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
Before leaving the neighbourhood of Persepolis, Niebuhr visited Istakhr
and Naksh-i-Rustam, but he did not go on to Murgab. At Istakhr he saw
two columns still standing, and he noted the massive blocks of the
gateway.[95] He made no attempt to enter any of the tombs, which he says
could not be done ‘without the risk of losing one’s life.’ That risk,
such as it was, was, however, undertaken in the following year by Mr.
Hercules, who had provided himself with tools in the case of necessity;
but he found that some earlier visitor had pierced a hole through the
top, and that there was nothing but dust remaining. Niebuhr has not
noticed the inscription on the Tomb of Darius; but his accurate copies
of the Pehlevi made at this spot and at Naksh-i-Rejeb opposite were the
first that enabled Silvestre de Sacy to translate that language.
We shall see in a future chapter that before the close of the century
the writings of Le Bruyn and Niebuhr had attracted a fair share of
attention among European scholars; and the copies they had made of the
inscriptions became the object of sedulous study, especially in the
North. In Göttingen, the interest excited by the description of the
ruins of Persepolis gave rise to an extremely heated controversy between
Heeren and Herder. The former, in an early edition of the ‘Historical
Researches,’ maintained that they were of Achaemenian origin. Persepolis,
he says, ‘as the residence and place of sepulture of the Persian kings,
was considered in the light of a sanctuary, and held to be the chief
place in the kingdom.’ Herder, on the other hand, contended for its
Jamshid origin, and supported his opinion in a series of very acrid
‘Persepolitan Letters.’[96] The question was of more importance than
might at first sight appear, for upon its decision depended the royal
names that should be looked for in the inscriptions. George Grotefend,
a student in the University, who made the first successful attempt
to decipher them in 1802, adopted the opinion of Heeren, and his
investigations were largely based upon the conviction that the names of
Darius and Xerxes could not fail to be found hidden in the cuneiform
characters.
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