Ramin, I must admit that I've encountered this kind of approach many-many times.  It's the standard approach of the "Westrern civilization lovers". One the other hand one must admit, that since only the Greeks have left records of the Persian empire, this is understandable. We see it, even today, through the Greek historians' eyes.

Disappointedly, I have to say we see such articles and words not only attacking a certain cultrue and nation, but many countries are being violated by (sorrowfully) "unaware" Western medias.

A Great article:

So much for Mr. Jones
Where does such deep antagonism toward the Persian Empire originate from?

September 16, 2005
iranian.com

Enjoying a peaceful last quarter of my life, it now takes a lot to make me angry. Having graduated from London University and familiar with the crafty ways of a few Brits, I should have known that if anyone could make my blood boil, it would be one of them!

I am referring to a shameless article by Jonathan Jones in The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1564733,00.html - The Evil Empire , dated September 8. Considering that half the world refers to the Brits that way, I wanted to know who had dared to insult a power that, despite its small country, continues to manipulate the world. Alas! I found the article to be not about the British Empire; rather it is Mr. Jones’ pitiful criticism of a new exhibit at the British Museum on Persian Empire enhanced by pieces of what remains of Persepolis.

And contrary to Mr. Jones’ attempts to pin this on current politics, the exhibit had been planned years ago and has little to do with the relationship between the two countries or any changes thereof. He refers to Persepolis as nothing but archaeology, and considers Persian art devoid of emotions. In short, he makes every contemptible effort to reduce the great names of Persian Empire to a bunch of pathetic gold diggers.

http://www.mage.com/"> Where does such a deep antagonism originate from? For after reading Mr. Jones’ article, there’s no doubt in my mind he has a personal history, “A bone to pick” with Persians -- to paraphrase one of their own terms. He begins his slander by placing the Persian emperors alongside “Darth Vader, the Sheriff of Nottingham, General Custer, or any other evil empire.”

Not a clever move, Mr. Jones! I expected more diplomacy from a Brit. After all, I grew up with a grandmother who used to quote, “The Brits are so gentle at cutting your head off, you don’t feel it, until you sneeze and the thing falls off!” Not only does Mr. Jones’ article lack such skills, it is as if the author is relying too much on the expression, “The pen is mightier than the sword!”

Lucky for Persians, the world has not been waiting for any Smith or Jones to define history. Mr. Jones attempts to support his futile remarks with an artist’s imagination -- a mosaic found in Pompeii, portraying the great Persian king as a “frightened rabbit,” and concludes, “So much for Persia!”

He further tries to paint a grand picture of Alexander, as if to make him bigger than the Persians. History shows how the young Macedonian warrior bowed before Persian civilization, even wished to be like them, thus learning to speak the language and taking an Iranian wife. While half the world tries to belittle the Iranians, scholars around the world continue to educate us about the grandeur of ancient Persia and what remains the cradle of civilization.

Jones is not only angry at Persians, it sounds as if he doesn’t like the http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/persia/index.html - British Museum , either. Reading his article, I had a feeling he might find inner peace through sessions of counseling, indeed anger management. Is it not the same anger that has robbed the world peace? Unless one reads between the lines, similar articles, misleading words and men like Jones will do their best to divide, hoping to conquer.

http://www.gifttoiran.com/detail.asp?refer=isTrue&depid=32&depidp=1&proid=25&child=yes&af=iranian.com&bn=39"> At the conclusion of his article, he sounds appalled by all the glitter and gold in this exhibit. Has he ever viewed the British Crown Jewels? It is no secret that gold was the metal of choice to the ancient kings. What you see here, Mr. Jones, are only fragments of what used to be. The rest was confiscated by those who came to our country dressed in friendly clothes and it is all now the property of Western museums. I’d advise a trip around the world and a visit to other major museums to view some of them. However, considering your taste, I’m not sure that would be beneficial to your health.

I do like one phrase at the end of Jonathan Jones’ article and wish to borrow it in closing. Reporters come and reporters go, but when it comes to the last word, “History wins.”

