| Author | Message | ||
     SjoerdClaessens (137.120.186.44) |
Hi all, Recently I have had some more time for this board again, and I have started reading on Egypt again, both serious scientific stuff and fringe. I also reread a lot of discussions on this board, and I have some things to say. As you might still know I am an amateur archaeologist who has taken part in a number of excavations over Europe. Besides that I work at a University as a Lecturer in Law, while working on my PhD. As someone who is interested mostly the 4th dynasty Pyramids and the Great Pyramid as their pinnacle I find it utterly incomprehensible that not more effort is taken to explore the lower south shaft of the GP and the plug that was discovered by Gantenbrink. I find it even more incomprehensible that respectable people on this board state that it has no priority, or that it is not scientifically interesting. OF COURSE IT IS! Whatever is to be found there, and no I am not speculating, could gain us greater insight in the reasons why Khufu built his tomb the way he did. After all, as far as we know now, he is the only one who incorporated these shafts in his tomb, they must have had some function. I think that pursuing the solution to this enigma is a valid scientific motif. Why then is it that reputable scientist, like our resident egyptologists, try to downplay this discovery? Frustration of the Fringe? Probably, some far fetched theories have been suggested by people who are not part of the scientific establishment. Proof of these theories has proved to be flimsy at best, but more often non existent. Or is it because of a fear that on a certain day a Fringer hits Bull's Eye, and that the scientific establishment would have to acknowledge an enormous shift to their fundamental beliefs. That is a sour pill to swallow. Yet if we look at history more often than not it was a person who was scorned, if not worse, for his deviating views, who proved to be right in the end. Galileo was forced to drink poison because he proved that the earth was not the centre of the Universe. Columbus was mocked because he took of for the East by sailing to the West, but than again he proved the Earth was round. And if Physics was Egyptology Stephen Hawking would be regarded as a Fringer for critisising Einsteins relativity theory. As a scientist I think it is a pity that Egyptology is a seperate science from Archaeology, it would be very healthy if some more criticism was applied. If one looks at the Giza pyramids alone, there has been extensive, but no conclusive research, the file on the pyramids is still open so to speak. Yet egyptologists have formed their view, often on the basis of the interpretations of the founding fathers of Egyptology (Vyse, Petrie, etc.), and treat this view as a theorem, a TRUTH. That is the single worst thing that can happen in a science that mere assumptions grow into theories which then grow into truths, which are quoted relentlessly without them being questioned time after time. Every self-respecting scientist must always question everything he does. As soon as he starts using theories as the truth he becomes arrogant, and than the theory which is promoted to truth becomes more important than the real truth. If I look how much speculation goes on in medieval archaeology (when I take part in excavation)I am often baffled at the certainty with which egyptologist present their truths: "There are no other rooms in the GP!" No? Have you taken it down and mapped it then? Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. "The plug is no more than a meaningless stone!" Oh Yeah? Where does that wisdom come from, the whole world, including egyptologists, have only seen the material of Gantenbrink? "There are no rooms under the Sphinx!" Who has dug there? no-one! Those kind of rebuttals of the fringe are not of a scientific nature they display pure arrogance. In my humble opinion the fringe is harmless, useful even. It could provide the fresh wind that keeps the cobwebs out of the science of Egyptology. Take it head on, rebutt it in a scientific measure, yet keep your mind open for alternative theories than the one you are propagating. That provides for healthy discussion, not the scientific "Gleichschaltung" some people on this board pursue! Just some frustrations I needed to ventilate! I just wrote a proposal for my legal research, it is not that hard. Somebody please write a proposal for further research of the shafts! Sjoerd | ||
| J.D. Degreef (213.177.158.115) |
Sjoerd, Of course it would be interesting to know what the slab is, or what's behind it ! The whole matter is a question of personal conflicts, of people having unknowingly trespassed on other people's domains, and of an administration that doesn't like to be told what to do by Westerners (colonialism is still an unhealed sore in many countries, including Egypt). The best way to see the shaft opened is to be quiet about the whole matter and let grudges subside. This being said, the southern shaft from the King's Chamber has a widening* that could have held a "door-slab" and plugs, not much else (no large room etc.), so I personally don't expect much of the QC southern shaft... JD *R. STADELMANN, Äg Pyr, 1997, p. 279 fig. 96. | ||
