Ernst Herzfeld And The Development Of Near Eastern Studies, 1900-1950

ERNST HERZFELD AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES, 1900-1950

ERNST HERZFELD AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES, 1900-1950 edited by

ANN C. GUNTER and STEFAN R. HAUSER

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2005

Cover illustration: Ernst Herzfeld photographed in front of Persepolis reliefs by James Henry Breasted, Jr., February 23, 1933. By courtesy of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ernst Herzfeld and the Development of Near Eastern Studies, 1900-1950 / edited by Ann C. Gunter and Stefan R. Hauser. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-14153-7 1. Herzfeld, Ernst, 1879-1948—Congresses. 2. Middle East—Study and teaching—Congresses. I. Gunter, Ann Clyburn, 1951- II. Hauser, Stefan R. DS61.7.H47E76 2004 956’.0072’02—dc22 2004058136

ISBN 90 04 14153 7 © Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS

Preface and Acknowledgements .............................................. Ernst Emil Herzfeld—Curriculum Vitae ................................ Note to the Reader ..................................................................

ix xiii xvii

Part I: Introduction Ernst Herzfeld and Near Eastern Studies, 1900–1950 ........ Ann C. Gunter and Stefan R. Hauser Ernst Herzfeld and Friedrich Sarre ........................................ Jens Kröger

3 45

Part II: Herzfeld and Key Archaeological Sites Ernst Herzfeld and Pasargadae .............................................. David Stronach Herzfeld in Persepolis .............................................................. Elspeth R. M. Dusinberre Ernst Herzfeld, Kuh-e Khwaja, and the Study of Parthian Art .............................................................................. Trudy S. Kawami Prismatic Prehistory: Ernst Herzfeld on Early Iran .............. Margaret Cool Root

103 137

181 215

Part III: Herzfeld and the Persian Empires Milestones in the Development of Achaemenid Historiography in the Era of Ernst Herzfeld .................................................. Pierre Briant Ernst Herzfeld and Sasanian Studies ...................................... Josef Wiesehöfer Ernst Herzfeld and Iranian Studies .......................................... Prods Oktor Skjaervø

263 281 295

vi

contents

Ernst Herzfeld and the Study of Graffiti at Persepolis .......... Shahrokh Razmjou

315

Part IV: Byzantine and Islamic Art History Ernst Herzfeld und Samuel Guyer in Kilikien: Forschungen zur spätantik-frühbyzantinischen Architektur .......................... Gabriele Mietke Mshatta, Samarra, and al-Hira: Ernst Herzfeld’s Theories Concerning the Development of the Hira-style Revisited ...... Thomas Leisten Ernst Herzfeld, Samarra, and Islamic Archaeology ................ Alastair Northedge The One that Got Away: Ernst Herzfeld and the Islamic Architecture of Iran .................................................................. Robert Hillenbrand

345

371 385

405

Part V: Near Eastern Studies, Cultural Politics, and Archaeological Ethics Ernst Herzfeld and French Approaches to Iranian Archaeology ................................................................................ Rémy Boucharlat Ernst Herzfeld, Politics, and Antiquities Legislation in Iran .... Ali Mousavi Ernst Herzfeld in an Academic Context: The Historical Sciences of Culture at the University of Berlin during the Weimar Republic (1919–1933) ................................................ Rüdiger vom Bruch History, Races, and Orientalism: Eduard Meyer, the Organization of Oriental Research, and Ernst Herzfeld’s Intellectual Heritage .................................................................. Stefan R. Hauser Ernst Herzfeld in Context: Gleanings from His Personnel File and Other Sources ............................................................ Johannes Renger Ernst Herzfeld: Reminiscences and Revelations ...................... Elizabeth S. Ettinghausen

429 445

477

505

561 583

contents Bibliography ................................................................................ List of Contributors .................................................................... Index ..........................................................................................

