Lacock. 3 April / 57

D^r Sir

<poss. in another hand:> X

D^r Oppert who is not in London has sent me a new memoir of his on the cuneiform inscript^ns containing several curious things – among the rest that the Biss Nimroud is proved to be the tower of Babel by the inscription which Rawlinson found there, recording its erection at a period of 42 cycles anterior to the date of that inscriptⁿ – These are cycles (D^r O. says) of 70 years each, consequently the date is 2940 years before the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

I remain incredulous, and I remarked to D^r O. that if I was not mistaken you had stated that the 42 ….. were measures of length and not of time & that the statement referred simply to the height of the tower of Borsippa – in return D^r O. produces several apparently strong arguments, and as the question is certainly a very important one I should have great pleasure in sending you his statement in order to have your opinion respecting it, if you would like me to do so. <mark as above:> X

You may recollect that we had some correspondence respecting the name of Tiglath Pileser. D^r Oppert has now produced a variant orthography of the name, which he finds written thus: <cuneiform text>

<transcription beneath cuneiform:> Tig lat pal lu si ra

This seems irresistible evidence, and I am induced to ask you whether you can confirm D^r O’s statement of this name on the monuments?

Of nearly equal importance is the variant orthography w^ch D^r O has found of the name <Ashurakhbal?> I am aware that it is now transcribed “Sardanapalus” but could never learn the grounds of the change. D^r O. however has found the name written thus

<cuneiform text>

<transcription:> Assur i-dan-na pal-la

meaning Assur dedit filium.

This also seems conclusive evidence, & is quite new to me. As I think it will be interesting to you, I have great pleasure in communicating it.

Believe me

Yours very truly

H. F. Talbot