> Origyptian Wrote:
> > My point to Warwick is that if the PT truly was
> > flowery language in a king's tomb, then it
> > shouldn't be talking about the details of masonry
> > techniques. But that doesn't mean I don't believe
> > the PT doesn't necessarily describe masonry
> > techniques. It means I think it's possible that
> > the translation methods may be "off" and that they
> > might very well be talking about masonry
> > techniques.
> > This brings me back to Corpuscles comment
> > yesterday about what amounts to a de novo
> > appearance of the hieroglyph language. Is it
> > possible that a good part of that language was
> > already ancient at the start of the Dynastic
> > culture, that the Dynastics saw it there and
> > believed it was important, that they therefore
> > contrived their own belief system centered around
> > the language and the stonework they found there,
> > developed the funerary context, attempted to
> > reverse engineer the language within that context,
> > and then evolved the language further from OK to
> > NK, inscribing that language onto some of that
> > ancient stonework? Is it possible that the
> > Dynastics applied their own translation methods to
> > an already ancient language, and that 21st century
> > mankind is now trying to apply its own translation
> > methods to what already could be problematic
> > translation methods of the Dynastics? The fact
> > that the language is considered to be so complex
> > only further renders problematic the notion that
> > the language could have appeared so suddenly with
> > little to show to its initial evolution.
> I don't disagree.
> There is evidence that writing might go back much
> further than is generally accepted and there's
> every possibility that the first writing was a
> transcription of very ancient oral tradition.
> Indeed, It's logical to suppose that the very
> first writing and most important writing was far
> more ancient than the writing itself.
> Who knows where the border is between invention
> and adoption/ adaption? We have so very little
> data and knowledge to explain the evidence that
> there are countless possibilities to explain what
> does exist. Rather than addressing this by
> studying the reality and doing basic science they
> are studying et als and vying for positions in the
> pecking order. When real science is finally done
> such as the thermal anomaly then they sit on the
> results for years.
Do we know with certainty that the PT we see there today might not have been copied by the Dynastics after they reverse engineered that same text from a previous culture and in another format, then added their own funerary context to their translation method to produce the format we see today. Perhaps you are able to see through their faulty translation methods and get to the original meaning?
Look, we know the Romans took from the Etruscans and Egyptians (e.g., arch, columns), so who might the Etruscans and Egyptians taken from? We know the NK took from MK, MK likely took from OK, so who did OK take from and what did they actually take? Might they have adapated a few monuments that were already there? Might they have usurped the language to make it their own? Surely the Dynastics, assuming they were human, did what humans do best and made the best out of what they have, reused and repurposed the "spolia" that they found already there that was left by the previous occupants, including not only the masonry, but the language as well. The true "origin" of this or that aspect of each ancient culture can be extremely difficult to determine considering that each culture often attempts to erase the presence of the previous culture when the newer occupant moves in and takes over.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14-Nov-17 22:51 by Origyptian.