> You didn’t say it in so many words, so you didn’t say it?
Correct, I didn't say it. If I wanted to say it, then why wouldn't I just say it? Why would I want to only hint at it and not come out and say it if that's what I really meant?
And if I didn't actually "say is in so many words", then why did you put "Egyptologist" in quotes to imply I actually said "no 'Egyptologist' contradicted Reisner" when I never said that? Not even once, let alone "post after post".
From what I've read so far, it seems that the vast majority of Egyptologists who have studied the pyramids still believe as fact that Hetepheres was the wife of Sneferu and the mother of Khufu. And before you go into detail about how the "Mother of..." glyphs found in G7000x are to be taken literally, Lehner and Edwards acknowledge the possibility of a very different meaning of that phrase with respect to the voyage to the afterlife, and since those objects are considered funerary, it's perfectly appropriate to interpret than within that context and not the context of the physical world, at least according to Nils Billing. It's interesting that you omitted that pesky detail (pg.83 of Lehner '85):
- "the mother image fullfills a distinct function in the Egyptian belief of a life after death--- it holds out the promise of immortality" (Ibid., 174). In effect, the king's rebirth invokes the image of a return to, and passage through, the mother.40
Regarding your reference to Romer, does he actually deny or even express doubt about anything in Reisner's narrative? Does he deny that G7000x was her tomb even though the alabaster box was empty? Does he discuss Verner, Aldred, Münch's "funerary deposit" hypothesis, Lehner's '85 rebuttal to Reisner, or even cite any of them in his bibilography? He doesn't deny Reisner's claim of the family tree, and so I doubt he acknowledges Lehner's alternate interpretation (and Edwards' acknowledgement) of "Mother" as it applies to the afterlife.
> Nearest is what Lehner wrote in his paper of 1985:
> “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.”
Nor is the definitive evidence that G7000x was ever her tomb or that "mother" should be taken literally rather than in the funerary contextual sense playing a role in the voyage of the king to the afterlife.
> In The Legacy of Egypt (1942, ed. S. R. K.
> Glanville, not the same as the later volume of the
> same title, ed. J. R. Harris) we find this: “The
> ingenious theory has been suggested that the
> former tomb at Dahshûr was plundered, and its
> contents transferred to a specially built
> hiding-place at Gîzeh.”
He called it "ingeneous", not "fanciful" and not "speculation". That imbues credibility, not doubt. How much of Reisner's narrative does he actually challenge? It sure sounds like he's buying into Reisner's narrative.
> Again, those who know how to read will know what
> to make of this.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 12-Jun-16 16:21 by Origyptian.