I’d wager if there were a record of the PT before the end of the great pyramid building age these utterances would not appear in a “funerary context”. Don’t forget though that most of the utterances are rituals read at the king’s ascension ceremony. This ceremony occurred not long after his death and certainly had many aspects of being “funerary”.
This whole project was an abortion. It proved nothing except that building pyramids with ramps was far more difficult than they imagined. They were attempting a 1/ 20th scale model if memory serves but at almost every stage they required machinery to help. I know they dragged at least one stone up a ramp but they had travail getting it around a corner and it was much smaller than 2 1/2 ton. The entire thing was deemed an eyesore in 2011 and torn down.
The amount of work to build a 1/ 20th scale model is a tiny fraction of the effort to build a great pyramid. I never got to see the entire video but I was actually somewhat impressed personally. All youhave to do is multiply the work of that one stone by 2, 14, 3, 12, and 2,500,000 to get an idea how hard it was to build the real thing with ramps. The people who built the pyramid had no payloaders to fall back on.
And don’t forget the big proiblem with ramps; All this work would have had to take place on ramps and there were time constraints.
There is no pyramid on that drawing either.
The image is based on the Sokar Funerary Bark at the temple of Rameses III. Again, you are the one not understanding the evidence, it is indeed more related to what one can expect to see in the afterlife, the King of the Firmament. IN his solar raft, with three oars or cogs for the path of the sun in the skies.
That is only your opinion dude. 
What it showed too that it was only your opinion when you told us that using water as lubricant as not being reasonable with smaller models. (and in this case used on a ramp) It was actually found to be very effective.
We’ve established that your beliefs about language are mistaken. For example:
Sumerian and Egyptian were fundamentally different in grammar and morphology. To take just the first difference that shows up in the frickin’ Wikipedia articles, Sumerian was an agglutinative language, whereas Egyptian words was based on three-letter roots. That’s like the difference between Vietnamese and French.
What the hell does that paragraph even mean? This is gibberish.
The origin of language has been called [the hardest problem in science](Christiansen, Morten H; Kirby, Simon (2003). Morten H. Christiansen and Simon Kirby, ed. Language evolution : the hardest problem in science?. Language evolution (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press). pp. 77–93), but most of the scholars studying it put it between 200,000 to 50,000 years ago. So this is just more unsupported assertions.
Hand waving? No. Not hand waving.
Of course they are highly inconsistent with the culture. We know the men’s job titles and there were no stone draggers and no ramp builders. The word “ramp” isn’t even attested from the great pyramid building age. Everything is consistent with using water and the evidence says stones were pulled up one step at a time. Ants build very complex ramps but this doesn’t mean they build mountains or could. Ramps are simple technology but we couldn’t use them to build a 1000’ skyscraper; it wouyld be impossible just as it was probably impossible to use ancient technology to build pyramids with ramps.
I don’t believe anything except that the means to discovering reality is always logic and facts. It appears to me there is a better than 75% probability that they used water to build the great pyramids and an 90% probability stones were pulled up one step at a time. There is a virtual certainty that no matter what means was used to build them scientific testing could determine what it was in mere months.
Wet sand again, eh? 
Ya gotta give up the wet sand. It’s even more embarrassing than ramps.
I never said water couldn’t lubricate some things.
Translation: you have nothing.
Again, such spectacle of flying rocks did not generate mentions in their culture. Neither the power of geysers or mojitos .
I have no clue what any of this means.
Could you put into simple words how it disproves my contention?
No can do when I and anyone that bothers to see the documentary (or read the transcript) can see that the one being embarrassed is you.
It happens indeed when you claimed that a small model (on the most recent experiment done with just sand) does not show anything. And now you double down when confronted with a close to real size sled and water lubrication showing how it was indeed doable.
I specifically said that I believe the first complex language 45,000 years ago was based on an earlier animal language. No doubt the words of the animal language were largely preserved in the first complex language. Remember too, that the animal from which humans arose wasn’t any more intelligent than we but it was as clever. The animal language would have had several words probably. The original complex language had 10 to 15,000. These words still didn’t disappear with the advent of modern language. They were all retained and most added more meanings. Tens of thousands of new wordswere invented.
This really isn’t about when but “what” and only because it impacts how the pyramid was built. Show me there wasn’t a single language that was like computer code. I know this is a tall order and I seriously doubt you can do it because none of these languages are understood and no one has been able to show they are not exactly what I claim. I know it sounds like woo or strawmen or hand flagging or something but the fact remains all the physical evidence is on my side and this theory explains almost all the mysteries.
Do I really need top point out to you that there is a fundamental difference between wetting sand so it can support more weight without losing structural integrity and wetting a surface of something to reduce friction?
Are we even on the same subject here?
You’re simply choosing to turn a blind eye to enormous piles of evidence;
1130a. When thou sayest, “statues”, in respect to these stones,
1130b. which are like fledglings of swallows under the river-bank;
You don’t need to be able to see boats that fly up and alight whgen you know it’s the idea of a stinky footed bumpkin. We know much more than superstitious people therefore it follows they mustta used ramps. What they said means nothing. The gravimnewtric scan must mean whart the expert says it means even if that is obviously wrong.
Wrong again, and again you are ignoring that in the previously linked documentary about the latest theories the gravimetric experts judged that the data indeed matched what Houdin was proposing. Internal ramps inside the Pyramid.
The superimposed image shows how indeed the location of a possible internal ramp matches closely to what he gravimetric data showed and the notch found in the great pyramid.
You are pushing really sad opinions by claiming that the PT is evidence for your contraptions. It is just circular reasoning at this point.
Are you here talking about yourself?
If you claim to know more than the gravimetric experts then publish your paper showing how wrong they were when they reported to Houdin that the shape more closely matched an spiral structure going up.
Not holding my breath for that one.
That much is obvious.
So, why should we give any credence to *anything *you say about ancient languages, again?
I just wanted you to clarify, when you call the whole on site experiment an “abortion” it does lead many to think that indeed it is you the one that is obfuscating.
So, no, not an abortion if we can see that adding a bit of water on the inclines and ramps does work wonders. What the newest research in sand showed is that the trick also does work over sand.
Actually what you’ve shown (I believe) that the vocabulary was different. Even with different vocabulary though the languages were similar enough that some of the utterances in the PT actually had a Sumerian origin proving beyond question that the languages could be translated into one another.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE EITHER LANGUAGE CAN BE TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH. This is because both Egyptian and Sumerian writing looks like gobbledty gook to us. Perhaps they thought and wrote in gobbledty gook just like modern people believe but this is an illogical belief because ancient peoiple couldn’t have survived at all in a hostile world armed with nothing but thumbs and fire. Populations soared after the acquisition of complex language. I believe this was caused by a shared understanding of nature generationally.
Superstition kills, it doesn’t invent agriculture or build pyramids. Building things from the “right” genome to collections of structures useful to humans requires knowledge. This is just common sense 101. How did humans get so far from such obvious truths?
Today we see people with every sort of belief performing every sort of occupation and we derive the erroneous belief that beliefs are irrelevant to productivity. This is true today but what evidence or logic suggests this would apply to cavemen or pyramid builders?
The ancient language wasn’t about vocabulary. I’ve said this half a dozen times here. The ancient language was formatted differently to express meaning through implication. It can’t be translated into English but any modern language can be formatted in terms of ancient language.
Perhaps I’ll try showing how it worked later. I’ve never done this before so it might be interesting.
Hey, not my problem that you want to continue to produce more evidence of your ignorance.