Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
The Puzzler

Pyramid Texts for Astral Travel

255 posts in this topic

Well... ...in all fairness whenever they think of a way to prove it

was a tomb made with ramps and the Pyramid Texts are spells they're

all over the science.

Heaven forfend they should just seek evidence to determine the facts.

And everyone wonders why there are nothing but mysteries surrounding

a 6 1/2 million ton piece of the REAL world. Everyone wonders why no

one can crack this mystery while all the assumptions are in error. And

they wonder why there are a million crackpot theories trying to explain

the few known facts.

From what I've read, Egypt is much more concerned about blocking access to real research than in allowing it. It's pretty sad because I'm sure there are at least a few answers wanting to be discovered... probably lots of answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read, Egypt is much more concerned about blocking access to real research than in allowing it. It's pretty sad because I'm sure there are at least a few answers wanting to be discovered... probably lots of answers.

Yes. Exactly.

I meant that anyone who wants to prove ramps and tombs can

get any sort of funding and testing he wants. Everyone else

is considered a nutcase and kept far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Exactly.

I meant that anyone who wants to prove ramps and tombs can

get any sort of funding and testing he wants. Everyone else

is considered a nutcase and kept far away.

Right, which is why student s provided funding by the Edgar Cayce Foundation are able to visit and exam sites, like Mark Lehner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, which is why student s provided funding by the Edgar Cayce Foundation are able to visit and exam sites, like Mark Lehner.

Also worth mentioning is Graham Hancock, who, while adjusting his theory after seeing the pyramids up close, still doesn't agree with mainstream views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read, Egypt is much more concerned about blocking access to real research than in allowing it. It's pretty sad because I'm sure there are at least a few answers wanting to be discovered... probably lots of answers.

In actuality, the Supreme Council of Antiquities is more concerned about blocking junk research. People come up with all manner of bizarre and otherworldly ideas about the Great Pyramid, based on what they feel the evidence says, and as such there is no need to grant legitimate consideration to wild speculation. In point of fact, legitimate research must follow the evidence, and the evidence is solidly in line with orthodox theory. Plenty of people here at UM, as one example, think they know "the truth," when in reality they do not understand the science and research applied to Egyptology and honestly have no idea what they're talking about.

All manner of modern and advanced sciences are being applied to the Great Pyramid at this moment, both in research and on site, and these are the people best equipped to provide answers. Someone pecking away at his computer who's never properly studied ancient Egypt and goes at it entirely from the perspective of gut feeling and sci-fi whimsy, is not equipped on any level. Why on earth should we take them seriously? We don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Exactly.

I meant that anyone who wants to prove ramps and tombs can

get any sort of funding and testing he wants. Everyone else

is considered a nutcase and kept far away.

That would be true only to an extremely limited extent. More important is that you have a proper education and belong to a recognized institution equipped to carry out proper scientific examination. If you honestly believe the SCA should just allow anyone access to the monuments, be that person fact-based or fringe-minded, you're fooling yourself. The SCA tightly regulates scientific examination of all of its historical sites and probably turns down more requests than it allows. Fringe-minded people like to cry conspiracy and cover-up and other juvenile and inane claims, but fringe-minded people tend to have little grounding in reality to begin with. The SCA is simply protecting its monuments, which is its first and perhaps most important responsibility. And the SCA does a very good job at this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm getting closer and closer to lift-off here;

http://chicagoist.com/2010/05/10/egypt_by_way_of_wadsworth.php?gallery0Pic=2

Ripped from today's news.

"The home, which also features a three-pyramid garage, sits on a natural spring, which forms a moat around the domicile. The water from the spring was reportedly so pure that Jim Onan was permitted to bottle and sell it."

Maybe Kmt_Sesh can believe now. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not based in anything sci-fi or Sitchin-like, it is based in what seems like an obvious answer (to me).

The Great Pyramid was built to be able to be a vehicle for the body to astral travel or astral project, that is have an out of body exprience (OOBE) that took one to the stars and Heavens for a journey and back again.

Actually it wasn't. The GP was built as a device capable of generating by principles of fusion, an electrically charged ecology to compensate for the gradual deterioration of the planet's own natural electrically charged atmosphere that existed at that time.

The 'Egyptians' that lived in those very ancient times were used to a very different planetry atmosphere that exists today. This electrical ecology increases and decreases in a cycle over time. The GP was an attempt to store the planets energy and then discharge it. Chris Dunn is nearer to the truth than most of you realise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm getting closer and closer to lift-off here;

http://chicagoist.com/2010/05/10/egypt_by_way_of_wadsworth.php?gallery0Pic=2

Ripped from today's news.

"The home, which also features a three-pyramid garage, sits on a natural spring, which forms a moat around the domicile. The water from the spring was reportedly so pure that Jim Onan was permitted to bottle and sell it."

Maybe Kmt_Sesh can believe now. ;)

As a resident of Chicago I have heard of Onan's creations and have seen photographs. I've always wanted to meet him and tour his property, just for the hell of it. It's always nice to meet a fellow Egyptophile. :)

That said, I hope you don't think that a spring in the state of Illinois supports your theory. Nor do Mr.Onan impressive modern creations. Nor does a University of Wisconsin study that suggests the "pyramids generate energy," a study about which that university should be embarrassed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Electrical Ecology? Did you make up that term, does it come from fringe authors, or is it used in scientific literature?

Outrageous claims require outrageous proof, right? I have not read Mr. Dunn's theories but I would be very surprised to find his work backed full of citations into geochemistry, physics, biochemistry, atmospheric science, and so on.

Could you post the bibliography of one of Mr. Dunn's better works on the subject?

EDIT

I just read the bib on Dunn's site. It's just a bunch of commercial authors, not a single scientific paper in the list, although it was a brief list:

Dunn's Bib

Even if, hypothetically, he's right, he's clearly not interested in real science or he would be doing real science. He's not. Good science is built on hard evidence and experimental data from prior works and in related fields. Dunn shows none of that. He shows no scientific research what-so-ever as any basis for anything he says.

He's talking about the GP being some kind of huge nuclear reactor. Well, then you need to collaborate with serious chemists and nuclear physicists to provide a scientific basis for your theory.

Instead of doing research into the real scientific publications on subjects like nuclear physics, he's just got a web site full of his theories, some pictures of Giza, and some little drawings he made in a paint program. And of course, he's selling books.

If you want to propose the theory that GP is a nuclear reactor you do the following:

1. spend years reading the publications about chemestry and physics so you understand it (talking peer reviewed scientific journals, not books from Amazon)

2. assemble a bibliography of sources from the litrature which can form the scientific basis for your theory (the "it's actually physically possible" part)

3. propose your hypothesis/theory

4. design experiments to prove or disprove your hypothesis

And the "truth" is that steps 1 and 2 are the most important ones. Dunn skipped ahead to part 3, put it in a book, threw it on Amazon. parts 1, 2, and 4 are not part of his "promotion" at all.

This is "pseudo-science" because it does not establish a scientific basis for the theory in the first place. It's just wild speculation.

Edited by Qwasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

...

Outrageous claims require outrageous proof, right? I have not read Mr. Dunn's theories but I would be very surprised to find his work backed full of citations into geochemistry, physics, biochemistry, atmospheric science, and so on.

...

I'm quite familiar with Dunn's ideas, myself. They're all on his website. I think this is perhaps zoser's single-favorite source for his own ideas about the Great Pyramid.

To be quite frank, Dunn has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. I'm not saying the man is stupid and in fact he's probably quite intelligent, but he has no tangible grasp of ancient Egyptian history or the technological capabilities of a Bronze Age people. Almost every point Dunn tries to make can be explained in more logical terms by a careful analysis of the science used and applied by orthodox historical researchers and scientists. In other words, there is simply no reason to take Dunn seriously. He's just another fringe author with his head in the vapors.

The bibliography you share in your link is quite telling, in fact. I'm not familiar with every writer on the page, but I noted that the only modern Egyptologist and pyramid specialist is Mark Lehner. Now, he is one of the leading experts, but the book Dunn references is only a general, layman's reference. There are a couple of books by Flinders Petrie but, despite the work Petrie conducted at Giza, he was never an expert on pyramids nor did he claim to be; he extensively surveyed the site but never professionally excavated at the Great Pyramid. Moreover, as important as Petrie was in the founding of the field of Egyptology, he was incorrect on many issues and merely guessed at a lot of things concerning the building of pyramids.

Surprising to me is Lucas and Harris's Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, which is arguably the most professional reference in the entire list. This book is more or less the seminal text on ancient Egyptian industries. I can only surmise that Christopher Dunn actually never read the book or at most perused a few pages of it, because this excellent work shows in no uncertain terms how far from reality Dunn really is.

Much of the rest of the list, containing such names as Cayce and Bauval and Smyth and Hancock, is of no useful or relevant bearing when trying to conduct legitimate research, so if Dunn wants to be taken seriously, he really ought to know better. But he doesn't, of course. One more fringe writer who's destined to disappear into the foggy mists of fringe nonsense.

I'm editing to add at least one kind word for Dunn: at least he shares this bibliography with his readers. It's something many fringe writers tend to avoid doing because they know anyone with an education in science and history will laugh at it. Well, anyone with an education in science and history will laugh at most of Dunn's bibliography, too, but I give him credit for including it. ;)

Edited by kmt_sesh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm somewhat confused as to what the spring has to do with anything in that story. Is it somehow made more pure by the pyramid? Which means that grounding in reality is fading...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to propose the theory that GP is a nuclear reactor you do the following:

1. spend years reading the publications about chemestry and physics so you understand it (talking peer reviewed scientific journals, not books from Amazon)

2. assemble a bibliography of sources from the litrature which can form the scientific basis for your theory (the "it's actually physically possible" part)

3. propose your hypothesis/theory

4. design experiments to prove or disprove your hypothesis

One would think that since this is one of the best such lists I've ever

seen that I wouldn';t find fault in it.

I'm sure Qwasz is aware of this but while steps one and two are quite of-

ten the more important parts of the process the fact is that revolutionary

ideas and concepts do tend to arise from outside the field.

I think I'd insert another step between #2 and #3; "be very very lucky".

It does seem pretty unlikely that an individual who isn't extremely fami-

liar with nuclear science would encounter such luck but I believe Mr Dunn

is an engineer. We have a most limited number of means to create nuclear

fission or fusion but there's no proof this applied to the ancients. At

least in theory there might be a virtually unlimited number of ways to split

and rearrange atoms.

Of course one needs more than a mere hypothesis to convince anyone the pyr-

amid was a reactor.

I tend to rate hypotheses about one whole point superior to assumptions

though no matter how crazy the hypothesis nor obvious the assumption. As-

sumptions have a way of always biting you in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, I hope you don't think that a spring in the state of Illinois supports your theory. Nor do Mr.Onan impressive modern creations. Nor does a University of Wisconsin study that suggests the "pyramids generate energy," a study about which that university should be embarrassed.

No, of course not. I really believe that if carbonated water physically

started spraying out the top of G1 today most people would chalk it up to

mere coincidence.

A lot of ideas should be most embarrassing. But the most embarrassing idea

of all is one most people share; that we know everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm somewhat confused as to what the spring has to do with anything in that story. Is it somehow made more pure by the pyramid? Which means that grounding in reality is fading...

Maybe if the Egyptians could project themselves in space they could

in time as well. What better way to communicate to everyone that they

weren't truly mad than to drop hints by getting people to build pyramids

and cities over streams? ;)

Or perhaps it's just humorous that a pyramid might still be built over

very high quality water. :)

Jung believed in a collective unconscious. He could have been right.

Maybe monkeys really did smash bones around ben ben stones after the

phoenix was chased off and were then forced to evolve enough to build a

pyramid in its place.

