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
Hincks’s paper ‘On the First and Second Kinds of Persepolitan Writing’
was read to the Royal Irish Academy on June 9, 1846, and he communicated
its contents to Mr. Norris, the secretary of the Royal Asiatic Society,
who sent a detailed account of it to Major Rawlinson at Bagdad. This
letter was despatched from London on August 20, and five days afterwards,
on the twenty-fifth of the same month,[549] Major Rawlinson sent off
a Supplementary Note in which, by a very singular coincidence, he
introduced some important modifications in his system of transliteration
that brought it into substantial agreement with that just then proposed
by Hincks. Thus the two documents crossed each other on the way,
a circumstance that affords conclusive proof of their independent
production.[550] But as Hincks’s paper was read in June and Rawlinson’s
note not despatched till August, the priority must be awarded to the
former. This was the first occasion on which Hincks had contributed
to cuneiform research, and, as we have said, he had the good fortune
to forestall Rawlinson in one of his most useful discoveries. When he
wrote, Lassen’s Second Memoir of 1844 was still the chief authority on
the subject, and it is to it that he directs his criticism. In looking
over Lassen’s alphabet, nothing was more remarkable than the number of
signs allotted to certain supposed modifications of the same sound. Thus
_k_, for example, was represented by no less than four different signs
expressing _k_ (No. 4), _k’_ (16), _k’h_ (19), and _kh_ (42): _d_ by
three different signs, _d_ (11), _d’h_ (22), and _dh_ (34). At the same
time it was beginning to be remarked that certain of these signs to
which modifications of the same sound were ascribed were only to be found
in combination with particular vowels. Lassen himself had pointed out in
his First Memoir of 1836 that _m_ (29) always preceded an _i_. Jacquet
added that _r_ (40) always occurred before _u_. Holtzmann also remarked
that 28 (𐎩), to which he gave the value of _g_, is always followed by
_a_, and 19 _d_ by _i_.[551]
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