in the third Persepolitan column was identical with the former, or cursive, style, and that its title to be called the ' Babylonian column ' was therefore incontestable.
The only predecessor he will allow to have had in
this inquiry is Gi-otefend, who has discovered, he says,
that the Babylonian cliaracters are partly syllabic and
partly literal; and that 'certain lapidary characters
correspond to certain cursive ones.' Grotefend, he
adds, may also have discovered the values of about ten
cursive (characters correctly, and possibly of ten others
approximately. But he was not aware that ' several
equivalent cliaracters might be in use to represent the
same letter or syllable.' ^ Hincks was, however, more
adequately supplied with materials to work with.
Besides the Persepolitan inscriptions which he had the
advantajre to study in the more perfect copies of
Westergaard, he had also access to the list of provinc^es
at Naksh-i-Eustam lately copied by the same traveller.
The discovery that a clay cylinder published by Porter
reproduced in cursive characters a portion of the East
India House inscription written in the lapidary style
had, as we have alieady seen, enabled him to compare
tof]fether seventy-six simis in the two diflerent modes of
writing. These lie now attempted to classify accorduig
to what he considered to l)e their values. The Table is
the first of the kind that appeared, and is consequently
of very exceptional interest. His decipherment was
based in the usual manner upon a c(miparison between
the proper names in the Ikbylonian and those in the
Persian column. ' Jiut,' he says, ' even more [values]
were determined by comparing different modes of
writing the same word.' His success, so ftir as it goes,
is certainly remarkal)le. He recognises correctly the
' M)ii the Tlirt'e Kinds of Persepolitan ^y^iting/ read Nov. and Dec- 1846: Tmn^. It. 1, Acad. xxi. 24i>.
