284 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Elam. The times when Babylonians visited Susa are
consistent with Greek accounts and Persepolis texts.
Waerzeggers concludes that Babylonians travelled to
Susa with tax-related concerns: the representatives of
diferent Babylonian institutions were involved in the
transfer of taxes in the form of commodities and labor
from Babylonia to Susa, and the conditions of these
travels (time, travel route, etc.) were regulated top-
down by certain royal guidelines.
In conclusion, it is apparent that Der Achämeniden-
hof ofers insightful essays on the Near Eastern courts
in the irst part of the irst millennium B.C. The book
covers all important aspects of the structure, ideol-
ogy, and culture of the court in this period. It will
be a basic compendium for the subject and all re-
Elam and Persia. Edited by Javier Álvarez-Mon and Mark B. Garrison. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Pp. xviii + 493. $89.50 (cloth).
REVIEWED BY TYTUS K. MIKOŁAJCZAK, University of Chicago
At least in one case, a paper from this volume (Henkel-
man’s “Parnakka’s Feast”), available online as early as
2007, has already had an impact on recent scholarship;
the inished volume will be welcomed by scholars of
Elamite and Achaemenid studies in general, and of the
Neo-Elamite period in particular.
In Álvarez-Mon, Garrison and Stronach’s “Intro-
duction” (pp. 1–32), we learn that the essays in the
volume are focused on the period between the sack
of Susa ca. 647 B.C., and inclusion of Elam into the
Persian Empire by Darius I in 521/520 B.C., called
here the Late Neo-Elamite period. In fact, six of the
fourteen essays are devoted to a narrower period, the
early Achaemenid, between Cyrus II and Darius I. In
addition, the introduction adds a summary of histori-
ography in the ield of Neo-Elamite studies.
In the irst contribution of the volume, “A Note on
the Limits of Anšan” (pp. 35–43), D. T. Potts raises
the question of whether the name “Anšan” in cunei-
form sources from the Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid
periods refers to a land or a city. Modern scholars
seem to assume that name “Anšan” refers not only to
the city itself, but sometimes also to a region roughly
equal to modern Fārs, at least until the reign of Darius.
This opinion is based on Akkadian sources, which dis-
tinguish between Anšan as a city (with determinative
URU), and Anšan as a land (determinative KI or KUR).
On the basis of the Persepolis Fortiication Tablets,
however, Potts argues that Anšan there, and by ex-
lated research. For the Achaemenid period especially,
most contributions present up-to-date research and
views that cannot be overlooked in any further stud-
ies in the ield. Although most of the contributions
essentially present new and modiied interpretations
of the Greek accounts relevant for matters connected
with the Achaemenid court, some of the essays refer
to diferent corpora of sources, which greatly expand
our knowledge of the subject (here, the contributions
of Rollinger, Henkelman, and Waerzeggers should
be especially mentioned). Such an approach proves
once again that Classical accounts can be much bet-
ter understood and interpreted when compared with
cuneiform and other Near Eastern evidence.
tension also anywhere else in the Neo-Elamite and
Achaemenid periods, is just a speciic location, not
a designation of a land. In addition, the scant ref-
erences to Anšan in the Bisitun inscription and the
Fortiication texts seem to indicate that Anšan was
not an important center at that time, and he argues
that Darius, “whose rise put an end to the pretensions
of the Teispid line, could have had no interest in see-
ing Anšan lourish as an economic center [. . .].” It
is commonly assumed that in Darius’s time, Anšan as
a name of a province was changed into Pārsa, while
Anšan remained the name of a speciic location,1 as
it is in the Persepolis Fortiication Tablets from the
reign of Darius. If one agrees with Potts that the use
of the name “Anšan” was indeed consistent before and
after the time of the Persepolis Fortiication texts, then
Cyrus also referred to Anšan as a city only (Vallat in
the same volume seems to share this opinion). It seems
equally probable, however, that Cyrus wanted to ex-
press a connection with the traditional Elamite title
of “kings of Anšan and Susa,” and therefore claimed
the kingship of the whole region of Anšan (so Fārs).2
E. Carter’s overview of funerary practices in second-
millennium Elam (“Landscapes of Death in Susiana
1
E.g., John Hansman, s.v. “Anshan,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica,
Vol. II, Fasc. 1, ed. Ehsan Yarshater, (New York, 1985), 103–107.
