This was the first announcement of the discovery of the hieroglyphic alphabet. The volume of the Encyclopædia Britannica containing it appeared in 136A/1819.
In the year 134A/1821, Champollion published his memoir: "From the Hieratic Writings of the Ancient Egyptians", in which he asserts that the hieroglyphics are "signs of things, not of sounds" (supra, pg. 157, note), from which it is evident that he did not yet suspect the existence of phonetic signs among the hieroglyphic characters.
In the following year, after having read the article Egypt, he published the discovery as his own in his celebrated: "Letter to Joseph Dacier" ("Lettre à M. Dacier"), which contained an alphabet consisting of various characters discovered by himself as well as those whose value had been ascertained by Dr. Young. Several signs also which the latter supposed to be syllabic were shown by M. Champollion to be purely alphabetic.
In short it was Young's alphabet corrected and extended. Chevalier [Christian] Bunsen, however, although he admits that Young is entitled to the priority, that he demonstrated his discovery to some extent, and that Champollion was led to his discovery by the impression which Dr. Young's analysis of the names of Ptolemy and Berenice produced on his mind, denies that Champollion merely improved on Young, and awards to the former the merit of having found "the alphabet of the Egyptian language and characters", the greatest discovery of the century because he employed "a very different method, and one peculiar to himself." (Egypt's Place, p. 325.)

