The decipherment of the hieroglyphs

When in Europe the Egyptian objects became popular and when the Rosetta Stone was displayed to the public in 1802 (ANDREWS 1982, 12; SCHNEIDER 1990.16), the desire to understand the hieroglyphs was again revived.

The Rosetta Stone is inevitable to the history of the decipherment of the Ancient Egyptian language. It mentions three different scripts: hieroglyphs, Greek and Demotic.

The circumstances of the discovery of the stone are controversial. Some sources argues that it was found by a lonely soldier, others proclaimed it to a general. And even than there are some different points of view. For example ANDREWS believes that a lieutenant Pierre François Xavier Bouchard ordered soldiers to clear the way in order to construct a fort near Rosetta. And by the demolish of some walls, they founded the stone (ANDREWS 1982, 9). However, DONADONI and CLAYTON agree with the fact that how the stone was found, but assigns that a general called Louis-Joseph Victor Julien ordered the demolishing and that Bouchard was the lucky discoverer of the stone (DONADONI 1990, 111; CLAYTON 2005, 25).

It was quickly realized that the stone had potential usefulness as a key to the decipherment of hieroglyphs (CONNER 1983, 30) and the object was send to the general Menou who had been appointed by Napoleon to stay in Egypt and to manage the concerns since the French had been defeated by the British. Menou took the stone under his personal protection. Many of the French officers acquired some objects in this matter, according to Clayton (CLAYTON 2005, 26). That explains why some artefacts escaped the confiscation law of the British, however the property of Menou, including the Rosetta Stone, was taken by the British. Although, Menou was allowed to take copies of the stone (CLAYTON 2005, 26). Those copies were send to France.

44

It was Jean-François Champollion (1790-1832) who cracked the code in 1822. The connection of this event within Egyptology can be consulted in the archives of the National Museum of Antiquities. For example, a pre-study of Champollion has been conserved when the progress is to be seen how he eventually deciphered the code of the hieroglyphs, but it shows his museological interest as well. Another

These archive documents will be used in this chapter in order to investigate how the museum in Leiden reacted on the decipherment which started a new approach toward the study of Egyptology.

Jean-François Champollion is assigned by every author I’ve read to be the decipherer of the hieroglyphs (for example CLAYTON 2005, 26). But was he indeed the first? Apparently, a whole history of the decipherment can be explored even before Champollion comes into the picture. A brief description about the history will be given. But to avoid lots of names of people who did some previous attempts to crack the code, I divide two groups which both approached the hieroglyphs in a different way: the first group believes that the hieroglyphs are just ideograms, symbols without any phonetic meaning. The second one assumes that the hieroglyphs are a mixture of ideograms and phonetic signs.

As modern Egyptologist, like James P. ALLEN, the second group follows the correct approach (ALLEN 2009). It is supposed that Champollion discovered the approach of the second group. But is this true?

According to ANDREWS and CONNOR, Thomas Young was the first one who confirmed that he hieroglyphs were depicting both ideograms and phonetic signs (ANDREWS 1982, 13-15;CONNOR1983, 31.). He discovered that in 1814 when he obtained a copy

of the Rosetta Stone. In a small world of scholars who devoted their lives on deciphering the hieroglyphs, Young communicate his ideas to Champollion and even published it in the 4th _{edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1819). ANDREWS thinks}

45

that Champollion always knew that Young had detected the correct code of the hieroglyphs, but he had never admitted that in print (ANDREWS 1982, 13-15). The reason behind the fact that Champollion has assigned to be the decipherer of the hieroglyphs is because of is relatively extensive grammar. His list of translations of names and other terms was longer than the one which Young had given to Champollion himself and Champollion published a readable grammar in 1824 called

Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Égyptiens (DONADONI 1990, 136).

The theory about the hieroglyphs of the first group had been sustained until 1822. However, as we will see, some of the contemporary scholars of Champollion were not immediately convinced by the new theory (ADKINS 2000, 5; REID 2000, 41-42) and were needed some extra support to be convinced about the correct approach ultimately (SCHNEIDER 2007, 61-64). And this support was added by Van Lennep who had close relations with Reuvens.

