Submitted by MeatballDom t3_xtz3dc in history
Comments
Bentresh t1_iqti0kt wrote
It is. The purpose of the article is to get people interested in Der Manuelian's new book about Reisner, not provide any novel insights about Carter.
JohnnyEnzyme t1_iqts9e0 wrote
Still, for nincompoops like myself who only know the bare facts about Carter's work and discovery, I found it quite interesting getting that deeper (and rougher) dive, and learning about the rivalry of sorts between he and Reisner.
Methinks the story has potential, too, not unlike an Amadeus film scenario, but one in which Mozart and Salieri really *did* hold contempt for each other. Perhaps a bit of a Thor Heyerdahl situation too, in which the real-life Thor had some qualities of flim-flammery and not holding up scientific principles.
Tiako t1_iqtxv44 wrote
Yeah, I am largely but not entirely ignorant of Egyptology's history and I was not aware of this dust up, I think it can be overestimated how far this is known outside of Egyptologists.
(Heyerdahl on the other hand was a complete charlatan, absolutely nothing of value gained from his work)
JohnnyEnzyme t1_iqu2rvw wrote
Hmm, I thought Heyerdahl was more of a mixed bag.. exaggerating and manipulating facts on one hand, while taking on some pretty major risks in his voyages, and overall, bringing a bunch of attention to interesting facets of cultural history and so forth.
I haven't read up on him in many years, though, so I'm in little position to debate.
Tiako t1_iqu48mm wrote
I suppose as a pure adventure story it is compelling but that puts it at about the level of Felix Baumgartner jumping out of a space ship in terms of historical value. The peopling of the Pacific islands was a very settled question when Heyerdahl had his expeditions, and those expeditions provided not a whit of actual evidence to support his theory.
He was also more than a little racist towards Polynesians, the impetus of his theory was not far off "these savages couldn't have possible build these monuments".
[deleted] t1_ircek3n wrote
[removed]
charlibeau t1_iqt9vff wrote
Interesting read, thanks
DiffusedReflection t1_iqu3ffz wrote
"One shudders to think how these objects might have fared had their discovery occurred two or even just one century prior to Carter’s 1922 field season."
While this makes for good sensationalism, the Donati and Drovetti collections acquired between 1750 and 1820 formed the basis for the largest collection of Egyptian artefacts outside Cairo (Museo Egizio in Turin, established in 1824). Archaeology and Egyptology wasn't new-- although it was rough, it was rough when Carter and Reisner were doing it, too. And stratigraphy was in use well before Reisner.
This might be clarified in the book, but I dislike how he misrepresents things in the article just to heighten the drama.
Bentresh t1_iqudyf6 wrote
No, he's right on the money. There are very noticeable differences in how archaeology was done between the early 1800s and the early 1900s. Early explorers like Ferlini made an absolute mess of sites in Egypt and Sudan, as did archaeologists like Amelineau. The work of later scholars like Petrie and Winlock is still dissatisfactory by modern standards, but it was a huge improvement.
The Turin collection is all well and good, but archaeology is not antiquarianism – collecting objects is not the end goal. The collection was acquired with a considerable amount of destruction and is no little source of frustration to Egyptologists today. Take the Turin king list, for example, which was found intact but thanks to Drovetti's carelessness is now a jumble of tattered fragments that Egyptologists have been trying to reconstruct for decades.
Jason Thompson's trilogy on the history of Egyptology is well worth a read, as I don't think most people realize how far Egyptology has come in a relatively short amount of time.
Frogs4 t1_iquvaci wrote
Illustrated by a pyramid. Carter didn't investigate in or near pyramids.
jdpietersma t1_iqvns4b wrote
But how else will we know it's in Egypt?! /s
Frogs4 t1_iqw1owr wrote
A soundtrack of yodelling women.
WittyTemperature6419 t1_iqvb2g2 wrote
Highclere also makes a very fine GIN these days..you really shld follow Vintage Egytologist
xv433 t1_iqt9rdt wrote
I thought this was the consensus view of Carter?