The Concept of Monument in Achaemenid Empire

Mehr Azar Soheil

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351677691
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

The aim of this book is to explore the significance of the concept of 'monument' in the context of the Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BC), with particular reference to the Royal Ensemble of Persepolis, founded by Darius I and built together with his son Xerxes. While Persepolis was built as an 'intentional monument', it had already become an 'historic monument' during the Achaemenid period. It maintained its symbolic significance in the following centuries even after its destruction by Alexander of Macedonia in 330 BC. The purpose of building Persepolis was to establish a symbol and a common reference for the peoples of the Empire with the Achaemenid Dynasty, transmitting significant messages and values such as peace, stability, grandeur and praise for the dynastic figure of the king as the protector of values and fighting falsehood.

While previous research on Achaemenid heritage has mainly been on archaeological and art-historical aspects of Persepolis, the present work focuses on the architecture and design of Persepolis. It is supported by studies in the fields of archaeology, history and art history, as well as by direct survey of the site. The morphological analysis of Persepolis, including the study of the proportions of the elevations, and the verification of a planning grid for the layout of the entire ensemble demonstrate the univocal will by Darius to plan Persepolis following a precise initial scheme. The study shows how the inscriptions, bas-reliefs and the innovative architectural language together express the symbolism, values and political messages of the Achaemenid Dynasty, exhibiting influence from different lands in a new architectural language and in the plan of the entire site.

1
Introduction to the Ancient Near East

1.1. Persians in the Ancient Near East

The Ancient Near East, particularly Mesopotamia, was among the most fertile areas in the evolution of civilization and home to some of the world’s earliest urban settlements, such as the ancient city of Ur, symbol of ‘being ancient.’ Mesopotamia was stage to numerous kingdoms and empires, including Assyrian, Babylonian, Elamite, Median and Persian. The earliest known reference to the Iranians (Medes and Persians) was detected in the Assyrian cuneiform texts of the 9th century. Those Persians, who lived in the region of the Zagros Mountains in western Iran, were referred to as Parua (Parsuash/Parsumash). They were mentioned along with other ethnic groups, each governed by a chieftain or a king. This region was then under the dominion of the Assyrians (Young, 1988:6ff ). The kingdom of Media emerged in the 7th century, lasting only a limited time. It was composed of tribal groups with different social and political organizations (Young, 1988:23), including the Persians, who lived in three regions: in the northwest near Lake Urmia, in the Zagros Mountains and in the region of Parsa (Persia), today Fars, in the southwest of Iran. The Medes were more numerous than the Persians. However, being culturally and ethnically more united and coherent than the Medes, the Persians seem to have contributed to the ‘Iranization’ of the Zagros region. In Parsa they formed the nucleus of the Persian Empire under the Achaemenid Dynasty. Although they have been considered nomadic or semi-nomadic people with no art of their own (Frankfort, 1948:6), nevertheless, they were long in contact with the Medes and the Elamites, who were closely connected with the Mesopotamian cultures. This implies that urban life was not unknown to the Persians.

The role of the Achaemenid Dynasty was crucial in the rise of the Persians to establish an empire. Founded in the 6th century, they ruled over an area that ranged from Egypt and the Mediterranean to India. Among their administrative and political centers, the position of Persepolis was crucial and exceptional: it was where their innovative approach to the concept of the empire and cultural policies found the clearest expression, reflected in their inscriptions, art and architecture. Although these concepts were influenced by the context, nevertheless, the creative contribution of the Achaemenids was prominent in giving their heritage a distinctive identity. Cyrus II founded the Achaemenid Empire unifying the Medes and the Persians and conquering Babylon (539); ruling over Mesopotamia, Asia Minor and Egypt; and extending authority to the lands of Central Asia, India and southeast Europe. The Empire lasted for two centuries before falling to Alexander (330). The Achaemenid inheritance had an impact on their successors, the Arsacid Parthians (247 BC–AD 224) and the Sasanids (224–636 AD), as well as in the Hellenistic and Roman world, particularly on cultural and political aspects and systems of communication. In the organizational policy of Cyrus, once you paid your tributes, offered homage to the Great King, remained a loyal subject of the empire and, in some cases, did military service, you could follow your own customs and to a considerable extent pursue your own forms of government and law. In a certain sense the vision was one of a partnership in empire (Young, 1988:43).

