Origyptian wrote:

> DScribr wrote:
>
> > Regardless of how (un)comfortable you are, the word 'ramp'
> and
> > the structures it describes exists now, and did then.
> >
> > It most certainly DOES matter.
> >
> > Also, ramps ARE attested in the 'Wadi el-Jarf' paper as
> well.
> >
> > Can't accept the reality of ramps??? That's your problem, ck.
>
> Please let's not mix definitions here. What is being referred
> to by Clayton, cladking, and a few others in these discussions
> regarding the "ramp hypothesis" is the traditional incline that
> was thought to have elevated far above the bedrock, to the
> upper part of the pyramid and which has been thought to be
> comprised of at least as much masonry as the pyramid itself.


>What's being referred to as a "ramp" at al-Jarf is merely a
> causeway which is a very different beast.
>
> There is no evidence of "ramps" in the traditional sense unless
> you want to redefine the word to the more modern "causeway"
> convention in lieu of the traditional "ramp hypothesis".
****************************************************

I've previously posted Webster's definition of 'ramp' but I suggest you look it up in his book.

NO matter how hard you try to spin it, the fact remains unchanged......Ramps ARE attested, regardless of what YOU decide to call them.