> Origyptian Wrote:
> > 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.
> Yes, however, this is a far cry from labeling
> these indiscretions as deliberate hoaxes.
> Well wouldn't that be just great!
As far as I'm concerned, Reisner's ruse about Hetepheres was indeed pure unadulterated hoax. He had zero basis for making his claim and was too intelligent to not realize he was not at all relying on evidence but rather was carfefully using the "confidence of his claim" to stack the deck of credibility in his favor. I don't even recall him giving any credit to his team for making the discovery; the credit has traditionally been attributed to him with only a relatively rare mention that he actually was in the USA when the accidental discovery was made by his photographer at Giza. Sorry, it's just my read of the event.
- [EDIT, June 5, 2016: In retrospect, I neglected to consider that my use of "ruse" and "hoax" in this post characterizes Reisner's speculation as being intended to fool people rather than simply being incorrect. This was not my intention, and as a result, I retracted that unintended characterization a few posts farther down. In my other 117 posts (as of this edit) where I mention Reisner, I have never accused him of any sinister wrongdoing. Rather, I have characterized his speculation as a "fabrication" in the sense that he made it up and it was untrue but not intended to deceive (since he truly believed it to be fact), as also acknowledged by both Lehner and Edwards. Meanwhile, my only significant criticism of Reisner's work continues to be that he applied a low standard of proof that was acceptable in his day and, as a result, his speculation of the tomb of Hetepheres was both presented and interpreted as being factual.]
> Nor should we ball up the wax where all contemporary
> and subsequent work becomes suspect, or worse,
> it's all wrong.
Well, therein hangs the tail. Whenever some of us are told "there's a body of evidence", it usually boils down to context of this nature, context that is derived from presumption, extrapolation, and pure fabrication based on the build-up of a self-consistent narrative that's replete with other similar contextual conjectures. The Tomb Hypothesis is a case in point. Where is there any physical evidence at all, not contextual conjecture, that support the notion that pyramids were originally designed to be tombs? Even the "from-mastaba-to-Step-Pyramid" argument is full of holes. As far as I can tell, there isn't a single iota of direct evidence that speaks to OK pyramids designed for a funerary purpose. It's all apparently based on circumstantial contextual contrivances.
> 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.
Nice try, but that's not what's going on here. Rather, some of us are holding the line very firmly at what the direct physical evidence says. We are asking whether the pyramids were DESIGNED to be tombs, not just whether they might have been USED as tombs at some point in their history. We are asking whether the is any DIRECT evidence of an original funerary function, not just a CONTRIVED context based on self-consistent conjectures. It's not fair for you to generalize what you think the "alts" say. Stick to the facts of the evidence and stop claiming it's merely "out there for anyone who looks". Believe me when I tell you that we've looked, we've read the references, and there's no direct evidence. It's all conjecture that attempts to imbue itself as factual for the sake of building a smokescreen context onto which other self-consistent claims can hang. It's getting old and more tenuous with each passing day.
> Even Lehner is conjecture, albeit with a better
> foundation. Neither of them found videotapes made
> by the ancient Egyptians revealing the final, true story.
All Lehner was saying is that Reisner had no evidence to make such a claim which had been taken as fact for 60 years up to that point. Period. Lehner's further "conjecture" about an alternate function of G7000x was simply his gracious attempt to help Reisner save face by trying to still hang some kind of funerary context onto G7000x, but even Lehner's interpration is based on slim pickings. The condition of that "trash heap" decries even Lehner's softer landing, let alone Reisner's preposterous fiction.
> And yes, it is deflective, because your point is
> an attempt to broad-brush all of archaeology with
> one example.
Nonsense. My point is merely to seek direct physical evidence when claim is made. If you read any "broad-brush" into my comment, then you would be acknowledging that the claim of "context" is indeed largely based on conjecture rather than direct evidence.
I simply refuse to be fooled by arguments about "it's all in the context" when the more I look, the more such references to context seem to be based on conjecture that often is accompanied by zero direct evidence to back it up.
> We are talking about what
> evidence there is at Giza to show the pyramids
> were funerary.
But why is that considered to be an issue that needs any clarification? Who has ever denied that pyramids were ever "used" for funerary purposes? I know of no one that denies that, so it's curious that Pete et al. are trying to focus on that rather than (what I consider to be) the far more important question of intention of the builders and the purpose of the original design. To simply argue that one or more OK pyramid was merely "used" as a tomb at some point in its history deflects from that more fundamental issue.
> 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?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm only looking at the evidence in the first place. If there isn't any evidence to back up a claim then the claim may not stand as fact. It's a very simple point. Reisner made a claim that was based on zero evidence. Engelbach had zero evidence regarding the provenance of that stele. This nonsense about "it's based on context" is a smoke and mirrors attempt to deflect from the harsh reality that many of the traditional tenets are based on obsolete standards of proof which allowed the possibility that if it just seemed "plausible" to suggest something, then it could indeed be taken as fact. It goes as far back as Herodotus and Strabo, and as recently as Reisner, Engelbach, up to Lehner, and even to Hawass, Stocks, Tallet, Bulow-Jacobsen, etc.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06-Jun-16 01:01 by Origyptian.