Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Egypts Lost History!
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by TerryG*09* (U13753139) on Tuesday, 27th January 2009
The sands of time pass over the desert, is the egyptian empire going with it??
our knowledge of these people still remains a mystery, we only know the basics.....
what dont we know?
how many tombs in kv havent been unearthed?
whats there secret? -
Message 2
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 27th January 2009
I think you'll find that sands passing over the desert are the archeologist's friend in the long term so long may they continue to do so.
The Egyptian "empire" you refer to (I assume you mean the pre-hellenic dynasties) are already gone - by definition. However their remnants, as is evident, are plentiful and there is no reason to assume that anything as yet unexposed to the elements or which has been fortunately inaccessible to thieves/vandalism/urban expansion should not be as well preserved as anything else that has been found in the past.
I challenge you to justify how our "knowledge" can "remain" a "mystery", or for that matter what constitutes "basics" in your mind. We have a far greater insight and understanding of Egypt throughout that long period than we do of almost any other contemporary civilization. These things are relative.
We cannot know all that we don't know (to be Rumsfeldish about it) but of course Egyptology concerns itself with many enigmas which makes its study so fascinating. Egyptology is both blessed and cursed by the wealth of material source data from which theories can be extrapolated. It is blessed because, when done in an intelligent and scientific manner they shed light not only on Egypt's long history but also on aspects of other contemporary and/or similar cultures we would otherwise never have known. It is cursed because when done unintelligently and for nefariously unscientific reasons the same wealth of data lends itself to misinterpretation, often wilful, and even more often detrimental to the pursuit of knowledge.
The Valley of the Kings has pretty much been gone through with a fine comb with regards to detecting voids etc. However new tombs are coming to light on a regular basis - many of which have been geophysically located or hinted at through previous research which itself is ongoing.
Their "secret" is no more egnimatic or unsolveable than with any archaeological find. The challenge of establishing context and correlating the data yield with existing data is exactly the same.
Good to see (hopefully) another Egyptologist on board, by the way! There is a sad tendency for discussions about Egypt to attract the more silly end of the spectrum (ie. the dimmer end) with regard to historical interest. -
Message 3
Posted by TerryG*09* (U13753139) on Tuesday, 27th January 2009
ok a valid point, i must still be hoping that some sort of artifact or structure is still hidden from us that holds a "key".
i firmly believe that much knowledge has been lost over the times, not only by the egytians but also every great civilization that has passed.
I feel that the history books have to many missing pages.
by "basic" i mean that we only go as far as understanding them(in a sense).
unless you can elaborate? -
Message 4
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 27th January 2009
You're right about the missing stuff - but that's what makes archaeology exciting. Otherwise it would be just unearthing confirmation all the time of what we already know.
Despite what you might read in the more fantastic publications and internet sites regarding Egypt's alleged supernatural past I would suggest that the biggest enigma for which a key would be welcome is still a thorough understanding of the writing, especially from the older artefacts found which do not conform completely grammatically or phonetically to that which we have deduced from later hieroglyphs. This is a pity as it leaves us unable to translate with any certainty several older inscriptions which, it is thought, could be records of harvest yields and/or taxes, and which would help enormously with accurate dating (another area of contention at the moment).
But one must always remember there is a huge difference between being unable to decipher something and being unable to understand it. Much can be understood from context and cross-reference alone. This is the bit that the fantasists get wrong - they think they can pick and choose what context and contemporary data they will include. The scientifically-minded researcher cannot.
Which is a good thing by the way! Otherwise we'd still be thinking the pyramids were built by hundred foot giants. -
Message 5
Posted by MendipTim (U13707598) on Tuesday, 27th January 2009
A Message from the "dimmer end".
I agree with Nordmann
The best place for any such treasures it to remain under the sand until a time when humans are less arrogant & any findings can be properly interpreted without religous or political meddling. -
Message 6
Posted by TerryG*09* (U13753139) on Tuesday, 27th January 2009
timmy - " when humans are less arrogant & any findings can be properly interpreted"
true, but we wont see a change like that for years. -
Message 7
Posted by TerryG*09* (U13753139) on Tuesday, 27th January 2009
Nordmann - "But one must always remember there is a huge difference between being unable to decipher something and being unable to understand it."
very logical, which could also raise a question of how much have we got wrong so far!
it might not be much, but 1 mistake could have a ripple effect. -
Message 8
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009
TerryG,
That is why, a few years ago, David Rohl gave the title of his book 'A Test of Time'. Did you ever watch his TV series 'Pharaohs & Kings' a decade or two ago? Your approach to the topic of Egyptian archaeology strikes me as similar. -
Message 9
Posted by TerryG*09* (U13753139) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009
LairigGhru,
i think i seen a bit of it, but wished id watched it all now. -
Message 10
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009
Rohl is one of the most disingenuous authors claiming to be archaeologists in current publication. If you've "missed" his tv programme and failed to read any of his books on the subject then you've done yourself a favour. It's all the less misinformation you have to "unlearn" later should your interest in the subject survive the stage where it's attracted to colourful theories "supported" by selective interpretation of even more selective archaeological data.
His later output betrays his true motivation - tailored as it is for his American public, in particular the lucrative bible-heads who want everything in the bible verified as historical fact, even if they have to lower or abolish archeological standards to do it. Rohl is quite willing to give them a hand. -
Message 11
Posted by TerryG*09* (U13753139) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009
Fair enough
-
Message 12
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009
I find that a somewhat extreme reaction to all the thoughtful, well-presented points that David Rohl brought out. I assure you that I feel just the same way as you do about the Bible-bashers and bent archaeologists who merely want to 'prove' the Bible. David Rohl is not of their number, in my opinion.
