Decipherment: Difference between revisions

Notable examples of decipherment include the [[decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts]] and the [[decipherment of cuneiform]]. A notable decipherment in recent years is that of the [[Linear Elamite]] script.<ref name=":4" /> Today, at least a dozen languages remain undeciphered.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Luo |first1=Jiaming |last2=Hartmann |first2=Frederik |last3=Santus |first3=Enrico |last4=Barzilay |first4=Regina |last5=Cao |first5=Yuan |date=2021 |title=Deciphering Undersegmented Ancient Scripts Using Phonetic Prior |url=https://direct.mit.edu/tacl/article/97780 |journal=Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics |language=en |volume=9 |pages=69–81 |doi=10.1162/tacl_a_00354 |issn=2307-387X|arxiv=2010.11054 }}</ref> Historically speaking, decipherments do not come suddenly through single individuals who "crack" ancient scripts. Instead, they emerge from the incremental progress brought about by a broader community of researchers.<ref name=":5" />

== Categories ==

Gelb and Whiting classify the four situations of an undeciphered language and how difficult decipherment will be in each of them:<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last1=Gelb |first1=I. J. |last2=Whiting |first2=R. M. |date=1975 |title=Methods of Decipherment |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-royal-asiatic-society/article/abs/methods-of-decipherment1/2DD45E0994C82E315715D106656E5293 |journal=Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society |language=en |volume=107 |issue=2 |pages=95–104 |doi=10.1017/S0035869X00132769 |issn=2051-2066|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Braović |first1=Maja |last2=Krstinić |first2=Damir |last3=Štula |first3=Maja |last4=Ivanda |first4=Antonia |date=2024-06-01 |title=A Systematic Review of Computational Approaches to Deciphering Bronze Age Aegean and Cypriot Scripts |url=https://direct.mit.edu/coli/article/50/2/725/119990/A-Systematic-Review-of-Computational-Approaches-to |journal=Computational Linguistics |language=en |volume=50 |issue=2 |pages=725–779 |doi=10.1162/coli_a_00514 |issn=0891-2017|doi-access=free }}</ref>

 

* Type O: known writing and known language. Although decipherment in this case is trivial, useful information can be gleaned when a known language is written in an alphabet other than the one it is commonly written in. Studying the writing of the [[Phoenician language|Phoenician]] or [[Sumerian language|Sumerian]] languages in the [[Greek alphabet]] allows information about pronunciation and vocalization to be gleaned that cannot be obtained when studying the expression of these languages in their normal writing system.

* Type I: unknown writing and known language. Deciphered languages in this category include [[Phoenician language|Phoenician]], [[Ugaritic]], [[Cypriot syllabary|Cypriot]], and [[Linear B]]. In this situation, [[alphabet]]ic systems are the easiest to decipher, followed by [[Syllabary|syllabic]] languages, and finally the most difficult being [[Logogram|logo-syllabic]].

* Type II: known writing and unknown language. An example is [[Linear A]]. Strictly speaking, this situation is not one of decipherment but of linguistic analysis. Decipherment in this category is considered extremely difficult to achieve on the basis of internal information only.

 

There is no single recipe or linear method for decipherment, however: instead, philologists and linguists must rely on a set of [[Heuristic|heuristic devices]] that have been established. Broadly, it is important to be familiar with the relevant texts where the script or language occurs in, access to accurate drawings or photographs of these texts, information about their relative chronology, and background information on where the texts occur in (their geography, perhaps being found in the context of a funerary monument, etc).<ref name=":5" />

 

 

Many successful decipherments have proceeded from the discovery of external information, a common example being through the use of [[multilingual inscription]]s, such as the [[Rosetta Stone]] (with the same text in three scripts: [[Demotic (Egyptian)|Demotic]], [[Egyptian hieroglyphs|hieroglyphic]], and [[Greek alphabet|Greek]]) that enabled the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphic. In principle, multilingual text may be insufficient for a decipherment as translation is not a linear and reversible process, but instead represents an encoding of the message in a different symbolic system. Translating a text from one language into a second, and then from the second language back into the first, rarely reproduces exactly the original writing. Likewise, unless a significant number of words are contained in the multilingual text, limited information can be gleaned from it.<ref name=":1" />

 