It would scarcely be more absurd to say that the patentee of an improved musket should be regarded as the inventor of fire-arms, because he introduced a different method of loading or priming. Champollion appropriated Young's discovery, and thus far his system was certainly peculiar; but in carrying it out, he only departed from Young's method in so far as was prescribed by an advanced stage of the investigation.
In making the first step, which was of course the most difficult, Young was obliged to seek for analogies in the enchorial character. Champollion on the other hand had merely to compare the signs he attempted to decipher with Dr. Young's alphabet; and it so happened that the two hieroglyphic names of Ptolemy and Berenice analysed by Young contained most of the characters in that of Cleopatra, the word on which all Champollion's discoveries hinged.
The merit of the latter is still further diminished by the fact, that his attention was drawn by Mr. Bankes to the hieroglyphic name of Cleopatra on the obelisk of Philæ; and it is worthy of remark that although Salt (Essay, p. 7-10) and Schwarze (Das Alte Egypten, p. 201) describe at length the difficult process by which Bankes arrived at the identification of this group, and comment on Champollion's characteristic silence regarding his obligations to him, Chevalier Bunsen not only ignores the fact that Champollion was indebted to the English traveller for this important element in the discovery, but even asserts that after recognising on the obelisk the ring of Ptolemy corresponding with that on the Rosetta Stone discovered by Dr. Young, Champollion "assumed that the other would correspond likewise with the name of Cleopatra," as if there were only one other ring in the inscription, and such an assumption were perfectly natural and obvious. (See note, p. 293.) In these circumstances the verification of some of Dr. Young's results and the rectification of others certainly did not seem to require any extraordinary ingenuity. But it may be asked why was not this done by Dr. Young himself? He tells us (see p. 296) that he was misled by a mistake in his copy of the lithographic sketch of the obelisk, and that he had not "leisure at the time to enter into a very minute comparison of the name with other authorities." Chevalier Bunsen, without taking any notice whatever of this, asserts that "Young failed to perceive the use or value of this monument." It must be admitted that he was too easily discouraged, and that, as Peyron remarks (infra, p. 423), the vast variety of his pursuits prevented him in this instance from perfecting his own discovery, which was from that moment transferred to Champollion's hands. This, however, does not invalidate his claim to the merit of the original discovery, which has indeed been hitherto awarded to him by impartial persons of all nations. Although Chevalier Bunsen confidently predicts that those who have dared to oppose Champollion will be unknown to posterity (Egypt's Place, p. 244), we have no doubt that the following judgment of Klaproth will have at least as much weight with future ages enchorial alphabet, which is subjoined, is applicable to most of the proper names in the inscription of Rosetta, and probably also to some other symbols which have been the prototypes of as that of his countryman, although it was elicited in the course of a controversy with Champollion:-"M. Champollion a l'air de croire que c'est attaquer l'honneur Français que de supposer qu'un autre que lui eût pu le devancer dans cette partie de sa carrière littéraire. Qu'il se souvienne que rien ne peut porter honneur que ce qui est vrai. Il ne persuadera jamais aux personnes impartiales et en état de juger d'après les faits, que ses travaux sur l'alphabet des hieroglyphes phonétiques puissent ravir à M. Young le droit de réclamer pour lui l'honneur de la découverte de cet alphabet, selon la maxime universellement adoptée: Prior in tempore, potior in jure." (Seconde Lettre sur les Hieroglyphes, p. 6. 1827.) When Champollion, however, found that Young's claim to priority could not be controverted, he attempted to show that there ought to be no question of priority at all, because his system was widely different from Young's. (Infra, p. 451.) His mystification on this point, as well as on the process by which he obtained his alphabet, is reproduced and exaggerated by his German disciple, whose vague and confused conception of the whole subject, together with his obscure and inflated language, render him sometimes quite unintelligible. (See, for instance, Egypt's Place, p. 327; Infra, p. 362, note.) The latter says that Young had no notion of "a purely phonetic alphabet, although he suspected 'a certain kind of syllabic system'in itself a very obscure and uncritical expression." Dr. Young has nowhere used that expression, but he has repeatedly asserted that foreign proper names were formed in the Egyptian language by syllabic as well as alphabetic characters, an opinion which was afterwards embraced by Champollion, who in his Lettre à M. Dacier, speaks of the "valeur syllabico-alphabetique" (p. 2), of the signs employed for expressing foreign names and again refers to them (p. 40), as the "écriture semi-alphabetique Egyptienne." In his Précis, however, published two years after, where he endeavoured to show that his system had peculiar features which distinguished it from that of Young, he says "D'après moi les Egyptiens transcrivirent les noms propres étrangers par une méthode toute alphabétique." But Dr. Young's opinion has been fully confirmed by more recent discoveries: see, for instance, Lepsius, Lettre à Rosellini, p. 34, where he gives several foreign names composed on the syllabic principle. But both Champollion and Bunsen sometimes speak of Dr. Young's alphabet as if it were entirely syllabic, although the majority of the characters discovered by him are purely alphabetical, and have precisely the same value in Champollion's alphabet. Chevalier Bunsen, contrasting the narrowness of Young's views with those of Champollion, states that the former had no idea of homophone signs, and that his "hieroglyphic alphabet as conceived by him was no alphabet for the language, but only for foreign names;" but there is abundant evidence in this work (see pp. 164, 179, 296) that Champollion was also indebted to Young for the idea of the interchange of various characters for the same sound; and it is scarcely conceivable that the author of Egypt's Place' should have formed a different opinion if he had perused the article Egypt' with attention. As to the second point, Champollion most assuredly did not set out with more enlarged views than Young, as is implied by Chevalier Bunsen's language. He had no notion that the alphabet was a key to Egyptian names and words until he was forced, by repeated application of it to unknown groups, to relinquish his former opinion, which he had adopted from Young, together with his phonetic discovery, as is evident from his Lettre à M. Dacier (p. 3), where he merely speaks of the phonetic characters being used for "inscribing on the monuments of Egypt the titles, names, and surnames of the Greek and Roman sovereigns who governed it in succession." But if Young did not know the full value of his discovery, Champollion, on the other hand, after improving on it, exaggerated its importance, as is clearly shown by Klaproth in his