* British Museum: http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/persia/index.html - Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia
* Video: http://edge.channel4.com/news/2005/09/week_2/06_persian.wmv - Channel 4 report

About
Zohreh Khazai Ghahremani is a retired dentist and a freelance writer. She lives in San Diego, California. Her latest book is " http://shopping.ketab.com/addprod.asp?id=418&pgs=1&cat=1&all=zohreh - Sharik-e Gham " (see http://www.iranian.com/Ghahremani/2005/January/Book/index.html - excerpt ). Visit her site http://www.zoeswordgarden.com/ - ZoesWordGarden.com

Actually they were. They didn't speak Greek, and they were foreigners.

Yiannis is right in that Mr. Jones is asserting the Western view.  It seems the Iranians have overreacted to this well-written article.

Did Darius not look like a frightened rabbit?

The author uses Sassanid reliefs in reference to the Hakhamanesh, a testament to his inept and outdated interpretation of history.

Mhm.

I don't think the article is that bad, but after reading it, I had no idea what his point was, the start and end of his article had close to no connection...

It was funny that he "forgot" to mention Zoroastrianism, and said that we didn't have a religion, funny that it kills a Brit to admit that they're own religion just a "clone" of ours

Well the writter of the article 'Evil Empire is obviously not a archaeologist nor historian. He is obviously a biggot, there is never one side to history, the corruption in the Persian courts did exist, but to call greek democracy, similar to modern day democracy is laughable and obsurb. If anything Modern Democracy is both a combination of Greek and Persian forms of governments.

Heroditus says alot of things in positive light about the persians but not too positive as to get him in trouble. he is just one man with idiotic ideas. His article had no substance or backing, it was just opinion based, of a journalist with no credability

Originally posted by HulaguHan No they are not. All Greeks, Latins, Germanics, Iranics speak languages from the Indo-European languages. an English and a Persian is like a Finnish and a Tunghus.

actually Anglo-saxons are a mixture of Anglos and Saxons, Saxons are an Iranian Tribe. European languages stem off an ancient family tree in which Iranian is off to, they call the original Zend.

However if you claim to be Saxon then note yoy claim to have Iranian blood as Scythians like Cimmerians, Sarmatians and Alans are part of the Iranian family tree. There are 80 Iranian tribes, Persians and Medes are just 2 amongst the 80 wich the ones I mentioned earlier are part of. We know this through linguistics and burial mounds etc etc

If you doubt it you have that free will, but back your opposition up next time.

But lets look at the whole point of view from a different angle, the fact that he wears pants and sits at a table, just one testement to Persian genius.

Infact a documentary on Perspolis made by National geographic states, 'No civilisation has ever reach to this day the tolerance of other religions and other people as the Ancient Persian Empire'

Iran at the moment is an evi empire, religion is not free there and human rights is appauling. It is no angel but when dealing with Anceint history not romans nor greeks ever tolerated other races, cultures or religions as the Persians did.

Even the greeks hated but to admire the Persians in attributes. For Greek to allow a woman freedom was a totally foriegn concept and seemed that the men must be weak. I admire Greek culture but to disregard another so badly is ignorance.

It was not that well written, this is to the guy who thinks it was.

this is how Evil the Ancient Persians were, looking at achievements of this Evil empire... human rights was first used by Persians, a little bit of an example of this.

Early Fame of the Laws of the Persians

The First Lawgiver
The Laws of the Medes and Persians have acquired universal fame; and the following pages will show how fully deserved that fame was. Iranian history starts in the beginnings of human life on earth, and yet the first Iranian ruling house was a dynasty of lawgivers. Hence Iranian law began to take shape ever since humanity started forming itself society, and indeed that happened far far away in the past when we consider that man has been living on this globe for over ten million years, or probably for much more many ages than that huge period of time.

Although the rulers of the first ancient royal house of Iran have all been distinguished as lawgivers, the first personage to have rendered special service in framing and codifying laws was Prince Uruvakhshaya, the brother of the immortal hero Krsaspa (Garshasp) and the son of King Thrita, the father of medicine. They were the immediate descendants of great Yima, the brilliant antediluvian monarch. This definitely shows that Law started in Iran in the beginnings of human history.

