How We Know About Ancient Egypt

History · Ancient Egypt · ages 11-13

Name ______________________ Date ____________

A mummy or an old tool can explain itself, so historians do not need to interpret it.
Circle one: True False
Which type of source is a real object that scientists can study directly?
- A painting of a feast on a tomb wall
- A mummy or a tool
- A carved message praising a king
In 1980, scientists X-rayed another pharaoh's mummy and wrote that he died young in battle. This year, a CT scan of the same mummy showed no battle wounds, but signs of a long illness. What should historians do now?
- Keep the old battle story, because it was written down first
- Weigh the new scan and update if needed
- Stop studying that mummy, because the old answer must stand
For hundreds of years, nobody could read hieroglyphs, so carved messages stayed silent. Then scholars worked out how to read them again. What changed for historians?
- They could read the Egyptians' own words
- They proved the Egyptians invented writing that year
- They no longer needed any other kind of source
A tomb painting shows a pharaoh hunting lions with perfect ease. What is the best way to read this image?
- As an idealized image of the pharaoh's power
- As proof that lions were common household pets
- As an exact photograph of what really happened that day
Why do most surviving hieroglyphic inscriptions describe kings as victorious and beloved by the gods?
- Because hieroglyphs could only be used to write good news
- Scribes served kings and temples, so records flatter
- Because every Egyptian king truly won every battle he fought
A historian finds a stone inscription that praises a pharaoh's great victory. No other source mentions the battle. What is the wisest next step?
- Treat it as the complete truth, because stone lasts so long
- Look for other kinds of sources to compare it with
- Throw it out, because a flattering source is worthless
When two sources disagree, a historian must throw one of them away.
Circle one: True False
A stone inscription calls a battle a glorious victory. A soldier's papyrus letter calls the same battle a costly disaster. What does this pair of sources show?
- The inscription must be true, because stone lasts longer
- Sources can show different sides of one event
- The letter must be a modern fake, since it disagrees with stone
A book claims, 'We know exactly how ordinary Egyptians felt about their pharaoh.' Which fact from the lesson pushes back against this claim?
- Hieroglyphs have never been read by anyone
- Scribes wrote for kings; workers went unheard
- Tomb paintings record every feeling perfectly

Answer key

For grown-ups. Fold this page away before handing over the rest.

How We Know About Ancient Egypt W1-mt_bhEuF-CCuY-s1

False · Physical remains are real evidence, but they cannot explain themselves. Someone still has to interpret what they mean.
A mummy or a tool · Physical remains are real objects such as mummies, tools, and buildings. Inscriptions and paintings are made to say something, not studied directly in the same way.
Weigh the new scan and update if needed · The CT scan is a newer tool that shows more detail, so historians should weigh its evidence and be ready to change the story.
They could read the Egyptians' own words · Reading hieroglyphs again gave historians direct access to what ancient Egyptians wrote. Those writings still came mostly from elite scribes, so other sources still matter.
As an idealized image of the pharaoh's power · Tomb art was often stylized to show power or honor the dead, rather than record events exactly as they happened.
Scribes served kings and temples, so records flatter · Scribes were part of the elite who served the state, so their writing usually reflected an official, favorable point of view.
Look for other kinds of sources to compare it with · A single flattering inscription is still useful evidence, but historians compare it with other sources before trusting its story.
False · Disagreement between sources is normal. Historians keep both and compare them, since each can hold part of the story.
Sources can show different sides of one event · An official inscription and an ordinary letter were made for different reasons, so each shows a different side of the same battle. Historians use both.
Scribes wrote for kings; workers went unheard · Because nearly all writing came from elite scribes, the ordinary point of view is mostly missing. Claims of exact knowledge go too far.