> What is the "eye of horus"? How can you call it
> flowery language if none of it is understood? If
> it's a book of incantation then why not explain
> how a dm-sceptre and an ankh functioned to make
> the pyramid an ascension machine? Why not explain
> at least one concept in their magic and religion
> that is in universal agreement and not
> contradicted by the text itself? You can't do it.
> The only thing that everyone agrees on is that
> they were highly superstitious and believed in
> many gods.
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.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?