> Origyptian Wrote:
> > Reisner is a singularly interesting investigator.
> > I certainly haven't read all of his
> > material, but I have read his various reports from
> > the 1920s (e.g., Boston Museum of Fine Arts) in
> > which he decrees that the original "tomb of
> > Heterpheres I" was in Dahshur before it was
> > moved to Giza under clandestine circumstances.
> > I've also read Lehner's excoriation of Reisner's decree
> > in 1985 which clearly and
> > neatly exposes Reisner's pure fabrication.
> They are both conjectured. And all due respect, I
> don't understand your need for this highlight,
> Philip. Reisner made a guess based on what he'd
> found. Why are you suggesting his interpretation
> is a deliberate hoax? Why the need for such a
> hoax? Are you suggesting we should discount all
> Reisner's work because this example supposedly
> makes him a charlatan, as you imply?
> Anyways, your line of expanded discussion is
> merely deflective from the question at hand. I
> brought it up to show that in the reports (not
> just his) we have a massive amount of in situ
> evidence which contextualizes Giza as a funerary
> complex, including the pyramids. qed
> Best Regards,
Not a deflection at all. As I have stated many times, I very much appreciate the observations of the traditionalists, but their interpretations of what they found were too often misguided with baseless leaps in logic. And unfortunately for the traditionalists, many such "conjectures" were presented and accepted as fact and became an integral part of the "context" on which you and other traditionalists seem to rely so much as the basis of the major tenets of the discipline. It's circular logic which doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
And so I was only pointing out how the "context" was neatly fabricated when the physical evidence was lacking. These ("tomb of Hetepheres" and "Khufu Stele") are examples of that context being completely fabricated. You may choose to characterize Reisner's ruse as "conjecture" but that's not how it was accepted by mainstream Egyptology, as clearly presented by Lehner. It was accepted as fact which contributes to the house-o-cards context which is starting to collapse under its own baselessness. On what contextual basis do you rely to indicate that Hetepheres was the wife of Snefru, was the mother of Khufu, and that G7000x is her so-called tomb in that "cemetery" if it's simply "conjecture" based on the flimsy physical evidence found in the "trash" at the bottom of that shaft which is without any superstructure? On what contextual basis do you believe Khufu was a human king that owned the quarry in that "hunting ground" if that stele was merely "conjectured" to have been put there ca. 2550 BC? Once you eliminate all the conjecture, you are left with a rather tenuous "context".
This is the nature of the "self-consistent" narrative. It cannot stand on the merit of the evidence alone. The contextual conjectures need to be true for the narrative to survive, and the context is slowly dissolving, be it ramps, tombs, or timeline, none of which can withstand the scrutiny of modern standards of proof.
In my opinion.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Feb-16 13:51 by Origyptian.