Based on the different elements of this necklace, it is difficult to place the object in a specific context. The absence of a clear provenance makes this situation even more complex.The Metropolitan Museum in New York City states that they purchased the necklace from Jerome M. Eisenberg. Originally, the necklace was a gift from king Feisal I of Iraq to Janina Hempel, the wife of a Polish diplomat of Iraq and Persia around 1930. The necklace remained in the private property of Janina Hempel for some thirty years, before it was handed over to Jerome M. Eisenberg and eventually to the Metropolitan Museum. The museum does not give any clues about how the object, which originated from Iran, came into the hands of an Iraqi king or how, by whom, and where it was found exactly. Simply because they do not know.
However, taking all the different parts into account, one might guess who could have worn this particular masterpiece. The different symbols from all over the Near East show how the Achaemenid Persian Empire was an excellent framework for networks, mobility and distribution. For instance, the image of the Egyptian deity Bes travelled to Iran, probably because of its apotropaic identity. While he was both a deity for the commoner and the elite in Egypt, the elite of Iran showed interest in this non-Persian motif. Therefore, Bes was brought into the sphere of the elite of the Achaemenid Persian Empire.See: Abdi, Kamyar. ‘Notes on the Iranianization of Bes in the Achaemenid Empire’. Ars Orientalis 32 (2002): 133–62. Considering the horse compartments, these elements hint to this necklace being an elite object. Horses were associated with the royal family and the elite, because of their prestige and their importance during military warfare.See: De Backer, Liesbet, and Ernie Haerinck. Paarden en Strijdwagens in de iconografie van de Achaemeniden. 2007. Diss. and Root, Margaret Cool. ‘Animals in the Art of Ancient Iran’. In A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, edited by Billie Jean Collins, 169–209. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2002. Meanwhile, the symbol of the lotus was a widespread sacred phenomenon and often depicted in the hands of kings and nobles on reliefs in Achaemenid palaces.See: Rezania, Pedram. ‘Symbol of Lotus in Ancient World’. Life Science Journal 8, no. 3 (1 January 2011): 309–12. The disc pendants hanging under the necklace complete the composition, although their significance is unclear.
Besides the different elements, the material of this necklace might give the greatest argument for it being an object of the elite. Gold was a precious material and mainly used in ornaments to display wealth.See: Ogden, Jack. ‘Gold in Antiquity’. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 17, no. 3 (1 September 1992): 261–70. Based on the different aspects of this necklace, one can conclude that the object was probably worn by someone of status, someone of the elite, either in a funerary setting or during life.