The principle of decyphering propounded for the Nineveh inscriptions
(Vol. iv., p. 220.) is available equally, and with better prospect of
speedy solution, in the case of those of _Mocatteb_. A very interesting
narrative is given of these in Laborde's _Mount Sinai and Petra_ (p.
248). The site of them is seventy miles direct distance south-east from
Suez, and they extend on the rock three miles and more in length, at a
height of ten or twelve feet, and in the line of route to Sinai, which
is distant fifty miles south-east from Mocatteb. They also lie not only
in the usual caravan route, but almost in a direct line drawn from
Ethiopia to the cities of Nineveh and Babylon. Nimrod is represented as
an Ethiopian (Gen. x. 8.), "_Cush begat Nimrod_" = "_Nimrod was an
Ethiopian by descent_." The whole of this invaluable monument of the
most ancient geography, the tenth of Genesis, must be read with
reference to _nations_, and not individuals.
Both the valley and the mountains are named from these "Inscriptions" =
_Mocatteb_ in Arabic; that fact alone indicates considerable antiquity,
especially in a country like Arabia, where the fashion of changing any
usage, especially that of names of places, has never prevailed. The
vicinity of these inscriptions to that portion of the world wherein the
Mosaic law had its origin, and probably, as a necessary consequence, the
invention of an alphabet also; and likewise the great question of
ancient intercourse between Egypt, Ethiopia, Assyria (Chaldea), and
India, have rendered the interpretation of the Mocatteb inscriptions a
problem of paramount interest, insomuch that Bishop Clayton offered a
considerable sum of money for a copy of them. In the _Royal Society's
Transactions_, vol. ii. part vi. 1832, are specimens of 187 of these,
whereof nine are Greek and one Latin. Some of them are doubtless of the
sixth century.
Coutelle and Roziere (_Antiquities_, vol. v. p. 57.) copied seventy-five
of them, and Pococke and Montague give a few specimens. Seetzen,
Burkhardt, and Henneker _saw_ them; and Niebuhr may be said to have been
sent out expressly on their account, but the result was _nil_. Cosmus,
Montfaucon, Neitzchitz, Monconys, Koischa, and others, mention them, and
they have been seen by a caravan of persons familiar with Arabic, Greek,
Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Armenian, Turkish, English, Illyrian,
German, and Bohemian, to all of whom they were equally inexplicable.
Since the discovery of Daguerre, we are placed in a position to obtain a
real _fac-simile_ of the whole of these inscriptions, at a small expense
of time or money. Any person familiar with the use of the daguerrotype
(the less learned the better) could now speedily furnish what the good
Bishop so fervently longed after, were he only provided with the small
sum of a few hundred pounds to take him thither and bring back his
invaluable treasures. Although the Mocatteb are graven with an iron pen
in the rock (Job xix. 24.), they are not everlasting, for the rains have
had some effect in obliterating them, being cut, not on granite, as was
formerly thought, but on red sandstone. It is worth remark, that
although Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, he
rejected entirely the hieroglyphic system of writing, and that no
mention or allusion is made to the art of writing till 1491 B.C., in Ex.
xvii. 14.[1], just prior to the delivery of the law, and in
connection with the account of Jethro, his father-in-law; subsequently,
constant allusion is made to writing. There is only one reference to
this art in Homer (_Il._ z. 168.). The author of Job, who appears to
have had a much more enlarged knowledge of art and science than Moses,
speaks of the cutting and painting (for so the Arabic and Hebrew words
should be rendered, and not _printing_) on a roll, _i.e._ with the
_style_ and _brush_; also of the cutting (_felling_) with a chisel (in
Arabic, a _digger_) on lead, or on a rock.[2]
[Footnote 1: "Jehovah said to Moses, Write this as a memorandum on
a roll, and let it be read to Joshua, that I intend to obliterate
entirely the memory of Amalek here below. And Moses built an altar
and called it _Jehovah Nissi_ (Jehovah is my banner). The reason
he assigned for the name was that a hand (power) opposed to the
throne of Jah was (the cause of) Jehovah's perpetual warfare
against Amalek." This is the _sense_ of the Hebrew as it stands,
in the current language of our day, and not a copy of the words
merely,--an error, it is conceived, into which most of the
translators, from the Seventy downwards, have often fallen. If a
conjectural criticism might be offered, let [Hebrew: kaf], _caf_,
be inserted for [Hebrew: nun], _nun_, and instead of Jehovah
_Nissi_ (banner), read Jehovah _Cissi_, "Jehovah is my _throne_;"
then the reason assigned by Moses for the name becomes
intelligible, which it certainly is not in the existing text,
undoubtedly very ancient, being confirmed by the Samaritan.]
[Footnote 2: The word, correctly translated _for ever_, according
to the Masoretic system, means "as a witness or testimony," if
pointed with _Tsereh_ instead of _Pathach_. The general sense of
this chapter, in some respects obscure, appears to be, "I seek for
justice, but cannot obtain it. Every obstacle is put in my way.
Neither my own kindred nor servants obey me. Look at my most
wretched condition; although I call you friends, you all hate me.
You are not satisfied with persecuting my body, but you afflict my
soul also. Oh that I could make an impression upon you. I would
set forth my petition for relief from your persecutions on a roll,
on lead, or on a rock, as a constant memorial in testimony of my
sufferings and your hate; as I know that my Goel (Redeemer or
Avenger) lives, and will at length ascend from the dust (sand or
soil). (In his approach he raises a cloud of dust.) Then arise and
destroy this (memorial), for, living, I shall get a judgment on my
case, being personally present and not by representative, although
I may be hardly able to attend from mental anxiety. Then you will
say, why did we persecute him, we were all wrong. And you will
fear punishment because you will learn that justice must be
satisfied."
Divested of its highly poetic diction, the above gives the subject
matter in the vernacular.]
The examination of the copies of the inscriptions already in our
possession will probably determine whether the language is hieroglyphic,
syllabic, or alphabetic. The principal point is to enumerate the
characters found to be clearly distinct from each other. Should there be
found two to three hundred decidedly _distinct_ characters--assuming it
to be one language and one uniform character of that language, for many
nations (peoples) use more than one character--the language _à priori_
must be _hieroglyphic_. If 70 to 90, it will be _syllabic_; but if only
20 to 50, it may be safely concluded that it is alphabetic. The letters
distinct from each other may be less than 20, inasmuch as in the Arabic,
most probably the language which will solve this problem, one character
represents several sounds, the points, usually omitted, alone
distinguishing the difference between _be_, _te_, _tse_, _nun_, and
_jod_, between _jim_, _ha_ and _cha_, between _dal_ and _zal_, between
_re_ and _se_, _sin_ and _shin_, _zad_ and _dad_, _fe_ and _kaf_, &c.
&c. On the other hand, the language has increased the number of its
characters, by distinguishing _initial_ from _medial_ and _terminal_
letters, having retained only thirteen originally distinct characters in
its alphabet.
The Ethiopic, written from left to right, has manifestly furnished the
Arabs with their cursive character, the one uniformly printed, written
from right to left, or otherwise both have derived them from a common
source. Of the intimate relation early subsisting between the Ethiopians
and their Shemitic congeners in Asia, one remarkable instance is the
former retaining to themselves exclusively "the exalted horn," so often
mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, the wearing of which has been long
abandoned by every other family of that race.