Simonides and Champollion and hieroglyphics

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
James Keith Elliott quotes:

Journal of Sacred Literature (1856)
Forgery of Greek MSS.
https://books.google.com/books?id=kT5KAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA237

Principia Typographica the Block-books, Or Xylographic Delineation ..., Volume 2 (1856)
Samuel Leigh Sotheby
https://books.google.com/books?id=X8XrVXWN3V4C&pg=PA136-IA1

After all this preliminary information, the wise men of Berlin approached the text of Uranius with high expectations, and almost a feeling of awe. Here, then, all the doubts which had occupied the thoughts of Champollion, of Rosellini, of Lepsius, and of Bunsen, were to be solved; the authenticity of the hieroglyphical records was to be tested, and the knowledge of the most ancient history of Egypt to be recovered! Manetho had risen from the grave; or, if not Manetho himself, at least one who knew his work, and who is able to give a much more complete account of the kings of Egypt than any of the chronographers on whom we had hitherto to rely.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Periplus of Hannon (1864)
Constantine Simonides
http://books.google.com/books?id=SLnkzlGzE2UC&pg=PA43

p. 43-45
1680013166498.png

1680013230589.png



1680013407044.png

1680013468163.png

1680013515671.png


1680013712467.png


p. 43
So different are the two systems that, if Simonides is correct, all the -are utterly wrong, and Egyptologists of the present day- the followers of Champollion, Lepsius, and Bunsen must have been labouring under a delusion the most extraordinary ever recorded in the annals of literature; or, on the other hand, if the system of Champollion is correct, and the discoveries of Young and the later Egyptologists are genuine, then must Simonides be an arch impostor, and deserving of all the opprobrium to which he has been subjected. A short explanation will render the matter perfectly simple, even to those who have no knowledge of the subject.

"The present universally-accepted system of deciphering hieroglyphics was invented by M. Champollion, who founded his method on a comparison and analysis of the tablets or cartouches bearing the names of Ptolemy, Cleopatra, and Berenice, expressed in hieroglyphics. His method starts with the idea that hieroglyphics Thus he says the L in Ptolemy is represented by a are phonetic, each representing an alphabetical character.

lion, because the Egyptian for lion was labo, and the hieroglyphical lion represents the first letter of its name. Each letter may, however, be represented by In this manner each hieroglyphic represents a single letter. numerous hieroglyphics-in fact by any hieroglyphical drawing of an article the name of which begins with the letter desired to be represented. By a highly ingenious process, never satisfactorily explained, M. Champollion He decided which meant succeeded in assigning to the various hieroglyphics their several alphabetical values. Here, however, he became greatly A, which meant B, and so on, and by this means he in time obtained words. embarrassed. The Egyptian language was lost, and he could not discover the meaning of the words he had thus obtained. In this dilemma he hit upon the plan of making the Coptic language answerable for the Egyptian, and he even went so far as to declare that the Coptic language is the ancient Egyptian written in Greek characters.' By this means he proceeded to interpret the hieroglyphical inscriptions, and with an ingenuity The hieroglyphics that is marvellous he readily found an explanation for every inscription placed before him. contained within rings he pronounced to be the names of kings, and much of the accepted Egyptian chronology is dependent on the names thus obtained. Champollion found numerous followers. Coptic was accepted as Egyptian; the alphabetical system was adopted throughout Europe; to this day his method is the only one practised; and the authorities in the British Museum decipher all hieroglyphical inscriptions by its means. must, however, be remarked that the Egyptians employed three methods of writing: -1. The hieroglyphic, used in sacred inscriptions; 2. The hieratic, or the hieroglyphic, written rapidly on papyrus, in which the various characters were contracted and imperfectly formed; and 3. The demotic, the method employed by the people in the ordinary transactions of every-day life. The Champollion system does not undertake to translate the demotic, but it says that the first writing employed by the Egyptians was the hieroglyphic, and that the demotic did not come into use until a few centuries before the commencement of the Christian era.

It

"This, then, is a brief outline of the system of Champollion, which Simonides characterises as nonsense. The latter declares that hieroglyphics are never alphabetical, that they are symbolical, and that each hieroglyphic expresses not a letter, but an idea; that Coptic is no more Egyptian than English is Greek; that the demotic By Constantine Simonides, Ph. D. David Nutt.


* "A Brief Dissertation on Hieroglyphic Letters."

p. 57-58
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hieroglyphic Sources From Simonides including Champollion

==============================

Epistolimaia peri heroglyhikōn grammatōn diatribē (1860)
A brief dissertation on hieroglyphic letters
https://www.worldcat.org/title/epis...tation-on-hieroglyphic-letters/oclc/043150304

==============================

Literary Churchman (1857)
https://books.google.com/books?id=gc4FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA53

1680038753993.png


==============================

Letters to Kallinikos according to George Topalidis
2019 Interns on the Forging Antiquity Project
https://markersofauthenticity.com/2020/08/07/2019-interns-on-the-forging-antiquity-project/

"One of the projects of my internship included translating the writings of the elusive Konstantinos Simonides, a notorious Greek forger of the 19th century. My primary focus was on Simonides’ letter to the fictitious monk Kallinikos, purporting to demonstrate the ‘correct’ reading of Egyptian hieroglyphs in opposition to that of Champollion. Throughout this year, I have the privilege of continuing my work on Simonides as a Research Assistant, transcribing and translating the letters between him and his once good friend John Eliot Hodgkin."

