R Avry Wilson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > That's a silly way to characterize my comment,
> > Avry. If I asked if any surgeon has successfully
> > performed a head transplate you going to ask "Have
> > YOU?!"
>
> If we were discussing head transplants and you
> stepped in with comments about how to do it, then
> yes. In other words your non-existent experience
> with hieroglyphics puts you in no position to
> comment on them.

Nonsense. I have every right to take any opportunity to ask questions about topics I want to know more about as well as express any opinion I care to express. Just as you have every right to ignore those questions and opinions.


> ...
> If you continue to approach a subject you have no
> standing to step into ... well ... that's just silly, isn't it?

No, it's not silly at all. I'm not claiming to be an authority in glyph translation the way others are here. I'm simply asking questions on subjects I want to learn more about, which is what people normally do when they don't know but want to know. It makes no sense to ask a question if one is already expected to know the answer. If you respectfully asked "How do we know DNA is really important to us?", I'm certainly not going to get hostile and go medieval on your ass just because you're not a trained biologist (you may very well be, but let's assume you're not for the moment). Rather, I'll try to explain to you why I believe DNA is important. If you start questioning the basic tenets of DNA, I might response with a rebuttal, but still I won't get hostile on you. The truth is, the DNA model is the going theory, but it certainly isn't perfect, there are many questions about certain aspects (especially the conservative theory). I'm certainly not going to tell you that "Science has decided how DNA works and there's nothing wrong with that narrative, nothing needs to be interpreted any differently, all experts believe the same theory, no additional scientific investigations need to be performed, and anyone who's not a trained molecular biologist should steer clear of this subject". I only wish that the orthodoxy in Egyptology was that objective about its own tenets.

Hell, Francis Crick (DNA double helix co-discoverer) dabbled in immunology and neuroscience later in his career -- disciplines in which he had zero formal training -- and yet he made some significant contributions to our understand of those other scientific disciplines by bringing insights he had that were derived from his own primary field of expertise. Likewise, in my opinion, Egyptology needs a wake up call from the expertise of cognate disciplines such as engineering, materials science, physics, and chemistry. None of these disciplines contributed significantly to establishing the Dynastic timeline even though these disciplines clearly played a major role in those ancient cultures. It's ludicrous for you to criticize someone "with no standing" when the very timeline that you seem to defend so staunchly was developed by people with no standing in numerous disciplines that should have been, but were not, consulted in establishing that timeline.

Respectfully, I would submit to you that you are practicing the exclusionary principle that you are preaching, and such a myopic approach is one reason orthodox Egyptology continues to encounter more severe contradictions as it receives increasing scrutiny from cognate disciplines. We see new questions about the provenance of Baalbek, new complexities in G1 that further stress a 3rd millennium BC provenance, scrutiny revealing doubt over past decrees involving g7000x, el Jarf, boat pits, the true provenance of Menkaure's "Mortuary Temple", the question of whether the royal boats ever actually touched a drop of water in their day, etc. The narrative, the timeline, and hieroglyphic translation methods are by no means "settled". And if anything, I think they will become far more unsettled before the dust clear. In my opinion, anyone who claims otherwise is trying to sell something.

Avry, this is a discussion forum, and it is full of people with various expertise in some areas and total lack of expertise in others. That shouldn't preclude our ability to ask questions across disciplinary boundaries.

So I intend to continue to asking questions about subjects I know less about so that I might learn more about them. And I intend to continue inserting my insights brought in from other cognate disciplines in the quantitative sciences. If you don't want to entertain such questions or comments then by all means steer clear of them. I only ask that you do it respectfully.