some, she reports,had an annualincome of an estimatedfive million taels of Shitao:Painting and Modernityin Early Qing silver) and their willingness to spend to acquire a China. By JonathanHay. RES Monographsin patinaof culturemadeYangzhoua magnetforartists AnthropologyandAesthetics.412 pp., 22 color from all over China. Significantly,none of the four plates,322 b/w, 3 maps.Cambridge:Cambridge paintersprofiledin the book was froma Yangzhou UniversityPress, 2001. $95.00 hardcover. family.Hsii alsopointsout thatthe saltmerchantculturevaluedpaintingthemeswithbotha certainstandT ^ HIS AMBITIOUS, MANY-FACETED acing within the scholarlytraditionand symbolic account is a long-awaitedstudy of one of 257 cessibility.Landscapepaintingswerenot in demand. China'smostchallengingpaintersas thelast

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Richard Edwards Reviewed work(s): Shitao: Painting and Modernity in Early Qing China by Jonathan Hay Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 257-261 Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629600 Accessed: 01/02/2009 09:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKREVIEWS

Morepopularwere flowers,birds,and figures;there easy travel of Zheng Xie's posts in Fanxian and Weixian, the huge inscriptionspredatethe canoni- was an expansionof subjectmatter(some mightsay a dumbingdown) to meet the market:an increasein zationof regularscriptandcombinein one work-as did ZhengXie-elements of seal,clerical,regular,and accessible,colorfulimagery,in popularnarrativestorunningscript.In ZhengXie's Orchids,Bamboo,and ries, in symbolsof wealthand auspiciousness. Fungi on a Cliff(Hsii's fig. 5.2), the placementof a The increasinglyblurred distinction between long inscriptionon a rockreadilycompareswith cliff amateur-literatiand professional is central to this writing. But the more importantissue is: To what study. One hopes Hsii will furtherexplore this perextent was Zheng's calligraphya response to the sistenttensionby examiningit in the contextof those regardedas in the literatimainstreamratherthanas Yangzhou market,always interested in new, eyecatchinginterpretationsof antiquity?Was it a per- eccentricsor professionals.She cites Dong Qichang sonal formulationbased on early models or also a as most clearlyarticulatingthe amateur/professional solution to the practicalissue of finding a saleable ideal, and Dong clearly positioned himself as an style? If so, is thereany differencebetweenthe pre- "amateur,"yet he also marketedhis paintingsto pay 1753 works done as an officialand the post-1753 off debts. Was there a qualitativeor stylisticdifferworks thathe did in Yangzhou? ence betweenthe paintingsthatwent up forsaleand Jin Nong (1687-1763), the fourthof the artists those thatDong kept for himself?Can even this exstudied,is a delightfuil emplarof traditionand arbiterof tastebe seen as reenigma.A finepoet,Jin Nong was a wordsmithwho never took the examinations. spondingin his artisticpracticeto patrons'taste? Insteadhe dealtin antiquities,sourcedchoiceobjects Bushelof Pearlsis illustratedwith 48 black-andfor collectors,and activelymarketedhis artisticpro- whiteplatesandone color(onlya hintof thepictorial ductions from inkstones to lanterns, even asking riches).A bibliographyand index makethe book a friendsto find buyersfor him. WhenJin Nong gave usefulresource.Sinceno Chinesetextsareprovided, up life as an itinerantdealerin his mid-sixties,he was it would have been helpful if the authorhad given equallyresourcefulas a painterand calligrapher.UnChinesetitlesof the translatedpoemsandessays.The ableto sellsufficientartin Hangzhou,JinNongmoved notesprovideonlya book titleanda singlenumber(a to Yangzhou.He becameso successfulthat he had page?a chapter?),makingit difficultto findthe origighost paintershelp him fill commissions.A prolific nal text withoutthe same out-of-printeditionthatis artistevenwithoutghostpainters,he developedawide cited. These slight defects,however,do not detract rangeof subjectsand, with literatipanache,incorpo- fromwhatis a finecontributionto ourunderstanding ratedlong inscriptionsinto his paintings. of the economicandsocialcurrentsbehindthisinnoHsii's book presents a vivid picture of the vativeschool of Chinesepainting.r Yangzhouartworld and thejockeying of both buyers and sellers. Her argumentof mutualinteraction ALFREDAMURCK holds on manylevels,but the evidenceoftensuggests thatthe wealthypatronsand merchantshad the upper hand. The staggeringwealth accrued by the Yangzhousaltmerchants(some, she reports,had an annualincome of an estimatedfive million taels of Shitao:Painting and Modernityin Early Qing silver) and their willingness to spend to acquire a China. By JonathanHay. RES Monographsin patinaof culturemadeYangzhoua magnetforartists AnthropologyandAesthetics.412 pp., 22 color from all over China. Significantly,none of the four plates,322 b/w, 3 maps.Cambridge:Cambridge paintersprofiledin the book was froma Yangzhou UniversityPress, 2001. $95.00 hardcover. family.Hsii alsopointsout thatthe saltmerchantculturevaluedpaintingthemeswithbotha certainstandT ^ HIS AMBITIOUS, MANY-FACETED acing within the scholarlytraditionand symbolic account is a long-awaitedstudy of one of 257 cessibility.Landscapepaintingswerenot in demand. China'smostchallengingpaintersas thelast

BOOK REVIEWS

258

halfof theseventeenthcenturyspilledoverintothefirst decadeof thenext.Onemustwelcomeanysucheffort. In his prefacethe authorrejectsthe notion of an "ariddreamof arthistorywithoutartists'lives-artists replacedby agency,"especiallyfor an artisthe considersthe most completely"individualist"of his time,one whose uniquenesshe linksto the termqishi ("originalscholar-elite").Yet, for all its breadth,the book'sclaimedfocusis on the lastdecadeof Shitao's life (1697-1707), duringwhich most of his surviving works were painted. The later focus, however, by no meanspreventsthe authorfromweavingearlieraccomplishmentsinto his narrative,forwhichhe kindlyfurnishesa chronologicalappendix.Evenso, the focus on Shitao'slast decade gives the whole an urbanbias thatmaynot accuratelydescribehis early life, with its isolation and travel,its absorptionin mountain,river,and temple. The argumentof eachoften chapterschallenges any ordinarysummary.I retreathere to titles, with only a hint of contents:(1) "Shitao,Yangzhouand Modernity"sets the scene. (2) "The Conspicuous Consumptionof Time" takesup "socialspace"and "a discussion of leisure."(3) "The CommonClaim on DynasticNarrative"examineshow in landscapes "politicalmemory [history?]was increasinglycontested"by theindividual.(4) "ZhuRuoji'sDestinies" shows how Shitao's given name was "articulated through successive strategicnarrativesof his own destiny." (5) "The Acknowledgementof Origins," in contrastto the previouschapter,moves the "narrativeof destiny"(againhistory?)to a timelatein the artist'slife. (6) "The ArtistEntrepreneur" dealswith "economicidentity"and a "paintingbusiness."(7) "Paintingsas Commodities"discussesthe commercial categoriesof Shitao'sproducts,especiallythose defined as "decorative"and "commemorative."(8) "The Painter'sCraft"addressesthe "self-conscious discourse of professionalism"and further frames Shitao's"engagementin commerce."(9) "Painting as Praxis"allowspraxis(practice?)to takean active stance,with paintingtransformingShitaointo a religious teacher,includinghis famoustheoreticaltreatise. (10) "The PrivateHorizon"appearsto return to thebeginningsin "socialspace,"wherenow Shitao reveals"a sociallyfracturedself' when facedby the early modern experience: "consumerism,with its

manipulationof consumerdesire; the insecurityof urbanlife;the threatof isolation"(pp. 284, 285). I need hardly point out that ProfessorHay is plowing the field of postmodernapproachesto the visual arts, which for those not converted often stretchesclarityin both word and idea. His studyis openly "kaleidoscopic,"an adjectivehe applies to Shitaoas well. This lackof focusleadsto "extremes" thatdefybalancingtextwithimageandofteninclude theoreticalsections that need no illustrationsat all. Further,becausediscussionsof worksarelockedinto anideologicalten-chapterframe,he asksthe reader's indulgencein acceptingthe need for "flippingback and forth for illustrations[which is] guaranteedto try the reader'spatience"(p. xx). Exactly.This is not an easy read.The initialanticipationcalledup by thewealthof colorplates,blackand-whitefigures,and mapsis considerablyblunted by searchingto find in grovesof verbalideas where wordscan bejoined to them.In some waysthis is all themorefrustrating sincethewriter'sintellectual powersandscholarlydevotion,the"freethinking"praised in thebook'sdedicationto his teachers(backedby 34 fine-printdouble-columnpagesoffootnotes),canonly evokescholarlyadmiration. Whatthen to add? It is perhapsodd that,for an artistwho claimedthe significanceof "no method" and a reviewerwho has never quite understoodan intellectualeagernessto pursue"methodology,"it is methodologythatis at fault. In Consilience(Knopf,1998) the eminentscientist Edward 0. Wilson attemptsto rise above the numerousbarriersthatso oftenwalloff the precious kingdoms of intellectualdisciplines. While by no means rejectingnew approaches,he admits defeat whenconfrontedby postmodernism.His summation is crisp:"Reality,theypropose,is a stateconstructed in the mind, not perceivedby it." A few pages later, ratherwhimsically:"Their adherentsfretupon the field of play, sometimesbrilliantly,usuallynot,jargon prone and elusive"(pp. 40, 43). While this is the opinion of a naturalscientist,cannotthose of us in the arts,especiallythe concrete,nonverbalvisual arts,embraceits significance? The visualartscanclaim a specialclosenessto thephysicalsciences-an undeniabletangiblephysicalpresence.Becauseof this,it is throughhistory,as opposed to 'narrative," that the

