HenryP.Colburn Art of the Achaemenid Empire, and Art in the Achaemenid Empire Abstract: This chapter introduces two major aspects of the study of Achaemenid Persian art, namely its definition, and the analysis of quotations of other artistic traditions.Achaemenidartisbestdefinedasconsistingoftwocategoriesofmaterial. Oneistheartoftheempire,thatis,artproducedinfurtheranceofimperialgoals.The other category consists of art in the empire, or the artistic production of regions subjecttoAchaemenidrule.Thoughthisartoftentookanoutwardformtypicalofits localcontextitwasalwaysproducedindialoguewiththeartoftheempire.Inbothof these categories visual quotations of other, often earlier, artistic traditions figured prominently.Thesequotationswereutilizedbyindividualsasameansofconstructing and negotiating visually their positions in the social order of the empire, and by parsingthesequotationsitbecomespossibletoreconstructsomeofthesocialcondi- tionsinwhichtheywereselected.Thisconceptisillustratedinthreecasestudiesthat demonstratethebreadthofAchaemenidartanditsvalueasahistoricalsourceforthe studyoftheempire. Keywords:AchaemenidPersianEmpire,art,imperialism,ideology,identity HenryP.Colburn:UniversityofMichigan,KelseyMuseumofArchaeology,434S. StateSt., AnnArbor,Michigan48109–1390,e-mail:[email protected] Introduction: The Sea Change in Achaemenid Historiography Sincethe1970stherehasbeenasignificantreorientationinthestudyoftheartofthe AchaemenidPersianEmpire(c.550–330BCE).Previously,Achaemenidartwastypi- callyviewedthroughthelensofaestheticsensibilitiesderivedultimatelyfromGreek art.Thisapproach,especiallywhencombinedwithancientGreekbiasestowardsthe Persians (bolstered by modern orientalist prejudices), led to pejorative assessments and offhand dismissals of it as derivative, repetitive or, as Bernard Berenson (1954: 186) famously put it, resulting from the “originality of incompetence” (Root 1994). Beginning in the 1970s, however, some students of the empire began to consider Achaemenid art not as a failure to reproduce classical illusionism or as an eclectic pastiche of other artistic traditions, but rather on its own terms as a deliberate constructionthatutilizedthesetraditionstocreateaspecificvisualeffectandthereby Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS Authenticated | 173.9.48.25 Download Date | 1/17/14 10:49 PM 774 HenryP.Colburn communicateaspecificsetofideas.1Thisparadigmshiftwasaccompaniedbyparallel developmentsinAchaemenidhistoriographythatsoughttoplacethePersiansthem- selves at the center of the discourse, rather than viewing them solely from the standpoint of the Greeks (see McCaskie 2012), undermining earlier preconceptions abouttheweaknessandephemeralityofAchaemenidrule.Inthepast,suchprecon- ceptions have informed notions of the scarcity of the empire’s material remains, especially in the satrapies, and this scarcity in turn contributed to these notions of weakness, creating a vicious circle driven by what Margaret Root (1991) has called “the politics of meagerness.” Now, as these preconceptions are increasingly chal- lengedandfoundwanting,sotooisthisscarcityundermined,andindeedthereare presentlymanyscholarsidentifyingandstudyingAchaemenidartinawidevarietyof contextsandmedia(Khatchadourian2012).ThusthecorpusofAchaemenidartisever increasing. Indeed, one particular collection of material, the seal impressions pre- served on the clay tablets of the Persepolis Fortification Archive, includes an esti- mated 3000 to 3500 individual seals, making it one of the largest extant bodies of ancientart. TheeffectofthisseachangeisthatAchaemenidartisnowbettersuitedthanever toanswerquestionsaboutthenatureoftheAchaemenidEmpire,anditisthepurpose of this chapter to examine how this may be done. The first section seeks to define Achaemenid art in a manner that includes all artistic material produced in the Achaemenidpoliticalambit,regardlessofitsoutwardappearance.Evenanobjectthat