Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I’m reading them as they are.

If everyone takes a different meaning from what was said then which meaning is the correct one?

> Communication has well and truly broken down, if
> you imagine that I’ve presented any.

Even facts have to be interpreted to have meaning. What facts make Egyptologists believe the great pyramids were tombs? What facts make them assume that the Pyramid Texts can be interpreted and translated in terms of the book of the dead?

What fact gives you such confidence in Petrie's infallibility?

> I do not
> share your simple faith in what definitions can
> achieve.

Definitions are not the be all end all of communication. Definitions are the starting point of communication.

> Your not understanding it (after all these years
> of giving us the lowdown on “Egyptology”)
> resulted in your writing cliché-rich rubbish
> about Petrie.

If you ever do get interested in definitions then check out the word "cliche".

> Really? Where can we see this?

Every word in the ancient language and every word in the PT had a single definition. Everybody knew exactly what that word meant. There were no connotative meanings and there were no definitions as we understand the word. Rather the word represented something in reality and was "named" rather than "defined".

> Do try to understand. The people you call
> “Egyptologists” don’t all call themselves
> “Egyptologists”.

What you call something is irrelevant. Anyone with an advanced degree in archaeology or any related field who specializes in ancient Egypt is an Egyptologist. When I refer to "Egyptologists" I am normally referring only to those Egyptologists who study the great pyramid building era. These are the ones who are so remarkably wrong. So my "Egyptologist" not only includes people yours don't but it excludes a lot that yours does not.