• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      12·
      5 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@lemmy.world
        51·
        5 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 Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          72·
          5 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.

    • FiniteBanjo
      212·
      5 months ago

      Lemmy is the only place I’ve ever seen people reference Wikipedia so much, smh.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        101·
        5 months ago

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

        All the sources are literally linked beneath.

        • FiniteBanjo
          115·
          5 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.