BOOK REVIEWS

visual arts can also claim a special place. Whereas wordsareaboutthings-and as suchofferexceptional flexibility-the visual arts,if well preserved,are the thingitself,directwitnessto thetimeof creation.With Shitao,as the book titleproclaims,Painting mustbe a main concern. It cannot be sidestepped with an apology. Modernity,undefined by art's creativity, carries the limitation of its "social condition," no matterwhetherextendedto "aphenomenonof consciousness"or disguisedwith "reflexivity"(p. xvii). Indeed,the moreone gets drawninto the intricaciesofJonathanHay'sarguments,themoreone misses the open clarityof Shitao'sart.Let me suggestone or two examples.The fifthleafof a tinyinch-size12-leaf album,ReturningHome(1695), now in New York's Metropolitan Museum,is a singlegemof paintingskill (p. 155). It showsa figureon a simpleopen skiff.The subjectis distantlyframedby threedarkinkmountains attheverytopandthelightinktouchesofleaningwater reedsat the bottom.Indeedthe spaceis ratherturned upsidedown. In theirblacknessthe farmountains-a triunerecedingfreeinkformthatrecallstheancientcharacterformountain-suggesta strongforwardpresence, whilethelightlybrushedreedsin theforeground,if not distance,atleastsketchan ephemeralfoundation.The wholepaintingfloats,as does thefirmlydefinedcentral imageofboatandhunchedboatman(Shitaohimself,as theauthoraffirms).Buttheboatis consciouslytipped, andtheleaningboatmanis notfirmlyseatedashe leans clutchingthesteeringoar,hatstringsflying,stininglines ofpassingwater,propelledin thiswidespacedownand out forwho knowswhatend beyondwhatwe cansee. There is even the artist'sown writtenconfirmation of movement.In a tinynoteafterhis facinginscriptionhe writesthathe hassubstitutedfortheword"stop"(ting) theword"passon"(guo). Insteadof affirmingthe delightof such an open visualstatement,theauthormustfindahiddenagenda. This is notto faultinterestin knowingthatthe"friend" for whom it was painted at this uncertaintime in Shitao'slife (1695) mayhavebeen the saltmerchant ZhengZhaoxinor morelikelya writer,XianZhu.But canthepaintedcertaintiessomehowbe deconstructed as a lonelypleaformuch-neededpatronage?And can it be correctto add the curiousobservationthatthe figure,representedin exact, self-absorbed,forwardrushingprofile,"bowsand salutesthe viewer"?

Painteda fewyearslater,andnow alsoin theMetropolitanMuseum,is the well-knownrecollectionof anouting,Drunkin theAutumnWoods(p. 50), whose importance is signaled by its fourteen mentions throughoutthe book.The patron,a Mr.Songgao,requestedthe paintingof an eventin which Shitaoand three friends,not includingthe patron,had participated. The artistapproachedthe taskwith enthusiasm, completingit in threedays. Afteran unusually objectivedescription,the author'sideastakeover. The environment is readily metaphorical. Baocheng,the place outside Yangzhou,is the same name used for the firstMing emperor'sinner tomb precinct outside Nanjing. And the season of red leaves, the "thousands of crimson and vermilion dots" specifiedby the patron,cannotsimplysignify autumn,since one of the charactersfor "red"(zhu) alsocarriedthenameof the Mingroyalhouse. A tiny, centrallyplaced, staff-holdingfigureis rightlycited for its importance.One might also exploit the fact that his face is touched with a red wash (political?, wine?autumnal?).The authorproposesthathe may be Shitao makinghis way toward a forwardwine shop. Yet the lower body is not there. He and his companionrise incompleteout of undefinedpaper or mist. Notably,this is exactlywhathappensto the staticstandingfigurein Shitao'sgrandMountLu in Japan'sSumitomoCollection,a paintingof the same timebutdiscussedmuchlater(pp. 268-70). Furthermore, both paintingsrepresentthe entirelandscape as floatingon a similarundefinedfoundationof mist. This painterlycomponent in both cases seals the connectionbetween man and his landscape,which can be used here to supportProfessorHay's enthusiastic:"Painting'scosmology was never so clearly centered on the autonomousindividualbody" (p. 52). Butcanit be trueas well that"Shitao'sstaffsubstitutesfor the painter'sbrush"? Not contentwith such observations,the author does not allow us to escape contextualfoundations of what is termed a "social space." The artist is claimedto have directedmore than a dozen fellow literatiin a staged scene "emphasizingits character as spectacle,"a kind of public exposure of private men gettingdrunk.This shift is tracedback to earlier Suzhou, when it was discovered that "private 259 culture"was "eminentlymarketable."The author

BOOKREVIEWS

then driveshome the scholar'sopen ignominyby alluding (p. 39) to anotherpainting,RepottingChrysanthemums,a hangingscrollin Beijing,which "offersup to the voyeuristiceye the spectacleof literati solitude." In sum, whether alone or in company: "Literatiself-interestintersectswith civic identityto createthe paradigmaticstagingof urbanliteratilife as spectacle"(p. 54). We areurged to see as realizationsof thisstaging"alargeportion"of Shitao'spaintings, "includingalmost all of them with implied or explicitYangzhousettings." Couldthosewho mightbelievethatartis contractionratherthanexpansionbe faroffthemarkin thinking thatin Drunkin theAutumnWoodswe arelookingatavitalhumanexperience,thejoysof releasefrom thestricturesof urbanconfinement,eventhecontrasting "madness"of wine's release,the giddy setting,a feelingof lyingon one'sbackcomposingpoemsasred leaves,askedforby thepatron,firethe ephemeraldelightof an autumndayin the mountains? Pages laterin the text (althoughagainfrom the sameperiod in Shitao'slife), considera smallsingle flower,Day Lily, now in a privatecollection(p. 291). The authorcallsit a "narrativesketch"in which "we see commercialcultivation(in Nanjing)giving way to interarealtrade and open sale on the Yangzhou market,then to personalizedpurchase(veryearlyin the season) for presentationto Shitaoand finallyto the act of paintinginspiredby a privateresponse to the flower's ephemeral beauty." Having reached "beauty,"why avoidit? The double-linedstem disappearsinto the lower depths of the paper.As with the two landscapes,the flower floats on its format. The blossom has an easy, freshopenness with vital curved-backpetalsand the dancingrichblackof stamensandanther,carpeland stigma.Aboveis the rising promiseof furtherlife in a single upward-swelling, about-to-openbud. Is it not, too, an enduring momentof self-revelation? Yet this kind of life force cannotbe admittedas genuinefor Shitaosinceit mustbe screenedthrough the complexworldof commercialmodernity.As the book comes to a close, the authorclaimsto havediscoveredwhat Shitaofailedto see: 260

