HERZFELD, ERNST i. LIFE AND WORK

Herzfeld (Figure 1) was born on 23 July 1879 in Celle, Germany. His father was a medical major in the Prussian army of Protestant Christian faith. Herzfeld attended the Domgymnasium at Verden and received his high school diploma at the Joachimsthaler Gymnasium at Berlin in 1897. After a year of military service he studied architecture at the Technische Hochschule (later renamed Technical University) in Berlin, but also Assyriology, art history, and philosophy at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Berlin. In 1903 he passed his examination in structural engineering. Afterwards he spent two yearsat Assur as assistant to Walter Andrae (1875-1956). At this excavation of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft he received the best possible training for archeological field work available in those days. On his way back fromAssur to Berlin Herzfeld traveled extensively in Iraq and Iran in 1905-6. Like the other Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft excavators he was an excellent draftsperson and surveyor. He visited, mapped, photographed, and drew intensively many places which successively became the focus of his interests, most notably Samarra, Baghdad, Ctesiphon, Persepolis, and Pasargadae. His first publications on these explorations demonstrate his keen eye for architecture; but even more they abound in topographical discussions which make ample use of Latin, Greek, Arabic, Persian, Syriac, and cuneiform sources and display his mastery of these diverse languages.

FIGURE 1. Photograph of Ernst Herzfeld, 1928.View full image in a new tab

Following another year of study at Berlin, Herzfeld passed his oral examination in February 1907, then excavated in Cilicia for three months with Samuel Guyer (Mietke, in press) and submitted his Ph.D. dissertation on Pasargadae at the end of July of the same year. The examining committee was chaired by Eduard Meyer (1855-1930), the most renowned ancient historian of his time and the central figure in German research on theancient Near East between 1900 and 1930. Meyer exerted a strong lasting influence on Herzfeld, most notably in his basic conceptions of history and culture and the inner workings of its actors, i.e., Kulturkreise (culture circles), races, people, and individuals. Herzfeld followed Meyer’sdescription of races and ethnic groups as constantly changing, never remaining as static or fixed entities. This approach later brought Herzfeld into conflict with research conducted in the 1920s and 1930s, which largelyaimed at the identification of races and ethnic groups in the archeological record (see Hauser, in press).

After receiving his Ph.D. in August 1907, Herzfeld traveled extensively in Syria and Iraq with Friedrich Sarre, director of the Islamic Museum in Berlin. They published their results in four volumes, Archäologische Reise im Euphrat-und Tigrisgebiet (Berlin, 1911 and 1920; cf. Kröger, in press). In 1909 he submitted hisinaugural dissertation for professorship (Habilitationsschrift) on Iranian rock reliefs, and the text was incorporated in the joint publication of Sarre and Herzfeld, Iranische Felsreliefs (Berlin, 1910), a pioneering and finely illustrated study of ancient Persian monuments of Pasargadae, Persepolis, Naqš-e Rostam, and other Achaemenid and Sasanian sites of Fārs province and western Iran; it has remained a handbook of Iranian archeology to this day. During his travels and by his cooperation with Sarre, Herzfeld had become an expert on Islamic art. They next excavated at the vast ruins of Samarra, the short-lived Abbasid capital (see Northedge, in press). Thiswas the first excavation of an Islamic site in the Near East. Herzfeld’s work as field director between 1911 and 1913 and his articles, especially “Die Genese der Islamischen Kunst und das Mschatta-Problem” (Der Islam 1910, pp. 27-63), helped to define Islamic art in Western research and were important in creating the field ofIslamic art history (see Leisten, in press). The work atSamarra resulted in six volumes of final reports, four of which were by Herzfeld (see Bibliography).

With the outbreak of World War I Herzfeld was drafted and stationed first in France and Poland. On his request hewas send to Iraq, where he worked largely as surveyor, in particular mapping the province of Mossul. While in Iraq,in 1917 he was appointed “extra-ordinarius,” i.e., associate professor for Historical Geography and Art History of the Ancient Orient at Berlin. As such he was expected to teach Near Eastern Archeology. In 1920, after the war, he was promoted to become the first full professor of Near Eastern Archeology in the world. Herzfeld never really filled this position, as he was on leave most of the time. Having lost his father in 1916 and his mother in 1922, Herzfeld, who never married, went to Persia in 1923. There he occupied various positions and became the most prominent figure in Iranian research until he was forced to leave in 1934 (see below).

Herzfeld’s first visit to Persia in 1905-6 had resulted in his Ph.D. thesis on Pasargadae (published in Klio 8, 1908, pp. 1-68) and also in a travel report (“Reise durch Luristān, Arabistān und Fārs,” Petermanns Mitteilungen 53, 1907, pp. 49-63, 73-90). In his 1909 Habilitation and his monograph Am Tor von Asien. Felsdenkmale aus Irans Heldenzeit (Berlin, 1920), he gave the first scientific descriptions and interpretations of Iranian rockreliefs, in particular those dating to the Sasanian period. Soon after World War I he also devoted two important articles to Islamic architecture in Iran (“Khorasan,” Der Islam 11, 1921, pp. 107-74; and “Die Gumbadh-í Alawiyyân und die Baukunst der Ilkhane in Iran,” in A volume of Oriental Studies presented to E.G. Browne, Cambridge, 1922, pp. 186-99; see Hillenbrand, in press).

In 1917 Herzfeld, together with Sarre, Meyer, industrialists, and members of the Persian Embassy in Berlin, was a founding member of the German-Persian Society, which advocated increased cultural and economic exchange between the two countries. These efforts were thwarted by Germany’s defeat in World War I and the resulting international isolation and economic crisis. Even before German-Persian relations were re-established after the war (see Bast, 2001), Herzfeld made plans for another expedition. Soon after, in January 1923, the first German ambassador to Persia, Count von Schulenburg, arrived in Tehran, and economic relations between Persia and Germany were revived on a small scale (see Hirschfeld, 1980). Herzfeld entered Persia for extended research (on politics and archeology; see Hauser, 2003), and on his way there he visited Iraq. After visits to Babylon, Ctesiphon, and Samarra, he stayed for one week at Paikuli, where he conducted a small-scale excavation and unearthed thirty new blocks of the important Parthian and Middle Persian inscriptions. It was too late to include them in his monograph on the monument (see Skjærvø, in press), published in Berlin in 1924 in two large-format volumes of text and plates: Paikuli, Monument and Inscription of the Early History of the Sasanian Empire.

