• Flying SquidOP
      link
      124 months ago

      There’s something to it in that the archaeologists who discovered it named that sort of thing a Benben stone after the mound of creation they are supposed to symbolize. I’d put that at more like 99% wrong but I’m willing to concede that they got the word Benben from something related to whatever the fuck they were trying to say.

      • @over_clox
        link
        44 months ago

        In all fairness, I wasn’t there when the archaeologists named it, and I have no idea why they named it that, but yeah it’s called a Benben stone, they’ve been called that for a long time. Yeah it sounds silly, but that’s probably the only correct word in their post. 🤷‍♂️

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          54 months ago

          Yeah, but like I said to someone else, not really… it’s like calling the Cleopatra’s Needle “the Egyptian obelisk.” I mean, yeah, it’s an obelisk. But it’s not THE obelisk.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        94 months ago

        Why wouldn’t we use our version of the great Library of Alexandria?

        All the sources are literally linked beneath.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -144 months ago

          Then just link their sources. It’s not rocket science. A lot of information on Wikipedia is misconstrued from the facts and intents present in their sources, although I doubt anybody has it out for Amenemhat the third specifically we should follow the principle on this subject.

          • @Cypher
            link
            34 months ago

            A lot of information on Wikipedia is misconstrued from the facts and intents present in their sources

            Got a source for that claim?

      • Atelopus-zeteki
        link
        fedilink
        44 months ago

        Not sure why you are being downvoted. shrug I’m glad to have Wikip cites, to go and explore.