Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Egyptian Hieroglyphs depict Computer Technology

True. that is sometimes the case.

But when the same reference books as used by most ‘experts’ are employed, and the glyphs checked, and substituted glyphs have obviously been used and thus given an incorrect translation and context, then I prefer to go by what the originally depicted glyphs represented and said, and not just accept what some ‘expert’ chose it to mean after he/she had guessed as to what the scribe Ani was trying to describe.

I may have answered this better elsewhere - when this question was asked…
That’s what I thought at first too, until I checked out the meanings of the glyphs for myself - using reference books by other Egyptian experts such as Gardiner A, Egyptian Grammar, Third Edition reprinted 1978, Griffith Institute, Oxford; and Collier M. & Manley B. 1998, How to read Egyptian Hieroglyphs, British Museum Press, London.

Important points from the full article…

Comparing the line drawings (used by ‘experts’ to make the translation) with the original glyphs (drawn by Ani), it is immediately obvious that some have not been reproduced correctly.

For example
The first red circle: The drawn shaded circle symbol is different.
The original is not dark and has a hole in the middle (similar to the other three).
The ledge was originally squarish. The circle in the cradle is totally different.
A 'house plan' has replaced the rectangle box. A 'loaf' has replaced the horizontal line.

Ronald Pegg's claim is therefore warranted, as the given and accepted translation is based upon substituted glyphs.
This means that the intended original meaning and context is not yet known.

The original glyphs as drawn by Ani have therefore not yet been interpreted nor translated correctly.

The article goes on to the last six glyphs…
Of these 6 glyphs, 4 have been misrepresented in their reproduction and therefore also in their subsequent translation. This means the contemporary translation is incorrect.

Well yes. That’s right. If the wrong glyphs have been used to translate, then the given interpretation by ‘experts’ is NOT what Ani depicted, as the ‘experts’ substituted glyphs BEFORE they did their translation. A picture is given and when compared to what Ani depicted, it is obvious that different glyphs have been used in the translation by the ‘experts’.

Continuing, the article presents a visual comparison of the last 4 (of 6) glyphs to those as shown in the Sign Listings in Sir Alan Gardiner’s Egyptian reference book…
One glyph is not a known glyph. Scholars have not referenced it.
Another glyph has been substituted in the place of the second glyph. This glyph depicted by Ani is also not known. Scholars have not referenced it.
The third glyph has been substituted for another, yet the original glyph drawn by Ani IS referenced by Gardiner.
Hence, at least three glyphs have not yet been interpreted nor translated correctly.
So, turning to glyphs that look similar in Gardiner’s book, their meanings* (ie. etymologies) are extracted and put down in order.
This, glyph by glyph identification, gives a running sentence - being what the glyphs are representing.
The 6 glyphs depicted by Ani say “A Disk. Its protruding ledge, a disk shaped saddle, in the side of the supportive base”.

So, no, I do not just simply agree with Pegg’s translation.
I grabbed my own copies of the books as cited in the full article and very carefully checked each glyph for myself.
Unfortunately I did not state this in my earlier 2006 report regarding Pegg’s claims.

* This is just like using the Hebrew Lexicon from Strong’s Concordance to verify the original Hebrew meanings from the Old Testament.





You are correct.
A similar (but different) RA-sun-disk glyph has been used for that purpose.
LINK: Wayne Herschel – The Hidden Records

As too (incorrectly and out of context) by Mr Herschel, some descriptions from the Book of Ezekiel (Old Testament).