Herzfeld’s extended travels through Persia are described in his “Reisebericht” (ZDMG 80, 1926, pp. 225-84), which stands as an indicator of his importance for the future of Persian archeology. In this article he describes exactly those sites which became the main targets of excavation activity once the French monopoly had been lifted in 1927, e.g., Bisotun, Rayy, Tepe Giyan [Giān], Ḵarg, Nishapur, and Tepe Hissar [Heṣār] (see ARCHEOLOGY i.). He also documented rock reliefs from the second millennium B.C.E. to the Sasanianperiod, e.g., the newly discovered relief of Sar Mašhad. In 1923, in violation of the French monopoly on excavations, Herzfeld did some prospecting at Pasargadae and Khurha [Ḵurha] with the support of local dignitaries. His amicable relations with Persian authorities and the high esteem he enjoyed in 1923 led to an official request and commission from Tehran to prepare a description of the current state of the ruins of Persepolis and to make plans for their preservation (see PERSEPOLIS). The reportwas written in French, and the importance attributed to it is indicated by the fact that the minister of court, Foruḡi, planned to translate it himself, contributing to a delay in publication. It appeared with a Persian translation by Mojtabā Minovi (in Herzfeld’s AMI 1, 1929, pp. 17-64) as “Rapport sur l’état actuel des ruines de Persépolis et propositions pour leur conservation.”

This report started Herzfeld’s involvement with Persian national heritage and the organization of a department of antiquities. Already in a programmatic article of 1919 (“Vergangenheit und Zukunft der Erforschung Vorderasiens,” Der Neue Orient 4, pp. 313-23) Herzfeld had advocated the establishment of strong and independent departments of antiquities in Near and Middle Eastern countries to control all field work, an idea which was not welcome in Western countries. Since then, the National Monuments Council of Iran had been founded in Tehran in 1922 “to promote interest in and to preserve Iran’s cultural heritage” (see ANJOMAN-E ĀṮĀR-E MELLI). On his return to Tehran in spring 1925, Herzfeld was asked by the Council to compile a list of historic monuments and to assist in developing a plan for adepartment of antiquities. He became the only foreign member of this Council, and he later created a logo for it, which showed the Ctesiphon and Persepolis palaces within a palmette from Ṭāq-e Bostān.

Herzfeld left Persia in October 1925, but in April 1926 he was asked to come back as archeological advisor to the government. Another leave of absence from Berlin was granted for a year. In Tehran Herzfeld drafted the first list of 88 monuments and sites designated as historical monuments. He also made various drafts for a law on antiquities. Although it is not recognizable from Herzfeld’s publications, he also worked on the various collections of Islamic manuscripts, a subject in which Shah Reza Pahlavi took particular interest (Kröger, in press).

On 10 May 1927 Persia announced the abolition of all capitulatory privileges, including the French monopoly on archeological matters, in a year’s time. Herzfeld was the government’s candidate for heading the department of antiquities (Mahrad, 1974, p. 415). During the negotiations with France, however, it became a condition thata Frenchman would head this new institution. With the arrival of André Godard (see GODARD, ANDRÉ) the agreement came into effect (Abdi, 2001; Mousavi, in press).

After Herzfeld had been sidetracked in the directorship of the antiquities department, the government offered hima three-year appointment as guest professor in Tehran, starting 1 January 1928. This appointment fit his plans for the creation of a German Archeological Institute in Persia. Before he accepted, he urged decision-makers in the German government and the archeological field to support research in Persia and advocated the foundation of an institute at Tehran. Furthermore he developed plans for several series of publications and for excavations at Tepe Giyan, Pasargadae, Persepolis, Kuh-i Khwaja [Kuh-e Ḵᵛāja], Kangāvar, and other places. Again he was granted leave of absence from his professorship in Berlin until the end of 1930; and he finally moved to Tehran with his library, considered one of the best of its kind in the world. Nevertheless, the support of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not materialize as promised. Herzfeld became a semi-official attaché at the Embassy. Due to the economic crisis of 1929, however, he was forced to give up hope for an official German Archeological Institute. Meanwhile, after much debate, in which Herzfeld played an important role as advisor, the Persian government put into effect the laws governing antiquities in 1931.

Herzfeld was more successful in archeological excavations and publications. In 1928 he excavated at Pasargadae (“Bericht über die Ausgrabungen von Pasargadae 1928,” AMI 1, 1929, pp. 4-16, and Stronach, in press), which was supported by a grant from the Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft; and shortlyafterwards he directed a short campaign at Tall-e Bakūn (“Steinzeitlicher Hügel bei Persepolis,” in Iranische Denkmäler 1/A-B, 1932). In 1929 the Notgemeinschaft supported his research at the site of Kuh-e Ḵᵛāja in Sistān (“Sakestan, Geschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Ausgrabungen am Kūh-e Khwādja,” AMI 4, 1931-32, pp. 1-116; see Kawami, in press). In accord with his plans of 1927, he founded the series Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (AMI) in 1929 and Iranische Denkmäler in 1932. Both series served almost exclusively as forum for Herzfeld’s own research and were financially supported by the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut and the Notgemeinschaft. When, however, Herzfeld, after years of lobbying, finally received permission to work at Persepolis, none of the German institutions was able to support him due to the economic crisis. Herzfeld contacted the Oriental Institute Chicago, specifically its directorH. Breasted, with whom he had talked about excavations several times back in 1928, regarding sponsorship of his research at Persepolis. Thus, Herzfeld became director of the Oriental Institute excavations starting 1 March 1931. For this enterprise Herzfeld’s leave of absence from his chair at the university was prolonged another five years until the end of 1935; this was a general suspension which had to be renewed by the Prussian Ministry of Culture every semester. Early in 1934 the Persian government insisted on an American director, according to Herzfeld’s architect Krefter (1979, p. 25). The timing fits with German-Persian political relations, which reached a low point at this time (Bast, 2001). Furthermore Herzfeld was accused of illicit use of his diplomatic passport in connection with the unlawful export of art. Whether these allegations were sound is uncertain. Since his former friends in the government had been removed in the preceding years, no one was there to defend him. He was dismissed from his directorship at Persepolis and had to leave Persia (Mousavi, in press).

In Germany Nazi legislation of May 1933 expelled state employees of Jewish descent from their jobs. Since Herzfeld’s grandparents had been Jewish, he fell under this legislation. His war record from World War I allowed him to remain as a state-employed professor until 1935, when he was forced into retirement. Returning in 1934 from his leave of absence in Tehran, Herzfeld wisely chose to move to London instead of Berlin; in London he held lectures published as Archaeological History of Iran (London, 1935). In 1936 he moved to Boston, where he held a series of lectures in 1936 on the history of Iran (Iran in the Ancient East, New York and London, 1941). Still considered the leading authority on Persian archeology and history, he was appointed a member of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study in 1936. While there he also taught at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York. He decided to take up his interest inZoroaster, to whom he had devoted a number of articles since 1929, and wrote two volumes on his history andreligion (Zoroaster and his World, Princeton, 1947; see below, part v.). He retired from Princeton in 1944 at the age of 65 and sold most of his library to the Metropolitan Museum, New York. His latest work concerned Islamic architecture, in particular building inscriptions fromDamascus and Aleppo. While working on these manuscripts in Cairo in 1947, he fell ill. Removed to Basel, Switzerland, for medical care, he died on 20 January 1948. His papers he had promised to the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., where they are maintained in an exemplary manner and have been used intensively by many scholars.

