معماي برآمدن داريوش بزرگ؛ مقايسة روايت‌هاي ايراني و يوناني

The Enigma of Darius the Great's Rising; a Comparisons Between Iranian and Greek Narratives

در حالي كه بيش از هشتاد سال از چاپ مقالات و كتاب اومستد مي­ گذرد، فرضية مشهور او كه بنا بر آن ادعاي داريوش در سنگ‌نبشتۀ بيستون، مبني بر قتل برديا به دست كمبوجيه و غصب پادشاهي از سوي مغي به نام گئومات، دروغ بوده است، نه كاملاً پذيرفته و نه رد شده است. در اينجا تلاش مي­ شود الگوهاي ادبي و سياسي متداول در شرق نزديك باستان در كتيبه ­نويسي و مقايسة آن با تاريخ يوناني براي راستي ­آزمايي ادعاهاي داريوش و ترديدهاي شكاكان بررسي شود. روش ما در اينجا بازشناسي احتمال تأثير پروپاگانداي دولت هخامنشي بر تاريخ‌نگاري يوناني و بررسي تأثير مثبت يا منفي تناقضات و گزافه‌هاي موجود در تواريخ يوناني بر اعتبار گزارش بيستون است. بر پايۀ اين پژوهش به نظر مي‌رسد ايرادات منطقي ماجرا بيشتر به گزارش‌هاي يوناني برمي‌گردد تا به بيستون. در مقام مقايسه نيز، روايت ايرانيِ ماجرا منطقي‌تر و پذيرفتني‌تر به ‌نظر مي‌رسد. تناقض ميان منابع يوناني و بيستون به جاي آنكه كليّت داستان را غيرتاريخي بشناساند، دليلي ا‌ست بر اينكه روايت‌هاي يوناني، نتيجة پروپاگانداي دولتي نبود و يونانيان از منابعي پراكنده و مستقل بهره برده بودند. همچنين روشن گشت كه سنگ‌نبشتۀ بيستون را بايد جلوه‌اي از سنت ادبي و حماسي در ادامة الگوهاي مذهبي ايراني و سياسي ميان­ روداني دانست.

After Over 80 years of publishing Olmstead's essays and book, his hypothesis upon which "Darius I's Claim in Behistun (Bīstūn) Inscription that tells Bardya was assassinated by Cambodia and the kingdom was usurped by Gaumatay the Magi was not true" is not absolutely proven as well as not rejected. To verify Darius's claims and skeptics' doubts, it has been tried in present study to examine the commonly used literary and political patterns in ancient Near East's inscriptions and comparing it with Greek history. The method used in this study is exploring the probability of the propaganda of the Achaemenid government on Greek historiography and to examine the positive or negative impacts of contradictions and exaggerations in the Greek histories on the credibility of the Behistun report. Based on the results, it seems that the logical defects of the case refer more to Greek reports than to Behistun's. an‎d even in comparison, the Iranian narrative of the story seems more reasonable and more acceptable. The contradiction between the Greek and the Behistun sources can be a reason, instead of recognizing the totality of the story untrue, to prove that the Greek narratives were not the results of a government propaganda and they were produced on the basis of independent sources. The contradiction between the Greek and the Behistun sources, instead of recognizing the totality of the story as a non-historical, shows that Greek narratives were not the result of governmental propaganda, and they utilized scattered and independent sources. It also became clear that the Behistun's Inscription should be seen as a manifestation of a literary and epic tradition in continuation of the Iranian religious and Mesopotamian political patterns.