Lee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In defending the accuracy of Herodotus description
> of the GP, Anthony has made much of the
> inscription found on Manekaure's pyramid in 1968.
> He referred to it, I believe, as "an original
> inscription remaining on the casing stones . . .
> ." Whatever it is, however, it is certainly not
> original

I was contrasting the dynastic inscription found on Menkaure's pyramid with the obviously NON-dynastic inscription found today at the entrance to Khufu's pyramid. I thought I had said somewhere that the dating of it was uncertain.



> and does not date to the 4th Dynasty.
> Zahi Hawass's website states at one point: "at the
> pyramid's entrance, there is an inscription
> records that Menkaure died on the twenty-third day
> of the fourth month of the summer and that he
> built the pyramid. It is thought that this
> inscription dates to the reign of Khaemwas, son of
> Ramsses II. At anothre point, Hawass states, "At
> the pyramid's entrance there is an inscription
> thought to be dated to Dynasty XXVI. It records
> that Menkaure died on the twenty-third day of the
> fourth month of the summer and that he built the
> pyramid. It is also thought that this inscription
> dates to the reign of the New Kingdom restorer,
> Khaemuas, son of Ramesses the Great." So the
> inscription is quite late in any case,and it
> appears to relate, not to the original burial of
> the king, but to his reburial. This is plausibly
> suggested by JD Degreef who writes on another
> site: "Maybe it marked the king's reburial, since
> a Late Period sarcophagus with Menkaure's name was
> found by VYSE in the large chamber after the
> portcullises room (object now in the British
> Museum)."
>

JD makes a lot of sense with that one. I concur.




>
> So the verdict must be, in my opinion, that (1)
> Herodotus might have seen an inscription; (2) the
> inscription might have been translated for him --
> into Greek -- by Egyptian priests whose grasp of
> hieroglypics (whether of the OK or the NK) might
> have been shaky, and whose Greek may have been
> suspect as well; and (3) that the original in the
> process of transmission got severely garbled.


You are speculating about your first two points and then stating your conclusion as a definite. It might have gotten garbled. That's the most you can really state.



> AQnyone wo has played the party game "translation"
> knows what I mean by this,

Spot on.


> and knows how easily
> the original message can be reduced to something
> completely incomprehensible. A couple of false
> cognates and the game is both afoot and
> flat-footed.
>

Absolutely. But when you don't know the original message, it's hard to say that the person who started the game didn't really mean to say "What's wrong with tanking all the flesh?"

If you can guess the starting quote, by the way, you will have done better than answer DaveL's supposed "double-blind" test...



>
> I read Herodotus with great interest -- and great
> skepticism
>

Always smart.



Anthony

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