-
Message 13
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009
Rohl skips over things which don't suit his theories. He cites arbitrary assumptions on his part as proven fact. He uses unlikely methods to "calculate" terms of lineage (such as declaring that all named priests were the sons of the name before them and all held office for twenty years). He introduces elements from discredited theory without provenance so that they appear to the uninformed reader as accepted fact.
I do not deny that some thought has gone into this process, so "thoughtful" is not an unfair description. Nor do I deny that it is "well presented" in that it is presented in a manner designed to arouse interest and encourage belief in its veracity. But that does not make either the theory or its author less deceitful. -
Message 14
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009
When watching the TV series years ago it did not escape my attention that Prof Kenneth Kitchen and others kept Rohl at barge-pole length, but I wondered why, if what he was saying was dodgy, they did not come out fighting and demolish his statements. This led me to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I have spent years waiting for news of his vindication. If it was all rubbish, then it's a bit like being told about Father Christmas!
-
Message 15
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 29th January 2009
It's not all rubbish by academic standards. He is entitled to some leeway in applying stress to elements of the available data, even if he is the only one who does so. That is an accepted and indeed a necessary aspect to the formulation of any theory. The theory he proposes however does not square with the unstressed (or ignored) data which is also available and nor does he acknowledge this fact, leaving others to do it for him in what then becomes argumentative form. That is why other academics tend to adopt a reserved approach to Rohl and others like him. It is very time consuming an exercise to discredit sloppy or false theorising and if not followed through to a conclusion it can actually have the opposite effect than intended, the argument helping to publicise the theory. However, as you point out, several people have at least begun the process in Rohl's case.
-
Message 16
Posted by J Jacobs (U9505276) on Thursday, 29th January 2009
With 15 posts in the thread, I have a general response. The thrust of your question, a lament of what we are missing it seems, has a two pronged answer. What are we missing in the field--in the sense that much remains hidden or lost forever--is a lessor concern than what is missing in out time, the ability to comprehend and understand what we have at hand.
Transcending our time and culture, no easy challenge in a media-dominated circus, can add new meanings to old writings and art and new dimensions to all we know, or think we know. Maybe, we'll find out we only thought we knew.
An eternal, nagging aspect of archaeology is this, part of the story is always missing. Knowing we are not fully informed, and could be wrong because the evidence is never all in, comes with the turf. Transcending current paradigms will not eliminate this conundrum, but it may reveal some of what is missing in what we think we know. -
Message 17
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Saturday, 31st January 2009
"I challenge you to justify how our "knowledge" can "remain" a "mystery", or for that matter what constitutes "basics" in your mind. We have a far greater insight and understanding of Egypt throughout that long period than we do of almost any other contemporary civilization. These things are relative.
We cannot know all that we don't know (to be Rumsfeldish about it) but of course Egyptology concerns itself with many enigmas which makes its study so fascinating. Egyptology is both blessed and cursed by the wealth of material source data from which theories can be extrapolated. It is blessed because, when done in an intelligent and scientific manner they shed light not only on Egypt's long history but also on aspects of other contemporary and/or similar cultures we would otherwise never have known."
I think the real question here is just how much light has actually been shed on the ancients. We still can't answer basic questions like how they built the great pyramids and why didn't they leave any records or drawings of it. We assign beliefs to them which imply they must have been mad and then marvel that such great structures might arise from chaos.
Perhaps at the root of all these "enigmas" are some faulty assumptions about how they could build the pyramids and why they might try. -
Message 18
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Sunday, 1st February 2009
It is an ongoing process and keeps us occupied. Interesting revelations appear from time to time and force us to rethink our ideas.
My only worry is the involvement of archaeologists / experts who may have a particular religious axe to grind and who are therefore tempted to be selective in the evidence they present to us; no doubt such people cause a great deal of damage when they are not found out. Modern-day sensitivities about land ownership, with consequent refusal to allow digging, can also be frustrating. -
Message 19
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Saturday, 21st March 2009
Regarding messages 8 to 15 in this thread.
Whilst taking on board some of Nordmann's remarks, I feel I owe it to David Rohl to point out that I have just had occasion to look once again at his substantial book 'A Test of Time', and I am impressed by his obvious sincerity. He has no religious axe to grind and he is clearly nobody's poodle. I accept that all he seeks is truth.
The foreword was written by Professor Robert S. Bianchi who is supportive of some of Rohl's theories, so not all of academia is against him. -
Message 20
Posted by -frederik- (U13721647) on Saturday, 21st March 2009
Sincerity alone does not make a good theory. With the best of intentions, one can still (even deliberately) overlook or underestimate certain facts, or give a 'personal twist' to conlusions.
That's all I want to say about it, since I am not too familiar with the matter. -
Message 21
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Monday, 23rd March 2009
Then it ought to be possible - easy even - for his conventional critics to respond and demolish him. Why won't they do it?
-
Message 22
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 23rd March 2009
Many have criticised his publishing of assertion and speculation as fact and his equally egregious practise of ignoring data which doesn't suit his theory (or which blatantly contradicts it). His assertions however are worthy of consideration and debate, as indeed they were when first promulgated by others before him (another little omission of Rohl's in his books - proper accreditation for previously published theories). So he need not be "demolished". But he merits academic response, and frequently gets it. He also deserves criticism for cynical salesmanship at the expense of the integrity of his subject, so he gets that too.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.