Scott Creighton Posted April 24, 2014 Author #26 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Brilliant. He’s complaining that the characters which are there aren’t the characters which aren’t there. M. mstower, Complaint? How on god's good earth do you figure that one? It's far from a complaint, dear boy--just a simple observation. It was a rhetorical question. Best wishes, SC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Creighton Posted April 24, 2014 Author #27 Share Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Creighton, You haven’t answered the question. SC: Oh dearie me. Does that upset you? ms: Why are you raising “points” here (such as, the one about symmetry) which I’ve already answered elsewhere? SC: No, mstower. You gave a response. That's not the same as answering a question. I don't accept your response unless you can actually back it up. And telling everyone to read Goedicke's Paleography at $400 a pop (which you've been doing for at least 12 years now) in order that we can all confirm YOUR assertions ain't going to crack it. Back up your own assertions. I even doubt you have a copy of said tome. But hey--you talk a good game, don'tcha. ms: My remarks concern your unsatisfactory approach to this topic. If you don’t want your competence questioned, stop making claims which exceed your competence. SC: You clearly think I give a hee-haw about your motor-mouthed, foul-mouthed, jacked-up opinions. I don't. Really--I don't. I stuffed you royally before in debate (guess you never quite got over that one) and I'll do it again. What was it you called me after that Glasgow kiss you took over on GHMB? Oh yes - I was "a ****er". That was the best you could do. I didn't know whether to feel really annoyed or totally privileged at being called "a Stower". Trust me--you really don't wanna go there again. But hey--who am I to stop you? Sock it to me with your best tomes. ms: I’ve challenged your (risibly presumptuous) assertion that the cursive mr is “poorly rendered” and I’ve cited a source. I don’t see your answer. SC: Erm... at least one other knowledgeable soul here on UM (Kmt_Sesh) agreed with me that that glyph is "poorly rendered". So--you've cited a source. Wow! Like that'll crack it. I should just roll over and shut up. Sheesh.............. you have to do much better. And I really know you can--I have confidence in you. Let's have your best now, mstower. You can do it. Best wishes, SC Edited April 25, 2014 by Scott Creighton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted April 25, 2014 #28 Share Posted April 25, 2014 ... I’ve challenged your (risibly presumptuous) assertion that the cursive mr is “poorly rendered” and I’ve cited a source. I don’t see your answer. M. Hi, mstower. To be fair, the blame must be laid at my feet. I'm the one who suggested the mr glyph was badly rendered. It didn't occur to me that the glyph might be in hieratic form because the other glyphs do not seem to be, but are in cursive hieroglyphs. I arrived at smr ("companion") only because it made sense, regardless of how Hawass or others might have translated it. Also to be fair, although I have formal training in hieroglyphs, I can't say the same for hieratic. While I can recognize individual characters based on their orthography, that's not the same thing as translating hieratic writing, as you know. I searched for a while but could not come up with clear examples for the hieratic rendering of the mr glyph, so I'm left at a loss on this particular issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Creighton Posted April 25, 2014 Author #29 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Curious.... In reflecting a little more on the crew name from Wadi al-Jarf, we observe this: Notice in the image above the small horizontal stroke within the red circle. Could it be that the "badly rendered" glyph in Campbell's Chamber was intended to be the glyph we see in the Wadi al-Jarf crew name? Kmt--any idea what this glyph in the Wadi al-Jarf crew name might be? Looks very similar to the 's' glyph but has that small stroke sticking out and a small horizontal stroke at the base. What's your thoughts? Regards, SC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstower Posted April 25, 2014 #30 Share Posted April 25, 2014 SC: Oh dearie me. Does that upset you? SC: No, mstower. You gave a response. That's not the same as answering a question. I don't accept your response unless you can actually back it up. And telling everyone to read Goedicke's Paleography at $400 a pop (which you've been doing for at least 12 years now) in order that we can all confirm YOUR assertions ain't going to crack it. Back up your own assertions. I even doubt you have a copy of said tome. But