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
value as regards the Pehlevi; and certainly little can be made out of the
cuneiform except by the constant and painful use of a powerful magnifying
glass. They may, however, be occasionally useful to decide disputed
points: as, for example, the photograph of the inscription on the Anta
of the Palace of Darius proves that the transcription of Westergaard
is correct, and that of Rich wrong (Plate XIII.). Another photograph
shows that the error in one of Niebuhr’s copies is due to a defect in
the original.[199] Elsewhere Niebuhr is shown to be even more careful
than Westergaard.[200] The photographs of the monuments and bas-reliefs
meet with a very varying measure of success. Some are so blurred and
indistinct that it is fortunate that they are each labelled in German,
French and English; otherwise we might doubt whether they are correctly
described.[201] Comparative success is reached more frequently, and
excellence occasionally. It is particularly unfortunate that the great
sculptured staircase has not been taken on a sufficiently large scale
to bring out the figures with distinctness (Pl. 77 ff.); Noeldeke is,
however, of opinion that it is the best view of them taken since Ouseley,
thus passing over both Porter and the two French artists, Texier and
Flandin. Among the most valuable views from Murgab are the two plates
showing the Tomb of Cyrus (Pl. 128-9). The series closes with what might
pass for a snowy mountain in Switzerland, but which is explained to be
fragments of a bas-relief at Pasargadae (Pl. 137). Noeldeke, like Texier,
fully believes in the destruction of some of the buildings by fire, and
he also considers that few of them were ever thoroughly completed; indeed
he attributes to that cause the absence of all traces of walls round
the Hall of Xerxes, or of a roof. He thinks there never were any more
columns than can now be identified, and that some even of these were left
unfinished. The same applies to the Entrance Porch; possibly the gates
on the North and South sides (which are supposed to have been part of
the general design) were never erected; nor the second pair of columns.
At the instigation of Dr. Andreas, a trench was dug into the Central
Mound, which had long been the object of so many conjectures, with the
disappointing result that it was found to contain nothing but cuttings
discarded by the masons.
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