Author: rez
Original Thread: An Official Program Of Art In The Achaemenid Empire?

An Official Program Of Art In The Achaemenid Empire? Achaemenid artwork has been said by M. C. Root to have been constructed along pre-defined lines and with heavily laden imagery that intended to project a specific illustration of royal power. But even more pertinent is Root’s idea that the monumental artwork of the Achaemenids was constructed along the lines of a carefully planned program that would be used throughout the empire’s lifetime as a transcendental and dynastic form of official representation#. This idea can be explored in terms of how this official program of art was disseminated, if at all, throughout the empire’s provinces but also with respect to how consistent Achaemenid art and representation was to the idea of a centrally themed program. Root’s program concerns artwork produced at the official behest of the central authority and so it is focused on royal, monumental art rather than satrapal imitations or minor representations like seal impressions although these can illuminate features of the program. Persepolis is essentially the heart of Achaemenid royal representation and it is here that the argument for the existence of an official program is focused.

In order to confirm the existence of a pre-planned program of intentional style one must consider the art itself. Root dispels the ideas promulgated by earlier scholars such as Richter and Cook that encouraged the belief that Achaemenid artwork was essentially Greek due to the large amount of Hellenic artisans working on the monuments. Even though, in the Foundation Charter from Susa, Darius mentions Greek stoneworkers as part of the workforce# Root points out that this is no real justification for granting them such prestige amongst so many different ethnic groups who worked on the project. Most tellingly the documents found at Persepolis that detail the disposition and payment of various workforces do not mention the Ionian Greeks in any great esteem or even more often than their fellow workers. Lastly, Root highlights the work done by Nylander and Roaf which shows the sculptures were likely fashioned on a small, section by section basis#. Thus showing that an individual artist would have had no opportunity to influence even an entire figure let alone the grand image and hence would have had to have been working from a pre-planned design. To this end, Root backs up the idea that foreign artists could work in the Achaemenid style by referring to the Petosiris Tomb in Egypt which depicts Egyptian artisans doing just that. So we can, with considerable certainty, be sure that there was a consciously created art scheme which was applied to the images on the original Persepolis project. The continuity of these styles and motifs in the later constructions at Persepolis as well as the tombs built by the succeeding Kings attest to the idea that what was perfected at Persepolis was considered to be the true, transcendental representation of Achaemenid authority by the later Kings.



By using the reliefs in the Persepolis region as a base there appear to be two main elements to the Achaemenid program of art. The first is the clear adoption and synchronisation of the various different stylistic motifs encountered amongst the subjects of the Persian Empire. The second is the extension of this artistic fusion of unity and harmony in representing the Achaemenid authority as serene and benevolent with a view to cultural tolerance. The earliest prominent example of this artistic style that survives is the so called ‘Winged Genius’ displayed upon the gatehouse of Palace R at Pasargadae#. This monument displays elements of Elamite, Egyptian and Assyrian artistic styles all blended into one harmonious and tranquil guardian figure far removed from the typical near eastern representations of conquerors like Sargon II#. This fusion of separate cultural motifs into one peaceful image is clearly something which the architects of Persepolis were inspired by as Root argues the same theme of unity and peace is prevalent on their reliefs#. Thus the designs for the Persepolis reliefs can be said to already have had a Persian stylistic forbear that pre-dated Darius. A purposeful continuity of Cyrus’s official artistic representation fits well with the other efforts Darius made to ensure continuity with Cyrus’ kingship. Root points out that the dynastic marriages into Cyrus’ direct family line along with the continued upkeep of Cyrus’ tomb as a shrine illustrate an obvious effort to associate the rule of Darius with Cyrus#. But the most poignant of Darius’ endeavours to evoke continuity with Cyrus are the inscriptions at Pasargadae which announce Cyrus as an Achaemenid#. This could possibly be an attempt to make up for leaving Cyrus out of his royal lineage on the Behistun inscription# which in many ways differs from the official artwork that followed it as well as the ideas of peaceful continuity. In any case it is clear that Darius became very eager to associate his reign with that of Cyrus and a conscious recognition of his artistic representation is seemingly implicit.



However, the idea that a program was envisaged and begun by Cyrus before being perfected and fully established by Darius has a hiccup in the royal representation at Behistun. The imagery follows a stricter near eastern pattern that closely resembles the nearby relief at Sar-I Pul# and whilst it demonstrates the same awareness of the historical and cultural artistic predecessors to the Persians it makes little attempt to amalgamate multiple styles#. But more importantly it is a huge, official representation of an Achaemenid King as a glorious conqueror of his human enemies. This stark contrast with every other monumental representation of Achaemenid authority means that if the imperial art program had its roots in the palace at Pasargadae; it seems that this imagery was only picked up on after the reliefs at Behistun were created.

