Reviews 329

The report raises the issue of nuclear weapons in the area. In light of available informa-
tion, however, it makes an uncharacteristically tentative statement about existing capabili-
ties. It also says little about chemical weapons, which have been reported in Syria, Israel,
and Saudi Arabia as well as in Iraq. Nevertheless, the book presents a cogent and useful
proposal for building down both conventional and nuclear arsenals.
The final significance of A Compassionate Peace resides in its quiet demonstration of the
hypocrisy of government policies and academic or "scholarly" discourse concerning the
Middle East. Policies that claim to be based on human rights and/or the promotion of hu-
man freedom and dignity and scholarship that asserts its objectivity are shown, in the clar-
ity and humanity of the AFSC's analyses and solutions, to be nothing more than facades
masking self-interest, injustice, and double standards. This book represents a unique and
highly valuable perspective on the Middle East. It is an excellent example of what an actual
"new world order" would look like.

Department of Political Science CHERYL A. RUBENBERG

MUHAMMAD A. DANDAMAEV AND VLADIMIR G. LUKONIN, The Culture and Social Institutions
of Ancient Iran (translated by Philip L. Kohl and D. J. Dadson) (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1989). Pp. 478.

Very few Russian works on the history of the Ancient Near East have been translated into
a Western European language, and research carried out in the Soviet Union very often re-
mains inaccessible to Western European scholars, most of whom do not know Russian. A
translation of a monograph by Muhammad Dandamaev, the leading Russian scholar of the
neo-Babylonian and the Persian period, and by Vladimir Lukonin, a specialist in Iranian ar-
chaeology whose merits were acknowledged shortly after his premature death in 1984 by a
volume of Iranica Antiqua devoted to his memory, is therefore a major event. Neither au-
thor needs further introduction to his fellow specialists in the West and the two translators,
one of whom died before the translation was complete, deserve our gratitude for making
this work available.
In a certain sense, this translation is a pre-Glasnost phenomenon. Several years elapsed
between the completion of the manuscript and its publication in Russian in 1980: "It basi-
cally used the sources and literature which had been published or made available by the end
of 1976" (Kohl, foreword, p. xi). The translation was undertaken in 1983 and delayed by
the deaths of one of the original authors and of the first translator. According to the editor,
"This current edition represents a revision taking into full account all the publications of
texts, archaeological sources, and the secondary literature, which I had received at the time
of correcting the translation in 1985 and the beginning of 1986" (Kohl, foreword, p. xii).
Some three more years passed before the book was published. The various stages of this
process are visible in the bibliography, where references added later can be identified by the
a added to the reference number and where research published between 1975 and 1985 is
not represented as it would have been, had the manuscript been completed a decade later.
A monograph such as The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran (which covers,
despite its slightly misleading title, only the Achaemenid period and the preceding half-
millennium) is a welcome addition to recent publications on the history of the Persian
Empire. It takes as its point of reference Olmstead's History of the Persian Empire, published
posthumously in 1948, and it matches this classic in scope. The chronological narrative is
330 Reviews

confined to a few pages (pp. 90-96), and ample space is given to a detailed discussion of
such matters as the administrative system, the judicial structure, agrarian relations, and sla-
very. The discussion starts with an analysis of the sources, and it represents the most ex-
haustive presentation of the available material of its time.
Meanwhile, however, a number of books on ancient Persia have been published, includ-
ing Cook (1983), Frye (1984), and the second volume of the Cambridge History of Iran
{CHI), as well as investigations of particular aspects of Persian iconography (Root 1979),
of Achaemenid government (e.g., Briant 1982), and of the various lists of lands in the in-
scriptions and on the Persepolis reliefs (Calmeyer 1982-83).' Except for the last two, these
works are given in the bibliography, but their impact on the text itself is often hard to dis-
cern. As for the editors' claim of having brought the book up to date, the results fall short of
the promise (p. xi). Very often updating consists of little more than insertions in the bibli-
ography or a cosmetic addition to the text: for example, a discussion of an early date for
Zoroaster on pages 320-23 is, except for an allusive reference on page 321, devoid of ref-
erences to Boyce (1975),2 and thus lacks the support of the most authoritative defender of
this position at present. Likewise, the discussion of the iconography of Ahura Mazda on
page 342 should have mentioned Shahbazi's proposal that we interpret the image of the god
in the winged disk as the xvarnah of the king.3
It is admittedly hard for an editor to insert new literature into an existing text, since at
times it creates a need not merely to add but to rewrite passages. But an easy opportunity to
refer to more recent scholarship and new results was missed on pages 399-401, where a suc-
cinct survey of recent scholarship is given and Cook, Frye, and CHI (vol. 2) are mentioned,
but most other recent publications are not. It makes one wonder how to judge the text: as a
1976 publication or as the much more recent publication that its appearance suggests it to be.
Despite these shortcomings, the chief and undoubted merits of the book lie in its original
approach. Where other monographs on the Persian Empire and the Persian period remain
caught in the net of a traditional framework, ultimately deriving from Greek sources, in
which the main attention is given to "king and court," Dandamaev's detailed discussion of
daily life and its documentation throughout the empire—as in his chapter on social institu-
tions and economic structure—represents an important addition to the available mono-
graphs, even if more recent research such as Stolper's work on the Murasu archives (1985),
Koch's and Lewis's research on the Persepolis tablets, and Briant's fundamental and theoret-
ical reflections on the Egyptian sources (1988) may eventually lead to modifications in the
picture presented here.4 It is not surprising that such an important contribution to our knowl-
edge of the Persian Empire comes from a Soviet scholar, although it is not entirely true, as
Dandamaev remarks (p. 177), that Western scholarship has considered the empire as an ex-
clusively feudal enterprise. Important work by Briant has contributed much to the under-
standing of the mechanics of government and the interaction between rulers and governed in
the Persian Empire. Briant's work after 1975 is not represented in the bibliography, a fact
that cannot be explained entirely by the prolonged delay in the publication of the book.
Lukonin's contributions to the present volume are the sections "Archaeology in the Iron
Age," "Median Culture," and drafts for the sections on Pasargadae and Persepolis. Lukonin
had planned to rewrite several sections of the book, but his death prevented him from car-
rying out this project (p. xi). It seems unfair to criticize those sections, since Lukonin was
such a perspicacious archaeologist he probably would have made good use of new discov-
eries and discussions that are now only marginally referred to in the text of the book. As it
is, however, one is confronted with some awkward non sequiturs, for example note 1 on
page 239, which reports on the excavations at Pasargadae by Stronach (1967), who con-
cluded that Pasargadae was constructed after 539 B.C., oddly accompanies the text, "Judg-
ing by literary and archaeological evidence, Pasargadae was inhabited as early as the fourth
 Reviews 331

