iran 21 (1983) sculptures and sculptors at persepolis

IRAN Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies VOLUME XXI 1983

SCULPTURES

AND

SCULPTORS

AT

PERSEPOLIS

Michael Roaf

THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF PERSIAN STUDIES c/o The British Academy, 20-21 Cornwall Terrace, London NW1 4QP

Price: ? 12

STATEMENTI OF AIMS AND ACTIVITIES

1. The Institute has an establishment in Tehran at which British scholars, men of learning versed in the arts, friends of Iran, may reside and meet their Iranian colleagues in order to discuss with them subjects of common interest; the arts, archaeology, history, literature, linguistics, religion, philosophy and cognate subjects.

2. The Institute provides accommodation for senior scholars and for teachers from British Universities in order that they may refresh themselves at the source of knowledge from which their teaching derives. The same service is being rendered to younger students who show promise of developing interests in Persian studies.

3. The Institute, whilst concerned with Persian culture in the widest sense, is particularly concerned with the development of archaeological techniques, and seeks the co-operation of Iranian scholars and students in applying current methods to the resolution of archaeological and historical problems.

4. Archaeological excavation using modern scientific techniques as ancillary aids is one of the Institute's primary tasks. These activities, which entail a fresh appraisal of previous discoveries, have already yielded new historical, architectural, and archaeological evidence which is adding to our knowledge of the past and of its bearing on the modern world.

5. In pursuit of all the activities mentioned in the preceding paragraphs the Institute is gradually adding to its library, is collecting learned periodicals, and is publishing a journal, Iran, which appears annually, The Institute aims at editing and translating a series of Persian texts, the first of which, the Humay-Nama, edited by the late Professor A. J. Arberry, has already appeared.

6. The Institute arranges occasional seminars, lectures and conferences and enlists the help of distinguished scholars for this purpose. It will also aim at arranging small exhibitions with the object of demonstrating the importance of Persian culture and its attraction for the world of scholarship.

7. The Institute endeavours to collaborate with universities and educational institutions in Iran by all the means at its disposal and, when consulted, assists Iranian scholars with technical advice for directing them towards the appropriate channels in British universities.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE INSTITUTE

Anyone wishing to join the Institute should write to the Assistant Secretary, Mrs. M. E. Gueritz, 13 Cambrian Road, Richmond, Surrey TW10 6JQ. The annual subscription for Membership of the Institute is ?1, while the minimum sum of ?10 entitles the subscriber to receive the Journal post free in the United Kingdom. The overseas subscription is ?12 per annum (or the equivalent in local currency) or ?10 per annum paid by Sterling draft drawn on London.

I RAN Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies

VOLUME XXI 1983

SCULPTURES

AND

SCULPTORS

AT

PERSEPOLIS

Michael Roaf

THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF PERSIAN STUDIES c/o The British Academy, 20-21 Cornwall Terrace, London NW1 4QP

Price: ?12

BRITISH INSTITUTE OF PERSIAN STUDIES GOVERNING COUNCIL

President tSir DENIS WRIGHT, G.C.M.G., M.A.

Vice President tBASIL GRAY, Esq., C.B., C.B.E., F.B.A.

Hon. Vice President 'Professor DAVID STRONACH, O.B.E., M.A., F.S.A.

Members Dr. J. W. ALLAN, M.A., D.Phil.

MICHAEL BROWNE, Esq., Q.C., M.A. C. A. BURNEY, Esq., M.A., F.S.A.

G. A. CALVER, Esq., F.I.B. Professor L. P. ELWELL-SUTTON, B.A.

Dr. R. W. FERRIER, M.A., Ph.D. Professor W. B. FISHER, B.A., D. de l'Univ., F.R.A.I.

Dr. ILYA GERSHEVITCH, M.A., Ph.D., D.Litt., F.B.A. Dr. J. D. GURNEY, M.A., D.Phil.

Mrs. GEORGINA HERRMANN, D.Phil., F.S.A. Professor A. K. S. LAMBTON, O.B.E., D.Lit., Ph.D., F.B.A.

JAMES LIVINGSTONE, Esq., C.M.G., O.B.E., M.A. Dr. K. S. McLACHLAN, B.A., Ph.D.

"tDr. P. R. S. MOOREY, M.A., D.Phil., F.B.A., F.S.A. Dr. D. O. MORGAN, B.A., Ph.D.

B. W. ROBINSON, Esq., M.A., B.Litt., F.B.A. 'Dr. J. M. ROGERS, M.A., D.Phil., F.S.A. Dr. N.J. SIMS-WILLIAMS, M.A., Ph.D.

Hon. Treasurer tJOHN C. CLOAKE, Esq., C.M.G., M.A.

Hon. Secretary tSTEPHENJ. WHITWELL, Esq., C.M.G., M.C., M.A.

Assistant Secretary Mrs. M. E. GUERITZ, M.B.E.

Joint Hon. Editors tProfessor C. E. BOSWORTH, M.A., Ph.D.

tMrs. VESTA CURTIS, M.A.

OFFICER IN IRAN Assistant Director

MARTIN CHARLESWORTH, Esq., M.A.

c/o The British Academy, 20-21 Cornwall Terrace, LONDON NW1 4QP

P.O. Box 2617, Tehran, IRAN tMember of Executive Committee

*Editorial Adviser

IRAN Volume XXI 1983

CONTENTS

Page PREFACE vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS xi

I. INTRODUCTION 1 The Persepolis reliefs 1 Previous research 2 Outline of the present study 2

II. THE TECHNIQUES OF THE SCULPTORS 3 Tools 3 The order in which the figures were carved 4 Painting and inlay 8 Time taken to carve the reliefs 9

III. THE METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE SCULPTORS OF THE SOUTH STAIRS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE APADANA 10

METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND THEIR APPLICATION TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE SOUTH STAIRS 10 Mathematical cluster analysis 10 Sculptors' marks 12 Stylistic analysis 14 ANALYSIS OF THE EAST SIDE OF THE SOUTH STAIRS 18 Mathematical cluster analysi 18 Sculptors' marks 19 Stylistic analysis 20 CONCLUSION 27

IV. THE SCULPTORS OF THE NORTH WING OF THE EAST SIDE OF THE APADANA 29

THE RELIEFS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE APADANA 29 SCULPTORS' MARKS 29 "SUSIAN" GUARDS 31 GROOMS, HORSES, AND CHARIOTS 37 PERSIAN AND MEDIAN NOBLES 41 THE STAIRS AND PARAPETS OF THE NORTH WING 43 CONCLUSION 46

iii

V. THE SCULPTORS OF THE CENTRE AND THE SOUTH WING OF THE EAST SIDE OF THE APADANA 47

THE CENTRE OF THE EAST SIDE 47 THE SOUTH WING OF THE EAST SIDE 49 DELEGATIONS OF SUBJECT PEOPLES 49 THE STAIRS AND PARAPETS OF THE SOUTH WING 57

VI. THE SCULPTORS OF THE NORTH SIDE OF THE APADANA 60 THE EAST WING 60 THE CENTRE 62 THE WEST WING 63 THE STAIRS AND PARAPETS 64 CONCLUSION 64

VII. THE SCULPTORS OF THE NORTH STAIRS OF THE CENTRAL BUILDING 65

Loggia West spearmen 1-20 66 Other guards on the Loggia parapet 72 The nobles on the stairs 74 The facades 83 CONCLUSION 84

VIII. THE SCULPTORS OF THE SOUTH STAIRS OF THE CENTRAL BUILDING, OF THE STAIRS OF XERXES' PALACE, AND OF OTHER RELIEFS AT PERSEPOLIS 85

THE SOUTH STAIRS OF THE CENTRAL BUILDING 85 THE EAST STAIRS OF XERXES' PALACE 87 THE WEST STAIRS OF XERXES' PALACE 88 OTHER RELIEFS AND THE PROBLEMS OF THEIR ANALYSIS 88

IX. SCULPTORS' MARKS AND THE DIVISION OF LABOUR 90 SCULPTORS' MARKS AND MASONS' MARKS 90 THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SCULPTURAL WORK AT PERSEPOLIS 93 THE EVIDENCE OF THE TEXTS

X. SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE TECHNIQUES OF THE DESIGN 97 PROPORTION AND THE SCULPTORS' CANON 97 "POINTING" 100

METROLOGY AND PLANNING 102

XI. SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE COMPOSITION OF THE RELIEFS 103 THE COMPOSITION AND DESIGN OF THE NOBLES ON THE APADANA 103 COMPARISON OF THE OTHER SCENES ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDES OF THE APADANA 114 COMPARISON OF THE WESTERN AND EASTERN HALVES OF THE NORTH STAIRS OF THE

CENTRAL BUILDING 120 COMPARISON OF THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE SOUTH STAIRS OF THE CENTRAL

BUILDING 123 OTHER RELIEFS AT PERSEPOLIS 124 CONCLUSION 126

iv

XII. THE CHRONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERSEPOLITAN STYLE 127 METHODS AND PROBLEMS 127 THE DATED RELIEFS 138 THE UNDATED RELIEFS 141 STONE RELIEFS FROM OTHER ACHAEMENID SITES 147 CONCLUSION 149

XIII. THE ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY OF THE PERSEPOLIS TERRACE 150

APPENDIX CATALOGUE OF SCULPTORS' MARKS ON RELIEFS AT PERSEPOLIS 160

V

PREFACE This study of the relief sculpture at Persepolis has taken a number of years to complete." The data

on which it is based were gathered during two extended field trips at Persepolis, from December 1971 to April 1972 and from March to July 1973, and on a number of shorter visits since. In September 1978 I presented the results of my investigations as a D.Phil. thesis for Oxford University and the text of the present volume is essentially a revised version of the thesis, omitting much of the introduction and more general material, most of the details of the masons' marks at Persepolis (except those on the reliefs), a review of the textual evidence (now published in Iran 18 (1980), pp. 65-74), and a long discussion of the foreign influences on the designer(s) of the art of Persepolis. Although I have tried to incorporate the results of recently published research, this has not always been possible; and most of my conclusions are based on the original data; this makes less difference than it might in other fields of study.

The terminology I have used to describe the buildings and reliefs is fairly standard. For the locations and names of the buildings see Figs. 152-157 on pp. 151-156, and for the locations of the reliefs on the Apadana and on the North and South Stairs of the Central Building see Fig. 30 on p. 30, Fig. 63 on p. 65, and Fig. 100 on p. 85. Within each group of figures I refer to the first figure as figure 1, the second as figure 2, etc. If the group is introduced by an usher as in the delegations of subject peoples and in the groups of grooms, horses, and chariots, the figure after the usher is figure 1.

