Talk:Rosetta Stone/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Final work on verifiability etc.

I think we're almost ready for FAC. Details:

• I have for the present replaced "It is unlikely that the British Museum will return the Rosetta Stone permanently to Egypt" with a different sentence. I think this is true, but I don't see how an encyclopedia can verify what is likely in the future. If this is an unnecessary quibble, by all means restore the original sentence. Ah, well, I now see that Ray says something similar, so I can quote him. Andrew Dalby 16:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No argument from me on that point.

I see you have just added some further material as to which is the primary text. You might want to check that against the end of para 5 in the "The Memphis Decree and its context" section because they now arguably clash (even though I am citing Parkinson, which you also cite). I suggest either bringing your material up and merging it with the info on the Decree itself, or delete the line I appended to para 5. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll look at that now: thanks for the pointer.

I have just solved my last problem: references to the Treaty of Alexandria are to be changed to Capitulation of Alexandria (1801), about which I can now write a stub. I have finished the references, too. After my next 20 minutes of editing I believe we could let it go. Andrew Dalby 18:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I was scouring my library over the weekend trying to find sufficient material on that subject, but I couldn't find enough to make a decent article with. Even the material I could find on JSTOR was not sufficiently clear. In the end, I will follow your lead. With any luck, we may be able to get another Did you know? article mention on the main page. ;-) Captmondo (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've done now (but I will write that stub). Look what I have done on the languages question: no real conflict, I think. I put it under "Later work" because that is a shorter section, but if you want to move it up to "The Memphis Decree and its context" I shan't mind at all! Andrew Dalby 19:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely better. Looking forwarding to seeing the Capitulation of Alexandria stub. Captmondo (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hieroglyphs, (replacement sources): Nabayrah Stele, Temple of Philae

Any thought about where the other (lost portion) hieroglyphs are imported from? (the other texts/steles with the Decree of Ptolemy V)...(the Ptolemaic Decrees) Mmcannis (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't ever seen a reconstructed text of the missing portion of the hieroglyphs. Do you know of any such publication? Translations of the complete inscription are based either on the demotic or on the Greek text. Andrew Dalby 19:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking out your added sentence: it's slightly out of sequence in that the translation from the Greek happened a couple of years later so it's already mentioned two sentences lower down. But I'm altering that sentence to make your point clear -- thanks. Andrew Dalby 19:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Common Text: The Rosetta Stone, "Hieroglyph Translation", text: p. 125-169. (by E. A. Wallis Budge-(Wallis Budge)) p. 125 starts with N1, Nabayrah line 1, (hieroglyph start-(the date)...p.146 starts R1, Rosetta 1, merged with N22, Nabayrah 22. N26, Nabayrah line 26 ends at R4, Rosetta line 4, and continues lines R4-R14.-(p 151-169)... pretty simple stuff... the [reconstructed portions that are on neither stele, (or the Temple of Philae Wall)] are in [brackets], as are some of the Nabayrah lines I believe, (or in the footnotes)(especially notes for the differences between the 3 texts). The c. copyright is Dover Press, c 1989, 325 pp, (also with the text for Decree of Ptolemy IV, and for the Decree of Canopus the text of Ptolemy III's stele. The c. 1989 is the reproduction of the c 1929, by The Religious Tract Society. (The publication of the Greek is irrelevant; the actual story was known immediately by the people who had the Greek and started working on it. (Though I understand they were still working in the Dark). Of note: you realize, I suppose, that this spurred, evolved into the Behistun Inscription work of the 3 languages, from 1840-1850(or whatever the precise dates?...by "Darwin 1860 time" we-(the world) got: 1-Egyptian hieroglyphs, 2-the beginnings of Cuneiform (languages), and 3-the freedom to pursue: 'evolution of the species by "natural selection"'-(OUCH)(we're still coming out of the dark ages, incidentally)...(and it might help this Rosetta Stone article, to pursue a good "Simple English" article Simultaneously) Mmcannis (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't react to this earlier. The Budge reference is useful, thanks, and it's true the article doesn't say enough about the other copies of the decree: I'll add something. Andrew Dalby 20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62

