((This was a recent paper I wrote for class. It is not one of my best, I find it unorganized and I don't even think the thesis is well argued. With those caveats, I sill think you can learn about what it means to apply rhetorical theory to ancient architecture by reading it, which is cool. Sorry some of the language is obtuse - interestingly enough...that happens when I write about rhetoric))
Aerial view of Persepolis Seven royal rock tombs stand in the Fars Province in Iran announcing the reign of great kings dating as far back as 522 BC (Schmidt). These seven kings were all rulers during the Achaemenid Empire but their stories and monuments have survived long after their rise to power and subsequent demise. Of these seven Achaemenid tombs, four can be found in the area known as Naqsh-i Rustam, an archeological site containing artifacts such as towers, tombs, reliefs, coins, and pottery from ancient Persian empires. The four tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam present vast array of information about ancient Persian culture, events, and practices; however, the tombs do not yield facts alone. In studying the similarities and differences between these four tombs, it becomes clear even today that the ancient kings of Persia held varying degrees of power. Their tombs have changed over time: some were never finished, others were destroyed by nature, and still others have simply been misinterpreted. Despite the extent to which each king and his servants strived to make their memory everlasting through the use of monuments, language is actually more integral to their immortality. Whether it is pictorial or script, language proves to be the factor that allows these kings continual existence in the present. Their reliefs and inscriptions have carried them through history; elaborate tombs have kept the knowledge of ancient rituals, religion, and culture alive, and these forms of tribute cannot be surpassed by the power of a name or a picture carved in stone.
Rhetorician Carole Blair argues that all rhetoric, carved in stone or not, offers opportunity for significance (16). She defines rhetoric as, “any partisan, meaningful, consequential text, with the term ‘text’ understood as a legible or readable event or object” (18). Most importantly, Blair’s idea of rhetoric suggests that rhetoric always has a material existence – it must be given a presence through speech, writing, or some other method of creation. Thus, according to Blair’s ideas, Naqsh-i Rustam is an oasis of material rhetoric. However, every piece of rhetoric at Naqsh-i Rustam proves to have different constraints and effects on observers and the surrounding pieces of rhetoric. For example, the four tombs offer varying degrees of durability that, therefore, influence the extent to which historians can attain knowledge about the four kings held therein. Blair firmly argues that rhetorical discourse surpasses written and oral words; she argues that the mere existence of material, in whatever fashion, creates consequences. With Blair’s theory in mind while analyzing the four royal tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam, it becomes clear that words or pictures written in stone may potentially be the most durable and therefore powerful form of rhetoric over a long period of time; mere material existence is potent, but is eclipsed by language. The existence of language and legibility prove to be important to the longevity of the tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam.
When considering various degrees of rhetorical power or durability, another key factor is accessibility. In order for these tombs to be ‘rhetorical’, they must constitute an effect on their surroundings or people. Rhetorician Gerard Hauser states that rhetorical situations are those “in which either we must change people directly by persuading them to think, feel, believe, understand or act in a particular manner, or we must change the physical environment indirectly through the intervention of human cooperation” (Hauser 43). In order for rhetoric to have this type of influence, it must be accessible, meaning people or things must be able to access rhetoric or be accessed by rhetoric in order for effects to take place.
In a discussion of the rock tombs at Naqsh-i Rustan, archeologist Erich Schmidt asserts that the tombs differed in degree of accessibility. Schmidt states, “The tomb of Darius I was documented with particular thoroughness because it could be entered from the scaffold where as access to the other three tombs had to be gained with the aid of ladders” (Schmidt 17). Here, it is clear that better accessibility to the tomb of Darius I gave it more rhetorical power. The thorough survey of this particular tomb was even able to, “correct [surveys] made in the past” (Schmidt 17). The tomb of Darius I had more influence on historians, archeologists, and even the tombs around it because it had a high degree of accessibility.
This specific understanding of accessibility as it relates to power can be refuted. For instance, one might argue that the tombs requires more work and effort actually had more rhetorical power because they had greater physical demands on those who attempted to learn from them. Still, it seems that the tomb of Darius I influenced the intellectual interpretation of the other three tombs and therefore history in general because it was more accessible. In this case, the tomb’s convenience reaped greater influence.
