On 1 April 2022, the Getty Villa Museum in Los Angeles announced an exhibition showcasing ancient cultures from around the world, including ancient Iran, to be held from 6 April to 8 August 2022 [1]. This initiative is undoubtedly commendable, as it introduces ancient Iranian history to a broader American audience. Moreover, it serves as a reminder to foreign observers that the current regime in Tehran, a totalitarian theocracy, does not represent the Iranian nation.

 

However, the Iranian media’s attention surrounding the exhibition has focused less on its cultural significance and more on the display of an Akinakes, on loan from The Wyvern Collection, which has been attributed to Artaxerxes I, the fifth King of Kings of the Achaemenid Empire. This revelation has been widely disseminated within Iran and has sparked notable excitement among Iranians.

 

Reports regarding the unveiling of the sword of Artaxerxes I by state-controlled media outlets within Iran have cited Dr Touraj Daryaee as the source of this information. Dr Daryaee himself generated interest in the event by sharing a photograph on his Instagram page, stating:

'Details of the dagger (sword) of Artaxerxes I, unveiled at the Getty Villa Museum in Los Angeles. The photographs were provided to me through the courtesy of my poet and artist friend, Kourosh Beigpour' [2].

 

To begin, it must be stated that this item is not a sword but rather a ‘Median Blade’[[3]], which the Achaemenids likely referred to as an Akinaka (the root of the Greek word Akinakes, a dagger-like sword also known as a ‘Scythian sword’).

 

Secondly, contrary to the claims made by the Getty Museum, Dr Daryaee, and subsequent media coverage, the artefact possesses neither historical antiquity nor scholarly value, it is nothing more than a crude modern forgery, showcased with possible deliberate and twisted ulterior motives.

 

 

Why is this Akinaka (Median Blade) a Forgery?

For experts in the Iranian art of the Achaemenid dynastic era, the counterfeit nature of this artefact is evident at first glance, even without examining the comically inscribed cuneiform text on the reverse of the scabbard, which is illegible, incorrect, and nonsensical. However, for those unfamiliar with Achaemenid art, the following points highlight its fraudulent nature:

 

1. A defining characteristic of Achaemenid art, despite its complexity and intricacy, is its distinctive simplicity and elegance, a principle akin to 'less is more.' The artistic approach prioritised minimalism to achieve an effective visual or aesthetic impact. However, the designs and decorations on the scabbard of this so-called ‘Achaemenid sword’ are entirely inconsistent with Achaemenid artistic principles, lacking the simplicity and elegance that characterise genuine Achaemenid craftsmanship. Instead, it is excessively ornate, exposing the forger’s desperate attempt to cram in as many Achaemenid artistic elements as possible, even inventing entirely new ones absent from Achaemenid art, to fabricate an illusion of authenticity and dupe unsuspecting buyers.

 

A comparison between this alleged Akinaka and two authentic examples, a genuine Akinaka from the Oxus Treasure, now housed in the British Museum, and the depiction of an Akinaka on the stone reliefs of Persepolis, immediately exposes the forgery.

​

 

2. Achaemenid metalwork, in addition to its characteristic delicacy, sought to render its artistic depictions as naturalistic as possible, even when representing mythological or legendary subjects. This fundamental artistic trait is absent in both the Akinaka’s hilt and its scabbard. Furthermore, the craftsmanship of the scabbard is notably poor, bearing a striking resemblance to contemporary Isfahan-style metal engraving used for crafting copper souvenirs aimed at tourists. (This can be verified through comparison with the authentic Akinaka referenced above.)

 

3. The forger, evidently unfamiliar with Achaemenid art, has committed several glaring errors in their design:

 

3.1. The 'falcon with a circle above its head and two orbs in its talons' motif, originally found on a small tile (12.5 cm) discovered by the late Ali Sami at Persepolis, is unique to this specific find and is not observed elsewhere. Contrary to popular belief, this motif does not represent an Achaemenid banner but is actually an Egyptian symbol known as 'Her' (Horus), the falcon deity associated with kingship and the sky. Thus, it is not an Iranian design and should not appear on an Achaemenid scabbard at all, especially not on an Akinaka allegedly belonging to Achaemenid emperor Artaxerxes I, the supreme sovereign of the world’s single superpower, fabricated with such substandard craftsmanship.

 

​

 

3.2. The forger has exaggerated features, combining the motifs of the ‘Homa’ bird and the winged lion in an amateurish manner, producing an unprecedented motif that does not even exist in Achaemenid art. Notably, Achaemenid artistic motifs carried specific symbolic meanings and were not randomly assembled.

 

​

 

3.3. Once again, the forger has merged two unrelated Achaemenid motifs, creating a new hybrid creature, a winged man with a long goat-like beard and ibex horns. This motif, again, is not found in Achaemenid art or any other ancient artistic tradition.

