These ruins, for which the name Chihil menáre or “the forty minarets” can be traced back to the 13th century, are now known as Takhti Jamshid, “the throne of Jamshid” (a mythical king). That they represent the Persepolis captured and partly destroyed by Alexander the Great has been beyond dispute, at least since the time of Pietro della Valle. Amongst the earlier scholars the fanciful notions of the Persians, who are utterly ignorant of the real history of their country before Alexander, often received too much attention; hence many of them were of opinion that the buildings were of much higher antiquity than the time of Cyrus; and even those who rightly regarded them as the works of the Achaemenians were unable to support their theory by conclusive evidence. The decipherment of the cuneiform Persian inscriptions found on the ruins and in the neighbourhood has put an end to all doubt on this point. We now read with absolute certainty that some of the edifices are the work of Darius I., Xerxes, and Artaxerxes III. (Ochus), and with equal certainty we may conclude that all the others were built under the Achaemenian dynasty.

Behind Takhti Jamshid are three sepulchres hewn out of the rock in the hillside, the façades, one of which is incomplete, being richly ornamented with reliefs. About 8 miles to the north-north-east, on the opposite side of the Pulwár, rises a perpendicular wall of rock, in which four similar tombs are cut, at a considerable height from the bottom of the valley. The modern Persians call this place Nakshi Rustam (“the picture of Rustam”) from the Sasanian reliefs beneath the opening, which they take to be a representation of the mythical hero Rustam. That the occupants of these seven tombs were kings might be inferred from the sculptures, and one of those at Nakshi Rustam is expressly declared in its inscription to be the tomb of the great Darius, concerning whom Ctesias relates that his grave was in the face of a rock, and could be reached only by means of an apparatus of ropes. Ctesias mentions further, with regard to a number of Persian kings, either that their remains were brought ∏.ρ<rας, “to the Persians,” or that they died there. Now we know that Cyrus was buried at Pasargadae, the modern Murgáb, two days’ journey north-east from Persepolis, s and if there is any truth in the statement that the body of Cambyses was brought home “to the Persians” his burying-place must be sought somewhere beside that of his father. In order to identify the graves of Persepolis we must bear in mind that Ctesias assumes that it was the custom for a king to prepare his own tomb during his lifetime. Hence the kings buried at Nakshi Rustam are probably, besides Darius, Xerxes I., Artaxerxes I., and Darius II. Xerxes II., who reigned for a very short time, could scarcely have obtained so splendid a monument, and still less could the usurper Sogdianus. The two completed graves behind Takhti Jamshid would then belong to Artaxerxes II. and Artaxerxes III. The unfinished one is perhaps that of Arses, who reigned at the longest two years, or, if not his, then that of Darius III. (Codomannus), who is one of those whose bodies are said to have been brought “to the Persians.”

Another small group of ruins in the same style is found at the village of Hájí ábád, on the Pulwár, a good hour’s walk above Takhti Jamshid. These formed a single building, which was still intact 900 years ago, and was used as the mosque of the then existing city of Istakhr. For there is no other place that can have answered to the description of the eminent geographer Makdisí, who was himself in this neighbourhood, when he says: “The chief mosque (jámiP) of Istakhr is situated beside the bazaars. It is built after the fashion of the principal mosques in Syria, with round pillars. On the top of each pillar is a cow. Formerly it is said to have been a fire-temple. The bazaars surround it on three sides” (p. 436).

In the time of its greatest prosperity the Persian metropolis must undoubtedly have covered a great part of the extremely fertile valley of the Pulwár. It is not at all necessary to suppose that its limits are determined by the two heaps of ruins. The great bulk of the houses would, of course, be built in the wretched manner which is all but universal in the East.

Since Cyrus was buried in Pasargadae, which moreover is mentioned in Ctesias as his own city, and since, to judge from the inscriptions, the buildings at Persepolis commenced with Darius I., it was probably under this king, with whom the sceptre passed to a new branch of the royal house, that Persepolis became the capital. At least it is probable that the great city, in the original home of the dynasty, with its lordly palaces and royal sepulchres, was theoretically considered the metropolis of the whole empire. But certainly, as a residence for the rulers of such extensive territories, a remote place in a difficult alpine region was far from convenient. The practical capitals were Susa, Babylon, and Ecbatana.