| SjoerdClaessens (137.120.186.44) |
JD, I have no big expectations either, I just get frustrated when I see science perverted by politics or personal reasons. But that also happens not seldomly at my own faculty, where I am notorious for my pleas to keep the science pure... Sjoerd | ||
| george (63.149.20.86) |
Sjoerd, May I suggest Archaeology 101 to sharpen your perspective about the views and priorities of archaeologists. You will need only the first course to clear up your many prejudiced misconceptions. | ||
| Ritva (212.246.17.130) |
Sjoerd, I earnestly understand your frustration but there are priorities in the field of archaeology. Consider some of the already axcavated sites and monuments literally falling apart because of the lack of funding! The whole of the Ancient Egypt must be the priority, not just one "door-slab" in the GP shaft. Unfortunately this little door has become the main target of the hunters of the Lost Civilization. Some use it as an excuse for theories to be unproved and some just to attrackt the discussion off the main issues concerning LC. Oh, I do believe in some Lost Civilization also, but wouldn't it be wiser to concentrate the funds more to the (in Egypt's case) excavation of early dynasties' sites to see if any evidence turns up? Because that kind of evidence would give hints on what, where and when, not like the door which only answers the question yes or no! And while I'm at it, I'll give my respect to Graham Hancock, who has ceased just sitting and barking at the wrong tree and started doing something about really finding the evidence. And admit it, the "door" is very safe and snug where it is, it's not falling apart due to lack of maintenance and nobody can steal or tag it! And it will be opened, some day by somebody. My personal opinion is that we are going to have a lot of unhappy people when there is.... nothing there! Heh! | ||
| george (63.149.20.175) |
Ritva! Where did you do your Archaeology 101? You are now ready for Arch 102. See you in my classes. | ||
| Bonnie Sampsell (205.188.201.187) |
Sjoerd - Your statement that "Galileo was forced to drink poison because he proved that the earth was not the centre of the Universe." is dead wrong! Is this an example of your "research?" Bonnie Sampsell | ||
| Ronlyons (24.199.141.69) |
I too see no evidence of a 'conspiracy' in Egyptology to save face by not allowing new theories to become evident. Most all of the theories held as rule by egyptologists seem to me to be the most likely ones. If you look at the Armana debate, you'll see that in Egyptology, there is not always 1 prevaliant theory. In that particular area of research, there still is a ton of theories unproven, some with little or no evidence, and all of them are considered by leading Egyptologists because in that area there's just no proof for a lot of theories. This ongoing debate in the field should show you there is no conspiracy to depress theories. Plus, have you ever been to Egypt? I haven't, but sitting in front of my computer, it's obvious that a 4 inch piece of stone at the end of a tunnel isn't the #1 priority in egypt! Funds could be better spent in a million other places. On another note, how many times has it been stressed that the Antiquities council has received no formal proposals to open it? Do you expect them to spend their own money? On yet ANOTHER note, it was just announced that it will be 'opened' in september on National Geograhic. | ||
| george (63.149.20.42) |
Well stated. The critics of professonal archaeologists are always those that know the least about archaeology. Archaeologists must always bear the burden of proof in a profession were they must base tentative conclusions about long periods of Egyptian history only on the few pieces of often conflicting evidence that has so far been been found. That task can be very difficult when over 90% of the evidence is lost forever and most of the remaining 10% has not yet been found. As you may suppose this leaves the archaeologist with a slight handicap in matching the evidence with a conclusion in proposing solutions to archaelogical problems. [Of course, since the fringe and their fellow travelers always base their suppostions on 0% evidence they do not have these academic problems and can propose, and endlessly preach, any silly suppostion the human mind can imagine.] When the archaeological evidence is not conclusive--and it usually never is--archaelolgists must form theories to fit the existing evidence together in oreder to give a still incomplete picture of what may have happened thousands of years ago. It is a jigsaw puzzle with most of the peices still missing and each archaelogist may see a different picture in the few pieces. The purpose of excavation is to find missing pieces for a particular puzzle that will add to the basic knowledge of AE culture and lifeways. Most artifacts found in a dig do not add any new information to the puzzle because they are the same as a hundred other pieces. The search is for the key pieces that when put into the puzzle gives new information for completing the picture. So the turn of a spade anywhere in Egypt may be all that is needed to prove one theory, and destroy another. Archaeology is always a work in progress, but is firmly based on all the evidence that has been found before. Unless somone has studied all this available evidence, before forming a theory, any conclusions they may propose will always remain worthless suppositions. | ||
