Read the Excerpt From "the Rosetta Stone.ã¢â‚¬â

Ancient Egyptian stele with inscriptions in three writing systems

Rosetta Stone
The Rosetta Rock
Material	Granodiorite
Size	1,123 by 757 by 284 millimetres (44.2 in × 29.8 in × 11.two in)
Writing	Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, Demotic script, and Greek script
Created	196 BC
Discovered	1799
Discovered by	Pierre-François Bouchard
Present location	British Museum

The Rosetta Stone is a granodiorite stele inscribed with 3 versions of a decree issued in Memphis, Egypt, in 196 BC during the Ptolemaic dynasty on behalf of King Ptolemy V Epiphanes. The top and centre texts are in Ancient Egyptian using hieroglyphic and Demotic scripts respectively, while the lesser is in Ancient Greek. The prescript has only minor differences between the iii versions, making the Rosetta Stone cardinal to deciphering the Egyptian scripts.

The stone was carved during the Hellenistic period and is believed to have originally been displayed within a temple, perhaps at nearby Sais. It was probably moved in late antiquity or during the Mameluk catamenia, and was eventually used as edifice material in the construction of Fort Julien near the town of Rashid (Rosetta) in the Nile Delta. It was discovered at that place in July 1799 by French officer Pierre-François Bouchard during the Napoleonic campaign in Arab republic of egypt. Information technology was the first Ancient Egyptian bilingual text recovered in modernistic times, and it aroused widespread public interest with its potential to decipher this previously untranslated hieroglyphic script. Lithographic copies and plaster casts soon began circulating amongst European museums and scholars. When the British defeated the French they took the stone to London under the Capitulation of Alexandria in 1801. It has been on public display at the British Museum about continuously since 1802 and is the nearly visited object there.

Study of the decree was already underway when the first complete translation of the Greek text was published in 1803. Jean-François Champollion announced the transliteration of the Egyptian scripts in Paris in 1822; it took longer yet before scholars were able to read Ancient Egyptian inscriptions and literature confidently. Major advances in the decoding were recognition that the stone offered three versions of the aforementioned text (1799); that the demotic text used phonetic characters to spell strange names (1802); that the hieroglyphic text did so as well, and had pervasive similarities to the demotic (1814); and that phonetic characters were besides used to spell native Egyptian words (1822–1824).

Three other fragmentary copies of the same prescript were discovered later, and several similar Egyptian bilingual or trilingual inscriptions are now known, including three slightly earlier Ptolemaic decrees: the Decree of Alexandria in 243 BC, the Decree of Canopus in 238 BC, and the Memphis decree of Ptolemy IV, c. 218 BC. The Rosetta Stone is no longer unique, just it was the essential key to the modernistic agreement of ancient Egyptian literature and civilisation. The term 'Rosetta Rock' is at present used to refer to the essential clue to a new field of noesis.

Description [edit]

3D model, click to interact.

The Rosetta Rock is listed equally "a stone of black granodiorite, bearing three inscriptions ... plant at Rosetta" in a contemporary catalogue of the artefacts discovered past the French expedition and surrendered to British troops in 1801.^[one] At some period after its arrival in London, the inscriptions were coloured in white chalk to make them more legible, and the remaining surface was covered with a layer of carnauba wax designed to protect it from visitors' fingers.^[2] This gave a nighttime colour to the stone that led to its mistaken identification as black basalt.^[three] These additions were removed when the rock was cleaned in 1999, revealing the original night grey tint of the rock, the sparkle of its crystalline structure, and a pink vein running across the top left corner.^[4] Comparisons with the Klemm drove of Egyptian rock samples showed a close resemblance to rock from a small granodiorite quarry at Gebel Tingar on the west depository financial institution of the Nile, west of Elephantine in the region of Aswan; the pink vein is typical of granodiorite from this region.^[5]

The Rosetta Stone is 1,123 millimetres (3 ft 8 in) high at its highest point, 757 mm (ii ft 5.8 in) broad, and 284 mm (eleven in) thick. It weighs approximately 760 kilograms (1,680 lb).^[six] It bears three inscriptions: the top register in Aboriginal Egyptian hieroglyphs, the 2d in the Egyptian Demotic script, and the tertiary in Aboriginal Greek.^[7] The front surface is polished and the inscriptions lightly incised on it; the sides of the stone are smoothed, simply the dorsum is simply roughly worked, presumably because it would have non been visible when the stele was erected.^{[5] [8]}

Original stele [edit]

I possible reconstruction of the original stele

The Rosetta Stone is a fragment of a larger stele. No boosted fragments were constitute in later searches of the Rosetta site.^[9] Owing to its damaged state, none of the iii texts is complete. The top annals, composed of Egyptian hieroglyphs, suffered the most impairment. Only the last 14 lines of the hieroglyphic text can exist seen; all of them are broken on the right side, and 12 of them on the left. Below it, the middle register of demotic text has survived all-time; information technology has 32 lines, of which the first 14 are slightly damaged on the right side. The bottom register of Greek text contains 54 lines, of which the kickoff 27 survive in full; the rest are increasingly fragmentary due to a diagonal suspension at the bottom right of the stone.^[ten]

The total length of the hieroglyphic text and the total size of the original stele, of which the Rosetta Stone is a fragment, can be estimated based on comparable steles that have survived, including other copies of the same guild. The slightly before decree of Canopus, erected in 238 BC during the reign of Ptolemy III, is 2,190 millimetres high (7.19 ft) and 820 mm (32 in) wide, and contains 36 lines of hieroglyphic text, 73 of demotic text, and 74 of Greek. The texts are of like length.^[11] From such comparisons, it tin be estimated that an boosted 14 or 15 lines of hieroglyphic inscription are missing from the top annals of the Rosetta Stone, amounting to another 300 millimetres (12 in).^[12] In improver to the inscriptions, in that location would probably have been a scene depicting the king being presented to the gods, topped with a winged disc, as on the Canopus Stele. These parallels, and a hieroglyphic sign for "stela" on the rock itself,

(run across Gardiner's sign list), suggest that information technology originally had a rounded top.^{[vii] [thirteen]} The acme of the original stele is estimated to take been about 149 centimetres (4 ft 11 in).^[13]

Memphis decree and its context [edit]

The stele was erected after the coronation of King Ptolemy V and was inscribed with a decree that established the divine cult of the new ruler.^[fourteen] The prescript was issued by a congress of priests who gathered at Memphis. The appointment is given as "iv Xandikos" in the Macedonian calendar and "18 Mekhir" in the Egyptian agenda, which corresponds to 27 March 196 BC. The year is stated as the 9th year of Ptolemy V's reign (equated with 197/196 BC), which is confirmed past naming four priests who officiated in that yr: Aetos son of Aetos was priest of the divine cults of Alexander the Bang-up and the five Ptolemies down to Ptolemy V himself; the other three priests named in turn in the inscription are those who led the worship of Berenice Euergetis (wife of Ptolemy Iii), Arsinoe Philadelphos (wife and sister of Ptolemy Ii), and Arsinoe Philopator, mother of Ptolemy Five.^[fifteen] Yet, a second appointment is as well given in the Greek and hieroglyphic texts, corresponding to 27 November 197 BC, the official ceremony of Ptolemy'due south coronation.^[sixteen] The demotic text conflicts with this, listing sequent days in March for the prescript and the anniversary.^[16] It is uncertain why this discrepancy exists, but it is clear that the prescript was issued in 196 BC and that it was designed to re-establish the rule of the Ptolemaic kings over Arab republic of egypt.^[17]

