> Warwick Wrote:
> > Egyptology's consensus opinions, Wilkinson's
> > opinions and mine do not exist in a vacuum.
> I don't think anyone here has contended otherwise.
> The problem isn't how many people believe and
> write the same thing. The problem is whether what
> they believe and write is actually true. As
> has been said before, "Practice makes
> permanent, it does not make
> There are so many beliefs in Egyptology that
> simply have not been proven to be true, and yet
> virtually everyone continues to present them as
> facts. Pointing out an incident involving
> Wilkinson, or Reisner, or whomever is simply to
> exemplify the phenomenon.
> > Wilkinson's "Early Dynastic Egypt" is the best
> > example of this. Each and every 'opinion'
> > is supported by 23 pages (in the soft cover) of
> > bibliography that insurmountably support all
> > opinions.
> Again, the problem is that opinions are presented
> as facts that seem to be supported merely by
> others' opinions and not always by definitive
> evidence. How can the reader be sure that the
> author is citing physical evidence when it is so
> common to find opinion or traditional belief
> masquerading as proven fact?
> > It's existence has precluded my needing
> > to suggest a reading list to those who wish to
> > learn of this era and the Old Kingdom.
> I didn't follow your logic there. How does the
> existence of a lengthy bibliography imbue a
> factual basis into an author's statement? Many if
> not all luminary Egyptologists have written that
> Hetepheres was the wife of Sneferu and the mother
> of Khufu (e.g., Lehner, Romer, Edwards), but the
> source of that information invariably points to
> Reisner's initial reporting of G7000x which was
> great data reporting but not so great regarding
> the conclusions that were drawn from that data.
> > Lehner's Complete Pyramids is at the very least
> > excellent source of things...
> The "things" I find excellent from Lehner is his
> reporting of the physical evidence. But I find
> many of his conclusions to be "possiblity", but
> not "conclusive", and I often disagree with his
> conclusions mainly because of how he gravitates to
> the mainstream position regarding the funerary
> context and the traditional timeline, neither
> fundamental tenet having been proven as fact up to
> this point. So any conclusions that depend on
> those assumptions remain tenuous.
> > In fact all the best known Pyramid Authors on
> > everyside of the debates offers up the known
> > opposition to their own ideas within their
> > Edwards...Lehner...Stadelmann...
> Can you cite a traditionalist author who openly
> acknowledge that any fundamental tenets of
> Egyptology, such as the funerary context, huge
> construction ramps, and the traditional timeline,
> are only possibilities and not conclusive?
> > Someone should set up an experiment whereby
> > someone arranges stonework exactly as we find
> > above the KC, and then tries to reproduce the
> Why do you suppose that hasn't been done yet?
My reference to bibliography was not an implication that it's existence qualified the conclusions drawn by the author. The point was that if one wishes to appreciate or dispute any of those conclusions one is obligated to apprise one's self of that which led to them.
Primary sources...not conclusions.
It's gotten easier. for example: A vast slice of what was available used to be readable only in German...the internet has dealt with that obstacle. TTBOMK German is no longer a prerequisite for studies in Egyptology as it used to be.
I've only become close to being as well read as I would like to be in my later years.
But I like to think that the probabilities I espouse are based on an understanding, and not on having merely learned by rote.
I hope that's a better explanation of the value of the bibliography