Examen Critique (pp. 23, 24). Chevalier Bunsen also asserts that "Young was led to an approach to the truth merely by an assumption foreign to his own system, and one from the first inseparably clogged with error." On the contrary Young had from the outset recognized a phonetic element in the enchorial character, and even made some additions to Akerblad's alphabet. When he discovered therefore that that character was derived from the hieroglyphic, it naturally occurred to him that proper names would be formed in an analogous manner in the sacred writings; and with regard to the errors he committed, it is sufficient to remark that Champollion corrected them by comparing Young's alphabet with one or two words, and but for an accident Dr. Young himself would have done the same. Indeed any person of ordinary ingenuity might have done what, according. to Chevalier Bunsen, Champollion is to be immortalised for having accomplished. Champollion's true claims to admiration rest on the skill, perseverance, and success with which he applied the hieroglyphic alphabet to the monuments of Egypt. Chevalier Bunsen adds, that Young's errors in the analysis of the names of Ptolemy and Berenice were the natural result of his system, "because his speculations were based on no certain or definite value of the individual hieroglyphics" (Egypt's Place, p. 321); but it is surely too much to expect that his speculations should be based on that which they only aimed at discovering. On the other hand, according to Bunsen, "The denial of any phonetic element in the hieroglyphic characters was a natural conclusion from false premises, which Champollion shared in common with the rest." (Ibid. p. 325.) Now, Champollion at a very early period adopted, of course without acknowledgment, the enchorial discoveries of Akerblad, who showed that that mode of writing contained an alphabet; and when he afterwards similarly appropriated Dr. Young's discovery that the enchorial character was derived from the hieroglyphics, he ought to have concluded that the latter also possessed phonetic signs. But the circumstance which led Young to the truth led Champollion further astray; for, having assumed that the hieroglyphics were exclusively symbolic, he inferred that the hieratic characters (the derivation of which from the former was also demonstrated by Young in 1816, and published by Champollion as a discovery of his own in 1821) were in like manner destitute of alphabetic signs.
Those who read the history of hieroglyphical discovery in Egypt's Place in Universal History,' unless previously acquainted with the facts, might suppose that Champollion's career was, from the outset, one of rapid and triumphant discovery and that Young was in comparison a miserable bungler, although the author patronisingly bestows on him an occasional compliment; but amid all the inaccuracies, inconsistencies, misrepresentations, and confusion of thought which prevail throughout this section of Chevalier Bunsen's work, there are to be found certain facts which could not be withheld, and which are perfectly sufficient to show that until Champollion adopted Young's discoveries the case was directly the reverse. The author says that his hero "appeared, from his earliest years, to be the destined instrument of forwarding Egyptian research;" but although Champollion began his Egyptian studies before 1807 and made them the sole business of his life, he really discovered nothing till 1822. In his letter to the President of the Royal Society, in 1814 (supra, p. 62), he states that his study of the Rosetta Inscription had been constante et suicie; but it had produced no important result, and it was prosecuted eight years longer with equal fruitlessness. When forced to descend to facts, the utmost Chevalier Bunsen can say is that Champollion almost discovered something. (Egypt's Place, p. 324, supra, p. 54, note.) Now Dr. Young, who commenced his Egyptian researches in 1814, published near the close of that year his conjectural translation of the Rosetta Inscription, discovered the following year that there were symbolic signs in the enchorial character, demonstrated in 1816 that the cursive characters of the sacred papyri were derived from the hieroglyphics, and in 1818 discovered the hieroglyphic alphabet; besides these, he made various minor discoveries, some of which are enumerated at p. 274. Champollion's discoveries were founded entirely on Young's, and but for the latter Champollion, with all his industry and ingenuity, would in all probability have continued to grope on in the Egyptian darkness helplessly and hopelessly to the end, although Chevalier Bunsen believes that he was sent upon earth for the express purpose of dispelling it. The partiality of the learned German to his friend and niaster is too strong to be concealed, and he frankly avows, at the close of an enthusiastic eulogium, that his praise is "dictated by a no less powerful sense of conviction than of heartfelt gratitude, because we enjoyed the happiness of his personal acquaintance, and of learning from him the first rudiments of hieroglyphic
the characters: it is taken from the alphabet of Akerblad, but considerably modified by the conjectures which have been published in the Museum Criticum.
The last line of the inscription of Rosetta will serve as a specimen of the way in which the hieroglyphical characters were lore at the foot of the obelisks at Rome." (Egypt's Place, p. 244.) Notwithstanding this, however, Chevalier Bunsen affects a lofty disregard of whatever is personal in the history of this great discovery, and he certainly does most carefully avoid hinting that there was anything censurable in Champollion's conduct towards Young; but when he goes out of his way to commend the former for his candour in acknowledging the merits of the latter (ibid. p. 327), and to charge Young with claiming Champollion's discoveries (ibid. p. 322; infra, p. 265), he does enter upon the personal element involved in the question, and his misrepresentations on these points, as well as on various others, manifest not only a profound reliance on the ignorance of his readers, but afford, we are constrained to add, signal proof that the force of his gratitude can only be equalled by the facility of his conviction.
The French, unlike Chevalier Bunsen, did not espouse Champollion's cause from personal feeling, for he was not esteemed by his countrymen, and some of the most distinguished of those who advocated his claims have recorded their contempt for his character. (Supra, pp. 51, 59, 75, note; infra, p. 252). National vanity was the sole motive which prompted the French to lay claim to this great discovery, and they entered into the controversy as a national question. M. Arago, as far as regards himself, does not attempt to conceal this in his Eloge of Dr. Young, where, after disclaiming all cosmopolitism, a quality which one is not apt to look for in his countrymen, he proceeds to evince his patriotism by asserting that the discovery of the Royal Rings in the monuments of Egypt (see p. 274) is due to De Guignes, and that of the hieroglyphic alphabet to Champollion; as he had already, in the same memoir, claimed for Papin the invention of the steam-engine. His reason for denying to Dr. Young the discovery of the hieroglyphic alphabet is entirely different from that alleged by Chevalier Bunsen for the same purpose. He asserts