D^r Hincks

Lacock May 13/ 57

D^r Sir

I have referred to your paper in The Athenæum for 1853 p. 892 from which I find that nearly four years ago you had made considerable progress in the interpretation of this inscriptⁿ

I find that Rawlinson then considered the country of Musr which Tiglath Pileser conquered to have been “Persian Armenia” but I do not think he retains that opinion at present. It is my belief that Egypt is the country intended to be spoken of, and by no means any part of Armenia.

I should think the Council would direct the translations to be printed – otherwise their utility would be in great measure lost.

There will doubtless be errors in all the translations – but this is of small importance compared with the fact (which I confidently anticipate) that certain passages of importance will be rendered in the same way by all the translators, although relating to affairs previously unknown, and the absence of all bias upon the minds of the translators will render this agreement a proof positive of the truth of the system, in the opinion of all candid archæologists –

I remain D^r Sir Yours vy Truly

H. F. Talbot