Yes. And that is why great care should be taken, and why a gradual approach, at least superficially, seems best. From understanding Egyptian hieroglyphics from 300 BCE, one should be extremely suspicious of an immediate jump to claiming to understand Egyptian hieroglyphics from 2000 BCE. I hope (and since you are the historian here, maybe you can tell us what they did) that the people who profess to be experts on this did not try to make that leap in one go, and instead tried to gradually work their way back, unless they had something else to work with than just the Rosetta Stone.
I confess, I do not know the details of what has been done on this, as history is not my subject. I hope (and, again, please tell us if this is a vain hope) that the historians and archaeologists working on this sort of thing, were responsible on their approach. (Of course, I do not mean all of them, as that is absurd to suppose that everyone is reasonable, but only that the general approach has been reasonable.)
I confess, I do not know the details of what has been done on this, as history is not my subject. I hope (and, again, please tell us if this is a vain hope) that the historians and archaeologists working on this sort of thing, were responsible on their approach. (Of course, I do not mean all of them, as that is absurd to suppose that everyone is reasonable, but only that the general approach has been reasonable.)
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
