“There is not, and there cannot be, the slightest doubt that Professor Haug at Munich was perfectly right, when he first identified the symbols found on several of the Hissarlik vases, &c., with Cypriote characters. I was right too in following up the track, and I think still that I have scarcely once been wrong in identifying those symbols with these characters. Furthermore, my general inferences drawn from the fact, that the Cypriote syllabic writing occurs out of Cyprus, and associated with what I rightly have calledpre-Homericobjects of art, I still think unassailable. But—I cannot go further than this! My attempt atdecipheringthose inscriptions I now look upon as abortive! I hasten to add, that I do not think I deserve any reproach in the matter. I utilized to the best of my abilities the progress which till then had been made in the decipherment of the Cypriote inscriptions found in Cyprus.I used as a key for my decipherment of the Hissarlik inscriptions the phonetic values which Mr. George Smith and Dr. Johannes Brandis had ascertained for those characters. But both these investigators had been only partially right! Wonderful indeed it is, that, applying as I did a key partially right and partially wrong, good and intelligible Greek words emerged. It was a most marvellous coincidence—but nothing else, a mere fortuitous coincidence.“The labour of ascertaining the phonetic value of the Cypriote characters has since been taken up by several German scholars, Dr. Moritz Schmidt, Professor at Jena, and Messrs. De[.e]ck[.e] and Siegismund at Strasburg, and to a candid critic there cannot remain a doubt thatthey are right, and that I (together with Smith and Brandis)was wrong.”[325]
“There is not, and there cannot be, the slightest doubt that Professor Haug at Munich was perfectly right, when he first identified the symbols found on several of the Hissarlik vases, &c., with Cypriote characters. I was right too in following up the track, and I think still that I have scarcely once been wrong in identifying those symbols with these characters. Furthermore, my general inferences drawn from the fact, that the Cypriote syllabic writing occurs out of Cyprus, and associated with what I rightly have calledpre-Homericobjects of art, I still think unassailable. But—I cannot go further than this! My attempt atdecipheringthose inscriptions I now look upon as abortive! I hasten to add, that I do not think I deserve any reproach in the matter. I utilized to the best of my abilities the progress which till then had been made in the decipherment of the Cypriote inscriptions found in Cyprus.I used as a key for my decipherment of the Hissarlik inscriptions the phonetic values which Mr. George Smith and Dr. Johannes Brandis had ascertained for those characters. But both these investigators had been only partially right! Wonderful indeed it is, that, applying as I did a key partially right and partially wrong, good and intelligible Greek words emerged. It was a most marvellous coincidence—but nothing else, a mere fortuitous coincidence.
“The labour of ascertaining the phonetic value of the Cypriote characters has since been taken up by several German scholars, Dr. Moritz Schmidt, Professor at Jena, and Messrs. De[.e]ck[.e] and Siegismund at Strasburg, and to a candid critic there cannot remain a doubt thatthey are right, and that I (together with Smith and Brandis)was wrong.”[325]
Such a frank, truth-loving spirit in the enquirer is as sure a guarantee of ultimate success as that “continuity in the enquiry,” which Gomperz still holds to be established. In a word, the right track is known, but the sign-posts have to be rectified; the key is found, but its wards need some fresh adjustment; and we may soon hope for results far more fruitful than those of which, for a moment only, we have been disappointed.
Meanwhile it is well to put on record Professor Gomperz’s reply to the objections that may be brought forward against the probable conclusion that, even before theHomeric times, there existed Greeks acquainted with a written language.
