Chapter XXV: Appendix: C (1)

_TABLE SHOWING THE VALUES GIVEN TO EACH SIGN OF THE SUSIAN (MEDIAN) SYLLABARY_

Vowels and consonants are indicated by capital letters.

+------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
| The number given to |
| each sign by |
+------------------------+ Cuneiform
|Westergaard and Hincks | Signs[899]
| +-------------------+
| |Norris |
| | +--------------+ +-------------+---------------+--------
| | |Oppert | | Correct | Westergaard, |Hincks,
| | | +-------+ | Values[900] | [901] |1846-7
| | | Weisbach| | | 1844-53 |[902]
+----+----+-------+------+--------+-------------+---------------+--------
| 1 | | 111 | 1 |[Susian]| Determin. | Aussonderungs | Det.
| | | | | | | Zeichen |
| 2 | 14 | 68 | 2 |[Susian]| al; city | ? |
| 3 | 65 | 42 | 3 |[Susian]| an; det. | A |an; det.
| _a_| 35 | 89 | 4 |[Susian]| tak | |
| 4 | 61 | 38 | 7 |[Susian]| na | na, N | na
| _a_| 60 |ideog. | 6 |[Susian]| month | |
| 5 | 85 | 56 | 8 |[Susian]| še | sa | si
| 6 | 9 | 28 | 9 |[Susian]| pu | ? |
| 7 | | 86 | 10 |[Susian]| muš | ? |
| 8 | 88 | 104 | 11 |[Susian]| šir, zir | as, ars | ersa
| 9 | | | |[Susian]| Defective | ? |
| _a_| 81 | 51 | 13 |[Susian]| la | | rus
| 10 | | | |[Susian]| Defective | ar, A | ar
| _a_| 47 | 61 | 12 |[Susian]| su | |
| 11 | 26 | 16 | 15 |[Susian]| ak | k | K
| _a_| 59 | 7 | 16 |[Susian]| H | |
| _b_| 18 | 14 | 17 |[Susian]| gau; sea | |
| 12 | 34 | 23 | 18 |[Susian]| tu | thu | tu
| _a_| 77 | 67 | 19 |[Susian]| ar; window | |
| 13 | 71 | 45 | 20 |[Susian]| ra | R | ra
| 14 | 10 | 78 | 22 |[Susian]| par | pha | per
| 15 | 33 | 21 | 23 |[Susian]| ti | ti | ti
| _a_| 57 | 84 | 24 |[Susian]| maz | |
| 16 | 63 | 40 | 59 |[Susian]| ne | ? | ser
| _a_| 15 | 60 | 26 |[Susian]| si | |
| 17 | 19 | 15 | 27 |[Susian]| gi | ? | su, sa
| 18 | | | |[Susian]| Defective | ? |
| 19 | 27 | 17 | 28 |[Susian]| ik, K | KH | K
| 20 | 31 | 105 | 29 |[Susian]| kup? | ? |
| 21 | |rejects| 25 |[Susian]| ziš? | ? |
| 22 | 99 | 10 | 30 |[Susian]| hu | ju [yu*] | yu, u
| 23 | 78 | 48 | 61 |[Susian]| ir, R | ra | ER
| _a_| 22 | 70 | 68 |[Susian]| kan | |
| _b_| 50 |ideog. | 31 |[Susian]| Ship | |
| 24 | 72 | 46 | 32 |[Susian]| ri | ri | ri
| 25 | 6 |76, 29 | 21 |[Susian]| pe, pat | tu | tu
| 26 | 54 |80, 81 | 35 |[Susian]| man | ve, we | wi
| _a_| 25 | 75 | 36 |[Susian]| kaš | |
| 27 | 13 | 31 | 37 |[Susian]| ap | P | ap, pu
| _a_| 64 | 97 | 38 |[Susian]| nap | |
| 28 | 28 |18, 69 | 39 |[Susian]| uk | Q | wa, K
| 29 | | 65 | 40 |[Susian]| az | pu | va
| _a_| 29 |ideog. | 41 |[Susian]|Horse, Donkey| |
| 30 | 43 | 24 | 42 |[Susian]| at | T | ta, T
| 31 | 17 | 11 | 34 |[Susian]| ka | ka, kha | ku
| 32 | 38 | 25 | 50 |[Susian]| ut, T | T | ta, T
| 33 | 8 | 72 | 51 |[Susian]| pi | pi | pi, pu
| 34 | 39 | 20 | 53 |[Susian]| te | phi | pu, pi
| _a_| 24 | 71 | 54 |[Susian]| kar | |
| 35 | 45 | 72 | 52 |[Susian]| am? | ? |
| 36 | 55 | 82 | 56 |[Susian]| mar; road | pe | ner, pi
| 37 | 58 | 36 | 57 |[Susian]| um, M | M | M
| _a_| 44 | 106 | 58 |[Susian]| sak | |
| 38 | 49 | 2 | 60 |[Susian]| U | jo [yo*] | yu, U
| 39 | 73 | 47 | 65 |[Susian]| ru | ru | ru
| _a_| 79 | 90 | 67 |[Susian]| tik | |
| _b_| 40 | 92 | 66 |[Susian]| tup | |
| _c_| 69 | 85 | 46 |[Susian]| muk | |
| _d_| 12 | 79 | 47 |[Susian]| pan | |
| _e_|102 | 102 | 48 |[Susian]| zik | |
| _f_| 70 | 87 | 49 |[Susian]| tum | |
| 40 | 11 | 77 | 55 |[Susian]| pir | PH | P
| 41 | 4 | 4 | 62 |[Susian]| E | |
| 42 | 67 | 44 | 68 |[Susian]| un | ? | na, N
| _a_|103 | 88 | 64 |[Susian]| tan | |
| 43 | 23 | 73 | 43 |[Susian]|kur; mountain| khu | ker
| 44 | 41 | 22 | 44 |[Susian]| tú | ? |
| 45 | 90 | 58 | 45 |[Susian]| iš, S | S | S
| 46 | 2 | 1 | 69 |[Susian]| I | | I
| 47 | 98 | 6 | 70 |[Susian]| ya |ja, J [y, ya*] | ya
| 48 | 66 | 43 | 71 |[Susian]| in, N | I | N
| 49 | 5 | 26 | 72 |[Susian]| pá | pa | pa
| 50 | 96 | 63 | 73 |[Susian]| zi | ? | ta?
| 51 | 32 | 19 | 74 |[Susian]| ta | ta | ta
| 52 | 86 | 55 | 76 |[Susian]| šu | su | su
| _a_| 74 | 99 | 77 |[Susian]| rap | |
| 53 | 36 | 95 | 78 |[Susian]| tur | T.H. | ter
| 54 | 93 | 64 | 79 |[Susian]| zu | ? | si
| 55 |101 | 108 | 75 |[Susian]| Man | wo |
| 56 | | 110 | 89 |[Susian]| Det. | Aussonderungs | Det.
| | | | | | | Zeichen |
| 57 | 56 | 83 |90, 91|[Susian]| me, maš | Z |sh, wash
| 58 | 46 | 59 | 98 |[Susian]| sa | ? |
| 59 | 42 | 93 | 92 |[Susian]| tar | ? |
| 60 | 16 | 30 | 93 |[Susian]| pa | phu, pu [po*] | pu
| _a_| 68 | 98 | 94 |[Susian]| tin | |
| 61 | 75 | 100 | 95 |[Susian]| rak | ? |
| 62 | 80 | 37 | 96 |[Susian]| ur? | ? |
| 63 | 7 | 32 | 97 |[Susian]| ip, P | T’H | ut, tu
| 64 | 89 | 57 | 99 |[Susian]| aš | S | as
| 65 | | | |[Susian]| Defective | ? |
| 66 | 94 | 112 | 100 |[Susian]| Det. | thi |
