How We Learned to Read Hieroglyphics

It seems strange that two of the greatest figures in history, Nelson and Napoleon, should be connected with the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. Stranger still to think what might have happened had the soldier who found the stone smashed it to pieces or tossed it out of the way. These things might easily have occurred, as they have no doubt occurred to many valuable relics in bygone times.

Had the Rosetta Stone not come to light, one of the vital links with Egypt's past would have been missing. We might still be groping in the dark, wondering what all the quaint picture-writing of the Egyptians meant, seeking for the clue that would tell us. Luckily the man who found the stone saw that it was something more than a broken piece of rock, and so preserved it for posterity.

Many people wondered what all the strange signs meant when they first saw the stone. Men of science pored over it and racked their brains in their efforts to solve the mystery. The Greek script was soon translated, and proved to be a decree of Ptolemy v, dating about 196 B.C.

The fact that there were three inscriptions seemed to indicate that it was one decree engraved in three different forms of writing in order to appeal to as many people as possible. But this was by no means certain. It might easily have been three different decrees, though in such a case no purpose could have been served by inscribing them all on one stone. It was, therefore, more than probable that the three inscriptions were one decree, and that the known writing would give a clue to the weird pictures to be found in the tombs and on the monuments scattered about Egypt.

The hieroglyphics were a mystery of the past. No one could read them. The strange pictures of men and birds and beasts might have been merely decorative. They might have had no meaning at all, or no more meaning than the pictures we place on our waUs to decorate our houses.

Other signs, however, in combination with the pictures, indicated that the hieroglyphics were a form of writing. Some people think that this picture-writing of the Egyptians is actually the oldest writing in the world, and that all writings must have sprung from it. This idea, however, is not quite accurate. A child of three years old cannot draw wonderful portraits. Childish drawings of a house with four straight lines for the house, a door in the centre, and a window on each side of the door are well known.

Man in the beginning may be likened to the child, and his earliest drawings must have been cruder than the childish drawings of our own age, far cruder than anything that is preserved for us. The first man to scratch a rough line or two on a rock was the forefather of Raphael and Michael Angelo and Rembrandt, but untold ages elapsed before the art of the first primitive artist developed into that of these masters.

The Egyptian pictures in the picture-writing are cleverly drawn, and indicate true artistic perceptions. It must have taken a long time to reach the pitch of perfection that is shown. So it seems logical to assume that the hieroglyphics were the outcome of another form of writing. For years there were no proofs that this was the case, but it is now definitely established by Professor Flinders Petrie that crude signs were used in Egypt at a much earlier date than the picture writing, and the extraordinary thing is that some of these signs may be traced in the alphabets of other countries.

Ancient languages is just one of the topics that Peter likes to write about. Check out his other articles about Fuel Cell Cars, HHO Gas and DUI charges.

Smart Articles @ http://www.articlebrain.com

Please Rate this Article

5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 

Not yet Rated