# Plants as Symbols of Power in the Achaemenid Iconography of Ancient Persian Monuments
## 2 Material and Methods
### The Identification of Recurring Patterns and Related Plant Species  
Plant motifs were later categorized according to their similarities and repetition in different parts of motifs, mainly by following previous surveys [14; 15; 22; 24; 32; 40; 51]. In keeping with previous classifications of plant patterns, we divided elements into the following categories: the so-called rosettes (stylized flowers with petals arranged in a star shape); single flowers, fruits, or bunches; palms and trees; parts of herbaceous plants; and metamorphic elements. Following the methodology for the identification of plants that we adopted in past studies in a similar artistic context [11; 12], we considered several morphological data regarding the plant elements, such as structural features (size, plant architecture, and habitus, i.e., herbaceous, arboreous, or climbing), and since often only single parts of plants are shown, at least one of the following elements: the shapes and general structure of leaves (oval, truncate, elliptical, lanceolate, and linear; simple or compound, edges, and margins; and their arrangements on the stem) and the overall morphology of the flowers (number of petals, color, and symmetry), of infloresances or their parts (e.g., ligulae of capitula), and of the fruits (typology, shape, size, and symmetry) or of other reproductive structures (e.g., the shape and size of cones, in the case of Gymnosperms). Considering the attention to detail paid by the ancients in their depictions of nature [35], we also decided to take certain smaller elements into consideration, such as the ligulae and bracts in the inflorescences or the sepals in fruiting structures. Data were also compared with botanical atlases and online databases of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern flora (Acta Plantarum ([[https://www.actaplantarum.org](https://www.actaplantarum.org)]([https://www.actaplantarum.org](https://www.actaplantarum.org)), accessed on 20 September 2023); Dryades Home ([[https://dryades.units.it](https://dryades.units.it)]([https://dryades.units.it](https://dryades.units.it)), accessed on 20 September 2023); Kew Royal Botanical Garden ([[https://powo.science.kew.org](https://powo.science.kew.org)]([https://powo.science.kew.org](https://powo.science.kew.org)), accessed on 20 September 2023); Global Biodiversity Information Facility ([[https://www.gbif.org](https://www.gbif.org)]([https://www.gbif.org](https://www.gbif.org)), accessed on 20 September 2023); The World Flora Online ([[https://www.worldforaonline.org](https://www.worldforaonline.org)]([https://www.worldforaonline.org](https://www.worldforaonline.org)), accessed on 20 September 2023); and Tela Botanica ([[https://www.tela-botanica.org](https://www.tela-botanica.org)]([https://www.tela-botanica.org](https://www.tela-botanica.org)), accessed on 20 September 2023). These morphological data were then compared with taxa compatible with the geographical area in question, as well as Egypt, Mesopotamia, and other surrounding areas of the Middle East. The dataset for such information was developed by [PERSON] [52], [PERSON] [53], [PERSON] et al. [54], [PERSON] [55], and [PERSON] et al. [56].  
When uncertainties about morphological details made precise taxonomical identification difficult, we also considered the uses of morphologically compatible plants in ancient traditions, like medicine and rituals [50], as well as their most common symbolic attributes, but the analysis of such cases is conducted in the Discussion Section.