BMCR 2009.02.02, Collaborative Response to Lendering on Kaveh Farrokh

Collaborative Response to Lendering on Kaveh Farrokh, Shadows in the
Desert. Ancient Persia at War.   Response to BMCR 2008.09.62



Response by Valeri Vashakidze ([email protected])
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this response, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2009/2009-02-02.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/02/20090202.html
-------------------------------

Professor Valeri Vashakidze (Member of Georgian Academy of Sciences, Ex
Minister of the Georgian State Refugees and Accommodation), Dr. David
(Giorgi) Tcheishvili (Georgia State University, Republic of Georgia),
Professor George Gulordava (Dadiani Museum Academy), Professor Tariel
Jikia (Cheriomushki College, Russia), Dr. David Khoupenia (University
of Zugdidi), Professor Niko Kachareva (Georgian State University), Dr.
Imre Bartfai (University of Budapest, Hungary).

Lendering's review of Kaveh Farrokh, Shadows in the Desert: Ancient
Persia at War is marred by a series of overt inaccuracies,
misconceptions and mistakes with respect to the domain of ancient
Iranian studies. Moreover he displays a consistent pattern of ignoring
seminal works, journal publications, and research that contradict his
points of view. Following are some examples of these misconceptions.

(1) The state of Iranian Studies. Lendering reports that "Farrokh's
statement that 'there has been an overall decline of programs and
studies of Iranica in western Europe and the United States since 1980'
could not be further from the truth."

Lendering's report is contradicted by prominent professors and
academics of Iranian Studies. Professor Ehsan Yarshater, the editor of
the Encyclopaedia Iranica, noted  in an interview with the Gooya News
Service on June 6, 2004 that
(http://news.gooya.eu/culture/archives/011782.php)  "...the total
number of competent scholars in Iranian Studies is decreasing...the
number of young scholars drawn to Iranian Studies has become alarmingly
low...the one exception is Italy...". Since that interview, even
Iranian studies in Italy have been threatened by the possible closure
of the Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (see
http://www.payvand.com/news/08/jul/1007.html
(http://www.payvand.com/news/08/jul/1007.html) ).

Lendering even claims that "In the 1970s, Iranology was a divided
discipline, still in its infancy". This is contradicted by Nasri (1983)
as well as Babai (1994), Matini (1989) and Matini and Dabashi (1991)
who have collectively noted that the field of Iranica was thriving in
both the west and Iran in the 1970s, a process which has been reversed
since 1979.

(2) Median Architecture and Arts. Lendering reports that "We are also
to believe that the Median state was more centralized than the
Achaemenid Empire...; if this were true, archaeologists would find some
kind of common state architecture all over the Median realms, but they
have not been able to establish which objects are indicative of Median
presence. (Finds below the Achaemenid stratum are almost by definition
called Median, but this does not mean that they resemble each other)."

Lendering ignores the main thrust of established research in the field
including Diakonov (1985a, 1985b), Frye (1984), Hansman (1985), Pyankov
(1965), and especially Stronach's groundbreaking research at the Median
settlement at Nush-i-Jan (1985) as well as more recent research. His
belief that no consistent architectural style existed in Media
indicates a lack of knowledge with respect to the vast scholarship and
research that has already been conducted (and is currently underway) in
Iran today, especially in Luristan, Ecbatana and Azerbaijan. Boucharlat
and Razmjou in their comprehensive report in Iranica Antiqua on Median
architecture (2005) note that many elements of Median
artistic/architectural forms may be traced to the Ziwiye treasure,
Urartu and nomadic regions, and that Median arts can be distinguished
in two parts: (a) "the pure and original Media art" and (b) the realms
to the north and west of the Medes which "mixed with Mesopotamian and
Urartian elements". Thus, Median architecture is characterised by both
consistency and regional diversity. The Ziwiye artistic style was not
only consistent in western and northwestern Iran but also influenced
the ancient Ukraine through those Scythians who returned to the steppes
after the revival of Median political power. The art of Ziwiye however
was itself the result of a symbiosis with the steppe arts as well.
Lendering's lack of knowledge of the ancient basis of Median
architecture is also evidenced by his lack of knowledge of rib
vaulting, which is attributed to the Medes (see Van Beek 1987).

