Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

What Are the Origins of Egyptology

17 bytes added, 03:56, 1 August 2017
no edit summary
[[File: Rosetta_Stone_London.jpg|300px|thumbnail|left|The Rosetta Stone in the British Museum, London]]
__NOTOC__
Today, Egyptology – the study of ancient Egyptian history, culture, and language – is a worldwide discipline studied and taught at major universities on nearly every continent. It has evolved from a more esoteric study known only to elites in a handful of schools and museums in Europe to something much more global that is accessible to a wider range of people, which has come to influence many aspects of modern society. The very definition of Egyptology and what makes one an Egyptologist has also changed over the last 200 years because it involves a variety of sub-disciplines that include but are not limited to some of the following: archaeology, art history, history/chronology, and philology. Essentially, Egyptology is a modern study that can trace its roots to the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century.
===Early Interest in Ancient Egypt===
[[File: Pyramids.jpg|300px|thumbnail|rightleft|250px|“Pyramids of Gerzah” Lithograph by David Roberts, 1838-9]]
Although the ancient Egyptians wrote about their own history, the first true critical analysis of ancient Egyptian history was conducted by the early Greek and Roman historians and geographers. The fifth century Greek historian, Herodotus, is perhaps best known for the in-depth treatment he gave to pharaonic history in Book II of <i>The Histories</i>, which influenced others, such as Diodorus and Strabo, to follow with their own observations of the Nile Valley. The accuracy of the classical accounts of ancient Egyptian history could vary widely. The further back in time the accounts went, the more likely that the chronologies were garbled and facts were simply wrong. The reason for these problems is directly related to the fact that even the most educated Greeks and Romans never took the time to learn the ancient Egyptian language so they were often forced to rely on the Egyptian priests for translations and explanations of texts. The priests were only human, which meant that some parts of Egyptian history were sacrificed for others they believed more important. <ref> Krebsbach, Jared. “Herodotus, Diodorus, and Manetho: An Examination of the Influence of Egyptian Historiography on the Classical Historians.” <i>New England Classical Journal.</i> 41 (2014) pgs. 98-99</ref> The classical historians were able to more critically examine events closer to their own period, though, because many of those events were already written about in Greek.
While medieval Europeans viewed ancient Egyptian civilization through the lens of the Bible, but with some emphasis on the culture’s more arcane aspects, the people who lived in the pyramids shadows also offered their explanations for the once seemingly great but lost civilization. The Muslim Arabs who conquered Egypt in AD 642 saw ancient Egyptian monuments and particularly the Pyramids of Giza, as simultaneously being “monuments of ignorance” and therefore an affront to Islam, but also as sources of wisdom and power, During the Middle Ages in the Middle East, a number of fictional tales were written in Arabic and Persian where the Pyramids of Giza played a central role. In one legend, an Egyptian king named Surid was said to have built the pyramids as both a tomb – which was the purpose of pyramids – and as a repository of ancient wisdom. In another Islamic legend, the pyramids were said to be tombs of ancient Yemeni kings. Many medieval Islamic sources also give credence to the legendary figure, Hermes Trismegistus, and how he ordered the construction of the pyramids to preserve ancient esoteric knowledge from floods. <ref> Dykstra, Darell. “Pyramids, Prophets, and Progress: Ancient Egypt in the Writings of ʿAli Mubārak.” <i>Journal of the American Oriental Society</i> 114 (1994) pgs. 57-58</ref> Although medieval Muslims were correctly able to deduce that pyramids were tombs, their lack of understanding of the ancient Egyptian language kept them from understanding the depth of pharaonic civilization.