While the Neo-Assyrian Empire (c. 1000–612) was founded on and maintained by military power, the Achaemenid Empire was mainly based on political agreements and respect for local cultures. The Persians administered their conquests without suffocating the local linguistic and religious culture. The Assyrian tactic for seizing territory was first conquering a weak kingdom, treating it in a way to intimidate others and make them surrender. The main occupation of the Assyrian king was war, first in the form of sporadic attacks, later becoming an annual campaign (Grayson, 1991:219). Nevertheless, Assyrian society was lively and dynamic in cultural aspects, building rich cities and monuments. They filled their libraries with texts copied from Babylonian temple libraries and kept statues of the gods of other lands in their temples for regular worship. Their influence was defused through deportation of prisoners. Some of their deportees were among the highest representatives of society, members of royal families and priests, as well as the best artisans and professional warriors. Many young people chose to serve the kings, learn the culture and make their fortune in the marvelous Assyrian cities. Important personalities were sent to the court as a sign of alliance, such as the Arab princess Tabua, who grew up in the court of Sennacherib and later became the queen of the Arabs (Dalley, 1998:25). Babylonians formed most of the cultured people, and Babylon remained an important center of learning under royal patronage. At the same time, deportation and indoctrination to Assyrian culture continued to be exercised; as declared in the cylinder inscription of Sargon II (721–705), he forced populations with different languages to accept a single voice, sending Assyrians to live with them and to assimilate them to respect god and king (Dalley, 1998:27).

With the fall of Nineveh in 612, the Neo-Babylonian Empire (612–539) was established. The Neo-Babylonian Empire was peaceful, of mercantile character, founded on connections between the Red Sea, the Caucasus and the Persian Gulf, and India to Asia Minor. The authorities gave priority to security and to commercial profits, trying to balance free economy and multi-ethnic society (Palanque, 1948:34f ). The court of Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562) was renowned for its cosmopolitan character; different peoples were together and spoke Aramaic (Dalley, 1998:30). Nabonidus (555–539), the last Neo-Babylonian king, was a dedicated antiquarian, a scholar of inscriptions and a collector of antiquities. These collections included ancient statues and old inscriptions discovered during the construction and restoration works of old temples. In the last decade of the 6th century, while the Achaemenid Empire was being consolidated, the Greek city-states in Asia Minor were often in mutual conflict. Greek democracy developed in the 5th century during the Achaemenid Empire.

1.2. Achaemenid Dynasty

The Achaemenids (550–330) were Persians from the province of Parsa (Persia, Fars). For several generations, they remained a small kingdom under the Medes. It was Cyrus II (559–529) who emerged as a strong ruler founding and extending the Empire, later consolidated by Darius and his son Xerxes. Cyrus II succeeded his father as king of Parsa and Anshan and conquered Media in 550, defeating its king Astyages near Pasargadae. His conquests included Asia Minor and further east as far as India. He defeated Nabonidus, king of Babylonia, in 539, entered Babylon as its liberator and became king with the approval of Marduk, patron god of the city. Nabonidus (555–539) was victim of the hatred of the priests of the sun-god Marduk due to his devotion to the Akkadian moon-god, Sin, since his mother was the priestess of the temple of Sin. This conflict favored Cyrus’ victory (Pettinato, 1988:219ff; Dalley, 1998:149). Cyrus established his capital in Pasargadae and constructed and restored temples in Babylonia and in Sardis. Cyrus’ son Cambyses (529–522) reigned for eight years. His main achievement was conquering Egypt. Darius (522–486) reigned for 35 years. He consolidated and restructured the Empire, carried out campaigns in Punjab and Arabia and crossed Hellespont in the Scythian campaign in 514. His major architectural works are in Persepolis and Susa, as well as the inscriptions and bas-relief of Bisotun. In Egypt, he built temples such as the Temple of Hibis and dug a canal to connect a branch of the Nile to the Suez Gulf in 512 (Herodotus, II. 158), recorded in a trilingual inscription discovered between the Amari lakes and the Red Sea (Fausti, 1997:I, 505n, 265). Darius’ son Xerxes (486–465) reigned for 21 years. He built and completed major construction works in Persepolis. Xerxes’ son Artaxerxes I (465–425) reigned for 30 years. The building of Persepolis continued during the reign of their successors: Xerxes II (425–424), Darius II (424–405), Artaxerxes II (404–359), Artaxerxes III (359–338), Arses (338–336) and Darius III (336–330), who reigned for five years before being defeated by Alexander.

1.3. Administration and Cultural Policy

The Achaemenids preferred diplomacy in governing their empire, aiming to create an empire based on collaboration and sustenance of its peoples. Their approach to local cultures and traditions involved respecting linguistic and cultural diversity and religious tolerance. They awarded special privileges to local temples and repaired or reconstructed their buildings. The Empire was governed through a system of twenty satrapies, i.e., regional governorships. The mission of the satraps was to collect tributes and endorse justice, acting as an arbitrator in disputes especially between the city-states of Asia Minor, often in conflict over territory. His authority was limited by chancellors, secretaries and generals, who responded directly to the Achaemenid king. He was also controlled by the king’s inspectors, known as the ‘King’s Eyes,’ who visited the satrapies without warning. This system, based on a rigorous and respected administration, allowed the king to keep order in the empire.