Shitao'sprivatehorizon of desirewas an urban one, bound up with the circleof productionand

consumption.... The factthathe was a product of thatworld all the way to the most privaterecesses of his social being was literallyunthinkable,forto acknowledgeit wouldhavedestroyed the basis of his negotiationof identity.(p. 302) When did the artistbecome"aproduct"?Artistsare certainlynot unawareof surroundings.They also haveto figureout how to live. Yet artistswithintheir givenlife spanoffera specialgift.They create.In that creativitytheynot only see theworlddifferentlyfrom others;theyhavethe skillto realizethatdifferencein tangibleform. The artistgives experiencea special definition,a truth,if you will, unrecognizedby others and in doing so shapes not only a specific time but-for thegreatones-time beyondthattime.This is so becausetheytouchthe humancondition,a condition forwhich timeis not a barrier. Hay's study of Shitao closes with a few pages entitled "Death's Limit." Largely through verbal sources,manywrittenon paintings,the authorportraysfailedisolationin a finalsummation:"Not solitarysurvivalin the mythiclightof destiny... but the urbansurvivor,responseto anisolationthatpersisted into the liminalityof dying."To the end the world's "narrative"overwhelms artistic presence. Yes, Shitao'swritingsare filled with the problemof old age, the lamentfor physicalfailure,the departureof old friends,ill health,nostalgiaforlost times.Butthis is simplythe natureof old age, not exclusively"the melodramaticpoetics of urban community."The authoris bound to see Shitao'sdamagedself. To do otherwisewould contradicthis elaboratethesis. Lookagain,however,atthe creativevarietyof the lastpaintingsreproducedhere:sometimesheavyink, sometimessketchedbrevities,or againan attentionto carefullyorderedforms.The Metropolitan Museum's LandscapePaintedon theDoubleNinth (1705) bears a double inscriptionfilledwith age'slament,frustrationset againstthebackgroundof a dayforphysically climbingheights.But Shitao'spaintingis farfroman unqualifiedlament.As with Drunk in theAutumn Woods,thescenefloats,butthelandscapeis now calm and strong.It is so because Shitaois recreatingthe Song-the directdeepview,carefillymisteddistances, the stabilityof mountainsthat in shape and texture reestablishthe Dong/Zhutradition.The tiny central

BOOK REVIEWS

rain-embraced figure,in Song scaleand appearance, is unmistakablythe fiber-coatedrusticof age-oldtraditionevokingthe trueman(zhen),a specialcloseness to nature'scosmicpower-and here of coursehonor to Shitao'swelcomeyoungervisitor. Plum Blossoms of the next year (1706), in Beijing's Palace Museum, is different.Here is repeatedthe tumblingwildnesshe had seen with more joyous linear clarity over twenty years earlier in Princeton Museum'sSearchingfor Plum Blossoms (1685). Now, in contrast,the reproductionsuggests the presence, perhaps too obviously, of a dark-ink rage. (The "modernity"is Dylan Thomas: "Do not go gentle into that good night").But, as constantly in the Chineseview of this braveflower,tendernew blossoms are there, now reinforced by the black suretyof the ever-enduringbamboo. Then in thelastyear,1707, comesReminiscences of _inling, the albumnow in Washington'sSackler Gallery.As old age alwaysdoes, the imagesherelinger overthe past,but theyarefarfromdefeat:the ancient pine, the ginko thatwill not die. Yes, the tiny figureis alone, but he holds his noble staff.Alone is nottheequivalentofloneliness.He steershis awkward donkey-horsemagicallyupwardon a risingcloud.He sits or stands motionless on the mountaintop.In a hangingscrollof the sameyear,now in Tianjing,he reachesthe dramaticoverhangingheights of his old love, Mt. Huang,nowjoinedto the sageson TheTerraceof theYellowEmperor.Finallyin thislastyear,he paintsFlowers.Is notsuchanalbumanenduringstatementaboutlife, beauty,death,andlife? This is a book of intense, devoted complexity. Much can only be hinted in a briefreview.Puzzling phrasesarelegion andlappearto nurturetheoretical delight. Yet the social historianmust find here the richestmine, for it is the "socialprocess"thatcomes first.As difficultideasarewoven"brilliantly" through a complex "fieldof play,"readerswho stumblemay still be rewardedwith important,hithertounrecognized moments.But the tiltis one in which the artist suffers.Art as illustrationis not enough. Too many ideas floatunseen. A history,as opposed to "narrative,"focused on the fiftydefinableyears of Shitao, the painter,has yet to reachcenterstage.D RICHARD EDWARDS

The GreatMosqueof Damascus:Studieson the Makings of an 'Umayyad Visual Culture. By FinbarrBarryFlood. 330 pp., 90 figs., 2 color plates.Leiden:E.J. Brill,2001. $130 hardcover. T

n

HE BOOK UNDER REVIEW

focusesprima-

rilyon a singlebuilding,the Congregational Mosque of Damascus,and its reconstruction-more probablyits originalconstruction-during the reign of the cUmayyadcaliph al-Walidibn

cAbdal-Malik (r.706/5-715C.E.). Itis knownamong Islamiciststhat this ambiguitysurroundingthe initialfoundationof the Damascusmosqueresultsfrom the textualsources'frequentuncertainties,conflicting reports,and at timeslacunaesurroundingarchitectureand its patronagein general.Perhapswhat thismonographon thebuildingcontributesmostvividly, not only to Islamicstudiesbut also to methodologies in other "arthistories,"is an exampleof our unwaveringrelianceon, and yet inevitablestruggle with, the use of texts and inscriptionsto elucidate buildings, their largerfunctions, and their reasons for being. The absence of a prominent congregational mosque in Damascusafterthe city's "conquest"in themid-600s-a musalliiwithinthe compoundof St. John's Cathedralservingthe purpose instead-and its foundationonly during the earlyeightlhcentury arethe points of departurefor the book. Clearly,the availabletextsandinscriptions,both conteinporaneous and later, do not incisively (if at all) treatthis importantabsence.The book, then, is dedicatedto providinga plausible explanationnot so muclhfor the lack of an impressivecongregationalmosque in Damascusuntil the earlyeighth century,but rather for its constructionat thatparticulartime. The authorimpliesthatthe building'serectionwas a product of and subsequentlyrelevantto the life of the cUmayyaddynasty,as well as the consolidationof a widespreadIslamicumma. In chapter1 the authoroutlineshis premisethat The sheer intensityof [al-Walid's]architectural activity-which is unparallelledduringthe reign of anyothercUmayyadcaliph- indicatesbothan acute awarenessof the semioticpower of archi- 261 tectureand a concernwith the developmentof a

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Alka Patel Reviewed work(s): The Great Mosque of Damascus: Studies on the Makings of an ʿUmayyad Visual Culture by Finbarr Barry Flood Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 261-263 Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629601 Accessed: 01/02/2009 10:24 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOK REVIEWS

rain-embraced figure,in Song scaleand appearance, is unmistakablythe fiber-coatedrusticof age-oldtraditionevokingthe trueman(zhen),a specialcloseness to nature'scosmicpower-and here of coursehonor to Shitao'swelcomeyoungervisitor. Plum Blossoms of the next year (1706), in Beijing's Palace Museum, is different.Here is repeatedthe tumblingwildnesshe had seen with more joyous linear clarity over twenty years earlier in Princeton Museum'sSearchingfor Plum Blossoms (1685). Now, in contrast,the reproductionsuggests the presence, perhaps too obviously, of a dark-ink rage. (The "modernity"is Dylan Thomas: "Do not go gentle into that good night").But, as constantly in the Chineseview of this braveflower,tendernew blossoms are there, now reinforced by the black suretyof the ever-enduringbamboo. Then in thelastyear,1707, comesReminiscences of _inling, the albumnow in Washington'sSackler Gallery.As old age alwaysdoes, the imagesherelinger overthe past,but theyarefarfromdefeat:the ancient pine, the ginko thatwill not die. Yes, the tiny figureis alone, but he holds his noble staff.Alone is nottheequivalentofloneliness.He steershis awkward donkey-horsemagicallyupwardon a risingcloud.He sits or stands motionless on the mountaintop.In a hangingscrollof the sameyear,now in Tianjing,he reachesthe dramaticoverhangingheights of his old love, Mt. Huang,nowjoinedto the sageson TheTerraceof theYellowEmperor.Finallyin thislastyear,he paintsFlowers.Is notsuchanalbumanenduringstatementaboutlife, beauty,death,andlife? This is a book of intense, devoted complexity. Much can only be hinted in a briefreview.Puzzling phrasesarelegion andlappearto nurturetheoretical delight. Yet the social historianmust find here the richestmine, for it is the "socialprocess"thatcomes first.As difficultideasarewoven"brilliantly" through a complex "fieldof play,"readerswho stumblemay still be rewardedwith important,hithertounrecognized moments.But the tiltis one in which the artist suffers.Art as illustrationis not enough. Too many ideas floatunseen. A history,as opposed to "narrative,"focused on the fiftydefinableyears of Shitao, the painter,has yet to reachcenterstage.D RICHARD EDWARDS