Resolved comments

"The decree appears in three versions:" I would think that "texts", "scripts", or "writing systems" would be better than "versions". I have adopted the word "texts". Andrew Dalby 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Strictly speaking "versions" is also correct if you think of each of these texts having slightly differently nuanced meaning (which is covered later) but for an intro that distinction does not have to be made. Captmondo (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) "Study of the decree and its context was already under way as the first full translation of the Greek text appeared in 1803." What does "context" refer to in this context? Unless it has some technical meaning that I'm not aware of, I really don't understand why this word is in this sentence. Simpler is better, so I've removed it. Andrew Dalby 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Captmondo (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) "Ever since its rediscovery, the Stone has been the focus of nationalist rivalries,[1] in its transfer from French to British possession during the Napoleonic wars, in the long-running dispute over the relative value of Young's and Champollion's contributions to the decipherment, and recently, in the demand for the Stone's return to Egypt." I think "disputes" would be a much better word than "rivalries". "rivalries" is better suited for football articles. More importantly, the way this sentence is constructed is somewhat confusing. It took a few re-readings before I even realized that it was a list. How about this: "Ever since its rediscovery, the Stone has been the focus of nationalist rivalries, such as its transfer from French to British possession during the Napoleonic wars, the long-running dispute over the relative value of Young's and Champollion's contributions to the decipherment, and recently, the demand for the Stone's return to Egypt." I have left "rivalries" in there for the moment -- "dispute" occurs later in the sentence anyway -- but I have gladly accepted your revised sentence. Andrew Dalby 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed, the revised version is better. Captmondo (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) "It is a fragment from a larger Ptolemaic-era stele, with an inscription recording a decree that was issued at Memphis in 196 BCE by a congress of Egyptian priests in honour of 13-year-old King Ptolemy V." This seems to be giving unnecessarily specific details considering that it is only the second sentence of the article. Ptolemy's age at the time of the decree is not needed here, and perhaps one other detail might be removed to help trim this sentence down. I agree, and I have tried to improve, but I'm not sure if I've chosen well :) I felt Memphis had to stay, because the place-name is required later in the introduction; and it seemed wrong to remove the precise date. Captmondo, see what you think! Andrew Dalby 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I suggest removing "by a congress of Egyptian priests in honour of" with "on behalf of". While it whittles away at another detail which becomes important later, I don't think it needs to be here. Captmondo (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I like Captmondo's suggestion, and I've gone ahead and implemented it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "and that phonetic characters were integral to both scripts, employed to spell native Egyptian words and names as well as foreign ones" I don't see how this can be considered a distinct breakthrough if the previous two breakthroughs involved the use of phonetic characters. I've tried to be more explicit: "and that phonetic characters were not merely a supplement to the two scripts, used in spelling foreign names, but an integral part of them, employed to spell native Egyptian words as well." Does it make more sense this way? The point that has to come through somehow -- this really was the crucial thing, and took a long time for scholars to grasp -- is that the phonetics were a basic ingredient, used all through these scripts. I have removed the link to "Phonetic complement", which isn't helpful here. I am not sure that Egyptian hieroglyphs belong in that article at all: in any case no detail about them is given. Andrew Dalby This is more information that is needed in the article, but one of the key things that prevented many previous attempts at deciphering hieroglyphics was that for a long time it was thought that the symbols related to whole words or meanings. The fact is that many of the hieroglyphs do in fact have a sound value as well, and depending on the meaning might sound out the name of a word. However there are also things like determinatives which are glyphs which are there to confirm the meaning of the sound when it is a homonym. This understanding came later: Champollion's breakthrough came through having a knowledge of Coptic whose sounds and meanings were derived from the Ancient Egyptian spoken language. Being able to tie the phonetic values that were suggested into an equivalent word in Coptic, and then translating that word to French (or any other language) was Champollion's main contribution as I understand it. Andrew please correct me if I am wrong. Captmondo (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Ah, I now understand what the breakthrough was. The question now is how to concisely explain it to the reader. How about "and that, in addition to being used for foreign names, phonetic characters were also used to spell native Egyptian words." ? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, that's much simpler and better. I've inserted it. Andrew Dalby 16:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC) "The Rosetta Stone, as the first known bilingual text offering a possible route to an understanding of ancient Egyptian languages, aroused immediate excitement." Excitement for whom? Hmm, yes, this is documented later -- Napoleon, George III, Institut d'Egypte, Gentleman's Magazine, George III, Society of Antiquaries, etc. -- but what word to use here? It's much wider than just "scholars". I haven't yet dealt with this one. Andrew Dalby 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) "linguistic scholars" or "'philologists" (with appropriate wikilink)? Captmondo (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry for slow reponse. I really think it's wider than that (and I think the article demonstrates it). I'm going to try "aroused wide public interest". This stretches, after all, from Napoleon and George III to the readership of the popular 'Gentleman's magazine' and equivalents; almost mass media in 1800 terms. Andrew Dalby 16:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I like that better. I'm thinking of adding "throughout Egypt and Europe" to the end. Any thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC) "It is in fact a fine-to-medium-grained, crystalline rock; the 1999 analysis of a small section of stone during conservation work at the British Museum showed it to be granodiorite (a type of rock often called "black granite")" Considering that this is the Description section, I don't think this level of detail is necessary regarding historical findings. This can be simplified to something like "It has since been shown to be composed of granodiorite, more commonly known as "black granite". Have made the change. Captmondo (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Agreed. The level of detail can be found in the source material if someone wishes to know more about how and when the testing was done. Your summary is best, I suggest you go with it. Captmondo (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) "and the remaining surface was covered with a layer of carnauba wax designed to protect it from visitors' fingers and to preserve its surface" They wanted to preserve the surface's surface? :P Is there a difference between protecting and preserving in this context? The addition of the carnauba wax was to protect the surface of the Rosetta Stone from the direct contact of visitors who touched its surface. So more "protecting" than "preserving" in this case. Have made the change already. Captmondo (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Here are some comments on the article's prose (as of this revision): The Description section contains several instances of redundant information. The first and second paragraphs both contain information about the granodiorite/black basalt composition. The first and third paragraphs both mention the languages in which the inscriptions are written. I'm not sure how you would want to go about reducing these redundancies, but I definitely think this section would benefit from some consolidation. I've made some changes that I believe takes care of the problem. The first para now talks exclusively on the makeup of the RS, and the second on the inscriptions (and their order from top to bottom). Captmondo (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC) The first paragraph of the Original stele section should probably discuss the inscriptions in the order in which they appear on the stele. This will make the accompanying visual aid significantly more useful. I've re-arranged the first para in that section and made the ordering of the inscription types explicit. Done! Captmondo (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC) "Some details of this reconstruction are uncertain, but the original height of the stele was probably about 149 centimetres (59 in)" What does "this reconstruction" refer to? I think this may mislead readers into thinking that the details were surmised from a physical reconstruction of the stele rather than estimates. Perhaps this can be simplified to "The height of the original stele is estimated to have been about 149 centimetres (59 in)" or some such. Excellent suggestion. Done! Captmondo (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC) "This date is given in the same standard way in the three texts. The month and day are given as 4 Xandicus in the Macedonian calendar and 18 Meshir in the Egyptian calendar." These two sentences appear to contradict each other. How can a date be given in the same standard way... in two different calendars? Not all calendars have the same start or end date, which was the case then. I have re-worded the two sentences, which hopefully makes the point more clear. Captmondo (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC) What we meant to say, I think, was that both those dates (Egyptian calendar and Macedonian calendar) are given in all three texts. However, it was clearly confusing to try to work all that into one sentence :) Andrew Dalby 09:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC) " and it is confirmed by naming four priesthoods whose holders were appointed each for a single year: Aëtus son of Aëtus was priest of the divine cults of Alexander the Great and the five Ptolemies down to Ptolemy V himself" These two sentences appear to contradict each other. How can Aëtus have served as a priest for five generations of Ptolemies in a single year? Have re-worded to say that the four priests dates are known to coincide for that year. Captmondo (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC) The direct answer to the question is that the Ptolemies were living gods. They were worshipped both before and after their deaths. The priesthoods were annual appointments, and those named people (Aëtus and his colleagues) were indeed priests of the different rituals for that one year alone -- the details can be cross-checked in other documents via citations. That's how the year was officially identified, and that's how it can be confirmed by modern scholars. As your question shows, it isn't easy to make all this clear! But I wanted to get the information in somehow, because the verified date of the Stone is important to us, and because questions of official dating were important to the Egyptians too -- as is demonstrated by the space all this occupies in the inscription. Andrew Dalby 09:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I always thought that this section had more detail than was necessary; the names of the priests matter little in comparison to the fact that the "reign" of all four at that time confirms the date. Agreed that a minor re-write (and maybe a slight trim?) would help. Captmondo (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC) OK, yes, "a slight trim". I just got too interested in the dating issue, I guess! Andrew Dalby 14:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC) My last edit was intended to streamline this material. Please revert if not liked. Andrew Dalby 19:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I like! It's slimmer and more to the point, so it is good by me. Captmondo (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC) "Antiochus III the Great and Philip V of Macedon had made a pact to divide the kingdom's overseas possessions." Which kingdom? The Egyptian, the Macedonian, or the Seleucid? Egyptian. Have made the change. Captmondo (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC) "had become ruler at the age of five. His mother was murdered before word about her husband's death." This paragraph leaves the reader guessing what happened to Ptolemy IV. Did he die of natural causes or was he murdered? Have added: "...after the sudden death of his father, likely of poison by the Ptolemy IV's mistress Agathoclea." Captmondo (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC) As a historian I'm slightly unhappy here: it is rarely possible to be sure that somebody in ancient times was murdered, unless we have the body or unless (as in the case of Julius Caesar) there were many witnesses. Therefore, I would have said the place for discussing whether or not Ptolemy IV was murdered, how, and by whom, is in his own article with full references, not here. However, I admit this murder seems well-supported in literary texts. Andrew Dalby 09:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Re-reading these sentences, they are getting too complicated. Making the text really clear would mean making it longer, and I feel tempted to simplify instead. How exactly his parents died, and in which order, hardly matters to the Stone ... I might try editing this paragraph again later today, OK? Andrew Dalby 09:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC) No problem! My source is reputable, though I am sure she bases her assumption of Ptolemy IV's likely poisoning from ancient sources, and even then she hedges her bets by saying "likely". Some background on the Ptolemaic family is warranted here though, though I agree that more info ought to be added to the Ptolemy IV article. Captmondo (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC) My last-but-one edit was an attempt to simplify this slightly. Please revert if not liked :) Andrew Dalby 19:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Works for me! