The Progress of Ethnology

When M. Arnaud returned to Jiddah from his hazardous and toilsome expedition, M. Fresnel, who had originally moved him to the undertaking, set about studying the new inscriptions, aided by the previous labors of the German scholars and his own knowledge of Arabic and the modern Himyaritic. Possessing a far more abundant supply of materials than had been collected before, he was able to assign to a few doubtful characters their proper values. He transmitted to Paris a fair copy of the original inscriptions, and also a transcription of them in the Arabic character, showing how they should be read. A fount of Himyaritic types having been constructed for the express purpose at the Imprimerie Royale, they were all published in the course of last year in the Journal Asiatique, together with several letters on the subject from M. Fresnel. The form of the characters in these inscriptions is essentially the same as in those discovered before; but, whereas the former ones all read from right to left like the Arabic of the present day, some of the new ones are found to read alternately from right to left and from left to right, like some of the inscriptions of ancient Greece. M. Fresnel's attention has been mainly directed to the collection and identification of the proper names of persons, deities, and places, in which the inscriptions abound, and in which he recognises many names mentioned in Scripture, and in Greek, Roman, and Arabian authors. Thus he identifies the deity 'Athtor with the Ashtoreth or Venus of the Hebrews. He finds in an inscription at Hisn Ghorab the word Kaná, showing the correctness of the conclusion already arrived at that this is the Cane emporium of Ptolemy. He identifies the ruins of Kharibeh, a day's journey to the west of Mareb, with the Caripeta of Pliny, the furthest point reached by the Roman commander, Ælius Gallus, in his expedition into Arabia Felix, in the reign of Augustus Cæsar. He has also recognised many names of Himyaritic sovereigns mentioned by Arabian writers, among others those of the grandfather and uncle of Queen Balkis. M. Fresnel has also begun to translate the inscriptions connectedly, a work of great labor and difficulty. He has already furnished an improved reading and translation of one at Sana, which had been copied before by English officers, and interpreted by Gesenius and Rödiger, and has offered a translation of another found by M. Arnaud, on the Hiram Balkis at Mareb.

The discoveries already brought to light, merely serve to show the richness of the mine that yet remains to be explored. Other expeditions are now planning, or in progress of execution, for penetrating into other parts of the country; and eminent scholars are busied in elucidating the treasures which the enterprize of travellers is bringing to light. Their united exertions cannot fail, at least, to accumulate many curious particulars relative to the history of one of the most remarkable and least known nations of past ages.

The Rev. T. Brockman, who was sent by the Royal Geographical Society of England for the purpose of geographical and antiquarian research in the Arabian peninsula, had proceeded up the coast from Aden to Shehar, midway between Aden and Muscat, and had coasted along to Cape Ras al-Gat. Subsequently in attempting to reach Muscat, he was arrested by sickness at Wadi Beni Jabor, where after a few days he died. His papers, which will be sent to the Geographical Society, are thought to contain matters of interest respecting this region.66

The following list embraces all of consequence that has been written on Southern Arabia and the Himyaritic Inscriptions.

Pococke, Specimina Historiæ veterum Arabum. Oxford, 1649, reprinted 1806.

De Sacy, sur divers Évènemens de l'histoire des Arabes avant Mahomet, in Mém. de Lit. de l'Acad. Française, Vol. L. Paris, 1805.

Historia Jemanæ, e cod. MS. arabico, ed. G.T. Johannsen. Bonn, 1828.

Travels in Arabia, by Lieut. Wellsted, 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1838.

Memoir on the south coast of Arabia, by Capt. Harris. Journal Royal Geographical Society, Vol. VI. IX.

Narrative of a Journey from Mokha to Sana: by C.J. Cruttenden. – Ibid. Vol. VIII.

Gesenius, Über die Himjaritischen Sprache und Schrift, Halle, 1841.

Rödiger, Versuch über die Himjaritischen Schriftmonumente. Halle, 1841. This was republished, with many improvements, in an Appendix to the author's German translation of Wellsted's Travels. 2 vols. Halle, 1842.

Ewald, on an inscription recently dug up in Aden, Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 1843.

The Historical Geography of Arabia, or the Patriarchal Evidences of Revealed Religion. By the Rev. Charles Forster, 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1844.

F. Fresnel. Letters to M. Jules Mohl, on the Himyaritic Inscriptions. Paris, 1845.

Account of an excursion to Hadramaut, by Adolph Baron Wrede. Journal Royal Geographical Society, Vol. XIV.

Memoir of the south and east coast of Arabia, by Capt. S.B. Harris. – Ibid. Vol. XV.

Sclavonic Mss. – It is stated in the Russian papers that M. Grigorowitsch, professor of the sclavonic tongues in the Imperial University of Kasan, has returned to that capital from a two year's journey in the interior of Turkey, by order of the Russian government, in search of the graphic monuments of the ancient Sclavonic nations. He has brought home fac-similes of many hundred inscriptions, and 2,138 Sclavonian manuscripts – 450 of which are said to be very ancient, and of great importance.

The Caucasus. – The results of a scientific expedition for the exploration of the Steppes of the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus, and of Southern Russia, under the direction of M. Hommaire de Hell, has lately been published. This portion of the East has been little noticed by travellers, and the present work has therefore added much to our previous knowledge of the country. It is accompanied by a large map, on which the geographical and geological peculiarities are defined with great minuteness and elegance.67

ASSYRIA AND PERSIA

The discoveries recently made, and the researches now in progress in those regions of the world known in ancient times as Assyria, Babylonia and Persia, are among the most interesting and important of the age. Of the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians we know nothing, but what we find in the Bible, or what has been preserved and handed down to us by the Greek historians. Unlike Egypt, who has left so many records of her greatness, of her knowledge of the arts, and of her advancement in civilization, in the numerous and wonderful monumental remains in the valley of the Nile, the Assyrians were supposed to have left nothing, no existing monuments as evidences that they ever had an existence, save in the vast and misshapen heaps along the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris, believed to wash the spots where the great cities of Nineveh and Babylon once stood. The site of Nineveh still remains doubtful; and so literally have the prophecies in regard to Babylon been fulfilled, that nothing but vast heaps of rubbish, of tumuli, and traces of numerous canals, remains. The language of the Assyrians is unknown, and the impressions of characters in the form of a wedge or arrow-head stamped upon the bricks and other relics dug from these heaps, have been looked upon as mysterious and cabalistic signs, rather than the representatives of sounds, or belonging to a regular form of speech. For more than twenty centuries, these countries have been as a blank on the page of history; and all we have gathered from them consists in the observations of curious travellers, who, at the risk of their lives, have ventured to extend their wanderings this way.

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.

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 Palæography, 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 Achæmenian 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 Westergaard76 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 Achæmenian Babylonian, the Medo-Assyrian, the Assyrian, and the Elymæan.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. Westergaard79 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 Achæmenian 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 Achæmenian 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. Löwenstern, 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.