> I see it as a matter of making a
> subjective evaluation of what's "ill-advised
> and unnecessary".
No, it's not subjective. It's based on evaluations and conclusions from Egyptological archaeologists, who, unlike some others, are not only specialists, but also experts, in this field, and know what they're talking about.
> If you don't have all the
> expertise contributing to the "advice" (such as
> engineers, physicists, chemists, mathematicians,
> etc.), then the decision risks being misinformed.
See my comment above.
> There's a certain irony in your comment that, on
> one hand we need to preserve and conserve those
> paint marks, and yet the authorities allow no one
> up there to view them, nor do they have a photo
> library available to us.
The first priority is to preserve the crewmarks.
Given all the problems caused by the activities of Gorlitz and Erdmann in the relieving chambers in recent years, I'm not surprised by the ban imposed by the authorities.
> So who are they being
> preserved for? What good are they if they're
> essentially "non-existent" to the rest of the
> world? We don't even know what's up there other
> than to take Perring's drawings as the final word,
> and we've already seen a couple of errors in those
One hopes that the authorities will at some point commission a full photographic record to be made of the various dipinti in the chambers.
Perhaps, at some stage, as at Lascaux, they might even commission a full-scale reproduction of the chambers, complete with painted crewmarks, in order to avoid any further damage to the original.
> Considering the monstrosity of some of those other
> extremely invasive "restorations" in G1, a few
> tiny scratches of paint that might reveal an
> objective measure of provenance would not
> significantly jeopardize the safety and
> conservation of those paint marks.
The sample would need to be of sufficient size for the lab to be able to carry out the relevant analysis.
But no such investigation is necessary, anyway.
> And doing so
> years ago might have prevented the vandalism we
> see up in those rafters today.
I wish the authorities could find some way of removing the disfigurements caused by the WWI and WWII graffiti.
> The more we see revelations of tenuous conclusions
> that were drawn by early investigators and
> "historians", the more we would expect
> Egyptologists to want to get to the real answers.
They've got the real answers already.
> Relying on context that was drawn over a century
> ago without feeling any need to revisit those
> conclusions with modern methods sends a signal of
> "fear" more than "safety".
Over past centuries, using various different methodologies, Egyptian archaeologists have gradually established more and more about AE chronology, and AE historical context - including that of the GP.
Consequently, Egyptian archaeologists do not need to make unnecessary and possibly damaging investigations.
> But I certainly understand why you disagree with
> that characterization.
I doubt if you do understand.