According to their testimonies the Persian paradise is a place with vegetation, of very variable dimensions, and various functions, such as orchards or gardens, or for recreation or crop production (garden, orchard, hunting park, zoos) (Tuplin 1996: pp. 80–131). At Pasargadae, the British and later Iranian excavations have revealed in the central part of the park a place very precisely planned by stone water‐courses forming a rectangle of 250 × 150 m (the south side is lacking); they are surrounded on three sides by another series of stone canals. A square basin (0.90 m a side and 0.50 m deep) is set at a regular distance of 14 m. The upper part has partly preserved the slot of a sluice aiming to regulate the water flow and allowing dipping for irrigation. Beyond this central garden, series of parallel or perpendicular anomalies detected by geomagnetic survey likely correspond to a network of fences and ditches organizing the space and made for distributing water in the park (Benech et al. 2012). As a matter of fact, the Greek authors (Str. XV 3.7; Arr. VI 29.4–9) actually mention a “paradise” around the tomb of Cyrus, but they do not specify its extension. They quoted the “eye witnesses,” Alexander's companions, who may not have visited the whole site.
Beyond Tall‐i Takht‐i Solaiman hill, geomagnetic surveys have recently recognized a series of large, regularly oriented buildings partly covering the 20 ha of the depression which was protected by a mudbrick rempart. The function of these buildings, up to 40 m long, remains to be established: were they for housing workers, the administration, or the guard? And which date?
The surface reconnaissance and rescue excavations in the surroundings of Pasargadae between 1999 and 2009 revealed that Cyrus' project for his residence greatly exceeded the limits of the site with a development within a radius of over 20 km. Upstream, several dams were built across the Pulvar river and its tributaries. These dykes, measuring several hundred meters long, are made of earth reinforced with unhewn stones. Two of them located at 2000 m above sea level show a sophisticated control device consisting of a wide conduit over 1 m high, divided into six small channels that can be closed by sluices. This technology is perhaps borrowed from Assyria or Urartu, but developed with Lydian‐Ionian stone techniques, very similar to the monuments of Pasargadae (2 m long blocks joined by the anathyrosis technique and carefully polished on the visible faces; use of iron clamps). These dams were not used to irrigate the restricted surface nearby but were primarily intended to regulate the flow of the river, especially during the flash floods which may happen in winter and spring. At the same time, they might have retained water for summertime.
The aforementioned other function was performed by the canals, which to the south of the tomb of Cyrus run on both sides of the Pulvar river, extending respectively over 10 km and 17 km. They are partly cut into the rock in the narrowing of the valley, partly built on an earth and stone levee. These canals were managed for irrigating the wider part of the valley downstream (9 × 3 km). On the left bank, the canal supplied water to a small residence, a multiroom pavilion with two opposite porticoes. In the valley, several farms, a village, and an area protected by an enclosure were excavated in 2005–2007 by an international project on behalf of the Persepolis Pasargadae Research Foundation (Boucharlat et al. 2009). These varied structures reflect the development of this region in the Achaemenid period and give an idea of the agricultural activities, echoing pieces of information provided by the inscribed clay tablets of Persepolis.
Persepolis, a Permanent Building Site
Located 40 km as the crow flies south of Pasargadae, Persepolis was built on the eastern side of a lower but larger plain than Pasargadae at 1600 m above sea level. The most impressive part of the site is the huge stone terrace supporting numerous columned buildings (Figures 15.4 and 70.2), visible from far away. At 6 km northward, four royal tombs are carved into a cliff. Both places were known by travelers sporadically between the fourteenth and sixteenth century, and visited by almost all travelers from the seventeenth century until the first archeologists at the turn of the twentieth century. The terrace was largely excavated before World War II by an expedition of the University of Chicago, directed by Ernst Herzfeld between 1931 and 1934, then Erich F. Schmidt between 1935 and 1939. After the war, Iranian teams continued investigations at the foot of the terrace and on the top of Kuh‐i Rahmat mountain, while architectural remains scattered in the plain were cleared out by salvage excavations, undertaken with the help of Italian restorers (1965–1979). Since 2002, the reactivation of the Persepolis Pasargadae Research Foundation has revived the restoration and protection of monuments and the exploration of the plain. Geomagnetic surveys by an Iranian–French expedition (2005–2008) provided fresh information on less visible remains, and from 2008 an Iranian–Italian mission commenced a series of soundings west of the terrace. Since 2011 this mission has undertaken excavation on a small mound which corresponds to a monumental gate. Built of mudbrick walls resting on baked bricks, the gate offers a plan (presumably measuring 39.07 × 29.06 m), very similar to the Ishtar Gate in Babylon; moreover, it is decorated with panels of glazed relief bricks similar in style and iconography to pre‐Achaemenid Babylonian walls (bull, monster called mushkhusshu). The gate should date between Cyrus' conquest of Babylon (539 BCE) and Darius' early reign, an early date confirmed by a piece of inscription prior to the Achaemenid Elamite language of the later period at Persepolis (Askari Chaverdi et al. 2017). Such a discovery supposes the presence of other royal constructions nearby, as it is in Pasargadae.
Figure 15.4 Persepolis, aerial view of terrace from north‐northeast.
Source: Reproduced by permission of the Joint Iran–France Mission at Persepolis; photography B.N. Chagny.
Persepolis, the royal residence and center of the satrapy of Persia, was to be a major population center that can be seen according to the semi‐concentric circles: first the Royal Quarter, whose central point is the terrace; around this area the city within 4–6 km to Naqsh‐i Rustam north via the west and to the south. Beyond this half‐circle, the plain of Persepolis was developed to sustain the permanent population of the city and the thousands of people to be accommodated during the stays of the great king (family, court, guards, scribes, etc.). Benefiting from rather good natural resources, the plain was developed during the Achaemenid period, as evinced by hydraulic works more than by secondary towns or settlements, which have not been much located.
The Royal Quarter is not restricted to the famous terrace, 8–14 m high covering 12 ha and supporting some 20 buildings. It includes two other areas, one to the south, at the plain level, the so‐called Southern Quarter with stone buildings, covering nearly 10 ha (Mousavi 2012: pp. 26–41), and one to the east, the steep slope of the Kuh‐i Rahmat mountain overlooking the terrace and crowned by a line of mudbrick fortifications with towers (Figure 70.2). Protection on the west side of the terrace is less visible, a wall running from north to south, parallel to the retaining wall of the terrace. The “third enclosure” mentioned by Diod. Sic. XVII (71, 4–6) remains to be found (Mousavi 1992). Altogether the Royal Quarter covered almost 30 ha, it is only part of Parsa (Old Persian) “[the City] Persia” or “of Persians,” since Parsa is also the name given to the country of Persia itself.
Since Schmidt's excavations (1953, 1957, 1970) the terrace and monuments have been described at length. It should be noted that the names of the various buildings are those given by archeologists and rarely those specified in the inscriptions, except hadiš, “seat,” or “residence,” which probably means residential building. Tačara is more uncertain, perhaps “house.” The most impressive building, not named in the inscriptions, is commonly called Apadana, by reference to a very similar structure in Susa which is so called in an inscription. Other names are descriptive, such as Hall of 100 Columns, east of the Apadana, with the main hall broader than this but without portico, or Hall of 32 Columns, Central Building. The term Harem is without any ground, while Treasury,