(3) The site of Persepolis and the Nowruz festival. Lendering reports
(in footnote 10) that: "A textbook example of a secundum quid can be
found on page 61, where it is stated that 'it is a little-known fact
that one of the most important functions of Persepolis was the
celebration of the Persian New Year festival'. The main evidence is
that on the reliefs on the stairs of the Apadana, people are shown
bringing presents, which suggests that gifts were offered to the great
king. But it does not prove that this happened at the New Year
Festival."

Lendering fails to mention that the statement "...the celebration of
the Persian New Year festival which had acquired an imperial
significance" is not Farrokh's personal opinion but a referenced
statement by Culican.[[1]]

Lendering's view is represented by an handful of researchers whom he
cites often: Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Kuhrt, and Briant. But even Briant is
forced to admit that "...we must remain open to the hypothesis of an
imperial festival... " at Persepolis. The established basis of the
subject is represented by seminal publications by the University of
Chicago's three-volume Persepolis publications, Porada, Shahbazi and
Dutz. Dutz's studies concluded the Persepolis was the site for "The New
Year's festival of Cyrus the Great". More researchers may be cited who
have noted of the importance of Persepolis with respect to Nowruz. One
example is Matheson who noted that "...representatives of all the
varied peoples of the empire gathered to pay homage, and bring tribute,
to the King of Kings, probably each spring, at the time of the ancient
Nowruz (New Year) festival" More recently, Simon, Mattar, and Bulliet
noted that "...Art historians believe that the occasion [at Persepolis]
depicted at Persepolis is the Nowruz (New Day) celebrations" The major
reason why the brilliant hypotheses of Briant, Sancisi-Weerdenburg,
Kuhrt, and Drijvers diverge from the aforementioned sources is in the
failure to consult original Persian sources. such as the post-Islamic
"Nowruz-Nameh" (The Book of Nowruz) by Omar Khayyam which reports very
specific details of the Nowruz ritual took place at Persepolis.
Lendering may be partly excused here as the sources that support his
view do not cite Persian sources. On the other hand, Lendering does
claim to be familiar with Persian and Babylonian sources.


(4) Dangers to archaeological sites. Lendering (in footnote 12) reports
that:
"An example is the statement that a dam in the river Sivand will
endanger the site of Pasargadae, a report that often surfaces in the
blogosphere. It was repeated on the CAIS website with a remark that
"Iran's pre-Islamic past and Iranians' non-Islamic national identity
and heritage have always been the subjects of abhorrence for the
clerics. This diabolical plot by Ayatollahs in Tehran was set in motion
in 1979 to destroy and erase all pre-Islamic Iranian past from the
consciousness of the Iranian nation as part of their de-Iranianisation
campaign"). This is innuendo, not scholarship. (The report about the
flooding is probably a hoax)."

This statement is as surprising as it is categorically false. There
have been officially documented cases of vandalism and damage directed
against ancient pre-Islamic heritage sites such as Persepolis, Susa,
Tang e Bolaghi, and Pasargardae. The most recent case in Persepolis was
reported by official Iranian news sources inside Iran such as Maryam
Tabeshian's report in CHN on December 23rd 2006
(http://www.payvand.com/news/06/may/1154.html) , which also raises
concerns about the Bolaghi Gorge near Pasargadae. In the second week of
August of 2008 a hotel construction company bought bulldozers to carve
out 10,000 square meters from the ancient site of Susa. Much of the
ancient thousands year old site has been destroyed by the bulldozers as
reported by Iran-based agencies such as CHN (Cultural Heritage News)
and Tabnak There have reports of deliberate damage at the palace of
Darius the Great at Tang e Bolaghi. It is not clear why Lendering's
book report has omitted official news reports inside Iran that are
neither politically motivated nor bear any relationship to the
London-based CAIS website.

Ataee notes that while the inauguration of the Sivand Dam would not
directly affect the (Bolaghi) Palace, the humidity generated by that
dam can seriously damage the site over time. While Lendering may
characterize the reports of the CAIS site as a "hoax", the issue has
been reported in the western media (e.g., The Guardian
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/dec/23/iran.artsnews) ).