I'm not restrained by knowing everything so can speculate on the un-

knowable like how did they build the pyramids and were the pyramids built

for astral or temporal travel.

There's evidence for everything and what we believe is normally determin-

ed by the preponderance of the eviodence. At least this is what I believ-

ed up until four years ago. Now it looks a lot more like people have

faith in what they know. The status quo might not be caused as much by

inertia and fear of change as by faith. We rush headlong into a future

which relies on an unsustainable status quo because we have faith that

the somehow the impossible will happen.

Jeesh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And I might point out that google is getting mighty damn smart.

Nobody used the words "time travel" on this page yet one of the

ads came up "Time Travel Secrets". It apparently got thgis from

my phrase "project themselves in time".

I'll check out the link and report back if there's anything inter-

esting.

Edited to add. I don't find it extremely interesting but it is

tangentially relevent to the topic so here's a link anyway;

http://blog.learnremoteviewing.com/

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay, irrelevant coincidence! And besides, first we have to assume that the Egyptians could project themselves in space, which is a stretch anyway. A veritable leap in logic, as it were.

I'm indeed glad that you're not held back by your lack of knowledge. There is a line though, between groundless speculation, and logical guesswork.

We're not talking about a civil law case here, with the "preponderance of the the evidence." That would imply that scientific results only need be accurate 51 percent of the time, which is completely unacceptable. A more desirable consummation would be a criminal burden of proof, such that we'd need beyond a reasonable doubt. Which would be closer to 99 percent, and much more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay, irrelevant coincidence! And besides, first we have to assume that the Egyptians could project themselves in space, which is a stretch anyway. A veritable leap in logic, as it were.

I'm indeed glad that you're not held back by your lack of knowledge. There is a line though, between groundless speculation, and logical guesswork.

We're not talking about a civil law case here, with the "preponderance of the the evidence." That would imply that scientific results only need be accurate 51 percent of the time, which is completely unacceptable. A more desirable consummation would be a criminal burden of proof, such that we'd need beyond a reasonable doubt. Which would be closer to 99 percent, and much more accurate.

I agree.

But I rate all knowledge (including science) on its ability

to make accurate predictions. From this perspective almost

everything we know is really groundless speculation. Our

knowledge only works under controlled conditions. Technol-

ogy is a manifestation of these controlled condition. A wheel

goes round because it's made that way. It just happens to

make about one revolution for each 3.14 diameters. The fact

that it converts direction of movement to rotation is lost on

most all observers. Yet everyone has utter faith in his abil-

ity to drive to the store and that this ability proves not only

his intelligence but the fact that he knows everything.

This allows us to simply see what we expect to see and believe

as we choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're rating most people's opinion of their own store of knowledge a little highly. And even if they do have unfounded faith in their own intellect, it doesn't matter anwyay lol.

If you're interested in accurate, verifiable-beyond-any-doubt-at-all predictions, I don't think ancient history is the right field haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

One would think that since this is one of the best such lists I've ever

seen that I wouldn';t find fault in it.

I think I'd insert another step between #2 and #3; "be very very lucky".

It does seem pretty unlikely that an individual who isn't extremely fami-

liar with nuclear science would encounter such luck but I believe Mr Dunn

is an engineer.

My point is that, as an engineer, he should be familiar with scientific method and should be approaching this problem as such. I dont care if he's the world's leading nuclear physicist, without a scientific foundation for a claim, it's meaningless. (the leading nuclear physicist would know this of course)

We have a most limited number of means to create nuclear

fission or fusion but there's no proof this applied to the ancients. At

least in theory there might be a virtually unlimited number of ways to split

and rearrange atoms.

"there may exist some technology which makes something we think is impossible, possible" is an argument you can make for any theory, hypothesis, or claim that you can imagine. And it's a baseless argument. It might be true, but without evidence and scientific method behind it, it's meaningless speculation.

Theory: "Ancient people actually created the planet earth from a can of playdoe".

Response: "That's physically impossible"

Baseless Argument: "Well they might have had a technology we dont understand"

Point is, to "believe" something, you should want some hard science behind it. You want to be able to predict the behavior of things, using your "belief", and have it match the experimental result.

