Halehs World of Archaeology

A titbit of my Poetry book (yes..not strictly archaeology I know!) :)

2016-01-25T19:42:00.000+01:00

I published a Poetry Collection about one year ago, its my first published work in this genre. :)

here is a few pages of it.
Enjoy!
:)

The Achaemenid Empire Part 12: Analysis of Site KB and KA, and putting Paleopaphos within the Achaemenid Context.

2015-07-05T19:10:00.002+02:00

It seems that Achaemenid architecture has several features in common regardless of where they were built, be it in the heartland of Persia, or in the satrapies in the periphery. These features as are:

Large halls, featuring a multiple of high and soaring columns
Column capitals featuring animal or creatures of fantastic nature, terminals
Square rooms which are arranged in symmetrical fashion
Monumental staircases leading into the buildings
Elements of the local architecture was integrated within the Achaemenid architecture.

(Summers 1993, Stern 1982, Boardman 2000)

The plans of Persepolis, Susa and the palatial buildings in Alintepe and site KB in Paphos seem to have at least several of these features in common. At first glance the most striking feature of site KB, is its symmetrical rooms located on its southern part. Since the site is not fully excavated, we have to assume that the given plans: Image 1 and 2, and the assumptions about the unexcavated areas or badly damaged areas were correct.

Image 1: Architectural plan of architectural remains in site KA.

“Abb. 2. Plan I. Übersichtsplan überdie Architektureste auf Hadji Abdullah”

(Schäfer 1960)

Observing Image 2, it appears that the northern part of the building might have contained a large hall, and since it is not excavated also assumed that it could have contained multiple high columns. Another feature that might be somewhat important is that of a staircase leading into the building by room XIII, on its north-west corner (Image 2: 1-2,D-E). This trace could be a trace of a monumental staircase.

Image 2:Architectural plan of Southern part of the architectural remains in site KA.

“Abb.3. Plan II. Der Stüddeil des Quadrbaues mit der stadtmauer.”

(Schäfer 1960)

Assuming that these features existed, our building would have had the columned hall (perhaps with animal head porotoms?), monumental staircase, and the square symmetrical rooms in common with the Apadana and the palace of Darius I in Persepolis, and the Apadana in Susa, and finally the building in Alintepe level II. (Image 1-2, 3.9-10, 3.12)

Image 3: Persepolis, Overview of the architectural remains in the Persepolis complex.

(Roaf 1990: 218

Assuming that our Paphian building posses all of these mentioned features, if excavated, it would have portrayed a perfect Achaemenid building. However since the site is not fully excavated, and we have not have all the pieces of the desired puzzle, the only piece of certain information which points to an Achaemenid inspiration if not construction are, the symmetrical square rooms present in the building.

Image 4: Susa, Overview of the architectural remains in Susa.

(Roaf 1990:211)

These rooms show an amazing similarity to those found on the southern part of the Apadana in Persepolis (Image 3). The same features can also be observed, maybe not in the same extent, in the Apadana in Susa (Image 4), and in Alintepe II (Appendix 3.12). This may account for the difference in the local architecture found on Susa and Alintepe II.

Image 5: Alintepe, “ Plan of the Achaemenid building of Alintepe Level II (after Özgüc)

(Summers 1993: 95, Figure.4)

As mentioned before the essential of the Achaemenid architecture was to integrate elements of the local architecture with the Achaemenid architecture. Since Susa is located in the Mesopotamian architectural sphere, it displays Mesopotamian features as observed in Darius’ palace. (Image 4)

While Alintepe II, is in the Urartian architectural sphere. Observing image 6, the Urartian temple complex shows similarities in the arrangement of rooms in its court in south-west, with the arrangement of the square rooms located in the eastern part of the Achaemenid Apadana.

Image 6: Alintepe, “Composite plan of Alintepe (after Özgüc)

(Summers 1993: 91, Figure.2)

While in Paphos we find traces of another possible feature, which points to local traditions within the architecture, that of Greek architectural sphere. Our building seems to have had a second storey, which might have been the living quarters, and also the roof of the building was not flat as often thought to have been the hallmark of Achaemenid buildings, but rather diagonal. This is consequential of the numerous Corinthian roof-tiles witch have been found in the site and its vicinity.

Another important feature of this building is its exterior. The walls of the building have been faced with “squared and drafted ashlar blocks”, which has had a long tradition in Cyprus. This technique was used in the 7th century B.C, and was fairly wide spread through the island in the 6th-4th century B.C. (Sharon 1987: 34)

The finer examples of the usage of this style in the island can be found in a number of archaic tombs in Salamis. However the usage of this technique in a building complex can be observed in the palace of Vouni (Image 7), which is dated 4th century B.C. (Op. cit.: 35)

Image 7: Vouni, “ The Palace at Vouni, period I. Plan and hypothetical reconstruction. Scale approximate (After SCE III, 191, fig. 120 and plan 26, appearing after p.)

(Reyes 1999: 93, Figure II)

However when comparing Achaemenid ashlar masonry to local Cypriot ashlar masonry, several differences and similarities between the two usages can be observed. To be able to try to class the ashlar masonry used in our building, it is however important to mention the different features unique to the two traditions.

The Cypriot ashlar construction can be characterized by:

“ The blocks were usually long and thin”
“ In a large number of the walls stones of different sizes were used, with no regular courses.”
“ The usual construction pattern is mainly stretchers, though some headers are found, along with a few examples of regular header-stretcher construction.”
“Pseudoiodomic construction (bonding by a thin course of lying blocks) was used occasionally”. (Picture 23)
“There are some cases of marginal drafting, with a pecked central boss”.
“All of these attributes are found in Greek construction of the same period. There is a special affinity between the Late Cypriot ashlar construction and “Lydian” construction.”

(Ibid)

In Achaemenid architecture Ashlar masonry is only found in some royal monuments for instance

in temples and palaces, and it has also been used in the construction of Cyrus’ tomb in Pasargadae. (Op. cit.: 34) However unlike Cyprus, Ashlar masonry did not have long traditions in the Iranian homeland, and it can be characterized by:

“ Ashlar masonry appeared suddenly, fully developed, in the sixth century B.C”
“Due to the state of preservation, ashlar construction is known only in podia and tomb monuments, only as facing to massive stone fills.”
“ The blocks were always set as stretchers and no attempt was made to bond the facing with the fill.”
“ The usual finish was marginal dressing with a flat chisel. The margins appeared on all four sides and were of uniform width. The centre was either left raised and rough, or flattened and pecked with a toothed instrument.”
“ The jointing of the blocks was achieved with aid of anathyrosis.”
“ The blocks bear the marks of lifting and adjusting instruments.”
“ There was extensive use of claims and dowels for bonding.”
“The last five findings are in common in Greek construction...The similarity between Persian and Lydian construction is particularly striking.” (Ibid)

It appears that the two traditions have the “Lydian affinity” in common. “Lydian masonry” is characterized for using “…long, thin, orthostat-like ashlar blocks facing a rubble wall. The margins are finished with a flat tool, while the flat centre is pecked. The joints between the blocks are in the “anathyrosis technique”, building walls with no use of mortar. (Ibid)

Image 8: illustration 1-3: Site KA, drawings of the Ashlar constructed walls, Ilustrations: 1-3.

(Schäfer 1960: 64: Abb. 7-9)

These are the characteristics of the sphere of the Ashlar masonry within the area, within the period of the construction of the building in site KB. The ashlar construction here seems to shows mixture of construction patterns. In some areas “stretcher construction pattern” can be observed (Image 8: illustration 1, 3), where the blocks are laid beside each other on their length. While in other areas the “header-stretcher pattern”, which is a pattern of alternating laid bricks, length to width, can be observed. (Image 8: Illustration 2)

Image 9: Appendix 1.5: Site KB, southern overview, in:

“Abb.6. Südteil des Baues von Norden gesehen. Photo Kouklia Exepedition.”

(Schäfer 1960: 161

Image 10: Site KB, detail of Ashlar blocks in Situ.

“ Abb. 5. Südostecke des Quaderbaues. Aussernfront.

(Schäfer 1960: 159)

Further the blocks, which are used, are more or less in the same size (Image 9-11), and they do as in Achaemenid ashlar masonry style, hide a rough stone core. (Image 9) However, very little can be said about the bounding used to bind the ashlar blocks together. No proof of either claims or dowels has been discovered, and since only at most two rows and in one area three rows of ashlar blocks has survived (Appendix 3.4: illustration 2), it is quite difficult to assume that the “Pseudoiodomic” method, bounding by a thin layer of bricks, has been used.

Image 11: Site KB, Overview of Room III, seen from the north. “ Abb. 12. Raum III von Norden gesehen. Photo Kouklia Exepedition.”
(Schäfer 1960: 166)

However observing the one area in which three rows have survived, the eastern corner passage leading east-west, the second row seems to illustrate a thinner layer than the those blow and above. (Image 8: illustration 2) As mentioned above this technique of bounding was regularly used in Cypriot masonry.

When it comes to dressing of the Ashlar blocks in the building in question the marginal drafting seems to be present in all four sides (image 8), and the blocks themselves have more or less a uniform width, unlike Cypriot masonry as mentioned above. Further the central faces of the blocks used appears to be left raised and somewhat rough in some areas as observed in Appendix 1.9, and flattened and somewhat pecked in other areas. (Image 9-11)

There is also a trace of “lift-holes” on one block, however since the building has been badly damaged, it is somewhat difficult to assume if this was carried out throughout the building. Nevertheless it has been used to lift that specific block to its position.

After reviewing the techniques used in our building, it seems that both Cypriot and Achaemenid traits were applied in the Ashlar construction in this site. However it is important not to forget

that there are as mentioned above, “Lydian and Greek affinities” to both Achaemenid and Cypriot ashlar masonry to consider. Thus making it extremely difficult to class the masonry in question as typical for any of the mentioned types, however it does portray a typical trait of the Achaemenid period, by being eclectic.

By way of recap this series of blog posts, I started with a number of questions, namely:

Is there any trace of the Persians or the Achaemenids within the archaeological remains in site KB and KA that identifies them in Paphos?
If there is any trace that leads to this, is the material Persian? Or is it a product of a multi-ethnic culture?
While if there is no trace, and was there any representative from the Achaemenid court and the Achaemenid army present long enough to leave behind any archaeological trace?

The answers will be discussed separately in this section.

Is there any trace of the Persians or the Achaemenians within the archaeological remains in site KB and KA that identifies them in Paphos?

After analyzing the architectural remains in site KB, and its historical background, several facts most be considered. Firstly the timeline set for its construction. Secondly its unique design and thirdly its function.

It appears, as mentioned in chapter 3.2.5 above, that the time line set for the construction of the building in site KB, is roughly between 600 BC and 475 BC, based on the few pieces of pottery found within the site. It seems somewhat peculiar that the lower limit is set so low. All of the writers referred to, seem to have ignored one important point.

They all appear to agree that the building in question is somehow connected to the Achaemenid architectural style, whether inspired by it or even built by it, but they seem to forget that the very architectural buildings, the Apadana and the palace of Darius I in Persepolis, which they all (including myself!) compare it with, was finished around 500-480 B.C. (Roaf 1990: 218)

Considering this it seems more probable that if this building in whichever way influenced by the Achaemenid court style, could not have been built before 500 B.C, and further, importantly, it was only in 525 B.C that Cyprus became a part of the Achaemenid Empire. Hence it is impossible to argue that: yes, this building was some how influenced by Achaemenid royal architecture and also was built between 600-475 B.C.

When considering the data the discovered pottery in the site provides, it is apparent that these are very diffuse. All of these seem to have a usage period between 700 B.C and 400 B.C. This suggests that most of these potteries either had a very long usage period or were part of another usage period of the site. As noted, “…an other underlying structure of a different orientation” (Megaw 1954: 175) was discovered, could this structure and those so-called “sub-structured chambers” (Image 2), belong to a former construction?

The city wall in Paleo-Paphos has witnessed a great deal of changes since the geometrical period down to 500 B.C. Further it has been suggested that earlier buildings could have existed, situated in the west lying neatly against an already existing city-wall, which is illustrated by wall V.I and V.II on Image 1. (Schäfer 1960:171) Perhaps the early pottery found in the site could have been somehow connected to these earlier buildings?

It is unfortunately somewhat difficult to say anything for certain about this site since it has not been fully excavated. However after analyzing it, it is apparent that this building has some sort of connection to the Achaemenid Royal architecture, it remains to be seen to what degree. However if it was shown to be inspired by Achaemenid Royal architecture or constructed by it, one point remains certain. It would have been an Achaemenid building regardless of its constructor's ethnicity.

Whether built and inhabited by a “Persian/ Achaemenid commander”, or the “Paphiot priest king”, this building would have been the residence or the palace of an Achaemenid official. The Cypriot kings were vassals to the Achaemenid king, and thus technically Achaemenid officials. This is a point that seems to have been forgotten or rather ignored.

The function and the construction of this building seems to be somewhat connected to the events, which took place in 498 B.C in Paphos. Referring to the Siege of the city, it seems apparent that this building was probably built upon some older construction, in a commanding location with good view over the ancient city, where it also could be seen. I tend to agree with Mr. Schäfer, that this building was probably built after the siege, by the victors, in this case the Achaemenid army. The building was then probably used as a palace and an administrative unit for the Paphiot priest king, as Professor Maier suggests, ruling his kingdom as a vassal of the Achaemenid king.

The siege mound in Paphos seems to set the Kingdom of Paphos in perspective. It seems the siege-mound is the only archaeological proof that shows the Achaemenid presence not only in the kingdom of Paphos but also in Cyprus it self. which points to the importance of the kingdom of Paphos to the Achaemenid empire.

The island of Cyprus played an important role in the Achaemenid empire for 250 years, and some traces of this can be observed. However maybe not as apparent as desired, the ability of adaptation, which was the hallmark of the Achaemenid Empire, hides the “Persian” traces within the accumulated cultures within the empire.

Yes, there are definitely some traces after the Achaemenid Empire. The kingdom of Ancient Paphos was ruled by its local Priest-King, a vassal of the Achaemenid King, thus making him an Achaemenid official. He might have built a palace, whose traces might show Achaemenid Royal architecture either in inspiration or in construction, only further excavation will show. It seems no traces appear to be “Persian” in character, however we have evidence of “Achaemenid” presence.

If there is any trace that leads to this, is the material Persian? Or is it a product of a multi-ethnic culture? While if there is no trace, and was there any representative from the Achaemenid court and the Achaemenid army present long enough to leave behind any archaeological trace?

Professor Maier argues that: “ Many important settlements in Cyprus were destroyed towards the end of the late Bronze age, and were either left derelict or rebuilt on a different site. Yet Palai-Paphos was neither permanently destroyed nor was it transferred to a new site.” Further he mentions, “From the beginning of the Geometric to the end of the Classical epoch (C.1050-325 B.C) Paphos remained the major urban centre of the south-western Cyprus.” (2004: 20)

Considering this it would be apparent why this kingdom was important to the empire, not only was it rich due to its sanctuary, but by being a major urban centre it would offer a great deal of tribute and the most important element, ships. Only one year after the siege, Paphos seem to have provided 12 ships of 150 ships in the Cypriot contingency in the Achaemenid navy. (Herodotus: VII, 98)

The finds on the “siege mound” it self, seems to suggest that the contingency used in this military operation seems to have contained some Greek mercenaries, as the two Greek helmets found within its context shows. Most of the mercenary regiments stationed in the western parts of the empire were infantry units raised locally, mostly from the Greek areas. It appears that the military units deployed within the island rarely contained any Persian personnel, they were mostly sent out from Anatolia. (Encyclopædia Iranica, 3768, Weiskopf: 509) The units would be deployed, and when finished with their task they would be sent back to their original garrison, thus making it extremely difficult to trace them archaeologically.

A new picture seems to be emerging; the obscurity of an Achaemenid Cyprus seems to be disappearing. It appears that maybe this period was not as elusive as expected. The questions presented seem to be entwined, as it seems so are the answers.

Thus a question appears, was there really in the first place anything called Persian? It seems that it would be a mistake to identify an object or a culture with a name, which is connected to a single part of it. However that is exactly what we do, calling a complex culture which produces products such as architecture or art, which contains within them the complex nature of the culture by a single component, Persian. The Persians being an Iranian tribe living in the area of Parsa and more precisely in the case of the Achaemenid era, the ruling tribe in the federation of all the Iranian tribes in the Iranian plateau.

The Achaemenid culture was a result of a decision, not a development. The empire contained within it a diverse ethnicity whose cultures were used to design something new, a new identity for a new empire.

The background of all these ethnicities can be observed within Achaemenid art and architecture, and thus in the archaeological material found within an Achaemenid context, like our building in question. That is probably why we cannot observe anything be it object or architecture, “Persian” in nature, as Persian was just like elements of Lydian architecture a part of the product, not the result.

Thus maybe it is time to change our definitions of the “Persian empire”. It seems more appropriate to define this empire, which started in the heart of the Iranian plateau with the conquering of Media by Cyrus grandson of Achamenes in 550 B.C, and was extended to contain 24 satrapies by Darius I, and which ended in 330 B.C by Alexander of Macedonia in the same location, as the Achaemenid Empire. By doing so it seems it would be easier to define what this culture consisted of and the cultural products it produced. Thus the archaeological material found within Achaemenid context should be identified as Achaemenid, and as not "Persian".

It appears that the ideas that we read into the word “Persian”, is not well reflected. As for instance if looking for “Persian” traces within the context of the sites: KA and KB, very little information would be gathered. It is obvious that the ruler of the city was local, the Paphiot Priest-king and not “Persian”. The only clue that points to a possible “Persian” presence would then be the architectural remains in site KB. As first identified as the garrison building of the “Persian” troops.

However it is apparent that no other distinct proof of a “Persian” army, except for the usage of siege-mounds and siege-towers by the “Persian” army in other contexts, are present in site KA. The distinctive “Persian” or even Iranian proof or material, such as personal weaponry is not present within the site, and again what remains is a notion of a “Persian” trace. Even though it is apparent that Cyprus was a part of the Achaemenid Empire in 250 years.

In other areas in the empire such traces are however found. For instance in Deve Hüyük, in present day Turkey in the form of “Cist-tombs” in an Iron Age cemetery. It seems that some Iranian troops were stationed here, in a military garrison. Besides it appears that the “ Soldiers were buried there with distinctive arms and pottery;” “With the evidence of the arms alone: akinakes [“Median sword”], sagaris [“Doubleheaded axe”] and gorytus [“Composite bows”], it may only be said that this is likely to have been a garrison of predominantly Iranian-speaking troops rather then local Syrians, whose traditional arms were different.” (Moorey 1975: 116)

Also the pottery, “coarse redware lamps”, accompanying the dead soldiers, showed no likeness what so ever with any objects from the same period from Palestine, Syria or Iraq. However they do look extremely similar to finds in Dailaman in “…south-western shore of the Caspian Sea” in Iran. (Ibid: 112) Another find which seemed alien to its location, was that of a “burnished brown ware zoomorphic horn shaped rhyton”, which seems to be more local to sites in the provinces of Gilan and Mazandaran in Northern Iran, by the Caspian sea. (Op. cit.: 112) (Image 12: Illustrations 1,3,4,7)

Image 12: “Deve Hüyük- Objects of Iranian origin or affiliation”

(Moorey 1975: 112)

Even though these finds do point to Iranian origins, they are not local to Persis or the Persians. It rather appears that these soldiers were from northern Iran, probably along the southern shores of the Caspian Sea, were also their “Cist tombs” would have been a local tradition. This region would have been during the Achaemenid period, under the Satrapy of Media. The question would then be: would it be correct to class these objects as “Persian”? Obviously that is not the case. These objects would be more at home in Media, however, as Mr Moorey mentions the very arms that he uses to identify these soldiers as Iranian-speaking and from the Median satrapy, are originally from somewhere else.

The “…Cimmerians and Scythians in the earlier seventh century B.C” introduced the akinakes, the “Median sword”, showed in the Persepolis-reliefs worn by Medians and also portrayed as tribute brought by delegation 11 and 17, identified as Scythians and Sogdanians. The “Sagaris”, the double-header axe, is shown in the Persepolis reliefs as tribute being brought by “Delegation 17”, which is assumed to be the “Hauma drinking Scythians”. (Op. cit.: 114)

The Persepolis reliefs seem to show that these items were probably forged in other areas and brought to Persepolis as tribute. It seems that there is a large hole within the concepts used to identify archaeological material within the contexts spread through the empire. However if the concept of Achaemenid as defined above were to be used, it would be much easier not to only class objects, but also not to contradict ones arguments.

As shown above the “Iranian” traces in Turkey, when seen at the seams, regarding the two of the three “arms”, were not really local to the area that they were assigned. However since these soldiers with the other distinctive finds, such as the “coarse redware lamps”, used these weapons could rather be called Achaemenid. This would make it easier to identify them without obscurities and also portray the very essence of the Achaemenid culture, its adaptations and eclectic way of using

different objects where saw fit.

By using this definition and concept, in our earlier example above, the elusive “Persian” traces in Paphos, there would be a different picture. The Achaemenid traces would be easily recognized. Our Achaemenid official would be present in a form of the local Paphiot-priest king, a vassal to the Achaemenid court, an Achaemenid official. The palatial building in Hadji Abdullah would then easily be classed as Achaemenid, built within the norms of the Achaemenid Royal architecture, keeping with both local and Achaemenid building traditions, containing elements from a diverse multiethnic tradition within the empire.

While the Siege-mound demonstrates the multi-cultural Achaemenid army, whose contingents were probably drawn from Anatolia, even containing Greek mercenaries, as the finds of the Corinthian helmets shows, and whether commanded by a Persian, Median, Babylonian, Egyptian, Phoenician or even a Greek commander, it was certainly commanded by a Achaemenid general.

It appears in the end of these posts, that the elusiveness and obscurities of the Achaemenid empire are just the misconceptions of our own concepts and definitions.

References.

Bibliography

Boardman, J: “Persia and the west: an archaeological investigation of the genesis of Achaemenid art”,

London: Thames & Hudson, 2000.

Herodotus, “Histories”: VII, 98

Maier, F.G (with the contributions by: S. Hadjisavvas, M.-L. von Wartburg): “Guide to Palaipaphos (Kouklia). Banc of Cyprus Cultural Foundation, Nicosia, 2004

Megaw, A. H. S: “Archaeology in Cyprus, 1953”, in: Journal of Hellenic studies, no. 74, 1954. (Page 175)

Moorey, P.R.S, “Iranian troops at Deve Hüyük in Syria in the Earlier Fifth Century BC”, Levant, no.7, 1975 (108-117).

