Mendeley  

Zotero  

Alebouyeh Z, Rahimzadeh M, Zare L, Mahmoodi Bakhtiari B. (2026). Architectural Borrowings in Achaemenid Architecture from Urartian and Median Traditions: A Linguistic Perspective. Athar. 46(111), 79-113. doi:10.61882/Athar.1908.136.1
URL: http://athar.richt.ir/article-2-1908-en.html

Abstract
Cultures interact under the influence of geographical, political, economic, and ideological factors. These cultural interconnections lead to mutual exchanges and the borrowing of elements across cultures. Language and architecture are among the most significant cultural manifestations that clearly reflect these exchanges. While extensive and systematic studies exist on linguistic borrowings, this phenomenon has been less thoroughly examined in architecture. Linguistic approaches can provide valuable insights into both the conceptual framework and methodology for studying architectural borrowings. This research adopts a linguistic perspective to investigate Achaemenid architectural borrowings from Urartian and Median traditions, aiming to address the question: What structural correspondences exist between Achaemenid linguistic and architectural borrowings? By investigating linguistic borrowings in Old Persian from Urartian and Median linguistic traditions and juxtaposing them with the elements adopted by Achaemenid architecture from these cultures, this article seeks to open a new window toward a deeper understanding of Iranian architecture. The research methodology is qualitative and fundamental, employing a historical-comparative approach. Data have been analyzed using a descriptive-comparative method within the framework of a structural analogy between language and architecture. The findings indicate that common patterns exist between the Persian language and Iranian architecture regarding the levels of borrowing from other cultures: the stability of deep cultural layers (syntactic structure in language and spatial organization in architecture), borrowing from surface layers (lexicon and expressive forms in language; articulation and ornamentation in architecture), and the adaptation of borrowed elements to internal structures. Based on the findings, known borrowings in both realms are predominantly limited to the most superficial elements. Achaemenid architecture, in particular, rarely borrowed structural systems or spatial organization from Urartian and Median cultures. Furthermore, both cultural systems re-created borrowed elements in a distinctive manner, adapted to their own internal structures.
Keywords: Architectural Borrowings, Achaemenids, Urartu, Media, Linguistic Borrowings.

Introduction
Cultures encounter one another for various reasons and in diverse forms, leading to the mutual introduction of cultural elements. In this process, a culture may occasionally borrow elements from another. Borrowing, as a manifestation of cultural interaction, encompasses many cultural domains and occurs particularly—though not exclusively—when one culture is perceived as possessing greater richness or complexity, which subsequently draws attention within another cultural context. Language serves as a comprehensive mirror of a society’s culture and is thus the paramount cultural manifestation reflecting these exchanges. A language’s lexicon represents a collective repository of a society’s ideas, interests, and conceptual preoccupations (Sharifian, 2017: 136). Architecture likewise represents a highly significant cultural manifestation through which the cultural relations and interactions shaping human life find expression (Rapoport, 2003).
Situated at the crossroads between the East and the West, Iran has historically maintained deep, extensive, and diverse relations with a wide range of cultures, including those geographically distant. Consequently, traces of borrowing are evident across numerous manifestations of Iranian culture, much as Iranian cultural influences are discernible within the traditions of related civilizations.
The history of Iranian languages is conventionally divided into three main periods: Old Iranian, Middle Iranian, and New Iranian.  The most notable languages of the Old Iranian period include Avestan, Old Persian, Median, and Scythian. During the Middle Iranian period, the primary attested languages are Parthian (Pahlawānīg), Middle Persian (Pārsīg), Sogdian, Bactrian, and Khwarezmian; in the New Iranian period, the most prominent language is New Persian. Specifically, Old Persian was the official language of the Achaemenid Empire, Parthian served in the Arsacid Empire, and Middle Persian was the administrative and literary language of the Sassanid Empire (Natel-Khanlari, 1986: 337). Consequently, Persian—through its different historical stages—has functioned as the main literary and administrative language of Iran from the Achaemenid period to the post-Islamic era.
Focusing on the Ancient period, this article seeks to answer the question: which linguistic and architectural elements did the Achaemenids borrow in their interactions with diverse cultures, and what correspondences exist between the patterns of linguistic and architectural borrowing? The scope of this research encompasses the investigation of Achaemenid borrowings from Urartian and Median cultures within the dual realms of ‘Old Persian language’ and ‘architecture.’ Due to the complexity and non-codified nature of historical data, providing a precise and comprehensive analysis of architectural borrowings is not a straightforward task. Therefore, rather than attempting to compile a definitive catalog of these borrowings, this paper aims to elucidate the correspondences between linguistic and architectural borrowing patterns. The research adopts a comparative approach, seeking to reach a deeper understanding of the cultural dimensions of Achaemenid architecture during the Old Iranian period. While the authors do not claim a causal relationship between linguistic and architectural borrowings, this comparative perspective can facilitate a more profound understanding of Iranian architecture.

