> 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
I don't disagree with you completely here. Given what they had at the time (can even apply to modern researchers) errors are an innate consequence of putting together pieces of dirt.
> 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
Yes, however, this is a far cry from labeling these indiscretions as deliberate hoaxes. Nor should we ball up the wax where all contemporary and subsequent work becomes suspect, or worse, it's all wrong. Well wouldn't that be just great! Anyone have a theory, no matter how inane? How to give it traction? Simple ... just find a way to say all experts are either wrong, charlatans in a soup of bath water, or incompetent.
> 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.
Even Lehner is conjecture, albeit with a better foundation. Neither of them found videotapes made by the ancient Egyptians revealing the final, true story.
And yes, it is deflective, because your point is an attempt to broad-brush all of archaeology with one example. (I am not defending the field as perfect, oh no sir.) We are talking about what evidence there is at Giza to show the pyramids were funerary. Discussing Reisner's (or Lehner's) view of 'Hetepheres' and the 'Khufu Stele' is irrelevant to this point. Because if you want to bring up examples of error, let's swap fishing rods and look at all the evidence that isn't. And then what will you do?
> In my opinion.
I'm at least glad you said that. :)