This ambitious book aims to bring the field of Achaemenid history into conversation with Zoroastrian studies and the study of early Islamic literature. As Reza Shaghaghi Zarghamee notes, Achaemenid historians have rarely engaged with sources in Avestan, Middle Persian (also known as “Pahlavi”), and New Persian, and the author seeks to rectify that. The book is divided into three parts, all of which have separate, though thematically related, arguments. In general, Zarghamee is concerned with the relationship between the Achaemenid Persian kings (r. 559-330 BCE) and a body of non-Achaemenid literature that he calls the “Iranian tradition.” Zarghamee never explicitly defines what this “Iranian tradition” is. It seems to be comprised chiefly of two components. First are the Zoroastrian holy texts, i.e. the Avesta and, to a lesser extent, the Middle Persian commentaries on and supplements to the Avesta.[1] The dating of these texts deserves remark. Because the Avesta was orally transmitted for centuries, its dating is uncertain and debated. Consensus places the Old Avestan texts before the Achaemenid period (perhaps, ca. 1,000 BCE); texts in Young Avestan, however, may be earlier than, contemporaneous to, or later than the Achaemenids. The Middle Persian texts date to the first millennium CE. The second component of the “Iranian tradition” is the courtly literature of the Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE) and, more importantly, later Islamic-period literature that drew on Sasanian traditions. For this book, the most important of the latter is Ferdowsi’s epic New Persian poem, the Shahnameh (ca. 1,000 CE).
The Achaemenid period, thus, takes place around one-third of the way through Zarghamee’s “Iranian tradition.” This has crucial implications. Achaemenid-period stories could have, in theory, been modeled on earlier Avestan narratives. On the other hand, the clearly post-Achaemenid sources, such as any literature from the Sasanian period, could have drawn inspiration from Achaemenid-period traditions. Zarghamee is aware of these possibilities. Nevertheless, categorizing two millennia of literature as the “Iranian tradition” leads to some potential imprecision. More chronologically specific vocabulary could have helped clarify the book’s analysis.
After an introductory chapter that provides a history of scholarship and an overview of the book, Part I (“Oral Traditions, Myths and Legends”) deals with the nature of oral storytelling in the ancient Iranian tradition. Chapter 1 establishes that oral transmission of stories was prominent in the Median (seventh and sixth centuries BCE) and Achaemenid periods. Although some details may be uncertain, such as the presence or absence of minstrels at regional courts in the Achaemenid Empire, Zarghamee persuasively establishes the prominence of oral storytelling in this period. Greek authors, like Herodotus, were able to draw on Persian storytelling traditions for their writings. The following chapter largely provides background information on myths known from Avestan and Sasanian courtly literature. For Zarghamee’s later analysis, the key figures discussed are Thraetona, a hero who slays the monstrous Azhi Dahaka, and Kavi Husravah, a king of the mythical Kayanid dynasty.
Chapter 3 asks to what extent the Medians and Achaemenid Persians were familiar with the myths described in the previous chapter. This question is difficult to answer, as it depends on the dating of the Avesta. Zarghamee argues that the Achaemenid Persians were familiar with the Zoroastrian myths, and the bulk of his evidence comes from the etymologies of personal names in a group of administrative documents known as the “Persepolis Fortification Archive.” Using the linguistic work of Jan Tavernier, Zarghamee shows that some people mentioned in the archive had names bearing onomastic elements of heroes known from the Avesta.[2] The proportion of such names relative to all known names in the archive is low, but the proportion is comparable to the number of Avestan-inspired names known from, for example, Middle Persian names in the Sasanian period. Zarghamee argues that these names indicate a shared tradition that is reflected in both Achaemenid onomastics and Avestan literature.
Part II (“Sources and Case Studies”) turns to specific case studies on the relationship between stories about Median or Achaemenid kings, on the one hand, and the Iranian tradition, on the other. Chapter 4 provides an introduction to the primary sources for the Iranian tradition. The most important of these in the remainder of the book are the Avesta, Middle Persian courtly literature, and Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh, itself based in part on Middle Persian literature. The second portion of this chapter describes methodological approaches to these texts. This chapter is a useful overview, especially for specialists of the Achaemenids who may be less familiar with these sources. However, placing the chapter earlier in the book would have better served readers.
Chapter 5 discusses a portion of Herodotus’ Median logos in which the Median king Deioces unifies the Medes and builds a capital at Ecbatana. Zarghamee argues that Herodotus (or an earlier Greek source) had heard a genuine Iranian story that tied divine kingship to the Medes and Ecbatana. Chapter 6 turns to what Zarghamee calls the “Cyrus Sagas,” i.e. the corpus of stories about King Cyrus the Great, especially about his early life and death. The author demonstrates convincing parallels between the Cyrus stories and the accounts of two figures of Zoroastrian myth, Thraetona and Kavi Husravah. The parallels between Cyrus and Kavi Husravah are particularly strong, and Zarghamee argues that the Cyrus stories and Kavi Husravah stories mutually influenced each other over time.