hey--you talk a good game, don'tcha. SC: You clearly think I give a hee-haw about your motor-mouthed, foul-mouthed, jacked-up opinions. I don't. Really--I don't. I stuffed you royally before in debate (guess you never quite got over that one) and I'll do it again. What was it you called me after that Glasgow kiss you took over on GHMB? Oh yes - I was "a ****er". That was the best you could do. I didn't know whether to feel really annoyed or totally privileged at being called "a Stower". Trust me--you really don't wanna go there again. But hey--who am I to stop you? Sock it to me with your best tomes. SC: Erm... at least one other knowledgeable soul here on UM (Kmt_Sesh) agreed with me that that glyph is "poorly rendered". So--you've cited a source. Wow! Like that'll crack it. I should just roll over and shut up. Sheesh.............. you have to do much better. And I really know you can--I have confidence in you. Let's have your best now, mstower. You can do it. Best wishes, SC Who’s “personalisting” now, Creighton? Doesn’t take much to get you started, does it? What’s happening here it that you’re getting back what you’ve been in the habit of dishing out—and you don’t like it a bit, do you? I did suggest some time ago (what was it?) a moderation in your attitude. Perhaps you should have taken the hint. The link for the benefit of those who (as you know perfectly well) have better things to do than trawl through you old posts, to see where the “personalising” really comes from. For your information: There are such things as libraries. This is how, in the old days, people gained access to rare and expensive books. Consulting and citing informed sources is how scholarship works—as opposed to your implied principle, “I can’t afford it and Google doesn’t reach it, so it doesnt count.” We may note that kmt_sesh (who suddenly you’ve appointed pontifical authority on the question) has explicitly disavowed having formal training in hieratic. So much for your “answer”. (As for hieratic versus cursive hieroglyphic, various terms have been used over the years. Whatever we call it, the script in question is closely related to Old Kingdom hieratic—for example, it always reads from right to left.) Hey, look at what I wrote about this in 2001 (search for “smrw”): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.archaeology/X1_w-l3_Qws/yHX7kztExmAJ M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Creighton Posted April 25, 2014 Author #31 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Hello mstower, If you actually have anything meaningful or substantial to contribute to the discussion here, then by all means do so. Otherwise you can keep all your past baggage in the locker where it belongs--I rather doubt anyone here is interested. As for Goedicke--just as I thought; you're all talk. Everyone knows that if you did indeed have something to substantiate your oft repeated claim then you would not be so backward in coming forward with it. And that is why I am disregarding your opinion here and seeking the opinion of others. Best wishes, SC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstower Posted April 25, 2014 #32 Share Posted April 25, 2014 mstower, Complaint? How on god's good earth do you figure that one? It's far from a complaint, dear boy--just a simple observation. It was a rhetorical question. Best wishes, SC How I figure that one, Creighton, is from your use of a rhetorical question. Readers may have their own views on the message or viewpoint you are trying to convey with your question. I read it as an implied objection where no real objection exists. If merely “a simple observation” with no agenda whatsoever (which I don’t believe for a moment), it’s a remarkably pointless one. Not all inscriptions are the same? Imagine my surprise. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstower Posted April 25, 2014 #33 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Hello mstower, If you actually have anything meaningful or substantial to contribute to the discussion here, then by all means do so. Otherwise you can keep all your past baggage in the locker where it belongs--I rather doubt anyone here is interested. As for Goedicke--just as I thought; you're all talk. Everyone knows that if you did indeed have something to substantiate your oft repeated claim then you would not be so backward in coming forward with it. And that is why I am disregarding your opinion here and seeking the opinion of others. Best wishes, SC Consider the methodological principle here. If you don’t own the book, it doesn’t count. If it’s not on the Web, it doesn’t exist. Esse est iudex in Google. He really is saying what I said he is saying. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstower Posted April 25, 2014 #34 Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) Curious.... In reflecting a little more on the crew name from Wadi al-Jarf, we observe this: Notice in the image above the small horizontal stroke within the red circle. Could it be that the "badly rendered" glyph in Campbell's Chamber was intended to be the glyph we see in the Wadi al-Jarf crew name? Kmt--any idea what this glyph in the Wadi al-Jarf crew name might be? Looks very similar to the 's' glyph but has that small stroke sticking out and a small horizontal stroke at the base. What's your thoughts? Regards, SC Thanks for your interest in the link I posted. It would seem that I have contributed something meaningful and substantial to the discussion here. It’s a pity you’ve bypassed anything of real significance or interest in the material, in pursuit of yet more crank palaeography. M. Edited April 25, 2014 by mstower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstower Posted April 26, 2014 #35 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Resource: Möller, Hieratische Paläographie, Leipzig, 1909–1936: http://www.egyptology.ru/lang.htm#Moeller See in particular rows 484 and 485 here (page 24 of the PDF): http://www.egyptology.ru/lang/Moeller/Moeller-I-23-76.pdf M. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Creighton Posted April 26, 2014 Author #36 Share Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) Can anyone spot the odd one out? Edited April 26, 2014 by Scott Creighton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstower Posted April 26, 2014 #37 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Can anyone spot the odd one out? The relevant point was explained some time ago by Markus Pössel: http://www.aei.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Archaeo/cheopsfaelschung.html Note Pössel’s citation of Möller and Goedicke both. This is why it’s important to consult a source which deals specifically with the older hieratic forms, such as Goedicke’s Old Hieratic Paleography—but you’re too lazy and expectant of being spoon-fed to do that (and with that attitude you expect us to take you at your own estimate as a serious researcher making game-changing breakthroughs by the minute). The odd one out is you, Creighton. You’re the one persisting in amateur-hour palaeography, while the rest of us are showing a spirit of willingness to do the job properly. But we have at least made progress on U23, mr. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Creighton Posted April 26, 2014 Author #38 Share Posted April 26, 2014 The relevant point was explained some time ago by Markus Pössel: http://www.aei.mpg.d...faelschung.html Note Pössel’s citation of Möller and Goedicke both. This is why it’s important to consult a source which deals specifically with the older hieratic forms, such as Goedicke’s Old Hieratic Paleography—but you’re too lazy and expectant of being spoon-fed to do that (and with that attitude you expect us to take you at your own estimate as a serious researcher making game-changing breakthroughs by the minute). The odd one out is you, Creighton. You’re the one persisting in amateur-hour palaeography, while the rest of us are showing a spirit of willingness to do the job properly. But we have at least made progress on U23, mr. M. Prickly, aren't we, mstower. Trust me--the best has yet to come. Best wishes, SC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstower Posted April 26, 2014 #39 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Prickly, aren't we, mstower. Trust me--the best has yet to come. Best wishes, SC Creighton, Is this a “meaningful or substantial” contribution of the kind you were recommending above? Would the best that’s yet to come include your ever more overdue answer to the folk at ATS, who are still waiting for you to back up as promised your claim that R. W. H. Howard Vyse was in Egypt in 1842? (I mention this so that folk here may have a basis on which to calibrate your promissory bluster.) Meanwhile Markus Pössel’s answer in advance (by some 13 years) to the question Creighton imagines he’s raised, is ignored. He thinks if he huffs and puffs enough, we won’t notice. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted April 27, 2014 #40 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Just curious ... has there been any attempt to date the paint / dye or whatever pigment used with whatever razz ma tazz amazing modern technological wizardry available today ? ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted April 27, 2014 #41 Share Posted April 27, 2014 The most likely explanation for this is that it was added when the pyramid was repaired; it's not convincing in the slightest to claim that this untidy 'scrawl' was the work of the original builders. Only if they rebuilt the whole pyramid. There's other marks inside the GP, including the ones that the robot found. They're not beautiful -- they're scrawled. Does it make sense that they went to the trouble of assembling a massive monument of precise accuracy then to scrawl that untidy mess in there? Actually, they're where they can't be seen. I saw a video from the BBC that indicated there were many other crew names found on stones in the area --along with lines that were used to line up the stones when they were moving them into place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted April 27, 2014 #42 Share Posted April 27, 2014 BUt how certain is the current consensus that the scrawling in the 'air shafts' dates from the same period as the others ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted April 27, 2014 #43 Share Posted April 27, 2014 BUt how certain is the current consensus that the scrawling in the 'air shafts' dates from the same period as the others ? Because there's no other way to get in there (tiny shaft, bends in the shaft.) Likewise the gables. They had to be put on the blocks (and there are other blocks, including blocks in the quarries according to the BBC documentary) that have these marks on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Creighton Posted April 27, 2014 Author #44 Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) Creighton, Meanwhile Markus Pössel’s answer in advance (by some 13 years) to the question Creighton imagines he’s raised, is ignored. No one is huffing or puffing—just trying to get to the bottom of this. And stop dragging in diversionary issues here that are pending on other boards which have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion—stick to the topic. Now, I don’t know what you think Pössel has answered or how his opinion in any way supports your position on the question of this glyph in Campbell's Chamber. Whilst my understanding of German isn’t great (a bit like my understanding of hieroglyphs—in whatever form), Google translate is my friend. Pössel writes: ”Vor Beginn der fünften Dynastie, den man etwa auf 2450 v.Chr. datiert, werden bestimmte Hieroglyphen, die Lebewesen abbilden, noch relativ detailliert gezeichnet. Beim hier abgebildeten Wachtelküken etwa werden Kopf, Körper und Beine mit mehreren Strichen wiedergegeben (linkes Zeichen). Ab der fünften Dynastie werden auch diese Zeichen weiter vereinfacht, schließlich wird das Wachtelküken mit nur zwei Zügen stark stilisiert gezeichnet, vgl. das rechte Zeichen.” […]Das Wachtelküken taucht auch im Namen des Cheops auf … Das Zeichen ist eindeutig im Stil des Hieratischen vor der Vereinfachung der fünften Dynastie wiedergegeben - Körper, Kopf und die zwei Beine sind deutlich ausgeführt… Völlig korrekt also für ein Zeichen einer authentischen Inschrift aus der Zeit des Cheops, eines Königs der vierten Dynastie Roughly translated says: “Before the start of the fifth dynasty, about 2450 BC, certain hieroglyphs that depict living creatures, were drawn in some detail. In the illustration here quail chicks are drawn with head, body and legs with multiple strokes reproduced (left character). From the fifth dynasty, these characters are simplified, until finally, the quail chick is drawn heavily stylized with only two trains, cf. […]The quail chicks also appears in the name of Cheops […]The sign is clearly reproduced in the style of hieratic before the simplification of the fifth dynasty - body, head, and the two legs are executed significantly… Completely correct so for a sign of an authentic inscription from the time of Cheops, a king of the fourth dynasty…” Pössel's text then spirals into a rant against Sitchin and defending Vyse which is completely irrelevant to the discussion here, so we’ll cut it short. Now, as you have stated, mstower—Pössel cites as his sources Möller 1909 and Goedicke 1988. As you can plainly see in Pössel’s article, he states that the simplification of hieroglyphs occurred after the fourth dynasty i.e. from the fifth dynasty. Pössel, in fact, agrees with me that the style of the cartouche glyphs and crew name in Campbell’s Chamber are glyphs reproduced in a style that is “before the simplification of the fifth dynasty” had begun. So, spot the odd one out: So yes, mstower, we have made progress on U23 (mr)—it could only have been placed in the Great Pyramid if the builders had a time machine and were happy to pick ‘n’ mix their glyphs from different time periods, some of them in their future. The question this anachronistic glyph raises (assuming it is what you claim it is), is far from answered. Best wishes, SC Edited April 27, 2014 by Scott