The GreatMosqueof Damascus:Studieson the Makings of an 'Umayyad Visual Culture. By FinbarrBarryFlood. 330 pp., 90 figs., 2 color plates.Leiden:E.J. Brill,2001. $130 hardcover. T

n

HE BOOK UNDER REVIEW

focusesprima-

rilyon a singlebuilding,the Congregational Mosque of Damascus,and its reconstruction-more probablyits originalconstruction-during the reign of the cUmayyadcaliph al-Walidibn

cAbdal-Malik (r.706/5-715C.E.). Itis knownamong Islamiciststhat this ambiguitysurroundingthe initialfoundationof the Damascusmosqueresultsfrom the textualsources'frequentuncertainties,conflicting reports,and at timeslacunaesurroundingarchitectureand its patronagein general.Perhapswhat thismonographon thebuildingcontributesmostvividly, not only to Islamicstudiesbut also to methodologies in other "arthistories,"is an exampleof our unwaveringrelianceon, and yet inevitablestruggle with, the use of texts and inscriptionsto elucidate buildings, their largerfunctions, and their reasons for being. The absence of a prominent congregational mosque in Damascusafterthe city's "conquest"in themid-600s-a musalliiwithinthe compoundof St. John's Cathedralservingthe purpose instead-and its foundationonly during the earlyeightlhcentury arethe points of departurefor the book. Clearly,the availabletextsandinscriptions,both conteinporaneous and later, do not incisively (if at all) treatthis importantabsence.The book, then, is dedicatedto providinga plausible explanationnot so muclhfor the lack of an impressivecongregationalmosque in Damascusuntil the earlyeighth century,but rather for its constructionat thatparticulartime. The authorimpliesthatthe building'serectionwas a product of and subsequentlyrelevantto the life of the cUmayyaddynasty,as well as the consolidationof a widespreadIslamicumma. In chapter1 the authoroutlineshis premisethat The sheer intensityof [al-Walid's]architectural activity-which is unparallelledduringthe reign of anyothercUmayyadcaliph- indicatesbothan acute awarenessof the semioticpower of archi- 261 tectureand a concernwith the developmentof a

BOOKREVIEWS

visuallanguageappropriateboth to the religious needs of the Muslimcommunityand the political aspirationsof the Umayyaddynasty.(p. 10)

262

It is furtherproposed thatal-Walid's"development of a visuallanguage"was effectedthroughthe "subversive appropriation"mainly of Byzantineprecedents (p. 13), though other elementsalso contributed to its coalescence. Essentially agreeing with Grabar'sideas in TheFormationof IslamicArt (2nd rev. ed.; New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1987), the authorfurtherinvokestranslationas a metaphor forchartingthe infusionof new meaningsinto established morphemes.Architectureresultingfromthis reinventionof meaningsis conceptualizedas a "threedimensional'text' designed to convey meaning to both target and source cultures" (p. 11). This conceptualizationof historicalarchitectureas a legible "text"is methodologicallyfundamental,forit underpinsthe "readings"of the Damascusmosqueput forththroughoutthe book. Chapters2 and3 provideexamplesof thetranslationof oldermorphemesinto elementsthatultimately cameto constitutethe'Umayyadvisuallanguage.With uncommonfocus as well as breadth,chapter2 analyzestheconnotativehistoryof thepearlas anelement in the iconographicprogramsof Byzantine/Christian buildings,concludingthat,both by itselfandin association with motifs evoking light such as pendant lamps,it wasapowerfuleschatologicalreference.The casewas similarwith the karma,or vine motif(chapter 3), which is thoughtto have gracednotjust the qiblawallofal-Walid'smosquebutotherinteriorwalls of its prayerhailaswell.The particulardeploymentof the pearlmotifis read as strongevidencefor the actual contributionof Byzantine-trained craftspeopleto themosque'sdecorativeprogramratherthanasa mere topos of the textualnarrativizations of the building's history.These twochapters,in theirdetailedtreatment of specificmotifsandtheirresonanceswithinboth"the targetandsourcecultures,"aredeep fontsof information. Moreover,they demonstratethe author'sthoroughnessin elucidatingthe historyand subsequent use of thesemotifs. Chapters4 and 5 work out the hypothesis of a large, time-keeping automaton-an "extravagant piece of public art"(p. 135)-above the southwest-

ern entranceinto al-Walid'smosque,knownlateras the Bab al-Sacaand presentlyas the Bab al-Ziyada. Chapter4 siftsthroughthe confusingtextualreports composedwell afterthe eighthcentury,convincingly proposing that al-Walid's automaton be distinguished from the laterclock above the easternBab Jayriin,commissionedby the MamlukrulerNiir alDin ibn Zangiduringthe mid-twelfthcentury.The chaptercites numeroustextualsources to demonstrate the importanceof time-keepingautomataat manymedievalIslamiccourts,concludingthat"[b]y providingspectaculartime-keepingdevices,themonarchwas in effectdeterminingtime for his subjects" (p. 135). Chapter5 builds on this hypothesis,proposing that al-Walid'scomplex, consisting of the mosque (including the automaton),his palace (alKhadra),andthe colonnadedcourtbetweenthe two, was in direct dialoguewith a similarsixth-century complex in Constantinoplefromthe time ofJustinian. Importantdataaboutthe overlappingcommercial and religiouspurposes of these complexes are emphasized,alongwith the royaland noble patronageof complexesin othercities,whichalsofurthered both spiritualand commercialconcerns. Finally,chapters6 and 7 tie togetherthevarious threadsof argumentthroughoutthe book, signaling that the initial hypothesis of the creation of an "cUmayyadvisuallanguage"is borneout by the evidence. Not only the Damascusmosque,but also the Mosque of the Prophet at Madina,the Mosque of cAmrin Fustat,the GreatMosqueofSanaca, andseveral otherswere all renovatedor rebuilt,eitherunder the directpatronageof al-Walid(as was the case for the firsttwo) or by the provincialcUmayyadgovernors.These architectural undertakingscollectively "reflectan attemptto disseminatea coherentarchitecturalstyle"(p. 188). Translationis once againinvoked as a meansto understandthe "subversiveappropriation"of pre-Islamicformalvocabulariesfor the creationof a distinctcUmayyadas well as Islamic architecturalandvisualstyle. Elementsof thisvisual languagewere explicitly referencedin subsequent foundationssuch as the GreatMosque of Cordoba, in theadditionsby al-HakamII duringthe particularly late tenthcentury.An appendixprovidesa compendiumof the inscriptionsof the Damascusmosqueno longerin situ.Withthisfinishingtouch,theerudition

BOOK REVIEWS

and thoughtfulnessof the monographcan be consideredcomplete. The conceptualizationof a buildingas a "threedimensional 'text"'-particularly one such as the CUmayyadmosque of Damascus,with its "subversivelyappropriated"precedents-seems to facilitate the "reading,"thatis, the discernmentand analysis of discrete elements (chapters2 and 3). Yet some aspects of the building are analyzedwithout reference to theirhistoricalmoorings.Forexample,chapter2 (pp. 27ff.) callsuponJudeo-Christianeschatological texts to underscorethe meanings"readinto" the mosaics' pearl motifs: "[I]t is the architectural connectionwhich is decisive, for it was preciselyto illustratetextualdescriptionsof sucharchitecturethat the hangingpearlsin Byzantinemosaicsserved"(p. 30). It is furtherproposed that"[t]he artists... evidently adopted the motif precisely because of the possibilitieswhich it offeredformakingabbreviated referenceto improbableheavenlyarchitecturein this way"(p. 31). In the Damascusmosque,thesemotifs were appropriatedto refer to Damascus itself as "heavenon earth."While the authoris unquestionably very well versed in the texts, it remainsto be seen whetherthese texts actuallymediatedbetween the motifsand the artisanswho createdthem,as well as otherviewers.The materialrelation-if therewas one-between the artisansand the texts is not explored. Thereby, though the mosaicsand the texts arejuxtaposed,theyremainethereallyunconnected, devoid of the weight of historicity. In addition to the unexploredconnectionsbetweentexts and artisans,thereseems to be a missing link between built form and viewer as well (pp. 172ff.). The authorposits compellingdialoguesbetween the "urbantopographies"of Damascusand Constantinople(essentiallythe complexesofJustinian and al-Walid;see p. 174). But the questions of whomighthavemadethese connections,and when, are not set forthor addressed.There is some delineationof the parametersof receptiontowardthe end of chapter5, which treatssuch issues as the lore encompassingboth cities, its primarilyliterarytransmission, and the time period when these accounts weremostprominent.If thechapterwerereorganized so that these limits to, and possible mechanismsof, the receptionof buildingsand cities were acknowl-

