DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, SOME THINGS WILL OR WILL NOT BE SEEN
BY AN ARCHAEOLOGIST
Here's a good example. We know that Xerxes claimed he was Artaxerxes and
was the same king. He did this because he had already adopted the name of
Artaxerxes. We have actual do***ents that say, "Artaxerxes also known as
Xerxes" dated to year 27 and higher. But Artaxerxes was kown as
Artaxerxes, LONGIMANUS. That's because his right hand was longer than his
left. Apparently this was considered a good omen and was quite famous.
At Persepolis, Xerxes when seen with Darius in one relief is shown with
his
hand holding the throne, palm down. This would suggest the co-ruler****p,
that is, his sharing the throne and not simply succeeding to it. Also the
king's heads are at the same level and they are of exaggerated size
compared
to the others.
But, in a larger relief that was seen at eye level, Xerxes' hand position
is
changed so that it is vertical to the ground, and the scene is duplicated
from both sides, so that we see his palm side in one and the back of his
hand in the other. So the combination is interesting. Why the hand
position
change and why shown from both sides? That makes perfect sense if this
is
really the king that would later become Artaxerxes, Longimanus, sense it
would mean that this hand was already famous and the reason for the
position
change was to preserve this hand for posterity, showing it up close and
from
both sides! Otherwise, why change the hand position?
But for an archaeologist who didn't ralize that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were
the same king, they probably wouldn't notice that! It's only noticeable
when you go to Persepolis to see if Xerxes and Artaxerxes really were
clearly two separate kings or not. Which clearly they were not, but
still,
it underscores totally how interpretation of what you're seeing can
greatly
depend upon how much specific knowledge you have of what to expect.
http://oi.uchicago.edu/gallery/pa_iran_paai_per_tre/3C5_72dpi.png
(palm
side
of hand)
http://oi.uchicago.edu/gallery/pa_iran_paai_per_ch/4C11_72dpi.png
(Xerxes,
palm down)
http://oi.uchicago.edu/gallery/pa_iran_paai_per_tre/3B10_72dpi.png
(Xerxes,
back hand)
CHECK IT OUT: #2 shows Darius and Xerxes alone. Xerxes is behind the
throne but has his hand on the back of the throne, palm down. How would
YOU interpret that?
THIS IS ARCHAEOLOGY NOW, BY THE WAY!!
Like I said, as co-rulers, this suggests to me that the sculptor is
indicating along with the equal head positions that Xerxes was not simply
the heir, but SHARING the throne.
But in a duplicate scene that was at eye level, his hand is shown vertical
and from both sides!! WHY? What does the vertical hand behind the
throne
suggest to you? And if this is a gesture toward the throne in some way,
why not simply place his hand on the back of the throne like in the other
scene?
Thus you have a rather clueless hand position here in addition to a second
hand position from elsewhere. WHY?
If this is Xerxes famous longer right hand, which it is the RIGHT hand,
then
it explains the second position. It was decided that it was better to
show
the hand off in this pose, showing it from both sides, with just a gesture
toward the throne than simply to show him holding onto the back of the
throne by this unusually longer hand.
So, in effect, this also proves that not only was Xerxes and Artaxerxes
the
same king, but he was proud of this longer right hand and it was like his
own signature. That explains why he later became known as "Artaxerxes,
LONGIMANUS." They were proud of this and it was already a famous identity
marker for Xerxes all along.
But, do you realize how many naysayers will bark at me and say: "THAT
DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING!!!!"
So there is an area, a blank area where someone who doesn't want to
believe,
will need more proof, but someone who does believe will have sufficient
proof. I accepted that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king when I
saw
clearly all the faces were purposely chiseled off for all the kings except
for one. Clearly, trying to confuse their identities. The one
bas-relief where the faces are intact was removed from outside and moved
inside to the Treasury. Which is also suspicious. Why remove it from
public view?
Finally, notice in the one where the palm side of his hand appears. It
looks akwardly prominent. Not very well sculped. But that was probably
the
best they could do. It would have been more aesthetic to repeat the
back-hand scene, which is magnificent, but then, that wasn't the purpose
of
the new hand position. Showing both sides while vertical was the way to
display the hand best. So that's what we have.
Archaeologists steer clear of Persepolis for some reason, in general. But
I
can see why! Too much of a Pandora's box!!
Lars Wilson
|