2
Cf., e.g., Wouter F. M. Henkelman, The Other Gods Who Are:
Studies in Elamite-Iranian Acculturation Based on the Persepolis
Fortiication Texts, Achaemenid History XIV (Leiden, 2008), 55.

During the Last Half of the 2nd Millennium B.C.,”
pp. 45–58) is devoted to a period earlier than the one
that the editors’ introduction describes. Carter argues
that in Susiana of that time, funerary practices were
performed in several phases, and often secondary in-
terments occurred. There are examples of royal burial
complexes that were used for several generations after
the original burial. Burials of people of lesser status
were placed in the vicinity of royal monuments, while
the commoners were buried under the loors of their
own houses.
G. P. Basello’s study, “Elamite as Administrative
Language: From Susa to Persepolis” (pp. 61–88), is a
much-needed comprehensive treatment of continuity
in the use of the Elamite language in administrative
texts between ca. 1000 B.C. and the early Achae-
menid period. It is the irst study that deals with the
widespread hypothesis of continuity in administrative
practices by analyzing the language of the documents
themselves. Basello inds that there is only a limited
use of similar administrative formulae in Elamite texts
from Susa and Tall-e Malyān and Achaemenid texts
from Persepolis. Neo-Elamite texts from Susa also
present much greater variation in the opening for-
mulae of administrative letters, while the formulae in
Achaemenid administrative letters from Persepolis are
highly standardized, implying, according to Basello,
that a new standard was introduced by the Achae-
menid chancellery. Dating formulae difered as well:
Persepolis documents were regularly dated to the
regnal year (though rarely mentioning the name of
the ruler), while Neo-Elamite documents were not.
Basello continues with a long analysis of the term kur-
man in phrases referring to the handling of the com-
modities. Basello thinks that the individuals named
in phrases with this term were performing diferent
administrative functions in Susa than in Persepolis.
He also focuses on formulary exceptions within these
corpora, particularly on the text PF 0335, which has
many more similarities to late Neo-Elamite docu-
ments than other texts from Persepolis. In conclu-
sion, Basello points out the change and continuity
between the two corpora: administrative documents
became more complex, the shape of tablets changed,
some designations were maintained (kurman), but
new ones appeared (šaramana). There is a “lack of
correspondence in administrative textual typologies.”
Indications of continuity are isolated. The most ap-
parent example of continuity is the use of the Elamite
language itself. Basello’s conclusions are striking for
Book Reviews F 285
scholars who have assumed close connections between
Elamite and Achaemenid administrative traditions.
W. F. M. Henkelman devoted his study (“Par-
nakka’s Feast: šip in Pārsa and Elam,” pp. 89–166) to
the šip feast attested in Elamite texts from Persepolis.
The article begins with a lengthy introduction on
Iranian-Elamite acculturation, the Persepolis Fortii-
cation tablets, the so-called lan ofering in Persepolis
texts, and the gods in the same corpus, summarizing
matters treated in his recent book.3 Henkelman con-
cludes that šip was a speciic kind of sacriicial feast of
a royal character performed by Parnakka, the direc-
tor of the Persepolis administration that is evidenced
in the Persepolis Fortiication Archive, as well as by
Ziššawiš, Parnakka’s deputy and eventual successor,
usually in November or December. It was performed
in places of a high royal status, like Pasargadae or royal
paradeisoi. After the rite was performed, the sacriicial
commodities were distributed to the workforce as part
of a royal gift-giving system. Next, Henkelman in-
vokes examples of earlier Elamite feasts, most notably
the feast illustrated on reliefs and inscriptions in the
Elamite sanctuary Kūl-e Farah in the valley of Īzeh.
E. Quintana, “Elamitas Frente a Persas: el Reino
Independiente de Anšan” (with English summary, pp.
