Morten Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin proved him wrong by providing examples of
> hieratic script that is read left to right. Did
> that make a dent in Scott´s foregone conclusion?
> Of course not.

Given some inscription X which “disobeys the rules of hieratic”, we have several options in what we might infer from this:

(a) X is not hieratic.
(b) We must revise our theories on “the rules of hieratic” which obtained when X was written.
(c) X is a forgery.

Scott claims (c), but his “arguments” support (if anything) (a) or (b). He has given us no reason I can see for preferring (c) over (a) or (b). All we get is his usual huff-puff assertion and foregone conclusion as noted.

M.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16-Jun-18 11:38 by Martin Stower.