Personally I try very hard to remain in the "I have no idea" box on anything with limited evidence or limited experimental possibilities.

That's where I'm at with Giza. I have no freaking idea what that thing is. I'm pretty sure every theory I've ever heard is crap, and therefore, I have no idea.

Of course the problem is that we can really do much experimentation. We need to dig and dismantle and reverse engineer the entire site, the entire country! Without that, anything more than wild speculation is all we have, be it "tombs and spells", "nibblers", or "atomic reactors".

To properly test a theory like "atomic reactor" you would want to do a bunch of "it is physically possible" science with leaders in those fields and assemble first a scientific basis for your theory. Then using that science you construct your DETAILED theory, exactly how is this nuclear reaction happening? What would be the resulting changes to the structure itself? Now perhaps you can ask some questions like "if it was a reactor, what would we expect to see if we test the rocks and dig into things and start really digging around in there? Then you dig around, and see what you find.

Bottom line: Dunn is not trying to prove a theory, he's trying to sell books.

Of course, the "experts" are trying to keep their careers and keep the grant money flowing, so they're not exactly doing real science either.

And that's pretty much why it's a mystery.

Edited by Qwasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're rating most people's opinion of their own store of knowledge a little highly. And even if they do have unfounded faith in their own intellect, it doesn't matter anwyay lol.

I really should state this better. Most people are smart enough

to know that they themselves don't know everything but they do be-

lieve that for every fact and bit of knowledge that there is someone.

Everything is known whether they know it or not.

Most people, in fact, have a little self doubt since it seems there

are so many who know so much more than themselves.

If you're interested in accurate, verifiable-beyond-any-doubt-at-all predictions, I don't think ancient history is the right field haha.

Of course. But then again the other fields aren't really any better.

Even math and philosophy make a lot of assumptions.

In real life we just have to settle for "state of the art". Ramps

and tombs ain't it any longer in my opinion. A launch pad seems a

better fit even though I doubt the Pyramid Texts are a count down

manual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Of course, the "experts" are trying to keep their careers and keep the grant money flowing, so they're not exactly doing real science either.

And that's pretty much why it's a mystery.

I agree with your argument against the sort of nonsense spewed by Dunn, but I disagree with your perspective on the experts. The fact is, a myriad of modern sciences are applied in Egyptology every day, including at Giza. Review some of the work being conducted by the Giza Plateau Mapping Project, as one example. To date, the theories and research of orthodox historians and scientists have presented us a very solid understanding of ancient Egypt and its many monuments. The Egyptians built over 100 pyramids from the Early Dynastic Period through the Middle Kingdom, including a final one at the start of the New Kingdom, and every single one is a powerful pronouncement of funerary architecture.

The ancient Egyptians themselves left no room for doubt on this. The pyramids have to be viewed in their proper context and as the ancient Egyptians saw them, not as some modern person with no understanding of ancient Egypt might think he or she sees them. Nonsense from modern people spews forth from every direction, including from Christopher Dunn, including from the author of the ill-informed article that started this thread, and including from quite a number of misinformed people right here at UM. The nonsense will always spew forth, as it did in Petrie's day and as it does today, so long as people do not take the time to conduct proper studies based on the sciences and research potocols employed in Egyptology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and every single one is a powerful pronouncement of funerary architecture.

This is art and an assumption.

What is wrong with just figuring out how the pyramids were made?

What is wrong with just doing the tests and studies that would lead

to an answer even if that answer might not be ramps.

They're so afraid it won't be ramps that they won't even look at

anything else.

The pyramids have to be viewed in their proper context and as the ancient Egyptians saw them, not as some modern person with no understanding of ancient Egypt might think he or she sees them.

The nonsense will always spew forth, as it did in Petrie's day and as it does today, so long as people do not take the time to conduct proper studies based on the sciences and research potocols employed in Egyptology.

Their "proper context" is dependent on understanding the builders and

this may be dependent on knowing how they were built.

