02-02-2017, 12:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2017, 12:57 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: diplomacy
)
Psillycyber,
I'd be glad to read more of your thoughts about the primary documents.
Your approach is much more the sort of thing we are used to seeing when dealing with a problematic work: and in this case one which is not only a problematic text, but one in a problematic script (one still waiting analytical investigation), and imagery which (historically speaking) has been most often addressed by persons relying on their imaginations and hoping only to find support for a favoured theory.
The old ideas and methods have not resulted in an accepted translation of any single page of text - so far.
Obviously, despite their being urged a sort of 'official story' the old ideas need to be re-examined from their roots, and this begins by a re-consideration of the basis for those ideas - including the seventeenth-century documents.
I'd be glad to read more of your thoughts about the primary documents.
Your approach is much more the sort of thing we are used to seeing when dealing with a problematic work: and in this case one which is not only a problematic text, but one in a problematic script (one still waiting analytical investigation), and imagery which (historically speaking) has been most often addressed by persons relying on their imaginations and hoping only to find support for a favoured theory.
The old ideas and methods have not resulted in an accepted translation of any single page of text - so far.
Obviously, despite their being urged a sort of 'official story' the old ideas need to be re-examined from their roots, and this begins by a re-consideration of the basis for those ideas - including the seventeenth-century documents.