what a fucking jackass … heis in some turquoise mine looking for grafitti …
so he fids some, he claims to be alphabetical, and mentioning the single diety ‘el’ …
so there he is pointing it out.
Oddly enough, it is written vertically, not horizontally … and i see :
the wavy line glyph that is water
the funny glyph that is an arch on top of a square
the funny shepherds crook glyph
the sort of oblong oval ‘hand’ glyph
sorry, it has been too many years since i played with the egyptian book of the dead that had the heiroglyphs, transliterations and translations, but I recognize the damned things …
what the fucking hell? does he think we are all idiots that cant recognize heiroglyphics when we see them?
I’m not trying to be snarky, I have no idea what you are talking about. What point was he trying to make? What did he do wrong? Was something faked? I’m not disagreeing with you. I don’t understand what you are getting at.
Hm, to try and make it succinct - he is an Israeli, and trying to find evidence of the jews in egypt, and he is claiming that it happened in a specific timeframe, and part of his evidence is that the slaves working this particular mine were jews …
Now, egyptians used pictograms called heiroglyphs instead of an ABC alphabet, so you have little pictures making up words, sort of like those rebus puzzles that used to be popular. So a word for harem in egyptian is ’ 'pt ’ pronounced ‘ie-pet’ and written with a little glyph that is pronounced with an ieee sound, followed by a glyph pronounced hpet … which if I vaguely remember is a funny slug loking glyph over a funny hand glyph instead of the 3 letters i p and t.
So, instead of finding writing made of single squiggles that are proto-aramaic, he found classic egyptian heiroglyps, that were recognizable as heiroglyphs. He claimed that they were letters not glyphs.
But then again, late period egyptians used an alphabetic writing called heiratic, that looks like proto arabic=) but that is way way late in their history.
It’s a crap show. I watched the first couple for as long as I could stand and have avoided it since.
Here’s how a show goes (since the MO appears to be unchanged):
“Naked Archeologist” picks some religious story or event and decides to go prove that it happened / happened the way he wants.
“Naked Archeologist” travels to location where said event supposedly occurred.
“Naked Archeologist” gets shown around event location by local experts or whomever.
“Naked Archeologist” ignores all evidence except what little he can find to support his story, mis-interprets evidence as needed to support his story, makes up whatever is needed to support his story, etc.
“Naked Archeologist” pretends that he’s proved his story to be true “by science!”
Utter, complete garbage. Pisses me right off, it does.
but in a sense, even though i dont have a dog in this fight, way too many people get their only education from tv documentaries … so it would be nice to actually get things more correct … i have no problem with speculation, but putting it forth as actual proof i would hope that they would get it correct. to sit there and point out an actual egyptial glyph, that is recognizable as a specific glyph, and claim it is a protoletter in a protoalphabet is just plain stupid.
these are demotic script, which is a more alphabetic version of hiroglyphs, sort of a scribal shorthand, for less ceremonial uses like inventories and such.
this is amharic - what the nekkid dude should have been looking for.
I will conceed that you might be able to mix up amharic and demotic, but not hiroglyphs and amharic …
