Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm kind of at a loss here Anthony. So what are
> researchers supposed to do? Just sit around and
> twiddle their thumbs until new information comes
> in?

I certainly don't think I implied that.


> Or wouldn't a more dynamic approach be to
> study the PT's, see which verses and themes recur
> over and over as Katherine has pointed out. See
> how the language changes in the PT's and compare
> it with what little we do know of pre-dynastic
> myths. I don't see the problem after all linguists
> can reconstruct ancient languages based on
> linguistically sound principles why couldn't the
> same be done on the PT's?

But we're not talking about reconstructing a language. What we're discussing is the reconstruction of thoughts, ideas and beliefs held by the people who used the language. They are not the same.


> Just takes a little
> imagination and perserverance and the answer will
> slowly reveal itself.


But not if we are using erroneously attributed thoughts, beliefs and ideas as a foundation for our imaginitive endeavor. This is about carefully understanding and properly labeling the concepts we are trying to "push back" into the past. Too many things get labeled as "fact", when in actuality, they are nothing but plausible speculations based on interpretations of later texts. I wish things could be color-coded when they are printed. Black is for things we know to be fact. Blue is for things that have been proven theoretically. Red is for speculations that cannot and should not be used as foundations for any further theorizing.

That would make the field of study so much more productive. We wouldn't have to worry about going back and rechecking every little tidbit of information we find to see if indeed it is actually known, or if somebody just wrote it down 120 years ago and it has slowly migrated from red to blue without anybody noticing...

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.