edgedatthebeginning,atleasttheskepticismof"who saw what" could be partiallyobviated. By not acknowledgingthese limits, the authorseems to privilege a contemporaryperspectiveon Damascusand its mosque, consistingof our abilityto connect-oftenin anunhistoricizedway- textwithbuilding,city withcity,viewwithmosque,whennonmodernviewers mightnot have done the same. Perhapsthe mostsalutaryreflectionengendered by the workcomes in chapters5 and 6, which apply the notion of "architectural conservatism"(pp. 151, 153, 166, andpassim)to explainthe absenceof both a congregationalmosqueandotherimposingadministrativestructuresin Damascusuntil the reignof alWalid:"Despiteits statusas the administrativecentre ofcUmayyadSyriaand the politicalcentreof the caliphatefromthe reignof Mucawiyaonwards,there is littleevidenceforan attemptto alterthe urbanfabric of Damascusbeforethe earlyeighthcentury"(p. 184). This characterization goes hand-in-handwith the supposedlacunaein the texts, which, as we saw, did not adequatelytreatthese absences. Nevertheless, assumingthe inextricabilityof dynasticlegitimation and patronage,the book attributesa conscious will to forge and disseminatean "cUmayyad visualstyle"to the caliphal-Walid. What emergesfromthese considerationsas the mostsalientissue,atleastto thisreader,is theperhaps overlystrictassociationamongthe establishmentof a dynasticlineage,architectural patronage,and urban changeon a grandscale.Fromthesurvivingevidence, both materialas well as textual,it mightbe suggested that these phenomena were not historicallyintertwined,thatthe foundationof the Umayyaddynasty did not necessarilyhaveto leadto large-scalearchitecturalactivity.It is worthentertainingthe idea thatwe aretoo accustomedto ourownpreconceivecl, contemporary notions to allow the rulers and writers of nonmodernerasto havedifferentconcerns.It could be said thatanothernoteworthycontributionof this monograph,then, is the humblingand beneficialreminderthatoureruditionandtheoreticalframeworks maynot alwaysresonatewith the historicalprocesses we aretryingto understand.C ALKA PATEL

263

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Jens Kröger Reviewed work(s): Glass of the Sultans by Stefano Carboni ; David Whitehouse ; Robert H. Brill ;William Gudenrath Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 264-265 Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629602 Accessed: 01/02/2009 09:19 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOK REVIEWS

Glass of the Sultans. By Stefano Carboni and David Whitehouse,with contributionsby RobertH. BrillandWilliamGudenrath.330 + x pp., New HavenandLondon: manycolorillustrations. YaleUniversityPress,2001. $65.00 hardcover.

264

accomplisheddue to the largenumberof outstanding objectsassembled.Only the futurecan tell what kind of stimulatingeffectthe exhibitionand its catalogue will have. The first part of the catalogue gives well-balanced general overviews on glass production and A EXHIBITION OF 157unique andrareglass archaeologicalexcavations.Incorporatingfragmenvessels fromdifferentIslamicperiods, Glass tarymaterialfromexcavationsonly seeminglyputs of the Sultans was shown in the Corning the assembled, often intact glass vessels on a firm Museumof Glassin Corning,N.Y. (24 May-3 Sepbasis. Carbonirightlypoints to an almosttotallack tember2001), the MetropolitanMuseumof Art in of vital information,as inscriptionsgiving precise New York (2 October2001-13 January2002), and dates are usually missing. Furthermore,because the BenakiMuseum,Athens (20 February-15May glass was shipped for long distancesas commercial 2002). For the first time Islamicglass was thus the cargoeitherin the formof vessels or as cullet, a presole subjectof a majorinternationalart exhibition. cise attributionis nearly impossible. Only in rare Despite unprecedentedterroristattacks,the exhibi- instances are more precise datingspossible due to tion provedsuccessfulat its variousvenues, demon- the datablesealing of a shrine such as the Famen stratingto the wider public the unparalleledartistic Temple cryptin Shaanxiprovince in Chinain 874 qualitiesof the artof Islamicglass. A.D. or a sunkencargoship such as the SerceLimani This splendidlyproduced catalogueis the re- wreck of 1025 A.D. exhibited in Bodrum, Turkey sult of ajoint effortby the authorsand nineteenmu- (pp. 20-22). Furtherdatablefinds such as these, as seumsthatlent outstandingglassobjectsin theircare well as futureexcavations,will teachus more about to this event.Indeed,it is the mainmeritof this exhi- Islamicglass production. bition thatit was possible to assemblesuch an astonThe datingof twobowlsin a moldeddesignfrom ishing numberof supremelyimportantglassvessels the Takht-i Sulaimanexcavations(p. 23, figs. 11from so many collections. Many of the objects are 12) should be corrected, as they were found in a uniqueandhavenever(cat.nos. 35,56, 121) or only tenth-centurycontextaccordingto the excavator(R. seldom (cat. nos. 36, 105, 115, 124,125,129,136, Schnyderin R. Naumann,D. Huff,andR. Schnyder, 142, 153, 156) been shown to the wider public. "Takht-iSulaiman.Berichtuberdie Ausgrabungen While the undoubted highlights of the exhibition 1965-1973,"ArchdologischerAnzeiger 1975.1:189appearin the sectionson cut, engraved,andpainted 91, fig. 92). Indeed the glassproductionin the preglass, it was a good idea to include glass made after Ilkhanidperiod at this site seems to havebeen more the fourteenthcenturyand to conclude with a secimportantthan thatproduced later.Details are still tion showingthe impactof Islamicglass on Europe. missing,however,as anexcavationreporton theglass Althoughthe color printsare of superbquality, finds fromthatsite has not yet appeared. the usualtransparencyof glassmeansthatit canonly Extremelyusefulare chapterson the chemistry be fully understoodwhen actuallyseen. While the and technologyof Islamicglassby Brilland a survey exhibitionwas thus a rarevisual experience,allow- of glassworkingand glass-decoratingtechniquesby ing comparisonof the differentsizes, glassqualities, Gudenrath.Both are essentialto understandingthe techniquesof manufactureand decoration,the cata- history of Islamicglassmaking,and both are fascilogue neverthelessservesas splendiddocumentation natingto read. Vivid accounts of factoriesand furof an outstandingventureinto a veryspecialmedium. naces in Syria,Afghanistan,and India convey what The authors'explicit intentionis to give "glass early glassworksmight have been like. Gudenrath productionin the Islamicworld its properplace in describesthe techniquesused to makesome objects arthistory"(p. 7) as well as to "makeits own contri- in the catalogue, and his accounts of gilding and bution to the renewedinterestin the historyof glass enameling, especially the making of the Corning fromthe Islamicworld"(p. 13). The firstaimis fully candlestick(cat. no. 134) and Cavourvase (cat. no.

BOOKREVIEWS

129), documentthe difficulttechniquesmasteredby the glassworkers.The numerous photographs on nine pages (figs. 20-91) demonstratingdifferent stagesof productionareveryhelpfulforunderstanding the differenttechniquesof vessel manufacture. A chapteron the growth of interest in Islamic glass in the West is importantfor understanding how Islamicglass affectedEurope. It also explains why the authors decided to incorporateglass vessels made by Europeanglass artistsin a final section. While some of theseglassesareimitations,others that were inspired by Islamic art testify to the deep impactIslamicglass had on Europeanartists. Thus a tumbler(cat. no. 157) belongs to the Arab glasswareseries by Lobmeyr,which was designed by GustavSchmoranz,who alsowrotethe firstbook on Islamicgilt and enameledglass.The tumblerwas manufacturedby Lobmeyrin the Bohemian town of KamenickySenov (FachschuleSteinschonauno. 351) in 1899, and the inscription should read, "Erholedeine Seele durch mich / Relax thy spirit throughme" (I thankAnnetteHagedornfor the informationon this tumbler). The second part of the catalogueconsists of a concise essay introducingeach technique;the catalogue entries,sometimesrathermorelike essays,for each object;and the color reproductions.In arranging the differentobjects,the authorswere guidedby the difficultyof linking glass production to dynasties. They thus chose a division into techniquesto formunderstandablegroups.While this is the most common and firmestway of presentingthis kind of material,such an arrangementmakes it difficultto understandwhich objectswere madein which periods and at which places. One of the meritsof the catalogueis thatits authors make clear what in their opinion is actually knownaboutIslamicglassmakingandwhatquestions still requirefurtherresearch.Both authorsgive the readeran idea of the complexityof the issues in their entries.As the variousdiscussions show, the questions of datingand provenanceprove to be particularobstacles,andWhitehouse'swell-balancedentries on the famousopaqueturquoiseblue bowl fromSan Marco(cat.no. 83) or the famousCorningewer(cat. no. 90) show how smallthe secureknowledgeon the subjectactuallyis. One canthereforefullyunderstand