The prescript was issued during a turbulent menses in Egyptian history. Ptolemy V Epiphanes reigned from 204 to 181 BC, the son of Ptolemy IV Philopator and his wife and sis Arsinoe. He had become ruler at the historic period of five later the sudden expiry of both of his parents, who were murdered in a conspiracy that involved Ptolemy IV'southward mistress Agathoclea, according to contemporary sources. The conspirators effectively ruled Egypt as Ptolemy Five'south guardians^{[xviii] [nineteen]} until a defection broke out two years later under general Tlepolemus, when Agathoclea and her family were lynched past a mob in Alexandria. Tlepolemus, in turn, was replaced as guardian in 201 BC by Aristomenes of Alyzia, who was chief minister at the time of the Memphis prescript.^[20]

Political forces beyond the borders of Egypt exacerbated the internal problems of the Ptolemaic kingdom. Antiochus III the Great and Philip V of Macedon had made a pact to divide Egypt's overseas possessions. Philip had seized several islands and cities in Caria and Thrace, while the Battle of Panium (198 BC) had resulted in the transfer of Coele-Syria, including Judaea, from the Ptolemies to the Seleucids. Meanwhile, in the south of Egypt, in that location was a long-standing defection that had begun during the reign of Ptolemy IV,^[16] led by Horwennefer and past his successor Ankhwennefer.^[21] Both the war and the internal revolt were still ongoing when the young Ptolemy V was officially crowned at Memphis at the age of 12 (7 years later on the offset of his reign) and when, just over a year after, the Memphis decree was issued.^[xix]

Stelae of this kind, which were established on the initiative of the temples rather than that of the king, are unique to Ptolemaic Egypt. In the preceding Pharaonic period it would have been unheard of for anyone just the divine rulers themselves to make national decisions: by contrast, this manner of honoring a king was a characteristic of Greek cities. Rather than making his eulogy himself, the king had himself glorified and deified past his subjects or representative groups of his subjects.^[22] The decree records that Ptolemy 5 gave a souvenir of silver and grain to the temples.^[23] It too records that in that location was particularly high flooding of the Nile in the eighth year of his reign, and he had the excess waters dammed for the benefit of the farmers.^[23] In return the priesthood pledged that the king's birthday and coronation days would be celebrated annually and that all the priests of Egypt would serve him alongside the other gods. The decree concludes with the instruction that a re-create was to be placed in every temple, inscribed in the "language of the gods" (Egyptian hieroglyphs), the "language of documents" (Demotic), and the "linguistic communication of the Greeks" equally used past the Ptolemaic government.^{[24] [25]}

Securing the favour of the priesthood was essential for the Ptolemaic kings to retain effective rule over the populace. The High Priests of Memphis—where the male monarch was crowned—were especially important, as they were the highest religious regime of the time and had influence throughout the kingdom.^[26] Given that the decree was issued at Memphis, the ancient upper-case letter of Arab republic of egypt, rather than Alexandria, the centre of government of the ruling Ptolemies, it is axiomatic that the young king was anxious to gain their active support.^[27] Thus, although the regime of Egypt had been Greek-speaking ever since the conquests of Alexander the Slap-up, the Memphis prescript, like the three similar earlier decrees, included texts in Egyptian to show its connection to the general populace past way of the literate Egyptian priesthood.^[28]

There can exist no one definitive English translation of the prescript, not only because mod understanding of the ancient languages continues to develop, but also because of the minor differences between the three original texts. Older translations by E. A. Wallis Budge (1904, 1913)^[29] and Edwyn R. Bevan (1927)^[30] are easily available but are now outdated, equally can exist seen by comparison them with the recent translation by R. S. Simpson, which is based on the demotic text and tin exist constitute online,^[31] or, best of all, with the mod translations of all three texts, with introduction and facsimile drawing, that were published past Quirke and Andrews in 1989.^[32]

The stele was almost certainly not originally placed at Rashid (Rosetta) where it was constitute, but more probable came from a temple site farther inland, maybe the royal town of Sais.^[33] The temple from which it originally came was probably closed effectually Advertizing 392 when Roman emperor Theodosius I ordered the closing of all non-Christian temples of worship.^[34] The original stele broke at some point, its largest piece becoming what we now know as the Rosetta Stone. Ancient Egyptian temples were later used equally quarries for new structure, and the Rosetta Stone probably was re-used in this manner. Later it was incorporated in the foundations of a fortress synthetic by the Mameluke Sultan Qaitbay (c. 1416/18–1496) to defend the Bolbitine branch of the Nile at Rashid. There it lay for at least another three centuries until its rediscovery.^[35]

Three other inscriptions relevant to the same Memphis prescript have been found since the discovery of the Rosetta Stone: the Nubayrah Stele, a stele found in Elephantine and Noub Taha, and an inscription found at the Temple of Philae (on the Philae obelisk).^[36] Unlike the Rosetta Rock, the hieroglyphic texts of these inscriptions were relatively intact. The Rosetta Stone had been deciphered long earlier they were found, only after Egyptologists take used them to refine the reconstruction of the hieroglyphs that must accept been used in the lost portions of the hieroglyphic text on the Rosetta Stone.

Rediscovery [edit]

Napoleon's 1798 campaign in Egypt inspired a burst of Egyptomania in Europe, and especially France. A corps of 167 technical experts (savants), known as the Commission des Sciences et des Arts, accompanied the French expeditionary army to Egypt. On 15 July 1799, French soldiers nether the command of Colonel d'Hautpoul were strengthening the defences of Fort Julien, a couple of miles north-east of the Egyptian port city of Rosetta (modern-mean solar day Rashid). Lieutenant Pierre-François Bouchard spotted a slab with inscriptions on i side that the soldiers had uncovered.^[37] He and d'Hautpoul saw at once that information technology might be of import and informed General Jacques-François Menou, who happened to be at Rosetta.^[A] The find was announced to Napoleon's newly founded scientific association in Cairo, the Institut d'Égypte, in a study by Commission member Michel Ange Lancret noting that it contained iii inscriptions, the first in hieroglyphs and the third in Greek, and rightly suggesting that the three inscriptions were versions of the same text. Lancret's report, dated 19 July 1799, was read to a meeting of the Institute soon afterward 25 July. Bouchard, meanwhile, transported the stone to Cairo for test by scholars. Napoleon himself inspected what had already begun to exist called la Pierre de Rosette, the Rosetta Stone, shortly before his return to France in August 1799.^[9]

The discovery was reported in September in Courrier de fifty'Égypte, the official newspaper of the French trek. The bearding reporter expressed a hope that the stone might one twenty-four hours be the cardinal to deciphering hieroglyphs.^{[A] [9]} In 1800 3 of the commission'due south technical experts devised ways to brand copies of the texts on the stone. One of these experts was Jean-Joseph Marcel, a printer and gifted linguist, who is credited equally the first to recognise that the middle text was written in the Egyptian demotic script, rarely used for stone inscriptions and seldom seen by scholars at that fourth dimension, rather than Syriac as had originally been thought.^[nine] It was artist and inventor Nicolas-Jacques Conté who found a manner to use the stone itself as a press block to reproduce the inscription.^[38] A slightly unlike method was adopted past Antoine Galland. The prints that resulted were taken to Paris past General Charles Dugua. Scholars in Europe were now able to see the inscriptions and attempt to read them.^[39]