 

​

 

4. It has been claimed that the Akinaka’s blade was made of iron but has corroded beyond recognition. However, the forger, due to their historical ignorance, overlooked a critical detail: ceremonial Akinaka made for the Achaemenid Imperial court were not constructed for combat but rather for ceremonial purposes, and they were fashioned entirely from gold. An example of such a sword, discovered in the city of Hamadan and now housed at the Tehran National Museum, serves as a comparison.

​

 

Therefore, attributing this fake Akinaka, even if genuine, to King of Kings Artaxerxes I is untenable. Yet, genuine Akinakas with iron blades do exist; these were functional weapons, often gold-plated and crafted for high-ranking officers or satraps. However, it is evident that the forger copied the hilt of this piece from a 5th-century BCE Achaemenid Akinaka, discovered by Ivan Yegorovich Zabelin in 1863 on the banks of the lower Dnieper River near Nikopol (formerly part of the USSR, now Ukraine). This artefact is now housed at the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg. The Akinaka in question (see image below) shows that it once had an iron blade, most of which has corroded. However, the forger failed to realise that the remnants of the iron blade were not an original part of the Akinaka but were added to the hilt as a replacement by a Scythian king in the 4th century BCE [5]. Originally, the Akinaka likely had either a golden or silver blade, which was separated after the invasion of Achaemenid Iran by the Macedonian warlord Alexander III, who later sent it as a gift to a Scythian king [6].

 

​

 

 

5. The cuneiform inscription on the reverse of the scabbard is illegible, incorrect, and devoid of meaning. It appears that the forger clumsily copied from a small Egyptian stone vase dating to the reign of Artaxerxes I, which is currently housed in the Alireza Abbasi Museum [4]. However, the forger failed to realise that the three lines of script above the Egyptian hieroglyphs on the vase correspond to three different ancient scripts: Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian. In this case, the forger has unintelligently merged these three scripts, arbitrarily adding fabricated characters with absurd spacing.

 

​

 

Now the fundamental question remains: while it is conceivable that a private collection like The Wyvern Collection might fall victim to unscrupulous dealers peddling forgeries, how could the officials and curators at the Getty Museum, an institution with access to unparalleled expertise, also be deceived? Are they truly so credulous as to mistake this for a genuine artefact, or is there a more calculated, ulterior motive at play?

 

 

Why Has the Museum Displayed a Counterfeit Artefact?

While the Getty Museum may not conduct authenticity tests on the item in question due to its status as a loan from The Wyvern Collection, its curators possess more than enough expertise to identify a forgery. This is especially true given that, unlike many sophisticated forgeries, this piece is of remarkably poor quality.

 

In short, while the forger, far from a master craftsman, might deceive unscrupulous collectors indifferent to provenance, the notion that experts at an American museum could be so easily duped is implausible.

 

For instance, the photograph on the right depicts the upper section of a scabbard that an Afghan dealer claimed in 2007 to be an Achaemenid artefact, unearthed near the city of Balkh. Unlike the present piece, which blatantly proclaims its fraudulent nature, that item was skilfully forged. However, due to certain striking errors in the die-striking process, this author identified and declared it a forgery, and a friend of mine, Dr St John Simpson, curator in the Department of the Ancient Middle East, confirmed the suspicion. Yet, at that time, the dealer claimed a gallery in London had purchased it for an exorbitant price and subsequently sold it to a museum.

 

Secondly, the Getty Villa Museum has a close affiliation with the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, whose experts undoubtedly informed the Getty Museum officials about the forgery nature of this artefact.

 

Therefore, this author contends that the museum officials were fully aware of the artefact’s counterfeit nature, implying an underlying agenda.

 

Two plausible scenarios emerge. First, the display may be tied to the current political tensions between the Islamic regime and Israel. The museum’s exaggerated emphasis on Artaxerxes I’s supposed benevolence toward Jews, alongside Israeli efforts to secure historical legitimacy, makes this connection impossible to ignore [5].

 

Second, the motive may be financial: The Wyvern Collection, having discovered it purchased a forgery, may have sought to recoup its losses by authenticating the artefact with the Getty Museum’s help. Once a forgery is showcased by a reputable institution and supported by academic publications, its authenticity is seldom questioned, a classic case of the 'Emperor’s New Clothes.'

 

A third possibility is that the experts at both the Getty Museum and The Wyvern Collection were equally gullible, failing to identify the artefact as a crude forgery.  Regardless, the implications are far-reaching.

 

 

 

Broader Implications

The display of a forged artefact in a prestigious institution like the Getty Villa Museum raises notable questions about the broader implications for cultural heritage, public trust, and the ethical responsibilities of museums. When museums exhibit objects of dubious authenticity, they risk undermining their role as custodians of history and culture. The public places immense trust in these institutions to provide accurate and well-researched representations of the past. A failure to verify the authenticity of artefacts, particularly those with high-profile claims, can erode this trust and damage the museum's credibility.