Roaf, M:“ Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia”, New York: Facts on File, c1990

Schäfer, J: “Ein preser bau in Alt-paphos? In Opuscula archaeologica (opArch) no. III 1960 (155-175)

Sharon, I: “Phoenician and Greek Ashlar construction Techniques at Tel Dor, Israel”, in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR), no.267, August 1987, (21-39).

Stern, E: “The Material Culture of the land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538-332 B.C.E”, Warnminister: Aris & Phillips, Ltd., 1982 (47-92)

Summers, G.D: “Archaeological evidence for the Achaemenid period in Eastern Turkey”, in

Anatolian studies no. 43, 1993 (85-108)

Weiskopf, M. “Cyprus”, in “Encyclopædia Iranica”, (508-512) http://www.iranica.com/articlenavigation/index.html

Picture and Map references.

Image 1: Architectural plan of architectural remains in site KA.

“Abb. 2. Plan I. Übersichtsplan überdie Architektureste auf Hadji Abdullah”

(Schäfer 1960)

Image 2: Architectural plan of Southern part of the architectural remains in site KA.

“Abb.3. Plan II. Der Stüddeil des Quadrbaues mit der stadtmauer.”

(Schäfer 1960)

Image 3: Persepolis, Overview of the architectural remains in the Persepolis complex.

(Roaf 1990: 218)

Image 4: Susa, Overview of the architectural remains in Susa.

(Roaf 1990:211)

Image 5: Alintepe, “ Plan of the Achaemenid building of Alintepe Level II (after Özgüc)

(Summers 1993: 95, Figure.4)

Image 6: Alintepe, “Composite plan of Alintepe (after Özgüc)

(Summers 1993: 91, Figure.2)

Image 7: Vouni, “ The Palace at Vouni, period I. Plan and hypothetical reconstruction. Scale approximate (After SCE III, 191, fig. 120 and plan 26, appearing after p.)

(Reyes 1999: 93, Figure II)

Image 8: illustration 1-3: Site KA, drawings of the Ashlar constructed walls, Ilustrations: 1-3.

(Schäfer 1960: 64: Abb. 7-9)

Image 9: Site KB, southern overview, in:

“Abb.6. Südteil des Baues von Norden gesehen. Photo Kouklia Exepedition.”

(Schäfer 1960: 161)

Image 10: Site KB, detail of Ashlar blocks in Situ.

“ Abb. 5. Südostecke des Quaderbaues. Aussernfront.

(Schäfer 1960: 159)

Image 11: Site KB, Overview of Room III, seen from the north.
“ Abb. 12. Raum III von Norden gesehen. Photo Kouklia Exepedition.”(Schäfer 1960: 166)

Image 12: “Deve Hüyük- Objects of Iranian origin or affiliation”

(Moorey 1975: 112)

"The Saltmen", the Iranian Mummies.

2014-04-11T13:53:00.006+02:00

As a young girl interested in archaeology and history, mummies always intrigued me.

From the intricate Egyptian mummies to the naturally and eerily beautiful preserved mummies of the Incas, the mummies seemed to be a beautiful piece of art containing secretes of the ancient past. So imagine the disappointment I felt, when I in the tender age of 8, realised that the Persian did not have any mummies! Actually very little human remains are found in the Iranian Plateau. The Royal Achaemenid tombs in Naghshe Rostam yielded their treasures and human remains many centuries ago. The Sassanians and the Achaemenids for that matter, made the funerary archaeology a bit more difficult by practising the Zoroastrian mortuary rituals, which left very little or no human remains to be studied.

Now and then the discovery of a “Royal Persian Mummy” would hit the news, and of course later it would turn out to be a fake. The most famous one of these is the “Royal Princess-mummy” thought to be a daughter of Xerxes, this particular mummy was on sale on the black marked for about 11 million dollars!1

But of course this “amazing find”, more or less the Tutankhamun of Achaemenid Empire, almost lead to an international incident involving Iran, Pakistan and even the Taliban in Afghanistan. All of this was more or less down to the the curator of the National Museum in Karachi, where “the Royal Princess” was being held and stored. Being overwhelmed by this find of the century, Asma Ibrahim, thought her self cuneiform to be able to read the inscriptions on the mummy's gold plaque, ordered numerous CT scans, and also assisted in its autopsy. However, she forgot one key fact. There are no records nor evidence of the Achaemenids who followed an early type the Zoroastrian faith, would want or need an embalming according to the Egyptian ritual customs. (The only remote mention of a possible embalming in ancient Persia is from Herodotus, who mentions that the Persians embalmed their dead in wax. Hdt 1.140) Also the pencil marks around the wooden embellishments on the coffin should have given her a clue…1

The 2600 year old “Royal Princess” turned out to be a woman with dyed blond hair, who had died by having her neck broken in 1996. This poor middle aged woman had either her grave robbed, or was murdered in “mummy factory” somewhere between Iran and Pakistan.2

After this disappointment I came across “The Iranian Saltmen”, and I was pleasantly surprised!
The “Saltmen of Zanjan” are a very rare form of natural mummification.

It was in 1993, when miners in Douzlakh Saltmine near Hamzehli and Chehr Abad villages, in Zanjan Province accidentally came across a mummified head. The head was very well preserved, to the extent that his pierced ear was still holding the golden earring. The hair, beard and the moustaches were reddish in colour, and his impressive leather boot still contained parts of his leg and foot.3

The original Saltman, the first of the Saltmen of Zanjan to be discovered by miners in 1994, displayed

in the National Museum of Iran, Tehran. Photo taken by me.

The local Zanjan branch of the Miras Farhangi (Zanjan Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organisation) was called, and they performed a rescue excavation and found three Iron knives, a short trouser made of wool, a silver needle, a sling, a leather rope, a grind stone, some pottery shards, and patterned textile fragments, and a few broken bones, and a walnut!! He was found in a middle of a tunnel, about 45 metres in length.3

The leather boot belonging the Saltman found by the miners, parts of the leg and the foot is still in the boot. The boot is displayed in the National Museum Tehran.Photo taken by me.

The local Zanjan branch of the Miras Farhangi, thinking that this mummy was an individual find, did not investigate the mine any further. However, in 2004 the miners discovered yet another “saltman”, again the local Zanjan branch of the Miras Farhangi was called in. The team discovered further remains of a human body along with a large amount of artefacts made of wood, metal tools, clothing and pottery.4

The Miras-e-Farhangi realising that they might have stumbled upon a mine with a long history of usage finally got their act together and started an archaeological investigation, involving several international research organisations:
Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research (ICAR), Shiraz, Iran
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Universität Zürich, Zentrum für Evolutionäre Medizin
University of Oxford, (RLAHA Oxford), Research Laboratory for Archaeology & the History of Art
York University, Institute of Archaeology
Tehran University, The Institute of Parasitology and Mycology
Zanjan University, Institute of Geomorphology
University of Franche-Comte, Faculty of Sciences & Techniques
5

In 2005 a systematic excavation began and 3 more mummies were excavated, and a sixth was remained in situ, due lack of funds for its storage. The context of the remains, suggested a collapse in the mine that had killed the miners in question.6

The first mummy, dubbed the "Saltman" is on display in the National Museum of Iran in Tehran. He still looks very impressive, I just wish he was displayed a bit better. (See above images)

This particular "saltman" was originally dated based on the archaeological material found with him. Sobuti the Iranian archaeologist who performed the first rescue excavation, suggested a dating around 800 BC based on the clothing and the accessories found with him, which placed him in the Neo-Elamite Period (1000-539 BC). Later the mummy was carbon dated, which placed him in 500 AD (1750 BP), the height of the Sasanian Empire. 7, 8

The second "saltman" was carbon dated to 1554 BP , which placed the second "Saltmen" in the same era as the first "saltman", the Sasanian era. 7

Saltman no. 2 , currently on display in Zanjan Musem.
By Mardetanha (Own work)
[CC-BY-SA-3.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)
or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)],
via Wikimedia Commons

Saltman no. 2 , currently on display in
Zanjan Musem.
By Mardetanha (Own work)
[CC-BY-SA-3.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)
or GFDL
(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)],
via Wikimedia Commons

The third, fourth, and the fifth "saltmen" were also carbon dated. The third body was dated and placed in 2337 BP, the fourth body in 2301 BP, and the fifth mummy was dated to 2286 BP, placing them all in the Achaemenid period. 7

Saltman no. 3, currently on display in Zanjan Musem.

By Mardetanha (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

However, the previous number of five have increased to at least 8 individuals! As further anatomical analysis revealed that the bones previously thought to have belonged to one individual, belongs to several more.9

Isotopic analysis of the human remains revealed where these miners were from, some where from the Tehran-Qazvin Plain, which is relatively local to the mines locality. While some were from North-Eastern Iran, and the coastal areas around the Caspian Sea, and as far away as Central Asia.9

Further more the archaeozoological finds such as animal bones found within the context of the Saltmen, shows that the miners might have eaten sheep, goats and probably pigs and cattle as well. The archaeobotanical finds recorded, shows different cultivated plants were eaten, indicating an agricultural establishment.9

The wealth of fabric and other organic material (leather) worn by the saltmen, have allowed a thorough analysis to be undertaken, detailing the resources used to make the fabrics, the processing, the dyes used to colour the fibres of the garments, and not least they offer an excellent overview of the changes in cloths types, patterns of weaving and the changes with the fibres through time.9

All the data collected so far has allowed the researchers to have the first holistic view of the mine and the miners who worked there through the periods of its usage. The variety of the artefacts and the ecofacts found in each stratigraphic and chronological setting has offered a concise context hence revealing the differences between the two ancient mining phases. 9

During the Achaemenid phase, the mining was accessed from areas further away, indicated by the lack of settlement in the vicinity of the mine and the DNA results showing foreign miners were present as well. The high amount of ceramic vessels, and the goods supplied suggest also access from further away.
While the Sassanian phase shows, that the mining was established within the local landscape, and the isotopic data indicate that the supplies were organised on a regional basis. 9

It is also very interesting to take the lack of any archaeological evidence of any form of a mining settlement within the vicinity of the mine into account, which indicates that the mining was seasonal rather then highly organized. If we take for instance the contemporary Greek mining practice, by contrast was this was often a task done by slaves. There are so many levels of information these mummies and their contexts have offered that makes them so incredibly invaluable.7

The individual "Saltmen" have a few secrets of their own, for instance the first "saltman" that was discovered, had the blood type B+, and the 3D imagining of his skull, revealed fractures around his eye and other damage that occurred before death by a hard blow to the head. His clothing (the impressive leather boot), and his golden earring, shows a person of some rank, the reason for his presence in the mind still remains a mystery. Was he murdered and dumped there, or was he mining salt and fell victim to a cave in?10

Saltman No. 5, for instance had tapeworm eggs from the Taenia sp. genus in his system. These were identified during the study of his remains. The find indicates the consumption of raw or undercooked meat, and this is the first case of seeing this parasite in ancient Iran, and the earliest evidence of ancient intestinal parasites as well in the area. 11

The best preserved and probably the harrowing of the saltmen, is Saltman no 4. A 16 years old miner, caught in the moment of death, crushed by a cave in.

Saltman no 4. Currently on display in the
Zanjan Museum.
By Mardetanha (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)
or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)],
via Wikimedia Commons

For a while it seemed that the four of the "Saltmen" displayed in the Rakhtshuikhane Museum in Zanjan, were in danger of becoming damaged by bacterial infection. The display cases were not sealed properly and were allowing the air to enter. Hence there were some damages to the internal organs of some the mummies. However, the Iranian press and the Zanjan Cuktural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts Dept. director later reported “Without hesitation, I can now say that the salt men kept here are in better condition than the one at the National Museum of Iran in Tehran.” Three cases were made specially for the Saltmen, costing about $25,000 each. The cases are equipped with devices which enables experts to monitor conditions inside and keep them under full control.3

The wealth of knowledge these 5 mummies and the associated finds have brought, and are still bringing in understanding the Ancient Iran is truly invaluable, and I do hope one day further excavations can be carried out in this mine, so further discoveries can come to light!

(Ps. I would like volunteer!)

References.

1. http://archive.archaeology.org/0101/etc/persia
2. http://archive.archaeology.org/0201/reviews/persian
3. http://www.pasthorizons.com/index.php/archives/06/2011/salt-men-of-iran)
4. http://www.saltmen-iran.com/tiki-index.php?page=b12_2004
5. http://www.bergbaumuseum.de/index.php/en/research/projects/early-mining-landscapes/salt-men-zanjan
6. http://www.payvand.com/news/06/nov/1324
7. http://www.arch.ox.ac.uk/salt.ht
8. http://www.saltmen-iran.com/tiki-index.php?page=b12_1994
9. http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/aali333
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltmen
11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23240712

The photos of the Saltmen which are displayed in Zanjan are from:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Salt_men_in_Zanjan

The Unknown Collaborators, Tha-ast-en-amu, and His Persian Gown.

2014-04-04T11:45:00.002+02:00

While excavating the Palace of Apries in Memphis, in 1909, Petrie came across a relief, which he dated to the Saite period. This was a funerary relief belonging to a Tha-ast-en-amu, wearing a curious garment.

This article takes a closer look at this relief, and tries to put it in into context. After the annexation of Egypt by Cambyses in 525 BC, Memphis continued to remain the capital city of Egypt. The Palace of Apries had been used as the administration centre during the Saite period, and so it was repaired sometime after the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, and reused by the Achaemenid administration. Several finds by Petrie confirms the palace's role as the Achaemenid administration centre. Amongst the artefacts recovered from the palace, there were several Achaemenid seal impressions on clay 1 , and also various wooden labels with Aramaic inscription, some of these also bear demotic inscription on their other side.2 Also some iron and bronze scale armour was recovered, which points to an Achaemenid military presence in the palace.3

The new refurbishments of the palace lead the slab inscribed with the funerary inscription of Tha-ast-en-amu, to the “south-west corner of the palace under the tower, were it was used in the reconstruction along with brickwork”.4 Apparently it was a door frame which was brought from a tomb, and was fitted in its new location by braking off some of the moulding. It appears the fate of this slab was somewhat dismal as Petrie mentions it being “broken by extreme violence in shipping” on its way to Cambridge, and so disappears the last trace of Tha-ast-en-amu's funerary inscription.5

The slab was two sided; the back side of the slab features a lady and a young boy in raised relief and appeared to have been painted. Judging from the photograph, this side of the slab seems to be badly damaged, and no drawing was made of it. (See Figure 2) On the other side of the slab facing the viewer, however, Tha-ast-en-amu is observed wearing a long flowing robe with long sleeves and with no wig in sunken relief. His right arm is shown clasped over his side holding an amulet, and his other hand is raised holing a staff. (See fig. 1)

The inscriptions on the slab were translated by Walker as follows:
"The hereditary prince, the royal treasurer, the confidential friend, the one who is in the palace, the kings reporter, the scribe of the royal archives in the royal presence, Tha-ast-en-amu. He says, I made for thee (read k for neb) the judgement (?)-hall of (2) the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Khnum-ab-ra. He was called Aahmus-si-neit. Thou (read k for neb) madest me chief judge (Lit. “Over the listeners”) and possessor of the reward of merit in thy time (read k for neb). I carried out all orders, and renewed thy works in (3) thy festival (?heb) of ... upon earth. I established thy name firmly on every place in the great hall. I built this palace, for the noble woman Nebt-ankh, which the noble woman Semset gave. (4) It was furnished with a lake, together with all beautiful gifts by the god,...the years of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Kheper-ka-ra living for ever, in whose time I worked these things for thee.(read k for neb). "
The obverse side of this relief reads:

“(1) Thee confidential friend Tha-ast-en-amu. (2) Speech. Mayest thou be nourished with (3) her life. May thy limbs be made firm, (4) which have been fashioned by the great goddess, (5) Semset of the house of provisions." 6

In the inscription he states that he was active during the reign of Kheper-ka-ra, which
we can assume is King: Prenomen: Kheperkare, Nomen: Nakhtnebef. Which would place Tha-ast-en-amu in between 380 - 363 BC, in the Thirtieth Dynasty.7

Figure 1
The Funerary Relief of Tha-ast-en-amu

Figure 2

The other side of the Funerary relief of Tha-ast-en-amu

However as mentioned Petrie places the reconstruction after the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, and also says: “It is not obvious at first whether the royal name Kheper-ka-ra is that of Sensuert I in remembrance, or whether it is of Nekt-neb-f in the XXXth Dynasty.” 8 Even though he mentions this he seems to not take this into consideration, and another problem which arises, is the other royal name which is mentioned in the inscription, the name of Khnum-ab-ra, who was also called Aahmus-si-neit, which most be: Prenomen: Khnemibre with the Nomen: Ahmose (II), namely in the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. Could it be that it was rather in remembrance of him rather to that of Sensurt I?

Unfortunately he does not investigate this nor the curious garb Tha-ast-en-emu is wearing any further, nor does Walker. However Petrie does not give any accurate date for the reconstruction of the palace, he just states: “There was a rough reconstruction after the XXVIth Dynasty, as the slab of Tha-ast-en-amu... was brought probably from his tomb.” 9

Looking at Egyptian art in this period, with a new foreign administration in place in Memphis, a new style in artistic presentation arouse. From the time of Saite Dynasty, the Egyptian art had looked back and admired and incorporated the art of former Dynasties in their artistic corpus, specially revered was the style of the Old Kingdom. 10 The Achaemenid conquest lead the Egyptians to pursue the styles of the old “repertoire” even more avidly. The Saite period being the last period when the Egyptian culture had peeked under native kings was used as a model and pursued with great intensity. 11

With this new order, and the conflicts that it brought within the native Egyptian court, a new trend arouse within the artistic rendering of native Egyptians working with the new foreign administration. This can observed on personal funerary reliefs and votive statues. The style remained the same, however some new details were added. One them which can be observed frequently was, as Aldred argues: “ The Persian dress, particularly the long-sleeved gown, was sometimes worn by the collaborating high state officials.” 12

Another detail which can be observed on some reliefs is that of the “Persian Gesture”, or “Hand over wrist gesture”, where one of the hands are clasped over the other in such a fashion that the palm and the back of the other hand are viewed. 13 (see fig. 3)

Figure 3
"The Persian Gesture" of the placing of the hands.

Considering these stylistic details, we can observe that the depiction of Tha-ast-en-amu contain both of these features. Not only is his wearing a long sleeved robe or gown but also the positioning of his hands are similar to the “Persian Gesture”, as seen on the reliefs in the Apadana in Persepolis. (see fig.1 and 3)

Considering these stylistic arguments regarding the dating of this relief several interesting questions arises. First of all the dating suggested by Petrie, to the Saite Period, is far too early . Taking the inscriptions on the relief in account as well, it suggests that the dating to the Thirtieth Dynasty would be more accurate. It would also make more sense if the relief was indeed made in remembrance for Khnum-ab-ra/Ahmose (II), in the Twenty sixth Dynasty. As mentioned earlier, the Saite period was highly idealized and thought of as the Golden Age by the Egyptians of the later period.

The second questions that arises is why would Tha-ast-en amu a high ranking courtier, be depicted wearing a “long sleeved Persian gown”, the garb of the traitor and a collaborator (according to Aldred) while Egypt was under native rule, for his funerary relief?

It all comes down to his “Persian gown”. There most be more to this garment, then the collaborator's stamp. After all, by this time there had been a great deal of interaction between the native Egyptians and the Achaemenid administration. Perhaps at first this garment was indeed worn by “collaborators” to show some kind of unity with the new administration, as observed on the funerary statue of the famous Udjahorresnet. According to his own biography on his statue, he had worked both with Cambyses and Darius I, and also travelled to the Persian homeland. He had many titles, but he was also a priest of Neith. He is depicted on his votive statue wearing a long sleeved Persian garment, beneath his long wrap-over kilt.(see fig. 4).

Figure 4

Udjahorresnet, notice the sleeves.

For all we know he could been the first person to have worn this garment to appease his foreign rulers. However more then 150 years later, perhaps this “Persian gown” was no longer thought of as the collaborators mark, and rather was becoming a part of the Egyptian priests wardrobe. For another priest, or rather chief prophet Osir-wer, was depicted on a green schist statue, found in the Karnak cache, wearing the “sleeved Persian jacket beneath the long wrap-over kilt”.(see fig.5)

Figure 5
Osir-wer garbed in the "Persian Gown"

His statue is dated to 350 BC, which is in the Late Egyptian period, between the two Persian periods, in the time of Nectanebo II, the last native Egyptian king. Tha-ast-en-amu who also had priestly functions probably was wearing this robe without any thought or need of collaborating with a foreign rule.

However this raises the question when did the relief was used in the reconstruction of the palace. If we follow through with our arguments it could not have been immediately after the twenty- Dynasty, rather after the Thirtieth Dynasty, at least for this specific slab. However that in it self is another entire discussion. This clearly shows how little we do know about Egypt and its interactions with the Achaemenid empire after its conquest, and the intermediate period of native rule. There is definitely a great deal to be learnt about this period and the traces that the Achaemenid empire must have left willing or unwillingly behind on the Egyptian culture.

Bibliography.
1 Petrie, W.M.F. and Walker, J.H., 1909. The Palace of the Apries, Memphis II. London, 42

2 Petrie, W.M.F., McKay, E. and WAINWRIGHT, G., 1910. Meydum and Memphis (III). London, 4

3 Petrie, W.M.F. and Walker, J.H., 1909. The Palace of the Apries, Memphis II. London, 11

4 ibid 13

5 ibid

6 ibid 21

7 Homepage of Developed by UCL for the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology <http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/> Accessed 01.01. 2008

8 Petrie, W.M.F. and Walker, J.H., 1909. The Palace of the Apries, Memphis II. London,13

9 Petrie, W.M.F. and Walker, J.H., 1909. The Palace of the Apries, Memphis II. London, 11

10 Aldred, C., 1980. Egyptian art in the days of the Pharaohs, 3100-320 BC. London: Thames & Hudson, 288

11 ibid 233

12 ibid

13 For bibliography and comment on the gesture: See Schulman, "A 'Persian Gesture' from Memphis," Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 3, (1981), 103-11.

