Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Mesopotamian Cuneiform Cylinder Seals - Research Paper Example

The earliest form of writing necessarily resembled pictographs. These pictographs varied from region to region and had no similar level of commonality other than the fact that a unique ethnic or cultural interpretation of these images could affect the earliest form of written understanding. As compared to traditional writing and the use of an alphabet words grammar and phrases, early pictographs were able to denote most of their meeting immediately to the observer; lending a situation in which advanced training or the ability to write and/or read was not quite as difficult as it was later in the development of linguistics and early writing. However, many individuals have misunderstood early pictographs as inclusive of Egyptian hieroglyphics and or Mesopotamian cuneiform. This is not the case. In fact, cuneiform as well as hieroglyphics is a distinctive writing system that is differentiated significantly from basic pictographs. As such, the purpose of this brief analysis will be to discuss the differential that exists between these three forms of writing and analyze the early history and development of both cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics. Through such an examination it is the hope of this author that the reader will gain a more informed understanding with respect to the manner through which these early influences of modern writing were able to impact upon the development of the world and in effect a starting point through which further linguistic development would be able to take place. Developing from early pictographs, cuneiform is one of the earliest forms of writing that is known to man. Scholars still disagree with regards to whether or not pictographs can in fact be considered as a form of writing or whether or not they should be considered as a form of early artwork. However, the fact remains that individuals prior to the era of Mesopotamia and therefore were able to infer a level of understanding based upon these unique representations of the natural world. At its most basic level of understanding, cuneiform is merely a combination of two Latin words. Firstly, “cuneus” means wedge and “forma” quite obviously translates to the English form. Ultimately, cuneiform merely means wedge form or wage writing. As opposed to pictographs that need to be painstakingly drawn and carefully written so that each angle was representative of a specific thought, action, idea, or movement, cuneiform was able to utilize a simplistic approach of representing complex understandings. Figure 1.0 below helps to denote the growth that cuneiform saw from early pictographs. For instance, one through seven of the image below represents the same word. However, once you and three are pictographs whereas 456 and seven show the development of cuneiform as a means of representing the stock. Naturally, as one that studies cuneiform soon begins to realize, the time span that is involved within this particular form of writing is massive. Not surprisingly, the approach that is engendered from one century to the next necessarily differs in the same way that English and its own representation of the alphabet has differed over several hundred years (Young, 2007). Figure 1.0 By means of contrast and comparison, hieroglyphics have often been thought to have been heavily influenced by the development of language, at least in its written form, that existed within early Mesopotamia. Although no direct evidence exists for this, the geographic proximity and the level of trade and interaction that was known to exist between these people in early recorded history helps to lend a level of credence to the belief that the development of hieroglyphics within the area that is currently known as “Egypt” was not a natural evolution; rather, it was one that was prompted by influences from abroad. Furthermore, hieroglyphics have often been thought to be little more than pictographic illustrations of the natural world. Although it is true that these “glyphs” resembled many aspects of the ancient Egyptian world, they cannot be understood in such a simplistic format. Instead, hieroglyphics ultimately consist of three different types of glyphs: phonetic glyphs law the graphs and determinatives. Phonetic glyphs, as their name implies, denote a single consonant character that is used in very much the same way that our traditional alphabet has been used. Furthermore, while the graphs have been understood to represent morphemes with determinatives helping to narrow down the ultimate meaning of a logographic or phonetic word in effect, rather than merely representing abstract symbols that denote a cultural meaning, early Egyptian hieroglyphics, at least as far as they are understood, are indicative of one of the first alphabets the world has ever seen. Obviously although this particular form of writing and communication is not nearly as old as cuneiform, hieroglyphs had been found that date back to the early 33rd century BC (Davies, 2011). Furthermore, another similarity that exists between hieroglyphs and the manner through which our own language is expressed, phonetic marks, emphasizes, stress, and syllabic pronunciation is included in hieroglyphics as a means of assisting the reader in interpreting the underlying meaning and engaging in a level of grammatical correctness; the first of its kind. A further interesting development that can be noted with regards to early Egyptian writing has to do with the fact that the practice of writing hieroglyphics developed in much the same way as did the writing of early cuneiform. As has been noted above, the early pictographic descriptions that helped to segue into cuneiform were ultimately dismissed in favor of a more rigid structure of wage light shapes to express the same thought. By much the same token, early hieroglyphic representations were extraordinarily complex and required a great deal of time to carve or write (Dalley, 2013). As such, subsequent curiosity and demoted representations of hieroglyphics simplified these and allowed for a type of cursive writing to facilitate the ease and speed at which hieroglyphic representation could be affected. In much the same way that cuneiform within a given period in time did not allow for any “spillover” of different cuneiform representation systems, Egyptian hieroglyphics was somewhat different. Even though certain periods were fonder of different types of hieroglyphic representation, different purposes of writing called for different styles; thereby creating a system of hieroglyphic representation in which up to three unique forms of hieroglyphics were represented synonymously. Ultimately, the similarity between hieroglyphics and therefore are not as strong as one might assume them to be. Whereas it is true that they represented the earliest forms of written expression, outside of the simplistic pictograph, their development, form of writing, meanings, and use of linguistic range differed significantly. However, the basis through which they were able to integrate with their cultures and the subsequent cultures that developed in and around these regions was profound. As yet, within the Mesopotamian and/or early North African civilizations, archaeologists have found no definitive proof that an earlier form of writing exists. As such, Egyptian hieroglyphics and cuneiform are ultimately able to form the backbone of early writing and could very well have led to the development of language representations that came to exist during the late bronze. And have given rise to many of the languages and writing conventions that have existed ever since. Although it is impossible to understand or comprehend the full reality of the impacts that either hieroglyphics are cuneiform it had upon the development of written language, scholars continue to study these in the hopes that the early development of phonetic understanding and/or lexicography can allow for a further level of understanding with respect to the way in which early humanity sought to reflect meaning within the sounds in words that they developed. References Dalley, S. (2013). Gods from north-eastern and north-western Arabia in cuneiform texts from the First Seal and Dynasty, and a cuneiform inscription from Tell en-Naṣbeh, c.1500 BC. Arabian Archaeology & Epigraphy, 24(2), 177-185. doi:10.1111/aae.12005 Morpurgo Davies, A. (2011). Philology and linguistics: when data meet theory. Two case studies I: the case of Hieroglyphic Luwian.Transactions Of The Philological Society, 109(3), 207-212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-968X.2011.01291_1.x Young, E. (2007). Pharaohs from the stone age. New Scientist, 193(2586), 34-38. Read More