> Cladking, my friend, I think the only notable
> thing here is... I make it, what?, three months
> until Scott's book actually comes out, and
> 1) already we have a hatchet job by a quotable
> nobody online
> 2) the knickers of a few regulars on here already
> getting in a twist.
> Pretty interesting for a "downright uninteresting"
> work, don't you think?
> Me, I'll withhold judgement till I read the thing
> myself. Smart-alecy of me I know, but that's how I
> tend to form my opinions.
The irony isn't lost on me. ;)
I think many people percieve Scott Creighton as a sort of lightning rod for new ideas and unorthodox ideas about the great pyramids and consider him a threat on this basis. So they attack him mercilessly on this basis alone. I seems orthodoxy has a great deal of trouble using the words "I don't know". Sure they can use all sorts of weasel words and et als when they write rather than ever making an actual statement but when it comes to stinky footed bumpkins dragging tombs up ramps these are set in stone. These assumptionsa were made so long ago they have literally fossilized and they'd need a geologist or paleontologist to examine them. There are never any et als to say the pyramids were tombs and they don't need no stinkin' evidence to to state categorically that they mustta been dragged up ramps. No weasel words to explain that you can judge a culture by a book of incantation translated in terms of ideas from a 1000 years later. Afterall it's only logical that once a stinky footed bumpkin, always a stinky footed bumpkin.
Scott Creighton is just too prolific for their tastes. He introduces nuance and new ideas and it can't be good fore Egyptology especially when they're busy trying to forget the results of the thermal scanning. It's awful complicated being an Egyptologist now days and Colavito tries to make it easier.