> Origyptian Wrote:
> No discipline behaves like
> this. There is no College of Luminaries which
> gets together to define correct doctrine and issue
Nothing could be farther from the truth. At least not in the quantitative sciences where principles and "facts" are standardized by the luminaries and key opinion leaders early and often. Perhaps the humanities are different, but forming an opinion about which artistic style is the "best" is a far cry from preaching standardized timelines, context within which "facts" are "presumed", translation methods of a dead language to glean "historical fact", and whether this or that claim of a historic event is indeed actually "fact". How can a discipline function when different translation methods are all considered "fact"? How can medicine survive if different mechanisms of DNA replication are considered "fact"? How can courts of law function when different interpretations of their "Constitution" are considered "fact"? As a general rule, standardization by luminaries is virtually ubiquitous and necessary across most disciplines that make "claims of fact". Anyone who denies that is trying to sell something.
> To give a full taste of the weirdness, Femano
> presents Lehner and Edwards as not just driving
> the discipline, but as defining it. If
> they didn’t say it, then it’s not so.
You made that up. I never said that.
In fact, despite Lehner's '85 challenge to Reisner's elaborate fabrication of conspiracy and deception surrounding an alleged tomb in Dashur, he still subscribes to Reisner's narrative regarding the family tree and that G7000x was a reburial tomb for Hetepheres. And that's what we see in the major textbooks. Meanwhile, Münch (who's heard of him?) denies G7000x was ever a tomb for Heterpheres. Rather, he puts forth a credible argument that G7000x was simply a "funerary deposit". Try to find a textbook that includes that possibility.
Luminaries drive the discipline, especially when claims of fact are fundamental to that discipline. It's exactly the reason that Reisner's fabrication was quickly embraced, unchallenged, as historical fact for so long.
> What Verner and Aldred reported is nullified, not by
> their having been shown to be wrong, but by their
> being Verner and Aldred and not Edwards and Lehner.
> The relevance of Verner and Aldred here lies
> entirely in what they reported. You think they
> were making it up, like you do?
Did Verner or Aldred challenge Reisner's claim that Hetepheres was the wife of Sneferu and the mother of Khufu? What exactly do you think they said Reisner got "wrong"?
Meanwhile, are there any Egyptology curriculum textbooks that challenge the claim that Hetepheres is in the Sneferu family tree? The discipline of Egyptology has not challenged Reisner's narrative.
> Which of course is where he is trying to take us
> with his Aldred red herring.
There you go, trying to divine my intentions again.
And I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your allegation that I said "no 'Egyptologist' has challeneged Reisner" in "post after post".
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12-Jun-16 14:57 by Origyptian.