Khasekhemwy - What do the Egyptologists Know?

Khasekhemwy - What do the Egyptologists Know?

Without meaning to be disparaging, I myself as a dictionary author
look at entries in other dictionaries for comparison, such as "The
British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt", to see "what is really
known", so e.g. under their entry "Khasekhemwy" where we find the
following RELATIVE text excerpts, all in ONE short article about
Khasekhemwy:

"probably his son"
"it has been suggested"
"perhaps also political"
"probably an excessively historical explanation"
"what may have been an iconographic phenomenon"
"debate...hinges partly on the question"
"The picture was once believed to be"
"was thought to refer to another ruler"
"depictions...have been interpreted as evidence"
"generally considered"
"probably the forerunners of the valley temples"
"generally considered"
"poor excavation...has hindered any more definite statement"

Do these people know what they are talking about?

NO.

When we look under "literature", it is written in that same work:

"Throughout the Pharaonic period it is often difficult to
distinguish between fictional narratives and accounts of actual
events, and part of this problem stems from a general inability to
recognize the aims and contexts of particular texts."

What happens in the course of time in Egyptology, however, is that
all of these unclear texts, suppositions and assumptions creep into
the mainstream literature, are cited by scholars, citing their
cronies and professors, and then are quoted LATER as fact - even
though originally such alleged facts were just nice suppositions,
supported by little or no evidence, and to which generally no new
supporting knowledge had been added.

As written further under "literature" in the British Museum
Dictionary:

"Many such documents are perhaps best regarded as semi-fictional works...."

And so also should one regard Egyptological dictionaries, as "semi-
fictional works", whatever that means. When the Egyptologists KNOW
what they are writing and defining, the definitions and explanations
will look different than they do now.

When you look to have Khasekhemwy "defined" properly , you will find
that best at
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi762.htm

When the British Musuem Dictionary "definition" writes of
Khasekhemwy that

"The depictions of slain enemies on the two statues
[one statue shown at the LexiLine pages] have been interpreted as
evidence of military activities during his reign", you can toss such
nonsense straight into the wastebasket. The Egyptologists on that
score do not know what they are talking about.