| 67 | 51 | 33 | 101 |[Susian]| ma | wa, W | wa
| 68 | 76 |101, 91| 102 |[Susian]| tuk, raš | ro, r‛u | rus
| 69 | 21 | 13 | 104 |[Susian]| ku | qu | ku
| 70 | 37 | 96 | 103 |[Susian]| taš | ? [qa*] | tas
| 71 | 30 |ideog. | 107 |[Susian]| King[907] | ku | ku
| _a_| 97 | 41 | 108 |[Susian]| ? | |
| _b_| 95 | 74 | 109 |[Susian]| en | |
| 72 | 48 | 5 | 106 |[Susian]| yi; water | H | I
| 73 | 84 | 53 | 105 |[Susian]| sǎ | s‛a | sa
| 74 | 91 | 62 | 110 |[Susian]| za | za | sha
| 75 | 1 | 8 | 111 |[Susian]| A | O | A
| 76 | 3 | 3 | 80 |[Susian]| U | U | O, U
| 77 | 62 | 39 | 81 |[Susian]| ni | ni | ni
| 78 | 82 | 52 | 83 |[Susian]| ul, L; house| ? | ER
| _a_| 83 | 50 | 84 |[Susian]| li? | ? |
| 79 | 52 | 34 | 85 |[Susian]| mi | vi (wi) | wi
| 80 | 92 | 54 | 87 |[Susian]| ši | s‛i | si
| 81 | 20 | 12 | 88 |[Susian]| ki |kha (ka) [kho*]| ku
| 82 | 87 | 103 | 86 |[Susian]| šin | as‛ ars‛ | ersa
+----+----+-------+------+--------+-------------+---------------+--------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
The number given to each sign by Westergaard and Hincks |
|
--------------------+--------+--------------+---------------------+ |
De Saulcy, | Norris,| Oppert, | Oppert, 1879[906] | |
1849-50[903] |1852-55 | 1859[905] | | |
| [904] | | | |
--------------------+--------+--------------+---------------------+----+
Ha | Det. | Det. | Det. | 1 |
He, E? | af | up | hal; city | 2 |
A |an; det.| an; God | | 3 |
| tak | tak | tak, dak | _a_|
n (a) | na | na | | 4 |
| month | month | | _a_|
s (a) | si | s‛i (ḥi?) | šē, sē | 5 |
| pu | bu | pu, bu | 6 |
| | mus, vus | mis, vis | 7 |
ç (a) | sar | ṣir | sar | 8 |
| | | | 9 |
| lu | la | lu | _a_|
Ar | | | | 10 |
| thu | ṣu | çu | _a_|
K | ak | ak | | 11 |
| ven | A‛, aḥ | Ah, Ih | _a_|
| gau | kam, kav | ko, go; sea | _b_|
t, (o, ou) | u | u | to, do | 12 |
| ar | ḥar |har, ar; arch, window| _a_|
rr (a) | ra | ra | | 13 |
p (a) | par | bar | par, bar | 14 |
t (e, i) | ti | ti | ti, di | 15 |
| vach | maś, vaś | maç, vaç, mać, vać | _a_|
N | nǐ | ni | nē | 16 |
| pe | | çi | _a_|
Aï | ga | gi | | 17 |
| | | | 18 |
KH | ik | k | | 19 |
| kwe | | ? | 20 |
| | kam, kav | Omits | 21 |
Hou | yu | ḥu | hu | 22 |
r or l (a) | R | ir | ir, ar, ur | 23 |
| kan | kan | kan, gan | _a_|
| he | nun | Ship | _b_|
r or l (e, i) | ri | ri | | 24 |
dè | pa | bi, bat | pē, bē, pat, bat | 25 |
| van | man, van | | 26 |
| kas | kas | kas, gas | _a_|
GH | ap | ap | | 27 |
| nabu | nap | | _a_|
| uk | uk | | 28 |
| | asʹ | aç, az | 29 |
| ke | Horse | Horse | _a_|
TH | T | at | | 30 |
G (hard) k (a) | ka | ḳa | ka, ga | 31 |
t (a) | T | ut | | 32 |
b or p (e, i) | pi | pi | pi, bi | 33 |
f or ph (e, i) | ṭa | ta | tē, dē | 34 |
| gar | ḳar, gar | | _a_|
|tye, am?| | git | 35 |
b or p (e, i) | var |mar, var; road| mar, var; head | 36 |
| | | (compound ideog.) | |
M or W | M | im | im, M | 37 |
| te | | sak (ideog.) | _a_|
M or W, Oû | hu | U | U, yu | 38 |
| ru | ru | | 39 |
| ro | sik | tik, dik | _a_|
| ṭi | lu, tip | tip, dip | _b_|
| no | | mak, vak | _c_|
| pat | pat | pan, ban | _d_|
| passan?| sik | sik, zik | _e_|
| nos | | mun | _f_|
F or PH, f or ph (a)| far | pir | pir, bir (par, bar) | 40 |
n (o, ou) | E | I | Ē | 41 |
Ô | un | un | | 42 |
| tin | tan | tan, dan, tin | _a_|
| kar | kur | kar, gar; mountain | 43 |
| tu | du | tu, du | 44 |
CH | S | is | is, us, S | 45 |
I | I | I | | 46 |
Ya | ya | ya | Ya | 47 |
Y | in | in | | 48 |
b or p (a) | ba | ba | pa, ba | 49 |
kch (e, i) | chi | ṣi | ći, ǵi, źi, zi | 50 |
d or t (a) | ta | da | ta, da | 51 |
s (o, ou) | su | su | šu, su | 52 |
| rab | rab | rap | _a_|
th (a) | tar | tur | tur, dur | 53 |
DT | su | sʹu | ću, ǵu, źu, zu | 54 |
m, w (o, ou) | yo | Man | | 55 |
| Det. | Det. | | 56 |
Z | vas | mas, vas | | 57 |
| tha | sʹa | ça | 58 |
| tar | tar | tar, dar | 59 |
q (e, i) | po | pa | po, bo | 60 |
| ne | | tin, din | _a_|
| rak | rak | | 61 |
| re | ur | um, perhaps ur | 62 |
MW, Ou | fa | ip | ip, P | 63 |
S | as | as | as | 64 |
| | | | 65 |
th (e, i) | Ṣ | Det. | | 66 |
m, w (a) | va | ma, va | | 67 |
Ç | ras | tuk, ras | ras | 68 |
q (o, ou) | ku | ku | ku, gu | 69 |
Q | tas | das | tas, das | 70 |
k (e, i) | ko | ga | King | 71 |
| cho | um? | nu | _a_|
| sen | ṭu | kin, gin | _b_|
A, Ha | hi | A; water | Yi; water | 72 |
ch (a) | sa | ša | ša, sa | 73 |
z (a) | ṣa | ṣa | ća, ǵa, źa, za | 74 |
A | A | ḥa | ha, a | 75 |
Ou (short) | U | U‛ | O | 76 |
n (e, i) | ni | nu | ni | 77 |
dh (e, i) | al | ul |al, il, ul, L; house | 78 |
| el | li | | _a_|
m, w (e, i), oui | vi | mi, vi | | 79 |
ch (e, i) | ṣi | si | ši, s | 80 |
kh (o, ou) | ki | k | | 81 |
Sign for plural | san | sin | san | 82 |
--------------------+--------+--------------+---------------------+----+