(5) Alexander the Great. Lendering reports that:"He [Farrokh] still
claims that Alexander the Great was aiming at "unity between Iranians
and Greeks" -- that old canard of Droysen (Verschmelzungspolitik),
repeated by W.W. Tarn in the 1927 edition of the Cambridge Ancient
History, and famously refuted by Badian half a century ago."

But see, for example, Marek Jan Olbrycht, Aleksander Wielki i swiat
iranski [Alexander the Great and the Iranian World] (Poland 2004,
reviewed in BMCR 2006.03.41)

(6) The date of Croesus's defeat. Lendering reports that:"Another
example is the statement that Croesus was defeated in the year 547 (p.
41), which has become untenable since the 1977 edition of Grayson's
Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles..."

Grayson's hypothesis has not been accepted by the academic mainstream.
See Briant (2002, p. 34), Bradford (2004, p. 41), Curtis (1990, p.39),
Frye (1984, p. 92), MacKenzie (2008, p. 454), Mallowan (1985, pp.
392-419), Mieroop (2004, p. 268), Mikalson (2003, p. 48), Padgen (2006,
p. 7), Prevas (2002, p. 21) and Wisehofer (2001, p. 2). Major refereed
reference guides such as The Encyclopedia Americana (see p. 733) and
The Encyclopedia Britannica (see p. 942) also cite the date of 547 BC.

(7) Misspellings: Lendering ...objects to spelling errors in footnote
8: "Oriontes for Orontes (p. 54), Atoosa for Atossa (p. 74), Nochus for
Nothus (p. 88)..."

Atoosa is the Iranic phonology for the term. There is no phonological
basis for suggesting that only Lendering's version--Atossa--is correct.
The book is in English which does not allow the author to use Persian
(Arabic-based) script to express the Iranic linguistic conventions.
Lendering may be applying a Eurocentric application of terminology
towards Iranic nomenclature. There is nothing wrong with this as long
as it is recognized that this is not the only "correct" version for the
Iranic terminology.

(8) Darius and the Imperial Navy. Lendering (in footnote 7) writes:
"... on p. 68, we learn that Darius created an imperial navy; it was
Cambyses (H.T. Wallinga, Ships and Sea Power before the Great Persian
War [1993])."

Cambyses' role is no longer acknowledged by leading authorities in the
field of Iranian military history. Motofi, who is considered to be the
Richard Keegan of ancient Iranian warfare, stated clearly in 1999 that
"Until the onset of Darius' rule, the Achamenid military did not have a
significant navy" (p. 7). Lendering may also be unfamiliar with the
studies of Iranian marine archaeologists of the Aero-Marine Research
Center of Malek Ashtar University in Iran, who reconstructed ancient
Iranian warships of the reigns of Darius and Xerxes in 2005.
Lendering's misconception may derive from Cambyses' use of Phoenician
ships during his invasion of Egypt (These details are fully discussed
along with references in Farrokh's book). However, the deployment of
Phoenician ships in a single campaign does not mean that Iran had an
imperial navy in Cambyses' time. Also, Lendering omits reference to
other scholars on the subject (i.e. Mayerson, 1987; Motofi, 1999;
Gabriel, 2002).

Non-military consequences of military history. Lendering reports that:
"...If the reader is surprised about what is left out from Shadows in
the Desert, he will be astonished to discover what is included:
linguistics, Babylonian astronomy, the Silk Road, the Baghdad Battery,
and the Alanic origins of the King Arthur legend. These digressions
make for pleasant reading, surely, but are irrelevant to ancient Persia
at war."

It is unclear as to how the social, economic, linguistic, political,
technical, linguistic, etc. consequences of military history are
"irrelevant". A major conference in Wittenberg in November 2003 focused
specifically on the topic of the cultural consequences of the military
history of Persia-Central Asia, Arms and Armour Indicators of Cultural
Transfer: The Steppes and the Ancient World from Hellenistic Times to
the Early Middle Ages
(http://www.orientarch.uni-halle.de/sfb586/d3/conf/) .