On the other hand it is possible that a deviation from an imperial program was deemed necessary by Darius due to the gigantic accomplishment that he had achieved in pacifying the empire. Darius had successfully undertaken one of the most remarkable campaigns of the ancient world and the continual or even incessant reference to the role of Ahuramazda in ensuring his victory means that it is probable that such a monumental declaration of triumph was required in order to properly honour Ahuramazda for granting Darius such glorious success. The fact that the relief was carved high up upon a holy mountain# for the perusal of the God himself lends credence to the idea that the monument was primarily intended as a religious dedication of thanks. In this light the promulgation of the text and imagery throughout the empire can be seen as a secondary political manoeuvre.



In either case it seems that whilst Behistun was the exception it was Darius’ first monument and thus the later work at Susa can be seen as the first steps towards the perfected style at Persepolis. Susa contains no images of Kingly representation but the themes invoked in the artwork show clear parallels to those of the later reliefs at Persepolis. In particular the theme of Persian guardsmen dressed in only ceremonial robes and standing in benevolent positions of guardianship is a motif that is heavily invoked at Persepolis alongside the depiction of mythical creatures as further guardians of the empire.



Although Susa maintains more of an artistic link to Elamite and Babylonian representation with its un-manned winged disc and near eastern Sphinxes# it is evident that a step away from the violent imagery of Behistun was intentionally made. When viewed alongside the image of imperial unity and multicultural endeavour that is evoked in the Foundation Charter it is clear that whilst this is not the epoch of the official program it appears to be working towards an official plan that drew its inspiration from Pasargadae and culminated at Persepolis. In particular the art of protection and guardianship, along with the Susa Inscription detailing the King’s role as a benevolent ruler#, signify the intention to abandon the oppressive image of Behistun in favour of the model Cyrus began and progress to the serenity of the King as shown at Persepolis. Moreover, Root argues that the developments in representations of the peaceful and compassionate King at Persepolis demonstrate a wish to be depicted as the archetypal Persian King rather than showing any personalised images of a specific ruler#. That this was an innovation of Darius that was adhered to by his successors again illustrates a clearly defined program of imperial art that the central authority wished to stick to.



An essential piece of official monumental art for this discussion is the statue of Darius found at Susa#. The statue was constructed and possibly presented to stand in Egypt originally before being moved to Susa at a later date although Briant explains that it is equally possible that it was constructed in Egypt to be presented in Susa or even that a replica stood at Susa#. In any case The statue is an officially sanctioned representation of Royal power that was intended to be displayed outside of the Persepolis region and its conformity to the Persepolis program adds a great weight to the idea of an official program. The Statue contains Egyptian elements to compliment the Hieroglyphic inscriptions but it also contains Persian elements in the Iranian robe, royal sceptre and lotus flower.



Perhaps most striking is the depiction of the various subject peoples of the empire on the base of the statue. The subjects do not conform exactly to the representations on the royal tombs at Naqš-i Rustam# but their position at the base of the statue with their arms upraised evokes very clear parallels to the established image of the King presiding in state over his harmonious collection of happy dependents. This time, however, the King stands rather than sits but the overall image has a poignant conformity to the imperial program at Persepolis. In the light of its display outside of the Persepolis region we can therefore suggest that the Achaemenid program of art was intended to be applied to monuments outside of the heartland for its foreign subjects to see.



Another realm of official artistic representation, especially of royalty, is in the seals and coins of the Achaemenids. It is here that the idea of an all encompassing imperial program of consistent royal representation meets a problem. Briant showcases several Achaemenid seals which were found and presumably used in Egypt as well as in the Oxus region that unashamedly portray the King as a conquering hero, defeating or capturing various subject peoples#. The seals date from Cyrus I all the way to Artaxerxes III and confirm that the imperial program was restricted to monumental art, as Root suggests, rather than all representations of royalty. This is not to say that all seals deviated from the imperial norm, rather that the militaristic representations are comparatively rarer than the style of illustrating a heroic encounter between the King and a mythical beast. The work of Root with Garrison on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets and their seals highlights the many examples of images that conform to the same styles of representation as the Persepolis reliefs#. But either way, one can say that since the seals were only meant to be used and circulated internally within the government it was unnecessary to conform to an artistic tradition that was intended to target the common subjects. But since so many of the seals do conform, the official program of art must have been very widely appreciated.



However, the portrayal of the King as an idealised soldier is a very common motif found on Achaemenid coinage. Briant has posited that the crowned figure depicted on the coins is certainly the King# and Root’s argument that the image of the Royal hero is most likely to be a further representation of the King# agrees with the idea that the figure decorating early Achaemenid coinage is the King. Thus this coins can be said to be an official representation of the central authority. Sekunda has suggested that these coins were often used as payment for mercenaries as well as bribing or funding foreign powers and thus would be seen by people well outside of the imperial circle#. Hence, if there was an all-encompassing, official art program the depiction of the King upon his coins should be consistent with it. This view holds up well in the light of the representation of the King as an ideal soldier rather than in any realistic or victorious pose. The King is portrayed simply carrying his weapons rather than using them on any foes, he wears only a heroic robe and if the coins were intended, primarily to pay soldiers then a military image would be expected. Furthermore, even in the later empire when satraps were allowed to mint their own coins they still adhered to non violent imagery such as profiles or passive military emblems#. That these images are concordant with the depictions of the soldiers at Persepolis is evidence that an effort was made to adhere to an official line even long after the reign of Darius.