After Napoleon'southward departure, French troops held off British and Ottoman attacks for another eighteen months. In March 1801, the British landed at Aboukir Bay. Menou was now in command of the French expedition. His troops, including the committee, marched northward towards the Mediterranean coast to meet the enemy, transporting the stone forth with many other antiquities. He was defeated in battle, and the remnant of his army retreated to Alexandria where they were surrounded and besieged, with the stone at present inside the city. Menou surrendered on August 30.^{[xl] [41]}

From French to British possession [edit]

Left and right sides of the Rosetta Stone, with inscriptions in English language relating to its capture past English forces from the French

Subsequently the surrender, a dispute arose over the fate of the French archaeological and scientific discoveries in Egypt, including the artefacts, biological specimens, notes, plans, and drawings nerveless past the members of the commission. Menou refused to mitt them over, challenge that they belonged to the constitute. British Full general John Hely-Hutchinson refused to cease the siege until Menou gave in. Scholars Edward Daniel Clarke and William Richard Hamilton, newly arrived from England, agreed to examine the collections in Alexandria and said they had found many artefacts that the French had not revealed. In a letter home, Clarke said that "nosotros institute much more than in their possession than was represented or imagined".^[42]

Hutchinson claimed that all materials were property of the British Crown, just French scholar Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire told Clarke and Hamilton that the French would rather fire all their discoveries than plow them over, referring ominously to the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. Clarke and Hamilton pleaded the French scholars' instance to Hutchinson, who finally agreed that items such as natural history specimens would be considered the scholars' private belongings.^{[41] [43]} Menou quickly claimed the stone, too, as his private holding.^{[44] [41]} Hutchinson was equally aware of the stone's unique value and rejected Menou's claim. Eventually an agreement was reached, and the transfer of the objects was incorporated into the Capitulation of Alexandria signed by representatives of the British, French, and Ottoman forces.

Information technology is not clear exactly how the stone was transferred into British hands, as gimmicky accounts differ. Colonel Tomkyns Hilgrove Turner, who was to escort it to England, claimed after that he had personally seized it from Menou and carried it abroad on a gun-carriage. In a much more than detailed account, Edward Daniel Clarke stated that a French "officer and member of the Institute" had taken him, his educatee John Cripps, and Hamilton secretly into the dorsum streets backside Menou'south residence and revealed the stone hidden under protective carpets among Menou'southward baggage. According to Clarke, their informant feared that the rock might be stolen if French soldiers saw information technology. Hutchinson was informed at in one case and the stone was taken away—mayhap by Turner and his gun-wagon.^[45]

Turner brought the stone to England aboard the captured French frigate HMS Egyptienne, landing in Portsmouth in Feb 1802.^[46] His orders were to present information technology and the other antiquities to Rex George III. The Male monarch, represented by War Secretary Lord Hobart, directed that it should be placed in the British Museum. According to Turner'south narrative, he and Hobart agreed that the rock should exist presented to scholars at the Society of Antiquaries of London, of which Turner was a member, before its final eolith in the museum. It was start seen and discussed at that place at a meeting on 11 March 1802.^{[B] [H]}

In 1802, the Social club created four plaster casts of the inscriptions, which were given to the universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh and to Trinity College Dublin. Shortly afterwards, prints of the inscriptions were made and circulated to European scholars.^[Eastward] Earlier the end of 1802, the stone was transferred to the British Museum, where it is located today.^[46] New inscriptions painted in white on the left and correct edges of the slab stated that it was "Captured in Arab republic of egypt past the British Army in 1801" and "Presented past King George III".^[two]

The stone has been exhibited almost continuously in the British Museum since June 1802.^[six] During the center of the 19th century, information technology was given the inventory number "EA 24", "EA" standing for "Egyptian Antiquities". It was part of a collection of ancient Egyptian monuments captured from the French trek, including a sarcophagus of Nectanebo II (EA 10), the statue of a high priest of Amun (EA 81), and a large granite fist (EA 9).^[47] The objects were presently discovered to be also heavy for the floors of Montagu House (the original edifice of The British Museum), and they were transferred to a new extension that was added to the mansion. The Rosetta Rock was transferred to the sculpture gallery in 1834 shortly after Montagu House was demolished and replaced past the building that now houses the British Museum.^[48] Co-ordinate to the museum's records, the Rosetta Rock is its about-visited single object,^[49] a elementary epitome of it was the museum's best selling postcard for several decades,^[50] and a wide diversity of trade begetting the text from the Rosetta Stone (or replicating its distinctive shape) is sold in the museum shops.

Patrons at the British Museum view the Rosetta Stone as it was displayed in 1985

A crowd of visitors examining the Rosetta Stone at the British Museum

The Rosetta Stone was originally displayed at a slight bending from the horizontal, and rested inside a metal cradle that was made for it, which involved shaving off very small portions of its sides to ensure that the cradle fitted securely.^[48] Information technology originally had no protective covering, and it was plant necessary by 1847 to place it in a protective frame, despite the presence of attendants to ensure that information technology was not touched past visitors.^[51] Since 2004 the conserved stone has been on display in a specially built case in the centre of the Egyptian Sculpture Gallery. A replica of the Rosetta Rock is now bachelor in the King'southward Library of the British Museum, without a case and free to touch, as it would have appeared to early on 19th-century visitors.^[52]

The museum was concerned almost heavy bombing in London towards the end of the Showtime World State of war in 1917, and the Rosetta Stone was moved to prophylactic, along with other portable objects of value. The stone spent the side by side two years 15 m (50 ft) below ground level in a station of the Postal Tube Railway at Mount Pleasant near Holborn.^[53] Other than during wartime, the Rosetta Rock has left the British Museum only in one case: for i calendar month in October 1972, to be displayed alongside Champollion's Lettre at the Louvre in Paris on the 150th ceremony of the letter of the alphabet's publication.^[50] Even when the Rosetta Stone was undergoing conservation measures in 1999, the work was washed in the gallery so that it could remain visible to the public.^[54]

Reading the Rosetta Stone [edit]

Prior to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and its eventual decipherment, the ancient Egyptian language and script had non been understood since shortly before the fall of the Roman Empire. The usage of the hieroglyphic script had go increasingly specialised even in the later Pharaonic flow; by the fourth century Advertizement, few Egyptians were capable of reading them. Monumental use of hieroglyphs ceased as temple priesthoods died out and Egypt was converted to Christianity; the concluding known inscription is dated to 24 August 394, constitute at Philae and known every bit the Graffito of Esmet-Akhom.^[55] The last demotic text, also from Philae, was written in 452.^[56]