14 For extended discussion regarding Udjahorresnet's statue and its inscriptions see: Lloyd, A.B., 1982. 'The Inscription of Udjahorresnet a Collaborator's Testament'. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 68, 166-180.

15 Aldred, C., 1980. Egyptian art in the days of the Pharaohs, 3100-320 BC. London: Thames & Hudson, 198

List of Figures.
Fig.1: Funerary relief of Tha-ast-en-amu.
Photograph: Petrie, W.M.F. and Walker, J.H., 1909. The Palace of the Apries, Memphis II. London, pl. XVII.
Fig.2: The other side of the funerary relief of Tha-ast-amu., Petrie, W.M.F. and Walker, J.H., 1909. The Palace of the
Apries, Memphis II, London, pl. XVII.
Fig.3: 'The Persian Gesture.' Schmidt,E.F., Persepolis, I. Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions, Chicago, 1953, pl. 25 B.
Fig.4: Udjahorresnet, notice the sleeves. Briant, P., 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander : a history of the Persian
Empire,Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN, 473,Fig. 44.
Fig.5: Osir-wer.. Aldred, C., 1980. Egyptian art in the days of the Pharaohs, 3100-320 BC. London, Thames & Hudson,
239, fig. 198.

Felines in the National Museum of Iran.

2013-10-25T13:19:00.000+02:00

In my first trip back to Iran, after almost 15 years, while I was in Teheran I took a trip the National Museum of Iran.
This fine museum, albeit small compared the British Museum and The Louvre, contains many beautiful artifacts from all the ages of Ancient Iran.

For the first time, I had an entire museum dedicated solely to Ancient Iran, I was like a kid in a candy store! I think I took about 360 photos with my Sony Walkman phone, so not the best of quality but good enough.

Here are some of the "felines" I came across, the date of these range from Bronze age through to Iron age. Some are in 3 dimensions made in metal and some are artfully painted on pottery vessels.
It seems there are two types of felines that are favoured by the ancient Iranians, lions, leopards and cheetah.

If you want to read more about art in Ancient Iran, see here!

As you know the Asiatic Lions went instinct in Iran around the 1900's, however the Iranian Leopard and the Cheetah still hold their ground, however loosely.

A lions head.

A lion.

Leopards on a pottery vessel.

A cheetah on a pottery vessel, I think the long tale and the small head gives it away.

Leopard's head terminus.

A lion or perhaps a leopard terminus.

Restored Bronze vessel with Lions, from Tepe Marlik, Gilan, dating 1000 BC, showcasing the beautiful workmanship of the era.

A leopard pottery vessel, used for libation perhaps.

The Achaemenid Empire Part 11: Site KA, The Siege of Paleopaphos.

2013-04-25T16:16:00.000+02:00

Site KA, known as Marcello Hill, Paleopaphos.

Topography

The modern village of Kouklia and the ancient kingdom of Paphos are positioned on a “low flat-topped limestone bluff” witch rises gently from the ground, about 1.9 Km from the coastline. To the east of the village the localities of Mantissa, Asproyi and Evreti are situated in a shallow valley, from there the ground rises gently and forms the plateau overlooking the village. On the plateau ridges to the north-east of the village, the locality of Marcello is situated. The fortification walls and the adjoining gate, which so far have been excavated, are placed near the rim of the plateau. The walls run about 90 metres in a straight line from north-west to south-east. A rectangular tower was situated at the south-eastern edge from the outward face of the wall, and a bastion (bastion 1) was placed by the north-western part of the wall turning at a right angle. (Maier 1967: 34-35)

The siege-mound it self was situated in front of the adjoining gate, the north-eastern gate, which seems to have been the main entrance into the city, where it commands an authoritative position above the city settlement. (Maier 2004: 59)

Image 1: Site KA, “Northeast Gate and Persian siege works on the Marchellos hill (Site KA) from the air.” (Maier 2004: 60, Figure 42)

This area seemed to have been the main communication route between ancient Paphos and the surrounding villages on the eastern part of the river Diarrhizos, by the means of an ancient pathway, which were still in use until recent times prior to the modern road construction about 100 metres further to the west. The archaeological investigations in the area showed that this pathway passes directly over the ancient city-gate remains. (Ibid: 35)

Excavation history The Kouklia Expedition started their work by carrying out trial trenches on several sites in Kouklia. In their first season they investigated the Marcello area, where the local villagers had previously gathered building stones and found archaic fragments, as well as syllabic dedications. (Megaw 1951: 258-259) At first glance the mound seemed to be “…a well packed pile of rubble, encircled by a retaining wall and containing throughout a proportion of sculptural and architectural debris from an archaic sanctuary”. (Ibid)

Image 2: Site KA, “The Persian siege ramp covering berm, ditch and glacis.” (Maier 2004: 66, Figure 48)

The Marcello hill’s function remained an enigma to the excavators by the end of their season in 1950, but even though they did not know the purpose of the mound, they found it “… to overlie part of a massive wall of mud-brick faced with stone…”(Ibid), which they interpret as the outer shell of the city wall of Ancient Paphos, dating back to the late Bronze age. (Ibid)

Image 3: 3.5: Site KA, “Northeast Gate and Persian siege works; plan” (Maier 2004: 61, Figure.61)

The excavations were again resumed in 1951, on Marcello and “the mound of rubble” yielded more architectural debris and also sculptural fragments, which were of archaic style. They also started to work beneath the mound, where they cleared a deep trench in front of the fortified wall found during the previous season. A series of tunnels were found under the wall, going in the same direction as the mound and some of these tunnels penetrated the mound. (Megaw 1952: 115)

Image 4: Site KA, “The development of the fortifications on site KA.
A: Early Archaic period; B: Archaic period; C: Late Classical period. (Maier 2004: 63, Figure.45)

By this time, the excavators started to suggest that the Marcello hill was in fact a siege-mound. They concluded that it might have been built around 498 B.C, when according to Herodotus V.115; the Achaemenid Empire overthrew all the Cypriot kingdoms in the island. Further they hypothesised that the tunnels must have been a contra siege-work dug by the local city defenders, to undermine the siege towers used by the Achaemenid army to recapture the city walls. (Megaw 1952: 115)

In 1952 the expedition resumed the work on the mound, which now was called the “Persian Siege mound”, and was interpreted as such. The investigation was carried out on the section of the city wall where the mound was positioned against it. A section was excavated through the wall, and it showed that the stone foundation of the wall and the original core made of mud bricks were built some time approximately between the12 th and 11th century BC. (Megaw 1953: 135)

The walls were later strengthened on the inside with the use of the same technique as used on the foundation with some stonework added. The final construction phase before the siege was the cladding of the wall on both sides with stonework this undertaken during the archaic period. (Ibid)

This section was dug through the mound, and it revealed to the excavators, that the tunnel, which they had discovered in the previous season, started from the inner side of the fortification-wall. This tunnel passed under the wall and straight under the mound. (Ibid: 135)

Image 5 (left): “ Inside the counter siege tunnel 3.” (Right) : “Bronze cauldron resting on mudbricks, at the end of the countersiege passage.”
(Maier 2004: 71, Figure 53-54)

At the end of the tunnel the incinerated core of the mound was exposed. The tunnel roof was probably held up by a series of “piers” made of mud-bricks found in the vicinity of the core. The piers served also as a “furnace and stoke-hole” for firing the mound. The excavators also found a bronze cauldron , filled with bits of lime and wood. These must have been carbonised when the local city defenders fired them in attempts to topple the wooden siege towers. (Ibid)

The Kouklia expedition continued its investigations of the Siege-mound in the following year. They found a third tunnel, going from the city-wall to the mound core. The function of the tunnel was evident as with the other two found earlier, to have a counter siege effect. A third bronze cauldron was found also, again in the same context as the previous find. The mound itself yielded more archaic sculpture and syllabic inscriptions. (Megaw 1954: 175)

The political situation in Cyprus terminated the work of the British Kouklia Expedition in 1956. However in 1966 the archaeological research started again under the German Archaeological institute directed by Professor Maier. When the work started in 1966 they mainly excavated the city-gate and the remaining part of the siege-mound. The work was carried out to1973, and then commenced again in 1985 for a season. The final work was carried out from 1993 to 1994. (Maier 2004: 59)

Finds

From the area outside the walls and the city-gate, beyond the tower and on the siege-ramp, more than 1000 fragments of votive offerings of the archaic type were found. These ranged from architectural debris to statues. About 500 bronze and iron arrowheads and spear points and a very well preserved Corinthian helmet and fragments of a rare iron helmet were found also. Another intriguing find which lead the excavators to believe initially, that they were “bullets” for a stone-throwing engine, was in fact several hundred roughly ball-shaped limestone with a flattened end. These were later assumed to have been hurled by the city defenders down on the advancing Achaemenid army from the city walls. (Maier 2004:66-68)

As mentioned earlier three rock-cut tunnels were discovered under the siege mound (Image 5), which went from the inner base of the city-wall under the wall and under the siege-mound. (Image 3). Tunnel 1 is completely preserved and is in its original state. This tunnel is about 1.20 –1.70 metres wide and about 1.70-2.30 metres high. A significant number of clay lamps found in little niches cut in the stone wall were discovered, as were many water jugs that were left behind by the city defenders. (Ibid: 69)

The material recovered from the mound it self also reveals several social aspects of the Paphians at the time. The architectural debris and the votive finds found within this context, reflects the cultural heritage of the Paphians in this period. It seems that the temple was built for Aphrodite-Astarte and Melquart-Baal, which confirms the probable co-existence of a Greek and Phoenician community in the city. The votive finds also document a strong Phoenician presence and influence in the religious art found in Paleo-Paphos in late archaic times. (Maier 1996:127-128)

It seems that the Achaemenid rule had intensified the contact between the “Cypriot-Greeks” and the Phoenicians in the city, or in the entire island for that matter. This must have lead to more exchange and competition between the ruling classes in both communities and contributed to the creation of the unusual combination of native and oriental traditions, which are observed in the island in this period. (Ibid: 130)

Image 6: Site KA, “Section through the wall and the siege mound.”

Conclusions on site KA, “The Persian siege-mound” Site KA is historically clearly defined and has a very good datable stratigraphical context. It offers an approximate terminus post quem for the construction of the mound, which can be possibly ascribed to 498 B.C, the time of Ionic Revolt, and the Achaemenid siege-operations in the island. The local ceramic material found within the stratigraphical context of the siege mound did not contain any fragments which can be classified later than Cypro-archaic II, and the Attic fragments found are dated not later than 500 B.C. (Maier 1996:126). With regards to the historic sources these events are referred to by Herodotus in V. 115: “ The Cypriot cities except for Salamis were being besieged…Soloi held out longest; it fell only in the fifth month, after the Persians had undermined the walls all around.” (Maier 2004: 70) (Illife and Mitford 1951: 54)

The British Kouklia expedition and the German Swiss expedition concluded that the siege operation in Paphos happened as follows:

Approaching the city-walls the Achaemenid army faced an axial gate with a rectangular court with its direct passage in to the city protected by a narrow corridor with a sharp double bend heavily covered by the crossfire of the adjoining bastions. (Maier 2004: 62) To overcome this obstacle they destroyed an archaic temple near the city-wall (this temple has not to this date been located), and used the wreckage to fill the ditch in front the city-wall and finally raised the mound, which measured about 7 metres from the bottom of the ditch. Then they would have probably used wooden siege-towers and attempted to overrun the city gate. The numerous arrowheads and the limestone lumps found suggest fierce fighting between the Achaemenid host and the local defenders. (Maier 1985: 157)

Image 7: Appendix 1.19: “Assyrian relief representing siege operations (British Museum) (Maier 2004: 69, Figure 51)

The use of the siege-towers was suggested by the contra-siege manoeuvres performed by the local city defenders. By tunnelling under the mound day and night from the inside of the city, they managed to create cavities under the mound, and tried to overthrow the wooden-siege towers by burning flammable substances and the timber they used to hold up the cavity roof of the tunnels. This in turn created sudden subsidence’s on the mounds surface, which was to a point successful as illustrated by the cavities on the mounds surface. (Maier 1985: 157)

Image 8: Appendix 1.20: “Assyrian relief representing the siege of a city, British Museum, London” (Maier and Karageorghis 1984: 201, Figure 190)

The stratigraphical layers on top of the road leading in to the city revealed a layer covered with bronze and iron arrowheads, stone missiles and broken amphora fragments. This layer was in turn covered by another layer of battered building material from the bastion structures such as stones and decayed mud bricks. The entrance blocks situated behind the gate were heavily coated with “…ash, carbonized wood”, and other sorts of debris all mixed together with arrowheads, spearheads, fire blackened stone missiles and fragments of burnt bones.” (Maier and Karageorghis 1984: 203)

Image 9: Site KA, “Bronze arrowheads used during the siege (Kouklia Museum) (Maier 2004: 67, Figure 49)

These finds suggests that the Achaemenid host managed to reach the city gates and despite the heavy cross fire from the defenders situated on the parapets, managed to fight their way through the gate corridor and burn the wooden door and overtake the city. (Ibid)

After the siege the state of affairs returned to normal, and the Paphian priest king ruled the city once more under the King of kings, and just after one year Herodotus records: “Paphos provided 12 of the Cypriot fleet of 150 vessels. The paphiot commander is given as Penthylus son of Demonous. He lost eleven of his ships by storm, to be taken prisoner in the twelfth at Artemisium”. (VII, 98) There are no historical sources that state whether the Paphian king in question was exchanged or not, or if it was in fact the same person ruling the city after the siege as the one who ruled before it.

When it comes to the city walls themselves, the excavations revealed that the first city-wall and city-gate seemed to have been built in the archaic period, about 700 B.C. These early archaic walls were made of sun-dried bricks, constructed on a stone foundation. These walls were reinforced during the late archaic about the end of 600 century B.C. The walls received a revetment of “roughly dressed lime-stone blocks” which are partially preserved in a height about 2 meters and a width about 5.65 metres, on the inside of the wall. Also the city defences were strengthened by a “new system of berm”, “dry ditch” about 4 metres deep and more than 10 metres wide, and a “glacis”. Two bastions were also added, one inside and the other at outside, these bastions closed the passage leading into the city at both ends. (Maier 2004: 62, 64)

The siege by the Achaemenid army in 498 B.C damaged the city gate and the city-walls quite badly, and they fell into disrepair for a long time. However the city defences were again reconstructed in the late classical period about the second half of the 4th -century B.C. This was the last large scale reconstruction carried out here. The inner face of the city-wall was redressed in fine rusticated ashlar masonry. Since the siege mound it self was hard to remove, the Paphians, simply built a revetment wall around it and added it to their defences as a “horse-shoe shaped bastion”. The bastion fronts were also strengthened and they narrowed the outer passage to 2.80 metre. The gate court was also refurbished; three rooms were built and probably used by the local garrison as cooking-rooms and storerooms. This is illustrated by the many hearths and animal bones found within these “guard-rooms”. A minor rebuilding of the guardrooms took place for the very last time in 300 B.C, dated by a very well preserved foundation deposit. (Maier 2004:62, 64-65, 71) Shortly after the relocation of the capital city to Nea Paphos, the city was abandoned and slowly forgotten.

Publications on site KA and KB

J.H. Iliffe and T.B. Mitford published some reports on the work they had undertaken on the sites in 1951 in Antiquaries Journal no.31 and also in Liverpool Bulletin no.2 in 1952. In these reports they summarized their finds and interpretations. A.H.S Megaw also wrote a yearly summary of activities in Kouklia, which was published in Journal of Hellenistic studies. These reports were from 1952 to1955 in volumes 71-74.

F.G Maier also wrote further reports in Historia no.3 in 1954 and in the illustrated London News in April 1953 and in May 1954. Other preliminary reports of the activities of the Swiss-German expedition were given after each season end in the Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus by F.G. Maier and by M.L. Wartburg. These reports span from 1967 till 1985. (Maier & Wartburg )(1): 171) A special report was written by Jörg Schäfer, in Opuscula Archaeologica no.3 in 1960, about site KB, the so-called Persian building, which is titled “Ein Perser-Bau in Alt-Paphos?”

Bibliography.

Herodotus, “Histories”.

Maier, F.G and Karageorghis, V: “Paphos: History and Archaeology.” Nicosia: A.G. Leventis Foundation, 1984

Maier, F.G and Wartburg, M. –L. v (1): “Excavations at Kouklia (Palaepaphos) Thirteenth Preliminary Report: Seasons 1983 and 1984” in: Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus (RDAC), 1985. (100-125)

Maier, F.G: “ Factoids in Ancient History: the case of fifth century Cyprus”, in: Journal of Hellenic studies, no.105, 1985 (32-39)

Maier, F.G.: “ History from the Earth: the Kingdom of Paphos in the Achaemenid Period” in: Transeuphratene no. 12, 1996. (121-138)

Maier, F.G (with the contributions by: S. Hadjisavvas, M.-L. von Wartburg): “Guide to Palaipaphos (Kouklia)". Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation, Nicosia, 2004

Megaw, A. H. S: “Archaeology in Cyprus, 1949-1950”, in: Journal of Hellenic studies, no. 71. 1951. (258-259)

Megaw, A. H. S: “Archaeology in Cyprus, 1951 ”, in: Journal of Hellenic studies, no.72, 1952. (Page 115)

Megaw, A. H. S: “Archaeology in Cyprus, 1952”, in: Journal of Hellenic studies, no.73,
1953. (135-136)

Megaw, A. H. S: “Archaeology in Cyprus, 1953”, in: Journal of Hellenic studies, no. 74, 1954. (Page 175)

Mitford, T.B. and Iliffe, J.H.: “Excavations at Aphrodite’s sanctuary of Paphos (1951)”, Antiquarian Journal Bulletin 1,1951(28-66).

My contribution to the blog : "On this Friday in History: The Excavation of Persepolis.

2013-03-06T21:07:00.000+01:00

“Persepolis was the capital of the Persian kingdom. Alexander described it to the Macedonians as the most hateful of the cities of Asia, and gave it over to his soldiers to plunder, all but the palaces. It was the richest city under the sun and the private houses had been furnished with every sort of wealth over the years. The Macedonians raced into it, slaughtering all the men whom they met and plundering the residences; many of the houses belonged to the common people and were abundantly supplied with furniture and wearing apparel of every kind…. “
(Diod.17.70.1-73.2)

So thus Diodorus Siculus laments the tale of this great city's destruction. Persepolis was built around 520 B.C , by Darius, the first of his name, the third Achaemenid king of kings Persepolis was planned and build by the feet of the mountain of Kuh-Rahmat, the Mountain of Mercy.

Artisans, workers and architects from all of the satrapies, participated in the construction of Persepolis, this is documented by a building inscription in Susa by Darius I. The inscription lists the various people of the empire doing various jobs concerning the building of the city. It reads as follows:

“ The digging of the foundation, filling up mud-ground with rubble and moulding of the bricks has been done by Babylonians; cedar timber was brought here by Assyrians from Lebanon to Babylon and from there to Susa by Carians and Ionians; Sissoo timber was brought from Gandhara and Carmania; the gold wrought here was brought from Lydia and Bacteria; lapis lazuli and carnelian wrought here was brought from Egypt; the colours for the wall-reliefs were brought from Nubia, India and Arachosia; the stone columns wrought here were brought from Elam. The stone masons were Ionians and Lydians; the goldsmiths were Medes and Egyptians; the woodcarvers were Lydians and Egyptians; the bricklayers were Babylonians; the wall painters were Medes and Egyptians.” (DSF)

After the its destruction, Persepolis lay in ruins for centuries, many European travellers marvelled at the sight that greeted them in the Fars plains by the mountains. George N. Curzon, published “Persia and the Persian Question” in 1892, this was the first publication describing the plateau and the ruins that were visible above ground, however these were mere condensed travellers logs written by travellers travelling through Iran.

It was on this very day in 1931, that archaeological excavations began in Persepolis, these were endorsed by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and was under the leadership of the great Professor Ernest Emil Herzfeld.

He was at that time Professor of Oriental Archaeology in Berlin, and was commissioned by the Director of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, then James H. Breasted to lead the team in Iran. The aim of the team was “... to undertake a thorough exploration, excavation and, if possible, restoration of the remains of Persepolis. “
(http://oi.uchicago.edu/museum/collections/pa/persepolis/persepolis.html)

Between 1931-1934, assisted by the architect Erich F. Schmidt, he led the team and uncovered the Persepolis Terrace, the eastern Stairway to the Apadana and the small stair of the council hall which had remained under ground for almost 2000 years. Later they also excavated the Harem of Xerxes.

In 1934, prof. Herzfeldt left the team, and Erich F. Schmidt took over as field director, he continued with the excavations until the end of 1939, the second world war put an end to the teams work in Iran.

Until this date, no excavations had been carried out in Persepolis, however an extensive archaeological survey had been carried out by prof. Herzfeldt earlier.
(http://oi.uchicago.edu/museum/collections/pa/persepolis/persepolis.html)

Thanks to his knowledge and experience and no less his team of experts, he excavated and recorded Persepolis to very “modern” standard, leaving behind an eminence wealth of both photographic and hand written records.

He brought Persepolis out of the ground and presented to the world the cultural treasure that is Persepolis.

To read more about Prof. Herzfeld:

Iranica Online
University of Chicago

Wikipedia

To read more about Persepolis see:
Iranica Online

Feast your eyes on these few choice on-site photographs from a time long gone...the golden age of archaeology.

This was my contribution to the blog : "On this Friday in History: International History Blogfest tomark St Davids Day #StDavidsDay2013. On this Friday in History: International History Blogfest tomark St Davids Day #StDavidsDay2013

The Achaemenid Empire Part 10: Discoveries in Ancient Paphos. From the Local Villager to the Swiss-German Expedition. Site KB.

