Articles             Learn-Egyptian              Main               Rosetta-Stone                News                Opinions


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 the great French savant Christine Van Heertum:

By Christine ( - 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 <

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

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



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.



feather H6: Champollion offered it the phonation 'shu' or 'shwt' while its correct phonation is 'aa'



flag R8: Champollion offered it the phonation 'ntr' while its correct phonation is 'aL'


viper I9: Champollion offered it the phonation 'F' while its correct phonation is 'Z'


square fissure Q3: Champollion offered it the phonation 'P' while its correct phonation is 'F' or 'PH' 


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)!




rope V13: Champollion offered it the phonation 'th' while its correct phonation is 'L'  




tie S34: Champollion offered it the phonation 'ankh' while its correct phonation is 'Lm'



money word U2:V13: Champollion offered it the phonation 'math' while its correct phonation is 'maL', which means 'money' in Egyptian  



throat F35: Champollion offered it the phonation 'nfr' while its correct phonation is 'zr'


recumbent lion E23: Champollion offered it the phonation 'rw then Egyptologists changed their minds and offered it 'L' after they discovered that they missed the phoneme 'L' while its correct phonation is 'br'


in additions to tens of other similar mistakes