Creighton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstower Posted April 27, 2014 #45 Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) No one is huffing or puffing—just trying to get to the bottom of this. And stop dragging in diversionary issues here that are pending on other boards which have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion—stick to the topic. Now, I don’t know what you think Pössel has answered or how his opinion in any way supports your position on the question of this glyph in Campbell's Chamber. Whilst my understanding of German isn’t great (a bit like my understanding of hieroglyphs—in whatever form), Google translate is my friend. Pössel writes: [. . .] Roughly translated says: [. . .] Pössel's text then spirals into a rant against Sitchin and defending Vyse which is completely irrelevant to the discussion here, so we’ll cut it short. Now, as you have stated, mstower—Pössel cites as his sources Möller 1909 and Goedicke 1988. As you can plainly see in Pössel’s article, he states that the simplification of hieroglyphs occurred after the fourth dynasty i.e. from the fifth dynasty. Pössel, in fact, agrees with me that the style of the cartouche glyphs and crew name in Campbell’s Chamber are glyphs reproduced in a style that is “before the simplification of the fifth dynasty” had begun. So, spot the odd one out: So yes, mstower, we have made progress on U23 (mr)—it could only have been placed in the Great Pyramid if the builders had a time machine and were happy to pick ‘n’ mix their glyphs from different time periods, some of them in their future. The question this anachronistic glyph raises (assuming it is what you claim it is), is far from answered. Best wishes, SC Creighton, As you’re presuming to tell me what to do . . . Get off your backside, get down to a library and consult the source that’s been recommended to you, something you’ve failed to do for years now (for which see your own ill-mannered remarks on how long I’ve been citing this source)—just like you failed to view Hill’s facsmiles in the British Museum, before pontificating on them (this board!)—just like you failed to do the research before making claims about what Vyse was doing in 1842. Try doing what real researchers with intellectual integrity do. No, Creighton, my long-term correspondent Markus Pössel does not agree with you. I have in front of me his detailed notes on the Hill facsimiles, in which he refers to the character in question as “a crude mr”. You’ve misread and misunderstood what he wrote, just as you misread and misundertand (and misrepresent and taint) every aspect of this topic you lay your fingers on. Pössel states that the relevant simplification of the quail chick character occurred in in the fifth dynasty, which makes the script right for the fourth dynasty and wrong (or anachronistic) for later than the fourth dynasty. Don’t presume to contradict me on this, as Markus explained the point to me in some detail. I may add that Markus raised the point in correspondence with Sitchin, who failed to understand it (another thing you have in common with him). Just look at this! Creighton refuses for years to look at a key source (Goedicke) recommended to him—and then, on a quick skim of Möller (link provided by me), elects himself pontifical authority on the development of hieratic forms over time! What charlatanism! Creighton’s grade in palaeography—fail! For everyone else: Resource: Fischer, Ancient Egyptian Calligraphy (a beginner’s guide!): http://www.grahamhan...42#reply_332003 You’ll see on page 45 that it’s primarily Old Kingdom examples of the chisel hieroglyph which are asymmetrical—and yes, if you consult Goedicke’s Old Hieratic Paleography (try a library), you’ll find that this asymmetry is also present in the cursive equivalents, very much as we see in the pyramid. M. Edited April 27, 2014 by mstower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstower Posted April 27, 2014 #46 Share Posted April 27, 2014 In case it’s not perfectly clear, there is no evidence that the cursive mr (chisel) character changed significantly from the fourth to the fifth dynasty, whereas the w (quail chick) character, more complex to start with and much more common, did change significantly, as you can see. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Creighton Posted April 27, 2014 Author #47 Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) Hello mstower, ms: As you’re presuming to tell me what to do . . . SC: I’m telling you to stay on topic. ms: Get off your backside, get down to a library and consult the source that’s been recommended to you, something you’ve failed to do for years now … SC: The source you recommended has been somewhat superseded by your latest source (Pössel 2001) who cites both Möller (1909) and Goedicke (1988) in his paper (the link to which you very kindly provided). ms: (for which see your own ill-mannered remarks on how long I’ve been citing this source)... SC: From where I am standing, the invective here is now gushing from you. Did I tread on your toes? I don’t know—perhaps you think the world’s against you or something? You should know by now, mstower, that you reap what you sow in this life. Perhaps if you binned the constant invective in your posts, you might actually find that people warmed to you a little—indeed, you might even become loved. In any case—I have much respect for you, as you know. I think you’re just fab. You have helped me no end in my own research, prodded me when I needed it and doing so even to the point of sometimes hanging yourself by your own petard. Be nice, mstower—then you will get nice back. It’s simple. ms: —just like you failed to view Hill’s facsmiles in the British Museum, before pontificating on them (this board!)—just like you failed to do the research before making claims about what Vyse was doing in 1842. SC: Tut, tut—you’re drifting again. ms: Try doing what real researchers with intellectual integrity do. SC: Ah, the invective. Alas there are no libriaries close to where I live that have the tome you cite, that is now superseded by Pössel. Of course, if you are close to a library that does have a copy, then perhaps you could get off your own backside and cite the relevant page that allegedly backs up what YOU are trying to argue. ms: No, Creighton, my long-term correspondent Markus Pössel does not agree with you. SC: He does. mr: I have in front of me his detailed notes on the Hill facsimiles, in which he refers to the character in question as “a crude mr”. SC: Ah, “a crude mr”? Let’s go back a stage: ms: Goedicke’s Old Hieratic Paleography tells me that the character in question is standardly rendered, not poorly rendered. (here) SC: How can you possibly say that a “crude ‘mr’” (Pössel) is “not poorly rendered” (mstower)? It’s one or the other—which is it? ms: You’ve misread and misunderstood what he wrote… SC: Like hell, I have. But I suppose you have to find some way of countering this blow to your assertions. Pössel's comments are crystal clear and unambiguous. It merely suits your agenda to assert that I have misunderstood his comments. ms: just as you misread and misundertand (and misrepresent and taint) every aspect of this topic you lay your fingers on. SC: Blah, blah… invective, invective, invective. Where’s the love, man? Come on--you can do it. ms: Pössel states that the relevant simplification of the quail chick character occurred in in the fifth dynasty, which makes the script right for the fourth dynasty and wrong (or anachronistic) for later than the fourth dynasty. SC: Pössel clearly defines pre-simplification glyphs (i.e. pre 5th dynasty) and post-simplification glyphs (i.e. after the 4th dynasty). The glyph in question (U23 – chisel) is presented in Campbell’s Chamber unmistakably in its post-simplification form i.e. it is presented in its 5th Dyn. Form and no longer looks like the pre-simplification chisel glyph that we see in e.g. the graffiti in Menkaure’s complex: ms: Don’t presume to contradict me on this... SC: I don’t have to. Pössel contradicts you. ms: …as Markus explained the point to me in some detail. SC: Suggest you read again his article because you have plainly misunderstood what he has written there. ms: Just look at this! Creighton refuses for years to look at a key source (Goedicke) recommended to him—and then, on a quick skim of Möller (link provided by me), elects himself pontifical authority on the development of hieratic palaeography over time! SC: I’ve been looking at this issue only for a matter of months. Do get your facts straight. No—the authority here is Pössel (2001). HE disagrees with you. ms: What charlatanism! Creighton’s grade in palaeography—fail! SC: Ah, the invective machine that just keeps on giving. Whilst you try really hard for people to dislike you, mstower, I’m giving you the love, man. I really think you need some in your life. Best wishes, SC Edited April 27, 2014 by Scott Creighton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstower Posted April 27, 2014 #48 Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) Hello mstower, ms: As you’re presuming to tell me what to do . . . SC: I’m telling you to stay on topic. Creighton, The entire problem here is you and your charlatanism. You have made yourself the topic and I will post as I see fit to expose your charlatanism. ms: Get off your backside, get down to a library and consult the source that’s been recommended to you, something