that Young did not demonstrate his discovery; but any one who reads carefully the article Egypt' can satisfy himself of the contrary, and even Chevalier Bunsen, notwithstanding his glaring partiality, admits that he did demonstrate it to some extent. Klaproth also says, in his preface to the Collection des Monumens Egyptiens de M. Palin,' that "le célèbre Zoëga avait déjà soupçonne qu'une partie des signes hieroglyphiques pouvaient être employee alphabétiquement, mais l'honneur d'avoir démontré ce fait appartient au Docteur Young." Even among Champollion's countrymen, however, there are some whose conscientious convictions have proved stronger than their feelings of nationality: for example, the Chevalier de Paravey, than whom no man in France is better qualified to form an opinion on the subject. That distinguished savant admits that "Dr. Young was the first who showed that the hieroglyphic characters have, in many cases, an alphabetic value, and thus furnished M. Champollion with a key, without which the latter could never have arrived at the important and curious results which he has since obtained." (Infra, p. 405.)
Besides Chevalier Bunsen, two of his friends, Lepsius and Schwarze (whose contributions to Egypt's Place,' together with those of Mr. Birch, render it on the whole a valuable work), have published, the former a brief account of the discovery of the hieroglyphic alphabet, in a letter to his early patron Rosellini, the friend and coadjutor of Champollion, in which he does not even hint at Champollion's obligations to Young; and the latter, a very learned and voluminous work, entitled Das Alte Ægypten (4to. Th. I. Abth. I. II. pp. 2183), in which he gives a detailed history of all that has been done towards the discovery and decypherment of the Egyptian language and methods of writing. It contains certainly the fullest, and as Chevalier Bunsen asserts, the best, history of hieroglyphical discovery in existence. In Schwarze's account of Dr. Young's researches he did the latter great injustice; not so much, however, from partiality, although he also betrays a certain degree of bias towards Champollion, the head of the school to which he belongs, but because he was
combined, so as to form a language; and will show at the same time the relation between the sacred and the enchorial texts. At the beginning of the line we find some obscurity, and a want of perfect correspondence in the two inscriptions; but it is clear that the fork or ladder, the arm and the feathers, mean to prepare or procure (n. 165); then follows a column (n. 91); the wavy line of (n. 177); the semicircle and two dashes, with the arm, probably strong or hard; the block or square below, with its semicircle, stone; the loop or knot wrought or engraven; the half arch in or with; the instrument or case, writing, or letters (n. 103); the wavy line, the hatchet, and drop, with the three dashes making a plural, appropriate to the gods, that is, sacred (n. 146); the case again, letters; the hat, of (n. 177); the ladder, arm, and feathers, the country; the serpent and bent line, approaching to the sense of perpetuity and greatness, seem to be a mark of respect to the country, though it is barely possible that they may be substituted for the repetition of the instrument or case, and may mean the language, and belong to the following curl on the stem, the feathers, the serpent, and the hat, which signify Greek (n. 83). The head dress of flowers meaning probably a priest, the following curl with the dashes probably ornamental or honorary, or perhaps collective, and the two bowls, with the man in the plural, a publication (n. 158), the whole of these symbols must express the honorary decree of the priests, or the decree of the assembled priests; but the enchorial text seems to include the symbol for honour. The oval, with the semicircle and arm, implies in order that, or in order to; the fork with cross bars, the arm, the legs, and the snake, set it up (n. 164); the bird, in unable to procure a copy of the article Egypt,' by far the most important of all Dr. Young's memoirs on the Egyptian writings. He certainly did not go so far as to assert, like his countryman (Egypt's Place, p. 322), that Young "actually discovered and deciphered nothing at all,"- - an opinion quoted with approbation by a writer in one of our most eminent literary journals (infra, p. 255), in blind reliance on Chevalier Bunsen, the real value of whose authority he could have ascertained if he chose without much difficulty-but he adopted the same view in regard to Dr. Young's ignorance of homophone signs, and several other points, where he was obliged to rely on Champollion's misrepresentations. In a subsequent part of his work (p. 445), however, he states that he had at length obtained from the Berlin Library, Baron von Humboldt's copy of the article, the perusal of which greatly increased his admiration of the author's powers of investigation, and showed him that much, especially in the interpretation of symbolical hieroglyphics, which is usually regarded as the property of Champollion, belongs in reality to Dr. Young.-Ed.
(n. 172); the three broad feathers over as many open squares, the temples, as a plural; the half arch and oval with the plural dashes, all, or of all kinds; the open square, wheel, scale, head, dash, and ring, Egypt (n. 80); the figure with a vase on his head, subjection or power, as in n. 139—making the whole, belonging to Egypt, or throughout Egypt; the fork and dash are in, or in all; the knots or chains, followed by the numbers of the first, the second, and the third order (n. 187, 189, 191); the oval, half arch, and dash, wherever, or in which, leaving out "shall be," the tool and standing figure, with the intervening characters, the image (n. 101); the hat, of; the reed and bee, with the semicircles, King; the square, semicircle, lion, half arch, two feathers, and bent line, Ptolemy (n. 56); the handled cross and serpent with the two semicircles, the everliving (n. 110); the square block, semicircle, and chain, dear to (n. 162); the hieralpha and two feathers, Phthah, or Vulcan (n. 6)—all this being included within the ring or phylactery together with the name; the open square, the oval, and the pair of legs after the ring, illustrious or Epiphanes (n. 121); and lastly, the scale and the three lutes, munificent (n. 154)—the conjunctions being often omitted, as they also very commonly are in Coptic, and even in Greek.
The enchorial text agrees in many parts extremely well with the hieroglyphics, according to the general style of imitation which has been already explained and exemplified, although in some passages there is a greater difference than might have been expected. The beginning of the enchorial line seems to contain the word decree, which cannot be found in this part of the hieroglyphics; the character for letters occurs three times in it, as if the sacred character used in the third place meant language; the "sacerdotal decree" of the sacred characters is omitted in the corresponding part of the enchorial; the word temples is repeated before each numeral; the term wherever is amplified; the image is a very coarse imitation, and is followed by the character for a deity, meaning sacred or divine; and, lastly, the name of Ptolemy is omitted, the word king being only followed by "whose life shall be for ever," or a phrase of similar import.