2013-02-22T14:28:00.000+01:00

The very first known attempt of exploration in the Kouklia-area took place in 1837 by a local villager. He had carefully examined the Laonas-hill right above the Evreti area. In 1888 the Cyprus Exploration Found continued where the villager had left. In the same spot they found only two blocks of limestone with syllabic signs. However in the spirit of the archaeological theory of the time, they opened a vast amount of tombs in the area, and ignored the hill. (Maier and Wartburg 1985(1): 101-102)

Image 1: Map showing Kouklia Village and the archaeological sites recorded in the area. (Maier: 2004)

Later on, in 1899, the British museum sent E.B. Welch supported by the Turner Bequest to Kouklia. He also excavated a number of tombs in the Evreti-area. The more scientific investigation of the area was undertaken by the Kouklia Expedition of the University of St. Andrews and the Liverpool Museums, which started in 1950 and ended in 1955. (Ibid: 102)

The team was directed jointly by J.H Iliffe and T.B Mitford. The work on the site KA, which became known as the “Persian Siege-mound”, was directed in 1952 by J. Seltman, and from 1953 onwards by Franz G. Maier. The other site that will be considered in this paper is site KB, which is the so-called Persian building in Hadji Abdullah. Here the work was directed by Professor and Mrs D. Atkinson. (Maier and Wartburg 1985(1): 106)

In 1955 the political situation in Cyprus put an end to the work of the British Kouklia Expedition in Cyprus. In 1966 the archaeological exploration of Kouklia resumed but this time under the German Archaeological Institute. Later on the university of Konstanz joined in and was a part of the expedition until 1972. The University of Zürich joined in 1973, and so formed the Swiss-German Expedition. The Swiss-German expedition took over where the British Kouklia expedition left off, they worked mainly on the North-east gate with the siege-mound and counter siege works on Marcello hill, site KA. (Maier 2004: 35)

The aim of the expeditions was basically the same;“…to reconstruct from the earth the history of the town and the sanctuary, applying archaeological methods to an historical end.” (Ibid)

Site KB
Topography

The large field of Hadji Abdullah is situated south of the Laonas hill and to the south east of Marcello hill, the siege-mound and the modern village of Kouklia. The area is situated on an elevated plateau with a very good view down to the coast and the sea, as well as the ancient city. (See image 1)

Excavation History, and Site Description
In the north-east corner of Hadji Abdullah, a rough stone core foundation of a broad wall extending southward was for some time visible. Its direction and placement, which seemed to lead towards the Laonas Hill, caused the excavators to believe that this was part of the fortified city wall. (Schäfer 1960: 156) It was this section that drew the attention of the Kouklia expedition, and they extended their investigation to the inner face of this section of the city wall. Here they dug a trial trench in 1951, and in the following seasons of 1952, and 1953, a larger area was investigated. The last excavation took place in 1953 and thus the site was never completely excavated. Professor and Mrs D. Atkinson directed the excavations on Hadji Abdullah during these seasons. (Maier & Wartburg 1985: 106)

Before the excavation took place, the area of Hadji Abdullah was more or less a clear field; but several traces of walls were observed, especially in the line of the path, which passes about 100 m south below Laonas hill (Iliffe & Mitford 1951:49), in the western edge of the plateau, (plan II 1, A-C). This caused the excavators to assume that in more recent times stone blocks were quarried here by the local villagers. (Schäfer 1960: 157) The excavators started a trial trench 2 metre wide dug parallel to the path and about 25 m to the south. Their curiosity paid off, as they uncovered a series of walls at right angles to the direction of the trench, just below the surface. (Iliffe & Mitford 1951:49)

Plan I: Architectural plan of architectural remains in site KA. (Based on “Abb. 2. Plan I. Übersichtsplan überdie Architektureste auf Hadji Abdullah” (Schäfer 1960) )

The first trench, which was located in accordance with the building in the eastern part of the city-wall pointing westward towards the building (Plan I: 9-12, B; Plan II: 5-8, C) revealed four “rough rubble stone-core walls” running from east to west. These were named Ph I-Ph IV. (Plan I: 9-10, A-B) These walls were divided by heavy stone-blocks, which seemed to function as some kind of reinforcement within the fortified-wall. However the Ph IV, seemed to be covered with a smooth loam applied western-front which also formed the inner eastern wall of a right angle corridor-like shaft, called A. (Plan I: 9-10, A-E) Shaft A runs from north to south on a right axis parallel with the building. The northern part of shaft A turns eastward in a 90-degree angle and forms shaft Γ which again turns southwards in a straight angle and forms shaft B, which of course runs parallel to shaft A and the buildings eastern wall. (Plan I: 9-10, A-E) (Schäfer 1960: 158)

Further they observed that the width of the city wall at this point was about 5.70 m thick and the building-wall where the building leaned on it was about 4.90 m thick. This also includes shaft A, which is 0.85 m, between the building wall and the city wall. This they assumed at first was probably designed to act as a cushion against any effects of attack on the city-wall. (Megaw 1953: 135)

Plan II: Architectural plan of Southern part of the architectural remains in site KA.

(Based on: “Abb.3. Plan II. Der Stüddeil des Quadrbaues mit der stadtmauer.” (Schäfer 1960))

The filling found in shaft A consisted mainly of crushed stone layers and loam bricks. These seemed to have formed a rubble stone foundation, probably of an earlier building. (Schäfer 1960:171) It seemed to form“…an other underlying structure of a different orientation” to the building complex. (Megaw 1954: 175) Very little is mentioned about this “underlying structure”, except that it is there and it’s older than the other structures present in the site. This structure is probably from the same period as the foundation bases of the two earlier city-walls V.I and V. II, which can be observed in Plan I: 10-12, A-B. Since the site is not completely excavated, it is very hard to see the relationship between this foundation and our building complex, and thus I will leave it at that.

Image 2: Site KB, "Palatial building on Kouklia-Hadji Abdullah (site KB) (Maier 2004: 75, no. 59)

When it comes to the interior of the building, only the foundation bases have survived. The south-western part of the interior is largely destroyed due to the extensive stone robbery through the ages down to recent times. (Schäfer 1960: 160) But we know that superstructure itself measured about 42 x 43 metres (Maier & Wartburg 1985 (1): 106), but since the complete plan of the building is not recovered, the excavators observed that the buildings “…heavy walls, small rooms and narrow corridors…” which they had excavated, suggested that the complex was probably a two storied building and assumed that the main living quarters might have been in a upper story. (Megaw 1953: 135)

In the southern part of the building-interior, three rooms can be determined. These rooms form perfect rectangular areas; they follow each other from east to west, rooms I-III. (Plan II: 2-5, A-B) (Schäfer 1960:165) It seems like that room III work as the first centre, of the three east-western symmetrical axes that are observed in the building complex. These divide the sequence of space symmetrically through the building complex. It is important to mention that these symmetrical axes are just mere guesses, based on the uncovered remains, which will explained below .

Image 3: Site KB, Rooms I and II (Schäfer 1960: 168)

East to the central room, room III, room II follows and finally there is room I, which is somewhat smaller than room II. West for room III, there are some traces of a wall (plan II 3,B), which caused the excavators to believe that similar partitioning of rooms probably existed there as well. These hypothetical rooms were called IV and V. Room V was added on the architectural plan, on the basis of the north-south symmetry axis mentioned earlier by room III and on the placement of the room complexes XI-XIII in the northern part of the building which are within the second symmetrical axis, running parallel to the first one by room III. (Plan II: 2-4, C-D) (Schäfer 1960:165)

Image 4: Site KB, overview of room III, seen from the north. (Schäfer 1960: 166)

The southern sequence of the rooms is separated from north by an east-west running corridor. Room III and I and presumably room V are connected to this corridor by a passage. (Plan II: 2-5, B) (Schäfer 1960:165)

From room I a corridor leads straight north to room VI. (Plan II: 4-5, C) The corridor it self is preserved and is accessible from south of the passage. West for room VI, room VII is located. These rooms are partitioned by a wall, and are connected by a hypothetical short passage way. This hypothetical addition allowed the excavators to add the symmetrical addition of rooms VII and VI on the western part of room VIII. (Schäfer 1960:166)

As seen on plan II: 1-4, C-D, three additional rooms XIII, XII and XI are illustrated. Their places were determined by their base and foundation remains. These rooms are different to the other mentioned rooms, by their spacious interior and their north-southern longitude axis. Their south walls are more or less the same size as room X and IX. (Schäfer 1960:166)

Room XI, being in the centre, seems to be a large central area with its entrance located to the north south of the room VIII. The width of room XI corresponds to the length of room III, and probably to the length of room VIII as well. (Schäfer 1960:166) These rooms are within the third east-west symmetrical axis, and it seems as rooms XI, VIII and III being in the centre of these three axes also form a north-south symmetry axis thus forming a right angled cross with the centre in room VIII.

Image 5: Site KB, Blocking-wall made of roughly cut stone,
that obstructs the passage to room III.
(Schäfer 1960: 167)

An other intriguing architectural feature in this building complex seems to consist of roughly cut stone-block wall in the northern passage connecting the rooms III and the corridor running east west. (image 5 and 6) (Schäfer 1960:167)

The same technique, or rather the lack of it can be observed in the corridor that links room I too room II (Plan II: 4-5, A-B) but this is not as well preserved as the one mentioned earlier. (Ibid)

It is hard to say if the same has been done to block the passageway between rooms V and IV as there are no remains that indicate such. The question remains, as to whether these roughly built walls were added later to the building owing to their poor quality and difference to the rest of the building or whether they were in fact part of the original plan. (Schäfer 1960:167)

Image 6: Site KB, "North view of Late Archaic building,
Kouklia" (Maier 1989: 22, Figure 3)

Mr. Schäfer mentions in his report that in many places in the building no support for a roof or a floor for an upper story, could be observed. The existing double-layered foundations are too short and exhibit some irregularities in the finish on their upper edges, as seen in image 6 and 7.
(Schäfer 1960:171)

Image 7: Site KB, detail of Ashlar blocks, rougher cut stone in Situ.
(Schäfer 1960: 159)

The roughly cut stonewalls could have then acted as adjustments for the irregularities found in the foundation bases. However given that the building is not completely excavated and has been a victim to stone robbers from the late classic times down to our own era, there is no way that we can say anything for certain about the use of these roughly cut stones. (Ibid.)

The thought occurs, however, that if there was a need to adjust these irregularities, which Mr. Schäfer mentions, why not use the same technique as used in the rest of the complex in the first place? Also why build corridors and passages if they re to be blocked anyway? Consequently Prof. Maier and his assumption that these blocking walls belong to a second usage period tend to be agreed with...

The western part of the building (plan II:0-2, D-F) is so far unclear but the ground in this area is on an average –1,20 metre lower than the rest of the area. There does not seem to be any trace of terracing in this vicinity but some terraces of a staircase leading to room VIII or its neighbouring area can be observed. (Plan II: 1-2, D-E) (Schäfer 1960:167)

Image 8: Site KB, "South-west view of Late Archaic building, Kouklia" (Maier 1989: 23, Figure 2)

In the north-western wall of the building (Plan I: 7.5, D-E) two areas H and Z are present. These two areas have the their width in common with shaft A, B, Γ . They seem to be “sub-structured chambers”. (Schäfer 1960:164) There are in total five of these so-called “sub-structured chambers” Δ , Ε, Ε’, H and Z. Room Δ ,Z and H are well identified, while E and E’ are hypothetical. It is possible that several other partitioning existed further west. (Schäfer 1960:164) It is important to mention that very little is said about these “sub-structured chambers”, it is unfortunately a bit difficult to say anything for certain without excavating the entire complex.

Building Techniques Used in the “Garrison”

Before the building took place it seems the builders processed the soft conglomerate rock surface by balancing unevenness’ with crushed stones and larger rubble. Some small unevenness’ were also filled with lime mortar. (Schäfer 1960: 160-161)

Over the processed ground the brickwork was laid rather neatly. (Schäfer 1960:160) The excavators judged the quality of the masonry work to be quite good “… from the fact that the top of the foundation course throughout the building varies not more than 2 mm above or below the main level”. (Megaw 1953: 135)

Image 9: Site KB, "Ashlar masonry of Late Archaic building,
Kouklia". (Maier 1989: 24, Figure 4)

They encountered walls, which had a “rough stone core”, which in its original form was faced with “squared and drafted ashlar blocks”. A wall at the western side of the trench exemplified this where the ashlar blocks had survived. (See image 7 and 9) (Iliffe & Mitford 1951: 49) The surviving walls mostly consisted of two rows, the first being the foundation wall and the other was made of heavy stone blocks where the exposed ashlar faces measured 0.5 m by 0.4 m. (Ibid.) The exception is the eastern corner of the passage running east west, which has a three rows, with 1 foundation wall and two ashlar-block rows. (Schäfer 1960:161)

The building materials utilized in the building of Hadji Abdullah, are mainly of loam or mud bricks, and soft yellowish limestone. These materials can also be observed in the buildings situated on Marcello hill in the ancient city as well. (Schäfer 1960: 157)

Image 10: Broad dove-tail clamp with iron bar and lead, (Persepolis, Platform) (Boardman 2000: 42, Figure 10a)

The yellowish limestone which was used to craft the square drafted ashlar blocks had almost no trace of any “lift-holes” except for a flat-surfaced block which showed traces of some “lift-holes” in the passage area which connects, room III to room II. These holes were used to lift the blocks into their intended place. Another feature, which is not present at all in this complex, is “holding pegs” or “clam-holes” to hold the ashlar blocks together on the horizontal level.
This technique was used through the Mediterranean area, as well as in the Achaemenian Empire.(Ex. Image 10) (Ibid.)


Image 11: Site KA, Corinthian roof tiles. (Schäfer 1960: 173)

Another feature that was widely used in the Mediterranean area was found abundantly in the site and its vicinity, roof-tiles. These were classed as Corinthian roof tiles. The excavators were lead to believe that the roof of the building was probably diagonal, by comparing the usages of these tiles on other sites. (Image: 11) (Schäfer 1960:172)

Finds and Chronology

Within the stone packing and rubble in the loam bedding of the wall courses that runs between Ph I to ph III, only small ceramic fragments were found. The oldest ceramic fragments were found in Ph I, which belonged to a type of local Cypriote pottery called “Black on red II (IV)” pottery. These are dated within the first and second archaic period, between 700 and 475 BC. (Schäfer 1960:169)

In Ph II, no datable pieces were present. But from pH III some fragments were discovered. These were in such a poor condition that only a very general dating could be applied. These were placed roughly between geometrical to late archaic times, however not later than 475 BC. (Ibid:169-170)

Image 12: Site KB, "White painted IV", one-handed bowl. (Schäfer 1960: 169)

Lying on a rock surface by Ph IV, a very well preserved one handled bowl was found. (Image 12) This bowl was classed in “white painted IV” ware, which is dated between 700 and 475 BC. (Ibid:170)

There are finds, which connect Ph IV to the same building period as the building in question. Small pieces of fragmented pottery were found within the building, and they were classed as “Black on Red” ware (700-475 B.C) as well. (Ibid:170)

In the rubble stone-foundation projecting in shaft A, a thin walled fragment of an attic container was found but its form or usage could not be determined. The fragment has a black-figure painting, which points to the beginning of late 600 century B.C. While the core material from shaft Γ contained some fragments of “Plain white V” ware, which is dated to archaic II period (600-475 B.C). However this ware was also used in the Classical era, so the usage period of this ware is set between 600 and 400 BC. (Schäfer 1960:170)

The latest datable piece of pottery found inside the building, is a “Lekanis” lid fragment with a black painted figure of a profile of a young man and a leopard (Image 13). This is of the same style as the piece from “Olynth XII taf. 86 NR. 63”which is assigned to the second quarter of 400 BC. (Ibid:171)

Image 13: Site KB, "Lekanis" lid fragment with a black painted figure of a profile of a young man and a leopard. (Schäfer 1960: 171)

These very general dating gives us a relative chronology, which we have to consider with great care. However they do give us a hypothetical time line of the building procedures and the usage of the site. We still don’t know if the four wall sections of the city wall, east to the building, were a direct sequential building procedure or if they represent different epochs of building activity on Hadji Abdullah but never than less we can conclude that the foundation of wall IV and the building belong to the same period. Further more it is certain that the rubble stone foundation projecting in shaft A belonged to an older building than the building in question. (Ibid:171)

The excavations on Marcello hill showed that the city-wall of Paleo-Paphos, had, since geometrical times down to 500 B.C, experienced several reinforcements, renewals and destruction as well. Therefore it would have been no surprise at all that older- and more recent buildings would have been present before the beginning of the classical period. This would suggest that below the base foundation of wall I –III, one or even more buildings could have existed, before the time of the construction of our building and the city-walls Ph I-III. These would then have been situated in the west lying neatly against an already existing city-wall, which is illustrated by V.I and V.II on Plan I. We know that V.I was in fact constructed before Ph I and V.II, which was constructed after V.I. (Ibid)

The tower of the city-wall (Plan I: 11-12, F-G) situated in the north-east right above the building, yielded a fragment of a “burette with a lateral lip”. This ware belongs within the “black on red II (IV)” class and is dated between 700-475 BC. Another important find was of a dish about 5 meters south to the tower before the eastern edge of the city-wall. This was classed as “Plain white IV” and this class of ware was rarely used in the archaic times but mainly used in the classical period between 600 and 500 century B.C. These finds plus the careful placing of the building caused the excavators to assume that the tower was probably present when the building was constructed. (Ibid:172)

Conclusions on site KB, “The Persian garrison vs. the local ruler’s residence.”

Mr. Schäfer observes that the remarkable design, which the design of the building is based on in the excavated part of the building complex, does not fined a satisfying parallel within the archaic and classical architecture in Cyprus. Further he thinks that there is a slight comparison with the palace complex in Vouni, where the quality of the walls and the symmetrical axis running through the entrance hall and the central courtyard, is evident. (Plan 8-9) But the Vouni complex does not show the same meticulous symmetrical alignments of the rooms within the complex in the same manor as in the building in Hadji Abdullah. (Schäfer 1960:174)

Schäfer concludes that he finds the same symmetrical precision within the architectural planning and the same careful treatment of the building materials in the Persian buildings in Persepolis, from the time of Darius I to Artaxerxes I. He compared the remains of the building in Hadji Abdullah with the remains of Apadana and the Place of Darius (Image 11-12). (Ibid:174)

Image 14: Persepolis, Overview
(Roaf 1990: 218)

Image 15: Susa, Overview. (Roaf 1990: 211)

Further he concludes that if this building had any relations with the Persians it must have been built after the siege of Paphos, when the Persians supposedly also had captured all of the Cypriot cities, (Diodorus XI, 44, 2) and had established garrisons in the captured cities. (Herodot V, 104, 108-115). The establishment of a garrison built under Persian influence in Paphos, can be explained earliest with these events. (Schäfer 1960:174)

He states that the time line given by the pottery finds in the site, 600-475 B.C, permits the consideration that the building might have been built during 590 B.C, after the siege of Paphos by the Persian army. However Mr. Schäfer thinks that the thought of a Persian commander residing in the building in Hadji Abdullah is too great for the Cypriot conditions in that period. Even though Cyprus was part of the fifth satrapy by approximately 530 B.C, there is no evidence that the Persians intervened with the city principalities or autonomy of the island through the years of occupation. (Ibid:174)

He also considers the lack of Persian finds in site to be not that surprising, if there was any occupation forces stationed in Paphos it would have been relatively small, and containing very few Persians. Finally he concludes that final destruction of the building took place around the second half of 400 century B.C, or a little later. For which purpose and when in the process of the 150-200 years, the changes were made in the building, cannot be determined more closely. (Ibid:175)

Mr. Schäfer seems not to present any concrete conclusions, he more or less gives the options and leaves it to the reader to decide weather this building was a residence of a Persian leader or not. However the British Kouklia expedition’s excavators seem to have fixed their views with regard to this building. They assumed that the building was constructed in the 5th century B.C by examining the associated pottery found on the site. They also dated the destruction of the building, after it had been abandoned and stripped of its contents, to the early 4th century BC. (Megaw 1953: 135)

They also observed that “In plan and masonry technique the excavators observe affinities with early-fifth -century structures in Persepolis, which, together with its evident connexion with the city wall, warrants their suggestions that they may have found the quarters of some Persian military official.”(Ibid: 136)

Since the British Kouklia expedition in the same period also excavated the Persian siege-mound, they might have seen this building in the same context. By thinking that after the siege the Persian occupants might have built a garrison in the city, and by using the historical sources mentioned above (Diodorus XI, 44, 2 and Herodot V 104, 108-115), and observing the obvious “Persian design” in the building, that it was probable that it belonged to someone important, as they state.

Professor Maier the director of the Swiss-German expedition which took over where the British had left off had a different opinion, but he did agree with the other above named researchers that: “…there can be no doubt that the plan with its many small rooms and narrow corridors arranged on a symmetrical axes point to Achaemenid prototypes, more specifically to late 6th-early 5th century B.C. buildings at Persepolis.” (Maier & Wartburg 1985 (1) :106-107)

Professor Maier concludes that: “It seems most likely that the Hadji Abdullah building represents the residence of Paphian priest-kings who might conceivably have regarded the palaces of their Achaemenid overlords as appropriate models.” (Ibid)

He postulates, however that this is a poor reason to conclude that the Hadji Abdullah building was in fact a Persian garrison. He writes in his article “The Places of Cypriot Kings”, that: “…no Persian garrison in the city is reliably recorded”. (1989: 17) Here Professor Maier is referring to written sources by Diodorus namely: “ And taking fifty trirems from Peleponneses and summoning from the Athenians thirty commanded by Aristeides, he first of all sailed to Cyprus and liberated those cities which still had Persia garrisons” (XI, 44, 2). He explains in his notes under no.13: “ There is only a vague reference in Diod. XI, 44, 2, which does not specify any of the Cypriot cities. It should also be remembered that the building is dated only within the fairly wide chronological margin of Cypro-Archaic II”(600-475 B.C). (Ibid: 19)

It may, however be possible to narrow the gap of the period in which the building is constructed, however this is the subject for the next instalment.

Bibliography.

Boardman, J: “Persia and the west: an archaeological investigation of the genesis of Achaemenid art”,
London: Thames & Hudson, 2000.

Maier, F.G (with the contributions by: S. Hadjisavvas, M.-L. von Wartburg): “Guide to Palaipaphos (Kouklia). Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation, Nicosia, 2004

Maier, F.G and Wartburg, M. –L. v (1): “Excavations at Kouklia (Palaepaphos) Thirteenth Preliminary Report: Seasons 1983 and 1984” in: Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus (RDAC), 1985. (100-125)

Maier, F.G and. Wartburg, M. -L. v (2): “Reconstructing history from the earth, c. 2800 B.C. – 1600 A.D.: Excavating at Palaepaphos, 1966-1984” in: Archaeology in Cyprus 1960-1985, V. Karageorghis (ed.), Nicosia, 1985. (142-172)

Megaw, A. H. S: “Archaeology in Cyprus, 1953”, in: Journal of Hellenic studies, no. 74, 1954. (Page 175)

Megaw, A. H. S: “Archaeology in Cyprus, 1952”, in: Journal of Hellenic studies, no.73, 1953. (135-136)

Roaf, M:“ Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia”, New York: Facts on File, c1990
Schäfer, J: “Ein preser bau in Alt-paphos?", in Opuscula archaeologica (opArch) no. III 1960 (155-175)

T.B Mitford and J.H Iliffe: “Excavations at Aphrodite’s sanctuary of Paphos (1951)”, in: Antiquarian Journal Bulletin 1,1951(28-66).

