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 Yacna 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.
It is unnecessary to note in detail the difficulties and great labor
attending the decyphering of the Behistun tablets, on which Major
Rawlinson was occupied from time to time during a space of ten years.
His discoveries were announced in London, in a memoir read before the
Royal Asiatic Society in 1839, but were not published in extenso until
1846.
Briefly to sum up the results of his labors, it will suffice to state
that they present "a correct grammatical translation of nearly four
hundred lines of cuneiform writing, a memorial of the time of Darius
Hystaspes, the greater part of which is in so perfect a state as to
afford ample and certain grounds for a minute orthographical and
etymological analysis, and the purport of which to the historian, must
be of fully equal interest with the peculiarities of the language to the
philologist." In a few cases it may be found necessary to alter or
modify some of the significations assigned; but there is no doubt but
that the general meaning of every paragraph is accurately determined,
and that the learned Orientalist has thus been enabled "to exhibit a
correct historical outline, possessing the weight of royal and
contemporaneous recital, of many great events which preceded the rise
and marked the career of one of the most celebrated of the early
sovereigns of Persia."
Such is the history of this great discovery, which has placed the name
of Major Rawlinson among the most distinguished Oriental scholars of the
age. He will rank among the laborers in cuneiform writing, where
Champollion does among the decypherers of Egyptian hieroglyphics; for
though, like Champollion, he did not make the first discoveries in his
branch of Palaeography, he is certainly entitled to the honor of reducing
it to a system, by ascertaining the true powers of a large portion of
the alphabet, and by elucidating its grammatical peculiarities, so that
future investigators will find little difficulty in translating any
inscription in the particular class of characters in question.
The cuneiform (wedge-shaped) or arrow-headed character is a system of
writing peculiar to the countries between the Euphrates and the Persian
frontier on the East. Various combinations of a figure shaped like a
wedge, together with one produced by the union of two wedges, constitute
the system of writing employed by the ancient Assyrians, Babylonians,
Medes, and the Achaemenian kings of Persia. The character seems to have
been as extensively employed in this portion of the world, as the Roman
letters now are in Europe. Particular arrangements or combinations of
these characters apparently belonged to different nations, speaking
different languages. When and where this system of writing originated is
not known. Professor Westergaard[76] thinks that "Babylon was its
cradle, whence it spread in two branches, eastward to Susiana, and
northward to the Assyrian empire, from whence it passed into Media, and
lastly into ancient Persia, where it was much improved and brought to
its greatest perfection."
Major Rawlinson makes of the arrow-headed writing three great classes or
divisions, the _Babylonian_, _Median_ and _Persian_. The first of these
he thinks is unquestionably the oldest. "It is found upon the bricks
excavated from the foundations of all the buildings in Mesopotamia,
Babylonia, and Chaldea, that possess the highest and most authentic
claims to antiquity;" and he thinks it "not extravagant therefore to
assign its invention to the primitive race which settled in the plain of
Shinar."[77] In the recent excavations made by M. Botta and Mr. Layard,
on or near the site of ancient Nineveh, numerous inscriptions in this
form of the arrow-head character were found. It also occurs in detached
inscriptions from the Mediterranean to the Persian mountains.
A comparison of the various inscriptions in the Babylonian class of
writing has led Major Rawlinson to believe that it embraces five
distinct varieties, which he calls the Primitive Babylonian, the
Achaemenian Babylonian, the Medo-Assyrian, the Assyrian, and the
Elymaean.[78] The peculiarities of these several varieties, with the
countries in which they are found, are pointed out in the second chapter
of our author's learned Memoir on cuneiform writing. The Median and
Persian classes are peculiar to the trilingual tablets of Persia, and
are better known than the first class or Babylonian.
Mr. Westergaard[79] divides the cuneiform writing into five classes: the
_Assyrian_; the _Old Babylonian_; and the three kinds on the trilingual
tablets of Persia, which embrace the _Median_ and _Persian_ varieties,
and the one called by Rawlinson the _Achaemenian Babylonian_.
The history we have already given of the progress made in decyphering
these characters applies exclusively to one of the varieties on the
tablets of Persia. The inscriptions on these monuments are almost
invariably repeated in three sets of characters, and doubtless in three
different languages. The characters of what appears in each case to be
the primary or original inscription, of which the others are
translations, are of the simplest construction, and consequently were
the first to attract the attention of decypherers, and to yield to their
efforts. The language in which they are written has been found to
exhibit close affinities both to the Sanscrit and to the Zend, and is
now termed by philologists the Old Persian. The system of writing is
alphabetic, that is to say, each character represents a single
articulate sound; whereas that of the other two species is at least in a
great measure syllabic, which renders the task of decyphering them much
more difficult.