Hieroglyphs retained their pictorial appearance, and classical authors emphasised this aspect, in sharp contrast to the Greek and Roman alphabets. In the fifth century, the priest Horapollo wrote Hieroglyphica, an explanation of virtually 200 glyphs. His piece of work was believed to be authoritative, yet it was misleading in many ways, and this and other works were a lasting impediment to the understanding of Egyptian writing.^[57] Later on attempts at decipherment were fabricated by Arab historians in medieval Egypt during the 9th and tenth centuries. Dhul-Nun al-Misri and Ibn Wahshiyya were the beginning historians to written report hieroglyphs, past comparing them to the contemporary Coptic language used by Coptic priests in their time.^{[58] [59]} The study of hieroglyphs connected with fruitless attempts at decipherment past European scholars, notably Johannes Goropius Becanus in the 16th century, Athanasius Kircher in the 17th, and Georg Zoëga in the 18th.^[60] The discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799 provided critical missing information, gradually revealed past a succession of scholars, that eventually immune Jean-François Champollion to solve the puzzle that Kircher had chosen the riddle of the Sphinx.^[61]

Greek text [edit]

Richard Porson's suggested reconstruction of the missing Greek text (1803)

The Greek text on the Rosetta Rock provided the starting point. Ancient Greek was widely known to scholars, but they were not familiar with details of its use in the Hellenistic period every bit a government language in Ptolemaic Egypt; big-scale discoveries of Greek papyri were a long manner in the time to come. Thus, the primeval translations of the Greek text of the stone show the translators nevertheless struggling with the historical context and with administrative and religious jargon. Stephen Weston verbally presented an English language translation of the Greek text at a Social club of Antiquaries meeting in April 1802.^{[62] [63]}

Meanwhile, two of the lithographic copies fabricated in Arab republic of egypt had reached the Institut de French republic in Paris in 1801. There, librarian and antiquarian Gabriel de La Porte du Theil fix to work on a translation of the Greek, merely he was dispatched elsewhere on Napoleon's orders almost immediately, and he left his unfinished work in the easily of colleague Hubert-Pascal Ameilhon. Ameilhon produced the first published translations of the Greek text in 1803, in both Latin and French to ensure that they would circulate widely.^[H] At Cambridge, Richard Porson worked on the missing lower correct corner of the Greek text. He produced a good suggested reconstruction, which was presently being circulated by the Society of Antiquaries alongside its prints of the inscription. At almost the same moment, Christian Gottlob Heyne in Göttingen was making a new Latin translation of the Greek text that was more reliable than Ameilhon's and was offset published in 1803.^[G] It was reprinted by the Society of Antiquaries in a special issue of its journal Archaeologia in 1811, alongside Weston'southward previously unpublished English translation, Colonel Turner's narrative, and other documents.^{[H] [64] [65]}

Demotic text [edit]

At the time of the rock'south discovery, Swedish diplomat and scholar Johan David Åkerblad was working on a little-known script of which some examples had recently been constitute in Egypt, which came to be known equally demotic. He called it "cursive Coptic" because he was convinced that information technology was used to record some class of the Coptic language (the direct descendant of Ancient Egyptian), although it had few similarities with the later Coptic script. French Orientalist Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy had been discussing this work with Åkerblad when, in 1801, he received one of the early on lithographic prints of the Rosetta Stone, from Jean-Antoine Chaptal French minister of the interior. He realised that the heart text was in this same script. He and Åkerblad ready to work, both focusing on the middle text and assuming that the script was alphabetical. They attempted to identify the points where Greek names ought to occur within this unknown text, by comparing information technology with the Greek. In 1802, Silvestre de Sacy reported to Chaptal that he had successfully identified v names ("Alexandros", "Alexandreia", "Ptolemaios", "Arsinoe", and Ptolemy's title "Epiphanes"),^[C] while Åkerblad published an alphabet of 29 letters (more than half of which were right) that he had identified from the Greek names in the demotic text.^{[D] [62]} They could not, yet, identify the remaining characters in the demotic text, which, as is at present known, included ideographic and other symbols alongside the phonetic ones.^[66]

• 

  Replica of the demotic texts.

Hieroglyphic text [edit]

Champollion'south table of hieroglyphic phonetic characters with their demotic and Coptic equivalents (1822)

Silvestre de Sacy somewhen gave up work on the stone, but he was to brand another contribution. In 1811, prompted past discussions with a Chinese pupil well-nigh Chinese script, Silvestre de Sacy considered a proffer made by Georg Zoëga in 1797 that the foreign names in Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions might be written phonetically; he also recalled that as early as 1761, Jean-Jacques Barthélemy had suggested that the characters enclosed in cartouches in hieroglyphic inscriptions were proper names. Thus, when Thomas Young, foreign secretarial assistant of the Royal Society of London, wrote to him almost the stone in 1814, Silvestre de Sacy suggested in reply that in attempting to read the hieroglyphic text, Young might look for cartouches that ought to contain Greek names and effort to identify phonetic characters in them.^[67]

Young did so, with ii results that together paved the manner for the final decipherment. In the hieroglyphic text, he discovered the phonetic characters "p t o l m e south" (in today's transliteration "p t west fifty m y due south") that were used to write the Greek name "Ptolemaios". He as well noticed that these characters resembled the equivalent ones in the demotic script, and went on to note every bit many as 80 similarities between the hieroglyphic and demotic texts on the stone, an important discovery because the two scripts were previously thought to exist entirely different from one another. This led him to deduce correctly that the demotic script was only partly phonetic, also consisting of ideographic characters derived from hieroglyphs.^[I] Immature's new insights were prominent in the long commodity "Egypt" that he contributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica in 1819.^[J] He could make no further progress, nonetheless.^[68]

In 1814, Young first exchanged correspondence about the stone with Jean-François Champollion, a teacher at Grenoble who had produced a scholarly work on ancient Egypt. Champollion saw copies of the cursory hieroglyphic and Greek inscriptions of the Philae obelisk in 1822, on which William John Bankes had tentatively noted the names "Ptolemaios" and "Kleopatra" in both languages.^[69] From this, Champollion identified the phonetic characters k l e o p a t r a (in today'southward transliteration q fifty i҆ w p 3 d r three.t).^[70] On the basis of this and the foreign names on the Rosetta Rock, he chop-chop constructed an alphabet of phonetic hieroglyphic characters, completing his work on xiv September and announcing it publicly on 27 September in a lecture to the Académie royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.^[71] On the same 24-hour interval he wrote the famous "Lettre à Thou. Dacier" to Bon-Joseph Dacier, secretary of the Académie, detailing his discovery.^[1000] In the postscript Champollion notes that similar phonetic characters seemed to occur in both Greek and Egyptian names, a hypothesis confirmed in 1823, when he identified the names of pharaohs Ramesses and Thutmose written in cartouches at Abu Simbel. These far older hieroglyphic inscriptions had been copied by Bankes and sent to Champollion by Jean-Nicolas Huyot.^[M] From this point, the stories of the Rosetta Rock and the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs diverge, every bit Champollion drew on many other texts to develop an Ancient Egyptian grammar and a hieroglyphic dictionary which were published after his expiry in 1832.^[72]

Later work [edit]

Replica of the Rosetta Stone, displayed equally the original used to be, available to touch, in what was the King'due south Library of the British Museum, at present the Enlightenment Gallery