This, at the same time, accounts for the fact that the Greeks were not really acquainted with the city until it was taken by Alexander. Ctesias must certainly have known of it, and it is possible that he may have named it simply ∏φσαι, after the people, as is undoubtedly done by certain writers of a somewhat later date. But whether the city really bore the name of the people and the country is another question. And it is extremely hazardous to assume, with Sir H. Rawlinson and Oppert, that the words ana Pársá, “in this Persia,”which occur in an inscription on the gateway built by Xerxes (D. lin. 14), signify “in this city of Pársá,” and consequently prove that the name of the city is identical with the name of the country.

The name Persepolis appears to have been first used by Clitarchus, one of the earliest, but unfortunately one of the most imaginative annalists of the exploits of Alexander. The word was no doubt meant to allude to the “Persians,” but apparently he preferred this extraordinary form to the regular “Persopolis” for the sake of a play on the destruction (τr∈pσ-ιs) which he relates. Later writers have followed him in the use of the name Persepolis. For information about the capture and treatment of the city by Alexander we are almost entirely dependent on narratives which are based on Clitarchus, since Arrian unfortunately disposes of this episode in a very summary fashion. The course of events may be traced somewhat as follows.

Alexander, having crushed the resistance of the Persian army under Ariobarzanes at the “Persian Gates,” marched rapidly on the capital. Ariobarzanes had made his way thither with a few followers, but was refused admission by Tiridates, the commandant of the citadel, who had already commenced negotiations with Alexander, and at last surrendered the place with its immense treasures to the conqueror. In a subsequent battle Ariobarzanes was killed. Alexander then ordered a general massacre, and gave up the city to be plundered. In the citadel he placed a garrison of 3000 men under Nicarchides, and then caused the royal palaces to be set on fire,—certainly not in a drunken freak, but apparently with deliberate calculation on the effect it would produce on the minds of the Asiatics.

Now it has hitherto been universally admitted that “the palaces” or “the palace” (τα βaσlλeιd) burned down by Alexander are those now in ruins at Takhti Jamshid, as already described. From Stolze’s investigations it appears that at least one of these, the castle built by Xerxes, bears evident traces of having been destroyed by fire. The locality described by Diodorus after Clitarchus corresponds in important particulars with Takhti Jamshid, for example, in being supported by the mountain on the east. And, if there are other details, such as the triple wall, which it is difficult to reconcile with the existing state of things, we must bear in mind on the one hand the great destruction that must have been wrought in the course of thousands of years, and on the other that small inaccuracies are not to be wondered at in a writer like Clitarchus, who is constantly straining after effect. There is, however, one formidable difficulty. Diodorus says that the rock at the back of the palace containing the royal sepulchres rises so steep that the bodies could be raised to their last resting-place only by mechanical appliances. This is not true of the graves behind Takhti Jamshid, to which, as Stolze expressly observes, one can easily ride up; on the other hand, it is strictly true of the graves at Nakshi Rustam. Stolze has accordingly started the theory that the royal castle of Persepolis stood close by Nakshi Rustam, and has sunk in course of time to shapeless heaps of earth, under which the remains may be concealed. He and Andreas, our highest authorities on the topography of this district, consider this spot peculiarly adapted for the site of a citadel, while the water-supply would suffice for a numerous court-retinue and garrison, and for a royal residence with its palaces and gardens. Nevertheless -we are unable to adopt this suggestion. The vast ruins of Takhti Jamshid, and the terrace constructed with so much labour, appear to us of more importance than any number of doubts and conjectures. These remains can hardly be anything else than the ruins of palaces and the other belongings of a kingly residence; as for temples, the Persians had no such thing, at least in the time of Darius and Xerxes. And it can hardly be supposed that such solid structures were much more numerous in former times, and that these alone have survived owing to their peculiar situation on the terrace. For, in the first place, it is evident at a glance that the situation itself is of an exceptional kind. Moreover, Persian tradition at a very remote period knew of only three architectural wonders in that region, which it attributed to the fabulous queen Humái (Khumái)—the grave of Cyrus at Murgáb, the building at Hájí ábád, and those on the great terrace. It is safest therefore to identify these last with the royal palaces destroyed by Alexander. Clitarchus, who can scarcely have visited the place himself, has simply, with his usual recklessness of statement, confounded the tombs behind the palaces with those of Nakshi Rustam; indeed he appears to imagine that all the royal sepulchres were at the same place. It is possible, however, that the discrepancy originated with Diodorus, who often makes his extracts in a very perfunctory manner.