In retrospect Herzfeld was one of the last examples of the all-encompassing, erudite learning of the 19th century humanistic cultural tradition. Herzfeld combined a wide array of talents and interests. Although trained as an architect and appointed professor for historical geography and art history, he also translated and published new texts and inscriptions in Assyrian, Old Persian, Middle Persian, and Arabic. His approach was cultural history in the broadest sense. His interests were limited by neither chronological nor geographical borders. He was instrumental in establishing the field of Islamic art history, but he likewise made vital contributions to study of the history and culture of the Neolithic, Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sasanian periods. Even in Persepolis he continued to publish on Iraqi and Hittite archeology as well. Most notably he wrote a general handbook on Near Eastern archeology, which remained unpublished for several reasons (Hauser, in press). His most lasting achievement, nevertheless, was the opening of Iran for archeological research. It was unfortunate that Herzfeld himself had but few years, in which he was mostly forced to work with minor budgets and unreliable support. In Germany research on Iran became a prerogative in connection with Aryan history featured for ideological reasons by the Nazi government. At this time Herzfeld had already been forced to leave both his first and his second home, Germany and Iran.

HERZFELD, ERNST ii. HERZFELD AND PASARGADAE

While the writings of Ernst Herzfeld bear witness to an exceptionally wide interest in the art and archeology of the Near East, he probably devoted more attention to the study of Achaemenid Iran than to any other single topic during the course of his long career. Above all else, his name will always be associated with Pasargadae, the dynastic seat of Cyrus II (the Great), the founder of the Achaemenid Empire. This was a site that he was already deeply interested in from the time that he was a student, and it was still very much in his thoughts when his last comprehensive treatment of Iranian art and archeology appeared in 1941 (Herzfeld, 1941, pp. 210 ff.).

Surface studies at Pasargadae. At the beginning of his doctoral dissertation on Pasargadae (following an initial visit to the site in 1905) Herzfeld stressed that the principal object of his researches was to address the problem of the identity of the ruins (1908, p. 1). It is true that some years earlier G. N. Curzon had compared Arrian’s description, following Aristobulus, of the tomb of Cyrus (Anabasis 6.29) with the upstanding remains of a stone tomb in the Dašt-e Morḡāb in northern Fārs that was known locally as Taḵt-e Mādar-e Soleymān “Tomb of the Mother of Solomon” and had come to the conclusion that the latter monument could be none other than the tomb of Cyrus (Curzon, 1892, p. 82). But as Herzfeld was well aware, neither this identification, nor Curzon’s further, agreeable supposition that the ruins in the Dašt-e Morḡāb were those of Pasargadae, was uniformly accepted.

In particular, F. H. Weissbach remained unpersuaded. And two years after the publication of Curzon’s study Weissbach used the tenor of the site’s visible inscriptions (bearing the strangely stark legend “I, Cyrus, the king, an Achaemenid”) to argue that “the Morghab inscriptions” could not have been those of Cyrus II. Instead he proposed that they were owed to Cyrus the Younger (d. 401), a far less consequent figure (Weissbach, 1894, p. 665). It was an objection from a scholar of towering repute; and, while it was not difficult for Herzfeld to show that there were indeed no historical grounds to connect Cyrus the Younger with Pasargadae, he appears to have realized that he could only overcome Weissbach’s line of argument by means of an extreme stratagem: namely, by asserting that Cyrus II (559-530 B.C.) had effectively completed the construction of his capital while he was still no more than a “satrap” of his Median suzerain, Astyages.

At present we are aware that Cyrus had no part in erecting the “Cyrus Morghab a” (CMa) inscription. Instead this trilingual inscription, written in Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian, is broadly acknowledged to post-date Darius’s first use of the Old Persian cuneiform script at Bisitun (Schmitt, 1990, pp. 50-60; Stronach, 1990; and Huyse, 1999); and it is recognized that the generally puzzling tenor of the inscription is owed to Darius’s authorship and to the latter’s initial need to legitimate his seizure of power in multiple ways (Stronach, 1997a). In other words, at some date not long after the completion of the Bisitun monument in 519/518, Darius took full advantage of various of the never-inscribed, finely dressed stone surfaces at Cyrus’s capital in order to erect a first-person message to the effect that Cyrus, whom he chose to define in this instance as no more than “a king,” was, like himself, “an Achaemenid.”

The tragedy for Herzfeld was that the only counterweight he could find to the force of Weissbach’s assertion that the unvarnished term “king” was too humble a title for Cyrus the Great was one which compelled him, from the time that he wrote his thesis onwards, to project a unified view of Pasargadae as a creation of the first ten years of Cyrus’s reign. On chronological grounds, in other words, he could not account for the pervasive Lydo-Ionian influences in Pasargadae’s impressive big stone masonry; nor could he admit, since it was difficult to suppose “that early Greek art could have exercised its influence in far-away Persis before 550” (1941, p. 260), to the Ionian character of various features of the tomb of Cyrus—a monument recently characterized as one “executed in techniques” that were “essentially not eastern, but Lydo-Ionian, and with features of Greek Ionic architecture” (Boardman, 2000, p. 60). Nonetheless Herzfeld occasionally came close to freeing himself from his self-imposed chronological boundary, located some three years before Cyrus’s all-important conquest of Sardis in or soon after 547 B.C. Thus, while he was never certain of the date of the great stone platform of the Taḵt-e Mādar-e Soleymān, which juts out from the western side of the Tall-e Taḵt “Throne Hill,” various factors already suggested to him—some six decades prior to the publication of Carl Nylander’s seminal study Ionians in Pasargadae—that connections with Lydian masonry and comparisons with Lydian masons’ marks would one day suffice to place the monument in a secure chronological context (1908, p. 31).

In his description and analysis of the doorway relief in the monumental gatehouse (Gate R), Herzfeld went out of his way, both in his thesis and in Iranische Felsreliefs (1910), to stress the clear parallel between the fringed dress of the Winged Genius and the robe of Teumann (Tepti-Humban-Inshushinak), the Elamite monarch who suffered defeat and decapitation at the hands of the Assyrians at the battle of the Ulai River in 553 B.C. With characteristic insight, moreover, he recognized that this correspondence could be attributed to Cyrus’s wish to underline his Anshanite/Elamite heritage (1908, p. 64). Herzfeld’s acute eye also detected the pre-Persepolitan style of the relief, and he drew due attention to the full profile pose of the figure (Sarre and Herzfeld, 1910, p. 160). However, with reference to the elaborate Egyptian crown which dominates the composition, Herzfeld’s stand on the date of the carving did not allow him to relate the crown to the extension of Cyrus’s dominions to the Levant (let alone to a distant common border with Egypt) from 539 B.C. onwards. Rather, the crown is somewhat lamely described as a well-known representational element in the Near East at the time that Cyrus elected to employ it (1910, p. 162).

