A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set. Группа авторов

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