The preceding are the 110 signs given by Menant. The five other signs are

+-----------+------+------+--------+---------+-----------+------------+
|Westergaard|Norris|Oppert|Weisbach|Cuneiform| Correct | Oppert |
| | | | | Signs | Values, | |
| | | | | | Weisbach | |
+-----------+------+------+--------+---------+-----------+------------+
| | 53 | 35 | 5 |[Susian] | mu | mu, vu |
| | | 66 | 33 |[Susian] |iz, Z; det.| ić, iz, iç |
| | | 107 | 82 |[Susian] | race | race |
| | | 49 | |[Susian] | | la (found |
| | | | | | | once only) |
| | | 109 | |[Susian] | | Ideog. for |
| | | | | | | animal |
+-----------+------+------+--------+---------+-----------+------------+

FOOTNOTES

[1] Later Assyrian includes 570 different signs, but only 300 are in common use (_British Museum Guide_, edited by E. A. W. Budge, 1900, p. 41).

[2] The _British Museum Guide_ goes so far as to mention B.C. 8000 as a probable date (p. 3).

[3] On this subject see Sir Henry Howorth, _English Historical Review_, April 1898; Weissbach (F. H.), _Zur Lösung der Sumerischen Frage_, 1897; and especially Mr. Pinches’ ‘Sumerian or Cryptography,’ _J. R. A. S._ 1900.

[4] _Die Achämenideninschriften Zweiter Art._, by F. H. Weisbach, 1890, p. 77. Inscription H.

[5] A much defaced inscription at the corner is conjectured from the position of the name Xerxes to have been set up by his son Artaxerxes Longimanus: only the Semitic portion is partly legible, and it is the only trace of that king at Persepolis. Carl Bezold: _Die Achämenideninschriften_, 1882, pp. 47.

[6] _Viagi fatti da Vinetia alla Tana_ (Vinegia, 1545), p. 46.

Camara is no doubt the same place as the Comerum of Friar Odoricus, 1825 A.D. Cf. Curzon (Hon. G. N.), _Persia_, 1892, ii. 130. It must have been about ten miles from Persepolis, which Barbaro seems to regard as about a day’s journey.

[7] ‘_Dio Padre in uno tondo_,’ p. 46.

[8] _De le Antiquità_, Venetia, 1540. Cf. the edition in the British Museum, _Il Terzo Libro di Sebastiano Serlio_, Venetia, 1534, p. 100.

[9] See Menant, _Les Achéménides_ (Paris 1872), p. 33, where, however, the reader will find a copy of Serlio’s drawing.

[10] Don Garcia: _L’Ambassade_ (Paris, 1667), p. 163.

[11] _Relation des Grandes Guerres_, par le P. Fr. Anthoine de Gouvea (Rouen, 1646), p. 78. The original was written at Goa, in 1609, and published at Lisbon, 1611: _Relaçam em que se trata das Guerras, etc._ (Lisboa).

[12] So spelt in the Portuguese edition, p. 30; ‘Bandimico’ in the French edition, p. 79.

[13] Gouvea, _Relation des Grandes Guerres_, p. 107.

[14] _Op. cit._ pp. 134, 174.

[15] _Ambassade de Don Garcia de Silva Figueroa en Perse_, traduit par de Wicqfort (Paris, 1667), p. 5. The Spanish original does not appear in the Catalogue of the British Museum, where, however, may be found the tract _De Rebus Persarum_, Antwerp, 1620.

[16] See the letter of Don Garcia in _Purchas, His Pilgrimes_, ii. 1534.

[17] ‘_The Preacher’s Travels_, penned by J. C., sometime student in Magdalen Colledge in Oxford,’ London, 1611, p. 84.

[18] He only mentions one (p. 146). He does not seem to have noticed any difference in the animals in the farther Portico.

[19] ‘_Brute et grossière estampe_’: _Ambassade_, p. 163. We have already said that this statement is incorrect. _Supra_, p. 11.

[20] _Viaggi di Pietro della Valle_ (Brighton, 1843), i. 382.

[21] _Viaggi_, ii. 231.

[22] _Viaggi_, vol. ii. For his account of Persepolis see _Lettera xv._ pp. 228-68.

[23] They are given on p. 253.

[24] Herbert (Sir Thomas), _Travels_, 1665, pp. 111-17.

[25] _Some Yeares Travels_, by Sir Thomas Herbert, Bart. See the various editions published in 1634, 1638, 1665 and 1677. The first edition, _A Relation of some Years Travaille, begunne anno 1626, by T. H. Esquier_, London, 1634, has recently been practically withdrawn from the Museum Library in order to enjoy the honour of appearing within a glass case.

[26] Ed. 1634, p. 56.

[27] _Cf._ ed. 1634, p. 59.

[28] Ed. 1638, p. 145.

[29] It will be recollected that Della Valle’s letters were not published till 1658.

[30] _Vermehrte neue Beschreibung der Muscowitischen und Persischen Reyse_ (Schleszwig, 1656).

[31] _Estat de la Perse en 1660_, par le Père Raphaël (Du Mans, Paris, 1890), p. xliii.

[32] _Morgenländische Reyse-Beschreibung des Hochedel gebornen J. A. Mandelslo_ (Schleszwig, 1658), pp. 10-17.

[33] _The Voyage and Travels of J. Albert de Mandelslo, rendered into English by John Davies of Kidwalley_, London, 1662.

[34] It will be remarked that Olearus does not mention Della Valle, whose book was not then published.

[35] _Some Years Travels_, by Sir Tho. Herbert, Bart. (1665), pp. 145-59.

[36] Herbert (1665), p. 153. For a photograph of the north door see Curzon, _Persia_, ii. 176.

[37] Joret (J. B.), _Tavernier_ (1886), p. 180.

[38] _Estat de la Perse_, p. lxxviii.

[39] Thévenot (Jean de), _Voyages_, 5 vols. (Amst. 1727), iv. 491.

[40] _Les Beautés de la Perse_, par le sieur A.D.D.V. (Paris, 1673), pp. 55-66.

[41] _Voyage de M. de Thévenot_, Bk. III. chap. vii. pp. 501 ff.

[42] Thévenot (Amsterdam, ed. 1727), vol. iii; see preface and pp. 1-2. _Estat de la Perse_, pp. lxxv-lxxviii.

[43] Thévenot, iii. 262.

[44] Thévenot, iv. 486.

[45] Joret, p. 203.

[46] _Estat de la Perse_, p. lxxvi.

[47] Thévenot, iv. 510.

[48] Thévenot, iv. 520.

[49] For Tavernier see _Les Six Voyages_ (Utrecht, 1712, 3 vols.), i. 728; and the excellent Memoir of him by M. Joret, 1886.

[50] _Les Voyages de J. Struys_ (Amsterdam, 1681). Ouseley (Sir W.), _Travels_, ii. 232.

[51] Struys, pp. 316-317.

[52] Cf. _Philosophical Transactions Abridged_, iii. 543, where reference is made to _Phil. Trans._ June 1693; xvii. 776. Hyde (Dr. Thomas), _Veterum Persarum ... Historia_, 1760, pp. 548, 557, Pl. 14. _Cf._ Evetts (Basil T. A.), _New Light on the Bible_ (1892), p. 74. Menant, _Les Langues perdues_ (Paris, 1885), p. 62.

[53] Daulier, _Les Beautés_, p. 55.

[54] This view may have been suggested by Chardin, who was known to Hyde. (Hyde, p. 548, _note_.)

[55] Hyde, _Vet. Pers. Hist._ p. 557. _Cf._ Menant, p. 65.

[56] See _Voyages de Monsieur le Chevalier Chardin_ (Amsterdam, 1711), iii. 98 ff, Plates 52-74; but four of these are devoted to copies of the inscriptions (Pl. 69-73).

[57] _Voyages du Chevalier Chardin_ (ed. Langlès, Paris, 1811), viii. 242-318.

[58] Chardin, _Voyages_, viii. 401.