The name of Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680) has to be mentioned when discussing the first group. Kircher didn’t write a grammar in order to how to read hieroglyphs, and even if he did, he would not successful. However, he had some points that helped Champollion with his discovery. Kircher was the first who pointed out that if people want to read the Ancient Egyptian script they should understand Coptic. Because Coptic was a later variant of the hieroglyphs (SCHNIEDER 1990, 9; BURNETT 2003, 1-15).

It was not the fault of Kircher that he was at the wrong track. The Ancient Greek were the ones who said that hieroglyphs were just pictorial signs. And this continued in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, because they were relied to the publication only known back than which was the Hieroglyphica by Horapollo. It was discovered in the 15th _{century and assumed to be a primary source from Egypt, but it was written}

46

The hieroglyphs were illegible until 1822. And as has been pointed out in chapter 1.2. the savants during the expedition couldn’t recognized the different shapes of the signs and draw them without much precision (see figure 7 on page 35).

His mission to decipher hieroglyphs of Jean-François Champollion probably started when he Champollion met Jean-Baptiste Fourier scholar who accomplished the expedition of Napoleon (DAVIDS 2000, 79; chapter 1.2 of this thesis). DAVIDS doesn’t mention where this meeting occurred but according to Adkins this happened when Champollion went to Paris in 1807 after he graduated from Classical Studies in Grenoble (France). Fourier as an administrator of the Institut de France showed Champollion the small collection of the Musée Napoléon and the young scholar was inspired (ADKINS 2000, 51+71).

Based on the fact that he, at the age of 16, presented a lecture about his assumption that the hieroglyphs were –like Kircher had pointed out– an old variant of Coptic, it is clear that Champollion had developed a special interest in the Ancient Egyptian writing.

Champollion’s discovery caused a division between the scholars. Most of them were praising him, including Reuvens and Van Lennep.

It was Champollion’s own professor Antoine Isaac Silvestre de Sacy (1758-1838) who was not convinced about the new theory and even tried to Thomas Young that Champollion was wrong (ADKINS 2000, 5; CLAYTON 2005, 47). It’s not clear why Silvestre was such a hostile against Champollion. Perhaps, he was jealous about his fame or he didn’t like the fact that Champollion was a supporter of Napoleon’s policy and Silvestre might have been a royalist.

However, even Silvestre saw eventually the correctness of the theory of the second group. Thanks to the efforts made by Reuvens and Van Lennep.

47

In 1825 Champollion presented a lecture about the decipherment of the hieroglyphs and the Dutch media became interested. Subsequently, Reuvens and Van Lennep were enthusiastic about the new discovery within the field of Egyptology. They decided to invite Champollion to be a member of the Royal Dutch Institute7 _where

they too both belonged to. Champollion however never, although he write to his brother that he was very honoured about the of the Dutch scholars (SCHNEIDER 2007, 62):

Mes compliments à Quercetanas, le greffier de dure tête, que je soupçonne être l’ agent de mon apothéose à Amsterdam (note 32) .

Van Lennep perhaps was more frustrated about the fact that there were still scholars who were not convinced by the new theory of the hieroglyphs and published an article in the Bulletin Férussac (april 1826) were he states that those who did not accept the new grammar of hieroglyphs should first read the Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Égyptiens before complaining. It was mainly addressed to a German scholar Gustave Seyfarth who too was very skeptical about the new philological discovery within Egyptology (SCHNEIDER 2007, 64 note 34), but I believe that even Silvestre would have thought twice before he criticized Champollion’s work. Reuvens too wrote very positively about the decipherment of the hieroglyphs. For example, he wrote a review on Champllion’s “Précis du Système“ in the Leidse bulletin called Antiquiteiten. His article was published in 1825. Here he explains that he was very positive about the theories of Champollion (and he mentioned Young as well!) and compared the data of both the French man and Thomas Young (Reuvens, C.J.C., 1825. Nieuwste ontdekkingen omtrent den ouderdom der Aegyptische gedenkstukken. Antiquiteiten 3, 1; referred by SCHNEIDER 2007, 60) And in 1835, two years after the death of Champollion, he referred into an apologia how pioneering

48

Champollion’s work actually was for Egyptology (SCHNEIDER 1990, 23: the content of the letter in Dutch).