Accessibility, however, is not the only variable when analyzing the rhetorical power of these four tombs. Legibility of a given rhetorical event is also important. Legibility does not pertain to merely written language; monuments, pictures, shapes, and landscapes all have varying degrees of legibility, and archeologists have an intricate knowledge base that enables them to read visual cues with great accuracy. Still, there is a lot of room for error because they are left to make conclusions based on guesswork. Schmidt points out that, “only the tomb of Darius I can be identified beyond doubt by means of inscriptions. The other three tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam have been assigned to his immediate successors…Although we omit the awkward question mark in all references to Tombs III-VI, it is to be understood that their chronology is not certain” (Schmidt 80). Thus, the archeologists had to make deductions based on historical and visual knowledge. The tombs were not overtly legible; on the contrary they were illegible and their rhetorical power and influence was based largely on inference. Schmidt continues by giving two main reasons for their decisions regarding the less legible tombs:
“Our two principle reasons for assigning this tomb to the son and successor of Darius the Great are that it is one of the two tombs flanking Darius’ sepulcher and that the original rock surface required less effort for carving the façade than the more sloping surfaces of the two tombs to the west of Darius’ tomb” (Schmidt 90).
Thus, the overt legibility of a given rhetorical opportunity greatly influences the effects of the rhetoric. Darius’ tomb was highly accessible and more legible than the other three tombs, and therefore has shaped their interpretation.
There is, also, the matter of literal legibility as it refers to written/pictorial language. The archaeologists studying the reliefs at Naqsh-i Rustam ran into problems with some of the reliefs because they were no longer legible. Schmidt explains,
“The symbol of Ahuramazda is almost perfectly preserved, but it is problematical whether it is identical in all details with the badly damaged symbol on Tomb I…the monsters capping the throne legs are also remarkably well preserved and clarify the details obliterated in Tomb I…The Persian guard, lowermost of the three figures on the left frame, is dressed in the same fashion as Xerxes’ spear-bearer and is very well preserved in contrast to the abraded figure on Darius’ tomb…Although well preserved, the mourners’ garment on Xerxes’ tomb leave doubt as to what part of the mourners’ garment is raised by the left hand. The answer is provided by the flat reliefs of Tomb IV, which clearly indicate that it is the sleeve of the candys” (Schmidt 92 &93).
Here, there are multiple examples of how archeologists used the reliefs in tandem in order to read them accurately. Through comparing and contrasting they were able to discern more of the images. Without multiple reliefs, however, there would have been much less information gained.
It seems that the reliefs and inscriptions, despite their varying degrees of legibility, yield the most rhetorical influence. Schmidt himself says that Darius’ tomb was identifiable beyond doubt because of an inscription (Schmidt 80). In the case of these four tombs, the reliefs have helped to divulge a plethora of historical information. Still, all of the reliefs were subject to accessibility and legibility, like the tombs themselves. The reliefs hold a more overt message when compared with architectural constructs. Reliefs are specifically goaled in the telling of a story; in turn, reliefs claim a specific narrative, and while that narrative is still subject to accessibility and legibility, its interpretation must function within the constructs of the language held therein.
All four of these royal tombs have proven to be influential, but what are the implications of that in regard to the four kings? It seems that the memory of these kings is somewhat arbitrarily related to their actual power during their reign. For instance, a very powerful king might have a tomb that is the least accessible to the public, denoting his devine authority and holiness. But, it was the most accessible tomb that held the most influence on the interpretation of the other four tombs. Thus, what was seen as a representation of power during the Achaemenid Empire might not transfer to today’s hierarchy as it is estranged from the Achaemenid by time.
Therefore rhetorical power, in the case of the four tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam, directly relates to accessibility, legibility, and the presence of language. The tomb of Darius I, which was the most accessible, held rhetorical power over the other three tombs. The tombs which were the most legible, due to the least amount of architectural damage, held more power over the tombs that had illegible aspects. And lastly, the reliefs in all the tombs were used in tandem with each other to expose the most information possible, yet all the reliefs were still subject to each other and to legibility. All of the tombs have proven to be durable to varying degrees by their mere existence. As a result, however, they have been more vulnerable to natural corrosion and weathering over time. Blair makes this assertion by saying that “it is an interesting paradox of materiality, however, that durable materials may actually render a text more vulnerable” (Blair 37). The tombs have undeniably carried the stories of their kings over hundreds a years, but the stories have become subject to arbitrary interpretation, because material durability has left them vulnerable. The kings of old may not have thought of this; if they had, perhaps they would have left a more transient proclamation of their power.