[59] _A New Account_, by J. Fryer (London, 1698), p. 251.

[60] Chardin, viii, 321-3.

[61] Now known as Inscription L. Not to be confounded with the L of Niebuhr.

[62] _Ib._ pp. 343, 347-51.

[63] _Ib._ p. 385.

[64] _Amoenitates Exoticae_, by Engelbert Kaempfer (1712), 297-353.

[65] P. 332. The four inscriptions in Niebuhr are lettered H, I, K, and L. H and I are Persian; K is Susian; and L Babylonian. L is the H of Bezold, p. 39; Menant, p. 78. I is unilingual.

[66] P. 346. Chardin, Pl. 69, p. 320.

[67] Pp. 338, 339. A inscription.

[68] P. 348. C inscription.

[69] B inscription.

[70] P. 350. G inscription.

[71] P. 334.

[72] P. 349.

[73] _Voyages de Corneille Le Bruyn_ (Paris, 1725), iv. 301-408.

[74] A inscription, Table 126 (Le Bruyn).

[75] Cᵃ inscription, Table 131 (Le Bruyn).

[76] B inscription, Table 132 (Le Bruyn).

[77] G inscription, Table 133 (Le Bruyn).

[78] L inscription, Table 134 (Le Bruyn).

[79] _Ib._ pp. 317, 351. Buckingham also fancied he beheld a female in the Palace of Xerxes.

[80] _Ib._ pp. 353-4.

[81] _Voyage en Arabie_, par C. Niebuhr (Amsterdam, 1783), vol. ii. pp. 98-133.

[82] Vol. ii. p. 122.

[83] Morier observes: ‘On comparing Le Bruyn’s, Chardin’s and Niebuhr’s drawings with the sculptures, I found them in general correct in outline, but imperfect in the details of dress, arms, &c.... They have not been done justice to in the works of those travellers.’—_Second Journey through Persia_ (London, 1818), p. 76.

[84] Morier says Le Bruyn has exaggerated the mutilation. _A Journey through Persia_, by James Morier (London, 1812; referred to as _First Journey_), p. 134. Elsewhere he says the faces of _all_ the figures to the right are mutilated; _Second Journey_, p. 76.

[85] In Porter’s drawing this personage appears at the other end of the row. _Cf._ Plates, Niebuhr, ii. 120, and Porter, _Travels in Georgia_, i. 670.

[86] Niebuhr, ii. 117.

[87] Niebuhr, _ib._ p. 111.

[88] P. 125.

[89] _Supra_, pp. 71, 73.

[90] Niebuhr, _ib._ p. 112.

[91] _Ib._ p. 113.

[92] This, as we have noticed, had been already done by Flower.

[93] P. 117. Professor Sayce makes the obvious remark that another easy way of settling this point is the consideration ‘that the ends of all the lines were exactly underneath each other on the left side, whereas they terminated irregularly on the right.’ _Fresh Lights from the Monuments_, by A. H. Sayce (1890), p. 10.

[94] ‘Quelques voyageurs en ont tiré la conséquence que les anciens Perses ayent écrit de haut en bas, commes les Chinois. Mais si l’on examine de plus près les inscriptions, comme quelques uns les ont copiées icy, et qu’on les compare avec mes copies, on trouvera que les lignes qui sont droites sont toutes couchées de côté, ce qui fait que le nombre des lettres n’est à beaucoup près pas si grand que peut-être on a pu le penser d’après les copies de mes prédécesseurs.’ Niebuhr, _ib._ p. 113.

[95] P. 126. Morier saw only one column. _First Journey_, p. 141.

[96] Heeren, _Historical Researches_ (Eng. ed. 1846), vol. ii. Appendix VI.

[97] Morier, _Second Journey_, p. 264.

[98] For his fate see Flandin, _Voyage en Perse_, i. 113.

[99] _Second Journey_, p. 68.

[100] _First Journey_, p. 128. On Persepolis and Murgab see chaps. vii. and viii.

[101] Ouseley (Sir W.), _Travels in various Countries_ (3 vols. 1821), vol. ii. note p. 439.

[102] Inscription M.

[103] _Second Journey_, p. 117.

[104] _Second Journey_, p. 75; Ouseley, ii. 255. They were afterwards given to the British Museum, and for a long time were the only materials for the study of Persian art. The practice of taking away specimens seems to have been continued by later travellers, and, as Porter says, much of value was ‘doomed to the predatory mallet’ (p. 632). When Rich visited the ruins in 1821, he observed that ‘many parts had been defaced by the passion for preserving curiosities. This rage has induced some even to chip off bits of inscriptions. One has endeavoured to chisel off a very fine head, which was well preserved, and, not succeeding, he has apparently in wrath thrown his mallet against the head and smashed it.’ (_Koordistan_, ii. 222.) Rich found the inscription on the robe of the king in the Palace of Xerxes had suffered from these proceedings. ‘They have been variously defaced by people chipping off pieces (mostly very recently) for curiosities. I have copied what remains of three of them’ (_Babylon and Persepolis_, Pl. 19). A disease visited the people of the country shortly after, and those of them who had assisted in these acts of Vandalism thought themselves justly punished. Flandin, ii. 113, 127.

[105] Ouseley (Sir W.), _Travels_, vol. ii. For Persepolis and Murgab see chaps. xi. and xii.

[106] Ouseley, ii. 91.

[107] Plates 41 and 47, pp. 256-7.

[108] Ouseley, p. 286.

[109] _Ib._ pp. 265-7.

[110] Pp. 426-9.

[111] Plate 49: 1. Morier, from a pillar of the palace. 2. Gordon (and Morier), from over the winged figure. 3. Ouseley, from the solitary monolith.

[112] Mohl, _Rapports annuels faits à la Société Asiatique, 1840-45_: 1843, p. 13.

[113] Porter (Sir Robert Ker), _Travels in Georgia_, &c. (London, 1821), i. 679.

[114] Plates 17 and 18, pp. 516, 518. See the curious engraving of a Royal tomb at Persepolis in Hyde, p. 307, where he says the soul or Icuncula is about to ascend to heaven.

[115] Porter, p. 524.

[116] _Ib._ p. 587. D’Hancarville had, however, already suggested that they were ‘partly bulls.’ See the various opinions on this question stated by Ouseley, ii. 247, note.

[117] Porter, p. 634.

[118] Porter, p. 502.

[119] _Ib._ pp. 622-3.

[120] _Ib._ p. 488-9, Plate 13.

[121] Pl. 44, p. 616. He omits the first four lines.

[122] Pl. 55 and 56, p. 681. _Cf._ Niebuhr, Pl. 31. Porter left out lines 18 and 19 of Inscription H. Westergaard, _Ueber die Keilinschriften_ (Bonn, 1845), p. 2.

[123] Porter’s _Travels_ were published in 1821, the same year as Ouseley’s, and three years after Morier’s _Second Journey_, 1818. Loftus complains of the ‘exceedingly rough and incorrect sketch’ made by Porter of a bas-relief at Susa: _Chaldæa and Susiana_, p. 415. Yet Flandin admits Porter’s talent in drawing. The plates of all his predecessors were, he says, superseded. He became the ‘oracle of the archæologists,’ especially in architecture and sculpture (Flandin, i. 9). The most important contribution since made in English is the chapter on the subject in Lord Curzon’s _Persia_, Vol. II. chap. xxi.

[124] Texier (Ch. F. M.), _Description de l’Arménie_ (1842-52), i. xv.

[125] Kinneir (J. Macdonald), _Geographical Memoir_ (1813), p. 126. Flandin estimates the distance at eight kilomètres. See Menant, _Les Achéménides_, p. 129. Murray says vaguely, ‘near’ Hamadan (Handbook, _Asia Minor_, p. 328). Curzon uses the same expression (i. 566).