Piece of work on the stone now focused on fuller understanding of the texts and their contexts past comparing the 3 versions with 1 another. In 1824 Classical scholar Antoine-Jean Letronne promised to set up a new literal translation of the Greek text for Champollion'southward use. Champollion in return promised an analysis of all the points at which the three texts seemed to differ. Post-obit Champollion's sudden decease in 1832, his typhoon of this analysis could not be constitute, and Letronne'due south work stalled. François Salvolini, Champollion'due south former student and assistant, died in 1838, and this analysis and other missing drafts were found amid his papers. This discovery incidentally demonstrated that Salvolini's own publication on the stone, published in 1837, was plagiarism.^[O] Letronne was at terminal able to complete his commentary on the Greek text and his new French translation of it, which appeared in 1841.^[P] During the early 1850s, German language Egyptologists Heinrich Brugsch and Max Uhlemann produced revised Latin translations based on the demotic and hieroglyphic texts.^{[Q] [R]} The first English translation followed in 1858, the piece of work of 3 members of the Philomathean Club at the University of Pennsylvania.^[S]

Whether ane of the three texts was the standard version, from which the other ii were originally translated, is a question that has remained controversial. Letronne attempted to show in 1841 that the Greek version, the production of the Egyptian government nether the Macedonian Ptolemies, was the original.^[P] Among recent authors, John Ray has stated that "the hieroglyphs were the most important of the scripts on the stone: they were there for the gods to read, and the more learned of their priesthood".^[7] Philippe Derchain and Heinz Josef Thissen take argued that all 3 versions were equanimous simultaneously, while Stephen Quirke sees in the decree "an intricate coalescence of iii vital textual traditions".^[73] Richard Parkinson points out that the hieroglyphic version strays from primitive formalism and occasionally lapses into language closer to that of the demotic register that the priests more commonly used in everyday life.^[74] The fact that the three versions cannot exist matched discussion for word helps to explain why the decipherment has been more difficult than originally expected, specially for those original scholars who were expecting an exact bilingual cardinal to Egyptian hieroglyphs.^[75]

Rivalries [edit]

Even earlier the Salvolini matter, disputes over precedence and plagiarism punctuated the decipherment story. Thomas Immature'southward piece of work is acknowledged in Champollion'southward 1822 Lettre à K. Dacier, only incompletely, co-ordinate to early British critics: for example, James Browne, a sub-editor on the Encyclopædia Britannica (which had published Young'south 1819 commodity), anonymously contributed a series of review manufactures to the Edinburgh Review in 1823, praising Young's work highly and alleging that the "unscrupulous" Champollion plagiarised it.^{[76] [77]} These manufactures were translated into French past Julius Klaproth and published in volume class in 1827.^[N] Young'due south own 1823 publication reasserted the contribution that he had made.^[50] The early deaths of Immature (1829) and Champollion (1832) did not put an stop to these disputes. In his work on the rock in 1904 E. A. Wallis Budge gave special emphasis to Immature'due south contribution compared with Champollion's.^[78] In the early 1970s, French visitors complained that the portrait of Champollion was smaller than ane of Young on an next information panel; English language visitors complained that the opposite was true. The portraits were in fact the same size.^[50]

Requests for repatriation to Arab republic of egypt [edit]

Calls for the Rosetta Stone to be returned to Egypt were made in July 2003 by Zahi Hawass, then Secretary-General of Egypt'due south Supreme Council of Antiquities. These calls, expressed in the Egyptian and international media, asked that the stele be repatriated to Arab republic of egypt, commenting that information technology was the "icon of our Egyptian identity".^[79] He repeated the proposal 2 years later in Paris, listing the stone as one of several key items belonging to Egypt's cultural heritage, a listing which also included: the iconic bust of Nefertiti in the Egyptian Museum of Berlin; a statue of the Great Pyramid architect Hemiunu in the Roemer-und-Pelizaeus-Museum in Hildesheim, Germany; the Dendera Temple Zodiac in the Louvre in Paris; and the bust of Ankhhaf in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.^[80]

In 2005, the British Museum presented Arab republic of egypt with a total-sized fibreglass colour-matched replica of the stele. This was initially displayed in the renovated Rashid National Museum, an Ottoman business firm in the town of Rashid (Rosetta), the closest urban center to the site where the stone was constitute.^[81] In November 2005, Hawass suggested a 3-month loan of the Rosetta Rock, while reiterating the eventual goal of a permanent return.^[82] In December 2009, he proposed to drib his claim for the permanent return of the Rosetta Stone if the British Museum lent the stone to Egypt for three months for the opening of the Grand Egyptian Museum at Giza in 2013.^[83]

A replica of the Rosetta Stone in Rashid (Rosetta), Egypt

As John Ray has observed, "the solar day may come when the rock has spent longer in the British Museum than it ever did in Rosetta."^[84] In that location is strong opposition among national museums to the repatriation of objects of international cultural significance such as the Rosetta Rock. In response to repeated Greek requests for return of the Elgin Marbles from the Parthenon and similar requests to other museums around the globe, in 2002 over 30 of the world's leading museums—including the British Museum, the Louvre, the Pergamon Museum in Berlin and the Metropolitan Museum in New York Urban center—issued a joint statement declaring that "objects acquired in earlier times must be viewed in the light of unlike sensitivities and values reflective of that earlier era" and that "museums serve not just the citizens of ane nation merely the people of every nation".^[85]

Idiomatic use [edit]

Various ancient bilingual or even trilingual epigraphical documents have sometimes been described as "Rosetta stones", as they permitted the decipherment of ancient written scripts. For example, the bilingual Greek-Brahmi coins of the Greco-Bactrian king Agathocles accept been described as "little Rosetta stones", allowing Christian Lassen's initial progress towards deciphering the Brahmi script, thus unlocking ancient Indian epigraphy.^[86] The Behistun inscription has besides been compared to the Rosetta rock, as it links the translations of three aboriginal Middle-Eastern languages: Former Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian.^[87]

The term Rosetta stone has been also used idiomatically to announce the kickoff crucial key in the process of decryption of encoded information, especially when a pocket-sized but representative sample is recognised equally the clue to understanding a larger whole.^[88] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first figurative apply of the term appeared in the 1902 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica relating to an entry on the chemical analysis of glucose.^[88] Another use of the phrase is plant in H. G. Wells' 1933 novel The Shape of Things to Come, where the protagonist finds a manuscript written in shorthand that provides a cardinal to agreement additional scattered fabric that is sketched out in both longhand and on typewriter.^[88]

Since then, the term has been widely used in other contexts. For case, Nobel laureate Theodor West. Hänsch in a 1979 Scientific American article on spectroscopy wrote that "the spectrum of the hydrogen atoms has proven to be the Rosetta Stone of modernistic physics: once this pattern of lines had been deciphered much else could also be understood".^[88] Fully understanding the key set of genes to the human leucocyte antigen has been described as "the Rosetta Stone of immunology".^[89] The flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana has been called the "Rosetta Stone of flowering time".^[ninety] A gamma-ray burst (GRB) found in conjunction with a supernova has been chosen a Rosetta Rock for understanding the origin of GRBs.^[91] The technique of Doppler echocardiography has been called a Rosetta Stone for clinicians trying to understand the complex process past which the left ventricle of the human heart can be filled during various forms of diastolic dysfunction.^[92]

Other non-linguistic uses of "Rosetta" to name software include the European Space Agency'south Rosetta spacecraft, launched to study the comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko in the hope that determining its composition will advance understanding of the origins of the Solar System. One plan, billed as a "lightweight dynamic translator" that enables applications compiled for PowerPC processors to run on x86 processor Apple Inc. systems, is named "Rosetta". The Rosetta@home effort is a distributed computing project for predicting protein structures from amino acid sequences (i.e. translating sequence into construction).