vii 617 625 629

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This volume presents papers originally delivered at the symposium “Ernst Herzfeld and the Development of Near Eastern Studies, 1900– 1950,” held from 3–5 May 2001 at the Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. The idea for the symposium was born in 1998, when we began an unexpectedly extended discussion of mutual interests in the history of research in general and the enigmatic personality of Ernst Herzfeld in particular. The program received its final form over the course of intense consultations in Washington, D.C., facilitated by Stefan’s tenure in 1999–2000 as Frese Senior Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, National Gallery of Art. The symposium’s aims were twofold: to reexamine the contributions of this pioneering and controversial figure in the field of Near Eastern studies, and to place them in the broader intellectual, institutional, and political frameworks of his era. The results, we hoped, would contribute new information and perspectives on the development of Near Eastern studies and their various sub-disciplines, all of which were, not least, shaped by Herzfeld. All but one of the papers in this volume were originally delivered at the symposium. We regret that one paper has not been included here. Peter Machinist, professor of Bible and Near Eastern studies at Harvard University, who spoke on “German Immigrants and the Study of the Ancient Near East,” will publish his research elsewhere as part of a broader study. Elizabeth R. Ettinghausen, who attended the symposium and during the final discussions presented a moving account of Herzfeld’s last years, kindly agreed to contribute a paper drawing on her personal acquaintance with Herzfeld as well as new research into archival sources. Both the symposium and its publication owe much to the efforts, support, and encouragement of a variety of individuals and institutions. We are pleased to acknowledge that the symposium was organized in association with, and with financial support from, the Iran Heritage Foundation. It was made possible by a generous grant from Marietta Lutze Sackler, M.D., who also supported the costs of the

x

preface and acknowledgements

publication. In addition, we are most grateful to the Fritz ThyssenStiftung, Cologne, whose critical support made possible the participation of the German speakers. A grant from the Ebrahimi Family Foundation enabled Ali Mousavi to carry out research in the Ernst Herzfeld Papers in Washington, D.C., in January 2001. In 1946, Ernst Herzfeld gave the bulk of his papers to the Freer Gallery of Art, and the Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery Archives remains the chief repository of Herzfeld’s scholarly estate. Thus there could have hardly been a location more appropriate and better suited for the symposium than the Freer Gallery of Art’s Meyer Auditorium. We gratefully acknowledge the encouragement of Milo C. Beach, then director of the Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, and Thomas W. Lentz, then director of the International Art Museums Division, Smithsonian Institution, who made available the support of many staff members for the myriad essential tasks that contributed so substantially to the symposium’s success. We owe special thanks to Dr. Hans Seidt, then head of the cultural affairs department of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, Washington, D.C., for the enthusiasm and support he showed for the project from its inception, and to the embassy, which hosted a garden reception for the speakers. During preparations for the symposium and the publication, the co-organizers as well as many speakers benefited greatly from the efforts of Colleen Hennessey, then archivist in the Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery Archives. We are all deeply indebted to her for her keen interest, generosity, and invaluable assistance. Indeed, more than half of the contributions published here draw specifically on the Ernst Herzfeld Papers. We hope that the symposium proceedings will encourage further research on the development of Near Eastern studies that draws on these and other rich resources housed in the museum’s archives. The publication of the proceedings owes much to Julian Raby, director of the Freer and Sackler galleries, and James T. Ulak, deputy director, who provided wholehearted support for Ann Gunter’s efforts as well as for a variety of staff members to devote both time and expertise to the project. Colleen Hennessey, David Hogge, and Linda Raditz provided essential help with requests for material in the Ernst Herzfeld Papers. John Tsantes and Michael Bryant, photography department, furnished their usual superb photographs as well as expert advice on the illustrations. Mariah Keller, Jennifer Alt, DeeDee

preface and acknowledgements

xi

Clendenning, and Angela Jerardi contributed editorial and organizational skills critical to bringing the publication to fruition. Trudy Kamperveen and Olaf Köndgen of E. J. Brill, Leiden, both expressed enthusiasm for this publication from the beginning, and have patiently continued to furnish encouragement and support. In addition, Ann owes special thanks to Julian Raby for reaffirming the privileged role of symposia and scholarly publications among the multiple intellectual functions of the Freer and Sackler galleries. She would also like to thank John A. Larson, museum archivist, Oriental Institute, Chicago, for assistance during her research there, and the curatorial and registrarial staff of the Field Museum, Chicago, in particular Ben Bronson, Stephen E. Nash and William J. Pestle, for allowing access to the objects and records of material acquired from Herzfeld. Stefan would like to thank the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., and its former dean, Henry A. Millon, for the amiable working atmosphere during the preparation of the conference program. Special thanks go to his wife, Christine, and his son, Robert, who for years of intense occupation with Herzfeld had to endure minute details of the life and thoughts of an “additional family member” they had never met. Like every symposium organizer, we were occasionally apprehensive about the success of the enterprise. In fact, the response to the program announcement was overwhelming. Although we knew the time was ripe for a symposium treating the history of research in the Near East, we were nonetheless surprised and gratified by the enormous interest in Herzfeld from individuals representing such a wide array of fields. The symposium was attended by up to two hundred participants, in addition to the speakers. We would very much like to thank them for their stimulating interest. Finally, but hardly least, we owe deepest appreciation to our speakers and authors, whose efforts, learning, and innovative scholarship made the symposium both successful and enjoyable. They suffered cheerfully through the long process of preparing the papers and several rounds of editing for publication, and we hope that they share our delight in the exciting and fruitful exchange of information and ideas this volume represents. Ann C. Gunter Stefan R. Hauser