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC) "The external situation was grave." The meaning of this is not clear. Perhaps something like "This period was turbulent outside the Egyptian empire as well. Have added: "Forces from outside Egypt exacerbated the internal problems of the Ptolemaic kingdom." Captmondo (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, that's much clearer I think. Andrew Dalby 09:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Better, though the meaning of "forces" may not be clear. "Forces" usually means "armies" in a historical context. I suspect the intended meaning was "Political forces" or perhaps "Political turmoil". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I have adopted "political forces". Andrew Dalby 12:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I have today slightly reworded the introduction: I felt that the initial listing of the three texts could be expressed more simply, and that our explanation of how the Stone got from its temple to Rosetta had become too definite (we don't know it toppled over; we don't know it was buried before being used in the foundations of the fort). Please check what I've done, you others, and correct me if I have made some mistakes in turn! Andrew Dalby 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I can live with this, and it certain flows better overall. Captmondo (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC) "It was rediscovered there in 1799 in the Nile delta by a soldier of the French expedition to Egypt." This sentence uses two locations to describe where the Stone was discovered: "there" and "Nile delta". Either they are different, in which case this is an error, or Rashid is part of the Nile delta, in which case this is still somewhat redundant and confusing. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC) OK: my careless editing. Rashid is in the Nile delta. I'll clarify. Andrew Dalby 21:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC) "The decree records that Ptolemy V gave a gift of silver and grain to the temples, adding that in the eighth year of his reign during a particularly high Nile flood, he had the excess waters dammed for the benefit of the farmers." I don't think that "adding" is a good transition word here. I see no reason why we can't just use "and" instead. Other than the fact that "and" appears in the preceding clause. In the end I thought it best to turn this into two sentences instead of trying to link the two together using another "and". Captmondo (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC) "as they were the highest religious authority of the time and had contacts throughout the kingdom" What does "contacts" mean here? I suggest it really means "influence". I've inserted that. Andrew Dalby 12:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC) "Too long to reproduce here in full, and differing slightly in its three versions," It is a pet peeve of mine when encyclopedia articles make reference to themselves, partly because if the text is reproduced elsewhere, whatever statement the article makes about itself may no longer be true. I think it would be more helpful to say something like "There exists no one definitive English translation of the decree because of the minor differences between the three original texts and because modern understanding of the ancient languages continues to develop." Obviously, this particular sentence may not be entirely accurate, so correct it as you see fit. Yes, I fully agree with you. I like your sentence and I am copying it in. I find it difficult to explain what we're doing at this point without a bit of self-reference: any further improvements you can make, please do! Andrew Dalby 12:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC) "A copy of this decree was to be placed in every temple, inscribed in the language of the gods (hieroglyphs), the language of documents (demotic), and the language of the Greeks." I like that this sentence makes it very clear why the decree was recorded in hieroglyphs and demotic, but it leaves me wondering why they recorded it in Greek as well. Judging from what I've read in the paragraphs that follow this one, perhaps something along the lines of "the language of recorded documents (demotic), and the spoken language of the government (Greek)." would work. Hope I've clarified that. Andrew Dalby 12:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Better, but I don't understand why "language of the Greeks" is in quotations in the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC) I have reworded, aiming to make it clear that all three names of languages are directly quoted from the decree. The names used are interesting: they help to show how the three "official" languages of Ptolemaic Egypt had complementary uses. Does that read OK now? Andrew Dalby 16:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC) "The temple it originally came from was most probably closed by 392 CE as an edict from the Eastern Roman emperor Theodosius I closing non-Christian temples of worship was put into effect." Awkward construction that required several re-reads before I fully understood it. How about this: "The temple it originally came from was probably closed around 392 CE when Eastern Roman emperor Theodosius I ordered the closing of all non-Christian temples of worship." You are right and I will make the suggested alteration. Andrew Dalby 16:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC) "the expeditionary army was accompanied by the Commission des Sciences et des Arts, a corps of 167 technical experts (savants)." From this point onward, the article refers to these experts both as "savants" and as "Commission members". I suspect that using two different phrases to refer to the same group of people may be confusing to some readers. Upon seeing the different wordings, some readers may assume that "commission members" refers to those in charge of the group while "savants" refers to the grunt workers. Also, offering "savant" without any explanation of its meaning may lead some readers to assume that it is a reference to savant syndrome. I think the best course of action may be to drop the "savants" wording altogether and simply refer to the technical experts as "commission members" or "members of the commission" hereafter. Thoughts? Yes, I think I'll reword as you suggest. However, it may be best to retain the word savant in that first parenthesis, with an explanation attached. The term is used in some recent books about the Stone, so it's possible that readers will expect to see it. Andrew Dalby 15:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Done. I hope that reads clearly. Andrew Dalby 16:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC) "The temple it originally came from was most probably closed by 392 CE as an edict from the Eastern Roman emperor Theodosius I closing non-Christian temples of worship was put into effect. At some point the original stele broke, its largest piece becoming what we now know as the Rosetta Stone. Ancient Egyptian temples were subsequently used as quarries for new construction, and the Rosetta Stone probably was re-used in this manner." I would imagine that the word "subsequently" should relate to the Theodosius edict, but those two sentences are interrupted by the sentence about the stele breaking. I suggest switching the second and third sentences or possibly moving the broken stele sentence even later in the paragraph. I take the point. Captmondo might like to comment on this. Sorry about our delayed reaction ... Andrew Dalby 16:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC) I do too but I given that the order of events is unclear (did the RS break and was then used as construction filler, or was the RS broken as part of a process of tearing down the temple for use as construction filler?) I would prefer to leave it slightly ambiguous as to what "subsequently" refers to, especially since there's no way to tell the order of events at this stage. Captmondo (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I understand why you would want to keep the phrasing somewhat ambiguous, but I think "subsequently" is the wrong word for that. I think it would work better if we replace "subsequently" with "later". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Fair enough. Have made the change. Captmondo (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC) The third paragraph of From French to British possession uses both "gun carriage" and "gun-carriage". These should be made consistent, though I wouldn't know which is correct. OED has "gun-carriage" so I've adopted that. Andrew Dalby 12:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC) "who was to escort it to Britain" and "Turner brought the Stone to Britain" At this point in history, England and Scotland had merged to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain, so the use of "Britain" in the highlighted sentences is somewhat ambiguous. Does it refer to the island of Great Britain or to the kingdom thereof? Given that Stone went to Portsmouth, I suggest switching "Britain" with "England". Agreed, but I will take "United Kingdom" because it's really a question of jurisdiction and that's the name of the independent state (complete with army) to which the Stone was going. Andrew Dalby 12:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I changed my mind while editing: I have added links earlier in the text, [[United Kingdom|British]], to clarify what jurisdiction is meant by that handy word, but at this point I have adopted your suggestion of England, the geographical destination. Andrew Dalby 12:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC) "In the course of 1802, the Society arranged for four plaster casts of the inscriptions, which were given..." This sentence is missing a verb. Suggested rewrite with italicized addition: "In the course of 1802, the Society arranged for four plaster casts to be made of the inscriptions, which were given..." Alternatively, we can drop the "arranged" bit and simplify to this: "In the course of 1802, the Society created four plaster casts of the inscriptions, which were given..." Yes, I'll insert this version. Andrew Dalby 12:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC) "During the middle of the 19th century, it was given the inventory number "EA 24", EA standing for "Egyptian Antiquities"." I suggest placing this sentence (or a variant thereof) earlier in this section, as there are mentions of several other objects with EA numbers. It would be better to explain the abbreviation before their appearance rather than afterwards. Excellent point. Done! Captmondo (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC) "Since 2004, the conserved Stone" What does this mean? In my experience, "conserved" is generally used for resources and endangered species. I don't know what it means in this context. "Restored" (think "restored painting") might be another possibility, but "conserved" is, I think, the better word. It is also the common meaning, going by what's listed in: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conserved. Captmondo (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC) "moved the Rosetta Stone to safety along with other portable objects of value" The stone weighs 1,700 pounds and is nearly 6 feet long. How exactly does this qualify as "portable"? :P Notice we did not add "easily" before "portable". ;-) This is relative though, and when compared to other items in the BM like the Elgin Marbles or Hoa Hakananai'a the logistics of moving the RS around are much smaller. Unfortunately the source cited don't go into detail as to the other "portable" items that were also moved for their protection, and I don't want to stray from that. Captmondo (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I think in this day and age, many readers assume that "portable" means the same thing as "handheld". If such a reader were to skip to this section without having read the description of the Stone's size, the adjective would be severely misleading. If it is correctly interepreted as meaning "capable of being transported", then it is somewhat redundant, as the sentence in question already mentioned that it was moved. I suggest dropping "portable". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I hate this to be a sticking point, but it's kind of an important adjective in this case. If the phrase simply becomes "...and moved the Rosetta Stone to safety along with other portable objects of value" the natural question then is: what were those other "objects of value" that were moved? I also have to disagree with your definition of "portable"; not everyone in the world has an iPhone. ;-) When a person moves house, they take only those things which can be moved; fixtures like the kitchen sink tend not to be thought of as "portable". I think we may have to leave this point as a point we can't agree on. Captmondo (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved comments