==============================

Periplus of Hannon (1864)
Constantine Simonides
https://books.google.com/books?id=SLnkzlGzE2UC&pg=PA43

==============================

Mennon

Is there more Mennon.

==============================

Fac-similes of Certain Portions of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and of the Epistles of Ss. James & Jude: Written on Papyrus in the First Century, and Preserved in the Egyptian Museum of Joseph Mayer ... Liverpool. With a Portrait of St. Matthew, from a Fresco Painting at Mount Athos. Edited and Illustrated with Notes and Historical and Literary Prolegomena, Containing Confirmatory Fac-similes of the Same Portions of Holy Scripture from Papyri and Parchment Mss. in the Monasteries of Mount Athos, of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, of St. Sabba in Palestine, and Other Sources
https://books.google.com/books?id=-vsiAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA5

==============================
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
http://www.siculorum.unict.it/views/home/article-detail.php?id=264

The so-called Artemidorus papyrus.
A reconsideration
di Luciano Canfora

3. Why the forger can only be Constantine Simonides

The most glaringly obvious reason is that Simonides’ phrases and drawings are to be found on the papyrus. It is curious to note, now that the matter has been settled, how at first the suggestion that Simonides might have been involved was greeted with disdain by academics who knew nothing about him and had not even heard of his works. And yet the golden rule is surely still that a scholar does not make pronouncements on a subject that he has not read up on. For the moment we will restrict ourselves to mentioning just a few among the several parallels between phrases from the pseudo-Artemidorus and phrases used by Simonides in his works and creations:

Col. I 12-15: τῇ ἐπιστήμῃ ταύτῃ συναγωνίσασθαι […] ἕτοιμος εἰμὶ παραστῆσαι

Simonidis, Epistolimaia Diatribé, London, 1860, p. 25: ἕτοιμος γὰρ εἰμὶ ἵνα ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐπιστήμης ποιήσω πᾶν ὅτι δύναμαι.

The phrase coined by Simonides in his bizarre polemical pamphlet on the interpretation of hieroglyphics is subdivided, in the pseudo-Artemidorus, into two: a) «it is no insignificant labour» (τῇ ἐπιστήμῃ ταύτῃ συναγωνίσασθαι); b) «I am disposed in fact (ἕτοιμος εἰμί) to compare (παραστῆσαι) this science to the most divine philosophy».
It is worth remembering that ἑτοίμως ἔχομεν + παραστῆσαι is found only in the acts of the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680-681 AD),[9] while σὺν ἐπιστήμῃ διαγωνίζεσθαι recurs in the letters of Manuele Gabalas and τὴν ἀστρονομικὴν ἐπιστήμην ῥᾳθυμίᾳ τῶν βοηθεῖν δυναμένων in the letters of Nicephorus Gregoras (around the years 1330-1340).[10]
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Periplus of Hennon
. It is with one of these,* upon the subject of Egyptian hieroglyphics, that we have now to do. "Two years since Simonides was introduced, in Liverpool, to a gentleman named Mayer, who has collected one of the finest museums in the country. In fact, the Mayer Museum is one of the curiosities of Liverpool. Mr. Mayer conducted Simonides over his collection, and, aware of his great reputation as a decipherer of ancient MSS., submitted to his inspection a mass of papyri in the hieroglyphic, hieratic, demotic, Coptic, and Greek characters. Some of these Simonides says he has deciphered recently, and he has published a large volume of fac-similes, respecting which we may have a few words to say on another occasion. Besides papyri, Mr. Mayer possesses a large number of Egyptian antiquities, many of them bearing hieroglyphical inscriptions. These Simonides declared himself able to interpret, and, selecting several at random from the collection, he at once proceeded to decipher them. The method employed by Simonides is totally different to that accepted by Egyptologists as the true system. So different are the two systems that, if Simonides is correct, all the Egyptologists of the present day- the followers of Champollion, Lepsius, and Bunsen-are utterly wrong, and must have been labouring under a delusion the most extraordinary ever recorded in the annals of literature; or, on the other hand, if the system of Champollion is correct, and the discoveries of Young and the later Egyptologists are genuine, then must Simonides be an arch impostor, and deserving of all the opprobrium to which he has been subjected. A short explanation will render the matter perfectly simple, even to those who have no knowledge of the subject,

"The present universally-accepted system of deciphering hieroglyphics was invented by M. Champollion, who founded his method on a comparison and analysis of the tablets or cartouches bearing the names of Ptolemy, Cleopatra, and Berenice, expressed in hieroglyphics. His method starts with the idea that hieroglyphics are phonetic, each representing an alphabetical character. Thus he says the L in Ptolemy is represented by a lion, because the Egyptian for lion was labo, and the hieroglyphical lion represents the first letter of its name. In this manner each hieroglyphic represents a single letter. Each letter may, however, be represented by numerous hieroglyphics - in fact by any hieroglyphical drawing of an article the name of which begins with the letter desired to be represented. By a highly ingenious process, never satisfactorily explained, M. Champollion succeeded in assigning to the various hieroglyphics their several alphabetical values. He decided which meant A, which meant B, and so on, and by this means he in time obtained words. Here, however, he became greatly embarrassed. The Egyptian language was lost, and he could not discover the meaning of the words he had thus obtained. In this dilemma he hit upon the plan of making the Coptic language answerable for the Egyptian, and he even went so far as to declare that the Coptic language is the ancient Egyptian written in Greek characters.' By this means he proceeded to interpret the hieroglyphical inscriptions, and with an ingenuity that is marvellous he readily found an explanation for every inscription placed before him. The hieroglyphics contained within rings he pronounced to be the names of kings, and much of the accepted Egyptian chronology is dependent on the names thus obtained. Champollion found numerous followers. Coptic was accepted as Egyptian; the alphabetical system was adopted throughout Europe; to this day his method is the only one practised; and the authorities in the British Museum decipher all hieroglyphical inscriptions by its means. must, however, be remarked that the Egyptians employed three methods of writing:

1. The hieroglyphic, used in sacred inscriptions;
2. The hieratic, or the hieroglyphic, written rapidly on papyrus, in which the various characters were contracted and imperfectly formed; and
3. The demotic, the method employed by the people in the ordinary transactions of every-day life.

The Champollion system does not undertake to translate the demotic, but it says that the first writing employed by the Egyptians was the hieroglyphic, and that the demotic did not come into use until a few centuries before the commencement of the Christian era.

"This, then, is a brief outline of the system of Champollion, which Simonides characterises as nonsense. The latter declares that hieroglyphics are never alphabetical, that they are symbolical, and that each hieroglyphic expresses not a letter, but an idea; that Coptic is no more Egyptian than English is Greek; that the demotic

* "A Brief Dissertation on Hieroglyphic Letters." By Constantine Simonides, Ph. D. David Nutt.

character is the oldest, and was in use earlier than the hieroglyphic; that the rings (cartouche) do not contain the names of kings, but the apophthegms by which kings were distinguished; that the vocabulary of Egyptian words in use by the modern Egyptologist is completely false; that even Champollion's illustration of the lion, representing the letter L, is absurd, because the Egyptian for a lion is not labo thaouraō (labo being Carian and not Egyptian), and that no inscription has ever yet been interpreted correctly by the Champollion system. In a word, he denounces the method as a tissue of falsehoods, absurdities, and errors, and insinuates that many of the most eminent Egyptologists have been, and are, guilty of wilful deception.

"For some time past a suspicion has existed that the theories of the Egyptologists are not reliable or sound, and these suspicions, within the past few weeks, have acquired immense force by the publication of Sir George Cornewall Lewis's work on the Astronomy of the Ancients. Few men enjoy a greater reputation for learning than our present War Minister, and in his recently published book he points out the inconsistencies of the Champollion system with a remorseless hand, and does not hesitate to assert his belief that the key to the hieroglyphics has yet to be discovered.

He says

'Egyptology has a historical method of its own. It recognises none of the ordinary rules of evidence; the extent of its demands upon our credulity is almost unbounded. Even the writers on ancient Italian ethnology are modest and tame in their hypotheses compared with the Egyptologists. Under their potent logic all identity disappears; everything is subject to become anything but itself. Successive dynasties become contemporary dynasties; one king becomes another king, or several kings, or a fraction of another king; one name becomes another name; one number becomes another number; one place becomes another place.'

With these opinions of Sir Cornewall Lewis the system of Simonides entirely harmonises. Here let it be observed that where so much doubt and such great uncertainty exist, it might be expected that the exponent of a new system would meet with attention and consideration; and this, we think, has not been the case in the instance of Simonides. Nor is it a matter for surprise that Simonides should be treated with little consideration by the learned world. He comes before them with his name associated, whether truly or not we cannot pretend to say, with suspicions of literary forgery - and he himself falls tooth and nail, not only on the system of Champollion, but on its professors. Indeed, in all his writings there is a tone of personal animosity that detracts much from their merit. His illustrations of the absurdity of the accepted hieroglyphical system are, nevertheless, so forcible as to call for a more careful consideration than any they have yet received, and, however strong may be the disinclination of the learned world to listen to his not by any means politely urged claims, the statements he makes are too remarkable to be any longer ignored or passed over in contemptuous silence. Simonides, whilst ridiculing the Champollion system, demands, if the hieroglyphical characters are alphabetical, that some well-known inscription, say that on the Rosetta Stone, shall be interpreted by its means to the satisfaction of an unprejudiced jury. This has never yet been accomplished, and as to the demotic inscription on the Rosetta Stone, though the Greek translation accompanies it, no person has ever yet been able to give more than a conjectural interpretation. Sir Cornewall Lewis, speaking on the subject of the ancient writings, says:

'The attempts even of the most accomplished linguists to explain the inscriptions must be regarded by an impartial judge as utter failures' (p. 387).

This being the case, the arguments of Simonides, as published by him in the numerous books he has issued, assume a grave importance; and when he asserts that Coptic is not Egyptian, he completely destroys, if he establishes his assertion, the whole Champollion system. His reasonings on this point are much too elaborate to permit of their introduction here, but it may be briefly observed that he points out that Coptic took its origin at a period when Egypt had been conquered and overrun by foreigners for more than a thousand years; that it is simply the Greek language considerably corrupted, and intermixed with Parthian, Libyan, Carian, Lycian, Arabic, and Hebrew words, and that the number of words of Egyptian origin is very limited; that the remains of the Coptic language which have reached us do not ascend higher than the third century after the commencement of the Christian era; that the name Coptic does not appear to have been used earlier than the sixth century; and that all attempts to interpret Egyptian by its aid have failed. On this point we may ourselves venture an observation. In the British Museum there is at least one MS. in which the Egyptian language is written in Greek characters. question of the identity of the Coptic with the Egyptian language may therefore be readily ascertained. If the Egyptologists can translate this MS. by means of Coptic and Bunsen's Egyptian vocabulary, they would establish their point; if they cannot, they must then admit their failure, and confess themselves defeated. We have only space now to notice one other argument used by Simonides, in his denunciation of the Champollion system. The modern Egyptologists state, that the hieroglyphic characters were first in use, that the hieratic followed, and that, lastly, the demotic was invented for the use of the common people. This theory, at first sight, appears probable. It seems natural that a people emerging from barbarism should, in their first attempts to write, take the direction of picture representations. The Egyptologists themselves destroy this theory, for their whole system is founded on the basis of the hieroglyphical characters being alphabetical. Among the earliest hieroglyphics known to the world are those ascribed to the 4th dynasty, or about 500 years after Menes, a date variously fixed by Egyptologists at 2300 B. c. and 5200 B. c. These are declared to be alphabetical. If so, the Egyptians must have had an alphabet, and if they had an alphabet it seems pretty clear that they would use it in the ordinary transactions of life, without employing the elaborate devices of hieroglyphics. This consideration is damaging to the Champollion system, and the fact of figures of inkstands, and of the stylus, being found in the inscriptions of the 4th dynasty, almost establishes the point that writing was common among the Egyptian people. The theory of Simonides is by some considered more ingenious and probable than that of Champollion. He says that the demotic alphabet was invented first, and that as time went on the priesthood sought to increase their power by rendering all theological matters mystical. They therefore invented a system of writing, of a secret character, in which the demotic letters for a particular word were made into a monogram, which monogram took the shape of some object resembling the idea expressed. For instance, the duckling, so commonly found in hieroglyphical inscriptions, is said by Horapollo to represent affection, and Simonides states that the figure of a duckling is drawn by combining together the five demotic characters for the letters ch-a-o-e, which is the Egyptian for love. Thus the figure of a duckling expresses, by a symbol, affection, and its component parts contain the demotic characters for the word love. This theory is extremely ingenious, and, if correct, will explain away many of the difficulties that hang around the subject. Simonides supports his theory with considerable learning and skill, and stoutly contends that writers of antiquity corroborate his views. We can, however, accompany M. Simonides no farther in his proofs of the untrustworthy character of the modern system, and can only afford space to glance over the evidences afforded of the truth of his own method.

