Warwick L Nixon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree completely. and the usual justification
> for those stretches of imagination is the lack of
> imagination of the Archaeologists, linguists,
> Architects, and Egyptologists(to mention a few)
> who Have studied Amarna.
> You can deny it all you like. In the meantime I
> am assaailed with the contention every time I
> post at GHMB and more and more everytime I post
> here.
>
> It's complete and utter nonsense to suggest that
> Egyptologists as a whole have no imagination

---

In my observation, every nut-ball speculation which is presented on many an Egyptophile discussion list has first been speculated, and then discarded, by most Egyptologists as unworkable, or, where possible, where new information disproves the speculation.

No matter what folks like to say about Egyptologists (and we're all aware of the banality of which Egyptologists are accused), should you read their works and articles, you will find they are as open to speculative "outside the box" thinking as anyone imaginable. They have to be open to new ideas and new interpretations, but they also have learned to temper that openness with Occam's Razor (the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory).

The difference between an Egyptologist's "speculative" thinking and those more "nutter" speculations is that Egyptologists, to maintain their reputation, must try and find support for their contentions in the archaeological and textual records. Nothing says that "new" forms of reading ancient texts are wrong in Egyptology - but one had better be darned sure that you can show clear examples that such a reading has a basis in the archaeological evidence.

This is what makes Egyptologists more conservative in their hypotheses than the usual wide/wild-eyed speculation of those not trained in the profession, IMO. They also know they must undergo strenuous peer-review for their statements, and that each and every point they make will be reviewed, held against Occam's Razor, and where found wanting, pretty severely criticised.

Unlike the more "nutball" theorists who don't provide support, Egyptologists are not free to label their detractors (who are, after all, well-trained colleagues who have equal amounts of knowledge and experience as they) as elements of paranoid 'conspiracies' working against them, since they also have equal rights to review and criticise works of their colleagues as well.

Believe it or not, most Egyptologists do regularly read the "alternative" theories of laymen speculators - mainly to see if new information is there, or if Occam's Razor can also be applied to laymen's elaborate speculative theories against what IS known in scholarly reports. From my observation, no Egyptologist of my acquaintance holds that the "professional" viewpoint is the only "truth," but only that any theory must make proper use of all the evidence and show what is contended.

If the information is new or withstands the Razor review, I think mosts Egyptologist are as open to taking on new theories from laymen as much as anyone - even Egyptology realises that new viewpoints are needed and are valued within the profession.

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Doctoral Programme in Oriental Studies [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom