An Iranian archeologist and expert on the Achaemenid era has called the Hollywood film 300 racist and hostile towards historical realities.

In an opinion piece published on the Cultural Heritage News Agency website, Professor Shahrokh Razmju accused the film's producers of fabricating history and insulting Iranian culture.

He went as far as to suggest that they should be sued in court for charges of racism.

A digest of Razmju's website commentary appears below:

The movie (300) is a degrading portrayal of ancient Persians. The film tries to portray them as a monstrous and hostile people. It is not the first time Hollywood has created a portrayal that offends Iranians, and the film must be countered accordingly. Iranian lawyers should be called on to present a lawsuit to UNESCO and other similar organizations to take measures against the key people involved in the making of the film.

Frank Miller, the author of the original graphic novel [the film is based on], supposedly adapted his story from the history of Herodotus (a fifth-century Greek historian regarded, ironically, as the 'father of history' and best known for writing The Histories, a collection of inquiries into the origins of the Persian invasions of Greece).

Miller has knowingly manipulated the realities and has demonstrated his shallow understanding of these actual 'histories'.

300 tries to promote a long-outdated belief that to be non-Greek means to be barbarian. It is an ethnocentric premise that helped stroke the war depicted in the film.

One wonders how, in a country that claims to be against racism, a film like 300 can be produced with on measure taken to condemn the offensive nature of the film?

300 portrays the Persian King Xerxes and his Ambassador as barbaric rulers and, even more erroneously, as men of African origin. The portrayal of non-Europeans as evil demonstrates the racist underpinnings of the film. Its depiction of black people as barbaric should offend anyone of African heritage.



Experts agree that the most splendid period of the Persian Empire was the Achaemenid era. Much of Iranian identity was formed during that time. No wonder, then, that [Hollywood] is attacking Iranian culture by exploiting this period in its history. Under careful study, it would be difficult to find fault with the Achaemenid kings and their democratic way of life.

The best-known historical account of the war between Xerxes and Leonidas is from Herodotus' The Histories. His rendering of the actual war is far removed from what the film offers. His documents tell us that the war was not in fact a fateful battle between the West and the East.

Historically, the Persian King Xerxes sent his envoys to Greece to seek a diplomatic solution to a standing political conflict. The rulers of Athens however assassinated the Persian ambassadors and Xerxes sought their vengeance by brining his forces to Greece to punish Athens. The film makes no mention of the political reasons behind the war.

More importantly, Persia was not defeated in the fighting. Xerxes was successful in punishing the Athenian rulers for the political murders of his envoys.

Frank Miller and the film's director try to show that Persian rulers enslaved the inhabitants of the lands conquered by the Empire. Historians however are agreed that the Achaemenid kings left their conquered people in peace and security.



None of the many ancient Achaemenid clay tablets write of slavery in Persia or in the land its rulers conquered. The tablets reveal that all nations under Persian rule were free to practice their own customs and religions.

Ironically, during the same period, the Greeks indulged in the buying and selling of slaves. They allowed few rights to women and prohibited them from participating in public affairs.

In Persia, however, women were even promoted to the rank of navy commanders and they were allowed to manage their own wealth. One ancient clay tablet refers to payments made to pregnant wives who work and mentions the modern equivalent of maternity leave.

300 ultimately reveals the director's and the author's complete lack of knowledge in history, ancient art and archeology. The film fabricates a false account of history in an attempt seemingly designed to insult the Iranian identity.

The director has denied any political motivation, but political intentions behind the movie appear glaring. Like the ignorant filmmakers themselves, one imagines that only an uninformed audience could enjoy the farcical events portrayed in the movie.

SN/MR/BG