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
Nothing could at first be more bewildering than the immense number
of signs. Grotefend counted only a hundred and thirty different
characters in the third Persepolitan column. Mr. Fisher, in 1807,
found that the East India House inscription contained two hundred and
eighty-seven;[723] and Grotefend, in 1837, estimated that the whole
of the Babylonian inscriptions known to him contained about three
hundred different signs.[724] But Botta encountered no less than six
hundred and forty-two at Khorsabad alone.[725] The unskilled eye will
be disposed to agree with Löwenstern that at first sight the Ninevite
character presented no analogy with the Persepolitan, or even with the
characters on the Babylonian bricks. In his ‘Essai de Déchiffrement’
(1845) he was, however, the first to point out that a large number of
them do really correspond to the third Persepolitan; and he based his
attempted interpretation partly upon the analogy he had discovered.[726]
In his first Essay, of 1846, Hincks also stated his belief that ‘the
third Persepolitan agrees in character with the Babylonian and with the
Assyrian writing in Schulz’s inscriptions.’[727] Löwenstern afterwards
admitted that he would scarcely have recognised the similarity from
Schulz’s plates; but it became clearly apparent in the more perfect
drawing of Texier.[728] Indeed he was eventually so much struck by
the resemblance that he hesitated to classify the Persepolitan with
the Babylonian in preference to the Assyrian; in fact, he ultimately
persuaded himself that it was nearer the Assyrian. Meanwhile Botta
had begun the minute study of the Assyrian character to which later
investigators owe more than they are always willing to acknowledge.[729]
Those whose fortune it is to occupy the higher pinnacles of knowledge
are only too prone to despise the humbler artificers who constructed the
scaffolding that enabled them to achieve the ascent. Botta arranged the
signs with great care into fifteen classes, according to the number of
wedges they contain. The first class included all those with one wedge
only; and so on up to the fifteenth class, where we find signs composed
of fifteen wedges and upwards: though none appear to exceed eighteen.
The result of his classification was to persuade him that the graphic
system of Assyria was substantially the same as that found at Persepolis
and Babylon. He accepted Rich and Westergaard as the most faithful
copyists of the former, and he compared ninety-six of their signs with
those at Khorsabad. He found that seventy-two were so similar that
their identity could not fail to be recognised at first sight. Fourteen
others exhibit a greater difference, but their identity is capable of
demonstration. There are therefore eighty-six signs out of ninety-six
concerning which no doubt can exist. He thought the difference was not
so great as between Gothic and Latin characters. With respect to the
writing at Van, he counted a hundred and twelve to a hundred and fifteen
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