Museum of Iran.6 Harper, P.O., Aruz, J., and Tallon, F. (eds.) (1992). The Royal City of Susa. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, pp. 215–252. Deals with the architecture and material of the Achaemenid period of that site.
7 Mousavi, A. (2012). Persepolis: Discovery and Afterlife of a World Wonder. Boston, MA, Berlin: de Gruyter. Deals with history of reception and research at the site from the early travelers to the modern excavations.
8 Perrot J. (ed.) (2013). The Palace of Darius at Susa: The Great Royal Residence of Achaemenid Persia. London: I.B. Tauris. The final report of the French excavations in the 1970s taking into account previous excavations from the late nineteenth century.
9 Potts, D.T. (2015). The Archaeology of Elam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 309–353. Devotes a chapter on Susa during the Achaemenid period.
10 Schmidt, E.F. (1953–1970). Persepolis I, II, III, Oriental Institute Publications 68–70. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. The final report of the American excavations at Persepolis and Naqsh‐i Rustam in 1934–1939.
11 Stronach, D. (1978). Pasargadae. Oxford: Clarendon Press. The final report on the 1961–1963 British excavations of Cyrus' residence.
NOTE
1 1 For the system of naming the Achaemenid inscriptions, see Chapter 6 The Inscriptions of the Achaemenids.
CHAPTER 16 Media
Bruno Jacobs and David Stronach†
In the absence of any written records from pre‐Achaemenid Media, and in the absence – until not very long ago – of any archeological evidence from the Median homeland that could be associated with the Medes in the 200 years that preceded Cyrus II's capture of the Median capital, Hagmatana (modern Hamadan), in 550 BCE, the Median Logos of Herodotus (1. 95–106) long remained the only readily available, seemingly broadly acceptable history of the ancient Medes. Thus, even if Herodotus' description of ancient Hagmatana was never taken to be anything but fanciful (cf. Herzfeld 1941: p. 200), most scholars were content – at least until the early 1980s – to accept the Herodotean portrayal of the Medes as the rulers of an extended empire that was somewhat similar in character and extent to the subsequent Achaemenid Persian realm. This general acceptance of the Herodotean version of Median history was influential, not least, in terms of the different areas of expertise that the Medes were presumed to have possessed. Such areas were thought to have included the maintenance of written records, an ability to carve bas‐reliefs, and the necessary skills to create the first rock‐cut tombs in Iran (cf. Ghirshman 1964: p. 89).
The unraveling of such suppositions began when it was discovered that the rock‐cut tombs in Media were either late Achaemenid or post‐Achaemenid in date (von Gall 1966) and that Herodotus' account of the history of Media (including his allusions to a Median royal house that dated as far back as the eighth century BCE) bore little relationship to the nature of events in western Iran that is reflected in the annals of Assyria (Helm 1981). Not long thereafter the very existence of a Median empire came to be called into question – and even the presence of a short‐lived, united Median kingdom came to be doubted (Sancisi‐Weerdenburg 1988). More recently, it has been proposed that the Medes put an end to their “political formations” and reverted to a “stage of tribal pastoralism” during the last 60 years of their independent existence from c. 610 to 550 BCE (Liverani 2003: p. 9). For many scholars this last verdict is far from necessarily correct; and, from an archeological perspective, the evidence that stems from recent excavations and surveys serves to affirm that, in overarching terms, continued permanent settlement in Media did not end in the late seventh century BCE (cf. Stronach and Roaf 2007: p. 49). In addition, monumental construction appears to have persisted at various sites (Stronach 2003: p. 237) and an early form of money was apparently in use in the heart of Media at a date near 600 BCE (Vargyas 2008). In short, it is more than likely that a united Median kingdom managed to control a major part of northern Iran during at least the first half of the sixth century BCE (Stronach 2012a).
Of the material remains of the province of the same name that emerged as a successor to ancient Media in Achaemenid times (Jacobs 2005: pp. 449–450) we know remarkably little. A variety of classical sources states that Ecbatana – the name that the Greeks gave to Hagmatana, the capital of the province of Media – was one of the principal residences of the Achaemenid Persian kings (Xen., Cyr. 8.6.22; Xen., Anab. 3.5.15; Str. 11.13.5; Ath. 12.513; Curt. 10.4.3). Unfortunately, however, extensive excavations in the original core area of Hagmatana have so far failed to reveal any coherent Achaemenid remains. As we now know, this puzzling situation seems to have arisen because at some point in the second century BCE all pre‐hellenistic strata in this key locality were removed in their entirety in order to permit certain late Seleucid or early Parthian barrack‐like structures to be founded directly on virgin soil (Sarraf 2003; Boucharlat 2005: pp. 253–254; Stronach 2012b: p. 55). In these circumstances the best archeological evidence for the importance of Hagmatana in early Achaemenid times may be said to come from adjoining trilingual inscriptions in the names of Darius (522–486 BCE) and Xerxes (486–465 BCE) that were cut into an eastern rock spur of Mount Alvand (DEa and XEa), located a few kilometers to the southwest of the city (Lecoq 1997: pp. 126–127; Curtis 2000, illustration 43; here Figure 16.1). Whether or not this evident royal interest in the cool, forested foothills that flank the western side of the city could be thought to account for a notice in Pliny (HN 6.116), to the effect that “Ecbatana” was “transferred” to the mountains by Darius I, is difficult to say. An alternative possibility is that the inscriptions in question were merely placed on one of the more readily available, inviting rock surfaces that stood in the near vicinity of this vaunted Achaemenid capital.
Figure 16.1 Ganj Nameh, Inscriptions of Darius I (DEa) and Xerxes I (XEa).
Source: Reproduced by permission of Gian Pietro Basello – DARIOSH Project.
The best available indication of Achaemenid construction in Hagmatana comes from the local presence of a number of inscribed stone column bases (A2Ha, b, d), even if their exact, original context remains unknown (Knapton et al. 2001). One inscribed base in particular carries an Old Persian inscription (A2Hb) of Artaxerxes II (404–359 BCE) in which the king relates that he built an apadana – a palace – “of stone in its columns” (Kent 1953: p. 155). While this inscription forms part of the inscribed evidence of Achaemenid date that is often invoked in order to suggest that an apadana was erected at Hagmatana/Ecbatana (as was the case at Susa), it is also relevant to note that Polybius offers a detailed description of a local Persian palace that was still in existence in the days of Alexander (Polyb. 10.27; cf. Ctes., FGrH 688 F9). According to Polybius' account, the woodwork of this structure was all of cedar and cypress, but no wooden surface was originally left exposed because every part was plated with either silver or gold. Polybius goes on to observe that “most of the precious metals were stripped off in the invasion of Alexander… and the rest during the reigns of Antigonus and Seleucus.” At the same time it would be arbitrary to conclude that certain inscribed stone elements, even when they bear inscriptions in the name of Artaxerxes II, should necessarily be associated with a palace or sanctuary in which this same monarch is said to have erected a statue of Anāhitā (Beros., FGrH. 680 F11; cf. Plut., Artax. 27.3; Isid. Char., FGrH 781 F2,6).
While