It has not been thought worthwhile to compile a detailed index, but specific topics can be found by consulting the list of contents. The reliefs are discussed in each chapter in the order in which they are listed for each mark in the Appendix on pp. 160-164.

*Preliminary reports on some aspects of this research have been presented at the 6th International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology in Oxford in 1972, at the Seminar on Art, Artisans, and Society in Leicester in 1975 (published as "A mathematical analysis of the styles of the Persepolis reliefs', in Art in Society, ed. J. V. S. Megaw and C. M. B. Greenhalgh (London, 1978), pp. 133-145, at the 7th International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology in Munich in 1976 (published as "Further thoughts on the Persepolis reliefs", Akten des VII. Internationalen Kongressesfiir Iranische Kunst und Archdiologie (Berlin, 1979), pp. 232-235), and in R. V. Nicholls and M. D. Roaf, "A Persepolis relief in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge", Iran 15 (1977), pp. 146-152.

Vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

One of the pleasures of studying Achaemenid archaeology is the close co-operation between scholars working in the same field. The list of those who have helped and encouraged me is long and here I can only mention a few individuals and institutions. I hope that I will be forgiven by those whose names I have left out and to whom my indebtedness is no less real for being unrecorded.

First I would like to express my gratitude to the British Institute of Persian Studies for hospitality in Tehran on many occasions and for agreeing to devote the whole of this volume to my work despite the claims of others to its pages. In this connection I would also like to apologise to those authors whose publications have been delayed as a result and to those members of the British Institute of Persian Studies whose interest in Persepolis is strictly limited. For permission to work at Persepolis I am grateful to the Iranian Archaeological Service, the Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research, and the Ministry of Culture and Arts (particularly to Mr. Khoramabadi, Dr. Bagherzadeh and Mr. Kujjuri), and to Mr. Rana'i and Mr. Esna'ashari, Director and Assistant Director of the Museum at Persepolis, and Dr. Shahbazi, Director of the Institute of Achaemenid Research at Persepolis, who offered me every facility at the site and made my fieldwork at Persepolis so enjoyable.

All those who have studied Persepolis know the great obligation owed to Giuseppe and Ann Britt Tilia, who were in charge of the restoration work at Persepolis from 1965 to 1979, both for their careful restoration and for their penetrating studies of the stonework at Persepolis. Many of the ideas presented here derive from conversations with them and much of the information was obtained with their help.

Carl Nylander, whose interests in Persepolis in many ways coincide with my own, has been particularly generous in allowing me to use some of his unpublished information and conclusions, and in giving me detailed criticisms of the manuscript of my thesis for which he was an examiner. Other scholars working on Persepolitan subjects-Peter Calmeyer, John Curtis, Ann Farkas, Hubertus on Gall, Judith Lerner, Oscar Muscarella, David Stronach, to name but a few- have been equally

generous in the free interchange of ideas and information. I have made use of many of their ideas, sometimes I suspect without specific acknowledgement. If occasionally I have disagreed with some of their views, this is not intended to belittle their important contributions to the subject.

Roger Moorey, my supervisor, conscientiously nursed my thesis from the begining and encouraged me when my enthusiasm was waning. His extensive erudition and constructive criticism have contributed much to the formulation and investigation of the questions investigated in this work. John Boardman, who kindly acted as my supervisor for one term and introduced me to the rigours of classical art history, examined my thesis and made many valuable suggestions.

Georgina Herrmann, friend and critic, has read the whole of the thesis in draft and edited and extensively revised the manuscript for publication. Every page bears the marks of the improvements that she suggested, not just in removing numerous infelicities of expression and in clarifying the argument, but also in radical rearrangement of the topics and in correction of many of my jejune opinions. For this and the use of her darkroom I am extremely grateful.

Vesta Curtis, who has succeeded Dr. Herrmann as co-editor of Iran, has conscientiously seen the manuscript through the press and has been most patient in putting up with a most unsatisfactory author. I must also acknowledge the skill shown by Mr. Milbery and the staffof Headley Brothers Ltd. in the printing of this volume with its many problems in type-setting.

Computing facilities were provided by the Oxford University Computing Services. The line drawings have been drawn by the author, from the reliefs, from photographs and from

published sources, which for the most part are acknowledged in the captions. The plates were printed from negatives taken by the author and have been printed by the author and Bob Wilkins of the Ashmolean Museum.

ix

The research on which this volume is based was undertaken while I was a Randall-MacIver Student at Queen's College, Oxford (1971-73), a Wainwright Fellow of Near Eastern Archaeology in the University of Oxford (1973-76), an S. A. Cooke Bye-Fellow at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge (1976-77), and a Junior Research Fellow (1974-78) and a Research Fellow (since 1978) at Wolfson College, Oxford. To all these institutions I am deeply indebted.

Finally I would like to thank my parents and my wife for their constant support over the years that I have been studying the Persepolis reliefs. Michael Roaf

The editors would like to express their gratitude to Dr. Georgina Herrmann, the former co-editor of Iran. Although she officially resigned in January 1982, she collected Dr. Roaf's manuscript from Baghdad, edited it thoroughly and arranged all the plates.- In short, she invested a great deal of time and energy in preparing this volume for the press.

C.E.B. and V.C.

x

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

AMI Archiiologische Mitteilungen aus Iran Neue Folge CahDAFI Cahiers de la Dilegation Archiologique FranCaise en Iran EW East and West New Series Farkas, Sculpture A. E. Farkas, Archaemenid sculpture (Leiden, 1974) Hallock, PFT R. T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets (OIP 92, Chicago, 1969)

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies Nicholls and Roaf, Fitzwilliam R. V. Nicholls and M. D. Roaf, "A Persepolis relief in the Fitzwilliam

Museum, Cambridge", Iran 15 (1977), pp. 146-152 Nylander, Pasargadae C. Nylander, lonians in Pasargadae (Uppsala, 1970) OIP Oriental Institute Publications Olmstead, Studies C. M. Olmstead, "Studies in the stylistic development of Persian Achaemenid

art" (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Chicago, 1936) Roaf; Subject Peoples M. D. Roaf, "The subject peoples on the base of the statue of Darius",

CahDAFI 4 (1974), pp. 73-160 Root, King and kingship M. C. Root, The King and kingship in Achaemenid art (Leiden, 1979) Schmidt, Persepolis 1-3 E. F. Schmidt, Persepolis vols. 1-3 (OIP 68-70, Chicago, 1953, 1957, 1970) Stronach, Statue D. B. Stronach, "La statue de Darius le Grand d6couverte ai Suse", CahDAFI 4 (1974), pp. 61-72 Tilia, Appendix A. B. Tilia, "Persepolis sculptures in the light of new discoveries" an appendix

to Farkas, Sculpture, pp. 127-134 Tilia, Methods A. B. Tilia, "A study of the methods of working and restoring stone and on

the parts left unfinished in Achaemenian architecture and sculpture", EW 18 (1968), pp. 67-95

Tilia, Studies 1-2 A. B. Tilia, Studies and restorations at Persepolis and other sites of Fars vols. 1-2 (Rome, 1972, 1978)

Walser, Vdlkerschaften G. Walser, Die Vdlkerschaften auf den Reliefs von Persepolis (Berlin, 1966)

xi

I. INTRODUCTION The Persepolis reliefs

The reliefs decorating the palaces at Persepolis are some of the most remarkable ancient works of art that have survived to the present day. Their quality and quantity are such that they demand to be studied in detail, but no reliable stylistic analysis of them has yet been published. The study presented here attempts to fill this gap by considering various aspects of their style, from the process of carving to the principles of design, from the identification of the work of individual sculptors to the delineation of the chronological development of the "Persepolitan" style. The iconology and foreign influences, which have been the subject of a number of studies, are not discussed in this volume.

Darius I (522-486 B.C.) was responsible for the design of the principal palaces at Takht-i Jamshid and his tomb at Naqsh-i Rustam. Construction work continued during the reigns of his son Xerxes I (486-465 B.C.) and his grandson Artaxerxes I (465/4-425 B.C.); but, apart from some alterations and rebuilding in the reign of Artaxerxes III (359/8-338 B.C.), the later Achaemenid kings did not build on the terrace platform, though they built their tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam and above the terrace at Takht-i Jamshid. The palaces and city of Persepolis were destroyed by Alexander the Great in 330 B.C., and since that time the ruins remained almost untouched until the excavations of the present century.

The palace area of Persepolis is divided into three parts: the terrace platform (Takht-i Jamshid) on which the main buildings stood, the buildings in the plain to the south and west of the terrace, and the slope of the high hill to the east of the terrace. About a dozen buildings were constructed on the terrace, and most of them were decorated with relief sculpture, carved on the facades, on the staircases, and on the door and window jambs. Their basic theme is the glorification of the Persian king, who dominates the scenes, whether he is depicted walking through the doors of his palaces, or enthroned giving audience and receiving the gifts of the subject peoples.

The best preserved reliefs are those on the East side of the Apadana and on the stairs of the Central Building, both of which were covered by the debris from the decayed mud-brick walls. The Apadana reliefs originally showed the king on his throne, while in front of him twenty-three delegations of subject peoples bring valuable and exotic gifts, and behind him are rows of guards, horses and chariots, and nobles of the court. Lining the stairs and parapets are numerous Persian soldiers. In all more than 800 figures were carved on the East side of the Apadana. The same scene, carved in reverse, is found on the North side, but, since this side has been exposed to the weather for many centuries, the reliefs are badly eroded. On the outer facade of the North Stairs of the Central Building are life-size guards, climbing the stairs are nobles in either Persian or Median dress, and on the parapet are files of Persian soldiers. Here there are almost 400 figures. On the outside of the South stairs of the same building are Persian archers and, on the inner side, servants in Persian and Median dress. The stairs of the palaces of Xerxes, Darius, and Artaxerxes III were also decorated with Persian soldiers and servants, while the West Stairs of Darius' Palace and the Palace of Artaxerxes I were decorated with delegations of subject peoples and with servants. These reliefs are, however, frag- mentary and damaged by the malice of weather and man. On the door jambs of Darius' Palace, Xerxes' Palace, the Harem and the Central Building the king is shown walking under a parasol accompanied by his servants. On other doorways a royal hero fights a mythical beast in hand-to-hand combat, or the king is seated on his throne, supported by dais-supporters drawn from the peoples of the Persian empire, or above rows of soldiers of the Persian empire.

