Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warwick Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Hetepheres demonstrates that Egyptology is not
> > frozen in time as well.
>
> Maybe not frozen, but certainly extremely
> sluggish. It demonstrates the inertia against
> acknowledging the errors. Reisner's story about
> Hetepheres went unchallenged for 60 years before
> Lehner spoke up about it. There was no new
> discovery that made Lehner speak up. It was simply
> Lehner's additional scrutiny that revealed the
> logical flaws.
What exactly are these “logical flaws” and “errors”? Hint: a “logical flaw” would be a self-contradiction or (possibly) a fallacy. To name anything else by this phrase would be a misnomer.
Lehner’s having a different (and no less speculative) proposal does not make Lehner right and Reisner wrong. Lehner’s theory has itself attracted criticism:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cpjCBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT140&dq=reisner+hetepheres+objections
Your claim that “Reisner’s story about Hetepheres went unchallenged for 60 years before Lehner spoke up” is pure bluff. Have you carried out a comprehensive literature review to establish this? Clearly not.
As a first step in the right direction, Cyril Aldred’s Egypt to the end of the Old Kingdom was published by Thames and Hudson in 1965. I have the unrevised reprint of 1992 and here for verification (in snippet view only) is a McGraw-Hill edition of 1971:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DA4OAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22other+theories%22
The relevant text (on page 94):
Other theories than Reisner’s were current in 1965, 20 years before Lehner published his.
> Again, the complaint isn't about being wrong. It's
> about being wrong and resisting the challenge to
> prove it's correct in the first place.
You haven’t proven that anything is wrong—and I see no reason why “Egyptology” should heed demands for “proof” which partake more of lowbrow adversarial rhetoric than informed, scholarly discourse.
M.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warwick Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Hetepheres demonstrates that Egyptology is not
> > frozen in time as well.
>
> Maybe not frozen, but certainly extremely
> sluggish. It demonstrates the inertia against
> acknowledging the errors. Reisner's story about
> Hetepheres went unchallenged for 60 years before
> Lehner spoke up about it. There was no new
> discovery that made Lehner speak up. It was simply
> Lehner's additional scrutiny that revealed the
> logical flaws.
What exactly are these “logical flaws” and “errors”? Hint: a “logical flaw” would be a self-contradiction or (possibly) a fallacy. To name anything else by this phrase would be a misnomer.
Lehner’s having a different (and no less speculative) proposal does not make Lehner right and Reisner wrong. Lehner’s theory has itself attracted criticism:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cpjCBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT140&dq=reisner+hetepheres+objections
Your claim that “Reisner’s story about Hetepheres went unchallenged for 60 years before Lehner spoke up” is pure bluff. Have you carried out a comprehensive literature review to establish this? Clearly not.
As a first step in the right direction, Cyril Aldred’s Egypt to the end of the Old Kingdom was published by Thames and Hudson in 1965. I have the unrevised reprint of 1992 and here for verification (in snippet view only) is a McGraw-Hill edition of 1971:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DA4OAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22other+theories%22
The relevant text (on page 94):
Quote
. . . The chamber is the only royal tomb to have survived intact from the Old Kingdom, but the burial may in fact have been a re-burial; and although other theories are current, we shall accept Reisner’s view . . .
Other theories than Reisner’s were current in 1965, 20 years before Lehner published his.
> Again, the complaint isn't about being wrong. It's
> about being wrong and resisting the challenge to
> prove it's correct in the first place.
You haven’t proven that anything is wrong—and I see no reason why “Egyptology” should heed demands for “proof” which partake more of lowbrow adversarial rhetoric than informed, scholarly discourse.
M.
