Other than Meidum, which pyramid is doubted in its attribution to Sneferu?
You're kinda answering your own question why "the pyramids of Sneferu" is sloppy language.
Anyway it's not likely we're going to find common ground. I find myself more in alignment with cladkings views. Early written language is exact in nature. In it's primal stage its simply record keeping. The phases of the moon for instance. A simple moon calendar is nothing but a symbol (moon) and numbers. But introduce a symbol for sheep and now you can do cattle count. A symbol for sheep and a number. So it progresses to bookkeeping and other formal writings. Recipes, contracts, treaties. For ownership, signature or simply identification names, titles and seals are added. From laws and lists we progress to etiquette and protocol. What's a protocol describing a ceremony other then a marriage between law and recipe? Still with the same exact usage. Ever more elaborate because describing more complex concepts in an exact way requires more elaborate description. Titles display this magnificently.
This is the official title of the King of the Netherlands
By the Grace of God, King of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, Jonkheer van Amsberg, Marquis of Veere and Flushing, Count of Katzenelnbogen, Vianden, Diez, Spiegelberg, Buren, Leerdam and Culemborg, Burgrave of Antwerp, Baron of Breda, Diest, Beilstein, the town of Grave and the lands of Cuyk, IJsselstein, Cranendonk, Eindhoven, Liesveld, Herstal, Warneton, Arlay and Nozeroy, Hereditary and Free Lord of Ameland, Lord of Borculo, Bredevoort, Lichtenvoorde, Het Loo, Geertruidenberg, Clundert, Zevenbergen, Hooge and Lage Zwaluwe, Naaldwijk, Polanen, St Maartensdijk, Soest, Baarn, Ter Eem, Willemstad, Steenbergen, Montfort, St Vith, Bütgenbach, Dasburg, Niervaart, Turnhout and Besançon
An Egyptologist would probably interpret this is praising the pharaoh. Lofty celebrating. No it's trying to be exact. Because he is also marquis, count and baron. This isn't a psalm, chant or hymn, it's a definition. Functional, exact, literal and specific.
And this how they wrote in ancient times. The meaning got lost and now we think they wrote hymns and religious mumbo-jumbo. Whilst everything else they wrote was exact and descriptive in nature. Yet we exempt when we lack understanding.
Only later on it got hymns and mumbo-jumbo because like everything it went from function to symbol. Now it indeed became mere praise and religion for the sake of praise and religion. Following dynasties had no more clue about it's meaning as we do. They simply copied and followed tradition. Would be like our future generations putting up traffic lights as totem poles. Or like how some today have these old and aesthetic typewriters as decorative items. Maybe it will be passed down the generations and now they've got a family tradition. Function and original meaning long lost, only symbol and sentiment remains.
Look at the many collapses and discontinuities in AE. How much would really be preserved other than superficial likeness? Only outwardly looking similar and sharing resemblance. Yet these bare outward similarities are taken as continuity. And with it continuity in function and meaning is assumed. It's a very, very precarious foundation for a theory.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09-Feb-16 05:44 by Freya.