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
perfect, though he states in the text that the larger number on one side
are so mutilated that they are without their heads.[84] It would be
impossible in his drawings to distinguish the different nationalities;
it is difficult even to detect the ‘Kaffir,’ as he calls the famed
Ethiopian.[85]
On the other hand, the description he has given of the ruins has the
merit of being more concise than that of Chardin, and we follow him
throughout with clearness. He was disposed to accept the theory that the
edifice was originally a temple, the seat of an ecclesiastical chief,
comparable to the Roman Pontiff, who had gradually passed into a secular
prince. He did not doubt that it finally became the residence of the
Achaemenian Kings, and was the edifice destroyed by Alexander.
It is not necessary to refer to many of his criticisms. He had little
hesitation in deciding that the animals on the Porch were griffins
(licornes), and that a double griffin ornamented the capital of the
columns. Besides griffins, he fancied he discerned women among the
bas-reliefs, especially in the Palace of Xerxes.[86] He, however, made
the important observation that in the Columnar Edifice or Hall of Xerxes
the columns of the central cluster are four feet lower than those at the
side, and that there are the remains of four walls that seem to indicate
an entrance from the north. He did not consider that the evidence was
sufficient to conclude, as was generally done, that this edifice must
have been necessarily open at the top; on the contrary, he suggests the
possibility that the central group of columns supported a second stage,
and the side colonnades a terrace.[87] He thought it probable that the
whole assemblage of columns—seventy-two in number—had originally formed
one immense building, which would have exceeded in size the Hall of the
Hundred Columns. With regard to the latter, he had no doubt that it also
had been roofed, and he observed numerous fragments of columns both in
the great hall and in the portico. Della Valle had long ago traced the
bases of thirty-six columns in the Palace of Xerxes; Niebuhr now adds
the observation that there are four in each of the side rooms. He was
also the first to observe the third tomb to the south of the others near
Persepolis that has been left incomplete.[88]
But his principal merit lies in the great service he has rendered towards
the solution of the mystery of the cuneiform letters. It is true he
neglected to furnish a complete copy of all the inscriptions, which, with
the time at his disposal, he might perhaps have accomplished; but the
contributions he did make are of great value.
(1) He copied the inscription on the west end of the sculptured terrace,
25 lines, known as Inscription A.
(2) The six-line inscription in three tablets over the king in the Palace
of Darius: B, C, D.
(3) The corresponding inscription in the Palace of Xerxes: E, F, G.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account