SWEDEN iii. SWEDISH ARCHEOLOGICAL MISSIONS TO IRAN

This article provides an overview of Swedish archeological missions to Iran from the beginning of contact between Swedish and Persian culture in the 17th century to present times.

 

SWEDEN

iii. SWEDISH ARCHEOLOGICAL MISSIONS TO IRAN

Scholarly contacts between Sweden and Iran have been somewhat limited though not insignificant. Already in the 17th century, the early Swedish travelers Bengt Oxenstierna and Nils Matson Kiöping visited, among other places, Persepolis and Naqš-e Rostam. The missions of the Swedish emissary, of Dutch parentage, Ludvig Fabritius (1648-1729) to Shah Abbas in 1677-82, 1683-88, and 1697-1700 led to the establishment of commercial contacts between Persia and Sweden. Perhaps it was Fabritius who left the rare and well-preserved gold coin from 1700 found in Isfahan (Nylander, p. 88).

While Swedish archaeologists had no opportunity to do fieldwork in Iran until the 1930s, Swedish philologists had already made important contributions to the study of Iranian philology, religion, and history throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. They include Nathan Söderblom (1866-1931), Henrik Samuel Nyberg (1889-1974), Geo Widengren (1907-94), Stig Wikander (1908-84), Sven Hartman (1917-88), and others.

The above does not imply, however, that Swedish scholars refrained from working and writing on Iranian art and archaeology. Already around 1900 Ture J. Arne (1879-1965) and others discussed archaeological problems in northwestern Iran and Turkistan, and the provenance of art objects found in the Scandinavia, Russia and other regions (see under Arne in the bibliography). In 1906-07 Arne worked in eastern Turkey and in 1929 he studied the Russian Turkistan area. In addition he was especially interested in the Bronzes of Luristan.

Finally, in 1932, Swedish archaeologists embarked on excavations in Iran. The results were two excavations: Shah Tepe (Arne, 1932-33) and Taḵt-e Solaymān (von der Osten, Almgren, and others, 1958-62; see TAḴT-E SOLAYMĀN). In addition, from 1960 extensive studies were carried out on the Achaemenid imperial architecture, art and history (Peterson-Tilia, Nylander).

Shah Tepe (1932-33). In the period 1927-35 Sven Hedin carried out major excavations in Inner Mongolia, East Turkistan, Tibet, and Northern China. The aim was, among other things, to study the age-old connections between Eastern Asia, Turkmenistan, the Near East and Europe (Andersson, 1929; Thordeman, 1935). With the same goal in mind, his colleague T. J. Arne was investigating Shah Tepe, one of the very first excavations in the archeologically rich steppe north of Astarābād in northeastern Iran. Arne could divide the main chronology of Shah Tepe into four main periods, stretching roughly from ca. 3200 to ca. 1800 BCE. The typical burnished gray ware of the site he found was related to the important mounds of Tureng Tepe, Yarim Tepe, and Tepe Hissar. The Bronze Age of all those sites had come to an abrupt end more or less simultaneously in the early second millennium (see under Arne and Beglin in the bibliography). The rich finds of the excavation, and other finds from Iran, were exhibited in Stockholm in 1940, and in the same year Arne published his reports of the excavation as Excavations at Shah Tepé, Iran. At Shah Tepe 257 skeletons were uncovered, of which 176 were prehistoric and 81 tombs from the Islamic period, from ca. 800-1000 CE. The human skeletons were studied by Carl M. Fürst and the animal bones were treated by Johan W. Amschler and the reports were published in 1939 (Fürst and Amschler, 1939).

The Luristan bronzes (1932/33). In Sweden there was an early debate on the similarity of bronzes or perhaps even direct contact between Scandinavia and Iran. Thus Arne also brought to Sweden important collections of Iranian art objects, especially “Luristan” or “Amlash” bronzes (see AMLAŠ) from Northwestern Iran, and compared them with finds from other areas, from China, Italy, and Scandinavia. The collections are now in the Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities in Stockholm (see under Arne and 7, 13, 14, 23; and Marino-Hultman, 52, 75, 80). At the same time a collection of Sasanian stucco and glass vessels was procured for the National Museum.

