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
This Essay of Hincks exercised a decisive influence upon the future
study of Assyrian. It demonstrated that, although the language was
Semitic, the mode of writing was not Semitic; and for a time it divided
scholars into two opposing camps. Those who followed Hincks maintained
that the language was syllabic, and that each sign expressed a consonant
associated with an inherent and invariable vowel. Those, on the contrary,
who sought to assimilate it to the Hebrew system were of opinion that
the signs represent simple consonants that might be preceded or followed
by any vowel. We have noted the gradual recognition of the syllabic
nature of the Assyrian writing. The earliest opinion was that the signs
were both syllabic and alphabetical, and we have seen that Grotefend
in his transliteration treated them in this manner. Hincks in his
first Essay followed the same method, but he found the vast majority
of the signs were syllabic, and his Table shows only four that are
purely alphabetical. Then came the discovery that the language itself
was Semitic, and the inference naturally followed that the writing was
so likewise. Under the influence of this conviction, Hincks drew up
his Second Table, showing only the consonantal value of the signs, and
leaving them to be associated indifferently with the vowel sounds. But
he remained in this opinion for a comparatively short time, and in the
end of the same year he had reverted to his original view. The effect
of the present essay was to establish the absolute syllabism of the
language; and in a paper read shortly afterwards before the British
Association ‘On the Language and Mode of Writing of Assyria’ (August
1850), he ‘maintained, in opposition to all other writers, that the
characters had all definite syllabic values, there being no consonants,
and consequently no necessity or liberty of supplying vowels.’ In this
opinion he then stood alone. Rawlinson, in reply, expressed his belief
that the signs had a syllabic origin, but that they were ‘subsequently
used to express a mere portion of a syllable.’ ‘He could,’ he says,
‘adduce numerous instances where the cuneiform signs were used as _bona
fide_ letters.’[815]
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