Just as Herzfeld had correctly noted that the Winged Genius was neither a god nor a king but a protective doorway figure in the time-honored Mesopotamian tradition, he was also aware from the beginning that the trilingual inscription that had once stood above the four-winged genius was far from being a reference to it. Instead, since the same inscription reading “I, Cyrus, the king, an Achaemenid” (with the further implicit sense “built this”) was also visible in Palace S (“der Palast mit der Saule”) and Palace P (“der Palast mit der Pfeiller”), he stressed what he saw to be the common occurrence of a “foundation inscription” that again demonstrated, to his own satisfaction, the early date at which Cyrus had managed to complete his building program.

Excavations at Pasargadae. Following his appointment as Professor of Oriental Archeology at the University of Berlin in 1920, Herzfeld soon found himself in a position to spend a good portion of his time in Iran. In particular, this gave him the opportunity to conduct a little-advertised preliminary campaign at Pasargadae in mid-November 1923 (Herzfeld, 1926, p. 241). It was an event that allowed him to make unspecified “minor excavations” as well as to complete various measured plans and drawings. In short, it appears that this brief one-week foray greatly assisted him to work with unusual speed and effectiveness in his more formal, four-week season of excavations in April and May 1928, when Pasargadae became the first site to be excavated on the Iranian plateau following the abrogation of the French monopoly on excavations in Iran.

Because the funds for the 1928 season were obtained from a German source—the Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft—there appears to have been no need to apply to any sources in Iran; and, since Herzfeld’s subsequent report (1929, pp. 4-16) makes no reference to the auspices under which the excavations took place, the reader is left to conclude that Herzfeld, as a former archeological adviser to the Iranian government, had the necessary authority to act as he did. At all events it is patent that the timing of the short 1928 season ensured that the work was completed well before André Godard, the future head of Iran’s Archeological Service, reached Iran in August of the same year (Stronach, forthcoming).

The team that set out for Pasargadae in April 1928 consisted, quite remarkably in view of all that was accomplished, of no more than three persons: Herzfeld himself, a twenty-five year old architect from Berlin, Friedrich Krefter, and a cook. The size of the team may have been dictated by the constraints of funding; but, equally, Herzfeld may have been essentially more comfortable with, in effect, only one strictly junior associate to complement his own protean talents as the expedition’s archeologist, epigrapher, photographer, draftsman, registrar, and senior surveyor. Nonetheless Friedrich Krefter was a markedly able addition to the team; and the fact that he went on to join Herzfeld at Persepolis in the early 1930s (Krefter, 1979) is a clear mark of the regard that Herzfeld had for him.

With his ability to decipher the clues of surface topography Herzfeld quickly grasped the general character of the site. He saw that the main buildings all shared a common orientation and he even recognized that the principal structures were complemented by a number of water channels and at least one small pavilion (1929, p. 10 and plan). With reference to Gate R (“der Palast mit dem Relief”) he found that eight “mighty” stone columns had supported the roof of the building’s tall central hall and, while he did not expose the whole ground plan, he established, most importantly, that human-headed colossi had once flanked the inner main doorway and that winged bulls had protected the opposite, outer doorway (1929, p. 11).

Important architectural evidence also came to light in Palace S. Here Herzfeld observed that, in contrast to the norms of construction at Persepolis, the tall principal hall was rectangular rather than square and was flanked by low, as opposed to tall, porticoes. He also drew attention to the distinctive character of the contrasted black stone column bases and smooth column drums of white stone, as well as to the building’s striking double protome stone capitals, which included a horned and crested lion protome as well as a fragmentary horse-head protome (1941, pls. 39a, b). Indeed, he found the capitals from Pasargadae to be “more powerful and more beautiful” than any from Persepolis (1929, p. 11). The reliefs in the four doorways were only preserved in their “lowest parts,” and those flanking the doorways in the opposed short walls of the hall were seen to portray minor deities “striding one behind the other.” But while the latter were acknowledged as threshold “blessing geniuses,” no mention was made—in deference, no doubt, to Herzfeld’s pre-550 dating—of their clear debt to Assyrian prototypes (Kawami, 1972; Stronach, 1997b, pp. 44-45).

Although Herzfeld’s published plan of Palace S (Herzfeld, 1941, pl. 42; Stronach 1978, fig. 27b) suggests that he recovered the entire plan of the building, this appears not to have been the case. In fact, he severely underestimated the number of columns in the different porticoes and he can be seen to have incorrectly proposed—on the basis of a presumed likeness to the Apadana at Persepolis—that Palace S stood on a low platform furnished with shallow, opposed staircases (Herzfeld, 1941, pl. 43).

The discovery of the season consisted of the finely carved reliefs that flanked the two main doorways of the thirty-columned central hall of Palace P. Although found in a fragmentary condition, and only preserved to close to waist height at best, each example unquestionably showed the same scene: a king progressing outwards, followed by an attendant shown at a smaller scale (1929, pl. 3). Herzfeld observed that the figures wore the same pleated costume as that attested at Persepolis, but since the lines of the pleats were less “sweeping,” and since the figures stood within a non-canonical raised frame, he rightly calculated that they belonged to a prior stage of development.

Unfortunately, however, the Palace P figures were not seen to be only marginally earlier than those at Persepolis and by any reckoning later than those in the relief of Darius at Bisitun, which was carved, in its original form, in ca. 520 B.C. (see especially Farkas, 1974, pp. 14-26; Stronach, 1978, pp. 95-97). Instead, in deference to the newly revealed CMc inscriptions on the pleats of the king’s costume, which read “Cyrus, the Great King, an Achaemenid” (Kent, Old Persian, p. 116), Herzfeld felt convinced that his early date for Cyrus’s monuments was validated. Thus, in his reconstruction, Cyrus “the King” (as defined in the CMa texts) took the decision to build at Pasargadae as soon as he came to the Persian throne in 559; he adopted the more prestigious title of “Great King” in the immediate aftermath of his victory over Astyages in 550; and he only adopted the more grandiloquent titles listed in his celebrated Babylonian cylinder after his conquest of Babylon in 539. As I have tried to show elsewhere, however, the replacement of the perhaps deliberately disparaging title “King” by the more acceptable title “Great King” in the third-person CMc inscription—and the very depiction of Cyrus as a regal figure in the appropriate setting of his own monumental capital—deserves to be viewed as a product of Darius’s sudden recognition ca. 515-510 B.C. (i.e., at the time that he was engaged in putting his stamp on the unfinished fabric of Palace P) that the blood of Cyrus, flowing through the veins of the latter’s daughters to those of his own offspring who were born in the purple, was in fact central to the long-lasting legitimacy of his line (Stronach, 1997a, pp. 361-62).