Taḵt-e Solaymān (Takht-i-Suleiman; Germany 1958-78, Sweden 1958-62). Having spent some time in Germany, the United States, and Turkey, Von der Osten (1899-1960) continued his academic work as an inspiring professor at Uppsala (1951-60), and rekindled there the interest in Iranian archaeology, not least through his Die Welt der Perser and other works (Osten, 4, 6, 17-21). Thanks to him, scholars from Uppsala could take part in a new, exciting excavation initiated by the Deutsche Archäologische Institut.

The beautiful and fascinating site of Taḵt-e Solaymān, some 2200 m. over the sea in Azarbaijan, had long been visited by early scholars such as Robert Ker Porter (1819), Henry Rawlinson (1837), Donald N. Wilber and Arthur Upham Pope (1937) and others. But it was only in 1958 that a joint German-Swedish-Persian excavation was assembled, led by von der Osten and Naumann, at the time the director of the German Institute in Istanbul, and staffed with young German, Swedish, and Iranian scholars.

Taḵt-e Solaymān was the important and much discussed site of the holy Šiz and of the Ādur Gušnasp, the “City of the Warriors’ Fire,” with its great temple, the magical bottomless lake and of the great wall and gates reinforced by 38 towers. Only 3 km. away is the early sacred Mountain-Crater of Zendān-e Solaymān (Zindan-i-Suleiman). The beautiful landscape thus documented a long history from the dim prehistoric period of around 3rd/2nd millennia BCE up to the Mongolian era of Čengiz Khan’s grandson Abaqa and his summer palace of the 13/14th century CE.

At the Zendān in 1958-64 several German and some Swedish archeologist (von der Osten and Almgren in 1958, Zachrisson in 1959 (21), and Nylander in 1960 excavated the impressive prehistoric Mannaean sanctuary from circa 800-600 BCE on the volcano-like Zendān, related to other first millennium sites like Ziwiye and Ḥasanlu. Two periods were distinguished, one a monumental unfortified sanctuary with much gray pottery, and the second a settlement with fine decorated and painted wares, which appears to have met a violent end around 600 BCE by enemy hands, perhaps by Medians. Ceramic and other finds tend to date these periods from the beginning of the 8th century to the end of the 7th century. There are good reasons to believe that the Zendān was an important religious center of the Mannai, the people known from Assyrian and Urartian sources of the 1st millennium.

At the Taḵt-e Solaymān the main excavation (1959-78), under Rudolf Naumann, Wolfram Kleiss, and Dietrich Huff, concentrated, above all, on the beautiful summer palace of Abaqa Khan (ca. 1270 CE) and on the underlying great Sasanian Fire Temple. The last, magnificent structure was most probably built by Ḵosrow I Anušervān (r. 531-79 CE), and largely destroyed by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius in 624. But underneath it the German archaeologists discovered an earlier temple construction, most probably of Peroz I (Firuz (r. 459-84 CE), and, deeper down, even an Achaemenid settlement (6/5th BCE).

The Swedes (Almgren, Gezelius, Nylander) concentrated on two excavations of parts of the great stonewall with towers around the Taḵt-e Solaymān and of the impressive mud-brick system inside it. In addition, the excavations established the stratigraphic sequence of the settlement periods in the area inside (21, 25). These early investigations documented several strata of Mongolian and Early Islamic periods of houses, fireplaces, wells and much exciting pottery from the Near East, from the West and even from China.

Underneath was documented the great mud brick system, some 10 to 15 meters thick, inside the late Sasanian strong stonewall. The problem was their relation. Were they contemporary or was the mud brick system a huge wall of some hundred or more years earlier? Early Sasanian or perhaps even Parthian? In 1961-62 this was unclear (25), although the young excavator thought he knew (39). Only in the excavation of 1966-69 did the German colleague Dietrich Huff at last resolve the problem. The mud brick structure was Taḵt-e Solaymān’s first wall, towers and gate date from an earlier Sasanian period, most probably contemporary with the first Fire Temple built by Peroz I. In 1978, after some 15 years of further work, the Germans had indeed slowly resolved most of the many problems of the early excavations.

