Achaemenids, Royal Power, and Persian Ethnicity 183This aspect of imperial art and architecture was already in place under Cyrus the Great,
who founded a new city, Pasargadae, as a showcase for his imperial vision (Stronach 1978;
Curtis 2005). Palaces, monumental gates, and large gardens were all part of this new royal
capital, which demonstrated in material form the diversity of resources controlled by the
king, as well as his power to command them (Stronach 1978; Root 1990). Ionian stone-
masons may have been brought in to help craft the new stone buildings (Nylander 1970),
and the influence of Assyrian and Egyptian iconography are evident in the remains of the
sculptural reliefs that decorated the palaces and gates, as well as the immediate influences
of traditions from the region, especially Elamite (Kuhrt 2007a). Cyrus’ gabled tomb,
also located at Pasargadae, draws on Anatolian tomb types and makes a clear connection
between the king and his imperial subjects, while at the same time evoking the Elamite
ziggurats that were part of the local landscape (Boardman 2000; Kuhrt 2007a).
This aspect of Achaemenid imperial art has, in some circles, led to an assessment of
Persian art and architecture as derivative and an artificial pastiche of adopted parts (Board-
man 1994, 2000). Rather than seeing this recombination and reformulation as a creative
act, some scholars continue to trace and privilege “borrowed” (i.e., non-local) elements
as evidence of emulation (in particular of Classical styles and technologies), without con-
sidering the immediate context of the relationship, and the complex meanings invoked
through the engagement with foreign styles and iconographic traditions (for a critique
of this approach, see Gates 2002). In this respect, the analysis of style as a marker of
ethnicity has had a strong presence in Achaemenid studies, with the generally negative
result of essentializing relationships between culture traditions in overly simplistic, often
oppositional, terms (Root 1990). This has also had the effect of blurring the connec-
tions between local Near Eastern (especially Assyrian) stylistic traditions and Achaemenid
forms, while over-emphasizing elements potentially incorporated from western sources.
The worldview that is suggested by the construction of the royal center at Pasargadae
and developed in later constructions emphatically places the king at the center of the
universe and positions Persia at the center of a universal empire (Kuhrt 2002), with its
many subordinate lands arrayed around hierarchically. One of the inscriptions on the
tomb of Darius at Naqsh-i Rustam stands as an example of the geographic formulation
of this universal rule (Figure 12.2):
Says Darius the King: By the favor of Ahuramazda, these are the peoples/countries which
I seized; I ruled over them; they bore me tribute; what was said to them by me, that they
did; my law held them. Media, Elam, Parthia, Aria, Bactria, Sogdia, Chorasmia, Drangiana,
Arachosia, Sattagydia, Gandara, India, the haoma-drinking Scythians, the Scythians with
pointed caps, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, Armenia, Cappadocia, Lydia, the Greeks,
the Scythians across the sea, Thrace, the sun hat-wearing Greeks, the Libyans, the Nubians,
the men of Maka and the Carians (DNa).The “empire lists,” as they are known, are part of royal monuments or inscriptions and list
the names of the peoples and regions under the king’s control (Root 1979; Briant 2002).
The foundation charters recovered at Susa, Persepolis, and other sites also prominently
feature a detailed list of subject peoples, with the addition of further information about
the contributions that these groups made to the wealth and splendor of the royal court
through actual materials, skilled labor, or both (e.g., DSf/DSz). In all of these cases, the