As has already been remarked, the problems posed by Herzfeld’s unyielding view of the date of Cyrus’s buildings at Pasargadae were many and various. The Old Persian cuneiform script would have to have been available to Cyrus from the outset of his rule; and both the whole technical apparatus of sophisticated construction in ashlar masonry and the means to represent the voluminous, multi-folded Persian court dress would have to have been at Cyrus’s command during the first ten years of his reign. Equally, this timetable makes it impossible to relate any of the Lydo-Ionian, Mesopotamian, or Egyptian elements in Cyrus’s individual monuments to his known patterns of conquest. More than this, Herzfeld’s chronology raises the awkward question of why Cyrus, whose reign still had two-thirds of its course to run at the time that he defeated Astyages, would have chosen to complete the upper parts of the columns in Palace P (Herzfeld, 1929, pl. 2) in anything less than his customary rigorous fashion (i.e., with columns completed in wood and covered with painted plaster shells) or, equally, why he left his most ambitious building project of all—that on the Tall-e Taḵt—visibly unfinished (Nylander, 1970, p. 77). Last but not least, with reference to the actual moment at which Pasargadae was founded, presumably very soon after the fall of Sardis (i.e., in or near 546 B.C.), it is appropriate to recall that, in his otherwise thorough examination of classical testimony, Herzfeld found it expedient to overlook Strabo’s unequivocal statement that “Cyrus held Pasargadae in honor, because he there conquered Asyages the Mede in his last battle, conferred to himself the empire of Asia, founded a city, and constructed a palace as a memorial to his victory” (15. 3. 8).

Conclusions. Herzfeld’s unfortunate chronological stance can be seen to have been compensated for by a host of keen observations and rare insights. Accordingly one has to remain uncommonly grateful that a scholar of Herzfeld’s talents was the first to excavate at Pasargadae and that he devoted no small part of his life to examining the unique characteristics of this exceptional site. It is true that his high dating of many features did for a time obscure a number of issues, including, most notably, an accurate perception of the evolution of Achaemenid art during the reigns of Cyrus and Darius. In a truly broad perspective, however, this represents a misjudgement of no more than passing moment. In the long run the fundamental value of Herzfeld’s contribution to the study of Pasargadae is that the site’s diverse remains were critically examined—and published—at the earliest possible date. And this circumstance may be said to have contributed greatly to the preservation of Pasargadae’s exquisite monuments and to the long-term prospects for continued, fruitful research.

HERZFELD, ERNST iii. HERZFELD AND PERSEPOLIS

Herzfeld first visited Persepolis in November 1905 during his return from the Assur excavation (see above, HERZFELD i.). Back in Berlin Eduard Meyer introduced him to Friedrich Sarre; their work together resulted in, among other projects, the outstanding publication Iranische Felsreliefs (Berlin, 1910). This book profited much from Herzfeld’s work in Persepolis (see pls. 14-25 and a plan of the Apadana, p. 116, fig. 49). Here for the first time an identification of the thronebearers on the royal rock tombs was presented (pp. 14-56), although with the erroneous assumption that the first of the 30 figures was Median rather than Persian; consequently there were other mistakes in the first 13 relief figures. Herzfeld later corrected the error (see below).

Herzfeld returned to Persepolis during his expedition to Persia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, which lasted from February 1923 to October 1925. It was financed partly by the Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft (Emergency Association of German Science), partly by the munificence of an American and a German friend and additionally by a rich donation of a group of Parsee gentlemen from Bombay for research particularly in Fārs province (Herzfeld, 1926; idem, Illustrated London News [ILN], 19 November 1927, p. 926; cf. Upton, 1968, p. 17). Herzfeld spent six weeks on the terrace of Persepolis, 26 November to 23 December, 1923, and March 2 to 15, 1924 (Herzfeld, 1926, pp. 247-49, 251 respectively). He drafted a plan of the whole structure and provided a complete photographic record on about 500 negative plates (Herzfeld, 1929-30, p. 17).

In the name of the Persian government, which had supported these activities, the governor general of the province of Fārs, Noṣrat-al-dawla Firuz Mirzā, wrote a letter to Herzfeld asking for a detailed report on Persepolis with particular reference to the following points: (1) description of the actual state of the remains; (2) measures for the conservation of the existing ruins; (3) estimate of the costs and the duration of work; (4) plan of the ruins and essay of reconstruction. In his reply Herzfeld reckons two years for the period of excavation and proposes a structure to be built for the accommodation of the team and a museum for the objects found. As the place for such a building he suggests the Palace of Darius (Ta-čara). The application for the working permit, written in French, is dated 4 January 1924, when Iran nominally was still under Qajar rule. Probably due to the subsequent transfer of political power in Iran, the translation into Fārsi took three years and was completed only at the beginning of Reza Shah’s reign (cf. Herzfeld, 1929-30, pp. 2.17-38); for the first time an exception was made to the French prerogative to excavate in Persia.

In 1928 the architect Friedrich Krefter joined Herzfeld in Persia, in an expedition sponsored again by the Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft, to complete the mapping of Pasargadae and also to take control measurements in Persepolis (Krefter, 1979, pp. 13-18). Excavations were begun on 1 March 1931, now under the auspices of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. This was the result of the initiative of Professor J. H. Breasted, famed Egyptologist and founder of the Institute (Wilber, 1969, pp. 108 f.; 2nd ed., 1989, p. 115). An American patroness, who wished to remain anonymous, made it financially possible for the project to be realized (Schmidt, 1939, pp, VII-IX). As representative of the Persian Government, Moḥammad Taqi Moṣṭafāvi came to Persepolis from the Susa excavation (Krefter, 1979, pp. 21-23), and he remained in this office for some time after the departure of Herzfeld. Moṣṭafāvi was later to become director of the Antiquities Service in Tehran.

The excavation team consisted of Herzfeld, Krefter, and three Iraqi foremen, who were secured from the German Babylon (Hilleh) excavation (Krefter, 1979, pp. 19-25). Accordingly, work started at three different points: (1) the Southeast Building (the ‘Harem’); (2) the north side of the Apadana and palace G; (3) the eastern door of the ‘Gateway of all Lands.’

For F. Krefter work on the ‘Southeast Building’ was of particular importance, since he had convinced Herzfeld that, instead of the Tačara, the ‘Harem’ would be the better place for a combined museum and excavation building. Already in winter 1931-32 a partial reconstruction for the accommodation of the excavation crew was ready. Therefore Herzfeld in 1932 was in the position to enlarge the team with four new members: Karl Bergner as architect, Dr. Alexander Langsdorff as prehistorian, Donald MacCown of the Oriental Institute, and a professional photographer, Hans von Busse. A. Langsdorff and D. N. MacCown continued the trial excavation of Herzfeld of one of the Neolithic mounds south of Persepolis, Tall-e Bākun A (Langsdorff and MacCown, 1942; cf. Herzfeld, 1932).