millennium B.C.," which in its turn is in apparent contradiction to the statement on page
242, "Archaeological excavations in Pasargadae . . . have enabled us to establish the dates
of construction of the main buildings (between the years 546 and 530 B.C.)".
The text also mentions a "prestigious palatial art created by the Medes" (p. 244). Re-
gardless of how inclined one is to interpret the lack of evidence as indicative of the state of
organization of the Median empire or as due to the fortunes of survival, no Median palaces
have been excavated, and hardly any art—let alone palatial art—of the Medes is known at
present.5 Nor do we know anything about the social organization during the Median period;
most certainly there are no data on the existence of "semi-patriarchal slave-holding" or on
the enslavement by the nobility of "a portion of the Median peasant population" (as postu-
lated on p. 62). Not even the Greek sources, usually prone to mention slavery in the "Ori-
ent," would allow for such conclusions.
Herzfeld's opinion on the entire planning of Persepolis as preceding the construction of
the terrace (pp. 248, 254) has definitely been proved wrong by the careful investigations of
the Tillias (1978; pp. 25-27). Also, the hypothesis of the Persepolis reliefs as a detailed
portrayal of a real ceremonial taking place at Nowruz is no longer accepted by the "major-
ity of scholars" (p. 255). This interpretation was popular in the sixties and may well have
had some connection with the celebrations at Persepolis and in Iran in 1971, but method-
ological discussions of the problem by Root (1979), Calmeyer (1980), and Nylander (1974:
148, "There is thus no compelling need to assume a connection with Now Ruz," and p. 150,
"Thus, in both cases it would seem more probable that an abstract symbolical thing is ex-
pressed, not a real ceremonial reality"),6 have indicated the flaws in this theory. In more re-
cent literature the reconstruction of the Nowruz ceremonial is thought to have been based
on false presuppositions and abandoned.
In some places the text is irritatingly devoid of references: what, one wonders, is the evi-
dence for "archaeologists have determined that the forms and styles of tableware—glass and
ceramics—changed during the Achaemenid period in a number of places beyond Iran itself.
Ceramics in particular "copy Achaemenid forms and ornamentation" (p. 265), and for "a cul-
tural unity of East and West has been achieved as early as the time of Xerxes" (p. 269)? Such
categorical statements do not agree with the present state of the evidence, which makes it
clear that "Achaemenid art" was intimately connected with court and nobility and was never
really integrated into the cultural traditions of the subjugated populations. Similarly one
wonders how we know about the "purely Ionian style" of the satrapal palaces of Daskyleion
and Sardis (p. 300), since excavations have not yet uncovered much of these buildings. What
evidence is there that "votive inscriptions, in which Anahita was identified with Artemis and
the 'queen Athena,' Apollo and Helios with Mithra, and Zeus with Ahuramazda, have been
discovered in the ruins of a temple on the Persepolis terrace excavated by Herzfeld" (p. 270)?
The reference is probably to a post-Achaemenid inscription, but that is not what the text sug-
gests. Likewise, the temple of Susa, excavated by Dieulafoy, is now argued on good grounds
to belong to a later period.7 As to sanctuaries of the Achaemenid period, we are still more
in the dark than some confident statements (pp. 258, 344) might lead us to believe.
There is a wealth of documentary material between the two elegant covers of this book.
Although the publishers might have replaced the antique photograph of the Xerxes Gateway
by Dieulafoy (p. 247, pi. 24) with a more modern one, on the whole the book is appropri-
ately illustrated, very often with items from Russian museums. It presents the broadest
spectrum of life throughout the Achaemenid Empire currently available. Still, there are
points where it falls short of what one might wish. It earnestly attempts to present an inside
picture of the empire and to make the most of a variety of regional and local sources.
Through the use of this material, it avoids the pitfall of a Hellenocentric perspective. It is,
however, not possible to avoid the Greek sources altogether, and here one would especially
332 Reviews