Government and economy were facilitated by an extensive network of communication routes in the vast Empire. One of the main routes joined Sardis, Susa and Persepolis and stretched further east; another joined the Caspian to the Persian Gulf. A system of marine transportation reached as far as the Indian Ocean and was connected to the Mediterranean via canal. There was a standardized common system of metrology, currency and administrative language (Aramaic). These measures contributed to the cultural and economic development of the Empire during periods of stability and peace. Imperial absolutism was united with liberalism: local governments relied on capitalistic prosperity, and economic liberalism permitted accumulation of wealth and freedom of exchange. Those deported in previous reigns were allowed to return to their place of origin. The Jews returned to Jerusalem and were assisted in rebuilding their temple and restoring their rigorous theocracy. As a result of such policies, Mesopotamian culture became more cosmopolitan and diffused in other regions (Dalley, 1998:38). The Achaemenid king presented himself as the king in Babylonia and as the pharaoh in Egypt. In the King’s Council, next to the Persians, were Babylonians, Jews, Egyptians, Macedonians, Greeks and other peoples. This liberalism was one of the requisites of the Mazdaic religion, worshiped by the Achaemenids, and it was incorporated into the official doctrine of the Empire. The Iranian beliefs demanded respect of ethical values especially regarding justice, and the king was a friend of justice and an enemy of falsehood. The Empire had a peaceful and benevolent image, emphasizing peacekeeping as the principal foundation for its expansion and sustenance. For the first time in the history of the Near East, all lands were united in one vast state organism. The Empire was not a simple mosaic of countries that preserved their own independence in front of a corrupt central power. It was instead a central power strongly ramified that survived for over two centuries (Briant, 1995:125). The central power did not interfere in the specific conditions of the states; instead, it protected and conserved these conditions.

Ethnic and cultural diversity constituted the primary characteristic of each state. Many historians and archeologists have tried to belittle the impact of the central power on local autonomy, but the central and local authorities presented themselves together in all the regions of the Empire, respecting the tradition of each region (Briant, 1987:1ff ). The key issue is to understand how local authority and central control could be balanced and react reciprocally to permit and favor the longevity of the Empire. In fact, these two realities were complementary and consolidated each other: the Persian administration regulated land dealings, tributes, etc. The Persian army, however, was always present in the various parts of the Empire ready to intervene when required. The Achaemenid administration had no ideological preference regarding the form of social and political organization of the local authorities. In the Ionian states, for example, after having initially sustained the tyrant kings, the Achaemenids then favored the establishment of democracy (Herodotus, VI. 43). This policy of maintaining order and stability was a key issue in ‘Pax Achaemenid’ as Briant (1987:3) sustains.

1.4. Persian Presence in the Empire

There is not enough archeological evidence to give certain proof of Achaemenid rule in specific regions. Persian artifacts have often been attributed to other cultures especially that of the Greeks, with whom the Persians had intense contact and cultural exchange. Classical archeologists have frequently erroneously considered Greek artifacts that were of Persian provenance. However, objects like cylinder seals and sanctuaries of Anahita, the Iranian divinity of waters and fertility, testify to the Persian presence in western Asia Minor. Achaemenid influence is also evident in Bactria in the arts of glyptic, engraving and jewelry (Briant, 1987:9). An example of the Persian influence in Egypt is the statue of Ptah-Hotep, carved according to Egyptian norms but decorated with typical Persian clothes and jewelry. A similar case is the Egyptian statue of Darius wearing a local costume discovered in Susa. Adopting the local vest shows respect for the local culture often more efficient than a crude military action. It also indicates a subtle control over the locals. For an efficient governance, local languages were normally used in local administration, and the language of the conqueror was not imposed as the language of the Empire, its use being strictly limited to the dominant ethno-class circle.

It is important to understand how a politically and culturally homogeneous ethno-class succeeded in maintaining its control on such heterogeneous territories for over two centuries. It seems that the role of education of young Persians was essential, as mentioned by various ancient writers. Strabo (XIV.3. 18) gives a detailed description of the education system, which consisted of training in use of arms and horse riding but also in speaking the truth, learning mythology, reciting with or without music and learning the deeds of the nobles and gods (Shahbazi, 1990:258). Persian children were taken away from their clan and educated to be loyal to the king. As a result of such education, a ‘small Persia’ was established in every satrapy, indicating a culturally and politically trustworthy nucleus. The destiny of the Empire was fundamentally linked to the survival and continuation of this dominant ethno-class.

The tradition of exchanging gifts and services constituted, in a subtle manner, all through the Achaemenid history, a motivation of loyalty to the king. Through such exchange, the king transformed the gift donors into his debtors. In the same spirit, Alexander did not consider as friends those who did not ask him anything (Plutarch, Phocion, 18). In this system of exchange of gifts and favors, there was a hierarchy established according to the economic and symbolic values of the objects and honors (Briant, 1987:23ff ). The nature and solidity of these ties permitted the king to ensure the loyalty of the Persians and assigned to them tasks of important responsibility.

1.5. Religion of the Persians

The most ancient religion ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgment
• 1 Introduction to the Ancient Near East
• 2 Persepolis: Description
• 3 Architectural Morphology and Proportions
• 4 The Concept of Monument
• 5 Significance of Inscriptions
• 6 Significance and Symbolism
• 7 Archeology and Restoration
• 8 Concluding Considerations
• Index