Page:Philological Museum v2.djvu/196

186 186 On the Position of Siisa. question of soQie importance to ancient history : and I may therefore hope that my labour will not be wasted if I make V. Hammer's discovery more generally known. For this pur- pose I subjoin a translation of that part of his article which relates to this point. But for the sake of readers to whom the subject may not be familiar, I will first briefly state the principal arguments which had been previously adduced on each side of the controversy. This I shall do with the as- sistance, and partly in the words of Mr Kinneir, who in his Geographical Memoir of the Persian Empire (p. 101—106) has reviewed the conflicting reasonings of Major Rennel and Doctor Vincent, and has declared himself, though not with absolute confidence, in favour of the former, who places Susa on the site of Shiis and on the banks of the Kerah^ or Haweesa^ or Karassu^ against the latter, who contends that Susa is Shustey and the Karoon the Choaspes. Mr Kinneir, as an eyewitness, informs us, (p. 99-) that " about seven or eight miles to the west of De^phoul (a town on the eastern bank of the Abzal^ twenty eight miles west of Sinister) commence the ruins of Shits^ stretching not less perhaps than twelve miles from one extremity to the other. They extend as far as the eastern bank of the Kerah^ occupy an immense space between that river and the Ahzal^ and like the ruins of Ctesiphon^ Babylon^ and Kufa^ consist of hillocks of earth and rubbish covered with broken pieces of bricks and coloured tile. These mounds bear some resemblance to the pyramids of Babylon^ with this diff*erence5 that instead of being entirely made of brick, many are formed of clay and pieces of tile, with irregular layers of brick and mortar five or six feet in thickness, to serve, it should seem, as a kind of prop to the mass. Large blocks of marble, covered with hieroglyphics, are not unfrequently here discovered by the Arabs, when digging in search of hidden treasure; and at the foot of the most elevated of the pyramids stands the Tomb of Daniel^ a small and apparently a modern building, erected on the spot where the relics of that prophet were believed to rest.**' Major Renners arguments in favour of Shus are three in number. " First (as Mr Kinneir states them) the simi- larity of name; and the situation, which ao^rees better with