Orthodox vs Unorthodox Eyptology: why the side changes?

I have come across several Egyptological scholors who have come into the field with very unorthodox views and then seem to suddenly denounce all of their previous views/ideas and jump over to the orthodox mindset; one name that I remember in particular is Mark Lehner.

I have recently read that Graham Hancock has made the switch over to orthodoxy when it comes to some of his views about the Giza necropolis. I also just read in a thread that Dr. Zahi Hawass himself was once an unorthodox thinker who actually was a part of some drilling done at the sphinx.

I definately believe that there is something, profound or not, behind my observation.

A lot of people have speculated about why the Egyptian gov't hasn't allowed further field research around the sphinx along with conspiracy theories concerning the Egyptian gov't and orthodox Egyptologist, yet I haven't found a thread dealing directly with this subject. I hope this thread will provide an area where these areas are able to be discussed.

I wasnt aware that unorthodox egyptologist tended to jump ship like this... i am not really into egyptology but Hancocks 'Fingerprints of the Gods' fascinated me and i would be interested to see if he has indeed changed his point of view on this...

Could you provide me with any links into this so i can do some investigations of my own

Originally posted by Howard the Dolphin
I definately believe that there is something, profound or not, behind my observation.

Could that something be as simple as archaeology being scientific study?
Scientists do not tend to hold onto hypotheses that are not supported by available evidence.

[edit on 29-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Could that something be as simple as archaeology being scientific study?

I agree with what you are saying and have considered it before, however, why hasn't Hancock come out and made public the reasons he has changed his opinions; you would think that after writing several books and giving countless interviews regarding his stance on the subject, he would be inclined to explain why he has changed his mind. Maybe he has and I am just unaware of it; either way I would like to see his reasoning and ask for anyone with a link or input to contribute to this thread.

This is all on based on the authenticity of the article I read about Hancock denouncing his previous views. I failed to bookmark the article and haven't been able to find it, if I come across it I will definately post it.

Hancock, Bauval and all those guys have and probably always will be cranks they have followed the money around and it would appear that Hancocks fincial acviser has told him the money is back in orthodox. So thats what he did. IMHO

I'm sure that Hancock and Bauval, along with "all those guys" would sell more books writing about unorthodox theories than rewrite those that already exist concerning orthodox thought - mystery and conspiracy sell better than fact.

Aside from that, the thread's search for more information concerning the subject is why the thread was started; so if anyone has valid information, please contribute.

I don't think these folks are Egyptological scholars... not in the sense, say, that I'm an anthropologist (coursework, writing, etc.)

Originally posted by Howard the Dolphin
I have come across several Egyptological scholors who have come into the field with very unorthodox views and then seem to suddenly denounce all of their previous views/ideas and jump over to the orthodox mindset; one name that I remember in particular is Mark Lehner.

Lehner's change in opinion happened pretty much in the way that mine did: he was originally a devotee of Cayce (I was, too, and of Velikovsky) and then decided that he wanted to pursue studies in the land that so enchanted him, Egypt. So he went there and started attending the university, learning how to do digs and getting a degree in archaeology/Egyptology.

Along the way, he (as I have) learned to read hieroglyphics, saw the hard evidences for himself... and sadly came to realize (as many of us did) that Cayce and others are well-intentioned but are pulling all this information out of their own imaginations. That what they say is not true... and that the REAL story is a thousand times more fascinating than their mind fiction of Atlantis, Mu, and other places.

I have recently read that Graham Hancock has made the switch over to orthodoxy when it comes to some of his views about the Giza necropolis.

He's acutally a writer with a degree in sociology; not an egyptologist. Although a nice man, I doubt he could immediately tell a Fifth dynasty hieroglyphics panel from a Fourteenth dynasty hieroglyphics (yeah, there IS a difference...)
www.grahamhancock.com...

He's made the switch, and again it was due to actually learning what's been discovered by the Egyptologists and doing some fact-checking for himself.

I also just read in a thread that Dr. Hawass himself was once an unorthodox thinker who actually was a part of some drilling done at the sphinx.

There's been a lot of exploration of the sphynx and pyramids by legitimate (university sponsored) scholars... some with fairly unusual ideasl

Here's Hawass' website with lots of interesting stuff:
www.guardians.net...

A lot of people have speculated about why the Egyptian gov't hasn't allowed further field research around the sphinx

Actually, there's digs there and continuing research... Hawass found a tomb there last month, in fact.

What they are NOT allowing is every crystal-clutcher and New Ager and People With Theories to come in and play there in the Giza area and test their theories out. These folks interfere with legitimate exploration (and worse, sometimes damage sites.) The government is not going to fund someone's coming in and plating the Great Pyramid with sheets of tinfoil to see if it will usher in a New Age of Righteousness (or something similar.)

Legitimate research and exploration by licensed teams (to keep digs from interfering with each other) continues, however.

What type of hard evidence did you/would Hancock find to convince him otherwise? I don't like getting led around blindly, but without extensive knowledge of the subject that is what I am left to do. I find "alternate" theories interesting, however, I would rather have the REAL evidence and the conclusions that are derived from this evidence.

Could you maybe bring some of these evidences to my attention, and point me in the right direction?

Also, Hancock spoke about unintrusive methods (i.e. sonar equipment and the likes) being used in one or two research projects dealing with the sphinx, but then being denied permits for additional projects. What information do you have on this, or is this just a misleading way of attempting to instill conspiracy theory surrounding Dr. Hawass?

Originally posted by Howard the Dolphin
What type of hard evidence did you/would Hancock find to convince him otherwise? I don't like getting led around blindly, but without extensive knowledge of the subject that is what I am left to do. I find "alternate" theories interesting, however, I would rather have the REAL evidence and the conclusions that are derived from this evidence.

It's not easy to point to a few sites or books and saying "here! This is it" (unlike the crystal-clutcher crowd's references.) I think that the one that influenced me most was CRASH GOES THE CHARIOTS.

You see, I didn't really know how much we knew about these civilizations. When the crystal-clutchers wrote that ancient art showed astronauts, I didn't know that the symbols under the picture were writing and that there was a lot of writing all around that picture... writing that said who was the person in the picture and what the picture was about.

So, my advice would be to search Wikipedia and other places and ask first "what do scholars know about this and how long have they been studying it?"

Also, Hancock spoke about unintrusive methods (i.e. sonar equipment and the likes) being used in one or two research projects dealing with the sphinx, but then being denied permits for additional projects. What information do you have on this, or is this just a misleading way of attempting to instill conspiracy theory surrounding Dr. Hawass?

I don't really have much data, but I do know that ground penetrating radar WAS used. I'm not sure who applied for other tries at it, but they could deny it based on safety issues or on the fact that the people wanting to do it were just outright woo-woos and they preferred to let REAL scholars do the research.

There's a very good yahoo group that discusses Egyptology -- it's called Amun. Another good resource on the nets is House of Ma'at... lots of scholars and students of ancient Egypt hang out in both places.