StoryTeller / Stories / The Rosetta Stone

The Rosetta Stone

How a dull priestly decree, carved three times in 196 BC, became the key to a forgotten script, and why the argument over who owns it is still running.

30 nodes44 edges19 sources5 guided storiestimelinedark theme

Open full page

Compiled from the cited public sources (British Museum pages, Britannica and other reference works, museum and university pages, news reports, an English translation of Champollion's 1822 letter, and Wikipedia where flagged). This story is not affiliated with or endorsed by the British Museum or any other institution, publisher or person it cites. Where sources disagree, both versions are shown. The decree's own text was not read directly; its contents are as the British Museum and other cited sources summarise them. Details that rest only on Wikipedia are marked 'per Wikipedia'. An independent StoryTeller study.

About this story

An independent StoryTeller study. Built 2026-10-01.

Every claim in it cites a dated source, and relationships the author interpreted are drawn dashed. Where the sources disagree, you see both.

Guided stories

  • Why three scripts matteredA decree repeated in three scripts was ordinary administration in 196 BC. After some 1,400 years it was the one text where a known language sat next to two unknown ones.
  • Found, copied, carried offWithin three years of a soldier's chance find, the stone was inked, printed and copied for Europe's scholars, and then taken to London.
  • How a script was forgottenHieroglyphs were in use for nearly 3,000 years (per the British Museum), then Egyptian came to be written in Greek-letter Coptic, the old script was forgotten, and for centuries it was misread as picture symbols. Sound, not symbol, was the missing idea.
  • Young or Champollion?Two scholars worked on the same stone in two countries and each could claim part of the answer. The question of credit began almost as soon as the answer did.
  • Whose stone is it?The agreement that put the stone in London is the centre of today's dispute. Each side reads the same 1801 treaty differently.

Sources (19)