At the Apadana the greatest achievement of Herzfeld’s excavations was the unearthing of the eastern stairway, which, contrary to the northern one, was well preserved by a thick layer of mud-brick debris. Another important object of Herzfeld’s investigations was the subterranean water canal system on the northern part of the terrace, although this endeavor never led to a satisfying conclusion (Schmidt, 1939, pp. VII -1X).

On the eastern wall of the northern doorway of the Tripylon remarkable traces of the original coloring were discovered on the figure of the king and his two attendants. A reproduction of the watercolor record of Fried-rich Krefter was published soon afterwards (Herzfeld, ILN, 8 April 1933, p. 488; cf. Krefter, 1989, pp. 131 f., pl. 1), however, other sketches in watercolor and with color pencil of the Ahura Mazda symbol in the Hall of a Hundred Columns and the Tripylon remained unpublished (cf. A. B. Tilia, 1978, p. 93). Almost 40 years later, when most of the unearthed traces of ancient Persian polychromy had faded away, J. Lerner (1971, 1973) and G. Tilia (A. B. Tilia 1978, pp. 31-44) took advantage of these irreplacable records for their investigations on the original coloring of the stone sculpture in Persepolis.

While reconstruction work was going on, the foundation tablet of the Southeast Palace (Harem) with the inscription of Xerxes was found (Herzfeld, 1932; idem, 1938, pp. 35-38, no. 15; Kent, Old Persian, pp. 112, 149 f. [XPf]). In September 1933 the golden and silver foundation plates of the Apadana with the inscriptions of Darius were discovered by Krefter in the northeastern and southeastern corners of the central hall (Herzfeld, 1938, pp. 18 ff., no. 6; Schmidt, 1953, pp. 70, 79; Kent, Old Persian, p. 109 [DPh]; Abka’i-Khavari, 1988, pp. 41 f.). In the same year the foundation document of the Hall of a Hundred Columns was also discovered, a stone plate stating that this building was begun by Xerxes and completed by Artaxerxes I (Herzfeld, 1938, p. 45, no. 22; Schmidt, 1953, p. 129). In 1932 the inscriptions of the peoples on tomb V (the southern tomb in Persepolis, probably belonging to Artaxerxes II) were photographed from a scaffold, and Herzfeld was able to correct his earlier interpretations (Krefter, 1979, p. 23; the inscriptions: Herzfeld, 1938, pp. 46-50, no. 24).

From the historical point of view the most outstanding discovery was an archive of about 30,000 tablets written in Elamite cuneiform script. These ‘Fortification tablets’ were excavated in 1934-35 in the fortification wall at the northeastern corner of the terrace. They have proved indispensable for any study of the social, economic, and administrative conditions in Persepolis (Hallock, 1969; cf. Herzfeld, 1938, p. 11). Apart from the work on the terrace, researches were also carried out in the surrounding sites, the so-called Fratadara Temple (Herzfeld, 1941, pp. 286 f.), Naqš-e Rostam, and Eṣṭaḵr (Herzfeld, 1941, pp. 276-81). At Naqš-e Rostam Herzfeld copied the inscription DNb on the tomb of Darius with the help of a scaffold (Herzfeld, 1938,pp. 4-13 no. 4; cf Schmidt, 1953, p. 3; Kent, Old Persian, pp. 138-40).

A stone platform, located between Naqš-e Rajab and Naqš-e Rostam and called Taḵt-e Rostam, with apparently the remains of a tomb similar to that of Cyrus the Great at Pasargadae, was thoroughly investigated. All stones were lifted and set aside, presumably in the hope of finding foundation documents (Schmidt, 1953, p. 3). According to Herzfeld (1935, p. 36), the monument was presumably the tomb of Cambyses. Eventually, in 1975, the monument was restored to its original state by G. Tilia and A. Sh. Shahbazi (A. B. Tilia, 1978, pp. XIII, 73, pl. 41; Krefter, 1979, p. 24).

Towards the end of 1933 and the beginning of 1934 the Persian government demanded that the excavation be headed by an American (Krefter, 1979, p. 25), and Herzfeld left Persepolis permanently in spring 1934. E. F. Schmidt was appointed as his successor by the Oriental Institute in Chicago; but because of his activity at Rayy he could not come to Persepolis before May 1935 (Schmidt, 1953, pp. 4 f.), and in the interim Friedrich Krefter led the excavation. Krefter’s earlier reconstruction drawings of Persepolis later were published by Herzfeld (Herzfeld, 1941, pls. 48, 50, 58); but the complete reconstruction of Persepolis in plans and perspective views was not possible until the publication of the excavation results of 1935-39 by E. F. Schmidt in 1952. It took another two decades until, in 1971, Krefter’s reconstruction work appeared as a publication of the German Archaeological Institute in Tehran (on which, see GERMANY ii.).

It was Herzfeld’s greatest wish to publish his most outstanding discovery in Persepolis, the Apadana friezes, himself. Therefore E. F. Schmidt in the first part of the Persepolis publication mentioned the friezes only briefly, thinking that a detailed treatment would be contributed by Herzfeld. However, due to the untimely death of the latter in 1948, this concept could not be realized (Schmidt, 1953, p. 82). Therefore Schmidt decided to deal with the Apadana friezes in an appendix of the third part of his publication (Schmidt, 1970, pp. 143-63),even though this volume was primarily for the investigations in Naqš-e Rostam. Thus, unfortunately, there is no coherent scientific publication of Herzfeld on Persepolis. Even so, the topic of the satrapies and the subject peoples of the Achaemenid empire plays a prominent role in his last work, The Persian Empire (published posthumously by Gerold Walser in 1968).

HERZFELD, ERNST iv. HERZFELD AND THE PAIKULI INSCRIPTION

The monument at Paikuli (Pāikūlī), locally called bot-ḵāna “idol house” (Rawlinson apud Thomas, p. 57), lies on the Iraqi side of the border with Iran on a north-south line drawn from Solaimānīya in Iraq to Qaṣr-e Šīrīn in Persia on the ancient road from Ctesiphon to Azerbaijan (see maps, e.g., in Herzfeld, 1914, fig. 1; Humbach and Skjærvø, pt. 1, fig. 116). In the 19th century, when it was visited by several travelers, it consisted of the ruins of a large, square tower that had originally been covered on all sides by stone blocks, some of which contained inscriptions, but, at the time, lay scattered all around the monument.

