> I already explained what the use of a logogram by
> a scribe in a middle kingdom papyrus "has to do
> with" OK pyramids.
> It's the language, Philip.
> Again, more slowly this time:
Just clearly answering my questions would suffice.
> The scribe uses a logogram of a pyramid on the
> Rhind papyrus.
Regardless of whether there is any relationship between the graphic on that papyrus and the glyph used in inscription texts, what does something that's scribed after the OK have to do with events allegedly occuring during the OK when the OK itself hasn't written anything like that?
> The same glyph is used as a determiner in the
> phrase "Akhet Khufu" to refer to Khufu's pyramid,
> as cited already by Martin - many times, to your
> chagrin, as also previously stated.
That's you'r opinion. Others have a different take on what Akhet Khufu refers to and I'm sure you're well aware of that. While your interpretation is within the realm of possibility it is by no means as definitive as you make it out to be.
> The glyph is the same on both the inscription and
> later on the Rhind papyrus.
To what specific inscription are you referring?
> This is because (are you keeping up?) the glyph is
> a referent to a PY - RA - MID.
"Pyramid" is Greek, and even that has been translated differently, e.g., as "fire in the middle" (pyramidos), but interestingly, many instead prefer, "wheat cake" (pyramis).
Perhaps you are being so dogmatic because you have total faith in the translation methods of that dead language as well as total faith that what is written in those texts must therefore reflect actual events that occurred. If so, I think you would be mistaken. Certainly when we look at the paintings in Rekhmire and Djehutihotep, we see musings that seem more like working hypotheses rather than an accurate account of real historic events.
You seem unwilling to acknowledge that no two translations are "preciesly" the same -- even the PT translations differ between accepted orthodox authorities -- there are even different interpretations of cattle count (every year or every other year?) and the meaning of Akhet Khufu. (G1 or a far broader surrounding area?), , as well as errors in the basic associative contextual dating strategy. For you to get so indignant to insist that a document written centuries after later does definitely portray what actually happened centuries ago is unfounded.
> As for the language, either you'll have to trust
> me or learn to read it for yourself so you can see
> for yourself precisely what it says. This is not
> deflection: I simply have more important things to
> do than explain to you what you might learn for
How can you preach that there is a "precise" translation? Much of that language often doesn't see the same translation twice. Besides, how can such a precise translation reveal whether a symbol that is used centuries later has any bearing on what happened centuries earlier, let alone what that same symbol meant all those centuries earlier?
> Instead, from a position of ignorance (about the
> papyrus and what it 'says') you persist in what
> amounts to vacuous noise on your part.
The only thing I'm persisting in is trying to get an answer to my basic questions which, for whatever reason, you feel the need to avoid.
> It's not rude to encourage you to learn something
> for yourself before pontificating on a subject you
> are, in the purest etymological sense of the word,
> ignorant about. I'm sorry if that's how
> you choose to read my posts. No rudeness intended
> here, just a jocular tone and (let's face it),
> persistent suggestion that you actually invest
> time in a subject which, if by the sheer number of
> your posts on these forums about AE, clearly
> fascinates you.
It's rude to resort to belittlement.
It's rude to be arrogant and decree fact when clearly things are no so well established.
It's rude to deflect from questions posed to you several times without even acknowledging why you won't share your answers.
The Rhind papyrus was allegedly written centuries after the last stone pyramid was constructed. What is the relevance of that papyrus to events that occurred in the OK or to the meaning of glyphs used during the OK? How can we put so much credence in the language when the translation methods show evidence of being problematic to begin with?
Frankly, it wouldn't matter if the Rhind "precisely" stated that G1 was built by Khufu in 2550BC, because how would the writer of the payprus know that with any certainty? On what information from the OK would the writer base such a comment? But even if that was stated in Rhind, the old inscriptions are full of claims made by citizens who simply are trying to vie for a place in the afterlife, be it a carpenter, stoneworker, architect, a land baron, royalty, farmer, teacher. Sometimes it didn't seem to matter much whether their written claims were true or not, the people just needed to prove their mettle to receive the right of passage. If you have a different opinion, that's your prerogative.
Again, I reiterate my simple questions since this papyrus has not been introduced for whatever reason:
- "Now, please stop deflecting and explain how you know what the notions of "ancient" and "copy" meant to a Dynastic Eygyptian, how you know the document dates to whatever date your knowledge of the language would have you believe, and what you believe that document has to do with anything going on in the Old Kingdom."
You have yet to explain what the dynatics thought"ancient" and "copy" meant.
You have yet to explain how you know that the document dates to whatever date you have accepted.
You have yet to explain what you believe that document has to do with anything going on in the Old Kingdom many centuries earlier, let alone how it relates to the construction of any pyramid at any time before the document was written.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?