Whether because of the lack of funds or personnel, or the flooding, or intensifying hostilities that ultimately resulted in the deaths of several site workers, William Kennett Loftus’s excavations at Susa during the 1850s were far from an absolute success. This is not to say that the undertaking was an utter failure either; Loftus, after all, produced a detailed plan of the site and oversaw the uncovering of the Apadana – the audience hall of the Palace of Darius (Loftus 1857; Curtis 1993). He is also credited with identifying the site as the biblical Shushan. But after Loftus finished digging at Susa, British researcher and diplomat Henry Rawlinson stated that Loftus “had turned the mound of Susa topsy-turvey without finding much” (Curtis 1993: 15). Rawlinson was not the only one to feel this way. When the Dieulafoys arrived at Susa in the 1880s, Jane Dieulafoy politely described Loftus’s work as a series of “awkward attempts to secure an inscription” (J. Dieulafoy 1890: 42). In contrast to this, the Dieulafoys prioritized planning their expedition to be accurate, systematic, and thorough. In Jane’s own words: “it does not enter into my husband’s views to dig any holes whatever and to search, in the dark, for ‘museum-objects;’ excavations executed with method alone can give scientific results” (J. Dieulafoy 1890: 89).