Note 227 — Chapter II · SCULPTURE. (continued 2)

In the case of the Caillou Michaux, this has been clearly established by M. Oppert (Expédition scientifique, vol. i. pp. 253, 254). He remarks that the betrothed of the person who had caused the stone to be cut, is spoken of as a “native of the town of Sargon;” so that the stone must be later than the end of the eighth century, B.C. And all the monuments belonging to this class bear such a strong mutual resemblance, that their dates cannot be very widely separated. They are reproduced on a large scale, both texts and figures, in the Cuneiform inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. iii. plates 41–45, and vol. iv. plates 41–43. We have reproduced two, in vol. i. fig. 10, and above, fig. 43.