ERNST EMIL HERZFELD CURRICULUM VITAE

This vita, edited and reproduced here without its accompanying list of publications, was prepared by Herzfeld in 1935 for the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced German Scholars, New York. Minor additions by the editors appear in brackets. Born 23 July 1879 (Celle, Hanover, Germany) [Son of Joseph (1836–1916), medical major in the Prussian army, and Margarethe Herzfeld (1853–1922), née Rosenthal] Education 1888–92 1893–97

Domgymnasium Verden, Hanover Joachimsthalsches Gymnasium, Berlin

University education University of Munich University of Berlin PhD 1907 magna cum laude Technische Hochschule, Degree [in structural engineering] 1903 Charlottenburg Academic career 1908–10 February 1909– 28 July 1909–

1 April 1917–

6 July 1920– End of 1922– 1927–

Volunteer assistant, Berlin Museums Predicate professor Lecturer (Privatdozent) for historical geography [Habilitation, venia legendi for historical geography and art history of the Orient] Associate professor (extraordinarius) for Orientalische Hilfswissenschaften, director of the seminar in historical geography, University of Berlin Full professor (ordinarius) and director of the seminar for Oriental countries and antiquities Mission to Persia, authorized by minister of public instruction Attached to German Legation, Tehran

xiv 1927–33 [1936–44

ernst emil herzfeld —curriculum vitae Member, Expert Commission of the State Museums, Berlin Member of the School of Humanistic Studies, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey]

Excavations and field expeditions September 1903–September 1905 Member of Assur excavations under direction of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft September 1905–January 1906 Expedition from Mosul and Baghdad through Luristan, Arabistan, and Fars Spring 1907 Expedition in Cilicia and excavations at Korykos and Meriamlik, with Dr. Samuel Guyer September 1907–May 1908 Expedition from Constantinople to Basra, with Professor Friedrich Sarre June–July 1908 Survey of Islamic monuments and inscriptions at Aleppo, Hama, and Hims (in Syria) with Dr. M. Sobernheim October 1910–February 1912 and October 1912–July 1913 Excavations of Samarra in Iraq, undertaken by KaiserWilhelm-Gesellschaft, with Professor Sarre and Dr. Guyer June 1911 and July–August 1913 Excavations in Kurdistan, Paikuli March–May 1914 Continuation of Syrian surveys at Aleppo and Damascus 1916 (during war) Surveys at Damascus 1916–17 Explorations in Persia and Kurdistan (Mosul, Sulamaniye, and Kirmanshah) February 1923–End of 1925 Explorations in Iran and Afghanistan, Baluchistan, with [funding provided by] James Loeb and Hugo Stinnes October–November 1926 Journey with H. M. the shah of Iran in Luristan April–June 1928 Excavations at Pasargadae, under [the auspices of the Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft, predecessor of the] Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft February–June 1929 Excavations at Kuh-i Khwaja, Sistan, with Joseph Upton [under the auspices of the Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft]

ernst emil herzfeld —curriculum vitae

xv

September 1930 Supplementary excavations at Samarra in Iraq April 1931–December 1934 Excavations at Persepolis, undertaken by the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago [Herzfeld died in Basel, Switzerland, on 21 January 1948]

NOTE TO THE READER

We offer the acknowledgment of inconsistency in transliteration that appears in so many works devoted to the Near and Middle East, especially those whose multiple authorship and broad chronological scope resist the easy application of firm rules. Authors have been given discretion in the transliteration of Persian names, with editorial intervention only to encourage consistency within each contribution. Thus, there are variations among articles between the use of, for example, Naqsh-i Rustam and Naqsh-e Rostam. In general, “Persia” is used for the period preceding the country’s renaming early in 1934, but complete consistency in this respect has not been achieved; Iran and Persia may be used without rigid chronological parameters. Quotations that employ the term Persia have been left unaltered. References to frequently cited works by Ernst Herzfeld are given in abbreviated form. A list of these short titles is provided in the bibliography. Unless otherwise specified, all references to archival sources are to the Ernst Herzfeld Papers, Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