1. This page is under 🚧 construction.
2. The annotations are my notes from 17 Apr A69 (2024).
3. The P of phonetics, comes from the letter phi (Φ), the Ptah fire-drill letter, and the "sound" aspect of the word, derives from the model that the "cry" or first sound, aka proto (secret name), was the "cry" of the phoenix, which started the creation process.
4. The S of sound, seems to have to do with the fact that the phoenix, as Horus, is born with a snake, in the bulb of the sun; and seems to have to do with Hercules strangling a snake in his crib.

• Young, Thomas. (140A/c.1815). "An Explanation of the Hieroglyphics on the Stone of Rosetta", Egyptological manuscripts; dating from: 141A/1814 to 136A/1829 (post). British Library. London.
• Young, Thomas. (136A/1819). “Egypt” (61-pgs), Encyclopædia Britannica, Supplement 4.1. Edinburgh, Dec.
• Young, Thomas. (132A/1823). An Account of Some Recent Discoveries in Hieroglyphical Literature and Egyptian Antiquities: Including the Author's Original Alphabet, as Extended by Mr. Champollion, with a Translation of Five Unpublished Greek and Egyptian Manuscripts (160-pgs). Publisher.
• Young, Thomas. (126A/1829). Miscellaneous Works of the Late Thomas Young, Volume Three (editor: John Leitch) (625-pgs). Murray, 100A/1855.Y
• Young, Thomas. (124A/1831). Rudiments of an Egyptian Dictionary in the Ancient Enchorial Character: Containing All the Words of which the Sense Has Been Ascertained (110-pgs). Publisher.

