The Riddle of the Rosetta

Two main comments in this review at this stage: (1) I recommend that if you really want this publication, get the Kindle version. I have returned the printed version for two reasons: (i) the type is too small to read comfortably and (ii) the printed figures and reproductions of illustrations are poor quality for a book like this. (2) I say "if you really want this" because it looks like a heavily researched book, and covers its topic(s) in depth. There are many other publications on the subject of the Rosetta Stone that are much easier to read.Fortunately the internet will enable any dedicated reader to find online reproductions of the cartoons, pictures and paintings etc. in this book. But why should you have to do this after spending money on a printed publication? There are no photographs in this editon, but there are plenty of printed figures and illustrations, albeit of low quality in my opinion.As for the merit of the content and arguments presented in the book, other reviewers have commented on this. I am not sufficiently well-read in this area to provide comment yet (I have not read the book partly for the reasons given above).

This book just came to my attention. They’re coming. Do not delay. Time to suit up and march towards Marathon. I gave this book three stars. Why? It is a compromise of, on the one hand, giving five stars for the overall professional execution of research and editing but, on the other hand, giving a black hole for the main thesis. A black hole not only does not give off light. It sucks it up. The notion that Thomas Young deserves credit for the decipherment of hieroglyphic writing, as the book’s title suggests, has been pulverized into subatomic particles so long ago that seeing the claim made again gives me the impression that I just saw a tyrannosaurus rex in the woods the other day driving by on the highway. Or was it just a big cow? Make no mistake. What I write is not in the least meant as a criticism of Young. I do not think there is anything wrong with Young. But where does the Young claim come from in the first place? Well, 1) Young was a great scientist, 2) he worked and published at great length on hieroglyphic writing, and 3) he saw some things. Nothing wrong with that. But these accomplishments have to be confronted with the following undeniable facts. 1) Using Young’s insights, one cannot translate a single Egyptian sentence let alone a text whereas, using Champollion’s insights, one can translate and understand most everything. That much is clear to anyone reading hieroglyphic Egyptian or Demotic. It begins with Champollion’s “apple falling from the tree experience” that burst the dam on 14 September 1822. It receives only passing mention in the book and is in fact completely misunderstood. 2) Young got most of his explicit identifications wrong. 3) It follows from 2) that one is very suspicious that someone making wild stabs and getting most everything wrong was hitting on a few (approximately) correct identifications here and there by sheer accident. A method that is so successful at getting most wrong is not a good method. It also raises questions about the sheer precocity of the person making claims that are again and again wrong. From the book’s bibliography, it is also clear that the authors missed the critical articles that long ago buried the Young hypothesis. This book is to decipherment history what alchemy is to chemistry, with the difference that the authors feel that they have indeed made gold out of . . . what could it be . . . French fries? The Young-Champollion discussion in the nineteenth century was at times quite bitter. To revive this controversy knowing what we know now, one needs to enjoy picking a fight. And what is the benefit of that? Again, why Champollion? To anyone reading hieroglyphics and Demotic, it is abundantly clear that, using Young’s few insights, one cannot translate and understand one single sentence of hieroglyphic or demotic, let alone a text. And that’s a fact. That is the qualitative leap that makes Champollion and no one else the decipherer. There were many partial insights of physics before Newton but the laws of gravity are forever his. If Young were a decipherer, then many physicists can claim credit for Newton’s laws. I think that I can already hear Galilei and Huygens calling their lawyers about the residuals. Leo DepuydtPS “The Riddle of the Rosetta” sounds a little awkward. What is meant is obviously “the Rosetta Stone.” But referring to it as “the Rosetta” sound a little like saying that it is kept at “the British.” What do you mean “the British”? Or stating that one visited “the Eiffel” in Paris. “The Eiffel” what?

The book is written in an unnecesarily academic style. What is impressive is an engaging, quick to read book, tortured writing impresses noone.It goes on for many ( superfluous) chapters before getting to anything about the Rosetta stone.

I purchased this book to learn more about how the Rosetta stone was deciphered, but the book achieves that purpose in a very indirect way. It reconstructs the "competitive scholarship" between a Frenchman and an Englishman which extends over more than 20 years. There are many diversions and a great deal of material on arcane subjects which, while potentially interesting, divert ones attention from the main subject. While much is made of the inherent biases of the two researchers (one believes Egyptian society was "primitive" and that colors his view; the other identifies with the non-Christian nature of Egyptian religion at a time of church-state conflict in France) the case that these biases had a major impact on the final "correct" explanation of the ancient Egyptian languages is more circumstantial than causative.Finally, the book was, for me, written too much for 'insiders' - it seems to assume the reader knows the characters and ultimate result of this competition between scholars. I didn't and had to go read the one page summary on Wikipedia to give me a more clear and concise portrayal of the major concepts and cast of characters.

Very interesting history, but too dependent on obscure terminology of linguistics to keep my attention