Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:18, 26 May 2023

Revision as of 07:22, 26 May 2023

Line 191:

As he continued to work on hieroglyphs, making mistakes alongside many successes, Champollion was embroiled in a related dispute, with scholars who rejected the validity of his work. Among them were [[Edme Jomard]], a veteran of Napoleon's expedition, and [[Heinrich Julius Klaproth]], a German orientalist. Some championed Young at the same time.{{sfn|Thompson|2015a|p=121}} The scholar who held out longest against Champollion's decipherment was [[Gustav Seyffarth]].{{sfn|Thompson|2015b|p=202}} His opposition to Champollion culminated in a public argument with him in 1826,{{sfn|Adkins|Adkins|2000|pp=232–234}} and he continued to advocate his own approach to hieroglyphs until his death in 1885.{{sfn|Thompson|2015b|p=202}}

As the nature of hieroglyphs became clearer, detractors of this kind fell away, but the argumentdebate over how much Champollion owed to Young continues. Nationalist rivalry between the English and French exacerbates the issue. Egyptologists are often reluctant to criticise Champollion, who is regarded as the founder of their discipline, and by extension can be reluctant to credit Young.{{sfn|Thompson|2015a|pp=121–123}} The Egyptologist [[Richard B. Parkinson|Richard Parkinson]] takes a moderate position: "Even if one allows that Champollion was more familiar with Young's initial work than he subsequently claimed, he remains the decipherer of the hieroglyphic script… Young discovered parts of an alphabet—a key—but Champollion unlocked an entire language."{{sfn|Parkinson|1999|p=40}}

==Reading texts==