The name is used for diverse forms of translation software. "Rosetta Stone" is a brand of language-learning software published by Rosetta Stone Inc., who are headquartered in Arlington County, U.s.a.. And "Rosetta", developed and maintained by Canonical every bit part of the Launchpad projection, is an online language translation tool to help with localisation of software.

Virtually comprehensively, the Rosetta Project brings language specialists and native speakers together to develop a meaningful survey and near-permanent annal of 1,500 languages, in concrete and digital form, with the intent of it remaining useful from AD 2000 to 12,000.

See also [edit]

• Egypt–United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland relations
• Ezana Stone
• Mesha Stele
• Transliteration of Ancient Egyptian

References [edit]

Timeline of early publications virtually the Rosetta Stone [edit]

1. ^
2. ^

   1802: "Domestic Occurrences: March 31st, 1802" in The Gentleman's Mag vol. 72 part ane p. 270 Retrieved July fourteen, 2010

3. ^

   1802: Silvestre de Sacy, Lettre au Citoyen Chaptal, Ministre de l'intérieur, Membre de l'Institut national des sciences et arts, etc: au sujet de l'inscription Égyptienne du monument trouvé à Rosette. Paris, 1802 Retrieved July 14, 2010

4. ^

   1802: Johan David Åkerblad, Lettre sur l'inscription Égyptienne de Rosette: adressée au citoyen Silvestre de Sacy, Professeur de langue arabe à 50'École spéciale des langues orientales vivantes, etc.; Réponse du citoyen Silvestre de Sacy. Paris: L'imprimerie de la République, 1802

5. ^

   1803: "Has tabulas inscriptionem ... advertisement formam et modulum exemplaris inter spolia ex bello Aegyptiaco nuper reportati et in Museo Britannico asservati suo sumptu incidendas curavit Soc. Antiquar. Londin. A.D. MDCCCIII" in Vetusta Monumenta vol. 4 plates 5–vii

6. ^

   1803: Hubert-Pascal Ameilhon, Éclaircissemens sur 50'inscription grecque du monument trouvé à Rosette, contenant united nations décret des prêtres de fifty'Égypte en fifty'honneur de Ptolémée Épiphane, le cinquième des rois Ptolémées. Paris: Institut National, 1803 Retrieved July fourteen, 2010

7. ^

   1803: Chr. K. Heyne, "Commentatio in inscriptionem Graecam monumenti trinis insigniti titulis ex Aegypto Londinum apportati" in Commentationes Societatis Regiae Gottingensis vol. 15 (1800–1803) p. 260 ff.

8. ^ ^{a b}

   1811: Matthew Raper, South. Weston et al., "Rosetta stone, brought to England in 1802: Account of, by Matt. Raper; with three versions: Greek, English translation past S. Weston, Latin translation by Prof. Heyne; with notes by Porson, Taylor, Combe, Weston and Heyne" in Archaeologia vol. 16 (1810–1812) pp. 208–263

9. ^

   1817: Thomas Young, "Remarks on the Ancient Egyptian Manuscripts with Translation of the Rosetta Inscription" in Archaeologia vol. eighteen (1817) Retrieved July xiv, 2010 (see pp. 1–15)

10. ^

    1819: Thomas Immature, "Egypt" in Encyclopædia Britannica, supplement vol. 4 part 1 (Edinburgh: Chambers, 1819) Retrieved July 14, 2010 (see pp. 86–195)

11. ^
12. ^

    1823: Thomas Immature, An account of some recent discoveries in hieroglyphical literature and Egyptian antiquities: including the author's original alphabet, as extended by Mr. Champollion, with a translation of 5 unpublished Greek and Egyptian manuscripts (London: John Murray, 1823) Retrieved July xiv, 2010

13. ^

    1824: J.-F. Champollion, Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Égyptiens. Paris, 1824 Online version at archive.org 2nd ed. (1828) At Gallica: Retrieved July xiv, 2010

14. ^

    1827: James Browne, Aperçu sur les hiéroglyphes d'Égypte et les progrès faits jusqu'à présent dans leur déchiffrement (Paris, 1827; based on a series of articles in Edinburgh Review get-go with no. 55 (February 1823) pp. 188–197) Retrieved July xiv, 2010

15. ^

    1837: François Salvolini, "Interprétation des hiéroglyphes: analyse de 50'inscription de Rosette" in Revue des deux mondes vol. x (1937) At French Wikisource

16. ^ ^{a b}

    1841: Antoine-Jean Letronne, Inscription grecque de Rosette. Texte et traduction littérale, accompagnée d'un commentaire critique, historique et archéologique. Paris, 1840 (issued in Carolus Müllerus, ed., Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum vol. 1 (Paris: Didot, 1841)) Retrieved July 14, 2010 (see end of book)

17. ^

    1851: H. Brugsch, Inscriptio Rosettana hieroglyphica, vel, Interpretatio decreti Rosettani sacra lingua litterisque sacris veterum Aegyptiorum redactae partis ... accedunt glossarium Aegyptiaco-Coptico-Latinum atque IX tabulae lithographicae textum hieroglyphicum atque signa phonetica scripturae hieroglyphicae exhibentes. Berlin: Dümmler, 1851 Retrieved July 14, 2010

18. ^

    1853: Max Uhlemann, Inscriptionis Rosettanae hieroglyphicae decretum sacerdotale. Leipzig: Libraria Dykiana, 1853 Retrieved July 14, 2010

19. ^

    1858: Study of the committee appointed by the Philomathean Society of the University of Pennsylvania to interpret the inscription on the Rosetta rock. Philadelphia, 1858

Notes [edit]

1. ^ Bierbrier (1999) pp. 111–113
2. ^ ^{a b} Parkinson et al. (1999) p. 23
3. ^ Synopsis (1847) pp. 113–114
4. ^ Miller et al. (2000) pp. 128–132
5. ^ ^{a b} Middleton and Klemm (2003) pp. 207–208
6. ^ ^{a b} The Rosetta Stone
7. ^ ^{a b c} Ray (2007) p. 3
8. ^ Parkinson et al. (1999) p. 28
9. ^ ^{a b c d} Parkinson et al. (1999) p. twenty
10. ^ Budge (1913) pp. 2–three
11. ^ Budge (1894) p. 106
12. ^ Budge (1894) p. 109
13. ^ ^{a b} Parkinson et al. (1999) p. 26
14. ^ Parkinson et al. (1999) p. 25
15. ^ Clarysse and Van der Veken (1983) pp. twenty–21
16. ^ ^{a b c} Parkinson et al. (1999) p. 29
17. ^ Shaw & Nicholson (1995) p. 247
18. ^ Tyldesley (2006) p. 194
19. ^ ^{a b} Clayton (2006) p. 211
20. ^ Bevan (1927) pp. 252–262
21. ^ Assmann (2003) p. 376
22. ^ Clarysse (1999) p. 51, with references there to Quirke and Andrews (1989)
23. ^ ^{a b} Bevan (1927) pp. 264–265
24. ^ Ray (2007) p. 136
25. ^ Parkinson et al. (1999) p. 30
26. ^ Shaw (2000) p. 407
27. ^ Walker and Higgs (editors, 2001) p. 19
28. ^ Bagnall and Derow (2004) (no. 137 in online version)
29. ^ Budge (1904); Budge (1913)
30. ^ Bevan (1927) pp. 263–268
31. ^ Simpson (n. d.); a revised version of Simpson (1996) pp. 258–271
32. ^ Quirke and Andrews (1989)
33. ^ Parkinson (2005) p. fourteen
34. ^ Parkinson (2005) p. 17
35. ^ Parkinson (2005) p. 20
36. ^ Clarysse (1999) p. 42; Nespoulous-Phalippou (2015) pp. 283–285
37. ^ Benjamin, Don C. (March 2009). Stones and stories: an introduction to archeology and the Bible. Fortress Press. p. 33. ISBN978-0-8006-2357-9 . Retrieved fourteen July 2011.
38. ^ Adkins (2000) p. 38
39. ^ Gillispie (1987) pp. 1–38
40. ^ Wilson (1803) vol. 2 pp. 274–284
41. ^ ^{a b c} Parkinson et al. (1999) p. 21
42. ^ Burleigh (2007) p. 212
43. ^ Burleigh (2007) p. 214
44. ^ Budge (1913) p. 2
45. ^ Parkinson et al. (1999) pp. 21–22
46. ^ ^{a b} Andrews (1985) p. 12
47. ^ Parkinson (2005) pp. 30–31
48. ^ ^{a b} Parkinson (2005) p. 31
49. ^ Parkinson (2005) p. 7
50. ^ ^{a b c} Parkinson (2005) p. 47
51. ^ Parkinson (2005) p. 32
52. ^ Parkinson (2005) p. 50
53. ^ "Everything you always wanted to know about the Rosetta Stone" (British Museum, 14 July 2017)
54. ^ Parkinson (2005) pp. l–51
55. ^ Ray (2007) p. eleven
56. ^ Iversen (1993) p. thirty
57. ^ Parkinson et al. (1999) pp. xv–16
58. ^ El Daly (2005) pp. 65–75
59. ^ Ray (2007) pp. 15–eighteen
60. ^ Ray (2007) pp. twenty–24
61. ^ Powell, Barry B. (2009). Writing: Theory and History of the Technology of Civilisation. John Wiley & Sons. p. 91. ISBN978-1-4051-6256-2.
62. ^ ^{a b} Budge (1913) p. 1
63. ^ Andrews (1985) p. 13
64. ^ Budge (1904) pp. 27–28
65. ^ Parkinson et al. (1999) p. 22
66. ^ Robinson (2009) pp. 59–61
67. ^ Robinson (2009) p. 61
68. ^ Robinson (2009) pp. 61–64
69. ^ Parkinson et al. (1999) p. 32
70. ^ Budge (1913) pp. 3–6
71. ^ E. Agazzi; M. Pauri (2013). The Reality of the Unobservable: Observability, Unobservability and Their Impact on the Result of Scientific Realism. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 98–99. ISBN9789401593915.
72. ^ Dewachter (1990) p. 45
73. ^ Quirke and Andrews (1989) p. 10
74. ^ Parkinson (2005) p. 13
75. ^ Parkinson et al. (1999) pp. 30–31
76. ^ Parkinson et al. (1999) pp. 35–38
77. ^ Robinson (2009) pp. 65–68
78. ^ Budge (1904) vol. 1 pp. 59–134
79. ^ Edwardes and Milner (2003)
80. ^ Sarah El Shaarawi (5 Oct 2016). "Egypt's Own: Repatriation of Antiquities Proves to be a Mammoth Chore". Newsweek – Middle East.
81. ^ "Rose of the Nile" (2005)
82. ^ Huttinger (2005)
83. ^ "Antiquities wish list" (2005)
84. ^ Ray (2007) p. 4
85. ^ Bailey (2003)
86. ^ Aruz, Joan; Fino, Elisabetta Valtz (2012). Afghanistan: Forging Civilizations Along the Silk Route. Metropolitan Museum of Fine art. p. 33. ISBN9781588394521.
87. ^ Dudney, Arthur (2015). Delhi: Pages From a Forgotten History. Hay Business firm, Inc. p. 55. ISBN9789384544317.
88. ^ ^{a b c d} Oxford English dictionary (1989) s.v. "Rosetta stone" Archived June xx, 2011, at annal.today
89. ^ "International Team"
90. ^ Simpson and Dean (2002)
91. ^ Cooper (2010)
92. ^ Nishimura and Tajik (1998)

Bibliography [edit]

