Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Where did I say I thought Reisner was part of a
> > conspiracy?
>
> 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.
>
> > It
> > 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 therefore
> this makes it possible all the megalithic
> monuments in Egypt were built by an antediluvian
> lost civilization? Its is 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.


Great post, esp. this:

"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."***

Cheers!