Without answers to the basic questions then everything is assumption

and might be nonsense. In 150 years of scientific reseaerch one would

think they'd be able to determine how it was made. Indeed, it seems

six months of 21st century science could answer this yet ten years has

gone by and it appears we are no closer. What have they done ten years?

They've found the workmen's village probably and established it couldn't

possibly hold enbough men to drag the pyramid up ramps yet they are still

trying to prove ramps to the exclusion of all other enquiry.

It's way past time for moere answers and fewer mysteries or at the very

least an explanation for why no answers are forthcoming.

I'd be interested in knowing what they pulled out of there the other night

for instance. How about a daily update until we have some answers. Of

course every day it would read the same thing; "Still No Ramps".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually quite apparent that Allen was influenced by the coffin

texts and even the book of the dead in his translations. He speaks of

many concepts that don't arise for hundreds and even thousands of years

after the Pyramid Texts were first written.

This is another form of assuming the conclusion.

I honestly have no idea where you get this from. Deep down I think you say these things because modern translations don't gibe with your personal opinions and speculations, but always remind yourself before writing something like this: I, cladking, do not know how to translate; I do not understand the ancient religion; I am not familiar with the research guidelines and protocols observed by modern historians. If you bear these things in mind, you will perhaps save some face.

To date you're the only one still making far-flung assumptions.

Allen writes in his introduction: "The translations are meant to reflect as closely as possible the language and style of the texts themselves" (2005: 13). When working on a translation, that's History 101. Why on earth would he pull from corpuses of spells occurring hundreds of years later, much less a millennium later? That doesn't even make sense. The Book of the Dead grew out of the Coffin Texts which themselves grew out of the Pyramid Texts, so if you're translating the source material, you translate only the source material. Allen's translations have nothing to do with the later afterlife texts, a fact that is obvious to any well-read student.

I have demonstrated this with my own translations in past discussions, as well as with practice translations I have done for my own benefit. My own results, as based on my own training from modern Egyptologists, closely gibes with Allen's. I am no expert, a fact I must stress, but when an amateur historian such as I arrives at such similar results, it shows the modern expert is correct. That said, please stop making up arguments. It just looks bad, and I'm not going to let this tactic go unanswered.

When it appeaers that I'm commenting on the heiroglyphs it will usually

actually be a comment on the consistency of the translation or the accur-

acy as judged by how true it is to the concept of water. In very few cases

have I actually looked at the hieroglyphs and seen glaring errors.

I was trying to stress the fact that you do not know how to translate hieroglyphs, period, so you are not in a position to critique one translation from another. It is utterly and completely irrelevant how you might think something sounds when it comes out in English. "This sounds better for my argument" is a tacitly poor tactic.

That they are spells and in some regular order are Allen's contentions and

these are based partly on later works like the coffin texts...You have to not only look at what

the Pyramid Texts are but what they were when the great pyramids were being

built. Much of this is supposition but it is based on a literal understand-

ing of the meaning. There are things which become apparent when these are

seen in this light that are not visible otherwise.

Here again you are tipping your hand. Please, for your own benefit, look into these things before inventing arguments. That the Texts were meant to be read in a specific order was known long before James Allen published his translations. Alexander Piankoff published a translation of Unis' Texts in 1968 and observed that there was a natural order and he attempted to clarify it in his studies. He didn't nail it and got some of the spells out of sequence, but Piankoff was quite aware of this feature. Neither Sethe nor Mercer were, which is why you see in their translations headings like "Texts of Miscellaneous Contents." It was probably obvious to both how silly this was of them, but they didn't understand the order in which the spells were meant to be read. It's quite humorous even to entertain the notion that the ancient Egyptian priests who maintained these writings would toss in "Miscellaneous Contents."

You yourself do not have a solid understanding of the ancient Egyptian religion, so you yourself don't even understand what the "literal understanding" of the Texts is. As odd as it is to assume that some spells could be lumped into "Miscellaneous Contents," it's much stranger to assume that they preserve a hydrology construction manual.