| SjoerdClaessens (62.163.5.230) |
Hi all, Alas, the same frustrated and bitter note, anytime you start a row in this place. I was baffled two years ago by the harsh replies in this forum and I still am. Trying to discuss in an open manner on this board always results in defending yourself, because you are being attacked from 4 different sides. George please exuse me for not taking Archaeology 101 in your class. Having two academic titles,and well underway for my PhD (I'll send you a copy in due time!) I think I know a thing or two about research, and having taken part in numerous excavations I also know a thing or two about archaeology. On the other hand, George, as a scientist I think you know that arguments ad hominem are a sign of weakness, so I suggest you inform me of my "prejudiced misconceptions" so that we can discuss on an equal and honoust level. In the meantime I suggest you take Academic Debate 101 in my class! Let me make this clear for those of you whose mind disconnects after thinking they have discovered a fringer. I KNOW the SCA has other priorities, and I RESPECT that. I will NOT lose a minute of sleep over what is behind that stone. The point is that it UNSCIENTIFIC and ARROGANT to downplay a discovery, however small, before conclusive research has been conducted and that is what is happening, at least on this board. I also protest against the lack of open mind, which is the death for any science!. A science of whatever kind which forecloses itself for hyptheses that does not fit within the accepted interpretation, because that is what OK history is, my dear George, will degenerate into an incestuous display of arrogance. By the way: I did NOT use the words LOST CIVILISATION and CONSPIRACY and I will not be associated with them! Nor have I displayed a theory of any kind!. Bonnie, No that is not a display of my research, I will be happy to send you a copy of my academic work to show my research, and I stand corrected if I was wrong. On the other hand I would like to say that I don NOT like your tone, and I would advice you as well to sit in my Acadmic Debate 101 class. Sjoerd | ||
| SureD (62.163.5.230) |
Dear George, I did not read your last post well enough, but there you say it yourself: Any turn of the spade in Egypt could change anything we have accepted until now. If you had read my 1st message thoroughly you would have seen that I did not base a theory on speculation, I merely critisised the fact that people downplay hypotheses, and I use the plug as an example, before the extensive research, that you propagate in your last post, has taken place. You cannot say that anything is very important before having researched it, you can also not claim it is not important before that same research has taken place. You proved my point George, I knew we were on the same side! Sjoerd | ||
| SjoerdClaessens (62.163.5.230) |
Bonnie, I stand corrected on Galilei, apparently I mixed him up with a Greek philosopher on the poison bit. Galilei was however convicted in 1632 by a catholic tribunal for propagating the theory of Copernicus, who proved that the earth revolved around the sun, which thus leaves my initial point intact. See: http://galileo.imss.firenze.it/museo/b/egalilg.htm l Sjoerd | ||
| george (63.149.20.62) |
Sjoerd, I do not know you, your qualifications or your thoughts, so I can only respond to the words you post on a computer screen. That is what I responded to, not you in particular, but also to anyone that read your somewhat heavy-handed defense of the fringe. I can assure you if someone posts well researched fact-based theories they are read and considered. And they will receive the peer review the posting of the theory invites. I believe that is how science is still supposed to work. | ||
| SjoerdClaessens (62.163.5.230) |
Dear George, If I remember correctly we had a similar "clash" 2 years ago when I first posted on this board. We settled it then, as we did now. I shall try to base my postings on facts as much as possible, but still try yo keep an open mind! Does anyone know more about the National Geographic proposal? Just out of curiousity. Sjoerd | ||
| george (63.149.20.92) |
Sjoerd, I'm sure you will make important contributions to the board. Dr. Hawass is on a lecture tour and AFAIK there has not been any oficial announcement of the project, only his lecture comments. George |
