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
M. Oppert had now become the chief representative of cuneiform studies
upon the Continent. His essays on the Persian column of the inscriptions
(1851-2), evinced a complete mastery of the subject and considerable
independence in the treatment of doubtful passages. The reputation
he had earned led to his being attached to the French scientific
expedition to Babylonia. On his return he undertook to write an account
of the expedition, and his second volume, which made its appearance in
1859, contains an elaborate account of the work of decipherment.[665]
Although the book is chiefly concerned with Assyrian, he has given a
Syllabarium of the Median, with the object chiefly of comparing it with
the Babylonian and Assyrian systems of writing.[666] The great importance
resulting from such a comparison now becomes apparent. The values of the
Assyrian signs were already ascertained in a large number of cases, and
it was recognised that, with some exceptions, the similar sign in Median
generally expressed the same value. The principle was also definitely
admitted that each sign has only one value,[667] and that an independent
sign may be looked for to express the combination of the vowels _a_,
_i_ and _u_ before and after each of the principal consonants, _k_,
_p_, _t_, _m_, _r_, _l_ and _s_, and therefore we may expect a sign for
each of such forms as _ka_, _ki_, _ku_, _ak_, _ik_, _uk_, and so on.
The application of this system enabled Oppert to make a very decisive
improvement in the Syllabarium. It will be recollected that Norris had
twenty-four wrong values, and twenty-one only approximately correct.
Oppert now corrects twelve of the former and eighteen of the latter. The
result was that he could dispose of eighty-three values absolutely and
six nearly correct. He was doubtful as to the sound of one, wrong as to
seven, and he omitted seven. Thus, when the determinatives are added,
all of the 106 signs in Menant’s list were deciphered except fifteen. He
also added a fourth to the list of determinative signs. He showed that
the one mistaken by Norris for _s_ was in fact used simply to indicate
that the following letter was an ideogram (No. 66 of Hincks). It had long
ago been observed that a single sign was employed for ‘king,’ and Norris
added another for ‘month.’ Oppert points out that the determinative
before ‘god’ was also an ideogram for ‘god,’ and that ‘man,’ ‘water,’
‘animal,’ or ‘horse’ and ‘road’ were likewise indicated by ideographic
signs. He considered that the grammatical forms show analogy first to
Magyar, then to Turkish, Mongol and Finnish. He gave it the name of
Medo-Scythic, and he now considered that it was spoken by the tribes at
Persepolis and Behistun—more particularly by those in the north of Media.
The student of the second column had at his command some ninety-nine
proper names, besides a large number of Persian official terms and titles
transliterated into the Median script; and with their assistance the
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