Diodorus Siculus,”Bibliotheca historia”: 11.44.2, 12.4.1, 15.9.2, 16.42.8

Herodotus, “Histories”: 3.19.9, 3.89, 3.90-97, 5.104, 5.108-115, 6.6, 7.61, 7.90, 7.96, 7.98-99, 8.11

Paris, et eventyr!

2013-02-20T14:39:00.001+01:00

Jeg glemmer aldri den dagen da venninnen min Prue, ringte å spurte meg om jeg hadde lyst til å ta en tur til Paris!

Hun og mannen skulle flytte tilbake til Australia til høsten, og hadde da kun noen få måneder igjen i Norge. Hun ville besøke Paris før hun reiste hjem.

Hun fant to billige billetter på KLM.com, og ikke nok med det, mens hun bestilte billettene, fant hun et fantastisk sentralt liggende hotell også. Hele reisen bestilte hun på KLM.com. Så vi følte oss trygge og så frem til vårt «Parisian» eventyr.

Dag 1.

Reisen begynte på Gardemoen, og vi stor koste oss. Selv om vi reiste med billige billetter ble vi behandlet som superstjerner!

Vi landet, og fant frem til hotellet. Hva kan jeg si, det var akkurat som vi hadde forventet!

Vi kastet ikke bort tiden, og kom oss til Eiffeltårnet, på veien fant vi et marked som hadde de mest utrolige varene. Været var litt grått, men herlig varmt.

Hvis det er antikke møbler du er ute
etter, er det mye å finne i Paris.

Fersk fisk har en spesiell plass i det
franske kjøkkenet.

For min del, er ferske urter det beste man kan få!

Vi sto i kø i timesvis, men kom oss opp til slutt. Selv om vi var omringet av forelskede par, koste vi oss, og til og med unte vi oss ett glass champagne på toppen! Utsikten var fantastisk, hele Paris var under våres føtter.

champagne på toppen anbefales, men husk lommeboken, for billig er det ikke!

Eiffeltårnet er ikke bare for forelskede par, to gode venninner kan kose seg like bra!

Utsikt mot Palais de Chaillot.

Utsikt mot Les Invalids, hvor Napeleon er gravlagt.

Paris har så mye å tilby! Vi hadde planlagt dagene våre til minste detalj, så vi skulle ikke gå glipp av noe. Etter Eiffeltårnet, tok vi oss en vandre tur, oppover mot Champselysees, og Arc de Triomph.

Arc de Triomphe.

Fant like gjerne Christian Dior
sine kontorer!

En vakt katt mon tro?

Vi gikk rundt og kikket i butikkene, og fant noen bortgjemte skatter!

Det var rundt midtnatt da vi omsider kom oss tilbake til hotellet og sov. Svært trøtte men godt fornøyde med dagens insats.

Dag 2.

Planen var å finne det store berømte loppemarkedet: Puces de Saint Ouen, så vi sto opp grytidlig, og fant frem metro kartet!

Prue er svært glad I mote, og mote fant vi! Både Louis Vuitton og Chanel! Hun var I syvende himmel!

Vintage Chanel.

Vintage Louis Vuitton.

Etter å ha vandret rundt, kom vi oss ned til sentrum. Solen begynte å skinne, og vi tok oss en båt tur på Seinen. For en fantastisk måte å få med seg Paris sine severdigheter.

Prue og meg på båt tur!

Utsikt over Alexanders bruen over Seinen, det mest vakreste
av bruene i Paris.

Notre Dame.

Seine stranden

Eiffeltårnet fra Seinen

Eiffeltårnet fra Seinen.

Sacre coeur tårner over Montemarte i skumringen.

Etter båt turen, kom vi oss til Montmartre og Sacre coeur! Videre vandret vi rundt Montemarte og fant en bistro, og smakte snegler!

Det var godt, sneglene smakte ekstra godt med fransk vin.

Kvelden endte ved Moulin Rouge.

Dag 3.

Etter litt fransk frokost, Cafe au Lait og croissanter, dro vi til sentrum. Vi skulle besøke Louvre museet! Men vi fant fort ut at det var veldig lang kø, og siden dette var vårt siste dag, bestemte vi oss heller for å ta en tur rundt til Notre Dame kirken.

Prue foran glass pyramiden i Louvre museet.

Notre Dame.

Til slutt fant vi veien til det berømte kjøpe senteret i Paris; Galeries La Fayette, en fashionistas paradis. Vi handlet og stor koste oss, og nøt Paris med alt det hadde å tilby. Vi spiste god mat, drakk god vin og hadde det rett og slett fantastisk.

Galeries La Fayette har veldig mye å by på til de mote
bevisste av oss.

Vi fløy hjem dagen etter. Den lille turen skapte minner for meg og Prue for resten av livet, og hun fikk med seg det beste av Paris før hun så reiste hjem til Australia.

Paris trenger ikke å være en drømme destinasjon for forelskede par, det kan like gjerne nytes av venninner på weekendtur.

Det er bare å sjekke, klm.com, kansje du kan finne en drømme tur til Paris med din beste venninne?

The Achaemenid Empire Part 9: A city-kingdom within the Satrapy of Cyprus, The Holy Kingdom of Paphos.

2012-11-26T15:45:00.001+01:00

The kingdom of Paphos was once one of the most important kingdoms of the island of Cyprus. It covered the area of Akamas range to the Pissouri region. The ancient kingdom of Paphos bordered the kingdom of Marion in North, and on its eastern border lay the kingdom of Kourion. Not only was Paphos one of the main religious sites in Cyprus, it was also rich and extremely powerful. Being one the most important Cypriot allies of the Greeks and it was used regularly by the Greeks to stage attacks and counter attacks against the empire. (More about where to go if you want to walk the area!)

Image 1: Map showing Cyprus and the City-kingdoms of Cyprus.

The ancient kingdom was located approximately one mile from the coastline and rested on top of a flat-topped limestone hill that gently rises from the coastal plain. The ancient city was far larger than its modern heir, the village of Kouklia. The modern village lies upon the area that was probably the central area of the settlement. (See map no.4) To the east of Kouklia the landscape is marked by shallow valleys and terraces, here lie the localities of Mantissa, Asproyi, Kaminia, Evreti, Arkalou and Tetratsoudhia. Once being one of the centres of occupation in the ancient kingdom, fields and gardens now cover them. The archaeological materials from these areas suggest that the occupation carried on from Chalcolithic period to early Hellenistic times. (Ibid: 37) During the Late Bronze age and Early Hellenistic era, the ancient Paphos was the only large urban settlement in south-western Cyprus. (Ibid: 11)

The sanctuary of Aphrodite and the medieval Royal manor house occupy the seaward side of the most prominent parts of the hill. To the west the extensive ruins of ancient buildings, mostly from the Roman era, covers the ground between the modern road and the village. The archaic/classical fortification-walls run along the ridges of Marcello hill to the plains of Hadji Abdullah to the east. (Maier 2004: 37) Outside the settlement to the north, east and south-east cemeteries dating from the geometric, archaic and classical period are located. (Maier & Wartburg 1985 (2): 152) The placements of these cemeteries indicate that the urban development of the settlement was mainly towards east. (Maier & Karageorghis: 156)

Image 2: Map showing the City-Kingdom of Paphos (Palaepaphos, not be confused with the city of Paphos) , now situated by the village of Kouklia.

This area has a rich alluvial soil on its coastal plains, which must have, just as the present time, given a fair amount of crops. The city itself is also located near the only river in Cyprus that does not desiccate in the summer heat, the river Diarrhizos. These conditions were probably the reason for the continuity of settlement in this area, which has been established from early third millennium B.C until the early Byzantine era, with only one probable gap in the early Bronze Age. This is unique to the kingdom of Paphos in the entire island. (Maier 2004: 22)

The favourable natural condition in the area was not the only source of wealth and prosperity in the ancient kingdom. The main source of Paphos’ importance both in economy and power, lay in Aphrodite’s sanctuary. This sanctuary remained one of the most famous of the shrines of Aphrodite in Antiquity. According to the myth of Aphrodite’s birth, she was born out of the ocean foam supposedly at the rock of “Petra tou Rhomiou”, south east of Kouklia's coast. (Ibid: 12)

The main source of information about Aphrodite’s sanctuary is from the multitude of fragmented votive terracotta figurines from the Archaic and Classical period. These were mainly made with the “snowman-technique”, and their size differentiated from small to life size statues. These finds bear witness to the craftsmanship of the local artists and also gives us some information about the cult itself. (Maier & Wartburg (1) 1985: 155-156)

Some of these figurines which image the goddess with uplifted arms can be found also in Crete in the 11th century B.C and this suggests strong Aegean influence in the cult. Other figures of the goddess present distinctive Phoenician traits and these reflect the impact of the cult of Astarte on the cult of Aphrodite in Paphos. (Maier & Wartburg (1) 1985: 156)

As mentioned above Ancient Paphos was a kingdom in its own right and it kept its ruling house down to the end of the Achaemenid period. The discoveries of many syllabic inscriptions in the area confirms that the city rulers were both king and high priests of the cult of Wanassa in Paphos, titled as: “King of Paphos and Priest of the Wanassa”. Wanassa was the traditional Paphian name of Aphrodite, which meant the ruling lady. (Maier 2004: 12) It was in late Classical era when the Paphian goddess Wanassa was finally recognized as the Greek goddess Aphrodite. (Maier & Wartburg (1) 1985: 156)

The kingdom of Paphos was ruled by the Cinyard dynasty though the ages, and their kingship and power being both spiritual and temporal were unique in the island and indeed in the Aegean area. That is why it has been difficult to explain the origin of this ruling system in Paphos, inhabited by a “Greek” people. The question is whether this is “native” or modelled on foreign traditions. (Maier 1996: 129-130)

The available literary sources do not give a clear indication but a particular clue is given by a piece of statuary found within the debris in the siege-mound, the “priest-kings head”. (Pic. no.21) His “scale-decorated” double-crown is of Egyptian inspiration, his elaborate beard is derived from late Assyrian and Achaemenid prototypes, his archaic smile is in the Greek style, and finally his “feathered” brow is made in the local tradition of Paphos. (Maier 1996: 130, 127)

Image 3: "Limestone statue in Egyptianzing style,
found in three separate pieces.
About 550-255 BC. On head the Egyptian double crown.
Wears Egyptian kilt and collar across chest. (KA 673, 248,
1183: No. 5 p.61)

The Paphian regalia show the foreign influence which the island and the kingdom of Paphos was subjected to since the 9th century B.C, the Assyrians, the Egyptians and in the end the Achaemenids. (Maier 1996: 130)

Dr. Maier and Dr. Karageorghis agree that this system of ruling seems to be “Syro-Canaanite” in origin, since the Mycenaean kingship had certain religion functions, but not to the same extent as the oriental priest-kings in the city-states of the Middle East whose trace was seen in ancient Paphos. (Maier & Karageorghis 1984: 157-158)

Maybe the foreign contacts that Paphos had was not as Greek as some would like it to be.Another clue to this is the archaic sanctuary, whose debris was used to construct the siege mound. The votive gifts discovered showed “cross-currents” between Egyptian, Phoenician and Greek influences mixed with the local traditions. Finds as the Kouroi with Egyptian royal dress (See image to the left), the Greek marble polychrome sphinx and “naiskos” stealai, portraying “the woman in the window”, with its closest parallel found in Punic stealai in western Phoenician centres, illustrate this. (Maier 1996: 127-128)

It is apparent that these Priest-kings still lead both their religious followers and their sovereign people under the Achaemenid reign. The Achaemenid presence in Ancient Paphos does not become archaeologically apparent until the first Cypriot revolt. When the Ionians revolted in 499 BC, the Cypriote cities under Greek influence rose to the occasion and revolted against Achaemenid supremacy. (Ibid: 21) (See image 4)

Image 4: The Paphian Priest-King. "57.
Late Archaic head representing a priest king of Paphos
(Merseyside Museums)

Ancient Paphos was laid under siege by the Achaemenid army, and was recaptured in 498 B.C. This siege is illustrated by the archaeological finds and historical sources, mentioned indirectly by Herodotus in V. 115. The siege itself and the counter siege-works constructed by the local authorities and recapture of the city are illustrated by the finds on the site and can be followed almost step-by-step. (Maier 2004:21)

Very little is known about the city after the aftermath of the siege and recapture. As far as we know from Herodotus (VII, 98) only one year after the siege the Paphian priest-king contributed with 12 ships to the Greek expedition undertaken by Xerxes. It seems that the kingdom of Paphos enjoyed a peaceful period after the siege. (Ibid: 22)

The extensive repairs of the fortification walls also show that the city must have had a good and stable economy as well. (Ibid) However these repairs took place after a long period of disrepair and ruin, Dr. Maier and Dr. Karageorghis find that the reasons for this long-time neglect cannot be convincingly explained. They assume that: “…most likely the cities which had revolted in 498 B.C were not allowed to reconstruct their fortifications.” (Maier & Karageorghis 1984: 209) But never the less the declining Achaemenid empire supposedly lost some of its grip on the island in late 4th century B.C, and this “…may have given the Paphians, whose economic capacity seems to have increased at the same time, a chance for remarkable activity”. (Ibid)

When it comes to the city itself, it yields urban structures as well as working areas, and luxury houses. Metal working shops can also be observed in the archaeological remains, as well as weaver’s shops where loom weights marked with stamps made of gems can be observed. (Ibid: 24)

Very few remains of public buildings have so far been discovered, but some private houses and workshops have been excavated. However the discovery of numerous tomb groups and many rich finds of limestone sculpture illustrates the city’s wealth in the archaic and classical period. Unfortunately because of the series of tomb robberies in the area through the ages, very little grave goods have survived. (Maier & Karageorghis: 156)

No building remains from the Archaic or the Classical period have been found in either Evreti or Asproyi. However the discoveries of several refuse pits illustrate the dwellings and working quarters in these areas. (Maier & Wartburg (1) 1985: 106) The settlement in Evreti shows continuity into the Iron Age. The finds in the refusal pits discovered document the pottery production in the area. These consisted of local pottery identified as Proto-White Painted and Proto-Bichrome all the way down to the late Classical-Early Hellenistic plates and bowls were also discovered l. These pits also yielded several small finds of cocking pots, grinders, querns and a great deal of open and closed lamps, spindle-whorls and loom weights, stamped amphora handles and terracotta figures. (Maier & Wartburg (1) 1985: 106)

With regard to foreign items found in this area, finds such as geometric Skyphoi and Fikellura vases, and a large amount of Attic pottery, witness the foreign trade. Other finds of Black-Figure fragments, Red-Figure vessels, and the most numerous finds of Late Classical Black Glaze bowls are either plain or are stamped and have a rouletted decoration. (Ibid: 106) Almost the same material was discovered in some wells in Evreti, one of them TE 1, contained Rhodian amphorae, Attic Red figure and Attic Black glaze with stamps and rouletted decoration. (Ibid: 109) The analysis of the imported pottery-material showed the majority to be of late classical material. (Ibid: 106) Most of the pottery found however, was of local produce, being painted or plain kitchenwares. (Ibid: 109)

It is fairly difficult to determine the foreign contact of Paphos in archaic and classical periods. The find material can be misleading in some occasions. If judged by the foreign material alone, it appears that the exchange with the Aegean is fairly weak. Until the late 6th century B.C Greek wares are rare within the vast amount of Archaic and Geometric pottery groups found in the area. There are only 5 geometric Skyphoi, one of which is Euboan. There are also a few fragments of Fikellura, and Corinthian black figure vases. It seems that at the beginning of the Red figure style in Greece, the trading connection with the mainland Greece and the Ancient kingdom of Paphos increased. Later in the 4th century B.C, the Attic import seems to have reached its peak in the area. This might suggest expanding trade relations with the Greek mainland. (Maier & Wartburg (1) 1985: 157)

The history of Paphos is hardly known during the Archaic and Classical period; except for some mentions of its ruler’s names and some isolated historical events such as the Achaemenid Siege, and few notices in some of the ancient literature. (Maier 1996: 125)

The overall picture of the society in Paphos is that of an urbanized and economically well-organized society in that period. However by the beginning of the 400 century BC, the eastern part of the settlement seems to have been almost deserted. Approximately at that time the city defences appear to have fallen into a poor condition and were left unrestored after ca. 300 BC. (Ibid: 25)

The downfall of the city around 300 BC is connected to the very last Priest-King of Ancient Paphos, Nikokles. He founded a new city, Nea Paphos, which took over the role of Palaepaphos as a new capital in 320 B.C. By 284 B.C the island of Cyprus was part of the Hellenic world and their long lost dream at last was fulfilled. However it was at the price of their independence. This is illustrated with the situation of the Paphian priest-kings. They had lost their local sovereignty to the Ptolemaic rulers and only held the title of priests of Aphrodite. (Ibid: 21)

Bibliography.
Maier, F.G.: “ History from the Earth: the Kingdom of Paphos in the Achaemenid Period”, In: Transeuphratene no. 12, 1996. (121-138)

Maier, F.G (with the contributions by: S. Hadjisavvas, M.-L. von Wartburg): “Guide to Palaipaphos (Kouklia). Banc of Cyprus Cultural Foundation, Nicosia, 2004

Maier, F.G and Karageorghis, V: “Paphos: History and Archaeology.” Nicosia: A.G. Leventis Foundation, 1984

Maier, F.G and Wartburg, M. –L. v (1): “Excavations at Kouklia (Palaepaphos) Thirteenth Preliminary Report: Seasons 1983 and 1984”,. In: Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus (RDAC), 1985. (100-125)

Maier, F.G and. Wartburg, M. -L. v (2): “Reconstructing history from the earth, c. 2800 B.C. – 1600 A.D.: Excavating at Palaepaphos, 1966-1984”,. In: Archaeology in Cyprus 1960-1985, V. Karageorghis (ed.), Nicosia, 1985. (142-172)

Herodotus, “Histories”: V. 115, VII. 98

Images:

Image 1: Wright, G.R.H, Ancient Buildings in Cyprus, Vol. 2 Illustrations“,
Leaden, New York, Köln, E.J.Brill.1992

Image 2: Maier, F.G (with the contributions by: S. Hadjisavvas, M.-L. von Wartburg): “Guide to Palaipaphos (Kouklia). Banc of Cyprus Cultural Foundation, Nicosia, 2004. (10)

Image 3: , “Limestone statue of youth in Egyptianizing style, found in three separate pieces. About 550-525 B.C. On head the Egyptian double crown. Wears Egyptian kilt and collar across chest. (KA 673, 248, 1183: No. 5 p. 61)”
(Iliffe and Mitford 1951: 60, Figure 14)

Image 4:“Late Archaic head representing a priest king of Paphos (Merseyside Museums)”
(Maier 2004: 73, Figure 57)

Acheamenid Empire Part 8: An example of a Satrapy. The Island of Cyprus.

2012-11-09T21:32:00.001+01:00

Cyprus is an excellent example of a Satrapy within the Achaemenid Empire, it was the an important port within the Mediterranean for the Empire, giving excellent access to Egypt, and of course the Ionian islands and not least the Greek mainland. It was a place of great struggle and the empire did its utmost to keep the island.

Located in the Eastern Mediterranean sea near the southern coast of Asia-Minor, the island of Cyprus (Encyclopædia Iranica, 3768,Weiscopf: 508) enjoyed a period of independence for the duration of Geometric Era to the Archaic Times. By the rise of the Assyrian empire, during Archaic Period, the island underwent a transformation, as it became part of the Assyrian Empire in 709 B.C. This however did not last more than a few decades. Around 570-560 B.C the island changed ownership. The island then remained under the control of the Egyptians until the emergence of the Achaemenid Empire. (Maier & Karageorghis 1984: 157-158)

The island of Cyprus is not mentioned in the Old Persian Imperial Inscriptions of the Achaemenid Capitals but it was under Achaemenid control. The date for the Cypriot submission is still the subject of academic debate but the end of the Achaemenid Era in Cyprus is well established. It was under the reign of the last of the Achaemenid kings, Darius III in 331 B.C. (Encyclopædia Iranica, 3768,Weiscopf: 508)

There is no continuous account of the history of Cyprus during this period. It is pieced together by the accounts of Roman and Greek historians, such as Herodotos, Xenophon, and Diodorus Siculus along with orators such as Isocrates. These works are frequently distorted by their author’s point of view and are mainly fixed on events of warfare. No accounts of events during this period which can be attributed to locally written sources have been found with the exception of r an inscribed bronze tablet from the city of Idalion. This describes the assistance of the Achaemenid troops in the defence of the city against the attack of Kition. (ibid.)

It appears that the Achaemenid rulers used the administrative system, which pre-existed on the island. This system consisted of seven to eleven main city-kingdoms with their adjoining settlements and their respective royal houses. These consisted of Salamis, Kition, Marion, Amathus, Kourion, Paphos, Soli, Lapethos, Kyrenia, Idalion and Tamassos. (ibid.: 511)

Map 1: Showing the city kingdoms of Cyprus.

