Persepolitan systems were kept entirely apart from the two that had been remarked at Babvlon. But it was not long before the similarity of the most complicated of the Persepolitan with the simplest of the Babylonian became apparent. This was fully recognised by Rich, in 1811, and we cannot suppose that Grotefend was far behind.[1] Rich was the first to announce that Grotefend had come to the important conclusion that the two or three different forms which had been observed at Babylon were mere varieties of one and the same method of writing, analogous to our Roman and Gothic character. Grotefend's attention was now chiefly directed to the Babylonian inscriptions, mainly in consequence of the articles contributed bv Rich to the 'Fundgruben des Orients,' and afterwards by the constant correspondence he maintained with Bellino, the German secretary Rich had brought out with him to Bagdad.[2] Grotefend now abandoned the idea that the third column was written in Pehlevi. He described the language as Median Persian, and he called it the 'Babvlonian colunm.' He showed also that the many differences in the writing of the simple Babylonian were due no doubt to the idiosyncrasies of the engravers; but they added greatly to the difficulty of the decipherment.[3] He noted also the frequent occurrence of different ideograms for the same word, such, for example, as for 'son.' He sharply contrasted it with such writing as is found in the India House Inscription which he called 'the complex' {zusammengesetzt). Mr. Rich had lately obtained several specimens of cylinders; two of these were found on the
- ↑ Grotefend's views on this point were explained in the Fundgruben des Orients, vol. v. pt. 3. See Grotefend, Neue Beitrᾶge (1840), p. 7.
- ↑ Dorow. op, cit. p. 26. Cf. Grotefend, Neue Beitrᾶge (1840), p. 23.
- ↑ Dorow, pp. 32, 38, 41. He recurs to this subject in Neue Beitrᾶge (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.