It is apparent that customs and laws would have to be recognised immediately the primitive men formed themselves into social units. Then wise men would appear and give them laws as necessity arose. Hence apparently jurisprudence should have a very ancient history in all annals of humanity, and every civilized nation of antiquity must have had a fair system of laws to guide and govern it.

The Ancient Laws of Iran: Their Wide and Varied Scope
It is apparent however that the more ancient civilizations of Iran, China, India and Egypt should have had earlier systems of law. The laws of the Vendidad among the Iranians and the laws of Manu among the early Indians are well-known. But it is not equally known that the laws of the Vendidad formed only a fragment of the vast jurisprudence of the ancient Iranians. Since the days of Zarathushtra when human knowledge was raised into the sanctity of religion and formulated into twenty-one Nasks or Holy Books, one third of that great knowledge comprised Law, one-third Science, and one-third pure Religion.

The Books of Law dealt with Court and Magisterial Law, Law of Accusations, Law for Injuries to Person and Property; Laws pertaining to Theft, Misappropriation and Cruelty to Animals; Laws applying to Soldiers and Military Organisations; Church Law, Family Law and Law of Pedigree and Descent; Law applying to Medical Practice; Law of Business Transactions in relation to Property, Animate and Inanimate; Laws relating to Debt and Interest, the other Mutual Obligations; Laws of Purity, Health and Sanitation, Private and Public; Laws applying to the Cultivation of the Soil and Colonizing Schemes; and finally, the Law of the Heavenly Kingdom and the Divine Government of the Universe.

The Family

Honured position of the Father and the Mother of the Family
Both in regard to the Lord and Lady of the House and other married couples in the joint family group, the privileges and duties assigned to fathers and mothers, equally applied to them all, subject to the superior jurisdiction of the former as determined by the family law of the ancient Iranians. And thatwise too the privileges and duties assigned to mothers in the old Iranian household, again show the honoured, responsible and high position of woman in old Iranian society.

The Duties and Privileges of the Husband and the Father
An Iranian was habitually as well as by intuition a loving husband and affectionate father. Still law had also ordained that he would not deal otherwise with his wife and children. He was the natural guardian of his wife till she lived, of his son till he came of age, and of his daughter till she married. And this duty he discharged intuitively as well as under command of law in a way as to give an air of sanctity, peace, beauty and cheer to the Iranian household.

Both parents and children had mutual responsibilities and privileges. The father was bound to use his property first on the needs of his family: and so he could not give it away as gift or in charity if that deprived his wife and children of proper maintenance, and even if he should do so with the wife's sanction law would intervence and prevence him from doing any such thing, so that even if such gift was already made and given away, it was to be withdrawn under the compulsion of law. So again, a father who criminally neglected maintenance and guardianship of his child had to make good the expense to any one else who fulfilled that duty towards it.

If however the father was in want and the wife and children had some property of their own the father was privileged to take a legitimate portion of it for his own use. It is apparent however that this would not be permitted to the extent which would deprive them of their own means of livelihood; whereas when he could avail of such privilege without causing inconvenience to others he had to return in principal what he had thus taken, when he found the means to do so.

Disinherison of Children not permitted to the Iranian Father
The father was obliged to assign his property to his only child and was required to place it under an executor when that was necessary, and if the child was guilty of misbehaviour he was required to put it in trust for such which trust the child was not allowed to challenge afterwards. It would seem that this interpretation of the text here is more probable than that of taking this as a case of disinherison, which the Roman law had prescribed for undutiful children. Still when the father was an integral part of the joint family and the joint family property was enough to maintain his wife and children, he could dispose of a personal property of his, such as was acquired by gift, in any way he chose.

Father, as his child's guardian, had the right to decline to allow it a gift by another; but when he allowed it, he had to preserve it intact till the child came of age and took it over.

The Laws of the Ancient Persians
By: S. J. Bulsara, From: The Laws of the Ancient Persians, Bombay, 1937