> The set of characters that include Khufu's
> cartouche fit perfectly into an AE labour
> organization scheme - discussed recently by Ann
> Macy Roth - that no one knew about in 1837.
Macy is an extension of Sethe which is one - but not the only - interpretation. Macy's entire thesis depends on an intact funerary context which many of us decry due to lack of physical evidence supporting the tomb hypothesis. And without the funerary context to support the phyle paradigm, the context can be interpreted as "nautical" (as implied by Macy), and we are left with simple "port"- and "starboard"-esque designations within an engineering/construction context rather than different work gangs dedicated to the pharaoh's tomb - separate work gangs who are "coincidentally" responsible for the "port" vs. "starboard" side of that chamber.
I've already discussed alternate connotations of "Khnum-kfu" in terms of infrastructure function rather than as a reference to a single contemporaneous human.
It's simply a hypothesis that considers the evidence. Certainly not a reason to obsessively engage in character assassination.
That said, if that sole "Khufu" cartouche is a fraud, the fraudster only needed to copy the same trailing marks found elsewhere on that same side of the Relieving Chambers in the same format seen with other cartouches up there in the rafters regardless of whether the funerary or nautical or whatever context was known at that time. After all, it's not unreasonable to assume Vyse was already familiar with a relatively common occurrence of cartouches being trailed by such ancillary labeling right there in about a dozen instances in those same Relieving Chambers.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 07-May-16 15:34 by Origyptian.