Very little is known about the method of organization and running of these royal houses. However the political organization of these bodies appears to have derived from the “Syro-Canaanite” traditions in late Bronze Age (Maier 1996: 121). This developed during the Archaic and Classical Periods into a form of oriental hereditary autocratic monarchy. (Maier & Karageorghis 1984: 157-158)

It is generally agreed t that Cyprus entered the Achaemenid Empire between 545 and 539 B.C, and was part of the fifth satrapy with Palestine and Syria. The main source for this dating is “Cyropaedia”, written by Xenophon. He mentions that Cyprus was indeed part of the Achaemenid Empire under Cyrus the Great. They supposedly participated in Cyrus’ campaign against Karia and Babylon. (1.1.4, 8.6.21, 8.8.1, 7.4.1-2, 8.6.8) (Watkin 1987: 154-156)

Mr. Gjerstad uses this source to date the end of “Cypro-Egyptian style” in Cypriote sculpture in 545 B.C, when the Egyptian rule over the island terminated, and the Achaemenid rule began. (ibid.: 155) This reconstruction of Cypriote sculpture appears to also advance Xenophon’s idealized life of an ideal ruler, as Cicero also recognized. (Cic. Q.Fr.I 1.23). The Cyropaedia is essentially a mythic story written to elucidate the three main virtues of an ideal ruler. These are; “moral rectitude, military prowess, and the ability to organize and control the state.” (ibid.: 156)

By using this source Mr. Gjerstad has argued that the termination of the Egyptian rule caused the immediate vanishing of Egyptian artistic influence in Cyprus. Further he creates a link between this argument and the proposition explaining the increasing Greek stimuli on the Cypriot sculpture consequential to sculpture-trade between the Ionian cities and Cyprus when Cyprus became part of the Achaemenid Empire in 545 B.C. (ibid.: 155)

In addition Mr. Gjerstad also explains the disappearance of Cypriot sculpture in Samos, Rhodes and Naukratis as “…the abrupt end of mass import and manufacture of Neo-Cypriote sculpture in Naukratis, Rhodes and Samos towards c.540 BC, and the fact that not a single specimen of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style which began at this date, has been found at the places mentioned…these two facts demonstrate the collapse of factories in Egypt and on the East Greek islands as a consequence of the submission of Cyprus to Persia”. (Gjerstad 1934: 362)

However Mr Watkin has suggested another date for the entry of Cyprus in to the empire, as between 526 and 525 B.C. This suggestion derives from a logical assumption. To be able to seize or threaten the island of Cyprus one must have a considerable naval force at hand. The Achaemenid Empire did not acquire such a force until the submission of the Phoenician and Levantine cities in Cambyses reign. It was from these areas that the Achaemenid Empire drew most of its naval force. The date of the Phoenician submission is not stated precisely but the date must have been before their participation in the conquest of Egypt (525 B.C), which the Cypriot also attended. Herodotus states this act in 3.19.9: “…the Cypriots likewise gave themselves up to the Persians and joined the expedition against Egypt.” (Wattkin: 155-159)

Further more Mr. Wattkin summarizes his arguments for this dating as following:

“ (i) The Cyropaedia provides no reliable independent testimony for the career of Cyrus or for the status of Cyprus in his reign.

(ii) Herodotus indicates that Persia annexed Cyprus, and indeed first acquired the ability to control the seas around the island, only at the time of Kambyses’ Egyptian campaign.

(iii) The picture of the development of Cypriote sculpture built up by Gjerstad rests on an assumption which should have been questioned a priori – namely that art and politics inevitably move in tandem- and his conclusions have been criticized in detail.” (ibid.: 163)

Mr Reyes also agrees with Mr Watkin that in 525 B.C after the assimilation of the Phoenician states in the Levantine area, the island of Cyprus might have joined the Achaemenian Empire. (Reyes 1994: 85). Having considered the arguments and so-called proofs one tends to agree with Mr Watkin and Reyes. It will be assumed, therefore, that Cyprus joined the empire during the reign of Cambyses in 525 B.C, and this date will be used for the entry of Cyprus to the Achaemenid Empire.

One must question, however, why the Cypriot kings decided to submit them selves in to hand of the Achaemenid Empire? The probable reason would have been economic benefit but ultimately this can only ever be speculation as would be any other possible reason. By 525 B.C the Achaemenid Empire controlled all of the trade routes in the Middle East. It would therefore have made political and economical sense to the Cypriot kings to submit themselves so as to ensure the islands prosperity and security. (Reyes 1994: 89)

One important clue to this was the Phoenicians. They had been the principal mediator between Cyprus and the islands trading partners in the Middle East. After the assimilation of Phoenicia in the Achaemenid Empire, they would have lost their important trading connection within the area. By their submission they would have ensured they’re trading connections and probably gained a wider market for their trading goods. (Reyes 1994: 89-90)

During the reign of the Achaemenids several conflicts arose in the island. These mainly featured internal instability, intercity fighting and the involvement of the Achaemenid forces to re-establish law and order. There were also attempts by the Cypriot and other opponents of the Achaemenid rule to exploit one and other, while trying to revolt. (Encyclopædia Iranica, 3768, Weiskopf: 509)

One of the early examples of these conflicts occurred in 497 B.C during the reign of Darius I, concerning the ruling family of Salamis. This conflict arose when Onsilus the younger brother of the king of Salamis, Gorgos, expelled him, and started an expansionistic campaign through his neighbouring kingdoms. Onsilus also managed to convince the other Cypriot cities, with the exception of Amathus, to join in the Greek (Ionian) revolt against the empire. This lead to a retaliatory campaign where the cities in question were brought under Achaemenid rule once again following a number of sieges and battles. Examples can be observed through the archaeological remains in Palaepaphos. (ibid.: 509)

After the pacification of the island the remainder of 500 B.C remains obscure. All that is to known is that the Cypriot naval forces, lead by their own rulers, were deployed during some border operations during the reign of Darius Xerxes I. (Herodotus: 6.6, 7.90, 7.96, 8.11, cf. 7.98-99) and Xerxes I. (Herodotus: 6.6, 7.90, 7.96, 8.11, cf. 7.98-99)

In the period between 478 – 449 B.C the Greeks subjected the island of Cyprus to several attempts of liberation. The first attack was lead by Kimon, Pausanias and Aristides, and the three others by Kimon himself, in pursuit of saving the “Greek-Cypriots” from the “Persian yoke”. These attempts were mostly fruitless and the “liberated” cities were mostly re-captured after the departure of the Greeks. (Karageorghis: 157)

By 449 B.C the Greeks and Artaxerxes I signed a peace treaty, “the peace of Kallias”, where “…it was agreed to regard the entire Aegean sea and the strip of the Anatolian coast, which belonged to the (Attic-Delian) League, as a restricted area from which the Persian forces were excluded”. (VOLUME 11 FASCICLE 3: Schmitt:)

By the 4th century B.C more information is available about Cyprus and its kingdoms, especially about the kingdom of Salamis and its “Teucridae” royal family. The Roman historian Diodorus Siculus preserved the accounts of this royal house and its conflicts with the other kingdoms and the empire. The conflicts started by the reign of Euagoras (about 411/10 B.C). Even though he expelled his rivals and started to expand his kingdom, he did not attract any aggressive attention from Artaxerxes II, whose attention was directed to the more grave events in the Aegean, Egypt and Anatolia. (Encyclopædia Iranica, 3768, Weiskopf: 509)

Susa was finally involved after direct petitions by the kings of Amathus, Soli and Kition who were subjected to Euagoras I ‘s expansionist policy. The great king answered by dispatching a punitive force, and he managed to reduce some of Euagoras’ power but he kept his important position within the island. A second campaign was launched and it ended with a single sea battle off the coast of Kition. This ended Euagoras’ expansionistic policy. Euagoras I was kept as the king of Salamis but restricted to his own kingdom, as long as he was obedient and paid his tribute to the empire. (ibid.: 510)

The last Achaemenid “policing actions” in the island were recorded in 344 B.C. Once again Salamis’ rulers were involved in rivalry between themselves. At the time Pnytagoras who had expelled Euagoras II ruled the city. This lead to the siege of the city. Ultimately Pnytagoras was left with his throne and Euagoras was given another post in Asia. (ibid.)

It is important to note that these operations undertaken by the Achaemenids in the island were more or less “minor frontier skirmishes”; they lasted for short periods and were localized. Subsequently they did not lead to any major transformation of the island. (ibid.)

The last participation of the Cypriot naval forces in an Achaemenid campaign was in the defence of the empire against the Macedonian invasion. However t after the fall of coastal Anatolia and Phoenicia, the leading Cypriot kings surrendered to Alexander and were left in their place, some even participated in the Macedonian siege of Tyre. (ibid.)

There are some scattered notices here and there (Diodorus 16.42.8 and Strabo’s description of Cyprus) about the resources that might have been important to the Achaemenid Empire. These consisted of grain, silver and copper but it is difficult is to determine how these were transformed to profits for the empire. Herodotus (3.91.1) does mention that Cyprus did contribute to the 350 talents, which was the assessed sum for the fifth satrapies tribute, consisting of Palestine and Syria. However there are some indications in the written sources that individual kingdoms might have been directly charged with tributes as well. An example of this is Euagoras I who was in trouble for not paying his tribute. (Diodorus 15.9.2) (ibid)

The main values of Cyprus to the Achaemenid Empire, however, must have been its naval force and its location in the Mediterranean Sea, as a naval base. This gave the Achaemenids a strategic position within the Mediterranean. (Encyclopædia Iranica, 3768, Weiskopf: 509)

Never the less it appears that “Persian” settlement in the island was not encouraged, but there again there is no sign of “Persian” officers permanently stationed in the area either. This leads us to assume that it is not possible to look for an administrative pattern of a satrap-owned state with lesser estate dependencies owned by officers, providing cavalry, as observed in Anatolia. (ibid.)

It occurs that Phoenicia offers a more similar parallel to the situation in Cyprus, since there as well, native royal families ruled the city kingdoms, minted their own coin and provided the empire with ships. (ibid.)

In conclusion direct Achaemenid involvement in the political affairs in the island happened only during severe political turmoil, and when they were asked to intervene by the respective Cypriot authorities. (ibid.: 511) It appears that the image of the Persian overlords and the enslaved Cypriot people may be slightly exaggerated.

Bibliography.

A. T. Reyes, "Archaic Cyprus. A Study of the Textual and Archaeological Evidence", Oxford, 1994.

Diodorus Siculus,”Bibliotheca historia”: 11.44.2, 12.4.1, 15.9.2, 16.42.8

Gjerstad, E: “The Swedish Cyprus expedition: finds and results of the excavations in Cyprus 1927-1931”, Volume III, , Stockholm: Victor Pettersons Bokindustiaktiebolag, 1937.

Herodotus, “Histories”: 3.19.9, 3.89, 3.90-97, 5.104, 5.108-115, 6.6, 7.61, 7.90, 7.96, 7.98-99, 8.11

Karageorghis, V: “Cyprus: from the Stone Age to the Romans”, London: Thames and Hudson, c1982

Maier, F.G and Karageorghis, V: “Paphos: History and Archaeology.” Nicosia: A.G. Leventis Foundation, 1984

Maier, F.G.: “ History from the Earth: the Kingdom of Paphos in the Achaemenid Period”, In: Transeuphratene no. 12, 1996. (121-138)

VOLUME 11 FASCICLE 3: “I.Greco-Persian Political Relations” in Greece, Relations with Persian Empire, R. Schmitt, “Encyclopaedia iranica”.

Watkin, H.J: “The Cypriot surrender to Persia”, in Journal of Hellenic Studies, no. 107, 1987. (154-163)
3768:“Cyprus”, M. Weiskopf, “Encyclopaedia iranica”, (508-512) <http://www.iranica.com/articlenavigation/index.html>

Xenophon, “Cyropaedia”: 1.1.4, 7.4.1-2, 8.6.8, 8.6.21, 8.8.1

Images.
Map 1: Wright, G.R.H, Ancient Buildings in Cyprus, Vol. 2 Illustrations“,
Leaden, New York, Köln, E.J.Brill.1992, (Illustration: 8)

The Achaemenid Empire Part 7: The Genesis of Achaemenid Identity.

2012-11-04T17:39:00.002+01:00

After conquering half of the known world, the Achaemenid court realized that it needed an identity and a common culture. Especially since the conquerors background was that of a nomadic tribe society, with no “iconographic or written tradition”. (Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1991: 264) The creation of an identity for this empire was deemed important by its rulers, and indeed was started by the founder, Cyrus the Great, shortly after the conquests.

The creation of an “Ideological programme”, had to be done using various elements from the cultures of the subject people. Cyrus seems to have chosen “…elements from pictographic repertoire of the Mesopotamian tradition in quite a direct way. Some decades later under Darius and Xerxes a complete ideological programme was constructed”. (Ibid)

(Early Achaemenid Art, as exemplified by the Winged Figure thought to represent Cyrus him self-)

However, the primary driving force behind this creation was Darius I. Under his reign the Achaemenid court art and architecture took its final shape and remained so until the end of the Achaemenid period. It seems that this royal art was designed rather than developed. It was based on a variety of styles including those from the western part of the empire, which initially were presented to the east by Cyrus. (Boardman 2000: 19)

To build the cities of Persepolis and Susa, Darius seems to have brought not only workers but also material from all over the vast empire. Since the Persians did not possess the tradition of palace building, the Achaemenid court designed a new tradition, by mixing the traditions of Egypt, Greece and Mesopotamia. (Roaf 1990: 213)

Artisans, workers and architects from all of the satrapies, participated in the construction of Persepolis, this is documented by a building inscription in Susa by Darius I. The inscription lists the various people of the empire doing various jobs concerning the building of the city. It reads as follows:

“ The digging of the foundation, filling up mud-ground with rubble and moulding of the bricks has been done by Babylonians; cedar timber was brought here by Assyrians from Lebanon to Babylon and from there to Susa by Carians and Ionians; Sissoo timber was brought from Gandhara and Carmania; the gold wrought here was brought from Lydia and Bacteria; lapis lazuli and carnelian wrought here was brought from Egypt; the colours for the wall-reliefs were brought from Nubia, India and Arachosia; the stone columns wrought here were brought from Elam. The stone masons were Ionians and Lydians; the goldsmiths were Medes and Egyptians; the woodcarvers were Lydians and Egyptians; the bricklayers were Babylonians; the wall painters were Medes and Egyptians.” (DSF)

( See the original transcript made by Ernst Herzfeld of the charter here!"Foundation Charter of the Palace of Darius I, Reconstruction of Old Persian Inscription, DSf. " As recorded by Ernst Herzfeld. )

However it is important to mention that the people participating in the building constructions in the empire were not slaves. As numerous Elamite clay tablets found in Persepolis records the amount of people working on which sites and the amount of wages they received from the royal treasury. (Encyclopædia Iranica, Schmidt, 524: 425)

These various non-Persian influences seems to have shaped the royal architecture in two chief factors, “…technical, involving the methods of working and the final appearance of dressed stone”, and “…formal, the treatment of architectural detail and decoration, as on columns, as well as some building types-overall plans and details.” It appears at first that the majority of the features and forms observed in Achaemenid architecture can be detected in the west. However, not all of these features were initially developed in the west, indeed some of these can be observed elsewhere, in Elam, Media, Mesopotamia and in Egypt. (Boardman 2000: 19)

The history of the birth of Achaemenid royal art and architecture seems to be “bi-partite”. It had at first an “archaic period”, which can be observed in Pasargadae, the “birthplace” of Achaemenid royal art, built primarily by Cyrus, and a “Classic period”, shown by the monuments, buildings, and royal tombs started by Darius I. As expected there are great difference between the two both in style and form. (Encyclopædia Iranica, 524, Schmidt: 424)

The Gate of All Nations, embodies the Classical Period. The Gate of All Nations

While the “archaic” style portrays a great deal of Lydian and Ionian traits, the “Classical period” shows a more oriental character, for instance in Persepolis the “…masonry style of the Platform and the column bases are different. No mouldings articulate the relation between the individual members and the rosette flower is given back its old oriental shape. The stoae contract and are firmly subordinated to the whole.” (Nylander: 148) (Examples of the Persepolitan rosette)

An example of "Classical Period" Architecture can be observed within The Palace of Xerxes, (later identified to have been built under the reign of Xerxes, The Front Gate)

This product of many foreign and native elements created a norm for the Achaemenid architecture regardless of location. This norm consisted of the use of many tall columns, monumental stairways and square rooms. It has been suggested that the usage of columns could have derived from “…the many-poled central tents of assembly common amongst the Iranian tribes.” (Stern 1985: 58)
(Example of a ground plan of early Achaemenid Architecture in Pasargadeh.

, And in Classical Period: Ground Plan of the Thrown Room in Persepolis, built under the Reign of Darius I)

Another Achaemenid element which was introduced in Pasargardeh and was evolved in Persepolis was the use of Double Animal Protome of Animals and mythical creatures to adorn the columns and carry the roof.

(Bull Protome, Bull Protome in situ. Reconstruction drawings of 4 Orders of Columns, Showing Bull and Mythical Creatures.)

Another original architectural feature in the royal architecture was the use of “ the principle of the open building”. However this is only observed in Persepolis and Pasargadae, and it is representative of the architectural form of strong governmental control and times of peace. (Ibid)

( See the reconstruction drawing made at the time of the Excavation of Pasargardeh here,Palace 'S': Reconstructed View, probably drawn by Friedrich Krefter, 1928 [drawing] Reconstruction Drawings of Palace P in Pasargardeh ,Reconstructed Façade.)

However in locations outside of the Iranian plateau, some differences to this norm can be observed. This is due to the adaptation policy of the Achaemenid Empire. It seems that the local traditions were kept in minor details such as ornamentations and motifs used to decorate the structure. For instance the remains of the Apadana in Babylon, portrays a Achaemenid plan, however the architectural ornamentation of the structure seems to be that of Babylonian style and composition, due to the extensive use of glazed bricks. However this theory is unfortunately based on a few sites outside of the heartland of the Achaemenid Empire, in the western satrapies (Ibid), due to few discoveries probably caused by the lack of interest. However these sites do offer a degree of affirmation (Ibid).

In Susa, which was the administrative and political capital of the Achaemenid Empire, the palace shows a “Mesopotamian court house plan”. This is explained by the position this city held within the empire. (Ibid) Before its reestablishment by Darius I, Susa was an Elamite site with roots dating to prehistory. The Assyrians destroyed the Elamite city in mid 7th century B.C. After that the city either remained independent or was “loosely controlled” by the Babylonian, until it fell to the Achaemenid Empire in 539 B.C. (Boardman 2000: 44)

Darius build the earliest of the most important construction in Susa, consisting of the palace, ceremonial hall and the Apadana, which is larger in size than that in Persepolis. The buildings in Susa from this period are, except for the columns, mainly built with bricks. (Ibid)

The city of Persepolis is one of the best-preserved cities of the Achaemenid Empire, however the city had more of a ceremonial character than urban. It is located on a natural elevated terrace, on the foot of a great mount. Most of the structures on the site have been ascribed to Darius I and his son Xerxes, however the construction continued until the reign of Artaxerxes III. The city contains many buildings, including several palaces, and “Palace-like structures”, a Treasury and numerous ceremonial gateways. (Ibid: 49)
(Reconstruction Drawing of Tripylon (Council Hall), Apadana, and Great Staircase in Persepolis)

Another site of some interest away from the heartland of the Achaemenid court is the site of Alintepe. This is located about 17 kilometres east for Erzincan towards the strip of the Euphrates valley at the top of the Erzincan plain. The site it self consists of a natural hill otherwise lying in a flat swampy area, which provides an excellent view over the route going from Erzincan to Erzurum. Archaeological evidence from the area attests to this hilltop’s popularity through out the ages, Bronze Age at its earliest and to the Medieval period at its latest. However no archaeological finds can point to occupation during the Hellenistic era, it seems that the area lay deserted and was rediscovered in the Byzantine period. (Summers 1993: 88) (Appendix 2.5)

West of Alintepe, another prominent natural mound is present, also here traces of a widespread settlement is present. The hills surface is covered with “rubble”. There are, however, no cuts blocks present. (Ibid: 95)

These two areas of settlement seem to belong to a complex habitation area. Within this area, the Alintepe level II and Cimin Tepe level II, portrays finds that are from the Achaemenid period. These finds consists of architectural remains in Alintepe Level II, and painted pottery from both sites. There are also some finds of silver objects from the area, reported to have been “found near Erzincan”. Unfortunately no further information about their context is available but it seems reasonable to connect these objects with the Achaemenid settlement in the area. These objects are not local in character, but are more or less Achaemenid in style. (Ibid: 96)

Before the Achaemenid settlement, Urartians occupied the site. Their structures that were built on the upper part of the site, seems to have had more than one phase. The latest phase of the Urartian period seems to be dominated by a temple complex, which appears to have been abandoned. It has been suggested that its final destruction was probably due to violent earthquakes. (Ibid: 93) It appears that the site lay empty for no less than 100 years until the Achaemenids reinstituted it. (Ibid: 94)

The architectural remains, which point to an Achaemenid presence in this area, are traces of an “Apadana” partially built over the south-east wall of the Urartian temple “temenos”, and on the same level outside the temple complex. (Ibid: 93-94)

The interior structures of the Apadana consist of “…three rows of six huge limestone column bases, making 18 in all. The bases are roughly finished and may have supported mud-brick columns rather than timber ones on account of their size… Although no mud-brick was recognized, mud-brick with a coating of mud-plaster that also covered the stone bases would account for the poor finish of the bases.” (Ibid: 94) The Apadana complex it self was immense in size and splendidly decorated and was also defended by a protective wall. (Ibid: 95)

Mr. Summers concludes that: “ Surely, then, the seat of the Satrap of the nineteenth province in the list of Herodotus, the Satrapy of Armenia, was located here.4 The location is an obvious one lying in the centre of the Satrapy. The plain of Erzincan is fertile and well watered producing, in spite of the altitude and consequently long and harsh winters, agricultural wealth. It straddles the east-west route that today is followed by both the railway and the road and guards the valley of the Euphrates as it turns south-west ward, followed by another artery of railway system, to Malatya.” (Ibid: 96)

It is important to mention that the traces of imperial Achaemenid architecture due to it adaptation to the local culture, at sites outside of the Iranian heartland can be found in some architectural plans and in “…secondary details, such as the architectural ornaments, reliefs, capitals and works of sculpture.” (Stern 1985: 60)

Bibliography

Boardman, J: “Persia and the west: an archaeological investigation of the genesis of Achaemenid art”,
London: Thames & Hudson, 2000.