Numerous though they are, the sculptures are extremely stereotyped. Individual figures are fre- quently repeated in identical poses not just once or twice, but, in the case of Persian soldiers lining the stairs and parapets, literally hundreds of times. The number of subjects is small, and many of the scenes are repeated in an almost identical manner. The same facial features are shown on Persians, Medes and most of the foreigners. Their heads and legs are always shown in profile, though the torso is sometimes shown frontally. Persians invariably wear pleated gowns, shown in a limited number of views, while Medes wear knee-length tunics. These conventions evidently made the carving of the

1

2 JOURNAL OF PERSIAN STUDIES

reliefs much simpler and more mechanical, and the number of different figures and poses used at Persepolis is small compared with the total number of figures.

More than 3,000 figures were carved on the buildings and tombs at Persepolis. There are only a few sculptures from other Achaemenid sites, 32 figures at Pasargadae, 14 at Bisutun, 8 on the Canal Stelae erected by Darius I in Egypt, and a small number from Susa, Babylon, and Hakavan. Even allowing for the possibility that much may have been lost, there cannot have been a strong tradition of stone sculpture in Iran before the building of Persepolis.

Previous research The Persepolis reliefs have been known in Europe since the seventeenth century. In the 1930's the

American expedition, led first by Ernst Herzfeld and later by Erich Schmidt, uncovered many new reliefs, including those on the East side of the Apadana, on the two staircases of the Central Building, and on the orthostats removed to the Treasury. These discoveries doubled the quantity of relief sculpture known at Persepolis, and, because they are in almost perfect condition, they must form the basis of any study of the style of the Persepolis reliefs. The results of the American excavations were published in three magnificent volumes, which include detailed accounts of all the buildings on the terrace.1 However, despite the excellence of Schmidt's Persepolis in other ways, it is evident that, when he was describing the reliefs, he was working only from photographs. This meant that he omitted some topics, such as the study and recording of sculptors' marks, where his documentation was insufficient. More recently major contributions have been made by the studies of Mr. and Mrs. Tilia. These have been based on the careful restoration work at Persepolis, which was in their charge from 1965 to 1979.2

While articles have been written about the Persepolis reliefs by many scholars, most of these have concentrated on their function and interpretation, on the foreign influences incorporated into Achaemenid sculpture, or on the identification of the subject peoples shown as tribute bearers and dais-supporters.3 Other aspects of the style have been almost entirely ignored, except in an unpublished Master's Thesis presented by C. M. Olmstead in 1936.4 Forty-five years later her opinions require revision: for in her attempt to identify the work of different sculptors she failed to make use of the crucial sculptors' marks (see below, Chapters III to IX), and in her study of the stylistic development, despite many perceptive observations, her conclusions are not always convincing.

Outline of the present study This investigation proceeds from the particular to the more general, from the relatively objective

to the more subjective aspects of style. It starts with a description of the tools and procedures employed in the carving of the reliefs, based on the analysis of an unfinished section of the reliefs. The next six chapters (III to VIII) are principally concerned with the identification of the styles of the different sculptors on the various buildings. This analysis is based on mathematical cluster analysis, on traditional visual comparisons, and on the evidence of the sculptors' marks. The results of these observations are summarized in Chapter IX, which also contains a discussion of the significance of the sculptors' marks. The following two chapters deal with the aspects of the design, concentrating on the methods rather than the origins: X discusses the problem of transferring the design on to the stone, and XI shows how compositions were altered when a scene was repeated. The chronological development of the Persepolitan style of sculpture is outlined in Chapter XII, while the final chapter attempts to reconstruct the architectural history of the palace area at Persepolis.

1 Schmidt, Persepolis, 1-3. 2 Tilia, Studies, 1-2. 3 Function and interpretation: for example, Root, King and kingship;

Nylander, "Achaemenid Imperial Art", in Power and Propaganda: a symposium on ancient empires (ed. M. T. Larsen, Mesopotamia 7, Copenhagen, 1979), pp. 345-360. Foreign influences: for

example, Root, King and kingship; Farkas, Sculpture. Identification of subject peoples: for example, Walser, V6lkerschaften; Roaf, Subject peoples.

SOlmstead, Studies. Various passages in A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (Chicago, 1948) and in Schmidt, Persepolis 1-2 are based on this work.

II. THE TECHNIQUES OF THE SCULPTORS Tools

Achaemenian stoneworking has been studied in detail by Ann Britt Tilia and by Carl Nylander.5 Here I will discuss only the work on the reliefs. The methods of carving can best be seen on the uncompleted sections of the reliefs, and almost every stage of the work can be identified somewhere at Persepolis. In some cases we can determine from the marks left on the stone which tools were used and in which order. Iron tools, either picks and hammers (with transversely mounted handles) or points and chisels (hit with a mallet) were used.6 Each of these two groups may be divided into pointed, edged and toothed types of various sizes and weights. The heavy pick was used for quarrying and rough shaping either with a perpendicular blow or with a glancing stroke depending on how much stone was to be removed. The next stage probably involved the use of rough points and mallets. To prepare a flat smooth surface either an edged hammer, or more generally, and perhaps chronologically later, a toothed hammer was employed.7 Successively finer hammers would be succeeded by the use of chisels, initially edged. The detail was carved using fine points and narrow flat edged chisels. The final stage was to smooth the surface with abrasives of various grades and water, and eventually to remove the scratches left by the abrasive either by rubbing with a stone of the same hardness or with lead or perhaps with shark skin ; the reliefs were then painted.

This short account has briefly described the tools and how they were used; but I should give a word of warning. At each stage the sculptor or mason had the option of using a variety of different tools; whether he used a point or a pick, a toothed or an edged tool, depended on his training and his personal preference, as well as on the nature of the work. Furthermore it is difficult to distinguish the marks left by a pick from those made by a point, an edged hammer from a flat chisel, or a toothed hammer from a toothed chisel.9

There is no evidence for curved chisels or gouges, for saws, rasps or files.10 Small holes for the attachment of metal ornaments and for channels for pouring in molten lead were made with a drill, probably a bow drill using a hollow bit and abrasives: but the "running drill" technique used extensively for undercutting in Greek sculpture was not used." The lathe was not used on architectural stonework, though it was for woodwork, metalwork and for the manufacture of stone vessels and cylinder seals.12

Nylander, Pasargadae, pp. 22-72; Tilia, Methods. This article also discusses the methods of carving the reliefs and is superbly illustrated with 148 photographs. For Greek stone-working see S. Adam, The technique of Greek sculpture in the archaic and classical periods (British School at Athens Annual Supplement vol. 3, London, 1966). For Egyptian stone-working see S. Clarke and R. Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian Masonry (London, 1930).

6 For more detailed accounts of the tools used see Tilia, Methods, pp. 69-72; Nylander, Pasargadae, pp. 22-28 and 49-56. Underneath a fallen stone of the North tomb at Persepolis two iron points were found (Tilia, Methods, p. 70 n.). Various iron tools were found by Schmidt including a chisel and a "spike" (Schmidt, Persepolis 2, pls. 81.19, 81.24). On the toothed chisel (or hammer) in Iran and its value as a chronological indicator see Nylander, Pasargadae, pp. 53-56, to which should be added the marks of a toothed tool on the inside of a joint on the south-east corner of Takht-i Rustam (personal observation) and those of an extremely fine toothed tool on the rosette decorating the Tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae (D. B. Stronach, "A circular symbol on the Tomb of Cyrus", Iran IX (197 1), p. 157). The marks of a similarly fine toothed tool can be seen below the rosette border under the easternmost lion and bull symplegma on the North side of the Apadana. This has 25 tooth marks in 1.9 cms. i.e. a tooth separation of 0.076 cm.

8 Examples of rubbing stones were found by Schmidt on the

terrace (Schmidt, Persepolis 2, pl. 80.11-13). 9 From the arrangement of the marks it seems to me that a toothed

hammer was normally used at Persepolis rather than a toothed chisel.

10 Curved chisel: The curved chisel was not in general use, though Tilia, Methods, p. 82 has suggested that "only when the sculptor had to work out a small concave area, a tiny hollow or a narrow groove he made use of curved chisels, but usually he could manage in most cases with flat chisels" and Nylander, Pasargadae, p. 27 suggested that curved chisels "were used in the cutting of the wavy ridges of some of the tributaries' dresses on the Apadana friezes". Saw: The stone used at Persepolis is too hard to use a saw successfully. Rasps and files: Tilia, Methods, p. 71 n. 3 (contra an earlier opinion of Nylander not repeated in Nylander, Pasargadae). Farkas, Sculpture, p. 71 still suggested the use of a rasp.

" Running drill: see S. Adam, The technique of Greek sculpture in the archaic and classical periods (British School at Athens Annual Supplement vol. 3, London, 1966), pp. 40-73. Farkas, Sculpture, pp. 96-97 is wrong when she suggests the use of this technique in the carving of Delegation VI on the East side of the Apadana.

12 It has been suggested that a lathe was used in the manufacture of the column bases of Palace P at Pasargadae: but there is no evidence for this, and it is clear that the horizontal grooves were not cut using a lathe.

3


Other tools used by the sculptors and masons have left no marks. One of these was the mason's square which included a straight edge, a right-angled corner, a level, and a plumb line (Fig. 1)."3 The square and level could have been separate, and this is perhaps why some masons chose as their particular marks pictures of the level A and of the square [. In addition rope measures, wooden rules, dividers, "cutting compasses" for laying out circles,'4 string, and paint would have been used. It is likely that wooden templates were made to check the various mouldings and perhaps also for the carving of the sculpture.

Fig. 1. A combined mason's square and level.

The order in which the figures were carved The clearest evidence of the order in which the various parts of the figures were carved is to be

found on the parapet of the central panels on the East side of the Apadana. These central panels were a later addition to the Apadana, probably carried out in the reign of Artaxerxes I, but never finished.'5 On the inner side of the balcony 28 Persian guards with shields are shown in various states of completion (P1. Ia). The details of the 28 shieldmen and the first archer at the top of the Northeast stairs, which was recarved at the same time (P1. XVIId), are recorded in Fig. 3a and b. This is more conveniently summarized in Fig. 3 where the darker the shading the nearer to completion was that part of the figure, while the blank areas show where the figure has only roughly been blocked out. Two facts immediately emerge from an examination of this diagram: first, some figures are almost complete (N7, i.e. the 7th shieldman on the northern half of the parapet N5, S1, i.e. the 1st shieldman on the southern half of the parapet, S5, and S14), while others are hardly started (N8 and S6); and secondly, most figures are complete in some details, while less complete in others. This may sometimes have been because the sculptor forgot to finish his work, as, for example, on N 10 which is complete except for the lack of shoe straps. At other times, however, it seems that work was stopped before the details had been carved. It is clear that there was no regular order in which the various parts of the figures were carved. Sometimes the head was left rough while the body was fully finished (N 14); sometimes the curls of the beard were carved before the curls of the hair (N4, S13), and sometimes vice versa (N7, S 11). Nevertheless from the various states of the figures we can suggest the order in which the figures were carved and how it was done. There were variations within this scheme, but it will serve as an approximate description.

