48 MAJOR C. B. CONDER, D.C.L., R.E., 
I believe, recoverable, but in the second ‘plate it is only pos- 
sible (in thirty cases), to judge the meaning by comparison 
with the use of similar emblems in other hieroglyphic 
systems. 
As regards the subjects of the various texts, I have only to say 
that I approached the question with an open mind ; and, indeed, 
much hoped to find them to be historical, yet the probabilities 
are all the other way. I therefore now believe the texts to be 
religious and not historical, and this has indeed been already 
admitted in some cases. Thus the sculptures described by 
Perrot in Cappadocia clearly represent deities. At Ibreez, on 
the south side of Asia Minor, a monument with such inscription 
represents a person adoring a gigantic figure with bull-horned 
head. The bowl from Babylon, no doubt like many other 
bowls of later date from the same district, has a charm written 
upon it, and the reason in other cases for supposing the sub- 
jects to be non-historical is the frequent appearance of what 
have been recognised by Dr. Sayce and by others to be names 
of deities. In Akkadian we have no early historic texts ; 
those which are known are either invocations of deities, or 
records of gifts to temples, and we have numerous Akkadian 
magic texts on cuneiform bricks, but no annals. Historic texts 
belong to the Semitic period, at least 1000 years later than 
the period under consideration. 
In Egypt, in like manner, the religious literature of the 
monuments is enormous as compared with the fewer and later 
historical materials. In Etruria, our information as to the 
language is derived from tomb texts and from ex votos on 
little figures like those still hungin Roman Catholic churches. 
In Greece we have many such dedications, and generally 
speaking the idea of monumental records of history is not a 
primitive idea. The earliest effort of savages are directed in 
great measure to the production of written talismans. 
The difficulty of reading the Hittite is greatly decreased by 
the discovery of the character of the language spoken by the 
non-Semitic population. As long, however, as we have no 
bi-linguals, great doubts must exist in the details. Cuneiform 
is as yet the only character read first without bi-linguals, 
because in Persian cuneiform the characters are comparatively 
few, and the treatment of the cypher was thus easier. But 
no ancient language has been ever understood save by com- 
parison with other languages, and no other method can be 
anything but arbitrary and unconvincing. In Hittite, as I 
have shown, we have some 50 out of 120 sounds. We have 
the position of the emblem to consider,—that is, in other 