Rhetorician Carole Blair argues that all rhetoric, carved in stone or not, offers opportunity for significance (16). She defines rhetoric as, “any partisan, meaningful, consequential text, with the term ‘text’ understood as a legible or readable event or object” (18). Most importantly, Blair’s idea of rhetoric suggests that rhetoric always has a material existence – it must be given a presence through speech, writing, or some other method of creation. Thus, according to Blair’s ideas, Naqsh-i Rustam is an oasis of material rhetoric. However, every piece of rhetoric at Naqsh-i Rustam proves to have different constraints and effects on observers and the surrounding pieces of rhetoric. For example, the four tombs offer varying degrees of durability that, therefore, influence the extent to which historians can attain knowledge about the four kings held therein. Blair firmly argues that rhetorical discourse surpasses written and oral words; she argues that the mere existence of material, in whatever fashion, creates consequences. With Blair’s theory in mind while analyzing the four royal tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam, it becomes clear that words or pictures written in stone may potentially be the most durable and therefore powerful form of rhetoric over a long period of time; mere material existence is potent, but is eclipsed by language. The existence of language and legibility prove to be important to the longevity of the tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam.
When considering various degrees of rhetorical power or durability, another key factor is accessibility. In order for these tombs to be ‘rhetorical’, they must constitute an effect on their surroundings or people. Rhetorician Gerard Hauser states that rhetorical situations are those “in which either we must change people directly by persuading them to think, feel, believe, understand or act in a particular manner, or we must change the physical environment indirectly through the intervention of human cooperation” (Hauser 43). In order for rhetoric to have this type of influence, it must be accessible, meaning people or things must be able to access rhetoric or be accessed by rhetoric in order for effects to take place.
In a discussion of the rock tombs at Naqsh-i Rustan, archeologist Erich Schmidt asserts that the tombs differed in degree of accessibility. Schmidt states, “The tomb of Darius I was documented with particular thoroughness because it could be entered from the scaffold where as access to the other three tombs had to be gained with the aid of ladders” (Schmidt 17). Here, it is clear that better accessibility to the tomb of Darius I gave it more rhetorical power. The thorough survey of this particular tomb was even able to, “correct [surveys] made in the past” (Schmidt 17). The tomb of Darius I had more influence on historians, archeologists, and even the tombs around it because it had a high degree of accessibility.
This specific understanding of accessibility as it relates to power can be refuted. For instance, one might argue that the tombs requires more work and effort actually had more rhetorical power because they had greater physical demands on those who attempted to learn from them. Still, it seems that the tomb of Darius I influenced the intellectual interpretation of the other three tombs and therefore history in general because it was more accessible. In this case, the tomb’s convenience reaped greater influence.
Accessibility, however, is not the only variable when analyzing the rhetorical power of these four tombs. Legibility of a given rhetorical event is also important. Legibility does not pertain to merely written language; monuments, pictures, shapes, and landscapes all have varying degrees of legibility, and archeologists have an intricate knowledge base that enables them to read visual cues with great accuracy. Still, there is a lot of room for error because they are left to make conclusions based on guesswork. Schmidt points out that, “only the tomb of Darius I can be identified beyond doubt by means of inscriptions. The other three tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam have been assigned to his immediate successors…Although we omit the awkward question mark in all references to Tombs III-VI, it is to be understood that their chronology is not certain” (Schmidt 80). Thus, the archeologists had to make deductions based on historical and visual knowledge. The tombs were not overtly legible; on the contrary they were illegible and their rhetorical power and influence was based largely on inference. Schmidt continues by giving two main reasons for their decisions regarding the less legible tombs:
“Our two principle reasons for assigning this tomb to the son and successor of Darius the Great are that it is one of the two tombs flanking Darius’ sepulcher and that the original rock surface required less effort for carving the façade than the more sloping surfaces of the two tombs to the west of Darius’ tomb” (Schmidt 90).
