Annotated Copy of Persia and the Persian Question by George Curzon, with Inserted Papers [‎594r] (1202/1814)

PERSEPOLIS, AND OTHER RUINS
187
a Hundred Columns by supposing that it was the result of natural de
composition, and he apparently forgets the traces of conflagration, for
which he has pleaded elsewhere on the ruined platform. He argues
that the N aksh-i-Rustam position was a much better and more
probable site for the royal residence and citadel, because of the better
water-supply, and because it was out of sight of the tombs, which the
Mazdean monarchs would not have consented always to keep in view.
In fine, he gives the go-by to the platform altogether, and leaves it,
with brilliant contumely, to account for itself.
Now, in answer to all this it may be pointed out that an ounce of
fact is worth a hundredweight of theory, particularly when theory
The answer ies ^ s u P on an ancient but not contemporary writer The lowest of the four classes into which East India Company civil servants were divided. A Writer’s duties originally consisted mostly of copying documents and book-keeping. , quot
ing in the most perfunctory fashion from another writer The lowest of the four classes into which East India Company civil servants were divided. A Writer’s duties originally consisted mostly of copying documents and book-keeping. ,
notoriously reckless. The solid and incontrovertible fact of the
platform and its palaces remains * while not a trace of the great
thieefold stiucture of Diodorus and Stolze has ever been discovered.
Why should all the buildings have survived in one spot, and all have
perished in the other 1 The confusion between the two groups of
royal tombs is a very natural mistake, and might easily occur nor
can any valid reasoning, in my opinion, be grounded upon this state
ment. hat, then, are we to believe of the general description by
Diodorus, or Clitarchus, whichever it really v r as, concerning the triple,
concentric, lofty-walled enclosure ? That such a description could
ever have been intended to apply to the existing platform, I am quite
unable to credit . 1 Two hypotheses suggest themselves. The first is
1 Some writers have laboured the minute and possible features of identity
between the two, arguing that the platform was the uppermost or innermost of
the three enclosures. It is sufficient to point out that even its maximum elevation
above the plain is wholly inadequate, that it must always have rested upon a wall
instead of being encompassed by a wall, and that not a trace has ever been noted
on the ground below of either of the twm inferior enclosures, their contents, or
their fortifications. Why, again, should one only have survived, and the two
others have perished? Some writers have sought a feeble support in the discovery
(which Texier, vol. ii. p. 161, claims for one of his party, but which was really
made by Ker Porter twenty years before) of what is alleged to have been a triple
line of circumvallation, consisting of mud walls and towers, on the brow of the
hill behind the platform, at a little distance above the royal tombs. Such a work
was a very natural and necessary scheme of protection to the platform, which
might otherwise have been open either to attack or to robbery on that side; but,
of course, it answers in no respect to the account of Diodorus, nor can it be proved
to date from Achmmenian times. A far more reasonable hypothesis is suggested
to me by Mr. Cecil Smith, who thinks that the triple wall of Diodorus may have
resulted from a misunderstanding of Clitarchus’ description of the three walls of
the Persepolitan platform, which were of differing height and were crowned with
a parapet. He also ingeniously suggests that aravpovs, the brazen palisades above
mentioned, which in themselves are an unintelligible architectural feature, may