"In the first place, it must be observed that Simonides does not assume to himself any credit for having discovered a new method of hieroglyphical interpretation. He states that he does nothing more than follow the instructions left by the old writers. Horapollo wrote ten books, treating of the interpretation of hieroglyphics, two of which have been preserved to the present day. These books explain the symbolic meaning of some 200 hieroglyphics; and as these explanations are quite opposed to the system of Champollion, the Egyptologists declare that Horapollo, who flourished about 100 years B. C., and was himself a priest in one of the temples of Egypt, knew nothing at all about the matter. Simonides also states that he has acquired his knowledge of the Egyptian writings and language by means of manuscripts obtained by him in various eastern monasteries and in Egypt. He says that he has in his possession, not only the eight lost books of Horapollo, but also the whole of the lost works of Chærémon (300 books -the Egyptian words expressed phonetically in Greek characters), Chenophis, and Charon; and by the aid of these, especially of Cheremon, who wrote a vocabulary of the Egyptian language, he has mastered the ancient language of Egypt, and the whole secret of the Egyptian writings. The proofs he affords of the correctness of his own system are, however, not by any means so conclusive as those he gives of the incorrectness of that of Champollion. They are, nevertheless, important, and in the pamphlet before us he has adopted the bold expedient of interpreting inscriptions by his own method, and publishing them to the public. In this pamphlet he has deciphered and interpreted several hieroglyphical inscriptions in Mr. Mayer's Museum, and has given the reasons for his interpretations, and an explanation of the process employed. He has also on several occasions expressed his willingness to decipher any inscription that may be agreed upon, and to give full explanations of the interpretation. He even avows his readiness to take the demotic inscription in the Rosetta Stone, to write out line for line and word for word the Egyptian words it contains, to give in a similar manner a word for word translation of the Egyptian into Greek, and to compare the latter with the hieroglyphic inscription. The strongest proofs he possesses he declares to be the MSS. themselves from which he acquired his knowledge. Such proofs, in the case of Simonides, will be received with very considerable doubt; in fact, as evidence, they will scarcely be received at all. Chærémon may have been manufactured by himself, and all the Egyptian vocabulary it is said to contain may be only a clever invention; but if he really has these works in his possession, he should produce them before the public, and then, whether they are forgeries or not, if they contain the lost key to the Egyptian writings and language, they are equally valuable. We are very far from saying that Simonides has convinced the world, by his pamphlets and other publications, of the truth of his hieroglyphical theories, but we do say that he has violently shaken the system of Champollion, and that, if the Egyptologists wish to preserve their credit, they must take prompt measures to dispel the strongly excited suspicions of the public."*

* “ Τὰ μετὰ τὸν ἀστερίσκον ἐκδίδονται ἐκ χειρογράφου τοῦ συντάκτου· ὅτι οὐκ ἐξεδόθη εἰσέτι, καὶ ὃ, χειρόγραφον, ἀπεστάλει μαι ἀνωνύμως. Τὸν δὲ τούτου συντάκτην εἰσέτι ἀγνοῶ.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Christian Karl Josias Bunsen - (1791-1860)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Charles_Josias_von_Bunsen
http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/B/BUN/baron-von-bunsen.html

The first visit of the Egyptologist Champollion to Rome formed an epoch in Bunsen's antiquarian studies. However, his argument in support of Champollion's priority over Young was based upon an insufficient knowledge of Young's publication dates.[7] He became himself a zealous auditor of Champollion, and also encouraged Lepsius in the study of hieroglyphics.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/forgeryre...?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/user/zlaxy/
zlaxy

I have not come across any works on this topic in English, in Russian this topic was touched upon by
Andrei Stepanenko in his book
"History No More":
https://chispa1707.ussr.win/3690

Related quotes with links:

Trilingual inscriptions of such significance have been found twice in the history of archaeology: in Persia and Egypt (the Rosetta Stone in 1799). Both times they were found INCREDIBLY TIMELY, and both times - with the INDEPENDENT PARTICIPATION of military, diplomats and intelligence officers of the highest class. In Egypt it was Baron Dominique Vivant Denon, in Persia it was Major Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson of the British Army.
The text of the Rosetta Stone contains legal norms that appeared in Western Europe not earlier than the Great French Revolution, which calls into question either the accuracy of the translation or the date of creation of the inscriptions. But most importantly, the fact that the stone was found on the territory of present-day Egypt and the scientific linkage of the text on the stone to events on the territory of present-day Egypt contradict the entire array of archaeological findings - for all 200+ years.

The true role of Champollion is attested, in particular, by Konstantin Mikhailovich Bazili (A Russian Seaman's Trip through Egypt, Syria and the Greek Archipelago, 1840s). Nikolai Morozov recounted how Bazili asked locals who had cut down the inscriptions and was pointed to Champollion. No less weighty is the testimony of Fritz Max*, who wrote to G. A. Kestner about Champollion's destruction of a huge number of monuments, in particular frescoes in Thebes ("Heltet die Piramiden Fest! 5000 Jahre Grabraub in Agypten" ("Tragedy of the Pyramids") by Peter Ehlebracht).
  • Friedrich Maximilian Hessemer, Darmstadt architect, author of "Gedenkbuch seiner Reise nach Italien und Agypten 1827-1830" (Memories of my trip to Italy and Egypt 1827-1830). Gessemer seems to have been on some errands for Kestner (Georg Christian August Kestner), a diplomat and collector, during his trip to Egypt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Mikhailovich_Bazili

Konstantin Mikhailovich Bazili
Константи́н Миха́йлович Бази́ли
Born3 or 15 February 1809
Istanbul
Died10 or 22 February 1884
Odesa
Konstantin Mikhailovich Bazili[1] (Russian: Константи́н Миха́йлович Бази́ли; 3 February 1809 – 10 February 1884) was a Russian historian, writer and Orientalist of Greekorigin.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Истории больше нет,
Ранние Европейская Палестина

