GRBS article

[marcus]

Well, having read the original thread, if these slabs with inscriptions (presumably Persian) were from a building that was burned (the Treasury) yet showed no signs of incendiarism, logic would dictate that they were removed prior to the arson and the Achaemenids would not seem to have reason so to do, thus Alexander moved them. That said they still may not have been seating and indeed it does not follow that he placed them wherethey eventually turned up; the crux might be the content of the inscriptions, treasury records? It must say in the original articles.

Well, I agree with all of that, but not having read the articles, we don't know.

However, the points still remain that (a) how do we know the slabs were removed to act as seats; and (b) how do we know that the slabs were placed 'there' on Alexander's orders?

[Taphoi]

I have a few questions:

a) Even if the sculptures from the treasury had been in the blaze, why would there be any sign of it after they had weathered on the hillside for up to 23 centuries? Ancient sculptures have usually lost all their paint, let alone traces of any soot.
b) Why would the fact that several rather than all the palaces on the terrace were burnt not indicate a haphazard and spontaneous event rather than a pre-meditated plan?
c) Why would there be archaeological traces of the sack of the lower city, when it is only reported as rape and pillage and Alexander’s army (and others after them) subsequently occupied the buildings?
d) Why would Shahbazi be a credible authority on Alexander’s putative habit of constructing spectator seating on nearby hillsides for his fire setting activities? Are the “seats” not rather just icons of faith for Arrian’s most devout adherents?
e) Why would Alexander’s comus procession be expected to have set fires in every chamber of the buildings rather than just a few?
f) Why would anybody see any evidence in any of this to distinguish between Arrian’s and Cleitarchus’s accounts of Persepolis? Is it not rather the case that archaeology has nothing to say on this matter? Is this surprising, given that it would be hard to distinguish between spontaneous and pre-meditated arson simply by examining a building burnt yesterday let alone 23 centuries ago?

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

a) Intense fire leaves far more traces than ‘soot’, one may consider the melting and shattering found at Hattussas or Hazor from similarly set fires but nine and six centuries earlier.
b) Haphazard fires burn haphazardly but joined up; gaps speak volumes to those willing to listen.
c) I suppose that unlike every other army in history Alexander’s would have conducted a disciplined rape and pillage, no burning you ‘orrible little man action not even by accident; the riots last year show what a sack is like, and a nice sack at that.
d) Since no one has the article, what gives you the right to belittle his authority unread? Can you even produce a statement of his basing the interpretation on Arrian?
e) I can only say that it is a good job that the untended fires knew where they were allowed to burn.
f) The answer is simply that people used to archaeology, practised in its techniques and experienced in site work find this quite simple to determine and I defy you to produce a modern fire investigator who would have any trouble ascribing a fire to accidental or deliberate causes. As for the massive time lapse palaeolithic fires have been identified in the Solent ie underwater and 120,000 years old. All we know that Kleitarchos said was that Thais was responsible; why would anyone insist that Curtius’ story is his in toto?

[marcus]

f) The answer is simply that people used to archaeology, practised in its techniques and experienced in site work find this quite simple to determine and I defy you to produce a modern fire investigator who would have any trouble ascribing a fire to accidental or deliberate causes.

I'm sure that Andrew can answer this for himself, but as I came here to write my own answers to his questions, I'll pick this little bit up.

I'm not sure that's what Andrew meant. I understood him to be questioning the difference between spontaneous arson (i.e. someone deciding to start a fire in a particular place with little or no planning) and pre-meditated arson (i.e. where the arsonist spends time planning when and where the fires would be placed, with a thought to the damage that would be done). He's not, I think, talking about an accident (such as the result of a burning ember falling from a fireplace, or the 4th century equivalent of a dropped nice person end).

However, I don't necessarily disagree with your answer - I would suggest that "spontaneous arson" would have the same effect as an "accident", and I would imagine that a fire investigator would be able to make a reasonable distinction between either of those and "pre-meditated arson". But I don't know for sure.

I also agree pretty much with your other answers, most particularly (b) - especially because of the fact that Darius' palace, unburned, stood directly between Xerxes' palace and the Apadana. Surely that could only be completely deliberate, and not surprising good fortune, that it survived unscathed (as far as we can tell from the archaeology)?

I should add that I find the conclusion that the inscribed stone to be a bit far-fetched, but I haven't read the evidence. But I also cannot question the author's credibility.

