> See Mark Lehner "Archeology of an Image" Ph.D.
> thesis page 140 citing Edwards (1985) that the
> pyramid causeway was called a ramp or Ra-st3w for
> "entrance of the haul".
I can NEVER leave well enough alone. I really should learn to.
But "Rosteau" appears in the PT as well. And it's one of the most interesting and determinative rituals of all;
445a. To say: O Hrti of Nsȝ.t, ferryman of the ’Iḳh.t-boat, made by Khnum,
445b. bring this (boat) to N. N. is Seker of R-Śtȝ.w.
445c. N. is on the way to the place of Seker, chief of Pdw-š.
445d. It is our brother who is bringing this (boat) for these bridge-girderers (?) of the desert.
They need a boat at this "entrance of the haul" in order to build bridges!!!!
Of course this has all been retranslated but the simple fact is they are continually retranslating something they believe is just incantation. If they ever get this retranslation exactly correct how can they possibly know it? Why won't they forever translate it again and again without EVER getting any closer to author intent? Maybe Maspero had it right in the first place. Each translator is approaching what we believe and what the authors of the "book of the dead" believed. What evidence exists they are getting any closer to what the author "believed"? In light of the fact that all of the assumptions remain unproven and no mysteries have ever been solved I propose they are getting farther from author intent. Egyptologists can't make any predictions and none even have an hypothesis of what is causing the thermal anomaly. They don't even know what sceptres are for or how the "ankh" arose. In two hundred years of work all they have are new translations and new interpretations with a better chronology that still isn't tied to real time.