Cuneiform

Old Persian first

Accurate copies of Achaemenid inscriptions made the graphic comparison possible. Grotefend used ruler names, kinship and titles to propose Old Persian sign readings in 1802. Subsequent work with related Iranian languages and Rawlinson’s edition of the long Bīsotūn inscription strengthened and extended those readings. This was a sequence of contributions, not one instant solution by one person.

The Old Persian system is a distinct cuneiform writing tradition. Its values were not simply copied over to Babylonian or Elamite. Bīsotūn’s versions link subject matter and names across languages, giving a way to test corresponding passages. But translation alignment still has to accommodate differences in wording and sign system.

The wider comparison

Cuneiform refers to wedge-shaped writing used for multiple languages over a long history. Babylonian cuneiform has more complex sign functions than Old Persian and can employ syllabic values and logograms. A single wedge is a graphic element, not necessarily a complete sign; a complete sign can have more than one value. The decipherment of one cuneiform tradition therefore did not automatically decipher every cuneiform text.

Bīsotūn’s damaged surfaces and the history of copies matter to a reading. The Iranica account also reports that the versions were added in stages. A present-day alignment should cite a specific edition and not silently treat all versions as simultaneous, word-for-word copies.

Practice

Return to the two Persepolis formulae in the parallel-text lesson. Identify the repeated title and the changed father. Then explain why transferring an Old Persian sign value directly to an Elamite or Babylonian sign of similar shape would be an untested step.