Iran has been a center of continuous civilization for 2,500 years, with massive empires for about 1,000 years from the Achaemenid to the Parthian and Sassanid eras. Persian cities in their heyday were just as grand as any Greek city, so why is classical Hellenic architecture so well-known and ancient Persian architecture not? Why is there so little left of Ctesiphon, or Pasargadae, or Persepolis (or other great cities)?
Or is my premise wrong, and just a product of Western culture being more interested in Greece and Rome than the Persian world?
Oh geez, lemme see if I can give these poor mods a break. xD They work hard for you guys!
The time period is a little outside my area of expertise, but thankfully, I was able to consult my good friend Dr. Khodadad Rezakhani, an excellent authority on ancient Iran (find him on Twitter as @ SasanianShah), who pointed me in the right direction - and ironically right back to my area of expertise!
The short answer is that classical Greek architecture is better known and in better shape for the same reason: “they have been rebuilt by German and English enthusiast historians in the 19th century.” (Thanks Dr. Rezakhani!) Like the Great Wall, much of what is considered ancient is actually of more recent vintage. From my own research, I can add that the modern Greek state was also heavily invested in this project from its creation in 1830. Of course, Persian nationalism was also a force in the 19th and 20th centuries, my answer will also try to explain why this did not happen in modern Iran.
There were a number of factors that led to the revival and restoration of classical Greek architecture in the 19th and 20th centuries. European interest in Greek learning and philosophy was greatly increased by the Enlightenment, but actual knowledge of Greek history was almost non-existent up until the 18th century. British archaeologists like Nicholas Revett and James Stuart pioneered the first surveys of Athens and other Greek archeological sites in the 1750s, and interest grew considerably after the Kingdom of Greece was officially established in 1832, which made travel far more accessible to Europeans than it was under the Ottomans. The “Rediscovery of Greece” led to large numbers of tourists and archaeologists to travel to Greece throughout the late 18ths and early 19th centuries, as well as the Greek Revival architectural style.
The new Greek state was also invested in this project. I can quote Fani Mallouchou-Tufano, Professor of Archaeology at the Technical University of Crete, from an article in the journal Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites:
With the creation of the new Greek state in 1830, the question of restoring its monuments surfaced immediately. In Greece, as in all the emerging European states, protection and display of the ancestral monumental heritage was directly connected with the ideological demands of the newly created state informing its national identity. As is well known, the forging of modern Greek identity rested chiefly on displaying the ancient Greek assets of the newly created state. Within that framework, the restoration of classical monuments, which furnished in a direct and tangible way some sort of image of the ancient world, was advanced very early indeed with the restoration of the temple of Athena Nike on the Acropolis in 1835–6. This was the first restoration in Europe of a ‘classical’ monument, in the literal sense of the term.
As Professor Mallouchou-Tufano points out, this project was explicitly political and tied to support from European academic institutions, especially Britain and Germany, which had the most prominent academic institutions at the time. “[A]s early as the middle of the 18th century advancing Europe had claimed Greek antiquity as its own inheritance, expression and vision. In essence, it was through this perception that Europe recognized the modern Greek state.”
From 1835 to the present, there have been countless restorations carried out on Greek monuments, often with international backing. This includes the Acropolis, the Parthenon, the Sanctuary of Artemis, and dozens more. By the 1930s, restoration projects “were now underway throughout Greece, resulting in the creation of archaeological landscapes as foci of attraction for tourists and spaces for mass cultural events” and “archaeological sites as the constituents of organized touristic journeys and pilgrimages.” This continues to this day: the modern restoration of the Acropolis, for example, recently caused controversy over its lack of accessibility for people with disabilities and planned aesthetic changes.