the decision not to include such a group as the Hedwig beakers(pp. 160-6 1). Yet it is evident from the catalogueentriesthat Carboniand Whitehouse differ on certainpoints. Thus Whitehouse'sentriesare more cautiousin attributing objects to specific regions than are Carboni's.Sometimesonly a generalregion,such as westernAsia, is given, often followedby "probably Iran."It seemsinconsistentto givevesselsan Iranian provenancebased on a vendor'sstatement(cat. no. 28) or becauseof glass color (cat. no. 25). Carboni'sentriesmore often give the probable countryof origin,providingmore secureground.It is, however, difficultto follow the line of reasoning with two objects of a nearlyidenticalcolor and belonging to a group of apparentlyEgyptianorigin:a bowl (cat. no. 48) is attributedto Egypt, while a handledcup (cat.no. 49) is ascribedto "Egypt,Syria or Iraq."The sameis truefor a cup with impressed decoration(cat.no. 46), whichagaincarriestheprovenance"Egypt,Syriaor Iraq."Fragmentsof thiskind of vessel shape and decorationarealso knownfrom Iran,Armenia,centralAsia, and China,andit is still unknownwhethersuch glass was made only in one or morecenterswithinone regionandexportedfrom thereorwhetherglasshousesin allregionsmadethis type of glass. Carboniposits an Iranianoriginfor a zoomorphicrhyton (cat. no. 36), which, based on glass color, weathering,and methods of manipulation, can be closely connected to glass vessels from Syriadatableto theseventh-eighthcenturiesandthus mayhavebeen actuallymade there. Even outstandingobjectsin the group of enameled glassthathaveno inscriptions,andhence canbe thathavelosttheir comparedtoillustrated manuscripts text,cannotbe placedin aprecisecontextnorbe given an accuratechronology(p. 203). Thus even the extraordinarybottlewith Christianscenes knownonly fora shortperiod(cat.no. 121)leavesnumerousquestions open as to its originalcontextand meaning. This cataloguewill remainan excellentfirsthand accountof glass fromthe Islamicworld for years to come. It servesas a much-neededsynopsisin a field that has hithertoattractedless attentionthan other media.D 265 JENS KROGER

The Smithsonian Institution Regents of the University of Michigan

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Cynthia Robinson Reviewed work(s): Beauty and Islam: Aesthetics in Islamic Art and Architecture by Valérie Gonzalez Source: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 266-270 Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629603 Accessed: 01/02/2009 10:24 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOK REVIEWS

Beautyand Islam:Aestheticsin IslamicArt and Architecture.By ValerieGonzalez. 134 pp., 16 pp. of plates. New York: I. B. Tauris Publishers, in associationwith the Instituteof Ismaili Studies, London, 2001. ?25 hardcover.

266

by Gonzalez,for the simplereasonthat-despite recent contributionsby Ruggles (2000), Ruiz Souza (2001), and especiallyPuerta(1990; 1997)2-it has not yet been fullyexaminedin the contextof the culture that createdit. Rather,the Nasripalacehas for centuriesbeen wrappedin the sumptuousgarments of a Romanticismthat,by insistingon its uniqueness, EA UTYAXD ISLAM:Aestheticsin Islamic Art and Architectureopens a new venue for the hasseverelyhamperedthescholarshipit hasinspired. intensedebateconcemingthenatureof meanThe issue of meaningin the corpusof nonfigural ing inherentin the aestheticvocabularyof the obornamentmost oftenassociatedwith an Islamicconjects, edifices,and ornamentusuallyincludedunder text has become centralfor historiansof the art and the rubricof Islamicart.' ValerieGonzalez'sstudy visualcultureof Islam.This focusperhapsbeganwhen seeks to shift the discoursesurroundingthis debate OlegGrabarproposedin TheMediationof Ornament by turning,in addition to the body of medievalIs(1992) thatIslamicornamentmediatesbetweenviewer lamic texts drawn on by recent scholars, to major andviewed,intensifyingthe significanceof the object Westerntheoristsof aesthetics(Bachelard,Derrida, adorned.It also, and most importantlyin Grabar's Goodman, Husserl, Wittgenstein). In effect, she model, accordspleasureto the viewer.Moreimporseeks to multiplythe lenses throughwhich viewers, tandystill,theprocessstopswiththepleasure:Islamic both Westernand non-Western(and all, implicitly, ornamentdoes not, for Grabar,necessarilyentailaspostmodern),mightapproachIslamicart.This task sociationsbetweenspecificmotifsand specificreferis undertakenin partthroughprovocativecompari- ents.His conceptionof exactlywhatIslamicornament sons of some of the most reifiedobjectsof Islamicart "does"is universalizing,and some have takenissue (particularlythe Alhambra'sparietalornament)with with its implicitclaimsof relevanceto all Islamicart. worksthathave attaineda similarstatusin the mod- Priorto the publicationof Beautyand Islam,indeed, ernWesterncanon(EdwardRuschka'sCity[1968]; Meditationwasfollowedby twocrucialstudies,Gulru MarkRothko'sNo. 46, Black, Ochre,Red overRed Necipoglu's Topkapi Scroll (1995) and Yasser [1957]). If-as the authorappearsto suggest-one Tabbaa'sTransformationof IslamicArt during the of the book'sprincipalobjectivesis to stimulatedisSunniRevival(2001). Bothworks,alongwithmy recussion in the field, its goal will certainlybe met. centstudy,seekto expandGrabar's interpretive model The study includesbriefanalysesof a varietyof to includetherelevanceof culturalcontextin explainobjects:ninth-and tenth-centurySamanidceramics ing thevisualcultureof a specificregion.Also among producedin andaroundNishapur;a metalvesselfrom theseworksis J. M. Puerta'sLos c6digosde utopfade twelfth-centuryHerat;a series of manuscriptillumi- laAlhambradeGranada(1990), whicharguesforthe nationsrangingfromTabari'shistoryto a thirteenth- primacyof the Alhambra'sprogramof inscriptionsin centuryMaqamiitof al-Haririto a fifteenth-century thepalace'soverallsystemof signification.Gonzalez's copy of Nizami'sKhusrawandShirinanda fifteenth- argumentscontravenePuerta'sprivilegingof the concenturyShahnama,bothfromTabriz.ButGonzalez's tentof thepalace'sinscriptionprogram. mostimportantargumentsaremadein dialoguewith InBeautyandIslam,Gonzalezrejectsthecontexthe Alhambra'sornamentalprogram,and I therefore tuallyspecificapproachadvocatedby thesemorerefocuson those sectionsof the study.Indeed,in addi- cent studiesand makesuniversalizingclaimssimilar tion to being recognizedamongthe growingbody of to Grabar's.LikeGrabar,Gonzalezclearlyinformsher writingsdealingwithaestheticsandIslam,Beautyand readersinherintroduction(pp. 1-4) thatherapproach Islam should also be counted among the literature will be phenomenologicaland ahistorical.She takes concernedparticularlywith Granada'sAlhambra.It issue, however,with Grabar'sprivilegingof the pleais thediscoursesurrounding thisparticular monument, surablefunctionof (all)Islamicornament,which for however,thatmost directlycompromisesGonzalez's her,particularly in its manifestations as geometryand arguments.In my opinion the Alhambrais not yet inscription,does muchmore thanprovidepleasure. readyto sustainsuch an interpretation as thatoffered Indeed, Gonzalezargues(andI agree)thatin certain

BOOK REVIEWS

cases these ornamentaldevices offer gateways to higherformsof cognition. This latterpremiseis fundamentalto Gonzalez's interpretationof the Alhambra.Arguingfor the primacyof the geometricover all other elementsin the Alhambra'sornamentalprogram,Gonzalezsuggests thatgeometryis both principalmedium(of both productionandperception)andprincipalsubjectmatter forthepalace'sentiresystemof aestheticsignification. It is here that we should address the specifics of Gonzalez'sinterpretivemodel. Her study dealswith "theparticular disciplineknownas'aestheticphenomenology"'(p. 1)insofarasit means"tounderstandhow the mode of accessto art,the mode of accessto what the workof artcontainsin termsof art,is a phenomenologicalmode."This tool, notes Gonzalez,has not beforebeen appliedto the analysisof Islamicart,despiteits fullintegration"intocontemporaryanalytical workson artand arttheory."Gonzalezfeelsthat,despitetheproblemsinherentto borrowingfroma theoreticalfield constructedwithoutIslamicartprecisely in mind,thelensofferedby twentieth-century aesthetic phenomenologywillbe productiveforviewingIslamic art.Whateverone thinksof this interpretivestrategy, theargumentsofferedforitsundertakingarevalidand the pointswell taken. A second concept, not specificallyexplainedin methodologicalterms,seemsmoredifficulttojustify, andanypossiblejustification wouldhaveto comefrom the realmof inquirythatGonzalezhas rejectedin the firstpages of her study:that of the Alhambra'scontext-not merelyliterarybut philosophical,intellectual,political,religious,andsocial.Inaword,Gonzalez (especiallyin chapters3 and 4, which focus on the Alhambra)posits geometry(or, more accurately,geometries)as both the objectof study and the key to unlockingthe meaningof thatobjectof study. Having laid the foundations for a culturally agreedcentralityof the phenomenonof perception (exploredin chapter2 througha close readingof the Solomonic Parablein the Qur:dn,arguablyone of the study'smost provocativecontributions),Gonzalez proceeds to tracethis centralityinto the heartof theAlhambra's programof signification,withimplicit resonancesforallIslamicart.In chapter3, throughan examination oftheAlhambra's Comareshall,Gonzalez explicatesanothercentralconceptof her model:that of the inherentlyseparateaestheticand cognitivesys-