“For this supposition is not only opposed by ancient, though possibly unhistoric traditions, such as the denial of the settlement of Asia Minor by European Greeks, but by really historical facts—for instance, the total absence of any mention of the art of writing in these very Homeric poems.“However this objection—let it count for as much or as little as it may—affects not only our decipherings, but also a firmly established and quite undeniable fact, the existence of a Cyprian syllabic writing. For that a nation which knew of a written language, simple and handy as the Phœnician with its facility of supplying the vowels, should prefer one like the Cyprian, full of the most troublesome characters and yet subject to the worst ambiguity, is surely as unlikely as that a nation in possession of the needle-gun should return to the use of the battle-axe. However, in the ninth and at latest in the eighth-century (and very probably much earlier) the Greeksmustalready have been acquainted with the so-called Phoenician writing, which at that time was employed with equal readiness both in Moab and in Nineveh. Hence the Cyprian writing must have found its way among the Greeks before this epoch (and we may almost safely say a considerable time before this epoch, for otherwise how could it have taken firm root in Cyprus only?) My opinion is that we shall soon find the definite outlines of an epoch of Greek culture, or semi-culture, which I should be inclined to name thepre-Cadmean, the decline of which may probably be dated from the mighty impulse which the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites (about 1300) gave to the migration and the colonization of the Phœnicians.”[326]
“For this supposition is not only opposed by ancient, though possibly unhistoric traditions, such as the denial of the settlement of Asia Minor by European Greeks, but by really historical facts—for instance, the total absence of any mention of the art of writing in these very Homeric poems.
“However this objection—let it count for as much or as little as it may—affects not only our decipherings, but also a firmly established and quite undeniable fact, the existence of a Cyprian syllabic writing. For that a nation which knew of a written language, simple and handy as the Phœnician with its facility of supplying the vowels, should prefer one like the Cyprian, full of the most troublesome characters and yet subject to the worst ambiguity, is surely as unlikely as that a nation in possession of the needle-gun should return to the use of the battle-axe. However, in the ninth and at latest in the eighth-century (and very probably much earlier) the Greeksmustalready have been acquainted with the so-called Phoenician writing, which at that time was employed with equal readiness both in Moab and in Nineveh. Hence the Cyprian writing must have found its way among the Greeks before this epoch (and we may almost safely say a considerable time before this epoch, for otherwise how could it have taken firm root in Cyprus only?) My opinion is that we shall soon find the definite outlines of an epoch of Greek culture, or semi-culture, which I should be inclined to name thepre-Cadmean, the decline of which may probably be dated from the mighty impulse which the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites (about 1300) gave to the migration and the colonization of the Phœnicians.”[326]
We are enabled, by a communication from Dr. Schliemann, to present a list of all the objects in his collection, which Professor Gomperz has recognised as bearing Inscriptions, all of which are figured in our work. We also append thedepthat which each object was found, inasmuch as this determines to which of the nations, that dwelt successively on the site of Ilium, each inscription is to be referred; and this is by no means the least interesting point in the investigation.
It will be understood, of course, that this is, in the strongest sense, a “first provisional list” of the results ofan enquiry only just begun. We believe that we could make no inconsiderable additions to it; but we await the verdict of the more competent enquirers who are now engaged in the research. Their labours may show that thelowest stratumof remains is not destitute of traces of a written language, as would appear at first sight from the List. Meanwhile the great preponderance of known inscriptions from the “Trojan stratum” (7-10 M.) of Dr. Schliemann is very striking: 11 out of the 18 belong to it. But the ethnic affinity between the Trojans and their successors, already attested by many proofs, is now confirmed by five inscriptions in the Cyprian character from the depths of 4, 5, and 6 meters (Nos. 5, 6, 7, 12 and 16 in the List). The two funnels (Nos. 17, 18) are furnished by the uppermost stratum: each bears only a single letter, which appears also to be Cyprian; but there would seem to be still some doubt whether it may not be Phœnician.
No. 300. Terra-cotta Ball (4 M.). a. Side View. b. Upper Hemisphere. c. Lower Hemisphere, with the Inscription.No. 300. Terra-cotta Ball (4 M.).a. Side View. b. Upper Hemisphere. c. Lower Hemisphere, with the Inscription.
RECOGNIZED TO THE PRESENT TIME ON OBJECTS IN DR. SCHLIEMANN’S COLLECTION.[327]
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X.