Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.