PART I

INTRODUCTION

ERNST HERZFELD AND NEAR EASTERN STUDIES, 1900–1950 Ann C. Gunter and Stefan R. Hauser

The name of Ernst Herzfeld is forever linked with key monuments of Near Eastern art and architecture—Mshatta, Samarra, Persepolis— and with pioneering contributions to ancient Iranian epigraphy, history, and philology. By any measure, his scholarly accomplishments encompassed an immense chronological and disciplinary range. Many of his publications were seminal works that often endure as standard references. “A list of his main fields of interest reads like the disciplines of a school of Oriental studies with an extensive faculty,” observed Richard Ettinghausen.1 Surely Herzfeld’s distinguished career and legacy as much as his controversial posthumous fame would suffice to earn him a thoughtful retrospective. But his overall role and far-ranging interests also made Herzfeld and his scholarship the perfect starting point for a more comprehensive reassessment of the development of Near Eastern studies between 1900 and 1950. New eras and fields of study, including prehistory and Islamic archaeology, joined philology and the archaeological investigation of historic periods. During the half-century of Herzfeld’s active professional life, significant institutional expansion and elaboration took place in the allied disciplines of Near Eastern studies, both in Europe and the United States. Finally, a fundamental shift in approaches to the ancient Near East, from historical to cultural, occurred. As witness, participant, and pioneer, Herzfeld played a part in all of these developments. In the articles that follow, he serves as nodal point for the exploration of a dynamic area of studies. These institutional and intellectual developments took place against the background of—and were deeply enmeshed with—dramatic political changes in the host countries of research as well as in Europe. The disruption to research in the Near and Middle East that World

1 Richard Ettinghausen, “In Memoriam: Ernst Herzfeld (1879–1948),” Ars Islamica 15–16 (1951): 262.

4

ann c. gunter and stefan r. hauser

War I brought about was followed by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the emergence of new states, partly under mandate by Great Britain and France. These developments fundamentally changed the conditions for research. During the 1920s, new laws concerning antiquities and newly created departments and museums for administering those laws further altered these conditions. Again, Herzfeld had a hand in these developments, particularly with respect to the Persian legislation, which was an expression of Persia’s growing political independence from European powers. Germany’s paramount position in Near Eastern studies before the war had been rooted in the political and economic interests of the Kaiserreich, a fascination with the supposed background to the Bible, a uniquely strong tradition in research in antiquity, and a highly developed web of humanities in the academic system. World War I and the economic conditions that ensued greatly diminished the significance of the ancient Near East in Germany’s cultural life. The twenty years from the resumption of fieldwork in 1919 to the outbreak of World War II instead saw the rise of American research institutions, a development further enhanced by the many German scholars who emigrated from Nazi Germany after 1933. One of them was Herzfeld, who had been forced to leave Iran and Germany in 1935, and was not to return to either country before his death in 1948. From their common source in Herzfeld’s activities and scholarship, the papers comprising this volume thus address a broad set of issues. The first group reexamines his work at specific sites, and his role in individual areas of research and the development of various academic fields. The second approaches Herzfeld from a different angle, elucidating the political, institutional, and intellectual frameworks that shaped him and that in turn offered both opportunities and limitations. All contributions are in part inspired by—and in turn contribute to—recent works devoted to the histories of individuals and institutions engaged with Near Eastern studies, to which the following pages make frequent reference. With Herzfeld as the shared point of departure, a certain amount of repetition, especially of biographical information, is inevitable. Rather than regulate and homogenize the contents, we have opted to let individual contributors develop their narratives as they see fit. Moreover, we envisage a diverse readership that mirrors the authors’ wide-ranging areas of expertise. This introduction seeks to steer the reader toward the papers’ specific topics, common themes, and areas of overlap. It also serves to introduce

ernst herzfeld and near eastern studies

5

Ernst Herzfeld both as a unique human being and as a product of his society and era, setting the stage for his entry on the Near Eastern scene and framing his activities within this broader setting.

