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
the whole controversy has been ably summarised by Weisbach. Recent
writers have thought it so necessary to insist upon the Aryan race of
the Median kings that they decline to give to the Turanian language
of the second column the name of Median. It has accordingly come into
fashion to indicate in an unmistakeable manner the source from which
it has sprung. Delattre called it ‘Anzanisch,’ from the name of the
territory ruled by the Malamir kings. Halévy adopted a suggestion made
by Mr. Sayce, and calls it ‘Amardian.’[697] Hommel speaks of it as
‘Susian-Median’ and ‘Susian,’[698] a term which Weisbach has qualified by
calling it New Susian. The more probable opinion seems to be that it was
the language of Susa at the time of the Persian conquest, and possibly
also of some of the subjugated tribes in Media. The name of Susian is
therefore more appropriate than one that might confuse the people who
spoke it with the Aryan conquerors of their country. Still it is very
far from satisfactory. The great importance of the inscriptions recently
discovered in the Old Susian language will tend more and more to reserve
to them the designation of Susian; and considerable confusion will arise
from its extension also to the language of the second column. The latter
may possibly be a descendant of the true Susian, but both in the system
of writing and in the language the connection is remote.
The relationship of the Median is now placed almost beyond the sphere
of controversy. M. Gobineau, who wrote in 1859, maintained indeed that
it was connected with Pehlevi, half Semitic and half Aryan: and M. Mohl
still earnestly hoped that we might ‘get rid of the Scythic hypothesis
and all the complications it involves.’[699] But this desire was not
destined to be realised, and its affinity to the Altaic branch of the
Turanian family is now admitted. Some doubt is felt as to whether it
has left any successor, and which of the modern languages approaches
the nearest. Oppert inclines to Turkish:[700] Weisbach is more guarded,
and considers that it exhibits marked differences from all the living
representatives of its Turanian relatives.[701]
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