Thus, the overt legibility of a given rhetorical opportunity greatly influences the effects of the rhetoric. Darius’ tomb was highly accessible and more legible than the other three tombs, and therefore has shaped their interpretation.
There is, also, the matter of literal legibility as it refers to written/pictorial language. The archaeologists studying the reliefs at Naqsh-i Rustam ran into problems with some of the reliefs because they were no longer legible. Schmidt explains,
“The symbol of Ahuramazda is almost perfectly preserved, but it is problematical whether it is identical in all details with the badly damaged symbol on Tomb I…the monsters capping the throne legs are also remarkably well preserved and clarify the details obliterated in Tomb I…The Persian guard, lowermost of the three figures on the left frame, is dressed in the same fashion as Xerxes’ spear-bearer and is very well preserved in contrast to the abraded figure on Darius’ tomb…Although well preserved, the mourners’ garment on Xerxes’ tomb leave doubt as to what part of the mourners’ garment is raised by the left hand. The answer is provided by the flat reliefs of Tomb IV, which clearly indicate that it is the sleeve of the candys” (Schmidt 92 &93).
Here, there are multiple examples of how archeologists used the reliefs in tandem in order to read them accurately. Through comparing and contrasting they were able to discern more of the images. Without multiple reliefs, however, there would have been much less information gained.
It seems that the reliefs and inscriptions, despite their varying degrees of legibility, yield the most rhetorical influence. Schmidt himself says that Darius’ tomb was identifiable beyond doubt because of an inscription (Schmidt 80). In the case of these four tombs, the reliefs have helped to divulge a plethora of historical information. Still, all of the reliefs were subject to accessibility and legibility, like the tombs themselves. The reliefs hold a more overt message when compared with architectural constructs. Reliefs are specifically goaled in the telling of a story; in turn, reliefs claim a specific narrative, and while that narrative is still subject to accessibility and legibility, its interpretation must function within the constructs of the language held therein.
All four of these royal tombs have proven to be influential, but what are the implications of that in regard to the four kings? It seems that the memory of these kings is somewhat arbitrarily related to their actual power during their reign. For instance, a very powerful king might have a tomb that is the least accessible to the public, denoting his devine authority and holiness. But, it was the most accessible tomb that held the most influence on the interpretation of the other four tombs. Thus, what was seen as a representation of power during the Achaemenid Empire might not transfer to today’s hierarchy as it is estranged from the Achaemenid by time.
Therefore rhetorical power, in the case of the four tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam, directly relates to accessibility, legibility, and the presence of language. The tomb of Darius I, which was the most accessible, held rhetorical power over the other three tombs. The tombs which were the most legible, due to the least amount of architectural damage, held more power over the tombs that had illegible aspects. And lastly, the reliefs in all the tombs were used in tandem with each other to expose the most information possible, yet all the reliefs were still subject to each other and to legibility. All of the tombs have proven to be durable to varying degrees by their mere existence. As a result, however, they have been more vulnerable to natural corrosion and weathering over time. Blair makes this assertion by saying that “it is an interesting paradox of materiality, however, that durable materials may actually render a text more vulnerable” (Blair 37). The tombs have undeniably carried the stories of their kings over hundreds a years, but the stories have become subject to arbitrary interpretation, because material durability has left them vulnerable. The kings of old may not have thought of this; if they had, perhaps they would have left a more transient proclamation of their power.
Bibliography
Blair, Carole. "Contemporary U.S. Memorial Sites as Exemplars of Rhetoric's Materiality" In Jack Selzer and Sharon Crowly (eds). Rhetorical Bodies. Madison, WI: U of Wisconsin Press, 1999. 16-57.
Hauser, Gerard A. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 2002.
Schmidt, Erich F. Persepolis III the Royal Rock Tombs and Other Monuments. Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago P, 1970.
Schmidt, Erich F. Persepolis III The Royal Rock Tombs and Other Monuments. Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago P, 1970.
Hauser, Gerard A. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 2002.
Schmidt, Erich F. Persepolis III the Royal Rock Tombs and Other Monuments. Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago P, 1970.
Schmidt, Erich F. Persepolis III The Royal Rock Tombs and Other Monuments. Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago P, 1970.
No comments:
Post a Comment