Hunara: Journal of Ancient Iranian Arts and History

Abstract

Abstract The silver plate in the Wyvern Collection, London, depicts a scene of the mounted bear hunt. The article examines the scene from an iconographic perspective, researching the composition, the traditions of similar themes in Sasanian and related arts, as well as the details of depicted elements of material culture. The research confirms the origin of the plate from the territory of modern Afghanistan and associates the scene with the model represented in art of the Kushan Empire on which Sasanian elements were placed. The iconographic details can allow dating of the plate to the fifth/sixth centuries AD.

Abstract The Achaemenid period plays a uniquely important role in the millennia-long history of Armenian-Iranian relations. During the two hundred years of Persian rule, Armenia played a significant role in the Achaemenid state’s governance system, and apart from the rebellion against Darius I in 522-521 BC, there are no other historical records of Armenian uprisings against Persia.
According to accounts by Movses Khorenatsi and Thovma Artsruni, Armenians and Persians maintained allied relations in the 6^th century BC, working together to free themselves from Median domination. Medieval Armenian historians speak highly of the friendly relationship between Cyrus the Great and Tigran Haykazn. Thovma Artsruni notes that Armenian auxiliary forces actively participated in the Persian army’s wars against the Medes, Lydians, and Babylonians.
Remarkably, both Tigran Haykazn and Cyrus the Great are portrayed by Movses Khorenatsi and Thovma Artsruni as wise rulers, guided by wisdom and, in some ways, connected to Ahura Mazda. The comparison of the relationship between Tigran and Cyrus suggests that, in ancient times, Armenians and Persians were not seen as opposing forces, and the Persians did not assert dominance over the Armenians. In the “we” vs. “them” dichotomy, Armenians were positioned in the “we” category alongside the Medes and Persians, while those living farther away were seen as “them”.

Abstract The relationship between Georgia and Iran dates back to ancient times. From the early reign of the Achaemenid rulers, these relations became increasingly intensive. The Achaemenid Kingdom had connections with both Iberia (Kartli) and the Georgian Kingdom of Colchis. These interactions were distinguished by their diversity, encompassing political, military, cultural, religious, and trade-economic aspects.
The Achaemenid shahs extended their political influence over vast territories, including the South Caucasus and its inhabitants, particularly Armenian and some Georgian tribes. To consolidate their power, the Achaemenids implemented administrative reforms in the territories under their control, dividing them into satrapies. These satrapies included parts of Georgia as well. Each satrapy, depending on its status, had specific obligations toward the central authority (the Achaemenid shahs).
It is noteworthy that the obligations of the Kingdoms of Colchis and Iberia (which were part of the 18^th and 19^th satrapies) differed from those of other satrapies. Unlike others, they enjoyed certain privileges, which indicate some unique characteristics of Georgian-Iranian relations.
An important aspect of these relations was the religious factor. Zoroastrianism, which was widely practiced in Achaemenid Persia, was not unfamiliar to Georgia. The spread of Zoroastrianism in Georgia is confirmed by various archaeological findings. The traces of Zoroastrian influence in Georgia become more evident toward the later period of Achaemenid rule.

Abstract Near the village of Karajamirli (West Azerbaijan) archaeological excavations have revealed the center of one of the satrapies (according to Herodotus - XI satrapy) of the Persian-Achaemenid Kingdom. It appears that the residences of the provincial rulers in this satrapy were the Persian-Achaemenid palaces uncovered prior to the discovery at Karajamirli - Saritepe (Azerbaijan), Gumbati (Georgia) and Beniamin (Armenia). A distinctive characteristic shared by all these archaeological sites is the presence of colonnaded halls. Two types of column bases have been discovered at Karajamirli: angular plinth bases and the so-called bell-shaped bases. A similar situation is observed at Beniamin. These two types are common for the capital cities of Achaemenid Iran. In contrast, only bell-shaped column bases were unearthed at Gumbati and Saritepe. In Kakheti, northwest of the village of Sabatlo, the base of a column similar to the angular plinth bases of Karajamirli and Beniamin was discovered. Two kilometers northeast of Gumbati, in a place known as Saaklemo, a six-columned hall has been uncovered. At the same location, another part of a column base was found by the landowner. The column bases are bell-shaped; however, they differ from the bases of Gumbati and Karajamirli in terms of ornamentation. None of the tori of Saaklemo’s column bases have been preserved. Approximately 20 kilometers northwest of Saaklemo, near the village of Chabukiani (Kakheti), a limestone bell-shaped column base was discovered. The peculiarity of the base is that its torus is made separately and adjusted to the body. Chabukiani column base wa decorated in the identical fashion as the Saaklemo column bases. It is also probable that the torus of the Saaklemo bases were made separately. It is beyond doubt that all of these column bases were carved locally in the South Caucasus, implying the existence of specialized stone workshops. Creative activity appears to have continued in these workshops, as evidenced by the bases from Saaklemo and Chabukiani, for which no direct parallels have yet been identified in the imperial core. According to Burkhardt Wesenberg’s classification of Persian-Achaemenid bell-shaped bases, four types are distinguished. The bases from Chabukiani and Saaklemo show some similarities with types C and D, but we consider them to represent a different, fifth type (E). The bell-shaped bases from Gumbati, Saritepe, Beniamin, and Karajamirli belong to type B.

Abstract This article integrates a Kurigalzu II reading of the Berlin letter (VS 24.91) with other evidence for early Middle Elamite (ME I) history. In addition to Elamite evidence, key data comes from the Babylonian Chronicle P, which deals with two wars of Kurigalzu with Elam. It is argued here that Kurigalzu I defeated Tepti-ahar (Chronicle P ii), who agreed to a settlement that recognized Kurigalzu’s superior position. This agreement served both rulers very well, allowing Tepti-ahar to continue building Haft Tappeh Level II and eventually gain a strong position vis-à-vis Kurigalzu’s weaker successor Kadašman-Enlil I (HT 38). But the subsequent alliance of Burna-Buriaš II with Aššur-uballiṭ I led to a late ME I Elamite decline, reflected by Inšušinak-šar-īli not building at Haft Tappeh and Burna-Buriaš II eventually destroying Level II. As this alliance weakened, Šalla started to rebuild Haft Tappeh (Level III) late in Burna-Buriaš’s reign or shortly after, but weakened himself by a failed attack on the pro-alliance faction in Babylonia early in the reign of Kurigalzu II (CUSAS 17.61). This allowed a Hurrian-Elamite from the north, Ḫurbatila, to obtain the throne, with Šalla becoming his vassal and ceasing work at Haft Tappeh. Ḫurbatila was eventually defeated by Kurigalzu II (Chronicle P iii 10-19), who proceeded to thoroughly conquer Elam, destroying Haft Tappeh IV and exploiting his victory to install Pahir-iššan as a junior partner allied by marriage (start of ME II).