Ancient Near Eastern Studies, circa 1900 A century ago, when Ernst Herzfeld made his debut in archaeological fieldwork at the site of ancient Assur, the decipherment of cuneiform and investigation of sites had established institutional frameworks for the study of the ancient Near East in both Europe and the United States. Academic study of the field, begun in the 1830s chiefly as a result of Henry C. Rawlinson’s studies of Darius’s trilingual inscription at Bisitun, laid the foundations for deciphering languages written in cuneiform, especially Akkadian. Jules Oppert, born in Hamburg, became the first professor of cuneiform studies at the Collège de France in 1869.2 While the cornerstones of cuneiform studies were laid in Britain and France, by the late nineteenth century Germany had become the center of Assyriology. In 1874, Friedrich Delitzsch received an appointment in cuneiform studies at the University of Leipzig, and in 1899 became professor in Berlin.3 Among Delitzsch’s many students was Herzfeld, who was therefore close to the so-called Babel-Bible controversy of 1902–3. This was ignited by public lectures

2 Svend A. Pallis, The Antiquity of Iraq: A Handbook of Assyriology (Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1956), esp. 94–175, reviews the history of decipherment. See also Mogens Trolle Larsen, The Conquest of Assyria: Excavations in an Antique Land, 1840–1860 (London: Routledge, 1996). On the history of French archaeology in the Near East, see the magisterial study by Nicole Chevalier, La recherche archéologique française au Moyen-Orient de 1842 à 1947 (Paris: Édition Recherches sur les Civilisations, 2002), with extensive bibliography and documentation. Since this study, which had not been available until the final revision of this introduction, also treats work by other foreign nations in much more detail than space admits here, we decided not to repeat the full list of excavations but to refer readers to this comprehensive work. For histories of exploration at individual sites and biographies of excavators mentioned in the text, see the relevant entries in Eric M. Meyers, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, 5 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997); Richard Stillwell, ed., The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, 2d ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976); EncIr ; and EI. 3 Manfred Müller, “Die Keilschriftwissenschaften an der Leipziger Universität bis zur Vertreibung Landsbergers im Jahre 1935,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der KarlMarx-Universität Leipzig, Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 28, 1 (1979): 68–71, for Delitzsch’s 1893 professorship at Breslau. Johannes Renger’s contribution summarizes these developments and provides a rich bibliography.

6

ann c. gunter and stefan r. hauser

in which Delitzsch—initially with the approval of Kaiser Wilhelm II—contrasted historical information from the Old Testament with knowledge obtained from cuneiform sources, thereby casting doubt on the Bible’s historical and thus its theological value. As the extensive newspaper coverage demonstrates, the wider public eagerly followed the heated debate that ensued.4 Although the kaiser later sought to distance himself from Delitzsch, “Assyriology put the final touches on the liberal Protestant critique of the integrity of the Bible, and especially of the Old Testament. Thus Assyriology played a crucial role in the de-universalizing and demotion of the history of the Hebrews, perhaps the most momentous and ominous shift in the occidental, and especially the German, understanding of the oriental past to occur in recent times.”5 Finally, the debate made Mesopotamian history a topic of general attention, and helped to increase the membership of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society), founded in 1898 by leading bankers, industrialists, and scholars in response to widespread interest in Near Eastern history and the Bible.6 One of those members was Herzfeld, who became involved with Near Eastern studies at the turn of the century when he decided to study Assyriology in Berlin in addition to his primary course of training in architecture. While we do not know precisely what aroused his curiosity about this field, it might well have been the excavations at Babylon that began in 1899 under the auspices of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft. As the first large-scale German excavations delving into the ancient Near East, they were greeted, supported, and closely followed by the kaiser as well as the general public, and they became the hallmark of Germany’s early dominance in Near Eastern

4 Reinhard G. Lehmann, “Der Babel-Bibel-Streit. Ein kulturpolitisches Wetterleuchten,” in Babylon: Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne, ed. Johannes Renger, Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 2 (Saarbrücken: SDV, 1999), 505–21, with additional references. 5 Suzanne L. Marchand, Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750–1970 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 221. 6 On the founding of the society and its leading lights, see Marchand, Down from Olympus, 195–97, and Stefan R. Hauser, “German Studies in the Ancient Near East in Their Relation to Political and Economic Interests from the Kaiserreich to World War II,” in Germany and the Middle East, 1871–1945, ed. Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, Princeton Papers, Interdisciplinary Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 10/11 (2004), 155–80, both with further references. On founding member James Simon and his philanthropy, see Olaf Matthes, James Simon: Mäzen im Wilhelminischen Zeitalter (Berlin: Bostelmann & Siebenhaar, 2000).