167–90), begins with a summary of references to the
kingdom of Anšan in the cuneiform sources. Quintana
dismisses the common view that PFS 0093*, the so-
called seal of Cyrus, belonged to or refers to Cyrus I,
grandfather of Cyrus II, the founder of the Persian
Empire, claiming that the seal is of Achaemenid date,
and the reading of the name of Teispes in the inscrip-
tion of the seal is uncertain; thus, it is the seal of an
unknown individual. Iconographic analysis made by
Garrison later in the volume states clearly, however,
that the seal is much older (see below). One can also
voice other objections to Quintana: although the
Cyrus of PFS 0093* is not qualiied with ‘king,’ one
would wonder why he is qualiied with ‘Anshanite’—
although this qualiication occurs in the Persepolis
tablets, to my knowledge no other seal inscription
has it. It would not be the only example of a reused
older seal employed in Persepolis, either; e.g., PFS
0027*, which Garrison describes as late Neo-Elamite,4
and other, so-called “heirloom” seals, described by
3
Ibid.
4
Mark B. Garrison, “The ‘Late Neo-Elamite’ Glyptic Style:
A Perspective from Fars,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 16 (2002
[2006]): 65–102.
286 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Garrison in the same volume (see below). Quintana
then argues for two separate lines of Persian kings—
one line of Cyrus II (now called Teispids by other
scholars), and another Achaemenid line (starting with
Darius I)—a view largely similar to those of Briant5
and Wiesehöfer.6 Quintana’s argument for the exis-
tence of a separate state of Anšan after ca. 690 B.C. is
also a recapitulation of now-common opinion, with-
out signiicant new detail.
J. Tavernier’s “Iranians in Neo-Elamite Texts” (pp.
191–261) is a sort of addendum to his Iranica in the
Achaemenid Period, 7 extending it to pre-Achaemenid,
Neo-Elamite evidence. It ofers a lexicon of Iranian
personal names found in Neo-Elamite texts (Acro-
pole texts, Apadana texts, Neo-Elamite letters from
Nineveh, Neo-Elamite seals, and inscriptions from
the so-called Kalmākarra hoard). Tavernier supple-
ments his lexicon with a detailed linguistic study of
Irano-Elamite transpositions, and the importance
of Elamite renderings for Old Iranian. The Iranian
onomasticon of Neo-Elamite texts sheds light on the
issues of pre-Achaemenid Iranian-Elamite relation-
ships, and according to Tavernier, it informs us about
Iranian social structure and political inluence. In late
Neo-Elamite sources, one inds a signiicant amount
of information on Samati,8 a polity on the border be-
tween Ellipi and Elam, which might have had some
political ties with Susa (possibly Samati was a vassal of
the kingdom of Susa). Tavernier points out that these
names relect the intensity of the contacts between
Iranians and Elamites, and the ongoing acculturation
in the region of Samati, where Iranians were present
in both higher and lower strata of the society, serv-
ing both as high oicials and as subordinates of of-
icials with non-Iranian names. Tavernier’s study will
be as indispensable for work on Neo-Elamite texts as
his Iranica in the Achaemenid Period is for work on
Achaemenid sources.
5
Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Per-
sian Empire (Winona Lake, IN, 2002), 111–38.
6
Josef Wiesehöfer, Der Aufstand Gaumātas und die Anfänge
Dareios’ I, Habelts Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe alte Geschichte 13
(Bonn, 1978).
7
Jan Tavernier, Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550–330
B.C.): Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, At-
tested in Non-Iranian Texts, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 158
(Leuven, 2007).
8
See François Vallat, “Le royaume élamite de SAMATI,” N.A.B.U.
(1996): no. 31.
F. Vallat, “Darius, l’héritier légitime, et les pre-
miers Achéménides” (pp. 263–84), relies on a new
translation and interpretation of passages in Darius’s
Bisitun inscriptions to propose a new approach to the
long-debated issue of Darius’s claim to the throne.
