<blind stamp>
Killyleagh
28th Decr 1861
My dear Sir,
Just after I had finished my letter this day, it occurred to me that there was no error in l.53 of Col.8. of the great Nabonidus inscription. I myself by an unaccountable blunder had mistaken one character for another which resulted it.
Your may depend upon it that your translation is altogether erroneous. I send you what I am sure is correct. The meaning of the words as to which I differ fm you is most certain. I transcribe as well as translate – You will see the principle on which I do so either in the 1st vo of the Museum or in the following vo of the J.S.L.
ma’hduti my numerous army │52 ’Auma‛hir-va I commissioned and, ana bunhi seeking (found) ti’hminna │53 suati that basement, for three years, khidhdhatū in the diggings of Nebukudurruzhur 54 king of Babylon akhdhudkoa I dug and
imnu, to the right, sumi’hlu, to the left, pani a arki forward and backward, │55 ’hubanhi-va I sought, but la aksud. I did not reach. Kiyam As before (or again) ighbu-ni they spoke │56 uuva; thus; Tibminna sua That basement
tinubanhi we have sought (and) la ni‛hmur we have not seen.
The finding of the basement, the site of the old temple – must be recorded in the hiatus which follows. Probably it was an accidental discovery.
The roots הצב <quævidit?> whence the <pihal?> forms (the Implication of the second radical being disposed with) ’huad nu-bahhi (forms ’hupakkil &c) and in the infin buhhi (from pukkil sic) and טטח fodit are found in Syr & Arabic
the two words for right & left are distinctly given in a tablet of which I have a copy.
רמה (or ? as to the first radical) occurs for vidit in two Achæmenian inscriptions and in the 2d <viz?>. innamir is common which seems to be fm the same root.
I agree with Rawlinson as to Belshazzar – to a great extent at least.
I believe Ménant sent me his work; but I am not quite sure. It never reached me if he did, though it reached Killyleagh. Some friend of mine, to whom it was sent, posted it wholly unpaid. And it came to me charged with 64 pence an unpaid letter under 16 oz. Which of course I would not pay. The regular charge wd have been 4d and if there had been one penny stamp on it, I would have been charged only four pence more; but as there was none the charge was multiplied 16 fold! – It seemed to me that if so small a book was worth any thing, it could probably be bought for less than the postage. This seems a defect in the P.O. arrangements, but the Times would not publish my letter complaining of it, so I suppose it is on the whole a good arrangement though it enables an enemy, who is trusted as a friend, to do an injury.
The Kudur <Mappuk?> identification with <Chedorlenir?> is, I agree with you, untenable.
I am surprised at your speaking of the Chalder inscriptions as Hamitic & difficult to decipher. I <find?> them almost as easy to translate as the Assyrian & they have not the slightest resemblance to the Egyptian. They are in an <illeg> or Turanian language
Believe me Yours very faithfully
Edw Hincks
H. F Talbot Esqre