Discussing the obelisk's role in the decipherment of hieroglyphs,
C. W. Ceram characterised the obelisk as "in effect a second
Rosetta Stone." Several
lithographs of the obelisk and its inscriptions were produced by
George Scharf while it was in London. Bankes distributed these lithographs to various contemporaries interested in deciphering hieroglyphs. In his studies of the
Rosetta Stone, the scholar
Thomas Young had already realised that the
cartouches contained the names of the
Pharaohs and he had identified the name 'Ptolemy'. In a marginal note on some of the lithographs, Bankes proposed to identify the name 'Cleopatra' in cartouches on this inscription. However, further progress was stymied by the fact that the Greek and Egyptian texts were not close parallels of one another and by Bankes's and Young's incorrect belief that Egyptian hieroglyphs were
logographic. In France,
Jean-François Champollion was also working on the decipherment of hieroglyphs. Based on his earlier work on
demotic, he had constructed a hypothetical hieroglyphic text for the name 'Cleopatra'.
Jean-Antoine Letronne sent him a copy of the lithograph of the Philae obelisk, which confirmed that his reconstruction was correct and he announced the decipherment of hieroglyphs in the
Lettre à M. Dacier in 1822. Bankes, Young, and their circle responded to this announcement with great hostility, claiming that Champollion had not given them proper credit for the discovery. The obelisk was subsequently investigated by
Karl Richard Lepsius, who published its text in 1839. Further autopsy was carried out by
Ulrich Wilcken in 1887, who reported that the painted Greek inscription was no longer visible by this time. Subsequent publications on the obelisk and its text have all been based on the reports of these nineteenth-century observers. ==Digital research==