seemingly betrays no trace of the empire’s presence or influence is nevertheless informativeoftherelationshipofitsproducerandownertothepowerstructuresand cultural practicesof the empire. The second section explicates how one of the most commonmethodologiesinthestudyofAchaemenidart–examiningthequotationof foreignartistictraditionsfrompastandcontemporarygroupsalike–canbeusedto reconstructaspectsofthesocialconditionsthroughouttheempire.Theutilityofthis methodology is demonstrated by three case studies that also illustrate the diversity bothoftheartproducedwithintheempireandoftheexperiencesoftheindividuals responsibleforitscreation. Defining the Corpus Achaemenid art is best understood as comprising two interrelated categories of material. The art of the Achaemenid Empire consists of the artistic output of the imperial centers, especially Persepolis and Pasargadae, and of monuments and objectsthatseeminglybearcloseaffinitiestothisoutput.Thiswastheofficialartof 1 ThisisnottosaythatprejudicialscholarshipontheAchaemenidEmpiredoesnotstillpersist;see Colburn2011. Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS Authenticated | 173.9.48.25 Download Date | 1/17/14 10:49 PM ArtoftheAchaemenidEmpire,andArtintheAchaemenidEmpire 775 theempire,plannedcentrallybyimperialofficialswiththepurposeofcommunicating anddisseminatingaspecificideologicalagenda(Root1979;1990;2000).Perhapsthe most emblematic example of this art is the Bisitun Monument of Darius I. This monument (Fig. 1), carved into the living rock high on a mountainside in western Iran,consistsofareliefthatrepresentssymbolicallyDarius’overthrowoftheusurper Gaumataandhisdefeatofnineotherrebelpretenders,andatrilingualinscriptionin Old Persian, Elamite and Babylonian Akkadian narrating those same events (see Kuhrt 2007: 141–57 for the inscription in translation); versions of the relief and the inscription (in Aramaic) have been found at Babylon and Elephantine in southern Egypt, respectively, suggesting both were disseminated throughout the empire in various forms. In the relief, Darius draws on the composition and style of victory monuments of earlier Assyrian, Iranian and Egyptian kings as a means of commu- nicating his royal status. But he does not simply copy these monuments; rather he eschewstheviolentimageryoftheearliermonumentsinordertomakeanideological statement about the nature of Achaemenid imperialism, and he manipulates these quotationsofearliertraditionsinordertorepresenthisuniquelydivineposition(Root 1979: 194–226; 2013; Feldman 2007). He also introduces new features, such as the trilingual inscription (Finn 2011). In doing so Darius and his advisors created some- thingnewanddistinctlyAchaemenid,andconsequentlythisartprovidesthefounda- tion of our understanding of how Achaemenid kings conceived of themselves and theirworld. But there is also another category of art that is similarly invaluable for under- standing the Achaemenid Empire. This is the art in the empire, which includes the artisticoutputofalltheregionssubjecttoAchaemenidrule.Thiscorpusissomewhat difficult to delineate in all regions and periods because the extent of Achaemenid control is not always clear. It is important to recognize too that this control was uneven,withsomeregionsoftheempiremoreautonomousthanothers(Briant2002: 726–33).Thecorpusofartintheempireisskewedsignificantlytowardsthewestern half of the empire because this region has been subject to more archaeological investigationthantheeasternhalf,andtomorescholarlyattentioningeneral.There isalsoalargecategoryofmaterialoriginatingoutsideoftheempire’sbordersbutthat isindialoguewiththeartoftheempirenevertheless(seeMiller1997).Thismaterialis certainlyinstructive,butmoresoforforeignperceptionsofAchaemenidimperialism thanforthesocialconditionsofAchaemenidrule.Thusitisnotincludedherewithart