Some of us will remember when Creighton had this to say:
“I know precisely ZILCH about AE script and make no pretensions otherwise! I probably never will study it in any detail. It's just not my field of interest.”
Now (to our surprise) we find him pontificating on the topic.
Guess what? I think he told the truth in the first place. Let’s assume that he did and consider what this entails.
Creighton has no real interest in ancient Egyptian script. All he is doing is making stuff up—making up his own Egyptology—to rationalise his foregone conclusion of (yawn) forgery. He rushes from description to prescription far more rashly than any Egyptologist (or linguist, or scientist) would.
He doesn’t quite get the hypothetico-deductive thing—that when data runs contrary to an hypothesis, we don’t just promptly chuck out the data. Let’s be perfectly clear: what he’s established (if anything) is that his generalisation from one set of data is contradicted by (one interpretation of) another set of data (from Campbell’s Chamber). Doesn’t follow (as his wishful thinking would have it) that it’s the recalcitrant data from Campbell’s Chamber must go.
Creighton resembles nothing so much as the apocryphal Pyramidologist caught filing down a stone to make it fit his theory.
Much as I noted earlier in the thread:
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26-May-18 16:58 by Martin Stower.