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
On the other hand, his contributions to the general advance of the
study were necessarily limited. By the time he became known to European
scholars they had on their part advanced so far that only four letters of
Niebuhr’s list remained for which a correct or approximate value had not
been found. These were:
19 𐎮 _k_ of Lassen,
28 𐎩 _z_ of Jacquet,
32 𐎪 _g’_ of Lassen,
33 𐎸 _g_ of Lassen.
The appearance of Rawlinson did not, therefore, take place till after
the difficulty of the decipherment had been almost completely surmounted
without his assistance. When his correspondence with Burnouf and Lassen
began, in the autumn of 1838, he was, however, still in time to rectify
two out of the four incorrect values.
He found 32 (𐎪) in the name of Cambyses, where it occurs as the fourth
sign, which he transliterated correctly as _j_; Kₐbujᵢy. Hincks
afterwards read the sign _zh(i)_ and Oppert _z(j)i_; but both these
sounds have since yielded to the one proposed by Rawlinson, and it now
appears as _j_ before _i_. But Rawlinson’s most striking success was
with the last letter, 33 (𐎸), another _g_ of Lassen. In his letter to
Burnouf, he proposed to substitute _m_.[502] It is the initial letter
in the name Lassen read ‘Gudrâha’ and thought indicated the Gordyaei.
Rawlinson suggested the name was M’udraya, and should be compared with
the Phoenician ‘Mŭdra’ and the Hebrew ‘Mitsraim,’ and signified, in fact,
Egypt. Both of these emendations were, however, rejected by Lassen.[503]
There is another sign which came under discussion at this time. It will
be recollected that we have assigned 13 (𐎡) to Lassen, who gave it the
approximate value of _t_. Rawlinson, however, suggested to Burnouf
that its true value is not _t_ but _tr_. In this, however, he had been
anticipated, as we have seen, by Grotefend in 1837, who suggested
_thr_.[504] It is admitted that it is impossible to distinguish between
the comparative merits of _tr_ and _thr_;[505] and as Rawlinson probably
knew nothing of Grotefend’s ‘Beiträge’ at the time, he may be credited
with having discerned the correct sound of the sign.[506]
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