 

Moreover, the ethical responsibilities of museums extend beyond mere authentication. They are tasked with preserving and interpreting cultural heritage in a manner that respects the historical and cultural contexts of the artefacts they display. Exhibiting a forgery not only misrepresents history but also disrespects the cultures and civilisations being portrayed. In this case, the misattribution of the so-called 'Median Blade' to Artaxerxes I distorts the legacy of the Achaemenid Empire and misleads audiences about its artistic and cultural achievements.

 

The incident also highlights the challenges museums face in an era where forgeries are becoming increasingly sophisticated. While some forgeries are easily identifiable, others require extensive expertise and advanced scientific techniques to detect. This raises questions about the resources and expertise available to museums, particularly when dealing with artefacts from lesser-studied cultures or periods. Institutions must balance the desire to showcase rare and unique items with the need to ensure their authenticity, a task that requires collaboration with scholars, scientists, and cultural experts.

 

Finally, the potential political motivations behind the display of this forgery cannot be ignored. Museums are not immune to external pressures, whether from donors, governments, or other stakeholders. The decision to exhibit an artefact with questionable provenance and authenticity may reflect broader geopolitical agendas, such as the desire to reinforce certain historical narratives or legitimise contemporary political claims. This underscores the need for transparency and accountability in museum practices, ensuring that exhibitions are guided by scholarly integrity rather than external influences.

 

 

Conclusion

The unveiling of the so-called Akinaka attributed to King of Kings Artaxerxes I at the Getty Villa Museum is not merely an error in judgment, it is a failure of scholarly integrity and institutional responsibility. The artefact, a poorly executed forgery, has no place in a reputable museum, let alone one with access to the expertise of institutions like the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago. The decision to display this counterfeit piece, whether due to oversight, negligence, or ulterior motives, undermines the museum’s credibility and disrespects the legacy of the Achaemenid Empire.

 

Moreover, showcasing a fake artefact of such poor quality, from its substandard craftsmanship to its historically inaccurate motifs, constitutes an attack on Iranian cultural heritage. It perpetuates a damaging narrative that portrays ancient Iranians as lacking skill and sophistication, reinforcing regrettable Eurocentric mentalities that some Western museums and cultural institutions continue to propagate [6]. This not only misrepresents the rich artistic and cultural achievements of ancient Iran but also perpetuates a biased and reductive view of non-Western civilisations.

 

This incident serves as a stark reminder of the ethical obligations museums bear as custodians of cultural heritage. By prioritising spectacle over authenticity, the Getty Villa Museum has not only misled the public but also betrayed the trust placed in it by scholars and audiences alike. Moving forward, it is imperative that cultural institutions uphold the highest standards of scrutiny and transparency, ensuring that their exhibitions reflect historical truth rather than political, financial, or ideological interests. Only then can they fulfil their mission as guardians of our shared past.

 

 

Notes and References:

1. Exhibition Persia: Ancient Iran and the Classical World, https://www.getty.edu/news/persia-ancient-iran-and-the-classical-world-at-the-getty-villa-museum/

 

2. شمشیر اردشیر یکم هخامنشی, http://www.ensafnews.com/338708/شمشیر-اردشیر-یکم-هخامنشی/

 

3. For more information regarding the 'Median Blade' or Akinaka, refer to (in Persian): Malekzadeh, M. (2002) “The Median Blade in the Scabbards of the Warriors of Sialk”, in Archaeology and History Journal, Year 17, Issue 33. Available at: [https://bit.ly/3rgQNGX].

 

4. https://antiquitebnf.hypotheses.org/11185

 

5, The Jews believe that Artaxerxes I was a supporter and benefactor of the Jewish people, and perhaps by endorsing this view, the museum officials seek to confer historical legitimacy upon them. The Jewish faith, akin to other Semitic religions such as Christianity and Islam, is an artificial and fabricated construct. It was created during the reign of Darius the Great by the Persians through the synthesis of Sumerian and Babylonian mythology with Zoroastrian cosmology. The claim that Judaism possesses a history spanning several millennia is nothing more than historical revisionism. For a comprehensive academic study on this subject, refer to: Magee, M. D. (2000) 'Persian and Creation of Judaism', in the Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS). Available at: [https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/non-iranian/Judaism/Persian_Judaism/Persia_created_judaism.htm]

 

6, Suren-Pahlav, S. (2013) The Omission of the Title 'The Great' from 'Cyrus the Great' by Eurocentrists, Iranophobes, and Traitors. Available at: [https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/the-omission-of-the-title-the-great-from-cyrus-the-great-name.html]