Note by Baron Dz Sacy on an Inscription at Naksh-i-Rustam. 507 
then both the statues, the inscriptions, and the historical relations, bear each 
other out: and should it be TIOY, beyond all doubt the figure is that of 
SuAprur, the son of Arpasuir. The YIOY@EOY occurs thrice in the other 
inscription after the king’s name. Here no name is given: the father’s is 
inscribed on the opposite horse, and it is simply said on this, ** This is the 
representation of the son of (the) God ;” the usual title given to Arpasuir. 
Had it been a conquered king, pride would have induced the monarch who 
erected this as a national monument to explain more clearly the circum- 
stances, either in the words which point him out to be the conqueror, or in 
those which would have designated the vanquished prince. Had it been 
intended to show that the latter was contending for the sovereignty, he 
would not have been distinguished by symbols of power which he did not 
possess ; and there is too striking a difference between the head-dress of 
the Parthian kings and that here traced, for it possibly to represent one of 
them, as is supposed by M. De Sacy. I conceive that M. DE Sacy was not 
aware of these words being inscribed on one of the horses in this set of 
figures, nor am I certain of its having been before explained. The 
correction of so important an error is principally interesting from its 
authenticating an extraordinary fact recorded in Persian history.* 
NOTE. 
Tue Council of the Roya Astatic Society having considered it proper to submit a 
copy of the preceding Paper to the Baron Dr Sacy, that gentleman has favoured the 
Council with the following remarks on the point at issue : 
«© Cette inscription t est la plus courte de celles dont j’ai entrepris l’interpretation, et 
je l’ai mise sous la lettre C. Dans la partie grecque, si l’on s’en rapporte 4 la copie de 
Niesunr, elle ne contient que ces mots: todo Ty wpoowmov Aids Ocod. M. Money qui 
sans doute a visité lui-méme ces monumens de l’époque des Sassanides, assure qu’au lieu 
de Ais, il y a réellement uics. Je lui dois le connoissance de la place qu’occupe cette 
inscription, circonstance que je n’ai pas pu prendre en considération, puisque NizsuurR 
avoit négligé de l’indiquer. J’ai essayé de rendre raison de ce qu'il y a de singulier 4 
* In the first volume of Sir Ropert Ker Porrer’s Account of his Travels in Persia, &c. 
(4to. London, 1820), will be found a detailed description of this, among the other sculptures at 
Naksh-i-Rustam ; it is illustrated by a plate containing ,fac-similes of the inscriptions. Sir 
Rozert adopts Baron Dr Sacy’s explanation of the monument. 
+ C No. 3, Mém. Plate I. 
Vol. ILI. 3U 