The Silk Road and Taḵt-e Solaymān. In a stimulating paper on the Silk Road, Bertil Almgren discussed the mysterious flowing waters of Taḵt-e Solaymān and Zendān-e Solaymān and connected the archaeologically observable fluctuations in this trade route from China to the Mediterranean with possible climatic changes in the middle of the 1st millennia BCE and the middle of the 1st millennia CE, parallel to those already observed in contemporary Europe (22). Because of increased precipitation, these fluctuations in the climate would have blocked the crucial and high passes over the Pamir with snow and ice and thus forced travelers to take another route, most probably northwards, thereby contributing to the prosperity of the Altai region. At the same time this increased precipitation would have resulted in vastly enlarged areas for pasture in the western highland regions, where the lack of erosion made the earth-covered mountain slopes react intensely to a slight increase of humidity. The result would have been a general multiplication of cattle and perhaps also of people. Almgren’s paper hints at the possibility of understanding the varying fortunes of the Taḵt-e Solaymān valley in connection with these climatic changes, which are thought to have influenced the water flow of the crater lakes of the Zendān and the Taḵt.

Achaemenid problems (1960-2006). The Achaemenids (559-330 BCE) had offered little written text but, on the other hand, much architecture and art. However, many problems remained. In 1892 Lord Curzon avowed that he was bored by Persepolis, as it was the same “It is the same and the same again, and yet again” (83, II, p. 195). In 1905 the excavator of Susa, Jacques de Morgan, complained of the perennial bad taste inherent in Achaemenid art (84). And the prominent art historian Bernard Berenson in 1954 considered ancient Iran as having nothing but “originality of incompetence” (85, p. 186). Such attitudes often led to a lack of interest in the Achaemenid art itself and instead to a concentration on the problems of its background, more of its becoming than of its being.

Consequently scholars debated whether even the little that they approved of at Persepolis was especially or even exclusively there through Greek architects and artists. This was more or less strongly negated by orientalists but, on the other hand, was thought of as a correct interpretation by many Classical archaeologists, with their traditional expertise on matters of style. How was this central problem to be resolved? (37: 11-18; 60).

After World War II a new generation of young scholars from several countries and of various disciplines entered the field of ancient Iran. They had the ambition to collaborate and to change the rigid academic boundaries between the Near Eastern and Classical disciplines and to analyze the Achaemenid culture, art, and architecture on its own terms and as a phenomenon sui generis (60, 64, 73).

Work on stone. The Swedish scholars Peterson-Tilia (1926-88) and Nylander (1932-) initiated around 1960 Achaemenid research on the most central evidence: the basic work on the stone. Nylander established the stonework and stone-tools in the ancient Near East and in Greece and then studied the stonework at Pasargadae, Persepolis, and Susa. The titles of the studies speak for themselves: “Old Persian and Greek Stonecutting” (26; 28), “Clamps and Chronology” (27), Ionians in Pasargadae (37), “Masons’ Marks in Persepolis” (49), “The Toothed Chisel” (72), “Stone for Kings” (81). Related problems were treated in “Al-Beruni and Persepolis” (48), the synthesis “Achaemenid imperial art” (60), and in “Architecture grecque et pouvoir persan” (64), and discussed in “Masters from Persepolis? A Note on the Problem of the Origins of Maurya Art” (68).