• "a slightly different method for reproducing the inscriptions was adopted by Antoine Galland." What method was this? This sentence tantalizes the appetite without offering any substantial meal to follow.

Good point. I know I'm slow on this but it takes some investigation. I'm working on it ... Andrew Dalby 13:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Newly arrived scholars Edward Daniel Clarke and William Richard Hamilton agreed to check the collections in Alexandria" Newly arrived from where? Perhaps it would be better to say that they were "brought in" to avoid implying that they just happened to arrive at such a convenient time. Also, what does "check" mean here? The problem with the "check ... in" construction is that it has a somewhat misleading meaning in modern English.

Will have to see if my sources provide sufficient background on these points to address your query. Captmondo (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• "the Capitulation of Alexandria signed by representatives of the British, French and Egyptian forces." Egyptian forces? Unless I am mistaken, this is the first mention of the Egyptian forces in the article. This left thinking "Whose side were the Egyptians on?", and I suspect many other readers will share my confusion.

You have aimed unerringly at the interesting issue. Who was this Egyptian or Ottoman representative, whom did he represent ... and did he know or care that as a result of his signature the Rosetta Stone (etc.) would go to George III? Wikipeia doesn't as yet (I think) have much information on this campaign. I would like to find out more, but I don't know what has been published on it ... We must try to answer your question without diving into original research. Andrew Dalby 08:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, backing away from all of that, in international terms they were Ottoman Empire forces so I have reworded and linked to make that clearer. Andrew Dalby 12:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is likely the safest approach. If I turn up something more specific I will add it here later. Captmondo (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• "there had been no understanding of the ancient Egyptian language and script since shortly before the fall of the Roman Empire." I'm not sure that I understand this sentence correctly, so here's my interpretation: Before the fall of the Roman empire, there existed people/societies who understood the ancient Egyptian language and script. Since then, all understanding has been lost. Is this correct?
• "Hieroglyphs retained their pictorial appearance and classical authors emphasised this aspect," Not sure what this means either. My hunch is that individual hieroglyphs did not change in appearance over time, as opposed to members of the Greek/Roman alphabet which did change over time.

More to come. As you address or discuss issues, please leave comments below the individual concerns to indicate which are resolved and which need further discussion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Mmcannis

"Study of the decree and its context was already under way as the first full translation of the Greek text appeared in 1803."
I recently added (this ?)(but reworded by a later editor.) I may have had a typo: (This is possibly from the next paragraphs). I had stated in para 3, I think that: "The story was immediately known because of the 'Greek' "story". (I don't mean evey Word was yet translated, I mean the "story" of the Greek text told what the 3-scripts are going to tell you, once you translate them... So the quote above, I guess really refers to the "context" of the stone, and the decrees. I think some of them can be concluded by readers of articles, like the one in Wikipedia. The "historical" context may be surmised, etc...
My comments:
1--"A fragment of a stele".. The R. Stone is the bottom 2/3 or so, with 14 lines of H. missing, and the Lunette (stele) lost. To say it is a fragment is certainly misleading.