[126] Morier, _Second Journey_, p. 267.

[127] Porter, ii. 120.

[128] Rich (C. J.), _Narrative of a Residence in Koordistan_, ii. 126.

[129] Vaux (W. S. W.), _Nineveh and Persepolis_ (London, 1851), p. 441, note A. _J. R. A. S._ (1882), vol. xiv., article on Van by Professor Sayce.

[130] Elvend, O and F; Van, K.

[131] Rich, _Koordistan_, i. xvi, xviii.

[132] Rich, _Koordistan_, ii. 186.

[133] _Ib._ p. 215.

[134] Rich, _ib._ pp. 216-18.

[135] _Babylon and Persepolis_, by C. J. Rich (1839), p. 240.

[136] Rich, _Koordistan_, ii, 217-19.

[137] Niebuhr had found only 2½ feet of the stairs visible (_Voyage_, ii. 111).

[138] _Koordistan_, ii. 223.

[139] _Babylon and Persepolis_, Pl. 13, 14, and 15; Inscr. Cᵃ.

[140] _Ib._ Pl. 16, 17, 18; Inscr. E.

[141] Rich, _ib._ Pl. 18; Inscr. G.

[142] Pl. 19 (_a_, _b_, _c_, _d_).

[143] Pl. 20, 21, 22; Cᵇ.

[144] Pl. 23; P.

[145] Pl. 24, 25, 26; D. See Weissbach und Bang, _Die Altpersischen Keilinschriften_ (1893), pp. 5-10.

[146] Rich, _Babylon and Persepolis_, pp. 250, 252.

[147] _Ib._ p. 256.

[148] _Ib._ pp. 247-55. Cf. _Koordistan_, ii, 222.

[149] Diod. Sic. ii. 13.

[150] Rawlinson (George), Herodotus edited by (1862), ii. 490; _The Five Great Monarchies_ (1879: referred to as _History_), iii. 416. Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Persia_ (Eng. ed., 1892), p. 393, but _cf._ p. 38.

[151] _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_ (referred to as _J. R. A. S._) x. 193.

[152] This was suggested by Dr. Hincks in the _Dublin University Magazine_, Jan. 1847, p. 15.

[153] _J. R. A. S._ x. 187, 192.

[154] Rawlinson, in _Records of the Past_, O.S. i. 128. Oppert, _ib._ ix. 68. _Cf._ the later attempts of Spiegel, _Die Altpersischen Keilinschriften_ (1881), p. 41, and Weissbach, _op. cit._ p. 29.

[155] Perrot, p. 33, translator’s note.

[156] Evetts (Basil), _New Lights on the Bible_, p. 42.

[157] Kinneir, _Geographical Memoir_, p. 181. _Ib._ ‘Asia Minor’ (1818), p. 462.

[158] Porter, _Travels_, ii, 154-8.

[159] _Memoirs of Sir Henry Rawlinson, Bart., G.C.B._, by George Rawlinson (Longmans, 1898). In the title-page he is described as K.C.B. According to Dod the higher rank was conferred in 1889: K.C.B. in 1856.

[160] _J. R. A. S._ x. 15. Layard, however, says he sometimes at least availed himself of a powerful telescope. _Nineveh and Babylon_ (1882), p. xliii.

[161] _Memoir_, p. 63.

[162] _J. R. A. S._ x. 7, _note_.

[163] _Athenæum_, Nov. 8, 1884.

[164] _Memoir_, p. 144.

[165] _Memoir_, p. 156, _note_.

[166] Rawlinson, in _J. R. A. S._ xii. 408.

[167] Fergusson (James), _The Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis_, p. vii.

[168] Texier, ii. 151.

[169] Fergusson, p. 160, _note_.

[170] Flandin (Eugène), _Voyage en Perse_ (2 vols., 1851), i. 5. _Cf._ p. 497.

[171] Flandin, _Voyage_, i. 451.

[172] I. 423, 443, 448.

[173] I. 450-1.

[174] II. 79, 362.

[175] II. 83-4. _Cf._ Pl. 194-203.

[176] II. 125.

[177] Fergusson, p. 107, _note_; p. 165, _note_; p. 176; Flandin counted only three windows on the north side of the Hall of the Hundred Columns. Their number is not yet ascertained. See Curzon, ii. 177. This is a point, says Fergusson, ‘which nothing but the most inexcusable carelessness could have left at all doubtful.’

[178] _Cf._ the account already given of the principal palace at Murgab (Flandin, 8vo, ii. 83) with the Pl. 197. See also the account of the Palace of Darius, p. 176, and the Palace of Ochus, p. 184, and compare with the plates. Of the Palace of Darius he says: ‘C’est à peine si l’on en retrouve assez de traces pour reconnaître la distribution intérieure de l’édifice,’ p. 176.

[179] II. 125.

[180] Flandin, ii. 98, 106-10.

[181] _Ib._ i. 493.

[182] II. 186.

[183] _Ib._ p. 160.

[184] _Ib._ p. 177; Fergusson, p. 117.

[185] Flandin, ii. 179.

[186] _Ib._ p. 187; Fergusson, p. 132.

[187] Flandin, p. 196; Fergusson, p. 176; Ouseley, ii. 239; Niebuhr, ii. 121.

[188] Notwithstanding an escort of irregular horse, Baron de Bode, however, narrowly escaped receiving a volley into his party from the Bakhtiyari, whose impetuosity was only restrained by Mr. Layard, who happened to be among them at the time. Layard, _Early Adventures_ (1894), p. 210.

[189] Flandin, ii, 380-81.

[190] _Ib._ p. 433.

[191] Flandin, ii. 481.

[192] _Ib._ i. 489, _note_.

[193] Some of the plates seem to have appeared in 1848 (_J. R. A. S._ 1848, ix. 393, _note_), but the earliest received in the British Museum was in August 1850; others not till September 1851. The plan of the S.E. edifice and the general plan of the ruins were not available for Fergusson up to December 1850. See Fergusson, p. 96, _note_; p. 132, _note_.

[194] Flandin, i. 492.

[195] _Ib._ i. 10.

[196] For a few of these scenes see ii. 28, 93, 103, 174, 397. He cared little whether the punishment fell on the right man. After one of these encounters he writes: ‘Au bout d’une heure le Ket-Khodâh arriva avec quelques hommes qui en conduisaient un autre les mains liées, qu’ils me présentèrent comme celui qui avait été instigateur des offenses dont je me plaignais. _Je ne le reconnaissais pas; mais peu importait._ Ce que je voulais, ce que je devais à mon habit de frengui, c’était de ne pas laisser impunie une aggression comme celle dont j’avais eu à souffrir ... _je me contentai donc du prétendu coupable qui m’était amené_: le Ket-Khodâh le fit coucher sur le dos; on lui attacha le bas des jambes à un bâton dont les extrémités étaient tenues en l’air par deux hommes qui lui administrèrent des coups de verges sur la plante des pieds. Lorsque je crus avoir assez fait pour l’exemple j’arrêtai les coups’ (ii. 398).

[197] Noeldeke (Theod.), _Persepolis: Die Achaemenidischen Denkmäler_, Berlin, 1882, 2 vols. fol.

[198] Noeldeke, _ib._ ‘Vorwort,’ vol. i.; Pl. 148-50.

[199] Note to No. 46. _Cf._ No. 76.

[200] Note to No. 95.

[201] The following may be referred to as complete failures: Plates 9, 10, 14, 33, 35, 36, 37 and 58.

[202] _La Perse_, par Mme Jane Dieulafoy, Paris, 1887.

[203] Fergusson, _Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis_, p. 162.

[204] Kinneir, _Geographical Memoir_, p. 100; Porter, ii. 411; Curzon, ii. 309.