Internal approaches are multi-step: one must first ensure that the writing they are looking at represents real writing, as opposed to a grouping of pictorial representations or a modern-day forgery without further meaning. This is commonly approached with methods from the field of [[grammatology]]. Prior to decipherment of meaning, one can then determine the number of distinct [[grapheme]]s (which, in turn, allows one to tell if the writing system is alphabetic, syllabic, or logo-syllabic; this is because such writing systems typically do not overlap in the number of graphemes they use<ref name=":2" />), the sequence of writing (whether it be from left to right, right to left, top to bottom, etc.), and the determination of whether individual words are properly segmented when the alphabet is written (such as with the use of a space or a different special mark) or not. If a repetitive schematic arrangement can be identified, this can help in decipherment. For example, if the last line of a text has a small number, it can be reasonably guessed to be referring to the date, where one of the words means "year" and, sometimes, a royal name also appears. Another case is when the text contains many small numbers, followed by a word, followed by a larger number; here, the word likely means "total" or "sum". After one has exhausted the information that can be inferentially derived from probable content, they must transition to the systematic application of statistical tools. These include methods concerning the frequency of appearance of each symbol, the order in which these symbols typically appear, whether some symbols appear at the beginning or end of words, etc. There are situations where orthographic features of a language make it difficult if not impossible to decipher specific features (especially without certain outside information), such as when an alphabet does not express double consonants. Additional, and more complex methods, also exist. Eventually, the application of such statistical methods becomes exceedingly laborious, in which computers might be used to apply them automatically.<ref name=":1" />

 

Computational approaches towards the decipherment of unknown languages began to appear in the late 1990s.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Knight |first1=Kevin |last2=Yamada |first2=Kenji |date=1999 |title=A Computational Approach to Deciphering Unknown Scripts |url=https://aclanthology.org/W99-0906.pdf |journal=Unsupervised Learning in Natural Language Processing}}</ref> Typically, there are two types of computational approaches used in language decipherment: approaches meant to produce translations in known languages, and approaches used to detect new information that might enable future efforts at translation. The second approach is more common, and includes things such as the detection of cognates or related words, discovery of the closest known language, word alignments, and more.<ref name=":2" />

 

In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on methods utilizing [[artificial intelligence]] for the decipherment of lost languages, especially through [[natural language processing]] (NLP) methods. Proof-of-concept methods have independently re-deciphered [[Ugaritic alphabet|Ugaritic]] and [[Linear B]] using data from similar languages, in this case [[Hebrew alphabet|Hebrew]] and [[Ancient Greek]].<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Luo |first1=Jiaming |last2=Cao |first2=Yuan |last3=Barzilay |first3=Regina |title=Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics |date=2019 |chapter=Neural Decipherment via Minimum-Cost Flow: From Ugaritic to Linear B |language=en |publisher=Association for Computational Linguistics |pages=3146–3155 |doi=10.18653/v1/P19-1303|arxiv=1906.06718 }}</ref>

 

Related to attempts to decipher the meaning of languages and alphabets, include attempts to decipher how extinct writing systems, or older versions of contemporary writing systems (such as English in the 1600s) were pronounced. Several methods and criteria have been developed in this regard. Important criteria include (1) Rhymes and the testimony of poetry (2) Evidence from occasional spellings and misspellings (3) Interpretations of material in one language from authors in foreign languages (4) Information obtained from related languages (5) Grammatical changes in spelling over time.<ref name=":3">{{Cite book |last=Campbell |first=Lyle |title=Historical linguistics: an introduction |date=2021 |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=978-0-262-53159-7 |edition=4th |location= |pages=372–375}}</ref>

 

For example, analysis of poetry focuses on the use of wordplay or literary techniques between words that have a similar sound. [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare]]'s play ''[[Romeo and Juliet]]'' contains wordplay that relies on a similar sound between the words "soul" and "soles", allowing confidence that the similar pronunciation between the terms today also existed in Shakespeare's time. Another common source of information on pronunciation is when earlier texts use [[rhyme]], such as when consecutive lines in poetry end in the similar or the same sound. This method does have some limitations however, as texts may use rhymes that rely on visual similarities between words (such as 'love' and 'remove') as opposed to auditory similarities, and that rhymes can be [[Perfect and imperfect rhymes|imperfect]]. Another source of information about pronunciation comes from explicit description of pronunciations from earlier texts, as in the case of the ''Grammatica Anglicana'', such as in the following comment about the letter <o>: "In the long time it naturally soundeth sharp, and high; as in chósen, hósen, hóly, fólly [. . .] In the short time more flat, and a kin to u; as còsen, dòsen, mòther, bròther, lòve, pròve".<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Burridge |first1=Kate |title=Understanding language change |last2=Bergs |first2=Alexander |date=2017 |publisher=Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group |isbn=978-0-415-71339-9 |series=Understanding language series |location=London New York |pages=234–235}}</ref> Another example comes from detailed comments on pronunciations of [[Sanskrit]] from the surviving works of Sanskrit grammarians.<ref name=":3" />

