The sentence detailing Kircher's misinterpretation of symbols as referring to a pharaoh provides evidence supporting the claim of his inaccurate understanding of hieroglyphs.
The sentence that contains evidence supporting the claim is:
O Looking at a certain group of symbols-which actually stood for the name of a pharaoh-Kircher let his imagination run wild.
This sentence provides evidence of Kircher misinterpreting symbols as representing a pharaoh's name and then speculating wildly about their meaning, showcasing his inaccuracies in understanding hieroglyphs. Kircher's imaginative leap without factual support highlights the extent to which he was 'off the mark' in deciphering hieroglyphs. This example underscores the challenges faced by early scholars in decoding ancient Egyptian writing systems.https://brainly.com/question/37031229