> Sorry to use your own tactics against you, but
> your slimy attempt to weasel your way out of your
> own BS does not go unnoticed by those who read
> your posts.
> You are very fond of dissecting the writings of
> Egyptologists, highlighting words such as
> "might", "may", "could","perhaps".
> So, it seems pertinent to highlight the quotation
> you use to imply that you are "correct" in
> asserting that Ineni did not live into the reign
> of Thutmosis III.
I "implied" I was correct? There you go visiting my intentions again instead of just taking the words on their own merit. I've implied no such thing. The reason I highlight Egyptologists' use of "might", "may", "possibly", etc. is simply to show how uncertain the conclusions are, in contrast to the claim of having proven anything as "definitive" or "fact" or that any evidence "seals the deal". I have no problem with people saying "this is how I think it could have happened". But I have a problem with someone who says "this is how it happened" when the evidence is actually not at all indisputable.
My comments are based mainly on physical evidence, and I try my best to frame any contentions/conclusions as hypotheses and not as facts. For example, I do not believe that it has been "proven" that G1 was built before the 3rd Millennium BC. I've only stated that the evidence strongly supports such a provenance amidst the lack of evidence otherwise. Likewise for the construction tools and methods, and also tombs, ramps, physical world vs. afterlife, and other topics that are debated here.
And so I have not claimed that G1 was "definitely", "indisputably", or in any way "proven" to have been constructed millennia before the 3rd millennium BC, I've only proposed it as a logical possibility based on the evidence or lack thereof as a way to reconcile the contradictions.
Meanwhile, I've not deliberately insulted anyone or engaged in sordid name calling just because someone else disagrees with me, and I'm on record countless times showing the utmost respect for others who reciprocate the respect when there's a difference of opinion. Some of us know how to agree to disagree. But you can't say the same thing about a few others here who time and time again impose their hypothesis as indisputable, consider others' as lunacy or hypocrisy, and resort to insults and name calling just because those other assessments are in disagreement with their own.
My comment about Ineni doesn't represent any hypothesis of my own. It's about the physical evidence, the assessment of that evidence presented by historians, my read of Billing, Stocks, etc., and the contradictions that need to be reconciled. I've not "implied" that I'm correct. I'm only stating that there is more than one assessment that can be made from the evidence. If you believe the paintings on the wall of Djehutihotep and Rekhmire seem logical, that's your opinion, and I disagree with you. But I'm certainly not going to call you a "retard" just because we disagree about it.
> Weigall offers one fact and two opinions worthy of
> comment. Martin correctly identified the fact:
> "it must be remembered that Ineni lived into
> the reign of Thutmosis III;"
And in case you missed my prior post, Weigall's conclusion about such a "fact" seems to depend on how he parses out the Hatshepsut Problem. If he is on the side of Sethe, then he thinks Thutmose III initiated a solo reign for a short period immediately after the end of Thutmose I's reign and before the succession to Thutmose II and Hatshepsut in which case Ineni was certainly alive during Thutmose III's reign.
On the other hand, if Weigall subscribes to Naville, then the succession proceeded according to the traditional schema, and Thutmose III technically did begin his "reign" while Ineni was still alive, which actually was the "co-reign" with Hatshepsut during which Thutmose III is generally considered to have had very little, if any, power. This allows the possibility that the 2nd obelisk did lie unerected and uninscribed until Thutmose III took over the throne after Hatshepsut's death while still allowing Weigall to make the statement that Ineni was indeed alive when Thutmose III first began his "reign". Again, this isn't my notion, it's a well-known conundrum, similar to the G7000x problem, the technology problem, the timeline problem, etc.
> Despite this, you criticised Martin of being
> "disingenuous" (for stating a fact? How
> does that work?
Stower chose to ignore the other half of the equation, and he's chosen to taken issue with me for also considering the other side of the debate (interesting that you chose to defend him). And the other half of the story was right there in the same sentence which he deliberately omitted, and he didn't offer any explanation for that obvious omission. That bias struck me as disingenuous since it sure seemed to be a deliberate omission which happens to be relevant to the point and, in fact, contradicted Stower's contention. I'm certainly willing to stand corrected. Yes, Ineni was alive during Thutmose III's reign regardless of whether we're talking about him immediately following Thutmose I or co-reigning with Hatshepsut after Thutmose II. However, Ineni was NOT alive during Thutmose III's reign after the death of his stepmother which is when one school of thought claims the 2nd obelisk might have been erected and inscribed.
Likewise, the presence of Hatshepsut's name but not the acknowledgement of her occupying the throne is ambiguous since it could either apply to both the post-Thutmose I and post-Hatshepsut scenarios (the latter due to Thutmose III's dispute with her that likely made him less prone to give her royal credit on that obelisk).
> Please refrain from offering more
> BS by way of a pathetic attempt to explain or
> justify your indefensible position in this matter)
> and then you used a larger portion of the Weigall
> citation to suggest that Martin is somehow
> mistaken and that it is you who is correct.
Better yet, please ignore my posts. They obviously upset you, so why bother replying? We are all equally entitled to voice our own opinions and assessments of the evidence here. No one has a monopoly over which strategies, evidence, dictionaries, etc. are allowed for reporting or interpretation.
> Your belief is founded on opinion
> (actually, two opinions), and not fact.
> The fact, cited by Martin, is underlined. The two
> opinions, used by yourself as if they are
> facts, are emboldened:
> "But it must be remembered that Ineni lived on
> into the reign of Thutmose III; and, although
> he brought the two obelisks to Karnak in the reign
> of Thutmose I, only one of them may have
> been erected, and the other may have lain
> uninscribed on the ground, just as did a later
> obelisk...until at last the great and lengthy
> business of erecting it, delayed owing to other
> building operations..."
The "facts" are contradictory. So far it's still a Schrödinger's Cat scenario. On one hand we see two obelisks and a statement in a tomb that have been interpreted to indicate a king's succession that violates the traditional succession schema. On the other hand we can reconcile the contradiction by allowing a normal succession and simply consider the tomb narrative to be "funerary hyperbole" along with "fields of mud", "encompassing the field", and many more. The Hatshepsut Problem has not been settled definitively at this point.
From my perspective, your characterization of my comment as a "slimy attempt to weasel" out of anything simply indicates to me that you don't understand my comment.
Meanwhile, Archaic's "seals the deal" decree is illogical. The findings at Wadi el-Jarf seem extremely ambiguous and sometimes even contradict Tallet's claims about what the evidence actually shows.
> Higher standards of scholarship and proof are expected.
Amen to that.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?