 

 

Decipherment overlaps with another technical field known as [[cryptanalysis]], a field that aims to decipher writings used in secret communication, known as [[ciphertext]]. A famous case of this was in the [[cryptanalysis of the Enigma]] during the [[World War II]]. Many other ciphers from past wars have only recently been cracked.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bauer |first=Craig P. |date=2023-03-04 |title=The new golden age of decipherment |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01611194.2023.2170158 |journal=Cryptologia |language=en |volume=47 |issue=2 |pages=97–100 |doi=10.1080/01611194.2023.2170158 |issn=0161-1194}}</ref> Unlike in language decipherment, however, actors using ciphertext intentionally lay obstacles to prevent outsiders from uncovering the meaning of the communication system.<ref name=":1" />

Interest in ancient scripts and dead languages began to arise by the [[Renaissance]], if not earlier. Extensive information began to be collected about these scripts in the 16th and 17th centuries, and a typology of writing was established in the 17th century. The first serious decipherments, however, did not take place until the 18th century. In 1754, Swinton and Barthélemy independently deciphered the Aramaic script as represented in Palmyrene inscriptions from the 3rd century AD. In 1787, [[Silvestre de Sacy]] deciphered the [[Sasanian script]], which was the script used in [[Ancient Persia]] to write down the [[Middle Iranian]] language used in the [[Sasanian Empire|Sasanian empire]]. Both decipherments relied on bilingual texts where Greek was included as the second script. It was also in the 18th century when the methodological framework for deciphering scripts and languages began to be established. For example, in 1714, [[Leibniz]] advocated that parallel content in bilingual inscriptions could be specified by correlating where personal names occur in both inscriptions. By the 19th century, the prerequisites for decipherment began to become widely available. These included extensive knowledge about the scripts themselves, adequate editions of known texts from that script, philological skills, and the ability to reconstruct linguistic forms from the limited available evidence. The 19th century saw two major successes in decipherment: that of [[Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts|Egyptian hieroglyphic]] and [[Decipherment of cuneiform|cuneiform]].<ref name=":5" />

==Notable decipherers==

|[[Enno Littmann]]<ref name=":12">{{Cite book |last1=Al-Jallad |first1=Ahmad |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RI8cEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 |title=A Dictionary of the Safaitic Inscriptions |last2=Jaworska |first2=Karolina |date=2019 |publisher=Brill |isbn=978-90-04-40042-9 |series= |location= |pages=3}}</ref>

|[[Safaitic|Safaitic script]]

|1901

|[[Thomas Young (scientist)|Thomas Young]]

|[[Demotic (Egyptian)|Demotic script]]

|

|[[Manuel Gómez-Moreno Martínez|Manuel Gómez-Moreno]]

|[[Northeastern Iberian script]]

|-

|[[Brahmi]], [[Kharosthi]]

|

|Mesopotamian [[Cuneiform]]

|[[Bedřich Hrozný]]

|[[Hittite cuneiform|Hittite Cuneiform]]

|

|[[Old Turkic]]

|

|[[George Smith (assyriologist)|George Smith]] and [[Samuel Birch (Egyptologist)|Samuel Birch]], et al.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/index.php?page=Scrittura&id=4&lang=en|title=Cypro-Syllabic}}</ref>

|[[Cypriot syllabary]]

|

|[[Wang Yirong|Wáng Yìróng]], [[Liu E (writer)|Liú È]], [[Sun Yirang|Sūn Yíràng]], et al.  

|[[Oracle bone script|Oracle Bone script]]

|

|[[Tangut script]]

|[[Linear B]]

|[[Maya script|Maya]]

|"Enlarged opening script" of [[Ravenna]] (variant of the [[Latin alphabet]])

|[[Caucasian Albanian alphabet]]

===Undeciphered texts===

* [[Phaistos Disc]]

* [[Rohonc Codex]]

* [[Voynich Manuscript]]