Nylander, C: “Ionians in Pasargadae: Studies in Old Persian architecture”, , in series:
Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis / Uppsala studies in ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern civilizations. Boreas ; 1. Uppsala, 1970,

Roaf, M:“ Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia”, New York: Facts on File, c1990

Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Heleen: “The quest for an elusive empire”, in: Achaemenid history IV: Centre and Periphery, Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Amélie Kuhrt (ed.), Nederlads Instutuut voor Het Nabije Oosten, Leiden, 1990 (263-274)

524: R. Schmitt, “III. Culture” in “Achaemenid dynasty”, “Encyclopædia Iranica ”, (414-426) <http://www.iranica.com/articlenavigation/index.html>

Stern, E: “The Material Culture of the land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538-332 B.C.E”, Warnminister: Aris & Phillips, Ltd., 1982 (47-92)

Summers, G.D: “Archaeological evidence for the Achaemenid period in Eastern Turkey”, in Anatolian studies no. 43, 1993 (85-108)

All the links provided are from: http://collections.si.edu/search/

Achaemenid Empire, Part 6: The Army

2012-10-18T17:53:00.002+02:00

The Persian society itself is considered to be a feudal system, based on the nobility (azata) on the top, the bondsmen (bandaka) in the middle and finally the workers or the servants (mariaka) at the bottom. All the Persians were bondsmen to king, and military service was compulsory for them all a like. (Sekunda 1992:4)

The organization of the Achaemenid army is very well known, thanks to the reliefs in Susa and Persepolis, and Xenophon’s descriptions in his Cyropaedia. (Ibid: 5) Xenophon was one of the commanders of the Greek mercenaries marching with Cyrus the younger, the description of the organization of the army, given by him in the "Cyropaedia" is quite accurate.

He mentions that the Achaemenid army was divided into “regiments of a thousand men”, hazarabam. A hazarabaptis, or “commander of a thousand” led each of these regiments. These were again split in turn to a 10 regiments containing a 100 each, called the sataba, commanded by a satapatis. Finally these hundred were divided in to groups of ten of ten men each, called the dathaba, commanded by dathapatis. (Ibid: 4-5) However this perfect symmetry was not always held, it seems that the actual number of fighting men available adjusted the number of each dathaba in each sataba. (Ibid: 6)

It is needless to say that the nucleus of the Achaemenid army consisted of the Persians and Medes, however after the expansion of the empire in central Asia and Danube the standing army consisted of Persians, Medes and closely associated tribes. (Encyclopædia Iranica, 1542 Shahbazi: 491)

Image 1: Audience scene from Persepolis, Showing the Kings Bodyguards in the "Persian Garbs" standing behind the thrown and behind the Median envoy. The Persian Garb was mainly used as a ceremonial outfit at court, while the trousered "Median garb" was used for campaigns and on the field. An example of the "Median Garb" is worn by the Median Envoy.

Using “Persopolitan” depictions and official Achaemenid military and administrative documents and Herodotus’ writings (3.90 ff. & 7.61 ff.), we can assume that the closer the subject people were to the Persians, the more they would be sharing of the domination of the empire and paying less tribute than the rest. However they would be also contributing with soldiers to the imperial army. (Encyclopædia Iranica, Shahbazi, 1542: 491)

In addition to the royal army, there was also the so-called “Kings mercenaries”. These regiments were raised from the “warlike tribes” of eastern Iran, such as Bactraians or Hyrcarians. These were regarded as “oddities” at first, however they brought with them a wealth of knowledge and equipment, which was eventually integrated within the Imperial army. (Sekunda 1992: 20)

These mercenaries were usually stationed in forts and citadels located in important strategic areas, as permanent garrisons, they would be however under the command of a Didapatis who was under the direct command of the king. The mercenaries themselves were kept by direct payments of the taxation on the local satrapy. (Ibid: 20)

However most of the mercenary regiments stationed in the western parts of the empire were not of the “exotic” regiments of the Iranian sort, but rather infantry units raised locally by the satraps themselves. These were mostly Greek, from the mountainous areas with pastoral economies, which were based on animal husbandry; these economies would liberate a large number of manpower in long periods of time, depending on the season. (Ibid: 23)

The first Greek units were Arcadians, who came under Achaemenid service in 480 B.C. Later on the Achaemenian army in the west came to relay heavily on Arcadian or Achaean mercenaries, however their importance should not be over emphasized. As Mr. Sekunda argues: “Our sources are practically confined to Greek historical accounts of events in the West of the empire, and we know practically nothing of what was happening elsewhere.” (Ibid: 23)

Image 2: Imperial Guard, maybe on of the famous "Then Thousand".
The Persian Garb had richly woven fabrics in vivid colours and patterns.

While elsewhere in the empire we can assume, other forces were in hand. The satrapies of Caucasus offered mercenaries from the Chalybian and Taochian tribes, which lay outside of the empire. The Saka tribes of the Northern parts of the empire were also widely used. In east the “free warrior republics” of North India, the Kshoudra was a source for mercenary recruitments. (Ibid: 23)

Another new practice taken up by the Achaemenid army was the use of uniform, not only is this illustrated by the many reliefs in Persepolis and Susa, and countless seals and coins, it is also mentioned by Greek authors, that they were “clothed and equipped in a identical style”. (Ibid: 9) It appears that each satrap was in charge of his regimental forces’ uniform and equipment and also the king played some part in equipping his forces. (Ibid:9-10)

Image 3: Imperial Guard, maybe on of the famous "Then Thousand".
The Persian Garb had richly woven fabrics in vivid colours and patterns.

Each satrap had a regiment of arstibara, spear bearers, at his disposal. This regiment was commanded by a hazarapatis, who had the same military function as his counterpart at the court. He was responsible for the military security of the satrapy and answered only to the king, as mentioned in the chapter above. (Ibid: 19)

The satrap also could in the time of need increase the defences of the satrapy by raising a “heavy cavalry” of Persian or Median aristocracy settled within his satrapy. These forces could also be supported by regiments of local mercenaries available to the satrap. (Ibid: 18-19)

As a consequence of the “Peace of Kallias” treaty, as mentioned above, the satrap’s located west for Halys River, and Lycia, had to embrace new responsibilities. From that time on they had to provide the local defences themselves. As the Royal army could not be deployed to those places. This meant that certain types of tribute due to be paid to the king, were redirected to the satraps to supply them with adequate resources to keep their forces. (Ibid: 20)

Bibliography.

Herodotus, “Histories”: 3.90-97, 7.61.

Sekunda, N: “The Persian Army 550-330 BC.” London: Osprey Publishing Ltd. 1992

1542: Shahbazi, A, S. “3. The Achaemenid period” in “I. Pre-Islamic Iran” in “Army” “Encyclopædia Iranica ” (491-494) http://www.iranica.com/articlenavigation/index.html

Images:

Image 1: Taken by me, The Tehran Ancient History Museum

Image 2: Taken by me, The British Musem

Image 3: Taken by me, The Tehran Ancient History Museum

The Achaemenid Empire Part 5: Achaemenid Bureaucracy

2012-10-14T18:45:00.000+02:00

In the early days of the empire, the Achaemenid kings came to realise quickly that to be able to administer the vast mass of land and the multicultural people who inhabited it, they had to create a organization system that would be able to administer them, without causing them any rebellions or disorder, and more importantly make sure that the court received its due taxes on time, and so was the first centralised organised mass bureaucracy born to the world.

Under the reign of Cyrus and Cambyses, the conquered areas of Elam, Media, Lydia, Babylonia, Egypt and several eastern Iranian tribes, were more or less in a form of a loose federation of autonomous entities. When it came to tribute, they were subjected to irregular taxation if any at all. The king relied heavily on the non-Persian officials present in the already established form for governments in the “subject states”. These forms for organization or lack of it led to clashes between the Iranian noblemen, and to “nationalism” in the conquered areas. Which finally resulted in chaos and rebellion after Cambyses’ death. (Encyclopædia Iranica: Shahbazi)

Image 1:
Persepolis, Naqsherustam, The façade of the Tomb of Darius I.

When Darius ascended to the Achaemenid throne he had a major task ahead of him. Not only had he to reconquer the rebellious areas, but also to integrate them in a systematic empire. He realized that three main issues had to be under control for his empire to work, these were “sound military, stable economy and legal system”. (Ibid)

As Mr. Cuyler Young explains to create: “…a governmental structure based on the army, on certain classes of the society whose loyalty was to the throne and not to some specific geographical region, and on the charisma, intelligence and moral fortitude of one man, Darius”. (1988: 63)

The system of division, which Darius used, can be observed on his tomb in the form of a relief. Here he is portrayed on his throne, which is “supported by 30 figures of equal status”; this symbolizes the subject people of the empire. The countries other than that of Persia or Persis are listed in a way that seems to be set in a geographical order. (Image 2)

Image 2: Map of the Achaemenid Empire, showing the Satrapies of the Empire.

Herodotus (3.89) mentions that: “ Darius joined together in one province the nations that were neighbours, but sometimes he passed over the nearer tribes and gave their places to more remote ones”, Mr Shahbazi applies this system to the recorded lands in the list in the relief and manages to distinct beside the Persian homeland, 6 other nations. This “seven folded” partition of the empire, which seems to recall the traditional Iranian division of the world in to seven regions, illustrates the division of the empire as follows:

“(1) the central region, Persis”

“(2) the western region encompassing Media and Elam”

“(3) the Iranian plateau encompassing Parthia, Aria, Bactria, Sogdiana, Chorasmia and Drangiana”

“(4) the borderlands: Archosia, Sattagydia, Gandara, Sind and Eastern Scythia.”

“(5) the western lowlands: Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia and Egypt.”

“(6) the northwestern region: encompassing Armenia, Cappadocia, Lydia, Overseas Scythians, Skudra and Petasos-Wearing Greeks.”

“(7) the southern coastal regions: Libya, Ethiopia, Maka and Caria.”

(Encyclopædia Iranica: Shahbazi)

Within these regions Darius, established 20 provinces, Satrapies. Each one had a governor, who was directly responsible to the king, a Satrap, and each satrapy had a fixed annual tribute. Herodotus provides us with a detailed list of the satrapies from West to East starting with Ionia, and names their annual tribute paid to the court as well. (Herodotus 3.90-97)

Most of the satraps appointed by Darius were Persian Noblemen, these were to administer the tax districts within the satrapies, and each one of these districts could again be subdivided to “sub-satrapies” and again into smaller entities. These had their own governors which had either been appointed by the “central court” or by the satrap him self. (Ibid)

To be able to ensure a fair evaluation of each satrapy, the king would send a committee of “trusted men” to assess the income and spending of each district in each satrapy. Babylonian documents from that period show the existence of a detailed land register with property boundaries, ownership and the assessment of the land were documented. Further the Elamite texts found in Persepolis, mention officials who “write people down” and “make enquiries”. (Ibid) In essence a central peoples registry was created in each satrapy and was used to assess taxes and probably also register able bodied men for the army levies.

To avoid concentration of power to one person alone, each satrap had a “Royal Secretary”, whose job was to observe the affairs of the state and also to communicate with the king. A “Royal Treasurer” was also working with the Satrap, safe guarding the provincial profits. Finally the “Garrison Commander”, who was in charge of the military units stationed in the satrapy, who was only responsible to the King. Additional inspections were carried out by “Royal Inspectors” who acted as the Kings eyes and ears; these had full authority over the Satrapial affairs and answered only to the king. (Ibid)

It seems as the “coordination of the imperial administration was the responsibility of the chancery whose head quarters were at Persepolis, Susa and Babylon. Thus the main cities of the empire such as Bactria, Ekbatana, Sardis, Dascylium and Memphis also must have had divisions. It is important to mention that bureaucratic organization was deeply rooted in the Middle East, and was also used by Cyrus and Cambyses in the earlier days of the empire, however Darius reformed it in accordance to the needs of a centralized empire. (Ibid)

He also introduced a new monetary system, which consisted of silver coins weighing 8 g, and gold coins weighing 5.4 g, which corresponded to 20 silver coins. The gold coins were called “Dareiko” or darics. (Ibid) However it is imperative to mention that most of the subject nations minted their own coins and used their own monetary system side by side with the new system introduced by Darius.

The new administration also helped to enhance trade and offer safe trade routes to the subject people, by building new roads and improving the road networks, by building way stations throughout the empire offering travel safety, and entitled authorized travellers to draw provisions and mounts. He also sponsored the buildings of canals and underground waterways. The imperial navy also kept the seas and the coasts of the empire safe and free from pirates, thus encouraging free trade between the subject lands. (Ibid)

However it is still important to mention that: “All freeborn inhabitants of the Achaemenid empire were considered subjects of the Persian king. Nevertheless, in some constituent elements of the empire quite different forms of political organization prevailed (e.g. monarchic, oligarchic, aristocratic, democratic, and theocratic), and rulers enjoyed autonomy in internal affairs.” (Encyclopædia Iranica, Dandamayev 3491: 631) This situation can be observed for instance in the island of Cyprus, the kingdom of Paphos, which will be reviewed thoroughly in the chapters to come.

However it is only fair to leave the last word of this chapter to Mr. Schaeder (1941: 29): “the great politics of the king [Darius I] reveal his clear understanding of what were possible and what necessary… the organizations which he established in the empire earn him the title of the greatest statesman of ancient East.”

Bibliography:

Cuyler Young Jr., T: “The Persian Empire: 2. The consolidation of the empire and its limits of growth under Darius and Xerxes”, in The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 4, Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, c.525 to 479 BC. In the series: The Cambridge Ancient History. John Boardman, N. G. L.

Hammond, D. M. Lewis, M. Ostwald (Eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2nd edition, November 24, 1988 (Page 63)

Dandamayev, M. “I. Citizenship in Achaemenid period” in “Citizenship”, “Encyclopædia Iranica ” (631-632) http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/citizenship#pt1

Herodotus, “Histories”: 3.89, 3.90-97

Schaeder, H.H : “Das persische Weltreich”,. In series: Vorträge der Friedrich-Wilhelms Univerität zu Breslaw. Braslau. 1941. (Page 29)

Shahbazi, A.S: “III. Darius I The Great” in “Darius”, “Encyclopædia Iranica” http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/darius-iii

Images:

Image 1: Map of the Achaemenid Empire.
([Webpage], http:http://karenswhimsy.com/map-of-persia.shtm)

Image 2: Persepolis, Naqsherustam, The façade of the Tomb of Darius I.
([Webpage], http://http://www.livius.org/a/iran/naqshirustam/darius_tomb.JPG)

The Achaemenid Empire Part 4: That of the Eunuch and Alexander

2012-10-02T22:59:00.001+02:00

After clearing away the "Greek Problem", it seemed that the Western part of the Empire, finally had calmed, as the Greeks warred amongst themselves. However, the problems at court persisted, and many kings were made and unmade.

The third son of Artaxerxes I, Ochus, became king and took the name Darius II in 423 B.C. Together with his wife Parysatis, he eliminated all opposition within the court. When he died in 405 B.C, his eldest son Arsaces, became king, and took the name Artaxerxes II. By this time Egypt again saw its chance and rebelled and managed to gain independence. (Roaf 1990: 213)

In 401 B.C the satrap of Sardis, Cyrus brother to the king, led an army of 10000 Greek mercenaries through Turkey and down to Euphrates to challenge his brother for the throne. However, he was killed during a battle of Cunaxa in Northern Babylon. His army consisting of Greek mercenaries suddenly found themselves in the heartland of the empire. Xenophon who was one of the generals of the 10000 mercenaries recorded their long march through Assyria, Armenia to the black sea, and back to Greece. (Ibid)

Battle of Cunaxa

During this period the “Ionian Problem” was again revived, and the peace treaty was broken as Sparta began to champion their cause. Thus Sparta started the war on Achaemenid ground in Asia Minor. This war, which lasted from 400 B.C to 394 B.C, was yet again unsuccessful, as the Corinthian War broke loose between the Spartans themselves, and the efforts of the King to build a new fleet in Cyprus paid off. Yet again after more then eighty years the Achaemenid fleet ruled the Aegean and entire Mediterranean Sea. (Encyclopædia Iranica, Volume 11 fascicle 3, Schmidt)

The Return of the 10,000 under Xenophon.

Victory of Alexander the Great on the Granicus.

However when Sparta withdrew from Asia Minor, another peace treaty was conceived, the King Peace, or the Peace of Antalcidas in 387 B.C. This peace treaty was more or less dictated by Artaxerxes II, so the Greeks thought. The terms of this treaty were as follows: “ the cities in Asia should belong to him [Artaxerxes II] just as the islands of Clazomenae and Cyprus, whereas the other Greek cities, both small and great, should remain autonomous, except for Lemnos, Imbros, and Skyros, which should belong to the Athenians just as before.” (Ibid) The war with west ended for a period, however the war within the Achaemenid court had just started.

When Artaxerxes II died in 359, his son Ochus was crowned as Artaxerxes III and assumed the throne. Becoming king one of his first actions was to remove any of his relations who could lay claim to the throne. There after he faced some serious revolts in the west, but the empire survived them, and he even managed to recapture the satrapy of Egypt. (Ibid: 214)

Five years within his rule his chief eunuch and the commander of the Achaemenid forces in Egypt, Bagoas, murdered him and made his son Arses king. However he only ruled for a year. (337-336 B.C) He tried to remove Bagoas, but was himself poisoned. Bagoas then made Darius, a second cousin of Arses king. The new and the last king of the Achaemenid dynasty, forced Bagoas to drink his own poison, and so ended the life of Bagoas the “King maker”. (Ibid)

After removing Bagoas, Darius III set out to restore his empire. In his first year he invaded Egypt, as Egypt had again rebelled after the death of Artaxerxes III, but it was already to late. In 334 B.C Alexander entered the scene as the king of Macedonia, and led his army against a tired and worn out empire. (Ibid)

As Alexander led his armies through the vast Achaemenid Empire, Darius III’s army faced defeat after defeat. Three major battles ended in defeat, at Granicus in 334 B.C, the following year at Issus and after the Macedonian invasion of Egypt, at Gaugamela, near ancient Nineveh in 331 B.C. (Ibid)

Scene drawn from the famous "The Alexander Mosaic, dating from circa 100 BC, is a famous Roman floor mosaic originally from the House of the Faun inPompeii. It depicts a battle between the armies of Alexander the Great and Darius III of Persia and measures 5.82 x 3.13m (19 ft x 10 ft 3in). The original is preserved in the Naples National Archaeological Museum." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Mosaic)
Showing the Battle of Issus

In the battle of Gaugemela, Darius retreated with his personal bodyguards, but to no avail, as the Achaemenid army was destroyed by the Macedonian hoards. This left Alexander the conqueror of the Achaemenid Empire complete with its palaces and treasuries. (Ibid)

Alexander is shown the slain body of Darius the III.

The last Achaemenid king, Darius III, was betrayed by his bodyguards and murdered. The final end of the vast empire came with the burning of Persepolis by Alexander. (Ibid)

An empire was burned and became dust, however it left behind a vast legacy in culture, law, literature if not by the Persians, the Greeks were immensely inspired by the Persians and their way and view of life.

Bilbliography:

Roaf, M:“ Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia”, New York: Facts on File, c1990

VOLUME 11 FASCICLE 3: R. Schmitt, “I.Greco-Persian Political Relations” in “Greece”, “Relations with Persian Empire”, “Encyclopædia Iranica”. http://www.iranica.com/articlenavigation/index.html

All images are from: http://karenswhimsy.com/persian-army.shtm

The Achaemenid Empire part 3: The Greek wars.

2012-06-13T11:30:00.000+02:00

After the death of Darius, one of the most successful rulers of the Achaemenid Dynasty, his son Xerxes by his wife Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus the Great, became king, thus carrying Cyrus' bloodline through his mother.

Audience Scene showing Darius on throned with Crown Prince Xerxes behind him. The National Museum of Iran.

Image 1: Xerxes, Persepolis insitu

However Xerxes, is mostly known in sources written by the Greeks, for his unsuccessful capture of Greece. His first attempt to carry on where his father had left was by leading an army counting almost 2 million men across the Dardanelles on a bridge formed by boats. Trying to avoid bad weather off the coast of Mount Athos, he had a canal dug through the promontory, so that he could move his armies safely across. (Roaf 1990: 213)

The army’s march southward towards Athens was easily achieved as they overcame the Spartans defending Thermopylae pass in the road to Athens. Xerxes managed to finally capture Athens. However the Achaemenid naval forces lost to the Athenians at the battle of Salamis, thus forcing the Achaemenid forces to leave Athens for their winter camps in the north to re-group and re-plan their actions. (Ibid)

The following year general Mardonius lead the Achaemenid army southwards and recaptured Athens, but he was killed at the battle of Platae and his men were again defeated by Greeks. In August 479 B.C the Greeks defeated the Achaemenid army at Mycale, causing Xerxes to reconsider the whole idea of capturing Greece. (Ibid)

Battle of Thermopylae and movements to Salamis 480 BC

It is however important to mention that mainland Greece was of somewhat “Peripheral interest” to the Achaemenian empire’s main interests, while these frontier battles were fought the rest of the empire remained intact and at peace. (Ibid)

The Greeks considered the Achaemenid losses in Salamis, Mycale and Platae as very important, since it had convinced them that the Achaemenian army was not invincible, and that its navy no longer ruled the seas. (Ibid)

Battle of salamis

Image 2: tomb of Xerxes, Persepolis.

By 465 B.C Xerxes died. According to Cetesias a Greek doctor in the Achaemenid court, Xerxes was murdered by three of his courtiers. They managed to accuse his eldest son of the deed, and then another son to murder the eldest. This son finally became king and took the throne name of Artaxerxes I. (Ibid)

During the reign of Artaxerxes I, the Attic-Delian League, which had been founded in 478 B.C by Athens, had become a powerful adversary in the Aegean Sea. Their forceful strategy since 478 B.C, had led to several futile attempts to free the “Greeks” in Cyprus and also to military confrontation for instance in Egypt. Finally the hostilities and constant fighting came to an end in 449 B.C, by a peace treaty, the Peace of Kallias. (Encyclopædia Iranica, Volume 11 fascicle 3, Schmidt) The terms that were agreed upon were: “…in return for Athenian agreement that they would no longer send expeditions into Persian territory, the king agreed not to send his army west of the River Halys, nor his fleet west for Lycia.” (Sekunda 1992: 19)

Image 3: The Tomb of Artaxerxes I, Persepolis.

It appears that nothing more happened at least in the western part of the empire but there were major problems within the Achaemenid court. The intrigues within the court somewhat intensified and after twenty years on the throne Artaxerxes I died, and 3 of his sons become kings in a very quick successions since the first two were murdered within a few months of their reign. (Roaf 1990: 213)

Bilbliography:

Roaf, M:“ Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia”, New York: Facts on File, c1990
Sekunda, N: “The Persian Army 550-330 BC.” London: Osprey Publishing Ltd. 1992

Sources for Images:
Image 1: http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis/xerxes/damaged_xerxes.JPG
Image 2: http://oi.uchicago.edu/gallery/pa_iran_paai_per_rtom/index.php/7E7_72dpi.png?action=big&size=original

Image 3: http://oi.uchicago.edu/gallery/pa_iran_paai_per_rtom/index.php/7F4_72dpi.png?action=big&size=original

The Acheamenid Empire, Part 2: The Coup d'etat.