The initial stage is shown by figures N8 and S6 (P1. Ia). In S6 the outline of the figure has been carved with a chisel, and the background has been taken down to its final level, using a pick and a toothed hammer. The spear is separated from the body. The outline is slightly larger than the eventual figure to allow for any inaccuracy. N8 is slightly further advanced, and the different areas of the head- dress, hair and face have been distinguished (P1. Ib).

" For these tools as used in Greece see R. Martin, Manuel d'architecture grecque, I Matiriaux et techniques (Paris, 1965), figs. 72-73 on p. 185, fig. 74 on p. 187, where these tools are illustrated on funeral stelae. As used in Egypt see A. Badawy, Ancient Egyptian architectural design (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1965), pp. 40-44; Clarke and Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian Masonry, p. 224 and fig. 264.

14 Used on rosettes, Tilia, Studies 1, p. 197 and fig. 47, 49 and 50; Tilia, Methods, p. 93. Also used for the circles on the shields.

" For illustrations see Tilia, Methods, figs. 75-80, 134-135, 138 and 140; Tilia, Studies 1, figs. 35-56 on pls. CXIII-CXXVI. Also Nylander, Pasargadae, fig. 3. For the removal and replacement see Tilia, Studies 1, pp. 175-208. For a study of the methods of carving the sculptures see Tilia, Methods, pp. 81-84.

SCULPTURES AND SCULPTORS AT PERSEPOLIS 5

KEY head-dres ~~0 0 0 KE

hair i v destroyed

beard 0 0 v r-- torso/shieldroughed out

skirt =

\ Z smoothed _feet x 0 . almost finished

14 131 11 109 876 5432 11 23 45 6 7 8 1101112131 NE st finished E siNORTH SOUTH

Fig. 2. Diagram summarizing the state of completion of the Persian guards on the balcony of the East side of the Apadana.

For more exact description see Fig. 3.

The next stage is well illustrated by comparing S6 and S7 (P1. Ia). The different surfaces were delineated and the final outline of the figure was carved. The feet were separated, and the skirt was divided into three areas, the front and back hanging folds and the central vertical folds. The shield was cut to its correct shape, and its edge carved carefully with a flat chisel or hammer to stop it chipping. The face, hair and head-dress were distinguished, and, within the face, the beard, moustache and ear were delineated, and the eye partially carved (cf. N14 P1l. Ic). The spear was thinned down and was almost ready for its final moulding and polishing. At the same time the background and the various surfaces of the figure were smoothed using a toothed hammer.

The next stage, carried out in a variety of orders, included carving the details of the shoes, garment, shield, spear, body and head. The shoes were carved in the natural sequence (N8-roughed out; N 14-smoothed; N12-back foot half-carved; N 7-fully carved; see also S11 for a slightly different version). The details of the folds and pleats were added to the three vertical areas of the skirt (S6, N8- roughed out; NE stairs E side archer 1 and S7-divided into three vertical zones; S12 and S13-the folds on the front edge are not complete; or N13-the Z-folds on the central pleat have not been carved; and finally, for example N 14-the skirt is complete). The upper body is obscured by the shield on the southern figures as are the arms and hands; on the northern figures the shape of the arms and hands was roughed out as normal, then the edges of the garment and the outlines of the hands were carved and the surface smoothed. The stages in the carving of the hands can be seen on figure N14, where the fingers are not marked, then on N 11 where the fingers are separated and finally for example on N 12 the details of the skin creases and finger nails were added, normally with a flat chisel or point. The carving of the shield was carried out in a similar manner: first, the outline was roughed out in an approximate ellipse (S6 P1. Ia). The shape was then made more precise and the edge treated with a flat chisel or hammer to protect it. Then the side holes were cut (S2, S4), and the gap towards the side was carved. The central circle with four inset circles (with gaps in their circumferences towards the edge) was added at the same time (S2 half carved, S4). These circles were laid out using cutting compasses. The shields of the northern soldiers were placed behind their bodies and were added after the upper body had been roughed out (N8). Finally the side holes and the hand hold were carved (N9). The spear was first roughed out, and then the details were added. The butt and blade were not always carved at the same time; normally the blade was carved before the butt. The shoes of N2 were completed before the spear butt was carved, but normally the shoes and spear butt were carved at the same time.

The most interesting parts of the figures are the heads, and it was on the heads that the sculptors carried out their most skilful work. Although there was a normal sequence in which the carving was done, there were variations. In the initial stage the head and head-dress were roughly blocked out (S6), the areas of the head-dress, hair and face were delineated (N8, P1. Ib), and on to these areas the details of the eye, the edge of the beard and the ear were carved (N14, P1. Ic). The various surfaces were smoothed, and the details of the nose, mouth and moustache were added (N6, P1. Id). The curls of the


NE stairs EsideN14 N13 N12 N11 N10 N9 N8 N7 N6 N5 N4 N3 N2 NI

archer 1 Upper border la 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 X X 1 1 1 1

Head-dress 1 4 4 4 0 1 0 R 1 5 1 2 2 1 4 Hair 4 4R lb 4 0 1 0 4R 2c 4 2 4 2 4 4

Ear 0 X 1 1 0 2? 0 X 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 Eye 1 R 2 2 0 2 0 X 2 2 2 2 2 2 0

Beard 4 Xd 4 4 0 1 0 Xd 3 4 2 3 2 4 4 Moustache 1 Xd 3 3 0 3 0 Xd 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Lower lip 1 Xd 3 3 0 3 0 Xd 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Neck 1 1 X X 0 1 0 Xe 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Upper garment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Xe 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Skirt 2 1 if 1 1 1 1 Xe 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Righthand 1 3 1 1 3 3 R 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Left hand 1 3 R 1 2 3 R 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1

Left shield xg 1 3 1 0 1 3 X 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 Right shield xg 1 3 3h 3h 1 3h X 1 1 1 3 3 2i 1

Front foot R 7 7 7 7 0 7 R 1 1 2 7 2 1 1 Back foot R 7 7 4 7 7 0 R 2 0 2 7 2 2 2

Spear blade 1 4 5 1 7 8 R R 1 4 9 6 R R 10 Spear butt R 4 R R 7 0 R R 3 5 2 2 R R 2

NOTES (a) above NE stairs E side 2 border not carved. (b) hair not incised, fringe is incised, curls with two lines. (c) hair and fringe not incised, curls with one line. (d) face roughed out only. (e) body roughed out only. Fig. 3a.

(f) Z-folds not carved. (g) not applicable as archer carries bow and

quiver; tassels on quiver not completed. (h) handle only. (i) double handle carved.

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 SO1 S11 S12 S13 S14

Upper border 1 1 1 X 1 X X X X 1 1 1 1 1 Head-dress 1 1 0 3 1 RJ 4 4 4 3 1 4 1k 1

Hair 21 2 0 4 2 RJ 4 4 3 4 2 4 2m 1 Ear 1 1 0 1 1 Xj 1 On 1 1 X X 2 2 Eye 2 2 0 2 2 XJ 3 on 2 2 2 2 2 2

Beard 2 1 2 4 2 Ri 4 4n 4 4 4 4 2 2 Moustache 3 3 3 3 3 XJ 3 On 3 3 3 3 3 3

Lower lip 3 3 3 3 3 XJ 3 on 3 3 3 3 3 3 Neck 1 X 0 1 1 X X X X X X X X X Skirt 1 1 1 1 1 R 2 1 1 1 1 10 10 1

Left shield 1 1 1 1 1 XP X 1 1 1 1 X X 1 Centre 1 2 1 3 1 XP X 1 1 1 1 X X 1

Right shield 1 R 1 2 1 XP X 1 1 1 1 X X 1 Front foot 2 2 2 3 3 R 0 3 3 0 5 2 2 2 Back foot 2 2 2 1 1 R 0 1 1 1 6 2 2 2

Spear blade 1 1 2 R 3 R 4 5 1 1 1 6 5 6 Spear butt 3 7 1 7 4 R R 2 2 0 4 1 2 1

NOTES (j) head roughed out only. (k) angular top. (1) hair and fringe not incised.

Fig. 3b. (m) some curls still just blocked out.

(n) patch missing. (o) front not finished. (p) shield roughed out only.


KEY

O destroyed X not carved R roughly blocked out

Upper border 1 completed 2 half carved

Head-dress 1 IM 2

-

3 4

--I 5 F-]

Hair and beard 1 completed 2 curls half carved 3 curls blocked out 4 smooth

Ear 1 4 2

Eye 1 complete with incised eyebrow 2 complete with ridged eyebrow 3 partly carved

Moustache and Lower lip 1 completed

2 not incised Neck 1 neck of tunic carved

Upper garment 1 belt and folds carved Skirt 1 completed

2 divided into three vertical zones, Right and belt end not completed

Left hands 1 completed 2 nails not carved 3 fingers not carved

Left and Right sides of shield 1 completed

2 side hole not joined to edge

3 side hole not carved

Centre of shield 1 completed 2 left half only 3 lower half only

Front and back foot straps 1

-

2 1-

4 5 6 7 straps not carved

Spear blade 1 1 2

3 4

a

7

10 Spear butt 1 2

4 5 6 7

Fig. 3. The state of completion of the Persian guards on the balcony of the East side of the Apadana. a. North 1 to 14 and North East stairs East side archer 1. b. South 1 to 14.

hair and beard were first blocked out and then turned into smooth bosses, on to which the sculptors incised the precise line of the curls. The blocked-out stage of the curls is seen on the hair of S9 and S 13 and on the beard of N4 (P1. le) and N7 (P1. If). This sequence of carving curls is also seen on a block of the Hall of 100 Columns.16 Once the curls were completed, the straight hair of the moustache, lower lip, fringe, and top of the head was incised. Sometimes the moustache was left smooth (for example, N5, P1. Ig), while sometimes it was incised before the curls of the beard were carved (Apadana East, NE stairs E side archer 1, P1. XVIId). The head-dress was first blocked out (N14, P1. Ic), then smoothed (N6, P1. Id). Usually the bottom of the head-dress is carved first (for example, N4, P1. le), but once the vertical ribs were started before the bottom band (N6, P1. Id).