I disagree. 'Fragment has the following meanings:

• a piece broken off or cut off of something else
• a broken piece of a brittle artifact
• an incomplete piece

By those definitions it fits. I take your point that it is a large piece of the original stele, but I can't find a more appropriate synonym (though I am open to suggestions). Captmondo (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

2--"context" ... I think the word was supposed to be "content"(as explained in the beginning of my TALK just lines abouve)(And, yes before the series of individuals published the GREEK, each knew(comprehended) the story, the precise details variable, and the road-MAP for the other scripts set out ahead)(as well as the road to the FIRST published GREEK, which is irrelavent, since so much more needed to be synchronized)(more to follow)Mmcannis (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Again a disagree with your interpretation. Content is nothing without context, and that is definitely what is meant here. Captmondo (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As the Rosetta Stone article shows (in the diagram), the R. Stone is the bottom 2/3,.... what I don't understand in discussing the top of the stone, and especially the missing 13-14 Hieroglyphic first lines, why is there no reference to their replacement from the (text on the wall) at Temple of Philae, and the Nubayrah Stele, lines 1-14, (actually sychronized up to Nab. Line 26, (with Ros. Line 4) (Budge has to go to Nubayrah Line 26 before he ends(the suplementation), and starts Rosetta Line 4.5, and line 5..)(Ros. Line 1 is with Nabay. Line 22)... hasn't anyone bothered to look at Budge's translation, as well as the book having the Decree for Ptolemy III, his grandpa, and the Decree for Ptolemy IV his father? (any mention of THAT in the Article-The Grandfather, Father, Son, series.)(His great Grandfather had A Victory Stela, so he actually began the tradition, (but it was not bilingual)(all three stories can be read in one complete Budge work (1923) and the reprint by Dover, c. 1989, etc. (Leaving out the Nubayrah Stele, or "Temple of Philae", text, seems almost blatantly MISLEADING, Champollion didn't have access to it, but by 1900 and beyond, the WORLD did) Mmcannis (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But what about the references to "two slightly earlier Ptolemaic decrees (the decree of Canopus in 238 BCE, and the Memphis decree of Ptolemy IV, c. 218 BCE)". I think that covers it off doesn't it? We don't want to cover the entire tradition of Ancient Egyptian steles in this article, but we do need to mention the RS' place amongst other stele of its time (which I think we do) Captmondo (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Two additional Comments

(I just corrected my previous usage of Nabayrah Stele); it is the Nubayrah Stele. My 2 comments are this: I think if the "abridged"–Summary is an important part of the Article (anyone who reads the entire text, (especially in all three versions), might not be too happy with the summary. It might be pointed out, that an actual Full-length, comprehensive summary, (a paring down) would be 3 to 5 times as long?.. I don't know, but the summary leaves a lot out.

A summary is supposed to be shorter. ;-) By necessity it must leave some details out that are either covered elsewhere in more depth within the article itself, or perhaps within another article. You might want to look at the FA nom for this article, as several other things have been already cut in order to make the article more readable. Captmondo (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See my note just below. Andrew Dalby 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The second
In: The Memphis Decree and its context, it says the reign of Ptolemy V is 204-181BC, and in 204BC he is 5-years-old. I'm not sure that enough is said that in 196 BC, that he is 13-years-old. This implies to me, that, the priesthood, army, government, etc. was actually running the show, and of course, his accomplishments, were based on his history from 5- to 13-years-old. (He didn't reach the "age of reason" till 8? )... anyhow, I'll read more, and see how His age of 13, fits into what is stated in the Decree, versus the actual Events in Egypt, (in the Ros. Stone article I mean).

I am not certain that needs to be emphasized further in this article, though it is a level of detail that ought to be added to the anemic Ptolemy V article. Captmondo (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's remember the article you've started, Mmcannis: Rosetta Stone Decree-list of Ptolemy V accomplishments and rewards honored. That could be a good place for more detail on the contents of the decree, and also for questioning whether these really were Ptolemy's accomplishments or those of his ministers. Andrew Dalby 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In the discussion of the "Decree for Ptolemy V", maybe it shold be pointed out: the equal length Decree of Canopus, and Decree for Ptol. IV, had two entirely differing topics: the Canopus concerned his 1-Daughter, (the cult festivities, priest classes created), 2-the New Year Leap Year for 2 of 26 lines of text(later implemented by Caesar 55BC BC, 238BC the actual start), (and Grain and Monies for Welfare).. and for Ptolemy IV Decree: (It was foreign wars, and return of temple items to Egypt, etc. ?)

Yes, I think something on the other Memphis decrees could be added. How about:

Two other copies of the Memphis decrees have been found since the discovery of the Rosetta Stone: the Nubayrah Stele and an inscription found at the Temple of Philae. Their hieroglyphic inscriptions were relatively intact, and though the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone had been deciphered long before their discovery, subsequent Egyptologists including Wallis Budge used these other inscriptions to further refine the actual hieroglyphs that were used in the lost portion of the hieroglyphic register on the Rosetta Stone.

I have just added this to the article, along with the citation to Budge's book (note to Andrew: I removed the citation you had on this point in the intro section, and moved it to the body of the article). Captmondo (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable talking about the differences between the RS and the Canopus Decree, as (I think) that ought to go in an article about Ptolemaic decrees rather than here. Major difference between the RS and the other Memphis decrees ought to be covered, and references from the Budge book ought to be sufficient. Captmondo (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(I haven't reread it lately-stele Hieroglyph:

(Ros line 14)

).... --Mmcannis (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this ought to be included in the article? Captmondo (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like I cannot do this without seriously disrupting the flow of the article. There is a mention of this hieroglyph in the article, so after it I added in brackets a Wikilink to Gardiner's list as the specific page where the symbol can be found). Captmondo (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Courrier" de l’Égypte, not "courier"

The French newspaper's name was Courrier de l’Égypte, sometimes written "courier", see (in French)[1]. The word "courier" is now incorrect, so we should write "fr:courrier" in wikipedia. --El Caro (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked the title as it appears on the issue of the journal that we cite here, and it's with one r. But I agree that's incorrect in 21st century French, so I won't object to the change. The variation should be made clear in the article about the journal (when it's written!) Andrew Dalby 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Rosetta Stone (very) subtle image manipulation alert!

Several internet vandals associated with the website, 4chan.org, are planning on inserting small, hard-to-notice messages on the cover image of the Rosetta stone.

Here is a website dedicated to their efforts: http://rosettastoneshop*wikispaces*com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antitroll13 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Such a site doesn't appear to exist. - Vianello (Talk) 04:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it either, but it looks like someone really doesn't want this message up here. Thanatosimii (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Or wants to give the impression somebody doesn't want it up here. But that's just getting wayyy too deep into meta head-games for my taste. - Vianello (Talk) 04:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is anathema to Wikipedia (fake information, non-existent website, anonymous editor) and everything we are about, but it makes you :-) Politis (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It is true. 4chan.org's /b/ section has a photoshop image reading something like, "4/10/2013, We'll be there". They are planning to put it up in a day or two (takes a week for wikipedia accounts to be fully usable). They will replace the current picture with a more "up to date" one, and then have another user state that the previous picture was more suitable. They will then put the current picture back with subtle changes near the upper-right. I have no idea how to do anything on wikipedia except the signature so sorry if this is out of format or something. -76.27.200.187 (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I can find on 4chan are mentions of people pirating (or wanting to pirate) Rosetta Stone software. Given that the WP article has recently become a Feature Article, changing or replacing any of the images will come under close scrutiny from a lot of editors here. Captmondo (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The following link directs to their "base of operations" as they call it.
http://vunderfulthings.createforum.ca/forum.htm Volumnius (talk) 06:99, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"first known bilingual text"