Analysis and Interpretation of Findings
The theoretical framework of this research, drawing on a structural analogy between language and architecture, posits architecture as a system of components that—much like language—reflects socio-cultural meanings through its internal relationships. Within this framework, the structural levels of language (phoneme, morpheme, word, and syntax) are considered correspondent to the levels of architecture (construction material and ornamentation, spatial element, spatial unit, and spatial organization). This conceptual alignment enables a systematic analysis of Achaemenid cultural borrowings from the Urartian and Median traditions. 
The findings indicate that in neither domain is there credible evidence of direct borrowing from Urartu or Media at the level of “syntactic structure” or “spatial organization,” testifying to a cultural resistance against deep structural changes. However, at the level of independent meaningful units—equivalent to the “word” in language and the “spatial unit” in architecture—a prominent qualitative difference between borrowings from Urartu and Media emerges.
The Achaemenids borrowed fundamental meaningful units from the Medes that expressed key cultural and political concepts: in language, terms such as xšaθra- (kingship) and farnah- (divine glory); and in architecture, the columned hall as the primary spatial unit for ritual and courtly ceremonies. In contrast, from Urartu, units such as the tower-shaped temple and the rock-cut tomb were adopted, though no verifiable loanwords from Urartian have been identified at this specific level. At the level of basic constitutive components—corresponding to the “morpheme” and “spatial element”—the terrace or artificial platform (soffe) was adopted from Urartu, possessing both functional and symbolic dimensions. On the other hand, the column was borrowed from the Medes as both a structural and symbolic element; by introducing composite animal-promotes capital, the Achaemenids transformed it into an integral part of the empire’s visual language.
At the outermost layer—corresponding to expressive forms in language and articulation and ornamentation in architecture—extensive borrowings occurred. From Urartu, blind windows, tradition of inscriptions on stone and column bases were adopted, alongside linguistic Form and structure of inscriptions. From Media, architectural ornamentation elements such as stepped niches, crenellated parapets, and twin-volutes were borrowed, while in language, syntactic calquing was utilized in titles such as “King of Kings.” 
Furthermore, architecture, much like language, adapts and re-creates borrowed elements through indigenous mechanisms. For instance, the Urartian ‘artificial terrace’–which in its Urartian context was primarily a response to functional and defensive requirements–assumed more prominent symbolic and ceremonial dimensions within Achaemenid architecture. While retaining its initial functional aspects, it evolved through regular and precise geometry into a potent symbol of the empire’s power and grandeur. In the tower temples, although the square plan with corner buttresses was adapted from Urartu, the Achaemenids transformed its function from a temple of the god Haldi into a ritual-ceremonial building. This was achieved by changing the construction material from mud-brick to stone, reducing dimensions, and adding rectangular recesses. Similarly, the rock-cut tomb shifted its spatial organization from a centralized structure to a linear structure, with the simple Urartian facade elevated to a cruciform design. In epigraphy, although literary formulas were adopted, they were aligned with a discourse centered on Ahuramazda, Truth, and Justice, replacing traditional curses with benevolent prayers.
The Median columned hall serves as the quintessential example of this transformation. The Achaemenids elevated the local model to a global stage: a hall at Godin Tepe (18 × 24 meters) was transformed into an Apadana (58 × 58 meters). This shift was accompanied by a fundamental revolution in spatial organization, evolving from a 6 × 5 column pattern into a 6 × 6 layout with perfect axial symmetry. By replacing mud-brick with stone and timber, they established a fertile ground for a sophisticated visual language, where rudimentary Median elements gave way to an integrated system of ornate bases, composite capitals, and bas-reliefs. Collectively, this structural analogy proves that both systems utilized similar mechanisms of assimilation. This process of adaptation testifies to the dynamism and high absorptive capacity of Persian culture, reflecting a profound understanding of the symbolic and functional capacities of these borrowed elements.

Conclusion
Adopting a comparative approach based on a structural analogy between language and architecture, this research investigated Achaemenid borrowings from the Urartian and Median traditions. The findings reveal that common patterns exist between the Persian language and Iranian architecture regarding the hierarchical levels of cultural borrowing: the stability of deep cultural layers (syntactic structure in language and spatial organization in architecture), borrowing from surface layers (lexicon and expressive forms in language; articulation and ornamentation in architecture), and the adaptation of borrowed elements to internal structures. Within the analytical framework of this research, borrowing at the levels of spatial organization and syntactic structure occurred significantly less frequently, indicating a clear cultural resistance to deep structural changes. Conversely, borrowing was more extensive at the levels of articulation and ornamentation in architecture, and expressive forms in language. This pattern confirms that in architecture, as in language, less stable elements are borrowed more readily and frequently. Furthermore, borrowed elements were uniquely adapted and re-created to align with the internal structures of Achaemenid culture. A substantive difference in the nature of borrowings from Urartu and Media also emerged: from the Medes, fundamental meaningful units were adopted, both as key governmental lexicon and in the form of the columned hall as a spatial unit. In contrast, borrowings from Urartu primarily consisted of forms, techniques, and templates, such as the epigraphic tradition, the plan of tower temples, and the concept of rock-cut tombs. This comparative research demonstrates that Achaemenid architecture, much like the Old Persian language, possessed a high capacity for absorbing and re-creating cultural elements. Both cultural systems employed similar mechanisms to adapt appropriated elements to their own internal principles and characteristics. Despite the contributions of this research, certain limitations remain, including the scarcity of linguistic data for Median and Urartian, as well as the need for further archaeological investigations at Urartian and Median sites. The proposed analytical framework may be extended in future research to other periods of Iranian history and to the cultural interactions of additional civilizations. This research thus represents a step toward formulating a new approach to understanding processes of cultural transmission in ancient Iran.