[205] Kinneir, p. 92.

[206] _Ib._ p. 100.

[207] W. K. Loftus, _Chaldæa and Susiana_ (1857), pp. 417-19. A sketch of the stone may be seen in Walpole’s _Travels in Turkey_, ii. 426, and is reproduced in Loftus, p. 419.

[208] Ouseley, i. 420.

[209] Rawlinson, _Memoir_, p. 63; Bonomi, _Nineveh and its Palaces_ (1889), p. 479; Loftus, p. 344; _J. R. A. S._ xii. 482. This inscription was long known as the Susra Inscription, from the name of the king as deciphered by Rawlinson.

[210] Layard, _Early Adventures_, pp. 352-6.

[211] Layard, _ib._ p. 167. For drawings see Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Persia_, p. 378.

[212] Loftus (W. Kennett), _Chaldæa and Susiana_ (1857), p. 343.

[213] _Ib._ p. 352.

[214] Loftus, pp. 366-7.

[215] _Ib._ pp. 368, 375.

[216] ‘_A Suse_: Journal des Fouilles, par Madame Jane Dieulafoy, Officier de la Légion d’Honneur’ (Paris, 1888), p. 115.

[217] _Ib._ p. 132.

[218] _Ib._ p. 158.

[219] _Ib._ p. 160.

[220] _Ib._ p. 167; for illustration see _L’Acropole de Suse_, par Marcel Dieulafoy (Paris, 1893), p. 298.

[221] _A Suse_, pp. 194-5.

[222] _A Suse_, pp. 196-8.

[223] _Ib._ p. 263.

[224] De Morgan, _Recherches Archéologiques_, p. 69, _note_ 5.

[225] _A Suse_, p. 309.

[226] _Ib._ p. 319.

[227] ‘Nous avons acquis, au prix d’un travail opiniâtre et d’efforts dont nul ne soupçonnera jamais l’âpreté, des richesses archéologiques inestimables. Les reliques des Palais achéménides ne furent pas arrachées à un monument superbe, mais ressuscitées des entrailles avares de la terre et conquises au péril de notre vie. En ma qualité d’historiographe des fouilles, il m’appartient de parler hautement et sans fausse modestie. La mission de Susiane a livré une bataille désespérée et la Providence aidant, elle revient victorieuse.’ _A Suse_, p. 353.

[228] _Recherches Archéologiques_, par J. de Morgan, G. Jéquier et G. Lampre (Paris, 1900), vol. i. p. ix.

[229] _Recherches_, p. 79; Loftus, _Chaldæa_, p. 367.

[230] _Recherches_, p. 72.

[231] Tranchée 12.

[232] See Chronological Tablet in Radau, _Early Babylonian History_, p. 30.

[233] _Recherches_, pp. 145 and 165.

[234] _Ib._ p. 183. Gallery B.

[235] _Recherches_, pp. 187-8.

[236] Galleries C and D.

[237] Menant, _Les Achéménides_, p. 146.

[238] Oppert, _Records_, O.S. ix. p. 81.

[239] Spiegel, _Die Altpersischen Keilinschriften_, p. 53.

[240] Oppert, _Le Peuple des Mèdes_, p. 215. Quoted by Spiegel, p. 117.

[241] Menant, _Les Achéménides_, p. 143.

[242] Benfey, _Die Persischen Keilinschriften_ (1847), p. 68; Spiegel, p. 129; _Records_, O.S. ix. 87.

[243] Niebuhr (C.), _Voyage en Arabie_, ii. 106.

[244] See Appendix A. The defective letters are Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 17, 20, 30, 37 and the diagonal No. 2.

[245] _Cf._ the alphabets. Spiegel, _Altpersischen Keilinschriften_ (Leipzig, 1881), pp. 142, 144, 159.

[246] Tychsen (O. G.), (Rostock, 1798, 4to) p. 5.

[247] Tychsen, pp. 22-6.

[248] See Appendix A, which shows the letters of the cuneiform alphabet arranged according to Niebuhr’s list, and the values Tychsen has assigned to each. The numbers preceding the letters in the text refer to the numbers of the letters in Niebuhr’s alphabet.

[249] Tychsen, p. 27.

[250] He made this discovery afterwards, either independently or else he accepted it from Münter. See Heeren, _Historical Researches_ (Eng. ed. 1846), ii. 329.

[251] Tychsen, pp. 29-30.

[252] _Ib._ pp. 17, 22.

[253] Münter (F. C.), _Versuch über die keilförmigen Inschriften_ (Kopenhagen, 1802, 8vo), p. 8.

[254] _Magasin Encyclopédique_, rédigé par A. L. Millin, Year IX, vol. iii.

[255] Münter, p. 25.

[256] Heeren (A. H. L.), _Historische Werke_: ‘Ideen über die Politik’ (1824), xi. 407.

[257] Münter, pp. 85, 106, 123.

[258] P. 123; but _cf._ p. 87, where he pronounces more definitely for different languages.

[259] _Recueil d’Antiquités_, vol. v. Pl. 30; for the Babylonian bricks, Millin, iii. 20.

[260] Münter, p. 78.

[261] _Ib._ p. 113.

[262] _Ib._ p. 105.

[263] _Ib._ p. 106, _note_.

[264] Münter, pp. 105, 109.

[265] _Ib._ p. 114.

[266] _Ib._ p. 117.

[267] Münter’s consonants are:

P 4 𐎣 wrong
Kh 11 𐎭 wrong
Kh [Persian] defective
R 3 [Persian] defective
Strong R 16 𐎨 wrong
S [Persian] defective
B 𐎲 right

his vowels:

E or A 21 𐎠 right A
A 23 𐎶 wrong
I [Persian] defective
Ou &c. 38 𐏁 wrong
O vocal 12 𐎡 wrong
O [Persian] defective

[268] Münter, p. 125.

[269] ‘Aber selbst die Flectionen, die mir überall im Wege standen, mussten mich in meiner Erwartung, hier nomina propria anzutreffen, immer ungewisser machen, und dadurch musste ich auch immer mehr davon abgeschreckt werden in dem Wort mit den 7 Buchstaben einen Königstitel zu suchen.’ p. 127.

[270] _Ib._ p. 126.

[271] Münter, p. 118.

[272] Münter, p. 128.

[273] _Ib._ p. 140.

[274] _Ib._ p. 120.

[275] _Ib._ p. 90.

[276] See above, p. 24.

[277] Vol. xxviii. Hager’s _Dissertation_, p. xv., _note_.

[278] _Journal des Savants_, 1790.

[279] Vol. v. Pl. 30. See _J. R. A. S._ xi. 389.

[280] Münter, Pl. 2, figs. 1 and 2.

[281] Hager (Joseph), _Dissertation on the Newly-Discovered Babylonian Inscriptions_ (London, 1801), p. xvi.

[282] See Millin _Magasin Encyclopédique_ (Year IX), ii. 36.

[283] Hager, p. xviii.

[284] _Ib._ pp. xix. 40-41.

[285] _Ib._ pp. 20, 37, 40, 48.

[286] Hager, p. 50.

[287] Millin, _loc. cit._ p. 46.

[288] Dorow, _Die Assyrische Keilinschriften erläutert_ (Wiesbaden, 1820), p. 25.

[289] Hager, pp. 60-1.

[290] _Ib._ pp. 53, 56.

[291] Hager, pp. 52, 62.

[292] See Millin (Year VIII), v. 441. It was reprinted at Helmstadt, 1803, 1 vol. 4to.

[293] De Sacy, in Millin, _ib._ p. 450.

[294] _Ib._ p. 453.

[295] _Ib._ p. 443.