(9) Cyrus the Great. Lendering reports that: "The strangest inclusion
is the Cyrus Cylinder, a document from Babylon in which the conqueror
presents himself as the ideal king: [which was called] by the
government of Mohammad Reza Shah, 'the world's first human rights
charter'. Farrokh repeats this propaganda verbatim on page 44,
apparently unaware of the extensive secondary literature on the
subject..."

Farrokh makes reference to the Cylinder within the context of
discussing a range of references including primary sources (e.g., the
Hebrew Bible) in the overall discussion of Cyrus' policies during his
reign. While true that that the cylinder was part of a distinct
Mesopotamian tradition of presenting the monarch in a favorable light,
Lendering's allusions to the favorable history of Cyrus (and the
Cylinder in particular) being contemporary "propaganda" by the former
Pahlavi regime of Iran are categorically false.

A number of contemporary scholars such as Robertson and Merrills
(1996), Ramcharan (2008) and Ritmeyer have cited the cylinder as the
world's first human rights declaration, a view not shared by all
researchers of the domain including Briant. Lendering raises questions
about the historical veracity of Cyrus having allowed the Jews to
return home from Babylon by stating in footnote 2 that: "The most
recent edition is Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros' des
Grossen (Muenster 2001) by Hanspeter Schaudig. Claims that the
Cylinder, if it is not 'the world's first human rights charter', at
least proves that Cyrus allowed the Jews to return home, have been
challenged by Diana Edelman, The Origins of the 'Second' Temple (London
2005)." Edelman's views have made no major impact on the established
scholarship of the field. This is clearly seen in reference to Curtis,
Tallis, and Andre-Salvini (2005), who noted that it was Cyrus' policies
of allowing Jews and other deported peoples into their homelands that
marked a significant reversal of the former policies of the Babylonian
and Assyrian empires. As noted by Talbott in 2005, it was Cyrus the
Great who is the earliest known advocate of religious freedom in the
6th century BC and was opposed to slavery by freeing thousands of
slaves. Lendering's suggestion that these interpretations are somehow
linked to the propaganda of the former Pahlavi regime is completely
unsubstantiated. Farrokh's text has simply been consistent with
researchers such as Curtis, Tallis and Andre-Salvini, who noted that
the ideas that led to the modern (twentieth century) concept of human
rights are partly indebted to Cyrus' benevolent policies.

Lendering has omitted scholarship on a complex topic. Instead he
selectively cites controversial perspectives such as those of Van der
Spek and Amelie Kuhrt. Kuhrt argued that the favorable historiography
of Cyrus is "...a piece of blatant propaganda ...based on "...the
limited experience of one influential group of a very small community
[the Jews]" (1983, pp. 94-95). It is true that Farrokh did not mention
these particular theories; had he pointed out these contrasting views
Farrokh would have made his discussion more robust. However to suggest
that explanations offered by sources such as Kuhrt are representative
of the "extensive secondary literature" diverges widely from the
academic reality: these hypotheses have not found acceptance within the
mainstream of Iranian Studies.

Summary and Conclusion
Lendering's review of Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War is
characterized by the presentation of erroneous information, the
arbitrary selection and rejection of information, and ignorance of much
of the scholarship in the field of Iranian studies. However, it has
afforded the opportunity of allowing these misconceptions to be
examined, discussed and analyzed within a collegial academic
forum.[[2]]

