نسخة مذيلة من "بلاد فارس والشأن الفارسي" بقلم جورج كرزون، مع أوراق مدرجة [ظ‎‎٥‎٣‎٢] (١٨١٤/١٠٧٧)

88
PERSIA
Achsemenians, here Cyrus was buried, and here must be sought his
tomb. 1
How the negative arguments against Darabjird being the site of
the city and tomb of Cyrus are, I think, overpowering. The plain
round Darabjird cannot well have been the site of the battle
Darabjircl hetween him anc [ Astyages. There is no vxf/rjXoraTov opos
here at all. Neither is there any river Kuros. Nor does the place
correspond with the indications of the Greek or Latin writers whom I
have quoted, with the exception of the latest in date, Ptolemy. More
over, it is at such a distance from Persepolis (190 miles) as to render it
highly improbable that the two names would have been constantly
unwarrantable manner in order to suit his assumptions. He says (Journ. Asiat.,
vol. xix. 1872) that ‘starting from Pisyachada Yeisdates fought a second battle
at Parraga (Forg), whence his beaten troops fell back upon Aiachotia in the
extreme east.’ The inscription says nothing of the kind. On the contrary, it says
that he came Itacli to Parga, whereas had Parga been lorg, he would have required
to go on. Nor is the expedition to Arachotia in the inscription justifiably re
presented as a retreat of beaten troops from Forg. The context shows that it was
an independent military venture.
1 Oppert derives the name Pisyachada from.yz.sc7b springs, and Itlieveh, 'valley
i.e. the valley of springs. But this is purely conjectural. Ihe old explanation
of Pasargadse, or Parsagardas (as it was written by Q. Curtius), was given b}
Stephen of Byzantium* quoting Anaximenes, as the encampment of the Persians.
(Compare Las-gird, Buru-jird, etc.) Oppert, having thus identified Pasargadas
with Darabjird, has also to dispose of the remains of the city built by Cyrus in
the valley of the Polvar. This he does by T identifying the latter with Marrhasium,
cited by Ptolemy (Geog. viii. 21, 11) as one of the four principal cities of Peisia,
the geographical positions of the two places corresponding veiy fairly. Dr.
Andreas solves the difficulty 7 by supposing that the Cyrus of Murghab is Cyrus,
brother of Xerxes, and Viceroy of Egypt, who was called Achasmenides by Ctesias,
and whose body was brought after death to Persia to be buried there. To which
the answer is that this Cyrus could never have been described in the inscriptions
as Khshayathiya, or king, an objection which applies equally to the suggestion of
the younger Cyrus. Sayce is hardly to be congratulated upon his statement of
the case (Encycl. Britannica) : ‘ The tomb at Murghab cannot be that of Cyrus,
as is often supposed. Murghab, like Persepolis, is on the Araxes, while Pasargadae
where Cyrus was buried, was on the Cyrus (Kur). The cuneiform inscription at
Murghab points to a period subsequent to the accession of Darius, as does also
the Egyptian head-dress of the figure below it.’ Now, as regards the above,
neither Murghab nor Persepolis are on the Araxes or Kur. If the former had
been, the case would be settled at once against Professor Sayce. Both are on the
Medus or Polvar, although lower down the river is called the Kur, after joining
the Kamfiruz. Nor is the cuneiform character of Murghab of late date; foi
Oppert himself is constrained to admit that ‘the character of the sculptures at
Murghab is more ancient than that of any other Persian antiquities ;’ whilst the
Egyptian character of the head-dress of Cyrus may be explained by the theory,
previously suggested, that the figure was sculped after his death and deification
either by Nitetis or by one of his successors.