Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I disagreed with Hermione when she said: "No one
> is 'dismissing' the account".
>
>
> Your statements indicated you are one who is
> dismissing the accounts provided by Herodotus.
>
> I stand by my interpretation of these quotes from
> you:
>
Quote:Are we seriously to consider as evidence
> hearsay from people some two thousand years after
> the Giza pyramids were built? All that this kind
> of 'evidence' tells us is a or the tradition of
> who built a particular pyramid.
>
> ...
>
>
> You choose to class as acceptable evidence the
> writings of a single traveller who visited Giza
> two thousand years post-Khufu & Co and two
> thousand years before our time.
>
> I don't.
>
>
> If you didn't actually mean to imply that the
> evidence provided by Herodotus should not be
> considered, and should not be counted as
> "acceptable", you are free to restate what you
> really intended to say.
Of course evidence provided by Herodotus should be considered.
I have considered it, particularly in the light of the points raised and comments made in this thread by Hermione, Lee and others.
My conclusion?
Herodotus' account should be considered as two-thousand-year-old gossip until evidence is found that directly supports it - which, of course, means that it should not be discarded but kept in mind.
As for your contentions that I consider the people Herodotus got his tale from to have intentionally misled him, and or that Herodotus was a liar, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
However, as these totally erroneous contentions of yours clearly exist only to lend support to your own views on Herodotus' account of his visit to Giza, I don't expect you to believe me when I say again: IMO Herodotus' account is hearsay and therefore not reliable evidence, but this is no reflection what-so-ever on Herodotus or the persons he received his 'information' from.
MJ