For our knowledge of the second variety of characters on the Persian
trilingual tablets, we are indebted to the labors and sagacity of
Professor Westergaard.[80] These characters had remained entirely
undecyphered until the first kind had been completely made out. It was
evident that the inscriptions in the second kind of character were but a
translation of those in the first; and with this supposition, this
learned Orientalist began the task of decyphering, by identifying the
proper names Darius, Hystaspes, Cyrus, Xerxes, Persians, Ionians, &c.,
which frequently occur in the inscriptions decyphered by Major
Rawlinson. Having obtained these, he next analyzed each and ascertained
the phonetic values of the several characters of which they are
composed. By this means, he was enabled to construct an alphabet. He
next examined the introductory words and the titles of the sovereigns,
and finally the entire inscriptions, all of which he has most
satisfactorily made out, and with them has reconstructed the language in
which they are written. In his learned and elaborate article detailing
the process of this discovery, Professor Westergaard gives a systematic
classification of the characters, one hundred in number, of which
seventy-four are syllabic, twenty-four alphabetic, and two signs of
division between words. The character of the language, which for
convenience sake he terms Median, he does not pretend to decide, though
he considers that it belongs to the Scythian rather than to the Japhetic
class of languages; in which opinion Major Rawlinson coincides. The
Oriental Journal alluded to in the second note to p. 90, contains
several learned papers by Professors Westergaard and Lassen, on the
arrow-headed inscriptions.
In the third sort of Persepolitan characters, termed the Achaemenian
Babylonian, some advances have been made by Major Rawlinson. The
contents of the other portions of these tablets being known, he pursued
the course adopted by Professor Westergaard, namely that of identifying
the groups of characters corresponding with the proper names in the
other inscriptions. He has thus been enabled to ascertain the phonetic
values of a large number of characters which must in time lead to a
knowledge of the rest of the alphabet. A beginning in this direction was
also made by Professor Grotefend, who in his Memoirs of 1837 and 1840,
singles out and places in juxtaposition the names of Cyrus, Hystaspes,
Darius and Xerxes, in the first and third species of Persepolitan
writing. There is every reason to hope that the labors of the three
accomplished Oriental scholars, Rawlinson, Lassen, and Westergaard,
which have been so far crowned with success, will add to their fame by
making out the characters and language of this species of writing also.
A high degree of interest is attached to it, not only on account of the
information it embodies, but in regard to the nation to which it is
assignable.
It will be recollected, that besides these three sorts of Persepolitan
writing, there are two other distinct classes of arrow-head characters,
called Babylonian and Assyrian. Little or nothing has yet been
accomplished towards decyphering them; which is owing to the fact that
they are of a very complicated nature, and that they have hitherto been
found alone, that is to say not accompanied by a version in any other
language or character. A Parisian savant, M.J. Loewenstern, who has
applied himself to the study of the Assyrian tablets, published in 1845
an Essay on the monument recently discovered by M. Botta at Khorsabad
near Mosul, in which he thinks he has made out the groups which stand
for the words _great king_, and also several alphabetical characters.
Further investigations can alone determine whether or not his
conclusions are correct.
It will be necessary to state some of the historical facts brought to
light by the labors of Major Rawlinson, to which we have alluded. The
great tablet at Behistun relates exclusively to Darius. "To this
monarch," says Major Rawlinson, "insatiable in his thirst of conquest,
magnificent in his tastes, and possessed of an unlimited power, we are
indebted for all that is most valuable in the palaeography of Persia.
Imbued, as it appears, with an ardent passion for monumental fame, he
was not content to inscribe the palaces of his foundation at Persepolis
with a legend commemorative of their erection, or with prayers invoking
the guardianship of Ormuzd and his angels, but he lavished an elaborate
workmanship on historic and geographic records in various quarters of
his empire, which evince considerable political forethought, an earnest
regard for truth, and an ambition to transmit the glories of his reign
to future generations, to guide their conduct and invite their
emulation. At Persepolis, the high place of Persian power, he aspired
to elevate the moral feelings of his countrymen, and to secure their
future dominancy in Asia, by displaying to them their superiority over
the feudatory provinces of the empire,[81] while upon the sacred rock of
Baghistan, he addressed himself in the style of an historian, to collect
the genealogical traditions of his race, to describe the extent and
power of his kingdom, and to relate, with a perspicuous brevity worthy
of imitation, the leading incidents of his reign. His grave relation of
the means by which, under the care and favor of a beneficent Providence,
the crown of Persia first fell into his hands, and of the manner in
which he subsequently established his authority, by the successive
overthrow of the rebels who opposed him, contrasts strongly but most
favorably with the usual emptiness of Oriental hyperbole."
