> LOL! Ori, you make me laugh
> so hard sometimes with your posts.
> So what you are suggesting is,
> that Stocks, Reisner, Bülow-Jacobsen,
> and Protzen are all wrong, despite a lifetime
> of dedication to their research, on site experience,
> and their craft. All because an internet poster says so.
There you go being simplistic again, Brian. I never said they were "all wrong" all the time. I simply am challenging certain conclusions they jumped to as being wrong. I have no doubt they presented evidence rather accurately (when they had evidence to present). But you know full well that the interpretation of evidence is often subject to context, and traditional Archeology has been backed into a very wrong contextual corner.
For example, I challenge you to claim Reisner was "all right" about his contrivance regarding G7000x being the displaced tomb of Hetepheres.
B.-J.'s monographs are magnificent in description and photography. But please tell us on what basis B.-J. made his claims regarding quarrying at mons C. despite the complete lack of any evidence of tools and methods at those sites and the contradictory evidence found at the fort and in the ostraca. Is an inscription on a stone really sufficient for you to accept the proclaimed attribution of a widespread complex settlement?
I also defy you to prove that any of the illogical inventions that Stocks divined from paintings of impossible scenes in a tomb actually existed or even applied to the physical world.
Finally, on what possible basis are you believing that The Tiahuanan stonemasons simply used a "chisel-like tool" and hammerstones without feeling any need for evidence of such tools or any additional information regarding the actual technical challenge of making such stones? Why are you so quick to automatically believe what these investigators say? What conclusions have they actually gotten right in the past that you think have imbued them with so much veracity to the point where they are now to be taken on faith without the need for any challenge or verification?
I'd love to hear your Protzen-esque rationalization of the "wedge stones" we see in the Wall of Six Monoliths" and explain how Protzen's "intersection of work teams" explanation can at all account for that incredibly precise stonework.
You are splitting at the seams with irrational bias at this point. Once you read through, digest, and analyze what these investigators are actually saying, the illogical nature of their conclusions becomes very clear.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 02-Jan-16 18:19 by Origyptian.