There is no more history
Early European Palestine

Андрей Георгиевич Степаненко
Andrey Georgievich Stepanenko
Andrei Stepanenko

2011
2022 edition
https://books.google.com/books?id=C...AI#v=onepage&q="Истории больше нет, "&f=false

==================

ГЕРОСТРАТ ПО ФАМИЛИИ ШАМПОЛЬОН

Об академике Шампольоне знают главное: это первый человек, сумевший расшифровать египетские иероглифы. Однако, на деле все иначе. Иероглифы были расшифрованы задолго до него, и свой словарь имели, например, иезуиты. Но толковали иероглифы неверно, отчего в Египте, например, обнаруживалось чересчур много семитских корней. Шампольон придал иероглифам новое, «правильное» толкование, и папирусы зазвучали иначе. Вспомните, насколько свежо Геродот заставил зазвучать слово еврей – гефирей. Если глубоко не копать, и не опознаешь. Примерно этим и занимался в науке Шампольон – переозвучивал.
Второе, что следует знать о Шампольоне: из-за ярлыка роялиста его отлучили от науки, а значит, и от источника доходов. Египетская командировка со всеми ее неудобствами – глистами, насекомыми и почти обязательной трахомой – давала шанс на реабилитацию и твердый профессорский оклад.
И главное: Шампольон не был щепетилен. Ж. Позенер свидетельствует, что в Турине Шампольон занимался тем, что переделывал на папирусах имена и даты, подгоняя тексты под некую концепцию. То же самое он, по сути, делал и в Египте.
К его приезду, многое было готово, например, некто не называемый историками по имени взорвал в 1821 году храм Осириса в Дендерах. А с храмового зодиака, позволяющего установить дату какого-то крайне важного исторического события, был предварительно снят (как пишут, бароном Деноном) слепок для отправки в Лувр. Вот он – величественный и на вид ужасно древний.


HEROSTRATE NAMED CHAMPOLION The main thing they know about Academician Champollion is that he is the first person who managed to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs. However, in reality everything is different. Hieroglyphs were deciphered long before him, and, for example, the Jesuits had their own dictionary. But the hieroglyphs were interpreted incorrectly, which is why in Egypt, for example, too many Semitic roots were discovered. Champollion gave the hieroglyphs a new, “correct” interpretation, and the papyri sounded differently. Remember how freshly Herodotus made the word Jew—gephyreus—sound. If you don't dig deep, you won't recognize it. This is approximately what Champollion did in science - revoicing. The second thing you should know about Champollion: because of the label of royalist, he was excommunicated from science, and therefore from his source of income. The Egyptian business trip with all its inconveniences - worms, insects and almost obligatory trachoma - provided a chance for rehabilitation and a solid professorial salary. And most importantly: Champollion was not scrupulous. J. Posener testifies that in Turin, Champollion was engaged in altering names and dates on papyri, adjusting the texts to a certain concept. He essentially did the same thing in Egypt. Much was prepared for his arrival, for example, someone not named by historians blew up the Temple of Osiris in Dendera in 1821. And from the temple zodiac, which makes it possible to establish the date of some extremely important historical event, a cast was previously taken (as they say, by Baron Denon) to be sent to the Louvre. Here it is - majestic and terribly ancient in appearance.


