Mistakes of Champollion

موضوع: Mistakes of Champollion الثلاثاء أغسطس 03, 2010 4:11 am

Mistakes of Champollion

by Dr. Ossama Alsaadawi

????? ???????? ????????
???? ?. ????? ????????
???? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ????????? ?????? ??? ????

Champollion's work was weak
and short and non-scientific. He put some assumptions which were,
unfortunately, all wrong. From those assumptions:
1. He assumed that the
cartouches in the Hieroglyphic text of Rosetta Stone include names of
kings and they are correspondingly reported in the Greek line by the
same utterances, which not true in both cases!
I proved that there is NO name called 'petolemy' or 'petolemis' to be a name of a king, and I proved that kings and leaders of the Greek era had quite different Greek names.
And here is one comment that was posted by the great Canadian savant Mr. Avry Wilson to the Guardian's discussion board:
By Avry Wilson on Saturday, January 1, 2000 - 09:18 am:

Ossama, On your diligence in removing "Ptolemy" from the RS, I commend
you. Once again, I have to note (to others) that I myself reached the
same conclusion without using Ossama's method. It is quite simple to
see that when a primary key is removed, later works therefore become
obsolete.
And here is a second comment:
By Christine ( - 212.211.52.2) on Friday, September 3, 1999 - 10:10 am:
I admit that some translations made by Champollion were not correct (Egyptology was beginning, and, well, errare humanum est)
Ossama, I admit you must be correct concerning certain
aspects (pronunciation and perhaps also some words) - but you cannot
simply reject the correspondences that have been found in other
civilizations
One
question I have been asking myself for several months. Ossama and his
followers are questioning the validity of Champollion's system (the
so-called "traditional system"). From the other side of the
battlefield, some are totally rejecting Ossama's theory, others are
simply trying to understand how it could be correct. Well, I wonder why
we (from one side or the other) are simply rejecting what the other
says. What I mean is that several people (myself included) have admitted
that the "traditional" system comprises errors.
And here is a third comment:
By Avry on Monday, December 20, 1999 - 11:26 pm:

Hi all,

> Champollion did not discover the cartouche/name relationship. It
was hypothesized by A.Kister in the 16th century, and Champollion drew
on this source.

The method employed by him was furtherance of what Young first
implemented. The method is extremely flawed. There are many examples to
prove this, but I'll begin with just a few:

First of all, let's assume that the cartouche idiom is correct. By
finding corresponding cartouches in the upper portion and equating them
through approximate position within the texts to the lower Greek
"Ptolemy" and "Cleopatra", he cross-referenced the phonetic sound of
the Greek into each individual glyph within the cartouches. But what he
found was that the cartouche for "Ptolemy" had more glyphs than the
letters/phones in the Greek name. This leaves "blank" phones in the
hieroglyphs. The same with "Cleopatra". But instead of assuming that
the hieroglyphs would have separate phones of their own (meaning the
Egyptian phones do not match the Greek), he immediately proposed that
what was written in the cartouche for "Ptolemy" was the Greek
pronunciation-> "Ptolemais".

He was comparing a Greek name to a Greek name, not allowing the
hieroglyphs to assume a phone indigenous to Egyptian. Furthermore, he
was "making" it fit, instead of letting play out it's own.

Right off the bat he should have noted that the phone per glyph
transition did not align, and should have tried a different approach.
HE DID NOT. He continued with the same premise, using "Cleopatra" as a
follow up. (He did not get "Cleopatra" from the RS, he got it from the
Banke(sp?) Obelisk. Even there, the cartouche does not match the Greek
through the individual number of components. There were "left-over's",
and instead of thinking the transition was wrong, he equated them as
being some sort of determinative; therefore the creation of the
component). This compounds the error right from the beginning. As this
continues, it gets worse and worse, because of the literary foundation.
This is why even today the work is confusing and unable to decipher
unknown glyphs, and why known glyphs continue to be interpreted
differently.

His singular "letter to letter" cross-referencing must assume a
continuation. In other words, if you begin that way, you have to
continue the same way. You follow the code. If it doesn't work, you
need to try a different code. He didn't <
[/center]

"kgbltco7595079675&^RFIU&R&%&*)%^(O^ (L".
"Hello. The sky blue termite foot splash".

