Persepolis was the City of Persians, a concept that is in no way an idea of modern times. Greek authors such as Diodorus of Sicily in the first century BC describes Persepolis as a fortress encircled by three thick walls “with the third made of granite so as to last forever.” European travelers of the Age of Enlightenment mention the scattered visible structures in the vicinity of the stone Terrace, in particular the the ruined palace in the southern plain, which is frequently figured in travelers’ accounts. In 1893, Herbert Weld carried out the first survey of those structures in the plain along the western foot of the Terrace. His plans and reconstruction sketches, though schematic and conjectural, represent the first documentation of the architectural complexes of the plain adjacent to the Terrace (H. Weld-Blundell, “Persepolis,” Transactions of the Ninth International Congress of Orientalists, London, 1893, 537‒59). Ernst Herzfeld and Erich Schmidt, the two pioneer excavators of the site in the 1930s, were well aware of the existence of archaeological ruins outside the Terrace though they concentrated their work on the excavation of palatial structures on the Terrace. In the 1950s and 1960s Ali Sami, archaeologist and director of the Persepolis excavations, discovered fragments in stone and mud-brick in the western plain, inlcuding traces of a long mud-brick wall that might have been the city’s second wall mentioned by Diodorus (A. Sami, Gozāresh-hā -ye Bāstānshenāsi, vol. 2, Tehran, 1951, 57). Persepolis as a city received the full attention of archaeologists in 1968 when Ali Akbar Tadjvidi launched an all-encompassing research project of Achaemenid sites in the plain of Marvdasht (A. Tadjvidi, Dānestanihā-ye novin darbāreh-ye honar va bāstānshenāsi-yeʿ ʿasr-e Hakhāmaneshi bar bonyād-e kavosh-hā-ye panj-sāleh-ye Takht-e Jamshid, Tehran, 1976, 6‒38). It is surprising to note that both Sami’s discovery and Tadjvidi’s studies have been dismissed in the present report. It seems that the main impetus for the new series of geomagnetic surveys and soundings was William Sumner’s surveys in the Marvdasht plain in the 1970s in which he mentioned a group of low mounds west of the Persepolis Terrace with high concentration of archaeological materials (W. Sumner, “Achaemenid settlement in the Persepolis plain,” American Journal of Archaeology 90, no. 1, 1986, 4).
Persepolis West (Fars, Iran) is a detailed report of two seasons of archaeological fieldwork in 2008‒2009. The report includes four chapters: the results of geophysical surveys (pp. 4‒10); the excavations report of “areas” at Persepolis West (marked A to E, pp. 26‒106); the study of excavated finds (pp. 107‒273); the reading of C14 datings (pp. 274‒85).
Twenty-three “areas” were investigated in the geomagnetic surveys northwest and west of the Terrace of Persepolis. The surveys covered only 50 hectares of the area between the two asphalt roads (one runs parallel to the Terrace, the other is perpendicular, connecting Persepolis to Marvdasht). The surveys were successful in revealing two groups of structures: the surveys on a four-hectare field north of the Frataraka Temple complex revealed the plan of an adjacent building, which was in use in the post-Achaemenid period. Tol-e Ajori is another important site that was the object of archaeological exploration. Sumner mentions the site in his 1986 survey report; the site was revisited and surveyed in 2005 by the French team (Rémy Boucharlat, Tijs de Schacht, and Sebastien Gondet, “Surface reconnaissance in the Persepolis plain (2005‒2008),” Dariosh Studies II, Napoli, 2012, 265). There is no mention of this site in the present book and the results of Irano-Italian excavations are yet to be published. Highly disturbed and metallic pollution of the soil at the foot of the Terrace prevented the progress of geomagnetic surveys on the east side of the asphalt roads.
Chapter 2 covers the excavations reports. The chapter begins with an introduction by the editors, giving the excavation strategy and method. The area to the west of the Terrace has undergone phases of destruction and change after the Achaemenid period. Farming activities in the plain have been destructive for archaeological remains; the collected materials from topsoil layers mostly come from levelling and plowing, a problem that hampered the geomagnetic investigation of the area. Contrary to relatively clear maps given in the geomagnetic surveys reports, the chapter on archaeological excavations does not include a general map of the excavated areas. The total number of trenches dug in various areas is not given; it seems, however, that some eleven trenches of varied sizes were probed; the basic unit for the trenches was a square of 5 × 5 m2. Two main areas were selected: Area A, west of the Persepolis parking lot, “where the geomagnetic surveys had shown the existence of considerable anomalies” (p. 26), and Area B, 500 m west of Area A, where “pits excavated for agricultural needs” showed the presence of “several superimposed archaeological layers with ceramics, charcoal, and other materials” (p. 26). The individual reports of the trenches presented by their excavator(s) include a stratigraphic matrix, with sections and top plans accompanied by color photographs. The reports are clear, except for those that rely on the results of geomagnetic surveys. For example, Trench 3 was opened following the results of the geophysical survey at a location that “had evidenced that here one of the long and regular anomalies detected meet, in its southeastern limit, a canal” (p. 37). No detailed image of geophysical surveys is given in the excavation reports. Another peculiarity is the stratigraphic tables showing types of deposit and chronological periods where destruction/abandonment layers presented as “accumulation layers,” some of which were preceded by what is called “negative interface” (p. 39, for example). Some interesting finds in Area B are a kiln and a series of industrial remains (pp. 48‒67) of possible Achaemenid date, where “a series of pits discovered in the nearby Trench Tr. 6 contain many bone fragments, … main ingredient for the production of fluorapatite, a substance used for whitening the greyish limestone surface of the monuments of Persepolis Terrace” (p. 52). The report would have been better and of great interest if it had included more illustrations showing combustion chamber and bones in situ.
Chapter 3 is a quantitative study of excavated potsherd and their physical features, including seriation charts and drawings. The reports are useful for further studies of the Achaemenid pottery; the authors’ meticulous report on ceramic finds would have been enriched if they had looked at or used M. T. ʿAtāʾi’s contribution, though unpublished, to the study of Achaemenid pottery from Persepolis (M. T. ʿAtāʾi’, Moʿarrefi-ye sofāl-e Hakhāmaneshi-ye howzehe-ye Fārs, unpublished dissertation, Tehran, 2004). An inventory of other finds such as objects in stone, metal, terracotta, glass, bones, and coins follow the study of ceramics. Radiocarbon dating of samples are published in chapter 4. The book ends with a useful summary of the excavation results (pp. 286‒8). Persepolis West (Fars, Iran) is an indispensable reference for further fieldwork in the region of Persepolis.