intheempire,eventhoughthemethodologiesdiscussedbelowaresimilarlyusefulfor itsstudy. Art in the empire is a valuable source of evidence for studying Achaemenid imperialism,whetheritisfromBabylonorBactra.Aswiththeartoftheempire,this art also made selective reference to different artistic traditions according to the context of itsproduction anddecisions madeby theartists and patrons responsible for its creation. These references provide valuable clues as to the prevailing social conditions at the time and place of an objection’s production and deployment. In Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS Authenticated | 173.9.48.25 Download Date | 1/17/14 10:49 PM 776 HenryP.Colburn Figure1:BisitunReliefofDariusI. ReproducedcourtesyoftheKelseyMuseumofArchaeology, UniversityofMichigan. somecases,itispossibletodiscernareorientationintheseconditionsasaresultof Achaemenidimperialism;inothers,theempireisconspicuousbytheabsenceofany apparentreferencetoit.InthisapproachagencyresideswithboththeGreatKing(that is,withtheimperialapparatustaskedwithplanningandproducingart),andwiththe individual subjects of the empire, albeit only those of such social and economic standingastobeinvolvedinthecommissioningandproductionofartasitisvisible now. The reason for articulating these two categories of material is not to accentuate the differences between them, but rather to enlarge the corpus of artistic evidence used to study the Achaemenid Empire. Indeed, in many cases it is impossible or impractical to determine to which category a given object belongs. This is nicely exemplifiedbyAchaemenidmetalware,especiallydrinkingvessels.Thereisacertain corpusofvesselshapesthatistypicallyassociatedwiththeAchaemenids,including phialai (shallow drinking bowls) and rhyta (drinking horns, typically with animal protomes).2Certainsilverphialaibearinscriptionsindicatingtheirproductioninthe 2 OneoftheendemicproblemsinthestudyofAchaemenidartingeneralandmetalwareinparticular isthelackofreliableprovenances,andthisiscertainlythecasewiththevesselsdiscussedhere.Thisis nottheplacetoexaminethistopicindetail,andreadersshouldconsultOscarMuscarella’scontribu- tiontothisvolumeforafullertreatment.Hereitsufficestonotethattheauthenticityofthevessels themselves is reasonably assured on account of their construction, metallic content, and weights Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS Authenticated | 173.9.48.25 Download Date | 1/17/14 10:49 PM ArtoftheAchaemenidEmpire,andArtintheAchaemenidEmpire 777 Figure2:LinedrawingofarelieffromthetombofPetosiris,Tunael-Gebel,Egypt. FromLefebvre1923–24. context of the imperial court (Gunter and Root 1998). This would place them in the categoryofartoftheempire,sincetheywereproducedatthebehestoftheGreatKing anddistributedasroyalgiftsinfurtheranceofimperialgoals.Butnotallsuchphialai (whichcombinedmakearoundfigureinPersiansigloi);seeCurtisetal.1995;GunterandRoot1998. Theargumentthattheinscriptionsaremodernadditionsisbasedonahapaxlegomena,which,given thesmallsizeofthecorpusofOldPersianinscriptions,ishardlysurprising.Therearesimilarproblems withAchaemenidmetalrhytaaswell(seeMuscarella1980). Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS Authenticated | 173.9.48.25 Download Date | 1/17/14 10:49 PM 778 HenryP.Colburn bearinscriptions,andbowlsofthisshapewereproducedinotherpartsoftheempire, suchasAnatolia(Miller2010).Likewise,theclearestandmostdirectevidenceforthe production of rhyta comes not from southwestern Iran but from Egypt. Some of the reliefsdecoratingtheinteriorofthetombofPetosirisatTunael-GebelinMiddleEgypt (Lefebvre1923–24;Cherpionetal.2007),datingtothelatefourthcenturyBCE,depict craftsmenatwork,someofwhomareshownmakingrhytaofaseeminglyAchaeme- nidsort (Fig. 2). Though the settingfor these scenesisnot readily apparentthey do suggesttheproductionofsuchvesselsinanEgyptiancontext,implyingthatvessels closely associated with the Achaemenid cultural ambit could