The following are some of the translations from the great inscription at
Behistun, which embraces upwards of four hundred lines in the
arrow-headed characters. In Major Rawlinson's Memoir, are given
fac-similes of the original inscriptions, a transcription of the same in
Roman letters with an interlineal translation in Latin, and a
translation in English. Accompanying these, is a critical commentary on
each line, together with notes, rendering the whole as clear as
possible.
"I am Darius, the great king, the king of kings, the king of
Persia, the king of (the dependent) provinces, the son of
Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, the Achaemenian.
"Says Darius the King:--My father was Hystaspes; of Hystaspes,
the father was Arsames; of Arsames, the father was Ariyaramnes;
of Ariyaramnes, the father was Teispes; of Teispes, the father
was Achaemenes.
"Says Darius the King:--On that account, we have been called
Achaemenians: from antiquity we have been unsubdued; from
antiquity those of our race have been kings.
"Says Darius the King:--There are eight of my race who have
been kings before me, I am the ninth; for a very long time we
have been kings.
"Says Darius the King:--By the grace of Ormuzd, I am king;
Ormuzd has granted me the empire.
"Says Darius the King:--These are the countries which have fallen
into my hands--by the grace of Ormuzd, I have become king of
them--Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt; those
which are of the sea, Sparta and Ionia; Armenia, Cappadocia,
Parthia, Zarangea, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, the Sacae,
the Sattagydes, Arachosia, and the Mecians; the total amount being
twenty-one countries.
"Says Darius the King:--These are the countries which have come to
me; by the grace of Ormuzd, they have become subject to me--they
have brought tribute to me. That which has been said unto them by
me, both by night and by day, it has been performed by them.
"Says Darius the King:--Ormuzd has granted me the empire. Ormuzd
has brought help to me until I have gained this empire. By the
grace of Ormuzd, I hold this empire.
"Says Darius the King:-- ... He who was named Cambyses, the son of
Cyrus of our race, he was here king before me. There was of that
Cambyses a brother named Bartius; he was of the same father and
mother as Cambyses. Cambyses slew this Bartius. When Cambyses slew
that Bartius, the troubles of the state ceased which Bartius had
excited. Then Cambyses proceeded to Egypt. When Cambyses had gone
to Egypt, the state became heretical; then the lie became abounding
in the land, both in Persia and in Media, and in the other
provinces."
He then goes on to speak of the rebellions in his dominions after the
death of Cambyses, of the Magian who declared himself king, and that no
one dared to resist him. He continues:
"every one was standing obediently around the Magian, until I
arrived. Then I abode in the worship of Ormuzd; Ormuzd brought
help to me. On the 10th day of the month Bagayadish, I slew the
Magian and the chief men who were his followers. By the grace
of Ormuzd, I became king; Ormuzd granted me the sceptre."
He then says, he "established his race on the throne, as in the days of
old," prohibited the sacrificial worship introduced by the Magian, and
restored the old families to office,--all of which was accomplished by
the aid of Ormuzd. The people of Susiana and Babylon then became
rebellious. He slew the leader of the former.
"Says Darius the King:--Then I proceeded to Babylon against
that Natitabirus, who was called Nabokhadrosser
(Nebuchadnezzar). The forces of Natitabirus held the Tigris;
there they had come and they had boats. Then I placed
a detachment on rafts. I brought the enemy into difficulty; I
assaulted the enemy's position. Ormuzd brought help to me; by
the grace of Ormuzd, I succeeded in passing the Tigris. Then I
entirely defeated the army of that Natitabirus. On the 27th day
of the month of Atriyata, then it was that we thus fought."
Darius then continued his march to Babylon, where he was met by the army
of Natitabirus; he gave him battle and defeated him, driving his army
into the water. He then took Babylon. It would appear from what this
monarch relates, that he had a pretty rebellious set of subjects, who
took advantage of his absence at Babylon. The inscription continues.