According to Vallat’s vision, there were two lines of
Persian kings: the older one, which ended with Ars-
ames (father of Hystaspes, grandfather of Darius), and
the younger, which seized power in Persia when Cyrus
deposed Arsames. Darius, Vallat’s hypothesis contin-
ues, restored the old line to power. Darius was not
explicit about these facts in his inscription because he
introduced a damnatio memoriae against Cyrus. The
situation was complicated for Darius, as Vallat argues:
Cyrus had great respect among the Persians because
he freed them from Median domination,9 and con-
quered vast lands; Cyrus even treated Arsames with
dignity, for he was still alive when Darius seized the
throne. Therefore, Darius could not openly denigrate
Cyrus; he chose only to ignore the memory of his pre-
decessor. Vallat argues that Cyrus’s inscriptions from
Pasargadae, widely considered to have been written in
the time of Darius, are in fact original and contem-
porary to Cyrus. As support for their authenticity, he
argues that the Elamite orthography of those texts is
much closer to their Neo-Elamite predecessors, and
that Darius, who hated Cyrus (in Vallat’s view) is not
likely to have honored him with these inscriptions.
One must note that the inscriptions might be delib-
erately archaizing. Darius’s personal attitude towards
Cyrus is impossible to measure or assess, and cannot
be a basis of argument for or against the authenticity
of the inscriptions. Vallat also argues for the authen-
ticity of the inscriptions of Ariaramnes and Arsames,
long considered to be later Achaemenid productions.
In sum, Vallat maintains the truthfulness of Darius’s
claims regarding his lineage, legitimacy, and heritage,
against the widely-held opinion that considers these
claims deliberately falsiied to justify his usurpation.
In Vallat’s opinion, Darius was a legitimate succes-
sor, as Cambyses died without an heir. In his theory,
Vallat does not address the problem of Gaumata and
9
Vallat does not cite recent scholarship rejecting the idea of
Persian subjugation to Medes that has been traditional since He-
rodotus: for example, Burkhart Kienast, “The So-Called ‘Median
Empire’,” Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies
34 (1999): 65; Robert Rollinger, “Zur Lokalisation von Parsu(m)
a(š) in der Fārs und zu einigen Fragen der frühen persischen Ge-
schichte,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäolo-
gie 89, no. 1 (1999): 127–34.

Bardiya, which has a crucial signiicance for Darius’s
rights to the throne.10 Vallat’s provocative hypothesis
stands against the greater part of recent scholarship,
Briant’s opus magnum in particular.
M. Waters, “Parsumaš, Anšan, and Cyrus” (pp.
285–96), is concerned with the rise of Persian poli-
ties in Fārs in the Neo-Assyrian period. Neo-Assyrian
sources know two polities in Fārs, Parsu(m)aš, not to
be confused with the Assyrian province of Parsua, and
Anšan (both city and region). Waters traces the oc-
currences of both names in Neo-Assyrian, Babylonian,
and Achaemenid sources, also dealing with the deter-
minative problem regarding Anšan (written with both
KUR and URU). Waters cautiously suggests that the top-
onyms Anšan and Parsumaš became equivalent after
the reign of Sennacherib. He also discusses “Elam” as
a geographic designation in this period. Then Waters
considers the issue of “Cyruses”: Cyrus of seal PFS
0093*, Cyrus I, grandfather of Cyrus II, and Cyrus
king of Parsumaš mentioned in Assurbanipal inscrip-
tions, but he refrains from deinite identiication of any
two of these igures. Waters contributes a convenient
summary of the available evidence, but does not pres-
ent solutions for the problems he outlines.
Álvarez-Mon, “The Golden Griin from Arjan”
(pp. 299–373), focuses on one of the most spectacu-
lar objects from the Arjan (Arrajān) tomb, the golden
ring. The article is an extended version of the treat-
ment in Álvarez-Mon’s recent book devoted to the
Arjan ind.11 The ring in question has two elaborate
inner panels decorated with a motif of two winged
lions facing each other. His article describes Elamite
antecedents of the object and their function, and pres-
ents an art historical analysis of the object with a very
detailed analysis of each of the iconographic motifs.
Álvarez-Mon also considers a number of comparisons
to the object and its motifs. In the inal part of his
article, he presents a detailed historical context of the
Arjan ring, including an overview of the history of
the late Neo-Elamite period. Álvarez-Mon argues for
an early date for the manufacture of the elite material
from the Arjan tomb, including the ring, ca. 600 B.C.