ernst herzfeld and near eastern studies

7

archaeology. But from their outset they also served nationalist and imperialist ambitions. It was felt that Germany’s rising political and economic status in the world and in the Ottoman Empire in particular should manifest itself in the German presence abroad as well as in museum collections at home that rivaled those of France and Britain.7 Between 1899 and 1914, therefore, under imperial patronage, the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft initiated more excavations in Assyria and Babylonia than all other foreign missions combined. The investigation of Babylon launched in 1899 under the direction of Robert Koldewey (1855–1925), which continued until 1917, was the first of its excavations. Archaeological exploration of Mesopotamia had begun alongside the decipherment of cuneiform, taking a dramatic turn in the 1840s with the exploration of Assyrian palaces near Mosul.8 The Frenchman Paul Emile Botta’s investigations at Khorsabad, and those of Englishman Austen Henry Layard at Nimrud and Nineveh, uncovered miles of carved stone reliefs and thousands of clay tablets inscribed in Akkadian. The excavations generated enormous public interest, especially after some of the reliefs were brought to Paris and London.9 The success of these endeavors soon led to a fierce French-British rivalry and prompted a race between French and British explorers in southern Mesopotamia, or Babylonia, where ancient mounds had likewise yielded clay tablets inscribed in cuneiform. Nevertheless, it was common opinion that Babylonian ruins were of limited merit, as the local mud-brick architecture made it difficult to identify walls, and they yielded no carved stone reliefs like those of Assyria. The French consul Ernest de Sarzec’s excavations, launched in 1877 at Tello in southern Mesopotamia, produced impressive statues of the ruler Gudea and thousands of clay tablets inscribed in Sumerian, thereby helping to challenge this view. Finally, from 1884 to 1886, Marcel and Jane Dieulafoy extended French archaeological interests into Persia

7

See Hauser, “German Studies in the Ancient Near East.” Herzfeld, “Vergangenheit und Zukunft,” 314, ascribed the beginning of the resurrection of Assyria and Babylonia to James Claudius Rich, “venerabile nomen,” and declared Rich’s Narrative of a Residence in Koordistan (1836) “an unequalled master piece of all travel literature.” 9 Chevalier, La recherche archéologique française au Moyen-Orient, 21–60; For a detailed account of the European reception of the Assyrian discoveries, see also Frederick N. Bohrer, Orientalism and Visual Culture: Imagining Mesopotamia in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 8

8

ann c. gunter and stefan r. hauser

and began excavations at Susa, a site known from classical and biblical sources as one of the capitals of the Achaemenid Empire. At this time, European powers pressured the Persian government into granting monopolies on the exploitation of natural resources and trade in all kinds of commodities.10 The successful excavations at Susa helped France obtain a parallel monopoly on archaeological exploration for all of Persia that began in 1895 and lasted until 1927.11 While the French monopoly forestalled exploration by other nations in Persia, by the end of the nineteenth century Americans and Germans joined French and British archaeologists working in Mesopotamia. In 1888, the Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania launched the first American excavation in the region at Nippur, a project that ended after four campaigns in 1900. Three years later, at exactly the time Herzfeld first traveled to Assur, the second American expedition arrived in Mesopotamia. On Christmas Day 1903, the University of Chicago’s Oriental Exploration Fund began excavations at Bismaya (ancient Adab). With this project, the university began its long and active role in fieldwork in the Near East and Egypt, a role significantly expanded when James Henry Breasted (1865–1935) founded the Oriental Institute in 1919. Breasted, the first American to receive a doctorate in Egyptology, had been obliged to go to Germany to earn a degree in this new field of study. By the end of the nineteenth century, Berlin had already emerged as a major hub for all kinds of Oriental research. In February 1897, the Prussian Academy of Science declared research in Mesopotamia to be “one of the most important tasks of present times” and warmly endorsed Germany’s participation in “resurrecting a world lost in the memory of humankind,” especially since French and British excavations had revolutionized “our knowledge of the genesis of our culture.”12 Only three months later, a formal Kommission zur Erforschung der Euphrat- und Tigrisländer was founded. Probably mindful of the far-reaching British concession of