"Says Darius the King:--whilst I was at Babylon, these are the
countries that revolted against me; Persis, Susiana, Media,
Assyria, Armenia, Parthia, Margiana, Sattagydia and Sacia."
He then gives the names of the rebellious leaders and of the officers
sent to subjugate them; the forts, villages, or cities, where battles
were fought; the day of the month when they took place, and the result,
in every case, by the help of Ormuzd. One example will suffice. After
speaking of the revolt of Armenia, the inscription continues.
"Says Darius the King:--Then Dadarses by name, an Armenian, one
of my servants, him I sent to Armenia. I thus said to him:
'Greeting to thee, the rebel state that does not obey me, smite
it.' Then Dadarses marched. When he reached Armenia, then the
rebels having collected came before Dadarses arraying their
battle ... by name, a village of Armenia, there they engaged.
Ormuzd brought help to me; by the grace of Ormuzd, my forces
entirely defeated that rebel army. On the 8th of the month
Thurawahara, then it was a battle was fought by them."
In this manner we have the whole history of the reign of Darius king of
Persia, who filled the throne 550 B.C. And it may truly be said that no
monument of remote antiquity which has been preserved to modern times,
at all equals it in importance. The inscriptions of Egypt are far more
ancient, but consist of fragments, which, excepting the tables of kings,
do not throw much light on history. Nothing is more interesting in the
details given by the Persian king of his successes, than his
acknowledgment of an overruling power, a Supreme Being, who protected
him and aided him in all his battles. From the closing part of this
remarkable tablet, which consists of twenty paragraphs, we select the
following.
"Says Darius the King:--This is what I have done. By the grace
of Ormuzd have I achieved the performance of the whole. Thou
whoever hereafter may peruse this tablet, let it be known to
thee, that which has been done by me, that it has not been
falsely related.
"Says Darius the King:--Ormuzd is my witness, that this record
I have faithfully made of the performance of the whole.
"Says Darius the King:--By the grace of Ormuzd, there is much
else that has been done by me that upon this tablet has not
been inscribed.... If thou publish this tablet to the world,
Ormuzd shall be a friend to thee, and may thy offspring be
numerous.
"Says Darius the King:--If thou shalt conceal this record, thou
shalt not thyself be recorded; may Ormuzd be thy enemy, and
mayest thou be childless.
"Says Darius the King:--As long as thou mayest behold this
tablet and these figures, thou mayest not dishonor them; and if
from injury thou shalt preserve them, may Ormuzd be a friend to
thee, and may thy offspring be numerous, and mayest thou be
long lived, and that which thou mayest do may Ormuzd bless for
thee in after times."
The great inscription from which we have made these extracts, is
sculptured in three languages, and in three different forms of the
arrow-headed character, the particulars of which have been stated. There
are a few imperfections and cracks in the stone which made certain words
and sentences unintelligible; these will be corrected when the other two
inscriptions are decyphered. In the midst of these records is a piece of
sculpture in relief, representing Darius followed by two of his
officers, with his foot upon a man, who raises his hands before him, and
nine other figures representing the rebellious leaders whom he had
severally conquered. They are connected by a rope around their necks and
have their hands tied behind, and are probably portraits of the persons
they represent. Beneath each is engraved his name, as in the extract
given.
"This Natitabirus was an impostor: he thus declared, I am
Nabokhadrosser, the son of Nabonidas; I am king of Babylon."
The discoveries of Professor Westergaard, to whom we are indebted for
the key to the second or Median form of the arrow-headed character,
require notice. This accomplished Orientalist, on his return from an
archaeological tour in India and Persia, under the patronage of the king
of Denmark, brought with him, among other literary treasures, copies of
a great number of inscriptions in the arrow-headed character. While in
Persepolis he carefully examined all the inscriptions which those
wonderful ruins still retain. Those which had already been published, he
accurately compared with the original monuments, and the remainder he
copied entire. This gentleman went thoroughly furnished with all the
preparatory knowledge that could be gained in Europe to ensure success.
He had shown himself by his publications to be an excellent Sanscrit
scholar; besides which he had acquired as complete a knowledge of the
Zend language as it is possible to do at present, and was well
acquainted with all that had been effected in the way of decyphering the
inscriptions. Having thus so greatly the advantage of his predecessors,
Niebuhr, Ker Porter, and Rich, it is not to be wondered at that his
transcripts are proportionably more accurate and complete.