If it should prove that, after all, the terrace is not large enough to have contained the treasure-houses and the barracks of the garrison, in addition to the palaces, or that Alexander could not have set fire to the latter without endangering the former and the safety of the whole fortress, then we should have to assume that a separate citadel (άκρα) stood somewhere outside of the terrace with the palaces. There are many positions naturally adapted for defence in the vicinity. But, as far as yet appears, such an assumption is scarcely required. Of course we need not suppose that the number 3000 represents the actual strength of Alexander’s garrison; and we must consider that, when Darius, in the height of his power, laid out this place in the heart of his empire, he was thinking more of regal magnificence than of security. A high Avail and a guard of 200 men Avould suffice for the protection of the treasures at a time when battering engines Avere unknown.

In 316 b.c. Persepolis is still the capital of Persis as a province of the great Macedonian empire (see Diod., 19, 2λsq., 46; probably after Hieronymus of Cardia, who was living about 316). The city must have gradually declined in the course of time; but the ruins of the Achaemenians remained as a witness to its ancient glory.

It is probable that the principal town of the country, or at least of the district, Avas always in this neighbourhood. About 200 a.d. we find there the city Istakhr as the seat of the local governors. There the foundations of the second great Persian empire were laid, and once more there arose round the tombs of the Achaemenians Avhat was for centuries the theoretical metropolis of a great monarchy whose administrative capitals lay far to the west. Istakhr acquired special importance as the centre of priestly Avisdom and orthodoxy. In its most flourishing days it Avas probably as large as Persepolis had been, whose ruins undoubtedly furnished much of the material for its houses. The peaceable resident, intent on building his house or hut, has too often proved more destructive to ancient buildings than a foreign invader or even the disintegrating forces of nature. The Sasanian kings have covered the face of the rocks in this neighbourhood, and in part even the Achae-meniaι ruins, Avith their sculptures and inscriptions, and must themselves have built largely here, although never on the same scale of magnificence as their ancient predecessors. The Romans knew as little about Istakhr as the Greeks had done about Persepolis, and this in spite of the fact that for four hundred years they maintained relations, friendly or hostile, Avith the empire, Avhile their OAvn sway extended far into the heart of Asia. So remote is Persis!

At the time of the Arabian conquest Istakhr offered a desperate resistance, Avhich Avas reneAved again and again before the place was finally subdued. Blood flowed like Avater in these struggles for religion and liberty. Nevertheless the city was still a place of considerable importance in the first century of Islam, although its greatness was speedily eclipsed by the neAV metropolis Shiraz. In the 10th century Istakhr had become an utterly insignificant place, as may be seen from the descriptions of Istakhrí, a native (c. 950), and of Makdisí (c. 985). At this time the little tθAvn occupied approximately the site assigned to it on Flandin’s map, near the present village of Hájí ábád, surrounding the ruined structure of the Achaemenians, and principally on the left side of the stream. During the folloAving centuries Istakhr gradually declined, until, as a city, it ceased to exist. This fruitful region, hθAvever, was covered with villages till the frightful devastations of last century; and even noAv it is, comparatively speaking, Avell cultivated.

The “castle of Istakhr” played a conspicuous part several times during the Mohammedan period as a strong fortress. It was the middlemost and the highest of the three steep crags which rise from the valley of the Kur, at some distance to the west or north-Avest of Nakshi Rustam. We learn from Oriental Avriters that one of the Buwaihid sultans in the 10th century of the Flight constructed the great cisterns, which may yet be seen, and have been visited, amongst others, by James Morier and Flandin. Ouseley, who has extracted a vast amount of information from Persian authors about the ruins of Persepolis and about Istakhr, points out that this castle Avas still used in the 16th century, at least as a state prison. But when Della Valle was there in 1621 it Avas already in ruins.