16 Tilia, Methods, p. 83 and fig. 87.


Painting and inlay"7 When Herzfeld uncovered the reliefs on the Apadana and Central Building he found many traces

of paint adhering to them, but, unfortunately, did not record many details. Today some traces still remain, especially on the reliefs of the Hall of 100 Columns, where the Ahuramazda figures and throne daises retain part of their original colour.'" Elsewhere there is red paint on some of the lips, nostrils and eyes of the Persian guards on the Central Building loggia, in the mouths and nostrils of the capitals, in the nostrils of the horses on the Apadana reliefs, and on the figure of the king on the doors of the Central Building. The various elements were painted in uniform shades of red, green, blue and possibly yellow; other colours, such as black, made from lamp black, may also have been used but traces have not survived.19 To help the painter in his work sketches were sometimes scratched on the surface of the stone. Lions, chevrons, and floral designs are seen on the garments of the king on Darius' Palace, Xerxes' Palace, the Central Building and the Harem.20 In this way the king, the only figure with patterned garments, would have stood out from his attendants both because of his gay and vivid colouring and because of his size.

Throughout the remainder of this work the reader should remember that many details now obvious may have been obscured by paint. In particular the unfinished parts would have been painted. To what extent the figures were painted is unknown. For example, we do not know whether the skin was painted or what colours would have been used on the garments of the soldiers. It is untrue that the surface of the stone was intentionally left rough to take the paint better, and in fact it is normally the smoother parts on which the paint is preserved.2"

Some of the reliefs and capitals were inlaid with coloured stones or metal or were decorated with gold leaf or gold sheet. On the king on Darius' Palace, Xerxes' Palace and the Central Building the crown and some of the jewellery were set into the stone.22 The necklaces, bracelets, and crowns were presumably made of precious metals and gems. Sometimes the beard too was inlaid, perhaps with Egyptian blue. In Palace P at Pasargadae holes can be seen on the king's shoes and garment for holding inlays or overlays." Small holes drilled in some capitals may have been for the attachment of precious ornaments.24

Time taken to carve the reliefs It is difficult to estimate precisely how long it would have taken to carve a single figure. The length

of time would have depended on many factors, the skill and experience of the craftsmen, the quality of the supervision, the division of labour amongst the sculptors, as well as the subject of the relief and the characteristics of the stone. In view of these uncertainties it may seem rash to suggest even an approximate estimate of the time involved, but the matter is of such interest that any estimate, however approximate, is worthy of consideration.

Since the different parts of the figures were probably carved by different sculptors, as suggested by the examination of the shieldmen on the balcony of the Apadana, the minimum time to complete a figure would have been the time spent in carving the details of the head. If one knew this and the number of sculptors who specialized in carving heads, one could calculate the total time spent in carving a

" The traces of colour at Persepolis are being studied by A. B. Tilia and J. A. Lerner, who has kindly checked and amended the information presented here.

18 Tilia, Studies 2, pp. 29-70; J. A. Lerner, "The Achaemenid Relief of Ahura Mazda in the Fogg Art Museum", Bulletin of the Asia Institute 2 (Shiraz, 1971), pp. 19-35; J. A. Lerner, "A painted relief from Persepolis", Archaeology 26 (1973), pp. 116-122 with a correction on p. 305.

19 Compare the pigments used in Egypt A. Lucas, Ancient Egyptian materials and industries (rev. ed. J. Harris, London, 1962), pp. 338-353. There is no evidence of whitewash or plaster being used at Persepolis as a ground for taking the paint. See, however, Roaf, Subject peoples, pp. 73-74 for use of plaster on base of the

statue of Darius found at Susa. 20 Tilia, Studies 2, pp. 44-46; Schmidt, Persepolis 1, pls. 142, 143 and

198. Patterns are also incised on the low fillets of the guards in the Harem portico and on the chair covering of the king's throne on the Central Building. See also the sketches on a block dis- covered at Persepolis (P. Roos, "An Achaemenian sketch slab and the ornaments of the royal dress at Persepolis", EW 20 (1970), pp. 51-59, for a discussion of lions and circles on the king's dress).

21 Lerner, Archaeology 26 (1973), p. 122. 22 Schmidt, Persepolis 1, pls. 75-78, 138-141, 177-181; Tilia, Studies

2, pp. 60-66. 23 Nylander, Pasargadae, fig. 44a; Tilia, Methods, fig. 15. 2 Tilia, Studies 2, p. 68.


facade. As a rough estimate, between three and six days would have been spent in carving the head of one of the smaller figures, and at least twice as long in carving the head of one of the larger figures.25 Three stone masons took three months to complete the torus of a column of the Apadana after the block had been detached from the quarry and brought to the site.26 In the light of these figures, the estimate suggested above may well be much too small. In Chapter IV we will see that two teams of sculptors worked on the North wing of the East side of the Apadana, where there are 242 small archers and guards and 136 medium-sized spearmen, grooms, and nobles. Within a team there were a number of sculptors, but by and large one or two sculptors in each team carved the heads. This would give a minimum of twelve months for the carving of this part of the facade, but the work probably lasted two or three times as long.

25 Mr. J. Collette estimated c. 1 week for carving the curls of one of the beards (cited in E. Schroeder, "Relief Sculptures from Persepolis", Bulletin of the Fogg Museum of Art (Harvard University)

10, 2 (November 1943), p. 45. 26 Tilia, Studies 1, pp. 43-44.

III. THE METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE SCULPTORS OF THE SOUTH STAIRS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE

APADANA METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND THEIR APPLICATION TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE

SOUTH STAIRS In this chapter I describe the methods used to identify the work of individual sculptors and teams

of sculptors at Persepolis, and I discuss the application of these methods to the archers on the south stairs of the East side of the Apadana. Three different methods of analysis are used: (1) a mathematical cluster analysis, (2) the examination of the marks left by the sculptors, and (3) stylistic analysis. All three methods are not always applicable to all sections of the reliefs, but wherever more than one method can be used the results do not contradict, and often corroborate, each other.

The mathematical cluster analysis There is an extensive literature related to cluster analysis, which has been used in different forms

to study many archaeological and taxonomic problems.27 The underlying principle is well known to art historians. Each artist has his own way of doing things, or, as Professor Gombrich has written, "it is in the microstructure of movements and shapes that the connoisseur will find the inimitable personal accent of an artist".28 This principle was first expounded by Dr. Giovanni Morelli in the later nineteenth century for the study of Italian painting and it has proved of immense importance for attri- bution and for authentication of works of art.29 The idiosyncracies of an artist's style are often revealed in the way he portrayed apparently unimportant details such as the curl of a lock of hair or the form of a shoe strap. These minor features often identify the maker of a work of art even when the subject and composition were determined by someone else.

One way of applying this principle objectively is to describe the various features of the works of art either in numbers or in classes, as is done in all methods of numerical taxonomy. The next step is to calculate a similarity index relating any two of the objects under consideration. This index will express numerically how similar the two objects are. Representations of the similarity matrix may suggest clusterings of similar objects into different groups.

To explain this, let us consider how this method can be applied to the twenty-four Persian archers lining the West side of the South stairs. Each of these archers is in exactly the same pose as all the others and so can be compared in detail. Although the archers are all very similar, they do vary in minor details. Those used in the analysis are shown in Fig. 4, round a drawing of archer 9. The complete list of attribute states is recorded in Fig. 5.

Archer 9 has attribute A (the cross-section of the ribs of the head-dress) as type 3, attribute B as type 1, attribute C as type 1 etc. Archers 9 and 10 can thus be described by the following 21-dimen- sional vectors:

archer 9: 3,1,1,3,2,2,1,2,2,1,1,2,1,1,3,2,2,4,3,2,2, archer 10: 3,1,1,3,2,2,1,2,2,2,1,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,

These two vectors are the same in 16 places and differ only in 5 places. The number of attributes which are shared by two figures I have taken as the similarity index between them: the similarity index between archers 9 and 10 is, therefore, 16. The higher the similarity index the more similar the two sculptures, the lower the less similar. When archers 8 and 9 are compared, 27 For example, B. Everitt, Cluster Analysis (Social Science Research

Council Reviews of Current Research vol. 1 I1, London, 1974); F. R. Hodson, "Cluster analysis and archaeology: some new developments", World Archaeology 1 (1970), pp. 299-320; J. E. Doran and F. R. Hodson, Mathematics and computers in archaeology (Edinburgh, 1975), especially pp. 158-186 and 218-264.

28 E. H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion. A study in the psychology of pictorial representation (2nd ed., London, 1962), p. 365.

29 L. Venturi, History of Art Criticism (New York, 1964), p. 234; R. Wollheim, "Giovanni Morelli and the origins of scientific connoisseurship", On Art and the Mind (London, 1973), pp. 177-201 (I owe this reference to Michael Greenhalgh).

10


archer 8: 2,3,1,3,3,2,2,1,2,2,1,2,2,2,3,3,4,3,2,1,3, archer9: 3,1,1,3,2,2,1,2,2,1,1,2,1,1,3,2,2,4,3,2,2,

only seven of the attributes are the same and so the similarity index is 7. After the computer has calculated the similarity indices we get the similarity matrix shown in Fig.

6. These results may be displayed in a variety of ways, by shading (Fig. 7), as a similarity diagram of the a - Overlap of ribs C-Top of head-dress

of head dress

A-Cross-section of hM-Spear blale rib N-Spear blade joi

ribs of head-dress

2

A PEIRSIAN ARCHER figure 9 of South stairs, west side,

of East face of the Apadana

t -Bow-string

R-Quiver flap

- Cross-section of horizontal band

I - Flap strap knot

21 Attribute Categories

used in Analysis

E-Hair curls

2-s G;

-Eyebrow

F- Mousfache

D- Bard curls

I-Neck of garment

L-Inside elbow

J -Left sleeve

H - Belt end

K-Right sleeve

0-Spear bftt

0 = destroyed or not conparabil

S-Back shoe straps PPFront shoe straps

Fig. 4. Drawing of archer 9 on the East side of the South stairs on the East side of the Apadana and the 21 attribute categories used in the analysis.


