agesilaos wrote: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