First period of a native Persian art

Leila Imani

The Achaemenid age was the first period of a native Persian art from which many objects have survived, as well as written records. Such of its features as are formulated below may well help reconstruct the history of Median art from a few surviving objects and at present a comparison is possible only of general patterns and theories rather than of actual objects.

Thus, first of all, Achaemenid art cannot be characterised any longer as one of direct visual references, despite the colossal number of borrowings – in this instance from prestigious branches of the art of subjugated lands. Such borrowings quickly lose their original meaning. The paradox of Achaemenid art lies in the fact that all, or nearly all, the details of any particular image or any particular architectural construction can be traced back to prototypes of previous ages and various lands, but the image itself, nevertheless, remains distinct from anything known and is specifically Achaemenid.

Secondly, the entire pictorial repertoire of art of this era, established with the participation of craftsmen of various nationalities, fairly rapidly spread down to the minutest details to all the monuments – from reliefs on palaces and kings’ tombs to metalwork, textiles, ornaments, etc.

A single imperial Achaemenid style was created and this unified culture can, moreover, be traced from the Indus to the shores of Asia Minor. The plan of the Apadana at Persepolis, for example, was repeated by Darius at Susa, and in Armenia (at Erebuni) an Urartian temple was rebuilt according to the same plan; the same sort of palace was erected for the Achaemenid satrap at Khwarazm. In many instances, however, local traditional materials were used instead of stone.

Thirdly, the art of the Achaemenids as we now see it, primarily in the monuments of Pasargadae, Persepolis, Susa, the Bisotoun rock reliefs and the rock tombs of the Achaemenid kings at Naqsh-e Rustam, as well as in numerous articles of metalwork and glyptics, is in essence intended to proclaim the majesty of royal power and the majesty of the empire. This characteristic in particular also explains the paradoxical selection of themes in Achaemenid art. Only such proclamatory themes interested the Achaemenid monarchs and not tense, dynamic hunting or battle scenes.

There is conscious selection, or a strict pictorial system dictated by specific aims. One might say that the reliefs of Persepolis, for example, are thematically monotonous because Persepolis itself was a ritual city. Apparently the solemn celebrations of the Iranian New Year (Norouz) were performed here, when the coronation of the king of kings took place. We can thus conclude that it is this ritual that is depicted on the Persepolis reliefs, the sculptural reflection of the myths and images of the ancient Iranians.

These include the struggle of good and evil symbolised in the battle of the king with the monster, festive processions and subjugated nations presenting New Year gifts and tributes to the king.

It could be said that the reliefs of Pasargadae constitute the specific political programme of the Achaemenid Empire’s founder, Cyrus.

Yet these very images took over the whole of Achaemenid art. It seems that the programme was a great deal more extensive, reflecting more than the specific aims that arose during the construction of Pasargadae and Persepolis. Canons stipulating certain “principal” scenes were laid down at this time: The scene of the king’s triumphal reception, the scene reflecting his religious faith and certain symbolical compositions. These canons were to endure in Iran for several centuries.

Like all Near Eastern art, that of Achaemenid Iran is distinguished by its realism in the portrayal of everyday objects which are faithfully reproduced down to the tiniest detail, combined with stereotyped, idealised portraits lacking any individual features. Unlike the art of the Near East, however, there is nothing that might be termed personal or private in Achaemenid art, for nearly all compositions have a specific symbolic meaning.

The above is a lightly edited version of part of a chapter entitled, ‘Persian Art: From Antiquity to the 19th Century’, from a book entitled, ‘The Lost Treasures, Persian Art’ , written by Vladimir Lukonin and Anatoli Ivanov, published by Parkstone International.