temsofferedto viewersby a programof inscriptions, on the one hand, and by, on the other,a non-iconic systemof elementsin which, accordingto Gonzalez, thegeometricagainreceivesclearprideofplace.Chapter4 elaboratesGonzalez'sconceptionof distinctbut interacting "geometries,"which govern both the Alhambra'ssystemof significationand communicationanda viewer'sinteractionwithit. Chapter5 revisits a much-discussedtopic,thatof the signification potentialof inscriptionswithinthecontextof Islamicart. Chapter1, however-which owes an enormous debt to Puerta(1997)-feels in manywaysforeignto the principalargumentsofferedby the study. Seconding Puerta'selaborateargumentfor an Islamic discourseon beauty,Gonzalezselectsfour"philosophers" as the basis for her discussion of this discourse:Ibn Hazmof Cordoba,who typifiesa literalist or zc&hiriapproach; Ibn Sina, representing a Neoplatonistview;Ibn Rushd,exemplifyingthe "rationalist"school based in Aristotle;and finally,Ibn al-Haytham,also classifiedas a "rationalist,"whom Gonzaleztermsa "truephenomenologistlong before the termcameinto use" (p. 7). She observesthatthe thoughtof these four men, which is takenas exemplaryoflargertrends,is inherently"medieval" in character,in that it does not assumethe separatenessof the (aesthetic)objectof study. It is "aphilosophyof sensoryexperience"(asopposedto thescienceof aestheticsin the sense used by nineteenth-and twentieth-centurystudentsof thediscipline),whichincludes aestheticobjects and knowledge"withinthe wider areasof variousordersof questions,the ontological, the religiousandethical,andtheirderivatives"(p. 7). This observation,in turn,implicitlyjustifiesturning to the works of modernphilosophersof aesthetics, giventhatmedievalMuslimthinkersprovideno tools with which to approachthe object of study qua independentobject. My primarymisgivingabout the model offeredin this chapteris that not one of the treatisesor "philosophers"discussed is in any way demonstrablylinked to the chronologicalancdgeographicalcontextof the Alhambra.Ibn al-Haytham's thoughtseemsbyfarthemostresonantwithGonzalez's phenomenologicalapproach,yet it is precisely this thinker whose relation to a fourteenth-century Andalusicontextrequiresthemostexplanation.None, 267 however,is offered.Moreover,thefouraestheticmodels espousedby Gonzalez's"fourphilosophers"are

BOOK REVIEWS

268

radicallydifferent,andit is notlogicalto supposethat all four would have been representedat the Nasri courtatanyone moment.Who, in otherwords,were the thinkersrelevantto the Alhambra? MedievalArab thinkers,however-except the Ikhwanal-Safa'(p. 75), whosedirectrelevanceto fourteenth-centuryGranadais neitherposited nor questioned-are leftfarbehindin chapters3 and4, where Gonzalezdiscussesthe Comareshailand the "geometries"of the Alhambrain termsof "abstraction,kinetics and metaphor." Here Gonzalez discusses Necipoglu'sstudy,mentionedabove,but opines that the actualphenomenonof a viewer'sinteractionwith ornamental geometrical languageremainsinadequately understood.She identifies(in line-problematically, I think-with earlierinterpretations) the Alhambraas a "'conservatory' of Islamicgeometricalpractice"and proposesto tacklethe issue of the phenomenologyof geometricartbasedon its ornamentalprogram. Gonzalez uses her theory concerning the Alhambra'sgeometryas perceptual"subjectmatter" (chapter3) to interrogatethe quasi-iconographicinterpretationtraditionallyaccepted for the Palacio de Comares(which Gonzalezimplicitlycriticizesas Orientalistin its application of "Western"iconographic tools to an Islamic object of study). Many scholars have used the Comareshall's programof inscriptionsand referencesto starsand othercelestialbodies found in its artesonadoceiling as the basis for proposing what amounts to a cosmological iconography for the space. Also important is Gonzalez's insistent distinction between the aesthetic meaning systems of inscriptions and other visualmotifsemployed, as she states,in completely separate, although at times intersecting, aesthetic and communicativetasks. In orderto sustainherprivilegingof thegeometrical, Gonzalezis forced,somewhatcontradictorily, to relegateotherelementsof the palace'sprogram("stylizedvegetation,flowers,calligraphic elementsandarabesques,"p. 73) to the realmof the "purelyornamental."Supportforthisprivilegingis soughtnotfromNasri theoreticiansbut ratherfromLudwigWittgenstein's definitionofthesymbol/sign: "Toa definitelogicalcombinationof signscorrespondsa definitelogicalcombination of theirmeanings"(p. 46; TractatusLogico4-466). Gonzalezuses thisdefinitionto philosophicus, reveal what the aesthetic/meaningsystems of the

Comareshalldo notdo andto refutetheideathatthese componentsfunctionas "visualsymbols."Here she discusmighthavebeenbetterservedby investigating sionsof metaphorand symbolavailablein a varietyof treatisesby medievalIslamicstudentsoflanguage,such Ibnal-Rashiq,Ibnal-Arif,Ibnalas al-Qadial-Jujajni, andAl-Qartajanni. for Sidal-Batalyawsi, Al-Qartajanni, in chroinstance,is probablytheclosesttotheAlhambra termsamongthosestudied nologicalandgeographical by Puerta,althoughotherswouldcertainlybe relevant as well. The principleof multivalenceinherentin the Arabiclanguage'sconcept of the metaphor,in fact, wouldhaveadequatelyallowedfortheparticipation of bothinscriptions (intermsofbothcontentandtheiraestheticpotentialas inscriptions)and otherelementsof theprogramandwouldnot, asWittgensteinhasdone, haveplacedGonzalezin theuncomfortable positionof havingto makean either/orchoice.Also worthquestioningis Gonzalez'sout-of-handdismissalof the relevanceofuiifithoughtto aninterpretivemodelforthe Alhambra.She is adamantabout its exclusionfrom hers,andyet tasawwufwasquitepossiblytheprevailing devotionalpracticethroughoutthe Nasrisultanate;the issue certainlymeritsfurtherdiscussion. intoothercontextsofAndalusiculInvestigations ture(e.g., Puerta1997; Robinson2002: pt. 1, chaps. 4 and 5) certainlysuggestthatgeometrywas among the subjectsin whichthosewho understoodhandasa excelled,3and similarprinciplesand specialistswere probablyat work in the Alhambra'sculturalsphere. Butwithoutproofof some sort one hesitatesto posit the directrelevanceof eitherthe rasi'il of the Ikhwan or any other texts in which geometryis disal-Safa'? cussedto an interpretation of the Granadanpalace. The visualapparatusthatGonzalezhaschosento supporthermodelseems,atfirstglance,accuratelyto document the primacy of the geometrical in the Alhambra'sprogram.Particularlystrikingis a suggested comparisonbetween a detail of one of the Alhambra'sazulejos,in which a geometricalstarpatternis highlighted(pl. VII), and FrankStella'sGetty Tomb(1959; pl. VIII).Bothimagesoffera starklyreduced composition in which lines and angles-in short, geometrical forms-constitute the primary language of communication.The spell is broken, however,when one realizesthevastdifferencein size betweenthe two images,aswell as the significantdiscrepancies in their contexts of presentation. One

