The discovery and decipherment of the trilingual cuneiform inscriptionsBooth, Arthur John
History
The discovery and decipherment of the trilingual cuneiform inscriptions
Booth, Arthur John
Achaemenian inscriptions; Cuneiform inscriptions
In 1601, Philip II. thought it advisable to renew diplomatic intercourse
with this great monarch, and he instructed the Viceroy at Goa to despatch
a second mission to Ispahan. The Viceroy chose three Augustinian friars,
among whom was Antoine de Gouvea, who has left an interesting account of
his travels. Gouvea was the Rector of the College of Goa, and Professor
of Theology, and he had acquired a competent knowledge of Persian. The
party landed at Ormuz early in 1602, and set out in May to join the king,
but they turned aside from the direct route to visit ‘Chelminira,’ or the
Forty Columns, which he believed to be the ‘sepulchre of an old king
who was buried here.’[11] He found, however, that the tomb was on the
side of the mountain, and was generally attributed to Cyrus. He thought
it was more probably to be assigned to Assuerus or Artaxerxes, and the
tomb close by to his wife, Queen Vasti. The ruins of the Forty Columns
were locally known as ‘the Old Town,’ and it was thought that it had been
the original site of Shiraz. Old writers confirmed this view, because
they said the river Bondamiro[12] (which passes near the ruins) ‘washed
the walls of Shiraz.’ Gouvea, following the geographical writers of the
time, had no doubt that Shiraz was the ancient Persepolis. It never
occurred to him to connect it with ‘the old town’ of Chelminar, to which
tradition pointed as the original site of Shiraz. He called attention to
the magnificent staircase that leads from the plain to the platform on
which the ruins stand. Two staircases, he says, rise from the foot of the
mountain, _vis-à-vis_ one to the other, consisting of numerous steps well
adjusted, and cut out of immense blocks of stone. The two stairs converge
to one common landing place; and, writing evidently from memory, he adds
that the sides are adorned with figures in relief, so well made that ‘he
doubts if it were possible to execute them better.’ The Porch is, he
says, adorned with ‘figures of savage animals cut out of a single block,
and so lifelike that they appear as though they desired to excite fear.’
He describes the columns as surmounted by beautiful statues. On the
Portico and in various places among the ruins he saw the portrait of the
king. He does not mention any of the ruins on the platform; they appear
all to come under the comprehensive description of ‘chapels,’ which he
says were built of huge blocks of stone. But he noticed the two tombs
on the hill, one being ‘the sepulchre of the king, which is not very
different from the other.’ He confuses the great entrance stairs leading
to the Porch with the sculptured stairs leading to the Court of the
Columns; and represents it as approached directly through the Porch. It
was a long time before this error was cleared up. Gouvea called attention
to the inscriptions. ‘The writing,’ he says, ‘may be clearly seen in
many places, and it may explain by whom the building was erected and the
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account