> Martin Stower Wrote:
> > No discipline behaves like
> > this. There is no College of Luminaries which
> > gets together to define correct doctrine and issue
> > anathemas.
> 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. . . .
. . . which has nothing to do with what I wrote. Try reading. There is no College of Luminaries in the most quantitative of sciences which defines correct doctrine and forbids all departure from it. If that were how physics operates, physics would have stopped circa 1900. Scientific consensus is not totalitarian. Dissenting papers do get published and no one consigns them to the memory hole.
> > 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.
I never said you did. I described what you do: you treat Edwards and Lehner and their alleged statements as defining (what you call) “Egyptology”. Your remarks about “luminaries” confirm to the hilt that this is how you see things.
> 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?)
Not A-list enough for you?
Now it’s you and your awareness defines who’s who and what’s what?
A certain crass Anglophone parochialism will be noted in Femano’s attitude to Münch and to Verner.
> 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.
What are you talking about?
You think “Egyptology” has textbooks? Other than Middle Egyptian Grammar, say.
Name some. Then we’ll see what’s in them.
> 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.
How long, Femano? You said 60 years, until I put you right. What’s your made-up figure now?
Quickly embraced? Unchallenged? You’ve interpolated these into what Lehner wrote. He said neither.
And learn what “historical” means before you use the word again.
> > 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"?
It’s what anyone competent would get from reading the inscriptions.
Excluded from the class of those competent are jumped-up, puffed-up sub-amateurs.
Verner and Aldred are competent. You are not.
> 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.
Because unlike you, Femano, the “discipline of Egyptology” is competent to judge.
Seneferu? The king whose names (plural) and titles are plastered all over the furniture of the king’s daughter, king’s mother Hetepheres, whose grave goods were found slap-bang next to Khufu’s pyramid and bore Khufu’s seal?
> > Which of course is where he is trying to take us
> > with his Aldred red herring.
> There you go, trying to divine my intentions
It’s no great effort, Femano. See below.
> And I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your
> allegation that I said "no 'Egyptologist' has
> challeneged Reisner" in "post after post".
No need. It’s already been done.