you’ve failed to do for years now … SC: The source you recommended has been somewhat superseded by your latest source (Pössel 2001) who cites both Möller (1909) and Goedicke (1988) in his paper (the link to which you very kindly provided). Thanks for confirming what was in any case evident, that you don’t understand how citations work. They’re not mutually exclusive and Pössel, in citing Goedicke, is directing the reader (you!) to look at Goedicke. ms: (for which see your own ill-mannered remarks on how long I’ve been citing this source)... SC: From where I am standing, the invective here is now gushing from you. Did I tread on your toes? I don’t know—perhaps you think the world’s against you or something? You should know by now, mstower, that you reap what you sow in this life. Perhaps if you binned the constant invective in your posts, you might actually find that people warmed to you a little—indeed, you might even become loved. In any case—I have much respect for you, as you know. I think you’re just fab. You have helped me no end in my own research, prodded me when I needed it and doing so even to the point of sometimes hanging yourself by your own petard. Be nice, mstower—then you will get nice back. It’s simple. And this is coming from which of your two faces? Are you forgetting that most of us here have seen a fair sample of your past output? Or are you hoping merely to bamboozle the odd passing newbie? Yes, Creighton, you did tread on my toes, as you know full well, if you have a scrap of self-awareness. ms: —just like you failed to view Hill’s facsmiles in the British Museum, before pontificating on them (this board!)—just like you failed to do the research before making claims about what Vyse was doing in 1842. SC: Tut, tut—you’re drifting again. And you’re dodging again. As above: the entire problem here is you and your charlatanism, which I will expose as I see fit. ms: Try doing what real researchers with intellectual integrity do. SC: Ah, the invective. Alas there are no libriaries close to where I live that have the tome you cite, that is now superseded by Pössel. Of course, if you are close to a library that does have a copy, then perhaps you could get off your own backside and cite the relevant page that allegedly backs up what YOU are trying to argue. Well, diddums. If you can’t research the topic properly, then perhaps you should shut up about it. You’ve been to Giza—and now you’re saying London is beyond you? And has been in all the years you’ve been offering your unsolicited opinions on this topic? Go to the row for U23. There, I’ve told you exactly where to look. ms: No, Creighton, my long-term correspondent Markus Pössel does not agree with you. SC: He does. Oh, really? He’s told you this? Perhaps you should invite him to say so on this board. Go on, Creighton, I dare you. mr: I have in front of me his detailed notes on the Hill facsimiles, in which he refers to the character in question as “a crude mr”. SC: Ah, “a crude mr”? Let’s go back a stage: [restored: “Goedicke’s Old Hieratic Paleography tells me that the character in question is standardly rendered, not poorly rendered.”] SC: How can you possibly say that a “crude ‘mr’” (Pössel) is “not poorly rendered” (mstower)? It’s one or the other—which is it? Ah, yes, false dilemma, your favoured fallacy. No, Creighton, it “isn’t one or the other”. “Poorly rendered” is a value judgement, suggesting that the character as written falls short of some standard—that it should have been written otherwise. Compared with a hieroglyph, the character is crude, not because it’s badly written, but because it’s cursive. As a cursive character, it’s written quite standardly. ms: You’ve misread and misunderstood what he wrote… SC: Like hell, I have. But I suppose you have to find some way of countering this blow to your assertions. Pössel's comments are crystal clear and unambiguous. It merely suits your agenda to assert that I have misunderstood his comments. As above, Creighton, I dare you to invite him to endorse your reading on this board. ms: just as you misread and misundertand (and misrepresent and taint) every aspect of this topic you lay your fingers on. SC: Blah, blah… invective, invective, invective. Where’s the love, man? Come on--you can do it. Motes and beams, Creighton. It’s what I get from what you do. If you have a problem with the impression you’re creating, try changing your behaviour. ms: Pössel states that the relevant simplification of the quail chick character occurred in in the fifth dynasty, which makes the script right for the fourth dynasty and wrong (or anachronistic) for later than the fourth dynasty. SC: Pössel clearly defines pre-simplification glyphs (i.e. pre 5th dynasty) and post-simplification