Right. Anyone who does Hieroglyphs will probably understand me when I ask- why on earth is Faulkner's so-called 'translation' of the Papyrus on Ani so often quoted as being better than Budges'? Faulkner's translation (if you can call it that) isn't actually even a translation, as it seems that half the time he just makes things up to improve the readability.

On every page of the Faulkner translation, if you follow along with the text on the papyrus above you should see very quickly what I mean. I am becoming very annoyed at the bad publicity of the Budge and the hero-worship of the Faulkner when the Budge actually seems to be far more accurate. I am aware that Budges' transliterations are awful and his textbooks should be taken with a hefty pinch of salt, but I am fed up with his translations blindly being called 'unuseable' and 'innacurate'. When I e-mailed some of the worst critics of Budge's translation of the BOTD, the only mistakes of any concern that they could discern themselves related to place-names and transliterations, and a few mistakes with nouns and verbs (almost all of which Budge himself notes by adding [?]s and [....]s).

Faulkner's translation is far more misleading than Budge's- he adds whole sentences, for goodness sakes, and even admits that the text is 'what should be there'. Groan.

I actually have had this concern for ages, but I just havent had the time to post it on KTO.

Psusennes,

I do own Budge's hardcover version of The Papyrus of Ani but I do not own a copy of Faulkners so I can not accurately compare nor criticize Faulkner's tranlsations. However, based on what I do know of Faulkners translations I totally understand where you are coming from.

It is my understanding that not only has Faulkner made things up to improve readability but also he constantly omits phrases or shortens them when it is clear that is not what the text should read

I also understand that some of Budge's transliterations (his own style) and translations are inaccurate which is what has basically 'blacklisted' his work in the field, even though a majority of his works can be considered accurate! I find his two volume Hieroglyph Dictionary to be an invaluable resource. Yes it may be outdated, but I challenge anyone to find a Hieroglyph dictionary as extensive as his. The key to using it properly is by crossreferencing and comparing it with other works and knowing where and when he makes his mistakes, as well as the mistakes of what you are cross referencing and comparing it to. This will only come with time. If you know that Budge mis-translates a certain set of glyphs once, he most liklely does the same mistake when translating it again. Also, once you know his 'mis-transliteration' style, it becomes easier to translate Budge's transliterations to the accurate transliteration...oh boy, did that make any sense?

What I do like about Budge's BOTD is that instead of making up things that are missing, he inserts and/or references other Books of the dead like that of Nebseni and Nu and ACTUALLY CITES THE SOURCES!

Here is a to that I think you find very interesting. A gentleman by the name of Ernest Moyer has posted his transcript from a posting on the Internet Ancient Egyptian Language discussion list from August 17, 2002. I think it supports your arguement.

Anyways, how do we Truly know if anyone has accurately deciphered the entire language? Of course some of the worlds best linguists have done so much work through millenia, but with any language there are certain words, meanings and phrases that cannot be accurately or properly translated to other languages. So things are substituted and perhaps taken out of their original context.

I wonder if you have ever heard of Dr.Ossama Alsaadawi? He has some pretty radical claims that most of what we are taught of the Ancient Egyptian has been wrong from Champollion on! I was in correspondence with him for a while about 1 1/2 - 2 years ago. I met him in another forum and we had some pretty good discussions on his theory. In fact he is a registered member here (Alsadaawi-4) but I don't think he ever posted. is his website. Keep in mind when reading his theory that much of it is entirely different from what we have learned but approach it with an open mind. Some of it makes a lot of sense and some of it is so different from what we have learned that it is almost painful to even consider. I just can't buy into a lot of it but take a look and see what you think.

Neb

Budge is old, outdated, and because of this, he is no longer credible in the eyes of the many.

I respect his work, and even own a copy of his An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Reading Book for Beginners. However, his work is flawed within itself. Nothing major, but there are flaws.

Until now, I thought Faulkner was just some literary guy who used a lot of semi-colons and amazed the world

You are too kind Maatkara! Stop it! . . . and just sit down and do some more Gardiner's. Anywhere you can!

Anyway. I think that most of us stand on the same ground here when it comes to Budge and Faulkner. Budge was undoubtedly a great translator, but his works need to be used with caution. It's probably best to use both together when studying the text, which I've been doing quite a lot of recently.

Neb, that Dr.Ossama Alsaadawi is intriguing, but in skim-reading it all seems very vague- the theory doesn't actually use examples of any Egyptian texts, and whilst it is actually quite clever, modern hieroglyphicists have a method that works. I need to read a bit more of his site.

I started a new topic in the 'Hieroglyphs' section, and it seems to be workable. Have a look.