Читать книгу A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set - Группа авторов - Страница 129

Bruno Jacobs and David Stronach†

In the absence of any written records from pre‐Achaemenid Media, and in the absence – until not very long ago – of any archeological evidence from the Median homeland that could be associated with the Medes in the 200 years that preceded Cyrus II's capture of the Median capital, Hagmatana (modern Hamadan), in 550 BCE, the Median Logos of Herodotus (1. 95–106) long remained the only readily available, seemingly broadly acceptable history of the ancient Medes. Thus, even if Herodotus' description of ancient Hagmatana was never taken to be anything but fanciful (cf. Herzfeld 1941: p. 200), most scholars were content – at least until the early 1980s – to accept the Herodotean portrayal of the Medes as the rulers of an extended empire that was somewhat similar in character and extent to the subsequent Achaemenid Persian realm. This general acceptance of the Herodotean version of Median history was influential, not least, in terms of the different areas of expertise that the Medes were presumed to have possessed. Such areas were thought to have included the maintenance of written records, an ability to carve bas‐reliefs, and the necessary skills to create the first rock‐cut tombs in Iran (cf. Ghirshman 1964: p. 89).

The unraveling of such suppositions began when it was discovered that the rock‐cut tombs in Media were either late Achaemenid or post‐Achaemenid in date (von Gall 1966) and that Herodotus' account of the history of Media (including his allusions to a Median royal house that dated as far back as the eighth century BCE) bore little relationship to the nature of events in western Iran that is reflected in the annals of Assyria (Helm 1981). Not long thereafter the very existence of a Median empire came to be called into question – and even the presence of a short‐lived, united Median kingdom came to be doubted (Sancisi‐Weerdenburg 1988). More recently, it has been proposed that the Medes put an end to their “political formations” and reverted to a “stage of tribal pastoralism” during the last 60 years of their independent existence from c. 610 to 550 BCE (Liverani 2003: p. 9). For many scholars this last verdict is far from necessarily correct; and, from an archeological perspective, the evidence that stems from recent excavations and surveys serves to affirm that, in overarching terms, continued permanent settlement in Media did not end in the late seventh century BCE (cf. Stronach and Roaf 2007: p. 49). In addition, monumental construction appears to have persisted at various sites (Stronach 2003: p. 237) and an early form of money was apparently in use in the heart of Media at a date near 600 BCE (Vargyas 2008). In short, it is more than likely that a united Median kingdom managed to control a major part of northern Iran during at least the first half of the sixth century BCE (Stronach 2012a).

Of the material remains of the province of the same name that emerged as a successor to ancient Media in Achaemenid times (Jacobs 2005: pp. 449–450) we know remarkably little. A variety of classical sources states that Ecbatana – the name that the Greeks gave to Hagmatana, the capital of the province of Media – was one of the principal residences of the Achaemenid Persian kings (Xen., Cyr. 8.6.22; Xen., Anab. 3.5.15; Str. 11.13.5; Ath. 12.513; Curt. 10.4.3). Unfortunately, however, extensive excavations in the original core area of Hagmatana have so far failed to reveal any coherent Achaemenid remains. As we now know, this puzzling situation seems to have arisen because at some point in the second century BCE all pre‐hellenistic strata in this key locality were removed in their entirety in order to permit certain late Seleucid or early Parthian barrack‐like structures to be founded directly on virgin soil (Sarraf 2003; Boucharlat 2005: pp. 253–254; Stronach 2012b: p. 55). In these circumstances the best archeological evidence for the importance of Hagmatana in early Achaemenid times may be said to come from adjoining trilingual inscriptions in the names of Darius (522–486 BCE) and Xerxes (486–465 BCE) that were cut into an eastern rock spur of Mount Alvand (DEa and XEa), located a few kilometers to the southwest of the city (Lecoq 1997: pp. 126–127; Curtis 2000, illustration 43; here Figure 16.1). Whether or not this evident royal interest in the cool, forested foothills that flank the western side of the city could be thought to account for a notice in Pliny (HN 6.116), to the effect that “Ecbatana” was “transferred” to the mountains by Darius I, is difficult to say. An alternative possibility is that the inscriptions in question were merely placed on one of the more readily available, inviting rock surfaces that stood in the near vicinity of this vaunted Achaemenid capital.

Figure 16.1 Ganj Nameh, Inscriptions of Darius I (DEa) and Xerxes I (XEa).

Source: Reproduced by permission of Gian Pietro Basello – DARIOSH Project.

The best available indication of Achaemenid construction in Hagmatana comes from the local presence of a number of inscribed stone column bases (A²Ha, b, d), even if their exact, original context remains unknown (Knapton et al. 2001). One inscribed base in particular carries an Old Persian inscription (A²Hb) of Artaxerxes II (404–359 BCE) in which the king relates that he built an apadana – a palace – “of stone in its columns” (Kent 1953: p. 155). While this inscription forms part of the inscribed evidence of Achaemenid date that is often invoked in order to suggest that an apadana was erected at Hagmatana/Ecbatana (as was the case at Susa), it is also relevant to note that Polybius offers a detailed description of a local Persian palace that was still in existence in the days of Alexander (Polyb. 10.27; cf. Ctes., FGrH 688 F9). According to Polybius' account, the woodwork of this structure was all of cedar and cypress, but no wooden surface was originally left exposed because every part was plated with either silver or gold. Polybius goes on to observe that “most of the precious metals were stripped off in the invasion of Alexander… and the rest during the reigns of Antigonus and Seleucus.” At the same time it would be arbitrary to conclude that certain inscribed stone elements, even when they bear inscriptions in the name of Artaxerxes II, should necessarily be associated with a palace or sanctuary in which this same monarch is said to have erected a statue of Anāhitā (Beros., FGrH. 680 F11; cf. Plut., Artax. 27.3; Isid. Char., FGrH 781 F2,6).