• Adkins, Lesley; Adkins, R. A. (2000). The Keys of Egypt: the obsession to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs. HarperCollins. ISBN978-0-06-019439-0.
• Allen, Don Cameron (1960). "The Predecessors of Champollion". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 144 (5): 527–547.
• Andrews, Carol (1985). The Rosetta Stone. British Museum Press. ISBN978-0-87226-034-four.
• Assmann, Jan; Jenkins, Andrew (2003). The Mind of Egypt: history and meaning in the time of the Pharaohs. Harvard University Press. ISBN978-0-674-01211-0 . Retrieved 2010-07-21 .
• "Antiquities Wish List". Al-Ahram Weekly. 2005-07-xx. Archived from the original on September 16, 2010. Retrieved 2010-07-18 .
• Bagnall, R. S.; Derow, P. (2004). The Hellenistic Flow: historical sources in translation. Blackwell. ISBN1-4051-0133-4 . Retrieved 2010-07-18 .
• Bailey, Martin (2003-01-21). "Shifting the Blame". Forbes.com . Retrieved 2010-07-06 .
• Bevan, Due east. R. (1927). The Business firm of Ptolemy. Methuen. Retrieved 2010-07-xviii .
• Bierbrier, M. L. (1999). "The acquisition by the British Museum of antiquities discovered during the French invasion of Egypt". In Davies, W. Five (ed.). Studies in Egyptian Antiquities. (British Museum Publications).
• Brown, V. Yard.; Harrell, J. A. (1998). "Aswan Granite and Granodiorite". Göttinger Miszellen. 164: 133–137.
• Budge, E. A. Wallis (1894). The Mummy: chapters on Egyptian funereal archæology. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 2010-07-19 .
• Budge, Eastward. A. Wallis (1904). The Decrees of Memphis and Canopus. Kegan Paul. Retrieved 2018-12-10 .
• Budge, E. A. Wallis (1913). The Rosetta Stone. British Museum. Retrieved 2010-06-12 .
• Burleigh, Nina (2007). Mirage: Napoleon'southward scientists and the unveiling of Egypt. HarperCollins. ISBN978-0-06-059767-2.
• Clarysse, G. W.; Van der Veken, G. (1983). The Eponymous Priests of Ptolemaic Egypt (P. L. Bat. 24): Chronological lists of the priests of Alexandria and Ptolemais with a written report of the demotic transcriptions of their names. Assistance by Southward. P. Vleeming. Leiden: Brill. ISBN90-04-06879-1.
• Clarysse, G. Westward. (1999). "Ptolémées et temples". In Valbelle, Dominique (ed.). Le Décret de Memphis: colloque de la Fondation Singer-Polignac a l'occasion de la commemoration du bicentenaire de la découverte de la Pierre de Rosette. Paris.
• Clayton, Peter A. (2006). Chronicles of the Pharaohs: the reign-by-reign record of the rulers and dynasties of Ancient Arab republic of egypt. Thames & Hudson. ISBN0-500-28628-0.
• Cooper, Keith (2010-04-14). "New Rosetta Stone for GRBs as supernovae". Astronomy Now Online . Retrieved 2010-07-04 .
• Dewachter, G. (1990). Champollion: un scribe cascade l'Égypte. Coll. « Découvertes Gallimard » (nº 96) (in French). Paris: Éditions Gallimard. ISBN978-2-07-053103-5.
• Downs, Jonathan (2008). Discovery at Rosetta: the ancient stone that unlocked the mysteries of Ancient Egypt. Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN978-ane-60239-271-vii.
• Edwardes, Charlotte; Milner, Catherine (2003-07-xx). "Egypt demands return of the Rosetta Stone". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2022-01-11. Retrieved 2006-10-05 .
• El-Aref, Nevine (2005-eleven-30). "The Rose of the Nile". Al-Ahram Weekly.
• El Daly, Okasha (2005). Egyptology: the missing millennium: Ancient Egypt in medieval Standard arabic writings. UCL Press. ISBNone-84472-063-2.
• Gillispie, C. C.; Dewachter, Thousand. (1987). Monuments of Egypt: the Napoleonic edition. Princeton Academy Press. pp. 1–38.
• "Horwennefer". Egyptian Royal Genealogy . Retrieved 2010-06-12 .
• Huttinger, Henry (2005-07-28). "Stolen Treasures: Zahi Hawass wants the Rosetta Rock back—among other things". Cairo Magazine. Archived from the original on 2005-12-01. Retrieved 2006-10-06 .
• "International team accelerates investigation of immune-related genes". The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 2000-09-06. Archived from the original on 2007-08-09. Retrieved 2006-xi-23 .
• Iversen, Erik (1993) [First edition 1961]. The Myth of Egypt and Its Hieroglyphs in European Tradition. Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0-691-02124-9.
• Kitchen, Kenneth A. (1970). "Ii Donation Stelae in the Brooklyn Museum". Journal of the American Research Middle in Egypt. viii: 59–67. doi:ten.2307/40000039. JSTOR 40000039.
• Meyerson, Daniel (2004). The Linguist and the Emperor: Napoleon and Champollion'due south quest to decipher the Rosetta Stone . Ballantine Books. ISBN978-0-345-45067-8.
• Middleton, A.; Klemm, D. (2003). "The Geology of the Rosetta Stone". Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 89 (1): 207–216. doi:10.1177/030751330308900111. S2CID 126606607.
• Miller, Due east.; et al. (2000). "The Examination and Conservation of the Rosetta Rock at the British Museum". In Roy, A.; Smith, P (eds.). Tradition and Innovation. (British Museum Publications). pp. 128–132.
• Nespoulous-Phalippou, Alexandra (2015). Ptolémée Épiphane, Aristonikos et les prêtres d'Égypte. Le Décret de Memphis (182 a.C.): édition commentée des stèles Caire RT two/3/25/7 et JE 44901 (CENiM 12). Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry.
• Nicholson, P. T.; Shaw, I. (2000). Aboriginal Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge Academy Press.
• Nishimura, Rick A.; Tajik, A. Jamil (1998-04-23). "Evaluation of diastolic filling of left ventricle in wellness and disease: Doppler echocardiography is the clinician's Rosetta Rock". Periodical of the American College of Cardiology. 30 (1): 8–eighteen. doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(97)00144-7. PMID 9207615.
• Oxford English Lexicon. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press. 1989. ISBN978-0-19-861186-8.
• Parkinson, Richard B.; Diffie, Due west.; Simpson, R. S. (1999). Cracking Codes: the Rosetta Rock and decipherment. University of California Press. ISBN978-0-520-22306-6 . Retrieved 2010-06-12 .
• Parkinson, Richard B. (2005). The Rosetta Stone . British Museum objects in focus. British Museum Printing. ISBN978-0-7141-5021-5.
• Quirke, Stephen; Andrews, Carol (1989). The Rosetta Rock. Abrams. ISBN978-0-8109-1572-five.
• Ray, J. D. (2007). The Rosetta Stone and the Rebirth of Ancient Egypt . Harvard University Press. ISBN978-0-674-02493-ix.
• Robinson, Andrew (2009). Lost Languages: the enigma of the world'southward undeciphered scripts. Thames & Hudson. ISBN978-0-500-51453-5.
• "The Rosetta Stone". The British Museum. Retrieved 2010-06-12 .
• "Rosetta Rock row 'would be solved by loan to Egypt'". BBC News. 2009-12-08. Retrieved 2010-07-fourteen .
• Shaw, Ian (2000). The Oxford history of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Printing. ISBN0-nineteen-280458-8.
• Simpson, Gordon G.; Dean, Caroline (2002-04-12). "Arabidopsis, the Rosetta Stone of Flowering Time?". Scientific discipline. 296 (5566): 285–289. Bibcode:2002Sci...296..285S. doi:10.1126/science.296.5566.285. PMID 11951029. Retrieved 2006-eleven-23 .
• Shaw, Ian; Nicholson, Paul (1995). The Lexicon of Ancient Egypt . Harry N. Abrams. ISBN0-8109-9096-2.
• Simpson, R. Due south. (1996). Demotic Grammar in the Ptolemaic Sacerdotal Decrees. Griffith Plant. ISBN978-0-900416-65-1.
• Simpson, R. S. (n.d.). "The Rosetta Rock: translation of the demotic text". The British Museum. Archived from the original on 2010-07-06. Retrieved 2010-07-21 .
• Solé, Robert; Valbelle, Dominique (2002). The Rosetta Rock: the story of the decoding of hieroglyphics . 4 Walls Eight Windows. ISBN978-1-56858-226-9.
• Spencer, Neal; Thorne, C. (2003). Book of Egyptian Hieroglyphs. British Museum Press, Barnes & Noble. ISBN978-0-7607-4199-3.
• Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum. British Museum. 1847.
• Tyldesley, Joyce (2006). Chronicle of the Queens of Egypt. Thames & Hudson. ISBN0-500-05145-3.
• Walker, Susan; Higgs, Peter, eds. (2001). Cleopatra of Arab republic of egypt. British Museum Press. ISBN0-7141-1943-1.
• Wilson, Robert Thomas (1803). History of the British Expedition to Arab republic of egypt. 4th ed. Armed forces Library. Retrieved 2010-07-nineteen .

External links [edit]

• "The Rosetta Stone online". A project in cooperation of the Excellence Cluster Topoi and the Institut für Archäologie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. 2017. hdl:21.11101/0000-0001-B537-5. (Interlinear glosses, TEI XML encoding, epitome map), ed. by D.A. Werning (EXC 264 Topoi), E.-S. Lincke (HU Berlin), Th. Georgakopoulos
• "British Museum Object Database reference number: EA24".
• "How the Rosetta Stone works". Howstuffworks.com. 11 December 2007.

begleyscrear.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone

Share this post