The article "Dictionary Translates Ancient Egypt Life" was written by John Noble Wilford of The New York Times. Wilford has been working as a journalist since 1956 when he started at the Wall Street Journal. He then joined The New York Times in 1965 as a science reported and, in 1969, he wrote the front-page article, "Men Walk on Moon". He’s received two Pulitzer prizes for his work.
This
particular article of his was about a dictionary that has been in the
works for over forty years at the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago. Numerous Egyptologists have devoted the better part of their
careers to the compilation of this dictionary in the hopes that it will
make translating Demotic documents easier. This article's exigence is
within an intellectual community of people trying to broaden historical
understanding, basically through a massive research tool. The
assumption that ancient Egyptians’ main communication was by
hieroglyphics is a common misconception. The language of the common
people in Egypt from 500 BC to about 500 AD, as well as one of the
languages found on the Rosetta Stone, is called Demotics. This article
served to explain how creating a large dictionary about Demotics could
unveil the Egyptians "words of love and family, the law and commerce,
private letters and texts on science, religion and literature" (Wilford
1).
It was written partly to the public, or readers of The New York Times,
but also partly to the community of intellectuals specializing in
historical research. It provided information regarding how the
dictionary could be accessed for free online and about its likely
ensuing publication, both of these things being useful heads-up's for
someone in that field of work.
Simile
was a form of rhetoric utilized in this article, for example, "What the
Chicago Demotic Dictionary does is what the Oxford English Dictionary
does". This comparison emphasizes the Demotic dictionary’s usefulness.
Wilford
accomplished his purpose by laying out what Demotic is and how it can
be used in the context of historical research. He even included quotes
from individuals such as James P. Allen, an Egyptologist at Brown
University. Dr. Allen said, "I could not have done what I did without
the dictionary," he said. “Or at least not as well.” Wilford went on to
explain that the newly defined words have already expanded upon pivotal
knowledge of Egyptian life. For example, many Egyptians kept their
records in Demotic, including financial records that spanned multiple
years. There has also been government legislation translated that
reveals interesting facts about an ancient Egyptian woman's role in
society. They "detailed a husband’s acknowledgment of the money his wife
brought into the marriage and the promise to provide her with a set
amount of food and money for clothing each year of their marriage".
Also, other contracts stated that women could own land and had the right
to divorce their husbands! It's interesting to see the stark contrast
between the way women were treated in Egyptian society and in other
flourishing societies (such as Roman, and then eventually European,
where they had little to no power).
Wilford's use of multiple specific examples and relative quotations allows the reader to understand how essential an all-encompassing dictionary of "common" Egyptian language is to modern historians and how it can be utilized as studies in these areas continue.