be made far from the centersoftheempire. Together these two categories of material constitute the corpus of Achaemenid art. Many objects in this corpus also clearly belong to other artistic traditions, but sincetheyareproducedindialoguewithotherexamplesofAchaemenidarttheyhave thepotentialtoinformusabouttheempireinatleastsomesmallway. The Analysis of Visual Quotations The study of Achaemenid art has been focused primarily on the identification of quotationsofotherartistictraditionswithinit.Thisisespeciallytruefortheartofthe empire(see,forexample,Root1979andBoardman2000,whoemploythistechnique toverydifferentends),inlargepartduetotheassumptionthatthePersianshadno traditionofmonumentalartpriortothefoundationoftheirempirebyCyrusandthat theyaccordinglyemployedcraftsmenfromamongtheirnewlyconqueredsubjectsto createit.Theidentificationoftheseartisticquotationswasameansofidentifyingthe various “sources” of Achaemenid art. The assumptions that inform this approach, however,canbechallengedonavarietyofgroundsthatundermineitconsiderably. Thefirstofthese,thatthePersianswereimperialparvenuswithnoartistictraditionof theirown,requiresreassessmentinlightoftheclearlinksbetweentheElamiteglyptic art of Susa and that of Persepolis, mediated by heirloom seals from Anshan, Cyrus’ originalseatofpower(Root1979:28–42;Garrison2002;2011a).Theselinksarehighly suggestiveofElamite-Iranianacculturationinthecenturiesleadinguptothefounda- tionoftheempire,resultinginthecreationofaPersianidentitythatincludedartistic attributesinadditiontoreligiousandlinguisticones(seealsoHenkelman2011). The role played by foreign craftsmen, Lydians and Greeks especially, in the creation ofartofthe empire isoftenoverstated (forexample, Boardman2000: 128– 34). It is evident that foreign workers were employed at Persepolis and Pasargadae; ElamiteadministrativetabletsfromtheFortificationandTreasuryarchivesatPerse- polis make ample reference to non-Persian workers, some even in the context of artistic production (Henkelman and Stolper 2009; Roaf 1980), and the masonry techniques used at Pasargadae have clear and deliberate affinities with Lydian and Ionic Greek architecture (Nylander 1970). The most spectacular evidence for foreign Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS Authenticated | 173.9.48.25 Download Date | 1/17/14 10:49 PM ArtoftheAchaemenidEmpire,andArtintheAchaemenidEmpire 779 craftsmen is the so-called Foundation Charter from Susa (DSf; Root 2010: 178–86; Kuhrt 2007: 492–95), a trilingual cuneiform text in which Darius proclaims that his palace at Susa was built by workers from throughout the empire using materials broughtfromtheirrespectivehomelands.AmongtheseareIonianandSardianstone- cutters, providing, it seems, confirmation of the importance of Greek and Lydian artisans at this imperial center (and by extension other centers as well). But the Foundation Charter wasnot intended to be a literalrecord of thepalace’s construc- tion.Rather,itisanideologicalstatementoftheextentofDarius’powerandthegreat varietyofpeoplesandresourcesathiscommand(Root2010:185–86).Thewordingof the inscription is vague, and in at least one instance illogical, since the Egyptians wereunlikelytohavesuppliedthesilvergiventhescarcityoftheirnaturalsourcesof it.Also,theGreeksandLydiansareonlytwoamongseveralgroupsofworkerslisted inthistext,andifthewagesprovidedtosculptorsinthePersepolisTreasuryTablets are any indication they were no more important than any other type of craftsman (Roaf1980:69).Theconception,designandplanningofAchaemenidimperialmonu- mentsclearlytookplaceatthehighestlevels,whilethecraftsmenthemselvesmostly just followed directions (Root 1979: 15–23; Roaf 1990). So although Greeks and LydianscertainlyparticipatedintheproductionofartatPersepolis,Pasargadaeand Susa,itwasnotinacreativecapacity.Rather,theydidsobecausetheirparticipation furtheredtheobjectivesoftheGreatKingincreatingthespecificvisualeffectthathe