The State of Egyptology

With Friends Like These

I get a chuckle with irony when my writing is categorized as "out of mainstream Egyptology". The so-called mainstream Egyptology is controlled by self-appointed non-Egyptians who are the leftovers of the Colonial Era. The European countries that colonized the world brought back to Europe the loot of their aggression. Their home country felt (and still feels) that they have a monopoly on the history writing of their colonies. The self-appointed academic Egyptologists are actually comprised of inventory clerks, cataloging the booty from Ancient Egypt.

Bika Reed wrote in Rebel in the Soul: a sacred text of ancient Egypt,

"It is strange that so simple and evocative a language as Ancient Egyptian should be obscured by the very instrument of its rediscovery, the Egyptologist. No matter how academically erudite and analytically brilliant, can somebody who believes that Ancient Egypt was a primitive society, incapable of abstract thought, transmit to the modern reader its wisdom? Like a surgeon, who, searching for the soul of his patient with the help of a scalpel, declares there is no soul in man, the analytical mind, bent over a papyrus, with the scalpel of grammar, cries out, 'there is no philosophy in Egypt!' To such a mentality, the voyage of the Barque of the Sun is merely a pagan dream. Yet there objective reality would be a dream to the wise men of Egypt. It is as if a sleepwalker were placed as judge over the awake."

Academic Egyptologists make their living by degrading the Egyptians and their beliefs. The Egyptological arena is infested by those whose only intention is to destroy the credibility of ancient Egypt. Typically, they are the wolves in sheep's clothing.

How can you expect to learn about ancient Egypt from the dean of academic Egyptology, namely Alan Gardiner, who wrote in his book Egypt of the Pharaohs, "What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters."

Gardiner and his cronies have about as much interest in Ancient Egypt as a rapist ("interested" in the woman he rapes) or a child molester (who really "loves" the child).

On the subject of Ancient Egypt, practically all writers have contempt with envy towards this great civilization. These contemptuous writers will give credit for every achievement to someone else, e.g. the Ancient Egyptians got this from Mesopotamia, that from the Assyrians, this from the Hebrews, that from the Hyksos, .... and yes, of course the big achievements came from none other than the Europeans, via either:

1. The Ptolemaic Roman Period, or
2. The fictional Atlantians

It is not that people have different (two) views. It is that the same person uses both contradictory views simultaneously.

For all these people, the masters of double and triple talk - I say, "With friends like these, Egypt does not need enemies."

Searching For the Truth

As a history student/reader, one finds that there are as many views as there are books. With so many varied views, you may wonder which ‘expert’ or ‘scholar’ you want to believe, and why their views vary so much. It is the sad truth that most of the controversial issues could be resolved between the ‘scholars’ if they would take the trouble to consider the evidence presented by the opposition.

Some people react to historical interpretations that conflict with what they've always thought and been taught, by calling the author a Revisionist. They insist on living a lie. Refusing to hear an opposing point of view is a sign of weakness, not strength. They are rejecting a lot of valuable information and opportunities to grow, intellectually and spiritually, by hiding their heads in the sand.

The major sources of presently available history books are Europeans and their descendants in other continents. About 500 years ago, Europeans started conquering the outside world through colonization of countries throughout the world. As the dominant force in the world, spreading knowledge (including the world history) was in their total control.

When colonization ended in the 20th century, many people started questioning what they had been taught for so long. Such questioning unsettled these people who want to continue feeling a sense of superiority over others. These people coined the term, Revisionism. They also accused the new historical interpretations as nothing more than facts, which have been manipulated by the author, and that writing alternative history is just a personal narrative of the author.

How can we find who is telling the truth? Do we only read the people who agree with our thoughts, likings, prejudices, etc?

It really should not be difficult to figure out the credibility of a book or portions thereof, by taking the position of an unbiased juror in a courtroom.

None of us were in Egypt or other places, in the past (leaving aside reincarnation in previous lives, for now). So, we don't know for sure what the facts really are. The same situation occurs in trial courts everyday and everywhere. In the courts, jurors/judges sit and listen and make judgments on events that they did not witness themselves. They listen to opposing parties who must present their cases according to the Rules of Evidence, which include, among other things:

1. Evidence must be clearly presented. Circumstantial evidence (bloodstains, fingerprints, etc.) is far more credible than direct eyewitness testimony.
2. Hearsay is not admissible.
3. Personal views are not considered evidence and are always separated from the facts of the case.

Because you are not an ‘expert’ in a particular field, it does not mean that you have to accept or be intimidated by other so-called ‘experts’. Let logic, reason and unbias guide you toward the truth. As you wade through the various views, keep in mind Sir William Oster’s words: "The greater the ignorance, the greater the dogmatism!"

So, you (and I) should scrutinize history books, in the same manner as a juror/judge in a courtroom. One should never be intimidated by a famous name or a fancy title. Just the facts and the evidence.

We should never allow a group of people (academicians) to lead us by the nose. We should learn from the story of the Emperor Without Clothes, that no matter what the 'wise men' were saying about the Emperor's clothes, he was naked. Likewise, we should reject academia's exclusionary tactics, and insist that they prove their case and not merely rely on other prior, pre-approved references.