Yes, there probably was an order to these poems before our earliest copy

and this order might be partially preserved and properly reported by Allen.

It seems more than merely problematical to simply invent a new numbering sys-

tem and casting off the old. There's no evidence these are even properly un-

derstood at all so how does anyone get off suggesting only his way is right? ...

It's not that his way is "right," it's that Allen's method is the most reliable. There's no need to chunk whole sections of spells into "Miscellaneous Contents" when the proper order is observed. When the proper order is observed, the entire corpus of the Texts flows better and makes more sense. Maybe no to you, but it probably never will make sense to you as long as you go on forcing the evidence to fit your argument.

You are still treading on very thin ice by claiming that Allen is the final

word on the PT. The simple fact is that while he eliminates many of the refer-

ences to water and the Land of Horus, those which remain are almost impossible

to interpret in any way other than a description of geysers. He says that the

Gods are adorned with sky arcs for instance.

I've never said Allen's translation were the "final word." I've tried to stress that his are the most comprehensive and current to date. Without a doubt future scholars will publish their translations. I was mistaken in stating that Allen provides a translation for all known Pyramid Texts, which was sloppy of me to say. He does not provide translations for those spells found within the pyramids of queens Iput II, Wedjebetni, and Ibi (ibid: 3). There is also the queen's pyramid found a year or two ago, subsequent to the publication of Allen's book, so no doubt the fragmented Texts in this queen's burial chamber will be published in the near future, too.

Not a single passage or even word in Allen's translation would refer to geysers. Instead of believing me, why not email him and ask? No one's stopping you but yourself, and you cannot use the excuse that he wouldn't know considering he's one of the leading linguists of ancient Egyptian in our day. You're in no more of a position to doubt him than I am, to be sure. Then again, not a single passage or even word in the translations of Sethe or other scholars refer to geysers, either. I know you don't see it this way, but you're forcing the evidence to fit your argument.

A lot of my distrust for this work is simply the mess that was made of yeast

gas. I'm always going to be dubious where words are translated in various ways

and the translator speaks of concepts that post date the work by centuries.

It's likely that he really is one of the most expert people on the Egyptian

language but that doesn't make him correct on any given translation. I don't

even know enough to judge but I can read.

Nothing in Allen's translations would suggest anachronistic concepts. Provide a specific passage in which you think this takes place. The glyphs themselves are what Allen used.

You cannot work with the ancient language, so that's where your argument stops dead in its tracks. Unless you sufficiently equip yourself to translate hieroglyphs, your argument always will be dead in its tracks. Many times in other discussions I've linked people to the online resource for the hieroglyphs themselves (here and here), which is the same resource I use. The hieroglyphs speak for themselves. Without a sufficient understanding of how to translate them, no one is equipped to dispute a scholar's translation of them. There is no getting around this. You can read English perfectly well, but you can't read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, so you're still just spinning your wheels. And your tires are flat. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't copy and paste from his version of these poems so

will have to refer to page numbers.

pg 6 2nd paragraph he refers to a middle kingdom copy!!!

pg 7 last paragraph (little confidence)

pg 7 1st para ((remained same over Egyptian history)

This is pointless. The entire introduction is just full of stuff

that doesn't appear in the PT and is pulled from other eras. He ob-

viously uses translations and understandings from later eras as well.

But again, this isn't really fatal to my understanding. Some of Al-

len's translations even more clearly suggest water than Mercer's and

the others. If you prove him right you're still stuck with rainbows.

I'm sure you're not suggesting that if we just wait long enough they'll

be able to translate all of this right out of the PT. It appears obvi-

ous that everyone knows where this ends up so are just trying to skip

all the way ahead to the book of the dead.

I'm sure you have a hardcopy but for everyone else;

http://books.google.com/books?id=6VBJeCoDdTUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=James+Allen%27s+Pyramid+Texts&source=bl&ots=mr_S59GARA&sig=l22IL_e65lTU8pvEei_HZtBc-fw&hl=en&ei=moFaS8TKBoWGNNXw2IcP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.