wanted. The centrality of Persian initiative to the creation of art of the empire does not diminish the importance of these quotations for understanding the meaning and purposeofthisart;rather,thetransferofagencytothePersiansincreasesthevalueof this art as evidence for how Achaemenid ideology was envisioned and constructed. ThiswasfirstmadeclearinafundamentalstudybyMargaretRoot(1979),whereinshe arguedthatthequotationsandmanipulationsofotherartistictraditions,Mesopota- mian,EgyptianandGreekalike,thatappearatPersepolisandelsewherecouldonly haveresultedfromaPersianroyaldirective.ThePersianshadampleopportunityfor exposuretotheartsofMesopotamia,Anatolia,andevencentralAsiainthecourseof the campaigns of Cyrus (recounted by Briant 2002: 31–49), and further exposure to EgyptinthereignofCambyses;indeed,manyoftherankingPersiansofDarius’day wouldhaveservedonthesecampaigns,includingDariushimself(inEgypt;Herodo- tus3.139),andthereforeseenfirsthand,andperhapsplunderedaswell,theproducts ofmanydifferentartistictraditions.Moreover,intheyearsfollowingtheseinaugural campaignstheempirewasinterconnectedbyasystemofroadsandwaystationsthat facilitated the easy movement of people, objects and ideas between the imperial centers and the furthest reaches of the empire; this created environments in which peoplesofdifferentculturesandbackgroundscouldanddidinteract(Colburn2013). For example, in an Aramaic letter (Porten and Yardeni 1986–99: A6.12; Kuhrt 2007: 819)thesatrapofEgypt,Aršama,writestohisEgyptianstewardtoinstructhimtopay asculptorwhomhehadbroughttoSusatomakecopiesofsomestatues,andthento Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS Authenticated | 173.9.48.25 Download Date | 1/17/14 10:49 PM 780 HenryP.Colburn shipthosecopiestohim.ItisunclearwhereAršamawasatthetimeofwriting,but regardless, this letter shows how the Persians could effect the movement of objects andartisansthroughouttheempire. Persians like Darius and Aršama, then, had an extensive visual repertoire on whichtodrawfortheplanninganddesignofimperialmonuments,andthisrepertoire also informed the objects that they commissioned for themselves. These quotations werethevisualdimensionofanideologicalprogramthatemphasizedthecreationof aunifiedpoliticalentity,theAchaemenidEmpire,fromavarietyofdifferentpeoples with different cultural andmaterial traditions. Theywere also usedto represent the relationshipbetweentheking,thepeople,andthegodAuramazda;inparticular,the kingwasfrequentlyplacedinapositionthatwasinotherartistictraditionsreserved for deities. A full interrogation of the religious significance of these depictions is beyondthescopeofthis essay(see insteadGarrison2011b;Root2013),but itseems the king wished to make this aspect of his representation intelligible in a variety of culturalcontexts.Indeed,thesequotationsensuredthatsomeonefromanywherein the empire would find at least some aspect of the art of empire to be somewhat familiar,evenifhewasunabletointerpretitssignificancemorespecifically. In the study of art in the empire, quotations of Achaemenid material culture in local artistic traditions play a particularly central role. Studies of the impact of Achaemenidruleonagivensiteorregionoftenrelyexclusivelyonthepresenceofart ofthe empireas ameans of gaugingthe breadth,depth, ordensity ofthat rule;the apparent absence of this art, and of anything readily identifiable as Achaemenid materialculture,leadstoconclusionsthatAchaemenidrulewaseitherverytolerant oflocalculturesorsimplyanemic.Thisapproachisquitecrudeinthatitassumesa linear and overly simplistic relationship between imperialism and material culture and obscures the many complex ways in which they interact. Moreover, it also emphasizesthescarcityofmaterialcorrelatesofAchaemenidrule.MargaretRoothas challengedthisscarcityonseveralgrounds;mostrelevanthereisherargumentthat quotations of Achaemenid material culture