• Champollion, Jean. (134A/1821). "From the Hieratic Writings of the Ancient Egyptians" ("De l'Ecriture Hiératique des Anciens Egyptiens") ("hieroglyphics are signs of things, not of sounds" (supra, pg. 157, note) (7-pgs). Baratier.
• Champollion, Jean. (133A/1822). "Letter to Joseph Dacier" ("Lettre à M. Dacier") (text). Publisher.
• Champollion, Jean. (123A/1832). Egyptian Grammar (Grammaire égyptienne) (images). Publisher, 119A/1836.

• Salt, Henry. (132A/1823). Essay on Dr. Young's and M. Champollion's Phonetic System of Hieroglyphics: With Some Additional Discoveries, by which it May be Applied to Decipher the Names of the Ancient Kings of Egypt and Ethiopia (72-pgs). Green.
• Robinson, Andrew. (A51/2006). The Last Man Who Knew Everything: Thomas Young, the Anonymous Genius who Proved Newton Wrong, and Deciphered the Rosetta Stone, Among Other Surprising Feats (Archive) (pdf-file) (296-pgs) (An Explanation of the Hieroglyphics on the Stone of Rosetta, pg. vii). OpenBooks, A68/2023.

τό, name of the letter μ, IG2.4321.24 (iv B. C.), Epigr. ap. Ath. 10.454f, Hellad. ap. Phot.*Bibl.*p.530 B., etc.2 μῦ or μὺ μῦ, to represent a muttering sound made with the lips, μῦ λαλεῖν to mutter, Hippon.80 (dub. l.); to imitate the sound of sobbing, μὺ μῦ, μὺ μῦ Aristophanes The Knights (2379Α/-424) [Eq.10].

“Olympus was a musician from the 7th century who composed flute 🪈 music 🎵. The English words here have been provided by the translator; the Greek simply has them repeating a series of mu sounds, without any lyrics.“

M = 𓈖 [N35] water 💦

M = 𓅓 [G17] owl 🦉

𓁟 = inventor of Phoenician alphabet

𓁟 = ✍️ → 𐤕 ,𐤔 ,𐤓 ,𐤒 ,𐤑 ,𐤐 ,𐤏 ,𐤎 ,𐤍 ,𐤌 ,𐤋 ,𐤊 ,𐤉 ,𐤈 ,𐤇 ,𐤆 ,𐤅 ,𐤄 ,𐤃 ,𐤂 ,𐤁 ,𐤀

M = 𐤌

• M = 𓅓 [G17] owl 🦉
• M = 𓐝 [Aa15], an unknown) meaning?
• M =𓌳 [U1], a sickle, tool for cutting crops 🌱 at harvest time

”The figure 138 [#346] was found at the doorway of the shrine of Sopdu, whic was built by Hatshepsut. The sphinx is of a red sandstone which was used by Tahutmes III, and not at other times. Each of these facts is not conclusive by itself, but they all agree, and we are bound to accept this writing as being of about 3455A (-1500).”
— Flinders Petrie (49A/1906), Researches in Sinai (pg. 131)

“These inscriptions are not Egyptian hieroglyphs, yet many of the signs are obvious borrowed from that source.”
— Alan Gardiner (39A/1916), “On the Egyptian Origin of the Semitic Alphabet” (pg. 14)

M = 𓎉 » 𓌳 » 𐤌 » μ » 𐡌 » 𐌌 » Μ » म » מ » Ⲙ » ᛗ » 𐌼 » م

“The region of the Tuat [Amduat] where the giant serpent Apep 𓆙 (or Neha-hra) lives is called Tchau 𓍑𓄿𓅱𓈗𓈀, and it is 440 𓍥𓎉 cubits 𓂣 long and 440 𓍥𓎉 cubits 𓂣 wide. In the seventh gate of Duat, the boat of Ra has traverse a region where there is not sufficient water to float his boat 𓊞 or to permit of its being towed; moreover, his way is blocked by Apep, which lies on a sand bank 450 𓍥𓎊 cubits 𓂣 long.”— Wallis Budge (A49/1906), The Egyptian Heaven and Hell, Volume Three (pg. 152)

• 𓁦 = 𓐙𓌳𓏏𓂣 {Maat}, the morality goddess of the 40 + 2 laws of Egypt
• 𓐙 = Osiris (ΟΣΙΡΙΝ) [440] plinth
• 𓌳 = Egypto M, a sickle or tool for cutting crops 🌱; Osiris was cut into 14 pieces, but only 13 pieces were found
• 𓏏 = loaf of bread 🍞, 🥯, 🥖
• 𓂣 = cubit, 24 finger digits in length

• M = 13th letter, value: 40, name: mu (μυ), value: 440

• Debate: Greek letter M (𓌳 » 𐤌 » μ) and name mu (𓐙 = 𓍥𓎉 » ΜΥ (μυ) = 440) derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs! Science or pseudo-science?

From Ancient Greek μῦ (mû), derived from Phoenician 𐤌𐤌 (mm /⁠mem⁠/, “water”). Doublet of mem.

Borrowed from Phoenician 𐤌‬𐤌 (m‬m /⁠mēm⁠/), with influence from νῦ (nû).

