in somewhat garbled copies. But at best they seemed to supply
unintelligible lists of names and dates which no one was disposed
to take seriously. That they were, broadly speaking, true
historical records, and most important historical records at
that, was not recognized by modern scholars until fresh light had
been thrown on the subject from altogether new sources.

These new sources of knowledge of ancient history demand a
moment's consideration. They are all-important because they have
been the means of extending the historical period of Egyptian
history (using the word history in the way just explained) by
three or four thousand years. As just suggested, that historical
period carried the scholarship of the early nineteenth century
scarcely beyond the fifteenth century B.C., but to-day's vision
extends with tolerable clearness to about the middle of the fifth
millennium B.C. This change has been brought about chiefly
through study of the Egyptian hieroglyphics. These hieroglyphics
constitute, as we now know, a highly developed system of writing;
a system that was practised for some thousands of years, but
which fell utterly into disuse in the later Roman period, and the
knowledge of which passed absolutely from the mind of man. For
about two thousand years no one was able to read, with any degree
of explicitness, a single character of this strange script, and
the idea became prevalent that it did not constitute a real
system of writing, but only a more or less barbaric system of
religious symbolism. The falsity of this view was shown early in
the nineteenth century when Dr. Thomas Young was led, through
study of the famous trilingual inscription of the Rosetta stone,
to make the first successful attempt at clearing up the mysteries
of the hieroglyphics.