Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom, Ann Macy Roth
> Macy is an extension of Sethe
(Macy) Roth's stated purpose (p5):
The readings of some of the names of the phyles are also based on this hypothesis of a nautical origin. And yet, as I propose to demonstrate, it is not at all clear that the nautical use of the names was the original one, or, indeed, that phyles were ever used in ordinary boat crews at all.
So instead of being an "extension of Sethe" her aim is actually to challenge his hypothesis of a nautical origin.
> which is one - but
> not the only - interpretation. Macy's entire
> thesis depends on an intact funerary
It has nothing to do with an "intact funerary context" and is related to the division of labor regardless of the "context".
1.1 Egyptian Phyles, P2:
"Phyles in the sense in which Egyptologists use the word, are the groups of people who provided part-time service in temples, work crews, and the mortuary cults of kings and high officials during the pharaonic period.
Emerging from its original character as a totemic system of clans that served to identify and regulate personal and family loyalties that from the basis of a primitive society, it [phyle system] developed into a bureaucratic mechanism that organized large numbers of people for tasks as varied as building pyramids and washing and dressing the statue of a dead king.
> which many of us decry due to lack of
> physical evidence supporting the tomb theory. And
> without the funerary context to support the phyle
A controversy that you just made up by misrepresenting and misunderstanding the facts.
> the context can be interpreted as
> "nautical" (as implied by Macy),
Roth is not "implying" this but rather states to prove the exact opposite.
> and we are left
> with simple "port"- and "starboard"-esque
If you followed the paragraph you got this from on p19, which she even notes is missing the phyle symbol, to Chapter 3 it is clear we are "not left" with any of this. For one, continuing from p19 she goes on to separate these "nautical terms" from actual phyles. Beginning in Chapter 3:
Although the previous chapter demonstrates that the names of the first four phyles are distinct from the names of parts of a boat mentioned in the Coffin Texts spells and a few earlier sources, these two sets of terms are undeniably similar.
Regarding how Sethe's nautical hypothesis has been accepted by some, "essentially without challenge"-including your friend Reisner, she says:
Closer examination of this hypothesis shows it does not explain adequately the pattern of inconsistencies found between the two terminologies, so that another mode of connection must be postulated.
> 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.
No. This is complete nonsense.
Once again you have completely misrepresented what someone has said and created a nonsensical controversy to serve your own narrative that only exists in the first place because of your misrepresentation.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03-May-16 20:42 by Thanos5150.