“The name mu, as with all Greek letter names, meant nothing in Greek, aside from signifying the letter.”
— David Sacks (A48/2003), Letter Perfect: the Marvelous History of Our Alphabet from A to Z (pg. 232) (see: DCE rankings)

“I'll switch immediately as soon as you present a more convincing argument than mainstream linguistics. The only argument for EAN that you've ever given me is fucking "mu". It's nothing to me. Try harder.”
— Anon (A68/2020), ”comment”, Alphanumerics, Nov 20

“The EAN proof that Khufu 👁️⃤ base (440 [𓍥𓎉] cubits 𓂣) = mu (𓌳𓉽) (Mυ) [440] is nothing but someone practicing numerology and not even showing a connection to anything relevant.”
— Anon (A68/2003), “Proofs of Egypto alphanumerics (𐌄𓌹𐤍) ranked” (comment), Dec 1

• Letter M (decoding history)

1. This post is under-construction 🚧.
2. Many people presently, to clarify, believe the water = M and snake = N model, of Gardiner, as there have been dozens of arguments and posts on this over the last year.

• What is the oldest recorded use of the Greek word mu: ΜΥ (μυ), defined as the name for Greek letter M?

• Aristophanes. (2379A/-424). The Knights (translator: Ian Johnstone) (pdf-file) (μυμυ, pdf pg. 10-11). Publisher, A62/2017.
• Lenormant, Francois. (104A/1851). “Essay” (on Greek tablets found in Memphis, Egypt), Revue Archéologique.
• Rouge, Emanuel. (96A/1859). Memoir on the Egyptian origin of the Phoenician alphabet (Mémoire sur l'origine égyptienne de l'alphabet phénicien). Publisher, 81A/1874.
• Taylor, Isaac. (72A/1883). The Alphabet: An Account of the Origin and Development of Letters, Volume One (pdf-file). Kegan.
• Taylor, Isaac. (72A/1883). The Alphabet: An Account of the Origin and Development of Letters, Volume Two (pdf-file) (7.3: Greek Alphabet - Legend of Cadmus, pgs. 28-43). Kegan.
• Petrie, Flinders. (49A/1906). Researches in Sinai. Egyptian Exploration Fund.
• Pratorius, Franz. (46A/1909). “Article”, ZDMG, 63:191.
• Petrie, Flinders. (43A/1912). The Formation of the Alphabet. Macmillan.
• Gardiner, Alan. (39A/1916). ”The Egyptian Origin of the Semitic Alphabet” (jstor) (pdf file), Journal of Egyptian Archeology, 3(1), Jan.
• Hipponax. (2490A/-535). Evidence and fragments of Hipponactus (Hipponactis testimonia et fragmenta) (μῦ λαλεῖν, fragment 123, pg. 126). Publisher.

• Mu (μυ) - Little, Scott, Jones.

The Arab group in the Middle East is the result of the division of power during the Dark Ages in the 16th to 19th centuries

Why Antiquity and Dark Ages were to be invented? The consensual world history was manufactured in Europe in XVI-XIX centuries with political agenda of powers of that period on the basis of erroneous clerical chronology elaborated by Jesuits Joseph Justus Scaliger and Dionysius Petavius. By middle of XVI th century the prime political agenda of Europe that reached superiority in Sciences and Technologies, but was still inferior militarily to the Evil Empire of Eurasia, was to free Europe. The concerted effort of European aristocracy, black and white catholic clergy, protestants, humanists and scientists in XV - XVII th centuries in creation and dissemination of fictional Ancient World served this agenda. The fictional Ancient World was created by representing events of XI-XVI centuries as ones that happened thousands years before according to the ancient sources they wrote by authorities they invented. The European aristocracy, considerable part of which were fugitives from Byzantine and/or the inheritors of Eurasian warlords, supported the myth of Ancient World to justify its claims to countries they ruled. The black and white catholic clergy, protestants developed and supported the myth of Ancient World to justify their claims of being more ancient and to separate themselves from eurasian orthodoxy in the countries ruled by European aristocracy. The scientists supported the myth of Ancient World as safe cover for their heretic research that produced results contrarian to the tenets of Christianity. They justified their discoveries by authorities of ancient scientists they themselves invented and used as pseudonyms. The humanists developed and supported the myth of Ancient World as convenient safe haven for their ideas that conflicted with Christianity and aristocracy. They disguised and justified their ideas on authorities of ancient authors of their own making and wrote under their glorious aliases. Why, oh why the mainstream historians do not gratify prominent mathematician Doctor Fomenko with laurels, but call the riot police? For example, the English historians rage at the suggestion that the history of Ancient England was de facto a Byzantine import transplanted to the English soil by the fugitive Byzantine nobility. As the sign of recognition of the special role of the English historians who consider themselves the true scribes of World History, the cover of the present book portrays Tintoretto's Jesus Christ crucified on the Big Ben. The Russian historians brand it all as pseudoscience: because Dr Fomenko asserts that there was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by over two centuries of slavery, providing a formidable body of documental evidence to prove his assertion. The so-called 'Tartars and Mongols' were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a trilingual state with Arabic and Turkic spoken as freely as Russian. The ancient Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities and the hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called 'blood tax'). Their 'invasions' were punitive operations against the regions that attempted tax evasion. Dr Fomenko proves that official Russian history is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scholars brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs. Their ascension to the throne was the result of conspiracy, so they charged these German imports historians with the noble mission of making Romanovs reign look legitimate.