Because the inscriptions on the objects are dated to
ca. 550 B.C. on paleographic grounds, he suggests that
they were buried as “heirlooms” in the tomb a gener-
10
See Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 111–38.
11
Javier Álvarez-Mon, The Arjan Tomb: At the Crossroads of the
Elamite and the Persian Empires, Acta Iranica 49 (Leuven, 2010).
Book Reviews F 287
ation later than the date of their manufacturing.12 The
contribution not only describes one of the most im-
portant objects in late Neo-Elamite art, but also serves
as a general introduction to the important problems
of art and archaeology of the period.
The contribution of M. B. Garrison, “The Seal of
‘Kuraš the Anzanite, Son of Šešpeš’ (Teispes), PFS
93*: Susa – Anšan – Persepolis” (pp. 375–405), is
devoted to the well-known seal that is discussed or
invoked in several other contributions to the vol-
ume. Garrison focuses mostly on the iconography
of the seal, which is often overlooked because of the
importance of the accompanying inscription (but
see the article of Waters in this volume). Garrison’s
treatment of the seal places it in the wider context
of the Persepolitan glyptic, suggesting that it is con-
temporary with other antique seals impressed on the
tablets in the archive, in particular PFS 0051 (seal
of Irdabama), PFS 0077* (seal of Rašda),13 and PFS
1308* (seal of Bakabadada). Garrison demonstrates
the compositional and thematic similarities of these
seals to Neo-Assyrian reliefs, particularly from the time
of Assurbanipal, as well as their striking similarity to
two stamp seals from Nineveh also from the time of
Assurbanipal. Garrison concludes that these seals are
contemporary with PFS 0093*, possibly even from
the same workshop. Although, according to Garri-
son, these seals seem to belong to the Neo-Assyrian
period beyond question, he sees the origins of this
glyptic art not in Nineveh, but in Anšan/Fārs under
the Teispid dynasty in the second half of the seventh
century B.C. Garrison proposes to call this style “An-
zanite,” and therefore diferent from the “late Neo-
Elamite” glyptic previously identiied by P. Amiet.14
Thus, if one agrees with Garrison, Fārs would be a
source of two major glyptic styles recognized outside
its borders, in Nineveh and Susa. The existence of
such an inluential artistic center would be in striking
contrast to the minor presence of Anšan/Fārs in the
12
The conclusion is repeated after his book, ibid., 272–73.
13
Both individuals and their activities were recently described
by Wouter F. M. Henkelman, “Consumed before the King: The
Table of Darius, That of Irdabama and Irtaštuna, and That of His
Satrap, Karkiš,” in Der Achämenidenhof. The Achaemenid Court:
Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema »Griechische
und lateinische Überlieferung und Altvorderasien« Landgut Castelen
bei Basel, 23.–25. Mai 2007, ed. Robert Rollinger and Bruno Jacobs,
Classica et Orientalia 2 (Wiesbaden, 2010), 693–97.
14
Although, again, placed by Garrison in the context of early
Persian art from Fārs between ca. 550–520 B.C., see Garrison, “The
‘Late Neo-Elamite’ Glyptic Style,” 79–92.
288 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
textual sources from the late Neo-Assyrian and late
Neo-Elamite periods.
Y. Hassanzadeh and H. Mollasalehi, in “New
Evidence for Mannean Art: An Assessment of Three
Glazed Tiles from Qalaichi (Izirtu)” (pp. 407–17),
attempt to deine a “Mannean” style on the basis of
unprovenanced glazed tiles presumed to originate in
Qalaichi in northwestern Iran. The authors of the
contribution support the identiication of Qalaichi
with ancient Izirtu, named in Neo-Assyrian sources
as a capital of Mannea, a polity located in the Zagros
region. In terms of style and iconography, the three
tiles belong to a larger group that might be called a
“provincial” Neo-Assyrian art, which includes many
unprovenanced objects said to be found in the Zagros
region, e.g., in Ziwiye. The attempt of Hassanzadeh
and Mollasalehi ultimately falls into the same trap as
the work of some other scholars working on such
unprovenanced material. The most sharply-debated
problems are connected with so-called “Median art,”15
and with Ziwiye inds.16 One inds serious method-
ological omissions in the present article, as the au-
thors failed to prove that the objects indeed come
from Qalaichi; they attempted no comparison with
provenanced material from the site, except for a single
example. Apart from ethical considerations connected
with work on unprovenanced objects, any attempt to
deine a local artistic style on the basis of unprove-
nanced art must be rejected, and until someone shows
clear features of Mannean art on the basis of safely
provenanced and representative material, one would
have to be very careful with attributing a designation
“Mannean” to any object.