What does this mean? There are bilingual texts that date from earlier periods of history than the Rosetta stone. It's also pretty obvious that, when discovered, the concept of a "bilingual text" was well established. Does the article mean that this was the first discovered bilingual text that included Egyptian? This should be clarified.--SkiDragon (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have anything in mind SkiDragon? I am not aware of any existing written bilingual texts prior to Rosetta. Anyway, good to see this article featured and a huge thanks to the British MuseumPolitis (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any other prior bilingual text either. The concept was certainly well known by the time of Champollion, but as far as I am aware the statement is factually accurate. Other bilingual texts of the same decree were found, but they were discovered much later. Can you point to a bilingual document/monument that predates the RS (circa 200 BCE)? Captmondo (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A follow-up, since I've made a change based on User talk:Medeis' suggestion: we stuck with "first bilingual text" because we couldn't find any antecedent. To resolve any confusion though, I have changed this to say that it was the "first ancient bilingual text recovered in modern times" (which is close to what Medeis suggested).

If there are examples of other ancient bilingual texts that predate the RS, I'd love to know about it. Captmondo (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by predate. The Behistun Inscription is a few hundred years older in terms of date created, but was not understood to be a bilingual inscription until a few decades after the Rosetta Stone was deciphered. I understand the lead to indicate that the RS was the first bilingual text from the ancient near east which was understood to be bilingual, which I believe is accurate. Thanatosimii (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, as I've never heard of the Behistun Inscription before. That would qualify, at least enough to amend the existing statement, which has already been done. Thanks Thanatosimii! Captmondo (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This section has been rewritten many, many times ... The original statement, back in July, was: "The Egyptian scripts were at that time undeciphered. The Rosetta Stone, as the first known bilingual text offering a possible route to an understanding of this ancient language, aroused immediate excitement." Rewriting has broadened the claim to the extent that it is now completely false. There are in fact several earlier bilingual texts in several languages (see also the Pyrgi Tablets and various Sumerian/Akkadian bilinguals), but they weren't known in 1799 and they don't have anything to do with Egypt or with deciphering Egyptian scripts. The sentences we had in July could be restored -- there's nothing wrong with them -- or the current statement could be deleted. Andrew Dalby 19:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is such a thing as too much copyediting, and I think this is a good example of where the original meaning has been eroded over subsequent edits. I for one would be happier with the earlier version of the text as you suggest. Captmondo (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Should this tag be added at the bottom?

I think it would be helpful for people interested in related topics. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Have checked some other articles in this area of interest and they tend to use it, so go for it! Captmondo (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Word Choice, verb tense agreement

"Hitherto" in sentence 3 of ¶2 should be changed to "previously," or some similar word. "Hitherto" means until the present. Samohtar (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

[2] does not seem to agree. Thanatosimii (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

New article: History of the Rosetta Stone

Before a "Featured Article" goes through, maybe a new article: History of the Rosetta Stone should be considered?

And (I hesitate looking at the "Simple English", afraid that it may also be as long, and confusing). If two article were developed in "Simple English", 1-History of the Rosetta Stone-(physical and historical, without language parts), and 2-Rosetta Stone, bilingual three texts, maybe that could pave the way to two good articles, that can cover the large story of the Rosetta Stone... I do see two dramatic DIVISIONS, the first being the whole history of how hieroglyphs came to be translated, (which is complex, and somewhat debatable, or opinionated(controversial) in details).. (not complete until the Nubayrah Stele and Demotic (Egyptian) completed); the second being the Stele's history, the Museum, the French.. etc. (anyway, I can only stick with the language part, annddd, if you look at all the references in Budge's simple book, the references are in German, French, etc. soooooo....dealing with that part of the language write-up can't be dealt with by the common MAN, that's why one article on History, and one article on Language, seems a possible way to approach the topic: "Rosetta Stone" (and the modern use as a "Language Key")...

I don't doubt that the existing article could be expanded in these directions, but for the moment the existing article is undergoing an FA evaluation, and to me (at least) it seems premature do what you propose until this process is finished. Captmondo (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In Fact: Historically, until the Nubayrah Stele, only the "Temple of Philae" (which is only a partial text), supplemented the Greek, and Demotic.... So.. the Nubayrah Stele, really should somehow be incorporated; it is the actual hieroglyph first 1/2...(and comparison to how Hier. text recontructionists accuracy in their supplements, or surmised creations could be compared to the actual use on the Nubayrah)(their accuracy credits, for 1800's pre-Nubayrah discovery work)..Mmcannis (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this your response to my point up in the previous section? I am honestly having trouble parsing what you mean (less sentence fragments please!) I will look up the stele you mention in the reference materials I have though. And which book of Budge's were you referring to earlier? Captmondo (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I found it on Google Books: "Rosetta Stone in the British Museum". Problem is that Budge never provides any context in which the Nabayrah stele supposedly figures (see the search for that term in the book here: [3]. It references sections on this stele which are in addition to passages on the Rosetta Stone, and those which are omitted. Yes, it seems like it was useful for Budge -- though he also mentions the Canopus Decree and the Pithom Stele in this book -- but without any further background material on what it is. Other than this one book, I cannot find any further references to it anywhere: I've scoured JSTOR, Google Books, Google Scholar and my own library and haven't been able to find any other reference to it. I suspect that what was called the Nubayrah Stele in Budge's time may go by a different name now. In the end, I don't feel comfortable adding information about a stele that I can't find any background for; I'm sure it exists and that it helped Budge to illustrate some of the finer points of the translation of the RS, but it seems to truly be an isolated reference that may go by a different name now. Captmondo (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just tying up loose ends: here's a subsequent post I originally made on Mmcannis' talk page back in July 2010 to which he never responded. I am putting it here just in case anyone wants to delve further into the subject or thinks that the Nubayrah Stele requires further reference in the RS article:

-----Original post begins-----

I have continued to do further research in this area as it relates to the Rosetta Stone.

In your article on the Nubayrah Stele you referenced an Egyptian Museum number for it. So I did a search in the literature for anything from the Egyptian Museum with that number.

I found an article in JSTOR called "The Great Temenos of Naukratis" (from the Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 31, (1994), pp. 99-113), and on page 103 is the following paragraph:

Petrie and Griffith "heard in the winter of 1884 that a large inscribed stone had been found in the north-east part of the Great Temenos, and taken away" to Bulaq. This was the limestone 'Damanhour stela', Cairo JE 22264/CG 22188, fromerly Bulaq 5576, dated to Year 23 of Ptolemy V Epiphanes (182 B.C.), but inscribed with what seems to be an imperfect copy of the hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta decree of Year 9 of Ptolemy V (196 B.C.).

So my original guess on the RS talk page that it went under a different name fits. Note that the old "Bulaq" number is from the beginning of the 20th century, and that a new number (and name) ought to be referenced instead.

