> Finally, the Old Kingdom Pyramid Texts do in fact
> mention the word "ramp" in its verbal form and I
> have posted this before. The same word is
> mentioned in pAnastasi, which I also posted in the
> past. In Hieroglyphic the word is st3w and
> in fact in the example from PT 390, you can get a
> feel for what that word meant to an ancient
> Egyptian...it was a noun related to the verb
> "drag", sth3. Such a noun in English might
> be construed to say "dragart" for example, like
> the word "rampart". In this line, the verb form
> used is the stative which in the context of the
> spell here is a command for Seth to be face down
> on the ground and "be dragged" like a snake. This
> is the context which well establishes that ramps
> were in fact used to drag things on them. This is
> crucial textual evidence needed in this debate and
> so I post this here again.
As you know I believe Egyptology has been rushing headlong directly away from the truth for several decades now. You've suggested previously that the word "Rosteau" in utterance #300 means "Mouth of Ramps" And some Egyptologists even believe it means "Place of Ramps". But in the past it was translated as "Mouth of Caves" which makes sense whereas "ramps" do not and are not otherwise mentioned in "cultural context" and do not exist in the physical evidence as positively used for construction. I'd remind everyone there is no God of ramps and no stone draggers anywhere in evidence. There is no reason to believe this new translation is any better than the old one while there are caves and caverns all over Giza and there are caverns mentioned in the cultural context (see utt 581 and much of the Coffin Texts). "Ramps" are a late addition that didn't exist before the mid 1950's. In light of the fact that 70 years of much more modern science has scored a giant goose egg in solving how these were built I believe we can safely say it's entirely possible they have it wrong and the old translation was better.
As far as utterance 390 let's forget for a moment that this makes perfect sense to me and just look at the translation;
685a. Art thou Horus? A face is upon thee; thou shalt be set on thy head.
685b. Art thou Set? A face is upon thee; thou shalt be laid on thy back.
Thou shalt be laid on thy ramp????? There's no flow here and no possible sense. Of course no one expects the ancient writing to make any sense but come on! The words had to have SOME meaning. If translations just keep changing willy nilly there's never going to be any meaning.
I'd also note they had a perfectly good logogram for "ramp" so why is it unattested? Indeed, there were two logograms for "ramp" and neither is used. So why should a retranslation that doesn't fit in context carry any weight at all?
At the rate things are going Allen will have found "Gods of Ramps" "Draggers of Stones on Ramps" and "Builders of Ramps" in another ten years and then it will be case closed; they mustta used ramps. Of course you'll need a degree in Egyptology by that time to even read the translations of the tomb titles.
Sorry but I'm not impressed by the continual rewriting of history and the reinterpretation of evidence.
There is no physical evidence to support ramps and there is no cultural context to support ramps. At least these don't exist except as reinterpretation, retranslation, and rewriting of what was known 100 years ago as new testing has either been in abeyance for forty years or is simply not being released to Peers et al.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06-Apr-20 00:50 by cladking.