are much more prevalent in the empire thanthisconventionalmethodologywouldsuggest,inlargepartbecausetheobjects featuringthesequotationsarefrequentlyclassifiedaccordingtotheapparentgeogra- phicalandculturalcontextoftheirproduction(Root1991).Perhapsthemosttelling example of this is the category of material often identified as “Greco-Persian” (for example, Boardman2000:152–74).The objectsplacedinthiscategorytendtohave one or more ostensibly Greek features among all their other formal characteristics, andtheyareresultantlyattributedtoaGreek(orLydian)productioncontext.Butthe seal impressions preserved in the Persepolis Fortification Archive demonstrate the rangeandvarietyofmotifsandstylesthatthesealcarversofPersepoliswerecapable ofquoting,andindeedamongtheseareimpressionsofsealsthatdoincludeappar- entlyGreekfeaturesofsomesort.Inessencethe“Greco-Persian”labelgivespriority to Greek features over quotations of any other artistic tradition, with the result that materialthatisclearlyindialoguewiththeartoftheempire,andthereforeevidence Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS Authenticated | 173.9.48.25 Download Date | 1/17/14 10:49 PM ArtoftheAchaemenidEmpire,andArtintheAchaemenidEmpire 781 ofaninstanceofAchaemenidrule,isviewedinsteadasevidenceofthediffusionof Greekart(Gates2002). There aremanymore waysin whichAchaemenid imperialism could potentially affect the artistic output of the satrapies than just the quotation of Achaemenid imperial iconography. This is well demonstrated in a recent study of Achaemenid Sardis by Elspeth Dusinberre (see also examples in Khatchadourian 2012). In her examinationoffunerarypractices,sheobservesasignificantincreaseinthenumber oftumulusburialsduringtheperiodofAchaemenidrule(Dusinberre2003:128–57). In earlier times tumuli were the exclusive prerogative of the kings of Lydia, so the adoption of these tombs was a reference to Lydian cultural and material practices. But these tombs also contained funerary couches, which were not a feature of the earlier royal tumuli. Also, much of the jewelry recovered from these tombs (as well asfromothercontemporarytombsatSardis)appearstoquotetheartoftheempire. Dusinberre argues convincingly that, despite the Lydian associations of tumuli, their use as burial markers had more to do with the deceased’s socioeconomic standingthanwiththeirethnicidentity.Theprevalenceoftumuliinthisperiodwas a result of Sardis’ prosperity as a satrapal capital and major imperial center. This illustrates how Achaemenid rule could affect local material culture in a way that did not result in overt references to the art of the empire; it shows too the importance of examining all ofthe visual quotations discernible in anobject before using it to address a broader question about the nature and impact of Achaemenid imperialism. The quotations of foreign artistic traditions in both the art of and the art in the empire were the result of choices made in the process of their creation, both by the artisans responsible for their production and by the patrons or customers who ulti- mately consumed them. The production of an object can be conceived of as a sequence of choices, often called the chaîne opératoire by anthropologists (Bleed 2001). In the production of lithic tools, the field in which this concept was first deployed,thechoicesweretypicallyabouttheselectionofrawmaterialsorwhereto removethenextflake.Intheproductionofartthechoicesaremuchmorevariedand numerous, and include the selection of an artisan by a patron, as well as decisions about design and composition, in addition to those made in the actual course of production.Someofthesechoicesrelateddirectlytoanobject’smaterialpropertiesor physicalfunction; a bowl, for example, requires one of a certain rangeof shapes in ordertobesuccessfulasabowl,andtheartisanmadechoicesinthecourseofmaking the bowl in order to achieve a successful bowl