A contribution by M. C. Root, “Elam in the Impe-
rial Imagination: From Nineveh to Persepolis” (pp.
419–74), is devoted to considerations of Elamite
art and its impact on Achaemenid oicial art, seen
mostly through reliefs of Darius’s Apadana in Per-
sepolis. Root compares the depiction of Elamites on
the Apadana with a depiction of Medes (which in
Persepolis constitute a sort of “template” for depic-
tions of non-Persian Iranian peoples). On the other
hand, on the Persepolis reliefs Elamites are the only
15
See, e.g., Oscar White Muscarella, “Median Art and Medizing
Scholarship,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46, no. 2 (1987):
109; Bruno Genito, “The Medes: A Reassessment of the Archaeo-
logical Evidence,” East and West 36, nos. 1–3 (1986): 11–81.
16
See Oscar White Muscarella, “‘Ziwiye’ and Ziwiye: The Forg-
ery of a Provenience,” Journal of Field Archaeology 4, no. 2 (1977):
197–219.
non-Persians depicted in the court robe (often called
an “Achaemenid robe”). Root invokes the traditional
Elamite royal robe depicted on several monuments
from the late Neo-Elamite period, as well as on the
so-called genius from Pasargadae, which is strikingly
omitted in Persepolis, perhaps, as Root suggests, be-
cause of Darius’s problematic relationship with Cyrus
or the function of the Elamite robe. Thanks to the
representation of Elamites in a court robe, they are
“symbolically fused with the Persian family.” Another
important symbol is the Elamite bow. The same kind
of bow is held by the Persian king in some depictions;
similarly, the so-called “Elamite” dagger is also held
by Elamites, Persians, and the king on Persepolitan
depictions. Root thinks that these features were meant
to subsume Elamites “into the identity of Persia and
the Persian royal house.” Root also elaborates on the
meaning of the lioness depicted with the Elamite del-
egation on the Apadana, which might evoke numer-
ous symbolic interpretations. One of many intriguing
metaphors presented in the article suggests that the li-
oness symbolizes Elamite princesses, that is, daughters
of Cyrus II, married to Darius. She also suggests that
the two lion cubs depicted with the same delegation
symbolize Cyrus’s two sons, Cambyses and Bardiya.
Root follows here Potts’s theory about Cyrus’s Elamite
origins;17 one must admit, however, that Potts’s theory
is impossible to conirm.
Stronach, “Court Dress and Riding Dress at Persep-
olis: New Approaches to Old Questions” (pp. 475–87),
focuses on two main attires present in Persepolitan
reliefs (also considered by Root in this volume). Of-
icials depicted on reliefs in a riding costume (having
a characteristic oval headgear) have usually been inter-
preted as Medes.18 A clear contradiction to that notion,
as Stronach observes, is the depiction of Aspathines,
one of Darius’s followers, on Darius’s tomb at Naqsh-i
Rustam in exactly such attire. According to Stronach,
depictions of weaponry connected with riding costume
(swords of akinakes type, battle-axes of sagaris type), as
17
Daniel T. Potts, “Cyrus the Great and the Kingdom of An-
shan,” in Birth of the Persian Empire, vol. I, ed. Vesta Sarkhosh
Curtis and Sarah Stewart (London, 2005), 7–28.
18
While those depicted in a court dress as Persians; by extension,
a riding costume is still usually called a “Median dress,” see, e.g.,
Nicholas Sekunda, “Changes in Achaemenid Royal Dress,” in The
World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and
the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of a conference at the British
Museum 29th September–1st October 2005, ed. John Curtis and
St John Simpson (London, 2010).