glyphs (i.e. after the 4th dynasty). No, he doesn’t. What he says is quite specific: http://translate.goo...faelschung.html And the dare still stands. The glyph in question (U23 – chisel) is presented in Campbell’s Chamber unmistakably in its post-simplification form i.e. it is presented in its 5th Dyn. Form and no longer looks like the pre-simplification chisel glyph that we see in e.g. the graffiti in Menkaure’s complex: Two points: First, we don’t have photographs of these marks and I don’t rely entirely on Rowe for photographic accuracy. Where a comparison is possible, his drawing are seen to be semi-transcriptional. Second, there is variation in cursive writing, then as now. Not everyone writes the same and different scribal hands are evident even within the pyramid of Khufu. Different scribes wrote differently. ms: Don’t presume to contradict me on this... SC: I don’t have to. Pössel contradicts you. I’ll put it to you this way, Creighton: either Markus confirms this on this board, or readers of this board are liable to think you’re a liar. Dare you! M. Edited April 27, 2014 by mstower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstower Posted April 27, 2014 #49 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Continuation due to quote limit . . . ms: …as Markus explained the point to me in some detail. SC: Suggest you read again his article because you have plainly misunderstood what he has written there. Creighton. Are you really this slow? He explained it to me in personal correspondence and possibly also face to face (we covered various topics). I am not relying on the article. I suggest you learn when to just listen and be told. ms: Just look at this! Creighton refuses for years to look at a key source (Goedicke) recommended to him—and then, on a quick skim of Möller (link provided by me), elects himself pontifical authority on the development of hieratic palaeography over time! SC: I’ve been looking at this issue only for a matter of months. Do get your facts straight. No—the authority here is Pössel (2001). HE disagrees with you. Creighton, Tell the truth. You’ve been pontifcating on this topic for going on five years: http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=276479&t=276479 If you didn’t look into such relevant issues, you should have done. That, or shut up about the topic. As for Markus disagreeing with me, let’s see what he says when you invite him to say so on this board. ms: What charlatanism! Creighton’s grade in palaeography—fail! SC: Ah, the invective machine that just keeps on giving. Whilst you try really hard for people to dislike you, mstower, I’m giving you the love, man. I really think you need some in your life. Best wishes, SC Which effort at sarcasm says most of what needs to be said about you. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted April 27, 2014 #50 Share Posted April 27, 2014 No one is huffing or puffing—just trying to get to the bottom of this. Again, why haven't you asked the experts? If Hawass had made a stupid interpretation, every translator out there would have been all over him. I have read that he is proficient in Middle Kingdom Egyptian, so that means he would have had people familiar with the OK confirming the inscription. Although he plays rock star, I notice that all his papers are coauthored. I don't think there's a clear demarcation in when something arises in writing. The pharaoh didn't suddenly make a declaration that all scribes everywhere (every single one of them) would change the way they wrote things. Here's a quote from a news article: According to Peter Der Manuelian, Philip J. King Professor of Egyptology at Harvard University, similar lines have been found elsewhere in Giza. "Sometimes they identify the work gang (who built the room), sometimes they give a date and sometimes they give guidelines to mark cuttings or directional symbols about the beginning or end of a block," he said. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/28/pyramid.markings/index.html So it sounds like there's a general consensus among people who read the language and who've seen representations of other marks. If their understanding of the symbols is based on having seen hundreds more examples than you've seen, and if it's based on their knowledge of the language, why do you seem to have such a problem with the translations of expert translators? I'm truly puzzled, because it's (to me) like watching someone from China who knows a few words of "Engrish" arguing with professional translators over the interpretation of an English language sign. I don't understand why you dont' think interpreters are still stuck in the era of Champolleon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now