This is not a joke. It's exactly what he does

Avry

2. Champollion assumed that
modern Egyptians speak Arabic which has nothing to do with the AE
Language according to his opinion, and therefore he rejected modern
Egyptians and their slang spoken language from his research work, while
it is the real key to correctly deciphering the AE Language.
3. He assumed that the Coptic
line is directly related to the AE Language, which is not true. The
Copts preserved the spoken Egyptian which was prevailing allover Egypt
during the Roman era and which is the same spoken Egyptian during ALL
epochs of Egypt and up today. I introduced enough evidence and I
explained that most of modern names of Copts like 'Milad', 'Moneer', 'Shokri', 'Sami', 'Fat-hi', 'Layla', 'Fatin',
etc are pure Egyptian names that were prevailing in Egypt during the
Roman era. Some people think that these names are of Arabian source, NO
these Coptic names are pure Egyptian and were popular among the Copts
hundreds of years before the Arabian era of Egypt. This alone proves
that the spoken Egyptian never changed, and prove also that the Copts
speak ONLY the slang spoken Egyptian!
4. He wrongly deciphered many signs in the cartouches of Rosetta Stone. For example he wrongly deciphered [Q3], [E23] and [S34] signs! Therefore, even his utterances of the assumed names were wrong.
5. He assumed that the
Hieroglyphic words should be read literally, that means letter by
letter, as we do now in English language for example, which is again
not true, and I proved that most of AE words are shorthand words and
should be read according to the techniques and rules
of the Ancient Egyptians themselves and not according to our modern
reading or writing rules! Moreover, he ignored phonations of some
important signs and removed them from utterances of the claimed names!
6. According to some French
historians, the work of Champollion was covered and backed by some
political motives. They urged him to declare early some of his hasty
results. Meanwhile, his practical short scientific life allowed him not
to continue and rectify his mistakes.
7. Champollion was a hero if
we take into consideration that he lacked many of modern advanced
scientific tools like computers and electronic translators and
dictionaries of slang languages, etc. He did very good job, but his
followers stuck to his mistakes without trying to improve their own
independent research work on real scientific work. Champollion never
entered into details of deciphering the big number of the bilateral signs. Only his followers tried that in a very rashly, guessing and non-scientific methods
which lead to tragic fundamental mistakes and wide wrong translations
of of the AE texts. If you revise translations of many words in books
of the great Egyptologists like Gardiner or Budge for instance, you
find them full of questioning (?) and wondering marks (!). It means
that they were not sure of their interpretations and translations!
8. Champollion succeeded to decipher 17 phoneme signs out of 25 signs of the basic table, and partially succeeded in three of them and failed to decipher 5 of them.
Moving to the much more complex tables of the bilateral phonetic Egyptian Hieroglyphs which include about 1000 basic signs, Champollion and his followers succeeded to correctly decipher no more than nearly 10% of those signs.
This lead to wide distortion and corruption in further translations of
the AE Hieroglyphic texts which in turn lead to extreme distortion in
interpretations of the major events and records of the AE history.
9. Champollion and all his
followers never discovered the bilateral phonetic nature of the
Egyptian Hieroglyphs, on which the whole Ancient Egyptian language was
based, either from written or oral sides.
??? ???? .. ????? ?????? .. ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????
??????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????????? ????? ?? ????
??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? .. ?????? ?????? ??? ???
??? ??? ????? ?????! ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?????
?????????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ???????
???
?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? .. ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????
???????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ?????
?????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ???????? ??????? ??????
??????? ??????? . ??? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????? :

Mistakes of Champollion Image002

?- ????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? feather H6
??? ????? .. (?? / ???) .. ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ? ..
?? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? .. ?????? ????? ???? ( ??? - ???? ????? ) .

Mistakes of Champollion Image004

? - ????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? R8 ??? ????? ( ???) ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ( ? / ?? ) ?????? ????? ???? (????????) .

Mistakes of Champollion Image006

? - ??? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? I9 ??? ????? ( ? ) ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? .. (? / z) .

Mistakes of Champollion Image008

? - ??? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? Q3 ??? ????? ( P ) ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ????? .. ( ? ) .
] ???
????? ??? 1999? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ???????? ?????
???????? ??????? ????? ?????????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? (???
??????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?? ??????) ?? ??? ?????
???? ???? (?) .. ???? ???? ??? (p) ?? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? (h) ?? ??? (ph) ???????? .. ???? ?? ?? ????????: [/size]

Prof. Joseph Davidovits, France (after consultation with Prf. Dr. Antonio Lopreiano):

[Q3] has the value of (F) and it was turned to (P) during

the Ptolemaic epoch when (phi) read roughly as (pi),

yielding (Ftah) to (Ptah)!

يعطيك العافية والله تعبت حالك معانا الله يخليك امين