Забавно, что событие, отраженное этим гороскопом датировалось исследовавшими его учеными 15 000 годами до новой эры. Таковы были взгляды тогдашней науки на новую хронологию Египта, и эта датировка ясно указывает: перед нами не подлинный слепок, а подлог начала XIX века. В отсутствие взорванного «учеными» оригинала датировка слепка и неважна; он в любом случае отражает не египетские реалии, а интересы Франции. В 1822 году этот слепок купил сменивший свергнутого Бонапарта король Людовик XVIII, и датировку чуток пересмотрели.
В том же 1822 году, как пишут, «по приказу турецкого правительства» были разрушены еще два храма: храм «Тутмоса III» на острове Филе и храм «Аменхотепа III». Ясно, что за этими названиями скрыто больше, чем видно со стороны. Скажем, полное название храма Амона – «Temple de Ivpiter Hammon» (храм Юпитера-Аммона). Думаю, у храма Тутмоса тоже было второе имя. А храм Аменхотепа III это как раз тот самый храм, что совпадает по расположению с городищем Давида, то есть храмом Агнца. Это важнейшее для мировой истории место.
Плюс, оба храма были не только разрушены, но одновременно и разграблены турецкими губернаторами, а из этого следуют некоторые выводы:
1. Факт упоминания разграбления храмов в хрониках указывает на значительность изъятого из храмов имущества. Мелкий грабеж в такой ситуации не заметили бы.
2. Факт разграбления храмов с достойным упоминания в хрониках имуществом указывает на то, что храмы были действующими. Это ключевой момент.
3. Факт официального уничтожения этих храмов после, как минимум, столетнего спокойного существования под сеньоратом Османов говорит о давлении Европы.
4. «По приказу турецкого правительства» может означать, что взрывали не турки, а иностранные специалисты. Иначе написали бы «взорваны турками».
5. Взрыв храма Осириса в Дендерах в 1821 году и разрушение двух островных храмов в 1822 году определенно связаны.
Ясно, что саперы взрывали только главное, знаковое. Увы, за исключением фундамента Иерусалимского Храма на Элефантине, даже неясно, чьи это были храмы – греческие или еврейские. Впрочем, храмов было много, надписей тысячи, их содержание саперам было неясно, и более тщательной зачисткой занимался приехавший на 6 лет позже Шампольон. Еще во Франции он обговорил содержание надписей с видевшим их старым шпионом Деноном, так что в Египте и Нубии одетые под мусульман, большей частью обритые «ученые-египтологи» просто срубали надпись за надписью – полтора года подряд.
ПРИМЕЧАНИЕ: Об истинной роли Шампольона свидетельствует, в частности, Николай Морозов (книга «A Russian Seaman’s Trip trough Egypt, Syria and the Greek Archipelago», 1840-е годы). Морозов интересовался у местных жителей, кто срубал надписи, и ему указывали на Шампольона. Не менее весомым является свидетельство Фрица Макса*, писавшего Г. А. Кестнеру об уничтожении Шампольоном огромного количества памятников, в частности фресок в Фивах («Tragedy of the Pyramids», автор Peter Ellebrakht).
* Friedrich Maximilian Hessemer, Дармштадский архитектор, автор книги «Gedenkbuch seiner Reise nach Italien und Agypten 1827-1830» (Воспоминания о моей поездке в Италию и Египет 1827-1830). Похоже, Гессемер во время поездки в Египет выполнял какие-то поручения Кестнера (Georg Christian August Kestner), дипломата и коллекционера.

It's funny that the event reflected in this horoscope was dated by the scientists who studied it to 15,000 BC. Such were the views of the science of that time on the new chronology of Egypt, and this dating clearly indicates: what we have before us is not a genuine cast, but a forgery of the early 19th century. In the absence of the original blown up by “scientists,” the dating of the cast is unimportant; in any case, it reflects not Egyptian realities, but the interests of France. In 1822, this cast was bought by King Louis XVIII, who replaced the deposed Bonaparte, and the dating was slightly revised. In the same 1822, as they write, “by order of the Turkish government” two more temples were destroyed: the temple of Thutmose III on the island of Philae and the temple of Amenhotep III. It is clear that there is more hidden behind these names than is visible from the outside. Let's say the full name of the temple of Amun is “Temple de Ivpiter Hammon” (Temple of Jupiter-Ammon). I think the temple of Thutmose also had a middle name. And the temple of Amenhotep III is exactly the same temple that coincides in location with the site of David, that is, the temple of the Lamb. This is a most important place in world history. Plus, both temples were not only destroyed, but at the same time plundered by Turkish governors, and some conclusions follow from this: 1. The fact that the looting of temples was mentioned in the chronicles indicates the significance of the property seized from the temples. Petty robbery would not have been noticed in such a situation. 2. The fact of the looting of temples with property worthy of mention in the chronicles indicates that the temples were active. This is the key point. 3. The fact of the official destruction of these temples after at least a century of quiet existence under the Ottoman lordship speaks of European pressure. 4. “By order of the Turkish government” may mean that it was not the Turks who carried out the explosions, but foreign experts. Otherwise they would have written “blown up by the Turks.” 5. The explosion of the Temple of Osiris in Dendera in 1821 and the destruction of two island temples in 1822 are definitely connected. It is clear that the sappers only blew up the most important, significant things. Alas, with the exception of the foundation of the Jerusalem Temple on Elephantine, it is not even clear whose temples these were - Greek or Jewish. However, there were many temples, thousands of inscriptions, their contents were unclear to the sappers, and Champollion, who arrived 6 years later, did a more thorough cleanup. Back in France, he discussed the contents of the inscriptions with the old spy Denon, who had seen them, so that in Egypt and Nubia, dressed as Muslims, mostly shaved, “Egyptologist scientists” simply cut down inscription after inscription - for a year and a half in a row. NOTE: The true role of Champollion is evidenced, in particular, by Nikolai Morozov (book “A Russian Seaman’s Trip trough Egypt, Syria and the Greek Archipelago”, 1840s). Morozov asked local residents who cut down the inscriptions, and they pointed him to Champollion. No less weighty is the testimony of Fritz Max*, who wrote to G. A. Kästner about the destruction by Champollion of a huge number of monuments, in particular frescoes in Thebes (“Tragedy of the Pyramids”, by Peter Ellebrakht). * Friedrich Maximilian Hessemer, Darmstadt architect, author of the book “Gedenkbuch seiner Reise nach Italien und Agypten 1827-1830” (Memoirs of my trip to Italy and Egypt 1827-1830). It seems that Hessemer, during a trip to Egypt, carried out some instructions for Kestner (Georg Christian August Kestner), a diplomat and collector.

