Killyleagh C^o Down
13^th April 1857.

Dear Sir,

I return you D^r Oppert’s letter which I received this morning in yours of the 10^th. I am unconvinced by his reasoning. A comparison of the 44^th & 50^th lines of Bellino’s cylinder proves that was a measure of length = . No doubt, it was also used for a weight – a shekel; and for a square measure. When preceded by (in which position it is joined in Bell. 44 with the known words for “length” & “breadth”) it signifies a long measure of 30 cubits or 50 feet. Without this prefix it is either a cubit or a measure of 60 cubits; & as I judge, the former. I believe that in the E I. H inscription 6.25 & 8.45 the same measure was intended & this a measure of length, was of surface. D^r O’s interpretation of these passages appears to me quite erroneous. See p. 37 & 38 of my paper on the Tablet in the British Museum. Possibly may signify a superficial measure or a measure of time but I have seen no instance when it does. That it does not do so in the Birs Nimroud inscription I feel assured. I send you a rough copy of 20 lines of this inscription containing the sentence in question. I have [entered?] the characters fm my numbers, in which I copied it at the museum. I had had e.g. 19[2?].211.17.48 &c &c in restoring cuneatic characters for them I have sometimes used Assyrian forms when the [inscription?] had Babylonian ones equivalent to them. You will then deduce that when I put down a character I mean “it or the Babylonian equivalent thereof” –

I have put under it Rawlinson’s last translation, or what he puts forth as a translation; but only the 41^st & 42^d lines are translated with any pretension to accuracy. In many places the sense is totally lost; & when it is exposed it is in a free paraphrase. The words in question occur line 31 when I translated (& Rawlinson has now adopted my translation as far as respects the two first words) “42 cubits he had built up, but”. The last word is yu.cha.ak.ki.ru.va the third person singular of the pluperfect is Tibel[?], with the copulative enalitic[?]. See Journal Sacred Literature April 1856 p.164, 165 – D^r Oppert reads za as from øëæ, but it expresses both and . Had the former been intended, a special character would have been used for , which requests it distinctively for .

To translate “copper” is truly ridiculous. is “copper” & is explained by which I long since compared with [unknown language]. That this is its meaning is abundantly proved from many passages. We have blocks of this stone (for such it must be fm the prefix = ) used in building. The slabs at Khorsabad were not of copper but of stone plated with copper – & the stone used was the memorial stone i.e stone used for writing on – alabaster, as I have always interpreted it. Llapis lazuli is I believe one of Rawlinsons conjectures; or is it yours? I cannot think it the true meaning tho’ far preferable to “copper”.

Believe me Yours vy truly
Edw Hincks

H. Fox Talbot Esq^re