A B C D E F G H I J K LM N O P Q R S T U

Archer 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 0 2 3 4 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 0 4 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 0 3 2 1 3 4 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 1 3 5 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 0 2 2 4 3 4 3 2 1 3 6 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 4 3 4 3 2 1 3 7 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 4 3 2 1 3 8 2 3 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 2 1 3 9 3 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 4 3 2 2

10 3 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 11 3 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 4 3 2 2 12 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 5 2 2 3 1 3 13 3 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 2 3 14 3 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 3 2 2 2 3 15 3 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 3 2 2 16 3 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 4 4 3 2 2 17 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 18 3 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 6 1 1 2 2 2 2 19 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 4 2 2 2 2 20 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 4 2 2 1 3 21 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 3 4 2 2 2 3 22 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 3 4 2 2 2 3 23 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 4 2 2 2 3 24 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 3

A B C D E F G H I J K LM N O P Q R S T U

Fig. 5. Attribute list of the archers on the West side of the South stairs on the East side of the Apadana.

higher similarity indices (Fig. 8), or as a dendrogram or tree diagram. There are a large number of possible dendrograms, single link (Fig. 9), double link, complete link, proportional link (Fig. 10) and average link, and I have discussed these more fully in an article in Art in Society.30

In the particular case of the West side of the South stairs the mathematical analysis suggests three distinct clusters, archers 1 to 8, 9 to 19, and 20 to 24.

Sculptors' marks There are numerous sculptors' marks on the backgrounds of the reliefs at Persepolis. These are

listed in the Appendix. These marks are the personal marks of the sculptors or the teams of sculptors who carved the reliefs, and normally they label either a group of figures or individual figures carved by the owner of the mark. The significance of these marks has not been realized in the past and only a single example of the hundreds on the reliefs has been published."3 Their distribution is recorded and discussed in detail in this and the following chapters. The shapes of the marks and their relationship to masons' marks and other signs are considered in Chapter IX.

There are two sculptors' marks on the West side of the South stairs: the double diamond mark 8 occurs in front of the spear blade of archer 9 and above the quiver of archer 19 (Fig. 8 and P1. Va).

30 M. D. Roaf, "A mathematical analysis of the styles of the Persepolis reliefs", Art in Society (ed. J. V. S. Megaw and C. M. B. Greenhalgh, London, 1978), pp. 133-145.

31 On the inner East side of the South stairs of the Central Building (Schmidt, Persepolis 1, fig. 56.1 on p. 114).


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 18 15 13 15 10 12 11 10 7 8 6 6 7 8 6 6 8 8 10 10 11 10 11 13 2 15 20 14 14 11 13 10 9 10 9 7 10 9 8 7 9 9 9 11 11 10 10 11 13 3 13 14 20 17 16 18 15 12 6 8 9 9 8 11 9 6 8 10 11 14 13 11 12 14 4 15 14 17 21 14 16 15 12 4 7 7 8 7 10 7 5 9 9 11 14 13 11 12 14 5 10 11 16 14 20 19 17 15 7 9 10 8 9 11 10 8 9 11 13 14 13 11 12 13 6 12 13 18 16 19 21 17 14 6 8 9 9 8 10 9 7 8 10 12 15 14 12 13 14 7 11 10 15 15 17 17 21 18 6 10 8 6 9 11 9 7 9 9 12 12 11 9 10 11 8 10 9 12 12 15 14 18 21 7 11 7 5 8 10 8 6 8 8 11 12 11 9 10 11 9 7 10 6 4 7 6 6 7 21 16 17 13 13 11 18 18 11 13 13 6 7 7 8 9

10 8 9 8 7 9 8 10 11 16 21 16 10 14 16 17 13 14 16 16 9 10 8 9 10 11 6 7 9 7 10 9 8 7 17 16 20 12 12 14 20 16 12 16 15 9 10 8 9 10 12 6 10 9 8 8 9 6 5 13 10 12 21 13 12 12 12 11 11 10 13 11 11 13 11 13 7 9 8 7 9 8 9 8 13 14 12 13 19 17 12 13 14 14 13 9 10 10 11 12 14 8 8 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 16 14 12 17 21 14 11 15 16 15 11 12 10 11 13 15 6 7 9 7 10 9 9 8 18 17 20 12 12 14 21 17 12 16 16 9 10 8 9 10 16 6 9 6 5 8 7 7 6 18 13 16 12 13 11 17 21 12 13 14 7 8 10 9 10 17 8 9 8 9 9 8 9 8 11 14 12 11 14 15 12 12 21 14 14 11 12 10 11 11 18 8 9 10 9 11 10 9 8 13 16 16 11 14 16 16 13 14 21 18 11 12 10 11 12 19 10 11 11 11 13 12 12 11 13 16 15 10 13 15 16 14 14 18 21 13 14 12 13 14 20 10 11 14 14 14 15 12 12 6 9 9 13 9 11 9 7 11 11 13 21 19 17 19 17 21 11 10 13 13 13 14 11 11 7 10 10 11 10 12 10 8 12 12 14 19 20 18 19 18 22 10 10 11 11 11 12 9 9 7 8 8 11 10 10 8 10 10 10 12 17 18 20 19 18 23 11 11 12 12 12 13 10 10 8 9 9 13 11 11 9 9 11 11 13 19 19 19 21 19 24 13 13 14 14 13 14 11 11 9 10 10 11 12 13 10 10 11 12 14 17 18 18 19 21

Fig. 6. Similarity matrixfrom the analysis of the archers on South stairs West side of the South stairs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1

2 2 KEY 3

420 - 15

6 10- 0 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Fig. 7. Shaded similarity matrix.


12 18

817 16 15

2423222Number of the 21 Attributes

20.

" shared by two

19 Archers 18 17

15 Fig. 8. Diagram of the similarities between the archers (after Roaf, Art in Society,fig. 5).

11 15 9 16 10 18 19 13 14 17 20 21 22 23 2+ 5 6 3 7 8 4 1 2 12 20

19 18 17 16

15

13

Fig. 9. Single Link Dendrogram. These marks, therefore, enclose the middle group of archers already picked out by the cluster analysis. The mark was presumably the signature of the master, or of the team of sculptors, working in the middle part of the staircase. It is not clear why the sculptors of the other two groups did not leave any marks, but this absence of marks is repeated elsewhere.

Stylistic analysis The study of style is perhaps the most subjective of all disciplines, and for this reason I have

described the cluster analysis and sculptors' marks first. But ultimately it is the style that is of greatest interest. Many factors contribute to style-"the manner in which a work of art is executed, regarded as characteristic of an individual artist, or of his time and place"32-and many of these are not directly the result of the idiosyncracies of the sculptor. Differences in style may be explained in many ways, as differences in artist, design, function, chronology, region, material, technique, and so on to name but a few. Without any other indication it is impossible to be certain that differences between two objects 32 Oxford English Dictionary, p. 3114 sense 21.


11 15 9 16 18 19 10 13 14 17 12 20 21 22 23 24 5 6 3 4 7 8 2 1

20 --1-----? 20 19 17 16 15 14. 13 12

10 9

Fig. 10. Proportional Link Dendrogram (groups join when over half of the links between them have beenformed). were caused by any particular reason, for example because they were made at different times or in different regions. This flexibility is why "style" is such a useful and infuriating word. One of the most successful exponents of Morelli's method, on which the mathematical analysis is also based, was Sir John Beazley in his studies of Greek vases and their painters.33 But only very occasionally did he list the reasons for attributing a vase to one artist rather than to another, and normally he expected the student to follow his excellent judgement. The success of this method depends entirely on the observation and selection of features which actually reflect the identity of the artist. The choice of features as characteristic is largely subjective. The mathematical analysis too depends on the observation and selection of particular attributes, but there the selection is ideally made indepen- dently, and the method suggests clusters without giving any explanation of their existence.

Despite these problems stylistic analysis can be a very powerful tool, much more sensitive than the more objective cluster analysis and more informative than the examination of the sculptors' marks. I will now examine the styles of the three groups of archers, will try to isolate different hands and will see if these groups coincide with those determined by the cluster analysis and indicated by the sculptors' marks.

According to the cluster analysis the group which was most similar was that at the bottom of the stairs, archers 20 to 24 (Pls. Vb-f). The most obvious feature shared by all these archers is their incised eyebrow: none of the archers in the first and middle group have such an eyebrow. Other details, which appear once one suspects that these archers form a distinct group are the large eyes, the set lips, the form of the curls of both beard and hair, the ear indicated by a raised border, the shape of the nose and the general expression of the face. In fact, the heads of these archers are so similar that I would suggest that they are the work of a single sculptor.

The middle group (Pls. IIIc-Va) is more complicated; for instance, the quivers of archers 9, 11, 15 33 . D. Beazley, Attic Black-figure Vase-painters (Oxford, 1956); J. D.

Beazley, Attic Red-figure Vase-painters (2nd ed., Oxford, 1963). See also J. Boardman, Athenian Black Figure Vases (London, 1974); J. Boardman, Athenian Red Figure Vases, the archaic period (London, 1975). Beazley made "a distinction between a vase by a painter

and a vase in his manner", and for him " 'manner', 'imitation', 'following', 'school', 'circle', 'group', 'influence', 'kinship' " were not synonyms. These distinctions I have not been able to make in my study of the Persepolis reliefs, where at times I have not distinguished between the sculptors and the teams they worked in.


and 16 have a distinctive square double flap (attribute R), where the others have a simple rounded flap. The quivers of archers 9, 15 and 16 are sharply curved, but that of archer 11, although icono- graphically the same as the other three, lacks their finish and is softer and similar in technique to the Suivers of the other archers in the group. So within this middle group (which was identified by the sign 8 )at least two sculptors have been at work.

The details, which above all others one would expect to betray an individual's style of carving, are the beard and hair curls; for the shape and method of carving the curls must have been almost totally subconscious, especially on these smaller figures where each curl is less than a centimetre across. The problem of classifying the curls into definite categories is difficult and subjective. An attempt to over- come these difficulties has been made in the following table:

Hair Beard Comments

9 t t t = typical

10 t t

11 t t? more straight lines between the curls than usual but the shape is typical

12 t 1p = beard curls awkwardly carved

13 a a a = curls more regular spiral with many curved diagonal lines between them

14 t t

15 t t

16 t t

17 3 p awkward and rounder than usual

18 t @ @ = like an Assyrian flood

19 a ? t hair curls more regular than normal

Fig. 11. Style of curls of archers 9 to 19.

The typical curls are not regular spirals like those of archers 20 to 24, but hang down with slightly rectangular corners and have a rather scratchy appearance. An examination of P1. IIIc should indicate what is meant. Although most of the curls were carved in one technique there are three variants: oc a very much more regular spiral with short diagonal lines between the curls similar to those of the bottom group but more dense; 3 a rather crude set of curls which may be the typical curl on an off day or may be the work of a beginner; and @ a flowing swirling type of curl which may be a variant of the typical curl or may be the work of some one else. To a certain extent this matches what has been said about the quiver flaps-the double quiver flap goes with the typical curls. If we look at the quivers more closely we get the table shown in Fig. 12.