10 See Rouhollah K. Ramazani, The Foreign Policy of Iran: A Developing Nation in World Affairs 1500–1941 (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1966), 66–67, 243. 11 See Francine Tissot, “Délégation archéologiques françaises, i. Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran,” in EncIr 7, ed. Ehsan Yarshater (Costa Mesa, Calif.: Mazda Publishers, 1996), 238–40; Chevalier, La recherche archéologique française au Moyen-Orient, 116–52, 515–16. 12 Olaf Matthes and Johannes Althoff, “Die ‘Königliche Kommission zur Erforschung der Euphrat- und Tigrisländer,’ ” MDOG 130 (1998): 243.

ernst herzfeld and near eastern studies

9

the 1880s and the French monopoly in Persia, the commission at first envisaged fifty-year concessions for large parts of Mesopotamia.13 But even without such a treaty, German archaeology in the Ottoman Empire in general became dominant within a few years. In addition to the excavations at Babylon that Koldewey launched in 1899, he also investigated the site of Borsippa. His assistant, Walter Andrae (1875–1956), excavated at Fara (ancient Shurrupak) and Abu Hatab before he was entrusted with the society’s second long-term project, the excavation of Assur, in 1903. When Herzfeld first arrived in the Near East as Andrae’s assistant, eight expeditions were at work in the region (fig. 1). Three were German (Babylon, Assur, and Megiddo) and one was German-American (Anau, in Turkestan).14 British archaeologists had resumed investigations at Nineveh (1903–5), French archaeologists continued at Tello (1903–9) and Susa (1897–1908), and a team from Chicago had just arrived at Bismaya (1903–5). Most of this work was still in a pioneering phase, unearthing previously unknown periods and cultures. At this juncture, three major gaps in knowledge can be identified. First, with the exception of Anau, no excavation had penetrated prehistoric periods. Second, no excavation devoted to an Islamic-period site had taken place within the Near East.15 And third, except for excavations at Susa and repeated descriptions of Bisitun, Persepolis, and the Achaemenid and Sasanian reliefs at nearby Naqsh-i Rustam, Persia was, archaeologically speaking, terra incognita.

13 Matthes and Althoff, “Die ‘Kommission zur Erforschung der Euphrat- und Tigrisländer,’ ” 245; Nicola Crüsemann, Vom Zweistromland zum Kupfergraben: Vorgeschichte und Entstehungsjahre (1899–1918) der Vorderasiatischen Abteilung der Berliner Museen vor fachund kulturpolitischen Hintergründen, Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen N.F., Beiheft 42 (Berlin 2001), 124. 14 In an American-German collaboration, Raphael W. Pumpelly and Hubert Schmidt had undertaken work at Anau, Turkestan, in 1904; their expedition remains best known for its pioneering concern with reconstructing environmental history through the collecting of botanical and faunal remains. See T. Cuyler Young, Jr., “Anaw, i. Prehistoric Period,” in EncIr, ed. Ehsan Yarshater (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987), 2:3–4, with bibliography. 15 Stephen Vernoit, “The Rise of Islamic Archaeology,” Muqarnas 14 (1997): 3, notes that Islamic-period sites were excavated in central Asia beginning in 1885, in Algeria beginning in 1898, and Spain in 1910. Additional sources are cited below.

10

ann c. gunter and stefan r. hauser Herzfeld and German Near Eastern Studies, 1903–1914

This situation was to change within a decade, not least through Herzfeld’s initiative in putting these problems on his agenda. First he turned to Persia, its history and archaeology. After his term at Assur ended in 1905, he traveled extensively in Persia and reported on these travels in his first major article in 1907. His Ph.D. thesis on Pasargadae completed in the same year was the first of several important contributions on the Achaemenids and their capitals, as Pierre Briant’s review of scholarship in the Achaemenid Empire indicates. Herzfeld continued his work on Persia with his habilitation thesis on Iranian rock reliefs, which he published jointly with Friedrich Sarre. This was one of the many important results of their long-standing relationship that Jens Kröger describes in his paper. Together Herzfeld and Sarre also undertook excavations at Samarra (1911–13), which became a milestone in prehistoric as well as Islamic archaeology. While it was not an aim of the excavations, Herzfeld exposed prehistoric levels at Samarra. Coincidentally, this discovery took place during Max von Oppenheim’s equally important excavations at Tell Halaf (1911–13), which also unearthed early painted pottery.16 The problem of determining both relative and absolute dates for their respective finds, however, remained acute for another twenty years. Whereas ancient Near Eastern studies had from the outset enjoyed and profited from universal Western interest in the biblical lands, Islamic art history and archaeology as disciplines developed more gradually, grounded in the collecting of portable works of art and slow to approach Islamic sites from a scientific perspective. Rayy, Fustat, and Raqqa, for example, were initially mined extensively for ceramic finds for sale to museums and private collectors in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, a series of exhibitions devoted to carpets, metalwork, and ceramics spurred wider interest in Islamic art, and surveys of Islamic art and architecture began to appear. Sarre organized one of the most important such exhibitions in Munich in 1910.17 By then, as Thomas 16 Gabriele Teichmann and Gisela Völger, eds., Faszination Orient: Max von Oppenheim, Forscher, Sammler, Diplomat (Cologne: DuMont, 2001). 17 See Vernoit, “The Rise of Islamic Archaeology,” 2–10; Stephen Vernoit, “Islamic Art and Architecture. An Overview of Scholarship and Collecting,