What about other connections between Champollion and the National Museum of Antiquities? Reuvens shared lots of characteristics with Champollion.

They both were working in a museum: Reuvens as a director since 1818, Champollion as a curator of the Louvre since 1826.

They both visited museum abroad: The intention of Reuvens was to investigate the design of the layout of museum (SCHNEIDER 1981, 17; HALBERTSMA 2003, 28-29). Champollion traveled to other museums to study the Egyptian collections (CLAYTON 2005, 47).

They even did excavations: Reuvens in his own country since 1833 (SCHNEIDER 1981, 26). Champollion organized a co-operational excavation with his Italian colleague Ippolito Rosellini in Egypt in 1828-1829. This was the first time a systematic survey had been on Egyptian sites and monuments (CLAYTON 2005, 47), because now they know –although still roughly– what the hieroglyphs on the walls and on the objects were telling.

One character which differ from each other was that Reuvens couldn’t read the hieroglyphs. However, when the news became popular he might saw the potential of knowing the script as a museum man. So he tried to read them by his own using the grammar of Champollion from 1824. His attempts can be consulted from the archives of the National Museum of Antiquities conserves (fig 10).

49 Figure 10

RMO 19.2.3/5 (box C 222)

Reuvens tried to make contact with Champollion, but in the end he never met him In 1829. Reuvens had permission of the Ministry of Education to visit Paris (SCHNEIDER 1990, 22). It’s not sure if he had the attempt to meet Champollion in person, but after all this was not possible because Champollion was present in Egypt during that time to do excavations together with his Italian colleague Rosellini (DONADONI 1990, 160). So, instead Reuvens visit the Louvre to study the collection and the way it was represented in the museum display, and surprisingly he also met Silvestre de Sacy

(Schneider 1990, 22; Schneider 2007, 60). It’s however not clear what the results are

from that meeting.

It was Reuvens’s agent Jean Emile Humbert de Superville who met Champollion in person several times at Livorno (HALBERTSMA 1981, 35). In 1826 Humbert told Reuvens that Champollion was present in Livorno for the same reasons as the

50

National Museum of Antiquities: to negotiate about the price for a collection of Egyptian objects which was for sale and belonged to miss Maria Cimba (the collection will be discussed in chapter 3). Humbert addressed Reuvens about his on the French man, but the director in Leiden not to underestimate the intellect of Champollion and instead, he ordered Humbert to ask Champollion for a copy of his article Précis du Système and in exchange he want to hand over his article about Indian statues which became a total breakthrough in the archaeology (SCHNEIDER 1990, 21; SCHNEIDER 2007, 61).

As a matter of fact, Humbert was an intermediary between for Reuvens to communicate with Champollion. Without Humbert the National Museum of Antiquities never had contact with important persons that change the approach toward Egyptology. Furthermore, Humbert brought an interesting document to the National Museum of Antiquities which can be consulted from the archives (fig 11). This document called Notes Diverse was written by Champollion in 1806 (when he was just 15 years old). It’s promising that he, at this young age, had some real potential to be an important person within Egyptology in the future (SCHNEIDER 2006, 14). It illustrates with text and sketches from his own hand how he studied Egyptian objects from the Louvre which he might observed when he was with Fourier.

What makes Notes Diverse so extraordinary is the fact that it shows the progress of Champollion; that he made some mistakes about the interpretation of objects and his earlier attempts to read the hieroglyphs (HARTLEBEN 1906, 61).

The reason why I consult this document for the thesis, is to show that the National Museum of Antiquities possesses works from important persons in the Egyptology. Champollion and Reuvens can be compared to each other. Not only because they both witnessed the same changes in Egyptology, but rather more their scientific approach toward the discipline which appeared after the expedition of Napoleon. According to Schneider Reuvens was even a greater pioneer, because he occupied himself not only with Egyptology, but also with the Dutch, Classical and Indian

51

archaeology (SCHNEIDER 1981, 28). But to my opinion, it is not the case to conclude which one is greater than the other. Both laid foundations for Egyptology. The French man on a more global scale, Reuvens on the Egyptology within museums in the Netherlands.

,

52