While Nylander was engaged in stonework research, not only in Iran but also in Urartu (29), Assyria, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Lydia and Ionia, Tilia’s valuable contributions were in a different sphere. She and her Italian husband, an architect-cum-restorer, Giuseppe Tilia (1931-2001) lived at Persepolis and worked there for almost 15 years (1965-79). Their achievements were remarkable: penetrating research, rich documentation, drawing and photography. The outcome was some 20 important publications (32-36, 41-47, 50-51, 54-58, 77): the first two publications appeared in 1968: “Study on the methods of working and restoring stone” (32), and “New Contribution to the Knowledge of the Building History” (33). Later came “The destroyed Palace of Artaxerxes I” (45); the very complicated construction and chronology of “The Terrace Wall of Persepolis” were studied, in part with Nylander (56); sensational documentation of the re-found rich blue-red-green-golden colors were presented in “Colour in Persepolis” (57). Tilia’s new interpretation of how and why the central bas-reliefs of Darius (?) was moved from the Apadāna into the Treasury is important (44). She documented that it was undoubtedly Xerxes, and not Darius, who had created much of the Apadāna and the famous bas-reliefs of the Great King and the Crown Prince, and that it was probably the late Artaxerxes III who had carefully moved the bas-reliefs into the Treasury, now possibly a religious shrine. In addition the Tilias studied several other sites in the northern part of the Marvdašt Plain (58), in Pasargadae, Naqš-e Rostam and on the important water Kor at Dorydzan (41, 77).

Tilia studied decorations and colors of the clothes and shoes of the kings and soldiers and on other objects like the throne-cover. In addition Roos studied “An Achaemenian sketch slab and the ornaments of the royal dress at Persepolis” (38) and Linders “The kandys in Greece and Persia” (67). In close collaboration with the Tilias, Nylander and Flemberg resolved, at last, the problem of a small but important stone fragment of Darius in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in “A Foot-note from Persepolis” (70).

The long preoccupation with great and small stones by the two Tilias and their generosity in collaborating with other colleagues profoundly increased the knowledge of the physical reality of the Achaemenids and of the complex development of architectural and artistic slow creation, addition and change. But much still remained, and it was a cause of great sadness to Ann Britt Tilia and Giuseppe Tilia when, in 1979, they were forced to leave Iran and their work at Persepolis.

Stones destroyed. Stone were not only created but some time also interestingly destroyed. This is discussed by Nylander in two papers: “Earless in Nineveh: Who Mutilated ‘Sargon’s’ Head?” (62), and “Breaking the Cup of Kingship: An Elamite coup in Nineveh?” (79). The political destruction of art in the Near East, as well as in Greece and Rome, was further discussed in “Imago Mutilata: Iconoclasn as a Counter-language” (69), and in “The Mutilated Image: “We” and “They” in History - and Prehistory?” (78).

Inscriptions and texts. Nylander has also published papers on inscriptions: “Bemerkungen zu einem Inschrift-fragment in Pasargade” (24); followed by the partly problematic “Who wrote the Inscriptions at Pasargadae” (30; cf. 76); the study “Assyrian Grammata: Remarks on the 21st ‘Letter of Themistokles’” (31), and about Greek knowledge of Persian background in “Xenophon, Darius, Naram-Sin: a note on the King’s ‘Year’” (74).

Persepolis and Pompeii. The famous mosaic of Alexander and Darius was found in 1831 in the Casa del Fauno in Pompeii. It was a fine copy of a lost late-4th century painting. In 1982-83 Nylander published two articles introducing a Persian aspect: “The Standard of the Great King – A Problem of the Alexander Mosaic” (66), and “Il milite ignoto: un problema nel mosaico di Alessandro” (63). A full understanding of the great work must also more profoundly bring in the Achaemenid dimension. The Great King had at last got his standard back, long thought to be a Macedonian signal of attack, a phoinikis. The interpretation of the mosaic must also take into consideration the heroically dying Iranian “unknown soldier” in the center of the scene.

Darius III: a Coward King? At a conference in Rome in 1992 scholars discussed “Alexander the Great: Reality and Myth.” On this occasion, Nylander discussed “Darius III – the Coward King. Point and Counterpoint” (73). The great historian Arnaldo Momigliano once said that “What we call the tradition on Persia is to a very great extent the tradition of subjects and enemies” (86, p. 126). After a long tradition of scholars viewing with contempt the “cowardly” Darius/Artashata at Gaugamela and other places, Nylander tried to view the Iranian side. Widengren had expressed the problem in 1965: “Darius followed in a chariot the battles at Issus and Gaugamela. However, as the fight was lost he turned to flight as the King’s fundamental duty was not to fight but to exist. This flight has been mistakenly been characterized as cowardly action” (87, p. 153). The debate continued in Rome: “If Achaemenid kingship shows some affinities with the virtus of the Assyrian fighting ruler, there is as much, or more, of the maiestas of the calm Cosmic King. The inherent tension between such contrasting, active and passive aspects of kingship is clearly seen in the royal Achaemenid art: on one hand there are the seals and the coins which show the heroic king fighting his enemies or killing lions; on the other, there are the calm and peaceful scenes of the monumental palatial art of Pasargadae, Persepolis and Susa: the dynamic and the static dimensions of empire.” The debate continues.

