pothos.org

marcus wrote:

chris_taylor wrote:And he planned it well in advance. He had benches built so people could watch. They're still there.

Where? I never saw them.

I searched for the article on Google, but I can't find it and I don't have access to JSTOR anymore.

the article showed a photo of a single row of stone seats, IIRC without back rests.

the archeologist who examined the structure said it didn't belong to the original complex and dated to Alexanders time. the orientation of the seats didn't make sense until you sat down on it and figured out what you would have seen 2300 years ago when Persepolis was built up and intact. the location and orientation offered the best view of the fire.

Chris.

agesilaos wrote:One thing that is not, however, is the clearly directed destruction; of twelve buildings only three were burned; nor have excavations in the commoner's quarters thrown up evidence of the initial sack, to date.

As you say, only three buildings were burned. The Tachara, or Palace of Darius, was not. And yet Darius' Palace stands between Xerxes' Palace and the Apadana (see the picture: Xerxes' Palace is on the left at the back, the Apadana on the right, and the Tachara in the middle). If anything speaks for clearly directed destruction, I don't know what does!

chris_taylor wrote:I searched for the article on Google, but I can't find it and I don't have access to JSTOR anymore.

the article showed a photo of a single row of stone seats, IIRC without back rests.

the archeologist who examined the structure said it didn't belong to the original complex and dated to Alexanders time. the orientation of the seats didn't make sense until you sat down on it and figured out what you would have seen 2300 years ago when Persepolis was built up and intact. the location and orientation offered the best view of the fire.

That does sound intriguing, Chris, and I'd love to know where I can find the article - shame you can't get at it any more.

All I can say is that I never saw such a row of seats. Admittedly, I wasn't looking out for it, but I have no recollection of where they might even have been. At least, they were never pointed out to us - but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

To be honest, more of a problem for me is that idea that Alexander would have stone spectator seats made. If they were for the army, I can't see anything thinking it was necessary to provide seating; and a conflagration of that size would hardly need seating in order to provide a view, anyway.

Still, it is intriguing - if you can ever find the article, please share!

ATB

marcus wrote: I was at Persepolis in 2008.

go on , do make me jealous ...

marcus wrote: The Palace of Darius was closed to visitors, but all other parts of the complex were open. I walked through the Palace of Xerxes, as well as the Apadana. I don't remember seeing anything that could be construed as being spectator seating, and there is certainly nothing outside the palace complex itself (except for all the stuff erected by the Shah in 1972). So I would like to hear more - it is perfectly possible that I missed it, but I doubt it, simply because there is so relatively little there!

ATB

sorry, I didn't make myself clear: it was NOT near one of the 3 palaces that was burnt, which was exactly the point of the article. the structure didn't make sense until you imagined what you would have seen, with all the other buildings obstructing the view. it gave the best possible view, while being far enough away to watch a fire that would predictably produce immense heat.

chris_taylor wrote:sorry, I didn't make myself clear: it was NOT near one of the 3 palaces that was burnt, which was exactly the point of the article. the structure didn't make sense until you imagined what you would have seen, with all the other buildings obstructing the view. it gave the best possible view, while being far enough away to watch a fire that would predictably produce immense heat.

In your later post this point became clearer to me, so it's OK.

I'd still be very intrigued to know where it might have been. As you can tell, I still have my doubts about the necessity of constructing a seating area; but, assuming Alexander did have such a thing built, I wonder where it could have been. For me, the obvious place would be on the hillside, beneath the Achaemenid tombs, although I don't recall there being anything of that sort there. I find it hard to believe that it would be *below* the palace complex, because (a) the view wouldn't actually have been particularly good, and (b) the Shah effectively destroyed any chance of finding anything when he flattened the surrounding area for his festivities in 1972.

My guess, therefore, would be that the seats, if they were there, were put on the hillside (from where the picture above was taken). I wish you could re-find that article!

ATB

marcus wrote: My guess, therefore, would be that the seats, if they were there, were put on the hillside (from where the picture above was taken). I wish you could re-find that article! ATB

if I do come across it again, I'll certainly post the link here.

