> All three of the languages in the Persian inscriptions were a complete mystery: Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian

> One of the languages (Old Persian) turned out to be related to modern Persian, in which Rawlinson was fluent, and in 1846 he published an edition and translation of the inscription.

Fascinating. I wonder if there were any other Persian speakers at the time who could have helped with this, or was this mainly about Rawlinson hoarding the glory?

> The results were published in scholarly journals, sometimes leading to collaboration and discoveries, and sometimes laying bare fierce rivalries and competing theories. Rawlinson, for example, was initially convinced that cuneiform represented letters rather than syllables, and that it originated in Egypt. When he changed his mind and started reading the signs as syllables, he claimed not to remember how he had come to these conclusions, but seems to have plagiarised Hincks, as he also copied some of his mistakes.

There we go.