Summary: This book truly delivers the enigma part. However, if your goal was to get a little more than just that, it falls flat. I was focused on trying to understand the trajectory of the Rosetta Stone, but it just didn't have what I specifically needed.
I think Robinson is stuck on describing the Enigmas and his writing doesn't even try. Just when I think he's about to elucidate, there is nothing. The writing style is linear, one disjointed semi-discovery with another but no real composite sort of summary of things. I hate that b/c if people are researching across ideas, then it's very very hard to follow. Also, there was a lot of talk about the rosetta stone, but no meaningful translation that actually happened on the stone and what it meant. I think translating a few words for us is not the same as let me tell you what awesomeness it said. And the Rosetta Stone I think we already translated at that point in entirety. (I think but I don't know b/c I can't get a real meaningful date from any of these books, but there is 1 full translation that I saw on archive.com that looks to pre-date this guy).
In contrast, other books might be written more as, here is the background. Here's what we're trying to know. Here's where we're at and the timing of what helped what.
Still, I know squat about ancient language deciphering and this guy knows tons, so I could never give him less than 3 stars. He's brilliant in his field. I just find unlocking his secrets in book format unideal. Plus, he does try to compare Mayan language to Egyptian Hieroglyphs and I think that is Baws.
Notes:
p. 13 - "To me the most frustrating state is to have a glyph with known phonetic signs, sot hat we can pronounce the glyph, but we cannot find the word in any of the Mayan languages."
It's weird how he talks about knowing the sound with such certainty. I might need to just learn more about ancient Mayan languages to appreciate this. In things like Chinese, I often know the meaning, but not the sound b/c I am only half learned in the language.
p. 23 He's talking about the idea that iconigraphs like Chinese and Hieroglyphs are actually used all over. Street signs, icons in a computer, all communicate far more complexity than a phonographic system. "Instead of 'move cursor to right' there is a simple logogram instead of chunks of text with alphabet-ic instructions to press a certain set of keys, there are computer 'icons' at which we point and click a mouse, and carry out complex operations as if by magic."
Also,
"Chinese characters do speak directly to the mind without the intervention of sound, despite centuries of assertion to the contrary by the Chinese and some western scholars."
"Aristotle called the basic unit of language - by which he meant both spoken and written language - gramma."
p. 30 The chart on how many characters are in each language is pretty awesome.
p. 41 He talks about how it used to be cool to touch the rock, but that was destroying it. There was "chalk and carnauba wax rubbed into the surface by the museum curators to increase visibility and aid preservation. In the 1990s, in time for the bicentenary, this policy was changed and the stone cleaned to reveal its natural color. it is now seen to be a dark gray slab of igneous rock (not basalt as formerly believed), which sparkles with feldspar andmica and has a pink vein through its top left-hand corner; it weights some three quarters of a ton."
p. 45 He talks about the fact that "Much of the decree is taken up, to put it bluntly, with the terms of a deal by which the priests agreed to give their support to the new king (who was only thirteen) in exchange for certain privileges." Given what I read about this in a book from 2007 and the actual full translation if found on Archieve.com, it does not sound like the right interpretation of what the stone says. It does not change his conclusion though that the stone was written in 3 languages and is a translation from the three. The way he articulates it on p. 46 is REALLY UNCLEAR as to whether these languages are all phonetic or something else. If the Greek is phonetic and the other two are not, it should NOT look so similar. But I think this is better described in another book I've read on the Rosetta Stone. for that reason, I deducted a full star. This is especially the case b/c coptic is NOT one of the languages on the list on page 30 so there is no way to really understand WTF he meant. like, I should not be unclear at any point which of these languages is pictorial and which is symbolic but he then says:
"In other words, the three inscriptions, hieroglyphic, demotic, and greek - were equivalent in meaning, though not necessarily 'word for word' translations of each other. Then he goes on to talk about it in a way that is a bit unclear. If you do know a symbolic language, this doesn't quite make sense. Further, there is not talk about grammar that might have indicated this. In contrast, other books just focus on the cartouches being phonetic which hold the key and work backward to how they then figured it all out."
Similarly, P. 46 He says "DeSacy deserves credit as the first to make an important suggestion: That the names inside the hieroglyphic car-touches, which he naturally assumed were Ptolemy, Alexander, and so on, were also spelt alphabetically, as in demotic. He was led to this by some information given him by one of his pupils, a student of Chinese, in 1811." I have to research more deeply here, b/c credit is typically given to Thomas Young in other books and it's usually b/c they say he studied Chinese language. In truth the stories of Young seem cray cray. They like to credit him with studying all 200 languages in the encyclopedia Britannica, but that sounds like malarky. Even as a speed reader, I don't buy that.
p. 88 There is some language called linear B. It is totally unclear to me WTF that is. It is something that comes in between the time of Egypt and Mesopotamian cunefirm. But I seriously have no context. This is what I hate about this author. His audience is people that already know everything about this field in its entirety. 1 star removed.
p. 92 - The Mayans use a base 20. Ok. Very cool. At some point, I'd love to study this. These types of intriguing knowledge points is why I didn't demote you to 2 stars.
p 98 - They attempted the proper name approach on Mayan stuff, but since no one knew those names, that did not help. They had to figure out something else. (In other words, it's possible he's straight-up guessing as they were in Europe before they found the Rosetta stone).
p. 121 - They think all the words essentially end in a vowel and that might be something to decipher, but again, i think they might just be totally guessing. It's unclear to me that there's some meaningful proof. That's part of why I removed a star. Just tell me what you know and why. This format of writing is painful AF.
p. 145 You get a study of the frequency of letters. At least here, I can see your methodology, but shouldn't this be sooner in the book, like before you tell me all the BS you don't actually know? Or at least next to it, so I can better map why you think X is linked to y?
p. 165-166 He talks about proto-Elamite script. They have found over 5500 characters. This book would have benefited from an infographic that plots time and location of these languages.
p. 229 Assuming you've followed along, he starts to compare the scripts to each other in Indian languages. I'm so unclear why he's so passionate about Rao being wrong, b/c he's not really presenting a counterpoint. It's more just a list of how different people think, and I'd prefer that in a chart. This is esp so, b/c I can't tell that any of them have really great logic for why they think they are right.