On a different note: looking at your photos and your explanations, I'm wondering why the Palace of Darius didn't burn down anyway. AIUI, all the roofs were made of cedarwood. With two such large buildings burning on either side, there was no way of preventing sparks and burning wood hitting its roof.

Chris.

marcus wrote:

agesilaos wrote:One thing that is not, however, is the clearly directed destruction; of twelve buildings only three were burned; nor have excavations in the commoner's quarters thrown up evidence of the initial sack, to date.

As you say, only three buildings were burned. The Tachara, or Palace of Darius, was not. And yet Darius' Palace stands between Xerxes' Palace and the Apadana (see the picture: Xerxes' Palace is on the left at the back, the Apadana on the right, and the Tachara in the middle). If anything speaks for clearly directed destruction, I don't know what does!

It appears that within the burned buildings there was further evidence of directed destruction. At the Fourth International Symposium on Alexander the Great at Clemson University in 2008, Jennifer Finn of the University of Michigan presented a paper called "A Burning Desire for Dionysus: Alexander the Great at Persepolis". Unfortunately for us she did not submit her article for publication, however I did make one note as she spoke. I was normally so enthralled with the presentations that I didn't write much down, but this one comment stood out. At the time I paraphrased for speed but this is the gist:

The burning of the palace shows that rooms with religious objects were left untouched whilst those with administrative contents were severely burnt. This happened even when one room was next to another or across from another.

Sadly, that's all I have.

Best regards,

chris_taylor wrote:I searched for the article on Google, but I can't find it and I don't have access to JSTOR anymore.

I do. What details do you have?

Paralus wrote:

chris_taylor wrote:I searched for the article on Google, but I can't find it and I don't have access to JSTOR anymore.

I do. What details do you have?

nothing more than what I've said above: persepolis, stone bench or seating, not part of original Persian complex, identified as dating from Alexander's time, peculiar position / orientation, built to watch the fires.

Chris.

chris_taylor wrote:

marcus wrote: My guess, therefore, would be that the seats, if they were there, were put on the hillside (from where the picture above was taken). I wish you could re-find that article! ATB

if I do come across it again, I'll certainly post the link here.

On a different note: looking at your photos and your explanations, I'm wondering why the Palace of Darius didn't burn down anyway. AIUI, all the roofs were made of cedarwood. With two such large buildings burning on either side, there was no way of preventing sparks and burning wood hitting its roof.

Chris.

Well, that is a fair question!

Lack of wind? Or a very carefully controlled fire?

Let me make a small contribute to all this:


Bryn Mawr Classical Review
"Waldemar Hechel, J.C Yardey "Alexander the Great- Historical sources in
translation" - Reviewed by Jona Lendering - Note 3: A. Shapur Shahbazi "Iranians
and Alexander" American Journal of Ancient history n.s.2 (2003) 5-38, note 71


Best regards

Is this it, Balcer, J.M. 'Alexander's Burning of Persepolis.' Iranica Antiqua 13, 1978, 119-33.?

No, just checked Bryn Mawr and Jona makes the article by Shabazi his reference for the statement that 'we know the Macedonians erected seats to watch',

system1988 wrote:Let me make a small contribute to all this:

Bryn Mawr Classical Review
"Waldemar Hechel, J.C Yardey "Alexander the Great- Historical sources in
translation" - Reviewed by Jona Lendering

Jona Lendering - yes! I was 99% certain I'd read it on the Livius site, but I was so baffled I couldn't find it there now, I thought I must have got it wrong after all. I did get the "construction" wrong, though: Alexander didn't construct benches, he moved a slab and used it as seats.

it's been discussed here before:

http://pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 343e5131cb

Chris.

Cool! I'm glad we got there in the end.

Thanks also for the link to the conversation in 2004! That took me back ...

I still have a problem with the idea of the slabs being used as seats to watch the fire. At least I was right that the best viewing place was on the mountain. The problem is, Persepolis was used by nomads for hundreds of years before its 'discovery' by the West. I would need to see a lot more conclusive evidence before I were to blindly accept that the slabs were removed to the mountains by Alexander, especially *in order for the Macedonians to watch the fire*, rather than that the slabs were moved at a later period by groups of nomads, for who knows what reason?

All the best

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.