So there may be a good argument for renaming the article to the "Damanhour stele". I can certainly find more reliable references when using this name to search than on "Nubayrah Stele". Indeed, your source (from Budge again) on the Museum reference number actually says:

A large portion of the missing lines of the hieroglyphic text can be restored from a stele discovered in 1898 at Damanhur in the Delta (Hermopolis Parva), and now in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (No. 5576)

...so "Damanhur" comes up again, perhaps suggesting that it was beginning to be better known under that name (there is no reference at all to "Nubayrah Stele" in that book you referenced, just this one. I checked).

All of this underlines my concerns about basing your work off a single source (you reference other publications, but only ever cite the works by Budge, which suggests you haven't actually read the other sources).

Forgive me, I am being critical of your approach, but I hope you understand that I am only doing so to seek clarity on the subject. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

-----End of original post-----

Captmondo (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Rosetta stone

From prior reading I believe that the "Greek" portion of the Rosetta stone was identified by Champoleon as the Coptic language which uses the greek alphabet plus 7 original coptic symbols. THe article should probably be corrected in this respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.77.61 (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That is arguably within the scope of Decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs, but not specifically for the Rosetta Stone article. Captmondo (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean that the Demotic portion could be viewed with regard to Coptic, which is essentially Egyptian Demotic of the first centuries AD, not the Greek portion which is... Greek. GK (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's a misunderstanding here. The Greek portion is Greek: Champollion knew that very well. The Demotic portion was described by some early writers (Champollion? could be, but I think not) as "Coptic". This was not a mistake, it was a different use of terminology, because Demotic actually is an earlier form of the same language that afterwards became Coptic. I agree with Captmondo that this variation in names is something to explain in the Decipherment page. Andrew Dalby 18:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Demotic" means "of the demos" or in plainer English "of the people". "Demotic" Egyptian is not actually a language or dialect but the script of the Egyptian language used by the common people as opposed to the "hieroglyphics" which is "the sacred glyphs (=inscriptions)". So, both portions of the Rosetta Stone are written in the Egyptian language of the time in two different scripts, the script of the Priests and this of the People, which I is also fully explained in the Greek portion (tis ierois (priests) kai tis egxoriois (locals)). GK (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Demotic is simply a late-stage form of handwritten hieroglyphics, replacing the earlier stage, hieratic. I'm aware the etymologies would seem to suggest otherwise, but you can blame the ancient Greeks for that. Greek historians didn't really understand how these scripts had come about, and assumed that hieroglyphics and hieratic were somehow the special domain of priests simply because the priests of the late period were the only ones still using them. Thanatosimii (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Greeks only called what we call "hieroglyphics" "the script of the priests" while the Demotic was "the script of the local people". Our terminology certainly did not apply in those years. What is important though to clarify is that both scripts were used for the same language.GK (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that there's somewhere in the article where this is not clear? I think we've been fairly explicit that we're talking about two languages and three scripts. (That said, the "identity" of the Demotic and Hieroglyphic texts shouldn't be overstated. There are linguistic differences between them, albeit minor.) Andrew Dalby 09:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not speak about the article. The article is clear. I was only referring to the current discussion and the use of the term "language" within it. GK (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. In my own comment above I could have said more clearly "Demotic actually represents an earlier form of the same language". Andrew Dalby 12:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does it look like the Rosetta Stone has been broken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.178.181 (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it is. It's part of a larger stele. Read the article, it's all there. ;-) Captmondo (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think you are calling "transliteration" to the english phonetics for kleopatra, were kleopatra is a transliteration itself of the heroglyphs. Transliterate means pass from an alphabet to another... or maybe im wrong.

You're quite right, both Champollion's version and the modern version are transliterations from the hieroglyphs. The article just happens to use the word "transliteration" in the second case, not in the first. I'm not sure if this requires rewriting. Andrew Dalby 18:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Requests for repatriation to Egypt

Please include in the article that during the recent Egyptian revolution the Egyptian Museum was sacked, mummies were thrown in the street, so the British Museum must never return this relic to Egypt, because of the lack of security. These precious objects must be preserved for the entire mankind in secure places. Anyway, the Rosetta Stone was made by another people, not the present inhabitants of Egypt.Mazarin07 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The event that you describe, if it really happened, is evidently relevant to the article about the museum. So far as I can see from Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, it isn't yet clear that it happened: no doubt that will become clearer. It could be relevant in this article (a) if it happened and (b) if a noteworthy external source (an opinion piece in a newspaper, for example) links information about the event to the repatriation request. So you could try to find a source that does this. Andrew Dalby 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

animated tv show?

this character has a power called the rosetta stone. --Pabloviva22 (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What a fantastic article!

I just wanted to thank the contributors to this page for making a well written and very informative article, sorry if this doesn't belong here :) 211.30.42.24 (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Error in main section of article

Somehow the Rosetta Stone (bold, first line in page) displays as "chinese food" on the actual page in my browser. Strange, because is the source it appears normal. Can someone with a bit more understanding of wikipedia source code look at this glitch? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.175.44 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, what you describe was a an edit by a vandal which was up less than a minute before it was reverted by ClueBot at 20:50 UTC today. Please try refreshing your browser and you should see the latest version. -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

bilingual text

Bilingual text ?? Isn't there three languages on it.Eregli bob (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Champollion?

The article says (in the introduction): "It was 20 years, however, before the decipherment of the Egyptian texts was announced by Jean-François Champollion in Paris in 1822; it took longer still before scholars were able to read other Ancient Egyptian inscriptions and literature confidently."

Well, Champollion did never translate the Rosetta stone (in 1822 he had two, partly contradictory, copies of it; he didn't see it until 1824, and its hieroglyphic/demotic texts were not translated until the 1850s - see under Reading the Rosetta Stone/Later work). Actually the Rosetta Stone was not that important, and most of Champollion's work rested on other sources.