The past 50 years of Persian studies have indeed shifted Achaemenid Iran firmly from the periphery unto the central agenda of the Near Eastern and Classical discipline of archaeology, art and history.

Chronological Bibliography of Archaeological Research:

1910-1919:

1. Ture J. Arne, “Les relations de la Suède et de l’Orient pendant l’âge des vikings” Congrès préhistorique de France. Session de Beauvais, 1909, Paris, 1910, pp. 586-92.

2. Idem, “Ein persisches Gewichtsystem in Schweden,” Orientalisches Archiv 2, 1912, pp. 122-27.

3. Idem, La Suède et l’Orient. Études archéologiques sur les relations de la Suède et de l’Orient pendant l’âge des vikings, Archives d’études orientales 8, Uppsala, 1914.

1920-1929:

4. Hans Henning von der Osten, “Seven Parthian Statuettes,” Art Bulletin VIII, 1926, pp. 169-74.

5. John G. Andersson, “Der Weg uber die Steppe,” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 1, 1929, pp. 143-63.

1930-1939:

6. Hans Henning von der Osten, “The Ancient Seals from the Near East in Metropolitan Museum,” Bulletin of the College Art Association 13, 1931, pp. 221-41.

7. Ture J. Arne, “Luristan and the West,” Eurasia septentrionalis antiqua 9, 1934, pp. 277-84.

8. Idem, “The Swedish archaeological expedition to Iran 1932-1933,” Acta archaeological 6, 1935, pp. 1-48.

9. Idem, “La steppe Turkomane et ses antiquités,” Geografiska Annaler 17, Stockholm, 1935, pp. 28-43.

10. Bengt Thordeman, ”Die asiatischen Rustungen der letzen Sven Hedin-Expedition,” Hyllningsskrift tillägnad Sven Hedin på hans 70-årsdag den 19 febr. 1935, Stockholm, 1935, pp. 215-24.

11. Martin Beglin, “Keramische Funde von den Tépés der Turkmensteppe,” Svenska Orientsällskapets Årsbok 1937, pp. 26-38.

12. Carl M. Fürst, and Johan W. Amschler, The skeletal material collected during the excavations of dr. T. J. Arne in Shah Tepé at Astrabad-Gorgan in Iran, and Tierreste der Ausgrabungen von dem “Grossen Königshügel” Shah Tepé in Nord-Iran.

13. Ture J. Arne, “Keulenköpfe, Szepter und Handgriffe von Luristan,” Prussia 33, 1939, pp. 15-20.

1940-1949:

14. Ture J. Arne, “Klappern und Schellen aus Luristan,” Serta Hoffilleriana I, Zagreb, 1940, pp. 53-55.

15. Idem, Excavations at Shah Tepé, Iran, Stockholm, 1945.

1950-1959:

16. Geo Widengren, “Some Remarks on Riding Costumes and Articles of Dress among Iranian Peoples in Antiquity,” Artica, Studia Ethnographia Uppsaliensia XI, 1956, pp. 228-76.

17. Hans Henning von der Osten, “Geschnittene Steine aus Ost-Turkestan im Ethnographischen Museum zu Stockholm,” Ethnos, 1952, pp. 158-216.

18. Idem, Die Welt der Perser, Stattgurt, 1956.

19. Idem, Altorientalische Siegelsteine der Sammlung Hans Silvius von Auloch, Uppsala, 1957.

1960-1969:

20. Hans Henning von der Osten, “Altorientalische Siegelsteine,” Medelhavsmuseet Bulletin 1, 1961, pp. 20-41.

21. Idem and Rudolf Naumann, Takht-i-Suleiman. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen 1959, Teheraner Forschungen hrsg. vom Deutschen Archäologischer Institut, Abt. Teheran 1, Berlin, 1961.

