> "The Pyramid Texts is from the 4th dynasty" -
> "The word "ramp" isn't attested from the era in
> question" cladking
This is a very simple concept.
The PT is not from the 4th dynasty. They were found inside the tiny little pyramids that were built after the great pyramids and refer to dead kings whose entire life took place after the 4th dynasty. As such the PT are from the 5th dynasty and every single word and concept in them should be assumed to have been from the 5th dynasty.
However it is also true that the utterances which comprise the PT were obviously ancient when they were inscribed in the 5th dynasty tombs. Since these words and ideas were most probably ancient it follows that many of the concepts and even the utterances themselves originally arose during the great pyramid building age.
It will require logic and understanding author intent to differentiate what was ancient and what was modern. For instance it's quite apparent that the idea of "osiris" arose to replace the concept of "atum" whose only referent on earth had died. Of course we all take a risk when we ascribe meaning to words whether the words are ancient or modern but while my understanding is based on logic and deduction Egyptological understanding is based on their belief that these are incantations invented by the superstitious. On the one hand you have me who says these words make sense and on the other you have Egyptologists who say it's impossible they can make any sense. So whose understanding are you going to accept? Egyptological "understanding" is a non sequitur.
The word "ramp" is unattested. The Pyramid Texts tells exactly what they used instead and is consistent with the physical evidence. Meanwhile the entire paradigm ultimately depends from ramps, superstition, tombs, and a belief that the PT makes no sense so only scholars can understand it. It makes sense only in terms of the book of the dead which necessitates that nothing ever changed.
How do people not see this?
The king is nekkid and his clothes are only a construct of opinion. Two centuries of opinion do not make a fact.