[296] Millin, pp. 445-7. The Michaux Stone, as is now well known, is a Kudurru, or landmark, of which class it is still the oldest specimen. It dates from B.C. 1120, and being chiefly an inventory of effects and measurements, the difficulties of its translation have been only recently overcome. See Maspero (G.), _Dawn of Civilisation_ (Eng. ed. 1894), p. 762.

[297] Letter to Dorow, _Die Assyrische Keilinschriften_ (1820), pp. 28, 59.

[298] Grotefend (G. F.), _Neue Beiträge_, Hanover, 1847, 4to.

[299] Heeren, _Werke_, xi. 344.

[300] _Ib._ pp. 345, 352.

[301] Year VIII (1803), v. 438. De Sacy’s essay is accompanied by a plate giving the text, transliteration and translation of the B and G inscriptions of Niebuhr.

[302] Vols. iv. and v.

[303] _Historische Werke_, xi. 325. We have used the edition of 1824 as the more accessible. On comparing it with the earlier edition of 1815, we have not found any difference of importance. Both editions contain the same two plates. No. 1 is taken from De Sacy, as above, and edited by Tychsen. It gives Grotefend’s alphabet exactly as it subsequently appeared, but without the later emendations of the _sr_ and _k_, together with the long list of defective signs. At the bottom is a transliteration of the Xerxes inscription (G). No. 2 is by Grotefend. It gives the cuneiform text in the three species of writing of the inscriptions of Xerxes and Cyrus, and that on the Caylus Vase, with the translation. The three columns are divided so as to show the words of each species that correspond to one another. Kaulen says Grotefend’s essay appeared in the second edition of 1805 (_Assyrien und Babylonien_, 1899, p. 126). Weisbach says its first appearance was in 1815 (_Achämenideninschriften Zweiter Art_, 1890, p. 3). We have not found the second edition in the British Museum.

[304] De Sacy, _Mémoires sur diverses Antiquités_, Paris, 1793. It is given by Heeren (Eng. ed.), vol. ii. App. 2, p. 332.

[305] 𐎲 was assumed to be the same as the 𐎼 _r_ in ‘Darius.’

[306] The true Zend spelling is ‘khchayo’; the ‘h’ before ‘y’ expressed in cuneiform is understood in Zend. Burnouf (Eugène), _Mémoire sur deux Inscriptions_ (1836), p. 76.

[307] Millin, Year VIII, v. 461.

[308] _Ib._ p. 462.

[309] _Cf._ Grotefend’s own account of how he heard of _bun_. Heeren (Eng. ed.), ii. 337.

[310] It seems to have been completed by the time he wrote the tract on the Zend alphabet, which is reviewed in Millin, Year VIII, vi. 96 (1803).

[311] Heeren (Eng. ed.), ii. 329.

[312] Millin (1803), v. 458.

[313] See Heeren (ed. 1815), vol. i. part 2, p. 704.

[314] Heeren (1824), xi. 372. See Eng. ed. ii. 350.

[315] _Ib._ p. 351.

[316] Heeren (Eng. ed.), 126; Millin (1803), v. 438, Plate.

[317] See _supra_, p. 73.

[318] Heeren, _ib._ p. 126. Millin, ii. 370, iii. 211.

[319] Heeren (ed. 1815), pp. 592, 595. _Cf._ Eng. ed. ii. 339.

[320] _Ib._ (1824), xi. 353, _Cf._ Eng. ed. ii. 337.

[321] Millin, iii. 212 (1803).

[322] The two words are as follows:

m n i sh i y correct
𐏃 · 𐎧 · 𐎠 · 𐎶 · 𐎴 · 𐎡 · 𐏁 · 𐎡 · 𐎹 ·
Grotefend A kh a o tsch o sch o h

m z correct
𐎠 · 𐎢 · 𐎼 · 𐎶 · 𐏀 · 𐎭 · 𐎠 ·
Grotefend A _or_ E u r o gh d a _or_ e

[323] Menant, _Les Langues perdues_, p. 111.

[324] Millin, xi. 99 (1803).

[325] Millin, vi. 96.

[326] Heeren (Eng. ed.), ii. 330.

[327] The Caillou Michaux. De Sacy also held that this inscription was different from the third Persepolitan, and that the Babylonian bricks and cylinders offered another variety (Millin, 1803, v. 440). De Sacy reported that the inscriptions on the bricks at Paris differed entirely from the inscriptions published by Hager (Hager, p. 58, _note_.)

[328] Heeren (Eng. ed.), ii. 324-5; Millin, ii. 372; cf. _Werke_, xi. 334, 339, 355. Heeren also thought the first species was the oldest.

[329] Heeren, _Werke_, xi. 342.

[330] Grotefend’s views on this point were explained in the _Fundgruben des Orients_, vol. v. pt. 3. See Grotefend, _Neue Beiträge_ (1840), p. 7.

[331] Dorow, _op. cit._ p. 26. _Cf._ Grotefend, _Neue Beiträge_ (1840), p. 23.

[332] Dorow, pp. 32, 38, 41. He recurs to this subject in _Neue Beiträge_ (1840), pp. 6 and 7, and refers for his original treatment of it to _Fundgruben des Orients_, vol. iv. pt. 4, and vol. vi. pt. 2.

[333] Dorow, p. 42.

[334] _Erläuterung über einige Babylonische Cylinder_ (1820), by Grotefend; and _Nachträgliche Bemerkungen_ which follow it.

[335] Cf. _J. R. A. S._ 1848 (Annual Report, 1846) p. vii. Holtzmann, _Beiträge zur Erklärung der Persischen Keilinschriften_ (Carlsruhe, 1845), p. 13.

[336] _Neue Beiträge_ (1837), p. 17.

[337] _Ib._ p. 25.

[338] _Ib._ p. 35.

[339] _Ib._ p. 28.

[340] _Ib._ p. 39.

[341] Holtzmann, _Beiträge_, p. 16.

[342] In the same year Burnouf suggested ‘this is,’ or ‘I am’ (_Mémoire sur deux Inscriptions_, p. 170).

[343] Holtzmann, _Beiträge_, p. 24.

[344] Smith’s _Biblical Dictionary_, art. ‘Nineveh,’ p. 560.

[345] _J. R. A. S._ (1861), xviii. 77.

[346] Mohl (Jules), _Vingt-sept ans d’Histoire des Etudes Orientales_, i. 546; Report, June 1854.

[347] See Grotefend’s Alphabet, App. A. _Cf._ Burnouf, _Mémoire_, Pl. 1. See his correct values, App. B.

[348] Dorow, p. 28.

[349] Millin, v. 451, 465.

[350] Dorow, p. 58.

[351] ‘Journey to Babylon in 1811,’ by J. C. Rich, p. 6; published in _Babylon and Persepolis_, 1839.

[352] Vaux, _Nineveh and Persepolis_ (1851), p. 187.

[353] It was translated into French by M. Raymond, the Consul at Bussora, 1818. _Journal Asiatique_, i. 58.

[354] Rich, p. 185.

[355] _Ib._ p. 188.

[356] Rich, p. 186, _note_. This statement is, however, too sweeping, for Grotefend always clearly distinguished two distinct kinds of Babylonian, corresponding to the cursive and the hieratic. Rich’s first and third are examples respectively of these two styles. The former, or cursive, occurs in lapidary inscriptions such as Rich has described; the second, or hieratic, on bricks and cylinders, and in the long inscription of Sir Harford Jones (the India House Inscription). Rich’s second species is not a distinct variety. Its peculiarity consists only in the ‘distortion of oblique elongation,’ due perhaps to the eccentricity of the engraver. (See Rawlinson in _J. R. A. S._ x. 24.)

[357] Rich, p. 99.

[358] _Ib._ p. 190.

[359] Rich, p. 183.