На рисунке Шампольон, переодетый арабом

In the picture, Champollion disguised as an Arab

1696797847553.jpeg

Напомню, что именно Шампольон перевел надписи на Розеттском камне, «найденном» Деноном во время похода Бонапарта в Египет в 1799 году. Одно слово взято в кавычки, поскольку барон Денон – исключительный специалист по грязным и ответственным операциям; его имя в любом деле, как предупреждающий знак.

На рисунках ниже: пока еще молодой барон Доминик Виван Денон и «найденный» с его участием Розеттский камень

Let me remind you that it was Champollion who translated the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone, “found” by Denon during Bonaparte’s campaign in Egypt in 1799. One word is in quotation marks because Baron Denon is an exceptional specialist in dirty and responsible operations; his name in any business is like a warning sign. In the pictures below: the still young Baron Dominique Vivan Denon and the Rosetta Stone “found” with his participation

1696797949580.jpeg


Работа по уничтожению древнеегипетских артефактов и свидетельств была каторжная, но дело было сделано. Надписей, в общем, нет, в уничтожении их обвинены мусульмане (на кабинетных историков свидетельства о бритых головах оказали прямо гипнотическое воздействие), а Шампольона приняли в ряды французской академии и вручили вожделенный твердый профессорский оклад.

The work of destroying ancient Egyptian artifacts and evidence was backbreaking, but the job was done. In general, there are no inscriptions, Muslims were accused of destroying them (evidence about shaved heads had a directly hypnotic effect on armchair historians), and Champollion was accepted into the ranks of the French Academy and awarded the coveted solid professorial salary.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Philae Obelisk

9 One significant exception was Ivan A. Gulianov (1786-1842), a Russian diplomat, linguist and Egyptologist who opposed Champollion and tried to create his own method of decoding hieroglyphs. A.M. Kulikova, Rossiiskoe vostokovedenie XIX veka v litsakh (St Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie, 2001), 40.

46 Osip Senkovskii was a sharp critic of Champollion and his deciphering of hieroglyphs, and in his fictional “Scientific Journey to Bear Island” (Uchonoe puteshestvie na Medvezhii ostrov) published in 1833 nearly ten years after Champollion’s deciphering, he calls Champollion a charlatan. However, by that time, Champollion’s achievement was recognized even in Russian circles. See Galina A. Belova, “L’Egyptologie russe avant GolenischefTf,” Ggypte: Afrique et Orient 4 (1996): 28; I.S. Katsnelson, “Materialy dlia istorii egiptologii v Rossii,” Vestnik drevnei istorii 2 (1947): 221.


====================================

Mehmet Tepeyurt
Imperial Russia’s Egyptian Endeavors: The Purchase of Amenhotep’s Sphinxes (2022)
https://www.academia.edu/72539054/I...Endeavors_The_Purchase_of_Amenhoteps_Sphinxes

The emergence of Egyptian Studies as a field of research in the professional sense once Jean-Francois Champollion (1790-1832) decoded the Rosetta Stone opened the wide world of Ancient Egypt.8 His achievement was recognized by most of the Russian intellectuals in St. Petersburg,9 and he was elected as an honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in 1827.

1696806353604.png


1696806488741.png
1696806426707.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator

THE ROSETTA STONE
Conveniently “discovered” in 1799 on the cusp of the usurpers path to power
We “translate” this so we can tell you whatever we want about our MAKE BELIEVE ancient civilisation
Champollion clearly signalling to initiates

I’m suggesting a whole retelling of history to suit themselves is rooted in the translation of this convenient treasure Where you go from this point is up to the individual researcher Many options present themselves…


I think that they can read it but they are selective in how they translate it. Translations of ancient Sumerian seem to vary wildly for example since only (they say) a few hundred people can actually read it. The Bible, too, often seems to be badly translated for whatever reason.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
https://www.facebook.com/copticmanu...oG5WiDTQmFzUqey2ong8mbQXDdi4zLTMd2HJvW8mxKbjl

Alin Suciu's Coptic Literature and Manuscripts


Frontispice of Athanasius Kircher's Lingua Aegyptiaca Restituta (Rome, 1644).
Kircher (1602-1680) claimed that he cracked the code of Egyptian hieroglyphs with the help of Coptic. While most of his assumptions regarding Egyptian language proved to be wrong, Kircher has the merit to realize, long before Champollion, that ancient Egyptian was the ancestor of Coptic.
Thus, Lingua Aegyptiaca Restituta opens with a letter composed by Kircher in Coptic (Bohairic), which is addressed "to the Copts, the only heirs and owners of the Egyptian language."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top