1895.] ^«^ [Brinton. 



Halevy's point is, that what has been supposed to be Sumerian 

 epigraphy is nothing more than another method of writing Baby- 

 lonian Semitic, an " allography," or a secret writing, a " cryptog- 

 raphy," used by the priests. The Sumerian graphic method 

 was chiefly ideographic, or, when phonetic, it was rebus-writing 

 similar to that which is found so well marked in America, and 

 which I have named " ikonomatic " writing.* 



His explanations, which I cannot enter upon further, are ex- 

 tremely plausible, and evidently have been making headway of 

 recent years. Distinguished Assyriologists, such as Stanislas 

 Guyard and Fr, Delitzsch,t have publicly announced their ac- 

 ceptance of them. Careful historians, such as McCurd}^ have 

 been convinced they are right. J 



The reasons are obvious. More and more Semitic elements 

 are recognized in the alleged " Sumerian," until one of the sin- 

 cere believers in it. Dr. Heinrich Zimmern, has expressed his 

 doubt that there is a single " pure " inscription in the tongue ; § 

 and another, Dr. Hugo Winkler, avers that it was already a dead 

 language long before King Gudea's time, and none of the 

 scribes could write it correctl3\|| If this be so, how can any- 

 thing like a correct grammar be extracted out of their blunders ? 



Other adversaries of the Sumerian doctrine have pointed out 

 the theory of such an early people overpowered by a foreign 

 population, which absorbed its culture while preserving intact 

 its own tongue, is, as the eminent Assyriologist, Mr. George 

 Smith, long ago said, " without a parallel in the historj- of the 

 world. "^ In every recorded instance, when a tribe has con- 

 quered another of higher culture and adopted its civilization, 

 the language of the conquered appears in that of the conqueror 

 in numerous loan-words borrowed to express the new ideas ob- 

 tained ; but, with few and doubtful exceptions, nothing of the 



* See my Essays of an Americanist, p. 213, and Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics, p. 13. 



t Delitzsch gives his reasons in detail in his Assyrische Grammalik, pp. 61-65 (Berlin, 1889). 



J History, Prophecy and the Monuments. New York, 1894. 



I Zimmem, Babylonische Busspsalmen, p. 7 (Leipzig, 1885). He asserts that such a 

 graphic method as the Sumerian could not have arisen in a Semitic tongue. 



II Winkler, Oeschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens, -p. 5S (Leipzig, 1892). Gudea may be 

 placed at the most recent date, about 2750 B.C. Prof. Sayce is more cautious. He says : 

 "The Aceadian {i. e.; Sumerian) had ceased to be spoken before the seventeenth cen- 

 tury B. C." Introd. to the Science of Language, Chap. i. 



\ Assyrian Discoveries, p. 449 (New York, 1875). 



PROC. AMER. PHILOS. SOC. XXXIV. 147. L. PRINTED MAY 10, 1895. 