In 1844, Major H. C. Rawlinson had visited the ruins at Paikuli and made drawings of 32 inscribed blocks (now in the Royal Geographical Society, London), which he entrusted to E. Thomas (see Thomas, 1868, p. 38), who published them with an extensive commentary; the Middle Persian (which he called “Pehlvi”) was set in a Middle Persian type font, the Parthian (which he called “Chaldæo-Pehlvi”) in Hebrew type. Other Iranian scholars, among them Martin Haug, also studied the inscriptions; but the sketches themselves were only published by H. Humbach in 1974.

Herzfeld visited the site for the first time in the summer of 1911, when he made a few paper squeezes and photographs that he sent to F. C. Andreas in Göttingen. He then applied for money and obtained a grant of 1,000 Mark from the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft to record the monument and the inscription (Herzfeld, 1914, p. 10), which he did in the summer of 1913. He photographed and/or made paper squeezes of 97 blocks (MPers. 54, Parth. 43), which, with Rawlinson’s sketches, brought the number of known blocks to 100 (MPers. 55, Parth. 45). Aside from the photographs in the Andreas Nachlass (see ANDREAS), the present whereabouts of this material is not known.

Herzfeld reconstructed the monument as a tall, square box with a slightly wider base and the inscriptions placed some way up on opposite sides (Herzfeld, 1914, p. 23, Abb. 1; for a revised reconstruction see Humbach and Skjærvø, pt. 2). As for the inscription, in 1914 Herzfeld did nothing more than record the inscribed blocks and publish photographs of one Middle Persian (Herzfeld’s E5) and one Parthian block (Herzfeld’s f6). The complete publication appeared in 1924, comprising a text volume and a case containing loose leaves with photos, etc., both in portfolio format, published in English in recognition of support by the Parsi community (p. XIII). Here, Herzfeld determined the position of almost all the blocks correctly; read and translated the inscriptions, for the most part correctly; laid the basis for the grammatical understanding of the languages; and determined the historical context of the monument and inscription (see s.v. NARSEH).

Chapters I-II contain Herzfeld’s accounts of the reconstruction of the monument and the inscription: after having deciphered all the partial inscriptions on each individual block, by comparing the Middle Persian and Parthian texts, and by measuring the blocks, he assigned to all the blocks their relative positions. He noticed that eleven blocks from the second MPers. row (B) formed a continuous text, which overlapped with a similar sequence of Parthian blocks. Since the Parthian blocks belonged to the first Parthian row (a), this discovery at the same time helped determine the order of the Parthian row (a), and so also of the MPers. first row (A), and so on.

In this publication, Herzfeld included almost everything known about Arsacid (Parthian) and Sasanian epigraphy (chap. IV, end: coins; chap. V: seals; chap. VI: editions and translations of all the known inscriptions), which he used in chap. III for a study of the history of the early Sasanian empire. He identified the event commemorated by the Paikuli inscription (p. 35) as the war between Narseh (293-302) and Warahrān III, son and successor of Warahrān II (276-293), citing Arabic and Armenian historians writing of the same event. We may note that Andreas, who had early access to Herzfeld’s material, interpreted the reference to the Caesar toward the end of the inscription as referring to a victory over the emperor Galerius, and concluded that the inscription had been composed before Galerius defeated Narseh in 297 (see Lentz in Humbach and Skjærvø, pt. 3.2, p. 143).

Chapter IV is the important “Essay on Pahlavi,” which deals with two important issues: the so-called ideograms (q.v.; also called heterograms, arameograms) and the age of the Parthian and Persian written languages. (Herzfeld’s analysis is discussed in detail in Skjærvø, 1995 and forthcoming.) Chapter VII is an exhaustive glossary of the known epigraphic material, with historical and philological notes.

While the book was being published, Herzfeld made another trip to Paikuli and recorded an additional 30 (MPers. 20, Parth. 10) blocks, one of which was known from Rawlinson’s drawings, bringing the total number of known blocks to 129 (MPers. 74, Parth. 55) out of an estimated total of 235 blocks. Paper squeezes and photographs of this material are now in the Freer Gallery archives, Washington, D.C. From the additional discoveries, Herzfeld realized that his arrangement of the blocks was almost completely correct (see letter to H. F. Junker, 19 April 1926, cited by Sundermann, 1983, p. 88). (More inscribed blocks exist; the block E1, for instance, was recently offered on the antiques market.)

The additional material was first used in various articles by R. N. Frye, who published the new blocks of the end of the inscription containing the list of dignitaries and rulers (1956, 1957, 1959), and Ph. Gignoux included the additional blocks in his glossary of Middle Persian and Parthian, which appeared in 1972. In 1971, however, V. Popp traveled to the site at the suggestion of H. Humbach at the University of Mainz, Germany, and made pictures of the blocks he could find, including several unpublished ones. They published the new material in 1973, and Humbach decided to prepare a new edition, which was published between 1980 and 1983 in collaboration with P. O. Skjærvø. It is worth noting that Herzfeld’s arrangement of the blocks proved to be almost correct. Most of the blocks rearranged were blocks that were hard to read, and the only really significant change was the repositioning of the second last block of the MPers. version.

Herzfeld’s contributions to Middle Persian and Parthian philology were largely ignored by Iranian scholars (see Skjærvø, forthcoming). Henning’s study of the Manichean Middle Persian verb (1933) contains no references to the inscriptions, and he cites no forms from Paikuli. Ghilain in his study of the Parthian verb (1939) cites Herzfeld’s conclusions regarding the spelling of ver-bal forms and ideograms but otherwise hardly refers to it and, judging from the index, cites no forms from it. In his 1952 article, Henning discusses several instances where Herzfeld had misread and misinterpreted the text, but he nowhere intimates that the work might be important to Iranian studies. In his “Mitteliranisch” (1958) he calls Herzfeld’s "Essay on Paikuli” indispensable (p. 100), but he ignores it in his own description of the verbal ideograms (see Skjærvø, 1995 and forthcoming). It was, of course, unavoidable that many of Herzfeld’s linguistic analyses in 1924 would prove wrong, as the languages were barely known at the time, especially Parthian; the Manichean texts had yet to be studied in depth, and he had not yet seen the fundamental study on Middle Persian and Parthian by Tedesco (“Dialektologie,” 1921). His method was sound, however, and many of his conclusions remain valid; he also updated points of his discussion in later publications (1934, 1938).

See also EPIGRAPHY i., GERMANY ii.-iii., NARSEH.