BOOK REVIEWS

workwas designed to be hung on a wall, studied as art,andviewedin the contextof otherworksof artin a galleryor museum.The otherformspartof a much largerandorganicwholebelongingto a culturewhose definitionof "art,"particularlyin visualterms,is very much up for discussion. The azulejois located on the lower thirdof a wallin a roomin which activities took place and in which it formedpart, but hardly the most significantpart,of a programof ornament. Indeed, with the exception of the baths, the Alhambra'stiles were probablyalmost never positionedat a viewer'seye level, so it is difficultto argue that they would have been a focus of exclusivecontemplation.Likewise,plateV does displaytheprominence in the Comareshall of geometricalelements, in the bandof starsthatrunsjust beneath particularly thewindowlevel,butit is misleadingto statethatother areasof the wall ornamentprivilegeor are governed by geometry.While the elementsmaybe laid out accordingto basiclawsof ordereddispositionandsymmetry,it is difficultto sustainthe premisethattheir subjectmatteris geometrical.Rather,similaritiesto architectural motifsandto textilesstrikeme as salient. Privilegingthe geometricas the sole portalof access to thepalace'sprogramof meaning,andasits primarybearerof meaning,ultimatelyrequiressomesort of contextuallygroundedproof.An admittedstickler for context, I found myselfwonderingwhether, in about 1363, geometriciansand mathematicians were amongthosewho studiedandtaughtin the Granadan madrasaor in othersitesof intellectualexchange.Indeed, the question (see George Saliba'sreview of Necipoglu,JAOS 1999) of whetheror not the presenceandactivitiesof mathematicians resulteddirectly in theAlhambra'sgeometricalcomplexitieswillprobably remainunresolveduntil a thoroughcontextual studyof theAlhambraduringthefourteenthandearly fifteenthcenturieshas been completed. Along these lines, I must takefurtherissue with two of Gonzalez's arguments,both rooted in the premise of ahistoricitypermittedby her initial disclaimer.The firstconcerns the place in the Alhambra's system of significationof the notoriouslyambiguous ceiling paintings that adorn the iwan-like spacesperpendicularto the Palaciode Comares.One paintingdepictsa groupof obviouslyMuslimgentlemen who are often agreedto representmembersof the Nasri dynasty;the other contains the famously

enigmaticwhite palaceoccupied by ladies and preceded by a gardenlikespace in which blonde damsels leadlions on chains,Muslimand Christianwarriorsfight(or perhapsjoust), and a Wild Manis engaged in a pursuit as inscrutableas it doubtless is unsavory.Gonzalezdismissesthesepaintingsas "foreign"to the essentially"Islamic"visualdiscourseof the palace. Such claimssmackof an essentialist,indeed Orientalist,agendaand are perhapsthe most glaringinstanceof the sometimesdubiousresultsof the choices that Gonzalez'sinterpretationurges us to make:"The resultis that they appearas features thatwereadded,graftedonto anindependentlyconceived structure,withoutbeing integralto it. If they wereto disappearfromthe building,the workof art wouldnot losean atomofits meaningand its aesthetic balancewouldnot be changed"(p. 47; italicsmine). We are,in effect,askedto ignoreentirecomponents of the palace'saestheticand visualprogramin favor of the author'spreconceivedmodel,whichprivileges thegeometricandtheaniconic.Anhistoricalinterpretationwould lead one to questionthe presumed"essential"differencesbetween "Christian"and "Muslim" systemsof aesthetics(constructednot by fourteenth-century culturebutby nineteenth-andtwentieth-centuryart historians),particularlyagainstthe backdropof the mid-fourteenth-century Nasricourt. The second argumentI question is central to chapter5, which opens by linking (p. 94) inscriptions ("typicalIslamic art forms")directly to "the overallaestheticquestion of the meaningof artistic creationin Islam." Gonzalez first takes issue with Grabar'sdefinitionof the inscription,particularlyin a religious context, as potentially "iconographic" (i.e., in her interpretation,as a mere"picture-substitute";p. 95). Then, somewhatcontradictorily,she appearsto equate the aestheticvalue and signification systems of a group of tenth-centurySamanid ceramicswith both the Alhambra'sprogramof inscriptionsandthetextappearingalongsidefifteeenthcentury manuscriptillustrations.In so doing, she both arguesa potentialfor the words or inscriptions to elicit, as in the case of geometry,"higherformsof cognition"while atthe sametimeappearingto deny, as in the case of her arguments concerning the Comareshall's significationsystem[s], the central 269 importanceof thoseinscriptions'content-the meaning of theirwords. I find the implicitequationof the

BOOK REVIEWS

270

three groups of objects unconvincing. Moreover, it is not medievalIslamic"philosophy"thatis "not whilea twentieth-century phenomenologist'sreading enough";rather,it is our understandingof its particularitiesat the Nasricourtthatis insufficient.Perof theAlhambrawouldcertainlyassignsecondaryimportanceto the contentof theinscriptions,froma his- haps futureinvestigationsakinto Gonzalez'swould toricalvantagepoint the contentof the versesis quite do well to consider both the Nasri poet's or difficultto ignore,as is the probabilityof theireffect philosopher'sand the phenomenologist'spoints of on a viewer'sexperienceof the ornamentalprogram view.Indeed,I suspectthatthetwowouldreachsimiwithinwhich they areembedded.The nonliteral,as- larconclusions,and were a majlispossible at which sociativesystemof signification proposedby Gonzalez Wittgenstein,Goodman,Pedroel Cruel,Muhammad is almostcertainlyalso at workin these inscriptions, V, Ibn Zamrak,and Ibn al-Khatibcould all enjoy a but onlya viewerunaccustomedto readingArabic,or glass of wine together,a scintillatingtime would be had by all. E one not immersedin the poetic culturethatwas so clearlypartof the Alhambra'sexperienceforcontemporaries,would agreethattheircontentis secondary. NOTES Finally,sometechnicalaspectsoftheworkattimes interferewith the reader'sabilityto digest arguments 1. I would like to thankthe membersof my Spring2002 semias complexas those madeby Gonzalez.First,Arabic naron mudejarismo-BrendanBranley,DamonMontclare,Elizabeth Olton, RichardPerce,andJessicaStreit-for theirstimulatterms are inconsistentlytransliteratedthroughout. ing discussionof Gonzalez'sstudy.Manyof the observationsofWhile, for the most part,theseinstancesdo not seri- feredherereflecttheircontributionto classdiscussions. ously compromisecomprehension,they aredistracting, andanyfutureeditionof theworkshouldaddress 2. Works mentionedin this discussion are: Oleg Grabar,The Mediationof Ornament(Princeton,NJ.: PrincetonUniversity them.Second,andmoreimportantly,theEnglishsyn- Press, 1992); GulruNecipoglu, The TopkapiScroll: Geometry taxis unnecessarilycomplex(attimes,eventortured) and Ornamentin IslamicArchitecture:TopkapiPalaceMuseum and often seriouslyobscures the complicatedargu- Library MS H. 1956, with an essay on the geometry of the ments being made. A thoroughjob of copyediting muqarnasby Mohammadal-Asad(SantaMonica, Cal.: Getty wouldhavemadefora morereader-friendly presenta- Centerfor the History of Art and the Humanities,1995);Jose MiguelPuertaVilchez,Los c6digosde utopiade la Alhambrade tion of thosearguments. Granada(Granada:DiputacionProvincialde Granada,1990); Despite the reservationsarticulatedhere, how- id., Historia del pensamientoesteticoa'rabe:Al-Andalusy la ever,Gonzalezposes importantquestionsthatmight esteticaa'rabecldsica(Madrid:Akal, 1997); CynthiaRobinson, be productivelyponderedby allof us who studyand In Praise of Song:TheMakingof CourtlyCulturein al-Andalus and Provence,1065-1135A.D. (Leiden:Brill,2002);JuanCarlos teach the art and visual cultureof Islam. Particular Ruiz Souza, "El Palacio de los Leones de la Alhambra: amongthese is this:In orderfor Islamicartto retain ,jMadrasa,Zawiya y Tumba de MuhammadV? Estudio para its hard-wonplace in arthistoryand largerhumani- un debate," Al-Qantara 22 (2001): 77-1 1 1; D. Fairchild ties curricula(its "relevance"),shouldwe relinquish Ruggles, Gardens,Landscape,and Visionin the Palaces of Isour objectsof studyinto the handsof modern"theo- lamic Spain (UniversityPark:PennsylvaniaState University Press, 2000); Yasser Tabbaa, The Transformationof Islamic rists"?If so, at what point may we legitimatelyre- Art during theSunni Revival (Seattle:Universityof Washingclaim them? I am strongly convinced that context ton Press, 2001). Also relevantis Irene A. Bierman, Writing mustbe considered,forif it is neglected,if the rumi- Signs: TheFatimid Public Text (Berkeley:Universityof Calinationsof thosewho "wroteon thewalls"of the Nasri forniaPress, 1998). palaceare deemed "not enough"of an explanation, 3. See especially'Abd Allahibn Muhamnmad al-Batalyawsi,althe viewer who is marginalized(in favorof twenti- IHadi'iqflal-matalibal 'aliya al-falsafiyahal-'awisah(Dimashq, Suriyah:Daral-Fikr,1988), whichis demonstrably relatedto the eth-centurytheorists)is the very one for whose deprogramof ornamentandwhichis emphaticin privileglectationthepalacewasconstructed.This imbalance, Aljaferia's visualexperienceof geometry(in addition,however,to other however,is not the faultof Gonzalez'sstudy;indeed, ing elementsof theprogram)as a contemplativetool. it is surprising,given the amountof literatureit has generated,thattheAlhambra'srelationto its cultural CYNTHIAROBINSON context[s] is not betterunderstood.In otherwords,