Read Online Hieroglyphs by Penelope Wilson - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: Penelope Wilson
Ads: Link
There is no better example than this to show the way in which Egyptian differs from cryptic scripts and 49
how hieroglyphs can have a vagueness in their detail. 2 The reader had to be aware of when such differences might have meaning and when they might not. For example,
an arm and hand holding a
stick is very different in potential meaning (determinative for
‘strength’ or violent action) from an arm and hand holding a specific staff or sceptre,
(supervising actions). On the other hand the
sign is also a determinative for ‘strength’ or violent actions. The standing man is a tall vertical sign and the arm long and horizontal, so that the space available in the whole writing of the word may have affected the choice of sign. But was there really any difference in their meaning? Knowledge of such differences came through practice and experience and had to be learnt.
Literacy and access
Most of the Egyptian population were field workers, herdsmen, or craftsmen who lived in dispersed agricultural settlements up and phs
down the Nile Valley and in the less marshy delta areas. They lived ogly
off what they grew, supplied surpluses for the royal and temple Hier
landowners and had access to good supplies of basic commodities at a local level. They did not have access to the resources of the élite, including the ability to have stone tomb monuments for their personal commemoration. As many hieroglyphic texts were written in monumental contexts such as tombs and temples the mass of Egyptians had restricted access to them. It has been estimated from the occurrence of élite monuments with writing on them that in the Old Kingdom only around 1 per cent of the population was literate, that is, could read and write at all, and possibly for hieroglyphs the figure was even lower. At the most basic level, the ability to read and write one’s name may have been more widespread, particularly for administrative purposes, and this writing would almost certainly have been in hieratic not hieroglyphs.
The tombs of the élite were often in special necropolis areas. In the Nile Valley this would frequently be the desert edge, perhaps visited only by close relatives who took part in funerary offerings and feasts 50
and in the performance of rituals. If they were of the same social standing they might read and may even have recognized themselves and other people depicted in the tomb. The son of the dead man (or a literate substitute) would have had to be able to recite an offering prayer for his father. On the outer door jambs and lintels of some tombs or in funerary stelae there are sometimes specific calls to the passer-by to make sure that the offerings are continued in the tomb for the dead person’s ka . They begin, ‘O all the living who pass by or who enter in this tomb . . .’, and may have been intended to function after the immediate family had passed away and were no longer able to continue the cult. Once the living had departed, the writing and its properties were intended to function, continually activating and providing the food and necessary goods for the dead person in the afterlife. Ultimately, the audience was only the spirits ( kas ) of the dead and they depended on the few ka -priests and lector priests whose job it was to read out the relevant rituals. For the visitors to Hieroglyp
such places, the visual impact must have been very striking, a marker of a sacred zone with messages about status and life hs an
after death.
d ar
t
In temples the audience was even more restricted. ‘Ordinary’
Egyptians were not allowed into the temple complexes as they were impure. The priests appointed as ‘servants of the gods’ were specifically supposed to be purified before they entered the temple.
Once inside, they performed rituals to ensure that the temple god was cared for and enjoyed regular meals and festivals. Many of the special prayers and rites were written on the walls and in papyrus scrolls from which
how hieroglyphs can have a vagueness in their detail. 2 The reader had to be aware of when such differences might have meaning and when they might not. For example,
an arm and hand holding a
stick is very different in potential meaning (determinative for
‘strength’ or violent action) from an arm and hand holding a specific staff or sceptre,
(supervising actions). On the other hand the
sign is also a determinative for ‘strength’ or violent actions. The standing man is a tall vertical sign and the arm long and horizontal, so that the space available in the whole writing of the word may have affected the choice of sign. But was there really any difference in their meaning? Knowledge of such differences came through practice and experience and had to be learnt.
Literacy and access
Most of the Egyptian population were field workers, herdsmen, or craftsmen who lived in dispersed agricultural settlements up and phs
down the Nile Valley and in the less marshy delta areas. They lived ogly
off what they grew, supplied surpluses for the royal and temple Hier
landowners and had access to good supplies of basic commodities at a local level. They did not have access to the resources of the élite, including the ability to have stone tomb monuments for their personal commemoration. As many hieroglyphic texts were written in monumental contexts such as tombs and temples the mass of Egyptians had restricted access to them. It has been estimated from the occurrence of élite monuments with writing on them that in the Old Kingdom only around 1 per cent of the population was literate, that is, could read and write at all, and possibly for hieroglyphs the figure was even lower. At the most basic level, the ability to read and write one’s name may have been more widespread, particularly for administrative purposes, and this writing would almost certainly have been in hieratic not hieroglyphs.
The tombs of the élite were often in special necropolis areas. In the Nile Valley this would frequently be the desert edge, perhaps visited only by close relatives who took part in funerary offerings and feasts 50
and in the performance of rituals. If they were of the same social standing they might read and may even have recognized themselves and other people depicted in the tomb. The son of the dead man (or a literate substitute) would have had to be able to recite an offering prayer for his father. On the outer door jambs and lintels of some tombs or in funerary stelae there are sometimes specific calls to the passer-by to make sure that the offerings are continued in the tomb for the dead person’s ka . They begin, ‘O all the living who pass by or who enter in this tomb . . .’, and may have been intended to function after the immediate family had passed away and were no longer able to continue the cult. Once the living had departed, the writing and its properties were intended to function, continually activating and providing the food and necessary goods for the dead person in the afterlife. Ultimately, the audience was only the spirits ( kas ) of the dead and they depended on the few ka -priests and lector priests whose job it was to read out the relevant rituals. For the visitors to Hieroglyp
such places, the visual impact must have been very striking, a marker of a sacred zone with messages about status and life hs an
after death.
d ar
t
In temples the audience was even more restricted. ‘Ordinary’
Egyptians were not allowed into the temple complexes as they were impure. The priests appointed as ‘servants of the gods’ were specifically supposed to be purified before they entered the temple.
Once inside, they performed rituals to ensure that the temple god was cared for and enjoyed regular meals and festivals. Many of the special prayers and rites were written on the walls and in papyrus scrolls from which
Similar Books