22. Bertil Almgren, “Geographical aspects of the Silk road especially in Persia and East Turkestan” The Museum of Far Eastern antiquities, Stockholm. Bulletin 34, 1962, pp. 93-106.

23. Ture J. Arne, “The Collection of Luristan bronzes,” Medelhavsmuseet Bulletin 2, 1962, pp. 5-17.

24. Carl Nylander, “Bemerkungen zu einem Inschriftfragment in Pasargade,” Orientalia Suecana 11, 1962, pp. 121-25.

25. Lars Gezelius and Carl Nylander, “Der Suchgraben an der Ostseite des Plateaus des Takht-i-Suleiman,” Archäologischer Anzeige, 1962, pp. 670-85; 1964, pp. 57-77.

26. Carl Nylander, “Old Persian and Greek Stonecutting and the Chronology of Achaemenian Monuments,” American Journal of Archaeology 69, 1965, pp. 49-55.

27. Idem, “Clamps and Chronology,” Iranicaantiqua 6, 1966, pp. 130-46.

28. Idem, “The Toothed Chisel in Pasargadae: Further Notes on Old Persian Stonecutting,” American Journal of Archaeology, 70, 1966, pp. 373-76.

29. Idem, “Remarks on the Urartian Acropolis at Zernaki Tepe,” Orientalia Suecana 14-15, 1966, pp. 141-54.

30. Idem, “Who wrote the Inscriptions at Pasargadae?” Orientalia Suecana 16, 1967, pp. 135-80.

31. Idem, “Assyria Grammata: Remarks on the 21st ‘Letter of Themistokles’,” Opuscula Atheniensia 8, 1968, pp. 119-36.

32. Ann Britt Tilia, “A study on the methods of working and restoring stone and on the parts left unfinished in Achaemenian architecture and sculpture,” East and West, N.S. 18, 1968, pp. 67-95.

33. Eadem, “New Contributions to the Knowledge of the Building History of the Apadana: Discovery of a Wall on the Inside of the Facade of the Eastern Apadana Stairway,” East and West, N.S. 18, 1968, pp. 96-108.

34. Eadem, “A Recent Discovery made during the Restoration Work at Persepolis of a Wall on the Inside of the Façade of the Eastern Apadana Stair,” Memorial Volume Vth International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, Tehran, 1968, pp. 363-67.

35. Eadem, “Reconstruction of the parapet on the Terrace wall at Persepolis, south and west of Palace H,” East and West, N.S., 18, 1969, pp. 9-43.

36. Eadem, “Restoration Work in Progress on the Terrace of Persepolis,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute of Pahlavi University, Shiraz, 1969, pp. 52-69.

1970-1979:

37. Carl Nylander, Ionians in Pasargadae: Studies in Old Persian Architecture, Acta universitatis Upsaliensis. Boreas. Uppsala studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations, I, 1970; Persian tr. Nāhid Ḡafuri, 1979.

38. Paavo Roos, “An Achaemenian sketch slab and the ornaments of the royal dress at Persepolis,” East and West, N.S 20, 1970, pp. 51-59.

39. Carl Nylander, The Deep Well, London, 1971.

40. Idem, “Foreign Craftsmen in Achaemenian Persia,” The Memorial Volume of the Vth International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, 11th –18th April 1968, 1972, pp. 311-18.

41. Ann Britt Tilia, Studies and Restorations at Persepolis and Other Sites of Fars, I, IsMEO Reports and Memoirs XVI, Rome, 1972, pp. 1-416.

42. Eadem, “Restoration work at Persepolis, Naqs-I Rustam and Pasargadae. Rescue work at Dorudzan,” IsMEO Reports and Memoirs XVI/1, 1972, pp. 1-125.

43. Eadem, “Contribution to the knowledge of the building history of the Apadana,” IsMEO Reports and Memoirs XVI/2, 1972, pp. 127-73.

