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
unilingual inscriptions, one of Arsaces and the other of Pharnuches, were
also afterwards found on seal cylinders which, with the trilingual of
Darius in the British Museum (Nᵃ) raise the number to three in all.[242]
CHAPTER III
DECIPHERMENT OF THE FIRST OR PERSIAN COLUMN—TYCHSEN TO LASSEN, A.D.
1798-1836.
We have already called attention to the important services rendered
by Niebuhr to the study of the cuneiform inscriptions. The copies he
made at Persepolis were by far the most accurate that had hitherto
appeared, and the scholars who first applied themselves to the difficult
task of decipherment worked chiefly upon them. He pointed out that the
inscriptions generally occur in groups of three columns, and that in
each the cuneiform signs are different. He pointed out also that the
three different systems always recur in the same definite order: the
signs characteristic of the first, second and third columns in one
inscription always correspond to those of the first, second and third
columns in the others. He observed also that the signs characteristic of
the first column are evidently much simpler than those in the other two.
After a careful comparison of the various places where they are found,
he remarked that they were limited to forty-two in number; and these he
collected and published together in his Plate 23, where they occupy a
position that might at first sight lead the reader to suppose that they
formed a part of the ornamentation of the sculptured staircase.[243]
This is the first cuneiform alphabet ever published, and it was not the
least important service rendered by Niebuhr to the study. Its formation
was not so simple as might be supposed, and it would have been difficult
to accomplish it except by a minute study of the monuments themselves.
The inscriptions had hitherto been so imperfectly copied that no mere
collation of them, however carefully made, could have succeeded in
eliminating the whole of the faulty signs arising from the errors of
the transcriber. The accidental addition or omission of a wedge, or an
alteration in its direction, had the effect of magnifying the apparent
number of the letters. It is a singular proof of the accuracy of
Niebuhr’s judgment that he should have been so successful in this first
attempt to distinguish between the genuine and the defective letters. In
his list of forty-two signs, he has only introduced nine that are not
true letters, including the sign that was afterwards found to be the mark
of separation between the words.[244] On the other hand, amid all the
conflicting signs found in the copyists, he passed over only two that
are genuine: one (𐎦) is included by Grotefend in his list of defective
signs; the other (𐎵) was first added to the alphabet by Rawlinson.[245]
It proved of great advantage to concentrate the attention of scholars
upon signs that were for the most part genuine, and to save them the
dissipation of energy that would have resulted if they had been left to
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