Iranica Antiqua, vol. XLII, 2007 doi: 10.2143/IA.42.0.2017883 CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT IRAN IN THREE WORKS BY A.T. OLMSTEAD, ROMAN GHIRSHMAN AND RICHARD N. FRYE BY James D. CLARK Abstract: In this essay the author looks at History of the Persian Empire by A.T. Olmstead (1948), Iran: from the Earliest Times to the Islamic Conquests by Roman Ghirshman (1954), and Richard N. Frye’s (1963) The Heritage of Persia, three important and established histories that cover the ancient period of Iranian history. The three historians and their respective works are compared and some of the similarities as well as differences in how they have treated the period are pointed out. Keywords: Iran, Persian Empire, Achaemenians, Seleucids, Parthians, Sasanians Iran, like Mesopotamia — present-day Iraq — and Egypt, is one of the few lands of the Middle East whose history and culture extend from before the fall of the Sasanian dynasty and into the distant past. It is a history fraught with a complex of peoples, traditions, languages, migra- tions, and wars. It was characterized by a constant give and take between many cultures as they came into contact. It has, besides the cultural dimension, economic, social, and political aspects as well; those forces that are always working at any one time in history and acting to shape a society. But alongside that impressive array of forces that promote diversity in all societies runs a parallel current of continuity in the case of Iran. Although oftentimes possessing a subtlety difficult to pinpoint, there is an element that persists across time and that scholars continue to identify as “Persian” or “Iranian.” In one sense, it might even be said that that quality, manifested as it was in art, language, society, and poli- tics, is the continuity of a host of different aspects from various ancient civilizations that, in the long course of Persian existence, conquest, and hegemony, became parts of what have come to be termed collectively as “Iranian” civilization. No society stands entirely aloof from what came 420 J. CLARK before or what is coexistent with it. That is no less true of the ancient world than it is of today’s. All three of the writers whose texts are examined here — by O. T. Olm- stead, Roman Ghirshman, and Richard N. Frye — clearly demonstrate the many elements of these three currents of diversity, cultural mixing, and con- tinuity across the wide expanse of Iranian history from before the Achaeme- nians to well into the Islamic era. They all convey a sense of the vast increase in historical material accumulated about this period over the last 150 years. But the approaches of the three, although similar in many respects, have their differences. Olmstead and Ghirshman present their his- tories through narratives that deal with cultural, social, and economic aspects as well political ones. The nearly seamless narration of events and personages produces a sense of immediacy to the subjects and events as the reader follows the chronological path of events laid out before him. The stories they offer are however deceiving to some extent in that there are many significant gaps in our knowledge of ancient Iranian history, and they have tried to fill in those areas with their formidable imaginative pow- ers. The result makes for more pleasurable reading, and gives the sense that there is a continuous progression of events, but it creates the illusion that we know more than we really do. Frye, on the other hand, takes a more dis- cerning approach, examining each piece of evidence before the reader in search of its real significance, and loading down the text with footnotes and bibliographies that are noticeably absent in the other two. His book The History of Ancient Iran is, in his own words, “a survey of our state of knowledge” on the subject of ancient Iran. (Frye 1984: 65) Apart from their differences in presentation, these historians differ as well in the subjects on which they are inclined to focus. Frye tends to con- centrate on linguistics; carefully analyzing the meanings and the signifi- cance of the words of the many languages involved when studying ancient Iranian history. That is understandable given that many of the sources that we have from the time consist of inscriptions and writings. Olmstead’s, on the other hand, is more of a standard political history, but he does discuss aspects of culture and society that his archeological sources reveal. Ghirsh- man differs from the other two in that he gives emphasis to culture and art, especially the significance of pottery remains. One obvious explanation for this difference between Frye on the one hand and Olmstead and Ghirsh- man on the other, is that the last two were trained as archaeologists and engaged in excavations in Iran, while Frye is primarily a linguist. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE 421 Professor Olmstead’s book History of the Persian Empire is the earliest of the three, and by “empire” he means the one created by the Achaemeni- ans and which existed from 550 to 330 B.C. Of the three scholars, Olmstead deals the least with historical context and what preceded the Achaemenians. He is satisfied with stating that when Cyrus conquered Babylon “the world was old” and giving a cursory survey of the previous non-Iranian civiliza- tions as well as Iranian culture before the Achaemenians. (Olmstead 1948: 1-33) His is not just the story of the rise and expansion of one of the largest of the ancient empires, but also of the innumerable day-to-day and year-to- year happenings that grant complexity to the picture. The aim of the book is the “exposition” of cultures. Achaemenian history, he says, offers “a fascinating picture of various civilizations at different stages of evolution and all in the process of intermingling.” That intermixture, he maintains, was unique in world history. The main outside ingredient was Hellenistic culture, whose integration began long before Alexander the Great (330- 323 B.C.). (Olmstead 1948: xiii) It eventually becomes clear that Olm- stead’s concern is not just with Persia, but with all of the lands encom- passed by the far-flung borders of the empire, including Greece. In fact, in many ways it is about the Orient or the Middle East more than it is about that to which its title restricts it. This is because of Olmstead’s specializa- tion not only in Iran, but in all of the ancient Middle East and its empires, as he demonstrated in other books, such as one on the Assyrians. One of the most salient characteristics of History of the Persian Empire, and a quality that goes hand-in-hand with the author’s narrative method of relating his material, is its sense of detail. As Olmstead traces the succes- sive rulers and their exploits beginning with Cyrus in 559 B.C. and termi- nating with Alexander in 330 B.C., as he delves into harem intrigues and the many subplots of individuals, their bravery, treachery, etc. as he repre- sents the long interaction between the Persians and other peoples and civi- lizations of the Middle East, especially the Greeks, the reader is very nearly overwhelmed with information. Olmstead explains this approach when he says, “What these peoples thought of their past is a vital element of our his- tory; what that past actually was must form the background of the picture.” (Olmstead 1948: 2) It is with this premise in mind that he, for example, launches into a lengthy description of the “powerful army machine” Darius (522-486 B.C.) constructed and at whose core stood the Ten-Thousand Immortals supplemented by infantry drawn from the various satrapies. (Olmstead 1948: 237-244) 422 J. CLARK One of the major themes in Olmstead’s work is that the Persians or the “East” made significant contributions to western civilization. In one sense, this is the importance for the West of studying the Achaemenian empire. Such an interest on Olmstead’s part demonstrates a certain west- centeredness in his outlook that runs throughout the narrative. The chan- nel for these contributions passed mainly through the hands of the Greeks, the only advanced nation at the time in Europe and with whom the Per- sians first made contact in the course of the expansion of their realm into Anatolia. Astronomy and the making of a calendar is one such example of those contributions. These sciences were advanced considerably by the Babylo- nians and then the Greeks, who cooperated with them and later developed their methods and findings. Although not “Persian,” Babylon was “ori- ental” in the sense that it was part of the Orient that Persia had come to dominate. This cooperation between Babylonians and Greeks eventually produced “a theory in large part still accepted by the modern scientist.” (Olmstead 1948: 341) That was, according to Olmstead, evidence of the influence of oriental science on Greece, and thereby on Western tradition. (Olmstead 1948: 446-447) “Oriental religious thought powerfully influ- enced the Greeks” he says as early as the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. In a similar manner, the philosophy of Plato may have been influenced by Zoroastrian dualism. (Olmstead 1948: 450) Persia and Greece contin- ued to influence one another throughout the period in many other ways. (Olmstead 1948: 268-271) Persian religious cults also had a strong influ- ence on the West. Mithraism, for example, spread to Rome where “the sun-god dominated Roman armies and became the rival to the oriental Christ.” (Olmstead 1948: 479) Olmstead’s emphasis upon Babylon in the case of the sciences indi- cates another characteristic of his outlook, which is that he is not simply concerned with the impact that Persia had on the West, but with the larger culture which Persia represented; that is, the “East.” The Achaemenians had conquered much of the known world of their time, almost all of it comprising what would later become known as the Orient.