44. Eadem, “The bas-reliefs of Darius in the Treasury of Persepolis and their original position,” IsMEO Reports and Memoirs XVI/3, 1972, pp. 175-240.

45. Eadem, The destroyed Palace of Artaxerxes I at Persepolis and related problems,” IsMEO Reports and Memoirs XVI/4, 1972, pp. 243-392.

46. Eadem, “Recent discovers at Persepolis,” Summarily of Papers to be delivered at the 6th International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, Oxford, 1972, pp. 86-87.

47. Eadem, “Discoveries at Persepolis 1972-73,” Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Symposium of Archaeological Research in Iran 1973, Tehran, 1974, pp. 239-54.

48. Carl Nylander, “Al-Beruni and Persepolis,” Actes du congrès de Shiraz 1971: commemoration Cyrus, I, Hommage universel, Acta Iranica, I, 1, 1974, pp. 137-50.

49. Idem, “Masons’ Marks in Persepolis: a Progress Report,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran 29th October-1st November, 1973, Tehran, 1974, pp. 216-22.

50. Ann Britt Tilia, “Persepolis sculptures in the light of new discoveries,” Appendix to Ann E. Farkas, Achaemenid Sculpture, Istanbul, 1974, pp. 127-34.

51. Eadem, “Discovery of an Achaemenian Palace near Takht-i Rustam to the North of the Terrace of Persepolis,” Iran 12, 1974, pp. 200-4.

52. Pat Marino-Hultman, “Bone Figures from Iran in Medelhavsmuseet’s ‘Luristan Collection,’” Bulletin Medelhavsmuseet 9, 1974, pp. 61-65.

53. Carl Nylander, “Anatolians in Susa – and Persepolis?” Monumentum H.S. Nyberg, Acta Iranica, II, 6, 1975, pp. 317-23.

54. Ann Britt Tilia, “Recent Discoveries at Persepolis,” American Journal of Archaeology 81, 1977, pp. 67-77.

55. Eadem, “Studies and Restorations at Persepolis and Other Sites of Fars, II” IsMEO Reports and Memoirs XVIII, Rome, 1978.

56. Eadem, “The Terrace Wall of Persepolis,” IsMEO Reports and Memoirs XVIII/1, 1978, pp. 1-28.

57. Eadem, “Colour in Persepolis,” IsMEO Reports and Memoirs XVIII/2, 1978, pp. 29-70.

58. Eadem, “A Survey of Achaemenian sites in the Northeastern part of the Marvdasht plain. A preliminary report,” IsMEO Reports and Memoirs XVIII/3, 1978, pp. 73-92.

59. Karin Ådahl, “A Fragment from Persepolis,” Bulletin of the Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities 13, Stockholm, 1979, pp. 56-59.

60. Carl Nylander, “Achaemenid Imperial Art,” in M. Trolle Larsen, ed. Power and Propaganda: a Symposium on Ancient Empires, Copenhagen, 1979, pp. 345-59.

61. Idem, “Masons’ Marks in Persepolis,” in Akten des VII. internationalen Kongresess für iranische Kunst und Archäologie, München 7.-10. September, 1976, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, Ergänzungsband 6, Berlin, 1979 pp. 236-39.

1980-1989:

62. Carl Nylander, “Earless in Nineveh: who mutilated ‘Sargon’s head?’” American Journal of Archaeology 84, 1980, pp. 329-33.

63. Idem, “Il milite ignoto: un problema nel mosaico di Alessandro,” La regione sotterrata del Vesuvio: studi e prospettive. Atti del convegno internazionale, 11-15 novembre, 1979, Naples, 1982, pp. 689-95.

64. Idem, “Architecture greque et pouvoir persan,” Architecture et société. De l’archaisme grec à la fin de la république romaine. Actes du colloque international organise par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et l’École Francaise de Rome, Rome 2-4 déc. 1980, Collection de l’École Francaise de Rome, 66, Paris and Rome, 1983, pp. 265-68.

