Hermione Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anthony Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > It is evidence that has been corroborated by
> facts
> > discovered during proper archaeological
> MJT> exploration of the sites.
>
> Well, not really! Archaeologists haven't found
> any evidence of the inscription ...



We have corroborating evidence OF inscriptions, as well as the nature of the inscription itself fits perfectly within known Egyptian funerary customs of the time, as has been discovered since Petrie and Weeks resurveyed the mastabas of the plateau.




>
> (MJT)
> > > Did Herodutus report absolutely verbatim
> what
> > he
> > > was told by the priests?
> > > We don't know.
> >
> (AS)
> > We do know. He did not. He says so. He
> reports
> > to the best of his recollection what they
> told
> > him, and also reports to the best of his
> > recollection what he himself saw with his own
> two
> > eyes.
>
> No, we don't know. Herodotus merely gives a
> resumé of what the interpreter said (the text
> doesn't even say "priest" at this point).


He never says anything but priest in this entire segment.

Who else would have been able to give him a tour of a massive holy site? It wasn't the tourist playground it is today, Hermione. It was still sacred land, and sacred structure.


> We can
> only presume that Herodotus and the interpreter
> were doing their best ... but we don't know.
>



When so much else of what he reported has turned out to be spot on accurate, it is illogical to single out one or two pieces and discard them because we do not appreciate what they meant.





> On the contrary, MJ makes an excellent point. Who
> was the interpreter, the "hermêneus"? Was he
> actually a priest himself? And, whether he was or
> he wasn't, how well and/or accurately would he
> have understood the hieroglyphics of Khufu's era?
>


The texts are perfectly accurate for the context, Hermione. They ADD credibility to the interpreter, and STRENGTHEN the identification of him as a priest of Khufu.




> AS>> You pretend you know they were lying to
> him.
> > Please share with us how you know this... or
> > retract your defamatory claim.
>
> It's a question of how we are to understand this
> glimpse of the past: nothing to do with defaming.



This is a clear choice. One is lying. Was it Herodotus or the Priest? They both got everything else right. I'm far more inclined to think that modern hacks who dismiss what these two reported about the pyramid are the ones drawing the false conclusions.



>
> There are many reasons why misunderstandings could
> have arisen. There is no particular reason to
> suppose that either Herodotus, or the interpreter,
> was either stupid or dishonest.


Other than minor issues of translation for specific concept (like did he really mean "garlic"? Or is there an Egyptian equivalent of same?) There is nothing in the report by Herodotus of this era that is really "out there". Sure, there are folklore areas, such as the "sending to the stew" of his daughter, or the 53 year reigns, but the nature of the things he reports are spectacularly accurate.


> But either of
> them might have been mistaken ... We just do not
> know. In another post, you mentioned an
> inscription on the outside of Menkaure's pyramid.
> What does that inscription say?



It was discussed here a couple months ago. Jon B. even had pictures he posted of it. I don't know if it was added by the son of Ramesses II during his cleanup of the plateau, though. That's not entirely outside my recollection, either.

However, the surface was grossly UNfinished, except around the entrance. There was no place to inscribe that particular pyramid, per se. Khufu's was a different matter all together.

> We've had this discussion before. In order for
> Herodotus or the Egyptian priests or interpreters
> to be termed "liars", it would have to be shown
> that they were intentionally misrepresenting a
> situation. The whole point is that it's perfectly
> possible for confusion and misunderstanding to
> arise uninentionally, even assuming everyone's
> best efforts.



Either Herodotus is misreporting his statements that he claims to "remember well", or the priest who read the inscription did not read what was actually written.

Those are really the only two options. Why read everything else right, but then secretly change the references to onions? The concept is simply absurd.







>
> > Herodotus witnessed them reading the writing
> on
> > the wall of the pyramid.
>
> Well, someone told him that they were interpreting
> what Herodotus says was written there ...
>



Oh, for goodness sake. He has reported a text that repeats itself in other tombs of the time. Do you suppose this was a lucky guess?

Come on.



> The Egyptians of this
> > time could easily read hieroglyphic.
>
> I've asked above what the situation actually was
> ... It would be interesting to have more
> information on this point.

This was pre-Alexanderian Egypt. The priests didn't stop reading hieroglyphic for over half a millenium after this time. There is absolutely no doubt about their abilities to do so.

Anthony

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