I said that scholarship is must fall within a framework of previous
scholarship by which certain assumptions have already been established. For example,
it has been established that Amenhotep I reigned after Ahmose I. If someone
wishes to disprove that, the person first takes this assumption and then must
provide a pretty solid case why this is not so in order to convince those who
believe in this order of succession. One cannot simply say "Well, I have this
evidence that I believe is a fact" and then expect others to agree that it is a
fact without some pretty good evidence--or argument. Unlike in a criminal
case, there usually is no "solid evidence"--in Egyptology (unless one digs up
something new that sheds a whole different light on everything) but only
arguments for a new interpretation of the old evidence. So, as in a civil case, it
is the arguments that pursuade and establish a new "precedent" for looking at
any given matter in a certain light. If the arguments are persuasive enough.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.