The final case study, chapter 7, is subtitled “Darius the Dragon-Slayer and the Cycle of the Khwarenah.” The title of the chapter states the case but will confuse: Darius does not slay a dragon in any surviving story, and khwarenah (an Avestan word roughly denoting the legitimate right to kingship) plays a considerably more limited role in the Achaemenid period than in the Avesta or in the Sasanian period.[3] Zarghamee intends to establish parallels between Darius’ accession to the throne and the story of the Zoroastrian hero Thraetona who slew the dragon-king Azhi Dahaka, and the author links the narrative of Darius’ accession to the reacquisition of khwarenah. The prominence of an aristocratic council establishing the king’s rule is the most convincing parallel. A more schematic presentation might have helped the reader. In a single section, Zarghamee sometimes moves among sources that trace a similar motif but are thousands of years apart. For example, one section (pp. 177-79) on Darius’s enemy Gaumata discusses, in the following order, Herodotus (mid-fifth century BCE), the “Pahlavi tradition” (first millennium CE), the Rig Veda (second millennium BCE), the Ram Yasht (first millennium BCE), the Shahnameh (ca. 1000 CE), the Karnamag-i Ardashir Papagan (third to seventh century CE), and Ctesias (ca. 400 BCE). The erudition is impressive, but the shifts in time make the analysis difficult to follow.
Part III (“The Missing Great Kings”) addresses a much-discussed topic in Iranian studies: why the Achaemenid kings disappeared from the literature of the post-Achaemenid period. In chapter 8, Zarghamee examines the relationship between the Achaemenid kings and the Kayanids, a mythical dynasty of kings in the Iranian tradition, most notably the Avesta and Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh. The author persuasively argues that stories about the later Achaemenid kings (i.e. Artaxerxes I and his descendants) became entwined with traditions on the later Kayanid kings. The Kayanid Ardashir Bahman took on elements associated with both Artaxerxes I and II, Darab became associated with Darius II, and Darab’s successor Dara bears strong resemblance to stories about Darius III. As Zarghamee emphasizes, the association between the Kayanids and only the later Achaemenids may be surprising: the early Achaemenids (Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes) are more widely known in other literary traditions. Zarghamee explains this by arguing that Artaxerxes I organized a major religious change in which state-sponsored religious practice moved from a primary focus on the god Ahuramazda to a focus on a wider pantheon, notably including Mithra and Anahita. In this reconstruction, the priesthood supported Artaxerxes’ form of religious practice, rather than that of Darius and Xerxes. Therefore, Artaxerxes and his successors became more prominent in subsequent priestly literature. There is, indeed, some Achaemenid-period evidence pointing to changing attitudes toward religion during the reign of Artaxerxes: his inscriptions, for example, name Mithra and Anahita, unlike those of Darius I and Xerxes. However, although Zarghamee’s reconstruction is plausible, the evidence is thin.
The following chapter continues to ask when and why the Medes and early Achaemenids disappeared from the Iranian tradition. The historicity of the Median kings known from, e.g., Herodotus is debated, and at any rate, the Achaemenid-period sources on the Medes are already confused. Zarghamee argues that the Zoroastrian figure Kavi Vishtaspa may have been identified with Hystaspes, the father of King Darius I (their names are etymologically identical); this identification may have led to the assimilation of the Achaemenids into the Kayanid dynasty. The early Achaemenids probably disappeared from the Iranian tradition by the late Arsacid period or, at the latest, by the fourth century CE. Zarghamee offers different explanations for the disappearance of the Achaemenid kings: Cyrus’ stories were mapped onto those of Kavi Husravah; Cambyses was always unpopular; and later priests disregarded Darius I and Xerxes because of their religious stances discussed in the previous chapter.
Part IV is comprised solely of the conclusion, which summarizes the arguments of the earlier chapters. The author hopes that the book will prompt further reflection about the relationship between Achaemenid history and the Iranian tradition. Eight appendices, all tables, follow. These provide the evidence that Zarghamee uses to support his arguments in other chapters, such as a list of heroes preserved in the names of the Persepolis Fortification Archive (Appendix 2) and a comparison between the Cyrus Sagas and the stories on Thraetona and Kavi Husravah (Appendix 8).
Myth and History in Ancient Persia is an impressively erudite study. The problems surrounding the chronology of the sources, however, make firm conclusions difficult. The parallels between Achaemenid stories and the Iranian tradition, in particular, pose interpretive challenges. It is possible that the similarities simply result from a shared “pan-Iranian cultural heritage,” as Zarghamee notes (e.g., p. 253). Or, as Zarghamee also proposes (p. 199), some parallels may have arisen because the Achaemenid court deliberately shaped their narratives after pre-existing stories in the Iranian tradition. The first option, a shared “cultural heritage,” seems the safer conclusion considering the difficulties of the evidence.
Zarghamee’s conclusions are firmer and more persuasive regarding the post-Achaemenid portion of the Iranian tradition. That is, the priestly compilers of portions of the Iranian tradition deliberately incorporated aspects of the later Achaemenid kings’ biographies into the narratives on the mythical Kayanid kings. The book’s principal success lies in teasing out these connections. For this reason, Myth and History in Ancient Persia will be particularly useful for the future study of Sasanian and early Islamic literature.
Notes
[1] There exist several conventions for the transliteration of Avestan and Middle Persian. I follow Zarghamee’s spelling in this review.
[2] Jan Tavernier, Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.): Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 158 (Peeters, 2007).
[3] Gnoli, Gherardo. “Farr(ah).” Encyclopedia Iranica. First published 1999, last modified 2015. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/farrah/.