This conveniently divides the quivers up into three groups: i) 9, 15, 16 with 11 as a copy by another hand, ii) 10, 12, 13, 14 and iii) 17, 18, 19. These do not match the curl styles, probably because the quivers and heads were not always carved by the same sculptor. Other details which seem characteristic of this group are the weak, occasionally smiling mouth, the almost straight nose, the sharp edge to the eyebrow and the ear indicated by three distinct areas. Most of the heads appear to have been carved by


Horizontal Strap over Fastening band hor. band Strap on strap? Fastening Knot Flap

9 B = bevelled N = narrow no tied

10 R= raised w = wide yes tied

11 B N no tied

12 B W yes none K

13 R W yes tied e

14 R W yes tied K

15 B N no tied

16 B N no tied \.. 17 R W? yes o tied J

18 R W? yes -

tied

19 R __ _

yestied _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I IW"ye

Fig. 12. Quiverflaps and straps of archers 9 to 19.

a single sculptor, but on a few, other styles can be seen. These were presumably carved by assistants or members of the team, who normally carved other parts of the figures or worked on other stages.

The first group of archers, 1 to 8 (Pls. Ila-IIIb), shows a similar pattern to the middle group:

Hair Beard Quiver flap Comments 1 *t *t t = typical curl; top of head now replaced at Persepolis

2 *B3 *[3 $ *3 = very ineptly carved curls 3 *t *t

4 *t *t

5 *t? t? ... beard badly carved because ofjoin of stones? 6 * t+ *t+ curls slightly more "hanging" with fewer diagonals between

them

7 *t *t k--

8 *t *t

Fig. 13. Style of curls and quiverflap of archers 1 to 8.


Here again apparently more than one hand has been at work. The typical curl is fairly large, regular, and not at all "hanging"; the top end of the spiral is normally slanting and between the curls are a number of diagonal lines which make the curls "float". The straight hair of the head and of the fringe has a characteristic crinkle in it. The variations from the norm may be due to a different hand: the badly carved curls of archer 2 are perhaps the work of an inexperienced assistant but the less competent curls of archers 3, 4 and 5 could be the work of the master, when he was not taking a great deal of trouble, rather than the work of another sculptor. Other features typical of this group are the pointed nose, the broad cheek, the simple form of the ear, and the rather sleepy eye.

ANALYSIS OF THE EAST SIDE OF THE SOUTH STAIRS The same methods of analysis have been applied to the thirty archers on the East side of the South

stairs.

1. Mathematical cluster analysis Twenty-three attributes were used. Since the archers face the other way to those on the west side,

the quiver flap, band and strap knot were not visible, but the bow string (V) and the lower part of the bow (W) were, and these, the type of ear (X) and presence of an ear-ring (Y) (Fig. 14) were included in

Fig. 14. Additional attribute categories not included in Fig. 4.

the data (Fig. 15). The resultant matrix and its shaded version (Figs. 16 and 17) show fairly clearly that, here again, three groups were at work. But it is not clear to which group archers 18 and 19 belong, and the first eight archers seem to split into three sub-groups, 1-4, 5-6 and 7-8. The more graphic similarity diagram gives much the same picture (Fig. 18) as do the dendrograms (Figs. 19 and 20).

The computer results are rather confused, and we may investigate the reasons for this. The mathematical method operates automatically on the data; so if the attributes listed do not reflect the idiosyncrasies of the sculptors, it cannot help in distinguishing the work of the different sculptors; indeed it may be positively misleading. Insufficient variation in the attributes fed in, is another source of error. Finally it might be that, although the attributes reflect the idiosyncrasies of the sculptors, these sculptors did not carve adjacent figures: this would give a confused similarity matrix, but the clusters given by the dendrograms would give the correct attributions. Little can be done about the first problem, and the third presents little difficulty. It is, however, easy to investigate the second source of error.

Examining the attribute list of the archers on the East side (Fig. 15), we find that a number of attributes hardly vary from archer to archer (Fig. 21 attributes C, E, H, M, U and Y). Since we are looking for groups of more than four archers, I have adjusted the data by counting any attribute state which has less than five examples as destroyed and by ignoring all those attributes which have more


A B C D E F GHI KLMNOPQS UVWXY

1 2 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 6 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 0 2 3 2 2 6 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 1 4 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 6 3 4 4 2 3 3 3 1 5 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 3 2 1 6 2 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 3 2 1 7 4 1 1 3 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 4 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 8 4 1 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 0 1 11 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 0 1 12 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 0 0 4 1 13 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 1 4 1 14 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 2 2 3 2 3 1 4 1 15 3 1 1 2 3 2 0 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 1 16 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 4 1 17 3 1 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 1 2 1

818 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 0 4 3 3 2 1 1 4 1 i 19 3 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 3 3 2 1 1 4 1

20 4 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 3 2 1 2 3 1 21 4 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 3 2 0 2 3 1 22 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 3 2 3 1 23 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 24 3 1 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 4 3 3 0 0 0 3 1 25 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 4 3 3 2 1 2 3 1 26 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 27 3 1 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 28 4 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 29 3 2 1 3 3 0 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 30 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 3 2 2 1 0 0

Fig. 15. Attribute list of the archers on the East side of the South stairs on the East side of the Apadana.

than 23 entries the same or destroyed (Fig. 22). Having done this, the number of attributes is reduced to 12. The results with the adjusted data are much the same as those obtained previously, but the picture is slightly clearer (Figs. 23-26). The first group has a more united appearance, and, especially in the shaded similarity matrix, archer 18 seems to belong to the middle group, while archer 19 is firmly with the last group. The mathematical analysis thus suggests that the archers fall into three groups, archers 1-8, 10-18, and 19-30.

Sculptors' marks This division is confirmed by the two 8 marks enclosing the middle group, one on a fragment

recently replaced in front of archer 9 (P1. VIi) (the rest of the archer is, however, almost entirely destroyed) and the other at the top right hand corner of the parapet behind archer 18 (P1. VIIp). To investigate these three groups more deeply, one has to examine the styles of the various archers:


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 1011 12 13 4 1516 17 18819 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

1 2322 17 15 15 15 13 15 0 11 11 9 11 10 8 9 13 11 13 14 12 11 11 12 11 14 11 12 11 9 2 2223 16 14 15 15 13 15 0 12 12 10 12 10 8 9 14 11 13 14 12 11 11 13 11 14 11 12 11 9 3 17 1622 19 15 13 13 16 0 12 12 10 12 11 10 10 12 12 14 15 14 13 14 14 13 12 13 11 12 9 4 15 14 1923 14 13 13 16 1 12 12 10 12 11 10 10 11 10 12 13 11 12 13 13 13 12 13 11 12 8 5 15 15 15 1423 17 13 13 1 12 12 11 12 11 9 10 12 11 11 12 12 12 11 9 10 11 12 11 10 8 6 15 15 13 13 1723 9 10 1 8 8 8 8 11 6 8 8 8 1211 8 9 8 71014 13 12 8 5 7 13 13 13 13 13 92220 0 13 13 11 13 11 12 13 14 13 15 15 16 12 15 13 13 13 14 16 15 12 8 15 15 16 16 13 102023 0 13 13 11 13 12 12 12 14 13 16 18 17 13 16 16 15 15 16 16 16 12 9 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 11 12 12 12 12 8 13 13 02222 1921 17 18 19 17 16 14 14 15 14 13 13 12 10 12 12 13 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 8 13 13 02222 1921 17 18 19 17 16 14 14 15 14 13 13 12 10 12 12 13 11 12 9 10 10 10 11 8 11 11 0 19 192020 17 17 17 15 16 14 12 13 11 12 12 10 9 12 11 12 10 13 11 12 12 12 12 8 13 13 021212023 19 18 19 18 18 16 13 14 13 14 13 11 11 13 13 14 12 14 10 10 11 11 11 11 1112 0 17 17 17 19 22 15 18 14 15 17 12 11 10 11 11 11 12 16 12 11 9 15 8 8 10 10 9 6 12 12 0 18 18 17 18 1522 18 14 15 14 13 16 14 15 13 11 9 11 11 13 12 16 9 9 10 10 10 8 13 12 0 19 19 17 19 18 1823 14 17 16 13 14 13 12 10 11 10 12 12 12 10 17 13 14 12 11 12 8 14 14 0 17 17 15 18 14 14 14 21 17 15 13 14 11 15 14 12 13 14 15 16 14 18 11 11 12 10 11 8 13 13 0 16 16 16 18 15 15 17 17 22 18 15 15 11 16 13 13 13 15 15 16 13 19 13 13 14 12 11 12 15 16 0 14 14 14 16 17 14 16 15 18 23 18 16 12 17 15 16 17 19 17 17 14 20 14 14 15 13 12 11 15 18 0 14 14 12 13 12 13 13 13 15 18 23 19 15 18 15 18 17 16 16 16 12 21 12 12 14 11 12 8 16 17 0 15 15 13 14 11 16 14 14 15 16 1922 16 18 16 14 13 14 16 16 13 22 11 11 13 12 12 9 12 13 1 14 14 11 13 10 14 13 11 11 12 15 1621 16 13 12 10 10 10 12 9 23 11 11 14 13 11 8 15 16 0 13 13 12 14 11 15 12 15 16 17 18 18 1623 17 17 17 17 17 19 14 24 12 13 14 13 9 7 13 16 0 13 13 12 13 11 13 10 14 13 15 15 16 13 17 20 15 14 114 15 11 25 11 11 13 13 10 10 13 15 0 12 12 10 11 11 11 11 12 13 16 18 14 12 17 15 22 18 18 16 15 10 26 14 14 12 12 11 14 13 15 0 10 10 9 11 12 9 10 13 13 17 17 13 10 17 14 1823 1920 16 11 27 11 11 13 13 12 13 14 16 0 12 12 12 13 16 11 12 14 15 19 16 14 10 17 16 18 1923 19 17 12 28 12 12 11 11 11 12 16 16 0 12 12 11 13 12 11 12 15 15 17 16 16 10 17 14 1620 1923 18 13 29 11 11 12 12 10 8 15 16 0 13 13 12 14 11 13 12 16 16 17 16 16 12 19 15 15 16 17 1822 16 30 9 9 9 8 8 5 12 12 011111012 9 12 10 14 13 14 12 13 9 14 11101112131617

Fig. 16. Similarity matrix from the analysis of the archers on the East side of the South stairs on the East side of the Apadana.

