> Where did I say I thought Reisner was part of a
You have repeatedly stated or implied Reiser's narrative to be a deliberate attempt to deceive an "unsuspecting world" and the like.
> Opinion? Lehner has a rather different take than
> you do:
- "The hypothetical original
> tomb of Hetep-heres I at Dahshur has not
> been found (the only evidence for this
> queen's existence comes from G7000x). There is
> no textual evidence, contemporary
> with the 4th Dynasty or from later times, for the
> plundering of this tomb and the transfer of its
> contents to Giza. Reisner's reconstruction of
> events is based entirely upon the archaeological
> evidence gathered from G7000x. Nevertheless, his
> scenario was passed down in the literature, e.g.
> The Cambridge Ancient History (Smith
> 1971, 168), as historical fact."
Not at all. Lehner tells you in the first sentence you quote the tomb of Hetepheres I at Dahshur was "hypothetical" which is clear from reading Reisner, and further refers to Reisner's theory as a "reconstruction of events" (partly based on such "hypotheticals") and a "scenario" based solely on evidence gathered from G7000x which beyond that is part of Reisner's theory. The fault it was ever passed off as "historical fact" was not some wilful "deception" as you make it out to be on Reisner's part, but as should be gleaned from Lehner as well rather a reflection of the institutional inequity of those like Cambridge who compile and present this information to others. Reisner offered a theory which was clearly based on ample conjecture and it was the fault of others it was ever passed off as "fact".
> It's one thing to speculate a possible way the
> stuff could have gotten there, but it's entirely
> different to mislead the field to accept as fact
> that it is the tomb of Hetepheres I.
Reisner did no such thing. This is where the artifacts were found and they do certainly appear to belong to Hetepheres I so to believe this the case, duh, is hardly some form of "deception". You have invented a conspiracy that otherwise does not exist.
> Lehner points
> out several faults in Reisner's reasoning, making
> it clear that what was found in G7000x contradicts
> Reisner's stated rationale.
No one ever said it was a good theory.
> This episode of Egyptology is an excellent example
> of differences in the standard of proof applied by
> different investigators across a span of time.
No, it is an excellent example of how the opinions of authorities are later passed off as fact when accepted without further scrutiny. Regardless, it was the norm amongst antiquarians of the day, and really expected of them, to offer such "hypotheticals", "stories" if you will, to create a narrative around such discoveries which as we can see still happens in the field today.
> seems that Reisner really did not think that
> through very well,
I don't think this is uncommon even today.
> and the standards of his day
> did not hold him as accountable as today's
> standards would.
The "standards of his day", as now, allow for professionals to offer their theories on such matters, good or bad, which is exactly what Reisner did. Again, it is not Reisner's fault his opinions were ever passed off as "fact".
> This is why other, older tenets need to be
> revisited, too.
No, "this" is not why. Because Reisner had a theory that didn't pan out about how the minutia of one set of artifacts or people on an internet forum have questioned the ambiguity regarding the position of how a Khufu boundary marker was found, therefore means all bets are off and this makes it possible all the megalithic monuments in Egypt were built by an antediluvian lost civilization? Its laughable you take Reisner to task for his imagination yet you offer the patently bizarre suggestion that instead of Khufu's boundary marker being what it is it is actually "a modern gravestone indicating that" Khufu" was the name of the local family dog". I don't know what is worse the fact you could ever think of something so absurd in the first place or continue to repeat it after the fact when it has already been discussed at length it was found at an OK/MK quarry in the middle of nowhere of which we know 4th Dynasty statuary was made from stone that came from here. Talk about trying to "mislead" people.
Regardless, you have created strawmen with no straw. These finds are irrelevant to any "tenets" and though there are other reasons to revisit them these are otherwise meaningless non-examples of such.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01-Jun-16 01:10 by Thanos5150.