shape. Other choices, however, are betweenfunctionallyequivalentalternatives,andtheartisanchosebetweenthemon muchlesstangiblegrounds,suchastradition,habit,expectationsastohowacertain sortofobjectshouldlook,appropriatenesstoagivencontextorindividual’sidentity, ideological goals, etc. (Carr 1995; Schiffer and Skibo 1997). In the course of making such choices artisans and patrons drew on visual repertoires that included foreign artistictraditions,andelectedtoquotesuchtraditionswhentheybelieveditadvanta- Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS Authenticated | 173.9.48.25 Download Date | 1/17/14 10:49 PM 782 HenryP.Colburn geous.Thespecificreasonsinformingthesedecisionswerenotalwayscleartothose makingthem;asoftenasnottheartisanorpatronwouldnotbeabletosayexactly whyhechoseonealternativeoveranother,andindeedhemaynotalwaysbeaware hewasmakingachoiceatall.Butallofthesedecisions,consciousorotherwise,were madeinordertoachievewhatwasperceivedasadesirableresult. Itisthisexpectationofsuccessthatmakesthesequotationsespeciallyvaluable for reconstructing the social conditions in which an object was created. This is because the decisions made in the process of design and production to make these visual references did not take place in isolation. Rather, they were made with the expectation of a certain outcome that, if reasonable, was informed by the broader circumstances and conditions current at the time and place of production. This concept is best articulated by Michael Baxandall in his classic book Patterns of Intention, and is nicely illustrated by his study of the Forth Rail Bridge in Scotland (Baxandall1985:12–40).Theformofthebridge,heargues,wasinformedbyawide variety of factors. Some of these pertained directly to the bridge’s physical function and its need to support train traffic and withstand winds. Others pertained more specifically to the bridge’s form. Indeed, the bridge’s designer, Sir Benjamin Baker, defendinghisdesignagainstthecriticismofthepre-RaphaelitepoetWilliamMorris, who called it “the supremest specimen of ugliness,” explained that “the object had beensotoarrangetheleadinglinesofthestructureastoconveyanideaofstrength andstability”(quotedinBaxandall1985:24–25).InordertoachievethisgoalBaker drew in part on the design of Asian cantilever bridges (Baxandall 1985: 19–20). The decisionsmadebyBakerinhisdesignprocesswerebasedonhisownnotionsofwhat abridgeshouldbe,histrainingasanengineer,andtheintellectualandsocialclimate of Victorian Britain. As Baxandall so elegantly demonstrates, the visual results of thesedecisionspointtotheconditionsinwhichtheyweremade. Similarly, the decisions made by the maker and owner of Gordion Seal 73 (Dusinberre 2005: no. 38), a conoid chalcedony stamp seal excavated at Gordion, resulted in a distinctly Neo-Babylonian appearance, in terms of both the style of carving and the motif of the worshipper before an altar (Fig. 3). Though we cannot sayspecificallywhattheseal’sownerhopedtoachievethrough hisorherselection ofasealthatquotesNeo-Babylonianglyptic,thisselectionwaspresumablymadein acontextinwhichtheimageryofNeo-Babylonianglyptichadsomecurrency.Indeed, there are similar such quotations on sealings from Uruk, Nippur, Persepolis, and Daskyleion (see references in Dusinberre 2005: 59), as well as on a stamp seal excavatedatTaxila(Marshall1951:677no. 1);inlightoftheseconditionsitstandsto reason that the owner of Seal 73 constructed his identity in a manner that trans- cended the local trends at Gordion. The great variety of seals from Achaemenid Gordion,astarkcontrasttoearlierperiods,showsthathewasnotaloneindoingso, and despite its relative political unimportance in this period, Gordion was never- thelessaheterogeneousplace,withsociallinkstootherpartsoftheempire(Dusin- berre2005:24–27). Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS Authenticated | 173.9.48.25 Download Date | 1/17/14 10:49 PM