Lastly, a note on imitation of the royal style within the empire is essential to better understand what the aims of the imperial program were. It is clear from the Dascylium seals#, the Alexander Sarcophagus# and the Xanthus reliefs# that the audience scene from Persepolis was a widely acknowledged image of Persian imperial power and thus that the official form of Achaemenid art was spread throughout the empire. The seal and sarcophagus both seemingly represent the ruling monarch of the Achaemenid dynasty and thus do not cause much confusion. What is unclear is how this symbol of strictly Achaemenid authority came to be used in so blatant a way on the Nereid monument. When one considers the story of Herodotus in which Darius excecutes Aryandes, the satrap of Egypt, for minting his own coins it would appear unwise to portray oneself in the same manner as the Great King#. Moreover the idea that local authorities turned a blind eye to what could be considered treason is problematic. When viewed alongside the notion of annual inspections by the central authority as reported by Xenophon# or the denouncement of Cyrus the younger by his neighbouring Satrap, Tissaphernes#, it appears that suspiciously treasonous behaviour would have been rooted out. With this in mind it is possible that these monuments, whilst unofficial in their construction, as can be seen by the stylistic differences which are pointed out by Root#, were either sanctioned, tolerated or indirectly encouraged by the central authority. This is certainly possible with the seemingly voluntary Persianisation of Lycia illustrated by Maria Brosius to be a conscious effort to identify with the central authority and thus gain status#. Hence the more Hellenised version of the audience scene on the Nereid monument had to have been seen as an extension or tribute to the Achaemenid central authority and its imperial artistic program.



It appears that the Achaemenid Empire of the late 5th and 4th centuries allowed a much higher degree of artistic representation and emulation from its subjects. Whilst central artistic conventions, as demonstrated by the tomb of Artaxerxes III, and coinage, dating to the late 4th century#, stayed true to the original Achaemenid program of serene artwork; it would seem that the Achaemenid’s official art program did not extend to all monumental art produced within the late empire. In Caria the huge Mausoleum of Halicarnassus was constructed soon after 353 B.C. with little conformity to any Achaemenid designs or outward recognition of Achaemenid authority# so it would seem that the later imperial program of art was not as strict in its policing of representation as Darius had been. The realities of the 4th century empire and its emergence from a time of multiple satrapal revolts due in some cases to overbearing central authority# may have led the Achaemenid Kings to take a more relaxed approach to client rulers, rewarding loyalty with more independence as in the case of Carian dynasts eventually replacing Persian satraps. That this represented official policy rather than a simple Carian gravitation towards independence can be attested by the stalwart defence the Persians, Carians and Greeks mounted against Alexander the Great at Halicarnassus#.

The idea of an imperial program of art within the Persian Empire can hence be recognised as a culmination of the efforts of Darius’ administration in monumental art after the Behistun monument had been completed and with reference to the artistic representation of Cyrus II. This official imagery can also be seen to have disseminated throughout the empire and was even emulated by its subjects in an effort to connect themselves with the central authority. Lastly, the later empire saw subtle changes to the styles of wider representation in instances such as coinage no longer exclusively depicting the King or Satraps and notaries producing their own forms of monumental art. But the central authority’s representation in royally commissioned monumental art still conformed to the program set forth by Darius.




Bibliography:

Herodotus, The Histories, Trans. C. Maculay, (New York, 2004).

Xenophon, Anabasis, Trans. R. Warner, (London, 1972).

Xenophon, The Education of Cyrus, Trans. W. Ambler, (New York, 2001).

Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, Trans. A. De Sélincourt, (London, 1971).


Briant, P. From Cyrus To Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire, Peter Daniels

trans. (Paris, 1996).

Brosius, M. The Persian Empire From Cyrus II To Artaxerxes I, (London, 2000).

Brosius, M. ‘Keeping Up With The Persians: Between Cultural Identity And Persianisation In The Achaemenid Period’, in E. Ginen (ed.), Cultural Identity And The Peoples Of The Mediterranean, (In Press).

Kuhrt, A. The Persian Empire. A Corpus Of Sources From The Achaemenid Period, (London: 2007)

Root. M.C. and Garrison, M. Seals On The Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Volume I, Images Of Heroic Encounter, (Chicago, 2001)

Root, M. C. ‘The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art’, in Acta Iranica 19, E.J. Brill (ed), (Leiden, 1979).

Sekunda, N. The Persian army, (Oxford: 1992)

Wiesehöfer, J. Ancient Persia, (London, 2004).

www.Livius.org, 10/05/2010

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gaze...Mausoleum*.html, 08/05/10.