Stylistic analysis (Pls. VI and VI I) The evidence from the East side confirms the ideas derived from the study of the West side. The

style of the curls and the general shape of the profiles of the heads of archers 1 to 8 on the East side are the same as those of archers 1 to 8 on the West side. Even the crinkle in the straight hair and fringe is the same, and the slightly pointed nose is repeated. But there are differences both within the group and in relation to the group on the other side of the staircase; on archers 3, 4, and 8 the ear is more elaborately carved, and archer 7 does not appear to have an ear at all. On the East side the eyebrow is more emphatic than it is on the West side, and archers 4, 7 and 8 have incised eyebrows. Nevertheless the similarities are more than enough to show that the same craftsmen were at work, and the minor variations are no more than might be expected.

In the middle group, archers 9 to 18, the curls and profiles are again of the same types as those of the middle group on the other side; the straight hair has the scratchiness seen on the opposite side and the ears on the East are similar, though some of these are not as competently carved as those on the West side.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 13114 15 16 17 18 19 20 21122 23 4125 26 71282 930

2

3 KEY 5

6 23-17 _-

7

16-15 8 10 14-13

12_

12-0 I 14 15 16

18 19

20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27_ 28 29_ 30

Fig. 17. Shaded similarity matrix.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8"9 1011 1213 14 15161718819 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

22 21

20 19

18

Fig. 18. Similarity diagram.


10 11 13 12 14 16 ?6 2J 1i0 27 7 o 20 21 23 29 13 17 i6 25 24 1 2 3,

4 22 30 '5 6 22 21 20 13 lo

17 16 15

Fig. 19. Single link dendrogram.

10 11 13 12 16 14 15 26 27 2- 819 20 21 23 25 23 8 17 lb 1 2 3 4 7 22 24 5 6 30 22 21 20

17 16 15 14

9

Fig. 20. Double link dendrogram.

ATTRIBUTES ABCDE FGH IJ KLMNOPQSUVWXY

6 3 4 5 18 2 5 7 3 19 6 20 28 5 10 1 4 7 1 19 20 2 14 8 13 2 55 1 9 21 16 5 24 27 20 11 7 7 2 25 2 8 5 1 18 27 16 28 13 23 4 25 2 7 6 4 2 1 10 11 1 28 0 1 1 2 1 2 4 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 3 4 3 4 2

AB D G I NO P Q VWX REVISED ATTRIBUTES

A B D G I N O P Q V W X 4 5 18 7 3 19 6 20 10 7 19 14 8 13 2 5 5 9 16 20 11 7 7 8 5 1 18 16 13 7 6 10 11 0 1 1 1 4 1 3 6 54 6 3 5

CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTABILITY If any entry is less than 5, put it in the 0 row (destroyed). If the sum of O's and any other entry in any column is greater than 23, delete that column.

Fig. 21. Revision of attributes and conditions of acceptability.


ADJUSTED DATA

A B D G I N O PQ V W X

1 2 3 3 1 1 2 0 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 0 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 3 3 3 5 2 3 3 1 2 2 1 0 3 3 3 2 6 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 3 2 7 4 1 3 3 2 0 2 4 3 3 3 0 8 4 1 3 3 1 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 0 11 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 0

S12 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 0 0 4 . 13 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 4 S14 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 2 3 1 4

15 3 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 16 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 17 3 1 2 0 2 2 3 4 3 3 1 2 18 3 1 2 1 2 2 0 4 3 1 1 4 19 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 4 3 1 1 4 20 4 2 3 1 1 2 2 4 3 1 2 3 21 4 1 3 1 2 2 2 4 3 0 2 3

.22 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 0 0 3 2 3

23 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 4 3 1 1 3 24 3 1 3 3 1 2 3 4 3 0 0 3 25 3 2 3 3 1 0 1 4 3 1 2 3 26 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 3 27 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 3 28 4 1 3 3 2 1 1 4 3 1 1 3 29 3 1 3 3 2 2 2 4 3 1 1 3 30 3 1 3 0 2 2 2 4 3 0 1 0

ABDG I NOP Q V W X

Fig. 22. Adjusted attribute list.

The a curls, it will be remembered, have more diagonals between the curls than do the typical "hanging" curls. It is quite possible that there is no real difference between a and the typical curls; and they may be variants of the same style, for the same physiognomy in other respects is shown on all the faces: there is no regular association of a particular type of nose, ear, or eye with a particular type of curl.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

1 1111 9 6 9 7 5 7 0 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 5 4 5 6 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 3 4 4 2 1112 9 6 9 7 5 7 0 4 4 3 4 3 1 2 6 4 5 6 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 3 4 4 3 9 911 8 7 5 5 8 0 4 4 3 4 4 2 3 5 5 6 7 6 6 6 7 6 5 6 4 6 5 4 6 6 8 9 5 4 4 7 0 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 5 5 6 5 4 5 3 5 3 5 9 9 7 5 11 7 5 5 0 4 4 3 4 2 2 3 5 4 3 4 5 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 6 7 7 5 4 7 10 2 3 0 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 1 2 5 4 2 2 2 3 4 6 5 4 2 1 7 5 5 5 4 5 2 10 9 0 3 3 2 3 2 3 4 5 4 5 5 7 4 5 5 4 4 5 7 7 6 8 7 7 8 7 5 3 9 12 0 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 5 4 6 8 8 5 6 8 6 6 7 7 8 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 3 4 4 3 4 1 3 3 01111 9 10 7 8 9 7 6 3 3 5 6 4 3 2 0 2 2 4 4 11 3 4 4 3 4 1 3 3 01111 9 10 7 8 9 7 6 3 3 5 6 4 3 2 0 2 2 4 4 12 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 2 0 9 9 10 10 7 8 8 6 7 4 2 4 4 4 3 1 0 2 2 4 4 13 3 4 4 3 4 1 3 3 0 10 10 10 12 9 8 9 8 8 5 2 4 5 5 3 1 1 3 3 5 5 14 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 0 7 7 7 911 6 9 5 6 7 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 5 3 3 3 15 1 1 2 2 2 0 3 3 0 8 8 8 8 6 10 9 5 6 4 3 5 5 3 3 2 0 2 2 5 5 16 2 2 3 2 3 2 4 3 0 9 9 8 9 9 9 12 5 6 6 3 5 6 2 2 2 1 3 3 4 4 17 5 6 5 3 5 1 5 5 0 7 7 6 8 5 5 511 8 5 3 5 4 7 5 3 3 5 5 7 7 18 4 4 5 2 4 2 4 4 0 6 6 7 8 6 6 6 811 8 5 6 4 7 5 4 4 6 6 8 7 19 5 5 6 3 3 5 5 6 0 3 3 4 5 7 4 6 5 8 12 7 6 4 6 6 6 7 9 7 8 7 20 6 6 7 4 4 4 5 8 0 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 7 12 9 7 7 6 8 7 6 6 7 5 21 5 5 6 3 5 2 7 8 0 5 5 4 4 2 5 5 5 6 6 911 7 6 6 5 4 5 7 8 7 22 4 4 6 5 5 2 4 5 0 6 6 4 5 3 5 6 4 4 4 7 7 10 6 4 5 3 3 3 6 5 23 4 5 6 5 4 2 5 6 0 4 4 4 5 2 3 2 7 7 6 7 6 6 12 7 8 8 8 8 10 7 24 5 5 7 6 4 3 5 8 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 5 5 6 6 6 4 7 10 8 7 9 7 8 6 25 4 4 6 5 3 4 4 6 0 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 6 8 5 5 8 811 9 9 7 7 4 26 5 5 5 4 4 6 4 6 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 4 7 7 4 3 8 7 9 12 10 9 7 4 27 4 4 6 5 3 5 5 7 0 2 0 2 3 5 2 3 5 6 9 6 5 3 8 9 9 10 12 10 9 6 28 3 3 4 3 4 4 7 7 0 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 5 6 7 6 7 3 8 7 7 9 10 12 9 6 29 4 4 6 5 4 2 7 8 0 2 4 4 5 3 5 4 7 8 8 7 8 6 10 8 7 7 9 9 12 9 30 445341660444535477757576446699

Fig. 23. Similarity matrix for archers (adjusted data).

The final group, archers 19 to 30, relates, as might be expected, to the final group on the West side, archers 20 to 24. The most obvious feature of those five archers was the incised eyebrow. Most of the archers on the East side have this feature too (archers 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and perhaps also archer 30, but his face is largely destroyed); but it was not, however, the prerogative of this team, and it also occurs in the first group on the West side. The form of ear was characteristic on the West side, and this is repeated on the East; the hooked bulbous nose, the outline of the beard, and the rather over- hanging profiles with pursed lips, are all very similar. As with the other groups, however, there are slight differences. The head-dress does not sit so firmly on the fringe, and the curls are not all exactly the same.


1 2 3 4 56 7 910 111112 13114115 161717 1819 21]2 23 2 5 7 82930 1

2 3 SKEY 5 6 12-9

7 8 8-7

9 10

. . .X _ _16

- 5 11 X __

12 . . .

4 -0

13 .-

14

oo

15 16

17 18 1?9

20 21

22 x 23 24

25 26 X 27

28 29 30

Fig. 24. Shaded similarity matrix (adjusted data).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

11 A

10 9 8

Fig. 25. Similarity diagram (adjusted data).

The table indicates the difficulty in making a firm classification of the styles; it may be that T and T+ are just variants of the same style, and there is a difference only because T+ curls were carved on a harder block of stone.

The apparently unfinished beard of archer 29 is like those on the Central Building where, however, it is an intentional feature. On this staircase, it appears that the sculptor was worried about the


10 11 12 135 1,-

15 16 1 2 3 5 26 27 28 23 29 19 24 25 30 7 8 20 21 4 1 i 1o 6 22

10 "//Z

7 (a)

10 11 13 12 14 16 23 26 27 286 29 15 17 18 19 20 21 23 1 2 3 5 4 6 7 22 24 30

10

7 i ) i 'j /////X~i/ I. ,4,

Fig. 26. Single link (a) and double link (b) dendrograms.

Hair Beard Comments

9 destroyed destroyed

10 t t

11 t t

12 a a

13 a a

14 t t

15 t t

16 a a

17 a/t a/t sort of halfway between a and t

18 t t

Fig. 27. Style of curls of archers 9 to 18.

difficulty of carving over the joint between two stones and left the curls unfinished, perhaps to complete when he felt able to tackle the problem, but he never came back. It is surprising how many of the reliefs were left unfinished, but this would not have been so noticeable when they were painted.


Hair Beard Eyebrow Comments

19 T T none T = typical

20 T T none

21 T T none

22 T T none

23 T T i= incised

2

iran 21 (1983) sculptures and sculptors at persepolis

Documents

institute endeavours

british scholars

british universities

british academy

iran journal

importance of persian

series of persian texts

senior scholars