--Episcophagus (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but our focus in this article is the Stone. So what are you saying? That the sentence in the introduction needs rewriting? If so, how would you suggest rewriting it? Andrew Dalby 16:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As the preceeding sentence says "Study of the decree was already under way as the first full translation of the Greek text appeared in 1803" (i.e. the Greek text of the stone, of course, as "we" knew how to translate Greek well before 1803) it implies that the next sentence "It was 20 years, however, before the decipherment of the Egyptian texts was announced by Jean-François Champollion in Paris in 1822" means that the Egyptian texts (i.e. the demotic and hieroglyphic texts of the stone) were deciphered by Champollion, which they weren't. English isn't my first language, so I prefer that somebody more fluent in English rewrite it... (Thanks in advance!). --Episcophagus (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, you have a point, I quite agree. But it is difficult to summarize this in a few words. Champollion published in 1822 an essentially correct transliteration of the two Egyptian scripts (and the Stone had been his main focus). The work that followed was to show how the Egyptian texts, as now transliteratable, had the same meaning (in essence) that the Greek text was known to have. We might simply replace "decipherment" with "transliteration" in that sentence. Hmm, I'm still thinking ... I'll ask a friend to comment as well. Andrew Dalby 19:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I take it this refers to me... but I honestly don't know that much about the history here. Episcophagus, what is your first language? Chances are reasonably good that someone here knows it... maybe you want to post a proposal on the talk page, and maybe we can translate? --Iustinus (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My first language is Swedish. I mean that the text "the decipherment of the Egyptian texts was announced by Jean-François Champollion in Paris" implies that he deciphered the Egyptian texts os the stone, but "all" he did was that he "cracked the code" (with some help from the stone, i.e. the work done by Young, but more from other sources - first of all the Philae obelisk, but then on from purely hieroglyphic sources - the stone was not interesting anymore to him). When the code was cracked, the stone could be transcribed, but that was done by others. Hope this helps. Now, please reformulate. :-) --Episcophagus (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've made a small change. See if you think it helps at all -- and let's see if others think it's better or worse this way! Andrew Dalby 19:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Suspected copyright infringement

I'm afraid that the translation of Edwyn Bevan is copyrighted under British law, since 70 years haven't passed yet since his death in October 1943. Therefore, presenting such an extent piece of his work is not under fair use. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Kulystab (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha! You're right, then. The simplest immediate answer is to remove this long quotation totally, since the surrounding text already has a link to a full recent translation (and also to a copy of this one). I'll do that. A better answer will be to give a summary without verbatim quotation, but I don't have time right now -- maybe someone else has? Andrew Dalby 15:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've taken it out now. The website from which this text was taken says that it's "in the public domain". That may well be the case in the US (where that website is hosted) but, in view of what you say, not in the UK. Other views welcome! Andrew Dalby 15:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible maybe to present some of it, let's say one paragraph (and not four) under fair use? I'm really not an expert in copyright issues. Kulystab (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should be. Or another possibility would be to give an outline of the text incorporating some brief quotations. If you'd care to have a go, feel free as far as I'm concerned! Andrew Dalby 20:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion : Add Links to other Major Ancient Polyglot Inscriptions

Someone should make a page, "Major Ancient Polyglot Inscriptions", and link to this article and have this article link to it, including : the Rosetta Stone (very famous now), the Behistun Inscription, other great Persian Empire inscriptions in general, the Myazedi inscription (Old Burmese and others), the Cloud Platform at Juyong Pass (Classical Chinese, Phags-Pa Classical Mongolian, Tangut and others), and I can't really think of any others that cross language family and writing system family so well, or that are so important for history or decipherment. Other ancient polylingual texts seem on multiple small objects or are small.

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Trilingual?

The languages on the stone are Greek and Egyptian. A second Egyptian script does not make it trilingual, any more than my handwriting a document in cursive and block lettering makes it bilingual. The link correctly points to the entry for "bilingual inscriptions," but the term is still misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.200.73 (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The text was adjusted recently -- I see why it was done, but "trilingual" is not really true. I've tried another adjustment. No one is ever satisfied with this sentence :) Andrew Dalby 10:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Although Demotic and Hieroglyphic are often described as though they were analogous to cursive and block lettering, this is not quite true. It's a little more like, say, Latin in block letters, and Italian in cursive--see my comments at la:Disputatio:Tabula Rosettana#Demotica. Furthermore, Egyptologists themselves regularly refer to the Hieroglyphic-Demotic-Greek Synodic Inscriptions as "trilingual" (for a start, see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=trilingual+decree ). Yes, you can argue that they are the same language, and that "trilingual" is a misnomer, but why be more exacting about this than the professionals? --Iustinus (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably also worth linking la:Disputatio:Tabula Rosettana#Differences between the three versions. --Iustinus (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone knows that on the Rosetta Stone we have two languages and three scripts, and everyone is right. It's perfectly true that this is an oversimplification, and that there are linguistic differences between the hieroglyphic and demotic versions, and that to specialists these differences are really important, but in the great scheme of things -- and therefore in the first paragraph of a wikipedia page for non-specialist readers -- the fact that they are the same language outweighs the differences. Remember that the fact of their being the same language helped Young with the first steps of the decipherment: that fact has to be allowed for in this introduction, not negated. There's plenty of room for the details lower down, I think. Lower down, where footnotes are appropriate, those Egyptologists who call the Stone "trilingual" can be footnoted and their view can be justified. Andrew Dalby 18:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read the other comments. Classical Middle Egyptian and Demotic New Egyptian are distinct languages. Take my word for it, look it up in a book, or learn the languages yourselves and see the results of hundreds of years' worth of phonological changes. So it's 3 scripts and 3 languages. It's like if there was a polyglot inscription in Pictish in Ogham Script, Old English in English Runes, and Middle English in Roman Script : 3 languages, 3 scripts (though Pictish is Celtic, so maybe something like Old Finnish in Old Hungarian Runes would be a less plausible though more apt match).

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this before. I don't know who "yourselves" are: it doesn't apply to Iustinus, who knows these languages pretty well, but I'm sure it does apply to me :) Well, you're right, Dwarfkingdom, but you're looking language as if it were static. You say that Middle English and Old English are different languages. Yes, but they are also two stages of the same language. There was a development from one to the other, and knowing this helps the modern student to understand both stages. Same with Middle and New Egyptian, with the added feature that the script used for New developed directly out of the script used for older stages. The fact that they are two stages of the same language (the point of view that you are not taking) helped the decipherment.

If you didn't read all the discussion, you may not realise that what we're talking about is a single phrase in the introduction. The body of the article does, certainly, have to make all this clear. Andrew Dalby 11:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rosetta Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110622051313/http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/findword?query_type=word&find=Find+word&queryword=Rosetta+stone to http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/findword?query_type=word&find=Find+word&queryword=Rosetta+stone
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100916194918/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg:80/2005/751/eg7.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/751/eg7.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061009012637/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/770/he1.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/770/he1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Date of The_Graffito_of_Esmet-Akhom

This article (Rosetta Stone) gives the date of the latest known hieroglyphics as 396 AD; the linked article to that latest instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graffito_of_Esmet-Akhom, gives the date as 394 AD. The history for _that_ article shows it was once changed from 394 to 396, and subsequently reverted to 394 by the same editor. I would change it here to 394 AD for, at least, consistency, but the article is not enabled for (anonymous) editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.200.253 (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Done KDS4444 (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Millimeters? How about Centimeters?

The Current Size of the rosetta stone is currently defined in millimeters. It sounds very tiny, and the conversions from MM ---} CM Are really Easy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.136.193 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rosetta Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706095633/http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/r/the_rosetta_stone_translation.aspx to https://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/r/the_rosetta_stone_translation.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—Minas12345 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the coordinates from the article. We don't normally include coordinates for an individual item in a museum when the coordinates of the museum are already present in the museum's article (in this case, British Museum). Deor (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)