While there is a nearly complete dearth of scientifically excavated Achaemenid materials from Hamadan, the art market has not hesitated to invoke this same provenience for a wide range of objects, including both forgeries and other items that have come to light through clandestine operations (Muscarella 1980: pp. 31–35; cf. Chapter 105 The Achaemenid Empire and Forgery: Material Culture). Prominent among other objects with a dubious status are the well‐known gold tablets with late Achaemenid inscriptions written in the names of Ariaramnes and Arsames (AmH and AsH: Schmitt 1999: pp. 105–111) as well as duplicates of the foundation texts that were found in the Apadana at Persepolis (DHa: Lecoq 1997: pp. 218–219; cf. the discussion of these items in Mousavi 2012: pp. 43–44 with n.121; see also Chapter 104 Achaemenid Empire and Forgery: Inscriptions).

The knowledge that we currently possess of the mud‐brick architecture of Media in the seventh and early sixth centuries BCE (cf. Stronach and Roaf 2007: pp. 181–182) may begin to allow us to speculate on various aspects of the character of the smaller settlements that must have typified the province of Media in Achaemenid times. To start with, Media's absorption into the far‐flung Achaemenid Empire must have produced an altogether new sense of security. As a result, people who had previously chosen to reside, if at all possible, on clearly defensible, rock outcrops or on the often considerable heights of long‐established prehistoric mounds, would have not taken long to abandon such locations in favor of new habitations that stood at the same level as their orchards and fields. In these new conditions the main arbiter of location would have been the availability of water. And in many cases the recently available technology of the qanat (cf. Wilkinson 2012: pp. 16–27) was no doubt used to bring cool, clean water from distant, underground aquifers to the exact point where surface water was required.

While Achaemenid builders frequently included worked stone elements in major structures, we can be sure that everyday construction in the countryside would have largely depended on mud‐bricks, mud‐brick struts and wood. In addition, it is important to note that, while the standard mud‐brick in independent Media was oblong in shape and measured c. 40 × 24 × 12 cm in size, the Achaemenids introduced a smaller, square mud‐brick that was normally 34 × 34 × 12 cm in size. Indeed, it is changes in brick sizes – not to mention subtle changes in pottery – that will no doubt ultimately allow archeologists to plot the still missing patterns of rural settlement that must have characterized the broad plains of Media in Achaemenid times (cf. Boucharlat 2005; Curtis 2005).

As to the likely appearance of the settlements in question, most villages were presumably characterized by a preponderance of flat‐roofed, single‐storied houses. Also, on the evidence of not‐too‐far‐distant rock‐cut tombs of the late fourth/early third centuries BCE, certain of the houses may well have been marked by porticoes with elegant wooden ceilings and two or more wooden columns (cf. especially Herzfeld 1941: fig. 312).

Since archeobotanical studies of the excavated Median and Parthian plant remains from Tepe Nush‐i Jan indicate that emmer, bread wheat and barley were grown in both these periods (Kylo and Hubbard 1981), it is only logical to suppose that these same cereals were among those that were cultivated locally in the interval between these periods. Parallel studies of the animal bone sample from the Median and Parthian settlements at Tepe Nush‐i Jan are also informative. In both Median and Parthian times cattle remained the main source of meat. The real revelation, however, is the very varied character of the local horse population in these two periods. In this context the bone sample indicates that the famed pastures of Media were home to (i) large, heavy horses (with a withers height of over 150 cm), to (ii) horses of a median size (with a withers height of 135–137 cm), as well as to (iii) a miniature form of horse (such as very possibly represents an independent breed) with an average withers height of only 105–110 cm (Bökönye 1978: p. 28).

With reference to the extent to which Achaemenid art and architecture can be said to be indebted to prior Median achievements, it has recently been suggested that the innovative columned halls of eighth/seventh century Media may not have had quite such a strong influence on the evolution of the famed columned halls of Pasargadae and Persepolis as was once imagined (Gopnik 2010: p. 196). On the other hand it is clear that a number of motifs that are found in the monumental mud‐brick architecture of Media eventually re‐emerged as elegant designs, rendered both in stone and in other materials, in various late sixth‐century and later Achaemenid contexts (Roaf 2010). Since certain of these motifs are first found on the walls of the central temple at Tepe Nush‐i Jan, and since they would seem to re‐appear on occasion in equally numinous settings, it is all the more interesting to note that the stepped portion of the mud‐brick fire altar from the central temple (Stronach and Roaf 2007: fig. 2.13) almost certainly finds an echo in the stepped upper and lower extremities of the characteristic Achaemenid stone altar – actual examples of which were encountered at Pasargadae (Stronach 1978: fig. 72).

Aside from being masters of construction in mud‐brick, as well as redoubtable riders – and breeders – of horses, the Medes appear to have been celebrated, in the Achaemenid period especially, for their skills in metalworking. This is evident, not least, from a glance at the choice gifts of precious metal that are displayed by the Median delegation in the parade of subject peoples that adorns the carved socle of the Apadana at Persepolis (Schmidt 1953: pl. 27). On the other hand, the fact that Darius I chose to depict his Persian subjects in the bas‐reliefs at Persepolis in two separate forms of dress (perhaps best defined as a voluminous “court dress” and a more tight‐fitting “riding dress”) can no longer be used to support a never very convincing suggestion that those individuals in riding dress were all Medes and that, accordingly, the Medes shared the governance of the Achaemenid empire with the Persians (see, e.g. Stronach 2011: p. 477).