Despite the efforts of critics, skeptics and "debunkers" this book is gaining popular acceptance very fast. Everyone i know who is interested in history is stunned by the ideas the Fomenko Group present. The idea that Ghengis Khan was the Turkic/Eastern name of a Russian prince is breathtaking in it's implications. Or, the case for "Mongolia" to have been a corruption of the Greek "Megalion"(or Great) representing a "Horde"(or "orde/order", the Russian name of it's Medieval professional horse-soldiers) as the historicists distortion of the Mongol Hordes as being of Far Eastern origin instead of being Russian Cossacks(Khazaks).
This book is so filled with shocking and exciting ideas about how history has been obfuscated, hidden, and changed to suit the local needs of political factions that it has completely altered my perspective on current worl events and the "how" and "why" of Central European and Middle Eastern politics! Many modern "historians" rail against Fomenko's theories because they are both obviouly, intuitively accurate and totally opposite established thinking that most history books would have to be completely re-written. And no one who spent ten years getting his doctorate in convential history wants to admit that everything he thinks he "knows" is just plain wrong! I know it upset me at first, but the long, long list of explanations, "coincidences", facts and inconsistencies listed by Fomenko et al can't help but change your perspective.
These books are not the usual poorly-written, poorly-researched imaginative tripe provided by most "historical revisionists". This is the work of one of the world's leading mathmeticians and other highly-educated scholars. In fact, there is so much raw data in this series that even i, who reads constantly, have a hard time moving through it. But the subject matter shakes the very foundations of so many assumptions of modern history that it's worth every bit of effort.
Don't let the convcentional history proponents convince you these are false- read them for yourself. If you can read the whole series and STILL think the history of the world is what you've been taught then you might be right, and i might be wrong. But i don't think i am: Fomenko is a pioneer, a radical, a free-thinker and revolutionary in the field of scientific historical anhalysis!

Very dense. You really have to know your stuff to get through this book. Honestly, if you can read this book and understand it from a math standpoint, well then you are set. History knowledge is no good for this book. Fomenko's whole theory is based on astronomy, the movement of the moon, gravitational forces, gravitational pulls, etc.. Fomenko uses mathematics to explain inconsistencies! So if you know at least something about math and science, enough to understand the fundamental workings of space, well then this book is for you. It is not really for "history buffs" since they are the first to cry malarky! presumably, because they don't get the science behind it. It is not a dig, that's just not the field they are in. Besides, imagine spending your life learning history just to be told you are wrong - doesn't sit well with some people. The book is supposed to be thought provoking. Fomenko is not claiming he is right in any way, he is presenting patterns and inconsistencies in history that he started studying after trying to compute coefficient D in the theory of Lunar Motion when he was studying celestial mechanics. He needed the dates of ancient eclipses, for which he used historical documents to figure out. He found a leap in the interval of the 5th to 10th century. That is how this book begins. The guy wrote 7 books about the subject and spent decades researching the topics. There is so much information in this book, that it might take the smartest person years to dig through. So again, if you have an open mind and want to look at history through the math/science lens, then this book is definitely for you!

David Ewing Jr.'s take on antiquity and the invented dark ages

• The Bible is a work of fiction.
• Arabic and its letters are the mother of Latin and European languages.
• The Quran is many times more reliable than official histories.
• The numbers 33, 19, and 666 are codes associated with the phenomenon. These are decoded in his book, which serves as a testament to a pre-programmed totalitarian world. They have manipulated the course of history based on a conspiracy. This plot is calculated by a mathematical setting tied to the current Western calendar.

• Hidden piece of Tartarian history: Bible, Quran, Adolf Hitler
• Thinking about David Ewing Jr's "The Secret of Kabbalah": Timeless Hebrew and the Secret of Heaven in the Bible