well as depictions of horses, were meant to emphasize
Darius’s own qualities as a horseman (which he him-
self emphasized in his inscriptions, e.g., DNb 40–45).
Aspathines also wears a riding costume because this
is the proper way to wear the akinakes (here Darius’s
own akinakes). Stronach sees the depiction of Persians
in both costumes as a way of expressing dual, Elamite
and Iranian, heritage of the Persians. He is also sure that
the guards depicted on the reliefs in Susa are Persians,
not Elamites, possibly members of an elite infantry unit
(see Herodotus 7.41).
In “Postscript: The Legacy of Elam,” Álvarez-Mon
and Garrison emphasize that the contributions of this
volume suggest that Darius consciously suppressed
the Elamite/Anšanite heritage in the texts and art of
his empire, in favor of his Aryan (Iranian) roots. On
the other hand, continuity is evident in administrative
practice, religion, and artistic styles.
The New Chronology of Iron Age Gordion. Edited by C. Brian Rose and Gareth Darbyshire. Gordion Special
Studies VI. Museum Monograph 133. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology, 2011. Pp. xii + 181 + 107 illustrations + 10 tables. $69.95 (cloth).
REVIEWED BY GEOFFREY D. SUMMERS, Koç University, Istanbul
This good, interesting and important volume is crucial
not only to the Iron Age chronology of the Phry-
gian capital of Gordion, but generally to the eastern
Mediterranean, Anatolia and Assyria. In essence, the
long-accepted date of 700 B.C.E. for the destruction of
the mound by ire has been revised upwards by about
a century, and consequently, the correlation of the
destruction with the death of King Midas, together
with its attribution to barbarian Kimmerian hordes,
have now to be discounted. Individual chapters set out
in exemplary detail why the 700 B.C.E. date for the de-
struction was irst proposed by Rodney Young, as well
as the background to its almost universal acceptance in
the scholarly world. All manner of evidence, textual,
artifactual, dendrochronological and radiocarbon,
converge to make a strong, and probably unassail-
able, case for raising the destruction date to within
a few years one side or the other of 800 B.C.E. This
revision does not afect the date of c. 740 B.C.E. for
the construction of Tumulus MM.
On a visit to the University of Pennsylvania in
1998, the late Keith DeVries, to whom this volume is
justly dedicated, very kindly gave me a typescript of a
lecture he had just delivered at the Annual Meeting of
Book Reviews F 289
In conclusion, Elam and Persia constitutes a
useful anthology of recent scholarship on late Neo-
Elamite and early Achaemenid history (with focus
on early Achaemenid), and as such might serve as an
introduction to this period in history. Most of the
contributors perhaps realized such a need, because
many articles are preceded by historiographical essays
or overviews of the sources. Despite the long period
of preparation of the book, most of the contributions
seem to be updated with recent bibliographies. The
issues connected with the period in question are of-
ten debatable, and therefore many papers here pres-
ent contradictory opinions. This only stresses that
there are numerous research opportunities for schol-
ars dealing with the Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid
periods, and volumes such as this bring us closer to
a better understanding.
the Archaeological Institute of America (as recounted
on p. 42), in which he suggested that the c. 700 B.C.E.
date for the destruction of what is now called the
Citadel Mound at Gordion needed to be revised up-
wards. This revision, made on the basis of sherds of
imported Greek pottery, also contained a preliminary
reexamination of the underlying assumption that the
destruction was to be attributed to the Kimmerians.
Soon thereafter, in New York, Oscar Muscarella wrote
critical notes in the margins, which I still have. As
acknowledged on page xiii, Muscarella, who did not
contribute to the volume under review, remains the
most substantial critic of the new chronology. He
kindly informs me that he is himself writing a review
in which he will set out his continuing doubts, misgiv-
ings and objections to the revised chronology.
This volume has, then, been a long time in ges-
tation. Results of the new dendrochronological and
radiocarbon dates were irst oicially announced in the
pages of Antiquity in 2003,1 although the essence of
1
K. DeVries et al., “New dates for Iron Age Gordion,” An-
tiquity 77 (2003), available at http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/
devries/devries.html.