2012-06-08T11:30:00.000+02:00

After the death of Cyrus the Great, the crown was passed to his son, Cambyses had been by his father’s side during the conquest of Babylon, and received the title king of Babylon, ruling alongside his father. He ruled from 529BC to 522 B.C. During his short period of kingship his greatest achievement was adding Egypt in 525 B.C to the Achaemenian Empire. After defeating the Egyptian Pharaoh at Pelusium, he was crowned Pharaoh according to the Egyptian customs. He now assumed the role of Pharaoh, even the religious functions of the Pharaoh. (Roaf 1990:206)

Cambyses in Egypt, According to Herodotus, he killed the Apis Bull and comitted grave sacrilege.
However, Egyptologists have refuted Herodotus' story.
It is a fact that an Apis bull died in September 524, but he received a normal burial in the Serapeum at Saqqara (near Memphis)

Cambyses left Egypt in 522 B.C, but he perished during his journey to his Iranian homeland. His successor Darius, gave a detailed description of the incidents concerning the kings death, and his own ascension to the thrown. He had the account carved in stone in the main languages of the empire (Old Persian, Babylonian, Elamite cuneiform) on the face of the rock of Bisutun situated on the main route from Babylon to Hamadan. He also had the account translated into the local languages of the empire and had them sent to their respective locations. Copies have been found in Babylon and even in Elephantine in Egypt. (Ibid)

This famous account described how Cambyses had his own brother Smerdis (Bardiya) secretly assassinated previous to his campaign to Egypt. However a “Magus”, a Median priest, who was called Gaumata, posed as Smerdis and supposedly seized the Achaemenian throne in Cambyses absence. He even managed to get the acknowledgement of the people of Media, Persia and the other satrapies. (Ibid: 207)

Hearing about this Cambyses supposedly committed suicide. Since no one resisted the false ruler Gaumata, Darius leading a group of seven noblemen, saw it as his duty to remove the impostor from the throne. The “the false Smerdis” was found and slain by the conspirators on 29th of September 522 B.C, and Darius assumed the throne. (Ibid)

Image 1: The behistun Inscription, showing the rebel kings,
note Smerdis beneath Darius' feet.

It has been argued that the true run of events is probably somewhat differed from the account described by Darius. It has been suggested that “the false Smerdis” was in fact the real one, and that he had rebelled in his brother’s absence and seized the throne. Cambyses on his way back to settle the issue, probably either died of natural causes or by wounds, or assassinated. Thus it would have been the real Smerdis who then would have been killed by the conspirators. (Ibid) However it is quit difficult to know what really happened, as propaganda was widely used both by Darius and Herodotus who re-told the story in his Histories.

Image 2: The Behistun Inscription today.

Assuming the royal throne of the Achaemenid Empire, Darius could not have been in the direct line of succession, as both his grandfather and father were both alive when he was crowned. However it is obvious that he was of nobility as his father, Hystaspes was the satrap of Parthia, and on the same rock-face mentioned above, he traces his ancestry back 5 generations back to his great-great grandfather: Teispes, and his great-great-great grandfather: Achamenes. (Ibid) Which relates him to Cyrus.

After Smerdis’ death rebellions had broken out in Persia, Elam, Media, Assyria, Egypt, Parthia, Margiana, Sattagydia and Scythia. Within a year of his succession Darius subdued them all. At the same time he managed to eliminate all opposition within the court, and also made alliances through marriages. To further his claims to the throne he married the surviving female descendants of Cyrus. One of these women was Atossa, daughter Cyrus, and also wife of Cambyses and Smerdis. She later became mother to Xerxes the next king in line, thus the line of Cyrus prevailed and was carried to the last Achaemenian king. (Ibid: 207, 213)

Statue of Darius, made in Egypt. National Museum of Iran.

Darius came to be one of the most successful rulers in the Achaemenid Dynasty, as he not only re-organized the empire into individual satrapies, he also created a “common” identity through the entire empire. These aspects will be discussed further in the following chapters.

Darius also extended the Achaemenid Empire into Europe by occupying Thrace and also crossed the Danube in pursuit of the Scythian tribes. He also ventured deeper into the east and the land of the Indians, and added the satrapy of Indus to the empire, which now consisted of, according to Herodotus, 20 satrapies in total. However there are some inconsistencies in the satrapies and boundaries mentioned by Herodotus and those mentioned in the Achaemenid reliefs and inscriptions. (Ibid: 209)

Image 3: The Achaemenid Empire in its height of Power.

However by 499 B.C the Greek subjects on the Ionian Islands and the “Greek city-kingdoms of Cyprus” joined forces and rebelled. They managed to attack and sack the city of Sardis, the capital of the Satrapy of Lydia. The island of Cyprus, which probably became part of the empire at the same time as Egypt, was recaptured quickly. However the struggle in the Aegean Sea lasted longer. The crucial battle took place off the coast of the island of Lade in the fall of 494 B.C. The Achaemenid army with 600 ships consisting of Phoenicians, Egyptians, Clicians and Cypriots outnumbered the Greek contingency. With the help of promises of clemency by the king to those who submitted, the Achaemenid army inflicted a heavy loss on the Greek side, and thus quenched the Ionian rebel. (Ibid: 212)

Image 4: Persepolis, Naqsherustam,
The façade of the tomb of Darius I.

After the submission of the “Asiatic Greeks”, Darius turned his attention towards the western part of the Aegean. As mentioned above, parts of the coast of Thrace was already under Achaemenian control. Darius strengthened this position with an army led by Mardonius in 492 B.C. However even though the landing in the Greek mainland was successful, the Achaemenian army was heavily defeated by the Athenians at Marathon, and also failed to capture Athens from the Sea, since the Athenians rushed back to defend their coastal border. Hence Darius called off the capture of mainland Greece. (Ibid)

In 486 B.C, another satrapy rebelled, this time it was Egypt. However Darius died before he could deal with this rebellion. As mentioned above, his son Xerxes by his wife Atossa, was crowned king. He was faced with two rebellions quite early in his reign, one in Egypt as mentioned, and another in Babylon. He quenched them both shortly after. (Ibid: 213)

Bibliography:
Roaf, M:“ Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia”, New York: Facts on File, c1990

Image Sources:
Image 1: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Languages/aryan/aryan_language.htm
Image 2: http://www.livius.org/a/1/iran/relief3.JPG
Image 3: http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/persian-empire-at-its-height.html
Image 4: http://www.livius.org/a/iran/naqshirustam/darius_tomb.jpg

The Achaemenid Empire Part 1, The Rise of The Persians.

2012-06-04T14:42:00.004+02:00

The history of the Achaemenid Empire also known as Persia by the Greeks and as Iran by the Iranians themselves began with the merging of two of the mightiest tribes in the Iranian plateau, the Medes and the Persians. Within a span of a few years the Iranian tribe societies within the Plateau evolved to be one of the largest and long lasting empires that the Middle East had seen in its time.

When the Assyrian empire ruled in the Middle East, the Medes were settled in the lush valleys in the north-western part of present-day Iran. The neighbouring Persian tribes inhabited parts of the central Zagros Mountains, and another group were settled in Anshan or Persis in the modern day province of Fars. (Roaf 1990:203)

Image 1
Map showing the extent of the Median Empire.

The Medes seem to have been the first of the two tribes to start an expansion of their territory. In 612 B.C the king of Medes, Cyaxares, captured Nineveh and added the city to his kingdom, in addition to filling his treasury with riches from the city. Unfortunately very little is known about the Median Empire, as it came to dominate most of the Iranian homeland, and parts of Anatolia. Few references made by foreigners are all that can be relied on, as no attempts to excavate their royal capital in Hamadan has been attempted. (Ibid)

By 590 B.C the Medes had conquered their way to Anatolia, and Cyaxares was fighting the Lydian king Alyattes. The fighting carried on for 5 years until 28th of May when the famous total eclipse occurred. Herodotus mentions that it alarmed both of the armies so greatly, that they decided to negotiate peace, upon which the Halys River became the border between the two kingdoms. (Ibid: 202)

After the peace treaty with the Lydians, son of Cyaxares, Astyages, became the rulers of the medians and ruled for 35 years. It is curios that he is hardly mentioned in the western sources and hence it could be that he was occupied with conquests within the Iranian homeland. (Ibid: 203)

By 559 B.C, another power was taking shape in the Iranian Plateau. Cyrus, who later became known as Cyrus the Great, took the throne of the Persians. Many fantastic tales follow the birth of Cyrus, but he himself stated, “…that he was the son of Cambyses, the grandson of Cyrus and a descendant of Teispes, of all whom had been kings of Anshan.” (Ibid: 203)

Cyrus the Great as imagined by an European artist.

According to Herodotus the Persian tribes were then under the rule of the Medes. Cyrus supposedly managed to persuade them to rebel against the Medes. The king of the Medes Astyages supposedly attacked Cyrus in Nabonidus’ sixth year in 550 B.C, according to the Babylonian Chronicles. The story continues and seemingly the Median army, for some reason refused to take to arms against Cyrus and handed their king over to him. Cyrus then marched to their capital and emptied the treasury before returning to Anshan. By this time the Achaemenid Empire had conquered its first kingdom, which extended from the river Halys to the Iranian plateau.(Ibid)

After the disappearance of the Median kingdom, Croesus the ruler of the Lydians saw his chance to extend his territory to the previously Mede-controlled area. Before doing so he consulted the great oracle of Delphi and it predicted that a great empire would diminish if he attacked. Confidant that the oracle referred to the Achaemenid Empire, Croesus crossed the agreed border, the river Halys, and plunged him self and his kingdom into war. (Ibid: 202)

He encountered the Achaemenid army led by Cyrus himself at Pteria, however the encounter ended in a deadlock. The Lydians decided to go back to their capital city of Sardis to regroup, however Cyrus took pursuit and laid siege to Sardis. Within a short period, in 547 B.C, the Lydian empire fell. (Ibid) Within the same year Median generals appointed by Cyrus, conquered the coastal cities of Lycia and Caria, and the Ionian islands. (Ibid: 204)

In 539 B.C, another mighty kingdom fell to the Achaemenid army. Cyrus decided to march against Babylon, and in late September/early October his army defeated the Babylonian contingent in the city of Opis. He moved further into the Babylonian heartland, and captured Sippar on 10th of October, and two days later Babylon was conquered unopposed as it opened its gates to receive Cyrus. (Ibid)

Cyrus marching into Babylon, as imagined by an European artist.

Leaving behind a legacy of benevolence, the father of the Achaemenid dynasty, Cyrus the Great, died in the summer of 530 B.C. His death was probably caused by wounds, which he received while fighting the nomadic tribes in Central Asia. After his death his empire now including the Median, Babylonian, Lydia, Lycia, Caria and the Ionian islands, passed to his son, Cambyses. (Ibid: 206)

Image 2: The Tomb of Cyrus the Great, located in Pasargardeh, surrounded then by gardens.
According to Plutarch his Epitaph read:"O man, whoever you are and wherever you come from, for I know you will come, I am Cyrus who won the Persians their empire. Do not therefore begrudge me this bit of earth that covers my bones."

References.
Roaf, M:“ Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia”, New York: Facts on File, c1990
Image 1: http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/oriental_empires_600_bc.htm
Image 2: http://www.livius.org/a/iran/pasargadae/pasargadae_tomb_cyrus_1.JPG

Dogs in Ancient Iran

2012-02-24T18:13:00.002+01:00

A hard working guard dog from Dal Ahoo,
Kermanshah

Dog, Canis familiaris.

Persian: Sag, (sagtūla: Puppy. Hapoo: term of endearment)

The first animal to be domesticated by the humans according to the fossil records found is the humble dog. From wolf, Canis lupus
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/3746/0),
“mans best friend”, Canis familiaris was bred and raised.

One of the first remains of “mans best friend” were found in Palegawra cave in North eastern Iraq, and these were dated 12 000 PB (before 1950). It seems that these remains might have been the ancestors of today’s “Kurdish dog”. (Olsen p.71-72) http://www.flickr.com/photos/56412118@N00/5453211686/in/photostream/, here are some photos of the Kurdish dogs.

A very much loved pet, and hapoo, Sam.

In the Iranian Plateau, the dog was thought to have been domesticated in Kuzestan by 5500 BC, and the its wolf ancestor though to be Canis lupus pallipes. http://www.cosmosmith.com/iranian_wolves.asp

A little dog from the Teheran National Museum

The pre-Islamic Iranians had a special affinity toward dogs. According to the myths of the pre-Islamic era, “…all animals were created from the purified semen of the primordial bull.” The dog was created to protect man’s possessions against wolves. A dog was thought to be able to “repel evil with a mere gaze.”

Even the name given to mans best friend by the Iranians, shows the warmth and love felt towards the dogs. The word Sag itself, derives from seh-yek which means 1/3, as the ancient Iranians thought 1/3 of the dogs essence was human.

In the Zoroastrian religion, dogs are paramount in every home, as they are mentioned frequently in the holy scriptures. For instance, Ahura Mazda mentions: “No house would stand “firmly founded” for me on the Ahura-created earth were there not my herd dog or house dog.” Further more Husparam Nask mentions the correct quantities of food for men, women, children and not least the three kind of dogs. (Denkard 8.37.1) These three kind of dogs were the guard dog, the sheep dog and the hunting dog. However all in all 10 types of dogs are mentioned in the Avesta. In the Vendidad 13.35, its stated that “a sick dog is to be looked after as carefully as a sick person, and a bitch in whelp as solicitously as a woman with child (Vd. 15.19). Further more puppies were to be cared for 6 months, and children for 7 years." (Vd.15.45).

A little dog from the Tehran National Museum, looking a bit like a
German Shepard!

The importance of the dog is highlighted through the Holy Scriptures even through humour, in Vendidad 13.44-48, there is an account of how the dog combines the characteristics of 8 kind of people. Ahura Mazda created the dog as “self - clothed, self-shod, alertly watchful, sharp-toothed, sharing food of men, to watch over (man’s) possessions.” (Vd.13.39) Even the food given is stated, “…that a dog is to be given milk and fat together with meat." (Vd. 13.28).

In Saddar natr 31.1 it is stated that “when ever people eat, they should keep back three morsels from them selves and give them to a dog.” One was rewarded for this deed by being saved from the torments in hell, while not feeding dogs would bring down suffering and torment in hell.

Not only were the dogs the protector, the hunter and herder, the dog was also used in mortuary rituals of the Zoroastrians.

A stone carving found in Persepolis, from the Achaemenid period,
Teheran National Museum.

First and fore most is the Sagdid, which means “seen by the dog”. When somebody died, a male dog not younger then 4 months old, was brought to look at the corpse before the corpse was carried of to the Dakma (Towers of silence). “This rite was carried out three times, when the corpse was placed on the bier, out side of the dakma, and also during each gah if the funeral were delayed.”

Since the dog was perceived to be able to repel evil, it was part of the funerary procession, to repel or purify away the Nasu, the corpse demon which brings forth putrefaction. So close were the bounds between humans and dogs that it was only the corpses of these which was believed to be able to bring forth Nasu. A dogs corpse was to be carried like a human's to place of exposure, so it would not contaminate the earth, water nor fire. This was because the dog and human were held to be of high moral character, and the corpses were thought to be surrounded by triumphant evil powers, and so it was highly contaminated.

All this respect and the close bond between men and dog of course are now history in Iran, as the Muslim faith deems the dog as najes, or unclean.

The dogs in Iran do not enjoy the love and respect their ancestors received, but a there is still hope! A wonderful Dog shelter, Vafaa, which is run by volunteers helps and re-homes dogs where ever they can. http://vafaanimalshelter.blogspot.com/

So our Iranian dogs are faring a bit better.

This blog is based on the article about dogs from: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dog

A stone carving of a Mastiff - like dog, found in Persepolis, Achaemenid Period.
Teheran National Museum.

"The truth Behind the Tablets" in this issue of "Archaeology"

2012-01-31T16:08:00.000+01:00

http://www.archaeology.org/1201/features/persepolis_clay_tablets_iran_elamite_cuneiform.html

A very interesting article about the plight of the Fortification tablets and their uses in uncovering the mystery that is the Persian/Achaemenid Empire.

Statue of Darius I, made in Egypt.
The archives of Persepolis were started under his reign.

The «Dream Team» of scholars, linguists, historians and archaeologists at the Oriental Institute in the Chicago University, have managed to piece together this immense wealth of information of the daily run of an empire had to offer. From food vouchers for the travelling «Eye and Ear» of the king, to the taxation reports of the farms in Egypt, they all have been meticulously written and reported and archived on clay tablets and these were kept in Persepolis. After survivng the sack of Persepolis by Alxander in 310 B.C, they lingered for over 2000 years to be found by the archaeologist Ernest Herzfeld in 1930. They were boxed in 2353 boxes and shipped to Chicago to be studied.

However politics have changed in the last years, and these tablets are in the middle of a tug of war between being seized for either the auction bloc or being sent back to a dreary non-existense in a dark archive somewhere in Tehran.

These tablets are one of the corner stones in the elusive Achaemenid Historiography. It is one of the few records that is remaining of the Achaemenid Empire. Lets hope that for this short period where rget are still in the same building together, more information can be distracted from them, before they are scattered around the world.

Mass Burial of executed "Jomsvikings" or "Jomsvikings wanna-bee's" in Dorset

2012-01-25T11:27:00.002+01:00

The burial site which was discovered in 2009 in Ridgeway Hill, Dorset seems to have contained Viking mercenaries.

Dr Britt Baillie suggests that the 54 decapitated men were methodically killed, well I would say executed really, and apparently the head was severed from the front as well (I don’t understand why the wording used in the BBC article refers to the execution as “…murdered methodically and beheaded in an unusual fashion from the front.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-16708401) The burial it self contained the bodies and the heads, while the heads were all piled up to one side, and the bodies to the other.

Never the less, what is interesting about the whole thing is that the carbon dating and the isotope tests showed that the skeletons were Scandinavian and they were dated to 11^th Century AD. This might correlate with the order given by Aethelred the Unready to cull all Danish men settled in England on the 13^th of November, which is St Brice’s Day in the year of 1002 AD. The reason of the culling was the constant attacks by the Vikings on the South Coast of England. Other burials found in Oxford, London, Bristol and Gloucester also bears evidence of the cull of the Danish Vikings.

For a change it seems that the archaeological data fits nicely with the recorded history.

However, Dr. Baillie also draws attention to another interesting find, she has found evidence of these men to be imitators of Jomsvikings or even mayhaps even be Jomsvikings, as they were recorded by Queen Emma, Aethelred’s second wife in England during this time led by Thorkel the Tall.

The Jomsviking were known for their military prowess and strict codes in the Medieval world.

Dr. Baillie argues that the incisions found on some of the skeletons teeth could suggest that the man him self filed them to show his bravery and power. She argues that they are either parts of the fabled band or trying to imitate them.

To learn more about the "Jomsvikings" read the story about them in the Icelandic Sagas, called the Jomsvikinga Saga: http://vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Saga%20of%20the%20Jomsvikings.pdf

The Valley of the Kings Yields Another Tomb

2012-01-16T17:11:00.000+01:00

The Valley of the Kings, the Songstress Nemes Bastet

A female temple Songstress named Nehmes Bastet, daughter of the high priest of Amon, was buried within the Valley of the kings between 945-712 BC, placing her in the 22^nd Dynasty.

This burial is the first of its kind in the Valley, as previously found tombs contained only members of the Royal family.

The coffin it self is reported to be intact and is going to be opened this week.

The sarcophagus is said to be made of wood and pained black with hieroglyphic descriptions. The Egyptologists presume that the mummy it self will have a moulded burial face mask.

It seems that the burial chamber was “recycled”, as it pre-dates the sarcophagus by some 400 years.

The burial is very important as it shows that the Valley of the Kings was not only reserved for the Royal Family as previously thought. This mummy is the second to have been found since the mummy of Tuth-Ankh-Amon in 1922.

It only goes to show how much more hidden treasures of material culture there is to find in The Valley of the Kings, which will teach us more about ancient Egypt and its customs.

There has been no word whether there was any burial goods found with this mummy yet.

Blog source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16576265

Rest assured, the world will not end on 21/12/2012!

2011-12-02T14:25:00.001+01:00

A new reading and (translation?) of the famous Mayan Tablet, mentioning 12/2012, believed to have prophesied the end of the world, suggests it is merely describing the beginning of a new era, an era born out of the return of the God of war and creation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16000331

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/883590-apocalypse-on-hold-but-god-bolon-yokte-is-coming-next-year-apparently

Hm... interesting, still it is describing the "end of an era", the start of it by the return the God, Bolon Yokte, on the 21/12/2012. A god of war and creation, possibly creating havoc, and then brining calm and serenity. So maybe not so much of an Armageddon but still a change of state. Then again it depends in which context this is understood. Whether it suppose to be understood in the "state of mind" type of change, or taken for a physical change. I guess only the Mayans can answer that.

Interesting isn’t it? All cultures and major religions prophesies the end of their own era, and the birth of the “perfect state”.

We humans seems to glorify what can be, while ignoring what we have. Instead of striving to make our current life perfect, we dream of a “perfect state” after our death.

Pre-Inca Sacrificed babies found in Peru

2011-11-21T11:12:00.001+01:00

Bodies of 44 children aged between newborn and 3 years of age were found at the Sillustani archaeological site in Peru.

The 44 children were found buried in pairs and entombed in baskets placed around “stone funerary towers”. (Like the on the right)

It has been suggested that they belong to the “Kolla Culture”, dating between 1200 - 1450 AD.

The children were probably sacrificed during a period of unrest and conflict between rivalling neighbours.

A great article by Jamsheed K. Choksy for CNN

2011-11-15T15:13:00.001+01:00

A great article written by Prof. Jamsheed K Chosky of Indiana University, he is the Professor of India Studies

, Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies and Affiliated Faculty in International Studies. http://newsinfo.iu.edu/sb/page/normal/1014.html

Very insightful and interesting article, showing how the "So-called" Religious Freedom act stated

in the Iranian Constitution is being more and more ignored.

He also points out some of the problems the small Zoroastrian community faces in their every day life.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/14/opinion/choksy-iran-zoroastrian/index.html?hpt=wo_t2

A short article about Zarathustra on Livius.com

http://www.livius.org/za-zn/zarathustra/zarathustra.htm