Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


History > Ancient Worlds > PERSEPOLIS THRO...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 1 of 1 Topic 794 of 862
Post > Topic >>

PERSEPOLIS THRONE HALL: Built in 6 or 60 years? Archaeologists?

by "Lars Wilson" <siaxares@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jan 20, 2008 at 03:31 AM

PERSEPOLIS:  The Throne Hall, built in in 6 or 60 years?

I'll get right down to it.  Why do I ask?  Because Artaxerxes and Xerxes 
were the same king, obviously.  Artaxerxes was buried between Darius I and

Darius II, proving he followed Darius I, followed by Darius II.

Other investigations would confirm that Xenophon, who wrote about the 
history of Cyrus, was paid off by the Persians to manipulate Greek history

as well, specifically the works of Thucydides,  adding 30 years between
the 
Persian and Peloponnesian Wars and moving an eclipse back from 402 BCE to 
431 BCE, adding 58 fake years to the Greek Period in the process.  Oh yes,

it makes the Greek chronology incompetent, like "The Delian Problem" where

folklore has Plato being consulted during the PPW to solve a math problem,

only now the PPW begins 3 years before he's born.   Be that as it may, it 
still comes back to the archaeological discovery.

Darius I only ruled for six years and Xerxes and Artaxerxes being the same

king, theoretically would remove 51 years from the Persian Period.  The 
other critical detail is that after Darius I died, Xerxes adopted a new 
name, Artaxerxes, and thus finished one of the buildings at Persepolis
that 
had been started by Darius and himself (as Xerxes) as Artaxerxes.   That 
building is the Throne Hall.

Now.  Not taking sides on the historical revisionism or the current 
timeline, it falls into the lap of archaeologists to determine whether or 
not the Throne Hall could have been completed in just six years or sixty 
years!!  That's because the building began to be built with all the others

by Darius and Xerxes as co-rulers but wasn't completed until the 7th year
of 
Artaxerxes.

Now, if there was no conspiracy and the history is reliable as is, then it

would seem some evidence from this building would show it was under 
construction for 60 years, or abandoned by Darius and Xerxes for some
reason 
and completed by Artaxerxes or something, or even being archetectually 
challenging enough to actually require 60 years to complete.   That's one 
scenario.

The other scenario is that Darius and Xerxes started Persepolis and these 
buildings, including the Throne-Hall in the 4th of Darius.  Darius dies 2 
years later at Marathon, forcing Xerxes to finish these buildings within a

few years, but adopting a new name as sole ruler, he finishes the Throne 
Hall as Artaxerxes.  Since the co-ruler****p began in the third year of 
Darius (based upon eclipse corrections from the Greek Period), the city
that 
began in the 4th year of Darius also began in the 2nd year of Xerxes.  If 
Xerxes simply changed his name to Artaxerxes and actually finished the 
building in his 7th year, then the building actually took 7 years to 
complete, perhaps with a short interruption suggested if any deviation
from 
the original planning.

Still 6 and 60 is quite a difference!!  An archaeologist might be able to 
shed some light on this, perhaps evidence of the longer period or the 
shorter period.

However, one wonders if there was an apparent completion of this building
by 
Artaxerxes having been started by Darius-Xerxes, why archaeologists
haven't 
come forward before, or more aggressively to tell us this building was 
completed in just six years.

Or, are they purposely buring this observation.  Other things at
Persepolis, 
thus suggest that Xerxes merely changed his name to Artaxerxes.  Further, 
there are extant texts that refer to an Artaxerxes "also known as Xerxes"
in 
some astrotexts published by none other than Sachs and Hunger, two
prominent 
scholars who got caught misrepresenting astronomical details in the
VAT4956 
which they nor the British Museum have bothered correcting in all this
time.

So here's the archaeological challenge!   A little perspective?

The Jews built a brand new double wall around the city of Jerusalem in
just 
16 years, probably with less staff that Xerxes and Darius had working at 
Persepolis (though I can't confirm that, but Darius had a large and 
professional staff doing the work).   The temple was begun as well and
after 
a 2-year interruption was finished after 21 years.

The palace of Darius was completed likely in about 2 years, if that palace

is compared to another palace built for Xerxes in Babylon where texts show

it completed two years after it began.  That would relate to Darius dying
in 
his 6th year, just 2 years after he began building his palace.  So why did

the palace take just 2 years to complete and the rest of the buildings 
finished by Xerxes and the Throne Hall by Artaxerxes take 60 years to 
complete?  60!  That's like three times as long as it took to build the 
temple at Jerusalem?

On the other hand, if Xerxes simply changed his name to Artaxerxes, then
it 
explains why the Throne Hall was completed by "Artaxerxes", simply because

that was the customary new sole-ruler****p name, and that building would
have 
been completed in the next 4 years.  Isn't that reasonable?    Likewise, 
when he was buried in the #2 tomb at Naq****-Rustam, he was buried by his 
popular name at the time, which was "Artaxerxes", even though, of course,
he 
was Xerxes.  Otherwise, Xerxes would have been already buried in tomb #2, 
right?   Plus Darius II was buried in his own #3 tomb as well.   The
current 
tomb of Xerxes is brand new compared to the others, unmarked, but
suggestive 
that it wasn't even created until after the death of Darius II, thus we
look 
for an aggressive revisionism sometime during the reign of Artaxerxes II
who 
followed Darius II.

Of course, if Xenophon was paid by the Persians to revise Greek history 
after the history of the PPW was published by Thucydides, then obviously
it 
was Artaxerxes II and his administration who paid him off.  And, in fact, 
Xenophon's own histories are during the time of Artaxerxes II.   With such

an aggressive push to cover their tracks so that the fake rule of Xerxes
was 
authenticated, it's logical the fake tomb was created at this time, long 
after the original sculptors had disappeared as reflected by the
"imitation" 
sculptor work to match the original three tombs, but clearly not by the
same 
sculptor.

Interestingly, as well, the 58-year expansion by Xenophon threw a feather
in 
the cap of Artaxerxes II while he was at it, expanding his 17-year rule by
a 
wholloping 30 years, making his rule 47 years, making him the longest
ruling 
Persian king.  Yet virtually nothing survives of what he did during his 
rule.  We only have Xenophon's history.  Ktesias was the personal
physician 
for Artaxerxes II and he says he served him for 17 years.

So. Are archaeologists incompetent or dishonest?  Negligent or
ineffecient? 
Gullible or biased?

You *tell* me.

Lars Wilson

(New!) Corrected Timeline Outline: 
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html
 




 1 Posts in Topic:
PERSEPOLIS THRONE HALL: Built in 6 or 60 years? Archaeologists?
"Lars Wilson" &  2008-01-20 03:31:59 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Thu Aug 28 23:53:39 CDT 2008.