First things first, I am studying History at university level, and this is the first time I've come across this problem. I have searched around a little for an answer, and haven't found one - how do I quote an inscription using the Chicago style? The inscription in question is from the tomb of Rekhmire in Thebes.
.Should I reference it as though it were a quote within a book (as in, John Smith, as quoted in Blanky Blanks, book title, etc) or as though it were its own source, ie, An inscription, from the tomb of Rekhmire, Vizier to Tuthmosis III, Thebes?
.Thanks in advance, and if I'm in the wrong place I'm sorry (in advance as well)!
I've got about a decade of University press editorial work under my belt, almost all using Chicago, so I may be of help here. Bearing in mind that the purpose of a citation is to permit another person to follow your work, then what is of paramount importance is where you found it--the closest you can track it to the original source and still evaluate it yourself. Don't cite the original alone unless you have actually seen the object or a direct image (even transcription is out on this); instead cite it through the closest you've been able to get to that. The reason is that some translations may be dodgy or incomplete, and it is important for someone following your evidentiary trail to know where you got that translation or transcription.
If you've read it in a [source]book, then it's a source or other contribution in an edited volume. If it's an encyclopedia, follow that style. If it's a partial quotation in some other piece of writing, give the original citation information as closely as you can (and there is often some invention here, though in 16th ed., section 14.263 governs the general principles for Classical inscriptions, but you can usually follow the principles in some way appropriate to the material in question) followed by a comma, quoted in [the citation and location where you directly read it in Chicago style]. They now frown on using secondary cites (the "quoted in" model, see 14.273) especially when you don't have anything before "quoted in," but if it's as close as you can get, it's more honest than citing something you haven't or can't actually read.
With a lot of unusual primary sources, you end up doing some invention, but it's important to be consistent and reasonably conforming to the Chicago Manual. Talk to your supervising faculty member and see what they have to say; they may actually have a preference or may have run into this before.
There is a /r/askacademia sub that you might find useful!
Are you doing the translation yourself? If not, site the book you found the translation in.
You should find the original publication of the inscription, and cite that. Lacking that, you can cite the inscription title, as found in John Smith etc. I don't know enough about Egyptology to give you pointers on the publication I'm afraid. But as far as style goes either of those options should be available. Get the original publication if you can. "John Smith" should have included the bibliographical info for that publication. If he didn't, you must be very careful about relying on him as a source.
Are you working from a corpus of inscriptions like CIL? They usually have a special citation form