TALBOT9623

March 18. 1870
the Dell Bonchurch Isle of Wight

My Dear Sir

Thanks for your very interesting letter. I am very glad to hear of M^r G. Smith’s success – “the right man in the right place”.¹ –

I quite agree with you how very desirable it would be to have fresh excavations made at Niniveh, but how is it to be done without government assistance? The expense would surpass what could be easily raised by any private subscription, though I doubt not that many persons would contribute liberally.

It would be a good thing if the inscriptions found could be copied on the spot, before they crumble away from exposure to the atmosphere; and moreover the fragments of the same tablet could probably be found lying near together, and could be cemented together at once, thus saving much future trouble in sorting the fragments.²

I have been myself struck with the difficulty which you mention, of finding 2-humped Camels among the tribute of Musri on the Obelisk (if Musri means Egypt) – But there are some weighty arguments on the other side, which should be taken into consideration – I speak from memory, not having my books with me here, but I think you will find, if you look at the inscription on the Broken Obelisk, published in the 1^st vol. of Rawlinson’s inscript^{ns 3} that the King of Assyria says he received a great present of rare animals &c. from the King of Musri, and that this was Egypt is probable from the name of one of the animals Nampsa of the River, i.e. Crocodiles, being the plural of Χαμψα of Herodotus with whom both the hieroglyphics and the modern Arabic substantially agree. This word I believe, I first pointed out, and Oppert has accepted it (see his last work on the Egyptian campaigns of Ashurbanipal Now if Crocodiles were sent from Musri, that land must be Egypt. The King who received the presents in question, is not named, but seems to have been the father of the Obelisk King. The whole matter is however open to further investigation. I read with the most lively interest the accounts published in the Times concerning the discovery of the Moabite Stone.⁴

if you have got my Assyrⁿ Glossary N^o 1,⁵ at hand, I wish you would refer to art. N^o 87 on the word Moab where I have pointed out that one of the kings was call’d Chemosh-natbi (which I interpret ‘Chemosh spoke a prophecy’ from the Hebrew verb to prophecy.) This name is evidently the Chemosh-natab of the Moabite Stone – But I suspected that M. Ganneau had restored the name of Chemosh-natab, from being aware of its occurrence in Sennacherib’s inscription [Rawlinson ins^ns I pl.38 l.53] –

Had the name been manifest on the Stone, I should have thought it of much importance.

I remain, Dear Sir Yours very truly
H. F. Talbot

S. Birch Esq
B. Mus^m