HERZFELD, ERNST v. HERZFELD AND THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT IRAN

Herzfeld’s classical education, giving him familiarity with Greek and Latin literature, and his training in Oriental philology as well as in archeology and architectural techniques proved of great benefit in his study of pre-Islamic Iranian history and culture. Almost all his works on these subjects are marked by the following characteristics: (1) an interest not only in questions of detail, but also in larger contexts; his writings often surmounted the limits of discipline and periods; (2) a distinctly less marked “orientalism” in his works in comparison with those of some predecessors and contemporaries (cf. Briant); (3) a comprehensive concept of sources; together with the literary tradition of various provenances, these included archeological, epigraphic, and numismatic findings; he also attributed proper importance to indigenous accounts; (4) the variety of objects investigated; (5) familiarity with the methods of various scientific disciplines; (6) knowledge of historical geography and topography gained by his own experience; (7) interest in “keeping alive” the pre-Islamic cultures of Iran (e.g., exploring the genesis of Islamic art; use of reports by diplomats and travelers of the early modern age).

Two qualities and one circumstance limited Herzfeld’s horizon: (1) his inclination towards restlessness and apodictic verdicts; (2) his not always simple character, which made it difficult to work with others; (3) the publication of much important evidence only at the end of his life and after his death (such as the Persepolis Treasury Tablets, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, or the inscription of the deeds of Shabuhr I [see below]). The fact that Herzfeld, a generalist with a predilection for archeological, philological, and historical-geographic questions, did not find his way to a historiographic synthesis of pre-Islamic Iranian history can hardly be held against him.

On Achaemenid history and culture. Herzfeld contributed to advances in knowledge of the Achaemenids in four main areas. (1) Archeological investigation of Achaemenid period ruins in Iran, especially those of Pasargadae and Persepolis. See in detail above, parts ii. and iii. (2) Study of the Old Persian inscriptions. The publications (1938a; cf. also 1932, 1937), which were in part owing to the work of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago onsite, are still interesting, at least from the point of view of historical research. (3) Historical geography of Iran. In Herzfeld’s historical-geographical studies (published posthumously, 1968), the articles “The Satrapy List of Darius” (pp. 288-97), “The Satrapies of the Persian Empire” (pp. 298-349) and “Determination of the Sculptured Figures in Persepolis” (pp. 350-65) deal with this period. Though in some respects outdated, they have provided useful ideas for later research (e.g., by G. Walser and P. Calmeyer). (4) The life of Zoroaster and the context of his message. Here one particularly remembers Herzfeld’s attempt to identify Vištāspa (Gk. Hystaspes), the father of Darius I, with Kavi Vištāspa, Zoroaster’s royal patron in the Gāthās of the Avesta. In a series of writings (1929-30c-d; 1930a-c; 1933) leading up to his culminating work (1947), he made a detailed criticism of the thesis of H. S. Nyberg (q.v.) that Zoroaster was an early East Iranian shaman. Herzfeld argued at great length his own belief that Zoroaster was a member of the Median and Achaemenid court and had lived in the full light of history in western Iran. Although this view proved untenable and soon was rejected (see GOŠTĀSP), recent research shows that some of Herzfeld’s individual observations are still being discussed (e.g., Gnoli, 2000).

Parthian and Sasanian history and culture. On this subject, too, Herzfeld made great contributions (see Wiesehöfer). He discovered the Sasanian rock reliefs of Guyom (1926, p. 250) and Sar Mašhad. For the first time (Sarre and Herzfeld, 1910; Herzfeld, 1928), he studied these forms of historical evidence comprehensively and with detailedanalysis attributed them to certain Sasanian kings on the basis of the types of crowns shown on the coins. It was Herzfeld who made the first serious attempt to designate Sasanian mints (1938b), and he was also aware of the importance of seals and bullae for a reconstruction of the administration of that period (1924, pp. 74-82; 1938b). He described numerous known monuments of the Sasanian period (e.g., the palaces of Firu-zābād (1926, p. 253; 1935, pp. 90 ff.; 1941, pp. 314 ff.), Qaṣr-e Širin (1907; 1935, p. 88), and Ctesiphon (1920; 1935, pp. 93-95). He reconstructed the tower of Paikuli, edited and discussed the bilingual inscription found there, and attributed both to King Narseh (1914; 1924; cf. Skjærvø and above, part iv.), and excavated and published the famous ruins at Kuh-e Ḵᵛāja (1926, pp. 270 ff.; 1935, pp. 58 ff.; 1941, pp. 291 ff.; cf. Kawami).

A comprehensive assessment of Sasanian history and culture can be found in Herzfeld’s Archaeological History of Iran (1935) and Iran in the Ancient East (1941). In his opinion, the Sasanian period of Iranian art is to be understood as a “reaction of the Oriental mind against Hellenism” (1935, p. 79), a Hellenism (q.v.) which was never truly understood in Iran and the influence of which is described by Herzfeld as “aggressive” (1935, p. 99) and “destructive” (1935, p. 75). Both the history of Sasanian art and the political history of Iran under the Sasanids are viewed as in a constant process of decline: The powerful and religiously tolerant kings of the 3rd century were followed by the orthodox Zarathustrian Shabuhr II, whose intolerance paralyzed all intellectual life (1935, p. 100). In the end, as is identifiable in the “naïve” and “senile” art of Ṭāq-e Bostān and in the rather unassuming late Sasanian literature, there was “le roi qui s’amuse” (1941, p. 338; cf. 1938c). Just as Sasanian art owed its continuance merely to the fact that the Arabs possessed no superior civilization, so the Sasanian view of Iranian history merely came down to us because the Iranians conceived the world of Iranian epics and legends as historical facts (1934, p. 109).

In the chapter “The Early History of the Sasanian Empire” in his Paikuli monograph (1924), Herzfeld presented a reconstruction of the early Sasanian period, covering eight generations (1924, p. 51) and many historical events. He began by comparing the late Sasanian-Islamic tradition of Ṭabari with the legendary Iranian tradition (the Kārnāmag); these he compared with the numismatic and epigraphic tradition and so tried to define, on the one hand, the genealogy and, on the other, the eastern policy of the early Sasanians. In so doing, he followed the Kārnāmag account “that Ardashir (I) was the Arsacid king’s son-in-law and held a high office at the court” (1924, p. 40). About eastern Iran he assumed that “Sijistan, Makuran, and Turan, and … the whole country to the north of the Hindukush” under Ardashir I and “the whole of Sakastan” under Vahrām II (in the fratricidal war against Hormizd [see BAHRĀM ii.]; 1924, pp. 39 ff.) had become Sasanian possessions. In the clash between Vahrām III and Narseh, however, “the Indian parts of Sakastan” were again lost (1924, p. 43).

Herzfeld must have been quite disappointed by the fact that it was not he himself, but his successor in Persepolis, Erich F. Schmidt, who conceived the glorious idea to dig up the soil around the so-called Kaʿba-ye Zardošt and so discovered the account of the deeds of Shabuhr I, which indeed became the most important source of our knowledge about the early Sasanian period (Huyse, 1999). It is regrettable that in the last years of his life Herzfeld did not feel in a position to reconsider his views about precisely this period in the light of that source.