The curiosity that Europeans felt toward ancient Egypt during the Middle Ages began to evolve into a genuine desire to view pharaonic culture more objectively during the Renaissance. While Renaissance artists were influence by Greek models to create some of the finest pieces of work in the history of Western Civilization, some scholars began looking at ancient Egypt from beyond the perspective of the Bible. By the fifteenth century, most educated Europeans knew that pyramids were used as tombs, not granaries as they had previously believed. <ref> Curran, Brian A. “The Renaissance Afterlife of Ancient Egypt (1400-1650).” In <i>The Wisdom of Ancient Egypt: Changing Visions through the Ages.</i> Edited by Peter Ucko and Timothy Champion. (London: University of London Press, 2003), p. 103</ref> The interest in ancient Egypt began to permeate throughout some of Europe’s oldest universities, but the key to understanding all aspects of pharaonic culture were still unknown – the language. Some Renaissance scholars were able to correctly surmise that the enigmatic hieroglyphic script contained both phonetic and idiomatic elements, but it may as well have been a script from another planet because its decipherment still remained far out of reach. <ref> Curran, p. 108</ref>
===The Enlightenment and Ancient Egypt===
===The Discovery and Decipherment of the Rosetta Stone===
The break that the world needed came in mid-July 1799 in the small village of Rosetta located on the Mediterranean Sea. According to accounts from the period, the key to understanding the ancient Egyptian language – the Rosetta Stone – was discovered by French soldiers who were clearing away a wall for a fort. The Rosetta Stone, which was ensconced in the wall, was immediately recognized as something important so it was spirited away for <i>savants</i> to study. <ref> Andrews, Carol. <i>The British Museum book of the Rosetta Stone</i>. (London: British Museum Press, 1985), p. 9. </ref> The French knew that the stone – what is known as a “stela” by Egyptologists as it commemorated an important historical event – was important because it contained fifty-four lines of Greek text, which they could read, along with fourteen lines of unreadable hieroglyphic text, and thirty-two lines of the equally unreadable demotic Egyptian script. But before the French could dedicate any serious research to the Rosetta Stone, Egypt was captured by the British in 1801. Along with victory went the spoils of war and under Article XVI of “The Capitulation of Alexandria,” the French were forced to relinquish the Rosetta Stone and various other Egyptian antiquities. The British then promptly moved the Rosetta Stone to the British Museum in London where it still sits today.
Although the British had physical possession of the Rosetta Stone, it did not stop French scholars from studying the enigmatic inscriptions because many copies were made to folios. In many ways, the race to decipher the Rosetta Stone became a microcosm of the wars that were being fought by the British and French for control of Europe – the victor would assume a special place in history and would also capture a certain amount of pride for his country. The first translations of the Greek lines were done by Reverend Stephen Weston in London in 1802. Attempts were then made to decipher the demotic, but when it was learned that it was just a cursive form of the hieroglyphic script, the focus then turned to the undamaged hieroglyphic lines. <ref> Andrews, p. 13</ref> Despite making great initial progress on the Rosetta Stone, the vital hieroglyphic lines sat untranslated for several years until two men – one English and the other French – engaged each other in one of the greatest academic competitions in history.
A few years after the Rosetta Stone was brought to London, a young polymath named Thomas Young (1773-1829) took up the challenge. He knew that the liturgical language of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt was the modern successor to the ancient Egyptian language and therefore any understanding of Egyptian would be made through Coptic. He also determined correctly that some signs in the hieroglyphic script were phonetic (alphabetic), while others were idiomatic (non-alphabetic). With this knowledge, in 1814, Young was able to decipher the cartouches (names of kings written inside of circle) of King Ptolemy and Queen Bernike and was partially able to make a list of alphabetic signs, but was unable to translate the entire stone. <ref> Reid, p. 41</ref>
While Young was laboring away in England, across the channel in France an equally impressive polyglot named Jean-Francois Champollion (1790-1832) worked equally as furiously to decipher the enigmatic script. Using his background in the Semitic languages of Arabic and Hebrew, Champollion was able to complete a useable translation of the Rosetta Stone’s hieroglyphic lines in 1814. Although there were later found to be problems with some of Champollion’s translations and his theories on Egyptian grammar, his work provided the basis for the modern Egyptological understanding of the ancient Egyptian language and writing. <ref> Griffith, F. “The Decipherment of the Hieroglyphs.” <i>Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.”</i> 37 (1951) pg. 41</ref>
===After the Rosetta Stone===

Navigation menu