have liked a more critical approach. In the last chapter it is admitted that Xenophon's Cyro-
paedia contains "consciously distorted" information (p. 395). Notwithstanding this, the Cy-
ropaedia is frequently used as hard evidence (e.g., pp. 223, 348). The picture of an
unspoiled early Persian Empire in the 6th century as given, without further comment, on
page 303 is clearly one of the constructs of our Greek sources; Themistocles marrying a
Persian woman (p. 296) is almost certainly a fictitious story by Diodorus.
In a book of this scope, it is not hard to find shortcomings. But we should also welcome
this new contribution to Achaemenid studies, which not only covers so much material, but
also makes available to a Western audience research and results of a large number of other
Russian scholars. It is definitely entitled to a place alongside Olmstead's classic work, and
it will be useful to specialists in Achaemenid studies. As to the hope expressed by the edi-
tor (on p. xiii) that historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists of early complex empires
may profit from these detailed analyses, I would be rather skeptical. Although there are
three indices (for names, sites, and subjects), it is not always easy to find one's way through
the lengthy chapters and paragraphs. I am therefore inclined to disagree with the editor who
is convinced that the book will be profitable in a comparative evaluation of early empires
(p. xii). That ambition, however, was nowhere stated by the authors. They have clearly
aimed at a vivid and colorful picture of the Achaemenid period in its various regions and
territories, at daily life and business, not at the kind of structural analyses that the editor
postulates. This point once again illustrates the difficulties of reviewing a book shaped by
so many different hands through so many stages of production.

NOTES

'J. M. Cook, The Persian Empire (London, 1983); R. N. Frye, The History of Ancient Iran (Munich,
1983); M. C. Root, The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art, Acta Iranica 19 (Leiden, 1979); Cambridge
History of Iran, vol. 2: The Median and Achaemenian Periods (Cambridge, 1985); P. Briant, Rois tributs
etpaysans (Paris, 1982); P. Calmeyer, "Zur Genese altiranischer Motive VIII. Die 'Statistische Landcharte'
des Perserreiches,'Mrc/iao/ogi'.sc/ie Mitteilungen aus Iran 15 (1982), 105-87; ibid., 16 (1983), 141-222.
2
M. Boyce, History of Zoroastrianism, vol. 1 (Leiden, 1975).
3
A. Sh. Shahbazi, "An Achaemenid Symbol I: A Farewell to 'Fravahr' and 'Ahuramazda,'" Archao-
logische Mitteilungen aus Iran, 7 (1974), 135-44.
4
M. Stolper, Entrepreneurs and Empire (Leiden, 1985); H. Koch, "Steuern in der achamenidischen
Persis?," Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, 70 (1980), 105-37; "Zu den Lohnverhaltnissen in der Dareioszeit
in Persien," Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, 10 (1983), Supplement, 19-50; D. M. Lewis, "Post-
script 1984," in A. R. Burn, Persia and the Greeks (London, 1984); P. Briant, "Ethnoclasse dominante et
populations soumises dans l'empire Achemdnide: le cas l'Egypte," Achaemenid History III: Method and
Theory (Leiden, 1988), pp. 137-74.
5
B. Genito, "The Medes. A Reassessment of the Archaeological Evidence," East and West, 36
(1986), 11-81; O. W. Muscarella, "Median Art and Medizing Scholarship," Journal of Near Eastern
Studies, 46 (1987), 109-27.
*This contradictory opinion seems rather oddly rendered by a reference in the text to this article:
"See the Detailed Discussion in 541" (Nylander, "Al-Beruni and Persepolis," Acta Iranica, 1 (1974),
137-50); cf. also Root, King and Kingship, n. 1; Calmeyer, "Textual Sources for the Interpretation of
Achaemenian Palace Decorations," Iran, 18 (1980), 55.
7
Cf. R. Boucharlat, "Monuments religieux de la Perse achfime'nide. Etat des questions," Temples et
Sanctuaires, Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 7 (Lyons, 1984), pp. 129 f., for the discussion and pre-
vious bibliography.

Department of History HELEEN SANCISI-WEERDENBURG