its Scythic origin, first suggested by Westergaard and Eawlinson, continued to gain ground, supported, no doubt, by the numerous similarities to this linguistic stock that were pointed out in the learned ^lemoirs of De Saulcy. In 1852, M. Oppert, writing on the Persian column, went so far as to propose to drop the designa- tion Median altogether, and, following the suggestion of Eawlinson, to substitute ' Scythic/ At that time he considered it to be the lan<?uaf]fe of the hordes who overran Western Asia, and who, after twenty eight years of domination in Media, were finally expelled by Cyaxares. It must be admitted that they were fortunate to leave such a permanent memorial of their passage/
A more important contribution than any of these was made by Luzzato, who showed with sufficient clear- ness that twenty-four of the Median signs corresponded to the Babylonian (1850).
Down to the time we have now reached the progress made was disappointing. We have seen that much spec!ulation was indulged as to the aHinity of the language and the people to whom it should properly be attributed; but verv little knowled<>"e of the lan^niajj^e itself had been acquired. Dr. Hincks had read forty- eight signs with sufficient correctness, and De Saulcy thirty-one, out of the one hundred and eleven with which the lanuuaiie is written ; but both scholars were encumbered by the multitude of unknown or erroneous values. In 18511, however, a considerable step was made in advance. On July 3 of that year, Mr. Norris read a paper to the Asiatic Society on the result of his study of the Median colunui of the Behistun inscription with which Colonel liawlinson had entrusted him ; but the essay did not appear in the Journal in its completed
- Journal Asiatif/uc (4« st'rie), xvii. 541. Cf. Lf\s Mides^ p. l\