ernst herzfeld and near eastern studies

11

Leisten reminds us here, the removal to Berlin of the Mshatta palace facade in 1904 had fueled debate about Islamic art and its origins, a controversy in which Herzfeld played a decisive role. Exploration, description, and documentation of surviving Umayyad and Abbasid palaces and other structures followed.18 Among these important contributions were the four volumes that Sarre and Herzfeld published on their travels in Syria and Iraq, a journey that Kröger reviews here. When the two scholars settled on the investigation of Samarra in 1911, they did not inaugurate the first “systematic” excavation of an Islamic site; that distinction apparently belongs to Russian activity at Samarqand launched in 1885.19 But Sarre and Herzfeld did pioneer the scientific survey and excavation of Islamic sites in the Near East as Alastair Northedge points out in his contribution. Their work at Samarra exercised considerable, and almost immediate, influence on subsequent excavations both within and outside the region.20 When Herzfeld entered the Near East in 1903 as a member of Walter Andrae’s expedition to Assur, he was to participate in a golden age of German research that lasted until World War I. Seen in a wider perspective, Herzfeld’s research was part of an enormous extension of German archaeological activity in the Ottoman Empire before World War I. In addition to the work underway before 1903, members of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft expeditions to c. 1850–c. 1950,” in Stephen Vernoit, ed., Discovering Islamic Art: Scholars, Collectors and Collections, 1850–1950 (London: I. B. Tauris, 2000), 19–20, 32. See also the thoughtful essay by J. M. Rogers, From Antiquarianism to Islamic Archaeology, Quaderni dell’Istituto italiano di cultura per la R.A.E., n.s., 2 (Cairo: Istituto italiano di cultura per la R.A.E., 1974), esp. 26–28, 46–61. 18 Key publications included Alois Musil, Kusejr 'Amra (Vienna: K. u. K Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1907); Louis Massignon, “Note sur le château d’al Okhaïdir,” CRAI (1909): 202–2; Max von Berchem et al., Amida: Matériaux pour l’épigraphie et l’histoire musulmanes du Diyar-bekr (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1910); Conrad Preusser, Nordmesopotamische Baudenkmäler altchristlicher und islamischer Zeit, WVDOG 17 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911); Oskar Reuther, Ocheïdir. Nach Aufnahmen der Babylon-Expedition der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, WVDOG 20 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1912); Walter Bachmann, Kirchen und Moscheen in Kurdistan und Armenien, WVDOG 25 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1913); Gertrude Bell, Palace and Mosque at Ukhaidir: A Study in Early Muhammadan Architecture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1914). 19 Rogers, From Antiquarianism to Islamic Archaeology, 51: “they were probably not systematic—the adjective is [V.V.] Bartol’d’s—but they did keep day books.” 20 Rogers, From Antiquarianism to Islamic Archaeology, 27, 58–60; Vernoit, “Rise of Islamic Archaeology.” For Ali Baghat’s work at Fustat, which the excavations at Samarra may have inspired, see Donald Malcolm Reid, Whose Pharaohs? Archaeology, Museums, and Egyptian National Identity from Napoleon to World War I (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press), esp. 255–57.

12

ann c. gunter and stefan r. hauser

Assur and Babylon took on a number of projects. During visits from Assur, Andrae and his team completed an architectural survey of Hatra, and large-scale excavations of this Arsacid- (Parthian-) period site were planned, although not carried out.21 More importantly, Julius Jordan began the first season of a long-term program at Uruk (Warka), Iraq’s largest pre-Islamic site, in 1912. Finally, from 1906 to 1913, the society supported excavations at Bo