ATB

[Paralus]

Nothing supposes that the sacked lower city of Persepolis was occupied by the Macedonian army. Just as nothing supposes that the sacked city of Tyre was occupied by the army (given the games held afterwards and needed rest). All that the sources state is that the lower city - the palaces and treasury were to be left inviolate - was given over to the Macedonians to plunder. And plunder they did as Curtius and Diodorus describe noting that "some (Persians) had set fire to their homes"(5.6.1-8; Diod.17.70.1-6). In fact, as Curtius informs us (5.5.8), Alexander constructed a fortified camp a mere 360 metres outside the prone city. The "vulgate" also informs us that, over the few months wintering in Persis, Alexander conducted punitive campaigns against surrounding towns. The army, having sated its desire for plunder and pillage, will have returned to their camp from which they will have been mobilised for these sorties or remained with Parmenion and Craterus.

(d) Why would Shahbazi be a credible authority on Alexander’s putative habit of constructing spectator seating on nearby hillsides for his fire setting activities? Are the “seats” not rather just icons of faith for Arrian’s most devout adherents?

The language ustilised in that question is, typically, of a deprecating nature. One can only wonder why the need is felt to demean the professional authority of Dr Shahbazi. For the record Shahbazi's doctorate and (master's degree) was gained in archaeology. His obituary can be read here.

[amyntoros]

The language ustilised in that question is, typically, of a deprecating nature. One can only wonder why the need is felt to demean the professional authority of Dr Shahbazi. For the record Shahbazi's doctorate and (master's degree) was gained in archaeology. His obituary can be read here.

A nice five-part video on Persepolis by Dr. Shahbazi can be found here. None of it is in English but it didn't deter me (except for part one which is mostly Shahbazi talking).

Best regards,

[chris_taylor]

For the record Shahbazi's doctorate and (master's degree) was gained in archaeology. His obituary can be read here.

you said you have access to JSTOR. did you manage to find the article?

Chris.

[agesilaos]

I don't think the situation is quite so confusing vis-a-vis the different types of fire.

Pre-meditated arson would see the removal of valuables, restricted burn sites with identifiable foci. Spontaneous arson would have no removal of articles of value, a random set of foci, multiple foci in one room, and an ungoverned spread. An accident would display signs of attempted containment, hurried removal of valuables and quite possibly fatalities and one focus, unless one posits a series of unfortunate accidents.

I too am unconvinced by the seating theory, but not having read the evidence that leads to the conclusion it is really only a feeling but it remains clear to me at least from the other evidence that Arrian's tale of policy is nearer the mark than the Vulgate's drunken comus.

[Susa the Great]

I think that the burning was deliberate: http://suite101.com/article/alexander-a ... is-a175843

[chris_taylor]

I have a few questions:

f) Why would anybody see any evidence in any of this to distinguish between Arrian’s and Cleitarchus’s accounts of Persepolis? Is it not rather the case that archaeology has nothing to say on this matter? Is this surprising, given that it would be hard to distinguish between spontaneous and pre-meditated arson simply by examining a building burnt yesterday let alone 23 centuries ago?

terminology here adds to confusion. lets call it "random arson by a mob" and "planned & carefully executed destruction of selected targets".

It may indeed be difficult to distinguish between the two, even for experts. However, Jona Lendering's article (link below) makes the point that it was not one, but *three* buildings that were destroyed by the fire. As all three had symbolic significance, it is difficult to explain that with random action.

Furthermore, the article also suggests that archeological evidence points to the roof of the Palace of Xerxes having exploded in a flash-over. The article doesn't state it, but it is obvious that roof fragments must have rained down on the adjacent buildings.

It would be interesting to have an expert fire-fighter's opinion on the probability of the Palace of Darius surviving radiant heat AND an explosion next-door virtually unscathed, unless someone took steps to protect it beforehand - say by soaking its roof with water, removing all combustible materials ect.

http://rambambashi.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... ersepolis/

Chris

[Paralus]

For the record Shahbazi's doctorate and (master's degree) was gained in archaeology. His obituary can be read here.

you said you have access to JSTOR. did you manage to find the article?

Chris.

The AJAH is not in the Jstor stable unfortunately.

[agesilaos]

Guess I'll have to request it at the library! The Forum demands it!

[marcus]

Guess I'll have to request it at the library! The Forum demands it!

It certainly does!