In Iran, many similar impulses were at work. Persian nationalism was a major force in the late 19th and early 20th century Constitutional Revolution in Iran, and was the driving force of the state from the 1920s until 1979, under the Pahlavi dynasty. But while the Qajar dynasty, which ruled Iran from 1789 to 1925, did draw on ancient Persian influences, it also justified itself in Shi’a Islamic terms. For many religious Iranians, although Persian literature and festivals like Nowruz were an important part of their lives, Islam had just as much, if not more potent political meaning than references to the Achaemenids or other ancient dynasties. Furthermore, while the Pahlavi Dynasty and many secular Persian nationalists very self-consciously associated themselves with this history, it was not always effective when wielded by the state. When Mohammad Reza Pahlavi tried to tie his dynasty to the imperial past with a celebration of “2500 years of imperial rule” with a military parade through Persepolis, complete with ancient symbols of Persian kingship and the imperial past, many Iranian viewers found it distasteful for its extravagance and far removed from their every day lives. Khomeini criticized it as a “Devil’s Festival” and many secular nationalists, already opposed to the Shah and despotism in general, equally resented his appropriations of the symbols of Persian cultural heritage that they valued, and criticized the money spent at a time when much of the country was still impoverished and underdeveloped. Robert Steele summarizes the criticisms as: "A lot of money was spent, the celebrations promoted a national discourse that was seen as hubristic and denigrating to Islam, there was a police crackdown in the months prior, and ordinary Iranians were absent from some of the main events."
More importantly, restoring monuments simply wasn’t a priority for either the Qajars or the Pahlavis, whether they were inclined to or not. The Qajars were notoriously cash-strapped and barely able to fund their own efforts at modernization to “catch up” with Europe, and the Pahlavi dynasty was largely focused on its own major modernization projects. Corruption, the need to keep various factions in line, and the extortions and concessions that characterized Russian and British imperialism also siphoned off cash that could have otherwise been used for such projects. Without the support of European archaeologists, and with a nationalist project more focused on economic development and adopting European ideas and habits than the restoration of the imperial past (which in any case did not resonate with the population the same way it did in Greece), the situation in Iran did not permit for the same flurry of restoration and tourist interest. The World Wars and the imperial rivalries of Britain and Russia also made access to Iran for Europeans more difficult and dangerous than access to Greece.
So, in conclusion, Greek architecture is better known and better preserved because of a number of political and economic factors in the 19th and 20th centuries – including the priorities of the Greek and Iranian state, budgetary realities, access for travelers ands tourists, and the specific interests and sympathies of European orientalists, which leaned heavily towards Greece – led to the restoration of many more Greek monuments than Persian ones. Today, the Iranian state is hard at work trying to attract interest and capital to restore the monuments remaining in the country. Just to give one example, Pasargadae had it’s first restoration project set up in 2001, and was declared a UNESCO site in 2004. Persepolis was “temporarily restored” with concrete in 2020 to prevent further damage from weather, as a full restoration attempt could not be made due to coronavirus.
Further Reading:
Most of the information about Greece in this thread, as well as the images of historical restorations, are from this excellent article:
Mallouchou-Tufano, Fani. "The restoration of classical monuments in modern Greece: historic precedents, modern trends, peculiarities." Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites
see also
Tsigakou, Fani-Maria. Rediscovery of Greece: Travellers and Painters of the Romantic Era
Steele, Robert. The Shah’s Imperial Celebrations of 1971: Nationalism, Culture and Politics in Late Pahlavi Iran.
The original question prompted some collateral thoughts:
*was there an appreciable difference in the quality of stone(marble always?) used in the construction of monumental buildings/statuary in Ancient Greece/Rome/Persia?
*would the larger prevalence of sand in Persia, getting whipped around by the winds for centuries, not have contributed to greater wear and tear?
Hello everyone,
If you are a first time visitor, welcome! This thread is trending high right now and getting a lot of attention, but it is important to remember those upvotes represent interest in the question itself, and it can often take time for a good answer to be written. The mission of /r/AskHistorians is to provide users with in-depth and comprehensive responses, and our rules are intended to facilitate that purpose. We remove comments which don't follow them for reasons including unfounded speculation, shallowness, and of course, inaccuracy. Making comments asking about the removed comments simply compounds this issue. So please, before you try your hand at posting, check out the rules, as we don't want to have to warn you further.
Of course, we know that it can be frustrating to come in here from your frontpage or /r/all and see only [removed], but we thank you for your patience. If you want to be reminded to come check back later, or simply find other great content to read while you wait, this thread provides a guide to a number of ways to do so, including the RemindMeBot- [Click Here to Subscribe](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/nq7gze/why_are_greekroman_ruins_so_much_better_preserved/ RemindMe!++2+days) - or our Twitter.
Finally, while we always appreciate feedback, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with META conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread. Thank you!
