One of the remarkable points related the tomb of Cyrus II is the investigation of the claim of ancient Greek historians about an inscription from the Akaemanid period in that place. Aothurs such as Aristobulus and Onesicritus, the contomporaries of Alexander the Macedonian and later Strabo and Plutarch have provided reports on this matter. After the identifying of tomb of Cyrus II in the 19th century, it was known that there is no archaeological evidence to confirm their claims. This contrast forced Western and Iranian researchers of the 19th and 20th centuries in the field of Achaemanid history to react to the existence and even the quality of that inscription. Since the reactions are mainly expressed in a scattered manner, this research by using descriptive-analytical method, first discusses the existence of such inscriptions. Afterwards, it examines the linguistic features and the content of narratives of the ancient historians and compares them with the examples in the Pasargadae collection and other Akaemenid administrative places. The conclusion of this research reveals that despite the possibility the of an inscription in the tomb of Cyrus II, there are significant differences between the linguistic elements and the common literature of the inscriptions of the Akaemanid kings and the content presented by the Greek historians, in such a way that it is difficult to accept the content of the reports.