Ancient Iran

One major challenge of the study of ancient Iran is that it does not exist in Western academia as a discrete field of study. Prehistory, for example, which ends in the 3rd millennium in Elam but persists into the 1st millennium bce elsewhere on the Iranian plateau, has been studied primarily by anthropologists, the Iron Age by Assyriologists, the Parthians by classical archaeologists, and the Sasanians by scholars of Iranian studies. As a result, ancient Iran does not belong to any individual academic discipline, and in the context of Near Eastern studies, perhaps its most obvious home, it has been treated largely as an ancillary field. Thus Iran has seen less archaeological fieldwork, including excavation, regional survey, and study of standing architectural remains, than other parts of the Near East. This problem has been further compounded by the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which effectively barred foreign archaeologists from the country and severed contacts between them and their Iranian colleagues. This situation has improved in recent decades, but there are nevertheless relatively few scholars working on ancient Iran and comparatively little scholarship on its architecture, especially compared to Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Egypt, or the Mediterranean. To study Iranian architecture, therefore, it is necessary to extract relevant examples from archaeological reports, both preliminary and final. This is especially true for prehistoric periods before the advent of stone masonry, but even for the Sasanian period most architectural scholarship documents individual sites or buildings. The titles listed here thus provide only the raw material for studying ancient Iranian architecture. This bibliography is dedicated to the memory of David Stronach (b. 1931–d. 2020), a prolific and consummate archaeologist and scholar whose contributions to the study of Iranian architecture have been enormous.

2019 ◽  
pp. 129-145
Author(s):  
Jordi Vidal

Resumen  En el presente artículo presentamos un trabajo inédito del arqueólogo e historiador español Lluís Pericot García sobre los sumerios, escrito en 1917. En dicho trabajo Pericot esbozó la que iba a ser su interpretación canónica acerca de las características de la civilización sumeria: origen dravídico, interés por el desarrollo político de las ciudades-estado sumerias durante el III milenio a.n.e., prioridad cultural sumeria en el ámbito del Próximo Oriente Antiguo. Como se comprobará a lo largo del artículo, esas tres constantes planteadas en 1917 se repitieron en todas las aproximaciones posteriores de Pericot sobre ese tema.     Palabras Claves  Bosch Gimpera, drávidas, semitas, Orientalística Antigua.   Abstract  In this article we examine an unpublished work by the Spanish archaeologist and historian Lluís Pericot García on the Sumerians written in 1917. In that work, Pericot outlined what was to be his canonical interpretation of the main features of the Sumerian civilization, that is, Dravidian origins, political development of the Sumerian city-states during the III millennium BC, and Sumerian cultural priority in the Ancient Near East. As will be verified throughout the article, these three aspects pointed out in 1917 were reproduced in all of Pericot’s later approaches on that subject. Key words  Bosch Gimpera, Dravidian people, Semites, Ancient Near Eastern Studies.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Florian Zemmin ◽  
Henning Sievert

Conceptual history holds tremendous potential to address a central issue in Near Eastern Studies, namely the formation of modernity in the Near East, provisionally located between the mid-nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries. The encounter with European powers, primarily Britain and France, was a decisive historical factor in this formation; and European hegemony is, in fact, inscribed into the very concept of “modernity,” which we take as an historical, rather than analytical, concept. The conceptual formation of modernity in Arabic and Turkish was, however, a multilayered process; involving both ruptures and continuities, intersecting various temporalities, and incorporating concepts from several languages. To interrogate this multilayered process, we suggest the metaphor of the Sattelzeit (Saddle Period) as a heuristic tool, precisely because of its being tied to modernity. Finally, the article will show what conceptual history of the Near East has to offer to conceptual history more broadly.


Author(s):  
Amy Rebecca Gansell ◽  
Ann Shafer

Serving as the volume introduction, Chapter 1 lays out the scope of the ancient Near Eastern canon as it has been understood since its inception. Situating the canon within Art History, Archaeology, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, this chapter raises an inquiry about the fluidity and staying power of its content. Through a case study of the ancient Near Eastern canon as it appears in college art history textbooks, we detect patterns in the canon, which remains a flexible but essentially conservative phenomenon. Nevertheless, the individual contributions in the volume’s four sections are shown here through chapter synopses to be historically grounded, theoretically provocative, and full of potential avenues for research and revision of the seemingly outmoded phenomenon of the canon. The chapter proposes that celebrating the longevity and future of the canon, rather than dismissing it, can allow today’s researchers to take the study of the ancient Near East to new levels and share it with expanded audiences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document