In discussions/debates, others often point out my ignorance (what I do not know)
ONLY if my point is based on my assertion of a particular knowledge, in which I am ignorant of, could my ignorance be a relative point.
Recently in a discussion about Egyptology, one pointed out my ignorance of hieroglyphics.
"If I couldn't read hieroglyphs, I certainly would *not* venture to have any opinions as to just what a tomb scene was or was not all about."
Up front, I always admit, I am totally ignorant about translations of hieroglyphs. Now the question, does this ignorance have any bearing on the many other assertions I make about Egyptology.
I am totally ignorant about French, Russian, Hieroglyphs or Spanish, but I could say:
The French had a revolution in which heads rolled.
A Russian big shot family was murdered.
A guy sailed from Spain to the Americas ...
I could go into some detail, but the point is, I and millions of other people do have extensive information about events that were recorded in a language they are ignorant of because some one who knew how to translate, rendered the information into our own language.
Every thing I write is based on the translations of those who call themselves archeologist/Egyptologist.
If these 'experts' have accurately translated this information, then it would be as silly for me to learn to read German, in order to read a book that has already been translated into English.
The validity of what I write is based on the validity of the translation of the 'experts' who rendered it into English.
It is those "Egyptologist/experts" information that I examine, by their own words/publications.
When those who communicate in a foreign language are alive and willing to teach their language, learning to translate takes a while.
When those who communicated in another language attempt to hide their meanings or if they are long dead, then learning to translate is a matter of code breaking.
Code breaking consists of (a) finding patterns, (b) finding the same word in different context or if luck prevails (c) finding text of the unknown language with text of a known language (i.e. the Rosette Stone)
What is the value of some one who had great translation abilities, but what they wrote was based on what some other person wrote on the topic.
IF / WHEN their translation abilities have not been applied to their research/publications, then they have no more merit than any of millions of people who sit in front of a computer to copy and paste information they read off of some one else's web sites.
Of course we all have our own interest. Unless that 'expert' shares our interest they will know only parts of the things we discuss.
Unless they have been to all hieroglyphs, and photographed them all, then their translation abilities have no more knowledge of what Egyptians wrote than you do.
When they get their information from some web site or book, when they have not seen the actual hieroglyph, they are nothing more than any one else who puppets what they have read.
My topic being the study of "Hyksos", I make the point there are about a dozen hieroglyphic sources used.
The points I make are such as:
The 'experts' say the word Asiatic is used in these multiple sources, but when I ask them to show me the set of glyphs that form the meaning Asiatic, then ask them if the same set of glyphs are used in all references, they do not reply.
Semitic, Asiatic, Hebrew ... depending who I am communicating with, these kind of words keep on popping up .. "The Egyptians called them A, B, C"
When I ask them to
* Identify the source (papyrus, pylon, wall painting, obelisk)
* Show the line and the number of glyphs from the right the word is found over, I can see exactly what the word looks like in hieroglyphs.
When I am told the Egyptians identified them as Asiatic in different sources, I find what the word looks like, then my question is: where is this word Asiatic in all these different sources?
What I am ignorant, does not establish their own knowledge. If they can read hieroglyphs and the word Asiatic is found in multiple sources, then these experts can show us that word.
Do I assert the Egyptians never had any conflicts with any foreigners? NO
My ignorance is a bottomless pit. Pointing out what I do not know does not establish your own knowledge.
My quest is this:
* If you can point to physical artifacts found that were left in Egypt by foreigners and NOT Egyptians, provide your science that establishes that claim.
* If the Egyptians identified those from the 12th to the 18th dynasty as a population that came from the same place, expert translators, show us the source and the line this information is written on.
* If the Egyptians wrote that foreigners ruled any part of Egypt, expert translators, show us the source and the line this information is written on.
* If the Egyptians identified any of the enemy they fought against as kings, expert translators, show us the source and the line this information is written on.
I have separated my blog into individual post because I use so many pictures. Any one who will challenge/add to what I have written can start here
And at the bottom of each page, click on newer post, to continue to the next post.
While I have no ability to read hieroglyphs, I know how translation works which I will discuss in the next post.
The bible has nothing to do with Egyptology, but because the intensive interest in the bible by millions of people for centuries, a translation method has been established so any novice can glean the knowledge of the experts.
In the past, only the priest had the text which was written in a language only they understood. It was unlawful to create a bible in a language of the commoners... after all if the commoners could read it for themselves, the top dogs importance would be decreased.