Works Cited
Babai, S. (1994). Description and book review Iranshenasi: A Journal of
Iranian Studies, VI(3), pp. 620-624.
Boucharlat, R. and Razmjou, S. (2005). "In Search of the Lost Median
Art". Iranica Antiqua, Volume 28, pp. 271-314.
Briant, P. (2002). From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian
Empire. Eisenbrauns.
Bradford, E. (2004). Thermopylae: The Battle for the West. De Capo
Press.
Curtis, J. (1990, reprinted 2000). Ancient Persia. Harvard University
Press.
Curtis, J., Tallis, N. & Andre-Salvini, B. (2005). Forgotten Empire.
University of California Press.
Diakonov, I.M. (1985). "Media". In Gershevitch, pp. 36-148.
Diakonov, I.M. (1985b). "Elam". In Gershevitch, pp. 1-24.
Dutz, W.F. (1975). Persepolis and Archaeological Sites in Fars. Soroush
Library of Introduction to Persian Art.
Frye, R.N. (1984). The History of Ancient Iran. C.H. Beck Verlag.
Gabriel, R.A. (2002). The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood
Publishing Group.
Hansman, J. (1985). "Anshan in the Median and Achaemenean periods". In
Gerschvitch, pp. 25-35.
Gershevitch, I (ed.) (1985), Cambridge History of Iran: Vol.2 The
Median and Achaemenean Periods. Cambridge University Press.
Kuhrt, A. (1983). "The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy".
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 25, pp. 83-97.
MacKenzie, D. A. (2008). Myths of Babylon and Assyria. Kessinger
Publishing.
Mallowan, M. Von (1977). Mallowan's Memoirs. University of Michigan
Press.
Mallowan, M. (1985). "Cyrus the Great (558-529 BC)". In Gershevitch,
pp. 392-419.
Matini, J. (1989). Scientific and artistic artefacts of Iranian origin
placed in the Saudi Pavilion in Washington DC. Iranshenasi: A Journal
of Iranian Studies, I(2), pp. 390-404.
Matini, J., & Dabashi, H. (1991). The placement of Sassanian art works
within "Islamic Arts". Iranshenasi: A Journal of Iranian Studies,
III(3), pp. 657-658.
Mayerson, P. (1987). Saracens and Romans: micro macro relationships.
Bulletin of the American Schools for Oriental Research, Number 265, pp.
35-51.
Mieroop, Marc Van de (2004). A History of the Ancient Near East.
Published by Wiley Blackwell.
Mikalson, Jon D. (2003). Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars.
The University of North Carolina Press.
Molavi, A. ( 2005). The Soul of Iran, W.W. Norton & Company.
Motofi, A, (1999). Tarikh-e-Chahar Hezar Sal-e Artesh-e Iran: Az
Tamadon-e Elam ta 1320 Khorsheedi, Jang-e- Iran va Araqh [The 4000 Year
History of the Army of Iran: From the Elamite Civilizaiton to 1941, the
Iran-Iraq War]. Entesharat-e Iman.
Nasri, F. (1983). "Review: Iranian Studies and the Iranian Revolution".
World Politics, 35 (4), pp. 607-630.
Padgen, Anthony (2006). Worlds at War: The 2,500 Year Struggle Between
East and West. Random House.
Porada, E. (1985). "Classic Achaemenean architecture and sculpture". In
Gerschvitch, pp. 793-827.
Prevas, John (2002). Xenophon's March: Into the lair of the Persian
Lion. De Capo Press.
Pyankov, I.V. (1965). "Istoriya Persii Ktesiya I Sredneaziatskie
Satrapii Achemenidov vo Konste V.B. do N.E". Vestnik Drevnej Istorii,
2, pp. 35-50.
Ramcharan, B.G. (2008). Contemporary Human Rights Ideas. Routledge.
Ritmeyer, L. (2008). Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah. University of
Michigan Press.
Robertson, A.H., & Merrills, J.G. (1996). Human Rights in the World: An
Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human
Rights. Manchester University Press.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. (1988). "Was there ever a Median Empire?"
Achaemenid History, 3, pp. 197-212.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, W. A. M., Kuhrt, A., & Drijvers, J. W. (1991).
Achaemenid History. Holland: Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Shahbazi, Sh. (1978). "New aspects of Persopolitan studies". Gymnasium,
85, 487-500.
Stronach, D. (1985a). "Tepe Nush-i-Jan: The Median settlement". In
Gershevitch, pp. 832-827.
Talbott, W. J. (2005). "Which Rights Should be Universal?" Oxford
University Press.
Van Beek, G. V. (1987). "Arches and vaults in the ancient Near East".
Scientific American, July, pp. 78-85.
Wiesehofer, Josef. (2001). Ancient Persia: From 550 BC to 650 AD. I.B.
Taurus.
------------------
Notes:


1.  Culican, (1965), pp. 89, in Chapter V "Palaces and Archives", The
Medes and the Persians. London: Thames and Hudson.

2.   A fuller version of this response can be found at
http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/Rozanehweb/DRKFINDEX.html
(http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/Rozanehweb/DRKFINDEX.html) .