Warwick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Lack of familiarity with the multidisciplinary
> stockpile of knowledge about the Old Kingdom is
> not a character flaw, but it is 2 dimensional.

Yet Hawass scoffs at real scientists and has yet to release the results of century old technology.

There is NO multidisciplinary research at Giza. At least none I ever heard of. I'd love to be proven wrong. Back in the old days there was obviously such work going on but this was a long time ago. The Egyptologists in charge often allow scientists to run experiments when it's in their interest such as to find gold. Do you already forget that when one of the scientists working on the Scanspyramid project offered to fly a balloon in, Hawass went ballistic and said he wasn't authorized to even make the offer. No systematic chemical or ultraviolet testing has ever been done. No microscopic forensics have ever been done on any pyramid.

Scientists aren't even allowed to run important non-destructive testing for free unless they bring gifts from foreign museums. Most people with degrees in archaeology or Egyptology in Egypt have been unemployed for years. When Egyptologists do send for scientists to run tests like carbon dating the results are disputed or rejected.

Everything we "know" about the ancient Egyptians is in terms of assumptions which have not stood the test of time and this very thread demonstrates one of those failed assumptions.

You can make this contention a million times but it will still be a contention. There is no evidence to support some of these assumptions and the others are supported strictly by interpretation.

> To anyone who really cares. Follow the
> researchable cue words in Thanos' posts. Click on
> the links

Almost everything you need to know about ancient Egypt has passed through modern interpretation. This means important facts are buried and rarely repeated. One thing that is hard to find is references to water on the plateau. I would suggest Gigal, Temple, West et al are better bets than most Egyptologists. You simply aren't going to find many references to water or how the structures would react to the presence of water. You won't find many Egyptologists who acknowledge that wood was an important part of daily life and pyramid construction and how wood might apply to virtually any of these ruins. They won't make mention of the fact that any wood would have been stripped from inside and outside the pyramids long ago. So go ahead and read Egyptologists but don't forget they still aren't systematically studying the pyramids and most of what isn't "processed" in terms of their assumptions are measurements and hard facts about objects, their locations, and what glyphs were carved on what walls. Just as they've built a science on assumption and sample bias imposed by studying only objects associated with tombs, studying anything but the raw data will present as a sort of
"sample bias".

Egyptology is very important to learning about ancient Egypt but the results are confounding.