The Progress of Ethnology / An Account of Recent Archaeological, Philological and Geographical Researches in Various Parts of the Globe, Tending to Elucidate the Physical History of Man

by John Russell Bartlett

Pietro della Valle, Le Brun, Niebuhr, Ker Porter, Rich, and Ouseley, have given us descriptions of the ancient remains in Persia and Assyria, particularly those at Persepolis, Pasargadæ, and Babylon. These consist of views of the monuments and sculptures, together with copies of the inscriptions in the cuneiform, or arrow-head character. The object of the edifices, the subject of the sculptures, and the meaning of the inscriptions, were wholly matters of conjecture; and it seemed a hopeless task to arrive at any conclusions in relation to them, until some key should be discovered, by the means of which the language should be made known, and the numerous inscriptions decyphered. No bilingual tablet, such as the Rosetta stone of Egypt, had been discovered; and, although it appeared that many of the inscriptions were recorded in three different languages, no means seemed to exist by which philologists could obtain a clue to their meaning. With this dark prospect in view, the task of decyphering the arrow-headed characters was attempted by M. Grotefend, one of the most sagacious and distinguished philologists of Europe. The particulars of the attempt and its results, we shall briefly state.

At Persepolis it is known are extensive ruins, chiefly belonging to a large edifice, with every indication that this edifice was originally a royal palace. History and tradition supported this belief; and the general character of the sculptures and architecture, together with the inscriptions, would carry its origin back to a period some centuries before the Christian era. It was doubtless the work of one of the great monarchs of Persia; of Cyrus, Cambyses, Xerxes, Darius, or some other with whom history is familiar.[68] On some of the monuments at Persepolis, are inscriptions in the Pehlvi character, parts of which have been decyphered by M. de Sacy. In one of these, the titles and name of a king are often repeated; these titles M. Grotefend thought might be repeated in the same manner in the arrow-head characters.[69]

Over the doorways and in other parts of this edifice, are portraits, evidently of kings, as there is always enough in the dress and insignia of a monarch to enable one to detect him on any ancient monument. Over these portraits are inscriptions; these it was natural to suppose related to the person represented, and if so, contained the name of the king and his titles. Such would be the conclusion of any one who reflected on the subject, and such was the belief of M. Grotefend and other philologists. In these inscriptions one group of characters was repeated more frequently than any other, and all agreed that the decyphering of this group would furnish a key to the whole. On this group of characters then our Savans set to work.

According to the analogy of the Pehlvi inscriptions, decyphered by De Sacy, it was believed that the inscriptions then under consideration, mentioned the name of a king son of another king, that is the names of father and son. M. Grotefend first examined the bas-reliefs at Persepolis, to ascertain the particular age of the Persian kings to which they belonged, in order that he might discover the names applicable to the inscription. A reference to the Greek historians convinced him that he must look for the kings of the dynasty of the Achæmenides, and he accordingly applied their names to the characters of the inscriptions. "These names could obviously not be Cyrus and Cambyses, because the names occurring in the inscriptions do not begin with the same letter; Cyrus and Artaxerxes were equally inapplicable, the first being too short and the latter too long; there only remained therefore the names of Darius and Xerxes;" and these latter agreed so exactly with the characters, that Mr. Grotefend did not hesitate to select them. The next step was to ascertain what these names were in the old Persian language, as they come to us through the Greek, and would of course differ somewhat from the original. The ancient Zend, as preserved in the Zendavesta, furnished the only medium through which the desired information could be obtained.[70] He next ascertained that Xerxes was called Kshershe or Ksharsha; and Darius, Dareush. A farther examination gave him the name of Kshe or Ksheio for 'king.'[71] The places or groups of characters corresponding with these names, were then analyzed and the value of each character ascertained. These were then applied to other portions of the inscriptions, and led to the translation of two short ones, as well as to the formation of a considerable portion of the alphabet.

Such was the result of Professor Grotefend's labors up to the year 1833. His first discovery was made and announced as early as 1802, but an account of his system of interpretation did not appear until 1815, in the appendix to the third German edition of Heeren's Researches. This was afterwards enlarged in the translation of Heeren published at Oxford in 1833, when it was first made known to English readers. In 1837 he published a treatise containing an account of all the Persepolitan inscriptions in his possession, and another in 1840 on those of Babylon.

The brilliant success which attended Grotefend's earlier efforts, soon attracted the attention of other philologists to the subject. M. Saint Martin read a memoir before the Asiatic Society of Paris in 1822, but did not make any additions to our previous knowledge. Professor Rask next took it up, and discovered the value of two additional characters. M. Burnouf followed in 1836, with an elaborate memoir, in which he disclosed some important discoveries.[72] Professor Lassen, in his Memoir published in 1836, and in a series of papers continued up to the present day,[73] has identified at least twelve characters, which had been mistaken by all his predecessors, and which, says Maj. Rawlinson, "may entitle him almost to contest with Professor Grotefend the palm of alphabetical discovery."

In 1835, Major Rawlinson, then residing in Persia, turned his attention to the subject, and decyphered some of the proper names on the tablets at Hamadan. In the following year he applied himself to the great inscription at Behistun, the largest and most remarkable that is known in Persia, and succeeded in making out several lines of its contents.

The result of Major Rawlinson's first attempt at decyphering the Behistun inscription, was the identification of several proper names, and consequently the values of additional characters towards the completion of the alphabet.[74] But more was wanted than the alphabet, which only enabled the student to make out proper names, but not to advance beyond; and it was the lack of this knowledge which prevented the sagacious and indefatigable Grotefend from carrying out to any great extent, the discoveries which he had so well begun.

The language of the inscriptions must next be studied; and as the Zend had been the medium through which the first links in the chain of interpretation had been obtained, it was naturally resorted to for aid to farther progress. The Zendavesta, with the researches of Anquetil du Perron, and the commentary at the Yaçna by M. Burnouf, wherein the language of the Zendavesta is critically analyzed, and its grammatical structure developed, furnished the necessary materials. To the latter work, and the luminous critique of M. Burnouf, Major Rawlinson owes the success of his translations; as he acknowledges that by it he "obtained a general knowledge of the grammatical structure of the language of the inscriptions."

But the Zend was not of itself sufficient to make out all the words and expressions in the Behistun and other inscriptions. Other languages contemporary with that of the inscription and of the Zend must be sought for, to elucidate many points which it left obscure.[75] The Sanscrit was the only one laying claim to a great antiquity, whose grammatical structure was sufficiently developed to render it useful in this enquiry. A knowledge of this language had previously been acquired by Major Rawlinson, and he was therefore fully prepared for the arduous task he had undertaken. Neither of these, it must be observed, was the language of the inscriptions, which it is believed had ceased to be a living form of speech, at the period when the Sanscrit and Zend were in current use.