65. Idem, “Intervention to S. Donadoni, ‘L’Egitto achemenide’,” in Modes de contacts et processus de transformation dans les sociétés anciennes. Actes du colloque de Cortone, 24-30 mai 1981, Collection de l’École Française de Rome, 67, Pisa and Rome, 1983. pp. 41-43.

66. Idem, “The Standard of the Great King: a problem in the Alexander mosaic,” Opuscula Romana 14, 1983, pp. 19-37.

67. Linders, Tullia, “The kandys in Greece and Persia,” Opuscala Atheniensia 15, 1984, pp. 107-14.

68. Carl Nylander, “Masters from Persepolis?: A Note on the Problem of the Origins of Maurya Art,” Orientalia Iosephi Tucci memoriae dicata, Serie Orientale Roma 56,3, Rome, 1988, pp. 1029-38.

69. Idem, “Imago Mutilata: Iconoclasm as a Counter-Language,” Center 8. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1988, pp. 102-3.

70. Idem and Johan Flemberg, “A Foot-note from Persepolis,” in Cevdet Bayburtluoglu, ed. Akurgal’a Armagan. Festschrift Akurgal, Anadolu/Anatolia 22, Ankara, 1989, pp. 57-68.

1990-1999:

71. Carl Nylander, “Considérations sur le travail de la Pierre dans la culture perse,” Pierre éternelle du Nil au Rhin: carriers et prefabrication, coord. Scientifique Marc Waelkens, Brussels,1990, pp. 73-86.

72. Idem, “The toothed chisel,” Miscellanea etrusca e italica in onore di Massimo Pallottino, II, Archeologica classica 43, Rome, pp. 1037-52.

73. Idem, “Darius III: the coward king. Point and counterpoint,” Alexander the Great: reality and myth, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, Suppl., 20, Rome, 1993, pp. 145-59.

74. Idem, “Xenophon, Darius, Naram-Sin: a note on the King’s “Year,” Opus mixtum: essays on ancient art and society, Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae 8/o, 21, Stockholm, 1994, pp. 57-59.

75. Pat Marino-Hultman, Ancient Persian Metalwork: the collection of Luristan bronzes at amedelhavsmuseet, Skrifter 20/Medelhavsmuseet, Stockholm, 1996.

76. David Stronach, “On the interpretation of the Pasargadae Inscriptions,” Ultra terminun vagari. Scritti in onore di Carl Nylander, Rome, 1997, pp. 323-29.

77. Giuseppe Tilia, “Ponte-Diga sul Fiume Kor-Fars Iran,” Ultra terminun vagari. Scritti in onore di Carl Nylander, Rome, 1997, pp. 331-38.

78. Carl Nylander, “The Mutiated Image: ‘We’ and ‘They’ in History – and Prehistory?” KVAH, Konference 40, Stockholm, 1998, pp. 235-51.

79. Idem, “Breaking the Cup of Kingship. An Elamite Coup in Nineveh?,” Iranica Antiqua 24, 1999, pp. 71-83.

2000-2005:

80. Pat Marino-Hultman, Ancient Persian metalwork: the collection of Luristan bronzes at Medelhavsmuseet, Skrifter 21/ Medelhavsmuseet, Stockholm, 2000.

81. Carl Nylander, “Stones for Kings: Stone-working in Ancient Iran” IsMEO, sub prelo, Rome, 2005, pp. 121-33.

82. Idem, “Stones for Kings. Stone-working in Ancient Persia,” Architetti, Caromastri, Artigiani. L’Organizzazione dei cantieri a della produzione artistica nell’Asia ellenistica, Instituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, 2006, pp. 121-36.

Other References:

83. George N. Curzon, Persia and the Persian Question, London, 1892; repr. 1966.

84. Jacques de Morgan, Mission scientifique en Perse, Paris, 1896.

85. Bernard Berenson, Aesthetics and History in the Visual Arts, New York, 1954.

86. Arnaldo Momigliano, Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization, Cambridge, 1975.

87. Geo Widengren, Die Religion Irans, Stuttgart 1965.

(Carl Nylander)

Originally Published: July 20, 2009

Last Updated: July 20, 2009