[360] Dorow, p. 26.

[361] _Ib._ p. 26. _Neue Beiträge_ (1840), p. 16.

[362] _Neue Beiträge_ (1837), p. 6, Plate 1.

[363] _Ib._ (1840), p. 23.

[364] Klaproth (H. J.), _Aperçu de l’Origine des diverses Ecritures_ (Paris, 1832), p. 63.

[365] _Ib._ p. 63. Cf. _Journal Asiatique_ (1823), p. 69.

[366] _Journal Asiatique_ (1823), pp. 68-70.

[367] _Ib._ p. 85, _note_.

[368] _Journal Asiatique_ (1823), p. 82.

[369] St. Martin agreed with Grotefend in the signs for _s_, _r_, _d_, _b_ or _p_, _a_, _t_, _kh_, and _sch_ (𐏁) which, in accordance with French orthography, he read _ch_. He rejected _k_, _f_, _sr_, _a_ (No. 41), all of which are correct.

[370] The following is the list of _incorrect_ values assigned by Grotefend, showing the changes made by St. Martin:

Grotefend St. Martin Correct
_v_ _r_ _b_
_e_ _i_ _v(a)_
_o_ _e_ _ch_
_gh_ _e_ _z(u)_
_o_ _a_ _m_
_i_ _h_ _th_
_h_ _e_ _y_
_h_ _e_ _m_
_tsch_ _b_ and _m_ _n_

[371] ‘Lob verdient, dass er sich bescheidet, einige Zeichen als unentziffert hinzustellen.’ Lassen, _Altpersische Keilinschriften_ (Bonn, 1836), p. 18.

[372] Klaproth, _Aperçu_, p. 63.

[373] The _b_ (𐎴) is given in the _Journal Asiatique_.

[374] See Heeren, _Werke_, xi. 363; _Journal Asiatique_ (1823), p. 83.

[375] Klaproth gives St. Martin’s Darius Inscription.

[376] Rask (E.), _Ueber das Alter der Zend-Sprache_ (Berlin, 1826), p. 28; Klaproth, p. 67.

[377] See above, p. 179.

[378] For St. Martin’s alphabet see _Journal Asiatique_ (1823), p. 67, Plate; Burnouf, _Mémoire_, Pl. 1; and Klaproth, _Aperçu_, p. 63. St. Martin was engaged upon the second and third columns at the time of his death. His Memoir remained incomplete, and, so far as we know, it has never been published in a separate form. _Journal Asiatique_ (3ᵉ série), v. 359.

[379] Translated from the Danish by Hagen, Berlin, 1826.

[380] In 1832 Schlegel asserted that the Zend and the Zend-Avesta were forgeries by the Guebres (or Parsees) of Guzerat (Heeren, Eng. ed., ii. 341). Rawlinson, in 1847, was still of opinion that Zend dates after Alexander, possibly some centuries (_J. R. A. S._ x. 50). He was also convinced of the late origin of the Zend-Avesta.

[381] Rask, p. 28.

[382] Rask, p. 80. St. Martin had already intimated a doubt as to their absolute identity (_Journal Asiatique_, 1823, p. 77).

[383] Published in _Journal Asiatique_, 1826.

[384] Menant (I.), _Les Langues perdues_, Perse, p. 21.

[385] _Zoroasters lebendiges Wort_, S. F. Kleuker, Riga, 1777.

[386] Tychsen, _De Religionum Zoroastricarum apud veteres gentes Vestigiis_. See Heeren, i. 237.

[387] Rask, _op. cit._ 1826.

[388] _Mémoire_, p. 8.

[389] See above, p. 96.

[390] Ouseley (Sir W.), vol. ii. Pl. 46; Burnouf, _Mémoire_, pp. 9, 17.

[391] Niebuhr, vol. ii. Pl. 31, p. 123.

[392] See above, p. 187.

[393] Burnouf, _Mémoire_, p. 29.

[394] _Ib._ p. 25.

[395]

𐎺 · 𐏀 · 𐎼 · 𐎣
Grotefend _e_ _gh_ _r_ _e_
St. Martin _i_ _e_ _r_ _e_
Burnouf _i_ _z_ _r_ _k_
Correct _r(a)_ _z_ _r(a)_ _k(a)_

[396] See above, p. 182.

[397] _Mémoire_, p. 38.

[398] The true transliteration is ‘vazraka,’ and its meaning ‘great.’ See Spiegel, p. 46.

[399]

𐎠 · 𐎼 · 𐎷 · 𐎡 · 𐎴
Burnouf _a_ _r_ _i_ _o_ _n_
Correct _a_ _r_ _m_ _i_ _n(a)_

[400] _Mémoire_, p. 149.

[401] Ib. p. 138:

𐎠 · 𐎰 · 𐎢 · 𐎼 · 𐎠
Burnouf _a_ _y_ _u_ _r_ _a_
Correct _a_ _th_ _u_ _r_ _â_

[402] _Mémoire_, p. 151.

[403] _Mémoire_, p. 148.

[404] _Ib._ p. 158.

[405] _Mémoire_, p. 157.

[406] _Ib._ p. 154.

[407] _Ib._ p. 133.

[408] _Mémoire_, p. 159.

[409] Correct values from Grotefend, acknowledged by Burnouf, are:

_r_, _d_, _a_ (Münter), _f_, _kh_, _p_, _s_ or _ç_, _ch_ 8 in all
Incorrect values from Grotefend, _o_, _u_, _g_, _h_ 4 in all
12 35 15 27

Correct values from Grotefend, not acknowledged by Burnouf,
_t_, _u_, _a_ 3 in all
24 36 41
---------
15 in all
=========

He credits St. Martin with _t_, because he agreed with him that the central wedge should be drawn slightly lower than the other two (p. 137). He credits the _u_ to St. Martin and the _a_ to himself, because he says both are short, whereas Grotefend made them long (p. 142-3). But these reasons are clearly insufficient to deprive Grotefend of the merit of having suggested to Burnouf the values of the three letters.

[410] The twelve correct values claimed to have been discovered by Burnouf are:

Grotefend Burnouf
4 𐎣 _e_ _k_ Correct
7 𐎲 _v_ _b_ Correct (from Münter)
16 𐎡 _o_ _v_ Wrong (from Münter), _ch_
18 𐏀 _gh_ _z_ Correct
19 𐎮 uncertain _l_? _d(i)_ }
25 𐎤 _k_ _q_ _k(a)_ }
22 𐎬 _th_ _dh_ _t(u)_ }
26 𐎰 _i_ _y_ _th_ } Correct values
29 𐎷 _h_ _î_ _m(i)_ }
34 𐎯 _z_ _gh_ _d(u)_ }
40 𐎽 _sr_ _l_ _r(u)_ }
41 𐏃 _a_ _a_ _h(a)_, Correct (from Grotefend)

[411] _I.e._ fifteen from Grotefend, one, _i_, from St. Martin, two from Rask, and eleven of his own: that is, deducting the _a_ of Grotefend already included. As we have seen, he credited himself with the _b_ of Münter, which Grotefend did not accept—twenty-nine in all.

[412] Rawlinson; _z(j)i_, Oppert.

[413] Burnouf, _Mémoire_, p. 110.

[414] _Ib._ pp. 113, 115.

[415]

_I.e._ 2 from Münter, _a_, _b_
10 from Grotefend, _r_, _d_, _f_, _kh_, _p_, _s_ or _ç_, _ch_,
_t_, _u_, _a_ (41)
2 from Rask, _n_, _m_
2 from himself, _k_, _z_
--
16

[416] Burnouf, _Mémoire_, p. 166.

[417] _Ib._ p. 58.

[418] _Ib._ p. 82. _Cf._ Spiegel, p. 47.